Matthew Rosenthal
Professor J. Caroccio
English 1012
24 February 2014
American Indian Myths and Legends: Response
"Mysterious but real power dwells in nature--in mountains, rivers, even pebbles. White people may consider them inanimate objects, but to the Indian, they are enmeshed in the web of the universe, pulsating with life and potent with medicine" (Erdoes and Ortiz 2).
It is very interesting how Native American Indians hold nature in such a high place, emphasizing it as a part of a "spiritual realm" that is closely connected to the human body and mind. Through nature, there is spiritual and mental healing, but there is something else as well. There is an intangible quality of power, chaos and structure, that cannot be accessed by the lesser human body alone. Instead, as we see in some of the myths presented in this collection, one must go through a transformation, either in location, physical appearance, or mental condition, in order to gain a better understanding of the way in which we should conduct ourselves in a world that is infinitely greater than us (although we tend not to think of this "natural power"). In this light, the chaos, inconsistency, and "incompleteness" that Erdoes and Ortiz use to describe Native American Indian tales should serve to remind us that nature is unpredictable. It is an entity which takes many shapes and forms, and entity we are part of but also one we cannot control. It is then important to learn to respect this entity, treat it as "god" and never overstep the boundaries of human behavior. In this respect, the Native American Indian folktales serves as particularly powerful cautionary tales.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
Matt Rosenthal
Professor J. Caroccio
English 1012
2/17/14
In the article, "Porto Rican Folklore," Peter Hamilton speaks about the relationship between folklore and the development and transformation of language in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have a different dialect than other Spanish speakers, and as a result, the ways of telling similar folktales have varied in accordance with these differences. For example, the word "salar," which comes from the word salt, means bad luck to one group of native Puerto Ricans (Borinquen Indians). To them, salt is not pure, the opposite of "the first rainfall of May" (Hamilton 62). Furthermore, other Puerto-Rican-specific superstitions have come out of folklore and are intimately associated with certain words and dialects.
I also find it interesting how musical culture in Puerto Rico is largely taken from other countries, especially Africa. Puerto Rican music, according to Hamilton, can "hardly be said to have a distinctive flavor," which may contribute to the reasons for bringing in music from other cultures.
Professor J. Caroccio
English 1012
2/17/14
In the article, "Porto Rican Folklore," Peter Hamilton speaks about the relationship between folklore and the development and transformation of language in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have a different dialect than other Spanish speakers, and as a result, the ways of telling similar folktales have varied in accordance with these differences. For example, the word "salar," which comes from the word salt, means bad luck to one group of native Puerto Ricans (Borinquen Indians). To them, salt is not pure, the opposite of "the first rainfall of May" (Hamilton 62). Furthermore, other Puerto-Rican-specific superstitions have come out of folklore and are intimately associated with certain words and dialects.
I also find it interesting how musical culture in Puerto Rico is largely taken from other countries, especially Africa. Puerto Rican music, according to Hamilton, can "hardly be said to have a distinctive flavor," which may contribute to the reasons for bringing in music from other cultures.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Matthew Rosenthal
Response to "The Sociopsychological Analysis of Folktales" by J. L. Fischer
J. L. Fischer argues that "folktales may be regarded as a major division of expressive culture, which also includes drama, ritual, music, graphic and plastic art, dance, etc., and may be contrasted with practical culture, including technology, economy, politics, and social structure" (236). It is interesting, though, how folktales are directly influenced by the technology, economy, politics, and social structure of a society. Conflict and resolution, the core of most dramatic folktales, almost always stems from one of these aspects and the circumstances they create. People-to-people interaction, conversation, and politics fuel folktale growth and influence.
People and society may create folktales, but once created, they become self-perpetuating-- out of previous stories spawn thousands of variations, and even written/recorded accounts. The folktales then diffuse into other cultural groups; they serve to teach lessons and to entertain, but also to coerce the many divided human cultures into a constantly expanding "universal culture."
What would happen if folktales didn't exist? Is that even possible?
Response to "The Sociopsychological Analysis of Folktales" by J. L. Fischer
J. L. Fischer argues that "folktales may be regarded as a major division of expressive culture, which also includes drama, ritual, music, graphic and plastic art, dance, etc., and may be contrasted with practical culture, including technology, economy, politics, and social structure" (236). It is interesting, though, how folktales are directly influenced by the technology, economy, politics, and social structure of a society. Conflict and resolution, the core of most dramatic folktales, almost always stems from one of these aspects and the circumstances they create. People-to-people interaction, conversation, and politics fuel folktale growth and influence.
People and society may create folktales, but once created, they become self-perpetuating-- out of previous stories spawn thousands of variations, and even written/recorded accounts. The folktales then diffuse into other cultural groups; they serve to teach lessons and to entertain, but also to coerce the many divided human cultures into a constantly expanding "universal culture."
What would happen if folktales didn't exist? Is that even possible?
Monday, February 3, 2014
Aesop, Aristotle, and Animals: The Role of Fables in Human Life
Matt Rosenthal
Blog Response
Feb 3, 2014
The value of Aesop's fables in a society that tries to fulfil certain "values equality and justice"is enormous. In many of Aesop's fables, stronger animals/characters tend to prevail over weaker ones, appearing to reinforce ideals of a rigid, hierarchical class system. Edward Clayton, in his article Aesop, Aristotle, and Animals: The Role of Fables in Human Life, attempts to prove that these fables "can actually point towards democracy, equality, and justice, rather than hierarchy, power, and exploitation" (183). He claims that because animals do not have the reasoning ability, or the power to drastically change themselves and their environments, they tend to make "animalistic," or "instinctual" decisions.
At first glance, people reading these fables might believe that they are being reminded of their futility and helplessness. However, seemingly cruel or unfair animal acts in Aesop's fables serve to remind us that humans are not futile. Unlike animals, humans have the power to establish democracy, justice, and moral code, and to use these things to "plan for the future, and change their environment and behavior" (198). Although we are animals, we are not just animals. We are extraordinary beings that can make decisions for the betterment of ourselves and others.
Here is a question to consider:
Clayton's claims rest on the condition that we live in (or at least have the potential to live in) an orderly and just environment. What happens when our environment, and thereby our conduct, tends towards chaos instead? Do we then become animals, with no reason and no ability to improve ourselves? Or are our reasoning skills just skewed until the proper institutions are put in place to "tame" us?
What is our most basic/primal nature?
Matt Rosenthal
Blog Response
Feb 3, 2014
The value of Aesop's fables in a society that tries to fulfil certain "values equality and justice"is enormous. In many of Aesop's fables, stronger animals/characters tend to prevail over weaker ones, appearing to reinforce ideals of a rigid, hierarchical class system. Edward Clayton, in his article Aesop, Aristotle, and Animals: The Role of Fables in Human Life, attempts to prove that these fables "can actually point towards democracy, equality, and justice, rather than hierarchy, power, and exploitation" (183). He claims that because animals do not have the reasoning ability, or the power to drastically change themselves and their environments, they tend to make "animalistic," or "instinctual" decisions.
At first glance, people reading these fables might believe that they are being reminded of their futility and helplessness. However, seemingly cruel or unfair animal acts in Aesop's fables serve to remind us that humans are not futile. Unlike animals, humans have the power to establish democracy, justice, and moral code, and to use these things to "plan for the future, and change their environment and behavior" (198). Although we are animals, we are not just animals. We are extraordinary beings that can make decisions for the betterment of ourselves and others.
Here is a question to consider:
Clayton's claims rest on the condition that we live in (or at least have the potential to live in) an orderly and just environment. What happens when our environment, and thereby our conduct, tends towards chaos instead? Do we then become animals, with no reason and no ability to improve ourselves? Or are our reasoning skills just skewed until the proper institutions are put in place to "tame" us?
What is our most basic/primal nature?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)