The Terminator 2: Judgment Day

One of the first things I notice about the movie Terminator 2: Judgment Day, is the dark and rugged setting of the majority of places in which the movie takes place. It seems to set the stage for that apocalyptic nuclear explosion in which machines destroy mankind in that it seems that humans have differentiated themselves with each other and their surroundings. A world where emotionless creations become creators seems to eliminate or in this case “terminate” the need for creators bound by the restrictions and limitations of emotions. A world without emotions is a world without aesthetics, ergo this dark and rugged setting seems to be quite appropriate for the movie.

There is a lot of similarities between the character of the Terminator and the deterioration of human as a means of exploitation and capital that many of the authors that we have studied have described. The first time we see the Terminator, is when he appears fully naked in the current time period after traveling from the future.  This suggests that society in the future is devoid of humility and perhaps other emotional or human qualities. The Terminator represents everything that an employer would want in an employee, in that he is completely indifferent to his orders and he does as he is told. This only suggests that the world in the future is one where skill and work are no longer related when it comes to human jobs. The society must be completely dependent on a specific purpose – work.

In fact, the futuristic society described in the movie is controlled by machines, meaning the bosses are machines that are also indifferent to their roles. A world where every object or person is indifferent to its role is a world without purpose at all. An apocalypse or nuclear explosion really makes no difference in a world without emotion or meaning, which is why Sarah and John Conner need to make sure it doesn’t reach that point. 

Father's Exclusion - Ragtime by E.L. Doctorow

            In E.L. Doctorow’s novel Ragtime, the character, Father, represents one of the most metaphorical roles in the story. Father is a representation of many upper middle class, traditional members of American society in the era in which Ragtime takes places. After his return from the Arctic, he feels completed isolated and excluded from his family. His son had matured greatly and his wife had developed a strong sense of independence by taking over the families economic and business affairs. We see Father’s lack of belonging when he looks at himself in the new mirror in the bathroom. He sees a lonely man without place and self—and this depresses him. Father was born into an upper class family and attended Harvard University, helping him become very successful in a fireworks company.

            We see a sense of Father’s exclusion when he attends a baseball game with his son. He notices there are many foreign players. This is much different than the baseball games he saw when he attended Harvard, which is what he compares these new games to. He bases many of his assumption and views off of stereotypes and we see a sort of bitterness towards change and progressiveness. This helps explain why he hates Coalhouse Walker. Coalhouse represents change and something that is not considered “normal” by traditional American standards. He challenges the assumptions of white people, leading people, like Father, perplexed as to how they should communicate or deal with him. This also represents the resentful attitude that most Americans had towards the mass influx of immigrants at this time. He is somewhat incapable of dealing with or adapting to these changes in society and is emotionally disturbed by his loss of identity within the family.  In many ways, Father is similar to an immigrant. He has nearly no sense of self and belonging and he constantly struggles to adapt this new lifestyle.

Emma Goldman's Role in Ragtime

            As I read E.L. Doctorow’s Ragtime, my first and immediate excitement was due to Emma Goldman presence in the novel. Emma Goldman, one of my personal heroes, plays a crucial role is pointing out the flaws in the lifestyles in many people’s lives, specifically Evelyn Nesbit. Historically known as an anarchist and avid social and political activist, it was ideal for Doctorow to use a woman such Goldman to point out the flaws of an upper class woman.

Goldman fulfills her label as a “lion” and “rebel women” when she criticizes Evelyn for living a life of lies that focuses on the satisfaction of men and a capitalist society. Goldman states that Evelyn is a “creature of capitalism” and calls Evelyn’s beauty “false, cold, and useless.” We also see this powerfully feminist perspective when Goldman tells Evelyn that she should not wear a tight and uncomfortable corset. We must also take into account that Evelyn did not originally come from an upper class background. Goldman notices this and states that not only does Evelyn live to satisfy men, but she uses her sexual power to gain rank and rise as a capitalist. She states this at a social meeting in front of others, which leads to Tateh looking at her with disdain. However, while Goldman constantly condemns Evelyn, she also uses a sort of appeal with Evelyn by stating that they are not completely different in that they have both gone through the experience of having their men in prison.

Goldman and perhaps Doctorow believe that women should not live their lives in a manner that satisfies that sexual appeal of men, but that they should live in the manner that nature intends. Not only is Goldman a feminist, she is also an anarchist. Doctorow’s utilization of Emma Goldman is not just intended to criticize the patriarchal characteristics of the time, but also the hypocrisy of capitalist principles in the society. 

Critique of Hank's True Character - A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court

The main character in Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Hank, is a pragmatic and opportunistic Northerner who has a relevantly strong sense of right and wrong. As the most intelligent and responsible person in the time period in which he unexplainably falls into, he takes it upon himself to alter a medieval society into a sort of “people’s community”.

While Hank seems to have good intentions, there seems to be some sort of discreet flaw in the manner in which he implements his revolutionary ideals.  One of his first discrepancies is his critical perspective of the Church and their methods of control over the people. He criticizes the fact that many people in power have not earned their roles in power but essentially neither has he. He luckily fell into a world where he happened to be the most intelligent person.

As an opportunist he had to invent reasons as to why he should have power. He justified his authority through his belief that he had a better understanding of the medieval people than they did themselves. While his assumption may not be wrong, he essentially gains power in the same way that the Church does. Like the Church, he states that his influence is what will benefit the society the most. The issue is not whether or not he is wrong in his belief, but it is that he criticizes a modus operandi that he utilizes himself.

One of the more disturbing parts in the novel is when Hank essentially enslaved a hermit to do five years of work. His reasoning being that working is what the hermit did his entire life and that Hank was putting his work to better use. He took advantage of the fact that the hermit knew no better than to just work without pay, and Hank said that he would never force him to work. While that may be the case, essentially the hermit knew no better and was crudely manipulated by Hank. This event along with Hank’s unwillingness to put a stop to slavery when he saw Pilgrims mercilessly beating their slaves leads me to believe in whether or not he is true in his democratic or humane ideals. I feel that if he implemented his ultimate goal of a capitalist society, wage slavery would most definitely be a problem if it promotes technological advancement.

Engineers and the New South Creed: The Formation and Early Development of Georgia Tech

As I read this interesting paper by James E. Brittain and Robert C. McMath Jr., my immediate reaction was in response to the disturbing elitism behind the formation of Georgia Tech. The “new south creed” referring to the economic, social, and moral adaptation of the south to northern progress in the aftermath of the Civil War, was intended to let the south rise up to the industrial capacity of the north. In my view, the elite class in the south could find no better way to do this than to create a specialized working class via a “shop culture” school. Robert H. Thurston clearly defines the ideal method of achieving this goal by establishing the importance of manual labor and defining the distinctions between two classes – “those brilliant of intellect” and those of “constructive faculty”.
The elite “believed” that this new system would bridge the gap between classes whereas I disagree completely. Personally, I see Thurston and others intending to avoid the traditional “school culture” by implementing a “shop culture” method in which they could avoid the dangers of an educated working class. The statement that “the heads are in Athens and the hands are in Atlanta” implies that those going to Athens are to be the bosses and those going to Atlanta are meant to be the workers, or proletariat if you will. This specialized working class can increase economic efficiency and income for the elite while they do less labor for more money.
I personally believe that those establishing Georgia Tech really did not have the best interests of Georgians at heart, but rather their own interests. Fortunately for them, with their success came an apparent success of the community as a whole. In my view, this is bold of the elite in that they are raising the standards of the community as a whole, thus raising the expectation of the workers. In the eyes of the elite, this could possibly lead to an unwanted sort of “class consciousness” of the working class that could lead problems in that workers will wonder why they are not as successful and why the “if you work hard it will pay off mentality” has not yet presented itself. The elite made smart decision to focus on a “shop” school, which most certainly played a role in inhibiting this realization.