During today's discussion on Achebe's interview and his book, 'Things Fall Apart,' we discussed factual questions, interpretive questions and evaluative questions.
One significant factual question that sparked a discussion was, ' What was the purpose of Achebe writing this book and why was he surprised by the reaction he received?' I believe that Achebe's purpose was to tell the story of his region because he was aware that the rest of the world wasn't and maybe still isn't greatly informed about Nigeria's, Igbo's to be specific, history. He also only chooses to write about his homeland and not other countries, such as America where he resides, because he believes that there are already enough people telling stories about America. He was initially surprised that he received positive responses from people of non- colonised countries. That is when he realised that everyone has faced oppression of some sort, whether it be on a nation wide basis or a one on one interaction.
There are many significant interpretive questions that were discussed. One highly controversial issue was why Mr Brown was name 'Brown' and not any other last name? Did it have any significance? Many people said that because he was portrayed as more of a protagonist even though he was white, the author named him brown to show acceptance by the Igbo community. I think that is a valid point but I don't think that is the main purpose of naming him Brown because firstly, it is a common white name and secondly if the author really wanted the audience to think about the name, he would've named Mr Brown as Mr Black since that would make more sense taking into consideration the region he's from. Another interesting question that came up was, ' What's wrong with showing the negative aspects of Africa?' and one of the many interesting answers that came up was that if one creates a derogatory stereotype about a community, they eventually start to believe it which affects their performance negatively which can lead to a slow development of the community. The next question that was discussed was, ' Do you think that sometimes the people of from post colonised have countries have an overly pessimistic view of the west?' The most agreeable answer was that they have the 'right' to which I do agree with however, I believe that the self proclaimed right is misused at many instances. I believe that there is a big difference between being objectively critical and pessimistic because once you cross the line of being objectively critical, you start seeing flaw in every little thing of the other community. The whole concept of accepting and respecting other cultures, nations and communities is broken down when one starts being pessimistic and I believe that to move forward, it is important for people to stop holding grudges from events that happened years ago. Additionally, if you want your culture to be respected, how can you expect that from a community you're constantly criticising? Coming from a post colonial country and after living in five countries, the major issue I have seen within my own group of friends is that they tend to believe that their culture is most superior iin subtle ways.
An evaluative question that came up during the discussion was: ' Do you agree that one can make a substantial impact in their country without living there?' I believe there are two sides to the answer. For example, Achebe made a significant impact towards his nation and people without living there because he wrote a book and informed many globally about the past of a part of Nigeria, Igboland. In contrast to that, he isn't doing much to change the situation that exists in his country and he himself stated that he would return to Nigeria when it's more safe and liveable because he has a family to think about but I think that is a bit hypocritical that he expects his nation to improve in these aspects but he himself isn't actually contributing towards taking any actions to improve the situation in Nigeria and therefore; I think in this context, Achebe is the opposite character of Okonkwo.
One significant factual question that sparked a discussion was, ' What was the purpose of Achebe writing this book and why was he surprised by the reaction he received?' I believe that Achebe's purpose was to tell the story of his region because he was aware that the rest of the world wasn't and maybe still isn't greatly informed about Nigeria's, Igbo's to be specific, history. He also only chooses to write about his homeland and not other countries, such as America where he resides, because he believes that there are already enough people telling stories about America. He was initially surprised that he received positive responses from people of non- colonised countries. That is when he realised that everyone has faced oppression of some sort, whether it be on a nation wide basis or a one on one interaction.
There are many significant interpretive questions that were discussed. One highly controversial issue was why Mr Brown was name 'Brown' and not any other last name? Did it have any significance? Many people said that because he was portrayed as more of a protagonist even though he was white, the author named him brown to show acceptance by the Igbo community. I think that is a valid point but I don't think that is the main purpose of naming him Brown because firstly, it is a common white name and secondly if the author really wanted the audience to think about the name, he would've named Mr Brown as Mr Black since that would make more sense taking into consideration the region he's from. Another interesting question that came up was, ' What's wrong with showing the negative aspects of Africa?' and one of the many interesting answers that came up was that if one creates a derogatory stereotype about a community, they eventually start to believe it which affects their performance negatively which can lead to a slow development of the community. The next question that was discussed was, ' Do you think that sometimes the people of from post colonised have countries have an overly pessimistic view of the west?' The most agreeable answer was that they have the 'right' to which I do agree with however, I believe that the self proclaimed right is misused at many instances. I believe that there is a big difference between being objectively critical and pessimistic because once you cross the line of being objectively critical, you start seeing flaw in every little thing of the other community. The whole concept of accepting and respecting other cultures, nations and communities is broken down when one starts being pessimistic and I believe that to move forward, it is important for people to stop holding grudges from events that happened years ago. Additionally, if you want your culture to be respected, how can you expect that from a community you're constantly criticising? Coming from a post colonial country and after living in five countries, the major issue I have seen within my own group of friends is that they tend to believe that their culture is most superior iin subtle ways.
An evaluative question that came up during the discussion was: ' Do you agree that one can make a substantial impact in their country without living there?' I believe there are two sides to the answer. For example, Achebe made a significant impact towards his nation and people without living there because he wrote a book and informed many globally about the past of a part of Nigeria, Igboland. In contrast to that, he isn't doing much to change the situation that exists in his country and he himself stated that he would return to Nigeria when it's more safe and liveable because he has a family to think about but I think that is a bit hypocritical that he expects his nation to improve in these aspects but he himself isn't actually contributing towards taking any actions to improve the situation in Nigeria and therefore; I think in this context, Achebe is the opposite character of Okonkwo.
No comments:
Post a Comment