The God of Carnage by Anthony Martinez and Amy Gunther

Written in French by Yasmina Reza, The God of Carnage premiered in
Zurich, Switzerland on December 8, 2006 and then was translated into
English and presented on stage in London in March 2008.
The plot of the satirical play centers on two married couples that are
meeting to discuss how to deal with the uncomfortable situation of
their kids having an altercation in a public park. One child has hit
the other with a stick, knocking out some of his teeth. The story
begins in the Vellon’s living room, the parents of Bruno, the child
who has been injured. The two couples, Annette and Alain Reille and
Veronique and Michel Vallon begin by discussing the incident that has
occurred between their children. At first, they add polite bicker to
keep the conversation polite and adult like. It isn’t long before you
begin to get a sense of the true character of each parent. Alain
Reille is a lawyer in the midst of a medical malpractice suit. He
answers his cell phone repeatedly during the parent’s conversation
adding to the growing discomfort in the room. Michel has just admitted
to throwing out Bruno’s sisters hamster out into the wild on it’s own
and the wives begin to take jabs at each other’s parenting skills.
It’s not long before you realize that this play is more about the
parents than the kids. The kids act as pawns for the parents and
obviously cannot be the one who is wrong in this matter. Yes, the
fight brought these parents into the same room but they lose sight of
the importance of doing what’s right for their children and embark on
pointing out as many character defects about each other that they can.
No one is safe. At first the couple work as a team against each other.
Then, it becomes each person is out for self. It is kind of funny how
they go from being proper and polite to full fledged name-calling. It
comes full circle when the daughter whose hamster has gone m.i.a calls
on the phone and her mother snaps back into the “mom” role to console
her. A telling line into the minds of the parents was this statement by Alain, Ferdinand’s father: “You see, Veronique, I believe in the God of carnage. He has ruled uninterruptedly, since the dawn of time.” Basically, he’s saying that he believes what his son did was morally correct.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article7079316.ece

Helen Rumbelow’s article, “Modern parenting is rubbish: let's change
it” addresses the effects of neglect by middle class parents of their
children. Parents have become less and less present in their
children's lives and have used television and computers as substitutes
for personal interaction. The article states that teachers are having
a tougher time teaching kids because parents aren't doing their part
in actual parenting. In place of teaching kids life lessons, parents
are taking the easy route of succumbing the child’s wants allowing
them to watch television or use their personal computer in the privacy
of their room creating isolation because the parents don’t have the
time or energy. The author writes, "Your job (as a parent) is to
show by example and through the exercise of proper authority how to
grow up.” This is not only an issue affecting the children but it
affects the parents as well by not interacting with each other to
continue to build and maintain a healthy relationship amongst them.

This is a short clip of the God of Carnage from pages 34 to 43 just to get a better felling of how the parents act and behave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDntkIVJRTk&feature=related

In God of Carnage the play starts off by two families meeting to talk about what Ferdinand did to Bruno whom was hit him with a stick which broke two of his incisors. The two families are actually talking about the issue more calmly than would be expected. Veronique and Michael tell Alain and Annette that Bruno’s teeth nerve isn’t killed completely and that there is still a chance they will in the future be able to put in another tooth.

What would you do as a parent if another kid broke two of your kids teeth on purpose?

The way Bruno’s parents handled the situation is unrealistic because if my child or even I had my teeth broken by another person I would be seeking vengeance not a peaceful agreement. When the parents are talking, they also switch to different topics every few moments. On page 5 Annette says, “Those tulips are gorgeous” and Veronique responds, “It’s that florist in the Mouton Duvernet Market. You know, the one right up the top.” Then Annette replies, “Oh, yes” and Veronique adds, “They come every morning direct from Holland, ten Euros for a bunch of fifty.” and so on. Who in their right mind will talk about how beautiful some flowers are when they have a more delicate issue at hand?

The parents of Ferdinand tell Bruno’s parents that Ferdinand doesn’t know the responsibilities he has come upon by hitting Bruno and isn’t willing to face them. Ferdinand’s parents aren’t the ideal parents a kid would want because he never is able to spend time with them because his father is always busy and Annette is mad at Alain.

Does hitting another person and not caring make you a savage?

http://kidshealth.org/kid/feeling/home_family/parents_fight.html

Both families fight with each other in the meeting even though they were there to talk about their kids not their personal problems. At the end they just sort of agree to disagree that the meeting was a bad idea and don’t resolve the issue they were there for.

In the link above it talks about how parents fight with each other and can’t make an agreement which is true in both the Reille and Vallon families. Arguments with silence are also show in the play in how Annette doesn’t tell Alain anything about his phone calls until the end when she can’t take it anymore and gets his phone wet. From the reading it was said that Ferdinand hit Bruno because he didn’t let him into his gang and also called him a grass. On a psychological basis perhaps Ferdinand hit Bruno because he asked for it but also it might cause his parents to get involve and stop being so distant from him with all their work.

Questions to Consider:

What would you do as a parent if another kid broke two of your kids teeth on purpose?

Does hitting another person and not caring make you a savage?

Was the meeting on the kids fighting or the parent’s marital problems?

What character do you believe is trying to solve the kids fighting problem the most?

What would you do to resolve the kids fighting problem?

How do you know what to do
as a parent?

Shouldn’t there be some sort of test you can take to see
if you’re ready or qualified?

Is Annette pregnant?

Didactic elegy

‘Didactic elegy’ is a poem in Ben Lerner’s book, ‘Angle of Yaw’. Published in 2006, Lerner wrote the poem in the wake of 9/11 and as such, it talks about the collapse of the Twin Towers. In addition, the poem focuses on art, poetry and criticism of art. Because of the impact that the collapse of the Twin Towers had on the United States and the number of people who died on that horrible day, this discussion will respond to the section of the poem that talks of the tragedy that was 9/11.

Lerner says in the poem, ‘many men and women were described as heroes/The first men and women described as heroes were in the towers/ (3:2-3). The above statement raises a few questions, the first being, are the people who died in the collapse of the Twin Towers heroes, and if they were, why are they considered so? The above questions may seem like pouring cold water on those who lost their lives on that fateful day. However, this is not the case because as Lerner says, ‘To call them heroes implies they were willing to accept their deaths/but then why did some men and women jump from the Towers.’ (3:4-5).

Were those who died heroes then? That is a good question. If we are to go back into time to that day, the hijacked planes crashed into the Twin Towers without warning and killed numerous people. These innocent citizens had arrived for work just like any other normal day. Their lives were cut short however, and I’m a sure that many would have wanted their lives to be spared. As Lerner says, a hero is ‘one willing to accept their death’ (3:3), however ‘meaningless’ (2:22) it may be. As the deceased may not have accepted their deaths as they tried their best to survive, Lerner seems to say, they cannot be considered heroes. Nonetheless, I believe that those who died are heroes, not because they accepted their deaths, but because they lost their lives at a time when the US was in its darkest hour, when it was under attack from its enemies.

P.S. Actually, it is quite difficult text, so I just want to know what you think about it.

Didactic Elegy
By: Hasani and Brigette





The poem Didactic Elegy came from a book Angel of Yaw. The book mainly talks about two struggling forces grief, and instruction. When we looked up what the title meant and broke it down into pieces it resembled types of literature demonstrated in art intended for instruction. It’s a poem intended to teach a moral lesson in this case (elegy) expressing sorrow in poem, or musical composition.
This poem opens up saying “intention draws a bold, black line across an otherwise white field”. This is him staring to draw his masterpiece. Saying that the eye holds the relevance what you see is what’s really happening. No one can make something that happened on September 11th up. It later states it’s easy to apply a continuous black mark on to a primed canvas. We feel it means that they had all that they needed to know on how to blow up the twin towers. With our help that they were able to know what kind of force and where they would need to hit the twin towers for them to go down. This is also true in art that if something’s already primed it’s easy to smear the lines. But it’s difficult to see what you’re going to add next to a painting without ruining what’s already there.
So why is that artwork showing death, but sets across a message is “charged with negativity”. Why is it not the subjects, but the object or in this case the bigger message that’s negative, why isn’t it the subjects who did it? The art in this is not only what the buildings stood for but also what it endured, how the crash of September is the “radical reevaluations [is the] masterpiece.” Not only was it the second time it happened but they also made sure to hit both of the towers to make sure the work of art is enduring all that is capable, otherwise it would be an unfinished masterpiece.
Why does the critic feel guilty to view this like a masterpiece? Yes it’s negative but when we think of masterpiece we think about not only the act but everything you needed to prepare to make it all come together. To make sure everything blends in well to make sure that your final piece is what you wanted. Otherwise then the artwork will be assigned a different value than what you intended. Why is it that you have to realize what you had, when its gone?
Can you imagine something even if it didn’t happen? When you think of the twin towers what do you think of first the event of the towers standing, or the events image of them collapsing? The eye of the beholder will tell you who were the hero’s? Should they be considered heros even if it wasn’t their choice to be in that situation? If they are heroes to you for going through what they had to endure, then why did they make that choice to jump out of the window? Why do heroes have to be the victims willing to risk their life to save someone else? The firemen, police, traffic guards, everyone trying to get the people to safety, they are the heroes but why should they go through such lengths to show what their capable of?

This is a picture and a link of one of the victims taking life into his own hands and jumping out the window with no regret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man
Unless to be an American means to embrace one’s death. That’s what the president said, is this why we got attacked, look at who was leading our country at the time of war.
This is the clip of the president’s reaction to when he heard the news. (Scroll down and observe the picture of him reading with the kid)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/schoolvideo.html?q=schoolvideo.html
The first line is the starting point like his thesis statement. But then he reuses it two more times changing to meaning but also allowing you to finish the sentence. Showing you where he begins, but also leading you to the beginning is also where it ends. The poem allows him to ask questions, but also lets him tell the reader what’s the right answer. He repeats pieces of a line and reuses them to show a different meaning. Or he uses his word in the definition that he’s trying to explain to you, “The mere appearance of significance is significant.” He also repeats the epigraph on the first page “sense that sees itself is spirit”. He later restates it replacing " sense” and “ignorance”, and “spirit” and “elegy.”

This is further explanation of the elegy.
http://jacketmagazine.com/37/stone-freeman-re-lerner.shtml

Take precaution when viewing this, this is the video if the twin towers collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qddt-_zu4D0

Questions to consider:
Why did you think the author used the title “Didactic Elegy”?
Why do you think the author uses the Greeks to demonstrate meaninglessness, beauty, death and heroic?
Who do you think the author is referring to when uses “critic” and why does he refers to the critic as a “she”?
What does it takes to be a hero? Who do you consider to be a hero and does the same image appears when you think about that person?
Did the people in the twin towers have an option to live or die and should they be considered as heroes?
What was your first reaction of September 11, 2001 and do you have any heroic remembrance of that day?
Can September 11, 2001 event be considered a masterpiece? If so then to whom?
How can people mourn by themselves when the media makes them relive the tragedy over and over again?
What is the first thing you visualize when the twin towers is mention? Should we remember the towers standing or the towers collapse?

 John Aquilino and Jazmine Lopez

 

Executors Of Important Energies by Wells Tower

 

For everyone out there who was a little confused when they finish reading this essay it is okay. “Executors of Important Energies,” is not a conventional essay and Wells Tower is far from a conventional writer. There may not see like there isn’t any messages in the essay but you must look a little deeper and we promise you guys will find something that speaks to you.

 

This essay comes from the book Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned which was written entirely by Wells Tower.

 

The beginning of “Executors of important Energies” starts off with a conversation between Burt and his stepmother Lucy. Lucy proposes that she come with Roger (Burt’s father) to come and visit New York. Burt clearly didn’t want him to come but Lucy kept insisting that he should.

Roger developed a disease that was like Alzheimers. He started to forget things like where he put his car or where his wallet was and it even got so bad that he forget whom his son and wife were. This caused a lot of tension within the house. It made things worse between Roger and Burt who didn’t have a close relationship to begin with and also with his wife Lucy.

Roger and Burt never had a close relationship. Burt lived most of his life in ambivalence over Lucy. When Burt was ten his father, Roger, married Lucy. Lucy was only twenty years old while Roger was forty-six. Burt always had this false hope that his father would turn over Lucy to him some day.

“I was sure that my father was only with her temporarily, that he planned to turn her over to me someday. I has a hunch that somewhere around my sixteenth birthday, he was going to take me out to a desert overlook where the sun was going down and announce that he was giving Lucy to me, along with his Mustang fastback, along with some Schlitz, and maybe a cassette tape that was nothing but “Night Moves” by Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band.”

Roger didn’t agree with Burt’s career choice, thought that being inventor was a waste of time in a way. He felt that Burt should be a lawyer, just like him. “Go to law school make a difference.”

 

 

 

http://www.bookslut.com/features/2009_04_014302.php

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/books/review/White-t.html

 

http://www.observer.com/2009/books/wells-tower-fiction-writer-looking-joy

 

 

 

 

Wells Tower is known for writing about “emotional turmoil” and about hard times.  This is something that really struck us. In all families there are issues and problems and there is no avoiding it. Wells Tower has a goal and that goal is to portray the crazy and sad emotions that we face as human beings.  He likes to go down the path of sadness because it allows deepness. You could easily read one of his stories and just think that its just some story but it runs a lot deeper than that. The whole point is to express high emotion through fiction stories. He does an excellent job of doing this in Executors of Important Energies.

 

Sadness can be a domino effect. Look how Lucy’s life went down the drain in a sense. Her dreams and wishes amounted to nothing. She eventually got to a point where she felt undesirable. Look at how the minute Dwayne gives a compliment she gets interested and her eyes light up. This is sad but it is true. When people get to a point in like where they feel so undesirable and worthless any type of attention will get them intrigued.

 

“Though I’d always sense something cheap and spiteful in my father’s righteousness- an easy way for him to put himself above the rest of us- he did win a lot of money for people who needed it. It’s probable true that my father did more good for people who needed it. The merry bigot before me now depressed me as deeply as anything I’d seen in his decline.”

 

Roger wasn’t a very noble man who cared about his family. It is obvious that even when Roger had his memory he was still arrogant and cared more about himself and pride that anyone else His actions were done solely for his personal satisfaction. He preaches about being a lawyer and “making a difference,” but he did it because it was a challenge and winning cases made him believe he was better than everyone else.  Why do you think Roger smacks his Burt when he is close to beating him in chess? This was because he couldn’t stand for that feeling of defeat. This is the reason that Burt snaps back at his father when he tells him, “Go to Law School. Make a difference. Burt responds back preaching about how he does make a difference by creating goods to give mankind more convenience. Burt states, “ Dad, we’re the executors of important energies, the same stuff that builds nations….”

He did this as a sign as of resentment and hate of his dad’s self absorbed attitude.  The next part that is sad yet true and this is the feeling that Burt feels toward his father Even though his father has this self righteous attitude and only cares about himself it still kills Burt to see his dad the way he is. We all know this feeling when it comes to family.

 

Another part of the essay that really reflects on real human behavior is when Lucy leaves Roger for another man. Roger suddenly warms up to his son.  It took Roger this to feel vulnerable and heart broken to put some effort into his relationship with his son. Ever has a friend that disappeared of the face of the earth when he or she got a bf or gf? How bout when that same bf or gf leaves them how they suddenly appear and want to talk and be your best friend again? The best is when they find a new Bf or GF and forget you again. When people get sad and vulnerable sadly they become more human. A big ego can be very unhealthy to a person.

 

Another subject to touch on is the beautiful sport of chess. For anyone who has every played chess knows that it is addicting and difficult. It is not an easy game of checkers. Some people apply the game of chess to life. It is a game that requires strategy and patience.

 

“You cannot play at Chess if you are kind-hearted”

(French Proverb)

 

This quote reminds me of Roger. Roger only seems to care about himself and the feeling he gets from winning and feeling better than people.

 

Roger likes chess because it gives him a challenge. Just like when he practiced law, he took on the harder cases. Dwayne (the man who Roger plays in chess) compares himself to a musician.  It is also important to note that Roger remembers chess moves yet he forgets his wife and son.

 

“Its better than life. In the world, there’s no such thing as a clean escape, if you follow me.”

 

Life is tough and everyone has their escapes from reality. Some people have a passion for writing and while their writing their troubles seem to go away. Some people love working out or playing a sport so that is their escape. If you pass by the players at Washington Square Park you will notice that there are a lot of men like Dwayne. You can tell that most of them don’t have a lot of money and that some are very poor. One thing we know for sure is that when these men are playing chess they are in the zone and it is the only thing on their mind. When you see them get a win and you see the pride on their face you can tell they feel on top of the world for that moment.

 

All in all, Wells Tower does a good job at portraying “emotional turmoil” and sadness through his work.

 

The New York Times Book Review - Edmund White

Every one of the stories in Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned is polished and distinctive. Though he's intrigued by the painful experiences of men much older than he is, Tower can write with equal power about young women and boys; about hell-raising, skull-bashing ancient Vikings and an observant housebound old man of the 21st century, even about a cheerful, insouciant pedophile. His range is wide and his language impeccable, never strained or fussy. His grasp of human psychology is fresh and un-Freudianizing.

 

 

Wells Tower understands feelings of sadness and his “grasp of human psychology” is amazing. This was not the easiest reading in terms of analyzing and a clear message but I strongly believe that everyone takes something different from this essay. This essay may require a certain lens and reading of a couple times but it is a fine piece of literature. There are many strong emotions embedded in this essay.

 

The ending had me a little confused when I first read it but for some reason we felt a sense of peace after reading it. It kinds of reminds of when things are crazy and everything is going wrong and that one little thing happens and it gives you a little peace and happiness and you have no idea why.

 

Questions:

 

1.    How do you feel about Burt’s relationship with his father?

2.     Do you think that Burt was jealous of his father at all?

3.     What struck your attention about this reading? Which emotion in this essay caught your attention?

4.     What were you instant reaction when reading this essay?

5.     Personally we got a sense of peace at the end with “Land of Charm,” did you guys feel the same way?

6.     Does anyone see a connection between Roger playing chess and him being a lawyer?           

 

 

 

Homeschooling and Self-Education

Homeschool per Merriam-Webster:
: To teach school subjects to one’s children at home

In Homeschooling and Self-Education, the author is stating the positive outcomes of homeschooling and self-education, and how it has benefit many individuals. In his perspective, people who are homeschool are the ones that want to control their own education. He also mentioned a few examples of individuals who has succeeded from homeschooling and self-education.

“Anna Fritz quit school when she was 15. She was a straight A student on her way to becoming class valedictorian at the School of the Arts in Milwaukee. Instead of taking music, she played professionally and studied with a renown cello teacher at University of Wisconsin at Madison. Instead of taking science, she apprenticed with a botanist at a museum greenhouse. Instead of taking English, she joined a critique group of professional writers. Instead of taking art or business, she worked at a photography studio. Instead of taking social studies, she worked as the organizer for Peace Action Milwaukee and represented the organization at the national meetings in Washington, D.C.”(63)

Fritz gave up on her education and title of valedictorian to choose a different path to live her life. She didn’t’ follow the school curriculum, but she choose whatever classes she desired.

Don’t you wish you were able to disregard rules and do whatever your heart desires?

Wise Intelligent commented, “…homeschooling is the best way,…I’m not saying school is all bad; you can learn anywhere, but if I had been home schooled, I would probably be an archeologist right now. I would be in Egypt. I would be all over the world, analyzing evidence from tombs and setting history straight.”(73) Intelligent is a members from a hip hop group from Trenton. Their music is motivated by the teachings of “the Nation of Gods and Earths.”

Do you think he would have become an archeologist if he was given the opportunity to be homeschooled?

Homeschooling Vs. Public Education

Homeschooling

Pros
· Homeschooling gives the child more educational freedom. The kid studies and learns what he wants.
· Physical freedom is another pro for homeschooling. Life does not revolve around car pools, school timings and exams.
· For the child, homeschooling provides emotional freedom. The child does not need to deliver to the evil effects of peer pressure, competition and bullies. They can study at peace.

Cons
Homeschooling can take up a lot of time of the parent. Leading to an acute time restraint for the parents. Picture a kitchen table filled with books and no food cooked.
Homeschooling requires one parent to be at home full-time. This could lead to a financial restraint on the family. The income would reduce, while the expenditure would, almost, remain the same.

Public Education

Pros
· Public schools provide the kids with an opportunity to partake is great activities like theater and bands. All round development is easier in public schools.
· Public schools are funded. As such children studying in public schools have more opportunities and resources available to them.
· A child studying in a public school is exposed to the different types of people in the world. As such, it can be said that public school prepares an individual who can face the world with confidence.

Cons
· Peer pressure and bullying is a regular affair at public school. Non conformism and innovative thinking is not easily acceptable.
· There are too many varieties of students studying at public schools. As such the parents do have much control over the kids their children get along with.

Additional info can be found here
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/homeschooling-vs-public-school.html


Statistics

· There are approximately 2 million homeschooling children in the US (2008 - 2009 data).
· An estimated 1.5 to 2 million homeschooling students in 2008 - 2009 are from standard K to 12.
· 15% of Non-Hispanic population is homeschooling their children.
· When scaled on a demographic map, homeschooling parents are from a variety of families and income levels including PhDs, atheists, low, high and middle income families.
· Near about US$ 50,000 is the income level of a homeschooling family.
· Almost 74% of homeschooled children have gone to colleges as compared to 44% of general population.
· 71% of homeschooled children have been found to be involved in at least one community service as compared to 37% of general population.

Based on the statistics, why is there an increase of children being homeschooled?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/homeschooling-statistics.html


This graph shows multiple reasons why children are pulled out of the public school system and put into homeschool.

http://www.babydustdiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Untitled-Image.png



Self Education

Autodidact per Merriam-Webster:
: A self-taught person


Education is knowledge and experience you acquire despite on how they were accomplished or achieved. There are many approaches to learn and formal schooling is just one method. There is no wrong or right answer to the issue of self education or formal education being better. Formal education is important in the beginning as you build your foundation from learning to read, write and talk. In self education you can pursue knowledge that motivates you to learn. Generally many people stop reading a book after they graduate, however it doesn’t necessarily mean you should stop pursuing knowledge. People who know how to educate themselves are able to gain information about their world, read between the lines that media and school systems offer us.

A video on Ray Bradbury’s view on self-education. He talks about how he doesn’t believe in high school and college education because a library can educate you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhMSZB9CRs


Famous people who were self-educated

Abraham Lincoln
Edgar Allen Poe
Robert Frost
Malcolm X
Ray Bradbury
Steve Jobs
Bill Gates

Quotes to explore:

“…self- directed education is the essence of learning whether or not kids are in school.” (65)

“Homeschooling is about learning from everyone, from the janitor, from the woman behind the meat counter. Homeschooling is a mislabeling of what is in reality world learning.” (70)

“Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune. – Jim Rohn”

Questions to consider:

What is one thing you had learned in school that you couldn’t have learned on your own?

Do you think the views of homeschooling have changed from the past few decades?

If you had a chance of being homeschooled, how do you think your life would turn out to be?

Would you want your future kids to be homeschooled? Why?

Do you agree that home schooling is “too white, too sheltered, and too boring”?

If you followed the 19 strategies to Self-Education, do you think you’ll be successful or become a failure?


Here is a silly humor to spice up the idea of homeschooling.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCO3OuIi00fFQAE3swQ3_PGP45KCv4yget7kkjZuwItC83qiw2vQ_Ljlw3ToxzLOWXC7KkytF2Tk0RGgHedT5Uw0gk1glCrjXJYLv7EwaB6PDD3KNgFXbBY7sIwvjsIgqB2z9d-Hl0fYWs/s1600-h/socialization.jpg

-Linda Maldonado & Sally Cao

Michael Eric Dyson's "How Real Is This?"

Lyndia Louissaint and Saar Shemesh

The issue of AUTHENTICITY:

“The metaphysical root of hip hop is connected to the ghetto whether or not many of its artists grew up there. It’s almost irrelevant to me whether or not you grew up there. It’s more important to know if you’re able to scrutinize the possibilities, the positions, the moods, the dispositions, the interesting, the sentiments, and the morality that the environment breeds. If you’re able to tap into those things and understand what they might mean – if you’re able to imagine in your art the story and myth that should be told – that’s just as fine as being there.” (Dyson, 11)

The original question we must try to answer is where did hip hop originate? In the above quotation, Dyson remarks on the feeling of the ghetto that hip hop artists attempt to embody. The ghetto was and is the birthplace of hip hop, the nurturing streets that birthed a music culture like none other before it. We must first consider earlier forms of expression through music of the African-American communities; jazz and bebop. Jazz emerged in the beginning of the 20^th century, establishing itself as the primary and popular expression of the black community in America. Jazz satisfied the need of it’s communities to rebel against the music at the time, which didn’t fit the lifestyle or struggle of jazz musicians. Soon after, the white community adopted jazz as their own music and again, black communities needed another outlet for their expression; bebop. Bebop was the answer, it gave artists a new rebellion and a form of self-expression that jazz could no longer give them. Speed up to modern day, and we’re met with the same situation, with hip hop as a the rebellion to pop and rock n’ roll. So what now? Is hip hop as a rebellion a common theme in the music culture of black-Americans, or is this something new, separate from it’s previous generation?

In the 2002 film, 8 Mile starring rapper Eminem (Marshall Mathers) as an aspiring white rapper growing up and trying to make it in the predominantly black, Detroit underground hip hop scene. This movie exemplifies the concept of authenticity and who’s allowed to say what about a struggle that is so specific to one community – the black ghetto. Eminem is a white male trying to make it music culture that was taught to rebel against everything that (on the surface) he is. Throughout the movie, the audience watches as he works harder than he has to, to mark his territory in the field. Below is the IMDb trailer for 8 Mile:

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi615776537/

The concept of PRISON AS A HOME:

“Young black men have embraced – and to an extent transformed –certain elements of the prison-industrial complex: the sagging pants, the baggy shirts, the laceless shoes, and the like. Of course, part of the fascination with prison is the reflection of the sad existential truths of a young black male life; as a philosopher Immanuel Kant might say, a necessity is turned into a virtue…to believe that your manhood is best tested and developed in prison is nothing short of bizarre and tragic. And hip hop has both challenged this and reinforced it at the same time.” (Dyson, 14-15)

Common in the lyrics, the attitude and the swagger of hip hop is the physical and mental reality of prison. Prison is something artists both strive for and resent. On page 17, Dyson comments on prison as a home as “a place of discipline and rest, as well as, ironically enough, nurture and hospitality.” The idea that prison, a place so terrible that no one should aspire to be in, could be the ultimate for members of our society is a concept hard to grasp. Where does this stem from; the idea that prison is your ultimate? Earlier, Dyson explains that young black men are conditioned from a young age that they will inevitably end up in prison so if they aren’t there already by society’s means, they will end up there and might sit there for a while. So now we’re met with a society that pretty much forces its disciplinary institutions on a specific community and are being profiled for it. How does this work though? Domicide, the “murder[ing] of [a] sense of identification, their sense of home-fulness and dwelling with their brothers” (17) runs rampant in the prison-industrial complex. This beaten identification wears on the mind, body and soul of its subject(s). When society constant batters one’s sense of identity, it leads to the need to self-express; precisely what role hip hop plays for members in prison.

A great example of this is when Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested and imprisoned during the 1960s for being a civil-rights activist. Although he’s not a hip hop artist, he used prison as a mental and physical birthplace for what he needed to express, which was his relentless struggle for civil rights. Below is his speech, Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963: http://www.mlkonline.net/jail.html

Prison as a home is a concept that exists for all hip hop artists, even if they’ve never spent time. Ironic again, that something so terrible can be something that you embrace, even if you aren’t on you way there. Hip hop artist constantly reference prison and it remains to be a focal point for hip hop musicians. Take Tupac Shakur, still one of the best, if not the best hip hop artist that this world has seen and will ever see. Idealized, Tupac spent multiple times in prison and therefore epitomizes the idea that prison can make or break you as young black male and as an artist. Below are both lyrics and a video of Tupac’s song “Trapped.” http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/2pac/trapped.html (lyrics) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCEmTaWSPTk (video)

And what about WOMEN AND HIP HOP?:

“There isn’t much room for independent women in rap music and hip hop culture…the extension of the crotch politics of black machismo; the subordination of female desire to male desire; the re-colonizing of the black female body by the imperialistic gaze of the black male…This stuff didn’t start with hip hop; the reality is that patriarchy and sexism and misogyny are tried-and-true American traditions from which hip hop derives its understanding of how men and women should behave, and what roles they should play.” (Dyson, 21-22)

Black women, ironically enough, faced a steeper slope in authenticating hip hop expression than their male counterparts. Whereas young black males were facing the subjugation of society, young black female artists were facing the oppression of black males, and consequently also of society. They had to fight through two layers of domination, making it doubly harder for them to express themselves and be seen as legitimate artists.

Essentially, we are met with two different outcroppings of young black female artists, both of which fight the tyranny of the black male and of society that tries to keep them down.

The first group is inclusive of artists like Lil’ Kim and Foxy Brown, whose expression was based mostly on the seduction of the black male and thus, the domination of their dominators. Their music is categorized by explicitly vulgar sexual lyrics that exemplify the control over their expression.

The second group is more the likes of artists such as Lauren Hill, Eve and Missy Elliot, who conversely express the “sense of female identity that is independent of black masculinity,” (23). Their lyrics seek to empower the woman and her sense of strength rather than to deal with the domination of a patriarchal society. Below is a link to the lyrics of Lauren Hill’s song “(Doo Wop) That Thing”: http://www.lyrics007.com/Lauryn%20Hill%20Lyrics/Doo%20Wop%20%28That%20Thing%29%20Lyrics.html

OVERALL QUESTIONS:

1. How is hip hop considered a legitimate form of art (meaning that involves inspiration, imagination and creativity)?
   
2. Who has the power to authenticate hip hop?
3. What does home mean to you? Do you think that the concept of home can be universal and why?
4. Immanuel Kant once said that necessity is a virtue. Why or why not do you agree with this statement?
   
5. How does "domicide" affect an individual?
6. How can society's perception of a person or of members of a community affect an individual or a community? Like the chicken or the egg, does the perception, or the individual of question come first?
7. Similar to how Madonna has reinvented herself, can an artist rap about people, places, concepts and ideas that they have not met, been in or been formerly introduced to (think, the ghetto)?
   
8. Do you feel that women face a different oppression than their male counterparts? Is the tyranny they face more, less, or equally oppressive than the subjugation black males face from society?
   
9. Which group (Lil Kim/Foxy Brown v.s Lauren Hill/Eve/Missy Elliot) do you feel does a better job to empower the young black female and why?

Noam Chomsky's 9/11 and The Doctrine of Good Intentions & The Doctrine of Good Intentions

Michelle Mecca, Cristal Aniceto & Tarek Rahman

…In the Name of Democracy

"The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves." Plato's Republic

It is undoubtedly part of our human nature to care for others, but have we gone too far? Throughout history, many mistakes have been made in the name of democracy. Vainly desiring to assist countries who haven't asked for help, America, for example, has a history that is dedicated to bringing democracy and independence to suffering peoples.

Democracy as defined by Webster’s dictionary is a form of government exercised either directly by the people, or through their elected representatives, and/or rule by majority, but what is explained by Chomsky is the polar opposite of what Is contained in that definition.

Question to focus on:

Is any other way of establishing a democracy (other than that of the peoples own free will) counterproductive/contradictory of democracy’s main goal?

In 9/11 and The Doctrine of Good Intentions, Noam Chomsky is Calling for URGENT reaction (EXPLAINATION) to the “threat of another Hiroshima”, Chomsky’s BASES HIS ARGUMENT AROUND the main idea that:

“…Washington’s primary role in accelerating the race to destruction by extending its historically unique military dominance, coupled with policies of aggressive militarism, both in word and in deed, that are virtually an invitation to disaster.” All of those ideas directly in conflict with the goal of democracy.

Chomsky delves into the tragedy of September 11^th by exploiting historical evidence all supporting reasoning as to how/why September 11^th occurred; including Historical evidence from countries all over the map such as: Japan, Germany, England, and the United States. According to Chomsky, these countries all shared the same fate by blindly and forcefully offering “help” to people’s who did not have the resources to be helped, nor the desire to be helped in the ways deemed correct by the more powerful country.

Through Righteous exceptionalism, these countries took it upon themselves to take action to “selflessly bear[ing] the costs of bringing peace and justice to the world” by forcefully instituting changes to foreign people’s lives under the premises that they were taking the morally sound and justified actions.

The main idea that helped us understand the title and validate Chomsky’s argument is Wilsonian Idealism and sober realism, before taking action, one (a country) must base their action on noble intentions and one must realize the limitations of our good intentions. By working strictly under these premises, there is no room for error or exploitation of another human being for personal benefit.

The United States Government declared war on Iraq, but do we even know why? Was it because they had weapons of mass destruction? Because they had ties with Al Queda and 9/11? --- AFTER engaging in military action and finding out none of questions had a black or white answer, the president stayed in the war for reasons of spreading democracy and overthrowing a violent regime.

We can sit in long debates trying to justify any war, but to what extent can it be for the good of a nation and its citizens to go to war or become the target of war. Under Nazi rule, Germany caused horrific crimes against Jews in the name of “saving the world from ‘annihilation’ by the ‘indifferent mass’.” England ruled over India and China, justified in the name of bringing peace and justice. America justifies going to war in its philosophy by bringing democracy and independence.

Are all in the name of “Good intentions”?

An interesting blog posted by the self proclaimed “shrewd investigator” offers to put ALL of what Chomsky is saying into perspective using events occurring up to today’s date, and he also analyzes the historic quote from Plato’s Republic, showing how it still holds true thousands of years later. http://theshrewdinvestor.net/?p=426

Historical evidence some may have forgotten or do not know

1. Bosnia ; A war for the difference of religion… Which side to take? Could it have triggered 9/11 ?

http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=1985

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/igniting-Bosnia.html

2. Somalia; For the good of the hungry? Somalia is a war that no one wants to touch...

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/us-wages-food-war-against-somalia

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7422

Questions to consider :

- Historically, do you believe aggression was portrayed as self-defense to promote conformity? Was this tactic successful and/ or temporarily successful for the aggressor?

- Is any other way of establishing a democracy (other than that of the peoples own free will) counterproductive/contradictory of democracy’s main goal?

-Do you believe that democracy is beneficial enough to be forced onto historically un-democratic societies?

-Has the human race learned anything from our history, or are we doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes?

-Do you agree with Chomsky suggesting the educated class is to blame for war crimes/ should they be going to trial?

-Was Saddam Hussein really a defenseless target?

-Was the Vietnam war worth fighting for?

-Are the poor inherently ignorant?

-Who should pay for the death of so many innocent civilians/ will anyone ever pay?