Tempest in Takaki

Hi all,

In looking at the posts for this discussion I want to nudge you all to consider what Takaki really means about a “multicultural” look at The Tempest.

Does he mean simply understanding it from the perspective of an Englishman viewing the play? Or is he trying something more complex? If you read closely, how many different perspectives is he putting on display? One? Two? Three?

If that seems like a challenging question, stop for a moment and think about the different characters in the play. We find it easy to understand the play through Prospero’s eyes, right? He is, after all, the dominant character in the play. But what would that same play look like if we were to try to step into Caliban’s head and see it through his eyes? Or what about Miranda? Would her view be different from the others? What might that look like?

While they are all in the same play, each of those characters would experience it differently and understand it differently. his, then, is how we start to wrap out mind around the idea of multiple perspectives. I hope that makes sense.

Tim

A few thoughts on Discussion 2.2

Hi all,

I just finished grading Discussion 2.2 and I have some comments and thoughts to pass along to help us stay on tack and, hopefully, to guide you all to improving your understanding of the material and your grades in this class.

• Be sure to connect your comments directly to the readings—show me that you have done the reading and understand it by making this connections explicit. I’ve noticed that we have a lot of great stories being shared about people’s experiences, but we need to make sure the relevance of those stories to the assigned material is made clear.
• Remember, too, that I’m looking for evidence in your posts that you are doing the reading. Consequently, it’s not enough to mention one tiny part of a reading and respond to that. I gently deducted a few points when I saw this happening as a reminder to improve in the future.  (For example, very few people commented on the articles about Bush’s use of nicknames I wonder how many of you actually read those articles?)
• There seems to be some confusion of terms. “People of color” is generally an OK term when used in broadly talking about non-white people (blacks, latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, etc.); “colored people” is not. "Colored people” carries a lot of historical baggage leftover from legal segregation and Jim Crow laws. Of course, if you are only taking about blacks, or Native Americans, or latinos, then using those labels is also appropriate. 
• I noticed that a few people were uncomfortable being labeled “white.” That’s not unusual and we’re going to explore why very soon. In the meantime, if you felt uneasy over being identified as white, bookmark your comment and/or make a note in your notebook about it. 
• Finally, do remember that noticing race (which is almost always attached to skin color) and talking about is not a racist act. Indeed, the only way we can learn what it is and how it works is to talk about it. And to do that effectively we need a solid vocabulary.

Thanks!        

Tim