GURA MICHELLE

I thought Gura's talk was very insightful. It was very intrigued in couple of things she said. First, she said that the generation was always changing so does the values. Which brings up the question of honor code vs. survival. When she was talking this, I wondered then what determines martial arts. Martial arts is the artistic perspective of fighting; which means there is an emphasis on honor or fighting codes of certain techniques. But if the values change overtime, what distinguises one martial arts from the other? Secondly, she says that once one realizes that one possess the power of knowing how to kill, how do he/she know how and when to utilize that power? That was an interesting point. So then I questioned myself, doesnt these honor codes become somewhat a justification or glorification of killing? Generally, I understood why martial art can be seen as an art. Gura's passion and wise words made it clear that one can learn more from martial art than ways of killing people. Martial arts shows a way finding oneself and brings up many questions that one needs to answer inorder to do so. I always thought martial arts was a very technical process rather than a spiritual but Gura openned up a different perspective for me.

Read more »

COMMENT ON KINGSTON

Respone of her quote about changing myths.

I agree with Maxine Hong Kingston. Myths are part of culture and culture changes. Maxine Hong Kingston is an Chinese American, which means her culture is a mixture of Chinese and American culture. Native Chinese have there own myths to remember and enjoy. Kingston creates new myths for the people like her. I dont think myths have a right or a wrong way. Myths started out to be oral stories that change throughout generations. And the generation the immigrated to America should have the right to incoroporate their cultures and creates different versions of their myths. Culture is about the people and if people are changing so should the culture. Culture is a representation not history.

Read more »

GHOST DOG

This is a very interesting movie. I did not quite understand the movie but this is what I understood of it. I thought the director of this movie was trying to disintegrate the relationship between stereotype and race. Often times, people expect other races to act a certain way. They are many racial stereotypes. Asian Americans are supposed to be smart, African Americans and Italian Americans are violent, and Caucasians are racist. Whether it is a "good" stereotype or not, it is still a label. But when one thinks about these labels, one should realize that labels are not necessary. The key word we should be looking at is "American." That should be the only label that everyone should carry. Forget the Asian, the African, and Italian. Yes, each group and other race, have different culture but there is a big gap, that people do not seem to know, between culture and stereotype. Stereotypes are not true hence called a stereotype. But people overlook that and think its true because of the media. Even if each group has different culture that should not determine who is inferior and who is superior than others. Mixture of culture is THE culture of America. I think that is what the movies about. When we see Ghost Dog, we expect him to act a certain way in the movie. We expect him to use profanity, demean women, and wear excessively golden chains. But he was not like that. He honored people, respected his master, and was literate. However did that make him any better for killing people? I thought the movie also brought up many questions. Such as, why would the killings of a samurai be considered honorable but the killings of an African American be a crime? I dont think Ghost Dog was viewed as a criminal in the movie. Would he have been if he acted as the audience suspected? Or was he NOT considered as a criminal because he DID NOT act like what we suspected. Almost every character in the movie did not act as the society expected. For example, the little girl carrying books in her lunch box. You dont see kids reading often. Or the Frency speaking African American selling ice cream. The sympathetic Italian master and the childish Italians, some who were watching cartoons, and some rapping the songs of a group, who was prominent for proclaiming black power, Public Enemy. These characters show the concepts of stereotypes. Is that why the movie was a bit comical, beacuse the racial groups did not fit the stereotypes? The whole movie was about killing but why is that this movie is not in the action category? What about the movie does it make the audience ignore the violent aspect and realize the odd characters? Is it right for the audience to think that in fact these characters are odd? Maybe THAT was the point of the movie; that these characters are not odd but they are just individuals with different tastes. Just because a black character does not act like what people expect doesnt make him odd. Maybe we shouldnt be analyzing the movie but how we REACT to the movie to really understand the concepts.

Read more »

Carved in Silence

When I watched this documentary on Chinese Americans I was ashamed and angry. I was ashamed because I did not know how the struggles other minorities went through. I always thought I knew a lot about history and I was shocked to see the documentary and realize that I was wrong. I was angry because not just Chinese Americans, but all minorities had to go through so much to be part of America. This country advocates freedom but the system itself does not. A country that advocates freedom should not restrict the freedom of individuals especially if they did not do anything wrong. In fact, I think because there were so many regulations to entry the country the minorities had no choice but to create somewhat of a black market. The fake birth certificates and so on. Our ancestors, of all races, shed blood and tears to make it slightly easier for future generations. Is it easier? There is no more outspoken racism but racism is still around. However I do not believe that the struggles that our ancestors went through any greater than struggles that human beings go through. No matter if you are black, white, red, yellow, brown, biege, etc everyone as an individual go through struggles. No struggle can be greater than others. As a fellow human being, and as a person with a soul, I believe it is our duty to help others and not judge them, connect with each others souls.

Read more »

True Christianity

Harriet Jacobs writes about how Christianity has many different influences on different people. First, she portrays how Christianity can be used to reinforce slavery: " After the alarm caused by Nat Turner's insurrection had subsided, the slaveholders came to the conclusion that it would be well to give the slaves enoough of religious insturction to keep them for murdering their masters." The slaveholders used Christianity to justify slavery and used it against rebelling slaves.Simultaneously, Christianity is also hope for the slaves: "The congregation struck up a hymn, and sung as though they were as free as the birds that warbled round us. ... Precious are such moment to the poor slaves. If you were to hear them at suck times, you might think they were happy. But can that hour of singing and shouting sustain them through the dreary week, toiling without wages, under constant dread of the lash?" Christianity maintained the slave's sanity and ironically slavery itself. While many slaves relied on Christianity for freedom, Harriet did not seem to be dependent on religion. Instead, she was guided by the religion. There is no part of the book that shows her reliance for God's miracle. She is somewhat cynical about Christianity. During her conversation with Flint, after he joined the Episcopal church, she says: "There are sinners enough in it already [...] If I could be allowed to live like a Christian I should be glad." When I read this line, I questioned, what is the Harriet's definition of Christian? I thought she was saying that Christians are unconsious sinners. They sin but it's justified by the religion so they are not spiritually disturbed by what they do; they can live freely. But she, herself, is a Christian. So then I thought that she distinguishes her spiritually with those of the whites. Her Christianity is being morally just like the people who save and helpr her to escape. All the other Christians are just church goers. I thought that it was interesting that she distinguishes herself from her fellow slaves and from the slave masters with Christianity. She doesn't rely on spiritual miracles but she learns from it. She even clearly writes that "there is a great difference between Christianity and religion at thes outh. FI a man goes to the communion table, and pays money into the treasure of the church, no matter if it be the price of lboo, he is called religious. If a pastor has offspring by a woman not his wife, the church dismiss him, if she is a white woman; but is she is colored, it does not hinder his continuing to be their good sheperd." Its fascinating how the slaves know about this and still believes in the religion.

Read more »

Love or Hate- Harriet Jacobs

There is very interesting relationship between Harriot Jacobs and Dr. Flint. Although that is clear that they verbally abuse each other, it is also obvious that they effect each other postively and negatively. If you think about it, Dr. Flint's abuse is what drives Jacobs to run away. The other way around, Jacobs give Dr. Flint a purpose in life. These two people are very much involved in each other's world. Dr. Flint goes out of his way to get Jacob's emotional and physical attention and ironically, even when Jacobs escapes, she manages to write to Dr. Flint. Although there is abuse, it seems to give each of them a purpose in life, which is a positive affect. However, the relationships itself is quite negative.

Read more »

True Love or Contemporary Propaganda?

(This post is for the week of February 7)




I thought it was interesting that the people who commented on the article from "La Solidaridad" by Jose Rizal seem to agree that Jose was a great figure. I, too, do not doubt that he was a hero to many but I question his motives in writing this article. When I first read this article I thought he was promoting violence and I was shock to hear in class that he advocated non-violence. He is very dramatic, descriptive, and poetic in this article and I believe he uses these writing techniques to cover or even justify the violence used for the country. He starts the article by elaborately describing the beauty of the land, mesmerizing the readers. He writes: "Could we not dedicate to her something -- those of us whose only failing is that we were born later? Shall the nineteenth century have reason to call us ungrateful?" He is challenging the reader; he is telling the people that they are obligated to the land. Then the article becomes even more intriguing. Rizal sets up, in chronological order, a method that subliminaly reveals the importance of fighting for the country. He writes, "We are born thus; we grow up, we get old and we die with this pious sentiment. [...] as a father, we see the children die and time erases our grief like waves wash the shores when they recede. But in contrast, love of country is never erased once it gets to the heart, because it has a divine zeal which keeps it ternal and imperishable." I am assuming that children are dying for the counrty; such as fighting in a war or maybe starving because of impoverishment due to the war. Whatever the reasons, he writes that the memory of one's children dying can be replaced with one's love for the country. This is where I questioned why he would write that. First of all, a child's death can never be forgotten. Secondly, if Rizal is so adamant about non-violence shouldn't he say that children shouldnt be dying for the country? Furthermore, right after that paragraph he continues to write, "It has always been said taht love has veen the most powerful force behind the most sublime acts; well then, among all kinds of loves, that of country is what has produced the greatest, the most heroic, and most unselfish acts." These "unselfish acts" can be many things including killing (war) for the the country. He statements are ambiguous. He does not clearly say people should be non violent and because he is unclear I think he is leaving a way for people to intrepret the violence is okay.

Read more »

Is it working?

This is my new blog.

Read more »