Tempest Act II and III

The article on postcolonialism has many possible connections that can be made with themes in the Tempest. For example, the article defines two different roles a person can play. There is what is called the "colonizer", and what is called "the colonized". The colonizer, as described in the article, is the conqueror, and the colonized is the one that has been conquered. In the Tempest, Caliban is the "colonized", and Prospero is the "colonizer".Caliban was the first in his area, but was taken over by an overpowering figure. In this case, this figure is Prospero. Caliban actually describes Prospero as "a sorcerer that by this cunning hath cheated me of the island." There is also definitely a possible connection that can be made between Caliban and the Native Americans. Caliban, like the Native Americans got to the land first. As for the Native Americans, it was the white men that took over their land.
Having Caliban explain to Trinculo, and the other characters, what happened to him when he first got to the island enables the reader to feel sympathy for him. Caliban explains how Prospero took his control from him and treated him poorly, and this makes the audience feel sorry for Caliban. There are many different things that Shakespeare could be trying to portray to his audience in doing this, but as for now, I haven't quite decided which one i feel is accurate. The whole point of writing this could be to show racism, or the power of the whites. However, it could also be about a monarchy and the different levels of power. Or these ideas could be totally off, who knows?

Tempest Act 1

As I was reading the Tempest, I noticed a couple overall themes presented through one of the main characters, Prospero. Prospero wants a lot of power, and he uses manipulation to gain his control. For example, his daughter Miranda barely knows him. All she knows about him is that he is her father. Taking advantage of that fact, Prospero persuades Miranda to think false thoughts about him. He tells Miranda this heroic story of how he "saved" her, and all these great things about him. Miranda, not knowing any differently, believes him because he is her father and she is supposed to trust him. However, something I found interesting was how throughout the conversation with Miranda, Prospero is constantly making sure that Miranda is listening intently to everything that he is saying. He wants to make sure that every single facts gets into her little brain so that he can gain her loyalty. The fact that Miranda is his daughter unfortunately does not stop Prospero's thirst for overpowing control. He also uses manipulation with Caliban. Prospero violently threatens Caliban with his powers, so that Caliban will follow his every command. Having no other choice, Caliban agrees to obey him because he knows what Prospero is capable of. Prospero also uses his power over Ariel by telling him about how Ariel used to be tortured. Prospero convinces Ariel that he saved him himself, and that all the credit goes to him. He tells him, "It was mine art, When I arrived and heard thee, that made gape The pine and let thee out." Convinced that Prospero is his "hero", Ariel agrees to do everything that Prospero says. Already, Prospero has three characters under his own control.


This method that Prospero uses to gain control over the people is similar to the totalitarian government in 1984. The government uses the same tactics in convincing their citizens that their past was miserable and horrible, and that if it wasn't for them, the Party, they would not be as well off as they are today. Prospero convinces Miranda and Ariel that they had horrible pasts, and that he saved them. I can only imagine what Prospero is going to do with all this power.

Class Discussion Reflection

In my opinion, there are many things we can do about the “textbook issue” that would make textbooks unbiased. I believe that when a story or event is told in a history book, both sides of the story should be included. For example, if there was a passage about a war in history, we could include what took place and the opinions of both opposing sides. Instead of having trouble deciding what to include and what not to include in the books, I think we should just put anything that was documented about that particular event in it. There should be no elimination of any parts of history, including the “not so important” facts. It does matter what you include in the history books because it is what our youth is learning today. There should be nothing but facts. It is not fair to have everyone learning about one specific person’s opinions. What is included in the books is also important because I believe we need to know exactly what has happened in our history, that way we are able to learn from our mistakes and take pride in the country we are today by reflecting on our past.

            When discussing the aspect of including the minority voices in our history books, I believe in both sides. I believe that everyone should have a say if they wish; however, having each and every individual’s opinions heard and documented would make things a lot more complicated and chaotic in the books. The textbooks would be nothing but quotes from different people about what went on. In a way, that would be useful information because all of the sides to the conflict would be mentioned, but I think only the facts are necessary.

            I believe that the way history is taught does in fact affect the way it is learned. All my life, or at least my high school career, I have been taught history the exact same way. All that has been given to me are specific dates and events that I am supposed to memorize for a specific amount of time in order to pass the test. After that, it disappeared from my mind. I agree with the article when it says that the content in a history class should be taught in a way that analyzes the information more. That way the information sticks in students’ heads and helps them know what actually happened and the reasons behind it.