For those who are forced to learn this other’s culture, and take it as its own, it works the same as a slavery of mind, an imprisonment within a stranger’s head, as if your own thoughts were not right anymore. In some cases, the imposition of the domineering culture is so strong that can result in an erasure of any cultural identity of a society, being left only the new adopted parameters. Such impressions are what can be found in the works of Jamaica Kincaid’s On seeing England for the first time and Sandra Cisneros’ No speak English. The aim of this paper is to point out how these features are presented in each author’s text, and to help understand these works as a direct reaction to this process of cultural dominance. For that, it is necessary, first, to know the origins of each author – from where they are, and where they live –, to, from that, understand to what exactly they were reacting for, along with their personal history, which are very present in the stories.
McPherson's constant reminders that slavery (and its opposite, freedom) is central to the story. By using a narrative style, McPherson traces the development of the role of slavery, emancipation, and freedom throughout the period. A second theme is that of possibility. He is serious about former literature that he says “lack the dimension of contingency—the recognition that at numerous critical points during the war things might have gone altogether differently” (858). His narrative style allows him to point out such serious moments that a current organization would have varnished over.
Since “The Things They Carried” is a collection of short stories, it automatically has multiple meanings. For some the meaning may simply be viewed as a novel of one’s life during the Vietnam War, but it is in fact much more than that. This novel explores such topics as: love, war, relationships, and the reality of the things that not only the characters but we too carry. These meanings are not direct but after reading can be discovered. The next thing that qualifies this book as a classic is the fact that it uses effective, unique style appropriate to the purpose and content.
Mohandas K. Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau speak of and develop similar government opinions and points, through their interpretations of Civil Disobedience through literary elements; they prove similar points of civil disobedience but with their own style of writing and use of rhetorical devices. Thoreau uses hypophora multiple times throughout Civil Disobedience, which by definition is raising one or more questions and answering them directly after. Thoreau states (pg. 371-72 lines 31-39) “Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide only those questions to
Orwell’s perspective as a reluctant and disgusted colonizer shapes his essay’s development, detail and main thesis. The essay’s first-person narrative, causal analysis and the detail it employs obviously produce a powerful condemnation of British colonialism. However, while Orwell briefly lists the obvious abuses of colonialism---the torture of prisoners, the appalling conditions in imperial jails, the destruction of the colonized’s spirit---he focuses his essay’s detail and development on colonialism’s effects on himself as colonizer, how this system causes his degradation and corruption as a human being. He presents his younger self as tormented by his role in this system, but also as someone who has absorbed its racist attitudes. He emphasizes his “intolerable sense of guilt” (313), but also his contradictory hatred of the Burmese, those “evil-spirited little beasts” (314), as well as his callous disregard for the native man killed by the elephant (319).
Jefferson had so many disdained feelings when he was being abased by the British, but after his freedom was granted, he lost sight of what was right. Banneker uses Jefferson’s own words against him as a way to prove Jefferson’s wrong acts. Negative detail is used to create a criticizing tone. The “tyranny” the British put upon to the colonists is now, after the colonists are freed from British rule, being cast upon the slaves by the colonists; Jefferson is well aware of the “injustice” in which the slaves are “suffering.” Benjamin Banneker’s goal with this is to force Jefferson into the slave’s shoes. Jefferson has once been in a similar position and Banneker just wishes he can reflect and remember what its like and find compassion for the slaves.
In a world where appearances are an indication of caste, Bernard's identity is brought into question, along with his authority. In a conformist society, it should be expected that individualism would stir. In Aldus Huxley’s A Brave New World, the collective experience of the masses defines people into recognized groups. Individual traits are traded for conformity. There are many factors that lead to conformity or non-conformity and Aldus Huxley shows this trough his dystopian novel Brave New World.
In the passage from Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, Scott Russell Sanders responds to an essay by Salman Rushdie, a writer who left his native India for England. Rushdie describes the “effect of mass migrations” as being “the creation of radically new types of human being: people who root themselves in ideas rather than places.” In his response, Sanders appeals to both pathos and logos, but interestingly not ethos. However his only appeal to ethos is the fact that, like Rushdie, he is a fellow writer and is in position to respond to Rushdie’s essay. On the other hand, assuming he never immigrated to anywhere, by not being an immigrant is he in position to respond to Rushdie’s essay like this? His essay is argumentative, he disagrees with Rushdie that
The Marxist theory of racism and racial inequality Much of the social analysis on the injustices and inequalities in U.S. and Caribbean societies has been influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx and the Marxist tradition. Racism directed against people of color has been a central and continuing feature of the global society. Its forms have changed but we need to look no further than infant mortality rates and life expectancies, unemployment, poverty rates and incomes, and stereotypes in the mass media to understand that racism and racial inequality remain here in the Caribbean and are still present around the globe. Interestingly, the article chosen entitled “Bishop scoffs at racism” rejects the popularly known Marxist quote “religion is the opium of the people” as the Bishop vigorously points out with evidence that the effects of discrimination based on race and color may be keeping black entrepreneurs in Barbados from progressing. Conflict theorist believes that “society is an arena in which struggles over scarce commodities take place.” The affluent and wealthy (the bourgeoisie) will always try to preserve and improve their position while the poor and destitute (the proletariat) will be attempting to survive and this attempting to survive is often done by any means possible.
In conclusion racial prejudice plays a g role in the novel To Kill A Mockingbird. Whites discriminate against blacks but blacks also discriminate against whites. This racism is influenced by the characters values, traditions, and beliefs. They form their own opinions based on beliefs which then leads to prejudice. Racism is a big dilemma in the novel and it contributes greatly to the plot.