Freedom is an interesting and often misunderstood topic. Living in 21st century America, freedom is the only thing most of us have ever known. Whether it is freedom of speech, press, bearing arms, etc. we enjoy these incredible rights every day. These rights are what the country was founded on. However, for the first hundred years or so of our country’s history, these rights did not apply to everyone. My view of freedom is that it is an unalienable right that I will always enjoy so long as I live in America. I wake up every day and know that I will enjoy the same freedoms I have always enjoyed. Long story short, I take freedom for granted. However, a slave such as Frederick Douglass who lived in the 1800’s had a vastly different view of freedom than I do. To Douglass, freedom was a right of a white man. It was not something that was an automatic for him. Freedom was within reach, however, attaining it involved risking one’s life. Freedom was only attainable by running away. When running away, slaves faced being recaptured, physically punished, or even killed. Additionally, Douglass had to move to England following his escape in order to avoid being recaptured. Freedom was not a given for him. He had to be diligent and make sacrifices in order to continue his status as a free man. Additionally, he had to change his name in order to remain a free man. Keeping his freedom meant that Douglass had to give up his identity and choice of home. Freedom was something that many slaves spent their entire lives trying to attain. To most Americans, freedom is simply there. Most have always been free, and this term holds no more significance than any other word written in a textbook.
#2
The typical education about slavery in America is presented much like Frederick Douglass’s narrative was. The stories of men and their tribulations contain information on the beatings, the breaking up of families, the hard labor, etc. We are taught how terrible it was to be a slave in the south during the 1800’s. However, like Douglass’s narrative, these stories tend to be very male-centric. We hear about all of the typical problems that a male slave would face. However, by focusing mostly on males when teaching about slavery, many hardships faced by women are forgotten. Female slaves faced all of the hardships that male slaves did, however, they also struggled with sexual issues. People are taught about how terrible it was to be a slave, but this extra issue faced by many slave women is often passed over. The idea of sexual assault, rape, and unwanted pregnancy is a very serious topic. When combined with the hardships that all slaves faced, the idea of being a female slave during the 1800’s is simply unbearable. A person can suffer and deal with physical hardship to an extent. However, being forced to deal with these physical issues combined with sexual aggression takes the concept of slavery to a whole new and disgusting level. Jacob’s narrative was incredibly enlightening because of the reason that it brought up the often forgotten issue of sexual aggression that female slaves faced. It provided a much more complete image of slavery that was not paraphrased or edited to be child friendly. I personally feel very sad that the sexual exploitations of female slaves are not more well known. Jacob’s work, as well as other female slave narratives, need to be more widely taught. Learning about slavery is one thing, but getting the whole story is completely another.
#3
During Honors 202, the subject of piety, God, religion, etc. was a mainstay in almost every piece of writing or artwork. People were still very God fearing, and much of life was centered around a person’s beliefs. Take for example medieval artwork, which was almost strictly religion based. Then, with the emergence of the Renaissance, religion began to take a back seat to more philosophical, knowledge based, and secular type of expression. This type of thinking continued to progress throughout the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, eventually leading us to Honors 203. By this point in time, people were very progressive. Religion was still important, however, the idea of complete and unwavering piety was beginning to fade. A focus on the individual was more important. Take for instance the slave narratives. These works were focused on human rights and struggles, not necessarily God. While Faust incorporates the idea of God and Satan, it also incorporates the ideas of human achievement and individualism. A lot of stress is put on the accomplishments of Faust. He has mastered philosophy, medicine, etc. Additionally, he doesn’t necessarily fear the devil. To me, this is very interesting. This is a portrayal of religion that is unlike anything that we have read thus far. Not only does this story talk about Faust’s personal life, accomplishments, and feelings towards religion, but it also portrays God and the Devil very differently. God and the Devil carry on a casual conversation. God doesn’t seem to have any definite authority over the Devil. God makes a BET with the devil. Overall, I feel as though this portrayal of religion is very loose, relaxed, contemporary, and most of all progressive. People are beginning to challenge religion and look at life in different ways that differ greatly from more classically pious type texts.
#4
I think that the term romanticism is incredibly misleading. When someone hears romance or romantic, connotations of a prince charming or candle lit dinner come to mind. People imagine a romantic setting, or a person who is sappy or over the top. When people hear about a period of romanticism, they cannot help but to imagine a bunch of love stories and happy endings. However, this is far from the true definition of romanticism. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, Romanticism is defined as “a style of art, literature, etc., during the late 18th and early 19th centuries that emphasized the imagination and emotions.” Therefore, romanticism has little to do with romance or love like the name may suggest. Instead it is just a concept dealing with over the top and flamboyant emotion. Additionally, this period focused a lot on the individual. Therefore, romantic heroes don’t necessarily need to involve man and woman or a love story. Faust has a plotline that revolves around a love story, however, this is not what makes it a romantic work. Faust is romantic due to the intense individualism and emotion present in the story. First, Faust’s inability to find direction in life leaves him in a depressed state. This is his first instance of intense emotion. He wallows in his sorrow and even contemplates killing himself. However, after talking to the devil, he takes the potion and becomes younger again. This is a major “mood” swing. Now Faust is incredibly happy. Then he meets Gretchen and becomes madly in love with her, and obsessed with getting her, etc. He bounces from intense emotion to intense emotion. Additionally, the entire work is focused in the individual and personal sentiments. Therefore, this work epitomizes romanticism due to the author’s incredible imagination when writing it, as well as the intense emotion and over the top plotlines and character interactions presented.
#5
From 4th grade, all the way through high school, I played the cello. I was always a part of the school orchestra. In my early years, the conductor had trouble getting the orchestra to play Old McDonald correctly. However, by the time I reached high school we were well versed in music and began to play many famous orchestral pieces. From classical to movie scores, I have played, or at least attempted to play J, it all. Classical music tended to be boring to play. It was usually a very constant dynamic and quite repetitive. There was little variation and I, as the musician, oftentimes found myself spacing out and losing interest while playing such songs. Don’t get me wrong, they were beautiful pieces. However, they had very little emotion. On the other hand, I loved to play romantic type music. This music was always very emotional. The pieces would go from fast to slow, loud to soft. Playing this music was very entertaining and almost exhausting. Romantic music was so emotional that while playing, I would feel the emotions in the music. I felt the sadness and the exuberance. I wasn’t monotone and uninterested like I was when I played more classical or modern music. It was very obvious that the composer wanted to show the limits and extremes of human emotion. There was no restraint. The sad parts were very sad, and the happy parts were very exuberant. Like I said earlier, I could truly feel the emotion in the music. Additionally, the conductor looked more into the music. Classical music was usually conducted limp wristed and stoic. On the other hand, romantic music was conducted with jumping, open mouths, flailing arms, etc. The musicians, the conductor, and the listeners could feel the intense passion and emotion in such music, and personally I really really enjoyed romantic pieces.
#6
The concept of communism throughout history is of great shock to me. The humble beginnings of The Communist Manifesto initially laid out the guidelines for a successful communist society. It called for a class-less and government-less society that abolished private property. Everyone was supposed to work towards the common good of society, and in the end everyone would benefit and the society would flourish as a whole. However, this has never been implemented. Every example of communism that we see today is completely different from the manifesto. China, The Soviet Union, and Vietnam are/were all communist countries. However, instead of a government-less society, a totalitarian society evolved. The government controls everything. Additionally, there was supposed to be no private property. In these places, the government owns everything. I do not understand how the initial idea of communism could have been changed so drastically in order to have it work. It is equally as baffling to me that the idea of communism was so drastically changed, and such a complete failure. Living conditions in The Soviet Union were despicable. There was no “common good” to be worked towards. It created a dictatorial society that caused most of the western world to despise the idea of communism. Why was the manifesto not followed? Was it too utopian? Was it impossible to get an entire society to work for the common good? Anyone who has read the Communist Manifesto knows that these societies are not a true reflection of the original communist ideal. I often wonder how different the world would be today if these countries had followed the manifesto as laid out in the book. Would they have found it impossible and abandoned the idea early on? Maybe they would have found that it worked perfectly, and communism would have become the new standard for the world. Nobody knows for sure, but the application of communism thus far has been harsh and unsuccessful as a whole.
#7
The concept of feminism was always a highly controversial issue in history. The fact that feminism was directly contradictory to social norms made the transition into a more modern mindset even more difficult. Women who desired to have more rights had a decision to make. They had to choose between having more rights vs. breaking societal norms regarding women’s roles in the house and the concept of divorce. Early feminists were often seen as outcasts. Society was entrenched in its ideas of how a family should work. The woman’s duty was to her husband and children. She had no voice inside or outside of the house. The husband was the provider and the decision maker. Therefore, the decision to become more independent and gain a voice was not as simple as standing up and walking away. The woman was forced to leave her husband’s money supply. Additionally, she would have to abandon her children. When she got out into the real world, she would have a difficult time finding a job, due to the way that society was laid out. She would be seen as an outcast due to the fact that she wanted a divorce and left her husband. Women were supposed to be subordinate to their husband, and if things ever got rough it was their marital duty to make it work somehow or another. Women who left their husbands would have been seen as outcasts and social deviants. Women who left their husbands would probably have a hard time trying to remarry. The decision to leave one’s husband in such a society was not an easy move. Early feminists had to weigh their options. They had to see if they valued their independence more or less than a life of hardship after they made the decision to leave.
#8
After reading The Yellow Wallpaper, I was positively dumbfounded and shocked for a very distinct reason. The reason that I found this story so poignant was the medical science of the time. The resting cure was designed for soldiers suffering from battle fatigue. This was an effective treatment for someone who was exhausted and oftentimes mentally stressed or traumatized. The concept of sitting in a room alone with no threat of being disturbed or harassed makes sense for this case. However, the fact that doctors of the time believed that this could be extended to treat people suffering from chronic depression or hysteria is absolutely dumbfounding. It is beyond my realm of perception to understand why they though isolating a mentally depressed or unstable person would be beneficial. Whether doctors understood modern medical science or not, it seems absolutely absurd and impractical to treat an unstable individual like this. I find it difficult to excuse the fact that doctors thought this was a good cure, but I completely cannot excuse the fact that they stuck to it after seeing its effects. They saw how these patients reacted to being isolated. However, instead of cancelling the prescription for the resting cure, they continued treatment. Many individuals went completely insane. How is it possible to think that this is a good treatment? Think of how much mental distress, and even suicides could have been prevented. To me it seems like common sense to stop a certain treatment if it is causing the individual to get worse. By sticking to this ridiculous treatment, even after seeing its negative effects, doctors of the time ruined people’s lives. They took treatable mental illness and turned it into something that could never be removed from a person’s life. On top of that, they ruined marriages and tore families apart as well.
#9
Having grown up in the 21st century, I have always been taught to be very skeptical of what politicians are telling me. Especially being from Chicago, I have learned over time that it is almost impossible to trust anything I am being told by political leaders. While reading about the Colonial era and the idea of White Man’s Burden, I have become increasingly questioning. Every account of colonial events is an over the top and emotional description. People almost wail about how awful, dirty, uneducated, worthless, poor, uncivilized these poor people are. They then go on to explain how it is the white man’s God given duty to go in and civilize these people. They call the natives “prehistoric” and “inhuman.” There are few, if no, down to Earth accounts of colonialism. Every description and memoir is romanticized beyond belief to make the situation in Africa sound as dire as possible. As I read more and more, I have began to wonder how much the political agenda of the time played into colonialism. This was a time when “the sun never set on the British empire,” and land was at a premium. Personally, I feel like the people sent to write about what they saw in Africa were more concerned about their political agenda than anything else. Their writings were merely propaganda, meant to fool the masses into thinking they were put on Earth as superior beings who would civilize and educate the primitive. The true motive behind colonialism was land, resources, and free labor. Civilizing the masses was a nothing but a front to the unspeakable inhumanity and in some cases genocide. The governments would have met a significant amount of resistance without this propaganda. Helping the poor helpless Africans sounded drastically better than exploiting them and their resources.
#10
I find the concept of the ego, superego, and id very interesting to explore. Although this concept has been widely debunked over time, it makes a lot of sense considering the time period in which it was conceived. It was written during a time when very little was understood about the human mind and conscious. Personally, I like the concept of the id the most. For the time period, I think that the id is an incredibly sophisticated description of why humans act like they do in certain situations. Freud saw that people were trained to act in certain ways in society. This behavior, present in the conscious mind, was constantly governing how people acted out in public. However, Freud noticed that this seemed to be a cover up for human’s true nature. He saw that people’s true and primitive instincts were being suppressed. However, he also saw that people were not consciously thinking about these things. Things such as hunger, warmth, sex, thirst, etc. were ingrained in human nature. People sought these pleasures, however, they were not consciously thinking about them, and almost always tried to suppress them. Freud saw that these instincts were under the surface of people’s everyday thinking. He put them in what he called the sub-conscious, meaning that while they existed and had an effect of people’s actions, they were not constantly thought about. As stated earlier, I understand that this theory has been dis proven over time. However, I feel it is important to take a moment to step back and appreciate how intricate of a concept Freud created for his time period. He identified 3 things of ego, superego, and id. Additionally, he had the other sub-levels of conscious and sub-conscious. This is truly revolutionary for this time period, and to me, someone with no psychological knowledge, it makes a lot of sense.
#11
I would like to begin this reflection by saying that the assertions that I am about to make are not proven, nor are they necessarily true. They are simply my take and opinion on a particular topic. Personally, I feel as though eccentric modern art owes much of its success to the invention of photography. Around the time of the of the emergence of various types of very abstract art such as impressionism and cubism, photography was in its infant stages and beginning to gain popularity. As photography began to grow and the technology become ever more sophisticated, people, specifically artists, began to think differently. All of a sudden, people could have an exact image of whatever they desired. A need for art that provided an exact copy of something was becoming obsolete. If fact, it almost seemed lacking. Suddenly, there was not “artistic interpretation” in that type of art. Anyone could go out and take a picture that looked exactly like what you just painted. In my opinion, this is the point in time in which photography and painting split and went their own separate ways. Artists, therefore, began to search for ways to be artistic. They saw interpretation, hidden meaning, and emotion in certain types of art like cubism or impressionism. Van Gogh, Monet, Dali, etc. were truly “artists” in my opinion. They were not just copying down what they saw. Instead, they took what they saw and augmented it to show emotion, hidden meaning, symbolizations, etc. They were truly interpreting what they saw and filtering it through their feelings and emotional state. Photography was just as pertinent and significant of a field, just different. Photographers, through the use of filters, lighting, and angle, can add “artistic interpretation” to their work. The work that they create is considered “art” just as much as any painting.
#1
Freedom is an interesting and often misunderstood topic. Living in 21st century America, freedom is the only thing most of us have ever known. Whether it is freedom of speech, press, bearing arms, etc. we enjoy these incredible rights every day. These rights are what the country was founded on. However, for the first hundred years or so of our country’s history, these rights did not apply to everyone. My view of freedom is that it is an unalienable right that I will always enjoy so long as I live in America. I wake up every day and know that I will enjoy the same freedoms I have always enjoyed. Long story short, I take freedom for granted. However, a slave such as Frederick Douglass who lived in the 1800’s had a vastly different view of freedom than I do. To Douglass, freedom was a right of a white man. It was not something that was an automatic for him. Freedom was within reach, however, attaining it involved risking one’s life. Freedom was only attainable by running away. When running away, slaves faced being recaptured, physically punished, or even killed. Additionally, Douglass had to move to England following his escape in order to avoid being recaptured. Freedom was not a given for him. He had to be diligent and make sacrifices in order to continue his status as a free man. Additionally, he had to change his name in order to remain a free man. Keeping his freedom meant that Douglass had to give up his identity and choice of home. Freedom was something that many slaves spent their entire lives trying to attain. To most Americans, freedom is simply there. Most have always been free, and this term holds no more significance than any other word written in a textbook.
#2
The typical education about slavery in America is presented much like Frederick Douglass’s narrative was. The stories of men and their tribulations contain information on the beatings, the breaking up of families, the hard labor, etc. We are taught how terrible it was to be a slave in the south during the 1800’s. However, like Douglass’s narrative, these stories tend to be very male-centric. We hear about all of the typical problems that a male slave would face. However, by focusing mostly on males when teaching about slavery, many hardships faced by women are forgotten. Female slaves faced all of the hardships that male slaves did, however, they also struggled with sexual issues. People are taught about how terrible it was to be a slave, but this extra issue faced by many slave women is often passed over. The idea of sexual assault, rape, and unwanted pregnancy is a very serious topic. When combined with the hardships that all slaves faced, the idea of being a female slave during the 1800’s is simply unbearable. A person can suffer and deal with physical hardship to an extent. However, being forced to deal with these physical issues combined with sexual aggression takes the concept of slavery to a whole new and disgusting level. Jacob’s narrative was incredibly enlightening because of the reason that it brought up the often forgotten issue of sexual aggression that female slaves faced. It provided a much more complete image of slavery that was not paraphrased or edited to be child friendly. I personally feel very sad that the sexual exploitations of female slaves are not more well known. Jacob’s work, as well as other female slave narratives, need to be more widely taught. Learning about slavery is one thing, but getting the whole story is completely another.
#3
During Honors 202, the subject of piety, God, religion, etc. was a mainstay in almost every piece of writing or artwork. People were still very God fearing, and much of life was centered around a person’s beliefs. Take for example medieval artwork, which was almost strictly religion based. Then, with the emergence of the Renaissance, religion began to take a back seat to more philosophical, knowledge based, and secular type of expression. This type of thinking continued to progress throughout the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, eventually leading us to Honors 203. By this point in time, people were very progressive. Religion was still important, however, the idea of complete and unwavering piety was beginning to fade. A focus on the individual was more important. Take for instance the slave narratives. These works were focused on human rights and struggles, not necessarily God. While Faust incorporates the idea of God and Satan, it also incorporates the ideas of human achievement and individualism. A lot of stress is put on the accomplishments of Faust. He has mastered philosophy, medicine, etc. Additionally, he doesn’t necessarily fear the devil. To me, this is very interesting. This is a portrayal of religion that is unlike anything that we have read thus far. Not only does this story talk about Faust’s personal life, accomplishments, and feelings towards religion, but it also portrays God and the Devil very differently. God and the Devil carry on a casual conversation. God doesn’t seem to have any definite authority over the Devil. God makes a BET with the devil. Overall, I feel as though this portrayal of religion is very loose, relaxed, contemporary, and most of all progressive. People are beginning to challenge religion and look at life in different ways that differ greatly from more classically pious type texts.
#4
I think that the term romanticism is incredibly misleading. When someone hears romance or romantic, connotations of a prince charming or candle lit dinner come to mind. People imagine a romantic setting, or a person who is sappy or over the top. When people hear about a period of romanticism, they cannot help but to imagine a bunch of love stories and happy endings. However, this is far from the true definition of romanticism. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, Romanticism is defined as “a style of art, literature, etc., during the late 18th and early 19th centuries that emphasized the imagination and emotions.” Therefore, romanticism has little to do with romance or love like the name may suggest. Instead it is just a concept dealing with over the top and flamboyant emotion. Additionally, this period focused a lot on the individual. Therefore, romantic heroes don’t necessarily need to involve man and woman or a love story. Faust has a plotline that revolves around a love story, however, this is not what makes it a romantic work. Faust is romantic due to the intense individualism and emotion present in the story. First, Faust’s inability to find direction in life leaves him in a depressed state. This is his first instance of intense emotion. He wallows in his sorrow and even contemplates killing himself. However, after talking to the devil, he takes the potion and becomes younger again. This is a major “mood” swing. Now Faust is incredibly happy. Then he meets Gretchen and becomes madly in love with her, and obsessed with getting her, etc. He bounces from intense emotion to intense emotion. Additionally, the entire work is focused in the individual and personal sentiments. Therefore, this work epitomizes romanticism due to the author’s incredible imagination when writing it, as well as the intense emotion and over the top plotlines and character interactions presented.
#5
From 4th grade, all the way through high school, I played the cello. I was always a part of the school orchestra. In my early years, the conductor had trouble getting the orchestra to play Old McDonald correctly. However, by the time I reached high school we were well versed in music and began to play many famous orchestral pieces. From classical to movie scores, I have played, or at least attempted to play J, it all. Classical music tended to be boring to play. It was usually a very constant dynamic and quite repetitive. There was little variation and I, as the musician, oftentimes found myself spacing out and losing interest while playing such songs. Don’t get me wrong, they were beautiful pieces. However, they had very little emotion. On the other hand, I loved to play romantic type music. This music was always very emotional. The pieces would go from fast to slow, loud to soft. Playing this music was very entertaining and almost exhausting. Romantic music was so emotional that while playing, I would feel the emotions in the music. I felt the sadness and the exuberance. I wasn’t monotone and uninterested like I was when I played more classical or modern music. It was very obvious that the composer wanted to show the limits and extremes of human emotion. There was no restraint. The sad parts were very sad, and the happy parts were very exuberant. Like I said earlier, I could truly feel the emotion in the music. Additionally, the conductor looked more into the music. Classical music was usually conducted limp wristed and stoic. On the other hand, romantic music was conducted with jumping, open mouths, flailing arms, etc. The musicians, the conductor, and the listeners could feel the intense passion and emotion in such music, and personally I really really enjoyed romantic pieces.
#6
The concept of communism throughout history is of great shock to me. The humble beginnings of The Communist Manifesto initially laid out the guidelines for a successful communist society. It called for a class-less and government-less society that abolished private property. Everyone was supposed to work towards the common good of society, and in the end everyone would benefit and the society would flourish as a whole. However, this has never been implemented. Every example of communism that we see today is completely different from the manifesto. China, The Soviet Union, and Vietnam are/were all communist countries. However, instead of a government-less society, a totalitarian society evolved. The government controls everything. Additionally, there was supposed to be no private property. In these places, the government owns everything. I do not understand how the initial idea of communism could have been changed so drastically in order to have it work. It is equally as baffling to me that the idea of communism was so drastically changed, and such a complete failure. Living conditions in The Soviet Union were despicable. There was no “common good” to be worked towards. It created a dictatorial society that caused most of the western world to despise the idea of communism. Why was the manifesto not followed? Was it too utopian? Was it impossible to get an entire society to work for the common good? Anyone who has read the Communist Manifesto knows that these societies are not a true reflection of the original communist ideal. I often wonder how different the world would be today if these countries had followed the manifesto as laid out in the book. Would they have found it impossible and abandoned the idea early on? Maybe they would have found that it worked perfectly, and communism would have become the new standard for the world. Nobody knows for sure, but the application of communism thus far has been harsh and unsuccessful as a whole.
#7
The concept of feminism was always a highly controversial issue in history. The fact that feminism was directly contradictory to social norms made the transition into a more modern mindset even more difficult. Women who desired to have more rights had a decision to make. They had to choose between having more rights vs. breaking societal norms regarding women’s roles in the house and the concept of divorce. Early feminists were often seen as outcasts. Society was entrenched in its ideas of how a family should work. The woman’s duty was to her husband and children. She had no voice inside or outside of the house. The husband was the provider and the decision maker. Therefore, the decision to become more independent and gain a voice was not as simple as standing up and walking away. The woman was forced to leave her husband’s money supply. Additionally, she would have to abandon her children. When she got out into the real world, she would have a difficult time finding a job, due to the way that society was laid out. She would be seen as an outcast due to the fact that she wanted a divorce and left her husband. Women were supposed to be subordinate to their husband, and if things ever got rough it was their marital duty to make it work somehow or another. Women who left their husbands would have been seen as outcasts and social deviants. Women who left their husbands would probably have a hard time trying to remarry. The decision to leave one’s husband in such a society was not an easy move. Early feminists had to weigh their options. They had to see if they valued their independence more or less than a life of hardship after they made the decision to leave.
#8
After reading The Yellow Wallpaper, I was positively dumbfounded and shocked for a very distinct reason. The reason that I found this story so poignant was the medical science of the time. The resting cure was designed for soldiers suffering from battle fatigue. This was an effective treatment for someone who was exhausted and oftentimes mentally stressed or traumatized. The concept of sitting in a room alone with no threat of being disturbed or harassed makes sense for this case. However, the fact that doctors of the time believed that this could be extended to treat people suffering from chronic depression or hysteria is absolutely dumbfounding. It is beyond my realm of perception to understand why they though isolating a mentally depressed or unstable person would be beneficial. Whether doctors understood modern medical science or not, it seems absolutely absurd and impractical to treat an unstable individual like this. I find it difficult to excuse the fact that doctors thought this was a good cure, but I completely cannot excuse the fact that they stuck to it after seeing its effects. They saw how these patients reacted to being isolated. However, instead of cancelling the prescription for the resting cure, they continued treatment. Many individuals went completely insane. How is it possible to think that this is a good treatment? Think of how much mental distress, and even suicides could have been prevented. To me it seems like common sense to stop a certain treatment if it is causing the individual to get worse. By sticking to this ridiculous treatment, even after seeing its negative effects, doctors of the time ruined people’s lives. They took treatable mental illness and turned it into something that could never be removed from a person’s life. On top of that, they ruined marriages and tore families apart as well.
#9
Having grown up in the 21st century, I have always been taught to be very skeptical of what politicians are telling me. Especially being from Chicago, I have learned over time that it is almost impossible to trust anything I am being told by political leaders. While reading about the Colonial era and the idea of White Man’s Burden, I have become increasingly questioning. Every account of colonial events is an over the top and emotional description. People almost wail about how awful, dirty, uneducated, worthless, poor, uncivilized these poor people are. They then go on to explain how it is the white man’s God given duty to go in and civilize these people. They call the natives “prehistoric” and “inhuman.” There are few, if no, down to Earth accounts of colonialism. Every description and memoir is romanticized beyond belief to make the situation in Africa sound as dire as possible. As I read more and more, I have began to wonder how much the political agenda of the time played into colonialism. This was a time when “the sun never set on the British empire,” and land was at a premium. Personally, I feel like the people sent to write about what they saw in Africa were more concerned about their political agenda than anything else. Their writings were merely propaganda, meant to fool the masses into thinking they were put on Earth as superior beings who would civilize and educate the primitive. The true motive behind colonialism was land, resources, and free labor. Civilizing the masses was a nothing but a front to the unspeakable inhumanity and in some cases genocide. The governments would have met a significant amount of resistance without this propaganda. Helping the poor helpless Africans sounded drastically better than exploiting them and their resources.
#10
I find the concept of the ego, superego, and id very interesting to explore. Although this concept has been widely debunked over time, it makes a lot of sense considering the time period in which it was conceived. It was written during a time when very little was understood about the human mind and conscious. Personally, I like the concept of the id the most. For the time period, I think that the id is an incredibly sophisticated description of why humans act like they do in certain situations. Freud saw that people were trained to act in certain ways in society. This behavior, present in the conscious mind, was constantly governing how people acted out in public. However, Freud noticed that this seemed to be a cover up for human’s true nature. He saw that people’s true and primitive instincts were being suppressed. However, he also saw that people were not consciously thinking about these things. Things such as hunger, warmth, sex, thirst, etc. were ingrained in human nature. People sought these pleasures, however, they were not consciously thinking about them, and almost always tried to suppress them. Freud saw that these instincts were under the surface of people’s everyday thinking. He put them in what he called the sub-conscious, meaning that while they existed and had an effect of people’s actions, they were not constantly thought about. As stated earlier, I understand that this theory has been dis proven over time. However, I feel it is important to take a moment to step back and appreciate how intricate of a concept Freud created for his time period. He identified 3 things of ego, superego, and id. Additionally, he had the other sub-levels of conscious and sub-conscious. This is truly revolutionary for this time period, and to me, someone with no psychological knowledge, it makes a lot of sense.
#11
I would like to begin this reflection by saying that the assertions that I am about to make are not proven, nor are they necessarily true. They are simply my take and opinion on a particular topic. Personally, I feel as though eccentric modern art owes much of its success to the invention of photography. Around the time of the of the emergence of various types of very abstract art such as impressionism and cubism, photography was in its infant stages and beginning to gain popularity. As photography began to grow and the technology become ever more sophisticated, people, specifically artists, began to think differently. All of a sudden, people could have an exact image of whatever they desired. A need for art that provided an exact copy of something was becoming obsolete. If fact, it almost seemed lacking. Suddenly, there was not “artistic interpretation” in that type of art. Anyone could go out and take a picture that looked exactly like what you just painted. In my opinion, this is the point in time in which photography and painting split and went their own separate ways. Artists, therefore, began to search for ways to be artistic. They saw interpretation, hidden meaning, and emotion in certain types of art like cubism or impressionism. Van Gogh, Monet, Dali, etc. were truly “artists” in my opinion. They were not just copying down what they saw. Instead, they took what they saw and augmented it to show emotion, hidden meaning, symbolizations, etc. They were truly interpreting what they saw and filtering it through their feelings and emotional state. Photography was just as pertinent and significant of a field, just different. Photographers, through the use of filters, lighting, and angle, can add “artistic interpretation” to their work. The work that they create is considered “art” just as much as any painting.