To be [political], or not to be [political]

Well, Shakespeare is boring enough to read, let alone when I have to THINK about it. Ugh. But the sarcasm used throughout these articles was pretty good, I won’t lie. Truthfully, I don’t know who to agree completely with, but if I did have to choose a side, I think I would go with that of Stephen Greenblatt…and not just because his last name is kind of funny. I choose him partly because of what he has to say, and also, I was somewhat distracted when I was reading George Will’s article, and thus what he had to say didn’t seem very interesting or appealing.

I will start my argument (Is this an argument?) by saying that the only thing, in particular, that George Will stated that caught my attention is that "…culture is oppressive and a literary canon is an instrument of domination." Well, I guess I can admit that SOME areas of culture are oppressive, but I wouldn’t blame that on culture; I would say that that is human nature, to feel the need that we are higher than others and thus are cruel to them to feel that power. So to bring culture into it, to me, sounds oblivious, like he was just saying it to say it. Weak. And about the literary canon: Wow; he really thinks that we are just controlled by the guy with the puppet strings (in his mind, the author), that we fall for whatever we read? I don’t think so. Real life tends to take bigger charge in molding our beliefs, I think. Not what some guy made up. Just saying.

"The student of Shakespeare who asks about racism, misogyny, or anti-Semitism is not on the slippery slope toward what George Will calls "collective amnesia and deculturation,"" says Stephen Greenblatt. So true. Literature is not some disease, in the awful way George Will describes it to be. I may not be some literary scholar or read classics in my spare time, but I do appreciate bits and pieces from them. They’re enlightening, not controlling. So Will can calm his butt down. We read it (or SparkNotes) because we have to, and I don’t think that will be changing anytime soon. In the meantime, let us go on our merry way, reading what is required of us—NOT being subconsciously manipulated by the lines and what may metaphorically lie between—and continue to be enlightened, or not, the way we always have or have not been. Why mess with the classics? They’re classic for a reason, apparently.

Pretty sure I may have gotten the guys' views opposite of what they actually are; I didn't follow the articles a bit, so my opinions are based solely on the quotes I've cited and probably not on the entirity of each article, due to my lack of attempt at comprehension. Just saying..

Caliban was there first.

Caliban is a very similar character to that of the native peoples, when it comes to who has (had) the power. Just as the natives made it to America first (hence the term ‘natives’) and were taken over by white men and women, Caliban arrived at the island in Shakespeare’s story first and foremost, and still he was overruled. As “Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, and Queer Theory” points out, “the other—that is, any person defined as “different from,”.” Somehow, Caliban was seen as “different,” and thus he was vulnerable [to becoming subject to anyone who believed he could have the higher power over Caliban]. Therefore, just as the native peoples allowed themselves to become subject to the white men and women, Caliban allowed himself to become a subject of Stephano’s.

Caliban claims such things to Stephano as “I do adore thee” and “I’ll show thee every fertile inch o' th' island. And I will kiss thy foot. I prithee, be my god.” Okay, well that’s nonsense. Caliban was obviously there first, and he could do whatsoever he pleased. And here he is, probably the only one who knows what every nook and cranny beholds upon the island, and he is just giving it away. (Mind you, within some of those nooks and crannies are freshwater springs, probably the most sacred places on the island…since, well, they’re on an island.) Yet, Caliban is mindless enough to give it all up  because he now worships this Stephano guy. Well, his loss, for giving up all that knowledge to who is now evidently a higher power.

See the parallel? Who ran our land before we did? The Native Americans did. Who runs it today? We do (the white people). Why is that? It is because the Native Americans ultimately gave us the “power.”

Prospero thinks he's the puppet master. Well I say nuh uh.

Prospero is the typical manipulator, thinks he has everybody wrapped around his finger.
First of all, he has a slave, who is gender- and visibility-neutral apparently, that conducts all major tasks for him; in other words, anything Prospero wants accomplished, Ariel does for him. Ariel "[carried] out [a] storm just as [he] (Prospero) ordered." Personally, I don't see why Prospero couldn't have done this himself, when he seems to have nothing better to do than to tell his daughter his dukedom sob stories that evidently took place when she was too young to remember them clearly. There are more appropriate times and places for story time, dude, if you thing you are SO important; just saying. Anyhow, Ariel asks that he gain his freedom back, and Prospero replies, reminding of the "torture [he] freed [Ariel] from." All the dude/dudette wants is his/her freedom back. Not so much to ask. Prospero then bribes this Ariel character with a supposed release in two days. Well, why not right then and there, hm? I have not read ahead, but judging Prospero's puppet-master-like ways thus far, he will keep this bribe going; "Do this, Ariel, and you will be free in less than a week, I promise ye," and so on.

Also, Prospero likes to repeatedly make certain that his "listeners" are "listening" at all times. He kept nagging Miranda about listening/paying attention when he was telling her the story of his brother. "Please listen to me carefully....Do you hear what I'm saying?....Now listen....Just listen a little more....Sit still and listen...." Well shoot! If she wasn't listening, you would know, especially since she is your own daughter! It seems to me that firstly, Prospero is painfully insecure, possibly because of how he was shoved from his dukedom but his own flesh and blood. Secondly, realizing this, I think that his atrocious insecurity is where his manipulative habits take root; he wants to ensure that all are on his side, since they seem to not have been in the past.

I may be slightly to completely off in my judgments, but as of now, this is what I have observed and do believe.

Biased teaching brings about one-sided learning. It's only bad news, man.

Thursday's discussion was very deep, very reflective. I think we all agree that having bias in textbooks is not a positive thing. When a student only hears or reads a story from one person's, or as single group's side first, the student tends to see history from that one [biased] point of view only. In that case, it certainly matters whether history is taught to a pupil from a biased standpoint. Unless he is taught from an objective view, the student can only see one side of the story, be it true or only relatively true.


All students should be taught in an unbiased manner in order that they may develop their own opinions, and thus attempt or not attempt to solve the problems in utterly their own manners, rather than ones taught to them from one biased side and particularly that biased side, only.


When students, especially children--who absorb any information given unto them like sponges--are taught anything, they remember most clearly what they are taught first and foremost. Therefore, if and when a student is taught history firstly from one standpoint (subjective or not), that is what he will recall the most clearly, and that is what he will base any future opinions, regarding the subject, off of. For particularly this reason, bias should be kept out of all textbooks--and especially out of any classroom teachings--in order that all students can develop their own, entirely fresh opinions on all subject matter.