Otherness and the Rhetoric of Imperialist Discourse :: Free Essays Online

Otherness and the Rhetoric of Imperialist Discourse Le yo vle touye yon chen, yo di’l fou. (When they want to kill a dog, they say it’s crazy.) ---Haitian Proverb When Elizabethan map makers came upon an area of the globe that was yet to be thoroughly explored by â€Å"western† civilization, they would give a rough estimate as to its shape and terrain, and then label it as Terra incognita, or â€Å"unknown land.† To help illustrate exactly how unknown this land was, images of demons and a variety of other monsters filled space usually inhabited by the names of cities, rivers and deserts. While the labeling itself could at first sight be dismissed as a simple acknowledgment of ignorance (as it certainly was,) an understanding of traditional cultural attitudes within imperialist countries provides us with the tools to see such language and imagery as highly representative of an ideology exemplified (though certainly not monopolized) by England during the period. What is so striking about terra incognita is not so much its name or the images it connects to nonwestern culture, but the fact that betrays even something as scientific and functional as a map to be a form of discourse deeply enmeshed in ideology. In a imperialist society, cultural discourse tends to seep into nearly every aspect of human communication and interaction, and is frequently characterized by an emphasis on separation, classification, and the idea of opposites. This seperative effect exploits differences in ideology, race, religion, tradition, clothing style, and language, among others, to create a images of â€Å"cultural oppositeness.† Such images are exactly the type that Edward Said describes in his book Orientalism. As Said puts it, orientalism â€Å"is a style of thought based upon ontological and epistemological distinction made between ‘the Orient’ and (most of the time) ‘the Occident.’†[1] These distinctions can be found in all colonial and imperialist societies, including those that benefit from modern day manifestations of such constructions. The effect of separating â€Å"first world† or â€Å"Occidental† culture from that found in countries outside the â€Å"Occident† is to create a general perception of the people practicing these cultures as â€Å"Others.† â€Å"Otherness† (a term frequently used in critiques of imperialist discourse,) is usually synonymous with poor, â€Å"third world,† or â€Å"pre industrialized,† and suggests many of the same remedies that have been prescribed to countries suffering from â€Å"otherness† and â€Å"Orientalism† for hundreds of years.

Poverty in the Philippines Essay

Divorce in the Philippines is planning to take over Filipino values and culture. It’s all over the news, the Philippine Congress is now pushing forward the Divorce Bill right after they have put forward the Reproductive Health Bill. This is exactly what I have been worrying about. Just a couple of weeks ago, when I attended our Baptist Convention Meeting here in the Visayas, this issue was brought up. And just as what I have stated, â€Å"RH Bill can also lead to the Divorce Bill† because they have the same proponents. I know lots of Evangelical Christians are pro-RH Bill. But what they don’t know is that the proponents of RH Bill are also the proponents of Divorce Bill. And now that they almost got what they want, they are now preparing for another wave of controversial bill which will open a highway for immorality and degradation of Philippine culture and religious standards and beliefs. Here is a list of the known supporters of RH Bill and Divorce. It is not what God wants. Since I started Biblical studies nothing in the Bible that will tell you that God favored and felt better for divorce. It was only allowed due to the hardheadedness of men. God did not made man and woman to be united and then separated if they got into some problems. If you fear the Lord and his commands, there is no way that you will agree on divorce. This is not what God wants. As simple as it is. Even if some pastor and theologians quantify it as a â€Å"necessary amputation† as far as I remember what my American Theology professor said, I would say that divorce is divorce, and God hates it. It was only men who wants it, not God. It is not the answer to the growing violence against women and children. Most divorce advocates gives emphasis on the growing children and women abuse. But I really do not see it as a solution for these problems. In fact it extends to the growing problem of immorality and sexually related diseases and problems such as unwanted pregnancies and sexually related diseases. And I believe that you will agree with me that these problems are a threat to women, children and even family. But why? Simply because people were given the so-called choice and chance to change while the fact is, it is where the so-called â€Å"rights† is abused. It is where many people make use of the right and abuse it for their own self-centered selfish quest for happiness and will only bring them to the same situation again and again and again. That’s why you will see people divorced not just once, nor twice, but multiple times. It gives a wider path to domestic problems. As I mentioned earlier this right has proven to be easily abused. And we are not actually giving people a solution to their problems, but a chance to repeat the same mistakes. Divorce is like a medicine†¦ but an unrecommended one. For example, there is a an abusive husband who have been divorced by his wife. This husband will then just look for another woman to abuse. While the woman if she’s the one having some problems, she will just look for another guy and if things will not get well, all she has to do is to apply again for divorce. Ridiculous isn’t it? It is just a picture. It gives a wider path for immorality and marital infidelity. Immorality. I guess this is not so much â€Å"in† nowadays. It’s something that most people don’t want to talk about except those that are of the religious sectors and religious people. I hate to say this but the Philippines have a steep moral degradation and that is why most of these divorce proponents put forward for various problems. Did we not learn from the US? Did the stats of violence against women and children dropped by the use of divorce law? We talk much about the positive things that we can get from the divorce law, while the negative effects far out weighs the positive. Here’s the summary of the advantages of divorce:

Courage Is The Preservation Of A Moral Knowledge - 1107 Words

Todd Link Lieutenant Colonel Uhl Philosophy 310 13 September 2015 Knowledge is Power†¦and Apparently Knowledge is Courage Too â€Å"We can’t do it†¦ We’re gonna be in the Hudson.† These were Captain Chesley B. â€Å"Sully† Sullenberger’s unforgettable words on 15 January 2009, just minutes before he miraculously landed US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River after losing both engines due to multiple bird strikes two minutes after takeoff (US). Due to the extensive training, considerable flying time, and the experience as a glider pilot held by Sully, many today would claim that Sully was not courageous but rather experienced and prepared. For these exact same reasons, however, Socrates would vigorously proclaim Sully’s courage. To Socrates,†¦show more content†¦The interesting part about Socrates’ definition is that it hinges on knowledge. Socrates would not call a child who is deathly afraid of heights yet still climbs a stable platform courageous. By Socrates’ definitio n of courage, one must understand what is worthy of apprehension—this understanding is gained through wisdom. Socrates attributes courage to the component of the human being he labels the spirit, but he links courage to wisdom. When the spirit â€Å"preserves through pains and pleasures the pronouncements of reason about what should inspire terror and what should not,† the individual would be deemed courageous (442b13-c3). It is important to note that those pronouncements stem from wisdom—without the wisdom to correctly judge things as worthy of terror or not, courage is impossible. The kind of wisdom Socrates associates with courage knows what things should be feared and what things should be faced with confidence. Jumping in front of a train to save somebody can wisely be faced with confidence because the cause is just. The emphasis is on what the person risks compared to what that person is aiming at, what is â€Å"more noble.† The wisdom and knowledge associated with wisdom are oriented about that comparison. Socrates states it is imperative that one’s correct beliefs of what should and should not inspire terror must be unwavering—unaffected by pleasures, pains, appetites, or fears (429c12-13). This introduces a subtle element of Socrates’ definition of courage: