Discussion n. 6 *CHRIST IN CONCRETE*

Look into your notes and the book. Post a quotation from the book verbatim then tell us why this made a particular impression on you.

You may want to relate it to your insight into the pain of one of the characters, or the desolate situation Annuziata and her family are facing.

Or, more generally, you may want to focus on an implicit commentary on social justice and the lack thereof.

COMMENT and REPLY TO AT LEAST A COMMENT BY A CLASSMATE.

Discussion n. 5 *THE ITALIAN*

This is quite a jump from *SON OF ITALY*.

In The Italian we observe the representation of the first form of integration into society: while Pascal was single, isolated, almost an atom floating unbound, here we have the molecule of organized society, the family.

Pascal ran away from the Italian nightmare. Beppo came with a dream, a solid goal and a plan to reach it.

Pascal is not seeking connections with the world around himself (like the vampire). Beppo gets entangled with Corrigan.  Is the common message that they are both rejected by America?

Discussion n. 4 *SON OF ITALY*

One typical image/trope is missing in Pascal's reminiscing of his journey to America: the Statue of Liberty.

Discard the rationalizations such as, he was sick below deck and couldn't see it. It was foggy. They arrived in the night (no ship would enter port at night).

So, there must be some kind of reason. Did he forget the moment? Hard to believe.

What else could it possibly mean?

Discussion n. 3 *SON OF ITALY*

The most memorable character in this book, aside from Pascal himself, is the Vampire.

Why is she such a formidable presence?  What was your initial take when she first appeared, and what kind of lingering sensation did she leave in you after you finished the book?

What kind of thoughts did her condition and fate wake up in you?

Is Pascal really like her once he arrives in the U.S.?

Discussion 2 due Sat July 30

COMMENTS

 

1) Check the two previous postings and leave your comments. (Required)

 

2) Comment to this posting:

 

a different use of the term TRIBE and TRIBAL.

 

This article is from Paul Krugman, Nobel Price for Economics, columnist of the NYTimes, and, after leaving Princeton U, professor of Economics at the CUNY Grad Center. (*It's so cool I can call a Nobel laureate, 'CUNY colleague'.)

 

He is also one of the most respected political commentators on the scene.

 

What do you make of his use of the term TRIBAL with a negative connotation?

We are not arguing here whether HIS use of the word is right or wrong.

The issue is the flexibility of the term TRIBE, its semantic value: it can be used to imply negative or positive values.

 

Does it make it a loaded and therefore risky term to use?

 

You are a small but very smart group of students. You can engage in a serious discussion on this seemingly small and irrelevant issue. Irrelevant for others, maybe, but not irrelevant for us.

Here is the LINK

My pick (July 18 assignment)

Please COMMENT after reading this:

"

Father Guido Sarducci made a very smart and funny skit on college. He took something that is overwhelmingly inevitable in many people’s lives and gave us something to laugh about. I think he didn’t completely factor in the other benefits there are to going to college. There is a mixed social atmosphere that we don’t really gain in other areas/aspects of our lives. We are exposed to different forms of ideas and other people as well as their opinions. There are things that we gain from our college experience, both inside and outside of the classroom that can not only change our perspective but stay with us for the rest of our lives. 

"

To secure anonymity, the author should add his/her comment as if it were written by someone else.

Response to Discussion 1

1) It was a very interesting exchange. The issue of whether tribal identification could be cause for further division in society is very problematic. On the other hand, multiculturalism and diversity depend on the concept of difference.

2) When I teach this course in face-to-face format, I show two powerpoint presentations: one with current very offensive cartoons about Mexican immigrants; the second with the most vile representations of President Obama and - by extension - of African Americans.

In the context of a lecture where I can explain the reason for showing such extreme and hurtful images, I feel I can convey the right message and elicit the collective response of the class. It is sometimes traumatic but it helps bring us together.

I refrain from showing those images in the online course because I don't want to upload materials that could be found by the wrong people and misused. I know the net,  it is not a secure place in any of its incarnations,and I don't want to contribute - even unwillingly -- to the diffusion of putrid racism.
In a way it's a loss for us, because this group seems to be the ideal audience for a serious semiotic analysis of those images' content.

Discussion n. 1: Due July 18

COMMENT:

what single aspect or piece of information grabbed your attention the most from lecture one.

Why did you choose that particular issue?

REPLY.  Reply to each of your classmates. Avoid the usual "I agree" etc. Just tell them what you think of their picks.