The Art of Painting (1666) by Baroque Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer goes by other names such as The Artist in His Studioand The Allegory of Painting. The Art of Painting is one of Vermeer’s greatest examples in Dutch Realism, and the painting is viewed as a full-blown allegory given that its context highlights the artist’s role in society and could even have been a portrait of the artist himself in his studio. Besides his paintings, little is known about Johanness Vameer’s personal life and inspirations besides the fact that he lived and worked in Delft. The painter left no personal writings or portraits behind. It is said that The Art of Painting was one of Vermeer’s favorite works. Adolf Hitler bought the painting in November 1940 at 1.65 million Reichsmark. After Hitler’s defeat by the Allies, the painting was seized by American troops and handed over to the Austrian Government. The painting is currently showcased at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.
The cultural context of The Art of Painting
The Art of Painting explores the significance of an artist in society, hence, the allegory. A large curtain in the foreground is drawn back to reveal an artist whose back is turned to the viewers, painting a young model. The model is holding a large history book and a trumpet of glory. There is a large wall map of the Netherlands in the background. Art usually preserves an element of a time and place that historical records cannot. Art allows one to look backward and understand how civilizations have evolved. Holland was part of the United Provinces in the 17th century. The territory was not catholic and had banished catholic style Christian art (Encyclopedia of Art History). Furthermore, they expressed their commitment to enjoying the finer things in life, such as solid houses and clothes of high quality. Paintings that depicted bourgeois prosperity were also popular in the United Provinces at that time (Encyclopedia of Art History). Vermeer’s The Art of Painting does an excellent job in depicting the Dutch Golden age. The painting has no Christian themes, is of Dutch Realism, and the finer things in life are well captured, such as the artist and the model’s dressing and fine interior of the studio.
The political context of The Art of Painting
In the Art of Painting, surmounting the chandelier is an abstracted image of a double-headed eagle, which was the imperial symbol of the Hapsburg Dynasty. The Dutch Republic where Vermeer lived was a federation of seven provinces in the 1600s, an independent world power that had won its freedom from the Spanish between 1568 and 1609. The Dutch had earlier been under the rule of the Spanish house of Habsburg until the beginning of the 1600s. Hence, the imperial symbol of the Hapsburg Dynasty was still a popular image among the Dutch.
The social context of the painting
Lastly, the Dutch Republic was considered a world power in the 17th century. The territory had won its independence from Spain, had strict anti-Catholic policies due to their former masters, and was prosperous. The social context of the Dutch republic is revealed in the painting, which shows an artist and model member of the bourgeoise adoring fancy clothes and habiting a beautiful well-decorated studio.
for help with such articles, contact zackodhis21@gmail.com
1984 is a dystopian novel written in 1949 by English novelist George Orwell. The book is set in the fictional state of Oceania and follows the story of Winston Smith, an everyday man who’s day-job is to doctor historical documents to keep up with the changing ethos of the totalitarian ruling Party. Orwell portrays Winston’s character as an everyday man working an ordinary job, at least by the standards of Oceania. Moreover, through Winston, readers learn the suffering that the totalitarian government has imposed on its people. George Orwell once described a hero as an ordinary person doing whatever they can to change social systems that do not respect human decency, even knowing that they cannot possibly succeed. Could Winston Smith be a hero? Read on…
(For assistance with such assignments, email me at zackodhis21@gmail.com).
Why Winston is a hero according to Orwell’s Definition.
Winston is an ordinary person flawed with personality and physical shortcomings not associated with the classic hero; he loves to write, drink, smoke, and maybe out of the smoking, he has terrible coughing fits each morning. Winston also has an itchy, swollen ulcer at the back of his leg. When Winston rebels, he develops an intense sense of fatalism. He is over-paranoid about the Party and believes that the Party will eventually catch him. Moreover, true to his fears, the Party was watching all along. Winston holds on to a dream of freedom and independence from a totalitarian system, and this everyday person who is somewhat cowardly ends up fighting for what he believes in, fully aware of the consequences of his action. Orwell mentions in his book that “in the face of pain, there are no heroes.” Although Winston is tortured to the point that he denounces Julia and cries for his love for Big Brother, this man of ordinary stature was facing a daunting task he possibly could not succeed in and is still a hero in Orwell’s definition of the term.
Winston is a hero that readers can emulate.
Totalitarian systems use propaganda, intimidation, and fear to demand conformity. History is doctored, the truth is altered, and dissent is severely punished that, with time, people begin to believe the lie that the government wants them to believe. Winston lives in such a system. He is a lonely and observant intellect interested in the truth. His work of re-writing and distorting history makes him see the bigger picture, and he grows to resent the Party’s oppression. According to the novel, “He felt as though he were wandering in the forest of the sea bottom, lost in mosterous world where he himself was the monster…What certainty had he that a single human creature now living was on his side? And what way of knowing that the dominion of the Party would not endure forever?” (Orwell, 1990. p47). To escape the tyranny of the government, at least in his mind, Winston portrays an attitude to do what is right and shows bravery by rebelling against Oceanian law, fully aware that Big Brother could be watching and that such actions are punishable by death.
Winston is an everyday man anyone can relate to; however, he does not just sit and allow his mind to be imprisoned. He does whatever he can to achieve freedom and independence. His rebellious tendencies against what he knows to be wrong are the first indicators of his heroism. Moreover, he has an unwavering attitude to keep rebelling until the very end. He starts by rebelling against the Party’s unfair laws. He occasionally prowls the street looking for items from the past that he can buy, which is where he obtains his diary. However, buying such items is against the Party laws. “Party members were not supposed to go into ordinary shops. (Orwell, 1990. p6). Winston even rebels during the Two-Minutes Hate period when citizens of Oceania are supposed to conform to propaganda. According to the book, “there was a space of a couple of seconds during which the expression of his eyes might have conceivable betrayed him.” (Orwell, 1990. p16).
Why some might not consider Winston Smith a hero
Historically heroes are admired for their great courage and outstanding achievements. Moreover, heroes are known to face adversity and fight for what they believe to the very end, emerging dead or victorious. Winston is captured and tortured, and eventually broken. Winston fails in his search for independence and freedom, which can be attributed to his weak willpower, unorganized planning, and indulgent nature. Heroes boast of outstanding achievements, but Winston has none. In the end, he only suffers and ends up exactly as the Party wanted him. His sense of freedom is taken away, and the Party manages to turn him into a subservient unquestioning loyal citizen. He even renounces Julia, whom he earlier believed to be the love of his life. Nevertheless, Winston achieves nothing and ends up worse than he started, which hints that he might not be the hero everyone wants him to be.
However, Orwell defines a hero by their actions and not the outcome. Winston is an ordinary man who takes action to free himself from tyranny and even makes an effort to try and fight for the freedom of others. Hence, by Orwell’s definition, this is what should define Winston as a hero. Even when undergoing torture, Orwell writes, “Winston knew that he was on the wrong, but he preferred being on the wrong,”(Orwell, 1990, p50). This shows his unwavering attitude to continue fighting for freedom in the face of adversity. Heroes do not have to be perfect; they are everyday flawed men and women. Although Winston is eventually broken, he is still a hero because he stood up for all oppressed citizens of Oceania and knew deep inside that he could not succeed and might even have ended up dead.
Final take…Winston Smith is an absolute hero
In conclusion, Orwell defines a hero as someone ordinary doing whatever they can to change social systems that do not respect human decency, even with the knowledge that they cannot succeed. No one could be more ordinary than Winston Smith. He is 39 years old, divorced tobacco addict with a relentless cough and an itchy swollen ulcer at the back of his foot. However, Winston is also a lonely intellect with an unwavering quest to achieve independence and freedom from an omnipresent totalitarian system. Winston takes action to stand for all oppressed citizens of Oceania. Although he fails to achieve this, Orwell’s definition shows that a hero is defined by his action and not the outcome, making Winston an absolute hero.
(For assistance with such assignments, email me at zackodhis21@gmail.com)
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice follows the tempestuous relationship between Fitzwilliam Darcy, a wealthy aristocrat, and Elizabeth Bennet, the daughter of a country gentleman. The words pride and prejudice, as used by Austen, have negative connotations. Pride, in this case, refers to someone pompous, self-important, and arrogant, while the word prejudice refers to someone with a set of ideas based on preconceptions and assumptions. In Pride and Prejudice, Darcy is the proud one, and Elizabeth has prejudice, especially concerning how she views Darcy. Nevertheless, throughout the story, Elizabeth and Darcy overcome their nominal pride and prejudice to eventually fall in love and get married.
For help with similar assignments, email me at zackodhis21@gmail.com
In what kind of society does Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy live?
18th century England, also known as the regency era, had two distinct lifestyles: the poor and the rich. The industrial revolution started in the mid-century, and with it came machinery that made the minority capital owners very wealthy. The rich, during Austen’s time, were the tiny minority. They lived luxurious and lavish lifestyles in elegant country houses and luxurious mansions, which were furnished with the most expensive furniture of the time. Their schedules included opera, theatre and dinner parties. Most of the great fortunes of the rich were inherited, and most of them never had to work, cook, or do simple household chores. Although education was not compulsory, most upperclassmen and a few upper-class women attended school. However, life was not so rosy for the poor, who were the majority. Starting with their diet, poor people ate monotonous foods like potatoes and bread. Meat was an unseen luxury. Most labourers lived in two or three rooms with their families, had very simple and plain furniture, and struggled daily to find their next meal. According to the History Extra Journal, “the chasm between the rich and the poor was never starker than in the Regency era.” Moreover, this was something that Austen’s audience at the time lived through and understood very well.
How is Fitzwilliam Darcy proud?
Darcy comes from the above-mentioned upper crust of England’s society. Like most rich people, his wealth is inherited, and he is highly educated. Moreover, he has been born into the chasm that existed between the rich and the poor, which affects his personality and greatly influences how people perceive him. Darcy is the Lord of Pemberly, an expensive estate located in England’s countryside town of Derbyshire left to him after his parents’ death. Although Pride and Prejudice is narrated from Elizabeth’s point of view, it is safe to assume that Darcy is a private individual, and his circumstances and upbringing have highly influenced his opinion and how he views the people around him. When the audience is first introduced to the lord of Pemberly at the Meryton ball, he comes off as the villain of the book. It is easy to dislike Darcy from the first impression. He complains about the evening, will not interact with the others, and seems self important as described by Elizabeth. When teased about his pride, Darcy does not see anything wrong with this character failing. According to Darcy, “Where there is a real superiority of mind, pride will always be under good regulation” (Austen, 2001. p.9). Darcy also comes off as arrogant. At the Meryton Ball, Darcy notices Elizabeth, and when their eyes meet, he turns around and tells Mr Bingley, “She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me; and I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who other men slight.” (Austen, 2001. p9). Darcy says this within Elizabeth’s earshot, which she finds very hurtful. In another instant, Darcy is overly intrusive. He plays the main role in breaking up Bingley and Elizabeth’s sister, Jane. Darcy disapproves of Jane and Bingley’s engagement because, according to Elizabeth, the two are not of the same class and such a union would be degrading to Bingley. given that Bingley was an aristocrat and Jane was from a lower class. Although Darcy is noticeably handsome, from the way that he talks, his condescending manner towards Elizabeth at Netherfield, how he deals with Wickam, and him turning Bingley against Jane, by the end of chapter thirty-three, the audience have come to form the opinion that Darcy is another arrogant, vain and prideful aristocrat, kind of like today’s stereotyped trust fund babies
For help with similar assignments, email me at zackodhis21@gmail.com.
How is Elizabeth Bennet prejudiced?
Elizabeth Bennet
Pride and Prejudice is narrated from Elizabeth’s point of view. Elizabeth is Bennet’s second daughter. She comes off as intelligent – maybe the most intelligent in her family, quick-witted, and the story’s protagonist. Elizabeth has numerous desirable qualities. She is clever, lovely, and converses as brilliant as anyone. Moreover, her wit, honesty, and virtue elevate her above the bad behaviour and nonsense associated with her spiteful and class-bound society. Moreover, Elizabeth becomes even more impressive from the everyday struggles that she has to rise above, which include her hopeless mother, distant father, poorly behaved siblings, and the snobbish antagonizing females around her. Elizabeth also has her character failings, which are mostly pointed out by the people around her. In chapter 1, Darcy points out Elizabeth’s tendency to form misconceptions about others. When she overhears Darcy describing her as tolerable and not handsome enough to tempt him, her misconception of the man is reinforced such that it blinds her to Darcy’s good side. Elizabeth does not see that Darcy was the most eligible bachelor in Derbyshire and might develop an aloof and prideful appearance to put off unmarried girls and match-making mothers craving for his attention. Besides Darcy, Elizabeth misjudges other people as well. She has misconceptions about other people too, which she openly expresses. For instance, she puts off Mr. Collins’s proposal very arrogantly. Although she might be right to reject Mr Collins due to his ridiculous and absurd behaviour, calling him the most disagreeable man in the world is a little too harsh. Elizabeth is also too quick to believe the sly Mr Wickam, who lies and is easily believable because of his charming appearance, highlighting Elizabeth’s prejudice.
How does Darcy and Elizabeth Transform?
Darcy’s botched proposal to Elizabeth cultivates self-awareness that ignites the transformation of the two characters. After the proposal, Darcy’s other side come to light, and the audience begins to view him differently. Darcy is neither self-centred nor vain. Elizabeth has coloured the audience’s view of Darcy from the beginning, and much of Darcy’s pride and vanity are a figment of Elizabeth’s prejudice. What’s more, Darcy’s pride could be valid given that he is the Lord of Pemberly, a role that affords him confidence while allowing him to help others. Elizabeth’s refusal of Darcy’s proposal challenges his arrogance and disdain. He goes into self-examination and understands himself enough to express his insight to Elizabeth in a letter. He contemplates about his actions and concludes that his advances were pretentious and insufficient, especially towards a woman who is deserving. Darcy is eager to prove that he is changed, and his changed outward manner reflects this. He accepts Elizabeth and her relatives and soon sponsors Lydia’s elopement and marriage. In his final proposal, Darcy is humble enough to express his hopes without mentioning his expectations. Moreover, he acknowledges his pride and is thankful to Elizabelth for humbling him. Elizabeth’s self-realization begins when Darcy points out that she is arrogant. Elizabeth comes to discover the truth behind Wickham’s assertion, which was Slander, and Darcy’s point of view behind his involvement in the Bingley-Jane situation, which is rather honest and touching. Through Elizabeth, the audience comes to learn that Darcy is just as intelligent as Elizabeth from their conversations, and realizes Darcy’s real kindness and generosity when Elizabeth overhears the servants at Pemberly describing him. Nevertheless, Darcy is an affectionate brother- trusted by Georgiana, a loyal friend to Bingley, and a generous and wise landlord. The only chief fault in Darcy is his pride. Moreover, through Darcy, Elizabeth learns how prejudiced she could be.
For help with similar assignments, email me at zackodhis21@gmail.com
What Austen could have meant by Elizabeth and Darcy’s transformation
The first part of Austen’s novel shows real controversy between two persons. However, it is later revealed that there was nothing between the two characters but their own pride and prejudice. Austen’s novel is like a narrative that discusses these two human traits in detail. Darcy and Elizabeth are the perfect match. Through Elizabeth, Darcy humbles himself, and through Darcy, Elizabeth learns of her prejudice. Darcy’s personality contrasts with Elizabeth’s, hence, complementing each other and forming a true unity. The title, Pride and Prejudice, describes the whole story. In Darcy’s case, pride begins in the first chapter and ends with the climax. Similarly, Elizabeth’s opinion changes and in the end, she accepts Darcy’s proposal. Austen wraps the novel by saying, “Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain.” Nevertheless, Austen’s book highlights the proverbial don’t judge a book by its cover quote.
Email me at zackodhis21@gmail.com for help with similar assignments
Image of The Tempest courtesy of Sacramento Theatre Company
Shakespeare’s The Tempest was written in 1611; hence, the English that it was written in is significantly different from the contemporary English spoken in all the English-speaking countries today. The language in which Shakespeare wrote The Tempest is described as Early Modern English, a language that was spoken between the year 1500 and 1750 in modern-day Britain and is often referred to as Shakespeare’s English or Elizabethan English.
Around the end of the 16th century, Middle English was fast fading away, giving rise to an English that bears a lot of similarity to the one that we speak today. However, even today, no English is the same, and there are different variations of the same language spoken in the United States, Australia, and England, hence, the need to specify whether it is American English, Australian English, or British English, but the difference is small anyway, and the language is mutually comprehensible.
To highlight the difference between Shakespeare’s English and Modern English, consider Act 1 Scene 1 of the original play, which begins with the master calling out to the bo’sun who then replies, “Here, master, what cheer?” In modern English, the bo’sun’s answer would just be “yes, captain.” Given that the ship’s masters are called captains in contemporary English. Next, in Shakespeare’s English, the captain instructs the bo’sun by saying, “Good, speak to the mariners: fall to’t, yarely, or we run ourselves aground: bestir, bestir.” Although the Middle English statement retorted by the captain is difficult to understand, in contemporary English, it would be translated to, “get all hands on deck, or we’all run ourselves aground, quick, quick!” Notice that the word ‘bestir’ becomes ‘quick!”
There are a lot of differences between Middle English and Modern English. For instance, Middle English had a lot of french influence while modern English developed on its own as a version of Middle English. Consider, by the eleventh century, a lot of Norman conquests were happening in today’s Britain, which significantly influenced the English language. England was conquered by the duke of Normandy in 1066, after which several impressions got infused into the English language, including a significant number of French impressions. However, beginning the 15th century, the flux towards modern English started taking shape, which can be seen in pronunciation.
In Anne Carson’s essay, “Variations on the right to remain silent,” she mentions that in some instances, every translator should know that some words cannot be translated into another language, and it is best that they remain in the language of the original text. Carson says, “But now what if, within this silence, you discover a deeper one—a word that does not intend to be translatable. A word that stops itself.” In Shakespeare’s play below, the phrase that beats translation from Middle English is “run ourselves aground” The term is a phrasal verb meaning hitting the shore and is less often used today, most commonly replaced with the phrase ‘landed.’
Modern Translation: The Tempest.
Act 1, Scene 1
The storm was wild, the sea was violent, the wind was very strong, and it roared with demonic shrillness, relentlessly beating on the ship, sending it in moments of violent up and down dips. The captain had lost control. He called out to the bo’sun, but the wind carried most of the sound away. Bo’sun shouted back saying, “here, captain’. The captain said, all hands on deck, or we’ll run ourselves aground.” The bo’sun struggled to make his way through the wind and storm, trying to get the crew members to work towards bringing down the sails. The bo’sun shouted, “heave my hearties!” and pointed to areas that needed more muscle. Moreover, he directed them on when to lower the topsail or when to listen to the captain’s whistle.
Out of curiosity and a feeling of obligation to help, the passengers in the ship, Alonso, the king of Naples, his brother Sebastian and his son, Ferdinand: Antonio, the Duke of Milan, and the elderly courtier, Gonzalo, came out of the deck one by one. God knows they were worried. The passengers were on their way to Naples after attending Tunisia’s wedding. Tunisia was Antonio’s daughter. Alonso, seemingly worried and feeling a greater sense of responsibility, struggled against the storm, making it to the bo’sun. “Be careful,” he shouted, “Where’s the captain? Push the men harder.” Upon seeing Alonso, the bo’sun shouted, “Stay below.” The bo’sun then ignored the king, addressing the crew members, “can’t you ‘all hear the captain’s whistle?” Then he turned to the king and informed him that he was in the way. He wanted him to go back to the cabins. He did not hesitate to remind the king that the sea did not care for his title and that he was bothering the crew, hampering their effort to keep their royalties from drowning.
A civil war re-enactment photo. Photo credit Steve Wilkie/Syfy
Modern historians have been interested in retrieving lives from the shadows of history, with studies ranging from how life was for coal miners in medieval Europe to the life of peasants in colonial America. Moreover, the recent focus has been on the lives of minority groups, and such is the focus of the book, All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies, by Elizabeth D. Leonard, which investigates the role played by women in the American Civil War armies. Leonard notes that “domestic service continued in the late nineteenth century to represent the primary waged occupation for women,” which explains why a few intrepid women decided that the war gave them better opportunities than they could have out there. The Civil War transformed the role of women in society, and as noted by Leonard, the war allowed many women to advance in previously male-dominated spheres such as regiments, spying, and even the medical field
Leonard’s book reveals how the Civil War was transformative for women. The book gives a dozen accounts of women who were actively involved in the civil war. Although the role played by women in various events that have shaped history remain in the dark corridors of the past, more of their stories are being revealed. Individuals who studied American history or the American Civil War are familiar with women such as Belle Boyd, Rose Greenhow, Antonia Ford, Tubman, etc. However, Leonard focuses on women that are unknown such as Emma A.B. Kinsey, Sarah Collins, Frances Clalin, Fanny Wilson, and Nadine Turchin.
In Leonard’s book, she examines the careers of women who served the roles of soldiers in the ranks, couriers, spies, and daughters of regiments. Moreover, she examines the socioeconomic status of these women, noting that educated women or women belonging to the upper and middle classes were often couriers and spies, while women from the working class had few options, and most had to disguise themselves as men so that they could work in regiments.
Several aspects motivated women to serve in the Civil War. According to Leonard, some women did not want to stay away from their husbands or lovers and followed them into the war, taking different roles. On the other hand, some women sought adventure just like most men who enlisted in the war, while a huge number of working-class women who disguised themselves were lured into the war by the prospects of a soldier’s wage. Leonard estimates that as many as 400 women fought in the ranks. Moreover, a few women like Sarah Wakeman were so good at maintaining their secrets, which held for months until they could not be kept anymore due to an illness, wound, or the revelation of an acquaintance sold them out. Nevertheless, many of the women veterans who served the war were awarded pensions because of their exemplary service.
Like most of her American contemporaries, Catharine Beecher, the 19th century American, believed that the Bible’s divine economy asserted that women needed to play a subordinate role to the other gender. Moreover, she argued that women’s influence and duties were just as crucial as that of men but needed to be exercised in different ways, i.e., they needed to win through peace and love. According to Beecher, the spheres of a woman were private life and included things such as living for others, family and persuasion. On the other hand, men’s spheres in life were in the public domain and included politics, business, ambition and achievement. Moreover, Beecher is famous for having said that anything that throws a woman into the attitude of a combatant throws her out of the appropriate sphere.
The Civil War, as highlighted by Leonard, contradicts Beecher’s 19th-century statement that women spheres were in the private. Moreover, it proves that the 19th-century woman was just as ambitious and influential as a man, and a significant number of women were not content wallowing in the contexts of the private. Nevertheless, as noted by Leonard, Civil War women played a combatant role. Whether they were thrown out of their appropriate sphere is a matter of opinion. However, despite their intention in joining the war activities, these women are today celebrated for pushing gender boundaries, and their contribution to the war definitely had an impact to the plight of women everywhere.
The Civil War created a window of opportunity for advancing the societal role of women. The war allowed many women to advance in previously male-dominated spheres such as regiments, spying, and even the medical field. As Leonard shows in her book, the civil war disrupted the gender divisions of labour and opened up spaces for women to traditionally enter male-dominated professions. Nevertheless, women who entered male-dominated professions created normative changes in attitudes towards women, which has worked a long way in increasing political empowerment for women all around the world.
While reading Malcolm X’s autobiography by Alex Haley, I realized that most of it was about his African American experience than was his Muslim experience. The key theme in the book is about racial prejudice, and it demonstrates just how the vice was ingrained in society back then. In chapter two, Malcolm X himself concludes that even well meaning white people still believed that they were better than Black people. A young Malcolm X witnesses the murder of his father, Earl, in the hands of white people just for speaking for an independent Black society. Moreover, he watches his mother driven to insanity by a white welfare agency that does not deem it fit for a widowed Black woman to take care of her children.
The coming of age Malcolm considers himself a “pink poodle,” a perspective that is emasculating due to the White oppression that denies him his manhood. Moreover, at the age of 15, Malcolm has already come to terms with the reality that no amount of achievement or popularity can break the barrier of success or societal acceptance. For instance, Malcolm tops his all-white class, but the teacher cannot see any feasibility in his dream of becoming a lawyer. To the teacher, Malcolm is better off being a carpenter.
Malcolm first comes into contact with Islam in chapter ten of the book. He learns about Muslim beliefs through his brother Reginald, ultimately giving up pork, which I consider as his first step in becoming a Muslim. Moreover, Malcolm goes ahead to meet the Nation of Islam and its leader Elijah Muhammad, whose central rhetoric is that all white men are demons. Malcolm had negative experiences at the hands of white people all his life, from the people who murdered his father, the people who split his family apart, the teacher who discouraged his dreams, and the policemen, judges, and guards who locked him away.
The negative experiences perpetuated by the White society made it easier for Malcolm to resonate with Elijah’s teachings and ultimately accept the truth of Islam. Malcolm leaves prison in Chapter 13, and the audience is introduced to Minister Malcolm X. He has polished his English, rhetorical style, and is a devout Muslim. Moreover, he is hell-bent in spreading his newfound faith to his African American brothers and sisters. Through Malcolm’s effort, determination, and dedication, the Nation of Islam has excellent success in converting many Black Christians into Islam to the point that they get national recognition. Oppression, segregation, and racial prejudice from a dominantly white society plays a significant role in attracting ethnic minorities and ex-cons to Malcolm’s movement.
An illustrations of heretics being tortured by nailing during the first inquisition. Source: Hulton Archive/Getty Images
In both English and Spanish, inquisition represents something that should be avoided. However, in the middle ages, inquisition referred to something much more harsh. The term was used to describe the organizations under the Catholic Church committed to thwarting heresy within the church’s realm. Persons would be investigated, punished, and even killed if found guilty. Hence, Muslims, Jewish, or persons not aligned with the Catholic belief system were at risk. The church used compulsion, persecution, and punishment to ensure conformity with the church’s beliefs. Furthermore, the intolerance did not acknowledge one’s freedom of conscience and belief.
I find the act of punishing someone for being different appalling. I have heard of chilling stories of how the Spanish conquistadors carried their intolerant system into their colonies, hence destroying century-old empires and killing thousands of natives who wanted to keep true to their traditional belief systems; acts that were certainly antithetical to the Christian ethos of ‘love thy neighbour,’ but were carried out anyway. However, these acts were not entirely based on faith as they served the political and economic gain of those in power. I understand tolerance as the ability to accept other person’s opinions and preferences even when one strongly disagrees with those beliefs and preferences. Furthermore, tolerance also encompasses the ability to not putting one’s belief on a pedestal above another person’s beliefs.
I believe that tolerance is a moral virtue and should take its place among qualities such as liberty, equality, and respect. People should be free to have their independent beliefs and values without the fear of being punished. By doing so, there would be peaceful co-existence among all individuals, and most of the persistent social problems that exist today would be done away with. Furthermore, there are numerous advantages to being open to other people’s beliefs and ways of thinking. For instance, intolerant persons carry with them a lot of hate and suspicion, which makes them angry and bitter individuals, a state of mind that closes them from happiness and numerous wholesome experiences.
Supposed my contemporary persona lived in the middle ages, I might have just survived inquisition, but I cannot be sure. Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr once said that the more things change, the more things remain the same. Although the world might have become a little more tolerant, those in power still operate in the same way, using compulsion, persecution, and punishment to ensure conformity to the systems that put them in power.
It might not be apparent in the west, but China, among many other governments, will punish any public figure that openly disagrees with or questions the status quo. However, people still live in these seemingly intolerant regimes and carry on with their lives just fine as long as they keep it apolitical. Hence, given that I was not gay or suspected of being a witch – things beyond my control, I could have died from other causes other than an inquisition-related death. On the other hand, my educated liberal self would also have easily been drawn to the teachings and works of heretics such as Martin Luther and Galileo, and before long, I would be publicly supporting these individuals, a life-choice that would have been a sure path to death by fire.
Thelonious Monk, “Monk’s Music’’ (1957) Paul Weller’s photo of the eccentric pianist dressed in a suit while seated in a child’s red wagon with a score sheet on his knee perfectly encapsulated Monk’s music: at once sophisticated and playful. — Steve Greenlee
Many Jazz musicians and critics of his time were often put off by his stubbornness to conform to the conventional music style of his generation. When the others chose to play it fast, Thelonious Monk chose to take it angular, spacious, and slow, even though everyone knew he could play the piano as fast and as ‘good’ as the legendary James P. Johnson. Moreover, he could occasionally stand and dance to the solos of his band mates, a peculiar habit that some of his critics deemed as voodoo rituals. Even Monk’s collaborator, Miles Davis, once admitted that he wondered why Monk stuck to a combination of chords that ‘sounded wrong.’
Despite the initial negative reviews, Monk slowly won over the world to become one of the most covered jazz artist of the 20th century. Monk’s music was characterized by astringent dissonance, irregular rhythms, and unexpected angles; his style in the album “Criss Cross” featured several motivic developments in compositions and brilliant use improvisation while the album “Brilliant Corners featured a 22-bar structure that proved difficult for many instrumentalists to master.
Monk is remembered among John Coltrane and Miles Davis as some of the most influential names in the development of Jazz. Monk’s strange yet innovative way of striking the piano was not popular with his earlier crowd who were more accustomed to the swing era of Jazz. Moreover, he negotiated the keyboard in unfamiliar ways that made him thought as inept by his former critics. Monk’s music was characterized by astringent dissonance, abrupt rhythms and unexpected angles, which led many to associate him with the leader of the beat generation in Jazz. Furthermore, he came to symbolize the new post-war face of Jazz that went beyond its entertainment value and was considered an intellectual exercise.
Monk was at the forefront of Bebop development, where he is described as, “a strange person whose piano prowess continued to baffle those who heard him.” The way Monk hit the piano was termed as harsh and percussive even when he was doing ballads. Monk usually hit the piano with two of his fingers held flat as opposed to the conventional natural curve with the other free fingers elevated high above the keys. Because his right elbow was often fanned out, Monk hit the piano key at an angle, sometimes hitting a single key with more than two fingers. Audiences reacted differently to his unorthodoxies earning him significant criticism of recognition.
Monk’s style in Brilliant Corners
Thelonious Monk’s third album by Riverside Records, “Brilliant Corners” (1957), marked his comeback to the Jazz music scene after a long absence due to a suspended license and became his most critically acclaimed album to date. Unlike his previous two albums, “Brilliant Corners” was the first album containing Monk’s compositions. Side one of “Brilliant Corners” contains the songs “Brilliant Corners” and “Ba-Lue Bolivar Ba-Lues-Are,” both of which were written by Monk. Side two of the album contain the songs,” Pannonica,” written by Monk, “I surrender, Dear,” written by Harry Barris, and “Bemsha Swing,” written by Thelonious Monk and Denzil Best. The ensemble was Monk on piano and celeste, Ernie Henry on the Alto saxophone, Sonny Rollins on the tenor saxophone, Oscar Pettiford on double bass, Clark Terry on trumpet, and Paul Chambers on double bass during the production of “Bemsha Swing.”
Recording the title track was the most difficult for Monk and his personnel because of its complexity that saw his sidemen take twenty-five takes with tensions growing in each take. The harmonic movement and the beginning sixteen bars of Brilliant Corner’s melody take a circular shape. However, the song’s bridge maintains Monk’s signature descending chromatic chord progression. The first chorus and the solo play are in a leisurely dirge that repeats in double time. As noted by the band, the biggest challenge in recording “Brilliant Corners” was mastering the song’s 22-bar structure considering they were accustomed to the regular 32-bar song form; hence, they ended up in a loop trying to play the 22.
The song “Ba-Lue Bolivar Ba-Lues-Are” was a blues referencing Baroness Pannonica’s constant running with the management of Hotel Bolivar for her late parties. “Ba-Lue Bolivar Ba-Lues-Are” has a simple AAB form that changes when it gets to the B where Monk’s accent falls within the bar lines. The song “Pannonica” was also a dedication to Monk’s longtime friend Baroness Pannonica de Koenigswarter, and the songs open with Monk playing a melody on a celeste.
Monk positioned the celeste perpendicular to the piano, a position that enabled him to play it with his right hand while playing the piano with his left. Thus, the entire combination produces a sound that is jarringly juxtapositioned in most parts of the track. “Pannonica” is more than thirteen minutes long and features occasional unconventional bars. The most memorable moment on Pannonica has to be Henry’s looping, slurred, and crying notes on the alto saxophone. Moreover, Monk stands out for his accompanying inventive solos that add humor to Henry and Rollin’s bluesy wails.
Monk’s style in Criss-Cross
Criss-Cross was another critically acclaimed Monk album released in 1963 by Columbia Records. The album consisted of previously recorded Monk music that was redone by the Thelonious Monk Quartet under the direction of Columbia Records. Despite relatively favorable reviews, some critics have criticized Criss-Cross for featuring materials that are “worn out” and offering few new compositions in return. Side one of the album contains the songs “Hackensack,” “Tear for Two,” “Criss-Cross,” and “Eronel.” Side two of the album contains the songs “Rhythm a Ning,” “Do not Blame Me, Think of One,” and “Crepuscule with Nellie.” The personnel in the album are Monk on the Piano, Charlie Rouse on the tenor saxophone, John Ore on the Bass, and Frankie Dunlop on the drums.
Monk was a musician known for motivic development in compositions and timely use improvisation, and nowhere does his prowess in these elements manifests than in Criss-Cross. For the Monk’s song “Criss-Cross,” the melodies are built in the a and b motives while the gesture motive c comes during the introduction, unlike in previous recordings to allude in the final part dominated by Monk’s piano. “Criss-Cross’s” form is AABA, and the omission of the mm in the B section gives the song a six bar bridge section that is in the form of 30 measures. Monk frequently uses augmentation where the motive is accorded different states of augmentation and varying rhythmic values. Moreover, Monk uses left-hand voices to fulfil the functions of counter lines and rhythmic punctuation.
Jazz pianist Thelonious Monk highly unusual instrumental techniques were subjects of considerable controversy and praise. Monk’s music was characterized by astringent dissonance, irregular rhythms, and unexpected angles, which led many to associate him with the leader of the beat generation in Jazz.
Next time I discuss the musical techniques and influence of the legendary Louis Armstrong.
For assignment help on music research, email zackodhis21gmail.com
D.W Griffith’s widely acclaimed and equally controversial film, “The Birth of a Nation,” ushered in a new age of American cinema and established its dominance for the next century or more. Before Griffith’s magnum opus, the cinema’s audience was used to one or two reeled movies that did not go for more than thirty minutes. However, with “The Birth of a Nation,” Griffith introduced a film that was over three hours long and featured hundreds of cast members. Although the film was brutally racist and fueled the further persecution of an already oppressed African American population, over a century later, we still perceive cinema as Griffith structured his movie.
Poster and advertisement of The Birth of a Nation on the second week of release. It includes preview images from the film. Source Wikipedia
The main argument made in Griffith’s film is that African Americans are to blame for America’s problems from the time they first came, through the Civil War, until the film’s present time. To create some level of academic authenticity for his claim, Griffith quotes one of America’s notably racist presidents, Woodrow Wilson’s article, “A History of the American people” stating that the purpose of the reconstruction was to subdue the white South under the black South. From its beginning until the end, the film perpetuates the notion that the African American is less of a human being compared to the Anglo-American, and positions the Ku Klux Klan as the true liberators; noble heroes to free America from its ‘black’ plague. As a racist propaganda film, Griffith’s masterpiece has no grey areas.
Although “The Birth of a Nation” is credited for structuring the motion picture as we know it today and for ushering several film techniques, it is essential to note that the second decade of the twentieth century was a burgeoning era in film technology. Griffith might not have invented all the techniques that he used. Moreover, Griffith’s right-hand man Billy Blitzer contributed to developing some of the methods. The earliest film directors assumed that when audiences paid to see their favourite actors, they wanted to see them whole. However, in Griffith’s film, the camera moves closer to its subject in close-ups, revealing more intimate emotions, expressions, and details, a technique that further personalized the subjects. One successful use of the close-up technique, tying it to a long shot camera distance to express higher expression and emotion as used in the film involves a scene during the civil war that starts with a close-up of a distraught mother and her children mourning on a hillside. Without breaking, the camera pans horizontally to reveal what the family is watching. The audience sees General Sherman’s devastating march; hence, the director ties the historical to the personal by a single shot.
Griffith’s film also shows the first use of flashback as an aesthetic technique by briefly interrupting the linear narrative with brief past scenes. Nothing much has changed when it comes to present use of flashbacks ever since Griffith introduced it. Moreover, the film introduced the technique of parallel editing; cutting between two scenes that coincide, hence proving to the world that films could go places that stage actors could only dream of. Other innovations attributed to “The Birth of a Nation” are night-time photography achieved through magnesium flares fired into the night sky, use of hundreds of extras to recreate battles, and the use of an original score. In conclusion, although “The Birth of a Nation” is one of the racist films ever created, it was a film full of revolutionary ideas, and for that, it is still acknowledged more than a century later.
For assignment help on film, email zackodhis21@gmail.com
The Crucible is set against the backdrop of the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692 when a group of girls thought to be demonically possessed in the strongly religious Puritan village of Salem accused a series of local women of practicing witchcraft. This led to widespread hysteria, a trial was set up, and multiple people were wrongly sent to the gallows.
Miller’s Inspiration
The author of the Crucible, Arthur Miller, found the Salem Witch Trials inspiring, especially to his situation after he was accused of being a “witch” himself. A crucible is a big metal plate where metals or other substances are subjected to very high temperatures. Since pure metals usually have different melting points, a crucible is an efficient way of separating metals from impurities. Miller used the term “crucible” as a metaphor. Given that the Crucible is used to separate pure metal from impurities, Miller likened the Salem Witch Trials to a crucible because of its role of separating the puritans from the witches.
A picture of a crucible
In the mid 20th century, after the Second World War, both America and Russia, two countries of enormous military might and conflicting political ideologies, came to be such intense rivals. America was scared of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, and Russia was equally scared of America’s nuclear might. Meanwhile, America was a capitalist state, a social leaning that it took great pride. On the other hand, Russia chose to adhere to the Marxism discourse, and together with China, became very staunch communist states. Due to the rivalry with Russia, and the ideology of freedom and hard work on which America was founded, patriotic American citizens were not only contemptuous of communism, they were frightened of the idea.
Somehow, Americans believed that communism could creep into their country and dismantle its social and political structure. The mid-twentieth century, referred to as The Second Red Scare, was characterized by campaign spreading fear of communism and heightened political oppression. The hysteria of communism spreading to the US was so high that the American government established a committee whose sole purpose was to investigate Un-American Activities (communism) within America. The chair of the Non-American Committee was none other than the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Senator Joseph McCarthy
McCarthy soon started accusing people who had leftish political leaning of being communists. Moreover, people were also outing out one another. Celebrities were not spared, and many were outed as communists’ spies, including Arthur Miller, who was accused of being a communist because of his liberal political views. Miller was furious, likening the shambolic way that McCarthy’s Committee operated to the Salem witch trials of the late 15th century. Many people that were accused of being communists lost their jobs, reputation, and were blacklisted although they were law abiding American citizens. Miller wrote “The Crucible” to portray the stupidity that he thought surrounded the communist’s hysteria that existed in America in the 1940s and 1950s.
Miller wanted the public to reflect on how the witch hunts ruined many innocent lives during that dark part of American history, and liken it to the prevailing political atmosphere of his time. The moral of Miller’s story is not to support something because the more significant majority is already supporting it. Meanwhile, Senator McCarthy’s name is forever etched in the English vocabulary, referring to the process of making subversive and treason accusations without regard for evidence.
Investigations and Trials in the Salem Trials and the McCarthyism Hearings
During the McCarthyism investigations, the committee largely ignored the rights of the accused, and the norms of the fair trail were thrown off the window. Constitutional rights no longer applied, and new laws were implemented that oppressed personal freedoms. For instance, people suspected of being communist during the McCarthyism trials were subjected to very intense and unorthodox investigations; their phones were illegally tapped and they were put through rigorous questioning before government committees, agencies, or private industry panels. Just like Salem started by targeting women, those targeted in the 1940s and 1950s were government employees, revered members of the entertainment industry, activists of the labor union, and academicians. Arthur Miller was blacklisted himself three years after he wrote The Crucible. The level of threat accorded to those accused or suspected of being communists, most of whom were people with leftist political views, was greatly exaggerated.
Anyone who happened to appear within the radar of the House of Un-American Activities’ suspicion of communism immediately received a subpoena. During the hearings, the suspects were often grilled, after which they were expected to give out names of communist conspirators. Any names that were provided were immediately issued with subpoenas, and the committee’s scope widened. Some people appeared before the HUAC not for having committed acts of espionage, but for having expressed communist thoughts in the past. People that refused to answer the committee’s questions or give away names were often sent to jail. Moreover, subjects that invoked their Fifth Amendment Rights were often portrayed as guilty.
Likewise, in the Salem Witch Trials, confessions from a series of delusional girls who were more afraid of the punishment that their shameful acts would get them decided to subvert the blame to innocent members of the society as their testimony was the only investigation required. Just like for the communist suspects of the 1950s, threats were extremely exaggerated, the accused “witches” of Salem faced overwhelming and easily faked evidence; consider the spectral evidence that held about the witches’ spirits visiting the victims. Furthermore, the McCarthyism hearings expected that those who had been found guilty give away the names of others, and many former communists must have denounced others as being more communist than they were to obtain absolution for themselves. A young Caribbean slave girl by the name Tituba confessed to being a witch with the thought that she would be spared the gallows if she cooperated. Tituba became an informer just as the many communist suspects. More alleged witches in Salem confessed to gain absolution.
Circa 1692, The trial of George Jacobs for witchcraft at the Essex Institute in Salem, Massachusetts. (Photo by MPI/Getty Images)
Singling out persons for persecution
Several people were singled out in the Crucible as well as during the 1950s McCarthy hearings for practicing witchcraft or being communists respectively. A striking similarity in the singling out of individuals and the fate that followed between the two separate events can be likened to that of Rebecca Nurse, and the Hollywood Ten, both who refused to cooperate with the trials. Rebecca Nurse was a real person that was persecuted and eventually hung during the real Salem Witch Trials and Miller chose to include her in his play. In “The Crucible,” the Nurse is married to Patrick Nurse and is portrayed as a sensible and upright elderly woman. Nurse is initially held in high regard by the Salem community. Even Reverend Gale, a non-Salem dweller is not immune to her exemplary character; he says about Nurse, “It is strange how I knew you, but I suppose you look as such a good soul should. We have all heard of your great charities in Beverly.”
The Hollywood Ten, 1950
Shown from left: Adrian Scott, Edward Dmytryk, Samuel Ornitz, Lester Cole, Herbert Bieberman, Albert Maltz, Alvah Bessie, John Howard Lawson, Ring Lardner Jr. await fingerprinting and booking in 1950.
Miller sets Rebecca as the moral high ground from which his other characters can be measured. When she is accused of witchcraft (having allegedly killed seven through her spirit), she refuses to confess or give out names. She has too much integrity to drag anyone down with her. In 1947 when HUAC widened its scope to the entertainment industry, it accused ten Hollywood members of promoting communist influence in motion pictures. These ten Hollywood men publicly denounced the shambolic tactics employed by HUAC, refused to cooperate or give out names of “fellow” communists. They were blacklisted from ever working in Hollywood after being handed jail sentences.
Rebecca Nurse
The social conditions that made Salem and the Communist witch hunt Possible
The belief that the devil could give individual humans supernatural abilities to harm fellow humans was widespread in Europe in the 14th century onward, a belief that was also shared in New England. Life was not easy in the rural community of Salem. The member residents were still recovering from the effects of the British-French wars in the American colonies, the village had just been hit by a smallpox epidemic, and most were scared that Native Americans could attack anytime. Among such conditions, the trials could have been sparked by the slightest of resentment, suspicion, or fear of outsiders, and it did. John Proctor tries to get the court to fathom the madness fueled by suspicion, resentment, and malicious agenda by saying,
“Why do you never wonder if Parris be innocent, or Abigail? Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers? I’ll tell you what’s walking Salem-vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law! This warrant’s vengeance! I’ll not give my wife to vengeance!”
Proctor wants the court to know that nothing has changed in Salem, the only thing that is odd is that young girls with spirits of vengeance are now running around falsely accusing innocents and the court wants to believe them. Biblical principles of justice have been put aside as vengeance now writes the law.
After the Second World War, the United States had lost its sense of national-self identification. Many had seen the effects of the great depression and associated it with capitalism and as such, might have expressed a little admiration for communism. The United States feared that communism might encroach within its systems. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was growing in power, Moreover, Eastern Europe was a conglomerate of communists states, and the US believed a nuclear threat surrounded it. Coupled with the fear of nuclear war with Russia. Paranoia led to the formation of HUAC.
For assignment help on English Literature, email zackodhis21@gmail.com
Zac Viper 