As I was reading through the chapter of Charles Bressler's Literacy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice that we were given in class, one definition particularly stood out. This definition was that of Orientalism given by Edward Wadie Said. "Orientalism: the creation of non-European stereotypes that suggested so-called Orientals were indolent, thoughtless, sexually immoral, unreliable, and demented." This definition parallels the description that Shakespeare gives of Caliban through the eyes of the Europeans around him almost word for word. Not only does Prospero view Caliban to be immoral, but as soon as the shipwrecked men Trinculo and Stephano set eyes on him, Caliban is immediately labeled "monster".
Although Caliban is only one man, or "monster", he is a seemingly reasonable representation of native peoples. I do believe Shakespeare was creating a negative stereotype of so-called “others”, but the intention was not necessarily surface level. Though it appears Shakespeare is bashing native peoples, why then would he waste so much time in his play to describe one single “savage”? In the mindset most Europeans had during that time, there were tribes of blood thirsty “savages” waiting for their chance to strike an “innocent” brigade of white men at any given cost. The average play watchers of the time could care less about what one “mongrel” had to say. Trinculo recalls “When you get a good look at him, you see he’s not much of a monster. I can’t believe I was scared of him! A pretty pathetic monster. The man in the moon! What a poor, gullible monster.” Shakespeare communicates his true meaning for Caliban through lines like this one. It may appear that Shakespeare is just making fun of the “monster” but in reality he is sympathizing with him. He points out how that he is in fact not scary, and is easily swayed by unknown people’s opinions, just like those places conquered by the Queen during Shakespeare’s time. Whether it is the influence of religion, or basic morals, it is apparent that the conquering of people’s home lands for a “greater good”, was not something that Shakespeare found to be morally justifiable.
While I watched the video that dealt with the erroneous depiction of Native Americans by Hollywood, I immediately drew a connection with the play. However, even though Caliban is also incorrectly portrayed as a native of the island, just as the Native Americans were in Hollywood, I do not believe the meaning behind the two is the same. In the Hollywood version I believe that the reasoning behind the inaccurate representation of the Native Americans was simply because at that time, the white men controlled the movie making business, and in a despicable attempt to gain profit, wrongly depicted them in films. On the other hand, in Shakespeare’s world, the portrayal of native people’s was the same, but he was an exception. Even though he appeared to be following the norm by describing Caliban in that same way, he was an ingenious writer, and crafted his play so that to the surface level viewer, all was well, Caliban was an evil savage. Yet, to a more enlightened viewer, his play called out the injustices of Imperialism, and went against the common practiced prejudices of “others”.
It seems as though the conquered “savage” is not the actual beast. It is the conqueror who is the true monster.
Although Caliban is only one man, or "monster", he is a seemingly reasonable representation of native peoples. I do believe Shakespeare was creating a negative stereotype of so-called “others”, but the intention was not necessarily surface level. Though it appears Shakespeare is bashing native peoples, why then would he waste so much time in his play to describe one single “savage”? In the mindset most Europeans had during that time, there were tribes of blood thirsty “savages” waiting for their chance to strike an “innocent” brigade of white men at any given cost. The average play watchers of the time could care less about what one “mongrel” had to say. Trinculo recalls “When you get a good look at him, you see he’s not much of a monster. I can’t believe I was scared of him! A pretty pathetic monster. The man in the moon! What a poor, gullible monster.” Shakespeare communicates his true meaning for Caliban through lines like this one. It may appear that Shakespeare is just making fun of the “monster” but in reality he is sympathizing with him. He points out how that he is in fact not scary, and is easily swayed by unknown people’s opinions, just like those places conquered by the Queen during Shakespeare’s time. Whether it is the influence of religion, or basic morals, it is apparent that the conquering of people’s home lands for a “greater good”, was not something that Shakespeare found to be morally justifiable.
While I watched the video that dealt with the erroneous depiction of Native Americans by Hollywood, I immediately drew a connection with the play. However, even though Caliban is also incorrectly portrayed as a native of the island, just as the Native Americans were in Hollywood, I do not believe the meaning behind the two is the same. In the Hollywood version I believe that the reasoning behind the inaccurate representation of the Native Americans was simply because at that time, the white men controlled the movie making business, and in a despicable attempt to gain profit, wrongly depicted them in films. On the other hand, in Shakespeare’s world, the portrayal of native people’s was the same, but he was an exception. Even though he appeared to be following the norm by describing Caliban in that same way, he was an ingenious writer, and crafted his play so that to the surface level viewer, all was well, Caliban was an evil savage. Yet, to a more enlightened viewer, his play called out the injustices of Imperialism, and went against the common practiced prejudices of “others”.
It seems as though the conquered “savage” is not the actual beast. It is the conqueror who is the true monster.
Nice find on the picture. I think it fits the topic at hand . . .
ReplyDelete