Shakespeare Act 1

What is Shakespeare’s larger purpose in his characterization of Coriolanus in Act I?

Shakespeare has several purposes, in his characterization in Act 1. Firstly, Shakespeare characterizes specific characters with certain traits, which point out their fatal flaws and strengths, and may give a signal of what is to come in the future in terms of getting in conflicts. Shakespeare foreshadows several conflicts in Act 1 by characterizing Coriolanus to be a man who is very proud and rash. This proudness and rashness of Coriolanus, shows him getting into a fight with the civilians and may foreshadow future conflicts with the citizens. Next, Shakespeare depicts the conflict of Coriolanus and Titus Aufidus. This conflict begins now by Titus praising Coriolanus's strength and war skills, and Coriolanus reciprocates this as well by saying "Tis not a man I would rather fight".  

The next purpose of Shakespeare's characterization is to depict a plot as well. By this, I mean that certain characters have been introduced in the begging who will cause trouble in the future to Coriolanus. The characterization serves as an introduction to the play and Shakespeare starts of the plot by developing dueling characters. The dueling characters serve as conflict makers and develop the plot significantly.

Next, Shakespeare's characterization has a deeper meaning, which has its roots in British History. Evidence, to suggest this is when the main character Coriolanus, is reminiscent of King James I, who had a similar rash, rude and proud personality as does Coriolanus. King James, didn't enjoy plays and was highly oriented on being manly. Coriolanus's characterization is like this as well. King James was ruling in the time of an absolutist monarchy, so he had the right to do whatever he pleased. This power is reminiscint of the power the Romans had over the plebians and thier full control on society. Also, 

Lastly, the corn riot in the begging of the play, is seen to be similar to that of those in England in 1607. Shakespeare's depiction of the setting serves to portray a deeper political meaning and even represent those voices in England, who were suppressed by the absolutist Monarchy.

Bell Hooks

4. For in the incorrect usage of words, in the incorrect placement of words, was a spirit of rebellion that claimed language as a site of resistance. Using English in a way that ruptured standard usage and meaning, so that white folks could often not understand black speech, made English into more than the oppressor’s language.

TEXT- "https://www.youtube.com/watchv=CB8pBiUavtg" - Ebonics 101

In this spoken word poem by Steven Willis, we observe exactly what the essence of this quote is about. Steven Willis begins the poem by saying that he is "bilingual", immediately he has put up a divide between the "Standard Queen's" English and his own "African Vernacular English. He describes African Vernacular English as a more "Southern Fried English". Since the South, is associated with Black Slavery he is trying to portray the historically painful roots of African Vernacular English, and how it stands for resistance. He further clarifies this when he says his "Big Mama" (Grandmom) hid AAV under her tongue, when she migrated to the north during the great migration, but had never forgotten the tongue. This implies that the language was so important that it couldn't be forgotten. Then Willis goes on to say that AAV is the "last remaining squab birthed from an African and European". This phrase implies that even though all of the African migrants languages  and culture were taken away, they didn't give up since they made a new one, which still remains in use today. He further backs this up by saying that "Ebonics is the official language of the undefined black culture" and "the native tongue of the underrepresented black American". These phrases further exemplify that AAV serves as something to bond the Black Americans together and since it is the "undefined language of black culture", AAV serves as the representative of the black struggle and "culture" as well. 

Then, Willis moves on by asking the viewers to "get their Notepads out for Ebonics 101". Even though, it is subtle Willis's demand of asking for the notebook, shows that he considers the topic (Ebonics) to be of a significant importance and thats why it should be noted down. He moves on by giving "Chapter 1 - Any English word in the (in) combination is replaced with (an). To this he gives the example after All of MLK's walking his feet didn't stink they Stank. By implementing this example, not only does Willis give an example of AAV, but he yet again goes on to represent the struggle and history that is associated with it.  Moving on Willis introduces "Chapter 2 - Any English word in the (or) combination, the (r) becomes silent. Giving the example of Rodney King saying "Don't be no mo'". Yet again, intervening a language lesson with the painful yet rich historical struggle that is associated with it. These examples continue and then Willis concludes by saying the Black people will not be slaves to the phonetics and dictions of the Standard English. This perfectly links with Bell Hooks's quote on how the Black people showed resistance by making their English different and was an avenue to separate their ties with their oppressors at that time. 

Lost Tongues Podcast

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B94uV1cqM09MOUJHV3Zpbjc5T1U/view?usp=sharing

What did medieval linguist Antonio de Nebrija mean when he told Queen Isabella that: “language is the perfect instrument of empire?” How has language contributed to colonial power? Focus on a specific example.



In my opinion what Antonio De Nebrija meant, in this example is that language is almost like a leash, which keeps all of (in this case) its colonies in check. Language has significantly contributed to colonial power in various manners, some more obvious than others. In order to best prove this, take the evidence of the British Empire.

Britain was considered to be the largest empire that ever existed, meaning that they left an everlasting mark on all their colonies. Language, according to me is the vehicle of communication. In order to communicate with their colonies, British forced around 89% of them to learn English. Now, colonies such as the Red Indians, the Indians themselves and even the Europeans have faced the backlash of this decision. Imagine this situation, you are trying to teach a class full of students who speak Mandarin, a science lesson in French. This just doesn't equate because, the students will have absolutely no idea what you are saying, meaning no orders will be followed, and penultimately there will be chaos. Enter Antonio de Nebrija, who perfectly summarizes the importance of a uniform language being equated with a successful empire. 

Moreover, if there isn't a uniform language the Britishers wouldn't be able to understand what the colonist populations were up to and had a risk of being usurped. Rewind back to your classroom, now imagine that the Chinese students start gossiping about how to find a substitute teacher to replace you, and you are none the wiser. This is exactly the same case.

Thus, in conclusion a language helps in empowering a colonial power significantly by allowing them to communicate efficiently with their subjects, whilst staying aware of the "devious" plans the people in the colonies might be up to.

YouTube Stars - Empowered or Exploited?

YouTube Blog Post

Do you believe that today's YouTube stars are being exploited or empowered? Write a short persuasive piece that shares your opinion.


In a world where virtual Facebook likes and Instagram followers make a a person rejoice and dictate "popularity", a world in which newspapers have become almost non existent -pushed aside by Facebook news feeds - and a world where 80% of the world's population has access to the internet : technology is key. A video sharing website called YouTube, has arisen to be one of the most popular choices for the youth of today where almost half a million YouTube videos are posted daily and 100 million people a day view a YouTube video. As like any industry in the world, there have been some people which have entertained the audience better than others - YouTube stars.


YouTube stars such as KSI, Pewdie Pie and Superwoman rake several million "subscribers" and each respectively have a net billion views to their names. Some would argue that due to the severely pessimistic society we live in today, the negative comments received by these YouTube stars, somehow exploit them and have a negative effect on them, but I am here to argue otherwise. YouTube stars are in fact empowered by the marvelous platform o and the video sharing website is a huge blessing for every single one of them. I say this because of three reasons : like minded fans,YouTube being an equalizer (may sound confusing now, but just hold on) and career possibilities.

Point numéro uno - like minded fans. For all my YouTube whiz's I'll just mention one name and I'll rest my case : "Tyler Oakley". (Stubborn YouTube haters continue reading) Tyler Oakley, is a homosexual gay individual who used to get bullied ten years back due to his sexuality, along comes YouTube and now you find the man has a fan following of 8 million subscribers and gets mobbed for autographs as soon as he walks into the mall! Magic? Nope, well sort off. At the mere age of 16 ( when Tyler was getting bullied) he decided to try out the mystical world of YouTube and started posting about his homosexuality and made humorous videos around it. Unlike his local high school, instead of receiving hate from the local goons , Tyler received massive support from like minded individuals which felt they had a real connection with him, often leaving positive comments. Thus, not only does YouTube provide viewers but it also provides people who can connect and support the Youtube stars.

Point numero dos - YouTube being an equalizer. In countries such as USA and India, with almost every second teen wanting to be the next Brad Pitt or Sharukh Khan, entry into overbanged entertainment industry is close to impossible. From personal stories and experience in India i can tell you that to even get an audition in India, you need to be the son/daughter of an actor/director or you need to know somebody that knows somebody and get in through personal/political influence. The average aspiring Indian has no place to showcase their talent and get a shot at the big leagues, however YouTube has a fix for that as well. YouTube, is accessible to the anybody and everybody meaning that every aspiring entertainer has a place to showcase their talent regardless of their wealth or status. (Hopefully the entertainer has access to Wifi). Thus, YouTube also serves to be an equaliser for your average income entertainer and creates a level playing ground, with no scope for any political or income influence being exercised since every YouTube account has the same prowess.

Point numéro très - Career possibilities. If, the average joe from the paragraph above, manages to make it big, his/her life may be on the verge of flipping 360 degrees. In order to give you an  example let introduce you to Jayjay Oblitumze aka KSI - to his 13 million YouTube subscribers. JJ's family started in a two bedroom shack in the suburbs of London, but after YouTube, JJ has bought a 6 bed mansion in London for himself and his family and even added a Lamborghini to his collection of cars. (His brother also a YouTube star recently purchased one). No, this isn't some fraud google ad, this is in fact the power of YouTube. After starting his channel,  Rule Em Sports decide to sign him as their brand ambassador, Redbull/Nike/FIFA and Xbox all hired him to promote their brands in his videos and most recently he walked the red carpet at the premiere of his new film. Oh and don't forget he makes money of YouTube every time you watch one of his videos. JJ managed to achieve his dream of being an entertainer and managed to switch his family's life around as well. However this is just the story of one actor, there are thousands of stories of sports stars, cooking whizzes and endless talented individuals who have been scouted through YouTube (Freestyle Brothers and even the "much loved" Justin Bieber). Thus not only does Youtube provide emotional empowerment it provide financial empowerment as well.


In conclusion, the several pros's of being a YouTube star such as the emotional and financial empowerment (who doesn't want a lambo) it provides certainly outweigh the cons. Couple this with the fact, it acts as an equalizer for your average Joe with big aspirations , the benefits of YouTube are tremendous for the people which make it big. Like everything else in life, there will always be anomalies like people who comment negatively on the stars videos but remember ...

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger!

(or just disable comments on the video)

Advertisement Reflection

Do you think that advertisers have a moral duty to avoid stereotyping people?

No, I don't think that advertisers have a moral duty to avoid stereotyping people because it defies the whole purpose of its own existence. Advertising, is said to be a method of persuasion, usually with the end goal of convincing a person to buy a good or a service; it is supposed to help companies, events and etc., be known to the people and the sole purpose is to sell their product. In this day and age, sometimes by inculcating stereotypes, that is how the product gets sold. Stereotypes are just another type of appeal to the consumers! A moral duty occurs in the instance of differentiating the right choice from the wrong one, however in this case advertising is what puts the food on the plate for many individuals that partake in it, since that is how their product will get known. From their point of view, stereotyping may be the correct way to approach creating the advert because it will reach out the "majority" of the target audience, thus maximizing revenue and if a few "minorities" are offended, that is of no matter since their end goal is to sell as much of the product as possible. Stereotypes help in doing this because it helps the target audience with something they are familiar with, for example in India the ads may showcase women as the house-makers with the inherent responsibility of taking care of the cooking and cleaning. This may seem very wrong to a western culture such as U.S, but they don't realize that in India 80% of the bread earners of families are males, so the advertisers are just doing their duty to capture and relate to as large of a target audience as they can. In an American Society, 50% of the bread earners of the families are Women, and since this is the case adverts over there seem to be more "liberal" and "modern". Thus, stereotyping is just the reflection of the society the advertisers are in, and is bound to receive some negative flak from the minorities.

Moreover, nowadays anything shown on T.V has some sort of negative connotation and as hard as it is to accept it, us millennia generation humans somehow manage to find some racism or some minority being exploited in each advertisement. Thus, meaning that whatever the advertisers do to avoid negative connotations is fruitless. Like the saying goes "You can't please everyone". For example, recently in India Pakistani actors and actresses were banned from acting in India. This meant all the ads they featured in had to be taken down. Some people in India, said that this move was fantastic and it serves the Pakistani's right for the constant trouble they cause at the border, whereas other argued it was unrighteous to ban the actors on behalf of the wrongdoings of a country. Like everything in life, people will always have their opinions so it is better for advertisers to do what is in their benefit, because whatever they do will unduly receive some sort of criticism.

Moreover, stereotypes can also be positive . For example, the fact that Asians are always stereotyped as being smart could mean a positive thing, Black People are associated with eating chicken, Indians are associated with becoming Engineers/Doctors and British people are associated with being sophisticated and liking tea. This proves that not all stereotyping is "negative" and in most cases even harmless.

In conclusion, going all the way to say that advertisers have a "moral" duty, is highly appalling and unrealistic in this day and age. The argument against young children, being influenced by the stereotypical ads they see is valid, however as mentioned not all stereotypes are derogatory. The advertisers have no real "moral" duty as they are trying to capture the greatest target audience they can, and instead the better sense of the humans should influence their thoughts.  Instead of giving corporates a sense of morality, instead we should combat stereotyping by the values that we humans have ourselves, The education and values we receive should give us the better sense that not all

Asians like noodles and Indians speak in a funny accent.