A Cogitative Countenance

     Not sure how this applies to either our American History discussion about the US status with Iraq or our new English lessons about race, if at all.  But I myself found it quite interesting, so I thought I’d put it out there for all to see.

Invisible Children

Where you live shouldn’t determine whether you live

     The main point that I noticed in the two articles that we read was the issue of segregation, especially of schools.  This by itself connects with A Lesson Before Dying, because there are two schools in the town, and the black school that Grant teaches in can be seen as worse off than the white school.  Such an example of this is described by Ralph Jennings, in that

school buses were not used in the black community. The school buses that you saw were white kids being ferried out of the black community to the white schools.

     Aside from this aspect of segregation, another link between these articles and Grant’s society was the profound effort that the black teachers put forth to educate and prepare their students.

Our teachers’ mission was clear–to make sure that we were capable of competing with anybody, anywhere, and that we would make not only our parents and ourselves proud, but them as well.

This is also very clear in A Lesson Before Dying, because although Grant wants to get away from teaching and get himself a “better” life, while he is teaching, he is trying to do his best for his students.  He feels bad for acting strict, and he realizes that these children will probably grow up to be just as animal-like as Jefferson; or the two men who delivered the firewood.  However, he still tried his best to eductae the students, and help them with their hygene and etc., hoping that he can make somewhat of a difference.

     The Shakespeare production that I saw outside of class was the school’s own production of the Tempest.  I do not have too much to say about the play, because it was utterly confusing, and I had absolutely no idea what it was about or what was going on.  Aside from this, I did gain some things from seeing this production.  The most important thing that I got out of this play was hearing the language of Shakespeare, and seeing how the actors fit everything into their modern production of the century-old Tempest.  I tried to apply some of the observations that I made to our own in-class production of the Scottish Play.
     There were some differences in this play and the original, especially considering how the theater teacher added some lines of their own.  When the characters started actually saying “you” and more modern things (and when eating pizza and Chicken Joe’s), it was clear that it was not the original script.  Also, I do not know if this part of the production was included in the original, but the person sitting off to the side of the stage, who had conversations with one of the characters, was a major drawback to the play.  Instead of clarifying anything, it just confused the audience more, and they language that the “director” (I suppose he was supposed to be) used was so modern that it threw off the affect of the other characters’ use of Elizabethan speech.

     When looking at the different adaptations of Shakespeare’s Scottish play, there are many things to take into consideration.  The differences and similarities that stuck out most to me included the language, settings, characters, and events.
     For the most part, the language in the Scottish Play was drastically different from the language in the adaptations.  This is obvious in the Throne of Blood, which is in Japanese, and can also be seen in the Dr. Seuss-ish rhyming of the travesty, and also in the more modern African associations of uMabatha.  With respect to the language used, my favorite adaptation would be uMabatha, because although it has different language, it retains the same meaning as the Scottish Play.
     Secondly, the settings of the plays were changed primarily in order to make the adaptations fit into their culture.  For example, uMabatha takes place in an African village, and the Throne of Blood in
Japan.  I think that this physical way of relating to the play to their own culture is the best thing that the authors could have done.  The new setting makes the play closer to home, allowing people to understand the adaptations well.  The set for the Throne of Blood movie was my favorite, but the setting that comes out of uMabatha was a little too distant from Shakespeare’s intentions with his original play.
     The characters in the adaptations of the Scottish Play follow their counterparts in the original play almost exactly.  Small changes such as the number of witches, or the elimination of certain [unimportant] thanes, were apparent, but fortunately did not affect the impact of the play.  I thought that the one witch in the Throne of Blood had just as much effect, if not more, than the three witches in the original.  I think that by eliminating characters a little something is lost, however it simplifies certain parts of the play which is a plus for the adaptations.
     The last thing that stuck out to me in these adaptations was how true the events were to the original Scottish Play.  This was especially apparent in the Throne of Blood, where these events are mirrored in the original play:
          - The weather is bad when Macbeth and Banquo see the witch
          - Lady Macbeth tries to get Macbeth to murder the king
          - Macbeth and Banquo laugh about the prophesies of the witch
          - The guards are drunk, intended by Lady Macbeth
          - Macbeth kills the king but keeps the weapon in his possession, and Lady Macbeth has to bring it back to the murder scene
          - Banquo and Fleeance are missing from the banquet
          - Macbeth is haunted by the ghost of Banquo during the banquet, and his wife tells the guests that he must have gone mad
          - The Murderer reports that Banquo is dead, but Fleeance had escaped
 … just to name a few.  There were some differences as well, but for the most part the degree to witch the adaptations stick to the original play is amazing.

     I think that overall, the adaptations of the Scottish Play modernize it, and keep it alive for the new generations of the world.

     In choosing one of the three options provided by Mr. Olmstead, I personally would not choose any of them.  I believe that the best way to handle the current situation in Iraq would be to maintain the amount of U.S. troops there, but gradually decrease United States presence over a course of several years, and try to continue to set Iraq on a course towards Democracy.
     I understand that there are many U.S. casualties which hit close to home, and that is one of the main reasons that many United States citizens want the troops to evacuate Iraq.  In fact, according to CNN news,

U.S. military deaths in Iraq in October reached 100 Monday, making this the deadliest month for American troops in a year.

However, if the United States does pull out of Iraq, there is a great opportunity for more terrorist attacks against the United States.  Although the al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are based primarily in Afghanistan, if the United States were to cease its efforts in Iraq right now, the rest of the world could quite possibly view our country as quitters or a failure.  And when this crack in America’s foundation is discovered by the rest of the world, there are countless possibilities that pose a threat to the U.S.
     This is where we have to make a vital decision; do we want to stay in Iraq and loose 75 soldiers a month who are doing their job, or do we want to evacuate Iraq and make the U.S vulnerable to loosing even more American civilians here at home?     Lula makes a comment that I need to disagree with based on my above arguments.

Now that our most recent purpose has been accomplished, creating a democracy, we definitely need to leave.  The Iraqi prime minister has said he does not want us there anymore.

We have not set up a successful democracy, because the three ethnic divisions in Iraq are at a constant dispute, which could even be seen as a civil war.  Therefore if America leaves now, without having established a successful democracy, Iraq may end up with in a tyrannical state which we initially set out to destroy, or end up with the rule of one party.  Both of these outcomes for Iraq following our evacuation will only be catastrophic; hence, we must remain in Iraq.
     However, viewing another issue that Lula brings up, I definitely agree with her in respect to the fact that

There are other parts of the world that need our help, such as, Darfur.  We have even called it a genocide and we haven’t helped.

The United States government, and especially the people of the United States need to have a broader spectrum of issues to be concerned with.  We should definitely address situations such as those in Darfur, but we also need to stay the course in Iraq.  For such a sophisticated nation, I believe that we are capable of multitasking.