Gender Studies and Queer Theory

After reading the  piece on Gender Studies and Queer Theory, it is clear that The Poisonwood Bible contains many passages that allow for this type of criticism. For example, the mother of the  Price family is described in a manner that makes her seem as if her only purpose is to run the home and that is all she is good for. When Anatole comes to dine, the mother is ovewhelmed because she tries to make everything perfect.

Another, more clear example is how the father will not let the girls continue with schooling because he fears it will ruin them. They are not valued for their intelligence despite the fact that they have great potential, especially Adah.

Beyond the daughters, the other girls in Kolunga and the surrounding villages are not allowed to go to school at all, whereas the boys go until about the age of twelve.

There is an extreme difference between what is expected of women and men both in the Price family and in the village. Despite all of the differences between the daughters and the women in the villages, they are still treated and viewed in the same manner.

Differences between the movie and the book

Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness have many similiarities, but also drastic differences. The main difference is that the movie takes place in Vietnam whereas the book is centered in the Congo. This ultimately create a larger difference than it appears ut would. In Heart of Darkness the purpose of the location is because it shows why the white men were there. There was a lust for the wealth that the ivory inthe Congo could give them. In the movie there is no explicitly stated purpose for them being in Vietnam. It leaves the viewer wondering why they white men are there. Without a purpose there is little reason for the drive and motivation of Mr. Kurtz and it takes away a layer of complexity.

Difficulties

While I have many difficulties in life, just functioning normally, I think it will come to no surprise that I also had a challenge analyzing some of the passages from Heart of Darkness. So without further ado, my passage that I had difficulty with was the meaning of the following quote:

     " We could not understand because we were too far and could not remember because we were travelling in the night of first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign- and no memories"  (108).

I can understand that the passage is referencing the jungle and the prehistoric times, or the "night of first ages".It is foreign to him and his men. The part I am troubled with is more what exactly they can not understand.  I speculated that there was no one to pass down the stories and information so there is no understanding of (at least for Marlow) the history of the jungle and the way of life there.

Foreshadowin. A quote.

     "But darkness was here yesterday. Imagine the feelings of a commander of a fine--what d'ye call 'em?--trireme in the Mediterranean, ordered suddenly to the north; run overland across the Gauls in a hurry; put in charge of one of these craft the legionaries--a wonderful lot of handy men they must have been, too--used to build, apparently by the hundred, in a month or two, if we may believe what we read. Imagine him here--the very end of the world, a sea the colour of lead, a sky the colour of smoke, a kind of ship about as rigid as a concertina-- and going up this river with stores, or orders, or what you like. Sand-banks, marshes, forests, savages,--precious little to eat fit for a civilized man, nothing but Thames water to drink. No Falernian wine here, no going ashore. Here and there a military camp lost in a wilderness, like a needle in a bundle of hay--cold, fog, tempests, disease, exile, and death--death skulking in the air, in the water, in the bush. They must have been dying like flies here."


I thought this quote was a jem because it draws an obvious and almost direct parallel between ancient London and the Congo. Down to the forests and wilderness. This quote allows the reader to predict what the entire book will be about. Just as the men came to London and "suffered in an uncivilized" land, so did (I predict) Marlow during his adventure up the river.

Psychology of Exploration

 Prior to reading this book, I could not find much wrong with the exploitation of material goods in foreign colonies other than the damage exporting these resources and harvesting them did to the earth. After reading part one of this book I realized I was severely mistaken. The gruesome acts that were committed against the natives in the Congo were deeply disturbing. It made me question my knowledge of what is occutring this very moment in the "far-flung" colonies. My ignorance is something that I believe I share with many others who too are simply on the receiving end of these goods. I believe there ought to be more strict regulation on companies who wish to exploit foreign soil. I believe as a first-world country we often have a savior complex. This in and of itself is a major issue with exploration. We view ourselves as better because of the material success we have had as a country and use this as a suitable excuse to invade, in order to "help" other  countries obtain the success we have. The twisted outcome of this mentality is currently causing the suffering of many children in Haiti:

"The practice of Restavek - from a French word meaning "to stay with" - began with the noble intentions of educating children from rural villages. But over the years, the practice has become twisted. The result is that many children are now exploited rather than helped." -Leif Coorlim

One underlying question this book presented was whether our riches make us successful. Hoshchild demonstrated how Leopold's country in no way favored him as a leader and in fact many of the explorers were unhappy and troubled. I beg to argue that their psychological troubles and disturbances far outweigh the physical  and economic troubles the native population suffered prior to the arrival of Leopold. Certainly, their situation did not improve after his "exploration". Part one has clearly demonstrated the issues that can arise from exploration. 

#6 Western Involvement

6.  Do you think that Western nations, such as Great Britain, France, Germany, and the U.S. should respond differently to atrocities around the world today? Should they have done more? Why?

I believe that European countries and the U.S. should respond differently. To start, we should be responding by providing aid when necessary. We must not turn a blind eye to the atrocities that are being committed. The countries that hold the majority of the power and have an interest in the resources that Africa holds should  take part in trying to maintain the peace. If we hope to share a stake in the African countries then we should also work to maintain peace. We should use our superior military forces to try and reduce the brutality that is occurring. Furthermore, in the European countries took part in the brutality and it is their responsibility to try and fix what they broke.
While it is clear that we can not be the police power for the entire world, it is important that we still take care of everything we are trying to use, especially if we hold an interest in the resources there.
As humans, we are all equal and everyone deserves a chance to live a great life, so it is our responsibility to provide aid when we can and where we can.

Food Culture

Food. We eat it every day without really thinking of the significance of it. It is more than something that nourishes our bodies (or in some cases doesn't nourish our bodies) . It is a window into our culture and the culture of those before us. Asian food in particular I have always felt bears an important cultural mark. The food of each country is very distinct.  Each style of food that is country-specific holds a place in history. What may be unusual to some is the norm for others.

There are infinite flavors that have resulted from centuries of using produce or spices specific to a region or country. I have been lucky enough to try many different types of food, and I love trying new things because it is not only a new experience but it provides insight into an unfamiliar culture. For instance France is known for their cheese, whether it be Brie or Camembert, it has grasps a piece of France's culture. Italy is known for pasta and biscotti, Japan for sushi, and Greece for gyros. Each country has a food (or many foods) that is just theirs.

In more modern days it appears that the distinction of a food's nationality has become less significant.  Due to the ease of travel among other factors, we have gained remarkable insight into the cultures of others, and therefore the staple food items of other countries. While it is fantastic that we can gain this insight, countries are also now able to produce the same types of food that once were only found in that country. Perhaps this is specific to the United States because we are a blend of many nationalities rather than our own. For instance on any given day if I have a craving for a specific type of food whether it be Indian, Japanese, or Thai, I can have it (as long as I'm up for a maximum 30 minute drive). It is both amazing and daunting the ease with which I can access the food that once was only obtainable in the specific country. It is daunting because of the speed and ease with which our cultures are blending. Soon enough there will not be individual cultures because we will adopt aspects of other cultures, this blending many of them. We have already begun fusing food, such as Asian-American fusion. Food is one of the primary aspects that is blended, and whether it be for better or worse, it allows us to appreciate and admire the history  and individuality of other countries.