Momma’s Decision in I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

For every child being raised in the foster care system, nearly twenty five children are being cared for by grandparents, who supply their basic needs. Maya Angelou and Bailey Johnson are included in that group, because from a young age Momma, their grandmother, took care When it comes to making difficult decisions Momma always seem to make the right ones, including the choice to send her grandchildren to San Francisco. In I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings , an autobiography by Maya Angelou writes that â€Å"In San Francisco, for the first time, perceived myself as part of something† (179). In this quote Maya Angelou describes her overall feelings on the topic of San Francisco and how it changed her life for the better. As a result of Momma choosing the correct path for Angelou and Bailey, they gained freedom, escaped a racist environment in Stamps, Arkansas, and were guaranteed a little bit more protection in San Francisco. As a result of the size of Stamps, and the people tha t inhabited the town, there was very little you could do without the whole town knowing. Throughout Maya Angelou’s and Bailey’s childhood they were constantly limited by the narrow-minded town and in San Francisco they gained the freedom to expand their minds. In San Francisco they left Momma’s disciplined ways and benefited from Vivian’s laid back ways. Considering this independence that they children were given, they reacted well and due to it, they realized who they were as a person and were able toShow MoreRelatedMaya Angelou’s Unique Self Essay2562 Words   |  11 Pages p.20). In Maya Angelou’s autobiography, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, she recounts her early years as a young girl growing up in Stamps, Arkansas who faces displacement, trauma, and prejudice. It is through her character and artistic expression that she is able to overcome the trauma of her childhood and evolve into the distinguished and unique individual that has captivated millions through literature. In her book, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, Angelou reflects on the impact that her childhoodRead MoreReview Of I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings 1553 Words   |  7 Pagesnovel â€Å"I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings† by: Maya Angelou, she illustrates Marguerite combating society from a disadvantaged position. Set in the United States during the time of racism and segregation towards the black community, the novel displays the contrast in Maya’s upbringing in Stamps, St. Louis to San Francisco and her constantly changing development and maturity in herself through h er effectiveness to conquer difficult situations. Maya Angelou uses symbolism in the form of the caged bird toRead MoreI Know Why the Caged Bird Sings - Maya Angelou6502 Words   |  27 PagesAnalysis: Chapters 1–5 The lines from the poem Maya cannot finish, â€Å"What are you looking at me for? I didn’t come to stay . . .† capture two of the most significant issues she struggles with in her childhood and young adulthood: feeling ugly and awkward and never feeling attached to one place. First, Maya imagines that though people judge her unfairly by her awkward looks, they will be surprised one day when her true self emerges. At the time, she hopes that she will emerge as if in a fairy-taleRead MoreSummary Of Maya Angelous I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings1363 Words   |  6 Pageswhich focused primarily on her childhood. The three generations Angelou portrays in I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings--Mommas, her parents, and her own--represent the diversity of progressive outlooks and, despite their obvious divides on accepting circumstances through generational respite from direct slavery, Maya’s generation was the only one remotely capable of enacting real change. A prominent member of Momma’s generation, Booker T. Washington was just eight years old when slavery was abolished

A Brief Note On The Name Of A Matriarchy The American...

Swari Patel Dr. Natalia Imperatori-Lee Rels 390 10/30/14 â€Å"Inequality in the name of a Matriarchy: The American Woman and Modern Feminism† â€Å"I think every woman in our culture is a feminist. They may refuse to articulate it, but if you were to take any woman back 40 years and say ‘Is that the world you want to live in?’ they’d say no.† said a woman herself. The fight for women’s’ rights in America over the past decades has challenged existing gender stereotypes and power dynamics in the socio-economic sphere of our culture. The fight then was for equal rights. It challenged the school of thought that women can only be truly happy and fulfilled through marriage and motherhood. Women were in dire need to be recognized as citizens†¦show more content†¦This group of radical modern feminists’ interpretation of feminism in comparison to the true essence of the movement as it first came about decades ago is no longer the same because now it’s not about asserting power in relation to, its about asserting power over. The true meaning of feminism has been diluted in the attempt to shift the power dynamic from a patriarchal to a matriarchal society. Feminism is perceived to be negative because radical feminists have linked it synonymously with man hating. To be a feminist now means to hate the male sex, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Therefore, it is crucial for the American woman to reject the philosophy of radical modern feminists, to fully grasp what feminism really is. To understand just how the wave of feminism today contrasts the movement in the past decades, it is necessary to get a perspective on what social constructs against women lead to the women’s rights movement in the first place. Historical overview is essential in solidifying the overarching principles of the movement when it began. As exemplified by Farley’s texts on â€Å"Just Love†, women have long been viewed as property and not as citizens. Several cultures and traditions allowed the husbands to be the aggressors in a marriage, and in relation, made the wife submissive. The aim of marriage was procreation and compulsory motherhood. It was the duty

In this piece of coursework I will be comparing two different films based on William Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet to the original text Essay Example For Students

In this piece of coursework I will be comparing two different films based on William Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet to the original text Essay I will first introduce the two different films: 1. Baz Luhrman version this version is set in modern times, in a large city, Verona. The language is Shakespearian but everything else has been converted to modern style. 2. Franco Zefferreli This is set in medieval times. Most things are as the original text. It seems like a Greek or Italian city, however it is still Verona. At the start of the films, there are prologues that attempt to tell you what is happening. In the modern, Luhrman version, a news reporter on a television against a black background does this, however in the Zefferelli version, the prologue is told as the credits and title is shown. The speaker is not seen, and the voice is coming from the background, the speech is in an old style. In addition, the Luhrman version has a series of scenes that explain and show to the viewers who the different characters in the film are, also in these scenes it repeats a section of the prologue in text and speech accompanied by fast paced, classical music. In the original text, there are 14 lines of text in the prologue, however, in the films prologue, the Luhrman version cuts down the lines to only 12 when the TV reporter is speaking it, and then cuts it down to 9 during the action scenes in the civil brawls, so it ends at A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life. The Zefferelli version, during its prologue stops at line 8 which is, doth with their death bury parents strife, therefore i t may be that in this film, the emphasis on whose fault it was that Romeo and Juliet died is on the parents. After the prologue, the two films move onto Act 1 Scene 1. In the Luhrman version, the scene is started when it shows the Montague boys in a car going down a road. The speech is cut and it starts the scene at line 7. However, in this version, it is the Montagues that are shown first, whereas in the original text it is the Capulet. Therefore, instead of the men saying, A dog of the house of Montagues moves me, they say, A dog of the house of Capulet moves me. The Zefferelli version follows the text more closely. The scene is set in a market place with the Capulets walking along and the speech starts from the original starting point. I think that the Luhrman version has a much better introduction to the film than the Zefferelli. The mix of the TV reporter, the flashing text along with the speech and the racing classical music during the action scenes is very eye catching and makes you want to see the rest of the film. In the original text, the production is set in fair Verona, an old style Italian setting, which means white houses, vines etc. The Luhrman production sets the scene in fair Verona. However, this setting is very different from the original text. There are tall rectangular buildings and skyscrapers, mainly metallic colours around. The actual scene begins in a petrol station as opposed to a market place in the original text. There arent many people visible, most of the people that are shown are the characters for that scene. However, there are quite a few cars. The section is mainly set in the petrol station, therefore there are many petrol pumps and light colours. The Zefferelli version follows the text much more closely. The setting and scene are set in an old style Italian or Greek market place with lots of people around. There are many bright colours and many different objects. There are food stalls with multicoloured foods, and merchants and people walking around. The emphasis in this scene from the original ext is that its a busy marketplace with many people. The Zefferelli version shows that clearly to the viewer, however the Luhrman version has completely changed it. There are only a few people, most of whom are the main characters and it is set in a completely different location. The very first line in the prologue says two households, both alike in dignity. He is trying to tell us that these two are the same in nearly all respects and that they hold a grudge. Like fighting fire with fire, two equal sides fighting. However, the films are different in some respects. The Luhrman represents the Montagues first as a group of unlawful and trouble causing. This is shown with them driving down the road in a relaxed kind of fashion and screaming out of the car, also in their clothing. They are wearing colourfull hawaian clothes. In addition, in the petrol station they show immature symbolism. However, the immaturity turns to fear and anxiety when they see the Capulets. The Capulets in this film are portrayed as smart dressing, tough and strong people but who also have a taste for violence and are quite religious (this is seen when Tybalt takes off his coat and an image of Christ is on his shirt). The Capulets are acting as though the own the place. They walk around without a care. This can be shown when Tybalt drops his cigar in the petrol station, even though everyone knows that it can cause an explosion. The Zefferelli version however is the exact opposite. The Capulets in this are very childish like, think very highly of themselves and are very offensive to the mantagues and it is they who start the fight. The Montagues are very mature like and ignore the threats from the Capulets to a certain point. The Capulets are dressed in jester type clothes of red and yellow, whereas the Montagues are in a green and blue type of clothing. This is a point where we can see that the Capulets are portrayed as jesters. Twelfth Night Report EssayThe Capulets however, are wearing red and yellow clothes. Their clothes almost look like a jesters costume, which represents their foolish and childish attitudes. Their body language is very relaxed and they are always playing practical jokes on other people. The initial impression the viewer gets of the Capulets is that they are very immature and think that life is a big joke. This is shown when the people around them move away, and they seem to get a lot of angry faces. They dont talk to the towns people either, but only among themselves. They are always mocking the Montagues, but when they are told to draw their swords, they are very reluctant to fight and would rather run away. I think that Luhrman represents the characters the best because of the way he really brings out the personality of each character. He shows the different aspects and qualities of each character. He fully shows that which people are parts of which families. A good effect is when they have the family crests on the bottom of the guns. In the Luhrman version the Prince is portrayed as a Police Chief. He is seen in a helicopter above Benvolio and Tybalt, forcing them to put their weapons to the ground. The Prince is using lots of modern vehicles and weapons to make them drop their guns; this helps to state his importance in the city to the viewer. It shows that he has a very large arsenal at his command and that many people support him. The Montague family look quite shocked that their sons have started another fight. It seems like they want to go and sort it out and make sure that there is nothing said about their household. The Capulets react in the same way, by wanting to sort it out. The head of the Capulet even reaches for his gun in order to sort it out. When the two families are being talked to by the Prince they both seem to be trying to blame the other household. In the Zefferelli version the Prince of the City represents the Prince. You see him ride into view, riding a horse, at the same time royal type of music is played. This portrays his importance. The prince has several soldiers around him suggesting that he is a very powerful person in the city. He speaks with a loud and angry voice and combined with his position in the city, makes them listen. In the Zefferelli version both the leaders of the two sides start fighting along with their household servants, this is the opposite to the Luhrman version where it rally only seems like Benvolio and Tybalt are fighting I think that the Luhrman version represents the Prince better. This is because he sounds very forceful, and in the text his speech makes the image that he is a very harsh type of character. This is clearly shown when he is seen shouting from the helicopter. He shouts very loudly and says, That quench the fire of your pernicious rage, with purple fountains issuing from your veins: On pain of torture, from those bloody hands, throw your mistempered weapons to the ground. In the Luhrman version Romeo is quite an innocent character. He is dressed in smart but casual clothes, which shows his attitude towards life and his surroundings. The first time that we see him there is soft and slow music playing, suggesting to us that he is friendly. The viewer then sees a scene of him sitting by the sea and writing poetry. This helps to emphasize his non-violent nature. Romeos demeanour tells us that he is the kind of person that has no troubles in the world, he is an easygoing sort of person who likes relaxing. He has a very calm and noble personality. He seems to like being alone and is the kind of person that everyone is a friend with. His relationship with Benvolio is quite strong as they are cousins. You can clearly see that Romeo is not happy with all the Fights Benvolio gets involved in, this can be shown when he says o me! What fray was here? after he sees his cousin on TV with his weapon raised. In the Zefferelli version Romeo is again quite an innocent character. He is wearing different clothes to the other Montagues; his clothes are less classy in comparison to theirs. He is also holding a flower, which shows his good nature and intentions. The way in which he enters the film gives the viewer the impression that he is feeling depressed. His demeanour is that he is a person with little on his mind. His relationship with Benvolio is not as strong as it is in the Luhrman version. This is possibly because he doesnt like violence and therefore tries to limit his time with Benvolio, who seems to be a slightly more violent character. We can see how upset he gets when he sees the injured citizen. I think that the Zefferelli version is the best at representing Romeo as a character. This is because he makes him much more innocent and seem more affected by his life so far, than in the Luhrman version. I think that overall, the Zefferelli version has followed the text more closely during Act 1 Scene 1, and in doing so has emphasized the points that Shakespeare wanted emphasized. However, the Luhrman version is aimed at the modern young teenager, and is set to suit their tastes. It has been completely re-structured in regards to setting and costumes.

Inscriptions on a Stone Throne free essay sample

Throne Inscribed on the side of Axum’s throne states the tale of how the Axumite Empire conquered the surrounding lands. This inscription is in honor of the Greek god, Ares; the god of warfare and slaughter. Axum honors Ares by in detail describing how they went from village to village conquering them. Axum went into detail describing his army’s forceful ways of attacking the tribes, whether it was bombarding or blockading Axum was always successful. Axum’s devotion to praising the gods who blessed him with his empire goes to show Dr.Browns message of how people tie together the beliefs of life, natural, and the spiritual world. Axum believes in the Greek gods and therefore gives credit to them for his successful warfare. Axum does not take credit of his own or for his army but gives it to the gods; showing his true devotion. Also, he consecrates his throne in the name of Ares to show his deep gratitude. We will write a custom essay sample on Inscriptions on a Stone Throne or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page This article shows a lot about the Axumite Empire. From the descriptions of the lands they conquered, shows there location. It also shows what kind of people they are, by there determination and ways of being able to fight in any climate (i. . the mountain snows, the desert valley. All of this proves what a good leader Axum must be for his people to follow him and fight for him. Also his location and deep beliefs in the Greek gods show how one cultures ways can get moved around the world through warfare. Axum was not in Greece but lived in land that was once part of a Grecian empire to have spread the beliefs of the Greek gods. Also, by Axum spreading his empire he was spreading the culture of his people and also of the Greek descents.