what is racism

What is racism? It's a very difficult question that I have pondered for quite a while. After our class discussion, it occurred to me that racism was in fact much more complicated than just the definition of the word. After class, I had made up my own definition, or my own understanding, of the words true meaning. I feel that racism is any form of making a race inferior, whether that be by hate crimes, stereotypes, etc. Anything that singles out a race should be considered racism. But, based on this definitions, it should not necessarily be the loaded word that it is made out to be. Of course if you are a member of the KKK, you are racist and violent, and the racism you show is extreme. If you say someone is good at math because they are asian, it is minor racism, but racism none the less. But, in this case, it is not as serious as the previous example, leading me to believe that there are multiple forms of racism, multiple levels. These levels are all based upon the amount of hate a person has toward a particular racial group. A minor racist, such as in the story, believes what he or she does based upon the hatred of others and the beliefs of society. This person's beliefs come from hatred, but he or she does not actually hate the race. A person with a lot of hatred does individually hate that race, and often will act out against them and commit hate crimes. There is a reason why the word hate is used in hate crimes, which are acts of racism. The two words are connected. I believe that there is always hate in racism, whether it is subconscious or evident. The two go hand in hand, and the level of each varies based upon how evident they are in each person. Thus, racism is a radical form of hatred that has many different levels beginning with stereotyping and ending with hate crimes and radical action. Racism is very broad and should not be confined to just people like the KKK. Racism is common today with the stereotyping of African Americans and other races or minorities. Thus, racism is truly much more broad than the actual definition of the word implies.

Is Amal Wise

Is Amal Wise? It is truly an interesting question, as an argument for both sides can easily be made. I struggled with this question for a good period of time, thinking about which side I would like to back up. I finally decided that Amal in the story The Post Office, written by Rabindranath Tagore, is just a naive child who is not truly wise. He is the epitome of a young child who conveys the true meaning of life without truly knowing what he is saying. A wise person has to understand what he or she is saying. With the Curdseller for example, Amal talks about how great it would be to have that job. He shows the Curdseller that his life is good, and it makes the man happy. But, Amal enlightened this man due to childish thought and opinion. He just wants to do everything that he cannot do while he is sick. He wants to go outside, so he talks about how great of a life the Curdseller has only due to that. Amal is not a wise person giving advice; he is unintentionally showing wisdom in the way any young kid would, by accident. He is no wiseman, he is a child. Wisdom implies a true understanding into the meaning of something. A person like Aristotle or John Locke would be wise, for example. They truly understood, at least in their opinion, the meaning of life, as they wrote about it. Amal is naive and young, and he really does not understand the implications of what he is saying. As the Headman says, Amal is kind and well mannered, but naive. A wise person is not naive; he or she is fully aware of what he or she is saying, as well as the implications as to what it means. Amal, although he does share some insightful thoughts, does not understand that what he is saying is wise; therefore, he cannot be considered a wise person. Thus, I do not believe that Amal can be considered a wise person; he is a naive child.

A Day in the Life

While reading One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, I could not help but think about the terrible conditions of the work camp, and how difficult it would be to live there. Thoughts such as what the purpose of the camp was flowed through my head. Then, finally, it hit me. The camp's purpose was to break the will of those individuals forced to stay there. What other purpose could they serve than to break the will and identity of the individuals there. Just look at the location of these camps. Siberia, arguably the worst and most difficult place to survive on earth. It is freezing cold, and basically impossible to escape from. A prison there would not even need walls or gates to keep prisoners from leaving because, in an interesting way, when a person is in Siberia the camp is keeping them from the wilderness and from death, not the other way around. The location thus makes a person feel confined and stuck in a world so separated from everything else that there is no hope of returning; a person cannot escape from this hell. This sense of hopelessness serves to break the will of the prisoners, and inevitably, force them into perfect submission, or into tools of the state. Also, giving the prisoners little food keeps them struggling, and it shows these people that although they only receive little food, without the camp they could have nothing. In other words, the camp uses food to enforce its will on the prisoners, and it knows that it can starve them or keep them hungry, also breaking down a persons will. This leads to complete exhaustion, and a loss of all sense of hope. Constant hunger is quite possibly one of the worst feelings a person can feel. And, finally, being treated as a lesser person, or as property, finally breaks down the individual until his only remaining identity is that he is a property of the state. When people are constantly telling you that you are not an equal human being, but more like an animal for years, you lose the sense of who you really are, as you have not been told anything different. So, how do the prisoners fight these evils of the camp? First, a prisoner must be resourceful and be able to survive based on what he or she can find. Scavenging is a necessity for a prisoner in a gulag. This enables a person to get at least something similar to adequate nutrition, which is necessary to work the immense hours they have to. Combating the constant belittling by the guards and the people controlling the prisoners is much more difficult to achieve. This takes mental strength and the ability to hold on to who you are. The only way to have success here is to stay mentally tough and tune out the constant and false statements made by the camp. Also, the only people who will survive the camp with any sense of identity are those who never give up hope. It is necessary to live day by day, hour by hour, never giving up the hope of surviving the camp. That is the only way to survive a place like that. Thus, the camps are constantly trying to crush the identities of the inmates who must struggle to keep this identity in order to survive. Without an identity, what is a person, an individual. In truth, a person without an identity is reduced to nothing; it is emptiness. Thus, keeping identity is the most important, and the most difficult, struggle the inmates undertake when they are forced to imprisonment in the gulag.

Creon's recognition

In Sophocles's tragedy Antigone, Creon, a tragic hero in the story, come to a recognition that his actions are not correct, that he needs to change. The question is when does he come to these realizations? Recognition is defined as being the point in time when the tragic hero recognizes his or her flaws or wrong actions. It is the point in the story when the character has an epiphany, or knows why he of she is wrong. Creon comes to the realization that he is wrong about Antigone and is ruling only based on pride and not on reason and wisdom at about line 1230 when he says "Oh, it's hard, giving up the heart's desire... but I will do it- no more fighting a losing battle with necessity." In my opinion, Creon has realized here that his pride had been getting in the way of his reason and wisdom, thus corrupting his judgement. He knows at this point that he was wrong and that what he did to Antigone and her brother was not the right thing to do. It is hard for a person, especially a king, to go back on his word, especially when pride is involved. Look, Creon had to make the difficult choice on whether to let his nephew be buried. That has to be hard, especially because they are blood relatives. Creon put the city above his feelings in doing this, so to him, going back on his word would mean not only losing his credibility, but also the trust of his people. So to admit that he was wrong about this, and that he is willing to change what he did, is pretty significant. It is recognition of a fault, in this case a tragic flaw. Creon obviously is not happy admitting he is wrong, no one is. That is why he seems unhappy when he recognizes his faults, because it is never a positive experience to learn that you are wrong. With this statement comes the understanding that Creon has realized his wrongdoings and is ready to fix them. He has sacrificed his pride at this point by admitting that he is wrong, he made a mistake. That, to me, is true recognition in the sense of the definition. He has put his pride on the table, his integrity, in order to set things right. Thus, I believe that Creon's statement around line 1230 is when he recognizes his tragic flaw and his wrongdoings, making it true recognition. 

Antigone and civil/human rights

To me, understanding the difference between civil and human rights is essential to understanding Sophocles's purpose in writing the tragedy Antigone. Civil rights are rights approved by the government, or basically privileges. But, there are differences between privileges and rights. A civil right would be freedom of speech, or assembly. A privilege would be the right to drive, or having a license. Both can be taken away, but a civil right is more important than a privilege. A human right is above civil right. It is something that all of humanity shares, a right given to all people. To me, this would be something along the lines of having the right to eat, to have sufficient food to survive. That is something all humans deserve, as it is essential to survive. Breaking a human right, or taking one away from a person, is immoral and wrong. Genocide, for example, is when human rights are taken away, and look at the consequences. It is catastrophic. A government can take away civil rights if it sees fit, although people may not like it. That, to me, is reasonable, and understandable. But, taking away human rights is wrong, and it should be forbidden. In Antigone, the dilemma faced by the main character, Antigone, is whether to follow the laws of her city, or those of the gods. To me, the laws of the city represent the guidelines of the people's civil rights, whereas the laws of the gods set the blueprint for human rights. The right to burial is a human right then, based on my interpretation. Antigone sees this in a very similar way, as she decides to follow the laws of the gods over those of the city, or the king, and bury her brother, which King Creon forbid. She follows her sense of ethics and goes against laws restricting human rights to ensure that they are followed. This is what Sophocles is trying to show, that human rights come before the law, they are above it. And, if a government tries to restrict these rights, it is a person's responsibility to ensure that these rights are followed, even if you do break the laws of the government, or in this case, the king. I believe that this is the correct interpretation of civil and human rights. This is evident based on the large number of genocides that have occurred throughout the twentieth century. If people in those countries had been willing to disobey their governments to do the right thing, to preserve human rights, millions of lives could have been saved. This is why Sophocles wants us, as readers, to understand that human rights are far more important than some law created by a government. Without these rights, civilization and humanity would cease to exist, as utter chaos would ensue without them. So, what is my interpretation. Be a rebel against authority if necessary to preserve yours, and people's, human rights, as they are more important than any government. I say rise up, and fight to ensure that all of the world has these human rights, that everyone can say they are equal in this respect. That, in the end, is what Antigone represents in the tragedy Antigone, the belief that human rights are more important than any law, and that people need to fight for them, whatever the cost.

The Great Gatsby

The relationship between the wealthy and the less fortunate, or the poor, has always been a very interesting affair, and it is one that has captivated my interest. Throughout history, this relationship has been the cause of many revolutions, political issues, and civil unrest. When I read the novel The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, it really got me thinking about this relationship. I mean, what other book portrays this issue so thoroughly. In the novel, which is based in the Long Island Sound, East Egg represents the wealthy, the aristocracy. West Egg, on the other hand, represents the middle and lower classes. In the novel, Fitzgerald portrays the wealthy people of East Egg as pompous individuals who seem to only care about money and appearance. At Gatsby's extraordinary parties, only the rich attend, and during some of the conversations at the parties, these wealthy people are portrayed as being completely oblivious to West Egg and its struggles. Fitzgerald is exposing the ignorance of the wealthy to us as readers, that they do not care about others in society. The rich do not care about the poor. They care only about themselves, and as long as they are living comfortably, everything is fine. This really struck me as I read this novel, because it occurred to me that I, yes I, was a part of this wealthy society. Do I not care about those who are less fortunate than I am? Do I not pay attention to their struggles? Am I similar to those people attending Gatsby's parties? After reading this novel, I realized that I too was ignorant to the difficulties of the people less fortunate than I am. Yes, I was IGNORANT. I realized that as a part of this wealthy society, it is my job, no, my duty, to help those in need. Attending a school with the majority of the people being very rich, it is easy to forget that many people struggle to even afford an apartment, people who live paycheck by paycheck. This narrow-mindedness of the upper class as a whole, I realized, is prevalent throughout every community, every country. Just look at politics. The numbers of the middle class are slowly diminishing, the poor are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer, all due to government policy. Is that OK? To me, it is not. How can people stand around and let millions of citizens struggle to even live in a house, let alone a small apartment? The power is in the rich, right? Giving the rich what they want seems to be the dominant theme in society, because it is in the best interest of individuals. That, to me, is unacceptable. The poor deserve help from the wealthy. Most of the laboring workers in the middle and lower classes work more hours than the upper class, struggling in difficult day jobs. And for What? To get taxed outrageously and have their money given to the government, and the rich. Their piece of the pie is getting smaller, while that of the rich is getting bigger. WOW. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that. Yes, it is easy to forget about the struggles of the poor when you live and are around the upper class for the majority of the time. I understand that fully. But, what Fitzgerald, and this novel, taught me was that this unknowledgeable way of thinking is not OK. In fact, I believe that Fitzgerald, when he wrote the novel, wanted to expose this issue in order to get the wealthy to change their ways, to fix this problem. After reading the novel, I started to do more community service, to at least do something to help the poor. No, I didn't stop world poverty, or save the world from unemployment, but at least I did something. I did something, and I cared, which is all that truly matters. That, in the end, is Fitzgerald's true purpose in using the contrast between West and East Egg, to get people to care about this problem in our community, our society, our country. Caring, and knowing, are the first steps toward fixing something, which is what Fitzgerald wanted his readers to realize. We can make a difference. That is what he was trying to explain. And, if you take his word, and my word, maybe we can start turning our society into a better place.

The Namesake

The Namesake, a novel written by Jhumpa Lahiri, is a very unique and interesting novel that really left a deep impression on me. The novel explains the difficulties of an Indian family adapting to a new culture and environment as they make the change from India to America. The Ganguli family members each try their best to adapt to the new environment, some of which do better than others. This is the story of the novel, but its most interesting component is in the main character Gogol, or Nikhil. The Indian tradition is for a person to have two names, a pet name and a formal name. The pet name is only supposed to be used by family members and relatives. The formal name is the person's name in public, or what most people call them. Gogol is the main character's pet name, and Nikhil is his formal name. His father names him Gogol due to the fact that his father was severely injured in a train accident, and a book written by the famous author Gogol is what got him noticed by rescuers and eventually saved his life. Through a series of events, it becomes his real name, or his name in public as well due to the fact that he refuses to go by the name Nikhil in public. But, as he gets older, he becomes very shy and basically embarrassed of his name. In one scene, he goes to a party where he kisses a girl and tells her his name is Nikhil. This change of name used by Lahiri really creates a very interesting theme, because now this character has two personas, two identities. After the party, Nikhil states that Gogol did not kiss that girl, Nikhil did. We then learn that he changes his name formally to Nikhil and goes by that name throughout college and afterward, and once he changes his name he becomes an open and social person. So, just based on a name change, a character evolved from a shy, anti-social person to someone who is both open and confident. One identity is based upon the traditions of India and its heritage, whereas the other is breaking apart from that culture and conforming to that of its new society. Lahiri uses this conflict of identities perfectly throughout the novel, as Nikhil slowly grows apart from his family and heritage the longer he has the name Nikhil. As Nikhil, he is an American who is just as much a part of the culture as anyone. He is well liked, he dates plenty of women, and he starts to become successful. As Gogol, he is Indian, he is a part of a tradition, and he is uncomfortable. This changing of names symbolizes the Americanization that occurs when immigrants move to the United States, as well as the conflicts and issues that go along with it. Each name represents a different culture, and the effects of Gogol's name change symbolize the changes that an immigrant faces when he or she moves to a new country. This relates to me because as a Jewish American, I have many Jewish relatives who moved from very Jewish, European communities to America. They also had many issues in terms of traditions and cultural issues because Jewish communities are very rigid about keeping them. Here, many of them did not fit in well due to these customs, similarly to how Gogol felt. They have both Hebrew names and American names, just like Gogol does, which connect them to each culture respectively. They started to connect more with the American community when they let go of all their traditions and embraced their new society, which to me is what Gogol's name change truly represents. Lahiri is showing the controversy and difficulty of changing cultures and customs through Gogol's name change and how he changes based on which name he goes by.  She shows the full immigrant experience in a way very few other authors have been able to portray. Once he changes his name he is more comfortable with himself because he feels connected to the American society. This conflict between the two personas is what interested me most about the novel, because it really showed me the issues many immigrants have to face when it comes to tradition and heritage, and also made me think of my own family and the similarities. It is a conflict between conforming to a new society or keeping a tradition that is not practiced by anyone else in that society. The power of a name, Lahiri feels, is the ability to reinvent oneself, to become someone new, which is what Gogol does when he becomes Nikhil. In this case, changing names makes Gogol become more American, more a part of society.  Many immigrants are forced to reinvent themselves in order to succeed in their new society, which is what Gogol's change in names is representing. This, to me, is the most interesting part of The Namesake as it shows the conflicts faced by many immigrants just by using something as simple as a name.