Savarkar

Savarkar talks about how the causes of the Indian revolutionary war in 1857 were misrepresented. This seems to be a common thing in wars; what appears to be a feeble cause often overshadows the real cause(s). Savarkar does not mention this in the excerpt we're reading, but I wonder what the result of the war of 1857 was. Did they succeed, was the war still going on when he was writing the book, or does the result not matter? Maybe he thought that the idea of thousands of Indians sacrificing their lives for love of their religion was a feat in itself. It also made me wonder what things we didn't learn in school about American history. There's a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" that explains the actual history and America, and didn't overlook the brutality of the origins of the country.

Vinayak Blog

I will focus on the passage on page 224 that starts out with "For, things to matter more than their names..."

I found this article very interesting soley on the fact that it had to do with names. When one things of their own name, nothing more but a mere "i wonder what that means" comes to mind. However, in the mind of Vinayak, he searched for not only the meaning, which he found, but he was able to discover the historical and political background of the name "Vinayak. On page 224 he even states, "the spirit of Savarkar' was now living through me and, by extension through the doesn hundreds of other Vinayaks." This caught my attention because i think back to how other King's and Queens named their boys the same name as their ancestors (ie: King Charles I,II,III..etc). Perhaps they wanted a legacy, but to Vinayak, his name was given more meaning. He even says in the beginning of the article that in the Indian culture it is imperative to name a child later on in their life so that it could match their personality. In the American culture, parents name their children even before they are born without any regard to how their child will "fit into" their name. I guess in a way the spirit of Savarkar can be living through Vinayak because of his name. However, i still believe a name is just a name unless you make something of it. If someone was to name a child Gandhi, it does not automatically mean that Gandhi lives through that child, unless the child were to carry on the teachings and beliefs of Gandhi. This article pretty much made me realize that maybe i should think more about the background and meaning behind the name of my child (i will LATER on have in the future) rather than naming him/her something that is just popular at that time.

Vinayak and Names

The origins of a name can be extremely important. After reading the article Vinayak Chaturvedi wrote, i came to the realization that names have so much significance behind them. Vinayak was able to write an entire article as to how he came to discover the history behind his name. "It is a common practice in India for families to wait several years before giving formal names to children..." (Chaturvedi 213) I believe this is almost a sad thing. The explanation given for this is the fact that children sometimes did not survive long enough, so the name would not be wasted on them? It appears that naming is somewhat of an important practice because it is meant to describe the person's personality in India. Later on in the article, it is mentioned that the family name usually describes the person's family history. I think this is a very interesting idea and i believe that this is true for some asian countries as well. The fact that a person can judge you and be correct based on your name solely, is somewhat eerie.
Perhaps the most startling point in the article is when the Parchure's personal family affairs are revealed. When i read the section about Upendra Parchure's abusive nature, it came as quite a shock to me. In the world we live today, such dealings are somewhat "hush hush" and not much is publicly claimed. The connection that is made in the article about how Dr. Parchure's violent nature in the home related to the violent nature towards the outside world was one of the most interesting parts of the article.

Missing Savarkar Blog

Although it is pretty evident that Gandhi favored protest in the form of passive resistance and Savarkar’s views differ from those of Gandhi, I don’t believe that Savarkar enjoys witnessing bloodshed or employing violence blindly. Savarkar strongly believes that the causes of revolutions and wars must be examined; he continues to state that “a revolutionary movement cannot be based on flimsy and momentary grievance,” which illustrates that Savarkar’s views on violent resistance aren’t black and white (205). Further evidence cementing this idea appears when Savarkar states that “people think lightly of shedding sacred human blood” (206). It is apparent that he values humanity and believes that violence and war should only be used as a last resort, after careful contemplation of the causes. According to Savarkar, these causes are often omitted by “partial and prejudiced historians” and make for an insignificant and incomplete historical account (206). Furthermore, his views on Swadharma (that we defined in class as love of one’s religion) and Swaraj (love of one’s country) are similar to those of Gandhi. He believes that they complement each other and each is necessary for the other’s existence. I personally believe that Swaraj, which I interpreted as patriotism, is the means by which people can protect their Swadharma, which I interpreted as religious devoutness. The passage that I believe supports this view starts when Savarkar deems Swaraj “the sword of material power [that] should always be ready drawn for our object. […] our safety is the other world, Swadharma” (209).

New Topic, New AB: Dorothea Lange

Topic (Roughly):
How the documentary photographs of Dorothea Lange influenced the federal government to take action during the Great Depression. I will be discussing a few specific photographs, including those taken of the Japanese American internment camps (probably). Relates to art and action.

Primary Source:
Photograph "Migrant Mother," taken in 1936.

Thesis/Main Claim of Source:
The photograph is an effective portrayal of a desperate family at a camp during the Great Depression. It sends a message of despondency, and calls for change.

Evidence:
The worried, desperate expression of the mother's face, composition of the photo, information about the actual family portrayed. The woman is Florence Owens Thompson.

Purpose of Source:
To document the plight of migrant worker families during the Great Depression. To evoke emotion in the viewer.

Audience/My Own Purposes:
The audience was the general public. The photo was circulated widely, especially through newspapers. I will use it to analyze its effect on the American public and its status as an iconic photo of American history. I will also talk about how it may have influenced government policy.

Annotated Bibliography of primary source

Judy Chicago's: "The Dinner Party"

Claim: Judy Chicago has been a feminist artist, author, and educator since the mid 1960's. She has been the founder of many art programs that focus on feminist art. Chicago's most famous work is "The Dinner Party" which was created with the help of hundreds of volunteers in an attempt to "[elevate] female achievement in Westernhistory to a heroic scale tradtionally reserved for men."(throughtheflower.org) By analyzing this work of art, I will examine the ways in which art has been affected and influenced by feminism.
Evidence: The primary source for my research paper will be Judy Chicago's "The Dinner Party". Secondary sources will come directly from the organizations website, throughtheflower.org, and from scholary articles and works byJudy Chicago.
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to expose how feminism has played a role in art beginning in the 1960's and the changes throughout the years into contemporary times, such as the recognition that women have gained in a male dominated art world.
Audience: This paper is for those who are looking to see the equality women have gained through public expression,in example Chicago's exhibition, students of humanities core, and feminists.

Week Seven: Assignments

Tuesday May 13
Reading: Vinyak Chaturvedi, "Vinyak and Me" (HCC Course Reader)
Writing: Reading Response Blog (to "Vinyak" or to Still Alive); Annotated Bibliographies due.

Thursday May 15
Reading: Ruth Kluger, Still Alive (begin)
Writing: Discovery Task #6

Requirements of Annotated Bibliographies (10% of essay grade):

• title (tentative title of research paper)
• include at least 8 sources with correct MLA citations and annotated bibliographies of 4 sentences: 1. thesis/claim of author + author credentials; 2. evidence used; 3. purpose; 4. audience/use for your paper.
• a headnote (200-250 words) which should be something close to the annotated bibliography of your primary source (blog)--but you might expand the 4 sentences to include more of the evidence (which should be details from the primary source that you want to analyze) OR to include the 6 C's-like things: content, context, citation, communication, connections, conclusions. This is not yet the prospectus (i.e. your paper proposal/plan, but it is an AB of the primary source (like the captions you did for the Weimar Germany essay last quarter). Your headnote should give the reader the necessary historical information about the primary source and also give the reader a framework for thinking about the primary source by pointing out what the significance of the object is, and what things about it are important for the particular angle you will be taking on it.
• 2-3 refined (but still preliminary) research questions.

Missing Post on Kowalke

I really enjoyed reading the article about Kowalke because he truly valued human life, no matter what happened in the persons life. I really liked his statement about what war is, "War is young men killing other young men they do not know on the orders of old men who know one another too well." This is too true. Look at the Vietnam war, look at the war in Iraq. These wars are perfect examples of the agenda of old men who believe they are right being played out violently by young men who have their whole life ahead of them. These young men's lives are cut short by the blind desires of these old men who are in power because they compromised their own ethics - if they were even there to begin with. Kowalke makes the statement that war is wrong by taking no side - which is the essence of war - and instead respecting all. He is a truly peaceful man.

Savarkar Reading

The aspect of Savarkar's writing that I found most interesting is all the different interpretations of the relationship of Swaraj and Swadharma. It is clear that Swaraj and Swadharma have a different literal meaning but they are being used to achieve the same "end." During our class discussion, we came up with several different interpretations of the "means and the end." I began to wonder which interpretation Savarkar would agree with. For example, on page 210 he states: "Rise for Swadharma and acquire Swaraj." Literally this means that Swadharma is the means and Swaraj is the end. However, in other places in the passage it indicates the opposite. Another interpretation is that Swaraj and Swadharma are both means that lead to a successful Revolution, the end. The one that I agree with most is the last one. On page 208, Savarkar states that the principles for the Revolution are Swadharma and Swaraj. One source that he uses is a statement made by Emperor of Delhi who said that they must protect their religion (Swadharma) and the country (Swaraj). He says that these rights, Swaraj and Swadharma, are give to man by God and man should protect these at any cost. These rights must be returned to the people of Hindustan under any circumstances. These strong believes is what leads Savarkar to taking a violent approach. Contrary to Gandhi, Savarkar believes that passive resistance is not sufficient enough to achieve the end.

Missing Antigone Post

The most striking element of the story of Antigone is Antigone's fervor. In relation to Joseph's article about relevancy, this part of the story is the most irrelevant to today's young culture. I could never imagine standing up for something like that and sacrificing my life. Perhaps this is because I am an only child, though. But I do believe that the values of this western world we live in are differently aligned now than they were in Antigone's time. I believe our world impresses a much more rational, or what could be called selfish, reaction to standing up for what we believe in. In comparison with the extremist Muslim values that the suicide bombers claim, our values do not include self-sacrifice. It is interesting to look at that culture in comparison with Antigone as well. It seems that they are quite similar when it comes to standing up for what is "right;" both value that higher cause much more than human or their own life.

Breakfast at Tiffany's and Fashion

I have decided to change my topic, once again, to researching movies, specifically Breakfast at Tiffany's, and how they have affected fashion and culture.

claim: This movie shows that fashion is a big part of American culture and people enjoy living lavishly. I will show how this movie in particular has affected fashion throughout the decades and possibly created a big advertisement for the jewelry company, Tiffany & Co.

evidence: Throughout the movie, the main character, played by Audrey Hepburn, is dressed in clothes that have a "classic" look, which has inspired a lot of the designs and styles of fashion even after the movie. From her jewelry to her shoes, these pieces can be seen in many of today's stores and high fashion magazines. Another piece of evidence to look at in this movie is the significance of the store Tiffany & Co. It gives the store romantic appeal, which is possibly why people like to give Tiffany's jewelry to their loved ones as gifts.

purpose: The purpose of this movie is to show that people can change from their materialistic lives to falling in love with someone who doesn't have much. In the movie, Audrey Hepburn is basically a gold digger, and in the end, she falls in love with her neighbor who is just a struggling writer and doesn't have much money. But it also shows the significance of material things at the same time because of the store Tiffany's and how that brought them together.

audience: This movie was made in 1961 and was based on a novel by Truman Capote. The audience back then was probably people in their 20s and what not. But today, people of all ages have seen this movie. People see it as a "chick flick" so probably more females watch it. People who are interested in fashion are also a big part of the audience.

I don't know if I did this AB right. =/ I'm hoping I did, since this is my 3rd one. Basically, I want to look at this classic movie having an impact on fashion and make a connection between fashion influencing movies, or movies influencing fashion.

Michael Moore and Politics: Is he saying the truth?

Michael Moore's Films

Claim: Michael Moore's films Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and have exposed people to the problems involved in politics, the health care industry, and gun control. I am going to explore whether his individual claims are true or not/ are found to be valid in each of his movies.

Evidence:
My primary source will be the films. My secondary sources will be critic's receptions and scholarly articles related to the movie. i will also use news stories/events of that time for historical background and to find what event each movie is primarily aiming at.

Purpose:
to find the legitimacy of Moore's claims in his films.
to find if he may have manipulated his claims to rile the public with anger or distrust towards the government
to find the effect of moore's films on the public.

Audience:
Students interested in modern politics and the problems with it
Humanities Core students looking to see a connection between the art of film and actions/movements.
anybody interested in american politics and anybody looking to find ways to improve it.


NOTE: i may choose only one of the films Moore has produced.

Savarkar's Point that Past is Prologue

While reading Savarkar, I thought it was interesting that he emphasizes the importance of knowing history as a means to mediate the future. It reminded me of Shakespeare’s quote, “What’s past is prologue” and its relevancy and universality in application. By understanding the past, it not only decreases the chances of repeating past mistakes, but it also gives a person insight into the importance of the future. If an individual were to learn about his/her family’s past, it would make participation in certain rituals worthwhile. For example, the Jewish tradition of a bar or bat mitzvah is only important if that individual takes the time learn Hebrew and understand the meaning behind the Torah. This mirrors Savarkar’s declaration that, “But without an exposition of the hidden causes and the mysterious forces that worked beneath, the essence of a revolution can never be made plain. And therefore it is that history attaches more importance to the exposition of principles than to mere narrative” (205). Understanding the past is an enabler of action: with that knowledge of history, a defined will and concrete motivation can be used to achieve a particular outcome. Without knowing the history of a nation, wanting change from that former way of life would be insignificant; revolution is only meaningful if people understand the negatives of the past. By knowing the facts of the past, it makes change more significant and worthwhile.

Savarkar Response

I found Savarkar’s writings to be quite interesting compared to that of Ghandi’s. He seems to have the complete opposite views. One of his beliefs that seemed to differ the most is his take on history. Ghandi warned that we focus too much on history and wars instead of peace and passive resistance. Savarkar, on the other hand, advocates the learning of history. He describes the Indian War of Independence as “one of the most neglected corners of our history…” He argues that what English and some Indian historians described as the “Mutiny” was really the beginnings of the War for Indian Independence. He wants the public to be aware of their nations past in order to push towards a future. By creating a common past, Savarkar attempts to unite Indians in a revolutionary future. He states that a “nation should be the master and not the slave of its history.” Savarkar’s views on history seem to be synonymous to the views of today’s historians. They recount history to learn from it for future society. So, whose view is right? Gandhi or Savarkar? That’s something open to debate.

White Noise by Don DeLillo (Consumerism Edited)

Claim: The novel White Noise by Don DeLillo is a revolutionary work that was clearly ahead of its time. My objective is to explore the prevalent themes in the novel including: excessive consumerism, a fear/fascination of death, and the universal obsession with technology.

Evidence: The primary evidence would come from the novel, but secondary sources including scholarly articles and contemporary reviews of the novel could also be useful. My research will also draw connections from other works that we've studied this quarter and throughout the year. Some historical background pinpointing the status of technology in the 1980s might also prove necessary.

Purpose: To closely analyze the significant themes within the novel and connect them to modern society and other novels and plays we have studied. Also, to illustrate the pervasiveness of consumerism and technology and to show the universality and modern relevance the novel still has to this day.

Audience: Those interested in post-modern literature, students of Humanities Core, the average American consumer.

Savarkar

Savarkar's views on history and the Revolution itself are interesting parts to note. For him, it was important to point out that the Revolutionary of 1857 was not an unplanned mutiny of criminals against the British empire, but a movement of nationals fighting for a cause. Savarkar argues that English authors who are writing about these events are "wicked", "partial", and "prejudiced". It is true that English writers would try to not pit blame against their own country, but instead the "rebellious" India that their British empire supposedly has control over. With the articles about India and the rebellion that were written in British newspapers, surely the emphasis was the disobedience of the Indian people. In history, Savarkar believes that the events of the rebellion are not properly stated, and the information is skewed. And in order to fix this delusion, one must speak to those who were actually involved, and state the truth of history and the events as they actually occurred.

Oftentimes people mix up words or statements in order to benefit themselves. They believe that lying would be better than just coming out with the truth. In the case of the Rebellion of 1857, British writers or authority figures probably thought it better to taint the name of the Indian people, and not of their own. I guess I am trying to point out that by hiding your mistakes, you are only bringing about more negativity. With the British Empire's inability to even properly describe the events of the 1857 Rebellion, it would only lead to more and more debate about their rule in India. Those like Gandhi and V.D. Savarkar would not remain silenced, and in fact, would speak out more against the British and India's inability to attain freedom from them.

The Indian War of Independence

I was quite intrigued by the current text that we were assigned to read, as it seems to greatly differ in the approach of a revolution in Indian from the previous text we have read from Gandhi. Both Savarkar and Gandhi wanted to stir up a revolution in India, however Gandhi's whole approach was more peaceful as he practiced passive resistance, while Savarkar's approach seems to be more violent. Savarkar however almost justifies his more aggressive and violent actions by stating that it is a matter of how one views the terminology of those involved in the revolution, such as the mutinees (revolutionaries) and criminals (nationalists), by replacing these terms with more positive and admirable titles, it changes the perspective and meaning of the reading. Savarkar also wanted his writings to be more private while Gandhi wanted his writings to be accessible to all. Savarkar also wanted the public to be knowledgeable in history while Gandhi was not too concerned with such things. I am curious as to which approach to revolution is most effective in accomplishing said goals; essentially violence or non-violence?

Swadharma & Swaraj

Reading the first chapter of The Volcano: Chapter 1, provides much insight into the thought processes put behind the ideas of the Indian Revolution. The main thought that seems to be emphasized is the idea that History, is a rich and important part of the future. Swaraj itself, has the importance of meaning the self and the country. The idea behind this is that you should have pride and love of your own country. This is important because it strengthens your identity and the relationship to your roots. You will be able to find out who you are through loving your country more. The bad idea behind this, however, is that it almost appears to emphasize the sense of extreme nationalism. Usually this is not something to be worried about, but if you look at The Nazis and their nationalism, you see that too much nationalism leads to very negative things. The sense of pride for your own homeland is natural though. Swadharma is more about the self and religion. This is basically the love of your own religion. Spirituality is never a bad thing, it strengthens your identity as well. When you are spiritual, you are connected to the world and have a purpose in life. This purpose ultimately leads to success and growth from within.

The Beatles and Civil Rights (edited)

Claim: For years the Beatles have been seen as revolutionary in their music and actions, and not only have they been popular in their time, but are popular today. I plan to explore the purpose of the Beatles. The Beatles were a symbol of peace ,that had the ability to persuade the public to advocate civil rights through their music.

Evidence: The primary focus will be based upon the songs themselves in both the lyrics themselves and the melody of the songs, specifically speaking for the moment: “Blackbird” (Significance of African American oppression), Revolution (revolutions and their consequences). Other evidence will include books that provide commentary on the Beatles, and their critique of the Beatle’s music. I will also provide historical background from various websites and books, explaining the situation of civil rights as well as interviewing people that lived through this movement.

Purpose: To show how powerful music can be, and the message it conveys to others. Music is simply one way of rebellion, that is non violent but powerful. Lastly to show how much people may rely on iconic figures for guidance, in this case civil rights.

Audience: Those interested in music history, the general public, people interested in the civil right’s moment.

Swadharma and Swaraj

The Volcano, Chapter 1: Swadharma and Swaraj deals with a very true and interesting concept, that of getting your facts straight and staying true to the source. Behind every event, there is an outcome and events leading up to the outcome. Like the Revolutionary War Swadharma and Swaraj speaks of, the outcome of the war is known, but the events leading up to the conclusion are often skewed, biased, or even untold. Therefore the cause of such a Revolution is not fully appreciated or understood unless the events leading up to the conclusion is clearly defined and known. Although some events may have been by accident, they were instrumental for the outcome. Oftentimes, many scenes in movies are created by accident and are unscripted. Oftentimes, the best acting takes place when you wing it or are spontaneous. Directors and filmmakers do not fail to acknowledge this accident, for it worked in their favor. If it did not work in their favor, they may simple redo the scene. This is not the case with a Revolution, you can not simply redo something, therefore all events leading up to the conclusion made an impact on the outcome. Therefore, all events leading up to the Revolution is a part of the Revolution, not just the final outcome.

Swadharma and Swaraj

This article was very interesting because it pointed out the idea that you cannot understand or completely comprehend a subject unless you find its root cause. It parallels itself with the situation of the babies floating down the river in baskets into another village. The village can solve the problem by taking the babies out of the river, or they can see the root cause and travel up the river to the source of the problem.

The first line of the article reads, "It is a simple truism patent even to the uneducated that the most tiny house cannot be built without a foundation strong enough to support its weight". The article is about the real cause of the Revolution. They say it started with the rumor that the soldiers put "pig grease and fat" into their cartridges. It even states, "Did anyone even inquire to see if it was true?" This idea goes with everything in life. If something even on a smaller scale, such as a fight with a friend, starts because of a rumor, then there is no content or stability to base your assumptions on. The fight is therefore meaningless if the truth is not known. Relating to a larger scale, if a war was based on the annexation of Oudh and fat inserted cartridges, but those reasons might not be true, it means that an entire Revolution was based on false assumptions.

I really enjoyed reading this article because it relates to whats happening right now with the Iraq War. People question daily the reasons to why the war started and why we are still in it. To answer this question, we must find a stable foundation to base our assumptions on. We also must look for the root cause of the War, which might even be impossible.

Jay-Z & the "Evils" [edited]

I'm planning on doing my research paper about the possibility that Jay-Z is a Freemason and that he is a "devil worshiper" and what not, as some people like to believe. I really don't believe this myself, but I find it very interesting that people make connections between the symbols and lyrics he uses throughout his career and the symbols that are associated with the Freemason society.

Claim: Jay-Z uses subliminal messages in his music and other aspects of his life and career to "corrupt"? his audience. He is heavily influenced by the Freemason society and the Illuminati. Besides his music, people have made claims that in his clothing line, Roc-a-Wear, there are designs and resemblances to the symbols of the Freemason society. This all leads to the idea of him being "evil." But I will try to prove that it is possibly just a coincidence or that people are basically making things up.

Evidence: One of my sources is the song "D'Evils" off of his first album, aka the best album he's ever made, Reasonable Doubt. =] And other songs like "Lucifer". There are other songs that can also be used to either support or counterargue my claim. I can also use material on the Freemason society itself and compare the two. Along with his music, there are also designs from his clothing line that can be used as evidence.

Purpose: To see if this all makes sense and to possibly prove that it is not true?? To show that Jay-Z is not a devil worshiper. There are some people who were Jay-Z fans before hearing about all this and after watching videos on youtube about his corruption, they have stopped listening to him. Then there are those who either don't believe in it or just don't let it affect what they think about his music and continue to listen to it.

Audience: Hip Hop and Jay-Z fans, listeners of good music. For people who don't know anything about Jay-Z or hip hop, it might be interesting for them to see how different things influence artists' music and how that is taken by fans.

Hip Hop is Dead

Thesis: Hip Hop is Dead has been said by many old school rappers who feel that today's hip hop has been cheapened and defaced. Nas' 2006 Album titled "Hip Hop is Dead" caused a huge controversy in the the Hip Hop community, especially some negativity from the up an coming artists such as Young Jeezy. Many claim that Nas' album was targeted primarily at the Southern rap sound that is becoming a fad in today's musical society. I will mostly focus on this controversy of is Hip Hop dead? I personally believe that Hip Hop is a movement, therefore it is not right to say that it is dead, but rather that it is evolving.

Evidence: Nas' 2006 Album Hip Hop is Dead. Documentary by Russell Simmons titled "And You Don't Stop". The documentary features a very thorough timeline of the start of the Hip Hop movement, to the new sounds that are being made in the contemporary. I will also try to use lyrics and example from other musical artists in the Rap, Hip Hop, and R&B genres.

Purpose: The purpose of researching the phrase "Hip Hop is Dead" is to show how that phrase is completely false. It is also a way to show how Hip Hop in general has made such an impact on a young audience. Also, knowing that different generations think of Hip Hop in a different sense is really interesting as well. It is really cool to see how Hip Hop has evolved, and the lyrics that were used back in the day seems so much different than the lyrics society hears today.

Audience: The younger generation would definitely be more attuned to hearing the phrase Hip Hop is Dead. However, it is the older generation that began using this phrase. Therefore, it is a very wide range of audience age. Also, it should be aimed towards those who have a love of Hip Hop.

Freedom of Religion?

One of the things that I truly am grateful for in the U.S. is my freedom to choose or not choose my religion. As I was reading "The Volcano, Chapter 1: Swadharma and Swaraj," I was struck by this quote, "Swaraj without Swadharma is despicable and Swadharma without Swaraj is powerless." From Gandhi's writings, we already understand Swaraj, but Swadharma we have not addressed. Swadharma can be split into two words; swa-, meaning self, and -dharma, meaning religion (more specifically the Indian religion). Veer Savarkar, the writer of this selection, stated that the ultimate motives and causes for the Indian war of independence in 1957 were swaraj and swadharma, the freedom to rule themselves and the right to protect their religion. At first, the quote seemed understandable, but just because it sounded that way does not mean that what it is saying is correct. In thinking about what it is proposing, I realized that the Indians in the time of British rule were all of the same religion (essentially). I realized that perhaps if Dharma was protected according to the Indian desire, Judaism or Christianity and especially Atheism would not be.

One of the grievances of the early settlers in America was that the Church/religion was heavily involved in the actions of the State/government; they wanted separation of these two entities. The quote from Veer Savarkar's book is exactly opposite of this separation; Savarkar states that the two- religion and government- must exist simultaneously or the situation is all together "despicable" or "powerless." Perhaps if the countries, states, provinces, cities, or any region under any type of government were composed of a single religion then religion could be a part of that government, but this is not the case. Our population is made up of so many religions with blatantly conflicting beliefs that if religion ruled government, there would be either no progress in the gridlock of so many ideas or there would be a law created by one religion that was unfair to another.

From the Author's Introduction of "Selections from The Indian War of Independence 1857," Savarkar states that it is absolutely unwise to try to do certain things now irrespective of special considerations, simply because they had been once acted in the past." I wonder if Savarkar would agree now that, because India and other places are now made up of various different religions, religion cannot play a role in government. It seems according to this previous statement about acting "irrespective of special considerations," that he would agree. But as I think more about it, (I am ASSUMING here) Veer Savarkar like Gandhi most likely believed that Dharma was the only way and so, I think he would say that swaraj and swadharma must still exist together for even another purpose: to enlighten those who do not believe.

Week Six:Assignments

Tuesday May 6
Reading: Read "Lightly Annotated Lists" (see links on blog)--prepare by ranking 1-5 the 5 websites on the sample, according to authority, currency, relevance, and comprehensiveness (+ "smarts"?); "Swadharma and Swaraj" in Humanities Course Reader (205-211); "Audience and Purpose" in Writer's Guide
Writing: Reading Response Blog (Savarkar, Vira, Vinyak); Begin Lightly Annotated Lists: bring in 3 sites you have found (in format of sample LAL); MUST have posted AB primary source blog (i.e. topic decided) by today.

Thursday May 8
Reading: Ranchod Vira Letter in Humanities Course Reader (212); "Electronic Research Methods" in Writer's Guide
Writing: Lightly Annotated Lists (inkl. 5 lists)