Ethnocentrically-Induced Conflict (Brits vs. Natives)

The altercations that occurred between the British and the Aboriginals of Australia were fundamentally caused by the ethnocentrism and bias supported by the colonists. As much as it is said that the first encounter between both populations was devoid of violence, (and full of dancing and excitement) : the culture of the natives was still viewed as primitive and savage. The first impression is that they were a passive and unsophisticated race. The British, proud of their empire, and ready to acquire more land, were focalized on their ethos and quite judgmental when it came to viewing aboriginal culture. Often, in diaries and reports written by British government officials, ‘savage’ and ‘wild’ were a recurring theme when describing the mannerisms of Australia’s indigenous people, and showed the British’s revulsion when referring to another culture. This feeling of supremacy over Australia’s ethnic population led to many struggles, like when the colonists overtook the aboriginal farming grounds and devastated the yam crops in order to grow corn, a more cherished food source in their culture. A more substantial conflict stemming from the British’s ethnocentricity was the one who’s bias spurred the Stolen Generation. Haft-cast children were taken from their homes and sent to hands to be trained to be servants and to be bred like animals, with whiter races, so as to eradicate their aborigine genes. The British could not understand the Aboriginal ethos, as it was a philosophy that greatly differed from their own, and so they labeled it as subhuman and ‘primitive’ and gained this air of superiority. The aboriginals were established as ‘uncivilized’ and ‘destructive’ individuals that needed to be ‘saved from themselves’ and ultimately eliminated. Various wars were commenced, several tribes were massacred, and the Australian natives were losing both their civilization and their presence. Ethnocentricity causes a blind spot were one can neither comprehend nor appreciate another society with varying convictions, appearance or comportment. The British referred to the Aborigines as “natives”, but not as people: they were labeled, as they weren’t considered equals to the Englishmen. The British perception alienated the native culture and chastened it, and the next epochs of hostilities and violence all ensued due to the initial actions taken by the British, who refused to acknowledge variations and were blinded by their indifference. 

Brutus and Cassius's Private Exchange

For the Julius Caesar duo evaluation, my partner Anamika and I chose a passage on page 36, Act 1 Scene 2 , lines 130 – 174. The context of this passage is a private moment entertained between Cassius and Brutus, where Cassius makes an impulsive attempt to build Brutus’s resentment against Caesar up. This is in the intention to perhaps instill the thought of committing an act of rebellion within him (Brutus.)  

This passage was chosen to be performed as it represents an essential emotional and psychological turn, introduces the audience to the predominant theme of the play, foreshadows certain events and procedures as well as providing a lot of anxiety and characterization. Throughout the chosen lines, Cassius tries to infuriate Brutus by stating his opinion as well as (supposedly) many other Romans’ about who would be the better, more suited leader. Cassius refers to Caesar as a colossus, and to the people of Rome as “underlings” to this dictator. It is at this moment in time that Brutus becomes affected and commences to genuinely consider the substance in Cassius’s “persuasion.” The whole verbal exchange initiates a trail of thought that causes the audience to mentally foreshadow what will happen next. The general theme of the play is also established here. (Cassius convincing Brutus to rebel and save Rome, then there's the whole process of this, the conspirators kill Caesar and Brutus deals with the repercussions of his decisions.) This part that we are presenting also, clearly characterizes both Cassius and Brutus. The first is calculating and unscrupulous and persistent, almost Machiavellian. Brutus, on the other hand is overly pensive, naïve and patriotic, also he’s: pragmatic and contemplative and engrossed in his thoughts and current events. This passage is a fantastic amalgamation of the most significant components of this play, not to mention, this extract from the play institutes a lot of tension within the audience because of the myriad of possibilities: will Cassius manage to win over Brutus? Will Brutus realize what Cassius’s mind-frame is, or he fall for the false notes and sycophancy? What consequences will ensue if Brutus becomes a conspirator?

BRUTUS

    Another general shout!

    I do believe that these applauses are

    For some new honours that are heap'd on Caesar.

CASSIUS

    Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world

    Like a Colossus, and we petty men

    Walk under his huge legs and peep about

    To find ourselves dishonourable graves.

    Men at some time are masters of their fates:

    The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

    But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

    Brutus and Caesar: what should be in that 'Caesar'?

    Why should that name be sounded more than yours?

    Write them together, yours is as fair a name;

    Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well;

    Weigh them, it is as heavy; conjure with 'em,

    Brutus will start a spirit as soon as Caesar.

    Now, in the names of all the gods at once,

    Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed,

    That he is grown so great? Age, thou art shamed!

    Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods!

    When went there by an age, since the great flood,

    But it was famed with more than with one man?

    When could they say till now, that talk'd of Rome,

    That her wide walls encompass'd but one man?

    Now is it Rome indeed and room enough,

    When there is in it but one only man.

    O, you and I have heard our fathers say,

    There was a Brutus once that would have brook'd

    The eternal devil to keep his state in Rome

    As easily as a king.

BRUTUS

    That you do love me, I am nothing jealous;

    What you would work me to, I have some aim:

    How I have thought of this and of these times,

    I shall recount hereafter; for this present,

    I would not, so with love I might entreat you,

    Be any further moved. What you have said

    I will consider; what you have to say

    I will with patience hear, and find a time

    Both meet to hear and answer such high things.

    Till then, my noble friend, chew upon this:

    Brutus had rather be a villager

    Than to repute himself a son of Rome

    Under these hard conditions as this time

    Is like to lay upon us.

CASSIUS

    I am glad that my weak words

    Have struck but thus much show of fire from Brutus.

Learner Profiles

Im a FF profile, logic dominant. Its fairly bizarre because, even though I have a more significant access to the left side of my brain, I have quite a balanced usage of my gestalt side as well. I suppose that puts me to an advantage when doing analysis and assessing situations but sometimes messes me up on specifically logical (math) or gestalt (building) activities because I have to adjust and change the "dominant" side I utilize.

I learn best when I focus visually and deeply analyze details in information, this is because whenever Im not conscious of the specifics, it makes me feel ignorant or oblivious and almost stirs an immediate feeling of unease. I also do well when I am supplied with structured learning and data/information in a sequences, orderly manner. When things aren't organized, I lose track and get lost and dont know what to refer to and this causes for me to feel frustrated or have to rewrite the whole "lesson" in my own structured way. I do disagree with my profile a little because I don't believe showing me pictures will help me learn better in anyway, I mean: granted, I do respond to visual models but I also respond to audio and sensory models as well. I LOVE LISTS, I could make them, read them and alter them all day, because for me, when some thing is ordered I feel like I have control over it and haver a constant thing to refer to. This is why learning with our lesson, questions and activities listed is easier for me to follow because everything has a structure I appreciate.  I am emotionally expressive (physically - :P perhaps) and I love learning when I can write things down, remember them and organize them in a detailed manner. I love stress because it makes me more more efficiently and give more effort but I tend to lose my auditory skills under stress and not listen to anyone around me (which often proves to be a problem.) Im also a language lover, learning new languages is something thats a bit of a pastime, like spanish, portuguese, italian etc. This is why I love studying history and etymology in the classroom because it feels like a much more natural way of learning the signification of words.

I need to learn to work on my auditory skills because sometimes, when something tends to drag on (a movie, music video, class discussion etc.) I start having my own little conversation inside my head and thinking of other thing. Under stress, or when anxious regarding anything: I automatically lose the ability to listen to people or process anything that is said to me. Often this gets me in a reasonable amount of trouble because teachers and friends understand it as a lack of interest or want to participate.
Things that would help me learn is when I'm constantly asked questions, because I like answering things as it makes me feel like I have an opportunity to explain what I know and discuss it with other people. I also benefit from sitting at the front, reading aloud and talking about whats going on with people so that I can remain engaged the whole time. All of these things are just methods of keeping me interested on the task at hand. In the back, I would still retain all the information given but I would be more susceptible to distraction

I would like my teachers to know that as much as I will have my own little thing going on in my head, Im listening to everything and remembering every piece of information, its just that being able to think about something else helps me process things better. No matter how much it looks like I'm talking to people, laughing or looking in places not pertinent to the activity, I AM retaining all the information that is being given out. I have extremely good focus, I just need to be able to do something or engage in something else in order to properly "participate" in what is happening.  I analyze everything in my head until it makes sense and I know it inside out, its kind of an obsessive thing with me and I try my best to keep it to myself, so when you see my spaces out, or doodling, usually im writing down every little detail I feel relates to the topic. Also, when it looks like a use extensive vocabulary or words that perhaps should be simplified in order to better my writing, its an honest mistake. I read words and remember their roots and meanings and use them so, when I think of very simple things like "13 years gone by", my kind of immediately alters that to something like "the vicissitudes of 13 years." That why when I read comments about my vocabulary, or the way I structure a sentence: I feel really confused because I don't actually KNOW how to judge easy from hard. Also, on tests: questions need to be VERY specific and precise EXACTLY what it means. The questions on the Julius Caesar "pop quiz" ( the easy one) were fairly simple, but it gave me an unimaginable amount of trouble because the questions were not specific enough. For example "Did Cassius want all the power?" That is much too vague of a statement for me to deal with when there is a SPECIFIC answer. "Did Cassius organize the conspiracy in order to accumulate all the power for himself" would have been much simpler.

The Allegory of Sight: An Insight into the Renaissance

The Allegory of Sight (1618), was painted by Jan Brueghel the Elder. It was one of four works of art; each based one of the senses. Jan Brueghel the Elder was born in 1568 and died from cholera, in 1625: he was of Flemish origin and the son of Pieter Brueghel, another maestro of artistry. The Allegory of Sight was oil on canvas, a very multifaceted and intricate painting, burgeoning with vitality, exaggeration, fancy and vision. What seems like a hoarder's perspective of history is in reality, just an accurate depiction of his times; an amalgamation of myth and actuality. Jan B. lived and thrived in the late Renaissance, where innovative styles of art proliferated, embellished by breakthroughs and new techniques. One could only envisage that this, environment of perpetual metamorphosis and evolution, would be the muse for Brueghel, amongst many other artistes’ art, and more distinctly, for The Allegory of Sight. What I mean by this is that, his painting must have echoed his circumstances, his milieu, his era: The Renaissance. Correlations between elements in his art and life during this epoch are predominantly blatant, although some emerge more obscured than others. The individuals, the technicalities, the mythos and imagery: it was all about what was going on in the Renaissance: the objects are allegorical. They are figurative, representative of something, sometimes even metaphorical.  


Take the unclothed Venus as an example: she sits in this painting, perhaps cherishingly contemplating her son, cupid. Some distinctive features here are the fact that cupid has wings, as well as the mythical derivation of these two figures. Venus was a Roman Goddess, an emblem of love, beauty and fecundity. Fundamentally, she was a mythically comparable to Aphrodite, the Greek Goddess. During the glorious period of the Renaissance, artists acquired the autonomy to use their ingenuity and artistic acumen to commence to draw and paint more secular scenes. A painter could now prefer a peasant to a prince and an angel over Jesus for his works. Artists like Botticelli galvanized themselves and their ideas with Greek and Roman mythology. Paintings like La Primavera or Venus Anadyomene are centered on a more folkloric/mythic essence. This may be a substantial indicator as to: when the painting was made and the techniques and elements that were prosperous at the time. Venus might also be symptomatic of the independence in art happening in this era. Cupid, her son, is the god of desire and erotic love. He has wings, a distinguishing attribute that most individuals would not have, for the simple reason that it’s not possible, and yet… here he is evidently seen with angel wings. That signifies the opportunity and option for whimsy and the inconceivable in art. Also, you can effortlessly perceive the parallel between the two figures in this canvas: emblems of love, desire, affection, and fertility. This may be an illustrative way of indicating the foremost themes in art or life during the Renaissance. How painters, brimming with the yearning to charge their art with this new, profane, numinous, mystical, fictitious sensuality worked with representational figures to express this. 

The Allegory of Sight also comprises of numerous details, which refer to life in the Renaissance. The structural design, for example, is very gothic, a revival of what the Greeks had created. The sizeable hallway with a arched ceiling, the embellished curve of the corner-walls: this is all about what was happening at the time. The area itself appears grandiose but the specifics (details) in the architecture, such as lining and carving, is comparatively ordinary. This gives an understanding of what contemporary architecture was at that time. Not to mention the multitude of canvases that ornament the backdrop. You can see one of Madonna and Child encircled by a festoon of spring flowers, a portrait of Elizabeth the First and her husband, a scene with angels in the sky, wars and battles and an assortment of other canvases. To me, each depiction means something; it signifies a facet of life and culture at that time. Madonna and Child represent the function of religious conviction and belief in a society where artistic freedom is in place: the everlasting charisma of religious canvases and its societal magnitude. Elizabeth and her husband are English figures painted by a Flemish artist symbolize travel and trade: the communication and relations between countries, associations and ties and acquaintance, they represent an artistic and international relationship and awareness. Angels characterize the presence of religion and the flight of the imagination, intertwined and coexisting in a serene and innovative way. It represents the lighter, more whimsical side to life, belief, and work. War scenes represent reality and current events, societal and communal disagreements, relationships, and hardships. It’s about the actuality of life, how tribulations were solved at the time and perhaps the cause of these disagreements between individuals. It’s demanding to suppose that each feature and element would bear such a profound and precise relation to the Renaissance but it’s only rational that everything is there for a certain reason because all of these “objects and details” were part of Brueghel’s existence.

There are also individual objects with a correlation with what was going on during the Renaissance. There is a horde of sculpted busts in the background. Busts were tremendously popular in Ancient Greece and were also works of amateur artists and professionals in the Renaissance who sought to recreate the works and techniques of the Ancient Greeks. This represents the mindset and occupation of artists in the Renaissance. It also represents their discovery and familiarity with ancient cultures. There is an astrolabe and a telescope amongst other scientific instruments. This embodies development and inquisition. How, mathematicians, scientists and explorers began to develop scientific tools to see the world, to recognize what is unfathomable and to investigate unidentified sectors of our planet. The solar system, countries and trade maps: all the tools were indispensable to accomplish accurate depictions of these things. The exotic animals and the tapestries were an allusion to traveling in the renaissance: discovering new species, exploring the indefinite, importing and exporting goods. They allude to the riches being compiled, the growth and novelty! Countries in the Renaissance developed boats with which they could set out and explore new areas. Soon they developed trade and banking and were able to set up this import and export coordination. Countries in the Renaissance now had more assets, understanding and supremacy. This whole work of art encompasses years and years of development. How amazing is it that an image can so easily represent a whole life?

Artists are inspired by the world around them, its what they know: the world forms our desires, fantasies and ability to imagine. Art representing your world, how you live, what your life is like what is going on etc. All of this isn't new! These elements present themselves in today's art and media. Take contemporary art, filled to the brim with implausible skyscrapers, people in parachutes, couples, animals, airplanes, magnificent fake creatures and the kind. Every one of these things is inspired from daily life. What we can see, smell, taste, hear, perceive, sense. To know an artist’s life and environment all you really have to do is look at his painting.

The aim of every artist is to arrest motion, which is life, by artificial means and hold it fixed so that a hundred years later, when a stranger looks at it, it moves again since it is life.  ~William Faulkner 

Essential For an Unforgettable Epoch

The Renaissance was an era for artistic and intellectual development. It commenced in Florence, Italy : a realm for ideas. Postulations, experiments, hypotheses : Italy was the place to be. The Renaissance was a movement of progress that scoured through Europe in the 14 to 1600's. Often, this period in history will be recalled for its distinct advances in both scientific and exploratory methods as well as its governmental and political changes. Patronage, the Medici bank, the invention of the telescope etc. I believe that what made the Renaissance such a memorable time in history is the artists. They were the driving force behind this time period. Although, admittedly, there are a variety of peculiar factors that can be attributed to the singularity of the Renaissance, I think that art encompasses a multitude of the advances (intellectual: theoretical and analytical, scientific, mathematical) that were being made.

Prodigies such as Bruneslleschi, Da Vinci, Boticelli, Michelango and Donatello. Brunelleschi initiated the concept of linear perspective which was a significant expansion in creative possibilities concerning drawing and painting. This gave the opportunity for other artists to incorporate more realism into their pieces of art. Leonardo Da Vinci and his elaborate depictions of the human anatomy, his research into the accurate illustration of human limbs. There was Michelango and his paintings like the Creation of Adam. Paintings embellished architectural structures and served as ornaments to churches. The biggest dome (at the time), was internally adorned with magnificent works of art.

Often, a city's status would depend upon various factors regarding appearance and aesthetics of the area. Accomplished craftsmen were esteemed by their city-state and often prioritized by prosperous families seeking to offer patronage. Some of the most renowned canvases and distinguished artists originated from the Renaissance phase and remain until now, the cynosure of all aspiring artistes at expositions of galleria viewings. Everyone knows and recognizes the work of Da Vinci, the sketches of Boticelli and the statue of David. These artistic virtuosos and the products of their artistry remain embedded into our life, hundreds of years later.
This is why, I can firmly state that I believe artists were the most significant driving force behind what we call the Renaissance.

Post part one : The Creation

How are prejudice and bias created?

People who cannot find a reasonable answer for their problems and are in need of someone to blame create prejudice and bias. During the Nazi era, Germans were blaming Jews for all of the Fatherland’s misfortunes. The Jews were blamed for making the country lose the war, for stealing, taking money from others, being greedy and malicious. In the Boy in Striped Pajamas, Bruno’s tutor and family as portrayed Jews as unpleasant, ill-natured creatures that were at fault regarding all of Germany’s problems. Once this state of mind is established, the people being blamed persecuted and discriminated against in various forms such as dwelling separation, tags, announcements, propaganda etc.

Causes can also be classified into various sections such as: Anger. In The Boy in Striped Pajamas, Kotler expresses anger against the Jews for making his time harder, for ruining things for his country, for polluting his life and environment with their pest-like presence. Suppressed anger always leads to some sort of outburst often than not, if the end result is not controlled, it ends up being completely irrational if not “out of control” For example: People being angry for losing the war, keeping it in for so long, then going bankrupt, keeping it in, being robbed… and then comes the outburst. Who is to blame? Experience: In this case it would be fake experience. The entire Nazi party proclaimed to have, in the past been: betrayed, cheated, and deceived by the Jewish population, therefore causing a need for Jews to be separated from the rest of Germany so as to avoid the same experiences again. Take for example: Someone is attacked by a Jew on the streets: robbed of their possessions and belongings. Sometimes, this leads to developing a resentment of Jews, for fear that all of them are the same, looking out for a place where they can attack and rob you. So people decide to protect themselves from going through those experiences again, which results in isolating themselves from Jewish company and/or presence. Lack of empathy: in The Boy in Striped Pajamas, characters like the tutor, father and Kotler expressed no empathy of the situation of the Jews and were completely oblivious to their pain and suffering. The inability to feel creates a blockage between people that can then lead to things like bias, prejudice and segregation. The Nazi regime showed complete ignorance of other’s situation in the thought of: it didn’t matter or that’s fine because it’s them and not us. Lack of knowledge, in The Boy in Striped Pajamas, the tutor was completely misinformed about everything and hadn’t the least bit of knowledge about anything then what he was taught by the Nazi regime to be the truth. Father and mother didn’t know any better than to believe what the country was making them believe, therefore making them acceptant to the prejudice demonstrated in front of the Jews of Germany. Gretel didn’t know any better than to just follow what Kotler said and believe that it was correct and truthful. People supporting the isolation and bias acted blindly: in completely ignorance and in faith that what they were doing would be best for the Nation. Nobody held any knowledge whatsoever about the real cause and fixing of their issues. Fear of the unknown: In Bruno all the characters (apart from Bruno) seemed to hold (apart from loathing) a certain feeling of apprehension and dread towards the Jewish. This was, perhaps, because they feared fro the unknown, what these people were really like, what they really did and what actually happened if you let them into your lives. “If you were to find a friendly Jew, well BOY! Wouldn’t that be a first!?” Fear of difference: people who are afraid of difference create prejudice and bias, people who can’t fathom living in a place where everyone has their differences, people who fear that having diversity will bring chaos and misfortune to the world.

Culture and religion: Sometimes, the thought that one religion is superior to another can bring on discrimination and bias. In any circumstance, believing that you are better than someone else will make you treat them as someone of a lower kind, making them lesser, maybe sometimes not even human. Take the Boy in the Striped Pajamas, in the book, Judaism is looked down upon and considered something that nobody should be. Lack of open-mindedness: Nobody, whether it was in real circumstances, in the book or in any situation of unfairness and intolerance has open-mindedness. This closure of the mind, these thoughts that resonate “this is how it is and that’s that.” It becomes a giant dam, stunting any possible growth or progression and intensifying this “inevitability” that things are the way they are meant to be (with the bias and isolation.) But one of the biggest causes of widespread seclusion, chauvinism, partiality and discrimination is indoctrination. Propaganda, books, teachers, activists, speeches served as tools of indoctrination in real situations and in the book and acted as great influences to persuade people that all of this was right. All of these things are masterminds behind the beginning of bigotry and injustice towards other people. It’s just that we have to learn to think for ourselves and go against these things: we have to be like people from the Rose Blanche, like Bruno, like the Chambonnaise and all of the others who had to the courage to stand up to this.

Luttrel - an epitome of wealth in the Middle Ages

The Luttrel Psalter is a book of psalms written in 1325 for Sir Geoffrey Luttrell of Irnham in Lincolnshire. (Channel 4 Luttrel Psalter: Sir Geoffrey) This manuscript was made up of 309 leaves of select parchment paper made of vellum (calf skin) and was written entirely in Latin. Historians believe that one scribe wrote the entire script whilst 3 or more painters would have worked on the images and paintings inside this book. Many times, as a paragraph is about to commence, the first letter will be illuminated with gold leaf and the size of it will be significantly increased. This manuscript holds depictions of everyday life in the Middle Ages and covers many of the aspects of living in these times. The Luttrel Psalter also contains ferocious paintings of monsters and babewyns. It is most likely that the scribe would have used feathers to write, as pens had not been invented in those times. This book stands as one of the most valuable manuscripts saved from the middle ages, as many did not survive to this day and time. The Psalter gives a great insight into the different features of life in the 13th and 14th century with it's many illuminated illustrations and representations of daily events and everyday scenes.

In these illustrations we can see a clear division of social status. Thus going back to the feudal system, where peasants were at the bottom and royalty at the top. Sir Geoffrey was a noble and therefore of quite elevated social ranking. At the dinner table scene, in the manuscript, we can see Sir Geoffrey, seated at the table whilst being served by his servants and butler. Two friars, employed to recite the psalms on a daily basis from the Luttrel Psalter are also seated at the dinner table. This also provides us with information towards the “cultural orientation” of Sir Geoffrey, we can tell from the presence of the monks that he is Roman Catholic. This image also provides details regarding the nutritional “value” of what the Nobles ate in the middle ages. On the table we can see plates of: eggs, roast meat, porridge-like cereal and maybe even suckling pig. The plates are made of silver, an indicator that he was extremely wealthy and could afford such expensive things. In the Luttrel Psalter, there are things to the evidence of the Sir Geoffrey’s wealth and power. The tapestries seen in the background of illustrations such as the dinner table and the horse and the gold leaf utilized in the illustrations suggest a lot of money and “power.” Nobles are always shown with elaborate clothing and headdresses indicating abundance in money to buy and create such detailed and intricate material. On the contrary, peasants in the images wore unadorned tunics with a set of plain leggings and flat-soled shoes. Servants and butlers show Sir Geoffrey as a man of affluence. Daily scenes also represent available technology in those ages: at the dinner table we can see bowls, knives and spoons. In the picture of the farmer in the field we can see a plough, also we can find: mills, armor, shields, tables, and other farming tools. The fact that there are metal plates suggests a blacksmith and tapestry hints towards the possibility of trade. As we can see in many of the depictions of peasants: agriculture was a big part of life in the middle ages. Animals such as cattle, sheep, pigs and chicken were farmed food and also used as farming tools. Scythes, knives, ploughs were often seen in images of peasants working in the fields.

The Luttrel Psalter was written for Sir Geoffrey and is more commonly believed to have been a tool to further praise and show off his wealth and power. In all pictures where he is painted, there are traces of gold leaf and he is always placed in focus. At the dinner table, you will find that the image overall, strongly resembles the last supper in which Jesus dines with his apostles. Is this a sign of him trying to portray himself as an equal to Jesus? It’s a possibility that this manuscript was made for the sole purpose of putting Sir Geoffrey Luttrell of Irnham in Lincolnshire in the limelight.

Sir Geoffrey passed away in 1345, leaving many estates and belongings to his family and employed servants and butler. The Luttrel Psalter lasts till this day, safely kept in the British Library, as a book of great insight into division of social ranking and life in the Middle Ages.