Apartheid through the eyes of Nadine Gordimer

As ignorant as it may sound as a white American man, I was totally unaware of the fact that in South Africa there are both white Africans and black Africans.  Furthermore, I had heard about apartheid in my AP European History class in high school, but I never really understood the full extent of apartheid until my recent study of apartheid in my World Literature course.  The racial tensions between many South African races led to a very unequal division among themselves, fully dominated by the white South Africans.

Apartheid is, well, evil.  Apartheid is unfair on so many levels because of the inequality it brings to citizens within the same nation.  The division of races in South Africa was nothing more than whites, especially those of European decent, feelings superior over those of another race or color.  As crazy as it may sound, those living in South Africa were required to carry an ID card that determined their race, whether it was "white", "black", "Indian", or "colored".  The country of South Africa was fully segregated among the races from education and medical care to beaches and other public areas.  Apartheid is very comparable to the Jim Crow laws of "equal but separate" in the United States for black Americans which thrived until about 1965.

Nadine Gordimer, arguably the most legendary female author of South Africa, wrote many stories in response to apartheid.  Gordimer was one of the biggest advocates for ending or putting a stop to apartheid and discussed how unfair it is for there to be segregation.  As a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Gordimer is truly able to reach a larger audience metaphorically within her writing.  Two of her stories that greatly influenced me were "Good Climate, Friendly Inhabitants", and "Amnesty".  These two stories left a lasting impact on my view of the cruelty and ignorance of apartheid.

First, in "Good Climate, Friendly Inhabitants", the story revolves around one white woman living in South Africa during apartheid.  The woman works at a mechanic shop as an account.  Throughout the story, the woman is very stereotypical for a white woman living in South Africa at the time.  She is very gullible, ditzy, and extremely racist.  She feels that the black men working in the mechanic shop are nothing but below her and that "on the whole they're not a lot of natives."  She is very naive in her perception of the black men working the mechanic shop; they're actually not natives, they're human beings who have the ability to think.  In particular, she talks about one black man working in the shop who she calls "boss man".  Boss man expresses to the woman, "Here I'm Jack because Mpanza Makiwane is not a name, and there I'm Mpanza Makiwane because Jack is not a name..."  Jack/Mpanza Makiwane is explaining to the woman that because of apartheid, depending on where he is, he has to go by different identities.   As a black African living South Africa during apartheid, your heritage was not honored, only your English name in town.

I could not imagine, as a fortunate white American male, experiencing something like apartheid.  In order to be recognized, you had to go by a foreign identity that had no personal connection to you is mind-boggling to me.  I can't imagine if the Japanese came and took over America and forced every American to speak Japanese, receive a Japanese name, and forget their heritage and their history.  As ridiculous as it sounds, that's exactly what the white Africans did to the black Africans during apartheid.

Secondly, Gordimer's short story entitled "Amnesty", discusses one black African woman's struggle to hold down a family during the fight against apartheid.  Her husband, a member of the ANC, fought against the evils of apartheid but was never home or there to support her or the family.  Even though she supported her husband, the woman never received the credit that she deserved and her husband always made it seem as if it were never enough.  In this story, not one character received a name, meaning the the characters within this story represent all men and all women during apartheid.  The overall theme of this story was that women were doing the best that they could with the resources they had but were always pushed into the background.  Moreover, the women who farmed the lands and took care of the children while their men involved themselves in the ANC, where actually the backbone of help.  They were the reason why their men could leave and participate in the ANC and fight against apartheid.  Also, the women were raising the children who would help shape the future of the nation if apartheid were to continue or end.  Gordimer argues that women deserve more credit than they were accounted for.

The issue of women supporting the fight for a cause reminds me of World War II and the involvement of women in the U.S.  The women of the U.S. were arguably one the reasons why WWII ended because of their war efforts.  They helped build victory gardens, went and worked in the factories, and even produced bombs, missiles, and ammunition used by the American forces.  Thanks to women, men were able to go off an fight in war.  An image of Rosie the Riveter saying "We Can Do It" reminds me of the faith that the woman in "Amnesty" proved.

A Very Bold Man

One of the most outspoken and controversial African writers of all time would definitely be Chinua Achebe.  After reading many of his literary works, I am in love with his writing style and love the passion he has for what he believes in. Many of Achebe's most popular works discuss the idea of colonization of Africa by the Europeans and the destruction it has caused.  Furthermore, he evaluates how colonization not only effects Africa physically, and emotionally, but also mentally.  Achebe criticizes colonialism in two of his most powerful works "An Image of Africa", and "Girls at War".

First, "An Image of Africa" discusses Achebe's personal feelings about Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness and he challenges the fact that it is considered great Western literature.  Conrad's Heart of Darkness inadequately represents Africa in the time that it was written.  Conrad refers to Africa and the African people as pre-historic and that Europeans are far more superior.  Achebe argues that this novel is very misleading and it is not an inaccurate portrayal of Africa because he makes it seem as if Africans are so unintelligent when Africans are actually very rich in culture, very efficient, and are even great artists, sculptors, writers, etc.  The novel questions the humanity of black people and Achebe states, "a novel which celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race, can be called a great work of art." Achebe goes on to call Conrad a "bloody racist".  How can a novel that is so racist and not even recognize an entire human race be considered a great work of art?  Personally, I find myself absolutely agreeing with Achebe.  Conrad's novel cannot be considered a great work of art when it dehumanizes an entire race.  Just because it's not European doesn't make it to not right, real, or legitimate.

Secondly, Achebe's "Girls at War" discusses the issues of war and violence caused by colonization.  The  short story evaluates one women named Gladys.  Gladys appears in the story as three versions:  an idealist, a business woman, and a revolutionary.  Each "version" of Gladys is the presence of the Ministry of Justice of the country, who she befriends.  First, as an idealist, Gladys runs into the Nwankwo, the Ministry of Justice, at a checkpoint where she requires him to stop in order to check his car for any types of weapons.  Nwankwo appears to be very irritated because why should he have to be stopped if he is in the Ministry of Justice?  However, Gladys, as an idealist, still requires him to stop.  Secondly, Gladys appears in the story as a business woman because she sells things under the table in order to make money in her war-torn country.  She also receives help from Nwankwo and a place to stay, but she repays him with sexual favors.  The sole purpose of Nwankwo and Gladys's relationship is because Nwankwo had access to resources since he was apart of the government that Gladys didn't have.  Lastly, Gladys is revolutionary because she tries to help a wounded solider, however she ends up dying because of a bomb. 

This short story is ironic because sometimes bad things happen for good reasons and good things happen for bad reasons.  For example, the death of Gladys is tragic, but maybe the author chose for her to die in order for her pain and suffering to end since she was doing all she could in order to survive.  Gladys, however, also poorly represented women since she was sleeping around with Nwankwo only because she wanted access to resources not because of pleasure or desire.  With that being said, the theme of this short story is that one will do whatever they can in a time of crisis.  When thing are going bad, you have to look out for yourself, and yourself only.  You can't be generous.  I tend to think of the "every man for himself" idea.  Morally, you want to be able to help every one out and if you can't then you should suffer with every one, but rationally, that's not the case when you're trying to just survive.

If I was put in Gladys's position, I would have acted and behaved in the same manner that she did.  I can't imagine putting myself in the middle of a war-torn country and trying to survive on my own.  Honestly, when times are rough, you have to do what you have to do in order to survive, and that's exactly what she did.  I feel for Gladys and support her decisions within the story.

A Tragic Disadvantage of Colonization

When first hearing my World Literature professor read the poem "Stranglehold of English Lit" in the same manner as she once heard the author, Felix Mnthali, read it, I was somewhat taken aback.  I was wondering to myself why the author would read a poem with such anger, loudness, and power.  I am used to poetry that uses beautiful language and that is easily heard by an audience.  But after thoroughly analyzing the author's message along with reading the article "Creating Space for a Hundred Flowers to Bloom" by Ngugi, I understand exactly why the author read his work in that manner.

Africa is one of the largest grounds for crisis in today's world.  From civil wars to wars between cultures, Africa's rich continent full of resources has been a forefront for complications.  The main reason for this is colonization by Europeans, especially the British.  Colonization, mainly in the early 20th century, has ripped Africa apart.  Due to colonization, African literature has been unable to thrive in the way that it should.  African literature is rich in nature; full of history and tradition.  However, colonization has forced European traditions onto already existing African traditions.  The largest impact would be language.

Literature in Africa can be broken down in three ways:  By "English" in the English, by Africans in English, and by Africans in African language. African literature in African language is scarce due to the fact it is not widely accepted and it hard to understand because there are so many different African languages.  It also hard to put all of the different African languages down on paper.  Furthermore, African literature is only expressed in English, the argument Mnthali is posing in his poem.

Mnthali's poem argues the fact that in order to attempt to read African literature in African languages, one must go to England or Europe in order to study.  Many Africans are educated in Europe.  However, when studying literature at an English university, you learn about the major English authors.  Mnthali mentions in his poem the great author Jane Austen.  He criticizes that an author like Jane Austen who only discusses the issues of class drama in England doesn't correlate to the issues he faces as in African, or the issues that Africa faces.  Mnthali argues, "what about African people?"  Jane Austen means nothing to him, or Africans.  Africans have no connection with her writing and it means nothing to them.  This brings up the larger idea of the colonization of the mind.  Africans were once forced with living under European rule and are now forced to study their literature.  Mnthali states, "Eng. Lit. my sister, was more than a cruel joke---it was the heart of an alien conquest." He is expressing the fact that the British are still trying to conquer Africans by trying to control the literature that they learn.  Once again, this is a sense of mind control.

The whole reason for Africans to travel to Europe in order to study is to learn about THEIR literature, not about English literature.  This is the problem and flaw that Mnthali points out.  I feel that this is very relatable to American colonization.  The United States, in one way or another, has an impact on every nation in the world.  From outsourcing jobs to making sure there is a McDonald's and Pizza Hut in every nation shows the American colonization of the world.  Also, the United States feels that we are the "world protector", or in other worlds, like a world military.  Personally, I feel it isn't America's job to police the world and worry about or try and fix every one's problems.  I feel it is United States's time to step back, re-evaluate our involvement in the world, and try and worry about our own problems that we are faced with in the home front.

Borges's Sense of Reality

When thinking of Jorge Luis Borges’s pieces of literature, all that comes to mind is reality.  It makes me confused and it makes me think, but I like it.  Borges is most famous for his manipulation of reality.  In his works, he is able to create realities that aren’t true, but somehow they are true because he makes you believe they are true.  Borges is also able to rack my brain by messing with time.  Borges can manipulate time lines within a story, but in the end, it all makes a strange connection. One of the most confusing and intellectual Latin American authors, there is a method behind is madness.

The story of “Emma Zunz” is one of Borges’s best examples of a manipulation in reality.  The story describes one daughter’s revenge for the death of her father.  Emma, the main character, is your everyday traditional, modest young girl.  She receives a letter and learns about the death of her father because he drank himself to death.  The cause?  Emma seems to believe that because of her father’s strenuous work as a factory worker, he drank himself to death.  Emma creates a mastermind plan in order to kill the factory owner who she believed killed her father and he is the reason why her father drank himself to death.  First, Emma goes to a women’s club where a doctor examines her and confirms that she is, in fact, a virgin.  Next, she prostitutes her body at a local bar in order to get her “v-card” taken away by a man who can’t speak her language.  Finally, she goes to the factory where her father worked, goes to the office of the owner, and shoots him with his own gun.  However, she is not found guilty for the murder because she tells police that he was trying to rape her and she only killed him in self-defense.  And besides, why would such an innocent young lady do something like that?

Emma is very logical in getting her own revenge for the death of her father.  Emma was able to create her own reality by making herself and everyone around her believe that the factory owner raped her and that’s the reason why she had to kill him.  Emma is able to move on from the situation and believe that that’s how it actually went down and that was what happened.  She disregards that the fact that she wasn’t raped, the factory worker did nothing to her, and that she actually prostituted her body in order to make it look like she was raped. But, to her satisfaction, she received her own revenge.  The author was able to manipulate reality because no one else in the story knew about the prior steps to the murder in order to seek revenge except for Emma.  Everyone on the outside believes in a fake reality that isn’t true.  No one knows the real story.

When connecting this story to my life I think about liars.  There are so many people in this world who lie, but I don’t understand why.  To make themselves feel cool?  So they look better?  I will never know, but I feel that liars sometimes create their own realities for themselves.  They tell so many lies that they actually begin to believe in their own lies.  Not only do they begin to believe in their own lies, but they get there lies all tangled up and twisted and then get busted for telling so many lies.  I was always told that liars don’t make it far in life and I believe it.  One great word of advice would be don’t lie, it can only come back to haunt you in the end.  Unless of course, you’re Emma Zunz.

Márquez, Márquez, Márquez

The works of Márquez in Latin America can arguably be said to be some of the best writing pieces of their time.  These great works include both of Márquez's short stories entitled "A Man With Enormous Wings" and "The Most Handsomest Drown Man in the World."  Both stories generate the same theme that allows deep thought for the reader.  The theme, in it's most basic form, is don't judge a book by it's cover.  Now for us intellectual people, the theme is the perception that human beings have on certain things.  Márquez criticizes human perception on all levels and feels it is absurd that humans feel some things have to look a certain way or be in a certain state in order for us to recognize or acknowledge their presence.  The appearance of normalcy, created in our mind, is the only way we tend to recognize things.  With two totally different scenarios in both stories, Márquez's underlying theme is portrayed in an exemplifying way.

The first short story, "A Man With Enormous Wings," describes the perception human vanity has of "pretty" things.  This is demonstrated with an angel in the story.  First, when I think of an angel, I typically think of something very beautiful, pure, white, with gorgeous wings and feelings of compassion, like most other people.  However, the angel portrayed in this short story isn't your "typical angel".  The angel is describes as "his bald skull and very few teeth in his mouth...his huge buzzard wings, dirty and half-plucked, were forever entangled in the mud."  As you can see, the angel is quite ugly, and not the everyday typical perception of an angel.  However, the townspeople, after realizing that the angel wasn't beautiful, couldn't speak Latin, and didn't come with blessings, were determined that he wasn't an angel sent from heaven.  The importance of the appearance of the angel and the denial of the angel's presence allows Márquez's criticism to come into play.  Márquez feels that you can't put a price on beauty.  It's wrong that human vanity will only accept "pretty" things and that people will lock themselves into their perceptions with no room for acceptance.  It's actually life itself that is the true miracle.  Yes, it's safe to say that sometime the conception of the divine is hard!  You have to be open to the divine and accept it in all of its shapes, sizes, and forms.

When connecting this story to myself personally, the first thing that comes to mind is what all of us are taught at such a young age:  don't talk to strangers.  Okay, that's true and fair, but think of our perception of a stranger:  a man who looks nasty or homeless, no teeth maybe, a beard, and definitely scary looking.      Is this true that all men who have a beard and look homeless are actually strangers who are going to  kidnap you?  No, not at all.  Some men who look homeless and/or nasty are actually really nice guys, or maybe even geniuses.  I mean look at Albert Einstein, he's not the most attractive or groomed man but he was super intelligent.  I feel that this story allowed me to change many of my already conceived perceptions of certain things.  But, in all honestly, are they really nasty looking or is that just what we have locked our heads into perceiving them as?

In the second short story, "The Most Handsomest Drown Man in the World," Márquez demonstrates the same theme of our perception of certain things but in the opposite way.  Instead of someone being ugly, someone is actually very beautiful, or handsome.  A dead man floats ashore from the sea into a village.  The women of the village view this man and become obsessed with him.  They feel he is the tallest, strongest, and best built man they have ever seen.  The irony of the story is the perception of this man by the women of the village.  The fact that their conception of beauty in a man is that of one that is dead.  This seems bizarre to me, and it should to you too.  The underlying message that Márquez's has created for his readers is this story is that people limit themselves in perception.  The women are so fixed on this dead man only because of his physical looks.  This shows that humans are limited to the norms and ideals and are blinded by the reality.  The reality is, well, the man is dead!  

When thinking to myself about the second story, I think of one man's ugly is another man's beauty.  Just because you perceive something as ugly doesn't mean that someone thinks it's ugly too.  We tend to believe it's wrong for that person to think something you feel is so ugly is beautiful, when in fact that's what I would call perfection.  That's the spice of life and what makes the world go around.  For example, I own a pug and I'm am seriously obsessed with him and think he is the cutest thing ever.  To others, a pug is an ugly dog that only snores and breathes loud.  

In a final note, I feel that Márquez's theme of our perception brings up the idea that I love and that is "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."  My history teacher in high school had a bumper sticker in his room that said this and every time I saw it I had to read it over and over again and think in order for me to finally understand it's meaning.  This quote describes our basic notion on the view of those in the Middle East fighting against our troops.  We think that they are ALL terrorists, which is obviously without a doubt false.  However, those in the Middle East think that the American troops fighting against them are in fact terrorists.  So, we as Americans feel our troops are the freedom fighters and the militias in the Middle East are terrorists.  The militias in the Middle East feel that American's are the terrorists and that they are the freedom fighters helping maintain their idea of normalcy within their country.  So, who is right?  

Cortazar's Writing

The writing of Cortazar is complicated.  There are many underlying messages that the reader must discover when reading his stories.  When you first read his stories, you can get a literal understanding or sense of what the text is trying to convey.  However, when you begin to analyze the text, you come to find that Cortazar inserts many metaphorical messages or meanings.  Cortazar transforms literal reading into metaphorical reading in an effective way that challenges the reader.  Some great examples of his classic style are "The Continuity of Parks", "Our Demeanor at Wakes", and "Axolotl".

After reading the "The Continuity of Parks" I was asking myself the question of "what the heck just happened?"  I was thoroughly confused on how easily Cortazar was able to turn the man reading the story into the man who was about to be killed in the story he was reading.  Furthermore, Cortazar was also able to turn me, as the reader, into the stalker of the man who was about to be killed.  This was my first experience with Cortazar's style and I was intrigued. It challenged every normal, literal understanding of a story that I had ever experienced or understood.  He proved that art is transformative.  Reading is real and as you read, you can become apart of the story.  Cortazar interacts with his reader in this particular story and he is able to manipulate his readers.  He "messes with you" within his writing.  He was able to manipulate me!  

In "Our Demeanor at Wakes", Cortazar proves that hypocrisy is bad.  In my world, just like Cortazar's, hypocrisy IS bad.  Believing in something you don't believe in is a crime.  You shouldn't make yourself believe in something that you truly don't agree with or feel passionate about.  An example of this within the story is in regards to the funeral.  The author proves that if one works on being sad, you can actually become sad even if you aren't.  This reminds me of actors.  Sometimes actors think about sad things on set just to make themselves cry.  Is this okay?  It's questionable.  A little more random if you ask me.  I mean thinking about your dead grandma just to MAKE yourself cry is well...weird to me.  But, Cortazar also proves within this story that once you begin telling so many lies that you begin believing in your own lies.  Then, your lies become your reality.  This also isn't okay.  This is an example of that friend that you have that lies about everything just to make themselves look "cool" or better.  Liars normally don't do too well in life because lying is a bad, bad habit.  In the end, this story brings up many relatable topics to its readers which makes this story even more interesting to read and to understand the underlying messages.

Finally, "Axolotl" is more than just a cute story about salamanders.  It explains the suffering of those who are silent.  Isolation, one of the major themes within "Axolotl", is portrayed through the axolotls.  They have the ability to think, but they don't have the ability to communicate and they are trapped inside of an aquarium.  I feel strongly for the axolotls, and further, those who can't speak.  Being isolated, or alone is a tragedy.  I feel that no one should experience loneliness or isolation. The axolotls are very comparable to those who are deaf.  They can't speak, but they are able to think.  It is like they are trapped inside their own bodies because they can think, but they can't communicate and express themselves.  Their voice can't be heard, just like the axolotls.  On the flip side, isolation can be alleviated through art.  You hear all the time about the guys who are exiled but they write the most amazing novels.  That's because they are able to express themselves through art to help ease the pain of being alone.  This piece of literature makes you stop and truly think about those around who are alone.  Take time out of your day to say hi to someone you don't know because they might need it; they might be alone.

Popul Vuh - Reader Response

After reading Popol Vuh, I found myself more connected and interested in the text contrary to my first judgment of the story.  I never thought I would be able to engage myself into mythology, let alone Mayan mythology.  I was able to learn the concept of circular time used by the Mayans which truly differs from linear time in which I live my life, allowing me to further understand the ideas and concepts inside the story.  But once I read Popol Vuh, I realized I truly enjoyed the context and overall message the story has to offer.  The beginning of the story reminds me of some of the creation stories found in the Bible.  I am familiar with the Bible, but don't no it word for word.  Throughout the beginning, the Christian Bible seems relevant and relatable.  In Chapters 1-2, the Mayan creator Gods are like the Christian God, both creating the Earth and inhabiting it.  In Chapter 3 when the great flood kills the wooden people, it quickly reminds me of the Christian story of Noah's Arc.  When reading Chapters 4-5 about the God who possesses the evil quality of vain which is looked down upon by Mayan civilization, surprisingly my mom comes to mind.  I was always taught to never flaunt the things you are blessed with and to always be humble and not prideful; opposite of vanity.  Once again, the Christian faith is relatable because one of the seven deadly sins is vain.  In the end, my family values seem to be on the same page as the values of Mayan civilization!  Popol Vuh was a successful and enjoyable first exposure to Mayan mythology.