Category: Oppression

There are various instances in the Bible where structures oppressed, marginalized, alienated, or created or enhanced privilege and power. The stories of Moses and Jesus discussed below are such occasions. In Moses narrative, he is hiding and placed in a reed basket by his parents so he could float on the River Nile and escape death that was ordered on all newborn Hebrew males (Exodus 2:5-10). Still afloat on the Nile, Moses is found in the reed basket by Pharaohs daughter, who went bathing in the river. He is brought up as a prince in the Egyptian court, thus, acquiring privilege and power.

He evidently received instruction in matters of religion and the military while at the palace. He later fled after killing an Egyptian who was beating an Israelite (Exodus 2:11-22). The Israelites were Moses people and were enslaved and oppressed by Egyptians. While in the wilderness, God chooses Moses to deliver the Israelites from slavery. With so much power bestowed upon him as the chosen leader, he safely led Gods people out of Egypt.

Jesus, on the other hand, was born and raised in a humble household. He showed and taught his followers how to live in a manner that is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. He endured harsh treatment and oppression from the Romans and was also alienated by the Jews. He was beaten, spat on, ridiculed and slapped (Mark 15:19). He was later crucified and died on the cross for the sins of humankind.

The life experiences of both Moses and Jesus were influenced by privilege and power and marginalization and oppression, respectively. Through education in the Egyptian court, Moses learned civil and religious matters and realized that he was a Hebrew. His concern and sense of curiosity made him seek his people and see firsthand how Egyptian masters oppressed them. In a bid to ease their suffering, he commits murder  an act that sets him on a life-changing path as Gods chosen leader to free His people. Jesus oppression and alienation also enhanced his reputation as the savior and enabled him to complete his mission of dying for the sins of humanity.

Structural oppression, marginalization and alienation exist in the present day. An example is the exclusion and segregation of African Americans in the United States. African Americans suffer disparities in almost all spheres of life. For instance, in the justice system, African Americans are overly represented in correction facilities and are a target of discriminatory laws (Hinton et al., 2018). It is the same structure that marginalizes and oppresses the African American community that provides power and privilege to their white counterparts.

Privilege is deep-rooted in any interpretation of whiteness, and the dominance of white people in America has resulted in institutions that upgrade opportunities for the white population over others (Lindner, 2018). Such institutions include the media, school authorities, and law enforcement.

The differences in how the United States culture treats whites and blacks influence the experiences of the communities and their members. Since black people are marginalized and oppressed by the system, they are more likely to be poor, unemployed, attend schools with less qualified teachers and be targeted by the police. On the other hand, white people are more likely to be treated better by law enforcement, attend good schools, easily secure employment, and have good houses in safer neighborhoods.

Another example is the LGBTQ community which has historically been oppressed and discriminated against. Until recently, the communitys members were physically abused, not allowed to marry, and suffered discrimination in employment, housing, and accessing services. The same society that oppressed the community is currently ensuring that the members are protected against all kinds of prejudice. The community is so influential that many famous people have lost their jobs or significant investments by just uttering words the community considers offensive. The difference in the treatment of the community has ensured that its members are safe, have equal access to services and can fully live their lives just like other citizens.

References

Hinton, E., Henderson, L., & Reed, C. (2018). An unjust burden: The disparate treatment of black Americans in the criminal justice system. Vera Institute of Justice. Web.

King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. Web.

Lindner, A. (2018). Defining whiteness: Perspectives on privilege. Gnovis Journal, 18(2). Web.

Introduction

Literary works dealing with serious subjects such as woman rights, discrimination and oppression can be completely different in genre and style, but nevertheless sharing a mutual theme, each approaching it from a different perspective. In Everyday Use by Alice Walker and A Jury of Her Peers by Susan Glaspell, such theme is women position in society. In Everyday Use this theme is approached from the perspective of African American women, while A Jury of Her Peers from the perspective of differences between men and women. In that regard, the mutual theme, this paper is attempting to unveil, is the representation of womens oppression through the stories main characters, Mama and Mrs. Wright.

Main body

Mama in Everyday Use is an African American woman and a mother of two daughters. Her narration through the short story is reflected through the different world outlook of her two daughters Maggie and Dee. She is somewhat fully accepting her life as it is, where her position can be represented through her answer to self-asked question on the reason her school was closed down; in 1927 colored asked fewer questions than they do now. In that regard, Mama was still asking few questions decades later.

Mrs. Wright, on the other hand, is a character who is physically absent through the short storys course. Nevertheless, the fate of Mrs. Wright, whose maiden name was Minnie Foster, is taking the central position in the story, being told through the reminiscence of her female friends, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Gale. While Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Gales husbands search for motives for Mrs. Wrights husband murder, women realize the misery in which Mrs. was living, through small evidences scattered throughout the house, and to which their husbands are blind from their male position.

In Everyday Use, Mama lives with her position without any visible regrets or signs of dissatisfaction. In that sense, she is similar to Mrs. Wright who is different only in the fact that her perception is acknowledged through the reasoning of her peers. They both were oppressed, where Mama said to herself, Who can even imagine me looking a strange white man in the eye? It seems to me I have talked to them always with one foot raised in flight, with my head fumed in whichever way is farthest from them.

The difference between the two characters can be outlined through the way they both made attempts to oppose their position and break the circle in which they were captured for so long. Mamas attempt was shown in the climax of the story, in which she preferred to give the quilts to Maggie. The preference for her choice to give the quilts to Maggie can be seen as the only action which she took consciously and with her own will, and thus establishing her true identity through the newly discovered relation with her daughter Maggie. Mrs. Wrights outbreak, on the other hand, was more effective, as it is assumed in the story that she killed her husband, who was oppressing her for twenty years.

Conclusion

Personally, I think the differences in the stories main characters reaction to the oppression is that in A Jury of Her Peers, the oppressor was identified in Mr. Wright, whereas in Everyday Use the oppression was abstract through a combination of factors. Nevertheless, both characters are similar through their desire to make a change, and it does not matter how large is the scale of the change.

Works Cited

Roberts, Edgar V., and Henry E. Jacobs. Literature : An Introduction to Reading and Writing. 8th ed. New York: Longman, 2009.

Religion is a different compatible, characterization of religion makes use of the notions of diagnosis and cure. A religion proposes (an account of what it takes to be the basic problem facing human beings) and cure (a way of permanently and desirably solving that problem):one basic problem shared by every human person and fundamental solution that, however adopted to different culture and cases, is essentially the same across the board. Religion differ insofar as their diagnosis and cures differ. For example, some religions are nontheistic and some are not. Hence some diagnosis is offered in terms of alienation from God and cures are presented that concern removing that alienation while others diagnosis will find the basic problem is the unsatisfactory nature of human life and offer cure that altogether removes one from human conditions. Liberation is a movement seeking equal rights and status for a group.

CONFLICT PESPECTIVE ON RELIGION AS A TOOL OF OPPRESSION

According to Karl Marx he believed that religion was the most human feature of an inhuman world and that it arose from tragedies and injustice of human experience. He described religion as the ‘sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world, and the soul of the soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. In addition, Karl Marx don’t view religion as a way to unify people and answer questions. Instead he saw religion as a tool used by the wealthy to mislead the poor about their true social class. Marx is famously quoted as referring to religion as the ‘opium of the people’.

Marx suggested that religion gave people illusion of happiness but nothing of real lasting value. Marx believes that religion promotes capitalism because churches often support the idea that the wealthy deserves privileges that the poor do not promotes obedience and legitimise government that are not in the best interest of everyone. To illustrate the profit making logic that drives African Pentecostal Practises and Rituals, Christ embassy has institutionalized since 2010 a gate taking procedure during this procedure during this cross-over service, charges a fee of thousands from participants, ushers and other security personnel in the church turn away those are unable to make this payment. Christ Embassy justifies this practise as a crown control mechanism, nevertheless with a sitting capacity of more than 20000 each service brings into the churches offers huge revenues of which the church pays no taxes to the state.

CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE OF RELIGION AS A TOOL OF LIBERATION

Liberation is a movement seeking equal rights and status for a group. In South Africa black liberation theology developed in the context of the oppression of black population and theological expression of the struggle for liberation from apartheid regime. South African black theology criticised apartheid church doctrine on three aspects, namely, in terms of the person of God, the message of gospel and the humanity of Africans. Black theologians argued that: A person’s spiritual aspect cannot be separated from his or her political environment: therefore, the salvation of the soul must encompass socio-economic liberation. Consequently, from this perspective, the message of the gospel involves physical as well as spiritual freedom, and immediate as well as eternal benefits. (Mwambazambi,2010, p.7.)

South African black ministers produced a theology that validates ‘African personhood and human dignity’. Archbishop Desmond Tutu affirms that ‘we(Africans) matter, we are alive and kicking, and beautiful’. A unique quality of the Christian liberation struggle in South Africa lay in origins of black churches as missionary sister churches of their white counterparts, and existence of a black majority in the country. In south Africa the black churches were normally part of a large, white-controlled administrative structure. Only later, mostly through the influence of American missionaries, did independent African churches start to flourish. Being dependent upon funding church both doctrine and finances may go part way explaining why south Africa black Christians remained under the spell of apartheid for so long.

Many black Christians saw white Christians as brethren in Christ. Their belief in a fair and just God drove a hope, it seemed, that justice would ultimately prevail. The white people who had introduced Christianity to the natives presented a picture of a God possessing white skin and more often than not, blue eyes. In south Africa the white man had that leading role, and could use it to disseminate a theology presuming white supremacy and determined to maintain the status. Christians who were liberal and white could apologize for inequalities and injustices of apartheid, but criticizing the present system did little to help blacks define themselves.

Black consciousness was a force white liberation theologians had to face, and work with, in order to formulate a liberating praxis Christianity. Religions are real as they genuinely highlight the plight of the masses but fall short by only offering a solution in an afterlife. In line with Karl Marx, Boesak suggested that behind the concerns of liberation theology and the challenges it posed for the Christian Church, are the realities often ignored by the theologies of the western world, these included the realities of rich and poor, of white and black, of oppressor and oppressed, of oppression and liberation from oppression.

The people waiting outside for their day in the RTIA studio are sharp. They come bearing their birth certificates, certificates of employment, various proofs of their suffering, and a deep understanding of systemic oppression. It’s easy to argue why such a formula is unhealthy for any society, for it is trial by publicity. Instant justice; is one that’s fallible, extralegal, and prone to abuse. It makes a spectacle out of suffering. It infects the general population with the idea that justice is faster and more just outside the justice system, so if you are raised without knowing what true justice feels like, you may misinterpret a variety of things, such as itself. Yes, even mob-style, radio-show justice and, perhaps, even violence. A handful of them don’t bother, saying they’re too poor to survive the grind of due process, and the Tulfos act faster. Some feared their well-connected abusers would pull bureaucratic strings and stack the odds against them. Some feared they would be threatened or physically harmed.

Suddenly I am thinking about ‘instant justice,’ but how instant is it if the people outside the studio have to sleep on cardboard boxes to wait for updates? How could it be instant if they’re only there as a last resort? Is it still ‘instant justice’ when it’s the only justice? — I AM NOT justifying our Tulfo dependency, but it IS a dependency to a certain extent. The reality is, we do depend on them. It can’t hurt to understand those who respect, idolize, or rely on them. They are almost like Grab’a popular, exploitative, but relatively functional alternative to poor government services and regulations. And like Grab, they will be around until we get our collective act together. We don’t need to accept them, but at the very least we need to adhere to our responsibilities as a community–to do better for those who have it worse. Because frankly, the Tulfos might be the best they have. It’s dangerous to think that this could all go away if our government officials wake up and decide not to be evil though not being evil would go a long way. We are dealing with a corrupt ecosystem that doesn’t just prevent victims from attaining justice but also harms those who attempt to resist its whims. Sure, there are a few better short-term solutions.

For instance, good people are working to provide free legal assistance or to develop more efficient and transparent courts. But it’s hard to feel like you’re making a dent. In the end, the long-term solutions are both simple and difficult: Educate kids better so they grow up with a moral compass. Help laborers organize. Vote for honest and competent officials. Reduce economic and social inequality. The call to action isn’t to like, share, or subscribe. The call to action is to be good every single day and to do that for a few decades then maybe we’ll start seeing something changes. No plan of action can fix all of this tomorrow. Tomorrow, the Tulfos will still be folk heroes, and some will say rightfully so. Tomorrow, there will be new people lining up outside their studios waiting to tell their stories because they see no better option, and if you think such an ending is dissatisfying, that’s because it’s supposed to be.

INTRODUCTION

Oppression used as a tool of religion, society uses religion as a form of social control, people behave well not only out of fear of their friends and families disapproving but also out of the desire to remain in their god’s good graces. Durkheim explains that sacred does not mean good and profane does not mean bad. Christianity and Judaism, for example, have ten commandments as a set of rules for behavior that they believe we’re sent directly from God, these commandments are not just rules of how to worship but protocols to live an eternal life.

In terms of liberation, Durkheim’s demonstrates although religion may promote force of division it can also promote social unity and solidarity. When religious people do bad they feel guilty and remorse such feelings motivate them to make amends. Religion help people to think less about themselves and think more about common goals, and those goals are to work for peace and put other people needs before theirs. Religion gives people a reason to see why their lives are meaningful and why should they do better. This assignment will be comparing the perspective of structural functionalists and conflict theorists.

INEQUALITY

Religion can also be seen as a form of inequality between man and woman, maintaining the power of man and lowering woman. In Christianity, the first man, Adam was created in God’s image while the first woman Eve was created from Adam’s rib to serve and obey his husband. Most of the religion portrays the woman as immoral being dependent on the male. In the Bible, Eve committed a sin by eating the forbidden apple and tempting Adam to eat it. Many religions do not allow a woman to be leaders in churches like Islam, Judaism, Catholicism. Religion is also seen as a way to control woman behavior on how to dress, they must not look a man in the eye, or not allowing them to speak in church. Society becomes divided, promote a theology of discrimination.

Societies match with social norms like honoring your parents, do not commit adultery. Religion has also been used as a tool to uphold social inequality, racial inequality portraying Jesus as being white, also slavery was a form of justification based on many texts from the Bible. The scripture of Genesis, for instance, the story of Cain and Abel in which God marked Cain for murdering his brother which was interpreted meaning it marked him as a sinner with darker skin. During apartheid Afrikaners were convinced that they should be the separation of races, each race should have their own land, white people minority having a big land, the black majority having less land, and they insisted that their policies were approved by God because they were grounded in the Bible scriptures.

RELIGION OPPRESSING OUR WAY OF THINKING

Religion is a source of false consciousness that encourages the oppressed to accept that they are being poor for now and then in another world, they will have money, so some become lazy to look for work because they think that they are spiritually rich. The political, economic, and social arrangement that force their chances in this physical world because they are promised repayments for their suffering in the next world. Religion not only oppresses woman but it oppresses all believers. Research shows that some particular churches lead people to rejects their medicine’s and live the spiritual life. Church leaders preach people astray and persuade them to live a spiritually free life, in other words, prayer and fasting will heal them and they will live eternally. People use religion for the wrong reasons, for example, a deadly disease such as HIV/AIDS, they use religion as a tool to fight AIDS and people die after they stop taking their medicine hoping spiritual methods will make them feel better.

MARXIST CONFLICT THEORY ON RELIGION

Conflict perspective portrays ways in which religion suppress, constrain and exploit others. In a capitalist society, religion plays a significant role whereby some of the people have more resources and power than others. Marx argues that there are two types of social class, the bourgeoisie used religion as a tool to pacify the proletariat. He also saw religion as a sign of the oppressed creature. People are afraid of facing reality, therefore, they use religion to comfort themselves, make the world bearable and emphasize on their existence, it was able to do this by promising people rewards in the afterlife instead of the current life. According to Christiano, Marx was not in favor of science, he believed that his theory was also advancing in being a useful tool in a violent revolution (2008:124).

RELIGION IS NOT ALWAYS A TOOL OF OPPRESSION

Sometimes religion is used as a to work for social change and economic inequalities. Liberation theology states that Christians have a responsibility to demand social change which is the disempowerment of people globally especially poor smallholders, agricultural labor of low social status, to take action at the grass-root level and bring political and economic change. This means that the Christian faith is inspired by the thought of Marx. It advocates them to work together to obtain employment and land, it also helps them to raise the consciousness of the poor and to protect their cultural identity.

HOW RELIGION WAS INTRODUCED IN SOUTH AFRICA

Liberation was denied to black people, in the era of apartheid black people were not free, jails and prisons were filled with them and to be set free was a victory for them. When South Africa was colonized the with invaders introduced Christianity. In the play ‘ Woza Albert!’ the characters portray how South Africa will turn out if ‘Morena’ came to South Africa, they refer to him as their god and they hoped he would save them from black oppression.

BLACK THEOLOGY IN SOUTH AFRICA

Black theology is a form of liberation theology created by black people globally especially from South Africa and North America. In South Africa, black liberation theology developed because people were oppressed during apartheid. Majority of churches during apartheid promoted a theology of discrimination. Black theologists orchestrated towards their freeing from religious injustice, economic and social committed by white people. Cone and Wilmore (1979:101), wrote: Black theology makes black people value themselves and it seeks to bless them in the light of God, it emphasizes that black community can achieve black humanity, therefore black theology is the theology of blackness. The assurance of the black humanity that release black people from white racism. According to Moore, Black theology gave black people a way for them to speak to the oppressors to hear the good news and be saved. Black theology is an inspired movement that appeared during the late 1960s and early 1970s towards the economic, religious, social and political discharge of the people of South Africa (1973:5).

CONCLUSION

Religion is difficult to define, sometimes it drug the pain of suppression it teaches the oppressed to accept their political, economic and social struggle to constrain their chances of life because their promised repayment for their suffering in the next world, it mostly occurs in very poor community, that is a tool of oppression which is oppressors oppressing our way of thinking that is reason why there are those who are exploited. Religion defines the sacred and profane Durkheim also looked at religion through structural-functionalism that religion helps establish social cohesion, by uniting people around shared symbols, norms and values in the society. That define that religion is not always a tool of oppression but it brings hope to the hopeless as liberation.

REFERENCE LIST

1. Ferrante, J., Seedat-Khan, M., Jansen, L.Z., & Smith, R., eds. 2016. Sociology: A South African Perspective. 1st ed. Hampshire, UK: Marinda Louw.
2. Lumen Boundless Sociology. (n.d.). Karl Marx on Religion: How Religion Affects Social Inequality. Retrieved from htttps://study.com/academy/lesson/karl-marx-on-religion-chapter 2/lesson 5 Date of access: 08 August 2019.
3. James, H. Cone. & Gayraud, S. Wilmore. 1979. Black Theology: A Documentary History. New York: Orbis.
4. Maclonis, J. (2018, January 08). Pew Research Center: Religious landscape survey [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/religious.lon
5. Moore, B. 1973. Essay in Black Theology: South African voice. London: C. Hurst and Co.
6. Mwanbazambi, K. 2009 . A missiological Glance at South African Black Theology. Journal of Verdun et Ecclesta, 31(1):1-10.
7. Phiri, I. & Gathogo, J. (2012, March 02). South African Black Theology in the 21st Century. Retrieved from www.nmz-mission.de/fix/files/doc/South_black_theology_in_21st_century. Pdf

In the following paper, I will critically discuss Frye’s account of oppression by first examining its strengths, and subsequently proposing a possible challenge requiring an alteration of her conception. This essay will generally argue in support of Frye’s account, particularly due to its ability to provide an understanding of oppression that covers the most subtle, internalized and often overlooked forms of societal injustice. One of the primary strengths of her account is its methodical and catholic approach to defining oppression, providing a handful of key and concise characteristics of the often misunderstood word. Before evaluating Frye’s account in detail, this paper will first outline her conception of oppression and consider its strengths in comparison to opposing conceptions of oppression and social justice. Secondly, I will argue Frye’s account is not only comprehensive, but furthermore a convincing exploration of social justice. Finally, I will consider the elements of Frye’s account that could be successfully challenged, thus requiring an extension or alteration of her original conception.

To begin with, Frye outlines and discusses an account of oppression that aims to include scenarios where the oppression in question is subtle and often overlooked by more general or less concentrated accounts of social persecution. The clear, self-evident occurrences of oppression such as the master-slave dialectic and the legislated, enforced persecution of social groups throughout the 19th and 20th centuries no longer exists as it once did. Rather, in the mid-20th century, oppression began to adapt and change as society began to liberalise and embrace a ‘progressive’ mindset. That is not, however, to say that oppression was forced out of existence. Instead, it mutated into an equally pernicious, yet significantly less discernible form. Frye understands the concept of oppression to not only be often misused, but also actively and purposely misemployed in order to verify and justify one’s views of society. Frye defines the elusive term by discussing the primary conditions that are required for oppression to be said to exist -importantly, any of these conditions being present individually is not sufficient, what is rather required is all of these conditions to be present simultaneously. Firstly, there must exist some form of restriction that is placed upon a specific social group. Following from this, the restriction in question must result in harm for the person who is restricted. Furthermore, the restriction must not be random or localized, it must be maintained and imposed by a social institution or system. Finally, and largely unique to Frye’s conception of oppression, the restriction must be the result of one’s attachment or belonging to a specific social group, and there must be a seperate social group that benefits from this systemic restriction.

Accompanying Frye’s outline of the requirements of her account is her eloquent analogy of the birdcage. Oppression is importantly systemic in nature, and thus the cases of oppressive treatment that we see in the modern world can often seem obviously non-oppressive when we examine them prima facie. However, Frye uses the analogy of the birdcage to convey why this perspective is false, as she shows that it is disingenuous to discuss cases of possible oppression in a localized manner, rather we must consider the totality of possibly oppressive situations all at once. It is in this comprehensive perspective -recognising not just one wire but the entire collection of wires that make up the cage- that we can properly understand the systematic collection of oppressive social structures, they are neither unintended nor escapable. It is in this comprehensive quality of Frye’s account that we are able to find its strengths. Through the use of these five characteristics, in conjunction with the birdcage metaphor, Frye’s account draws a strong distinction between harm and oppression, something that those theories that preceded her often failed to do. Furthermore, the widespread inclusivity of her account is markedly unique compared to, for example, Marx’s reduction of the injustices of race and sexuality to class struggle. The catholic nature of her account is integral to its cogency, as it is in precisely this area that previous accounts tend to be limited. This can also be seen in Rawls’ principles of justice. Although not as overtly reductive, Rawls’ theory fails to effectively safeguard oppressed groups from the continuation of those societal structures that oppress them, as his theory is unable to take into account the often elusive social institutions that perpetuate oppression. Rawls’ theory of “Justice as Fairness” is founded upon a thought experiment where individual’s construct an ideal social structure from a position of ignorance regarding their social standing. What this theory fails to take into account, however, is how pervasive prejudiced and oppressive beliefs can be within an individual’s understanding of societal structures. These beliefs would undoubtedly influence an individual’s ‘ideal’ conception of a social structure and would thus continue these ultimately unfair and unequal distributions of resources. Therefore, Frye’s account is clearly more comprehensive and thus more convincing than Rawls’ -and many of her other predecessors. In the next section, I will argue the specific nature of its strengths.

Now that we understand Frye’s account, it is certainly convincing, as she has conceived of an understanding of oppression that is able to distinguish between systemic oppression and the ubiquitous occurrence of suffering. In order to discuss the specific strengths of her account, it will be helpful to assess how effectively her understanding of oppression evaluates modern day examples. For example, Jamiles Lartey writes in a 2019 article in Oppression in America that “While the US has ended the formal, legal codes of enslavement and segregation… little has been done to change the minds of too many about the racist ideas that those structures rested on.” What Lartey is observing here is the entirely new form of oppression that we see in the modern day, one that is most effectively understood through Frye’s account. Lartey points out that it is the “structures” from which prejudiced perceptions stem that have not been entirely expelled from society, and thus for people of colour, although becoming enslaved in a cotton plantation may no longer be a possible situation, there are still highly damaging impacts that oppressive perceptions can have on their existence. Unfair judgements and treatment of people of colour in this instance would certainly be deemed oppressive through Frye’s account, as they satisfy all five conditions that Frye proposes are required for oppression to fully occur.

Furthermore, a key strength of Frye’s account lies in its intersectionality. It does not generalize nor disregard the integral differences that can be found in, for example, the oppression that is experienced by an affluent white women and the oppression that is experienced by women of colour. The intersectional comprehensiveness of Frye’s account similarly stands in stark opposition to the vast majority of social justice theorists that precede her, most of which are instead often guided by a liberal philosophy that purports the equality of all individuals, no matter their social standing. This comprehensiveness makes Frye’s account deeply useful in a practical sense. Where most previous social justice philosophers provided us with theoretical, normative conceptions of fairness, justice and equality, Frye’s account is most effective in its practical application. Her conception of oppression allows us to examine subtle and elusive occurences of injustice that may exist within any facet of our contemporary societal institutions, power balances and distributions.

In order to critically examine Frye’s account, we must now consider the possible challenges and extensions that can be made in response to her conception of Oppression. While this objection has a certain level of logical validity, I will assert that rather dispelling her theory altogether, it instead works as a convincing argument to extend the parameters of her account. The primary critique of Frye’s account that I will propose -which requires an extension of her view, rather than discounting it absolutely- is it’s narrowness. The fifth condition of oppression, for example, excludes cases where one social group does not benefit from the restriction of another. This leads to issues in the application of her account. For example, it is clear from her account that in society, women are oppressed and men are not. Although both certainly suffer harms, by following the requirements she lays out for oppression to exist it is clear that what men suffer is not in fact oppression, and for women it is. However, it seems her account is weakened when we examine oppression of the LGBTQ+ community. For simplicity of argument, let us narrow our discussion to gay persons within this community. Although it seems self-evident that gay people are an oppressed group in modern society, Frye’s account technically would not include them due to it’s fifth condition. Although gay persons experience restrictions, which are harmful, societal, and a result of their membership of a ‘social group’, there is tenuous evidence that the group that inflicts these restrictions and barriers -heterosexual people- benefit from them. Although there do exist counter arguments made against this challenge, it does certainly seem convincing, as there is a wealth of examples of gay people being oppressed in such a way that there is no clear ‘benefit’ from the oppressor. For example, a recent court case in Michigan ruled that adoption agencies that contract with the state can legally refuse LGBTQ+ couples from submitting for adoption. Furthermore, following the 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized the marriage of same-sex couples, there has been a significant reduction in employers allowing same-sex partners in civil unions from accessing health care benefits, something that does not similarly impact heterosexual couples. Although only two examples taken from a wealth of instances of injustices, it is apparent that although these cases seem to be the product of societal oppression of gay people, they do not constitute oppression in Frye’s account, as there is no clear benefit or material gain from the oppressors. Ultimately, what is displayed through these examples is not necessarily the inefficacy of Frye’s conception but rather the need to extend and alter her account.

Now that the primary limitation of Frye’s conception of oppression is understood, what is required is not a dispelling of her account, but rather an extension and alteration. The challenge of narrowness is certainly convincing, especially within the aforementioned example of gay persons oppression. Thus, what Frye’s account requires is a broadening of her fifth condition, to better accommodate those instances of oppression that do not necessarily benefit the oppressing social group. As can be understood from the examination of gay persons, it is overly simplistic and reductive to require an oppressive social group to be obtaining tangible benefits from their oppression. Rather, it would be most effective to retain the condition requiring an oppressive social group to impose restrictions and boundaries that constitute oppression, while not maintaining the final condition that necessitates their material benefit from this oppression. The final condition does not seem to strengthen the account, and thus it seems acceptable to dispel it altogether.

In conclusion, Frye’s account of oppression is certainly convincing. It successfully provides a comprehensive and effective characterisation of oppression that is highly relevant to contemporary analysis of social structures. Furthermore, by explicitly necessitating five conditions to be met for oppression to be said to exist, Frye not only provides us with a successful theoretical understanding of oppression, but a useful and practically applicable one too. However, as a result of its failure to effectively apply to gay persons, for example, it is clear that Frye’s account requires an alteration that exludes the necessity of the fifth condition.

Junot Díaz’s ‘Drown’ and Zora Neale Hurston’s ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’ illustrate various ways minorities are despised, condemned, and oppressed by society. Yunior, the main character in ‘Drown’, and Janie, the main character in ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’, struggle to agree with the way society perpetuates class distinctions, and force themselves to look through the limiting lens of class. In both ‘Drawn’ and ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’, there is a theme of social pressure that is associated with poverty, racial oppression, and social gender roles. The view of poverty in both ‘Drown’ and ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’ is pejorative, and this negative view of poverty pressures individuals to develop a social hierarchy and classist hegemony, which then creates systematic oppression against people that are in unfortunate positions.

In both ‘Drown’ and ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’, the main characters are aware of the status attached to poverty because of the views of individuals around them. Yunior’s perception of class comes from his classmates. He realizes that the children will not look at him and will try to hold their breath when he gets close. The children’s reaction illustrates the overall influence of class distinction in every generation. It represents society’s rejection of poverty and what society does not want to accept – the poor. The odor of poverty refers to the part of a person that is unacceptable by society. Yunior, with his bad smell, does not live by the social criteria of acceptability. The odor isolates Yunior, no matter how hard he tries in school, because society does not tolerate the odor of poverty. The bad smell is a sign of Yunior’s harsh exclusion. Moreover, the children at Yunior’s school do not interact with Yunior because he could not afford a school uniform or a proper mascot. The children’s action corresponds to the way American society perceives people in poverty. The ignorance of the children illustrates that society is condescending towards impoverished people by forcing individuals to only communicate with others who are in the same social class and share common interests and values.

Similar to Yunior, Janie’s conception of class comes from her grandma, Nanny. Nanny begs Janie to marry Logan after she discovers that Johnny Taylor has kissed Janie. When Janie refuses to accept her request, Nanny violently slaps Janie for her insolence. Nanny’s action discloses her assertion of social classes – individuals are essentially locked into the class they were born into because they are being judged by a highly class-sensitive society. Modern society implies that a woman should find a rich man to marry to gain financial security. This is evident when Nanny laughs at Janie for her idea of love, saying that being a fool does not kill anyone, but it can make that person sweat. Nanny tells Janie that she should marry to get rich instead of working hard like all other black women in the town. The way she expects Janie to get money fits what society wants a woman to do. Nanny represents a society that enforces the idea that a woman will never be able to enter the higher tier of society unless she can marry into it. Nanny’s definition of a successful relationship and marriage is categorized as pragmatism. This is evident when Nanny berates Janie for not appreciating Logan’s wealth and status. She doesn’t care about the standard of emotional fulfillment or romantic desires. As a former slave, her version of love is someone who is well-off and could offer physical security. Nanny believes that Janie’s race and gender will not protect her against harm, but money and land will. This is evident when Nanny tells Janie that she should love Logan because she will get a house and sixty acres of land, which is the best a black woman could ever imagine; she says that these material items qualify as love. Nanny wants Janie to gain respect from the townspeople so that she can communicate and share her ideas freely. Nanny wants to ensure that Janie has all the tools and resources she needs to survive in a white-dominated world. Although slavery has ended, Janie still suffers from the impact of slavery, racism, and the mentality that white people are superior.

In both ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’ and ‘Drown’, poverty is viewed condescendingly, as a trait that must be hidden. Although Yunior and Janie both are suffering from the effects of poverty, their ways of escaping poverty vary. Yunior attempts to hide his low economic status by cleaning the house and hiding the government cheese. From his childhood experience, Yunior notices that poor people have to appear rich to not be completely dismissed and isolated from activities and events. He knows that when someone is poor, people tend to refuse to associate with them because they see that person as someone who needs help. In Yunior’s view, if poor people want to avoid judgment, they have to be careful about their appearance, attitude, and behavior. They have to keep themselves and their homes clean and neat. His action of taking down embarrassing photos shows how he does not want to get humiliated because of his low socioeconomic status. This shows how he sees superiority in affluent individuals and wants to pretend to be one of them. People in poverty are forced to follow these guidelines to improve their living conditions and what others think about them. They are forced to work on their presentation when the wealthy and the rich do not have to do so. Yunior feels embarrassed and vulnerable by his economic status, so he pretended to be wealthy because he wishes to build his status and gain respect from his community. Yunior chooses to clean his house, hide his cheese, and mask his identity to avoid the stigma of poverty. He decides to approach the systematic oppression associated with poverty by concealing his true identity. His action establishes the impression of how classism and hierarchy force destitute individuals to be judgmental towards their lives.

Janie approaches the issue of poverty in a different way than Yunior. Nanny and Janie try to hide their low-income status by having Janie marry the wealthy. Janie ultimately decides to marry Logan to escape poverty. She acknowledges Nanny’s idea that the more money she has, the more respect she will get. She accepts Nanny’s arrangement of her marriage to Logan due to financial security. Janie escapes poverty through marriage because it provides her with food, shelter, and health. Janie’s marriage for money also changes her status in society. She decides to take what she considered the fastest way to escape poverty and be independent because she now values comfort more than love. She knows that money will secure her future. Janie wants to create a better future despite the existence of social pressure on her financial status.

Yunior and Janie’s cultures get ignored despite having a culturally rich heritage forged by colonialism, slavery, and immigration. Yunior experiences racism and stereotypes pertaining to his background as a Dominican immigrant. Yunior struggles with the definitions of femininity and masculinity. Yunior tries to fit in by adopting characteristics that he thinks are superior. This is evident when he tries to flirt with girls like white boys. Yunior’s change reflects how society is struggling to accept its cultural differences. Yunior tries to deny his characteristics that are contradictory to his masculinity through his attempt to flirt with the opposite sex. His attempt to resolve the social stigma about what it means to be masculine reveals his feeble personality. Instead of changing the people around him, Yunior chooses to change himself, allowing the system of oppression to reign supreme over his life and choices. The gender stigma makes the assumption that women are submissive and acquiescent.

Logan demands Janie to perform labor and says she is spoiled when she refuses to chop the wood. In Logan’s view, a woman should always satisfy her husband’s demands. Janie’s second husband, Joe, is very masculine and represents aggression and power through his purchase of land, control over Janie, and dominance over the townspeople. He displays social superiority and masculinity. This is evident when the townspeople see him as a version of the white slaveholder. Through this example, it is clear that money and ambition give power. Joe does not want others to change his authority and tries to change Janie into the type of woman he wants. He tries to prevent Janie to give a speech and hides her hair. Janie’s hair is an essential aspect of her identity. The distinction between activities appropriate for men and those appropriate for women is shown in ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’. Janie is prohibited from speaking her mind, playing checkers, and attending mule funerals. Janie struggles to follow a woman’s role. She feels inferior to men and feels obligated to follow her husband’s command. Janie wants to talk back to Joe, but she remains quiet. Janie’s internal conflict represents how she wants to challenge other peoples’ ideologies. Her hesitation to change represents the difficulty of changing the way society perceives women and their roles.

In both ‘Drown’ and ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’, people judge other people’s intelligence based on gender and skin color. It forms the idea that they will not fit into their peculiar molds despite how hard they try. This is due to the way humans are drawn to the person that resembles them the most. Yunior and Janie’s similarities are important because someone seldom fits a particular stereotype. Yunior and Janie struggle with the gender roles that are set by society. They both face oppression and classism, although they respond differently to the oppressive environment. Janie and Yunior are adopting other peoples’ views on poverty and feeling the urge to improve their economic status because they are sensitive to how other people perceive them. Janie accepts Nanny and Joe’s ideologies. There are several issues that are related to poverty, gender, and race in society. When people are given fewer opportunities due to their gender and race, it exacerbates poverty. Poverty limits educational opportunities which could help individuals escape poverty, as shown in Yunior’s case. People accept that class distinction is normal. Social pressure comes in the form of comments and criticisms. Society is forcing people into categories that do not fit them and refusing to give people the opportunities that are best for their interests. Individuals are harshly criticized if they do not fit into their roles that are put by society.

As the Victorian age advanced, the role of women shifted substantially, reflecting the growing trend of outward questioning and progressivism. During this time, the husband was expected to represent the public sphere by generating wealth and providing for his family, while his wife managed the domestic sphere. Particularly, the traditional role of women found itself at the center of controversy because a majority of the world held the deep-rooted belief that they must remain dependent upon male figures. The crisis in female perseverance throughout the Victorian period persists in Alfred Tennyson’s “The Lady of Shalott.” Although the Lady of Shalott is a fictional character, Tennyson’s work draws heavily upon aspects of early life in Victorian Britain. Moreover, the Lady’s predicament is suggestive of the rank of women in England as it outwardly scrutinizes their lack of power and freedom. Certainly, the Victorian ideal of womanhood demonstrated that freedom from traditional gender and work roles results in a sacrifice of a woman’s own identity. The Lady of Shalott’s imprisonment is a compelling analogy for the social and sexual repression of women during this time.

Tennyson’s “The Lady of Shalott” examines the opposition between the human experience and the creation of art. The Lady is indicative of all artists: someone who is a member of society but lives in an unconnected fantasy. In more ways than one, a great deal of The Lady of Shalott’s appeal arises from her sense of elusiveness and enchantment. The Lady is a mystical person who is confined in a remote castle near King Arthur’s Camelot. Her realm is secluded from Camelot and the division is distinguished by a river. Tennyson includes, “Four gray walls, and four gray towers, overlook a space of flowers, and the silent isle embowers The Lady of Shalott” (1181). Tennyson describes her predicament in a way that portrays her as divided from reality by both the water of the river and the expansiveness of the tower. The reader is inclined to infer that the Lady’s isolation is amicable and beneficial to her artistic expression. As such, the island is depicted alongside many fascinating descriptions of the land’s natural beauty, resembling a visually pleasing scene adorned with flowers. It is not just Lancelot that the Lady wants to be connected with, but also the flowers and the river. In her current state, she is a prisoner who is shielded from all elements of the natural world.

As the poem commences, it becomes apparent that the Lady is trapped in a “woman’s work” curse and that only a man has the power to change this. The Lady of Shalott is engaged in lonesome weaving, a conventional type of women’s labor. Hence, the depiction of Shalott shifts dramatically and the speaker begins to refer to the island as “remote Shalott” (Tennyson 1183). As a result of this change, the reader becomes familiar with the Lady’s inconsolable affliction and the feeling of loneliness she harbors. However, even the presence of Lancelot is unable to shield her from her ill-fated doom. Ellen Stockstill conveys, “The poem is a narrative of artistic struggle, as the weaver/artist/poet is separated from reality, producing a copy of the real world’s reflections or shadows…Thus, when the Lady turns away from the loom to Camelot, both artist and art diet” (13). The idea that there is a greater destiny out there for the Lady is what drives the plot of this poem. She yearns to interact with others, to love and be loved, and to be a part of something greater than the life she is confined to. Nevertheless, the fact that she is unable to truly overcome her despondency is what makes “The Lady of Shalott” a heart-rendering read.

Although the mirror provides the Lady with a depiction of the world, it is a distorted version of the real thing. She sees the world but is unable to interact with it, magnifying one of the many representations of her terrible isolation from the world. Tennyson unveils the Lady’s strife, “‘I am half sick of shadows,’ said The Lady of Shalott” (1183). The mirror is incapable of providing the vividness and intensity of real life, leaving the Lady with only a hazy simulation. Moreover, the Lady’s ability to convert the scenes from the mirror into an illustration in her web is an analogy of the life of the artist. Jane Wright validates this, “Though the artist is unable to see it during the process of production, her artistic web, once out in a wider space than the tower and freed from the loom, is a true copy of outward things: the actions and events of Camelot” (289). Although she can imitate life, she will never be able to be a true component of it. When the isolation of life as an artist becomes too extreme, the Lady begins to feel alienated and empty. Comparatively, the island of Shalott transforms from a marvelous scene into a dismal, secluded island. As long as she stays in this prison-like state, the Lady will be separated from Lancelot and the quality of life she desires.

While the descriptions of Lancelot are very much exaggerated, the reader knows little about the Lady herself. The lack of description makes it difficult to form a subconscious portrait of her appearance. Thus, the speaker deliberately conceals the form of the Lady and the only information the reader can use to infer more about her persona is gathered from her name, mental state, and profession. In many ways, the Lady’s perspective about her sense of imprisonment shows that her alienation results from this mysterious curse. Similar to the other characters in the poem, the reader is not granted access to the interior of the Lady’s world, making her virtually invisible. The only people aware of her existence are the people with jobs that differ considerably from her profession. Tennyson addresses this, “Only reapers, reaping early in among the bearded barley, hear a song that echoes cheerly…And by the moon the reaper weary, piling sheaves in uplands airy, listening, whispers ‘Tis the fairy Lady of Shalott’” (1181). The farmers and harvesters who live a life of toil identify her song because they are also denied social mobility due to their working-class positions. Yet, the reapers are only able to recognize the Lady of Shalott by her voice and, therefore, do not know her true identity. Stockstill supports this idea, “Her namelessness throughout the poem restricts us as readers; we are made complicit in the patriarchal gaze’s overlooking of the Lady” (14). The Lady’s status is constructed by the structure enclosed around her—a patriarchal form of control. Although the speaker does not describe her physical features, the aspects of her personality parallel her demand for independence. Hence, the Lady of Shalott stands as a symbol of all women during the Victorian Era because she is held captive by her position.

Tennyson’s poem displays the battle amidst a female artist’s passion for personal engagement and her reservations about whether such pleasure is conceivable for someone devoted to the production of art. Accordingly, the Lady of Shalott involves herself with the study of the outside world and weaves a tapestry of the passing reflections she perceives, “There she weaves by night and day a magic web with colors gay” (Tennyson 1181). The Lady’s Web is one of the most interesting symbols in the poem because of the implication the word “web” has on the interpretation of her circumstance. Although the web is representative of the tapestry she weaves, the reader is inclined to conclude that the quality and fast-paced production of the web makes her similar to that of a spider fast at work. Linda Gill concludes, “Patriarchy’s denial of her as an artist-subject, however, results in the loss of her art and her death” (110). Yet, Tennyson’s word choice is very ironic because although the Lady appears to be in control of her design, it is apparent that she is trapped in a much bigger and more sinister web. While the Lady is intended to portray the life of a web-weaving artist, she undertakes a different identity that causes her to become the victim of some imperceptible, bizarre force.

During the poem, the only connection the Lady has with others is through the castle window and her awareness of her surroundings develops from the obscurations visible in the mirror. Tennyson includes, “She has heard a whisper say a curse is on her if she stays to look down to Camelot. She knows not what that curse may be, and so she weaveth steadily” (1182). Consequently, the song she harmonizes and the magic web she produces embody a pensive artist who is detached from the animation of everyday life. As Gill points out, “The lady may be ‘looking at’ images in the mirror, but she is interdicted from assuming the gaze, the ‘masculine’ position of the erotically desiring subject, by the threat of a ‘curse’” (114). As a result of the curse, the magic prohibits the Lady from staring directly at the environment around her. Yet, when she redirects her attention away from her creation, the spell deceives her and she is destined to meet her unfortunate death.

In essence, Camelot is presented as a place of splendor and happiness, harshly conflicting with the desolation and melancholy of the island of Shalott. The depiction of Camelot signifies visions of marvelous castles, powerful kings and brave knights, and people living in harmony and tranquility. The severity of the Lady’s woes drives her to intensely observe her surroundings, “For often thro’ the silent nights a funeral with plumes and lights and music, went to Camelot: Or when the moon overhead came two young lovers lately wed” (Tennyson 1183). Despite never admitting to being in love, the idea of unspoken love is a significant component of the plot. Tennyson uses the tenderness that she feels for Lancelot to explore the most pivotal concept present throughout the text: the Lady’s decision to set herself free. Despite this, Camelot appears far off in a separate land, representative of a life that is virtually unattainable for her until the very end.

In contrast, the final part of the poem focuses on the knight who wins the Lady’s interest: Sir Lancelot. As many of the Arthurian legends state, Sir Lancelot had a reputation for being irresistible and the conviction of Sir Lancelot’s importance is largely represented in “The Lady of Shalott.” Sir Lancelot is also described in an array of euphoric imagery:

A bow-shot from her bower eaves, he rode between the barley sheaves, the sun came dazzling thro’ the leaves, and flamed upon the brazen greaves of bold Sir Lancelot. A red-cross knight forever kneeled to a lady in his shield, that sparkled on the yellow field, beside remote Shalott. The gemmy bridle glitter free, like some branch of stars we see hung in the golden Galaxy…His broad clear brow in sunlight glowed; on burnished hooves his war-horse trode; From underneath his helmet flowed his coal-black curls as on he rode. (1183-1184)

Lancelot merely rides by and the Lady is quickly taken aback by his grandeur because he is unlike anything she has ever seen before. For instance, an entire section is devoted to celebrating the attraction of his armor as it shines in the sun, similar to a constellation of stars. When he first appears in the mirror, he’s gleaming in the daylight, almost as if his armor is on fire. In trying to detail the intensity of Lancelot, the speaker relies on several dazzling comparisons to showcase his radiance.

Despite the vibrant descriptions Tennyson provides, it is the sound of Lancelot that makes the Lady rebel against her limitations to pursue the knight. Just the reflection of Lancelot in the mirror is a sufficient justification for her to completely alter her life. This situation plays heavily upon society’s standards of a woman requiring the presence of a man to survive. When he begins to sing “Tirra lirra,” she neglects her weaving duties and provokes her unsettling fate. The manifestation of the Lady’s distraction is distinguished by the moment she becomes infatuated with Sir Lancelot, “She left the web, she left the loom…She looks down to Camelot. Out flew the web and floated wide; The mirror cracked from side to side; ‘The curse comes upon me,’ cried The Lady of Shalott” (Tennyson 1184). In this instant, her reaction to Lancelot’s presence changes everything and she ultimately brings upon her death. Regardless of this, the Lady of Shalott makes a powerful choice to break free from her isolation. June Hagen asserts, “She suddenly realizes that at best art is a more extensive distortion than usual. This knowledge disrupts her world of illusion and her happiness in it, forcing her to confront the world directly” (8). In many cases, the appearance of Lancelot is interpreted as the driving force behind the Lady’s decision to leave the loom. Furthermore, this situation provides the Lady with her first glimpse at the possibility of portraying real human emotions for another person. Although this choice causes her to lose it all, her willingness to do so represents her protest of the shadowy, isolated situation she was forced to endure for so long.

When the Lady arrives at Camelot, the happy and lively atmosphere manifests a fatal outcome. The world of Shalott and Camelot finally collide and the Lady’s grief and ghostly appearance eliminate the “royal cheer” of Camelot (Tennyson 1185). Ultimately, she is unable to assume a part in the life of knights and ladies except as a pale and perished body in a coffin-like boat. In choosing to write her name on the side of the boat, the Lady embodies the tragic work of art. Gill notes, “The ‘denial of female interiority and subjectivity’ and the transformation of the woman’s body into an art object” may be employed as powerful symbols “of every artist’s loss of ‘autonomy’ and ‘intentionality’“ (112). Indeed, this proves to be a final act in her quest for self-definition now that she is entirely free from her captivity. Tennyson demonstrates that love is about taking risks and also accepting that it has the potential to destroy everything in its wake. Inevitably, the moment of her death completes her broken transformation that results from the curse.

Although she transitions from imprisonment to freedom, the very act of leaving her old life behind costs her everything. Tennyson contends, “And they crossed themselves for fear, all the knights at Camelot: But Lancelot mused a little space; he said, “She has a lovely face; God in his mercy lend her grace, The Lady of Shalott” (Tennyson 1185). In the end, the Lady is reduced to nothing more than a pretty face who died too soon. In all actuality, the Lady loses her life as a result of a man’s ignorance and although Lancelot is responsible, he remains unaware of the disastrous implication of his words. Gill passionately states, “There is no escaping that the Lady of Shalott is both literally and metaphorically dead as a subject and artist because she would not stay contained within patriarchy’s ideological tower and repeat the ready-made story it gave her” (117). She succumbs to a hapless defeat and becomes symbolic of a “damsel in distress” who cannot be saved. The inclusion of Lancelot’s dialogue shows that to be a woman is to be confined to a presumed gender role and reduced to nothing more than a lifeless figure of the female sex.

Alfred Tennyson’s “The Lady of Shalott” employs the Lady of Shalott’s unfortunate situation in a way that critiques the historical social and sexual subjugation of all women. The poem focuses on the ongoing process of the Lady’s maturation and her decision to trade her world of illusion for the harmful world of reality. In this case, the Lady’s journey exposes the idea that the quest for love may be dangerous but it is far better to take that risk than to hideaway. Nonetheless, her circumstance proves that one must turn away from living an illusion and embrace a world that is full of authentic human connection–even if it ends in ruin. If not to pursue the possibility of a life full of love, freedom, and happiness, what is a life worth living for? 

Over the course of the semester we have read and dissected a plethora of stories ranging from various literary periods. These literary periods encompass Romanticism, Realism, Naturalism, and finally the Modernism period. While reading these various works we have been focused on characterization. Specifically, seeing the world through the eyes of the character and as we learn more about the story we began to sympathize with what our protagonist is going through, and hope they find a resolution to what they are dealing with. Over these different periods there has been a common theme that has been discussed or hinted at within each story, that being the theme of slavery and oppression.

Foremost, in order to gain an understanding of how cultural and historical situations had an effect on these literary periods we have to have some sort of a background as to what was going on through each of these time periods. The first era we’ll be talking about will be the Romanticism period. This literary movement gained traction in the United States around the early 1820s until 1860. Romanticism encompassed both the high of highs and the low of lows. Many of the authors during this time period focused on things that directly shaped American culture, such as the ideas of being an individual and the celebration of nature. This time period also discusses some of the dark side of human nature. One writer who played a large role in helping see the irony within American Romantic movement was Walt Whitman. Whitman had various controversial writings and spoke out when it came to the subject of slavery. In the second half of the song of myself Whitman talks about a time he gave help to a runaway slave, this led to his views on the abolishment of slavery, however Whitman believed that this debate would be too controversial for the time period and interfere with the time period. Whitman believed that we must all come together as a whole first in order for the democracy system to work. Another author I wanted to discuss in this time period was the works of Kate Chopin, the awakening has various qualities that could classify this as a Romanticism story. Our main character Edna Pontellier plays both the wife and mother, however she wants to reject the preconceived notions within this time period and expand the traditional “Victorian woman” idea that their lives revolved around home, husband, and children. It is through this self-discovery that Edna begins to feel as if she is awakening and helps her learn on the idea to focus on things that she values encompasses the Romanticism idea of being an individual.

Moving forward into the late 1800s this time period was coming off of the Civil war ending. This war was initially a result over the enslavement of African-Americans. This was the bloodiest war in American history with an estimated 500,000 Americans dying from this conflict. During this time period American literature was made up of two major styles of writing, this being Realism and Naturalism. Realism was a literary movement that aimed to depict real life situations utilizing ordinary characters. Realism was primarily focused on the middle-class. In William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning” we get to see some of the major components of Realism displayed throughout the story. The first being that our protagonist Sarty comes from a poor African-American family, and we also see the regional dialect with the story taking place within the south. In many Realism stories they tended to portray the location that they were in through the dialect and customs of that time period. We are given very vivid imagery of what the south looks like after the civil-war through Faulkner’s choice of language. We also see Realism through the eyes of Sarty’s father Abner. Abner has a conflict with the upper-class and this leads to him burning down their barns. Naturalism is similar to Realism meaning that it focuses on a real story, however it tries show people being determined by the environment that they live in. Naturalism is also concerned more with the lower-class. August Wilson’s “The Piano Lesson” is a story that is an excellent example of this with the Realism with the conflict between Bernice and Boy Willie over what they each want to do with the piano. However, the Naturalism point of view comes in with seeing how the characters are introduced. Boy Willie is lower-class and comes from the south, he is trying to sell this piano in order to purchase the plot of land that his family once lived on as slaves. The Realism aspect comes back into play, but this time looking more to invoke a perspective on the reader with that being would Boy Willie have really been able to purchase this land during the time period? Although there are differences in both Naturalism and Realism they each discuss the life and hardships of your average American. This movement helped Americans realize that their lives would not center around the optimistic views that many Romantic authors had at the time. Both these stories give us examples and show us what life would be like in this time period, and the various struggles that each of our characters would face. They also do an amazing job at providing the imagery of how the world looked during these two very different time periods.

Moreover, moving into the final literary period that we discussed in depth that being the Modernism literary period. This literary period began during the early 1900s and ended around the late 1900s. Many Modernist authors took an approach that was seen as different for their time period, that being only telling parts of their story and starting to incorporate a stream of consciousness, or utilizing multiple different points of view. In the 1920s there was “The Great Migration” which consisted of African-Americans moving to the North. For the first time African-Americans had begun to catch the attention of a white audience for the first time through speakeasies that were popping up all throughout urban areas throughout the community. The main theme around these speakeasies were to show African-Americans within the best light possible, and they would do this by electing Educated African-American men as leaders during this time. The 1920s also had other changes, such as giving women the right to vote, and alcoholic beverages being illegal to sell. Langston Hughes focused on the theme of “double-consciousness”. In his literary work “The Negro Speaks of Rivers” He uses the polymerizes the writing style of Walt Whitman with Negro spirituals. Doing this he shows the similarities of both Caucasian Americans and African-Americans. He portrayed the “New Negro” as someone who is a survivor of both the injustices that have been put before them and it highlights the adversity and how they overcame racial hardships. The last story I want to discuss it Tennessee Williams’s “A Streetcar Named Desire” which discuss the modernist way of thinking versus The Old South.

Tennessee Williams does an excellent job of utilizing the stream of consciousness, with our main character Blanche living in a reality that she creates in her mind. Blanche has a superiority complex from having old money, she would end up losing her plantation and knows there is no way back to the high society life that she used to have, so she clings onto her past and continues to live in this falsehood by wearing her white suit, and pearl earrings. Stanley is seen as low society to Blanche, and she believes that Stella married beneath her class. Throughout Blanche trying to show that she is ready for the modern world and understands what the role of Women is throughout the story it is proven she doesn’t truly grasp the concept. The oppression in this story comes in with Stanley. There is a part of this story in which he beats his wife, and it is not seem out of the normal for this time period. Stanley also goes on to humiliate Blanche for being a prostitute and uses his male dominance in a way to play over the women in his life.

In conclusion, over the course of this semester we have gotten to analyze various stories and discuss the ramifications of each of them. Prior to taking this course I had knowledge on some of the historical events and how they have shaped the present. However, I thought it was amazing to get more of an understanding how social events really shaped American Literature. The writers during these various time periods had been influenced by the world around them and we see how it directly correlated to the works that they had. We can see this evidently throughout each time period how every story we read the writers centered it around what was going on at the time. I also found it interesting the vast nature in which we discussed literature and how we did not take the grade school approach by just reading the story, but we analyzed playwrights, auto-biographies, poems, and both fiction and non-fiction tests. It can also be seen through the difference in the writing styles; Romanticism, Realism, Naturalism, and Modernism. Utilizing the cultural lens of slavery and oppression I hope to have provided you with various examples of how I saw the text as it related to each of these. I have realized the importance of how American Literature has been shaped and how the writers were able to give us views and insight as to how they saw the world at the time that we could not get from our average story.

With updates on the assault on the American maritime base at Hawaii on December 7, 1941, long periods of seething trepidation and hatred against Japanese Canadians detonated into frenzy and outrage in British Columbia. Inside days of the Pearl Harbor assault, Canadian Pacific Railways terminated all its Japanese laborers, and most other Canadian ventures stuck to this same pattern. Japanese fishers in British Columbia were requested to remain in port, and 1,200 fishing boats were seized by the Canadian naval force. Starting after the Pearl Harbor assault until 1949, the internment of Japanese Canadians started, where somewhere in the range of 22,000 Japanese Canadians started, 14,000 of whom were conceived in Canada. They were vigorously taken from their homes and banished to inland, remote territories of British Columbia. This constrained migration exposed numerous Japanese Canadians to government-upheld curfews, cross examinations, employment and property misfortunes, and constrained repatriation to Japan. This choice followed the occasions of the Japanese intrusions of British Hong Kong and Malaya, the assault on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, and the resulting Canadian affirmation of war on Japan during World War II. The coercive removal and control of ethnic Japanese during the Second World War speaks to one of the most appalling arrangements of occasions in Canada’s history.

90% of the total Japanese Canadian populace, from British Columbia were displaced and interned for the sake of ‘national security.’ Despite the fact that this internment was for the sake of national security, Japanese/Asian bigotry and separation started a long time before World War II began. During these years Japanese Canadians were banished from casting a ballot in 1902, confronted fierce mobs with the Whites, and there was additionally the “gentlemen’s agreement” that constrained migration from Japan to a low number. Anti-Asian prejudice proceeded all through the start of World War IIand arrived at a top after the Pearl harbor assault. This assault carried the United States into the war and activated war among Canada and Japan, releasing the obvious threatening vibe towards Japanese Canadians for a considerable length of time to come.

Taking advantage of the lucky break to free themselves of their since quite a while ago disdained contenders, White ranchers, dealers and political pioneers blamed Japanese Canadians for being spies and saboteurs for Tokyo, and called for exceptional activity to secure the West Coast. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police found no proof of treachery or military risk, and the head of the Canadian Army and Navy overwhelmingly denied that there was a peril or attack danger of any significance from the Japanese Canadians. In any case, a plot of government officials and lobbyists in British Columbia started battling for the evacuation or constrainment of Japanese Canadians in the beach front districts. Also, political pressure from the West Coast, driven by administrative bureau serve Ian Mackenzie, caused the government to act, thus started the beginning of the internment of Japanese Canadians.

I believe other Canadians, given the circumstances, agreed with the internment of the Japanese. There was, as aforementioned, a history of anti-Asian prejudice, indicating that there were problems between Canadians and the Japanese before World War II even began. There were also violent riots that started due to anti-Asian sentiment with Whites marching through Chinese and Japanese neighborhoods, breaking windows and assaulting local residents. Higher authorities had begun limiting immigration, proving that there were issues with them. As the Canadian Encyclopedia says, “Prime Minister King shared popular views that treated all Japanese as treacherous, writing in his diary that he agreed entirely with Chinese official T.V. Soong, who had proclaimed that he would not trust any Japanese, even naturalized or Canadian born, as they were all saboteurs just waiting for the right moment to aid Japan”. As said before, there was additional pressure from politicians, merchants and white farmers accusing the Japanese of being spies. These actions and sayings reveal the unfair attitude that Canada had toward different origins during that time period, especially against those of Japanese ancestry. Thus, most Canadians, even high level authorities with the exception of a few, all were for the internment camps and felt somewhat safer with the Japanese being locked, far away from them and the rest of society.

I believe the general attitude of Canadians would be somewhat different today as society has changed, even if not drastically, somewhat. On moral grounds, the Japanese were likewise treated unjustifiably. The all inclusive announcement of Humans Rights characterized by Amnesty International today and furthermore the Canadian Charter of Rights, diagrams the basics of life that every individual are qualified for. In spite of the fact that these rights were not expressed as legitimate laws in those days, they should be considered as good codes that ought to be perceived paying little heed to the presence of ordinances or not. As the rights like the right to live freely, the right to own property, and the freedom of speech were not heavily followed, there may be different responses today. In today’s day there are many activists and honest politicians who would uphold these laws even in drastic events. On the hand, in times of extreme cases, like the one that was seen during the Pearl Harbour attack, people may behave differently. They are not always in the right sense of mind because they are afraid for their safety and wellbeing. In these cases they may behave and have the same attitude as Canadians during the Japanese internment camp issues. It might be easier for extremists, nationalist, or simply citizens who want to place unnecessary blames and lies on peoples back to persuade others into the same perspective.