The excerpts from "Conversations with Ogotemmeli" that we read tell the story of an ancient community of Dogon's in Africa that European antrhopologists travel to to study their customs and religious practices. There is talk that the people of this community take part in ritual sacrifices and other so called barbaric activies that the Europeans do not agree with. One of the most interesting things about these excerpts is the way that the narrative moves from one point to another. At the beginning, it is written very much like a novel. The setting is described very creatively and it follows a pretty simple beginning of a novel sort of structure, introducing the characters and their surroundings. However as you get deeper into the text, it becomes more of an informational reading. You learn who Ogotemmeli is and listen as he tells one of the European anthropologists about the basis of their religion, where their ideas came from and why they think the things they do. At first Ogotemmeli is worried about how to properly tell the story of his people to the European, as the European has studied his culture for approximately fifteen years and therefore knows already a lot of the things that Ogotemmeli wants to tell him.
While I was reading this, i felt like I was the European anthropologist interviewing Ogotemmeli. After reading the preface and the first chapter of the excerpt, I felt like I had a pretty good understanding of what was going on. A poor, African community with its roots latched in medieval practices like rituals and sacrifice. However, as Ogotemmeli speaks and tells you the Dogos beliefs on the creation of Earth, it's enlightening. You realize that none of the Dogos religious practices are immature, but rather they are all based on solid ideas that the Dogos truly beleive in . He talks about the creation of man, sin, and the difference in gender roles, all issues that are dealt with in any main stream religion.
Even though I haven't read the whole text, only excerpts, I can tell you confidently what I think happens in the end of the story. The European writes a book about how the Dogon community is not a group of savages performing crazy rituals for no reason, but rather that they are a mature, religious group who are just as smart as any other group of people. The Europeans went into the African jungle to find a group of freaks, and instead they found a group of intelligent people who simply have a different set of beliefs then the rest of the world. It's another story of learning not to judge a book by its cover, and that in order to understand a different person or culture, you have to sit down and have a conversation with them.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Response Questions
1. Fanon sees violence as a necessary component of any anti-colonial struggle because the decolonization of a nation is the substituion of one species of mankind to another. He says that decolonization is a confrontation between two protagonists which can only be settled or won by resorting to every last effort, which includes violence.
2. The insidious effects of colonization for the colonized individual are that their values are infected. The colonizers want to take away everything that the colonized people believed in, their traditions, and especially their myths. They want to make their entire society based around Christianity which isn't what they believed in. They were being oppressed and would be going against the government if they kept going on witht heir traditions, so they were forced to forget about them. Also it dehumanizes the colonial subject, and puts them into a lower form of life.
3. According to Fanon as a result of the close, sustained, and violent encounter of the "West" and the "Other" human subjectivity becomes even more aware. The colonists are oppressed but because they are individuals and intellectuals they begin to rebel in their thoughts. Soon they are thinking of ways that they could rebel outside of themselves. They are becoming aware of the fact that the things happening around them are wrong and that they can possibly do something about it. They are getting ready to rebel.
4. Self-determination is the process by which a person controls their own life. And Fanon feels that this is definitely important. He feels like the colonized people need to take control of their lives and retain their cultures by any means possible.
2. The insidious effects of colonization for the colonized individual are that their values are infected. The colonizers want to take away everything that the colonized people believed in, their traditions, and especially their myths. They want to make their entire society based around Christianity which isn't what they believed in. They were being oppressed and would be going against the government if they kept going on witht heir traditions, so they were forced to forget about them. Also it dehumanizes the colonial subject, and puts them into a lower form of life.
3. According to Fanon as a result of the close, sustained, and violent encounter of the "West" and the "Other" human subjectivity becomes even more aware. The colonists are oppressed but because they are individuals and intellectuals they begin to rebel in their thoughts. Soon they are thinking of ways that they could rebel outside of themselves. They are becoming aware of the fact that the things happening around them are wrong and that they can possibly do something about it. They are getting ready to rebel.
4. Self-determination is the process by which a person controls their own life. And Fanon feels that this is definitely important. He feels like the colonized people need to take control of their lives and retain their cultures by any means possible.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Lawrence of Arabia
Lawrence of Arabia, the 1962 David Lean classic is based primarily around the ideas of imperialism during World War II. Peter O'Toole's character is sent by the British army to Saudi Arabia to keep an eye on the growing conflict between the Turks and the Saudi Arabians. Not only does the film depict imperialistic ideas, but it also shows the degree of orientalism going on in Hollywood at the time.
The character of Lawrence is very much against imperialism throughout the film. He feels that the Turks are barbaric people who only use violence to get their way and don't consider any other ways of attaining it. The reason Lawrence is in Saudi Arabia in the first place is so that the British army can keep on eye on what's going on, and interfere if the situation seems to be taking a turn for the worst. This plot developement plays perfectly into the theme of orientalism in the film, as the British send in one of their own men to watch out for a situation that really has nothing to do with them. Lawrence is portrayed as being so much smarter then any of the Arabs. When he gives the first Arab he meets and is traveling through the desert with a gun, the man takes it tentavley, like he was afraid of it. Then when the Turk approaches them, the Arab acts irrationally and runs to get his gun which subsequently results in his death. Lawrence stays put and waits for the Turk to make the first move, therefore surviving in the end.
In the beginning of the film when Lawrence is getting his assignement, Lean uses deep focus to show how big the office of the general that Lawrence is meeting with really is. It's ornately decorated and all of the generals are decorated with medals. It is a vast contrast to the desert that Lawrence is sent to, which is also filmed in deep focus to show how much of nothing there is. It's a completely different world than the one he was in before, and therefore shows how much more advanced the Western world is then the East.
By sending Lawrence into Saudi Arabia, the British are shown as being imperialistic in the fact that they feel that if the situation gets out of hand, they could step in and help sort out matters for their own purposes, while also looking like the heroes. They are also shown as being orientalists because they feel that they are so much better and more advanced then anyone living in Saudi Arabia.
The character of Lawrence is very much against imperialism throughout the film. He feels that the Turks are barbaric people who only use violence to get their way and don't consider any other ways of attaining it. The reason Lawrence is in Saudi Arabia in the first place is so that the British army can keep on eye on what's going on, and interfere if the situation seems to be taking a turn for the worst. This plot developement plays perfectly into the theme of orientalism in the film, as the British send in one of their own men to watch out for a situation that really has nothing to do with them. Lawrence is portrayed as being so much smarter then any of the Arabs. When he gives the first Arab he meets and is traveling through the desert with a gun, the man takes it tentavley, like he was afraid of it. Then when the Turk approaches them, the Arab acts irrationally and runs to get his gun which subsequently results in his death. Lawrence stays put and waits for the Turk to make the first move, therefore surviving in the end.
In the beginning of the film when Lawrence is getting his assignement, Lean uses deep focus to show how big the office of the general that Lawrence is meeting with really is. It's ornately decorated and all of the generals are decorated with medals. It is a vast contrast to the desert that Lawrence is sent to, which is also filmed in deep focus to show how much of nothing there is. It's a completely different world than the one he was in before, and therefore shows how much more advanced the Western world is then the East.
By sending Lawrence into Saudi Arabia, the British are shown as being imperialistic in the fact that they feel that if the situation gets out of hand, they could step in and help sort out matters for their own purposes, while also looking like the heroes. They are also shown as being orientalists because they feel that they are so much better and more advanced then anyone living in Saudi Arabia.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Virtual Window
The article "The Virtual Window" by Anne Friedberg portays an interesting perspective of the modern world. In the beginning of the article, she seems to like the idea of television screens becoming windows. A regular glass window, while beautiful, only lets you see what is right outside the room you are occupying. A virtual window, like a tv set, lets you see different parts of the world that you wouldn't be able to see otherwise. She uses the example of Bill Gates having huge tv screens in his house where he can upload masterful works of art from the National Art Gallery in London. Instead of having the real art there, he is able to look at virtual pieces of art, which raises an interesting question of ethics. Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, who could probably buy any piece of art that he wanted, wants instead a digital screen to look at the classic pieces of art. From this perspective, it seems like our society has become extremely shallow, replacing true life with that of digital. However, Friedberg seems to think that this virtual screen is a good thing, giving people who don't have the means to see different parts of the world a "window" in. Film is the same way. A person behind a camera can film a different society or culture so that other people who can't see those different societies or cultures for themselves can see what it is like there. That of course causes problems as well. Instead of the people seeing the different societies for themselves and from their perspective, seeing anything and everything that they want, they are instead seeing it from the perspective of the person behind the camera.
This distortion of perspectives also connects with what Freidberg says later in the article about how home televisions portray the films being shown on them. When a director makes a film, he makes it exactly the way he wants to. If he is lucky, his film will portray the message that he set out to make. However, when a film is shown on a home television, certain things about the film are usually changed. For example, when a film is being shown in theaters, it's shown in widescreen format, which is where the audience is shown a substantial amount more on the sides of the shot. When the film is shown on television, whether through a VCR or DVD player or on an actual station, the format is different, showing much less of the sides of the shots, distorting the vision the director originally had.
This distortion of perspective goes hand in hand with Friedberg's later point about the computer screen being a window to the outside world. Instead of just watching what the director wants you to see, now, you are in control of what you are seeing out the window you have installed on your desk. Yet the things that you are looking at on your computer have been manipulated by the creators of websites, or the computer makers themselves. Because you are in control of what you are looking at, it gives you a false sense of security, you feel that you are in control of the images that you see. However, everything that you are looking at was created by someone else, someone with a perspective that they are trying to force upon you. And the scary part of the computer is, you can look at multiple perspectives at one time, going quickly from one window to another without thinking about it With a film, you are watching one person's perspective for usually a substantial amount of time, over an hour. With a computer, you could be surfing the internet for an hour, and look at hundreds of different perspectives, all of them influencing you in some way.
I feel that the most important thing that I got out of the article was that you cannot replace the world happening outside of your window. Because even though you are only seeing a little part of the world, you are seeing it from your own perspective. Anything or anyone that you see outside of that piece of glass you can freely interpret without anyone telling you how. The article asks whether or not the digital window will one day replace that of the architectual one, but I don't think that it ever could. People have to have their own perspectives on things, they cannot just go around listening to what other people say and keeping it as their own. Humans are connected to nature, and sometimes you just need to step outside, and smell the grass instead of the electric cords. I don't think that the age of windows will be ending any time soon.
This distortion of perspectives also connects with what Freidberg says later in the article about how home televisions portray the films being shown on them. When a director makes a film, he makes it exactly the way he wants to. If he is lucky, his film will portray the message that he set out to make. However, when a film is shown on a home television, certain things about the film are usually changed. For example, when a film is being shown in theaters, it's shown in widescreen format, which is where the audience is shown a substantial amount more on the sides of the shot. When the film is shown on television, whether through a VCR or DVD player or on an actual station, the format is different, showing much less of the sides of the shots, distorting the vision the director originally had.
This distortion of perspective goes hand in hand with Friedberg's later point about the computer screen being a window to the outside world. Instead of just watching what the director wants you to see, now, you are in control of what you are seeing out the window you have installed on your desk. Yet the things that you are looking at on your computer have been manipulated by the creators of websites, or the computer makers themselves. Because you are in control of what you are looking at, it gives you a false sense of security, you feel that you are in control of the images that you see. However, everything that you are looking at was created by someone else, someone with a perspective that they are trying to force upon you. And the scary part of the computer is, you can look at multiple perspectives at one time, going quickly from one window to another without thinking about it With a film, you are watching one person's perspective for usually a substantial amount of time, over an hour. With a computer, you could be surfing the internet for an hour, and look at hundreds of different perspectives, all of them influencing you in some way.
I feel that the most important thing that I got out of the article was that you cannot replace the world happening outside of your window. Because even though you are only seeing a little part of the world, you are seeing it from your own perspective. Anything or anyone that you see outside of that piece of glass you can freely interpret without anyone telling you how. The article asks whether or not the digital window will one day replace that of the architectual one, but I don't think that it ever could. People have to have their own perspectives on things, they cannot just go around listening to what other people say and keeping it as their own. Humans are connected to nature, and sometimes you just need to step outside, and smell the grass instead of the electric cords. I don't think that the age of windows will be ending any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)