Silence

To understand how the quest for voice plays a role in Janie's life, it is also important to understand how silence plays a role. Within the first two pages of the book we are introduced to Janie, originally a mysterious figure. She walks right past the ladies sitting on Phoebe's porch, and she does so in silence. How does this silence represent Janie, and in a way, represent her search for voice. The silence we see in the first pages of the book comes to embody Janie's life. She often refused to live her life the way others wanted her to live it, originally with not wanting to marry Logan, which was Nanny's hope. Janie does the same by refusing to stop and socialize with the women on Phoebe's porch. It became a societal expectation for women to gossip together. Whether it was on the porch, or in the living room was simply a matter of the weather. The women want to know about Janie's life and why she didn't return home in her blue dress, or with Tea Cake, and rather than give in to the women, and give the material to gossip about all day Janie refuses to answer their questions. By remaining silent at this moment Janie also lets the women make assumptions. The way the women interpret her silence is completely different from how it characterizes Janie. The women jump to conclusions, many think that Tea Cake took all her money and ran off with a younger girl. This notion then leads the women to judge Janie. Many think she is too old for men like Tea Cake, and that she shouldn't be wearing overalls around town. The reality of the situation is actually much different. In the end Janie left Tea Cake because she could no longer find happiness with him in the everglades. Janie's silence not only defines her as a woman who does what she wants, but a woman who gives in to nothing. She follows no rules, or codes, rather only her heart. Some would argue her heart had led her astray, after all she is returning home alone, but Janie seems to accept this fact, and lives a life where decisions are not made with a guarantee of success, rather with a guarantee of some sort of pleasure. There is a notion that some believe you should speak only when spoken to, and there is also a belief that is better to be silent then to speak and look a fool. Neither is wrong, and neither is right, rather they are both philosophies on how one should act. In the end Janie would follow no one’s philosophies other than her own. She would speak when she wanted, to whom she wished, for any reason at all. This hardheadedness all started under the pear tree, which in reality was the start of Janie’s life.

The first time Janie let herself search for love, or pleasure, or whatever synonym you wish to call it, was when she ventured from under the pear tree to kiss Johnny Taylor. He reason for her searching was due to the events which she watched happen under the pear tree. She sat in silence, and solace, under the pear tree for as long as she could while she was younger. She didn’t ask questions, or speak, she rather let nature live its life, and she be the observer. One afternoon she observed a bee pollinating the tree, an act described in the book as a much more powerful and moving moment. By watching the bee give life to a creature so much larger than its, Janie felt as if her life had new meaning. She was no longer in search of material possessions, and rather was in search of possessions that would fill her with happiness, and joy, and excitement. In her quest to find these possessions, which is hard to say if she did, it started off sexually. She drifted from under the pear tree into the arms of Johnny Taylor. Now certainly there was no love in the kiss, or any real ambitions to follow up the kiss, it was none the less the first step in her journey for love. It followed with many men, Logan, and Jody, and lastly Tea Cake, but none the less it was a journey. The silence to which she gave her nanny after kissing Johnny came to resemble her true desires. She was silent to those who berated her actions of love, and would speak only to those in which she felt would better her in her journey. It was for this reason that she left Logan. While she didn’t respond to her grandmother, nanny took it in a much different way than Janie meant it. Nanny felt that she was truly in search of love and so, she wed her to Logan. She didn’t destroy any love, but certainly didn’t create any either. The thought at the time that for a women to succeed in life she needed a successful husband was a stereotype predating Janie’s beliefs. Her nanny wanted her to be well off, with good reason, and for this she tried to force Janie’s hand into love. Not only was nanny unsuccessful but she only strengthened Janie’s hope for true, pure love. Despite the novel being about finding voice, and love, Janie’s silence is what perhaps builds her up most as a character. It is not her words, but her lack of them that makes her who she truly is.

The Racist Scene

As the 1920’s proceeded to create a sphere of decadence around the lives of American’s, it so too blotted out the struggle seen by the minorities, and working class in America, specifically that of African American’s. The struggle for equality was for a long time, an issue in the government of the United States, but many felt that following the banning of slavery, and ratification of the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendments that the U.S would move into a new era. This thought of equality was only crushed when blacks were found to be constantly segregated, and mistreated. The idea of the 1920’s bringing America into the new era certainly left off the idea of equality for all. Even though women won the right to vote in the 1920’s they certainly did not become equals to men, both in the work force, and in the home. Consistent immigration also led to the discrimination of other ethnic groups such as the Italians, and Germans, who the U.S. resented following the end of the war. Throughout the 1920’s blacks were continually abused, refused rights, and forced into unfair work. 

Many people, specifically the rich felt that they should not have to work. This is seen in Gatsby when Tom talks to Daisy and Nick about how the Nordic race should rule over all. This ideal that their money would stay with them even without working for it led to the abuse of many minorities, specifically the blacks who worked for the rich. In a census in 1900 it was found that 35% of black men, and 45% of black women who didn’t work in farm labor worked for whites who made over triple their salary. This statistic is not shocking. Despite the equality found in writing blacks were still given very few opportunities by whites, this included a denial of education to children, as well as a lack of pay. These things kept blacks beneath the whites, for several years. As the blacks began to fight for total equality, the rise of terrorist groups like the KKK arose. Groups like these refused to recognize blacks as people, very much less than as equals. This denial was seen through things like Jim Crow laws in the south. 

As groups like the KKK refused to show blacks their rights, there was a major increase in violence, both towards blacks and from them. Things like unfair representation and other things began to outbreak in the U.S. In the eruption of Tulsa, “It cost the death of fifty white men; of between 150 and 200 colored men, women, and children; the destruction of $1,500,000 worth of property; the looting of many homes, and the everlasting damage to the reputation of the city of Tulsa.” (The Eruption of Tulsa Walter White) This outbreak was due to a claim by a young white woman that she was abused in a public hotel by a black man. Neither the women, nor the man were ever questioned, nor was there ever a public hearing or court appeal. This simple American idea of finding the truth and justice through a court of law was simply overlooked due to the color of one young man’s skin.

As blacks looked to find prosperity and continue to move forward in the 1920’s they often took jobs that gave unfair pay, and very little rights. Things such as being a butler, where they were on the job 24/7 without any breaks. It was found in a study that black butlers were often paid half the salary made by white butlers, and worked twice as hard. This form of inequality was most nearly the saddest and worst form of inequality in the 1920’s. As the country moved into an era of extreme wealth the black community was hoping to find some sort of escape from the poverty that had come to live with, and this form of escape was somewhat seen in the city of Harlem. But as more and more blacks began to search for employment, they were often met with unequal pay and harsh treatment. In the south these treatments were considered legal due to things like Jim Crow laws. 

Pictures

In a period where prohibition, and the law breaking of prohibition, dominated the land, the U.S. saw a huge increase in crime.  In this image your eyes are automatically drawn to the man in the foreground. He is in a suit, meaning he is obviously wealthy, he is holding 2 firearms, leading us to infer one of two things, he is either a police officer, or more likely he is a gangster. The second option is confirmed when you turn your attention to the background. In the background we see a dozen or so boxes, or cases of whiskey, most likely illegally imported from Canada and sold to eager buyers in speak easy’s. The entire picture is equally in focus, showing that each part of the picture is equally important. The man would have no business without the alcohol, and there would be no alcohol without the man’s lucrative business. The entire picture is black, which can lead to a dark or saddened mood. Some would argue this is due to alcohol being bad for you, others would say it is because this man is breaking the law. The image is a perfect example of what became known as the roaring twenties. Many young men and women began to fulfill their happiness through partying and drinking. As this happened the illegal trade and sell of alcohol became hugely popular, leading to gangs, and gangsters such as the man depicted in this image.

In the twenties, wealth, and how wealth was shown changed. Before the twenties the rich lived in exclusion, away from society in their farm houses, or secluded mansions, but as more and more rich began to flaunt their wealth scenes such as the one in the picture above became more popular. In the foreground you see the young man directing a parade of elephants, ridden by most likely the richest in the city. In the background you see the young men and women hoping to one day reach that status looking on in awe. Everything is in focus as the elephant march through downtown New York as it shows that the city was run by the rich, for the rich. The image is crazy for some, disturbing for others as it shows an incredible disparity in wealth, as the rich lived on thrones, literally, while the poor struggled every day to survive. The image further displayed the cultural beliefs of the rich in the twenties, that money should be spent, and shown off, not put in banks hidden away.

The image above is both an image of life style, but also an image of racism. As the wealthy began to grow farther and farther away from the poor, the idea of helping the poor became less and less appealing. Immigrants and specifically blacks began to be discriminated and hated upon by the leading white class. Your eyes are immediately drawn to the white family traveling in their car most likely across America, and then they travel downward to the line of African Americans, waiting in the soup line. The Foreground holds only white family which further enhances the idea of white above black, as the blacks are in the background and below the whites, very similar to how they were treated in society. The words in the picture clarify, and further enhance the idea hoped to be displayed by the photographer, that that blacks were harshly discriminated upon in the twenties. The image further shows the racist ideal that swept the country in the late twenties following the rise of hate groups like the kkk. 

To be Civil

PRO:
     “No country has ever become, or will ever become, happy through victory in war.” Gandhi. It is said that all issues could be solved peacefully. I would not argue against this claim, but I would add that not all violent wars are bad. In his piece, Civil Disobedience, Thoreau argues the fact that the government holds too much power. That it becomes self absorbed and puts itself over the rest of the country. This is seen in when Thoreau writes, "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward." (Thoreau Page 372 lines 37-38) Through his use of inclusive diction Thoreau is able to attack the readers pathos by making himself one of them, as men, and then as subjects. This tactic is often times the most successful tactic for waging a violent but wanted war. By leaders, whether political of military, creating themselves seem an equal to their subjects they are able to emotionally connect and portray the ideals for which they are fighting. 


     This method was most successfully used in the late 2000's by George Bush and the war against terror. By making himself a U.S. citizen first and president second Bush was able to gain incredible support for the war on terror. The citizens of the US were able to find a common enemy in which a great majority of them wished to defeat in war. The end of the war on terror is not yet here, but there have been great strides in defeating terrorism. The finding and killing of Osama Bin Laden being a huge step for the US and a well celebrated moment throughout the country. Airport security as well as government agencies have limited the size and impact of terrorist attacks greatly as well as foiled a good many.
 

CON:
      "No country has ever become, or will ever become, happy through victory in war.” Gandhi. It isn't hard to see that every war ever fought has ended or involved a great tragedy for any side fighting in it. Thoreau in his piece argues that it is not necessarily about immediate fixes, but the constant struggle for a better world. This idea is displayed in the passage, "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government."(Thoreau Page 371 lines 21-22) By his use of exclusive diction Thoreau is able to show that it is not the countries desire for no government, but that does not mean that he himself cannot strive for a better government. This idea of one person making a difference, or standing up for what they want is often seen in peace groups that riot wars in modern times.

     The idea of standing up for what you believe no matter what the majority believes is a well thought out, and often times overused statement. The idea that no war makes a country happy is often seen when protests of this kind break out. Great examples of this were riots over the Vietnam war, as well as protests in Tienanmen Square in China. As these protesters fought for peace, or for their rights to be met, they themselves showed their displeasure of their governments choices. To put it in Thoreaus words, "A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority." (Thoreau page 374 lines 160-161) The statement that no country can become happy through war is simply do to the fact that every war will upset someone. The fact that mothers will miss their children and husbands fighting the war, that soldiers will miss their comrades, all lead to the fact that someone will be upset by a war. And it is for that reason that even the smallest group must fight for what they believe in. 

Super Power

   Whether it was the politicians of 1800 or the successful monopolies of 2000 there has always been a struggle for power. This struggle can lead to many different things, political scandals, corporate fraud, and in extreme cases accusation of others. A main reason for naming names is to gain power. This is seen in Arthur Miller's the Crucible, the great fear and McCarthyism, and in modern news the Patriot Act.

   In Arthur Millers the Crucible he uses the character such John Proctor to show the theme of gaining power. In Act II John Proctor is talking to his wife about the Salem Witch trials. His wife is trying to convince him to talk to the court and tell them that the whole ordeal is made up, that the girls are faking it. He is quoted replying, "You will not judge me more Elizabeth.I have good reason to think before I charge fraud on Abigail, and I will think on it. Let you look to your own improvements before you go to judge your husband any more." (Page 194) During this time Proctor is being accused of not turning Abigail in because he had an affair with her. Proctor is gaining power in this seen because he is reasserting that he can turn Abigail in at anytime, but he will do it when he chooses.

   In the Great Fear Senator McCarthy used everything he had to gain power. From creating lies, to accusing perfectly innocent people, he went to the edge of his being to gain power. In one specific case McCarthy was being given an interview on the communists in the United States when he accused over 200 government officials and private citizens of being communistic. He gains power by naming these people because it gives him the upper hand on the issue. Since he allegedly knew all of the terrorists in our country, one who feared terrorism greatly, people believed what he said, and in turn gave him power.

   In more recent news the United States government passed an act that gave them incredible abilities to allegedly monitor terrorists, and terrorism. The Patriot Act was passed in 2001 and gave the government supreme powers of monitoring citizens. It specifically allowed the NSA the right to tap and hack cell phones to listen to conversations. This supposedly was used to monitor and prevent terrorist attacks, according to the NSA it, "Thwarted 54 terrorist attacks." Whether on not it actually prevented attacks is up for debate, but,  the U.S. clearly used this act to gain power. It gave them power over a large group of people mainly due to their ability to monitor citizens They gained power by naming events where monitoring had worked, and due to citizens fear of terrorism.

False Accusations

      In no way is it legal to detain a human without evidence, but is it worth it to break the law to keep citizens safe? That is up for argument. Whether it was in Arthur Miller's play the Crucible, or the ideal of senator McCarthy in the red scare, both cases made a precedent of falsely accusing to achieve the original goal. McCarthy falsely accused hundreds of being communistic all for his original goal of achieving fame, and in the Crucible characters like Abigail and Betty and their actions of accusation on the towns women, are used to complete Miller's objective of showing falsified accusation. This action of "accusing" is often seen in today's world both in a small scale and large.  In recent news the sentencing of Jose Padilla, which ended up being 17 years in federal prison, was a much shorter than many had hoped for. But, in an article written by "The New York Times" Judge Cooke was quoted saying, "There is no evidence that the defendants personally maimed, kidnapped, or killed anyone in the United States or else where." This is directly related to what went on in the red scare, people were falsely accused, with very little evidence of being communists. It is also seen in the Crucible when the girls falsely accuse the townswomen of being with the devil with zero evidence of actually being with the devil.



     Another recent story that had citizens questioning the basis of argumentation was the spying done by the U.S. government and the NSA. The NSA claimed that the tapping of cell phones had led to them thwarting 54 terrorist attacks. In an article written by ProPublica it states, "During Keith Alexander's presentation in Las Vegas, two slides read simply "54 THWARTED ATTACKS." The NSA, President Obama, and members of congress have all said NSA spying programs have thwarted more than 50 terrorist plots. But there is no evidence this is true." Just like McCarthy the U.S government in this case claims, with or without evidence, that their invasion of personal privacy by tapping phone lines has helped save lives. This is exactly what happens in the Crucible when Reverend Hale shows up. He claims to have solved witchcraft issues and cleared the devil from several towns with very little evidence of that actually happening. The main reason that all of this works is that the citizens are afraid. Whether or not anyone is actually a terrorist, or townswomen were with the devil, or a person was a communist, the public are too afraid to risk it. It isn't worth the risk to not believe what the people in power tell you to believe, which is a main theme in both McCarthyism, the Crucible, and in more modern events the sentencing of Jose Padilla and the spying
performed by the NSA.

Fearless

For all my life I have been afraid of the dark. I don't know what it is about the dark that scares me. The fear is very real, but the actual danger of the dark is non existent. This exact scenario is seen on a large scale every day. The U.S. population fears terrorism, teens become afraid when they see a police officer, every day we face fear. Why is it though that we become afraid of certain peoples, objects, or situations. It is all based on perception, what we know about certain people, how we see them or that group of people. For instance after 9/11 the majority of the American population became fearful of Arabs. Seeing them on the street, or in a taxi most people grouped them with terrorism, understandable of course, but wrong. We as a society make these scapegoats to help us cope with fear, the same way a young child will have a night light to help them cope with being afraid of the dark. We place all of our fear into blaming someone else in order to feel safe. In more recent news, the black community in Ferguson, who rightfully so, are quite fearful of the police force in their town. But why is it that we become so afraid of what has happened in the past. Why can't we forgive and forget? Because fear has nothing to do with forgiving, and everything to do with forgetting. Perhaps the community in Ferguson has forgiven its police force, and maybe the U.S. has stopped blaming all Arabs for the acts of few, but what really matters in forgetting. Fear thrives on our memories, what we saw, what we heard, or what we experienced.

The manipulation of fear often times is more frightening than the original fear itself. How governments scare people into voting for certain policies, or for certain representatives. How groups of people use fear to scare people into believing their philosophies, these tactics have been successfully used for years. From the Mongols, to the Nazi's, to 9/11. My question though, is how is it that we become so afraid of something that in order to feel safe we have to completely destroy it. German's fear of bankruptcy led to the rise of Hitler. Americans fear of terrorism led to a large scale war on terror. What is it in our bodies or minds that drives us to take such large scale actions against fear? Because that is the only way to fix it. Fear doesn't work itself out, or present a simple answer, the only way to defeat fear is to destroy it. You are afraid of the dark? Turn on a light. You are afraid of a spider? Kill it. There is no easy way around fear, no pill to help, no book on beating it. Fear comes down to a decision. You can live and be afraid, or you can act. In the end everyone will die, certain practices will stop and some groups will be dismantled. In the end, it all ends, so why be afraid. Fear is a choice, and you have to risk it to get the biscuit.