Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Ethnocentrism of Colonists

26th of January, 1788 was the date when the British colonizers first faced the aboriginal people of Australia. This contact, however, was far from being a pleasant one for both of the cultures. The reason why is that their views were biased by their ethnocentrism. Of the two culture's ethnocentrism, the British aggravated the contact in a severe way.

On the day that the British first contacted the first Australians, the leader of the settlers, Phillip, wrote that they will be able to take over the land, for there is no owner of it. This was despite the fact that they saw and communicated with the aboriginals. What Phillip wrote implies that from the British perspective, the aboriginal culture was far from being a culture, and therefore, the aboriginals were not worthy enough to own the land. This, then implied that the British thought of the aboriginals far from being humans. However, the aboriginals did have their own culture. For example, the contributors of a society had rankings. Bennelong, as an adult warrior, had authorities over other members of the tribe, just as some of the British had more birthrights over others.

Despite the fact that the aboriginals had culture, the British colonizers, Phillip being a part of them, did not recognize it as a culture, and thought that the aboriginals were nothing more than beasts. This thought was affected heavily by the ethnocentrism of the British. In the perspective of the British, the aboriginals, who were nearly naked, may have seemed quiet unsophisticated. Also, the aboriginals who could contact the British the most were the ones who began living with the British settlers. They without knowing the consequences of drinking wine, began to drink excessive amounts of it, and soon became addicts. For the British people, the aboriginals that they could meet the most easily were alcohol addicts, who, usually, had bad temper and did not associate with others easily. Therefore, the British began to think that all aboriginals are drunken trash, who aren't worth being human. In other words, they began to make negative stereotypes of the aboriginals.

The first views of the aboriginals were negative, and the drunken people around their settlements didn't help to improve it. So, the British kept thinking that the aboriginals are not worthy to be treated as humans. Therefore, the British began to spread out to other parts of Australia, ignoring that there were owners of the land, and began to harm the nature, by which the aboriginals lived by. This enraged the aboriginals. In their perspective, the foreigners burnt down what was rightfully theirs, which threatened their survival. Since the other regions in Australia were owned by other tribes, the aboriginals had no choice but to fight back to the British, and get back the land and the natural resources they own. On the other hand, the British originally thought of the aboriginals as animals, so when they fought back by killing the white men and burning their settlement, they did not hesitate to shoot any inimical aboriginals in their sight. Since both sides were willing to fight, a war broke out. In the war, the aboriginals were led by a warrior who was named, by the British, 'Saturday'. However, the aboriginal warriors were overpowered by the British, who were armed with more advanced weapons, and asked for peace.

The ethnocentrism of British made them think that the aboriginals were no more than animals, and such arrogant thoughts led to a war. Therefore, it will be illogical to think that the ethnocentrism of British were, in any way, good. If such attitudes towards others are not abandoned, more wars will occur, and more people will be killed. Ethnocentricity must be discarded.

Image source

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Julius Caesar: Solo/Duet Performance Assessment

This is the part that I have chosen for my Solo acting.

Act two Scene one, Lines 10~34
It must be by his death: and for my part,
I know no personal cause to spurn at him,
But for the general. He would be crown'd:
How that might change his nature, there's the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder;
And that craves wary walking. Crown him?--that;--
And then, I grant, we put a sting in him,
That at his will he may do danger with.
The abuse of greatness is, when it disjoins
Remorse from power: and, to speak truth of Caesar,
I have not known when his affections sway'd
More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round.
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend. So Caesar may.
Then, lest he may, prevent. And, since the quarrel
Will bear no colour for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus; that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities:
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg
Which, hatch'd, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell.

After talking to Cassius, Brutus is talking to himself about why Caesar must be killed. The reason Brutus tries to convince himself that Caesar must be killed is because he believes that it the right thing to do, and yet he has great affections for Casesar, making him hesitent to join the conspiracy.

In his soliloquy, Brutus claims that Caesar must be killed for the general good, for the affect his crowing would bring could leave a severe scar on the freedom of the Romans, or, rid them of it. In order to establish a firm belief, Brutus suggested how dangerous Caesar could be, by using an imagery of a serpant's egg. In addition, Brutus , by comparing Caesar's rise in power with climbing a ladder, suggested that Caesar would not look after or restect the people who helped him to fulfill his ambitions. This soliloquy of Brutus is an essential element of the play, Julius Caesar, since this is the part when the conspiracy against Caesar truely begins, with Caesar's most trusted frient turning against him.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Learning Profile

In our former humanities class, we were tested on our dominant body parts, in order to find out what kind of a learner we are. We were told to test ourselves to see which of the two hands, foots, eyes and ears were dominant. Later, we were told to figure out what sort of thinker, either a gestalt or logical, we were. In my case, all of my dominant body part were focused on my right side, while only my dominant brain was on the left side, making me a logical thinker. According to the test result, my profile was profile A. We were then each given a sheet of paper to see what we need to do in order to make the learning more efficient.

My profile sheet claims that I will learn best when I focus on details, and synthesize the information I learn. I believe this is quite an accurate result, since this is what I do when it comes to high-level education that are, in most cases, confusing. Since most Korean students are forced to learn math that is at a much higher level that what they can interpret, I do the same, in order to keep up with them, when I go back to Korea. The only difference between me and those people is that I actually understand what I learn, while they mindlessly remember equation, without any idea of what they learn. No matter how long it takes, I solve equations and do whatever that is necessary to fully, or nearly understand the math that I learn. As stated in my profile, I learn in detail and synthesize what I learn.

The profile sheet also states that I need to be away from any factors of stress, in order to see and understand the big picture. I believe this, like other information on the sheet, is also true, since I usually take very, very long to interpret some information when I am stressed, or when there is a distressing stress. On the other hand, I can interpret information quickly when I am calm and when my vicinity is quiet.

The strategies that would help my learning are focusing on the visual and auditory transfer of information. According to my profile sheet, I am able to pick up details of information through eyes and ears even under stress. Since I have a bad temper and is often under stress, this piece of information will be an important one for my education.

One thing that I would like my teachers to know is that I usually have hard time trying to connect to information emotionally and kinesthetically. Sometimes, when teachers ask me to do such things, I just can't seem to do it. It seems to me that my profile is quite accurate, and will help my education. Another thing that I would like my teacher to know is that they should not pair me up with a useless partner, in hopes that I will some how manage to help them get a better grade. Since I do have quite a temper, I easily get stressed when I have no choice but to work with such a partner. According to the Profile sheet that would obstruct me from seeing the whole picture, which means that I won't be as productive when I have to work with a useless partner, and such fact will pull my grade and learning downwards.

In conclusion, the class that was spent on figuring out the learning profile was well spent, seeing how the information on it seems to be fairly accurate. The fact that I should focus on details was true, and so was the fact that I can't see the big picture when under stress. The profile also provided me with some helps in learning, such as a suggestion to focus on visual and auditory learning.