Blog Par-tay!

It's no secret that our country has been plauged by prejudice since it's founding. In the over two centuries since this country was settled by the Pilgrims, it has seen prejudice against race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, and a long list of others. However, it is popular belief (and often an excuse) that people are prejudice against other people because "that's how they were brought up". They were taught that people who don't believe in the same god as they do are heathens, or that people who are not heterosexual are an abomination, or that people of a different race are less than human. People believe what they are taught to believe, or in otherwords, tolerance is linked to a person's education.

My question is, if people were to expand their literary options outside of their current interests, or beyond those things they can identify with the best, is it possible that this newfound knowledge could make people more tolerable of those who are different? It is my belief that without books, our knowledge of things outside our basic knowledge would be very limited. Therefore, it would be much more difficult to understand other people's point of views. Combine that with the lack of proper education, and tolerance could potentially be a much bigger issue than it is currently.

1. There are many books that have a message of tolerance.

While researching websites on educators and tolerance, I came across one site that had a long list of books that teach a message of tolerance. These books are geared towards elementary school children up to young adults, and the list was released on the heels of the tragedy of 911. One book, titled A Coat of Many Colors, teaches a lesson about accepting people whether they are incredibly wealthy or dirt poor. Another, titled Necessary Roughness, tells a story of an asian family in an all white community. All these books were written with the intention of teaching children to accept people who are different from them, because they may not be as "different" as you think.

2. Educators play a huge role in teaching tolerance.

I came across in my research a press release put out by the United Nations, stessing the importance of tolerance. It was released after Secretary-General Kofi Annan recieved the Stephen P. Duggan award, which is an award for international understanding given by the Institute for International Education. The press release was Secretary General Annan's acceptance speech, in which he stated, "None of us is born intolerant of those who differ from us. Intolerance is taught and can be untaught." He calls for educators to stress the importance of tolerance, as he believes that many nations are unable to develop when they are constantly at conflict with each other. He said, "It not only builds mutual understanding among cultures at the individual level; it also helps societies achieve progress. Whether in contributing to the training of teachers, scientists and engineers, advancing the role of women in development, or administering the Fulbright Programme, you have understood that in our world, the engine for progress is fuelled by knowledge."

According to Steven Wolk, author of the article Reading For a Better World: Teaching For Social Responsiblity With Young Adult Literature, "classroom inquiry nurtures social responsiblity, and living a socially responsible life means to live a life of inquiry". Therefore, as is agreed upon in the above mentioned press release, the subject of tolerance not only can be picked up from education and educators, but is also, largely, discovered through books.

3. Many people who are intolerant, are that way because they do not understand those who are different from them.

In my research, I chose two people (who will remain anonymous) who I am close to to interview regarding my inquirey question. While these are two people are very kind, they have a very black-and-white view on people who are different from them. When asked their opinion on people who are not heterosexual, they had this to say.

"It is absolutely unforgivable. It is against nature and against God himself. God created man and woman to be together, and that is the way it should be. There is no excuse for being attracted to the same sex. It is not how we were designed."

I then asked if they, personally, had any experience dealing with homosexual individuals, or had any further knowledge of them.

"Absolutely not. We do not associate with people like that, because they go against everything we believe in."

From this, I could safely conclude that they had developed a strong prejudice against homosexual individuals, but only based their "opinion" on the Bible. They have never, and will never, attempt to gain any more knowledge or understand of homosexual people, and will continue to hold prejudice against them for the rest of their lives.

George Levine believed that one could create a feeling of empathy towards anything or anybody by taking the time to study them closely and develop and intimate relationship with the person or thing in question. Levine, himself, took the time to get to know a little bird, who he came to know and understand a great deal more after having spent so much time in intimate company with the creature. "It was an emotional effect," he says in "The Heartbeat of a Squirell", "but it was also rather like reading a book intensively, carefully..."

In conclusion, I've found that tolerance, in truth, has a great deal to do with what we know. According to Steven Wolk, author of the article Reading For a Better World: Teaching For Social Responsiblity With Young Adult Literature, "classroom inquiry nurtures social responsiblity, and living a socially responsible life means to live a life of inquiry". The subject of tolerance not only can be picked up from education and educators, but is also, largely, discovered through books. Without books, our knowledge of things outside our basic knowledge would be very limited. Therefore, it would be much more difficult to understand other people's point of views. Combine that with the lack of proper education, and tolerance would be a much bigger issue than it is currently.

I am very interested to see how people feel about this. Do you feel that if people were to expand their literary options outside of their current interests, or beyond those things they can identify with the best, is it possible that this newfound knowledge could make people more tolerable of those who are different?

Works Cited:

Education World. "Use Literature to Teach Tolerance". Educationworld.com. 29 August 2002.

<http://educationworld.com/a_lesson/02/lp277-04.shtml>

Levine, George. "The Heartbeat of the Squirrel" Googledocs.

<https://docs.google.com/a/eou.edu/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.3&thid=124d9c4d07025b61&mt=application%2Fpdf&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fa%2Feou.edu%2F%3Fui%3D2%26ik%3D7773230ea8%26view%3Datt%26th%3D124d9c4d07025b61%26attid%3D0.3%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbSrw-vUf6ZUuDko7im8HspMBjGwOg>

United Nations. "INTOLERANCE IS TAUGHT AND CAN BE UNTAUGHT’, SECRETARY-

GENERAL SAYS IN MESSAGE TO INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION".

UN.org. 28 November 2001.

<http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm8046.doc.htm>

Wolk, Steven. Reading For A Better World: Teaching For Social Responsibility With Young Adult

Literature. Googledocs. May 2008

<https://docs.google.com/a/eou.edu/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.4&thid=124d9c4d07025b61&mt=application%2Fpdf&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fa%2Feou.edu%2F%3Fui%3D2%26ik%3D7773230ea8%26view%3Datt%26th%3D124d9c4d07025b61%26attid%3D0.4%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbTuach8QgeyqPVM7jIwbxTJCgsfWw>

Freestyle

This week I've been on a mission to find music that helps me put my feelings into words, because lately I find it hard to express what I'm feeling. Here are a few songs I found, and the lyrics that I have used to apply to my life. Keep in mind, while reading these lyrics, that I am not angsty or otherwise feeling sorry for myself. I am simply feeling slightly overwhelmed.

Molly Marlette-Constantly:

"I close my eyes
I'm holding on tight
I wont let go
To what I've known
I know it's not right
But It's what I know

Baby, I won't keep fighting constantly
For inconsistency, I'm waiting
Always trying, still resisting
The one thing that I'm missing"

This is 100% me, as much as I hate to admit it. I have a horrible habit of holding on to the past, regardless of how much it led me astray and left me feeling hurt. All I know in my relationships is conflict, conflict, and more conflict. I'm so used to it that I find myself carrying past experiences over into new relationships, and finding ways to create conflict in an otherwise peaceful situation.

Margot and the Nuclear So and So's-On a Freezing Chicago Street:

"So if your lover should leave don't get too sad
And don't compose any poems to win her back
Cause when you're burned as though she'll never return home
Though all your life you'll wait she never will return"

I also feel that this song applies to me in the case of me in my past relationship. When the relationship ended, he did everything he could to get me back, even changing his whole personality and outlook on life. I, somehow, was strong enough to see through it and told him it didn't matter what he did, I would never go back, but still he tried. So I suppose this is my song for him.

Ray LaMontagne-A Falling Through:

Don't you care
That it may seem unfair?
(You steal things you ought to borrow)
Don't you find
That it may seem unkind?
(I'd rather breathe than drown in sorrow)

This song speaks to me on a very personal level. I can hardly listen to it without crying. I will be the first to admit that I'm not dealing with things the way I should, and that running away just makes me hold on tighter to things I need to face head on and let go of. I suppose this is my own private plea to be heard and understood.

Imogen Heap-Wait It Out:

"Everybody says time heals everything
but what of the wretched hollow?
The endless in between
are we just going to wait it out?"

I absolutely love Imogen Heap, and have for years now, and this is easily my favorite song by her because I love this line. It's so true. There are some things that are hard to wait out. Yes, time will make things better, but the healing might not happen quickly enough which leaves the often unwanted opportunity to be alone with your thoughts.

Scene Response

These three scenes, while they were the same part of the story, were all different.

In the 1951 version, the most noticable flaw was the fact that Othello was played by a white man. Othello's character seemed much more dominant that Iago's, which made it hard for me to believe that Iago could have such power of Othello's thinking. They also skipped through a lot of the lines, which made it hard to follow along. Their dialogue was very dry and without a lot of the necessary emotion you would expect in a situation such as this. The actors seemed more concerned about saying the words than delivering the feelings associated with the story.

In the 1981 version, there again was the mistake of Othello being white, and again Iago's character seemed unsure and a little hesitant. However, when Iago behaved this way in this version, I believed that it was all part of his plan and believed that his demeanor did not make him a weaker man, but a clever man. In a way his behavior made him more dangerous, because when he played the weaker man nobody would think him capable of deceit at such a level as he had achieved. There was a significant amount more emotion in the acting, and it was a lot easier to follow because the actors made it possible for you to feel what they were pretending to feel.

The 1995 version was the only one which had Othello played by an African American man, so in that case it was much more true to the story. Iago's character seemed less sheepish than the other two scenes, and emanated that sort of strong personality I came to expect from reading the play. I enjoyed how Iago changed the tone and volume of his voice while lying to Othello. This made the lies seem more treacherous than they did in the other two scenes.

Othello scene III

"And, for I know thou'rt full of love and honesty,

And weigh'st thy words before thou giv'st them breath,

Therefore these stops of thine fright me the more;

For such things in a false disloyal knave

Are tricks of custom, but in a man that's just

They're close dilations, working from the heart

That passion cannot rule."

(Shakespeare, 985)

This was Othello's response to Iago proclaiming, "My lord, you know I love you". Othello was so blinded by his misplaced trust in Iago, and so hypnotized by Iago's pretend trustworthiness, that Othello didn't even allow himself to believe that Iago could be lying to him. Obviously, his trust should have been place in more noble people, like the woman he loved and married, but I suppose it's common for love to make us blind.

If only Othello had realized what he was saying when he talked of a "disloyal knave", and even stopped for a second to reflect on the pile of lies he was being fed, he may have realized that Iago was exactly the disloyal knave he described, and not a just man. So many lives could have been spared, if only he hadn't been so easily swayed by Iago's words.

Othello

Othello: "...For I know, Iago, But that I love the gentle Desdemona, I would not my unhoused free condition put into circumscription and confine for the sea's worth."

(Shakespeare, 946)

Now, I will admit that I am not very good at translating Shakespeare, so if I have completely missed the point of this line, I apologize now.

The part of this line that caught my attention was when he speaks about loving Desdemona so much that he wouldn't deny it for all "the sea's worth", or all the lost treasure under the sea. While this is not a pivotal moment in the story, it does set the stage (no pun intended) for Iago's deciet. This love that Othello holds so dear for Desdemona ends up becoming a weapon to use against him. Even while he is unaware, his growing and unconditional love is fuel for Iago's fire, and everyone and everything around him are pawns in Iago's evil plan.

Wicked

I am a HUGE fan of Wicked, both the book and the musical. I first read the book about a year ago, and was lucky enough to be able to see the musical in March of this year. Both of them were incredibly entertaining, but they were also very different.

While they were about the same thing, the book and the musical were essentially two different stories. The musical is light and comical, but the book is dark and much more controversial. In the book, there is sex and violence and conspiracy. Elphaba doesn't go to Oz to work for the wizard, but rather to go underground and start a revolution that is highly illegal. Her father is a Munchkinland preacher. Fiero is not betrothed to Glinda, but has a wife and children back in his home land. He has a racy affair with Elphaba and falls in love with her. And most importantly, in the book the slippers are, in fact made of rubies, unlike the musical where they are made of colorless jewels.

I wouldn't say I prefer the story one way or the other. Like I said, I'm a fan of both. It doesn't matter all that much to me that I'm getting two different stories. To me, I look at it as two chances to live the story that I've fallen in love with.

"Mrs. Hale: No, Wright wouldn't like the bird-a thing that sang. She used to sing. He killed that too." (Glaspell, 847)

During this part of the dialogue between Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter's, the two women were debating both what kind of man Mr. Wright was, and if his wife killing him was unlawful or just sad and excusable considering how cold Mr. Wright was.

When the women found the bird, they made the decision not to show it to the Sheriff, but rather to take it with them to Mrs. Wright in jail. I don't know what purpose this served, as everybody was already convinced she had killed him. Perhaps it was so nobody would know what her motive was, and they would go easy on her or she would be let go. The women clearly felt bad for Mrs. Wright and her life that they described as lonely.

The dead bird, to me, symbolized Mrs. Wright's life. It was beautiful and full of song until a man came along and wrang all the life out of her. It's just too bad that she felt the only way to get her life back was to do the same to her husband, but in a much more literal sense.

O

The scene that leapt out to me the most was the final scene, in which Hugo is being arrested just after Odin kills himself. This movie was depressing and tragic all around, and this final scene brought all the preceding events together as Hugo starts talking about living like a hawk.

In this scene, as images flash of all the victims of all the deceit and lies, Hugo says:

"All my life I always wanted to fly. I always wanted to live like a hawk. I know you're not supposed to be jealous of anything, but... to take flight, to soar above everything and everyone, now that's living. But a hawk is no good around normal birds. It can't fit in. Even though all the other birds probably wanna be hawks; they hate him for what they can't be. Proud. Powerful. Determined. Dark. Odin is a hawk. He soars above us. He can fly. One of these days, everyone's gonna pay attention to me. Because I'm gonna fly too. "

Throughout the movie, I couldn't seem to figure out Hugo's reasoning for going to such length's to sabotage Odin's life. It didn't seem as though he wanted to be with Desi. The only issue it seemed he had was that Odin got MVP, and Hugo felt he deserved it more. Hugo obviously was seeking some sort of reward for doing what he did, though I can't place my finger on it, but in the end everything blew up in his face and it didn't phase him a bit. Even when he was being taken away in a police car, he still insisted that someday he too would "fly". Perhaps his only problem was that he was a sociopath.

This scene shed some light on the kind of person Hugo truly was. We saw him as being manipulative and selfish, willing to do whatever it took to achieve his goals throughout the whole movie, but this final scene showed us that he was more than that, he was completely impervious to guilt, and had no sense of right or wrong, even when 5 people were dead because of him.

World War Z

In the spirit of Halloween, I chose to read Max Brooks' World War Z, An Oral History Of The Zombie Wars. This story, though it was entirely fictional, was very eerie to read. Max is also the author of The Zombie Survival Guide which I've also read, and both books are so well done, you'd almost believe that the earth truly had been invaded by the living dead.

World War Z tells the story of the zombie war from many different perspectives. It recounts personal experiences, like one woman who fled with her family to Canada to wait for the cold to freeze the zombies, only to find that human beings are just as vicious as the living dead. It speaks from the view point of military personell, who have insight on the missions they were ordered to partake in. Sometimes these missions involved a great deal of moral dillema, sometimes they ended in the untimely demise of civilian lives. It also tells it from the viewpoint of those who were civilian "soldiers", and the battles they saw and the horrors they faced. This book, to zombie fans and impartial readers alike, was very enjoyable (as long as you have a strong stomach and an open mind).

I, personally, enjoy Max Brooks' stories, because I have always believed that zombies are the most terrifying monsters, much more than vampires, werewolves, or devils. This started a few years back when I first saw 28 Days Later. While it is highly unlikely, the potential for a "zombie" outbreak is scientifically possible. I don't believe that the dead will just randomly rise from the grave and attack humans, but to say that there is a disease that infects the human race, kills their bodies and minds and turns them into cannibalistic, contagious killing machines who crave human flesh and who's only demise results from destroying their brain and NOTHING less, is truely a terrifying prospect

Persepolis

"...Pardisse's report was by far the best. It was a letter to her father in which she promised to take care of her mother and her little brother. "Rest in peace, dad." At recess I tried to console her... "You father acted like a genuine hero, you should be proud of him!" "I wish he were alive and in jail rather than dead and a hero." Those were her exact words to me." (Satrapi, 86)

This story was a very heavy, emotional, violent autobiography of one girls struggle with the revolution in her country of Iran. While you get many stories of personal loss in this graphic novel, this one stuck out to me the most, because it shows you the revolution from the point of view of a little girl who lost her dad in the fight to reclaim the former freedom of his country.

Pardisse's response to Marji's statement that she should be proud of her father really put the fight into an entirely new perspective. Marji was so caught up in the politics of the whole thing that it seemed she'd lost sight of the human aspect. Yes she'd experienced loss but not of a parent, so she couldn't fully appreciate Pardisse's situation until she got a first hand account of the pain of losing a parent. This is not entirely her fault, after all Marji is very young in this story, and is experiencing things that most adults have a difficult time dealing with and understanding.

The illustration of this part of the story showed that everybody felt compassion and sympathy for this girls situation. We do not know for sure how each of them felt on the subject of the revolution, but in this moment they were all united in their sympathy for Pardisse and her family.