multiple perspectives are more beneficial than multiple partners/personalities

There is apparent controversy between the political journalist George Will and the Cogan University professor of the Humanities at Harvard University Stephen Greenblatt, over the politicization of literary studies.  George Will’s views can be expressed through, “as esthetic judgments are politicized, political judgments are estheticized: the striking of poses and the enjoyment of catharsis are central in the theater of victimization in academic life. Criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” Whereas Stephen Greenblatt opposes this with his contradictory perception shown through, “ The painful, messy struggles over rights and values, the political and sexual and ethical dilemmas that great art has taken upon itself to articulate and to grapple with, have no place in their curriculum.” Although they do argue a point, I disagree with the conservative view of presenting the information through one perspective and leaving out information that skews emotions. I believe that all views involved in the situation should be presented to allow the student to learn all aspects therefore resulting in an all rounded view of the event. Additionally this provides the student to connect with the information on real-life terms and emotionally, instead of a mere objective level of education. The viewpoints, although opposing, will allow the student to be given the opinion as to what side they agree with or which stance to take on the issue instead of a predetermined one. I believe in this article George Will is more open to this liberal approach to textbooks however I may of misinterpreted the article at hand. Nevertheless I feel it is unbeneficial to include only a one-sided argument or even an objective statement; for, it doesn’t provide the student with growth on the subject nor as an individual. The advantages in providing an audience with options should be intentional when constructing a textbook. George Will and Stephen Greenblatt each provide an impressive argument on the issue; however multiple perspectives should be supplied in textbooks to make them utmost efficient.

This Says It All...

White Man > Native = BullSH*T

Caliban is the Native American stereotype in Shakespeare’s play The Tempest. He represents those who are native to the area, have had their land (home) taken from them, are subject to serve their superior, and have been labeled as inferior. Although Shakespeare recreates Caliban as a representative of an “average” native, he doesn’t follow the trite formula mentioned in the video: How Hollywood Stereotyped Native Americans. In Acts II and III Caliban doesn’t remain passive to the “white man” or even physically gain power over his possessor. Instead Shakespeare redefines this model of “reality” by having Caliban manipulate one white man (Stephano) against another (Prospero). No longer is the native considered, “vicious killers all of them, not even human,” by the video, but instead a manipulator fighting the resistance with his words not a bow-n-arrow and a hatchet. He is sympathetic to the skewed image of the native to an extent and illustrates this by taking the initiative to rewrite a native’s course of action. However even though Shakespeare decided to change the ideal Hollywood formula, he still manages to keep a native stereotype to define Caliban with. For example, Stephano’s first impression of Caliban is, “What’s the matter? Have we devils here? Do you put tricks upon ‘s with savages and men of Ind, ha? I have not ‘scaped drowning to be afreard now of your four legs …” This enlightens the automatic assumption that Caliban’s presence is that of a devil or a savage and as the dialogue continues and the realization has been made that he is a native, he still bears the title monster. It is shown in the chapter of The Post-Colonial Studies Reader titled Cultural Studies: Post colonialism, African-American Criticism, and Queer Theory that, “these subhumans or ‘savages’ quickly became the inferior and equally ‘evil’ Others, a philosophical concept called alternity whereby ‘the others’ are excluded from positions of power and viewed as different and inferior.” In all three resources the same terms and course of action have been directed to the natives or “blood thirsty savages”. Shakespeare portrays Caliban as a stereotypical native: his land has been taken from him, he is considered a monster, evil, and a savage, and he must obey Prospero better known as the white man. Nevertheless he puts a spin on the stereotypical native story with the introduction of Stephano and Trinculo. Who knew that alcohol could be so powerful? There are an abundant of examples from not only the text but the other two resources as well that exemplify this; nonetheless Shakespeare is rewriting the native’s future he is rewriting the formula.    

Lend Me Your Ears

Throughout the first act of Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest, Prospero employs his historical narratives to efficiently manipulate the people around him: Caliban, Miranda, Ariel. An example of his rhetoric is his sob story that he retells to Miranda to enlighten his struggle that ultimately makes Miranda react with, “alack, what trouble was I then to you!”; for, he portrayed himself as the gum on the bottom of the world’s shoe and rose above it all despite the strength of the currents. Prospero implies that he is the victim in his historical narratives to assist Miranda in overcoming her guilt over the “poor souls, they perished”. Additionally he prolongs Ariel’s freedom by reshaping her past through rhetoric, asking her “dost thou forget from what a torment I did free thee?” He accuses her of forgetting the story of her past. Although she replies that she does remember he becomes angered and indicts until he retells it, in a state assumed to be worse every time retold. At the end of this narrative she responds to him with, “I will be correspondent to command and do my spiriting gently.” Also, Prospero manipulates Caliban with rhetoric as well. When the slave who he impresses as, “…my slave who never yields us kind answer” becomes offended with Prospero’s demeaning attitude towards him shares his voice, he is threatened by his owner. Prospero terrorizes him with, “hag-seed, hence! Fetch us in fuel. And be quick, thou’rt best, to answer other business. Shrug’st thou, malice? If thou neglect’st or doest unwillingly what I command, I’ll rack thee with old cramps fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar that beasts shall tremble at thy din.” Caliban has no other choice by to accept the work he must do to avoid severe consequence. No matter his relationship with the person or the demeanor of the historical narrative he manages to manipulate his subject to get the desired outcome. Whether he is victimized, a hero, or must threaten he manages to persuade those in which he practices rhetoric on to maintain power over the individuals.

can you hear me now... good

Throughout the course of our Socratic circle there were many valid points made as well a mixture of insights that added to the depth of the issue. The conversation allowed for everyone to share their own beliefs and everyone should be extolled for their input.



The textbook issue presents controversy in the field of education, which will ultimately come to rest due to a majority vote not a quiet agreement. Bias is a factor that cannot be stripped from the issue let alone the book, because it presents itself in to any article of writing. The idea of an objective textbook isn’t plausible in the sense there is little unbiased truths throughout history. If one only regards the dates and the facts that meet the criteria of being black and white, the impact of history will be lost and indeed will not be “history”. History by definition is a “chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes”. Explanation would involve biases and the purpose of objective textbooks wouldn’t be functional. As a result I believe the best option in order to settle the problem would to have neutral authors that may occasionally add in their opinion but not skew the entire course of history like an author of Huey Long or Barry Goldwater’s stature would.


Even though there is an emphasis on prominent events in history, there too should be a mention of the secondary events. As well as a stress on the details of multiethnic impact on history and the role played throughout it. No ethnic group is greater than the other and therefore credit is needed to be given to each. Although one may receive more than the other based off important events, we still must remember we are all one. No longer shall the rich industrial cooperate business man who resides as wealthy overshadow those accomplishments of the migrant farm worker who pledges for their beliefs. The ideas of equality should be shared throughout history books as well as all events that have shaped the world into what it is today. The minority has an opinion just as the majority and everyone’s voice deserves to be heard. History has been known to be written in the view of the victor as well, however with every side there is a different perception, whether been tainted by propaganda, manipulation, or freewill, it deserves to be voiced. No matter where an individual is placed on a map at a given time, a person is a person. We feel we believe we live and their story should be shared. History books would be considered fair if light was shown from all outlets instead of the prominent one.

I Heart B**bies???

At school we can no longer support brest cancer through the terms of our generation... 

So Ill stamp my view of it here... "Keep A Breast"