"Death to America!" - Amin

“It is okay for the government to mislead in order to promote security.”

It most certainly is not. Or at least mostly.

Before watching Control Room, I had a juxtaposing perspective on this prompt to that I have now. The way I saw it, in the case of an economic crisis or structural problems, the public should not be informed of the issue because something is only good for as long as people perceive it that way. Now I see that my scope was limited to viewing security as a sense that the public feels like there are no issues that can harm them. I still believe that in the case of internal issues, it is okay for the government to mislead to make the public think everything’s dandy, but have only recently realized the further extent of the prompt.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was certainly not something that was an internal issue for America, and the danger (or at least alleged danger) to American security was certainly not hidden from the American public. This is an example of a different kind of misleading, where this “nonsense” as a Jazeera journalist calls it in the film is established to evoke fear in the Americans. This fear of being attacked causes the public to consider attacks and takeovers in Iraq to be acceptable and even respectable, for the sake of “freedom” and “security” as it is constantly reiterated by government officials and soldiers.

Ultimately, this allows the American military to act almost without boundaries, because as an Iraqi journalist stated, “What can we do? We just shut up.” I found it almost comical that President Bush took all but three sentences in this celebration of American success to suggest that the UN lifts economic sanctions in Iraq, pretty much confirming where his priorities are.

Many may look at this situation as having negative consequences limited to Iraq, delineated by the economic and political disarray they were left in and remain in today, but I believe the real issue lies in the social factor of this tragic story. In the end, the Americans got what they wanted, and left Iraq (but not really because they’re still there) with control over oil reserves and a radical view of the Middle East. Perhaps unintentionally, the American media radicalized the Iraqis and Arabs, even alienating them. Those within the American public who were left with the biased view of this conflict most likely have an alienated view on Middle Eastern inhabitants, and although being scared of everything and everyone is perhaps the way to security, it would be our failure as social beings.

What gives me hope is that AL Jazeera News came out of this story as the hero. I hope they can continue “ruffling a lot of feathers” and challenging ‘fact’, and break down a powerful statement by a journalist in the film: “Objectivity is a mirage”.

"Nobody builds walls better than me"

Original Article: http://europe.newsweek.com/2016-presidential-election-donald-trump-make-america-great-again-520289?rm=eu

it’s true: TRUMP is president

It seems that the nightmares of so many have been made true by the votes of a few more. Brash character Donald Trump triumphed over Hillary Clinton, the announcement of what many are calling the apocalypse coming by 2am on November 9.

Early polls proposed a comfortable lead for the democratic candidate but American and foreign onlookers were instead slowly lead to the realization that this would be the president of the most powerful nation in the world:

Regardless of flaws in both candidates and Trump’s consistent confidence in his victory even before the votes were casted, there was hope for many that the American voters would come through and make the right decision.

Once 2am rolled around and Wisconsin caused the Trump-meter to tick over 270, the number of electoral votes needed to win presidency, and all hope for those many was shattered as the most shocking and perhaps most consequential electoral decision was made.

With plans to evict groups of Mexicans, Muslims, and whichever other minorities he can get his unusually small hands on out of the country in a similar fashion as he did contestants on his show The Apprentice just last year, as well as to abandon the Affordable Care Act, it will be an interesting 4 years under the reign of Donald Trump.

Coriolanus Outline

Coriolanus Outline

• ·       Extract from Coriolanus
• ·       Specifically, this occurs after Coriolanus has been exiled from Rome and as a result has approached his former enemy Aufidius with plans of collusion in an attempt to take revenge
• ·       This leads to their temporary team0up only to end in Coriolanus’ mercy and death at the hands of Aufidius
• ·       In the passage, Aufidius is discussing with his lieutenant Coriolanus’ successes and his own reverence for the main character as he considers the collusion
• ·       The extract is organized so that Aufidius clearly overpowers his lieutenant in his abundance of dialogue, only interrupted by a single question

• ·       In this extract, Shakespeare firmly emphasizes Aufidius’ reverence for Coriolanus despite his consistent antagonism towards him (especially through the use of animal imagery) and effectively foreshadows Coriolanus’ ultimate demise.
• ·       Thematic approach

• ·       Large part of the passage seemed to be an appraisal of Coriolanus with minor hints towards the planned murder of him
• ·       Multiple references to dragon (Coriolanus), which is fierce and mystical beast. Doesn’t fit into the body motif societal system
• ·       Animal imagery (osprey simile)
• ·       Mutual respect
• ·       Fire drives out one fire (only someone as powerful as Coriolanus could kill him) – dragon also parallels
• ·       Tomb (foreshadows public death)
• ·       Refuses to call him by his awarded name (always Caius or him)
• Final line shows his plan to kill him and make him his (stand on his body sign of overpowering)

• ·       Through use of animal imagery among other literary aspects of the extract, Shakespeare is able to show not only Aufidius’ reverence for Coriolanus but also his continued antagonism towards him and plans of murder. Shown significantly through the metaphors of dragons/fire.

• ·       I found this extract to be  powerful in that it allows the audience to see an alternative perspective of the main character through its omniscient third person narrator and through the literary depth which Shakespeare employs in the use of literary devices and character complexities in these apparent soliloquys 

IOutlineC - Moons of Jupiter

Intro:

• Moons of Jupiter story
• Situated near the beginning of the story when Janet first talks to her father in his hospital room
• First reveal and development of the relationship between Janet and her father
• The story that incited her success this story unlike those before it aimed to include the complexities of a regular novel in spite of its condensed format
• The stylistic choices in which it was written, tracking back and forth from the future, to the present to the past.

• Munro manipulates time in order to juxtapose stereotypical short story structure and also express human complexity in the way that people typically don’t think linearly while also characterizing the relationship between Janet and her father through implicit communications.

Chunk 1 (1-7):

• First section focuses implicitly on the flourishing of relationship between the main characters
• Can be seen through the writing and beeping of heart monitor expressing life as a bunch of jagged lines (fluctuations like a rollercoaster) and a ticking timebomb (waiting for life to end)
• Perhaps defines life as a few jagged lines as opposed to one flat line
• Physical display of the room shows that her father’s most intimate and vulnerable sides are literally exposed, similar to his exposure of emotions in this tough time
• “I tried to ignore it” shows Janet’s ignorance to the situation and foreshadows the complexities of their relationship in her composure (where perhaps she should’ve showed more care)

Chunk 2 (8-30):

• Munro employs periphrasis at the very beginning of this section, tracing back to the events from the previous day, as starting in the middle of the story she is now beginning to build context for the reader
• Through her intentional way of retelling of previou events, the reader can infer that the narrator has seen her father in a similar state before, in addition to the father and her having a special, not very effusive relationship
• Munro then returns back to the present day to characterize the daughter and the father as being proactive, wanting to hear a selection of alternatives before reaching decisions (In tying with Munro’s style of capturing the essence of human life)
• Adds tension to the plot by stating that without the operation the father would only have 3 months to live, and that to in a bedridden state.
• Develops this theme of emotional intelligence as in spite of his situation Janet is trying to put a positive spin on an otherwise negative situation.

Chunk 3 (31-40):

• From advancing plot, Munro traces back to characterize and build context.
• She uses personal language to allow the reader to feel exactly Janet would be feeling at that time
• She then goes on to describe the relationship between Janet and her father as being not effusive and of too much approval but instead of tacit affection.

Conclusion:

Munro defies the typical conventions of short stories by employing periphrasis from the very onset of the story to build plot and context simultaneously - in a seamless fashion. This is effective in creating a story that is both centered and continually moving forward.

IOCan'tbebothered

https://soundcloud.com/user-875794494/ioc-practice-2

Gang Related

Gang Related is one of the top songs on American rapper Logic’s (aka Sir Robert Bryson Hall II) album Under Pressure. It is a powerful piece written in the perspective of his brother, attempting to subvert the glorification of violence common in hip hop by writing about the criminal activities (especially gang activity) that surrounded him as a child.

This is one of the most empathetic and hence heart-wrenching songs I’ve listened to. Similarly to a lot of literature designed to evoke a sense of undiscovered empathy, Logic chose to write the song from the point of someone experiencing hardship, and in this case, such gang violence and hardships primarily brought on due to economic conditions is experienced by so many yet not understood by many more.

Right from the beginning of the song, Logic comes out saying “Livin’ life like this, Gotta paint a picture when I write like this”, displaying his desire to bring about an empathetic mood through his ability to “paint a picture” of the actual life he grew up in.

This empathy is furthered by the fact that this is being told with reference to Bobby (Logic) as a baby among all this “hysteria”, surrounded by drugs and criminals. Because babies are associated with innocence, the listener is made to feel sympathetic towards Logic or those in a similar situation. In the song, Logic ensures to inform the listeners that this kind of life isn’t in fact a hobby or preference, but something forced on people by ‘the system’. This is emphasized through stating “If I sell a brick [of drugs] I can buy a house; if they find the key they might lock me up; but I take the chance cause I need that s**t and don’t give a f**k”, indicating the need for this lifestyle in order to stay economically afloat; Logic also focuses on the desire to escape when it is said “Hope my little brother make it out, every night what I pray about… Got a son on the way, but I cling to the streets even though I want to run away”, and Logic did in fact escape while many others aren’t quite as lucky.

This song can be used as an anthem of gang life and the struggles of escaping such a life and poverty. Logic’s ability to empathize with his brother and other people experiencing similar issues allows the audience to also empathize as he truly does paint a picture.

Logic's Gang Related

David Foster Walice Munro

Alice Munro is an award-winning Canadian writer responsible for the creation of a collection of short stories which have captured the attention of the world. Her international neighbor David Foster Wallace is a man of many works, be it novels, short stories or essays. One such essay is ‘This is Water’, where Wallace puts forward his theory about a higher education and what it can offer students.

One of the greatest praises of Munro’s stories comes due to the author’s ability to create a story out of ordinary situations or everyday life. Taking a look at one of the stories ‘The Moons of Jupiter’, Munro follows a character as she faces the struggles of a dying father and distant children; this is perhaps a situation which has been experienced by so many, as opposed to a UFO boarding or even a professional sporting career which are experienced by so few or none. Not only does this allow readers to gain empathy for something which many go through, but also displays the author’s ability to create so much out of something which would be considered by many as ordinary.

Already, we can see a clear link between Wallace’s theory and Munro’s stories. Wallace spends a great deal of his renowned essay focusing on a supermarket situation and the empathy that can be evoked if you open your mind to others’ lives and struggles. If it happened to be the woman from Munro’s story in the supermarket, and she was acting slightly out-of-line, someone who adopted Wallace’s theory and could consciously chose how to perceive others would be able to understand her problems or thought process without having to speak to her, thus achieving greater perspective of the world and of the people who are more than just obstacles (as Wallace extensively focuses on in the essay) than someone who finds themselves unnecessarily frustrated at the fact that the universe doesn’t centre itself around him or her. In such a situation, what is going on – or the plot – is secondary to the meaning which can be extracted, similarly seen in Munro’s publications where there is little actual plot or climax which would be expected in fictional writing. Both of these authors choose to derive as much meaning as possible out of something so ordinary, solidifying their positions as the world’s leading writers.

This is furthered by the employment of an omniscient narrator in most of Alice Munro’s stories which intends to make sense of the world beyond the perspective of a protagonist, creating extensive literary depth; such a depth is striven for in David Foster Wallace’s ‘This is Water’, with both writers hoping to see and share with their readers the beauty that can be found in the little things in life. 

Holiday Ramblings #2 - The Squozen One

Over the past 6 weeks, I have addictively watched and listened to well over 100 hours of mindless conversation between renowned Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant and Karl ‘round-headed buffoon’ Pilkington. The group’s unrivalled chemistry on their multiple productions has delivered great moments, but due to the fact that they spent their first few years of togetherness on XFM Radio, they were limited in the language they could use as indicated by the frequently uttered, “Can we say that?”, often followed up by, “I don’t think so.”

This got me thinking about the way in which people are offended by language I don’t consider offensive. In the show, there are countless instances which could easily be considered offensive (generally not malicious) towards groups such as disabled people, homosexuals, and the Chinese without any kind of swearing and often without any remark of, “Can we say that?” This fascinates me in that Ricky Gervais and those above him see little wrong with direct offenses towards certain groups, passing it simply as funny (and it is), yet it is offensive to utter the F-word without directing it at anyone in dissent (such as after dropping a brick on your foot). What is it about certain words that offend people without any malicious intent? If I slipped the S-word into an anecdote in replacement of ‘stuff’, why would it offend anyone? Could they actually provide a valid answer regarding why they’re offended?

I Googled why this group of words is considered offensive, and most people agreed that we created the offensiveness because the words themselves don’t have a whole lot behind them, but rather offense is subjective. In this case, why do radio stations decide what their audience finds offensive? Arghhh this interest of mine is evoking more questions than it’s answering. I’m baffled.

I believe that any language goes. This comes back to what I consider to be the primary topic of our studies: Language and Identity. The worst thing someone can do is feel restricted or feel like they can’t be him or herself, and I know for a fact that the way I speak or the way I speak is a huge part of my identity. This has been the most all-over-the-place blog post that I’ve conjured up, but it’s at times like the end of the holidays where you lack the ability to construct a structural idea, and sometimes it’s nice to reveal the ramblings of a madman. 

Holiday Ramblings #1 - Travelling Innit

When I walk into school in 39 hours and 16 minutes, I will great my friends with a friendly hello, a witty insult, a big hug – no, not a hug. Can’t be publicly displaying that affection can we? – followed by “What’d you get up to?” in which my friends will reply “Travelling innit.” or something of the same sense in their own way. It is a part of international life we have all become so accustomed to. The human traffic (not trafficking) which we all partake in allows us to flow freely between different countries, cultures and communities.

With that in mind, a simple Googling of the word ‘community’ provides you with ‘a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.’ That being said, it is indubitable that in my travelling to nations Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, England, and Australia in the span of two months has allowed me to infiltrate a plethora of communities (regional and beyond). That which I’d really like to touch on is the wondrous Australia, my home country.

When I was looking up the topics we’d covered in this course in my holiday stupor, I came across an explanation of ‘Language and Communities’, including the statement ‘one could argue that a community is defined by its use of language’, getting me thinking about the strange feeling I got just a few days earlier. I was walking down busy Adelaide streets following a trip to Coles for Australia-exclusive lollies (candy) and was amazed by something so simple: the fact that everyone chit-chatting on benches and bumping shoulders with me whilst talking into their ear whatchamacallit was speaking English. This is something I would’ve considered oh so ordinary three years ago but fascinates me today following my international studies.

Coming back to that statement, this swayed my opinions on the place I live today. I have always told my Aussie mates that the UAE lacks the community that in my experience, other nations have (e.g. Australia), and that it feels like a collection of individuals acting in their own interest as a result of the get-in-get-out nature of the place. Reading that statement, many people would affiliate it with the idea of a community being formed through the collection of people speaking the same language, however following my ‘enlightening’, I viewed the same statement with a different perspective, in that UAE is a special community not made up by people speaking the same language all the time, but rather individual cultures and associated languages coming together (and using the same language) to form a functioning economy and system, thus in my opinion creating a community. It is a community unique to UAE I think; I have never seen a community more intricate, but that is what makes it so beautiful. From now on, I won’t spout rubbish about the lack of a community, but focus on the crazy, crazy beauties of this strange, strange place. 

IOCoriolanus

Link to my practice IOC

Personal History Holds the Pencil

Thesis:

Chinua Achebe’s provision of a balanced view of both the Europeans and Igbos in Things Fall Apart is a corollary of the combination of his Christian upbringing and reverence for traditional Igbo life, using paradoxical characters from both cultures such as Okonkwo and Uchendu plus Mr. Brown and Reverend Smith to attain an unprejudiced audience interpretation.  

Topic Sentence 1:

Achebe’s characterization of Uchendu and Mr. Brown respectfully depicts some of the favorable attributes such as openness and wisdom of their respective cultures, providing an idyllic view of both civilizations in order to subvert the foreign view of Africans as primitive and evoke the notion of peaceful colonization.

Topic Sentence 2:

To juxtapose the aforementioned characters, Achebe depicts Okonkwo and Reverend James as possessing some of the antagonistic or unfavorable characteristics such as hypermasculinity and hostility that can be identified with individuals of their respective cultures, removing any idyllic dispositions and providing a realistic perspective based off his own experiences and beliefs.

Topic Sentence 3:

The ways in which the characters of Okonkwo, Uchendu, Mr. Brown and Reverend Smith interact with one another is representative of Achebe’s internal battle of cultures and perhaps problematic hybridity, cases such as Uchendu’s criticism of Okonkwo and Okonkwo’s confrontation with Mr. Smith ultimately allowing the author to create a desired holistic view of both civilizations and groups and how they interact.

Context of Interpretation

Things Fall Apart evokes salient significance of gender roles within the Igbo society presented, hence one’s context of interpretation, consisting of such components as culture, beliefs and time period, will engender differing personal understandings and perspectives of the way in which males and females are delineated.

• Outline of how the culture a reader resides within influences their understandings, perspectives and opinions formed
• The world consists of a myriad of differing cultures, each with their own paradigms, ideals and expectations; such aspects can influence entire demographics’ perspectives formed on the theme of gender roles between the text. 
• Cultural beliefs and values of gender roles differ internationally
• Customs, traditions and expectations and how they relate
• How religion affects views of gender roles within differing cultures

• Outline of how the personal beliefs a reader possesses influences their understandings, perspectives and opinions formed
• Although many personal beliefs would be derived through their respective culture, each individual is different from the next hence their interpretation of certain features and aspects of the novel would also differ.
• How personal views can affect views of gender roles
• How personal experience and the emotions as a result affect views of gender roles
• Personal expectations beyond those of the culture

• Outline of how the time period a reader resides within influences their understandings, perspectives and opinions formed
• People within alternate time periods would indubitably view certain material differently and hence form differing and perhaps opposing opinions and understandings, hence considering one’s place in time and the changes between time periods is significant due to general changes in values, beliefs, expectations etc.
• Highlighting differences between times since the book was written and further in the future and how these may affect the interpretation of gender roles
• Any changes in values, beliefs, expectations etc. and how the former would compare and contrast to the latter

Okonkwo Characterization

It is indubitable that Chinua Achebe characterized Okonkwo as a classic tragic hero: quite a common, and perhaps clichéd technique, however the way in which he does this and the extent of its effectiveness exceed this basic linguistic convention. In the book Things Fall Apart, the reader watches as the Igbo society falls apart, and in this we are already provided with a tragic story beginning with something that seems to begin so strong but ending with demise due to its method of approaching and ignorance towards the European threat presented to them. Okonkwo mirrors such a development in that at the beginning of the story, we, the reader, are presented a powerful man who was able to overcome adversities to become one of the more successful and prosperous men in the village, however once again, due to the fact that a part of the system (either Okonkwo or Igboland) is overlooked, we observe eventual and inevitable failure. Correlations can be drawn between the society’s treatment of the Europeans, not believing that they could coexist peacefully and hence feeling the need to treat them hostilely, and Okonkwo’s belief that his masculinity and negotiation or non-physical confrontation cannot coexist without the first being compromised, both predispositions tragically causing death (or such to an extent). Both systems experienced fates in similar fashion to their defects, Okonkwo’s being physical death and Umuofia’s being a great cultural loss, perhaps the death of a culture. In this way, the tragic hero archetype is able to personify a society, especially considering the notion of Okonkwo as a product of society.

Guide to the Wilderness - Igboland

7 THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN VISITING IGBOLAND

A guide by colonist Damien Delaney

As I boarded the S.S. Anne with my duffel bag and hegemonic mindset as one of the many European explorers of West Africa, I prepared myself to face a herd of savages which I had been informed humbly of, but instead found a rich culture full of community and people not so unlike ourselves. I assume that others like me have been brainwashed to view these people so inferiorly – I saw it among some of my insistent comrades – so I have constructed this list of 7 things to consider when visiting Igboland:

1.     Intelligence – These people are much more intelligent than pioneers before me came to believe from their short-lived relationships with them. In this culture, wisdom is valued above most else. It is vital to consider that although the Igbo people don’t speak the Queen’s tongue, they possess a vast knowledge within their own language which is beyond our own understanding.

2.     Politics – The Igbo people have used such intelligence to formulate a sensible political hierarchy without the assistance of the British Empire. Although they may not act under a federal political system like the British, each village possesses an intricate system headed by a group of Ozo title holders, achieved through action and not inheritance, and subordinate groups below them (such as elders and age groups). They are not savages who kill mercilessly. Criminals are dealt with judiciously by the Ala and given appropriate punishment, hence showing their value of ethics and separating them from the animals they have been made out to be.

3.     Religion – Although the Igbo religion may consist of numerous false deities, it is primarily centered upon the same God that we Christians believe in, only they call theirs Chuckwu. The thing is, it is primarily grounded in the same beliefs, where if they please their god with their actions, they are rewarded with success and happiness (complete fulfillment). These people clearly think like us, with strong beliefs in a higher power, therefore it is important to consider where they gain their knowledge from and the motivations behind a vast majority of their actions, hence allowing us to understand their culture more extensively.

4.     Art – Not only are the people smart, separating them from animals, but I have seen them further distance themselves with their exquisite art, in forms of masks, body art and more. But the greatest spectacle is that of the performing arts. I was fortunate enough to witness several village dances, often dedicated to their religion. Such creativity demonstrates an enhanced humanity like ourselves, not just doing what it takes to survive but mastering the power of expression.

5.     Openness – The Igbo people possess what many of us lack: openness. I was able to sit down with an Igbo elder for hours and, despite our linguistic disparity, learn about their life and he was inclined to reciprocate by learning about us. Because I was willing to learn about their culture rather than treat them like animals, I feel like I was accepted within the village, however there has always been a sense of separation and mistrust due to the actions of those before me.

Such mistrust can only be recovered by taking a new perspective on the Igbo people and the land they live on. The land that we as an empire are attempting to colonize has deep religious significance and connection to the people that inhabit it; they even pay worship to the earth goddess known as Ala. And these people that inhabit it – they are not only people but a culture. Igboland possesses a cultural communital ambience which was foreign to me, and to continue colonizing in the way it is being done now will eventually strip the people of this community and themselves, and hence not only is the Igbo culture lost but part of the world is lost to British greed and ignorance. You have been taught to believe that we provide those victims to our colonization with a better standard of living and a sense of civilization, but what exemplifies civilization and a valuable lifestyle more than the behaviors and interactions of the Igbo people discussed above. As was translated to me from the elder that I spoke to exhaustively, “Never kill a man who says nothing.” Learn about the Igbo people and their culture from their perspective before acting instinctively, or else we are reducing us as great British to less than you make the Igbo out to be. 

Quinoa Achebe

"But it was a profitable business, and so those who were engaged in it began to defend it -- a lobby of people supporting it, justifying it, and excusing it. It was difficult to excuse and justify, and so the steps that were taken to justify it were rather extreme. You had people saying, for instance, that these people weren't really human, they're not like us. Or, that the slave trade was in fact a good thing for them, because the alternative to it was more brutal by far.”

These words from Chinua Achebe really spoke to me while I was reading his interview this week. It is clear, not only through history but in daily life, that people don’t like to be wrong. I don’t. As humans, we like to think that our arguments for what we believe or do could pin the contradictory arguments down and beat them until they’re begging for mercy, but sometimes those counter arguments reverse the pin, and ours are being beaten, yet still the ones yelling “Say mercy!” at their opponents. Seeing an older brother doing this would make him look stupid from an outside standpoint, as it looks when the Europeans mentioned above attempt to justify their historically detrimental actions. They are so used to having their way and being right, like an older brother, that when they are wrong, they don’t realize it in the ignorant mindset they have.

This mindset that we spoke about in class – a one-way (our way) mentality – causes them to think that any way which is not their own is wrong or less in value. The whole idea of slave trade being better than their previous way of life mentioned in the quote brings to mind a hypothetical situation where person A is sitting on a chair and person B on the ground (both comfortable), but the A is stuck believing that they can improve the other’s life, so tells B to be A’s footrest.

This example seems ridiculous, but I guess that’s where personal perspective comes into things: how you see things. I see these two situations alike.

Analysing a Bush

The text presented is George W. Bush’s address to the nation following the 9/11 incident on September 11 2001. It is indubitable that this is a political speech given not only the speaker (being the then-president of the United States) and the description of his own action displaying his power over American authorities, but also due to the linguistic conventions typical of such a format used. Throughout the text, it is seen that Bush employs several rhetorical devices and techniques such as but not limited to metaphors and personal pronouns in order to emphasize the threat at hand but still empower and unite the American people.

Bush consistently refers to America and the American people throughout his speech, therefore it can be concluded that they are the target audience. This can be further supported through the diction he utilizes being very simple, hence allowing common people to understand him and allowing him to reach a broader audience. It can also be inferred that he specifically targets Christians, who comprise the majority of the United States, due to the allusion to the bible towards the end of the speech as well as his final words, “God bless America”, most likely indicating that not only is he Christian, but the majority of America is, and the civilians appreciate the Christian blessing. Through Bush’s acknowledgement of “the many world leaders”, it can also be assumed that this speech was broadcasted worldwide due to the global noteworthiness of the preceding event. As aforementioned, this speech effectively targets a broad audience through the language used, and also through the subtle references made within. In this way, Bush informs a large audience of the event that had taken place and the action that is being taken. He also intends to inspire hope within the people through frequently using “we will” and “we go forward”, as well as show respect to the lives lost, however there may be other secondary purposes such as unifying the American people and people worldwide against a common enemy being “those who are behind these evil acts”, perhaps even to remove some criticism from the government and himself (regarding internal or domestic issues).

The content of this speech itself begins with Bush introducing the events which occurred that day and the emotions as a result. He then describes what is being done in response to the attack, with considerable emphasis on the people’s roles in how the experience is reacted to. This reinforces the discussed purpose of unity, as phrases like “A great people has been moved to defend a great nation” reminds the audience of their power but only if they act together, seen especially through his wording as he refers to people as singular. He continues similarly throughout, hence delineating the theme of strength in numbers and as a nation, as he describes what the authorities are doing, but also frequently refers to the actions of the American people as if he relied on them. He also evokes the theme of combatting terrorism through his descriptive language used to reinforce their suggested antagonism, claiming that they “will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”, almost acting as an indirect warning to the perpetrators. In this way, Bush uses varying content and themes to instill certain emotions within the wide audience, assisted by his tone and the corresponding mood.

Bush delivers this speech with numerous different tones, however the one that seems to overrule is that of anger, clearly towards the perpetrators of the crime. As previously mentioned, Bush expresses this anger, and to an extent disgust (at humanity), through his descriptive language. Detailed phrases such as “Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror” and “a quiet, unyielding anger” set the tone from the very beginning of the text, the speaker utilizing multiple descriptors as seen in order to amplify the extent of the damage and the emotions as a response. Through this, not only does Bush display his patriotism hence making himself more popular, but also uses pathos to evoke similar emotions in the audience. Towards the end of the speech, he adds to these negative emotions with his grieving tone, as he asks “for your prayers for all those who grieve”, once again making him more relatable and popular, especially through his directness and begging nature, humanizing him and allowing the audience to sympathize for all those involved in the attack. Despite the overall pessimistic tone, Bush attempts to empower the people through frequently turning such emotions around as to motivate the people to fight against these acts of terrorism (supporting the discussed theme) through various actions, and mostly perspectives which he attempts to transfer to them. This motivational tone can be seen through his use of future tense and surety, claiming that “None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom”. With such a futuristic and optimistic view as displayed by words such as “will” and “forward”, Bush evokes a sense of togetherness and a desire to improve. This is further enhanced, as are all the emotions and tones throughout the speech, through Bush’s utilization of personal pronouns; he frequently uses “we” and “our” to make the reader believe that they share the same emotions and perspectives as the speaker, hence making the transition from his tone to the audience’s mood more natural and effective.

Some already being discussed, there is a myriad of literary devices employed within Bush’s speech. The first line states “our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack”. This clearly demonstrates the use of anaphora in conjunction with personal pronouns. Anaphora often emphasizes the words it repeats, therefore repeating “our” highlights the unity of the people with the speaker that he wishes to establish. This also has a greater significance in that it amplifies the situation; Bush begins with what actually came under attack (the citizens), but increased the intensity with each repetition. Some people may have empathized with an attack on the people, but a larger audience’s attention is obtained through ‘raising the stakes’, implying that this attack represents more than just an attack on the people, and through this Bush hooks everyone interested in or frightened of the loss of their own freedom. He continues such personal anaphora later with similar effect, with “Our military is powerful, and it’s prepared. Our emergency teams… Our first priority is to…”, once again repeating the personal pronoun “our” in order to signify shared interests and unity.

Similarly to this anaphoric use of plural personal pronouns, Bush also utilizes pathos similarly with the intention of engaging the audience and making them relate perhaps outside issues to themselves. Such use is seen through his repetitive description of fellow civilians as “friends” or “neighbors” as a means of personal engagement, since the audience is more likely to care about those they call friends and neighbors. The most notable use of this is in the first paragraph where he describes the victims as “secretaries, business men and women, military and federal workers, moms and dads, friends and neighbors”, humanizing these victims and hence increasing their value to the audience, ultimately increasing their emotional involvement and care for the topic.

Bush also uses dramatic pauses in several instances throughout his speech as a way to allow the audience to reflect and create their own understanding and opinions. This can be seen first as he describes the event with planes “flying into buildings, fires burning, huge -- huge structures collapsing”, emphasizing the extent of the attack through once again employing considerably descriptive language. It can be seen further on as he states “Today, our nation saw evil -- the very worst of human nature -- and we responded with the best of America.” This is an expletive once again used to accentuate the seriousness of the situation and remind the audience of their common enemy.

Perhaps the most powerful linguistic technique employed is that of flattery through assimilation. Bush consistently empowers America while simultaneously promoting patriotism. This allows the audience to feel empowered every time their nation is complemented in lines such as “they cannot touch the foundation of America” and “God bless America”, therefore Bush compliments the people indirectly. This relates to the theme of unity in that the American people unite to create a country, and through complimenting the country, Bush compliments their united efforts and thus motivates them, as if he is blessing to the people.

This piece follows a basic yet effective structure, in that Bush provides information as to the problem, then how it was dealt with and how it will be dealt with in the future (although broad). This chronological structure causes the audience to fill with anger, then turn that anger into motivation as he suggests, therefore the structure of the text compliments the speech and its context greatly.

Overall, Bush’s use of linguistic devices and techniques compliment the tone he sets and the themes related, ultimately obtaining the desired mood within the broad audience targeted. 

Sheikh's Spear - Coriolanus

The character of Coriolanus is commonly considered representative of Shakespeare’s play by the same name, critically regarded as unpopular and lacking emotion. This, however, does not take away from the complexities of the context and characterization of the play. In his play Coriolanus, Shakespeare characterizes Caius Martius Coriolanus as a war-minded hero in order to emphasize the disparities between military and political success, and the typical struggle to gain both.

When the word ‘hero’ is mentioned, images of quintessential heroes such as Superman or King Arthur may be evoked, however Coriolanus embodies a more realistic hero: the anti-hero. This suggests that although displaying heroic traits (which will be discussed), he also possesses notable flaws, perhaps even overpowering his heroism. From the beginning of the story, Coriolanus (or Caius Martius as he is known at this point) is portrayed as unlikeable, or in fact hated, by the general public, being described as “chief enemy to the people” (Act 1 Scene 1). This is a result of his distaste, even considered to be fear by some scholars, for the plebeians, or “curs” (Act 1 Scene 1), “rogues” (Act 1 Scene 1) and “parasites” (Act 1 Scene 9) as he refers to them among a multitude of names. This detrimental relationship, along with his excessive pride, is a prominent fault characterized within Coriolanus in the first act which foreshadows the hero’s inevitable downfall. It is the way in which this anti-heroic character is implemented by Shakespeare into the story of Coriolanus however, which provides the play with the complexity which it has.

The fact that Coriolanus is a political play and not that of war is frequently discussed when talking about Shakespeare’s characterization of his characters. As aforementioned, Coriolanus depicts a typical anti-hero, or tragic hero, therefore his role has greater significance as you delve further into the play. What seems to be the primary notion presented is that being a war hero rather than a distinguished political figure, the traits and attributes which provide so much success for Coriolanus on the battlefield are those which cause him to fail in the political battlefield. Although telling his soldiers, “You shames of Rome! you herd of – Boils and plagues” (Act 1 Scene 4) may motivate them to continue fighting for him and their country, speaking to the public saying, “Go, get you home, you fragments!” (Act 1 Scene 1) will not engender the same results, but rather enrage the plebeians due to his hostility and disregard for them.

In this way, Shakespeare uses Coriolanus as a tool, almost like the Roman society who consider the hero to be a war machine as seen when he exclaims “make you a sword of me?” (Act 1 Scene 6), to embody the disparity between military and political success, contrasting with characters such as Cominius who resides in the political game rather than that of war. Through the faults that Coriolanus exudes, Shakespeare intends on showing the audience that success in one thing may cause a fiasco in another, and success doesn’t always carry over.

WiradFURY - Wiradhuri>English?

In this task, we had to take the role of a lawyer supporting the language with previously discussed in our podcasts.

For Wiradjuri:

Intrinsic: Cultural connection, dreamtime stories, historical connection, connection to the land/heritage

Extrinsic: Building bridges that were broken during colonization, respectful to speak the language of the aboriginals

Functional: Specialized to Australia, the land and heritage

Opposing English:

Intrinsic: Definition of rich/noble is subjective; ‘Rich’ to Aboriginals is focused less on societal gain and more related to their land, way that English took over was not ‘noble’

Extrusive: English taught because it was forced to be taught, believed to be superior therefor taught, belief comes from West (like the teachers employed)

Functional: Spoken by all due to that above (forced upon all cultures through hegemonic imperialism), it’s a gateway with significant limits; it cannot open gates to the Wiradjuri people but rather causes alienation

SquadCast - Wiradjuri

Over the weekend and today, Joshua Toore and I took part in a project in which we researched an endangered language and created a podcast based off of this. I've never done a podcast before, but it was enjoyable to try to take in the knowledge we had found and intertwine it into an interview that flowed. I think I did quite well, this being my first use of the informational medium, regardless of Josh's endless attempts to bombard me with immoderate vocabulary with the malevolent animus of discountenancing me to the juncture of perplex turmoil.
Here is the link to Josh's soundcloud where the podcast is located:
https://soundcloud.com/joshua-toor-457044995/back-from-the-brink

Most Meaningful Takeaway Meal

“He holds thus, on a loose thread, the whole circle of shabby-looking trees, the bushes with their hidden life, the infinitesimal coming and going among grassroots or on ant-trails between stones, the minds of small native creatures that come creeping to the edge of the scene and look in at is from their other lives.”

This single statement is one that stood out to me astoundingly. Within this text, all the focus is on the unsung relationship between the author and other man, however this sentence shifts the focus, just long enough to emphasize the eerie silence, as the man stops to recognize the amazement surrounding him, all connected to the Aboriginal man. This chilling imagery sent me back to Australia for a moment – something I wish I could do much more. I reminisce about the silence as a group with nothing needed to be said. This situation offered the silence, but a completely different tone.

In my days of camping in the Australian outback, there many times daily where everything would stop and I could take a moment to appreciate the beauty that girthed me (classic Australian anthem reference there), but the author provides a twist. He mentions the nature, but the notion that the man holds this nature “on a loose thread” delineates his natural-born connection to the land, found only through a historical relationship between man and the land, highlighting the influence of culture on others’ views of you.

The author demonstrates an amazing contradictoriness in that there is a dead silence but concurrently he is able to bring too it so much life. There truly is a sense of restlessness in the outback of Australia, and the power of language is demonstrated through the author’s ability to bring this to life and to create resonation between myself and a land that I may not have a historically deep-rooted connection with, but have adopted as my own.

Strength in Numbers... And Words

Colonial power is one that has always been longed for by superpower countries and developing countries alike. Throughout history, notable empires such as that of the British, French and German have colonized countries such as Australia, USA, Madagascar and Cameroon, creating their own settlements even in places where they may not be wanted. Although it may not be noted as more influential than violence and discrimination, language actually has had immense effects on historical colonialism, and it is without doubt that it has contributed to colonial power today and may continue to do so.

Considering it is my country of origin and as a result of my previous education on my country’s history, I will be making reference to Australian colonialism. As previously discussed both within the article ‘Back to Babel’ and in class, a language is much more than a compilation of words and punctuation; it creates more meaning than simply the words and can almost be described as a living being. I like to compare a language with a human. The language begins its life with simplicity and little behind it (like a baby), then develops with history and memories within it. These memories are like our own: special to the person who has them but is not as special to third parties because they have less meaning. There are some things that only make sense in a single language and are only special to that language. Once that language disappears, or dies (like a human), as have many, these memories are lost, or the significance of these memories are. Given this significance, people tend to develop based on their lingual background and taking their language away is equivalent to taking away a part of these people.

It is not surprising therefore that colonialism often involves stripping indigenous people of their language in order to strip part of their identity, making it psychologically easier to discriminate against them due to the dehumanization of the indigenous inhabitants. This colonization caused major controversy as a treaty was never signed when the First Fleet arrived, and following attacks back-and-forth, the British superiority in technology and numbers led to their victory. As has been the case in most colonized countries, the indigenous people are forced to speak the dominant language, thus causing the gradual integration into that colony as prior culture, traditions and beliefs are partially lost with language.

Language even has an effect on how this historical event is viewed today. Aboriginals (indigenous Australians) frequently refer to the colonization of Australia as an “invasion” rather than a celebration, and while many celebrate Australia Day which is coming in the next few weeks, it is beyond doubt that several protests will carry out from indigenous activists on the day. This simple choice of words demonstrates the opposing perspectives and ultimately demonstrates the power of language in dictating historical attitudes to events such as colonization.

Language may be overviewed as a colonial catalyst, however it has immeasurable influence and power over the success of colonization considering its ability to dehumanize and record events of colonialism.