Thursday, April 17, 2008
Question about Caliban
Caliban is a character in THE TEMPEST who can be seen as representative of larger issues relevant in Shakespeare's day. Columbus has discovered the New World and colonization begins. In your opinion, how does Caliban represent what is going on in the world at that time or not? Elaborate. Feel free to use quotes or passages from the text. Also, feel free to bounce ideas off of one another. You can also respond to comments made by classmates. Examine how Caliban is depicted in the video below as well and feel free to comment about it as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
There are interesting ties between the way Caliban is portrayed and the way people thought about the Native Americans in Shakespeare's time. I think that Caliban can be looked at in two ways, as a representation of Elizabethan society's beliefs. He is often described as being beast-like, almost half human half beast. During those times and still today animals were considered to be at the bottom of the social hierarchy (women being right above them), which makes the fact that he is Propero's slave "ok." What also ties into that is that people convinced themselves that Native Americans were not entirely human in order to justify the way they were treated. This is also seen with Africans later. Shakespeare could have meant Caliban to be portrayed as a Native American type character and call him half beast as way to justify to himself, as mostly everyone did, that it is ok that Caliban is a slave. Shakespeare also could have meant for Caliban to simply be portrayed as literally half beast, which makes it even more justifiable that he is Prospero's slave. Though most people these days would argue that animals should be treated well too.
I think they way in which Caliban is portrayed is similar to the way that many Europeans perceived the natives in the countries that they were colonizing. One example of this occurs in the second act when Prospero justifies his treatment of Caliban by claiming that he made an effort to “educated” him. This is similar to the way that in many colonies the Europeans justified their treatment of the native population by “saving their soles” and teaching about God.
Based on the theory of orientalism developed by Edward Said I believe that Caliban represents the exotic other by which the rest of the characters in the play define themselves. Caliban, the only native of the island, is described as monstrous, uncivilized and barbaric. Through such binary opposition the nobles in the play define themselves as fair and civilized and thereby justify their lordship. Caliban therefore serves an important role in the play and a connection can be drawn between Caliban and societies as a wholes labeling of exotic others for self-defining.
I also agree that Caliban is represented as Native Americans, in that he is viewed as a beastial character and uncivilized. I feel Prospero feels he is doing a favor to Caliban in taking him under his wing, primarily as his slave, but as his student, as well.
Caliban and Prospero clearly define their relationship in different ways. Caliban sees Prospero as an oppressor and imperialistic ruler, where as Prospero truly believes that he is helping Caliban by educating him. This relationship is defined in a quotation where Caliban proclaims, "You taught me language, and my profit on’t/Is I know how to curse. /The red plague rid you/For learning me your language!" (act 1, scene 2) I believe that through learning the culture of Prospero and Miranda, Caliban becomes more upset with the fact that he is changing from the individual he was before his island was invaded.
By Ryan Brendle
When you consider the time period that this play was written in, Caliban can very easily represent the dehumanization of indigenous people that was occurring. With his discovery of the Americas in 1492, Columbus opened up the flood gates to colonizers that killed, literally, tens of millions of people. This atrocity was allowed to occur because the colonizers saw the indigenous people as sub-human. It was a common belief that the job of good Christians was to civilize these barbarians.
I see a key correlation between Caliban and the way these indigenous people were viewed. Shakespeare has Caliban try and rape Miranda, to which Caliban excitedly agrees with. Indigenous people were often seen as people who wanted to rape, kill, and destroy. Thus, it seems that Shakespeare projects these characteristics onto Caliban as they were projected on to Latin peoples.
I especially found it interesting at the end of the play that Shakespeare had Caliban agrees to follow Prospero again. this reminded me a lot of how indigenous people were always told to follow the one true god despite that there was a lot of evil acts tied to his persona.
It is interesting comparing the treatment of Caliban to the treatment of the Native American's by Columbus. Today most American's do not think of Columbus as a hero, yet he did treat human beings like animals, just like Prospero is treating Caliban. Although Caliban comes from an unfortunate gene pool, he is still "human" and should be treated as such. He is described as almost beast-like, but who are we to say that he is not a human, but is a beast. He is on an island, secluded from the outside world and is seeing 'normal' people for the first time. He could think that Prospero is the strange one. I find it fascinating that people can go to new places and judge those who were there before them. Different should not be a word synonymous to monstrous, but unfortunately this seems to be the historical norm.
I think that Prospero believes he is doing Caliban a favor. Although Caliban is a slave, Prospero seems to feel his is educating Caliban and making him civilized, despite his unfortunate gene pool. This is an obvious analogue to how the first people coming to the New World were treating the Native Americans. They saw them as backwards and beneath them due to their lifestyle and "savage" nature, much as Prospero and the others look upon Caliban. Caliban, as well as the Native Americans, might not seem so strange without the harsh comparisons of outsiders invading their homes in the first place.
When Caliban says "You taught me language; and my profit on't/Is, I know how to curse. The red plague rid you/For learning me your language!" it's possible that he means you have taught me something that makes me confined to your society against my will. Although I agree with the previous comments about the connection between Caliban and colonization, I also think Caliban just wants to be free to be left alone and enjoy the beauty of nature, which he seems to appreciate differently than the other characters. It's likely that Shakespeare knew all about Columbus and his claims about the wild people he found in the Americas. I'm not so sure how much clarity the Europeans would have had about how those people didn't want to civilized based on Christian values. To me, what’s more logical is the broader idea of the way humans functioned before the creation of societal rules in general (versus the specifics of what was going on in history at that point).
Just as many of the other comments have mentioned, I agree with the parallelism between Caliban and any native culture that was being "civilized" by the Europeans at that time. One thing that I have always found interesting is that the native population always has an initial advantage over the forgein group because they know how to survive in their climate/environment. Yet it seems like the invading party always ends up with the upper hand. Caliban shows Prospero how to survive and ends up enslaved and same thing occured between the Inca and Francisco Pizzaro. The big difference between the Caliban shown in the movie versus what I had pictured is that I had pictured Caliban walking upright, hunched over, but still walking on two legs.
Caliban seems to be used as an example of a savage based on the standards that the rest of soceity had created. In agreeance with some of the other posts, this seems to be much like what native americans were likely thought of by white explorers during US expansion. This creates an image of an inferior race due to its difference from the typical although this is likely an exageration used to create seperation between the different cultures
As everyone else has noted the parallels between Caliban and the Elizabethan misconceptions about Native American's are striking. No doubt Shakespeare drew from this in order to cast the character of Caliban. Putting aside an examination of that misconception i think it would be interesting to investigated the reason why Shakespeare choose to cast such a character. How is it that he contributes to the play? Is Shakespeare trying to expose the injustice of Native American treatment? is Caliban meant to serve as an embodiment of savagery? a archetypal villain? or is Caliban a character of convenience by which the play is pushed along? I don't believe that Shakespeare means to expose the ill treatment of Native American. If he were i think the play would have ended differently for Prospero, but i am at a loss for why Shakespeare cast him as such with those parallels. How does that advance the story? thoughts?
I agree with most of the class and their idea that Caliban is a strong representation of Native american. In Caliban's eyes, Prospero did steel the Island and it was his to begin with. Then Caliban becomes Prosperos servent. This is all very similar to the discovery of america. Secondly, Shakespeares time period was a patriarchal society. Peoples place in society was ranked similar to the rungs of a latter. Caliban was viewed or described as being almost animal like; he is very course and brutal, rarly sensitive. During these times being viewed as an animal would place you with a low position in society. Animals themselves were treated with little care so we expected Caliban to be treated the same.
I also agree with everyone that Caliban had a strong image among representing Native Americans. In this case Prospero did in fact take control of the island away from Caliban. Further Prospero did make Caliban his servant. I think that Prospero viewed Caliban as a second class citizen or in another way didn't think Caliban wasn't worth much at all. Prospero made Caliban feel inferior by doing this. I believe that Shakespeare was attempting to convey a message that explorers that landed on new territories (new land) just took them over with no respect to who was (living) in those territories. I also agree with some of the other posts that the way Caliban was treated was very similar to how Native Americans were treated. I think that Shakespeare's comparsion of Caliban and Native Americans in regards to how they were treated created an inferior image. The way that Caliban and Native Americans were treated made them both feel inferior as well as it made them feel that they weren't worth much.
In the play the treatment Caliban receives closely compares to that of the Native American's at the time. While the Native Americans were thought of savage and barbarians and clearly inferior to the Elizibethian society, Caliban too is treated the same way, especially after becoming Prospero's slave. Shakespeare is clearly trying to convey through Caliban that he, along with the Native Americans, are animalistic and therefore should not be valued according to the superior society. In much of the same way as people tried to "westernize" and "christianize" the Native Americans, Prospero too tries to "educate" Caliban. I believe that Shakespeare, through Caliban, was trying to convey the naiveness of many different races and classes during the time, also which could easily relate to today, and that if the "superiors" would only look harder, they would see that the
"inferiors" had much more to offer than was first visible.
i thought caliban was a beast/monster?
I agree that Caliban is viewed in similar contrast towards the Native Americans, He's viewed as a savage monster, an uncivilized creature. Prospero stole the island from Caliban much like Columbus. He took Caliban as a prisoner and slave towards his works.
It seems that Shakespeare portrayed Caliban as a savage, uncivilized beast both to demonstrate the social order of his time, where Caliban would be a beast at the bottom of the chain, and as a representation of colonization. Caliban could also be seen as one of the "less fortunate" or disadvantaged of society that often get taken advantage of because they fall outside the societal norm.
The way that he is described and reacted to in the text, Caliban must be very disfigured. Between this and the other comments above, it's clear that if this was the common view of "natives" in Shakespeare's time, then we are dealing with a very ugly problem of racism. Indeed, "savages" and the idea of "civilizing" is one of our nation's low points in history to be sure.
My question though, did anyone feel sorry for Caliban or was it just me? Prospero treats him terribly and Shakespeare gives us justification for that, but I still find his treatment inhumane. I'm not convinced that Prospero really is a good guy in this play.
I also agree like everyone else that the prominent theme is Calibans take as being a savage. His beast-like nature makes him out to be this "slave" in nature. Although he is in context slave to Prospero, it fits the bill that his character fit the mold of a bottom feeder deduced in society historically
As you have all said, the parallels between Caliban and the Native Americans are undeniable. Who is to say that Caliban would not have been better off with out Prospero's "help". While the politics are much more complicated, I think we can even take this a step further and compare Prospero to our government. Both seem to take liberties when it comes to those "less" fortunate then us, or in a submissive position. Who is to say that spreading democracy is what those whom we are "liberating" want our help. While primative, Caliban seems to be happy prior to becoming Prospero's understudy. I tend to share Jonathan's opinion to feel compassion for Caliban. I think he can be seen as a victim as well as a beneficiary.
The obvious connection is to the English notion of manifest destiny. Caliban had his isolated island home invaded by new and "cultured" people whom describe him as "a savage and deformed slave". This is the same attitude that the European explores had about the "primitive" people in their colonies. These tribal people were considered savages because there culture differed greatly from the "civilized". Caliban, just as the Native Americans, mayans, incas, africans etc were simply savages. There only purpose, thought the newbies, was to be exploited and enslaved. Shakespeare comments on this in the tempest but his message is slightly ambiguous. Although I feel shakespeare is clear enough that he does not fully agree with the treatment of "savages".
"This island's mine, by Sycorax my mother, Which thou tak'st from me. When thou cam'st first, (...)Which first was mine own king, and here you sty me." Act 1 Scene 2. Interestingly, Shakespeare comments on the relationship between ownership of territory and peoples. Caliban was stymied and reduced to servitude not because he doesn't want to claim the land but from aggressive action by the new party present on the land. This situation and justification for colonizing already inhabited land was a principal driving factor in the colonization of the Americas. Added to Shakespeare's "The Tempest" is notions of HOW to support this action of taking other people's land. Also I believe Karl Nygren's assertion of the orientalism is too presumptuous since it was a theory borne after the fact and represents our idea of WHY they colonized.
Since Caliban is portrayed as half monster half human, he probably reflects on the idea of the native people that aren't as evolved and sophisticated as the Europeans perceive themselves as. However the way that he is portrayed with feelings, and ideas of revenge to get his home back, shows that he shows signs of being just as human as the other characters, and that maybe it is not right that Prospero took over his island and enslaved him. There is a moral delema here, that reflects on the discovery of the new world and the enslavement of the natives that was happening in the times that shakespeare was living and writing.
I think each society will justify it's invasion or dominance of another in some way. During Elizabethan times, Europeans needed to consider themselves superior to deflect their own moral objections of things they did when they 'colonized'. Do we consider the enslavement of Gargamel in the Lord of the Rings justifiable since he is a degenerate human? Shakespeare is examining HOW societies dispense from their ethical responsibility to others; He complicates the situation by making him not completely human, thus eliminating the possibility of apply a strictly 'human rights' approach. Shakespare is asking to what extent do we give 'rights' to beings and if we revoke them, why? In The Tempest the Europeans justify this by saying Caliban is uncivilized and needs their guidance AND lordship.
I also feel Caliban is a representative of Native Americans. This is because Prosper did take over the island, and then made Prosper his servant just like the Europeans did to the Native Americans. In a way, it is synonymous to the way Europeans came to the Native American's land and took over, then treated them inferiorly just like Prosper did to Caliban.
i have to agree with previous comments about Caliban and Native Americans, but I actually believe that the basis for this view comes from the English views of the Irish. Later this view was applied to the Native Americans because it was familiar to the English. John Smith writes of similarities between Native American and Irish clothing. Morton talks of similarities in the housing of the two. Roger Williams talked of how the woods were places for Native Americans to hide much like the bogs of Ireland. Of course, Caliban takes aspects of Native Americans as well. Native Americans were captured and brought back as exhibits to England, much like Caliban could have been. It seems that Caliban is a personification of savagery, yet it is paradoxical that most English saw natives as somehow "other," not human. Even Prospero says Caliban is a devil, not a human. How does one personify when that person is thought to be less than a person?
Aime Cesaire wrote A Tempest, a response play to Shakespeares The Tempest. What is interesting is that Cesaire's focus for the play is based on European colonialism. He perfectly depicts Prospero as the exploitive usurper he is, and Caliban as the oppressed savage. In both plays Prospero uses the tool of language and religion to dominate Caliban. Prospero GIVES Caliban the proper languange and the ultimate religion. It is interesting to see how Prospero assumes that Caliban can not speak because he was never taught, simply disregaurding Caliban's native tounge.
Posted by Zach Serrano (5pm class)
I, like the majority of those who have posted, agree that we can draw comparisons between the brutal conquest and colonization of what is now called "Las Américas"and Shakespeare's play "The Tempest." But before I go any further in this discussion, I would first like to point out that Columbus NEVER DISCOVERED ANYTHING! His incompetency found him lost in a world that was populated by millions of sophisticated and incredibly intelligent indigenous and native peoples. By continuing to use the language, "Columbus discovered the New World," we enact an erasure of the histories, peoples, and traditions that existed in this world prior to the European conquest and subsequent colonization. If this cannibal is said to have "discovered" this "New World," then how could anything have existed prior? Discovery entails that one has found something that was before unknown. Columbus, nor any other European invader (I choose to use the word invader rather than explorer), should be credited with any kind of discovery in this so called "New World." We indigenous people have always existed here, and it is no "New World" to us...this Anahuak, Indetah, Turtle Island, and the many other names in the various indigenous languages that describe this place...our home!
With that said, I appreciate Karl Nygren's comment about Said's theory of orientalism and how it can be applied to Caliban. I agree, and feel that the construction of dichotomous binaries through the objectification and exotification of the "other," has been a strategy consistently employed by white, European imperialist powers in their conquest and colonization of indigenous peoples around the world. Constructing these binaries, the invaders have been able to establish themselves as inherently superior and more "civilized," and thus justified in their brutal and vile acts of violence committed against the darker skinned "other."
"You taught me language; and my profit on't/Is, I know how to curse. The red plague rid you/For learning me your language!" (act 1, scene 2). This line is exemplary of the attitude held by the forces of colonization. They feel that they are doing the native peoples a favor by teaching us their white, European languages and instilling us with their western, Christian cultures. However, we see it as nothing more than a corruption and destruction of our native languages and cultures. When Caliban says, "my profit on't/Is, I know how to curse," I view it as him saying that every word he utters now is a curse. Speaking in this foreign tongue, imposed by those who conquered and stole his land, separates him from his culture and the history of his people. During his lecture here at CU, M-1 of Dead Prez said, "All these people get pissed off because I say 'fuck' and 'shit' and other curse words. Shit, every word I say is a curse word. I can't even speak the language of my ancestors, all I can do is curse in the language of white male imperialism." (That is not a direct quote but is representative of what he said).
I agree with a lot of what has been said already in that Caliban is most likely representative of either specifically Native Americans or natives of lands that have been recently discovered. Shakespeare uses the Tempest to explore the human emotions that are coupled with the exploitation of individuals that are "less intelligent" as Elizabethan settlers seemed to believe of natives. Many simply used religion as an excuse to treat such people as insubordinates when they actually had more of a right to the land as it was originally theirs.
Caliban is portrayed as uncivilized, which I agree can be related to the perception of Native Americans by Elizabethan society. However, Shakespeare does allow for interpretation of the character by introducing a more compassionate side. The negative connotations of Caliban out-weight the glimpses of positive attributes.
Caliban is portrayed as a what the exploreres were finding in Native Lands. He is considered an idiot which is what Elizabethan society believed at the time, that the native people they were finding were just uncivilizied barbarians. Stephano and Trinculo call him their "servant monster". It also shows how even though the Europeans thought he was a moron by their standards, he can help them by showing them the land and resources only he knows about.
Caliban represents the uncivilized of the time. Prospero takes him under his wing and almost feel as if he is doing him a favor. He justifies his acts towards Caliban as him socializing and educating him. He very much could be related to the Native Americans in this way as many viewed them as lower class and not as smart as the people colonizing America. He will never be seen as fully human and will be overtaken even though the island is rightfully his.
I agree with Natasha's statement that Caliban represents a stereotype -- but it is interesting the way Shakespeare makes his side of the story very clear. We are aware of Caliban's perspective on Prospero, which humanizes Caliban more so than if Shakespeare had portrayed him as more unusual.
Post a Comment