Toni Morrison wrote The Bluest Eye because “she had a deep need for ‘books that [she] had wanted to read. No one had written them yet, so [she] wrote them’” (source).
Pecola Breedlove is one of the main characters in the novel. She is a young black girl who is deemed ugly by American society. She idolizes Shirley Temple for her blonde hair, fair skin, and blue eyes. Pecola believes that if she only had blue eyes, people would love her. She is fragile and seems very timid at the beginning of the story. The harshness of American society destroys her throughout the novel, and by the end she is driven mad and carries out a conversation with a hallucination. All she can think and talk about are the blue eyes she imagines will make her loved.
Claudia MacTeer is the narrator of the story. She does not focus on the physical love that people can see. She searches for the beauty on the inside of people, symbolized by the fair skinned, blonde haired, blue eyed doll she tears apart, trying to find the beauty inside. She is disappointed by the emptiness she finds. She and her sister, Frieda, befriend Pecola. They feel sorry for Pecola and defend her throughout the novel.
The Bluest Eye is the epitome of the stereotypes that drive this world. It seems that everyone strives for beauty and cleanliness. The outside appearance of all things – objects, animals and people – drive societal norms. Lacking beauty automatically degrades your status and people look for other people or things that are uglier than themselves to increase their own status and make them feel better. Although Ms. Morrison wrote this book to tell the story of black women, it could open the eyes of all races and ethnicities to a world dominated by the image of the ideal American (white skin, blonde hair, blue eyes). Claudia shows us that we need to search for the qualities inside a person to find their true character. The Bluest Eye is definitely worth reading.
“When Claudia says that Pecola’s father dropped his seeds ‘in his own plot of black dirt,’ she exposes the very heart of Pecola’s anguish. To the white world, Pecola is a ‘plot of black dirt,’ inferior because she is black. The figure of speech is darkly ironic, for black dirt is usually the richest of all, but the figurative ‘black dirt’ of Pecola yields nothing” (source).
This quote reveals that blackness in the world is equated with ugliness and inferiority. Pecola is black and ugly and she is deemed so by herself, and both the white and black communities. Pecola symbolizes the black community’s self-hatred, belief in their own ugliness and human suffering. She strives to be pretty and loved through her desire for blue eyes, but her belief in her blue eyes at the end of the novel and the racism she suffers drives her to madness.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
What is a Documentary?
Documentary – n. a book movie etc. that presents a purportedly factual report
*Webster’s Pocket Dictionary 2002 Edition
I think a documentary is more complex than Webster’s definition.
I would define a documentary as a media that presents a non-fictional story to an audience. A documentary has a purpose or a goal; telling someone’s story, giving voice to a minority, introducing a new perspective to an issue, or informing an audience about a topic.
A documentary incorporates music, pictures, video clips, emotion, camera angle, lighting and other techniques to enhance the story at hand. John Grierson, the man who studied media influence on public opinion and coined the term “documentary,” defined “documentary” as “creative treatment of actuality” (source). Think about the documentary we watched in class, A Class Divided. This film was about informing children (and the public) about the stereotypes present in the world, and the negative attitudes and behaviors they can create. Many people know about racial stereotypes and segregation, but by using young children to demonstrate how giving a little bit of power to a group of people can create negativity and “evil” in a matter of hours and days, I think the point was really driven home. It may have changed the perspectives of several people, or at least encouraged them to consider their perspectives on racial stereotypes.
Many documentaries on television, especially the history channel, are informative. Those wonderful series about the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln’s term as president that my dad loves to watch are informative pieces. They serve to increase the understanding of history as we know it.
In the “Immigration” episode of 30 Days, Morgan Spurlock presented the story of a legal immigrant living with an illegal immigrant family for thirty days. He did not tell his viewers what to think. He showed us the events of the thirty days, and the discussions the people had with each other. We were presented with information and allowed to draw our own conclusions from the scenes we witnessed. I think Spurlock strives to inform people of the important issues in America today. Even if the viewers do not take a strong stance on the issues, they are at least (hopefully) more informed about them.
On the other hand, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 is a biased and emotionally-charged documentary in many respects. Moore does not try to hide his negative feelings toward President George Bush. He takes every moment he gets to rip on Bush and lets the audience know what a fool he thinks Bush is.
I think documentaries are important forms of media. They shed light on many issues for many people who may have been unaware of the events. They encourage people to think about a topic, or take a look at an alternative perspective. They ultimately serve to increase a person’s understanding of the world and the present issues driving every-day life.
*Webster’s Pocket Dictionary 2002 Edition
I think a documentary is more complex than Webster’s definition.
I would define a documentary as a media that presents a non-fictional story to an audience. A documentary has a purpose or a goal; telling someone’s story, giving voice to a minority, introducing a new perspective to an issue, or informing an audience about a topic.
A documentary incorporates music, pictures, video clips, emotion, camera angle, lighting and other techniques to enhance the story at hand. John Grierson, the man who studied media influence on public opinion and coined the term “documentary,” defined “documentary” as “creative treatment of actuality” (source). Think about the documentary we watched in class, A Class Divided. This film was about informing children (and the public) about the stereotypes present in the world, and the negative attitudes and behaviors they can create. Many people know about racial stereotypes and segregation, but by using young children to demonstrate how giving a little bit of power to a group of people can create negativity and “evil” in a matter of hours and days, I think the point was really driven home. It may have changed the perspectives of several people, or at least encouraged them to consider their perspectives on racial stereotypes.
Many documentaries on television, especially the history channel, are informative. Those wonderful series about the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln’s term as president that my dad loves to watch are informative pieces. They serve to increase the understanding of history as we know it.
In the “Immigration” episode of 30 Days, Morgan Spurlock presented the story of a legal immigrant living with an illegal immigrant family for thirty days. He did not tell his viewers what to think. He showed us the events of the thirty days, and the discussions the people had with each other. We were presented with information and allowed to draw our own conclusions from the scenes we witnessed. I think Spurlock strives to inform people of the important issues in America today. Even if the viewers do not take a strong stance on the issues, they are at least (hopefully) more informed about them.
On the other hand, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 is a biased and emotionally-charged documentary in many respects. Moore does not try to hide his negative feelings toward President George Bush. He takes every moment he gets to rip on Bush and lets the audience know what a fool he thinks Bush is.
I think documentaries are important forms of media. They shed light on many issues for many people who may have been unaware of the events. They encourage people to think about a topic, or take a look at an alternative perspective. They ultimately serve to increase a person’s understanding of the world and the present issues driving every-day life.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
"No Human Being is Illegal"
Last week in class we watched “Immigration,” an episode of the series 30 Days. This is a reality television show produced by Morgan Spurlock, the man behind Super Size Me. Spurlock presents controversial issues to the public through the 30 Days series, and the episode we watched was about the issue of illegal immigration in the United States.
Frank George, an active member of the Minutemen and a legal Cuban immigrant, totally opposes illegal immigration. He believes, as many other people do, that the illegal immigrants are stealing jobs from legal Americans because they will work for much lower wages. He is placed in the home of the Gonzalez family, who are illegal immigrants from Mexico, for 30 days. The Gonzalez family includes Rigoberto (father and a day laborer), Paty (mother who collects and recycles cans to earn money for the children’s Christmas presents), and five children, two of whom are legal U.S. citizens. Throughout his time there he gets into heated discussions with Armida, the oldest daughter of the family, about the issue of illegal immigration. She tells Frank about how they’ve been able to achieve a better life in the U.S. as compared to the poverty-stricken life they had in Mexico. We see that Frank learns about this poor life when he visits Rigoberto’s family in Mexico. It is during this experience that Frank utters, “I can’t blame them for trying to seek a better life.” Could this be a major point of softening up for Frank?
At one point during the episode, Armida asks Frank if he will be her sponsor. He replies that he would be perfectly happy to sponsor her – if she returns to Mexico and comes back to the U.S. legally. I think one the ideas he grips on to the tightest is that is can be done legally, and he is proof of that. He reminds the Gonzalez family of that fact throughout the show. Abiding by laws is important to Frank, and he believes it should be important to all other people as well.
I believe 30 Days accomplishes its purpose – pushing people to see multiple perspectives of an issue and come up with their own conclusion – by allowing multiple sides of a story to be shown.
“If we cannot fully understand the acts of other people, until we know what they think they know, then in order to do justice we have to appraise not only the information which has been at their disposal, but the minds through which they have filtered it.” (Lippmann, chapter 6)
Spurlock introduces us to the immigration issue – he shows us what both perspectives think they know, what kind of information both perspectives have acquired through their experiences with the issue, and he shows us the discussions that pop up throughout the show between Frank and the Gonzalez family. He helps us toward understanding what the people are thinking and why they are thinking it so that we can create our own view on the issue.
I was surprised to find myself extremely interested in the show. Usually I’m not a fan of reality TV, but this was quite different from most “reality” shows. It covered a controversial topic that has been raging in America for a while. It’s a topic that sparks debate every day, and will probably continue to do so for a long time. It was informative for me and opened my eyes to an important topic in American politics. I would recommend this show to people because it’s an informative and interesting way to learn about controversial topics and stereotypes in the U.S. It doesn’t seem to present a biased opinion – it shows the topic as is, and you get to decide for yourself what to believe based on the content you see and decide to focus on.
Frank George, an active member of the Minutemen and a legal Cuban immigrant, totally opposes illegal immigration. He believes, as many other people do, that the illegal immigrants are stealing jobs from legal Americans because they will work for much lower wages. He is placed in the home of the Gonzalez family, who are illegal immigrants from Mexico, for 30 days. The Gonzalez family includes Rigoberto (father and a day laborer), Paty (mother who collects and recycles cans to earn money for the children’s Christmas presents), and five children, two of whom are legal U.S. citizens. Throughout his time there he gets into heated discussions with Armida, the oldest daughter of the family, about the issue of illegal immigration. She tells Frank about how they’ve been able to achieve a better life in the U.S. as compared to the poverty-stricken life they had in Mexico. We see that Frank learns about this poor life when he visits Rigoberto’s family in Mexico. It is during this experience that Frank utters, “I can’t blame them for trying to seek a better life.” Could this be a major point of softening up for Frank?
At one point during the episode, Armida asks Frank if he will be her sponsor. He replies that he would be perfectly happy to sponsor her – if she returns to Mexico and comes back to the U.S. legally. I think one the ideas he grips on to the tightest is that is can be done legally, and he is proof of that. He reminds the Gonzalez family of that fact throughout the show. Abiding by laws is important to Frank, and he believes it should be important to all other people as well.
I believe 30 Days accomplishes its purpose – pushing people to see multiple perspectives of an issue and come up with their own conclusion – by allowing multiple sides of a story to be shown.
“If we cannot fully understand the acts of other people, until we know what they think they know, then in order to do justice we have to appraise not only the information which has been at their disposal, but the minds through which they have filtered it.” (Lippmann, chapter 6)
Spurlock introduces us to the immigration issue – he shows us what both perspectives think they know, what kind of information both perspectives have acquired through their experiences with the issue, and he shows us the discussions that pop up throughout the show between Frank and the Gonzalez family. He helps us toward understanding what the people are thinking and why they are thinking it so that we can create our own view on the issue.
I was surprised to find myself extremely interested in the show. Usually I’m not a fan of reality TV, but this was quite different from most “reality” shows. It covered a controversial topic that has been raging in America for a while. It’s a topic that sparks debate every day, and will probably continue to do so for a long time. It was informative for me and opened my eyes to an important topic in American politics. I would recommend this show to people because it’s an informative and interesting way to learn about controversial topics and stereotypes in the U.S. It doesn’t seem to present a biased opinion – it shows the topic as is, and you get to decide for yourself what to believe based on the content you see and decide to focus on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)