George Orwell’s 1984: Is Winston Smith a Hero?

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in the fictional state of Oceania and follows the story of Winston Smith, an everyday man who’s day-job is to doctor historical documents to keep up with the changing ethos of the totalitarian ruling Party.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)

How does Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy Evolve in Pride and Prejudice?

Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet

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

Middle English Vs. Modern English, A Case Study of the Tempest.

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 16^th 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 15^th 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.

All the Daring of the Soldier: What was the Role of Women in the American Civil War?

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 19^th 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 19^th-century statement that women spheres were in the private. Moreover, it proves that the 19^th-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.

Malcolm X’s Autobiography: Nature v Nurture

A painting of Malcolm X by T. A. Charron (2007)

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.

Would You Have Survived the Spanish Inquisition?

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.

Revolutionary Techniques: D.W Griffiths “The Birth of a Nation.”

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

Should Public Schools Drop Art Classes Due to Budget Cuts?

The definition of art is broad, and the form itself ranges from Mona Lisa to Bach, from Lady Gaga to the roof of the Sistine Chapel. However, what is always constant in every definition of art are the words “expression,” “emotion,” and “beauty.” According to the Oxford dictionary, “Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author’s imaginative, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.” Most schools all over the world have always nurtured and promoted art as part of their curriculum. Currently, American public schools, like most public schools across the globe are experiencing budget cuts, and the debate that usually crops up is that the government should cut funding on art programs to reduce costs. For most, reading, social studies, sciences, mathematics, and languages are the core subjects in public education; the other subjects are not necessary. However, I believe that art classes should be taught in public schools.

A large proportion of the students in any class are not going to end up sitting in an office wearing a suit or buried in a lab somewhere; they are going to build things, fix things, and entertain us with their imagination

One might claim that art is unnecessary or even pointless in public schools, as not many jobs require skills that one learns in an art class. Moreover, not everyone has the natural artistic talent, and some students might become disheartened for not doing very well in art. The primary argument for those who want art thrown out of the school curriculum is that students interested in art can harness or develop their skills at home and that students should spend more time on subjects such as sciences and math that are necessary for one to have a successful career. In the developed world, the U.S. is trailing Europe terribly on public education, which makes the argument above understandable; the world we live in today is buried in standardized testing and the need to always be a step ahead. What many seem to ignore is that a large proportion of the students in any class are not going to end up sitting in an office wearing a suit or buried in a lab somewhere; they are going to build things, fix things, and entertain us with their imagination. A school that makes everything an academic subject or removes arts subjects altogether fails a large proportion of its pupils. Their lives effectively put on hold until they get to Art College or some other form of further education.

A school that makes everything an academic subject or removes arts subjects altogether fails a large proportion of its pupils. Their lives effectively put on hold until they get to Art College or some other form of further education

One advantage of teaching art in schools is that it promotes a student’s creativity. Dr. Kerry Freedman, who heads the Art and Design department of Northern Illinois University, asserts that it is essential for children to know that they can learn from more things other than just text and numbers. When art is taught in schools, especially from an early age, students learn how to use visual information, interpret, and criticize phenomenon. The advantages of exposing children to art and music are countless. According to Dr. Freedman, Art improves a child’s motor skills, visual learning, attention to detail, decision-making, inventiveness, test-taking skills, and, most importantly, their degree of cultural awareness. Studies have found out that involvement in art builds self-confidence in children; Art engages a student’s right brain that is associated with creativity, emotion, and music. Hence, they find personal fulfillment and become more confident. Respecting what one creates fosters acceptance of other people and also builds our self-confidence.

Art builds character and self confidence

Even though the country’s focus is on the big four subjects – Science, History, Math, and English – studies show that art is fundamental in building these subjects. Art develops a student’s motor skills and language. Preschool programs provide students with crayons, scissors, and markers because these help children write faster. Art programs in schools teach students that there can be multiple solutions to one question. A study that started in 1982 and ended in 2008 found that students that took art as part of their education performed 50% better than students who did not take up Art.
Moreover, students who participate in art programs are more likely to engage in science fairs, essay competitions, and win awards. Professor James Catterall, in his study, found out that several low-income students who were involved in art were 40% more likely to graduate high school than their peers who did not participate in Art. Moreover, Catterall noticed that they engaged less in criminal activity and were more likely to find employment. Catterall’s study above proves that art builds character and is suitable for relaxation.

When it comes to art, it does not matter what environment someone comes from, art finds everyone something they are good at and what they enjoy.

The article “Why Art Matters,” written by Lynda Resnick, sums it all. Resnick claims that art provides a leveled playing field for students in public schools. Public schools are the most diverse culturally and economically in the students that attend. Children that go to public schools have different backgrounds that might influence their performance on sciences or math. However, when it comes to art, it does not matter what environment they come from, art finds everyone something they are good at and what they enjoy. Art provides the ultimate leveling field in public schools.