Analytical Response: Okonkwo as a "tragic hero"

How does Okonkwo develop themes in the text as a tragic hero? 

Throughout China Achebe's well renown novel Things Fall Apart, the main character Okonkwo is portrayed as a strong willed character that values his powerful and influential reputation amongst others. He is well respected, and shows little to no signs of weakness. The Novel itself, is a study of cross-cultural misunderstanding and the consequences to the rest of humanity when a culture or civilization takes upon itself to invade another culture. An issue throughout the novel that can be discussed in regards to the character of Okonkwo, is as to whether his character serves as a tangible idea of the values of Umuofia, or stands against them in conflict. One of the main events that eventually develops this theme of a "tragic hero" within the character is Okonkwo's capability to kill the young boy Ikemefuna. Yes, on one hand he is fulfilling his cultural values and traditions, but on the other hand it is a conflict between the character himself. Killing the young boy was meant so showcase his bravery and boldness amongst other members of the Ibo tribe.

Ideally, the story is centered around Okonkwo's character as he leads the reader through the events that occur. Based on his presentation at the beginning of the book, he is depicted as a strong and powerful character very much relatable to a tragic hero; a character who makes a judgement that inevitably leads to his/her own destruction. In Things Fall Apart, after Okonkwo accidentally kills his friend's son at his funeral he is exiled away from Umuofia for seven years. This contradicts with our original interpretation of Okonkwo as one to be of a strong willed and respected nature. In the end, Okonkwo's faults and self suffering leads him to committing suicide, his ultimate destruction.

Why does Achebe choose a tragic hero for his protagonist in his colonial counter narrative? 

As Achebe chose for his protagonist to be in the form of a tragic hero in his colonial counter narrative. This can ultimately be seen as a way to victimize the character of Okonkwo against that of the missionaries/colonizers. As Okonkwo is the center of focus for this novel, it allows the reader to follow him from a state of success and strength, to his very demise at the end of the book.

What is the purpose of function of Okonkwo in Things Fall Apart? 

Having Okonkwo as the main character of focus in Things Fall Apart falls to the advantage of the reader. His character in general leads the reader through the story, from his rise to demise at the end of the book. Okonkwo is a clear depiction of the culture and ideologies of the Ibo tribe, which later falls apart as Umuofia is colonized and "torn apart" due to the colonization of the British missionaries.

Most Meaningful Takeaway

During Wednesday's English Class, the whole class took part in a group discussion about the Interview "An African Voice" with Chinua Achebe about his novel "Things Fall Part". Throughout the whole discussion, various things were discussed, but for me, the most meaningful takeaway was when we touched base on the subject of the media's presentation of Africa. Knowing that Achebe's novel Things Fall Apart is a strong reflection of wester author's portrayal of the African culture, it was interesting to see his takeaway from the novel itself and what he had to say about the general theme of the story. One of the quotes from the interview that really struck me was when Achebe said, "I knew I had a story, but how it fit into the story of the world -- I really had no sense of that." Throughout his novel, Achebe tells the story from the African's perspective other than the colonizer's, to really draw readers away from this "one-sided" perception of Africa that the media portrays today. We discussed that this portrayal that the media has on Africa being uncivilized, dirty and very much poor might not have been on purpose, but was simply due to a lack in understanding of  the African culture and it's traditional practices. Furthermore, over the years the media has addressed this subject from a very subjective sense other than objective. It was interesting to hear what Achebe had to say as he was quite strongly opinionated on the matter of the subject of discussion, and clearly had his mindset on justifying and serving as "An African Voice" for an entire culture at stake. 

Paper 1: Analyzing a Political Speech

Introduction:

The text representing Ronald Reagan addressing the people of West Berlin can be identified as a speech. This can be said due to the fact that throughout the speech, we can identify that he is addressing a large audience by saying “ladies and gentlemen” and overall, using very inclusive language to address the public such as “We” and “Our”. These are some literary elements that help us understand that the this text is spoken out loud. Raegan’s main goal in his speech is to challenge his audience by resonating with the public. The former President proceeds by presenting his powerful words to the public with ambition and determination in hopes of inspiring his audience through the use of literary elements and rhetorical devices; these will be explored throughout this analysis.

When considering the possible target audience of the speech, the time and place should be taken into consideration. As Ronald Reagan performed his speech in West Berlin, as previously said, his words are intended for the people of West Berlin as well as  the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev. We know this by reading direct statements from Ronald Reagan, openly spoken towards the General Secretary such as when he says, “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace (...) Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall!”. The original purpose of this speech is to inform, convince, and persuade the audience. Ronald Reagan’s goal is to connect with a larger audience, thus being people in Germany and the Soviet Union, and convince the Communist party leaders to tear down the Berlin Wall as an emblem of hope, freedom, and final peace. Throughout his speech, we see the use of inclusive language such as “I invite” and “I pledge you”, ultimately convincing his audience that the power is in their hands, allowing them to feel empowered themselves. Being a visitor in Berlin at the time, Reagan allows himself to feel comfortable and at ease with his audience by addressing them in German as seen in this example; “(...) because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still have a suitcase in Berlin]” This use of pathos is obviously appealing to the audience, allowing them to connect and incite relaxed and safe feelings with the speaker.

“Tear Down this wall!” was a speech spoken by former American President, Ronald Reagan to the people of West Berlin at the Brandenburg Gate near the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987, commemorating the 750th anniversary of Berlin. As referred to by the president, the Berlin Wall was known as a symbol of communist oppression built in 1961 to keep Germans from escaping Communist-dominated East Berlin into Democratic West Berlin, standing as a symbol of the Cold War between the US and Soviet Russia in which two political oppositions struggled to find dominance amongst each other. In reference to the content, some enforced themes throughout the speech include those of strength and empowerment which can be identified through Reagan’s choice of diction and inclusive language. Reagan associates himself as being one for the people by making connections between his intentions and their outcome which will surely be brought upon by the people. The speaker places the audience in a position of power, inspiring them to join his path to freedom and liberty. Reagan frequently associates present day Berlin with past events, thus signifying it’s strength and power over the world.

The tone of this speech comes across as rather preachy and philosophical as Reagan frequently poses up discussions of freedom and the reality of the situation. As previously said, the main purpose of the speech is to inform the audience, in hopes of persuading as well as convincing his listeners. Reagan brings questions about the future outcome of the situation with statements such as “(...) it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.” thus allowing the audience to gather their thoughts as they process the meaning behind this play-on-words. The tone of the speech makes Reagan seem understanding to the public as he presents himself as a humble individual who is in the same position as his listeners. In addition to this, he expresses his thoughts in a comfortable fashion versus condescendingly addressing his audience on a very controversial and sensitive subject matter.

Throughout his speech Reagan employs several literary and rhetorical devices which cater towards his original purpose: to convince Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall for the sake of freedom and restoration of peace between Germany and the Soviet Union. Firstly, one of the most common devices that is used most frequently is the use of pathos and logos. Reagan implements pathos in his words by speaking a few words in German, with the evident intention of appealing to his audience in regards to his location by saying statements such as, “ Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still have a suitcase in Berlin]”  assuring his audience that he feels comfortable in their country, thus creating a familiar atmosphere for the public.In addition to this, “Es gibt nur ein Berlin” [There is only one Berlin.] is said to empower his audience. In terms of logos, Reagan's makes several references to influential persons who once held/hold a respectable status of importance and power such as President von Weizsacker, the United States Secretary of State, etc. This has a positive and influential effect on the audience as the speaker uses significant evidence to support his claims.

Along with techniques used to persuade and convince such as logos and pathos, Reagan also uses asyndeton when he says, “(…)we’re drawn by other things here as well: by the feeling of history in this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination.” This is used to create a positive presentation of the German people and show evident appreciation for his listeners/hopeful supporters. Thirdly, Reagan effectively uses an antithesis to figure the balance between two contrasting ideas that hold a great importance when he says, “it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.”. 

The speech reaches it’s climax when the listeners begin to feel the speaker addressing his audience at a faster pace, evidently used to emphasize their main purpose and intentions. Within the climax of the speech, Reagan uses an anaphora to address not only the public but General Secretary of the Soviet Union Gorbachev, repeating the words “If you seek.” Consistently. At this point in his speech, the pace has picked up as he speaks one of the most memorable lines “tear down this wall!”. The use of an anaphora is used a second time towards the end of the speech as Reagan refers to the wall as if it were alive, further emphasizing it’s symbol of power by saying; he says, “Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.”

Overall, the structure of the speech is very straightforward and holds many statistics, as seen in Reagan’s use of Logos throughout the speech. The speaker’s ideas are well organized and move in a consistently smooth flow, with one idea proceeding to the next. While reading the speech, the reader gradually begins to feel a shift in pace as the speaker’s thoughts and main points develop, making it effective and consistent.

 In conclusion, throughout this essay we have analyzed Reagan’s words and his effective use of literary and rhetorical devices. Ronald Reagan’s words remain to be influential to this day and have marked a significant historical event; the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.

The Tempest IOC

IOC for The Tempest

ACT V SCENE I

https://soundcloud.com/m-lina-l-vesque/the-tempest-ioc-melina-levesque

Group Discussion Reflection

Why was it meaningful? What really stood out to you?

What does this reveal about the relationship between language and power?

 In class today, I took part in a group discussion about the Text, "How to tame a wild tongue" by Anzaldua. Throughout the text, we kept making references back to Language and Power, which is the basis of our unit. One of the quotes that we elaborated on and really stood out to me during our discussion was, ""Wild tongues can't be tamed they can only be cut out.". We all agreed that this was hinting towards the real meaning of the text, in expressing that your language or dialect cannot be tamed but is very possible to be eliminated. But, how exactly can language be "eliminated"? Well, in order to answer this question, you have to think about how language is kept alive; the more people speak it, the more powerful it is.This quote reveals the  Furthermore, this expresses the authors thoughts on to what extent language is considered powerful, thus "how do you tame a wild tongue?" ? A language cannot be tamed= It is a wild tongue. This quote, and more specifically the text reveals that ss long as a language is spoken, it will continue to develop and stay 'alive' through culture. Language is only as powerful as the number of people that share it and speak it. One part of our group discussion that was meaningful to me and will stay with me was how we all agreed that language is a part of our identity, and that without it, we would missing a part of ourselves. The author feels that language is a part of her identity and I feel that as well. How do we communicate? How do we share our beliefs and values? What makes us different from others in the world? A lot of us, including myself, were able to see ourselves in the text and really relate to the message behind the story; language is a part of our identity and as rightful human beings, we need it in order to express ourselves profoundly and efficiently. 

Language and Social Class

How are language and meaning shaped by culture and context in this film? 

During Wednesday's class this week, we began to explore the effect of culture in language and meaning, furthermore, discussing how social class can have an effect on language itself. In the short clip, there is a rich wealthy man named Tommy who is trying to buy a caravan from a group of car dealers. When we first see Tommy, he is wearing a long coat, his hair is nicely done, and carries a rather clean appearance. In contrast with this character of higher social status we have the car dealer called Pikey, a boy, and his wife who are below the social class bar but do not seem to be bothered by how they are living their daily lives. 

Tommy uses higher class dialect when he addresses "Mr. O'neil'" whereas the actual character himself tells him to call him Pikey in a very familiar, considered lower class dialect. You could say that Tommy is trying to introduce himself as a respected individual in hopes that that will influence his argument for a reasonable price for the car. Throughout this scene, the car dealers and other characters are speaking in a very fast, and familiar dialect, trying to confuse Tommy and "push" him into buying a car.  In this scene, you may notice that there are more 'lower class' characters in comparison to 'high class' characters. Tommy, the higher arch is put in an uncomfortable setting, where they Pikey's dialect has a higher level of dominance over that specific community, meaning that the more people you have around you speaking in the same way as you, the more power that specific language has. 

Linguistic Imperialism in the Anglophone World

Linguistic Imperialism  is most definitely dominant

How does linguistic imperialism impact individuals and communities?


The english language is extending and rising itself to be one of the most commonly spoken languages in the world, taking over dominance. the dominant language.

Sociological aspect of the topic.

Over the years, the English Language has risen to be one of the most commonly shared spoken languages in the world, taking a dominant part in the power of linguistic imperialism. As this powerful language continues to expand itself amongst larger communities, linguistic imperialism continues to have an immense impact on individuals and communities.

In the world today, there are 196 countries where 6,500 languages are currently being spoken. However, about 2,000 of those languages have fewer than 1,000 speakers to fulfill the task of practicing them. When looking at the Sociological aspect of the topic, linguistic imperialism plays a relevant role in our daily lives. As people move around the world, they are introduced to new cultures, people, and languages. For example, an individual might travel or move to a certain country where the dominant language is one of which he or she is not familiar with and may have no experience with. The signs on the street are in this language, it is the language of business, education, and social media. The question is, at what point do you force yourself to adapt to this and take on this "unknown" language that you are exposed to?

Language is a unique way of seeing the world, as it can be interpreted in several ways by individuals. It is a way of life, communication, and provides the foundation of our identities.