They Who Serve Who Only Stand And Wait

Recently, I have been allowed to read books again, which is glorious. I have found myself drawn to some nonfiction. I mentioned this to an older acquaintance and they responded with 'Oh, I'm so glad you've grown out of those silly fantasy novels and are reading big kid books' (paraphrased). This bothered me to no end, but I made no issue of it at the time, knowing my cause already lost. I put it aside for awhile until the multi-talented Sean PC posted an observation on Facebook, which I'm reprinting here.

"...has an interesting observation. When a relationship has ended, and a person dwells on the feelings of their broken heart, after a certain amount of time everyone thinks they should get up and get over it and move on. “S/He wasn't worth it, anyway.”

But if someone moves on without seeming to care, everyone thinks they're a bit cold hearted, and wonder if they really cared in the first place - and may even suggest that they take a little time to mourn the relationship if just for its significance. Is this a double standard? And what is the time limit someone is allowed to mourn the past and ... See Morewhat if? And then there's what we are asking these people to do, and our views on emotions in general: How much significance do we allow our emotions? Are we to slip on a mask of good cheer and congeniality when we have "dwelled too long"? If we seclude ourselves because we make others uncomfortable, or are forced into seclusion because our display makes others avoid us, time spent too long there make our friends wish us out of it - but happy. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is the purpose of the stage - so that while we go about our daily lives with a social mask on, we may be ourselves in character, and allow our audiences see and feel what it might be like if people were free to be themselves."

My attention was predominantly to his supposition that the stage allows us to express what our culture does not. I wholeheartedly agree, but I would expand that notion to include basically all forms of fiction.

The further separated, the more distanced from reality, the more we are willing to open our minds to the possibility.

Consider the following scenario:
You have strong beliefs about the environment. You consider actions of our government and the corporations that call a lot of the shots to be irresponsible if not downright immoral. You believe our culture needs to change from one of consumption to one of careful stewardship.
Sure, you could write about it, try to convince others. But likely you would be labeled and then categorically ignored as a liberal, an extremist, a tree-hugger. No one wants to be told that what they are doing is wrong, that they may have to give up their comfortable lifestyle.

SO....spends billions of dollars and make a movie set on a different world where the alternative lifestyle is represented by individuals who are tall and blue and catlike and suddenly, BAM, everyone wants to hear what you have to say. It helps if everything is shiny and wellmade and stuff blows up too.

Undoubtedly some people were put off by the social subtext in Avatar. I was at points. But how many people do you think walked out at least THINKING about some of the questions it raised? Probably enough that James Cameron feels pretty good about it. The message didn't change, but put it in a way that people feel separated from, that makes them feel comfortable and you will reach a much bigger audience.

Do I think that was the point of the movie? No. The point of the movie was to be entertaining. It was intended to make money. But you know, while you're at it...

I've mentioned before that the Joker is a powerful character because we know he's *not real*. We can explore the moral and philosophical question he raises because he's OVER THERE. Fantastical fiction is therefore perhaps the greatest vehicle for philosophical discussion. My big brother said he thinks philosophy is dead. I disagree. I think it just changed addresses.

There is of course, some major differences. In a fictional setting, one is allowed to artificially limit options and circumstances. One could argue that it is easier for the Na'vi to live as they do because as far as we know there's only 20,000 or so, whereas on our planet, we have 7 billion. There are some things that are simply unfeasible for us to accomplish given geography, size and population. These issues should not be pushed aside, and they are valid concerns, but just thinking about them raises more discussion which could potentially lead to some positive outcomes.

This of course, raises a different issue.
What is the definition of propaganda? The connotations change over cultures. We generally consider it a bad thing here, yet the difference between propaganda, opinion and education is fine and fuzzy. Other cultures don't consider it a bad thing, because they don't feel that stigma of overt attempts at manipulation that we do. Is it only propaganda if we feel this attempt? That can't be right because guaranteed attempts are made that we allow to slide by because they are ineffective. Is it only propaganda if it IS effective then? Well then we would call it education.

Acting perhaps gives us an even more direct example than reading, as we are active participants instead of passive consumers. After all, isn't a staple of acting that it is permissible to say/do certain things because it is not YOU ACTUALLY DOING THEM? If people were unwilling to take this step, we'd have much fewer villains (and people would be that much more frightening who chose to be so o.o). We are clearly capable of suspending our own personal identity for the sake of the Story.

What does this say about the responsibility of the playwright? The actors? If they are indeed, not simply acting out a shallow tale of conflict and closure, but in fact presenters of ideas and concepts for pondering and reflection, does that change how they behave? Would they try harder? Probably not, being professionals, but maybe it would help them get into character by thinking about it.

So the next time someone comes up and asks why you waste your time with fantasy, science fiction, movies of clear non-reality, ask them if the messages contained therein are any lowlier or baser than the latest romantic comedy or stoner flick. Ask them which is more realistic, the emotions felt by the Hobbits or by the cast of Grey's Anatomy? Ask which is more palatable, yet able to bring up emotions of loss and duty...Star Trek or 24? What movie nailed right to the point on issues of race and responsibility more poignantly in recent history than District 9?

And then ask them why we only have fantasy to discuss such things.

The fact that they involve lasers, giant sandworms, aliens and gold-bikini clad princesses does not make them any less legitimate forms of expression. And their very distance from our reality makes us freer to explore issues too difficult or socially unacceptable to delve into in other ways.

The ups and downs of Change

There is something I've noticed when it comes to explaining to people what I do as a historian. Or rather, what historians do in general, as I can only count myself as one in the loosest of terms.

The issue revolves around the term 'revisionist'.

To some, revisionism is a bad thing, and usually this stems from Presentism...that is, forcing or overlaying our values on individuals in the past and interpreting their actions through our current system of values and understanding. This is what's known as Bad History. As in, you're doing it wrong. For example, Lincoln wrote in his journals about a close friend of his, recounting tales of falling asleep nearby, and so on. Dumb people wanted to interpret this as Lincoln being a closet homosexual, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (though his wife WAS pretty crazy). That's because in our society, guys don't talk like that, and they certainly don't describe cuddling with their friends.
But one, they also didn't have internal heating like we do. I would not be surprised if people got in close in all sorts of ways we'd raise our eyebrows at just to keep warm. Secondly, their notions of masculinity would be quite different from ours, so this would likely not be seen as any kind of threat to his hetero-ness. Third, he was like 12. I mean, really.

It is understandable why people would be wary of scholars and their historical 'discoveries' given some of this unfortunate mishaps. They did the same thing with Richard I...assuming that because he did not have children, he must have not lain with his wife, Berengaria. This is in direct contradiction to the NUMEROUS accounts of Richard raping and pillaging pretty much everywhere he went. The man liked the wenches.

The downside of having this wholly negative view of alternative interpretations however, is that it blinds us to the true point of revising.

When you write a paper and you find that there is better evidence, or a better way to put forth your argument, you revise your paper. That's just part of good scholarship. History and science and to some extent, philosophy is the same. People sometimes criticize scientists for changing their explanations but I have always viewed this as a strength of those doctrines. After all, if science was always so dogmatic, we would never have an Newton or an Einstein, people who fundamentally challenged our understanding by being wiling to let go of formerly preconceived notions.

From a religious point of view, is it not true that we interpret sacred texts differently now than we did fifty, a hundred, five hundred years ago?

Change can be good when it is an improvement. But of course, change is also frightening, which is where individuals truly become wary of new historical evidence, especially regarding people they admire and respect.

First, one must look at what 'evidence' means. Historians are like detectives, piecing together what was from what remains. This is, by definitions, always an incomplete picture, otherwise we wouldn't still be doing it. As new pieces come in, sometimes in contrast to previous pieces, they are evaluated on their strengths. Primary versus secondary sources. Analyzing why the sources were created (for example, a diary is a great primary source, but one must keep in mind that if the individual knew the diary would be read, how might that affect his or her writing?) and so on.

All nations have heroes. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. And the flaws, the sins, the mistakes that they made does not mean they are bad people.
Humans are multi-layered creatures, we have both good and bad, we make decisions in ignorance and are judged by those with the benefit of hindsight.

George Washington was not, I believe, a bad person. He did, however, own slaves, something I consider morally wrong. You could argue that this was just 'how it was at the time', but that is not a valid argument to me. For as long as there has been slavery, there have been those who stood against it. There is ample evidence of those, even during the times of Washington and Jefferson making arguments and protesting slavery. They would have certainly been exposed to such ideas.
More importantly to me personally, things are morally wrong regardless of time or society. Some things more so than others obviously. I wouldn't call those who choose not to eat certain food silly because it WOULD be wrong for them, according to their beliefs. But there are some things where you would be hard pressed to prove to me it is okay, and almost all of these involve evils against other people. Slavery, rape, murder...it was wrong 200 years earlier, it's wrong in any other culture. At least, in my moral code, and it would take a pretty strong argument to convince me otherwise.

But there are people who believer we shouldn't talk about Washington's slaves, or how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during Civil War (though that made much more sense, given the circumstances) because that would tarnish them somehow.
The problem with this is you have no stripped these individuals of what makes them great. They are not great icons, or great statues. They are great MEN and men are full of errors. It is DESPITE these faults that we consider them great because they are so clearly human like us.

By changing that, we also deprive children of the sense that despite their own faults or errors of the past, they can achieve.

~~~

The second problem, which comes up a lot in the education sphere of history is making it one dimensional. Everyone has an argument. Everyone is pushing something. This doesn't have to have some nefarious agenda, but we all believe or interpret stuff a certain way and of course this will affect how we talk, even subconsciously.

Unfortunately, I just remembered I have Christmas shopping to do so I will go into that on our next episode. :D

Quick blurb

This is a rant. Will be short, promise.

Was watching Gotham Knight with Chaz, Tim and Andrew. Tim thinks Batman is a 'pansy' because he doesn't kill people.

I cannot begin to describe how aggravating I find this.

The irony, perhaps, the paradox of Batman is that he truly does BELIEVE in the system. He believes that everyone deserves a fair trial, that they should be judged by society and dealt with accordingly. I'm sure he agrees there are flaws within the system: bad guys let out on technicalities, the whims of human judges. All of this, however, is irrelevant. The system is there because WE put it there, because it separates us from the beasts, and is more or less what civilization rests on. The rule of law. Not the rule of might.

Batman (at least, my understanding of him) recognizes that there are those who work outside the system. Those to whom our laws don't apply because they are simply so far flung from what would be considered in the creation of laws. Sure, he takes out common criminals too but no one really pays attention to those, and in Gotham, they well established that the entire city was pass the point of the system dealing with it.

So Batman works outside, yet parallel to The System. He goes outside, fights the bad guys on the outside, and pulls them INSIDE The System. By killing them, Batman would say that democracy doesn't work, that The System is a failure and hey, everyone, just kill those think deserve it.

Batman is a hero because he confronts evil, but he does it on just terms and he does not put himself in all positions, judge, jury and executioner. That's not his role. His role is to attain those the normal law officer can't, and to make those criminals more 'available'.

He has to play by our rules, because they are OUR rules and he works for US. That's how it works.

/End Rant

A Fair Warning

As most of you know, the actual nittygritty of politics doesn't interest me. I don't usually care much about who is right or wrong. Of course it affects me, of course I take some note of the news. But what will really catch my interest is analyzing HOW people argue. What are the words they use, what are their tactics, and so on.

Recently I've heard something enough times to grate on my brain. So if you ever want to have a conversation with me, I have a request.

I don't like referring to presidential advisors and heads of the bureaucracy as 'Czars' because it just sounds dumb to me. And I don't like that both sides of the political spectrum always have problem when the other side is in power. We're a big country, it takes a lot of people to make everything work. I don't begrudge the President some help. Obama was certainly not the first, and the Republicans were certainly not the first to use the term to try to create suspicion.

That's not my issue.

If you are attempting to prove that Obama is a socialist (which of course has to mean he's the incarnation of evil right?) do NOT, I repeat NOT use the argument "Well he's appointed czars, which is a Communist term!"

You have just lost all credibility, have a nice day.

The Tsar was who the Communists overthrew (well, the Bolsheviks and other radicals anyway. Communists came later). It is pretty much the opposite of communism in just about every way (except corrupt bureaucracy which is more or less universal). Putting them together shows not only a suspension of critical thinking but a total ignorance of history, or at least a convenient smashing together of facts which only serves to prove that anything will be used to fit your preconceived notions.

There are plenty of decent, legitimate reasons to put together a case, if you feel so inclined. A lot is open to interpretation.

This is not one of those things. This is people being stupid on purpose. They may have fantastic evidence otherwise but if I hear them use this phrase (which I have...way too many times), I am going to ignore them mostly because this is a pet issue. That is admittedly close minded on my part, and if I felt they were sincere in wanting a discussion, I would probably point out the issue and move on from it, giving them the benefit of the doubt. I swear though, one word of argument, where I can tell it doesn't matter what I say since they've already made up their minds, I'm going bursar because that's just ridiculous.

So now you know, and knowing is half the battle. :D