Word Choices - AP English Literature - Blog

The Significance of Moving Backwards

One of the ideas that goes along with Milkman is the idea that he is facing and moving in the opposite direction from everyone else.  Milkman walks the opposite way of everyone on the street after he hits his father.  Later in the story, when Milkman is arguing with Guitar, Guitar snaps back at Milkman with the line: "looks like everybody's going in the wrong direction but you, doesnt it?" (106)  I am still confused to the meaning of this idea.  It could show that Milkman has a different view than everyone else in life.  That he holds more or a existentialism view on the world than the rest of his community.  While his dad focuses on moving himself up in economic and social society and guitar focuses on getting even for the black race, Milkman seems to hold no purpose in life.  He seems to see nothing worth dying or living for.  

    This idea goes together with another quote about Milkman looking the opposite way when he turns around to look at his sister: "It was becoming a habit-this concentration on things behind him.  Almost as though there were no future to be had."(35)  Even from an early age of five, Milkman has a bleak outlook on life.  He never really seems to become heated about anything, or care intensely for anything.  He like Meursault, is doing whatever he wants when he wants.  He also lacks any real connections to his family.  But, I am still confused on the whole meaning of Milkman moving in the opposite direction.  There seems to be some complexity or resolution that has not been revealed in the text that is essential to this idea. What do you thing?

Dysfunctional Family?

As I've been reading Song of Solomon, I've noticed that the family dynamic of the Dead family is definitely off. To name a few examples, Macon resents his wife, Milkman wants to be the complete opposite of his father, Macon won't allow his children to see his sister Pilat, and Ruth tried searching for love through Milkman since her father died and Macon showed her no affection. In addition to this poor family dynamic, there are instances of incest like actions such as Ruth and her father, Ruth and Milkman, and Milkman and Hagar.

In Chapter 3, after Macon tells Milkman about his grandfather and mother's relationship and Milkman retrieves his repressed memory of how he got the name "Milkman," he is disgusted by the information and wishes that his father never told him the truth. However, at the end of the chapter Guitar asks Milkman if he wants him to drop him off at Hagar's and Milkman replies with, "Hagar's. Yeah. Sweet Hagar" (89). As we keep reading, we see that Milkman continues his relationship with Hagar for a long time. What I don't understand is why doesn’t Milkman seem to think it's wrong to have a relationship with Hagar since she is related to him?

Biblical Names

In Song of Solomon  Morrison gave many of her characters and the title of her novel biblical names. As I read I'm trying to see if the characters will act as the characters in the Bible acted. In the Bible Pilate presided over Jesus's trial and sentanced him to be crucified. In Song of Solomon Pilate is not described as evil and has not judged anyone. Do you think Pilate is going to act as the Pilate in the Bible did?

Hagar also has a biblical name and seems to be acting according to her namesake. In the Bible Hagar was used and forgotten as the Hagar in Song of Solomon seems to have been used by Milkman and forgotten. In Song of Solomon Milkman doesn't seem to be emotionally attached to Hagar and seems to be on the way to discarding her. The women in Song of Solomon  don't seem to be playing a very important role. Milkman's mother Ruth and his sisters, Lena and Corinthians, haven't really done anything for themselves. Although Corinthians has obtained a college education she does not choose to get a job but chooses to continue to make velvet flowers to sell. The women in Song of Solomon have all played a submissive role with the exception of Pilate. What do you think Morrison is trying to say about women?

 

Lincoln's Heaven

“Macon let the smile come on. He had not said any of this for years. Had not even reminisced much about Lincoln’s Heaven to Ruth. Sitting on the porch swing in the dark, he would just re-create the land that was to have been his. Or when he was just starting out in the business of buying houses, he would lounge around the barbershop and swap stories with the men there” (52)

   Macon Dead Senior is a truly bitter man.  Macon Dead is a man obsessed with property and social advancement. One could argue that the sole reason why he married Ruth was to live in the house of Not Doctor Street. Every action he takes, from the Sunday afternoon car rides to his trips to the Southside, is designed to prove his own superiority to the other members of the African American community. We only catch a glimpse of Macon’s humanity when he describes his youth. He is a completely different man when he talks about his father and young Pilate and how free they were when they lived down South. When he lived with his family in Virginia, he was a man in touch with his roots. The Northern Macon,  unlike Pilate, has been transformed by vanity and greed.

Velvet Roses

As I was reading Song of Solomon the first image that stuck with me were the rose petals that flew around just before Mr. Smith attempted flight. The lively roses provided a distraction and eased the tension to the dire situation Mr. Smith put himself in. I assumed the velve roses symbolized life or love, as roses and other flowers often do in many novels, but as I read on the velvet roses are described as stagnant. The velvet roses don't symbolized love but the absence of love in the Dead house. All flowers seem to symbolized lifelessness in Song of Solomon. The removal of the center piece in the dining room of the Dead house once held flowers and when removed it left a flower like mark on the table that didn't bloom like a flower should but spread like a cancer. Real or not the flowers in Song of Solomon suggest vapidity in the Dead household.

Do you think the velvet roses could symbolize something else?

Why does Pilate not have a navel?

As I was reading Chapter 2, the scene with Guitar and Milkman visiting Pilate was strange. I think what most stood out was the fact that she did not have a navel. Milkman and Pilate were so intrigued to know whether she had a navel or not. Pilate tells them that she does not have a navel it “beats [her]” as to why she does not have one. I wonder whether this means something or not? My first thought was that she is missing this connection to her parents and possibly to the family in general. The sheer fact that she does not know her own nephew that well, can indicate a disconnect to her family. As I have learned, Toni Morrison constantly leaves out details to explain them later, maybe this unknown reason for her navel will be told later within the novel. I then was also considering the reason the lack of navel being that she is almost this unnatural child. She does not seem to be accepted in society and not seen as a “pure” woman. This then could seem to relate to her being evil due to her “unnatural” actions. She is a very independent woman who cares for her child, but maybe this then shows society’s expectations of her clinging on to a spouse for support. It could mean then that also do to not having a navel, she is unable of being a competent mother. Though most of these ideas are not fully supported or developed, they do seem to make logical sense as of now. Who knows, it could just be a deformity?

Is Conrad a Racist?

Achebe brings up a good point in his literary analysis of Heart of Darkness.  His discription of the Congo is not accurate, and perhaps Conrad's stereotypical description of the African jungle proves that he is indeed a racist.  As Achebe points out, Conrad seems to have a problem with people in the African culture.  First off, his narrator of the story finds it hard to say that the natives of Africa are just as human as himself.  Also, Conrad uses the word "black" repetively when describing the natives. Achebe also argues Conrad's racist personality from instances outside of Heart of Darkness.  When Conrad wrote about his first encounter with a black man, he used words like "furious" and "unreasoning rage" for description.  It makes sense why someone might believe Conrad is racist.  I personally think that Conrad is stereotyping in Heart of Darkness, but I am not fully convinced to say that he is a complete racist.  I also disagree with Achebe's argument that Heart of Darkness should not be considred an influential novel in English literature.

Do you believe Conrad is a racist?  Is the inaccurate description of the Congo from Conrad's racist perspective or from Marlow's newly exposed perspective?

Names in Song of Solomon

    From the first two chapters of Song of Solomon Toni Morrison makes obvious that names will play an integral role in the development of characters. Milkman, his dad, and his grandfather all share the same name, even though his grandfather made it up. Macon Jr. (Milkman's dead) refuses to aknowledge Milkman's request to know his grandfather's real name. Macon's dad and Milkman all share more than simply their name, and most likely this will be revealed later in the novel. Macon Jr.'s sister, Pilate, has a name that may possess even more importance. Her father named her specifically and deliberately, and Macon Jr. holds the same view. Macon Jr. will not allow his son to even speak of her, referring to her as a "snake" and treacherous. Milkman, however, is fascinated with her ability to appear composed while apparently disorganized. Pilate can be seen as a foil to Macon  Jr. -- where Macon Jr is straightforward and simple Pilate is a very enigmatic, mysterious character. Names of characters will play a role in how characters are perceived and their development throughout the novel of Song of Solomon.

Morrison's Emphasis on Song

After reading chapter one and two of Song of Solomon, I noticed the recurrence of the motif of singing. The first occasion of this motif occurred when Pilate sang “O Sugarman Done Fly Away” when Robert Smith was on top of the hospital building about to jump off. The next incidence of singing was when Macon was walking home and passed by Pilate’s house but decided to stop and listen to Pilate, Reba, and Hagar singing an unnamed song. The final appearance of the motif was when the same three women sang “O Sugarman Done Fly Away” while Milkman and Guitar were at Pilate’s house.

I don’t exactly see a huge connection between these three occurrences of singing but I believe that it could represent a means of escaping pain. Pilate began singing when Robert was on top of the building, preparing to jump off in an attempt to fly away. Robert was obviously unhappy with some part of his life if he felt that he had to get away. Also, when Macon listened to the music coming from inside Pilate’s house, he was feeling very alone but when he listened to the music, “he felt the irritability of the day drain from him and relished the effortless beauty of the women singing in the candlelight” (29).  As for the final incidence of the motif, it could represent escaping pain because Milkman was trying to learn about a part of his life that had been kept hidden from him so after meeting with Pilate and learning about his family history, Milkman felt “completely happy” and satisfied with his life (47). So overall, singing could represent escaping pain and sadness because it appeared at times when characters were trying to resolve internal conflicts.

Do you think the motif could mean anything else? Also, what do you think the significance of the song “O Sugarman Done Fly Away” is?  

I Believe I can Fly- Song of Solomon

As much as I enjoy making R-Kelly references as much as possible, if found the concept of flying in Song of Solomon particularly interesting. Flying has tremendous amounts of symbolism, but it is something that is not usually seen in the novels we read, and this is probably because humans cannot fly, so why put it in the story in the first place?

The opening scene has Robert Smith attempting to fly off of the roof of the hospital. Flying here can be a powerful representation of one or one's race attempting to fly away and gain independence from the claws of prejudice or discrimination. This represenation of freedom is a very interesting one. For all of the stories we have read involving racial conflicts (which is a lot), we rarely see the race being discriminated against breaking free and flying (metaphorically) independently. It will be interesting to look for this motif as it continues throughout the story. Both the ability and inability to fly speaks profoundly on the topic of discrimination and being held back, which is something that all people feel at one point or another. 

Did anyone else see any symbols or motifs that were partcularly uncommon from other stories we have read this year?

What's Up With the Fam?!

    As we're starting to read "Song of Solomon," I am noticing some very strange themes. Although I read "Sula," and am well aware of what an interetsing (?) writer Toni Morrison is, some of the themes that are coming up in this novel are making me a little uneasy. The main character appears to be Milkman and he got his name because the neighborhood gossip, Freddie, saw Ruth breastfeeding him at a very mature age. This seems to be a prominent attribute of MIlkman's becuase it is basically where his story begins. However, this is not the only strange family occurance that Morrison mentions as of chapter one. She doesn't delve deep into the story, but Morrison mentions that Ruth and her father had somewhat of a sexual realtionship when she was growing up. The way that Ruth's father thought of her as if she were her mother and tucked her into bed and kissed her until she was probably near Milkman's age is innapropriate. Since we do not know the full story behind Ruth and her father's relationship, I'm guessing Morrison will explain it later and hopefully it will clear things up as to why Ruth breastfed Milkman for so long...Maybe Milkman wil have children and treat them inappropriately too?

Racism in Heart of Darkness

    When I first read Heart of Darkness, my first reaction was ignorance, not racism. I thought that Marlow was simply naive; he did not know any better. Of course, today, we would view many of his passages describing the Congo and the Africans as racist, but I just thought that racism was a social construct, and since it was his first time seeing this new scene, then he was not a "racist". I never fully agreed that Marlow should be deemed a full blown "racist". 

    Then, I read the article by Chinua Achebe. Although, he makes some solid points, I think that he focuses too much on Conrad as a writer and as a person, and not enough on the actual book, Heart of Darkness. One of his main points is that "Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist." Why does the fact that Joseph Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness make him racist? Why can't he be expressing the ideology and the "Western Desire" of the people of that time? Why can't Marlow's point of view truly be his own, and not Joesph Conrad's? Does this mean that all of the writers and the directors of television shows and movies that contain vulgar, prejudice, racist language and images make them all of the previous?  

Still Uneasy

After reading some of the comments on the article entitled "Apple Asks Outside Group to Inspect Factories", I got the idea that a fair amount of people were satisfied with Apple's response to the general outcries of the public, claiming it to be a very reasonable step to take towards acheiving some manner of justice in regards to foregin factory worker's generally obscene working conditions. However, I am still a bit uneasy because I've also read a ton of comments about how this move seems to be nothing more than a "PR bandaid"; an attempt to make people feel a little bit better about owning their software without actually solving the big problem. Though I definitely need to read up a little more on this, right now my gut feeling definitely seems to tell me that Apple's response to this whole situation is the bare minimum of what they could and should be doing.  

Hypocrites

I have noticed that in Heart of Darkness, Conrad appears to categorize women as ignorant and blind to the realities of the world. However, that also means that they are not at all hypocritical; women support imperialism because they believe it actually is helping the Africans. Many of the men, however, know the truth about imperialism. They have seen the groves of death firsthand, or have heart from friends or acquaitances about the realities of the Congo. Nonetheless, the men still support imperialism, either visibily taking a bit of pleasure in mistreating the Africans, or choosing to ignore the realities of the situation, much in the way that Marlow chose to operate in the Congo. Conrad seems to making an argument that while their ignorance is certainly unfortunate, the women in the story are not to blame for how they see the Congo and what goes on there. However, the men who know the truth are much more in the wrong, they are guilty of either participating in the evils of the Congo or turning a blind eye to it.

What do you all think?

Kurtz’s Intended

In the end of Heart of Darkness, Marlow visits Kurtz’s Intended to return the last of the papers that Kurtz gave him. The two talk for a while about Kurtz, though I never got a firm feel for how Marlow felt about her. At first, he obviously feels pity. “She came forward, all in black, with a pale head, floating towards me in the dusk. She was in mourning.” (page 112) But later on he sounds almost jealous of her relationship with Kurtz when she makes comments about how much better she knew him. “I knew him best” “You knew him best,’ I repeated. And perhaps she did. But with every word spoken the room was growing darker” (page 113)
“Yes! I am proud to know I understood him better than any one on earth – he told me so himself. And since his mother died I have had no one.’ “I listened. The darkness deepened” (page 113)
It seems to always get darker when she talks about knowing Kurtz better than Marlow did, which makes me think he must have been getting upset about this. The other quote that really stuck out was when she says “Ah, but I believed in him more than any one on earth – more than his own mother, more than – himself. He needed me! Me! I would have treasured every sigh, every word, every sign, every glance” Marlow replies by saying “Don’t” (page 116). I imagine he would be pretty annoyed at her. He did treasure every word and sigh, yet she is so sure it was her that Kurtz needed. 
I think that might be why he lied to her about Kurtz’s last words. Maybe he wanted that last piece of Kurtz to himself. Only he, Kurtz’s last friend, who stood by him to the end, would get to know what his true last words were.

A Rotten Apple

I think we’ve all heard at least random bits and pieces over time about the working conditions in China being horrible and unbelievable.  Even though many people around the world, especially here in the United States, idolize Apple and its products, Apple is unfortunately no different from any of the factories with regard to its conditions.  After listening to the radio show and reading the article, however, I think it made the reality of the situation become more alive and real to many of us.  It did for me at least. 

However, I think that because we enjoy the products so much and haven’t experienced the conditions firsthand, we convince ourselves that the conditions aren’t, can’t really be, that bad.  In other words, we seem to blind ourselves from the reality of the situation, just like Marlow’s aunt did in Heart of Darkness.  I’m not so sure that I can go as far as to say that the European’s exploitation in Heart of Darkness was worse than what is occurring in our society today or vice versa, because to me they seem about the same.  Both are motivated by greed.  Greed by the Europeans and greed by the companies (Apple in this case).  They’re willing to do whatever it takes to keep profit flowing even if a few people die in the process.  One thing that especially shocked me was the netting that was put up to prevent people from committing suicide.   If you’re putting up nets to stop workers from jumping, you obviously realize that there’s a problem with the conditions they have to endure. It just seems foolish to me that they think it to be an acceptable solution to put up nets instead of attempting to fix the cause of the workers’ desire to commit suicide, the working conditions.

Conrad's Shadow

I've been asserting that Conrad's Heart of Darkness might be the most important narrative over the past 100 years of Western literature.  Why?  Because over the period of time since that story was written, globalization has increasingly become the dominant force moving the world, for good and for bad.  And as privileged members whose country in many ways controls the gears of the globalization machine, how we see (or refuse to see) the people of the developing world -- whether in the Congo, in Latin American, in China, etc -- is very much a life or death proposition -- maybe for all of us.

In any case, here are a couple of examples of narratives that have come out in just the past year that grapple with globalization.

State of Wonder, by Ann Patchett, is about a female medical researcher who journeys deep into the Amazon jungle to find herself, her lost friend and some plants which might make the pharmaceutical company she works for very rich.  I read this one -- and didn't like it very much (despite the positive review I'm linking to) -- precisely because it didn't learn the lessons of Heart of Darkness.

Three Weeks in December, by Audrey Schulman, is also (at least partially) about an ethnobotanist who also journeys to the jungle (in this case, in the Eastern Congo) at the behest of a pharmaceutical company. This narrative sounds potentially more complex, although I haven't read the book.

Again, these are just two recent literary example.  Think of all the films that come out each year about a Western man (it's almost a man, despite the protagonists of the books above) who must face his demons and the powers of nature and savagery by traveling to some exotic locale.  

In light of Heart of Darkness, we must ask if the stories we are telling ourselves about the world being honest -- about the baggage we carry and about the people and the cultures with which we share our humanity and our earth?

I Want Work

My motif is white and black for Heart of Darkness but unfortunately for me the one that stands out for me the most is the motif of work versus idleness so I guess this is the only place I can go on a rant about that.

At first glance of the motif of work I thought it may be really challenging but in all honesty, with a keen eye, there is example after example of the motif of work and the absurdity of some of the work. For instance, the natives blow holes in the mountain for no apparent reason, the brick maker never actually makes bricks in the story, the accountant is never shown to be working; despite his obsession with it, and there are holes in the buckets of water that the natives are carrying. These seem like absolutely ridiculous scenarios to us because we can't imagine wasting such time or making such useless contributions to the world.

This work is a simple way of ignoring reality for both the Europeans and the natives. The Europeans can use it as an excuse to justify their work in their eyes. The work allows them to think they are providing "legitimate" structure in the lives of these savages. However this in itself is a lie and by ignoring reality they are able to accept the lie they tell themselves. For the natives the work is something to take their mind off the pain and loss they feel. It provides them with an excuse not to rebel and take their lives into their own hands. I am not condemning the natives because I recognize they are the victims of this system, however I was simply evaluating the effect their environment has on them.

The most interesting part of this entire affair is the correspondence it has with our lives. How many people waste hours on the computer and wasting away time waiting for the weekend? I know I do. Are we lying to ourselves about the reality around us? Even if it's on a less extreme scale, is there a parallel between our wasteful work and theirs? 

The Apple Gods…..

Out of the article and the comedy skit, the most striking thing to me was when the comedian was interviewing one of the workers who had formally worked on the iPad, but had never seen one on and thought it to be magic. Immediately it reminded me of Heart of Darkness. I thought of the large connection between Steve Jobs and Kurtz. As we all know Steve Jobs passed away recently and many people were devastated by the news. Though it may not be exactly the same as Kurtz, he too was praised by not only Europe, but by some of the native people. Now with this modern day scenario with Jobs, it may be that the workers would detest him, but his product, his vision of the iPad, completely baffles and fascinates a worker. They are intrigued by something that essentially “took their hands.” I then thought of those people who were apart of unions and I then made the connection of the villagers making attacks on the boats. It seems to me that there is this very strange disconnect in  the sense of worship and hatred. Many Americans love the idea of Apple and praise their innovative technologies and to an extent so do some of the workers. We are so much like Marlow’s grandmother in the sense that all we need is this false sense of purpose to feel secure in this supposive crusade to make the world better. I also believe that when considering whether the working conditions are worse than when Europe imperialized the Congolese, I would say yes because it is a much more efficient process that leaves workers at more of a disadvantage than before. Tools and technologies that they make every day, are the same things that observe and monitor them.   I believe then must consider  the hidden phenomenon. This man saw magic, we see highly made technology that is just a norm of our society. So the question is how then can we make this seemingly godly technology not so “godly” anymore? How will we be able to let go of the longing for “new” and “wonderful” and teach to all of us, including Chinese workers, that the only godly thing about Apple is it’s similarity to hell? I think the only answer would be that there must be more people who are willing to put the truth out there in a striking manner. We must use the same technology that oppresses people, and blog, make videos, podcasts, and whatever else to show the terrible conditions of these people, we must use what we have for some greater cause of good. 

Apple's Sleek Shadow

After reading Heart of Darkness I didn't necessarily want to understand the message it was trying to disclose. The way that the author writes out the European's dehumanizing treatment of the Congolese produces images that can at times be quite disturbing to me. Marlow's lot of civilization seemed to treat these people like nothing more than objects in order to more easily get what they want.

but then I start to think: don't people treat each other this way all the time? Although maybe not to such a crazy extreme, most of the people I know, myself included, can sometimes use others in order to get something they want. the story of Apple's use of such thoughtless behavior represents a very good example of the way's in which we haven't necessarily changed that much. our present day heart of darkness can definitely be said to include harsh factory conditions in china, but I do not think it is necessarily as much of a social problem than it is a problem found in civilized people as individuals. 

A Bad Apple

I did some research on Apple and Foxconn, and there were a few things I discovered.  Apple's profit margin has been steadily increasing while Foxconn's has been decreasing.  In 2007, Apple's profit margins were at 15.4% whereas Foxconn's was only at 2.7%.  Four years later, in 2011, Apple's profit margin doubled and reached 30.8% but Foxconn's nearly halved at 1.5%.  Something is wrong here.  If Apple's profit is increasing, shouldn't Foxconn's profit be increasing too?  Not in the kind of world we live in.  Apple has sold over 100 million iPhones.  If apple even gave $1.00 to Foxconn for every product they sold, they'd have over 100 million dollars from iPhones, plus over 275 million for iPods, plus however many other products they have sold.  If Apple gave this small portion of their profit to Foxconn, I'm sure Foxconn would easily be able to make better working conditions.  With Apple's 10 billion songs sold on itunes at 99 cents each, that more than makes up for the loss of the one dollar.  I think it is unfair that these stock holders and executives of Apple are benifiting from these huge profits, while the people who actually make the products have to work long hours under terrible conditions for very little financial reward.  Apple treats Foxconn unfairly, and they in turn treat their workers unfairly.  I also think if people knew about this, they would be willing to pay the full $200 for their iPhone instead of the $199.  If they did this, Foxconn would benifit, and Apple would not loose any money.

"Made in China"

This label, "Made in China," seems to be placed on the large majority of American possessions. Ever since I was a little kid, I have noticed the label and used to make a game out of trying to find which of my possessions were not made in China. There were always very few, and as I grew older, I began to realize what that actually meant. Despite having always known that most of American goods are made under poor conditions in other countries, I have (like most Americans) never done anything about it. I continue to buy goods that I know were made under these circumstances. I genuinely feel bad about this and am aware of it every time I buy an item such as an Apple product, and yet I still buy them.

Thus, very little in the radio piece and the article surprised me except for the extremity of the situation. I was particularly struck by the image of so many people lining up to talk to a complete stranger about the company just because he was willing to listen. When people are that determined to talk, it usually means they seldom get to and feel that what they have to say is important, and it definitely was. I found Mr. Daisey's experience to be particularly fascinating because he made it all so real; it almost felt as if you were there with him experiencing all of this. Which really helps drive his point home effectively. While I can understand the reason companies do this instead of making more products in the United States, I find it very frustrating that the heads of companies like Apple seldom stop to think about the actual people involved and how inhumane their policies really are.

Yet, the issue I struggle with is that despite being incredibly frustrated by such terrible working conditions and wanting to make that not the case, I realize that I will still probably buy Apple products in my lifetime. So I find that the main trouble with this American imperialism of sorts is that we Americans can get easily aggravated by horror stories such as Mr. Dailey's, but we instantly begin to feel that there is nothing we can do about it. We are often told that we can boycott those companies or start/sign petitions against it and other such things, and yet when we do these things, we see no result. We cannot help but wonder whether it will really make Apple, a company with millions and millions of customers, change its policies if we personally decide not to buy an iPod. It's this lack of clear results from our actions that I believe tends to cause our complete lack of action even when most people would agree that the working policies of many major companies are morally wrong.

Look on the brighter side

The soundclip and article were very interesting even though i was not surprised by any of the things i was hearing.  Most people in this country know that the products we buy and sell are made from countries not our own.  Mainly third world countries, but also China.  Our first thoughts when we hear this are that it is done because of how much cheaper it is than to make the products in America.  Most people then hear about how bad the conditions are and that it can be very dangerous.  Then we think that we should stop buying these products and something should be done about the conditions.  I have thought these same thoughts before.  But, we all have to realize these are companies and business', whose main goal is to make money.  People say that it is immoral and wrong to work in conditions like the ones that many do.  Again, we have to realize these companies, such as Apple, do not have morals because they are exactly that, companies not people.  By no means am i saying i dont think something should be done because changes should happen, but Apple and all the other companies are providing jobs and money to workers and families that would otherwise not have any income.

Corporate Imperialism

I remember noticing when I was about seven years old that almost every toy I played with was made in China.  Almost every object I was interested in had that white sticker with bold black print that informs the consumer their product has been produced in a country with an undeveloped economy.  It’s common knowledge that most products we consume are made by large, successful corporations that exploit their workers when they can, and yet I was still intrigued by Mr. Daisy’s broadcast and the article in the New York Times.

It only takes a little bit of logic to deduct why Apple, or any other large corporation, would want to assemble their products in a third world country. Words like cheap labor, famine, or lack of education should easily come to mind, but they usually don’t. When most people, including myself, see the “Made in China” sticker they don’t think much about it. We choose to ignore how our toys, clothes, or technology are made and focus on enjoying them instead. I am guilty of rolling my eyes at pretentious people who like to point out corporate imperialism or the high levels of hormones in the food I eat. I have worn the blindfold Kurtz painted on that woman with the torch. After all, there is nothing more joyful than going to the mall on a cold Saturday afternoon and browsing through all the cool little gadgets at the Apple store. 

 

Shocked that We Are Shocked

When Mr. Daisey bravely admitted that he thought robots were making the gadgets, I realized that even though I knew, I mean we all knew, that things were “Made In China”, I never cared enough to translate the three-word-phrase to an image of young women and men tirelessly moving their numb hands piecing together the hardware parts in silence under blindly bright lights.

I think back to the various Apple keynotes I watched in excitement for new magic and in admiration for Steve Jobs’ charisma. I can still hear the claps, whistles and cheers in the audience when Steve Jobs announced proudly “the new iPhone will be shipped today” or the “new iPad will be shipped next week”. I did not really understand what that really meant. I bet those who cheered in excitement that they can put their hands on the new gadgets including Steve Jobs himself did not think that the speedy turnout of new products meant months of suffocating 16-hour shift for thousands of men and women.

This blissful ignorance and convenient indifference of tech consumers is a modern counterpart to the naivety and beautiful ideal world Marlow spoke about his aunt and Kurtz’ intended.

My first inclination was to deny that I am an active participant in driving the Foxconn workers to suicide or igniting the explosion that killed people with dreams. That’s Foxconn’s fault for dehumanizing their workers, I thought. Few more thoughts later, I realized that consumers' constant demand for cheaper, newer, better products are forcing companies like Apple to rely on cheap labor.

There is no clear-cut solution to this. Just like we can’t stop driving cars and live in candle lights tomorrow to stop global warming, we can’t stop wanting for cheaper and better goods. Suddenly uprooting the manufacture complex from developing countries back to the United States would be too drastic. Although bringing back manufactures to the United States will be good for the millions of unemployed people here, consumers will not accept a $400 iPod. Can we exercise our restraint and stop buying all products made at inhumane working conditions? Would that be too much of a commitment?

I hate to dismiss this reality as a sweatshop phase that all countries go through including England and U.S. which experienced similar things during industrial revolution. However, I do think that we should leave the protest and activism to the workers. U.S. intervention would make the matter worse by making China more defensive about its ways. I mean did any foreign countries help laborers in England or the U.S. fight for higher wage, better working condition, shorter hours and disability compensation? I don’t recall learning about such things.

What we can do is being concerned about behind the scene manufacture process and continue to expose the silent brutality, and by doing so pressure the factories to improve.

Out of Sight Out of Mind

The manufacturing towns in Shenzhen, China are over very own "hearts of darknes." They may even be worse. Just one company employs over 100,000 people and there are many more factories with many more people whose stories have not been heard and may never be heard. Just like in "Heart of Darkness" the Congo is being ravaged and its people are being exploited for its resources. Instead of ivory, Coltan is being gathered. Coltan is being excavated from the mines of Congo from workers as young as eight years old. These children have no safety standards to protect them and the wages they earn do not justify the horrifying conditions they work in. This information is readily available to those who seek it. Last year an app was released on Apple's app store called "Phone Story," (http://phonestory.org/#coltan), it walked the user of the app through the way an IPhone is made. The very product the app was on. Apple pulled the app from their store promptly and with the app went the concerns of manny Apple customers. It seems as if unless a consumer is being bombarded with evidence that their products are being made by people who are suffering, the consumer will forget the human labor that was went into their IPhone and will revert back to their way of ignoring the cost that is built in with their product.

Addressing American Culture

Well I think most of the previous posts have covered the traumatic and shocking nature of these Chinese workers producing Apple products, a matter that is rather indisputable. I think what is more shocking is how we respond to such appalling news not only as a first world country, but as individuals in our position. I definitely believe that some element of the immediate threat and impact upon our lives determines our response to the matter. If I knew of such working conditions existing geographically close to where I was located, I would be much more inclined to take initiative than if I heard of a similar incidence 3000 miles from here. Although psychology explains part of our response, I think a large part of it hides behind what we tend to call "American culture."

I think we can point fingers at economically-motivated foreign policiesof well-developed nations throughout history all day long. What we should be looking at is how we unconsciously, but undoubtedly fuel this process. I understand technology is moving fast, but when I see kids running around not with GameBoys but with iPads, I question the values of America's younger generation. I understand that you cannot trade in an iPad for the life of one of these workers. But I hope that in the future, it comes to the attention of people that maybe a strike of some products may be in order. I agree that technological progress is essential to moving forward as a nation, but innovation without education of the population seems wrong. Whether the responsibility should fall upon the government or the media, the "highly-revered" consumer deserves more than just a finished product, but an honest one as well.

What Do We Do Now?

So both the article and radio show explained the terrible treatment going on in China concerning the Apple company. We have all heard about what is going on and most of us say that this is horrible and something needs to be done to help these people. However, what honestly are most people going to do? Nothing. They may tell a friend or family about this news and it might be talked about at your lunch table for a week or so but after that nothing will happen. This does not need to happen though. The big business men will not care for these workers because they are bringing in big dollars and would not show affection to any Chinese workers. So we the consumers of Apple products need to do something. It is possible to not buy products from Apple. There are a bunch of new companies that are coming out with very similar products. For example, Kindle now can watch television and serve the web just like the iPad.

There is a way to stop this from happening but we cannot let Apple get away with this so easily. We need to stand up for what is right. So will you change what you buy?

Turning a Blind Eye

I think after listening to the radio show and reading the article about apple, my opinion of them has definitely changed. But I think most of us will continue to use their products, despite the horrible conditions they are made from. In Heart of Darkness, Marlow's aunt was blind to the way the world actually works. During that time many people were naive or just did not want to know what horrible things happened in reality. But now, we have so much technology available to us and the news about these conditions are out there. I think some of us could be considered even more guilty than Marlow's aunt, because we learn about these facts, but ignore them and continue to use the products.

The Bad Guy

What fascinates me most about all of the attention that this evil in China is getting is the fact that I only know about Apple.  I wonder how many other corporations are using China to cruelly craft their contraptions.  While the situation is evil I also do not think that the article and audio are enough to change my purchases.  I do not specifically own an Apple product but I'm sure that enough of my electronics are causing strife somewhere else in the world.  The biggest issue that confuses me is why the leaders of these corporations allow for the torment to continue.  They certainly have more power in the situation and I'm pretty sure that they will continue to manufacture their products with all of the hazards that apple has as long as people continue to buy them.  Unless we get a first hand experience of the cruelties in China, I think that the effectiveness of Apple products outweigh the consumer's desire to change Apple's occupation in China.  Maybe I'm just a bad person, but how do you think that these articles will change your view on your purchases.