Author Archives: tst598

Blog Post 9: Saddling Wild Tongues

The term “tame”, in and of itself, is heavily associated with animality. Taming of an animal (like a horse, for example) usually involves violence or abuse in some form. It also involves making the animal dependent on the tamer for survival. When we try to apply this concept to humans in the way that Anzaldùa suggests, it becomes clear that there are already societal structures in place that aim to “tame” in this sense. A “wild tongue” and, by extension, a “wild” person is tamed through the systemic oppression and marginalization of all folks deemed “wild”, “inferior”, or “savage.” American schools are enforcing a sort of systemic oppression when they exclusively teach in English and punish students for speaking other languages. They are using their access and authority to attempt to tame the “wild” tongue of the students through systemic. In a more literal sense, Africans who were enslaved during the transatlantic slave trade were immediately labeled “savage” by foreign colonizers. The colonizers then attempted to “tame” and exploit them through all kinds of abuse. This grotesque, deplorable, and truly evil “taming” included whipping and branding practices that were also commonly used to “tame” livestock, in addition to sexual violence and language deprivation. 

– Tsion Teffera

1 Comment

Filed under Welcome

Blog Post 8: Wildness as a Liminal Word and Humanimality

  1. “There was a wild woman dancing in the street last night.”
  2. “Tom used to live in the city like the rest of us but one day he just abandoned this way of life and left town. I heard that now he is a wild man who lives by himself in the woods.”
  3. “Many believe that all wild animals should be living in their natural habitats, free of zoos, man-made animal sanctuaries, or any human interference.”
  4. “A wild beast came out of nowhere and attacked our tent in the woods! It was so scary.”
  5. “Did you see the caption of Kanye’s last Instagram post? What a wild thing to say!”
– Tsion Teffera

2 Comments

Filed under Welcome

Who is Oscar (Wild)e?

Oscar Wilde was an Irish author and poet best known for his only novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray (1891). He lived in Europe in the late 1800s and was a known spokesperson for the Aestheticism movement. The central idea of this movement was that art exists for the sake of its beauty alone, without the need to communicate some hidden or deeper meaning to audiences. Throughout his lifetime, he was celebrated in some circles and satirized in others. He was criticized in part for his stance on Aestheticism but mainly because of his sexuality and the ways in which his art would reflect his lifestyle. Of course, this was an unjust and bigoted judgment to make but it, unfortunately, was the established norm in Europe at the time. He was imprisoned for two years under charges of indecency and/or sodomy which were obviously directly related to his sexuality. 

After reading a bit of his work and learning more about his life, I would not call Oscar Wilde’s writing very particularly “wild” but it is clear that for the time he was living in, his lifestyle would be considered “wild.” It seems like this discussion could use a little more separation between the work and the artist. This is something that Oscar Wilde believed in himself. While searching for more information about the controversies surrounding Wilde, I stumbled across some of his thoughts about criticism itself. In The Critic As Artist, an essay by Oscar Wilde, he claims that “a critic should be taught to criticize a work of art without making any reference to the personality of the author.” If the literary critics (and society in general) of his time shared this viewpoint, the way history remembers Oscar Wilde and his works would be very different. I can’t say that is a view that I 100% agree with because we have no way of knowing how much overlap exists at any given moment between an artist’s personality and the creation of their art. However, it is possible that we may overestimate that overlap every now and then, especially when there is such an apparent difference between an artist’s lived experience and the style of some of their art.

– Tsion Teffera

2 Comments

Filed under Welcome

Blog Post 6: “Wild” Literature and “the Wild” in Literature

In both The Good Lion and Where the Wild Things Are, terms related to wildness are usually being used to describe a behavior of some sort. However, The Good Lion portrays wildness in a negative or derogatory light by directly correlating it to eating humans, drinking blood, and a generally non-civilized lifestyle. In contrast, wildness in Where the Wild Things Are may be destructive or chaotic but is not particularly violent or harmful towards others. 

The Good Lion doesn’t use the word “wild” often but the “bad” lions are often characterized as “savage” which can be considered a synonym of “wild.” In this context, the word savage is being used against the lions in a somewhat derogatory manner. The “good” lion believes that the “bad” lions are “savage” because they exhibit behavior that he does not exhibit and therefore deems inappropriate, even though he is basically just a visitor in their home. At the end of the first page of the short story, he goes on to call them wicked and frightening creatures when they confront him about his negative judgments of their lifestyle.

In Where the Wild Things Are, wildness refers to unusual behavior without such a negative connotation. While the main character, Max, is first called a “wild thing” by his mother in an altercation that results in her punishing him by sending him to bed without dinner. This is the only time in this story that wildness means something somewhat negative because throughout the rest of the night Max spends time with other “wild things” embracing those “wild” behaviors alongside them in some harmless fun. Furthermore, it is made even more clear that “wild” means unusual or unexpected in this story when Max is deemed “the most wild thing of all” (pg. 23)  by the other wild creatures. This title was awarded to him after he simply reacted to their intimidating presence in a way that they did not expect and might never have seen before. 

– Tsion Teffera

3 Comments

Filed under Welcome

Blog Post 5: What on Earth is “The Wizard of Oz”?

The communicator of the Wizard of Oz is the author, L. Frank Baum. He focuses heavily on Dorothy and her discoveries in the magical land she finds herself in. The story is narrated from the omnipresent third-person perspective of someone who is sort of learning more about the Emerald City and its inhabitants alongside Dorothy. As mentioned in the introduction of the book, the intended audience is largely younger people or maybe caregiving figures who read to younger children. I see this story as one that appeals to children looking to expand/challenge themselves or that appeals to the metaphorical, imaginative inner children in all of us.

I’d like to focus on a quote from the “Cowardly” Lion towards the end of chapter 18. A significant moment in the Lion’s journey of self-improvement and self-acceptance is when he proudly declares “‘I am really a wild beast… Dorothy will need someone to protect her.’” Throughout the introduction of this character in chapter 6, the Lion is insecure about his power and cowardice which ultimately motivates him to join Dorothy’s journey to Oz in search of courage. One of the first ways Dorothy addresses the Lion is by describing him as a “wild beast” who will protect them from other wild beasts. Self-identifying as “wild” and volunteering for a somewhat dangerous position protecting Dorothy on her journey to Glinda the Good Witch in chapter 18 is a turning point in the Lion’s journey towards gaining courage and self-assuredness. In this context, “wildness” refers to the natural self and the unfiltered identity of the Lion.

– Tsion Teffera

3 Comments

Filed under Welcome

Blog Post 4: What is Your “Wild(est)” Song? – “Can’t Be Tamed”

Miley Cyrus’s “Can’t Be Tamed” is a pop/EDM-type song released in 2010. “Can’t Be Tamed” came out just as Miley Cyrus’s time playing Hannah Montana was coming to an end. This song is “wild” to me, not only because of the message in the music but because of the implications that its release had on the artist. At the time, it was the topic of some controversy, primarily from parents or people who were overly attached to her Disney Channel character. Cyrus used this song (and the subsequent music video) as an opportunity to try to break free from the restrictive expectations that she feels others have put on her. In the music video, she is trapped in a restrictive cage on display for the masses until she literally breaks free. This is a concept that I believe most people can relate to because expectations are everywhere. Expectations of others are placed on us, our expectations are implicitly or explicitly placed on others, and sometimes we even place expectations on ourselves.

As we have discussed in this course previously, one possible way to define “wild” is as something that is unexpected. This song not only depicts the act of being this definition of “wild” but it embraces and celebrates this form of wildness. It depicts wildness as a natural evolution of a growing person. In turn, Cyrus posits that the “taming” of wildness is the unwanted or wrong element in this scenario. In the first pre-chorus, Miley characterizes herself as immutably wild because “they try to change [her] but they realize they can’t.” Later in the next pre-chorus, she exclaims, “I wanna fly, I wanna drive, I wanna go, I wanna be a part of something I don’t know.”  This implies that not only does she accept her own wildness, but she also desires or enjoys the wildness rather than being ashamed of it. This is an especially powerful message for young people who are insecure or have been told that they should be ashamed of something that they feel is intrinsic to their character. 

link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjSG6z_13-Q 

– Tsion Teffera

3 Comments

Filed under Welcome

Blog Post 3: Play It Good, Play It Wild: Sports and Gender- Women’s Rugby

Rugby is known to be a relatively rough, fast-paced, and aggressive sport. In the clip I’ve linked below, there are multiple examples of the tackles and aggressive plays that are incredibly common in the sport. The clip starts with a scrum between the USA and Spain Women’s Rugby teams at the World Cup. Another key characteristic of rugby is that (most) tackles, hits, and falls do not slow or pause the game at all. People are expected to get hit but the rest of the teams always keep going to achieve the collective goal.  Women’s rugby, on paper, follows the same rules as men’s rugby. However, the sport doesn’t exist in a vacuum, meaning that the rampant sexism in our society often shapes the way women who play rugby are treated differently. Female rugby players may be stereotyped as more masculine or defeminized. While masculinity is not inherently bad, the issue here is that the masculinization of these women is an assumption that other people make without their say. While rugby isn’t nearly as popular in the USA as it is in other places like England, New Zealand, and South Africa, women’s rugby is one of the fastest-growing team sports in the world. I definitely think that is partly because of how the sport is an avenue for women to freely express aggression. There are not a lot of safe spaces where women openly expressing aggression, especially physical aggression, is widely accepted or rewarded. In this case, it seems like “playing the sport” is an opportunity for some folks to temporarily take a break from the pressures of “playing gender”. All people of all genders can feel and express aggression but traditional gender roles dictate that we are not all allowed to do so in the same ways. With the relatively recent inclusion of women in professional sports, we may be slowly pushing back against the element of sexism that insists it is not “natural” for women to be physically strong and actively participate in rough or aggressive activities. 

Women’s Rugby clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQsCEujp-eM (Links to an external site.) 

– Tsion Teffera

1 Comment

Filed under Welcome

“Crip Camp” (it’s not what you think… it’s better)

“Crip Camp” is a documentary directed by James Lebrecht & Nicole Newnham. This 2020 film details the lives of various disabled individuals that attended Camp Jened in the late 1990s. Camp Jened was a summer camp in New York for people with disabilities and many of its campers and counselors went on to become revolutionary disability rights activists. The film highlights how the inclusive, respectful, and imaginatively fun culture at Camp Jened had a profoundly positive impact on the people involved and how it contributed to the later successes of the disability rights movement. I consider this film “wild” not based on the stereotypes of disability, but because of how it subverts the way that I expect to see the disabled community represented in media. I also like that it challenges the idea that “wild” in the imaginative/creative sense is distant from humanity. The campers and counselors at Camp Jened were able to create a uniquely inclusive and fulfilling social structure, not by running away from humanity (like Christopher McCandless) but by considering a wider array of human experiences. 

I’m aware of how the behavior of people with certain disabilities is labeled “wild” due to ableism and mainstream society’s general disdain for the unexpected (or rather un-understood?). I want to be clear that that is not the message that I’m trying to send here. Rather, I would argue that this film is “wild” to me because it challenges mainstream society’s implicit assumption that community spaces that are inclusive to this degree are unrealistic and not valuable. In fact, the clip at 39:55 of the TV show host speaking directly calls out the mainstream media’s pattern of disregarding and devaluing the lived experiences of disabled people. The film also discussed the deplorable conditions of Willowbrook State School in contrast to conditions at Camp Jened. The narrator even once described the behaviors of a deeply traumatized former Willowbrook patient who came to camp as “wild” in a more traditional, animalistic sense. Multiple definitions of “wild” are utilized and applicable when discussing this film.

accessible link to full feature:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFS8SpwioZ4 (Links to an external site.)

– Tsion Teffera

1 Comment

Filed under Welcome

What does it mean to be “wild”?

The first 2 definitions for “wild” that are presented by Google are in the context of living things and the environment. First, “wild” is defined as something that is living in nature undomesticated. Secondly, a region of uninhabited or otherwise inhospitable land is defined as wild. Humans have also called each other “wild” at times, usually in reference to certain unusual or unrestrained behavior. “Wild” usually means something that exists in nature in a way that humans don’t control or expect or approve of.

The overarching theme that I’m noticing here is that something is considered wild if it has not been cultivated for whatever purpose we (humans) need it. Domestication is literally the process of changing an animal or plant to be more useful to humans. A region is considered inhospitable when it can’t be used by humans in its current state. Human behavior or appearance is usually labeled as wild when it is unexpected and/or deviates from the norm. Since our society is riddled with capitalism, ableism, & many other -isms, humans are labeled “wild” when their appearance or behavior doesn’t specifically fit into the norms of what capitalism has taught us is valuable or productive. I would argue that “wild” human behavior is just an extension of the idea that something is “wild” if it hasn’t been successfully changed to serve whatever purpose humans have imposed on it.  In other words, something is wild if humans haven’t successfully changed it to serve their specific purposes at that time.

– Tsion Teffera

1 Comment

Filed under Welcome