Formula for Fahrenheit 451

Claim: In the society of Fahrenheit 451, controversy is prevented by using technology as a form of censorship to limit human interaction.

Stronger Claim: (needs stronger wording)
The reason for being able to prevent controversy is that technology is used as a form of censorship to limit human interaction so the people of the society have no way of forming their own opinions. We can see strong examples of this system in characters like Mildred and Mrs. Phelps, who are so brainwashed by technology to have a confident, personal grasp on their own lives.

(In the essay, I’ll go on to discuss examples of characters who rebel against this modus operandi and prove that the use of technology is in fact a weak system and is easy to break.)

Question: How do they attempt to prevent controversy?

Trouble: This idea infers that the society is against different opinions and wants everybody to think the same way. In addition to this being an absurd claim, it seems that preventing an entire general public from having personal and varied beliefs would be very difficult to do.

Status Quo: In the world of Fahrenheit 451, controversy is considered a bad thing.

Exploratory Draft for Fahrenheit 451

Hmm.... where to begin?

My proposal: I am interested in writing about the similarities between the society of Fahrenheit 451 and of today, because I want to understand why we dismiss sci-fi for being unrealistic and impossible when it might really reflect on and help us understand our world today. One way to investigate this might be by more deeply exploring some of the similarities that we find within the book itself, such as the characters’ relationship with technology, human interaction, and censorship.

One idea I find particularly fascinating and that I want to explore more is the human interaction that goes on in this book. This seems to encompass–or be a result of–the other ideas of technology and censorship.

I did a text exploration on the scene where Mildred is in their dining room with her ears plugged into her seashells and the toaster has a hand that gives her her toast; Montag than comes in but Mildred, although she acknowledges him with a slight nod, seems to be more interested in her device than Montag. Technology often seems to prevent a lot of quality human interaction.

Seashells. Television. Parlor walls that replace humans because they themselves–the robotic walls–are considered “family.”

Then there’s censorship: If colored people don’t like blablabla, white people don’t like blablabla, burn it, says Beatty. Without this possibility for controversy, there’s peace, Beatty claims.

                        (questions: how does this idea of burning books connect to controversy? Or how do books connect to controversy?)

Well, what do people do? What’s special about people as oppose to robots, or any technological device? People can think. They have ideas.

With interaction comes thinking, with thinking comes ideas, with ideas come controversy, and what Beatty–and the whole societal system itself– argues is that controversy is bad.

So seems the “inventors,” the “creators,” the “game-makers”–or, the government–of this seemingly sci-fi society probably thought to themselves, to stop controversy, we must stop the root of it: human interaction.

So they’ve used technology as a form of censorship to limit human interaction to prevent controversy!

I guess my argument could be that technology is the root of all the problems within the society of Fahrenheit 451, but it needs to be richer.

Wait, I just realized that I’ve discounted the idea of burning books themselves.

Maybe the technology is a cover up for the gap that becomes present without books. People, often unconsciously, love to learn, love to understand, love to observe: this comes through all types of media, books, magazines, tv, movies. A world without any of these information feeders would be quite empty, and I think people would drive themselves mad. But I guess there’s more of a freedom of expression through books and literature and writing. And there’s also a lot of room for interpretation, especially because of the lack of visuals. But with video–tv and movies–maybe the information we receive from that is more concrete, because not only do we get dialogue and sound, but we get to see. There’s definitely something to take into account about trusting and believing what we see. Same for what we hear. So maybe using this type of media makes it easier to persuade and convince people because there’s less room for people to form their own opinions. The government can control what people believe because of this.

Although he doesn’t say it so bluntly, this is what Beatty is implying if you read between the lines. However, he seems to believe that all of this is okay. Having a government that filters the information you receive seems wrong, but Beatty justifies it as being a good thing because it prevents controversy and argument.

So technology is a cover up for so much more than it initially seems.

The argument could be further spun/&proven because Bradbury kindly provides us with characters that are not under this influence, like Clarrise. By seeing the intellectual capacity of her character and the incapacity of others, we start to wonder where this comes from. Clarrise does all the opposite things of most others: instead of watching the tv and the parlor walls, she reads books- instead of listening to seashells, she talks to her uncle. Faber, too; Granger and his group, too. As readers we are more attracted to them because, contrary to what Beatty argues, they seem at peace with themselves and the world, despite the fact that they’re exposed to everything society tries to hide from them.

Our status quo, in sense, could be that according to society (of the book), controversy is bad. This is troubling, though, because it seems like there’s something deeper to this... a question would be, how would a society control controversy?

            {I think I’m going to forget about comparing the F451 society to today’s–maybe I’ll include that in the end of my essay.]

What makes me ask this, though? About controversy in the first place?

Well, when reading the book, I always had a hunch that even Beatty himself might be oblivious to the fact that there is a larger initiative of the society//government than burning books to try to keep people happy. After reading many sci-fi books, it’s always a fishy topic when the rulers always claim, “all we want is for you to be at peace.”

But maybe what they really want is control. They want to be the books themselves.

They’re jealous of books.

AHHH. They realize the power of books.

(who’s they?? gov.?)

So somewhere along the line they’ve acknowledged what a powerful tool books really are.

They’ve figured out what it is that makes books powerful, and then manipulated that to become even more powerful and controlling.

So what it is that makes books powerful? Their abilities to suggest certain claims, but then provoke thinking and new ideas to the readers.

Although the government wants to be able to “suggest certain claims,” they don’t want to “provoke thinking and new ideas.” They don’t want to suggest certain claims, they want to enforce them and make sure everybody believes them.

So while books are strongly looked down upon, they’re also secretly admired.

This seems to be a pattern with a lot of characters and their relationships with books, though. They’re not willing to give books enough credit, because they’re too obsessed with themselves??//?

Text Explorations: Fahrenheit 451

Text Explorations

            1) I chose this quote because I am interested exploring how the characters in this book interact with technology; Mildred especially has an interesting relationship with all her devices, and I want to further understand that.

Montag has just woken up after a restless night of pondering over Clarisse. He enters the kitchen in the morning, sees Mildred at the dining table, observes, and then confronts her. (Page 18)

Toast popped out of the silver toaster, was seized by a spidery metal hand1 that drenched it with melted butter. Mildred watched2 the toast delivered to her plate. She had both ears plugged with electronic bees that were humming3 the hour away. She looked up, suddenly, saw him, and nodded. “You all right?” he asked. She was an expert at lip reading4 from ten years of apprenticeship at Seashell ear thimbles. She nodded again. She set the toaster clicking away at another piece of bread.

           
            Montag and Mildred proceed to make some more small talk, and then the scene ends abruptly.

1. Figurative Language: Spidery/hand and metal are such opposite words that it seems odd they would be used to describe the same thing. Spidery and hand suggest some sort of connection or resemblance to a living, moving creature, while metal often correlates with technology and machinery. This use of contradictory ideas in the same phrase is something Bradbury does a lot in his descriptions; it’s as if to suggest something about the society itself, that while it remains to have human, living components, automation is a large part as well and is in fact slowly taking over human roles.

 2. Word Definition / Wording & Connection / Trouble: According to the OED, to watch not only means “the action of watching or observing,” but as “the duty, post or office of watchmen or sentinel.” When we think of cooking, in this case making toast, our instinct is to think of a more active state than that of an observant one–when we cook, we are the ones making and serving the food. When Mildred watches as the toast is “delivered to her plate,” it seems to indicate not only her helplessness, but her reliance on technology to do such seemingly simple tasks. When we begin to think of many of the other characters in the novel, such as Mildred’s friends, we notice that most of them are foolishly dependent on technology just as she is.

3. Figurative Language / Trouble / Connection: This description of the Seashells in Mildred’s ears that are “humming the hour away” infer some sort of casualness with this activity. Bradbury purposefully dismisses as something nonchalant to show the normality of constantly listening these “electronic bees.” However, this becomes troubling when they’re enough to overpower human interaction: when Mildred solely nods to her husband instead of really greeting him, she’s unconsciously choosing her device over her family member. This makes me uneasy, as it seems sad that a generic piece of machinery could in any way be more important than a human being.  It makes me question the human interaction within the society, and maybe how the lack of it affects their character. However, when I really start to think about it, it’s not so different from choosing to keep your headphones in and listen to music rather than talking to someone, something that happens often in today’s world. It’s interesting how I can find this so disturbing as I read it from a confident view of it being science fiction, but then realizing that it’s truly not so different than what I do in my everyday life.

4. Interpretation: The fact the Mildred is able to “lip read” what Montag, her husband, says to her shows how she’s so adapted to her lifestyle that she’s learned ways to make it workable. Obviously, we need our ears to hear, and although Mildred could easy take out her Seashells to listen to Montag, she’s made the extra effort to learn a new way to listen to him; thus showing the great value of the Seashells.

            2) I chose this excerpt mostly because it’s just fascinating to me. I read this book in 6^th grade and when we were reading it a few weeks ago, I came across this part and it resonated with me. There’s also this idea of censorship in the story that I wanted to further explore, and this quote, even though it’s from Beatty’s point of view, says a lot about the supposed reasoning behind the ways of their society.

Beatty visits Montag at his home and gets into a long lecture about the need for burning books. (Page 59)

“Colored people1 don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn2 it. White people1 don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity3, Montag. Peace, Montag.

           
            Beatty continues to lecture Montag in his persuasive, dominating way, until he’s left Montag baffled and pensive.

1. Wording, Style, Syntax: It’s interesting how Beatty feels the need to extend his argument and label certain groups of people as evidence. It’s interesting to note that this is the only spot in the entire book where there is a mention of race. Maybe it hasn’t been mentioned in any other description of the society because Bradbury is trying to argue that in this utopia, the problem of race is nonexistent. We could than assume that the people of this society instinctively equate race with controversy, and therefore the issue is only brought up when discussing how their current society solves all the problems of any other way of life–race being one of “all the problems.”

2. Word Definition / Wording / Interpretation: This idea of burning is used everywhere in the book–after all, the novel is called “Fahrenheit 451,” the temperature at which paper burns. In addition to the common definition of burning, which is “to be in the process of consumption by fire” according to the OED, the idea of fire can also represent “the passions, as love, wrath.” Although love and wrath–admiration and anger–are very different feelings, they both encompass the same magnitude, the same passion. Instead of simply destroying books, Bradbury creates this world in which they burn books. I’m wondering if this burning–which is essentially destroying–stems from some sort of passion, both through love and wrath. Beatty may very well be an example of this–he’s a character that once loved books, but now demolishes them. It would be interesting to look deeper into Beatty’s character and find evidence that encompasses this idea of burning, something that requires passion.

3. Word Definition: The OED defines serenity as “tranquility, clear and calm:” tranquility is defined as “freedom from disturbance or agitation.” This lifestyle without books, as Beatty is describing, proves to have serenity overall. Asides from Montag and Faber and the other few who question, most people in this world are “free from disturbance or agitation.” This is troubling, though, as I wouldn’t assume such oblivion from such technologically advanced people. Actually, as I reread that last sentence, I ask myself why I instantly assume that advanced technology equals intelligent people. Maybe Fahrenheit 451 was written to show us that this status quo belief isn’t reality, and that although it may be tranquil, it is very limited, as the few like Montag and Faber show us.

           

3) I’m interested in the human interaction that occurs in this book. It’s very minimal and shallow, and this scene is one of the few exceptions where it’s not, so I wanted to take a closer look at it.

Montag is walking home from the fire-station when he notices a girl (whom we later find out is Clarrise). (Page 6)

The girl stopped and looked as if she might pull back in surprise, but instead stood regarding Montag with eyes so dark and shining and alive that he felt he had something quite wonderful.

           
            Montag proceeds to approach Clarrise and that begins their conversation.

1. Overall Reaction / General Ideas: After reading the entire book and then coming back to this particular passage, it becomes clear that this first interaction that occurs between Clarrise and Montag–and all of their interactions, for that matter– is quite rare. So rarely do we see such humanity in any characters, such feelings that are so closely connected to the human soul. This is hard to phrase, but it seems as if Clarrise is used as a foiling device to compare her with the average person in this society and bring out their differences. Clarrise has such real, alive feelings that are so drastically different from the robotic, mechanical feelings of everybody else. And maybe the beauty and compassion of Clarrise is slightly exaggerated so the reader becomes more attached to her more so than any of the other characters (besides Montag, who himself goes through a huge transformation of personality); a way to show how technology can be destructive, quite obviously.

            4) I chose this passage because I think noticing the actions of Mrs. Phelps might lead me to some new ideas about how she and others deal with new ideas and realizations.

            Montag has just finished reading the poem “Dover Beach,” which Mildred randomly chose because she thought it would show how pointless books are, but it seems to do just the opposite.

Mrs. Phelps was crying. The others in the middle of the desert1 watched her crying grow very loud as her face squeezed itself out of shape2. They sat, not touching her, bewildered with her display. She sobbed uncontrollably. Montag himself was stunned and shaken.

           
           Mildred and Mrs. Bowles get angry at Montag for reading the poem and blame him for Mrs. Phelps’ tears.

1. Wording / Syntax: This metaphor of the desert is fascinating. When we think of a desert, abandoned, vast, dry, lonely come to mind. This idea of them metaphorically traveling to a desert–to an abandoned, vast, lonely place–might represent how all of the characters feel inside. It’s like they’ve reached this far-away place and it feels empty and big and unapproachable because they’ve never tried to approach it before. What I mean by it is just the idea of literature. They’ve entered this uncharted territory of writing and poems and words and it’s all new to them. But they wanted to enter it, because although Mildred asked Montag to read to cover up for the fact that he showed his books to her friends, there’s a clear desire for exploration. And then after they visit this desert, and Mrs. Phelps was crying, they instantly equate crying with negativity and blame Montag for letting them into this “desert” in the first place. It’s as if they are afraid to approach the truth.

2. Wording / Syntax: “as her face squeezed itself out of shape;” this is a drastic way to describe the change Mrs. Phelps is going through. However, we only get two of the three stages of this transformation: “shape” is the initial _____, which then moves to “squeezed” which signifies a change, but then we as readers don’t get the final stage. This is absence result of Mrs. Phelps’ fear to accept, to “mold” into her new idea and realizations. However, if people were more willing to understand and except these new ideas, they would realize that their peers were going through the same process, and there would be more of a community that accepted these ideas. There’s a lack of communication, of human interaction that has depth, and that is what is preventing this third stage from forming. I think technology is a possible cause of this lack of communication.

Other Ideas: I asked myself this question- if the principles of this society seem to make sense in theory, than why is it so deficient in reality? Nearly all of the characters we see in this book have some sort of doubt of their societal status-quo. Mrs. Phelps is a perfect example of this, and this is seen immediately when she speaks about her husband, because although she insists everything’s going to be fine, it is clear she’s doubtful inside. But why is it that nothing has changed in this world? If they’re all feeling the same thing, than why do they have to wait for some sort of approval–in the form of another source that agrees with them–to express their feelings? Just like how Mrs. Phelps doesn’t admit to her feelings until she hears this poem; how Montag doesn’t allow himself to fully question the idea of burning books, even though he’s clearly felt it before, as we know because he’d stolen books before, until he meets Clarrise. Both of these characters are examples of how most people in this world have to wait for their ideas to somehow be justified until they feel comfortable being open! Maybe this is a reflection on all people, though, not just in the book.

extra

“ It was pretty silly, quoting poetry around free and easy like that. It was the act of a silly damn snob. Give a man a few lines of verse and he thinks he’s the Lord of all Creation. You think you can walk on water with your books. Well, the world can get by just fine without them. Look where they got you, in slime up to your lip.”

Possible Topics for Fahrenheit 451:

Process Post on Close Reading

This past week, we've practiced a variety of close reading strategies as we re-read Fahrenheit 451. For example, we payed close attention to symbolism, something I especially enjoyed. As a writer and a reader, I know how important and useful symbolism can be. With Fahrenheit 451, we analyzed possible symbols like the Hound to see how Bradbury used them to tell us something about Montag, the protagonist. Looking closely at symbols will reveal a lot about the story, other characters, and even effect our interpretation of the book.

Additionally, over these past few days I've realized how vital vocabulary is, and how it is in itself a tool for close reading. In class one day we were reading a section from the book and our teacher asked us what a few words meant, and none of us had any idea. Most of us had just skimmed over these words without bothering to look them up, and when our teacher told what they meant, they added a whole new level to our understanding. Authors use words for a reason, and making an effort to understand new vocabulary is beneficial in so many ways.

Klosterman Zombie Essay Tree Map

Malcolm X Intro Draft

In the Autobiography of Malcolm X, as told by Alex Haley, Malcolm goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca and completes the Hajj, a religious journey within Islam that all Muslims are urged to make. He returns from Mecca having gone through a completely transformative experience during which many of his beliefs about the American white man shift. Malcolm’s change is often understood as a very simplistic duality: as if he leaves America hating the white man and comes back loving him.

However, it seems troubling and unlikely that a person’s ideals and beliefs could change so diametrically over such a short period of time. And when looking deeper within Malcolm’s metamorphosis, it’s clear that his change isn’t (wasn’t?) that simple. So it becomes interesting to investigate what it is (was?) that Malcolm did realize after Mecca.
                The assumption that Malcolm hated the white man, somehow instantly changed, and began to love him is one that is very shallow and limited. And not looking more closely at his transformation means not giving Malcolm enough credit for the depth and sophistication of his change. What Malcolm did realize, in fact, was something much deeper than the black man versus the white man; beyond skin color. He rethinks America’s systems and comes to understand that it’s power that seperates and oppresses people. Through Malcolm’s journey in Mecca we notice that the lack of equality in America is due to the uneven distribution of power, and that it is not the color of their skin that makes the white man evil, it is their dominance in the economic, political, and social system. It is the white man’s deeply rooted idea that he is the superior that caused discrimination and prevented equality. Clearly, Malcolm’s transformation was one of great complexity that deserves to be explored.

Malcolm X: Exploratory Draft Reflections

Riya:

Claim: Different occurrences and influences during Malcolm's life caused his views on the white man to constantly change.

Question: How did Malcolm's views on the white man change so often?

Trouble: Malcolm seems to have so many different opinions on the white man that change throughout the course of his life.

Status-Quo: Malcolm should have a concrete idea and opinion on the white man,

Fine Tuned: If Malcolm should have a concrete idea on the white man, but he seems to have so many different opinions that change constantly throughout the course of his life, how did//what influenced these views to change so often?

Precious:

Claim: It is important to learn about Malcolm's past to understand how he became the prestigious man that people look up to today.

Question: How was Malcolm able to become a role model in his later years when his past was full of crime and mischief?

Trouble: It seems strange that Malcolm became this whole different person with the "dangerous," per se, past that he had.

Status-Quo: If a leader promotes something, it would seem strange if their past contradicts their teachings.

Fine Tuned: If a leader promotes something, their past should not their teachings, (and?) but Malcolm X had a past full of crime and mischief, than how is it that he became the prestigious role model that he was/is?

Myself:

Claim: Being the powerful and influential leader that he was, Malcolm could have changed the world for the better if his teachings promoted unity and equality between all people, as oppose to his idea that in fact enforced having a superior race.

Question: Was Malcolm's belief in a world with a segregated equality the most positive, progressive, and effective way for society to move forward?

Trouble: Malcolm wasted his time as a powerful leader promoting ideas that were, in the long run, negative for society as whole.

Status-Quo: Malcolm spent so much of his life passionately teaching and spreading his ideas against the white race, that were fired by the morals of the Nation of Islam.

Fine Tuned: If Malcolm spent so much of his life passionately teaching and spreading his ideas against the white race, but he wasted his time as a powerful leader promoting ideas that were, in the long run, negative for society as whole, then were Malcolm's beliefs in a world with a segregated equality the most positive, progressive, and effective way for society to move forward?

Exploratory Draft for Malcolm X

My trouble questions Malcolm X’s ideal society and his ways of progressing towards that. This all started when Malcolm was introduced to the Nation of Islam: which during his imprisonment was at a time of his own weakness. So when his brother came to him and told him of this religion that taught that the white man was the devil, of course Malcolm wanted to believe that! Of course it seemed perfect to blame all of his problems on the entire race of the very man that placed him in jail! And from that point on, Malcolm educated himself, preached, and taught others with this filter of the devil white man always in his mind.

            Islam–at least the way it was practiced in America during Malcolm’s time–was a religion driven by pure hate. It was driven by the ridiculous idea that the black man was the “superior race” and that they should never forgive the white man for destroying their past, present, and future. And instead of finding peace and a way to live in harmony, people of the Nation of Islam believed that blacks and whites should live in total separation and isolation from one another.

–now, one thing interesting to note here is that it seems as if Malcolm is oblivious to the fact that black and white are not the only to races in the world. He seems to have this idea that it’s the white man on top and the black man at the bottom, no room for anyone else. So it’s only when he goes to Mecca that he not only embraces the idea of true brotherhood, but broadens his scope to see people of all races living together–

Malcolm was devoted to spreading these teachings during his time as a member of the Nation. So clearly, his ideal society was a world in which there was a segregated equality–and that’s putting it nicely. I’m not really even sure what Elijah Muhammad and his followers would do to the white race if they could... to say the least, they would definitely not support integration.

What I’m troubled by is the fact that I don’t think this type of world would be at all positive for society to move forward as a whole. As a citizen of the very diverse, integrated community of New York City, it’s hard to imagine a subway car where I don’t have an African-American woman to my right and an Asian man to my left; an Indian girl with a Caucasian mother standing up, a Hispanic man with his little grandson sitting down. If Malcolm X got what he wanted, would I be sitting on a train with only people of my race, the following train separate for another? This just doesn’t seem realistic.

It should most certainly be acknowledged that Malcolm was treated poorly by the American “white man’s” system for much of his childhood. And it is true that for much of America’s history the black man was enslaved and looked down upon by whites. And it is true that for absolutely no good reason the American black man was treated unfairly, unjustly, and cruelly for a long time. Looking down at my own hands as I write this, I feel ashamed to have “white skin”–I didn’t chose the color of my skin; no one does–and it’s strange to be a part of this group of people that (being very general) is known for being so cruel to others in the past when I didn’t do anything. And there are so many other people just like me that just so happen to have white skin but would never dream of being so harsh.

Anyway, what I want to make clear is that I think Malcolm, and people like him, had every right to be angry at the American white man’s oppressive “system.” But pushing America into a purely segregated society was not right, is not right.. So it becomes challenging to draw the line between excusable anger and simply overall effectiveness on and well being for a society. And when people of all colors come together they create world of so many different cultures, ethnicities, beliefs, and ways of life in which they can learn from one another and progress so much. So despite the negligence that Malcolm experienced, this is what he should have fought for. Not wasting his time trying to reverse the roles and have the black man be in control as a spitting image of the white man that once did the same. He argues that there’s no point in trying to achieve equality because the white man will always have superiority, but how much better would society be vice versa? Not at all better. So it’s not even about the color of your skin! It’s about equality between everyone no matter anything, and a world in which there is not a dominating, superior group of people.

Although Malcolm does eventually realize this idea of harmony in Mecca, he could have been a much more effective, positive leader for more of his life if his mission was changed. With all the power and respect that Malcolm truly did have for a big part of his life, think about how much more he could of changed–and even how much more respect and support he would have gotten, from both races–if his attitude was towards peace and equality between everyone.

Proposal for Malcolm X

I am interested in writing about Malcolm X's tactics as a leader, because I want question whether his ideal society and his ways of progressing towards that really was the most realistic, effective, and positive way for a society to move forward. This is important because as a citizens of the very diverse community of New York City, it's hard to imagine the world that Malcolm X strived for for most of his life–a separated society where there is a segregated equality, where people live solely with their own race and don't interact with groups of other races out of pure hate. One ways to consider this is to think about and question how Malcolm X would really feel if he saw such a society; if he would really feel proud that his vision came true, and that it is truly how people should live their lives.

Intro to Mecca

For years now, Malcolm has lived under the beliefs of the Nation of Islam with this concrete idea of Islam being a segregated religion. He was taught that black men were the superior race and that the idea of blacks and whites living together was simply ridiculous and impossible. Therefore, this religion did not teach peace in America, it encouraged pure hate of other races. To Malcolm, these teachings were the basis of the Islam he knew.

However, during his pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm begins to realize something that was probably unimaginable to him before. He comes to this foreign land with this mistaken idea of what Islam is–as a religion that teaches separation between the races. But when he sees the brotherhood, the unity of all people living together as one in Mecca–the home of Islam–Malcolm is troubled. Contrary to what he saw and believed in America, the thought that Islam allowed people of all colors to live in harmony was shocking. Yet, beneath this surprise, his questioning of this strange reality, there is joy for Malcolm. There is anger that he's lived under the wrong assumption but there is joy because he realizes that brotherhood is possible. After seeing this unification of all people, Malcolm comes to believe that having a single religion, such as Islam–as practiced in Mecca–, is the key to unifying people despite their race; an idea that previously escaped him due to his stereotypical label of the "devil white man."

Weekly Reflection: 9/16 - 9/19

This past week, we read, took notes on, and discussed the first two chapters of the Autobiography of Malcolm X. It was really interesting to revisit the beginning of the book after reading the whole text over the summer. I noticed themes, patterns, and ideas that I didn't notice before, and had a few connections, troubles, and questions about the reading.

In the beginning of the week, we started off our discussion on Malcolm X thinking about a quote that he says towards the end of the book: "My whole life has been a chronology of changes." As a class, we talked about the word choice of "changes." Chronology means a timely sequence, so I wondered what mood Malcolm intended for "changes" to have. After reading the first chapter, it became clear that these changes seemed more like devestations. In the first few pages, Malcolm talks about the constant tension between his mother and father. He describes his father's death–a murder by a white hate clan–which occurred when Malcolm was just five years old. He describes his family's downhill spiral; his mother left a widow with no source of income, with multiple children to take of. His mother's unstability, anxiousness, and insanity. His family's separation, by white welfare state workers, his numerous foster homes and reform schools he gets shipped of to. So right of the bat, it's as if there's a soundtrack to the beginning of his life that just goes boom, boom, boom–each boom a shattering, huge, painful "change." I didn't realize the full force of this until I read it the second time, and I really understood the jagged childhood he was raised with.

I tried to connect this to Malcolm's personality, drive, and actions that he reveals later in the book. I saw how everything he fought for was backed up by a truly personal event. His entire childhood, at least how he sees it, was destroyed by the white man. Although I don't agree with every claim, idea, and belief Malcolm has, I see his motivation and connections, and I have compassion for him.

That being said, I noticed when Malcolm really started paying attention to racism. After going to Boston to visit his half-sister Ella–a proud black women, as he describes her–for the first time in his life, he sees true black pride and spirit. And when he comes back home, he begins to notice little things that he never noticed before–comments from peers, elders, and teachers that, although not intentionally, were insults to black people. Instead of treating like every day talk–as it was for most of the whites where he lived–he begins to turn and look back whenever someone calls him "nigger." And when his teacher, Mr. Ostrowski, shuns him from his dream of being a lawyer, saying that Malcolm must be practical and strive for a carpenter or so, he really shuts Malcolm down. This is the turning point in Malcolm's views on racism–not when his father dies from white extremists. That is a trouble that I hope to further explore in the days ahead.