Postcolonialism, Hope Leslie & Ramona

So... I'm writing a paper on Hope Leslie and Ramona and I find myself writing this. Craziness.

"
It is a compelling concept that Hope Leslie and Ramona both allude to imperialism and class/race via religion, considering that if the main characters from each were ever introduced, they would hate each other due to their religious, territorial, and racial differences. The reader sees the justification of Mexican Protestant imperialist values beset upon the Natives through Ramona—only to then view American imperialist values beset upon Natives (and then eventually Mexicans)through Puritan Hope Leslie. It is, then, a consideration to be made on whether the understanding of either novel’s is—or even can be—legitimate in its claims of righteousness. The reader finds that the limitations of a religion-supported imperialist system start at the point that another competing set of values is found; the limitation is competition. If both religions use elitist rhetoric, any competition—even from the same branch of faith (Puritan vs. Protestant, yet both Christian)—creates immediate strife and potential “heresy”. This limit, then, presents the necessity of further imperialism to eradicate the threat of heresy and conversion.

It shows that perhaps any political system, including religion, that is based on the egotistical assumption of self-elitism is either bound to imperialize or at least create conflict. The limits of such belief systems, because they are ideas and not material things like the usual conquests of land or currency, are not bound by the physical limits of temporality. Instead, they are fought by potentially countless people over potentially limitless spaces of time. This is proven true in the modern world, as any might see that communism has been in strife with capitalism, Judaism with Christianity and Islam. Indeed, the only hope for the removal of an assumed threat of heresy, or the like is either the recognition that nothing is perfectly elite or “right” and to accept differences—or the military assertion of righteousness by the total annihilation of the opposition.
"

The Ethics of Politeness

I am a very direct individual--I have a strong belief in efficiency and utility. Aesthetics is nice, but art is all the more beautiful when it actually DOES something. For example, diamonds are nice, but they are much more useful on a drill bit or industrial saw than on your finger (but I guess that depends on which husband you ask!).

But what about concepts? Social etiquette? To me politeness is a great way to avoid the acts of aggression and intimidation that are ingrained in our minds from primal instinct. Staring is an act of aggression, a challenge of sorts. So is standing taller, speaking louder, etc. But where do we draw the line between polite and fake?

I am an extrovert. I like to talk to people, to hear opinions and see why and how people think what they do. So when someone asks me how I am out of politeness and not interest, it bothers me; when you ask, I actually do want to tell you. And I know if I do, chances are your eyes will glaze over and you will check your watch to see when you might have to ask me to shut up. When I ask someone how they are, I don't just want an answer, I want a REAL answer. I actually care about how people feel, and when I ask I've realized that people generally lie and say "Just fine!" when in reality something catastrophic might have just changed their lives forever only hours before. Are we supposed to fake happiness so that others don't pity? Fake our fears and our dreams so that others don't laugh, or worse, tease? I don't feel it's polite to ask if you honestly don't care. I am more than happy to say "Hello!" with a giant smile because I am honestly happy to see that person. I wouldn't bother if I didn't care, but I'm not going to sulk and brood if I'm not feeling well either; silence is golden, but so are sincere smiles!

On Diversity

I've had some experiences lately where certain people are very gung-ho about their respective race. Not necessarily nationality, but rather a collective group that identifies themselves as a specific color; i.e. Asian, African/African-American, Latino, Caucasian, etc. I find it a paradox that some, in their zealous pursuit to declare themselves "true Americans", "true Britons", etc, do so while commemorating their racial identity. In my opinion, to hold onto a racial identity is to openly declare oneself as not part of a "whole", but rather a segregated instance of it.

I have heard of several groups that do this, but I will not name any because I also believe every group has agendas worth respecting, even if they are not agreeable to me. I still find it odd, though, that even while a group wants recognition as part of a whole, they also want recognition as part of something separate.

During the creation of the United States, there were two competing theories of how the U.S. should be "seen" multi-culturally. The first was a "salad", in which all the ingredients are different but work together as a whole. The second was a "melting pot", the more commonly heard one. This assumes that the groups are mixed with each other to form a unique identity based on the parts but understood as one entity; no one part is unique, but rather a contributor to the Greater Good.

The mill industry depends on melting down ore and mixing metals in certain proportions to create a stronger, lighter, better product called an "alloy". If we are going to build a national foundation, I personally would prefer an alloy to purity--purity has proven itself to be weak and undependable.

Postcolonialism and Frantz Fanon

I was writing a paper this morning (and last night) and I realized that even though I was typing what I knew to be a sound argument through my thesis, my personal beliefs were against it!

My argument was that Frantz Fanon was justified in his remarks in the section "On Violence", in his book Wretched of the Earth. My conclusion was that even though he was bed-ridden and dying a horrible and painful end via Leukemia, he had still suffered greatly during his life in the face of racism and prejudice, all the while fighting and bleeding for a country that repeatedly turned it's back on him and other non-whites.

I have a deep personal attitude concerning racism, but suffice to say I am against malignant bigotry. However, when it comes to colonialism I strongly believe, as in many other subjects relevant to the concept, that Darwinism is an integral part of all things. Only the fittest survive, and those with bigger guns and better armor generally are more fit to survive. This does not mean I condone in any way the slave trade or the ill treatment of POWs. I simply see where Fanon is coming from when he claims that the only legitimately appropriate reaction to impending colonizing is the eradication (by violence or removal) of said colonizers. The colonizers come with the intention of subjugating natives and stripmining the land of resources or maintaining a strategic position (as in the cases of Sierra Leone and perhaps Hawaii, respectively). What else can one do except fight to the death for one's freedom and home? For without freedom, are we not slaves to those who have taken it?