Kluger

Before reading Still Alive, I expected the voice of the author to be somewhat similar to The Diary of Anne Frank because I didn't know the background of the author at that time. But instead I was confronted by a voice that unsentimental, blunt at times, and critical of people (especially people who make assumptions about Holocaust victims). Her way of thinking reminded me of Antigone, if that book had been written as a memoir, her voice most likely resemble Ruth Kluger's. Ruth has a certain way of thinking that goes against all conventions at the time. She certainly didn't side with the Nazis, but she didn't entirely agree with her family either. She seemed like an internal rebel for the most part, but some of her actions did reflect her resistance to the external world.

Passage from Page 107-108.

On page 107 and 108, Kluger explains the story of her being told to lie about her age to avoid the gas chamber. Her mother told her to lie about her age and she did not know why. Because she defied her mother, she was most likely going to go to the chamber because she was 12. However, a stranger saves her life by telling her to say she is 15. Then the guards say she looks healthy and good enough to work in the fields. I thought this passage was a good example of doing on both the part of Ruth and the stranger who told her to lie. The stranger told ruth to say she was 15 years old and it resulted in her life being saved. The stranger helped her even though it didnt benefit the stranger at all. This shows a level of altruistic behavior within the camps. The stranger was a clerk for the Nazis too, opposing the perception that all Nazis and people working for the Nazis are bad people. For Ruth, it shows how she was willing to put more trust in a stranger than her own mother.

Kluger

As I was reading Still Alive, a section in Part III seems to deviate from the whole feel of the book, and it stood out to me. In contrast to the title of “Still Alive” and the appearance of a Holocaust survivor, Kluger says “By virtue of survival, we belong with you, who weren’t exposed to the genocidal danger, and we know that there is a black river between us and the true victims. Therefore this is not the story of a Holocaust victim and becomes less and less so as it nears the end” (Kluger 138). Further on she ads, “yes, we laughed a lot, for humor thrives on danger, for whatever reason” (138). To me, I can never think of the Holocaust and humor in the as ever having any relation. In contrast to headings such as “Death Camp” and “Forced Labor Camps,” such passages don’t seem to enhance the impact of the survivor story, instead it kind of negates the reality of her story and her position within the Holocaust. Much of how Part III begins seems to feel more like a tale as if she had simply run away from home, rather than a flee for her life.

Kluger

Reading Kluger’s Still Alive, I grew to enjoy her style of writing. While it seemed random for some people, it felt like something I would write – a random assortment of thoughts of my past and the life behind me. Also, there were a lot of quotes that just struck me as comedic, like the time when she is talking about the “fat man” she encountered and that she “didn’t want to be friends with the fat man, [she] wanted his food” (125), or truly insightful – when Kluger was talking about her mother and how her delusions had finally caught up with her once the two were in Auschwitz, Kluger poses the question, “If you think that your mind Is the most precious thing you own, you are right, because what have we got that defines us other than reason and love?” (104). All these quotes, among others, along with Kluger’s story is what I truly enjoyed. But on to a literary connection I found one quote.

Here, Kluger is talking of her brother Schorschi, and how she has missed him from her life ever since he left her as a teen to return back to his blood father – “One of my brother’s nephews in my poem, my older son, has George for a middle name-but that didn’t help. People aren’t reborn. They live, or they don’t live, their one inalienable life. Schorschi’s had been taken, and there is no substitute such “living on in memory”. We don’t want to be pious thoughts in the mind of others; we want the robust substance of our own lives” (83). I thought this was interesting because as soon as I read this quote, I thought of Professor Chaturvedi and his writings on the name “Vinayak”. The doctor who had named Chaturvedi as Vinayak, hoped to instill the same revolutionary ways of the Vinayak Savarkar that he had known in his lifetime. However contrary to this lies Kluger’s take. Kluger does not believe in “living on in memory” and that naming someone the name of someone else you once loved would not bring them back. Kluger feels that those given the same name of those who passed before them, is not a way of bringing back the dead. Once they have passed and their bodies have perished, they are not “reborn”. For Kluger, there would never be another Schorschi.

Still Alive Response

Ruth Kluger’s memoir was a fascinating read, to say the least. She’s a witty, snide woman who “tells it like it is”. For me, her autobiography was the most fun to read this quarter. After reading the entire memoir, I wanted to revisit one of the passages we explored during class. My group tried to decipher the passage where Kluger states, “as Bertolt Brecht was fond of saying, the truth is concrete, meaning specific” (p. 66). Now, thinking about why she mentioned this line about truth. It was a quest, much like in Henreich von Kleist’s Michael Kohlhaas, for the truth. But for Kluger, the truth was enough specificity. In her half-brother’s death and especially her father’s, she was never able to know the details of their fates. She finds remnants and hears bits about what may have happened, but she will never know exactly what occurred or the product of the events (i.e. a burial ceremony). And this indefinite history of her brother and father is what haunts her with “what if” memories. For Kluger, the truth is something you can examine and pick apart, make sense of. It is also something devoid of sentimentality, because evoking the emotional part to memories makes it unreal and selfish saying, “It means looking into a mirror instead of reality” (p. 66). Thus, this outlook on life is appropriate to her character as being brutally honest.

My Thoughts on Still Alive

In Still Alive: A Holocaust Girlhood Remembered, Ruth Kluger unsentimentally yet provocatively recalls the events leading up to and during what she and her family endured during the Holocaust. She survived the concentration camps, Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, and Gross-Rosen. The way she chronicles her past experiences highlights her strong and feisty personality. Sometimes her unemotional and rather cutting tone or voice give me the impression that deep within her soul she is bitter and angry (and I think she really is...I wouldn't be surprised and I wouldn't blame her for it...). One thing she said shocked me, but made me really wonder if indeed it is true. Arguing with a German graduate student, she said, "Absolutely nothing good came out of the concentration camps...and he expects catharsis, purgation, the sort of thing you go to the theater for?" The way she writes is very thought-provoking and often philosophical.

Memories and Truth

One of the passages that stuck out to me was Kluger’s view on memories: “The most precise memories are thus the ones that seduce us into lies, because they won’t be budged by anything outside ourselves” (34). Following a passage we discussed in lecture about her father being a “divided person,” this quote describes how important it is understand the connection between memory and truth, (or at least that’s what I got out of it). Because her story is unlike other Holocaust biographies and does not play off of sentimentality to gain sympathy, she focuses more on elaborating on the truth, however blunt it may be. Her interest in exposing the truth rather than just emotion relates back to the quote. She states that the most accurate memories manipulate people into building up a false memory of “what should have been” or “could have been;” these memories cannot be affected by outside influence. These memories fester in the mind and the lure of creating “could be” memories or rationalizing why they happened haunt through the form of constant replay.
Also, Kluger elaborates on the kaddish (prayer for the dead). Because Judaism only allows men to say them, she dissociates herself with the religion: “I want to say kaddish because I live with the dead. If I can’t do that, forget about religion. Poetry is more helpful” (31). In a sense, Kluger’s entire novel is a “kaddish;” although not entirely a prayer for the dead, but more of a medium to document her memory of the dead, and her life's memories in general. She is aware of the religion’s constraints on females, and thus carries out her desire to expres the truth and say what she wants through that “poetry.”

Kluger and Her World

Throughout reading Kluger, I could not help but go back towards what we discussed about in class. The topic that we discussed about in my group's quote was about gender issues. As I go through the book, it has me thinking more and more about the roles of men and women. The interesting point that Kluger brought up was that wars seem to focus on the history of men. Unfortunately, this is very true. It is not necessarily the man's fault, but it is because History has always been male-dominant. The reason, from what i can remember, is that many households and upbringings were based on the paternal hierarchy. There were some civilizations where the mothers were the ones who determined who would get land. It is simply true that in history women are neglected. Kluger's book appears to be somewhat of a feminist book. Just reading through it, you get the sense that she is trying to empower women to grab a hold of their own futures. There are some parts, that i get the feeling that she is not entirely supporting them. The reason for this is because her choice of words lead to the impression that she is might be believing that change is impossible. I think as a go through the book some more, with closer reading, my understanding will change.

Kluger

In discussion, I remember talking about the sentiment that the novel Still Alive lacked. We compared it to the Diary of Anne Frank, and other works of art such as Schindler's List and The Pianist. What I would like to focus on is whether or not this is a good thing or a bad. I believe Kluger does state some realistic ideas such as "her family bonds became threadbare" even during the hardtimes of the concentration camps and etc...

I enjoy that this novel was very real. It didn't sugar coat anything for its readers. The author said it straight up and was forward about the troubles in her family, such as her parents situation. Before I read the novel, i thought the mood was going to be the same as in every other Holocaust story/novel. I thought that it would make us pity and sympathetic. However, this novel makes us look at the different aspect of the Holocaust. I now view those people not as victims, but as human beings who have the same emotions and troubles that i do. They are no different from us today, they were rather just born in a different era.

Savarkar... finally

In his introduction, Savarkar states the importance of history and knowing the truth about what happened. He states that in order to not make the same mistakes in the future, you have to know the past. He also talks about how it's okay to do something in the past because of certain situations that happened, but just because it happened in the past, doesn't mean it's okay to do now. For example, hate for a certain group of people. It's not fair to hate them just because it was okay to hate them in the past. People have to know the context of history so that they can understand the future. This passage reminds me of the phrase "if you don't know where youre from, you won't know where youre going." (something like that). This shows the importance of history because if you don't know your country's history, you will be lost in the future. I think this agrees with Gandhi in a way becuase they both do not want the negative aspects of their history to be repeated.

updated AB for research paper (hannah hoch)

German Dada artist Hannah Hoch’s photomontage entitled “German Girl” (1930) illustrates an image of a conventional young German girl. The collage is supposed to be a representation of the features that are considered to be normal according to the German public, however the mix-matched and distorted features of the figure elucidates a deeper meaning of Hoch’s, in which she questions how one can define what is normal? Such a message correlates with the ideals of Dadaist artists who sought to create “anti-art”, as a means of protesting the logical and traditional art aesthetics prior to World War I. Seen as a revolutionary artist for her development of the technique of photomontaging, Hannah Hoch’s crafty and chaotic work was an influential and inspirational product of the Dadaist art movement in Weimar, Germany. A homosexual and feminist advocate, Hoch’s artwork encompassed a recurring theme of the “New Woman” in which she constantly juxtaposed the conventions set up for women in regards to their sexuality, their roles in society, and the standards on which they are judged as beautiful.. Ultimately, Hoch’s work centered on redefining women and erasing the defined gender roles of the 1930’s.

Afterlife: death and fhe bureaucratic subject (sample Prospecuts)

In the film “Afterlife,” Kore’eda presents a stark, institutional setting
for the usually mystical representations of our life after death. This
paper will offer a close examination of the film in an effort to answer
the following questions: why did Kore’eda choose to use “real” people and
their memories to include in his otherwise “imaginary” or “staged” version
of the afterworld? What is the significance of choosing to represent those
in “limbo” as the employees of the institute? How does the institutional
setting relate to the Japanese bureaucratic culture? I plan on exploring the question of how the film Afterlife relates to bureaucracy in contemporary Japan. I am also interested in the artistic appeal of the film--Kore'eda is renowned as a lyrical, poetic director who has developed a simple everyday "realism" in his films. Research on the genre of contemporary filmic "realism" has turned up little on Kore'eda, but some of the qualities that are described I find useful. For example, Teresa de Lauretis, a professor of film and media studies at UC Santa Cruz, claims that contemporary cinema is marked by its "realistic" qualties. She argues that this counteracts the recent (and bad) popularized sentiment of most contemporary films. In his review of the film in a Tokyo newpaper, a man relates this lack of sentimentality to death. He writes, "the film very accurately portrays the calm, stoic relation that Japanese people have towards death." My essay will explore these ideas. In order to do this, my paper will: 1) describe Kore'eda's notion of the afterlife, as seen in key scenes from the film; 2) explore contemporary notions of death and afterlife in modern Japan; 3) analyze the bureaucratic personalities of the workers of the institute; 4) explore the relation between death and bureacracy in contemporary Japan. I hope to explore the concept of death and afterlife, to show how death comes to be defined as a rebirth through choice and how afterlife is a repeated experience, governed by affect or emotion.

Vinayak

Vinayak and Me: Hindutva and the Politics of Naming was so interesting to me, it made me think about naming as a whole. Throughout the paper, Vinayak described the process and the importance of naming, of how it was a “common practice in India for families to wait several years before giving formal names to children.” I think about this line and it makes me think of my name, and the names of Americans in comparison to the names of people living in India and other cultures. For some reason, names from other cultures, like Vinayak had a meaning behind it. As well as his last name, Chaturvedi, which he said could identify him as “an educated, middle-class, local, Hindi-speaking Brahmin.” This made me think about my own name: Scott Yoshimoto. I remember my dad joking saying Yoshimoto was the name of average middle class citizens who were farmers or something of that sort, and as for my mom’s maiden name, it referred to a prestigious samurai reference; which could be true but I am not sure. But this is similar to Vinayak’s last name Chaturvedi, which have associations with it and that people could identify you from your name. But as for my first name, I asked my parents what it really meant and why they gave me the name, the best response I could get from them was that my mom just really liked the name. There was no meaning behind it or specific reason I have the name. This made me think of the many other names associated with Americans, like Billy, Joe, Jason, John, Sarah, Christine (no offense to anybody who has these names); just what is the meaning behind our names? In other cultures it seems there is much meaning behind the name, or associated to some great God, but with our American culture, I’m not sure I can find quite the same meanings.

Week Eight: Assignments

Tuesday May 20
Reading: Ruth Kluger, Still Alive
Writing: Prospectus

Thursday May 22
Reading: Ruth Kluger, Still Alive
Writing: Blog Reading Response (Kluger)

Prospectus Directions (1-2 pages, double-spaced)
from the Writing Director: "In universities, scholars often write a prospectus when they are preparing to undertake a new research project, particularly if they want funding, support, or future publication of their work. Many colleges that ask students to write a senior thesis frequently assign a prospectus as well. The prospectus usually identifies at least one major research question, summarizes the relevant scholarship about the important issues in the field, and offers an initial hypothesis that will be tested in the subsequent research process."

Please include the following:

• title...
• research question (phrased as: "i will be examing the question of...")
• preliminary thesis (nothing more than an "angle")
• a "sketch" of your argument (structure/organization of essay--should be organized around details from primary source you will analyze)
• relevant, need-to-know details of primary source (re: "angle")
• a summary of your research findings. Must include at least two secondary sources: One should be a "primary-secondary" source, a commentary on the source that came out at the time of the primary source. The other should be a current, scholarly article or essay (or chapter from a book) that engages with the "angle" that you are taking on the primary source.
• In addition, please comment somewhere on your terminology (what concepts or ideas are important to your paper) and your methodology (i.e. academic discipline: art historical, social history, literary, historical, visual analysis, political theory...), keeping in mind that regardless of the discipline, interpreting and analyzing details, or close reading, of the primary source, is what your academic audience (a.k.a. me) is expecting and valuing.

Transformation in Andamans

I was interested in why Savarkar shifted his opinion on the issue of Indian-Muslim unity. In the introduction to Political Ideas in Modern India: Thematic Explorations (ed. Thomas Pantham and V.R. Mehta. New Dehli: Sage, 2006), Pantham and Mehta, summarizing Patham's later chapter, "Religious Diversity and National Unity: The Gandhian and Hindutva Visions," describe the political differences that account for the differences between Gandhi and Savarkar's religious views, implying that there religious ideas are often confused. It's helpful to also see how these scholars intervene in a scholarly discussion about "secular-liberal democracy." In order to make this argument, the notions of "self" in both Gandhi and Savarkar are interpreted and redefined. Pantham's essay is described as follows:

Thomas Pantham's essay, "Religious Diversity and National Unity: The Gandhian and Hindutva Visions," is meant to be a corrective to the tendency, discernible in the scholarly literature on secular-liberal democracy, to conflate the Gandhian and Hindutva views. He argues that "for Gandhi and Savarkar (the propounder of the Hindutva ideology), religion, be it Hinduism or any other religion, meant different things and that on that difference hinges the difference between their political philosophies."

....

Savarkar's view on the political relation between the Hindu religious majority and the Muslims went through a process of change in the 1920s. In that period, in reaction to certain political developments, he gave up his earlier commitment to Hindu-Muslim political unity in the "war" against colonial rule, and, in its place, he formulated his famos Hindutva conception of militant majoritarian nationalism, which, according to him, can only have either an assimilationist or an exclusionary relation to the Muslims of India. According to Pantham, this ideology of Hindutva rests on a traditional an rigidly hierarchic concept of the "self'." "It is," as he points out, "a 'self', which can relate to the 'non-self' or Other only by assimilating it (i.e. by bringing it into hierarchic subordination) or by excluding it as 'alien', 'enemy' or 'impure'"; it cannot relate to the Other "either on friendly terms of the freedom and equality of every person or in terms of the Gandhian ethics of love/non-violence!"

In the second part of Chapter 13, Gandhi's conception of Hind Swaraj, sarvodaya and satyagraha are shown to be resting on, or informed by, moral-political conceptions of the "self," religion, satya, swaraj, etc., which are radically different from Savarkar's political-ideological conceptions of them. For instance, Gandhi's conception of the moksha-seeking "self" is that of a "self" seeking unity, in this world itslf, with God-as-Love/Truth through love of, and service to, one's fellow-humans. (xlv-xlvi)

Vinayak and Me

To begin I was very thankful to be reading this selected work as it explains and essentially accounts for a lot of historical context by means of a sort of story, which makes learning and reading about this way more enjoyable. Regardless, I was very interested in a lot of the cultural customs that I had not been familiar with that occurred in the reading. For example I didn't know that in the Indian culture it is custom to wait a few years before giving a child a first name, and although naming a child is also a sacred act in the U.S., it seems to me to be an even bigger deal in India. One's name describes your political views, economic status as well as social status. I was taken aback by the flood of information that can be accounted for in a name, but then I was more understanding as to why the naming process is taken more seriously and more thought is put into it than would be accustomed for an American. Also the hunt for Vinayak to find out the meaning and more so the reason he was named Vinayak by Dr. Parchure was an intriguing mystery, and his adventure along the way also provided more insight into the Indian politics of the time. It was interesting in that upon being introduced to the character of Dr. Parchure, he was illustrated as a very noble and intelligent man, whom I became infatuated with when he named Vinayak and his reasons for doing so were still a mystery. However after learning of the violence he practiced I was kind of let down from once viewing him as this really admirable person, but learning of his later actions of brutality made me feel otherwise. Dr. Parchure was indeed, I would say an person worthy of admiration: he is a prestigious doctor and an intelligent man, however these characteristics for me were not redeemable enough to excuse his surprisingly violent demeanor.

Vinayak and Me Response

While reading Professor Chaturvedi's search for the meaning of his name in "Vinayak and Me", I couldn't help but wonder why he was doing this. It was interesting that his name was, in fact, the first name had origins with Savarkar or the god Ganesh and had an interesting story in its background. But what I really think Professor Chaturvedi was trying to accomplish with this article, is that we as readers need to personally relate to our texts. For him, it was the relation of his name's story that lead him to inquiring about Savarkar and his involvement in Gandhi's assassination. Likewise, we need to take personal interest in our writings, which relates directly to our upcoming research paper. We need to discover within our research, what the topic means to us and its significant to us.

Starbuck's and Its Logo(s)

Claim: Take a look to the left and what do you see? Two logos, they are only slightly different from each other. The importance between them is the fact that they both represent the same company. Starbucks has become a household name in America and has come to spread across the world as one of the leading businesses serving coffee. The current logo at Starbucks is usually hard to miss. The green mermaid or "siren," as it would be called in the store, originated as the brown one on the right. As starbucks grew and expanded into the 20th century, it changed the logo to a more moderate and less sensual image in green. The original siren in brown was based off of a Norse Woodcut of a siren.
Evidence: The primary source will be the starbuck's logo. Supporting or secondary sources will come from http://www.deadprogrammer.com/starbucks-logo-mermaid and other various sites.
Purpose: Starbucks is one of the leaders in coffee production and trade. The purpose of this is to find how the logo and other logos of major companies came to represent an idea or concept. It also aims to show how Starbucks has come to represent an age of good coffee and safe trade.
Audience: Peers and Coffeehouse customers and those Partners who work at starbuck's.

Vinayak and Me

Professor Chaturvedi’s name first just seemed like a unique coincidence, with his grandmother Bai’s encounter with Dr Parchure. However it was more than that, and in fact his name was attached to more past and present politics that took Professor Chaturvedi time to uncover. Taking on the name of Vinayak was more than just out of respect for the doctor – family tradition sometimes calls for a child to be given a name years after their birth. Oftentimes we are given names that really have no meaning at all, while other times the names given to us hold more meaning then most of us know. In the Filipino culture, it is customary for the parents to give their children a middle name that is the same as their mother’s maiden name. There is no specific reason why most Filipino’s do this, but it is mostly due to the fact that the wives lose their last names once they are married. The children’s names are meant to really carry on or at least hold a part of their mother’s name that was lost in wedlock. Somewhat similar to Professor Chaturvedi’s naming – he was to take on a name that would hold meaning in the future. Vinayak Savarkar may no longer be alive, but his name lives on even in Professor Chaturvedi’s name. This mere connection alone caused Professor Chaturvedi to investigate the origin of his name, thus uncovering more about the nationalist Savarkar. Dr Parchure’s involvement amongst “Hindu nationalist intellectuals” was what allured Professor Chaturvedi (215). However it was his works with and comparison to Savarkar are what probably caused him to ask Bai to name her grandson Vinayak in "honour of Savarkar" and to promote the "ideologies of his guru" (223).

Vinayak

Honestly, at first I thought that the idea of naming someone to carry on a legacy (even though most people would never realize the connection between Vinayak Savarkar and the name) was simply an extension of the ridiculous idea that violence was the only solution. Then as I reached the end of the article, I realized that naming really does continue a legacy. Though I do not agree with the legacy carried on through that name, I do believe that it is effective. I dont like that Dr. Parchure named children who might seriously object later to what they, without any say, represent because of their name.

Glorifying Godse

I thought the context in which Professor Chaturvedi ends his story about the origins of his name was really interesting. Rather than focusing on (not) identifying with Savarkar, he concludes with, “a large image of the assassin Nathuram Godse, who was being celebrated as an incarnation of Vinayak and the remover of obstacles [was above the door]” (227). More than a story about his name, his paper acknowledges the perpetuation of the sad support for violence as a means to an end. Godse thought it was necessary to save India by killing the man who he felt divided it – physically – with the creation of Pakistan. However, transcending mere geography, Godse and the fellow conspirators knowingly divided India even further, separating ideologies of violence vs. non-violence, and Hindu vs. non-Hindu. Even though Savarkar supported the necessity of separating Indian citizens using the above criteria, Godse’s assumed justified violence in saving “Mother India” is inconsistent with his claimed motives. He argues that as the son, he must protect the mother as “Gandhiji failed in his duty as the Father of the Nation” (221). By getting rid of Gandhi, he just perpetuates that alleged division and is guilty of the exact thing that he claims is wrong.
For some reason, the last sentence of Professor Chaturvedi’s paper really bothered me. I was surprised that Upendra agreed with his father, Godse and Savarkar’s ideologies, so much as to glorify Godse. But having a morally egoistic bias was only going to obfuscate my reasoning. I decided that it’s important to note that Upendra probably doesn’t honor Godse as a murderer, but as a righteous activist in furthering what he felt was just. My initial reaction hinged off of blind accusation, but in the end I felt that one of Chaturvedi’s motives for ending with this was to force readers to take into account the importance of remaining open and at least respect an individual’s ideals; having a more condemning stance would only further that perpetuation of violence.

America's Next Top Model: AB

This is going to be my final AB post. =] As I was watching America's Next Top Model, I realized that I should research the success of the winners from the show and why they have and have not found success. My primary source is the actual show.

claim: Tyra Banks can transform ordinary girls into "top models" through 13 weeks (?) of modeling challenges and lessons.

evidence: Winners from each cycle have gotten modeling contracts and CoverGirl contracts, as well as other advertising and modeling jobs. Even the "losers" on the shows have gotten modeling exposure and gained experience to book jobs.

purpose: The purpose of this show is to give young ladies the opportunity to become models through the challenges and lessons given to them by fashion experts and professional models themselves.

audience: Women of all ages, some men. People who are interested in fashion and the modeling industry.

Vinayak's name

I found this paper very interesting for many reasons. First, because Vinayak went through so much trouble just to find the meaning of his name and what not. It was also interesting because he was basically named by a stranger and his parents decided to keep the name. I also found it strange that Dr. Parchure would name boys after Savarkar as a strategy to promote the ideologies that Savarkar had andnationalism. Even though the boys that he named probably did not know the origin of their name, Dr. Parchure, in my opinion, placed a lot of unwanted responsibility (in a sense) on these boys to promote nationalism and carry out Savarkar's legacy.
Then I thought that Dr. Parchure's denial of having any involvment in the assissination of Gandhi was a little hypocritical. He was always down for Savarkar and his ideas, but he did not take any responsibility for carrying out part of Savarkar's ideas. (well that's what I got from it, I could be wrong.)

Vinayak and Me

I found this article written by Professor Chaturvedi to quite interesting because of the fact that despite the obvious cultural influences of his story, the idea of significance behind a name is in fact very universal. The idea of naming a child after his or her personality becomes apparent is an intriguing aspect of Indian culture; the grim fact that high infant mortality rates influenced this practice makes it all the more logical. In one sense, it seems reasonable to wait until a child develops to give him or her a befitting name; however, there may be psychological repercussions for a young child who goes through life without a true identity. On the other hand, Professor Chaturvedi wrote that the children were given "informal household name[s]" which might counter any fear of the child feeling anonymous. Cultural differences were also evident by the fact that one's surname divulged "caste, language, region and even class" (215) and an individual can be judged based entirely on his or her family name. Universality becomes apparent, however, if one thinks of popular culture and modern society. Many people believe that a name determines a child's future personality and potential. This belief is superstitious to a certain extent, much like the belief that one's astrological sign determines one's fortune, love interests, and personality. The prevalence of horoscopes in publications and baby naming books with tens of thousands of different names and meanings illustrates that the importance of naming is not limited to a specific culture. Professor Chaturvedi's interest in his name is not unique; I'm sure that most people have researched the history behind their name. (My name is of Middle English origin and is a Scottish flower.) The fact that the man who had named Professor Chaturvedi was a supporter of Vinayak Savarkar and a conspirator in the assassination of Gandhi might have been disheartening, seeing as Gandhi was a symbol of peace and goodness. However, I don't believe that even in Indian culture that Professor Chaturvedi should have been concerned about his naming because he was not named by his family, but rather by a stranger who was concerned with furthering his ideals.

Vinayak and Me...and Me.

"Vinayak and Me: Hindutva and the Politics of Naming" is probably the most intriguing reading assignment I have encountered so far for the Humanities Core Course. The story from Professor Chaturvedi's childhood at the very beginning had me hooked instantly.

This paper opened my eyes to various aspects of Indian culture and history. What's fascinating is it all stemmed from Professor Chaturvedi's curiosity about the origin of his name. Who knew that the man standing in front of me every Tuesday and Thursday morning at 9:30 (that is, whenever I actually attended lecture...) had some unique ties to such people as Gandhi and Savarkar?

Professor Chaturvedi's talks with Upendra Parchure, the son of Dr. Dattatrey Sadashiv Parchure, were interesting to read about. (It was frustrating to learn that Dr. Parchure had died only a few years before Professor Chaturvedi decided he wanted to speak with him!) I believe the emphasis Upendra Parchure placed on his father's masculinity is significant. The people who were against Gandhi criticized his tactics for being weak. They preferred violence and force to passive resistance and peaceful methods. What's ironic or interesting is that Gandhi in Hind Swaraj also wanted his passive resisters to show masculinity. Hmmmm...

Gandhi on Masculinity

•“They lack real physical strength or courage.” (37)

•“We have become emasculated and cowardly.” (44)

•“…render us effeminate…” (44)

•“I should prefer to be killed by the arrow of a Bhil than to seek unmanly protection.” (44)

•“Believe me that a man devoid of courage and manhood can never be a passive resister.” (93)