Monday, February 28, 2011
Comparison Question
At the end of class today, it was remarked that, in Australia, the Aborigines were brought into "white man's" culture, while in Things Fall Apart, the "white man" brought his culture to the tribesmen. In what ways do you think the experience of having culture brought to you versus having you brought to culture is different? I am particularly struck by the following line from Achebe's book: "They were talking excitedly among themselves because the white man had said he was going to live among them. They had not thought about that." (TFA 145)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I feel that there is a great difference in having other culture brought to you compared to having been taken away to be taught someone else's culture. When culture is brought to someone, they have a "home field advantage." If the people of "Things Fall Apart" realized what the white man's goal was I feel that there reaction to him staying with them would have been very different. The people of Umoufia were tricked into thinking that the man was actually helping their tribe. When someone is forcing someone into a culture after taking them away from their home, that person has no way very few ways of rebelling that culture without being killed or hurt.
The main difference between being brought into a culture and having a culture brought to you is the immediate impact.
Although both often have (profound) negative impacts, having a culture brought to yours is more likely to have a productive outcome than forcing a culture into another. Although Okonkwo and many of the others are sad and angry about the arrival of this new religion and culture, you see many of their people converting into it by choice (even if that choice was influenced by conditioning, it was still theirs’.) They also carried on with their ever day life- the change was not immediate- they were not removed from their homes and forced into a different life, like the half castes who were brought into culture.
In Rabbit Proof fence you witness these girls being dragged off into a completely different culture without their language or familiar surroundings and practices. Molly, very recently after their arrival, says it is a “bad place” and takes her cousin and sister out of there, hating it. Molly was exposed to the white men who ran the place where the rations were given out- they were doing the same thing as the missionaries in Things Fall Apart. They did not bother her immediately because that was a different culture being brought to them.
In my opinion, having a culture brought to you would be much more adaptable, versus you being brought into a culture. I think this because when another culture is brought into yours, you are still within your culture as a new culture merges with yours. When you are brought to a different culture, (I’m assuming) you would feel great fear and anxiety because you have been taken from your home and separated from everything you knew. You would now have to forget your old ways and learn the new ways of the culture in which you have been brought to. Whereas, when the culture is brought to you, you are still with your family and the ways you have always know, now there are new ways being suggested to you.
A quote from Achebe’s “Things Fall Apart” that I really think about is, “They were talking excitedly among themselves because the white man had said he was going to live among them.” I believe Achebe uses this to show how excited the Africans were to find that the white men would soon be living amongst them because they didn’t know what the white men’s plans were. I believe that if the Africans would have known the reasoning behind the white man’s presence, they would have never wanted them to come and bring their culture unto Africa.
I think that having a culture brought to you would give you the choice to learn about it, and possibly experience things about it, but if you did not want to have a part in that culture then you did not have too. A choice is what the people want, and by having a culture brought to your own gives the people a choice. Having you brought to a culture is different, you would have to show the people of the other culture that your ways of living, is worth getting to know. In Things Fall Apart the white man brought an 'iron horse', something that the people of Umoufia have never seen before. Luring them in to wanting to learn and possibly take part in his culture.
I deem that having a culture brought to you will be much more acceptable than being brought into a culture. As I can see in the movie, Rabbit Proof Fence, those three half caste girls were brought into another totally different culture. They completely could not take that result and tried to get back because that was not what they expected. Instead, they wanted to stay in their own culture, living in the way they used to live because they have been condition to live in their way and the original culture was rooted in their minds deeply. However, in Things fall apart, the white man brought new cultures among tribes. It can be considered as one plus one on the base of their own culture. They did not have to change their old living way, but just add some. In other word, It is much more acceptable than being brought into a culture.
Aborigine’s being brought into the “white men’s” culture differs from citizens of Umuofia freely choosing to accept the white man’s culture because of stability. The lack of stability forced Aborigine’s to join the Australian “white men’s” culture while having stability gave Umuofia citizens the option to involve themselves in the white man’s culture. Being involved with “white men’s” Australian culture was a factor that helped keep Aborigines alive. Aborigine people would have looked at this involvement of “white men’s” culture as a necessity not an option. In America having culture brought to you or you being brought into culture doesn’t make a difference because citizens have freedom along with stability. Therefore, the question regarding what ways involvement of culture differs depends on a persons or peoples stability and freedom. For example, in Chinua Achebe’s novel people aren’t suggested to involve themselves with the white man’s culture, however, the tribesmen become excited and have the ability to decide.
The main differences between a culture brought to people compare to people brought to culture is freedom. Of course, there are also many other factors involved in the matter. In the book, Things Fall Apart, European culture was brought to Africans; they had freedom to choose which culture to be in. Disadvantage of culture being brought into Africans is that they will look down upon people going to Christian church, and many people will not participate in the other culture. If you are brought into a culture by force, then you don’t have freedom to go back to their culture, but it becomes absolute for them to learn the culture. People will be learning other culture that they are brought into.
There is another aspect to look at for this problem. Most people will prefer to have freedom to choose their education of other cultures, but it is possible and likely to have some people wanting to learn the other culture rather than staying in their culture. For them, it will be better to be brought into the other culture to learn better, because culture is not very easy to bring around place to place. So even though there are missionaries going around Africa, in the book Things Fall Apart, in order to spread the culture, but it wouldn’t be working quite well as bringing people to their culture.
One of the interesting questions that many of you raise is, what is the degree of freedom (or responsibility) one has regarding the inclusion of other cultures? For example, some of you consider having a culture brought to you an instance where freedom to choose is still retained, whereas others seem not so sure.
I wonder if the matter isn't further complicated by the fact that often times we are not even aware of the cultures we are introduced, or brought in, to.
Mr. Nicholson, by inclusion of other cultures, do you mean for when you're brought to another culture, or the culture is brought to you, or both?
I believe that having culture brought to you and being brought to culture are two completely different things. When a culture is brought to you it is typically in the instance that a small group of people come into your community to attempt to instill their beliefs with in you. The "forigners" often travel in small sizes and come from different backgrounds. When the people of the other culture come into your teritory you still have your family,friends,land,and language surrounding you so you still have somewhat of a sense of security. On the other hand, being removed from your culture and placed into a new culture would be extremely hard and cause great discomfort such as the half caste girls in the movie "Over the Rabitt Fence" they were taking away from their family, land, parents, basically everything they grew up with and taken into a new culture and required to speak a language they didn't know. I think that having another culture brought to you is more ideal then being brought into another culture.
Cam, I mean both. I think Meaghan has a point: When one is taken from his or her culture, it seems like much more of an act of violation, since one is being removed from all of that which one has associated, but when brings culture, there is still a sense of belonging; there is still a sense that what is mine is mine, I'm still here. Good point.
I feel as if we have freedom when a culture is brought to us as well as when we are brought to a culture, but there are two different kinds of freedom. When a culture is brought to you, you have the freedom to absorb and understand the culture that is being presented to you as well as still have faith and belief in your own culture. When you are brought into a culture, you have the freedom to express yourself and in a sense have a fresh start in the new culture. This means you have the freedom to be whoever you want to be.
Morgan,
Very interesting point. I wonder, though, if in both cases freedom is preserved, what makes the aboriginal case and the African case so different? It doesn't appear immediately that the aborigine and the colonized African experience the outside culture as a free enterprise.
Good thoughts, everyone!
The ways that outside culture used to change the local people caused the two different attitudes in the aborigine and the Colonizes African. In the aborigine case, the outside culture’s controllers enforced the education as the way to bring an outside culture into people. Everyone has the inverse psychology when they face to other’s demands. The more force people pushed to the aborigines, the more reversal mind the local people will have. In addition, first impression is the most lasting one, so the local children would always think that the culture they had had was the right one, no matter what kind of benefit--food, medicine and houses—that outside culture gives to them. However, in the case of the Africans, the white people didn’t force local people to accept the outside culture. The write people were showing their culture by helping them. The Africans enjoyed the resources that people from outside brought to them, thus began to the learning of a new culture.
Post a Comment