Conrad isn't that hot

I like Heart of Darkness, but at the same time I do not like Heart of Darkness. I know it is suppose to be one of the best pieces of literature ever written, but I have issues with it, aside from Conrad's portrayal of Africans that was covered in the last blog. I kinda thought I was on my own with those feelings but apparently Chinua Achebe beat me to the punch.

I love what Chinua Achebe says in the beginning in response to a young Yonkers Native that enjoyed the strange customs of Africa in Things Fall Apart. think for a second, don't just gloss over my blog, what kind of strange things do you do. Imagine that you haven't always grown up in the United States and only saw it in a quick glimpse. Let me tell you of a few things I thought up, aside from religions being funny (like wine turning into a Jewish mans blood to wine or eggs on Easter), how about people wearing the same things every Sunday to help their team out? The superstition at Western that if you step on the W by the library you will fail your first exam? Or think way back, when you had a Nintendo that you and only you were able to fix your own game cartridges, even though all people blow the same way?

I like that Achebe says that he refuses to accept Conrad's account of Africa in Heart of Darkness. I too do not want to take his word for it just because I have never set foot in Africa. Look at Sir Henry Stanley, we know now that he made up large portions of his stories and books but at the time they were taken as gospel because no one could disprove him. Plus it is a book, books even ones based on facts normally construe and exaggerate facts to make something sell. How can we be sure he did not make up things or use words to sell his book. Like him being fixated on blackness. His description of black people was obviously slanted to be sold to a certain crowd, who is to say Conrad didn't make up the bulk of his journey, people do it all the time!

Toward the end of his writing Achebe gives Conrad some credit for his writing. Conrad told of porters who crawled off to the side of the road to die. Give credit for him showing how Europeans mistreated the Africans they "hired". I will begrudging give him credit for showing Africans suffering. My thoughts are this, I don't think Conrad knew how to illustrate African's through the story and I can understand why. It's kinda like class the other week when no one wanted to come out and say that Roger Casement was gay, it is a taboo still in society. For Conrad, Africans would still be a taboo, Africans not Black people mind you. How do you represent a person/ group of people that you have nothing in common with? How do you adequately represent what you want to get across to the audience knowing that they do not have a heavy background in all things Africa? This is like a when you write your first research paper. You do all sorts of research and you are ready to show off EVERYTHING you know, despite if it fits or not. This is the problem I see in Conrad, he has so much to tell, so much he has seen and he wants to fit it all into his story. But, to prove a point you need to stick with one side of the story, not just shotgun everything you can think of into the work.

"I don't see any method at all, sir."

The first time I read Heart of Darkness it did not really have any bite to it. I didn't really have a background built about the Congo region so I wasn't sure what to make of Conrad's book; second time around I have a greater respect for it (though I find it winded at points).

I love what Conrad does with the Kurtz situation, we get the feeling that most people do not like him and we hear even wish him death. I like this part because it keeps me a little more grounded. It is hard to read a history book like King Leopold's Ghost and not assume subconsciously that all Europeans were in on this big conspiracy to suck Africa dry of it's resources. I have to remember that they were all human being and susceptible to human emotions like envy and greed. They weren't all there working together to hold the African down, they were there on business. True, they were all there emaciating African villages but they weren't thinking grand scale, they were thinking about making a profit for themselves. Remember too, many of the people working in the Congo were not from Belgium, they were adventure seekers and people who wanted money. A few years in the Congo meeting ivory incentives could turn a small fortune for a man and Kurtz is making them all jealous

I don't know what to make of the cannibal reference. I realize the African says that he would eat the others that were threatening the ship, but look at it this way. Their meat was thrown out by the white people because it smelled bad, so now their diet consists of things the author doesn't really know what it is. I don't relish the thought but if I were working all day cutting wood with very little food to go on, I would eat a person. I'm not a vegetarian, let's be honest, I wouldn't go more than a week without substantial eating before I thought of tasting a human (cooked mind you!). But with Conrad labeling the Africans helping him as cannibals is really detrimental to the view of Africans in the eyes of Western readers! One could go on to assume that most Africans, perhaps mainly the helpful ones, enjoy eating humans. This sets Africans back, just as they are gaining ground to becoming, people in the eyes of Western society Conrad says they still eat humans! This is so frustrating, especially since it is often said that this book is about the horrors of colonialism. I'm done, on this note Conrad is frustrating me, feel free to finish my thoughts.

Did anyone catch the gender roles going on in the third part when they actually meet Kurtz and his village. When they see the lady decked out in all the ivory she is tabbed as Kurtz' mistress and that she is part of the reason that he is going "off the reservation" so to say. Isn't this just like early 1900's men to claim a woman must be behind such a great man's downfall! It comes from the image that a woman is either a good subservient housewife, or she is the cause of any change or problem of the man. I'm not sure what to make of this, I'm not a fan of all of Conrad's portrayals of African's in Heart of Darkness. But, giving an African woman the same traits as he would someones wife back in England means that he considers the African lady to be part of his shared society. Just a little something to think about.

Random question, what do you make of it that the decapitated of African's are facing inward toward Krutz' house?

My still favorite part though is the quote that was stolen to use in Apocalypse Now "the horror the horror" (scene not for the animal lovers). However, I digress, such a small line but really powerful and interesting to think about. If you go and read Wikipedia (which I am sure you did) or many other sources about Heart of Darkness it is interpreted that Marlow thinks Kurtz is reflecting on everything he did when making his famous last lines. That's nice and all, but I am more pessimistic than Marlow/Conrad. And yes I realize I am probably arguing against the author himself, but he is dead so he can not come and say I'm wrong. We have Kurtz out there chopping peoples heads off, doing other dirty deeds, we can use our King Leopold imagination to figure out more devious business he was probably doing. We also know that Europeans felt justified and were encouraged to do these things. What if Kurtz was talking about the Africans, what if his final statement was about the people he was dying around. Does that change how you read the end of the book. Think about it from the angle of a European who was dying away from home surrounded by people he was oppression not his loved ones, maybe then you exclaim "the horror".

So yeah, this happened...

I want to back up to some pages we read for Tuesday. I really, morbidly, enjoyed the note taking that people did about what they did to the natives. I know, ethically it is wrong, but the massacring happened so why not give us some information on it. It reminds me of the meticulous note taking that the Nazi's took from concentration camps; except the Congo diaries were not shut away from the public. As a historian, I think it is great they took such grotesque notes. First of all, it provides primary sources which are heaven on pages for us. Second, it makes sure no one forgets what an atrocity is. I am going to go on a limb here and guess that many of these acts carried out by the Europeans disturbed you while reading. Even though I have a pretty deep background in slavery and colonization, the amount of lashes a person could receive was astounding! 100, sometimes 25 can kill a person. And the pouring of salt and pepper into wounds, that's sadistic to say the least. And the taking of right hands, it was pretty clear that the officials put no price on an African life. What struck me was how the Belgium's felt about Africans, if not written down through their actions. Despite the high death rate in the Caribbean and South America, slaves were considered an investment, like a car. You want to take care of the car, so it doesn't die on you before it's time is up. Slaves in the Western Hemisphere weren't starved, and things like cutting off hands or feet were detrimental to them working. I realize it is odd to think of one type of slavery being better than another, but it really puts things into perspective for me. Africa, was not a good place to be in the 1800's.

The point of King Leopold's Ghost where I exasperated out loud for Leopold to give it up was on page242 when the Confederate general, who had previously supported King Leopold in obtaining Congo, railed against the atrocities going on there. I realize this was so he could try and convince African-Americans to move there, but still, when you can't get a man who doesn't like people of African decent to agree with you, it is time to throw in the towel. It is actually nice of Senator Morgan to take the side of the Congo because one could make the argument that if he wanted to tow the Belgium party line he would try to convince everyone in America that no atrocities were going on. I know this is a stretch and a hard sell going against Mark Twain, but if I were a racist in the South that is the route I would have gone, and tried to get on the bribery money train!

It amazes, much like the author of this book, that this crisis in Africa was never ever mentioned in my education. The United States seems to only want to record atrocities when they intervene in time. There isn't a lack of sources on record about what was happening in the Congo and elsewhere in Africa, so the logical step is that is is simply overlooked. Had the United States stepped in early on and stopped what was happening you can believe that it would be trumpeted as democracy stepping in and righting a wrong. I have not seen a text book actually include the Rwanda massacre in 1994, maybe now that multiple movies have been made about it this will change, but it still took over a decade for even that to happen. We like to view ourselves as smart, so smart that we are able to go out and right wrongs that we find occurring in the world. However, we only do this if we are the first to find these wrongs and correct them so we can chalk it up to good old American knowhow.

Many of you in class were really hard on yourself about not knowing that this happened, maybe thinking yourself ignorant of large situations. I have to reassure you on this, not a large group of people do know about this. I was talking to a former history professor before class, he teaches but like all history doctors has diversified over the years. He'd heard of what went on but had not read this book yet, and he's a doctor of history. I also think back to when I was intern teaching. My mentor and I taught Global Studies (which meant whatever we wanted since there was no book) she went to college in the 80's and was appalled that she had never heard of South African Apartheid before entering college. This is what college is for, to finally spread your wings and learn things that high school teachers couldn't touch. Basically, don't beat yourself up over it, if you knew everything about the Worlds history then...well clearly you wouldn't be here and I'd be asking you to be on my future Master's team!

Do you have a flag?

I have done a lot of work on colonization and slavery in Africa, there was an entire class of it at the 400 level in History a few years ago. There really wasn't anything about the facts of colonization that shocked our surprised me. However, the players were different, I have never looked at Belgium as a colonialist, most courses focus on Britain or the French if you are lucky.

I have to give King Leopold II credit for never giving up on his dream of a colony. His first attempts, like trying to drain lakes to make a colony seem pretty ridiculous to me, possible, but not the smartest route. At that point of his life he seemed like an excited child who found a way to get a new toy. Then he really stepped up his efforts and tried finding new areas. There were countless times where his plans were shot down or hit road bumps, at any of these times he could have given up, but not Leopold he powered through that. I think it goes to show the overwhelming feeling in Europe at the time. Everyone knew that the next step to being the world leader wasn't in Europe but abroad, so every European nation wanted to grab as much land around the world as possible.

Whenever I hear someone proclaim in classes that they cannot understand how nations can go to a land with people already on it and claim it as their new found land, Eddie Izzard pops into my head.

Colonization, flags are key. This is partially true, depending what flag you fly under is the country that can claim your exploits. Well, flags and guns. That is what made Henry Morton Stanley so useful for King Leopold, his first expeditions were not for any country it was paid for by his employers. Since the papers he was working for did not want to claim any parts of Africa he was exploring, it made the world view Stanley as a neutral explorer, safe to be employed by Belgium and King Leopold's sneaky land grab in Africa. Oh, and the last thing is that if you claim a river as your countries you get all the tributaries, hence why King Leopold's claim kept getting larger (same applied to the French and the Mississippi River).

My favorite part of the first 100 pages of King Leopold's Ghost was how King Leopold worked his treaties. In the initial conference in Berlin Leopold managed to get his territory by telling the nations, like Germany and America, that his Congo would be free of tariffs. This would be very appealing because it would let the countries import goods and still sell them at a large profit. This all went out the window when at the Anti-Slavery Conference King Leopold was given the go ahead to levy imports so the King could aid in the war against the Barbary slave trade. It is good to note that the Barbary slave trade and white slavery ended in the 1830's. So either Europeans were being nice and caring about African's enslaving other Africans or the powers that be were exploiting old feelings for their own uses.

The Boers and their wars

I need to start sitting closer to Allen because the topic I really wanted was the Zulu, however, when we first picked topics I confused the Berbers with the Boers so it only seems fitting.
The Netherlands is a small country but during the imperialistic phase of Europe they did not want to be left out. Not being powerhouses on the military front they did not try and claim massive amount of land, instead they picked prime locations that they could use for trading. This was primarily how the British started their conquests as well, doing it through commerce and then later bringing in their government and people.

The word Boer actually means farmer in Dutch so calling someone a Boer means they work the land, lower class as well, obviously. They settled in Africa after the initial commerce period, namely in what is now South Africa. Here's the short of how it all went down. The Boers had very independent spirit and liked slavery. After the Dutch were beaten in a in the early 1800's they lost control of most of their imperial lands, the British took them over. The Brits outlawed slavery in 1833, so a few years after that the Boers packed their stuff up and went searching for new lands they could have and keep slaves. They moved North and East as shown on the map.
Obviously these new lands were already occupied, by the Zulu people. Being European, they felt it was their right and destiny to have the land. Accounts vary as to how everything transpired but there ended up being a great battle between the Boers and Zulus. Though outnumbered the Boers had guns compared to the short thrusting spears and sticks of the Zulu. It was basically a massacre. I mentioned this show, Last Man Standing, before in a blog post but here is a small clip of what the sticks and shields look like. If you are not a fan of blood you should stop before a the 1:29 mark. But it does show you how effective the Zulu warriors could have been in war...not against guns. As with most conquests the Boers thought it was gods will to win the battle against the Zulu because they prayed and promised if they won they, the Boers, would commemorate the day as a Sabbath. And really, if God wasn't on their side then he would have made them lose the battle, right?
For a while the Boers and British lived in peace, after all they were both white and white was right. It is funny what happens next because it has been the same throughout the next two centuries when Africa is involved. Around 1868 diamonds were found in the two new areas the Boers lived. Clearly, the Boers could not have the resources, so the British annexed the large area called Transvaal. Time passed and resentment of English rule grew and in 1880 the first shots of The First Boer War were fired. It wasn't a war in a grand sense but fighting still happened. The Boers being natives to the land and farmers fought with guerrilla tactics and for some reason the British still used their red coats which made them prime targets in the jungle. Fighting only lasted a year before the British felt it would not prove profitable, they let the Boers govern over themselves with British oversight, besides they had the diamond mines.

The British acted a bit too soon because in 1886 large gold deposits were found in Transvaal, renewing a reason to own it for the British. What led up to the violent conflict is long, drawn out and pretty complicated, it would take pages to fully tell, just know that eventually in 1899 war was declared. Being slow on the uptake the British still did not get that the Boers moved light, were excellent shots and fought a different war than the British wanted. Plus the Boers were better equipped this time, at the onset of war they lay siege to three towns under British control and were successful on all three attempts. This was considered the first phase of the war.
The Second phase looked more kindly on the British who used size over tactics. It took numerous attempts by the British but they were finally able to capture back cities and the capital of Tranvsaal, Pretoria. The British fared better in this second part because many of the battle involved large numbers of men and really went away from the guerrilla tactics that are usually the bread and butter of small forces.
The third phase is my favorite part. Boers split into small commando units, went back to the where they were from and started making raids to harass the British. Very much like what I said about The Battle for Algiers. They knew the locals so could count on them for help and hiding. This made it impossible for the British to hold control. Much like American's saw in Vietnam, once the occupying force physically left the area, they no longer held sway over it. So now the British implemented two horrific ways to control the Boers. The first was the scorched earth policy, where you simply burn everything in your wake, this way there are no supplies for the enemies (or innocent people but they come second to the motherland). Oh yeah, and they set up concentration camps! Same thing applies to what comes into your head when you hear about them, poor hygiene, little food and rampant disease.
In the end these extreme policies helped the British win the war and they were able to fold the lands into their Empire. They allowed the Boers some freedom of state, but in the end were accountable to the British throne. High five Britain you successfully killed off 50,000 Boers in a two year span. Isn't colonization fun!

Pics from the Village of Umuofia

I chose this image first because I did not think that any buildings would be two stories. It is just an odd personal bias that I had, even knowing that the Europeans were there and they would try to make it look as much like home as possible, I never thought they would try and take a building two stories. Oddly to me, it looks like the structure was made with clay just like Things Fall Apart said. This seems like poor planning on the part of the Europeans because after the rainy season every year clay will deteriorate and it will get harder and harder to make the structure stay standing or not leaning like the Tower of Pisa. The more I spend time looking at the picture the more I think it might just have vaulted ceilings. How odd is it that that second floor would be a balcony. Very European, reminds me of antebellum South.
Apparently I am stuck on looking at the buildings of the Ibo people, probably because they are different than what I expected to see. Like I said before there was always mention of clay, having to rebuild the walls, cover them with palms so they would not wash away in the rains and so on. This structure shown is more of a thatched structure taking the roof almost all the way to the ground. When I was thinking of buildings from Things Fall Apart I was thinking that they would have large clay walls with only the thatching on top as a roof. To me this makes more sense as perhaps a barn to store the yams, aside from water seeping in on the ground. I think I can wrap my head around that more because we never get a description of what the barns look like and because this seems very large for one persons house. As people brought up in class it did not seem like the Ibo were very wasteful with their goods and this too would mean space. This large of a structure would seem like a waste of space on a compound.

I don't have many insightful things to say about this picture I just liked how intricately carved the walking sticks are. I for one thin we should all have canes such as these because it adds flair. Ladies, you could have different colored ones to match the outfit of the day, it could be the shoe of the 21st century. I imagine these walking sticks were either for elders or respected members of society. It might be that the figures carved on the sticks are that persons chi; it could act as a little way to keep them with you at certain events or functions. Better yet they may belong to the people who act as the nine gods in the ceremonies, like the trail. Since the designs are so intricate I imagine they have something to do with stature, not everyone woukld be able to acquire one.

"Things Fall Apart and MC's unraveling"

I read Things Fall Apart for the first time in 8th grade and years later when I was introduced to the music group The Roots the first album I heard was entitled Things Fall Apart. Whenever the book is mentioned this song runs through my head. Enjoy while you read.



What hit me first was the wrestling portion, not because I am a guy and it exudes all things manly, but because the atmosphere was easy to place. The loud music, people gathered around, it could be any sporting event, except maybe cricket, those matches are pretty quiet. To visualize this event was easy as well, last year Discovery Channel put out a show where American and British athletes travel around the world competing in other cultures sporting events. One of these events was wrestling in Senegal, decently close to where Ibo lands would be. Same rules seemed to apply from the television show and the book, where the winner was the person who was thrown to their back and you challenged your opponent by pointing to them from across the circle.

It always amazes me how missionary's conduct themselves while in foreign lands looking for converts. Chinua Achebe shows two different approaches that colonialism applied when taking over regions. The first approach used by Mr. Brown gives respect to the Ibo people. Mr. Brown wants to co-exist with the Ibo people not pressing the religion or European changes on the people. Well, that is to say it isn't Christianity or death for the Umuofia people. It looks like Mr. Brown is trying to let the education and advancement of the Ibo people. Once people became educated then they would see the flaws of their old way of living, as well as, their old gods. Reverend James Smith on the other hand acted as we see in history books that most colonialist acted. Mr. Brown was settling for small steps forward, treating the Ibo as if they were people, not savages that needed to be tamed. Rev. Smith wanted perfection of what they were being taught about Christianity, there would be no half steps in the education. It was as if Rev. Smith did not like the fact that he was converting the Ibo people so he wanted only a few of them to become converts. I don't think it would be far fetched to think that Rev. Smith would try to displace or terminate the majority of the Umuofia to simply be done with the Ibo people.

That brings us to colonization and the Abame tribe. With what happened to the Abame tribe it really illustrates Europe's view toward the people of Africa and just how far they are willing to go to bend the entire continent to their will. A white man appears in their village, they consult the oracle and then kill the white man who came on his bicycle. There is a wealth of option the white people had, perhaps to go into the village and speak a language that would make sense to them. Instead, the colonists, or more likely the government, waited until a market day and slaughtered everyone. This shows deliberate planning on the parts of the white attackers, they knew enough about the culture of the area to wait until a day where the vast majority of the tribe, men women and children, would be in one central location. A planned brutal massacre. This also shows the mind set of what Europeans thought of the African people, one European was worth the entire tribe of Africans.

I find it interesting that Achebe taps in a source of shared history that many people who would be colonized seem to have. In Things Fall Apart the oracle offers forth that the white man would be the destruction of the tribe and when one came more would follow. Reading for another class this weekend I found that many Native American tribes had the same prophecies before massive colonization of the America's. There is often a big deal made that different cultures have simular myths and legends. For example, all cultures have a flood story of some kind and there is always a creation story. It is interesting to see that both Native Americans and Africans claim that their oracles or dreams. It brings up an interesting question however, did these predictions actually take place before the entrance of white colonization or was it created as an afterthought to continue to justify the elders and gods? I tend to think that these stories were made up after the fact so the elders would not be questioned by their tribes as to why they did not see such a disaster coming. Besides that, if such a warning was given and you lived your life according to the oracle then how do you, as the oracles followers, not listen to them and get rid of the white people when they come.

One part I must make note of is the seeming ignorance of Okonkwo of the slave trade and of white people. I know that the slave trade in this region dealt mainly around the coast and the Umuofia tribe was much further inland than most traders would go, but where did Okonkwo think he got his gun, or where they were getting the razors that they were shaving their heads with? Slave trade was quite prevalent even before Europeans were looking for their alternative work force. The slave trade was inter-tribal and came from such occasions like wars, simply kidnapping or, as shown in the book, as penance for breaking laws. It became common practice for the tribes of the coast area to use their newly aquired European goods to obtain more slaves, this in turn caused more wars to be fought, since that was primarially where slaves came from. Okonkwo was made ignorant of white men, only having heard of them in passing, which again given his European goods seems unlikely. I realize this is nitpicking a wonderful book by Achebe and that the resources on the slave trade are relatively new in comparison to the book, it seemed like a valid point to bring up since it was the "new" white threat that ulimately brought down Okonkwo. It is interesting to note that two of the worst things that happen to Okonkwo, his exile and his death where brought about by Europeans. Machete's don't explode like cheap guns do, eliminate their presence from afar bringing the gun then you eliminate Okonkwo's exile and give the story an entirely new look.

The Berbers are old

It would not be prudent to try and convince someone who is a "Berber" that they are in fact called Berbers instead of whatever they are calling themselves. The term Berber was used by most people of the Mediterranean in reference to the people of North Africa, but it is unknown what group of people actually named them as such. It could have been the Persians or the Arabs with their words, "barbakh"/"barbar" and "khanah".

It is safe to say the the Berbers were around for a long time in Africa. They were mentioned in Egyptian writings in the periods before dynasty's (around 3100BC). The Berber people were generally well respected in the ancient world. This can be blatantly seen by their interactions with the Romans. It was already discussed that people like the Persians and Arabs had different names for the Berber people; the Romans however, offered enough respect to call them by the names of their large independent kingdoms. I say that this is a respect because when you look at the large German (Gaul) the Romans never referred to them as separate people, instead just The Gauls, no tribes were really recognized.Being well respected could not buy the Berbers a break though, since they inhabited North Africa, as in the coast by the Mediterranean, there were many invaders to the coast throughout the years. There are too many invaders to list them all, but it goes without saying that they all left small imprints in Berber society.

When Islam was sweeping through Northern Africa the Berber tribes were fairly receptive to the ideas. Islam helped take the place of the old religions and ways of living, taking away many of the tribal practices previously held by the Berbers. Not only did the new religion take them away from their tribal ways but it brought with it new opportunities to learn, as well as, military practices.

Islam call to prayer


I learned something when researching the Berbers. I had always known, from history classes and Talib Kweli songs, that Muslim people invaded and held Spain for a period of time and this has effect the looks and culture of the people on the Iberian Peninsula. Amazingly, one of the successful generals,Tarik ibn Ziyad, on one of the invasion attempts was a Berber. This is pretty huge in the history world, because several invasion attempts into Spain did not go so well. General Ziyad had quite a force with him and wasted no time after victories pushing out the European army out of Spain. Little fun fact about him, where he landed after crossing from Morocco to Spain was named after him, Djabal Tarik meaning Tarik's Mountian or more commonly Gibraltar. Yep, the Rock of Gibralter was named after a Berber, pretty big deal. At least to history nerds.

Now, in the modern times the wealth of the Berber populous is located in Morocco, Libya, Algeria, and Tunisia. They are mainly found in the news of Morocco, probably because 42% of the Moroccan population is Berber. As nations do from time to time, Morocco tried to negate the past of the Berber people enacting laws to hinder the growth and retention of the Berber culture. Small indignities, like not allowing children to have Berber names to more in your face laws like banning the use of Berber languages in schools. After a few Berber revolts in the 1970's and 1980's opened the eyes of King Hassan II to the plight of the Berbers. This is interesting because Hassan was the same king who, decades earlier, started programs in an attempt to make Morocco more Arab. Allowing students to receive up to three hours of instruction in Tamazight, one of the more widely spoken Berber languages, helped students immensely. Imagine, going to school for the first time at the age of 10, being very excited to finally go to school and learn new things and then when you enter your first day of class the teacher only speaks in Arabic, a language you are unfamilur with. This was obviously not a good scenario for students to learn in. Now, since the change things have been much better, schools offer classes where both Arabic and Tamazight so it isn't such a draastic change, a student can ease into the new language before they move on to the mainly Arabic and French courses as they get older.

Western looks different

What happened to all the trees on campus? I remember sitting under trees on campus and now there is just tall grass. It looks like a safari. And the steps before Knauss, the last set of steps that make sure you are sweating before you walk into class? I feel like an old man reminiscing about how things were when I was a kid, even though I am only 24 (and no that is not old).
My name is Peter Larr and I haven't figured out the title for what I am yet, perhaps a super awesome senior. I graduated from Western once already with a Secondary Ed History major and minors in English and Social Studies (one of the last to be able to have Social Studies). I was not a grateful English minor, ask Allen, but I learned quickly that the only readily available jobs out there were English teaching jobs. After graduation in the winter of 2006 I packed up all my stuff and moved to Florida with 2 interviews. Since Florida is 46th in education I was hired in the interview to teach 9th grade English and 11th grade speech. Did that for a semester then switched to the adult school to teach basic Language Arts to anyone below the 9th grade level. Well, Florida is not that great of a state so this summer, despite having no job I moved back to Michigan and here I am, back with Allen Webb, just like before I left.
When I am not able to make children cry in the classroom I enjoy watching and playing football. I spend too much money on books are Barnes and Noble. I also like enjoying the lovely establishments all around Kalamazoo.
Clearly, my life goal is to teach again. Though I have been going through a mid-twenties crisis not knowing who or what level I want to teach and complaining about the slouching Michigan economy.