Fly Away

*I'm finished with the book, so beware of spoilers*

For thousands of years women have been viewed and represented as the epitomes of sweetness, love and care. There is what is known as the maternal instinct - which everyone subconsciously expects a woman to have - and many people claim that if the government were run by women, there would be less wars and violence. Society, on the other hand, portrays men as responsible leaders who must take care of their oh-so fragile wives. However, Toni Morrison dared to take a completely different approach on men in her novel, Song of Solomon. They are not such responsible beings, but simply the opposite of women: spiteful, selfish and condescending.

Hagar loved Milkman. But guess what? He did not love her back: he simply used her. The only two other people who also actually loved Milkman were his mom and Pilate (yes, both women). "From the beginning, his mother and Pilate had fought for his life, and he had never so much as made either of them a cup of tea." (331) He never loved them back, while they would give up anything for him.

In addition, in Song of Solomon, since men are incapable of love, they end up objectifying women. Unsurprising, isn't it? After all, by now we are all used to misogynistic jokes that include the words "sandwich" or "kitchen." Yes, that's getting old and even less amusing than it was initially. But when Morrison exemplifies such objectifying behavior in a very subtle manner, the message is far more striking than that of any chauvinistic "joke." "Naked came ye into this life and naked shall ye depart," (316) writes Morrison as she quotes the minister's words at Hagar's funeral (Yes, she dies... I warned you of spoilers). This is perfectly standard, but then she explains that this is a "sermon... he had always believed suitable for the death of a young woman." (316) Yes, "young woman." Why doesn't she say it's suitable for any death - elder, adult, or child - but rather decides to specify that it must be a "young woman" who died? With this nonchalant phrase she is exhibiting the minister's pervertedness, as even when a woman has died, he is still thinking of her as a mere sexual object. And if this is what the minister is like, - someone who is supposed to be saintly and holy - what can you expect from all the rest?

Hagar has loved Milkman for a while now, and she is desperate for the feeling to be mutual. But, of cousre, it's not. What else can you expect from a male character in this novel? So Hagar goes crazy after looking at herself in the mirror, repeating "no wonder" over and over again. (308) She thinks it's "no wonder" that he doesn't love her. That's how far she's gone: her own perception of herself depends on that of a man's. If a man won't approve of her, neither will she.

So, how does Hagar seek to earn this approval? By seeking to make herself beautiful, of course. Now Morrison is not only demonstrating how gender roles cause insecurity in women, but also how, as a result, females seek to appeal to men in order to gain back their confidence, and they end up changing themselves and trying to be "beautiful." So Hagar goes out and buys a diamond's-worth of clothes and make-up so she can be pretty. She believed that beauty was the key to everything: "She could spend her life shimmering in peaches and cream. In satin. In luxe. In love." (311)

What's even worse is that this pursuit of "beauty" makes Hagar feel ashamed of herself and of her race. "He don't like hair like mine," she says. (315) "He loves silky...penny-colored hair...and lemon-colored skin...and gray-blue eyes...and thin nose... He's never going to like my hair." (315-316) She wants to change simply because she thinks he doesn't like her appearance, while in reality, there's no deep reason to why he doesn't like her: He is simply indifferent, and never actually thought of how much he hurt her.

But everybody in this book is hurt in one way or another. The only way to get rid of this suffering is through death or flying... or both. The book begins with a man flying toward his death (the only way in which he was able to successfully eliminate his problems), and towards the end the reader finds out that Solomon (Milkman's great-grandfather) escaped all of his issues by flying away. "He just took off...No more cotton! No more bales! No more orders! No more shit! He flew, baby." (328) Wouldn't it be splendid? To just fly away for a while? But it's impossible: You either keep your feet on the ground or float away forever.

Song for Salomon

Since there were some problems with my song during The Tempest (which I was unfortunately responsible for) I decided to try to make up for it with a musical video blog for Song of Solomon.

Let's Be Friends For Now

For centuries we have developed as humans as a whole. Technology, science and medicine, literature and language, etc. all owe their development to humans. However, it's not like humans worked together to attain all these. On the contrary, most of it was acquired through individualism and by working with only those that can help you, regardless of what happens to the rest. Survival of the fittest at its finest.

However, humans could get into sub-groups in order to facilitate survival. Two of these, according  to Guitar and to Booker T. Washington, are Whites versus African-Americans. "Cast Down your Buckets where you are," a famous speech by the latter, categorizes the American society into basically "whites" and "blacks." He implies that these are America's fundamental groups and that they stick together.

Similarly, Guitar in Song of Solomon is part of a clandestine group whose objective is to even-out the score in the battle between African-Americans and whites. So for every attack on the African-American community, this groups is in charge of carrying out a similar attack, in which they kill the same amount of people in pretty much the same manner.

Nevertheless, these subcategories are both manufactured illusions that continue today. People believe that races stick together, but they're wrong, and Toni Morrison, in Song of Solomon, takes the initiative to get rid of this myth. This novel does display the conflict between the two previously-mentioned races. However, this is a minor theme, whereas conflicts among the African-American community are prioritized.

Morrison is able to juxtapose Guitar's paradoxical ways by beginning the chapter with him explaining his plans to avenge the death of four little African-American girls in a church bombing, and then immediately following this with Milkman's plan to steal gold from his own aunt - to which Guitar happily obliges. So then, how can Guitar claim to fight for his race, while he is simultaneously betraying it. And not just any African-American, but his best friend's aunt, who they've both known since they were kids. Such hypocrite, only interested in "the lure of something he had never had - money." (181)

There is the common belief that human beings stick together, but they don't. They are selfish, and will only do what benefits them, despite contradicting claims. Not even family is a bounding tie anymore. And humans will work with whoever is convenient at the moment. Milkman and Guitar, for example, were drifting apart. But Milkman wanted help, so he sought his former friend. Once it's over, they'll probably go back to being acquaintances, since they don't need each other anymore. After all, there's not much more to life, but avarice and the thirst for success.

Song of Solitude

Every school year we are assigned to read at least one classic. Many times, only the teacher fully understands its essence, and thus gets why it is considered a literary canon. Meanwhile, students only wonder what makes it so special, since we don't understand most of the symbolism and depth. There's One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriela García Marquez, for example, which is read or at least known by almost every Colombian. While many people don't understand this novel's profoundness and literary strength, it is undeniable that it has become a canon in Spanish literature. And while reading Song of Solomon I couldn't help but be reminded of this Colombian-novel, because, even though they treat completely different subjects (the former dealing with Colombian struggles, while the latter with American ones), there are several items and techniques that make them surprisingly similar.

One Hundred Years of Solitude narrates Colombia's violent history throughout the years, its causes being issues such as political disagreements. This is done through the characters' lives, thus making it a story instead of a dense history lesson. Song of Solomon does pretty much the same thing: It portrays the racial inequality through the characters' eyes, thus making it all the more real.

Both of these novels also deal with gender inequality, exhibiting women's role as inferior. In One Hundred Years of Solitude there's a prostitute (Pilar Ternera) who is just an item to men while she is a very caring woman who wants someone to love her back. Similarly, in Song of Solomon, Milkman is with Hagar purely out of pleasure but feels absolutely no appreciation for her. Although she loves him, he doesn't. So she also has sex with him to receive his love, but to Milkman she is only an item that requires no commitment.

Additionally, in both of these novels the passage of time is unusual. In Song of Solomon, the story abruptly shifts from Milkman as a newborn to Milkman as a three-year old, leaving the reader baffled. Throughout the novel, time keeps on going by very quickly (from a three-year old Milkman to seven-year old one, and then to a teenage one, and then to an adult one). The same occurs in One Hundred Years of Solitude, where characters begin to age without the reader being aware of it, until suddenly they are all grown up or dead.

Since time goes by so quickly, it is evident that new generations will surge, and in both of these novels the authors take advantage of this to give hidden meanings to the characters' names and to repeat these names in order to make their objective clearer. In Song of Solomon there are three Malcolm Dead's and all three of them are very similar to each other (the main common traits are greed and selfishness). In One Hundred Years of Solitude there ends up being twenty-two Aureliano's (keep in mind that this larger number is due to the fact that it takes place in a greater lapse of time) and all of them have the characteristic of being violent.

Both of these novels treat completely different topics. However, they represent society through similar means, and this makes both the purpose and the outcome quite similar. Making two works that are so unknown to each other, essentially the same.

Modifying Modifiers

Dangling modifiers are something we're supposed to learn about in Middle School... I'm guessing, because I didn't. So before beginning the assignment, I actually had a mini-debate with myself over whether to begin reading this article or start off by looking up the term's definition. I settled for the latter. And good thing I did, because looking up the definition would have been a waste of time, since I actually knew what it was.

As I read the article I could only question why Corbett goes through the trouble of doing all of this. But then I realized that not only did I know what a dangling modifier is (in case you don't know click here, or read the article, which does a great job at explaining it), but I've also played Corbett's role and had the task of finding dangling modifiers. Where? Well, the famous SAT, of course.

The SAT's Writing section always has sentences with dangling modifiers. The test-taker is in charge of locating these errors and correcting them. But it's pretty hard as it is, even if you have only one sentence to look out for per question. So I can't even begin to imagine the trouble Corbett goes through to find all these hidden errors in random texts. He might be used to it for having done so for a long time, or he might be only starting out. But either way, he's undeniably a prescriptivist.

Crushing the Façade

Most characters in books are usually simple and flat. By this I mean that they can easily be described in a few words. Hermione Granger is an intelligent girl, Dick Hickock is a cold-blooded pedophile, Blaire Waldorf is a spoiled rich girl, etc. There might be a bit more to them, but not much. That's basically it. Never before had I been faced with a character as complex as Macon Dead.

Initially, Macon Dead is portrayed as greedy man who only cares about his wealth, and everything else - including his family - is irrelevant. The narrator even explains in a detached tone that "he still wished he had strangled [his wife] back in 1921." (63) This fits so perfectly the image the reader has of Macon Dead that it comes as no surprise.

However, when Macon Dead beats his wife after she tells a short anecdote, the audience is most certainly taken aback. And afterwards, when Milkman hits his father to defend his mom, the reader supports him - or at least I did. However, I was in no way expecting what comes next: After Milkman retires to his room, his dad comes in and opens up in an extremely unexpected way. He ends up confiding in his son the hardships of his marital life and confessing that he has a feeling that Ruth and her father had a sexual relationship. It is then that I realized that there is a lot more to Macon Dead than the greed he shows to the rest of the world. It might be his greed what created these new feelings or it might have been these feelings that created a façade and masked him with greed.

However, I guess we shall never know whether Ruth actually had something going on with her dad. Macon began suspecting so after she refused to support him and convince her father to lend him money. Yet, this might as well have been a harsh and erroneous conclusion. But then again, Morrison has already implied such behaviors when the narrator tells about how Ruth forced her dad to give her a goodnight peck every night (although he felt uncomfortable) and how she breast-fed Milkman prior to him surpassing infancy - and thus he earned the nickname. I guess we'll never know the absolute truth... if there even is one.

An Underlying Purpose

There are contests being held all around the world, all the time. There are small ones, like whoever behaves best gets to be the line leader, and huge ones like the lottery. But all these have in common one thing: there's a winner. Reba, in Song of Solomon, would win both of these contests and any one in between. She's that type of person, the lucky one.

However, there is one thing that makes winning a bit difficult: her skin color. Because of her dark skin, Reba once almost didn't win the prize she deserved at Sears: a diamond. "The only reason they gave it to her was because of them cameras," (46) and since the winner was an African-American, Sears decided to give a second place prize, and only published the pictures of this runner-up.. of course, he was white.

Once again, Morrison is exemplifying racism in society. She demonstrates it by referring to the  when Macon Dead says "[Whites] kill a nigger and comb their [dog's] hair at the same time." This sentence on its own proves how paradoxical whites can be: murderers and loving owners at the same time. However, notice how in both of these positions whites have the upper-hand. Just like they did in society.

I believe there is a reason why Morrison decides to make Reba a lucky person. Maybe, she is a personification of luck and Malcolm Dead is greed. Ruth could also be added to this list of personifications, personifying childishness since she breast-fed her son until he was a grown child and she still loved having her father kiss her goodnight, even when it made him uncomfortable.

There must also be a purpose behind Morrison's allusions to American History characters. Malcolm Dead fondly reminisces his childhood, and as he does he names his childhood farm animals: "President Lincoln; [the] foal, Mary Todd; Ulysses S. Grant, their cow; General Lee, their hog." (52) Morrison cant have chosen these names just because she liked it, there has to be a deeper reason, and I still need to find out why.

In addition, there are some topics that Morrison leaves unanswered, probably to appeal to the reader's curiousity. For example, early in the novel, Hagar admits that "some of [her] days were hungry ones." (48) The reader and the other characters present in the scene automatically assumes she has been hungry for food, until Pilate says, "Reba, she doesn't mean food." (49) However, Morrison does not explain what she has actually been hungry for. It remains a secret. But a secret that the audience will hopefully soon discover.

The Living Dead

If you are reading this, you are alive... and so is everyone else who is living right now. Whoever lived already and has ceased to do so, is dead. But there is an exception to this: the Dead family. I don't mean a family that no longer lives, but simply one whose last name is Dead.

In my previous blog I had posed the question of why Tony Morris decides to give her main characters this last name. It becomes pretty much obvious when the family is in the car and it is said that "the Packard had no real lived life at all." (33) Although the Deads own the car and drive it every once in a while, their lives don't count as "real lived lives." So then they are just lives. Thus, the Deads become, both literally and metaphorically, the living Dead.

This symbolism becomes even more clear when Pilate affirms that "there ain't but three Deads alive." (38) This is definitely an oxymoron, but she also means that the three only living Deads are her daughter and her granddaughter. When Rena won a diamond, she saved it and kept it hidden, while Malcom Dead would have showed it off without even enjoying it. Malcom Dead's family is lifeless, just living because they have to. While Pilates and her family are actually living, thus becoming the only three to be alive.


One of the aspects that makes Malcolm Dead so lifeless is his greed - he lives for the sole sake of wealth. For example, for him, car rides were only "a way to satisfy himself that he was indeed a successful man." (33) He probably owes this predominant trait to his father, who died because of greed, as he was more willing to lose his life than to give up his belongings and own nothing.

However, deep down, Malcolm Dead is actually a sensible human being. He is awed and mesmerized by Pilate's singing earlier in the novel, and now he is transfixed as he tells the story of his childhood. He describes everything perfectly, as he mentions every detail he treasures. The imagery is great, as he for example, describes the taste of "wild turkey the way Papa cooked it." (51) The description actually made my mouth water - no lie.

Malcolm Dead, at the end, tells his son that you should own a lot of things "and let the things you own own other things. Then you'll own yourself and other people too." (55) The fact that he uses the word "people" as if it were a basic commodity makes the sentence even more avaricious  And this is what he'll teach this son. Milkman will now become a dead Dead as well. The third Malcolm Dead, in both name and personality.

"Dead" Conflicts

Racial conflicts have been a problem for centuries already. They are still an issue, but this topic reached its peak during the first haf of the XX century, when African Americans were already free but had still not acquired full rights - or barely any, for that matter. It is during this era that Song of Solomon takes place - 1931, to be exact. This novel does not portray African Americans as beings subjugated and completely dependent on whites (like many movies and other novels do), but rather as what it probably was actually like.

The story begins on a Wednesday afternoon at Mercy Hospital... or rather, the "No Mercy Hospital," as the African American community calls it, since it refuses to treat colored patients. This hospital is located at Not Doctor Street (initially Doctor Street), which acquired this nickname because the "only colored doctor in the city had lived and died on that street." (4) This, right off, demonstrates the lack of opportunities for African Americans, since there is barely any medical aid available to them. This idea is later reenforced when Macon Dead explains that he "was worthy...[because], at twenty-five, he was already a colored man of property." (23) This proves that it was hard for an African American adult to acquire property. I am unsure of whether this was due to segregation or because most African Americans could not afford property, but I am swayed towards the belief that it was a mixture of both, the latter caused by the former.

Nevertheless, this lack of wealth is not due to ignorance, as Toni Morrison cleverly shows. At the beginning of the book a (white) nurse - full grown, an adult - tells a little African American boy to go to the Emergency Admissions, and to make herself "clearer" she spells it out: "A-D-M-I-S-I-O-N" She doesn't realize she misspelled it, but the boy definitely does, and is quick to politely inform her.

Not only does this novel exhibit the race conflict, but it also shows a gender one. Macon Dead is incredibly rude to his family. However, the only one who seems to care is his son, who believes that his home's silence is not peaceful because it is "preceded by and would...be terminated by the presence of [his dad]." (10) On the other hand, the three women in the family, Macon Dead's two daughters and his wife, succumb to this patriarchal figure with barely any sign of reluctance. "The way [Macon] mangled [his daughters'] grace, wit, and self-esteem was the single excitement of their days." (11) Even if their days are awfully boring, it is still not customary to look forward to such aggression. Macon's wife "ended [her days] wholly animated by [her husband's contempt]." (11)

It is strange how the women in Macom's family are okay with his verbal violence, but what I find even stranger is their last name: Dead. This has to have a deeper meaning. An author doesn't choose such a peculiar last name for no reason. Yet, I still have to figure out the purpose behind it.

Rare Picture Taken on 9/11

Just found this picture. It's hear-breaking and terrifying how confused and weak they all look, just looking for someplace safe to go to.

Fake Truth/Real Lie

It's either true or it's false. This is what we've been taught since forever. "Are you lying? No? Oh, OK then you're telling the truth." And what about all those tests where the instructions go something like "For each question circle T for True or F for False. If False, explain why." These never add anything like "No question can be both true and false." Why? Because we believe it's implicit: Nothing can be true and false. But no! Things can be real and fake. And this is what creates the paradox of reality.

"This sentences is a lie," says Shields. (398) Well if it is a lie, as the sentence reads, then it is telling the truth. But if it is telling the truth, then it isn't a lie, so the sentence is a lie. So it is telling the truth then... and the paradox goes on and on. Is it true or a lie? It is neither and both at the same time: The combination of a truth and a lie (Luth? Trie?) and simultaneously neither something real nor something fake.

To further prove his point, Shields says "Why bother conducting an experiment at all if you know what results it will yield?" He actually believes the experiment is worth it, but with this antithesis he is able to have his audience's opinion sway with his own. In the end the audience knows that it is worth it. Why? Because we don't know anything for sure, we actually don't know what the experiment will yield.

What puzzled me the most was this short but effective quote: "How can I tell what I think until I think what I say?" (426) It's easier to understand what can't be understood by breaking this sentence in two. The first fragment points out that he must first think and then tell, but the second one implies that he must speak and then think. Then he makes it even more complicated and says that the only way to accomplish the former is by doing the latter. Get it? Yeah, neither do I. It's impossible, a lie! But is it really? Or are our minds so mixed up that this could actually make sense in an odd and intangible way?

In Ten

Imagine being able to invent your life, or only tell the portions you like best, or at least be able to lie in order to show how you actually feel. It's not that hard, though, and it can all be done through art, both visual and written. Frey actually did this - through fake jail time he was able to "point across a plausible situation in which to frame his suffering" (395) - and it's actually pretty easy.

 With all the importance contemporary society gives reality shows, the mere idea of someone never having watched a single episode is basically implausible. The first reality show ever, The Real World, started out completely faithful to the name of its genre, but soon it gave up after realizing fake truths actually appeal to larger audiences, so other reality shows followed suit, and soon it became a rule followed by the entire genre: Fake reality (But shh, it works especially well if the audience is oblivious to this).

Memoirs are similar, not because they lie, but because they narrate only what the author wishes to reveal. This actually clearly resembles Michael Kimball's life postcards, which tell people's life stories after people narrate these to him. But just remember, if you're the one speaking you'll say only what you wish to reveal, so these postcards are just like memoirs: Their primary goal is to satisfy the author.

It's omission, after all, and "omission is a form of creation," (377) since it prevents a piece from being wordy. "It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a whole book," writes Shields, quoting what was originally said by Nietzsche.

And I hope I was able to do just this with what I wrote above.

Plot Perfections

Reantasy

Reality is something that, as Reality Hunger cleverly explains, we never cease to crave. However, we never actually stop and ask ourselves what "reality" actually means. Sure, according to Dictionary.com it is "the state or quality of being real, "resemblance to what is real,"or "a real thing or fact."But then, what is "real"? Dictionary.com defines it as "true." But once more, what does this actually mean? And the questions go on and on.

There is actually a blurry line (if there even is one) between reality and fantasy. Shields is able to get this idea through to his audience by titling Chapter G "Blur."It is in this section that he says "Try to make it real - compared to what?" (222) With this aphorism he is able to basically summarize the entire chapter: is anything actually completely real? In fact, I agree with him: nothing is.

We all see things and events with different points of view. When we describe these, our retellings will be "real" to us, but maybe fictitious to others. For example, when fights occur between two people, both stories usually don't match. It's not that they're lying necessarily. It's more likely that they're each telling the events from their own point of view, their own reality. What might have been a harsh response to one person, could have been an ordinary comment to the other. This is where the blur between reality and fantasy appears.

In addition, there's also the common use of omission. By doing so, people aren't lying, they are simply skipping certain details. But then, it's not the absolute truth either, right? Thus, reality and fiction are blurred once again.

Yet, nowadays, as Shields points out, people love reality. However, he puts it like this: "Our culture is obsessed with real events because we experience hardly any." (241) I agree: We are so used to our daily lives that they cease to be real to us and instead become monotonous. As a result, we become obsessed with anything that reflects reality. This is where the media usually comes in.

People love the news and reality shows because it gives them a glimpse of what "the real life" is like. The daily news tells real, shocking stories, and that's one of the reasons why a lot of people enjoy it every day. There's also reality shows, which are actually pretty much lies. Produces film their stars (many times giving them orders on what to do or say) and afterwards they even trim out essential details, recurring to the art of omission.

"And as you're studying that reality (judiciously as you will), we'll act again, creating other realities, which you can study, too, and that's how things will sort out,"(253) says Shields in Chapter I. It is absolutely true. Now everything changes so quickly, that what could previously be considered reality ceases being so. It's all the puzzle of "reality," a word created by man that still means nothing.

Commenting on Comments

I completely agree with you. The fact that it is a written analysis emphasizes the "gif/jif" conflict, since while reading it, people might not be sure of how to pronounce it and realize that it actually is pretty confusing.

As for the "predominantly female audience," on the paper it was an assumption. But after researching, I found that it is true: around 60% of Tumblr users are females.

You are absolutely right about the struggles for power. I initially considered it more like a friendly creation of terms, but power is definitely a much better explanation. After all, different "ships" fight for power, just like different sides want a certain pronunciation of "gif" to be established as the right one. Meanwhile, "thinspo" and "fitspo" supporters fight against those who dissaprove of these practices. So it really is all just a struggle for power among groups.

I really appreciate your comments and your appraisal for a completely unfamiliar topic. Thank you for both, your initial comments in person and your final ones through Turnitin.

Unstoppable Imitation

Writing has existed for a really long time already- since "around 3,200 BC" (7) to be exact. So then, if we have incessantly made new, innovative items we must be really creative, since it would be almost 5,000 years of new, original ideas. But this is not the case. As is clearly stated in the book, we simply copy off what others have said before us, and probably won't stop anytime soon.

First of all, the title of "b" is "mimesis," which means "The imitation or representation of aspects of the sensible world, especially human actions, in literature and art." So just off from there the audience is able to infer what the author, David Shields, believes. He makes a kind of overview of the history of writing, this way showing that everything - from novels to speeches - have been there for quite a while.

However, out of everything he says, there was one phrase I couldn't get out of my head: "There's nothing to say that hasn't been said before." (10) This was said by Terence "in the second century b.c." (10) Terence was a playwright in the Roman Republic. When he was twenty-five years old, he disappeared  Yet, he was able to leave this wise quote behind at such an early age.

So it is true, if 5,000 years ago there was nothing new to be said, then today, after so many people have repeated the same things over and over again through milleniums, nothing is new either. Yes, there's new items (computers, cellphones, cars, etc.), but is it really likely that something you say regarding any of these has never been said before? Yeah, not really.

We are innately a culture of imitation. It is how we learn during childhood and what society expects of us during adolescence and adulthood. Babies learn to stand, walk, and talk purely by imitation. And later on, the simplest things we do (dressing, how we eat, how we decorate our homes, communicating) are also acts of imitation. What if the people around you painted their faces green everyday and wore their shoes backward? Would you stop this foolishness and leave your face unmarked and your shoes on the right way? Of course not. It's what you see as natural and normal, so you would imitate it. So, if we copy simple actions before we even turn one year old, isn't it evident that our works (literary, musical, artistic) will all be product of imitation as well?

1909 vs. 2010

I began reading "The Futurist Manifesto,"by F.T. Marinetti, and to be honest, I initially understood next to nothing. I foolishly continued reading, hoping that maybe I could understand a sentence and then everything would be clear. But it wasn't. Yet, once I finished reading this manifesto, I didn't stop there; I began another one, Reality Hunger (by David Shields), seeking sudden enlightenment on what the authors were saying. But of course, I wasn't suddenly enlightened. And then I realized that I didn't even know very well what a manifesto is. Sure, I've heard of some historical ones, like "The Communist Manifesto," but that's all. I knew barely anything else.

I might as well start there, then. A manifesto, as Dictionary.com defines it, is "a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives, asone issued by a government, sovereign, or organization." I guess this definition was my "sudden enlightenment" because suddenly things began making sense. In both of these documents, it was clear that the authors had a proposal. F.T. Marinetti dedicates his "to all living men on earth," and then carries on to list his proposals. Overall, if I understood correctly, he wants the public to embrace the future and the new technology that comes along with it. 

Shields, on the other hand, has a different purpose. As he explains it, his "intent is to write ars poetica for the burgeoning group of interrelated (but unconnected) artists in a multitude of forms and media...who are breaking larger and larger chunks of "reality" into their work." (3) Instead of changing society, he wishes to change the arts, thus having a much narrower audience. It was unclear to me exactly what it is that he wants to do with the arts, but I'm sure it will become evident as I continue reading.

In an Empire State of Mind

For thousands of years people have fought for power. This is evident in the obvious cases, like the Spanish conquest in Central and South America, Hitler's ambition just before World War II, etc. However, there are cases were it isn't as clear, but in the end about everything we do, we do for power without even realizing so. About every dream anybody can have is related to power: Fame, wealth, and success would all give a person power over other people. And don't even get me started on the impossible dreams people have, like immortality, mind-reading, and time-traveling (yes, even time-traveling; just think of Back to the Future). So it must be of no surprise that language has now become a means of power as well.

As languages fight for power, some fall and some rise. Latin is already pretty much inexistent, while English is at its peak. However, it doesn't happen to be there just because. It actually took centuries of work in order for it to be at the top. During the 1600's and early 1700's the British colonized what is now known as America. By the middle of the 18th century, the United States had already developed into thirteen colonies. Later on, they began to fight for independence, and in 1776 Americans earned their freedom from England. The British who held power were forced to leave... well all but one, though: All except for the English language. Americans might have thought they had gotten rid of all British dominance, but they had missed this, which could even be considered the most powerful of all. After all, "languages can enslave the people" (8:50).

Later on, the British moved on to other countries, among them, India. When they began colonizing India, this country had tons of languages. However, they began to impose English as the most important one, and it was obligatory to have this language taught in schools. Eventually, English became the prevalent language, and anybody who spoke English became "superior." Just like this, the people of yet another society had become the slaves of the English language.

Nowadays, this slavery has spread all over the world. Anywhere on the globe, people who speak English are automatically superior, and this language continues to become increasingly spoken by the public. You can basically go to any country in the world, and it'll be ok if you don't speak its language... well, as long as you know English. Because now the English empire has spread, and "the sun never sets on the English language" (0:51).


The Adventure of English (Episode 7):
RainbowEyes1000. "The Adventure of English - Episode 7 - The Language of Empire (1/5)." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 7, Oct. 2012. Web. 31. Jan. 2013.

RainbowEyes1000. "The Adventure of English - Episode 7 - The Language of Empire (2/5)." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 7, Oct. 2012. Web. 31. Jan. 2013.

RainbowEyes1000. "The Adventure of English - Episode 7 - The Language of Empire (3/5)." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 7, Oct. 2012. Web. 31. Jan. 2013.

RainbowEyes1000. "The Adventure of English - Episode 7 - The Language of Empire (4/5)." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 7, Oct. 2012. Web. 31. Jan. 2013.

RainbowEyes1000. "The Adventure of English - Episode 7 - The Language of Empire (5/5)." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 7, Oct. 2012. Web. 31. Jan. 2013.

Language Questions

1. Where does the word assassin derive from?

"Assasin" derives from Arabic.

2. How big is the English lexicon?
It is impossible to know because it's endlessly growing.

3. What prefixes un suffixes do you recognize?
Prefixes: anti-, multi-, poly-, un-
Suffixes: -ious, -able, -ly

4. Why do neologistic borrowings enter the English language in the 18th and 19th centuries?
In the 18th and 19th centuries neologistic borrowing enter the English language due to the interactions between Americans, Dutch, etc. in the colonies and due to the Industrial Revolution.

5. Describe the relationship between empire and language.
An empire controls other civilizations, and it commonly imposes its language among these.

6.  Do you think empires still affect language in the 21st century? Explain.
I think empires do continue to affect language today. The United States is currently an immense empire, and due to this, English is widely spoken all around the world.

Linguistic Notorieties

Through history there have always been those special protagonists who pop-up when it comes to certain topics. Think of classical music, and the symphonies of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Bethoven, Antonio Vivaldi, and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky will come to mind. Think of literature, and the works of William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Mark Twain will rush forward. And finally, think of the English language, and the influences of John Locke, Jonathan Swift, Samuel Johnson, William Cobbett, William Wordsworth, Thomas Paine, and even Isaac Newton will suddenly hold a very important role (but in case you're not very familiar with these linguistic protagonists, don't worry, I'm about to explain).

John Locke wanted everybody to learn English, because "if the definition of words could be agreed, and misunderstanding avoided, peace would naturally follow" (2:25). But, if everybody did learn, speakers would be able to tell apart those who just learned the language from those who have known it all their lives, and conflict would inevitably rise again. However, let's pretend that everybody can speak the language equally as well. Would that actually bring peace? Not all conflicts revolve around linguistics. In fact, most of them don't. My sister and I, for example, know English and Spanish, and still we have plenty of fights that don't even relate to the subject of linguistics. And, as far as I know (unless you twist it at odd angles) World War II had nothing to do with linguistic matters either. Hitler would probably have continued, even if everybody in the world had spoken English back then. He might have even found it easier to convince others about the "dangers" that the Jews brought. Yeah, so maybe the common knowledge of the components of the dictionary isn't what we need in order to live in peace.

Jonathan Swift was somehow similar. He didn't want English to change, and hated the changes people deliberately decided to make on the language. There are still people like him today; but they never have been (and probably never will be) able to avoid the incessant changes English undergoes. Those who still stick to this ideal are fighting a lost battle. It has been evident for centuries that English will change. And now especially, with all the new technology that influences the majority of the population, language is bound to change.

As other men attempted to unify English speakers as one mass, William Cobbett examined them as several groups. Although he believed that proper grammar was indispensable in order to prevail in society, he knew that not everybody would have this "proper grammar." Thus, he studied the different grammar usage and vocabulary people had: slang. Aided by his theory about proper grammar, today's social classes were created.

Samuel Johnson also made a difference: he wrote the first dictionary written in seven years. It contained 43,000 words, each with a definition. Unfortunately, he omitted all the words he didn't know and the ones he couldn't figure out how to define. Because of this, it ended up not being such a reliable dictionary after all. For all you knew, that word you spent entire minutes looking for, might not even be there. After all, those words he didn't know were probably the ones most people didn't know either.

Newton probably wouldn't have been very pleased with Johnson's dictionary, as he was the creator of many scientific terms. There are so many of these that there's now more than an entire unit in Physics dedicated to learning about them. Nowadays these ideas and terms are vital in the scientific world; however, back then, these ideas and terms might not have seemed too important to a lot of people, or they might have been too difficult to grasp.

This was the reason why William Wordsworth preferred simple vocabulary over eloquent words. He thought that in order to have everyone understand, fancy words were unnecessary. Thomas Paine believed so too. This is why he wrote the Rights of Man in common English. This was a very smart thing to do, because the commoners were bound to support him. However, they would never have done so if they hadn't even been able to understand the document.

However, none of these linguistic protagonists are either completely wrong or completely right. Misunderstandings have caused plenty of disputes, as Locke predicted; and there are some words in English that most likely will remain relatively unchanged over time, as Swift desired. Despite Cobbett's studies and conclusions, there are nowadays lower-class people who speak impecable English and upper-class ones who you would expect to find anywhere but in a rich family. And although Samuel Johnson's dictionary lacked in helpfulness, it did establish a definition for many words. People might have had an idea of what they meant, but a clear definition had not been established until then. Finally, although Paine and Wordsworth preferred simple terms, in the end, it all depends on the audience. It is perfectly fine to refer to the public in such unadorned ways, but speaking in the same manner to a group of politicians would be unwise. There's not much to say about Newton though. He invented his own terms; so unless his theories are suddenly found to be wrong, he will be right for at least a while.

A Step Apart

The sixth episode of The History of English focuses on the use of English in America versus its use in Canada. There was one small comment that caught my entire attention: “Over here, that is a hOuse, over there, in the United States, it’s a house.” (7:50). The spread of the English language and the creation of pronunciations has been a constant topic in the documentary, yet it is amazing how a boarder dividing two different countries, divides dialects as well.

When you compare an Australian, a British and an American pronunciation, the differences can be easily justified by their distant locations. Being on three, very different parts of the world, the influences that have reached every country have varied, and can therefore explain the several differences from one another.

On the other hand, how can you explain the differences between the American and the Canadian accents? It is understandable, that when the Civil War ended, the Loyalists settled in Canada, along with French and other European influences. America did also have European influences, but those in Canada were much stronger.

However, as time went by, why did American and Canadian differences in language grow? Why is it that we pronounce “about” differently as we cross a border? Is it the same reason as to why, when you fly from LA to Louisiana, people seem to be speaking different languages?

What confuses me the most is how close to each other both of the countries are. It’s like, I step into Canada and the accent is completely different from the American one, even though the US is only two steps behind me. Shouldn’t the change be more subtle? Maybe I misinterpreted what the documentary said, maybe the change is subtle and not what I’m imagining. But thinking of language that way... it really blew my mind.



The Story of English (Episode 6):
Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 6 - An English Speaking World - Part 1/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 19. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 6 - An English Speaking World - Part 2/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 19. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 6 - An English Speaking World - Part 3/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 19. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 6 - An English Speaking World - Part 4/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 19. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 6 - An English Speaking World - Part 5/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 19. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 6 - An English Speaking World - Part 6/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 19. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 5 - An English Speaking World - Part 7/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 19. Jan. 2013.

Thank the Creoles

We all know about the era of slavery in the United States. Thousands and thousands of ships left Africa every month with kidnapped people who were to become the unpaid servants of the wealthy and middle class Americans. Soon-to-be slaves left their native cultures and where faced later with the rising capitalism of the United States. The cultures were completely different, and Africans did not know English and, since the came from so many different parts of the continent, it was hard for them to communicate amongst themselves as well. This, then, marked the emergence of new languages.

As Africans tried to communicate, new creole languages were created (mixtures between their native tongues and American English). One of these still is considered - although very similar to English - to be an entirely different language. Its name is Gullah, "a unique variety of English"(6:00) spoken in Charlestone, and it is pretty easy to understand. A YouTube commenter asked:"Why were the subtitles necessary? I could understand everything those two were saying,"and I, like him, could understand everything as well, because of the similarities with English. However, this language, after surviving for 300 years, is on the verge of extinction. This is because many people are ashamed of speaking this language. I guess this might be because prescriptivists who are unaware of this completely separate language, will probably believe it is English spoken in a "wrong" way, and put down the native speakers because of this.

Creole languages create ambiguity among the linguists, since most of them later merge to the English language. Many people criticize this, but I really appreciate it. As someone who knows English and Spanish, I love writing in English and would much rather do it in this language (which is not my first tongue) than in Spanish. This is greatly due to the  immense variety of words that English has (171,476 and 47,156 obsolete words (Oxford Dictionary). There are so many ways to say a single word, that when I write, I am able to say exactly what I want to say, and I don't have to simply settle on a word that doesn't completely satisfy me.

But why is the English vocabulary so vast? Well, thanks to the former creole tongues, of course. As most of them disappeared, many did leave behing words that stayed in the English vocabulary and are probably still used today. We owe the vastness of English vocabulary to the Normans, who added words with French roots, the Scotts, and now, Africans. They are not to be criticized for speaking differently, but, instead,  praised for expanding the language.


The Story of English (Episode 5):
Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 5 - An English Speaking World - Part 1/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 17. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 5 - An English Speaking World - Part 2/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 17. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 5 - An English Speaking World - Part 3/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 17. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 5 - An English Speaking World - Part 4/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 17. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 5 - An English Speaking World - Part 5/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 17. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 5 - An English Speaking World - Part 6/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 17. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 5 - An English Speaking World - Part 7/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 17. Jan. 2013.

Elitist Languages

Accents ur somethin' 'at hae aye puzzled me. wa, if it's basically th' sam leid, dae fowk in different regions spick in dissimilar ways? thes has enthralled me fur sae lang. Ah used tae believe 'at each leid - let's use sassenach as uir example - started relatively th' sam in each place it was spoken in (englain, irelain, scootlund, an' later th' united states, etc.), an' 'en each region developed its ain twang. in other words, Ah thooght sassenach started as british a' place, an' 'en slowly changed. efter realizin' part ay th' truth, mah former beliefs seem bonnie childish an' ignorant.

Episode fower frae th' story ay sassenach gi'es a specific explanation tae an accent: th' scottish accent. scottish was initially a leid ay its own; however, as scootlund began mergin' wi' englain, sae did their languages. scottish becam a kin' ay creole leid until it ceased bein' considered as a separate leid an' becam simply a type ay sassenach, as it continues tae be seen the-day.

Unfortunately, leid isnae only used as a way tae communicate, but also as a way tae determine a persons status in society. a person's accent can indicate elegance an' gear ur be used against him/her. Ah min' somebody ance commentin' 'at someone's fake british accent resembled 'at ay a relatively puir area in englain. Ah foond thes tae be a bit elitist, but noo Ah realize 'at linguistic class divisions ur common in stoatin britain. th' video mentions a body ay th' accents: "upper - class english" (2:57). Ah realize 'at it's nae mair than th' nam it was given, but still, it is quite an elitist nam.&

Ain fa ur amang those fa dinnae spick "upper - class sassenach?" weel, those wi' a scottish accent. in th' pest, people's fash yerse tae appear elegant was sae stoatin 'at some ay th' scottish - whose accent was considered tae be rustic - took "classes tae eliminate marks ay rusticity" (3:36). it's sad hoo society emits sic' pressure oan them, 'at they become ashamed ay their ain pronunciation, which is actually a part ay them.

However, it isnae only in sassenach 'at vocabulary ur accents reveal social status. Ah hadnae realized afair, but thes also happens in spanish. in colombia, it happens especially wi' vocabulary: th' "tacky" words. these ur sets ay words 'at, withit e'en realizin' sae, we automatically relate tae lower social statuses. it is sae common, thocht, 'at we nae longer notice fa we it is we're makin' fin ay. when a mukker uses it, we automatically repeat th' wuid jokingly. however, whit we dornt realize is 'at we arenae makin' fin ay th' bodie fa jist used it (by accident, probably): we ur makin' fin ay th' fowk fa use them aw th' time. we hae become th' elitists.





Accents are something that have always puzzled me. Why, if it's basically the same language, do people in different regions speak in dissimilar ways? This has enthralled me for so long. I used to believe that each language - let's use English as our example - started relatively the same in each place it was spoken in (England, Ireland, Scotland, and later the United States, etc.), and then each region developed its own twang. In other words, I thought English started as British everywhere, and then slowly changed. After realizing part of the truth, my former beliefs seem pretty childish and ignorant.

Episode four from The Story of English gives a specific explanation to an accent: the Scottish accent. Scottish was initially a language of its own; however, as Scotland began merging with England, so did their languages. Scottish became a kind of creole language until it ceased being considered as a separate language and became simply a type of English, as it continues to be seen today.

Unfortunately, language is not only used as a way to communicate, but also as a way to determine a persons status in society. A person's accent can indicate elegance and wealth or be used against him/her. I remember somebody once commenting that someone's fake British accent resembled that of a relatively poor area in England. I found this to be a bit elitist, but now I realize that linguistic class divisions are common in Great Britain. The video mentions one of the accents: "Upper - Class English" (2:57). I realize that it's no more than the name it was given, but still, it is quite an elitist name.

And who are among those who do not speak "Upper - Class English?" Well, those with a Scottish accent. In the past, people's worry to appear elegant was so great that some of the Scottish - whose accent was considered to be rustic - took "classes to eliminate marks of rusticity" (3:36). It's sad how society emits such pressure on them, that they become ashamed of their own pronunciation, which is actually a part of them.

However, it is not only in English that vocabulary or accents reveal social status. I hadn't realized before, but this also happens in Spanish. In Colombia, it happens especially with vocabulary: the "tacky" words. These are sets of words that, without even realizing so, we automatically relate to lower social statuses. It is so common, though, that we no longer notice who we it is we're making fun of. When a friend uses it, we automatically repeat the word jokingly. However, what we don't realize is that we are not making fun of the person who just used it (by accident, probably): we are making fun of the people who use them all the time. We have become the elitists.


The Story of English (Episode 4):
Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 4 - An English Speaking World - Part 1/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 15. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 4 - An English Speaking World - Part 2/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 15. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 4 - An English Speaking World - Part 3/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 15. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 4 - An English Speaking World - Part 4/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 15. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 4 - An English Speaking World - Part 5/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 15. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 4 - An English Speaking World - Part 6/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 15. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 4 - An English Speaking World - Part 7/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 15. Jan. 2013.

A Survivor

English is spoken by more than 700 million people in the world nowadays. However, few of them ever stop and think about where those words they speak everyday come from... and then, most of them find no easy-to-acquire answer, so they ignore their initial question and go on with their lives. I had never actually asked myself this question. I had, on many occasions, wondered how it is that so many accents were developed. But I never considered what came before the accents: how the English language developed from being nothing.

It wasn't even easy for this language to develop in the first place. When I imagined language evolving and changing, I thought of it doing so in a way similar today's: Teenagers (not limited to them, but especially them) create new slang words, then they grow up and continue using this slang, while the next generation of teenagers creates its own slang and grows up to use it, and the cycle goes on. It's a pretty peaceful and simple way, which is the complete opposite of what actually occurred in the past. The survival of English was actually  threatened in order for it to prevail.

I always wonder how it is that scientists and historians get all the information. Like, how they decipher runes, how they know what cells feel like (in terms of texture), etc. So I was actually very thankful to the creators of this series for taking the time to mention the source of their information: Everything up to 1155 was retrieved from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (3:33).

In 449 AD, Celtics arrived at Britain and divided England into three main regions: Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex. (Essex [derived from the words "east" and "Saxon"] and Sussex [derived from the words "south" and "Saxon"] emerged later on). These newcomers are commonly referred to as the Anglo-Saxons, the fathers of the English language. They had three hundred rather peaceful years  but then, in 793 AD, they were attacked by the Danes. However, Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, defeated them. This marked the first survival of the English language, and thanks to it, I am writing these words today. Otherwise, I would probably be doing so in Danish.

A few centuries later, in 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England, and King Harold was slayed. The new Norman rulers knew almost no English at all, but thanks to this, about 10,000 words were added to the English vocabulary. Many of the words I'm writing now are probably derived from Norman. England's invaders did not demolish the subjugated country's language, but actually strengthened it. The English language had then survived for the second and probably final time.

After this, came a time of linguistic development. The first book in English was written: The Canterbury  Tales. And soon, the printing press was created and employed in England. However, "the few [people] that could write, wrote as they spoke" (4:48) but slowly the spelling disagreements were agreed upon - though not entirely so. Finally, by the 1400's, English had developed and become very similar to today's twenty-first century English. I'll take full advantage of the still-developing English language and end with a cliché by simply saying that the rest, for now, is history.

The Story of English (Episode 2):
Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 2 - An English Speaking World - Part 1/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 13. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 2 - An English Speaking World - Part 2/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 13. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 2 - An English Speaking World - Part 3/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 13. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 2 - An English Speaking World - Part 4/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 13. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 2 - An English Speaking World - Part 5/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 13. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 2 - An English Speaking World - Part 6/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 13. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 2 - An English Speaking World - Part 7/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 13. Jan. 2013.

The "Victims" of the English language

"What's the world's most influential language?" It's an easy question, and it has been for centuries thanks to the fact that the world's most powerful nation went from being England to being the United States, both English-speaking countries. The first episode of The Story of English exemplifies the wide popularity of this language. It has become the means of communication between countries and is used for several purposes including sea-speak. When this was mentioned, I couldn't help but automatically connect it with this commercial -which hopefully doesn't actually occur in the real life:

Anyways, English is now not only a language spoken among different nations, but has also become a means of communication among a society. Africa and India, for example, use it as their "link language" (4:48), because it is a "neutral language" (5:00) that can connect them. It has become so important that now "English represents class" (0:05), as a teenage Hindu girl puts it in the video. 

However, it is not only in Africa and India that English is imperative in education. Look at me: I live in Colombia, but go to a school where I speak English all day and where I am taught by American teachers. So, if that doesn't show the power English presently has, I don't know what does. And English is certainly becoming a type of "class identifier." But there's no one to blame but ourselves. After all, it's not the Americans nor the British who are enforcing it amongst us: It is ourselves. If we think we are victims of the English language, then we have, in fact, willingly made ourselves its victims.

The Story of English (Episode 1):

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 1/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 11. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 2/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 11. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 3/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 11. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 4/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 11. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 5/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 11. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 6/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 11. Jan. 2013.

Armstrong, Edward. "The Story of English episode 1 - An English Speaking World - Part 7/7." Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 27, Aug. 2009. Web. 11. Jan. 2013.