A Philopsychological Analysis: V and Phantom

Today I watched two movies with a few similar themes that got me thinking about a variety of topics. The first was V for Vendetta, the second, the 2007 adaptation of Phantom of the Opera. One of this movies is almost incontestably better than the other, but that's not really the issue here. I noted some correlations between the two titular characters.

I'm using the movies for this case, as opposed to the books and/or original musical for a variety of reasons. One is, as mentioned, I just watched them. Two, I haven't read the original V for Vendetta in ages. Three, while I'm quite aware that the movie barely does justice to almost any aspect of Sir Andrew's music, there's the simple fact that I don't like Sarah Brightman. Not because she is in any way untalented, because she's quite gifted. I just think she's a robot. And by that, I mean, her voice has no soul to me. It doesn't move me at all, I am not in the least sympathetic to Christine, and in fact, kind of want the Phantom to drown her at some point. I am told by those more musically inclined than I am that the actors are singing off-key in some of the major songs. I couldn't tell you. It is my personal opinion that Raoul and Christine are fine singers on their own (one has a Tony and one has been performing opera since she was 4), but that they didn't harmonize particularly well, which hurt their duet performances. In the end, virtually all my issues (especially all the gross inconsistencies (Meg has wet pants, wet pants, wet pants, camera change, DRY PANTS)) are solely the fault of the director, Joel Shumacher (who is also responsible for the violent assault of our childhood known as Batman Forever and Batman and Robin). Admittedly, I blame him for lots of things, including the KT meteor. I don't like him, is what I'm saying.

You can tell I'm going to digress a lot.

Anyway, similarities.

To get the obvious one out of the way for you trolls, there's the whole mask thing, ostensibly to hide a great deformity that works as an allegory to their own inner scarring. They are both verbose, well versed in literature and theatrics, etc.

The deeper, and I feel, more significant similarity is that they are both offered a chance at a real human relationship by the woman they care about; arguably the first and only time this has or will ever happen. And they turn it down. My personal interpretation has always been that, having spent all their lives filled with darkness and hatred, the sudden introduction of something as pure as love overwhelms their twisted minds and brings them to the sad conclusion that they are incapable of returning in kind, as they are so very broken inside. You could make the case that V is simply too dedicated to his cause, but I believe the case for his 'monster' status is pretty well made in the film.

This line of thinking got me into a philopsyhological mindset, with which I found myself analyzing much of Phantom. In the end I focused on the triangle relationship, and the idea of personhood.

There will be a lot of stretching for some of these points, and clearly, much comes down to interpretation. That is, after all, the beauty of art.

The first point is that human beings act inconsistently, and paradoxically, and the characters in the play reflect that. There are numerous moments of conflict, times where warring motivations vie for decision-making significance. This is especially true with Eric (the Phantom), but both Christine and Raoul make good representations as well.

For example, rarely do I question the sincerity of the characters. Sanity, yes, sincerity, no. I believe Eric means it when he says he loves Christine, and I believe he means it when he says he'll kill Raoul if she doesn't stay with him (not exactly something a truly loving person would do).

Speaking of that, let's talk about that sanity thing. The only sane one in this triangle is Raoul and he makes up for it by being rich and spoiled. Christine clearly has some left over neuroses and abandonment issues thanks to her father passing away. As far as I can tell, she honestly believes in the beginning that it is the spirit of her father coaching her, and even after everything that happens in the first half of the show, she still goes to his grave, as if to confirm he is actually in it. When Raoul goes up to the roof with her, she hears the Phantom calling her, and she clearly is not sure if she's actually hearing it or if it's in her mind, because the lines of reality have seemingly become blurred.

Eric, of course, is even worse off. At best, he's a sociopath, devoid of what most of society recognizes as a moral compass (hence, the killing and all). More to our purposes, he has a sexual pathology. That actually doesn't have a lot to do with actual sex. To wit (and how often do we get to use that phrase?), he obviously spends a lot of time fantasizing, mostly about Christine. Note the drawings and paintings of her, all the little miniatures and of course the life size model. This is pretty classic behavior of someone with potentially highly dangerous sexual deviancy. Not that fantasizing is bad, in and of itself, we all do it. It is just that when classifying sexually violent crimes, it has been noted that only sadists and organized, anger excitation/power assertive/anger retaliatory rapists enjoy imagining the crime as much as, if not more than, actually committing it. So the fantasy aspect is considered very important, because offenders escalate up from that. Virtually all sexual crimes start with a deviant fantasy. That doesn't mean all fantasies will lead to deviant behavior (again, a lot more people would be guilty than are) but it is something to keep in mind.

Going up the usual progression, there's peeping, stalking, and finally assault/kidnapping, all of which Eric does at some point.

The danger here is that the world does not conform to our fantasies, and he has not been socialized to handle rejection and disappointment. But wait, you say, he never intended, nor demonstrated any attempt to hurt Christine.

Which leads to my second point. Eric did not see Christine as a person, someone with autonomy and agency. She was an object, a living, moving version of the mannequin he had made of her. She was a figure of his dreams, and when she did not act exactly as he'd pictured, he became violent, manipulative and destructive. This is also pretty standard behavior for a sexual predator.

When he brought her down to his lair, he probably imagined she would wake up, he would play and she would be inspired to sing and that would inspire him and they would exist in some kind of blissful resonance. The problem with making a human your muse is that real muses are remote, untouchable, as Christine had always been to him before. Now she was close, and all of her faults and humanity, manifested in the (not very subtle) action of pulling his mask off, were undeniable. This is one of the first examples of his reactions to non-conforming behavior. I don't really know what he expected to have happen, but he obviously didn't account for her curiosity.

If Eric had truly wanted Christine to come with him, as an autonomous human, he would have come to her more openly. Not like bells-and-whistles-and-hey-by-the-way-I'm-horribly-deformed, but certainly not purposefully inciting her to believe her father had sent him in some mystical way, not using smoke, mirrors and magic to make her question her senses and not hypnotizing her musically. I have sometimes heard people say they dislike the movie version of 'Music of the Night' because near the end, he's more or less groping her, but I don't really understand this reaction. Listen to the lyrics, they're all 'abandon reason' and good sense, 'give in to the darkness' and 'let me do what I want with you.' Between that and her glassy-eyed 'under the influence' look, and I'd say 'Music of the Night' is the essentially a lyrical roofie. Yeah, you heard me, he spiked her ears so he could have his way with her. Of course, I doubt 'his way' would have entailed a sexual relation for quite a while, not out of respect for her, but because I'm not convinced he's capable of such intimacy. I'm sure there's fanfiction to prove me wrong (very very very sure).

Which brings us back to the Viscount. I do not believe that Raoul spends most of the play viewing Christine as a person either. His reasons are more that he's a chauvinist, typical of his time period. When they first meet again, and Christine tries to tell him she can't go out, he bulldozes over her words and insists she go to dinner with him. He does this sort of thing a lot. When Christine says 'Yo, let's escape because someone is trying to kill me' he's like 'Lol, you so crazy, girl.' Honestly, when she's explaining that she was in a dungeon and sharing how conflicted she is because she's terrified but also sympathetic to her captor, he looks at her as if she's explaining how the Saurians of Venout 9 have been communicating to her through her hair curls. To him, she's something to be protected and sheltered. You imagine that in HIS dreams, he is the perfect noble, she the perfect wife, to be set on a mantle piece, looked at and praised. Even 'All I Ask of You' (one of my favoritest songs ever) shows this relationship. All of Raoul's lines are 'Let me take care of you and lead you and tell you what to do'...'Let me do X for/to you.' Now, in his defense, she is frightened and probably needs someone to be there for her, to promise to take care of her and to help her figure everything out. I'm not solely blaming Eric or Raoul for seeing Christine as...well, what she is. An ingénue. For most of the show, she is passive, allowing things to happen to her, rather than causing them to happen. Part of this is, that's her character, some of it is the crazy. At least Raoul seems to seek some kind of involvement on her part. Eric's seduction seems more like 'Just be here and let things happen' as opposed to 'Do this with me.' Splitting hairs, though.

And for a while Christine and Raoul seem happy enough, so I'd like to think that they'd gotten over this. Then we get the after math of 'Masquerade.' Again, Christine is asking Raoul to listen to him and again, he is sure he knows best and she should stop being so bloody hysterical. He's not hearing her and is thus denying her basic personhood; in other words, he doesn't respect her.

The pivotal moment, and another of my favorite songs, comes with 'Point of No Return.' Eric is almost asking Christine to choose him, but he's also doing it according to his script, which he wrote. He expects her to follow the lines he has laid out for her, to just go along with it. Still not recognizing her as a person with agency. However, you can almost see Christine's spine straightening as the song goes on. Maybe she's tired of being pushed around. Maybe she thinks this is the only thing she can do to save the opera house and her friends (considering how that turns out, especially for the chandelier, I find this doubtful). Either way, she has finally come to recognize her own agency and is ready to demonstrate it. You can actually see the moment when Raoul sees it too. He half stands, a suggestion of tear coming to his eye as he realizes she might not actually choose him. She might just choose to go with this dark, exotic stranger, who promises enticing, forbidden joys; a contrast to the moral, socially acceptable (and therefore less exciting) life that he represents. She has a choice, and he might not be it. Yet before the song is done, he sits down again, jaw tightening as if he is coming to terms with the idea, resolving to let her handle it. Notice he doesn't send in the fuzz the moment things aren't going his way. You can bet Eric would not have exerted so much discretion.

When Christine pulls off his mask the second time, it should have been clear to Eric he was not going to be able to control her, but I think by then, he was done with the upstairs world and didn't really care what they thought. You can see the apologies in her eyes and this is one of the many times we see conflicting emotions and motivations. Maybe she thought the display would be good for him, freeing him in some way. Maybe she just wanted people to believe her. He doesn't seem angry with her action, perhaps a little disappointed, but also understanding. His expression says 'You did what you had to do.'

Still, Eric does not extend agency to Christine, dragging her down 'to the dungeon of' his 'black despair,' and shoving a veil on her head. But Christine has found some kind of inner strength now, and she is not jumping (or singing) on his say so anymore. What she is doing is holding him to a standard, speaking to him in plain terms and recognizing his personhood in a way he hasn't recognized hers. She points out that he's had a choice this whole time and he's been making the wrong one. He is not an object to be pitied, a pet to take home and nurse. He's a human being who has caused suffering to others. Then Raoul shows up. I think this is because he views Eric's kidnap of Christine as more than just 'you're taking my property' and more 'you're forcing Christine into this.' Obviously, he wants Christine to come back with him, but I think he was also concerned she was being taken against her will (whatever her and Eric's duet of musical foreplay said).

The Phantom asks Raoul before throwing a noose over his neck 'Why would I make her pay for the sins which are yours?' I find this to be an interesting question. On the surface, he views Raoul as a rival, someone who has gotten in the way of his plans. Still convinced of his fantasy, he probably believes that if not for Raoul, Christine would have acted exactly as he wanted. On the other hand, I wonder if, even unconsciously, he projected onto Raoul faults he saw in himself. He heard Raoul promising to do everything FOR Christine, he heard him in the beginning and probably later on ignoring her pleas. Here, Raoul has everything he doesn't: respect, passable looks, wealth, prestige, and yet he still disrespects Christine. In this way, I think Eric sees him as both rival and mirror and hates him in both capacities.

At this point, things become kind of muddy for me. Christine has made it perfectly clear that she holds Eric in contempt. So when she goes out to him, it could be argued that she is disingenuous, and simply doing it because she wants to save Raoul. For his part, I think Raoul is reaffirmed of his respect for Christine's personhood when he realizes she has to save him. Was Christine deceiving Eric by seeming to accept his offer? I don't think so, because I think he would have picked up on it. Certainly, he expected that to be her reason.

I find the 'You deceived me. I gave you my mind blindly' line to be important because it is another big step for Christine. Not only does she recognize she is in control of her own life but also that she has to take responsibility for her actions. She allowed Eric to manipulate her, she allowed him to control her. By proxy, she allowed Raoul to overrule her by never being assertive. Realizing that Eric was not solely at fault, that she too had created this situation, I think she decided that staying with him was a consequence thereof. And I think that while she honestly loved Raoul, she also sincerely intended to stay with Eric. Maybe because she felt he needed her more, maybe inside she was really frightened. I don't know, but in any case, she was ready to stand by that decision.

But Eric lets them go. Feeling human affection for the first time, something in his mind must have snapped, the curtain must have finally gone up (see what I did there?), leaving him no more excuses. He had said earlier 'the world showed no compassion to me,' as if that justified all of his wrongdoings, but now he had to face them in the eyes of someone who truly cared for him, who didn't judge him for his deformity. It was all too much. Whatever shame he felt before was increased exponentially now. So he demands they leave him to be alone with his misery. He has finally accepted Christine as her own person and realized that he can't force her. And he is pained he tried.

I've sometimes wondered why Christine comes to give him the ring. I always thought it was a token of her care. After all, Raoul had given it to her, she could easily have kept it. But she gives it to Eric, as if to say 'Even though I can't be with you, I choose to leave this with you of my own volition.'

You can see Raoul leaning on her and his development is never made more obvious than the switching of the lyrics. Now it is he who says 'Say the word and I will follow you.'

I think there is probably no greater image of self-hatred than the shattering of mirrors. Both Eric and V do it after being forced to see themselves through the eyes of the ones they love. It is a visceral and I think, truly heartbreaking attempt at trying to destroy oneself.

All of these points can be argued, and there were a lot of side paths that I didn't go into. But I hope my points were clear enough and that maybe you'll think about some of these things the next time you pop in the soundtrack or turn on the movie. You can wonder (although if you do, I'd be concerned) why Christine chooses Raoul over Eric (I'm gunna go with the whole 'murder' thing). In the end, I don't think it matters as much as the fact that she was given the choice and that she chose to make it.

Miss So-And-So

Miss So-And-So wants you to think that she's clever and she's witty and smart and most of all Interesting

but she's not.

You can tell she's not as she is trying oh so very hard to convince you she is

Because of course anyone who is *truly* interesting would never concern herself with what others thought of her

as she would be far too busy contemplating quantum mechanics or whether dolphins have names for each other in their own

secret

language

Miss So-And-So is burdened by both.

Have you ever wondered if there was a quantifiable way to measure someone's interest in a subject? Such as a not-so-interesting girl?

Miss So-And-So then wonders what her secret dolphin name would be.

Miss So-And-So wishes she were in a straight jacket or locked in a dungeon or

at least

On some very difficult to pronounce medication which would validate her extemporaneous forays into the whimsical and the dare-I-say profound.

But alas

The most judicious explanation to account for her frequent lapses--too far into cerebral terraces of abstracts and speculation to be considered responsible, yet too far from the truly inspired to be considered sage, is that perhaps today

like most days

Miss So-and-So has simply had too much caffeine.

Creativity Incubation

Sometimes, I stop to think how cool my parents are. Sure, imperfect, but still pretty great.

One of the best things about my mom, a constant throughout my life, is that no matter how silly, long-winded or convoluted my writing is, she's always willing to hear me read it aloud. I can ramble about anything and nothing nigh on incessantly (and do) and she'll listen patiently, offering insights and new perspectives, and mostly just letting me bounce ideas off her.

Having observeed other families, I've realized some of the consequences of this environment.

One is that I'm not ashamed of my creativity. This sounds odd on the face of it; don't most parents want to encourage their children's passions? The negative answer is two-fold.

The "you can be anything you want to be" is a uniquely Western notion, and one that is slowly losing popularity as people become more aware of the limitations set by race, class, gender and geographical location. Even then, many parents push their children, understandably, to more "practical endeavors." There is simply little security in creative endeavors.

The second, and probably more damaging issue is when parents make the child insecure about WHAT they produce. This is what I see more often.

I have a friend who uses a nomme de plum for everything he writes because he is afraid his parents will read it and interrogate him about it. For whatever reason, they simply do not understand his views and the ways he chooses to express himself.

At best, this makes the individual uncomfortable. At worst, it can make him or her ashamed, which can be very destructive. Certainly, there are probably fantasies, lines of thinking, etc that should be encouraged. But such situations will be rare, and more often, the categorical insecurity that forces an individual to hide his or her own creations from the people who should be encouraging, and maybe even guiding to a point can't end well for anyone. If nothing else, it stifles creativity and can make the individual give up his/her passion altogether.

Considering how many other factors work against artistic types (usually logistical problems), adding more to the burden is unfortunate.

This may seem trivial, but it's only a short stagger between being embarassed by your creation and being embarassed by yourself. We put pieces of ourselves in everything we generate, and having it overlooked, shredded or in other ways abused can truly affect us personally.

I think I had more to say but I can't remember it now. I guess I'm just glad that I've always felt comfortable sharing my writing or "art" with my parents and even if they didn't care for the subject matter, they were always willing to listen.

Maybe I will ask my mom what she thinks.

Today

This is going to sound silly.

I found myself wondering what the appropriate memorial greeting was. After all, 'Happy September 11th' sounds like a twisted joke. What are we supposed to do? How are we suppose to commune with others, let them know we share their suffering, to come closer as a community?

The difference is not so obvious. After all, we say 'Happy Memorial Day' and 'Happy Veterans Day' and they involve remembering tragedies. And really, when you think about it, virtually all holidays, whatever your religious or cultural preference or reality probably involves death somewhere. Because that's what holidays are for. It's a national grieving period, and thusly, like all proper wakes, a celebration of life, renewal, improvement. Two sides of the same confetti coin.

But I don't think anyone will say 'Happy September 11th' today.

Maybe someday, years from now, when all those who will remember it are gone and card companies need a boost and the government needs a distraction from yet another PR disaster...they will institute a national day of recognition. They'll have to come up with a catchy name for it. Maybe then, they will say 'Happy...'.

But not today.

Part of that, I think, is because of the two sides idea. All of our holidays revolve around both death, and live. Even Christmas. The birth of the Savior is made all the more meaningful with the knowledge of His eventual sacrifice. The opposite side is Easter. The Crucifixion gives more awe and significance to the Resurrection. Thanksgiving, well...that's obvious. So is Columbus day.

Death and renewal. Mourning and celebrating. Maybe they're societally necessary. But this duality is why we will not say 'Happy September 11th,' why instead, there will be people all over the country who are quieter than usual. Even in this early gray hours, I imagine the air itself will seem heavier, faces will be grimmer. Everyone will have thoughts unspoken. And we won't share them. Despite it being a very national experience, our grief will be our own, our personal feelings.

Certainly there will be...loud individuals, those who have decided that THEY get to determine what today should mean. Maybe they'll burn another people's holy book, maybe they'll have a parade or protest and maybe they'll just talk about it on TV while everyone nods as if something profound is happening.

But it won't be the same. And I will tell you why.

Even after nine years, we STILL don't know how to DEAL with this yet. We haven't moved on. Holidays, HOLY DAYS...death and renewal. Loss and rejuvenation. It's that second part that trips us up. The suffering is still fresh in our collective consciousness because to this day, it seems. So. POINTLESS.

We haven't gained anything from it, even our brief rally-round-the-flag feeling was exploited to unfortunate ends that have done little to improve our lives or the lives of others (though certainly, some good has been wrought). We haven't been renewed yet, we have nothing to celebrate. Hell, we're bickering over a community's desire to exercise their Constitutional right, demonstrating how confused and scared and hurt we still are. There's been little healing that I can see.

We remember Veterans on Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, D-Day, V-Day...in order to thank them for helping us WIN. Their sacrifice would seem in vain if they'd done otherwise. Without victory, we couldn't even HAVE such celebrations.

So far, I've seen no such victory to give meaning and sense to the countless who died...less than five hours from now, nine years ago. And all the hurt that came of it. I don't wish to demean or besmirch them in any way, and I think it is GOOD that we remember them, that we still mourn them even as we strive to move past our grief and work towards a more positive future. One in which, I hope, terrorism finds no foothold and innocent civilians aren't slaughtered in the name of ideas that can't be fought, only died for.

This is why no one will say 'Happy September 11th.' There's nothing happy about it. Maybe someday there will be, some good that rises from the ashes of the Trade Centers. Someday we will say 'That was terrible, but look how...'

But not today.

Today, our heads will hang a little lower, we will sigh a few more times than usual. We will REMEMBER and we will mourn. We may not even be sure what we're mourning. The loss of a certain innocence, the beginning of a new time of fear and violence, the death of thousands of civilians and subsequently thousands of soldiers and even more civilians in countries we don't even correctly pronounce the name of half the time. We will remember the shock, the loss for words as somewhere in our heads, we screamed, "This cannot be happening."

Maybe we will remember the moment we realized things were never going to be totally the same again. Something changed. It's chimeric, and we may never be able to quantify it, but the change is there.

Maybe...if we're feeling cynical...we'll remember the individuals, the groups that then and now try to use our grief as a platform for their own ends, confused, misguided or just plain wrong though they may be. But I don't think we'll dwell on them for long.

We see the consequences of this day everywhere. It is now woven into our national fabric.

Today, we just remember THIS day. Not what came after. Not what could have been, though certainly that is laced into the grief. Just today.

And even though it will have different meaning for all of us, as separate as the geographical divides of this huge, great nation, somewhere, I hope some small part of us takes comfort in the knowledge that on some level, we are all remembering today together.

Even though we won't say it.

Heroes

There's one thing all tales of heroes, all epic legends have in common.

The life of the hero is never easy.

The short, simple answer is because peace, happiness and tranquility is just plain boring without the drama of danger and suspense.

In other words, it's what sells.

Personally, I've never been a fan of the pat answers.

Perhaps, it is because OUR lives are not easy and so those who live extroadinary lives must have extroadinary problems.



Perhaps, as in so many other ways, like in everything else, the hero makes a sacrifice for us. They remind us that somewhere, someone's life sucks more than our own.

It is not enough, apparently, to inspire hope, courage, determination.
We also require their suffering.

I wonder what other creatures deman so much.

Failblog

Wow, July. That was a while ago. I've frequently thought of things I would like to talk about but I always end up ranting to whoever is around and then lose the fire to type it all out. Plus I figure anyone who cares what I think enough to read this, I probably have talked to about it anyway. This is mostly self-defeating because I honestly would like to be a solid blogger, like my friend Cynthia.

So with that redundant explanation, let's move on.

Usually, to get me to write, you have to make me angry. Not mad, being mad burns out quickly. Honesy-to-God righteous indignation, that's a gift that keeps on giving.

So first, let me introduce a new word for everyone.

Conflate, verb. The noun is "conflation." It is when you mistakenly equate two things that are separate. That is, you think things are the same when they are not. This is done on a nigh daily basis, usually benignly and frequently without any consequence other than the individual being (sometimes understandably) confused.

Other times, it could very well lead to bloodshed.

A few weeks ago, my brother asked me what I thought of the whole "Mosque at Ground Zero" controversy. Due mostly to being buried under work and getting future plans worked out, I had honestly no idea what he was talking about, and therefore didn't feel I could make an educated response.

My first response, and one of the points that I don't feel is REALLY under contention is that they are legally allowed to build a worship center anywhere they want, without federal intervention.

So the issue becomes not "can they" but "should they?" I said I thought it was a community issue, they should talk it out in a civil manner that would be educational to all parties and if the community was simply too offended, then maybe it shouldn't be built. My brother said something that seems to be a common feeling in this country. He said "It offends me as an American."

This bothered me a bit but again, I didn't know all the facts, so I didn't think I should respond. There also seemed to be a feeling that the President was siding with the Muslims and endorsing the worship center, which isn't his place.

Well, now I've done some checking and feel I can speak to the issue better.

First, I remind the class that freedom of religion means everyone's religion, not just the ones we like. In the end, our opinions don't really matter because if they want to build it, they will, and that is their constitutional right. End of story.

Secondly, this worship center isn't AT Ground Zero, it is not being built on the rubble of the Trade Centers. It's a few blocks away and there are already other Mosques, at least one, that is actually closer. I think saying "Mosque at Ground Zero" is purposefully inflammatory and misleading, and like so much of this contrary, dependent on the ignorance of the populace. So the idea that this is a conscious slap in America's collective face is already refuted. I do not believe the Muslims behind building this center--most of whom have shown themselves to be moderate--are trying to hurt anyone. I admit, they should have been prepared for this to become a firestorm, and maybe they did, but I don't think they chose the location for that reason.

Thirdly, *I* am NOT offended as an American. To be honest, I'm much more offended by the visceral, usually ignorant, sometimes downright hateful, but mostly just knee-jerk reaction of the Americans I've heard. This sort of issue should be handled with sensitivity, civility and respect. Instead, we get "Not In My Backyard" on a national level. Guess what? It's THEIR backyard, too. I have always been proud of America's inclusiveness, that our national identity is made up of a variety of flavors. However, this means America will only work if we choose to let it. And sometimes people don't seem to want to do that.

So why are people offended? This is where our friend "conflation" comes in. People seem to have mixed up "Muslim" with "terrorist." While it *should* go without saying, I'm going to anyway: they are NOT the same. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. Maybe a few thousand are "violent extremists." That means the vast majority are peaceful, probably similar to us in more ways than they are different.

The Muslims who are pushing for this center are, as far as I know, peaceable, moderate people, who just want to worship their way.

This is why wars on ideas never work and have so many unfortunate consequences. It is also the problem of terrorism. The rules are different, we can fight conventionally. We aren't fighting the Muslims or the Afghanis or the Iraqis. We are fighting terrorists and criminals.

Someone once said that humans are the instruments of ideologies. While this is true, I argue that ideologies are also the tools of people. After all, there are people who claim to subscribe to the same ideologies I do, yet act in a way that I find morally reprehensible. I'm sure many Muslims feel the same.

It bothers me that people don't recognize bombing abortion clinics, and events like that, as domestic terrorism. It seems the height of hypocrisy. But, they retort, those people are evil and doing evil things. We are getting rid of armful elements.
What do you think the terrorists think THEY'RE doing? And you can't say, "but they're wrong and we're right" because that means not only are you a hypocrite, you're also incredibly arrogant.

I'm sure many of these terrible acts are committed by people claiming they are doing God's will. But in the end, they are just fallible humans, choosing to enforce their personal beliefs on others. At that point, it doesn't even MATTER if they were right or not. A God that asks you to cowardly bomb undefended individuals, however you disagree with them, is not a God worthy of worship. There are better ways to make your case, to further your cause.
My point is that the truly broken inside would have found a way to be violent anyway. The fact that they use their religion as a smokescreen does not make it that religion's fault. There's good and bad in all of us, and there are good and bad elements to every group. We are all imperfect humans.

So I wanted to say: Dear America, this shouldn't offend you. Get over your small minded, ignorant hangups and learn to respect the views of others. The Worship Center is *not* a victory for the terrorists, your close-minded self-aggrandizing response is. Put simply, you're making us look bad.

And that would have been that.

Until yesterday.

The whole thing with the Mosque was mildly irritating but at least I could more or less understand where people were coming from. 9/11 is still a raw nerve, still a deep scar in our national soul. I feel some leniency should be given to the high running emotions that go with it.

That does not, nor does anything else, justify burning Q'urans to "memorialize it." I honestly can't even wrap my head around this. The level of "not okay" is in the stratosphere. I don't like it when people burn American flags. I remember becoming incensed when some kids at my university were using the Bible as a kick ball.
For one thing, NO book, not even Twilight, should be so mistreated. Books should be respected, if only for being books. For another thing, it is extremely disrespectful. You can respect other views even if you don't share them, even if you're opposed to them. When we start deciding who does and does not get to have what views is when we reach a new dystopic low.

So, of course, when I found out this was being done by a "church" I was furious. This is exactly what I was talking about. Now, if I tell someone I'm a Christian, I have to disclaim it and say "but I'm not THAT kind of Christian." It's stomach-turning that I should have to do that.

As General Patreaus has already said, this could have serious consequences for our soldiers. It could effectively set us back by years. We are already failing to win the hearts of the Afghan people so of course they don't want to help us. Now we run the risk of turning millions of otherwise peaceful people into radicals. I mean, what would YOU do if someone was going to burn YOUR holy book? There's no excuse for this.

Now, under freedom of religion, I concede that this could be protected. However, under freedom if speech, it's not. Hate speech is not protected by the Constitution, and that's exactly what this is.

As if all this wasn't bad enough, the Florida pastor who is spearheading this has already shown himself to be less than reputable when he was sent away from one church for dipping into it's funds for his own personal use. I don't find that really relevant to this issue though, it's horrid enough on it's own.

It makes me plenty angry, but do I wish ill on them? No. I don't want them to be bombed, vandalized or hurt in any way. I just want them to recognize that the God they claim to follow is one of love and that only he who is perfect should cast the first stone.

I think people, not just Americans, but all people, should just get over themselves.

And I truly hope things don't get worse.

On the frequently demonstrated but infrequently considered...

There are, I'm positive, countless blogs on the nature of fandom. Some of which exist for the very discussion which will be addressed below. As for myself, I've had numerous conversations with friends, fan and nonfan alike, which, if I had any kind of decent memory, I'd love to transcribe for the sake of internet discussion.

This subject is just one of the potentials, just one issue that has recently come up.

Everyone has things they like, things they are fans of, at various degrees of interest and devotion. Conversely, everyone has things they don't like, from disinterest to vehement disdain. There are people who have no strong feelings about much of anything, but no one is completely devoid of opinion.

Nerds or fans, are naturally the most vocal. Anyone who has stumbled onto the internet (that's you) would have to travel in very limited circles to never come in contact with fans, trolls and others of the grammatically impaired who triumphantly declare their Thing the most, best, etc.

Part of this stems from the fact that nerds appear to be slaves to hierarchy. The appeal to stereotype would be to say nerds were/are so used to being the bottom of any totem pole that once they were passed the point of being shoved into lockers, they had to set up new totems on which to place themselves.

Part of it stems from human entitlement. The problem with fandom is that at its core, it is the internalization and personalization of an opinion. It is the movement from 'Yeah, this is something I think of positively' to 'My opinion of this is now part of my identity.' The consequence is that any disagreement amounts to an attack on the individual's character and personal identity.

These two considerations create an Oroboros of angst I like to refer to as Punch-You-In-The-Face-Hatred.

An otherwise rational and intelligent friend of mine is a fan of the Twilight series. As you can probably guess from that drive-by snarkiness, I am not. My level of disgust felt for these books has reached capacities I did not know I was capable of and there is no metaphor hyperbolic or graphic enough to fully convey my true feelings. He (yes, it's a he) asked me today, in all sincerity, why I, and others like me, have such a visceral reaction to the series.

The answer, as you can imagine, was probably way more convoluted than he wanted, so I attempt to disentangle it here, and hopefully, this argument can be generalized to other subjects.

Step 1: Have something you don't care for. There are a lot of reasons, both silly and legitimate that I don't like Twilight, but for the most part, I could write it off as trashy teenybopper nonsense and not give it a second thought. There are lots of things like that, probably most I'm not even aware of. The issue comes from...

Step 2: Have it be stupid popular. This is where everything goes South. Now, usually non-troll people, that is, those who don't wish to fight with others over opinions, simply do not want to deal. I would be happy if I just didn't have to talk to Twilight fans (I dislike the terms Twitard or Twihard for the simple reason that I consider it unfair to individuals with cognitive disabilities). But this is no longer an option because they're EVERYWHERE. This is particularly an issue for me because I live in the Pacific Northwest. In fact, I had my honeymoon very close to Forks, Washington. I live in the town that Bella and Edward had their first date. So not only do I deal with the ubiquitous fandom of teenage girls (and boys), I get to deal with people who travel all over the world for the chance to sleep in the room where "Edward and Bella had their wedding night."

I remind the class that we are talking about fictional characters. They never visited here. They never ate in our restaurants or slept in our hotels. They do not exist. But I have to smile and nod because it's doing great things for our economy and we can't alienate the fans even though they do things like pester the Quileute tribe by asking them if they're really werewolves and desecrate their sacred burial grounds (no, I'm not making this up.

As one friend put it, they're up in my grill.

But really, this could apply to anything that achieves popularity because popularity is assumed to lend legitimacy. "If so many people like it, it can't be that bad" or "If it's successful, who cares if the writer is an uninspired hack?" Ahem. It would be hypocritical to totally dismiss this argument. We have all, at some point, defended something we like, especially in terms of literature, and have used the 'success' argument. The issue is that it forces us to confront something we didn't like in the first place, over and over and over again, which is grating, frustrating and inevitably leads to greater agitation every time it is mentioned.

This will ruin many things. I have friends who can't listen to some bands, regardless of talent because they were forced to hear devoted fans incessantly gush about how great the band was. Whereas before, my friends had no opinion, now they automatically react with disdain. Unfair? Probably, but totally understandable.

There is also the desire, particularly among nerds, to not appear to be 'jumping on the bandwagon' just because something is popular. This can be silly, but it's an almost automatic, sub-conscious motivation. Of course, the irony is that the desire to not be 'a tool' or a 'poser' usually leads people to not like something because they think it will make them look cool. Being anti-establishment, and all that.

So in conclusion, people don't like being surrounded by evidence of an object (in this case, a series) they don't care for or like, especially when they are made to feel antagonized by the fans, of whom there have become many. This is what leads someone to PYITF hatred. We define ourselves by who we are and who we are not. When constantly surrounded by who-we-are-not, this creates a stronger identity of someone who is against said object and makes them react more emotionally to it.

Post-Script:

I personally, have an issue with the Twilight series, that I know many others share and illustrates another reason people react viscerally to a popular trend. Remember that thing about feeling personal identity is attacked? And then remember that discussion about 'tools'? Both go in here.

The common term is 'hipsterizing'; that is, people demonstrating an interest, or taking on characteristics of a subgroup because it now popular or linked to something considered illegitimate by said subgroup.

Put simply, goths hate Twilight. Did everyone see that episode of South Park? Because it pretty much sums up the frustration. Even if an individual doesn't want to be 'labeled' (and most don't), if they had any predilection or characteristic before...say to frequently wear black, or like heavy jewelry with a theme of crosses, skulls, wings, etc...even if they've behaved that way for years, even decades, they are now lumped with Lisa Frank loving preteens who bolster Hot Topic sales in an attempt to emulate vampires who SPARKLE in the sun. It is very discouraging.

I was walking home, dressed in what I consider common 'me' attire. Black pants, a white button up shirt and black lace suspenders, a choker and a necklace of two skeleton hands holding an ornate cross. As I passed a group of jocks (basketball shorts, sneakers, baseball hats, shirtless, etc), one of them starts laughing and says to me, "Are you supposed to be out in the sun? Doesn't your kind sparkle or something?" All his friends laughed.

This was intensely aggravating and downright insulting. I have dressed the way I do my entire life, but, with zero provocation, an entire group of people have written me off as a wannabe vampire-lover. I am now associated with something I despise. This is, admittedly, a danger of being associated with any stereotype. I don't want people to assume I cut myself or sacrifice children to the devil either. But because of the popularity of the series, it is much more likely I will have to defend myself against charges of goth-poserness than anything else. It's a pretty classic 'We were here first' reaction that members of the fan community have some familiarity with. 'Oh, we were into that before it was cool.' Especially as we get older, and peripheral, 'fringe' groups and interests get mainstreamed. It is a natural defensiveness because we take our identities seriously (obviously) and feel threatened when we realize we don't have total control over what is and what is not included into a subgroup we belong to. Playing Madden does not make you a gamer. Wearing a top hat does not make you steam punk.

Where's the line? Honestly, that's the kind of thing that could be argued forever, and probably will. All identities are in a state of flux, and there is a constant dialogue between the individual and society (or in this case, societies) to determine legitimacy.

It just goes with the territory.

I Believe

So, as you may know, right now there is a project going on called 1Book1Twitter. Think of it as a giant reading circle on the internet. I desperately wanted to be part of this, but unfortunately, was simply too busy with school. Part of my desire came from the fact they were reading "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman (who at this point, is pretty much my favorite writer ever). Even though I could not participate, I followed along loosely. Today, Mr. Gaiman posted a shirt that I would really love to get, which comes from a speech made in the book. I read the speech and was floored by how close to my own philosophy it followed. I swear, sometimes I think the man is a prophet.

Here is the speech:

“I can believe things that are true and I can believe things that aren’t true and I can believe things where nobody knows if they’re true or not. I can believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and Marilyn Monroe and the Beatles and Elvis and Mister Ed. Listen – I believe that people are perfectible, that knowledge is infinite, that the world is run by secret banking cartels and is visited by aliens on a regular basis, nice ones that look like wrinkledy lemurs and bad ones who mutilate cattle and want our water and our women. I believe that the future sucks and I believe that future rocks and I believe that one day White Buffalo Woman is going to come back and kick everyone’s ass. I believe that all men are just overgrown boys with deep problems communicating and that the decline in good sex in America is coincident with the decline in drive-in movie theaters from state to state. I believe that all politicians are unprincipled crooks and I still believe that they are better than the alternative. I believe that California is going to sink into the sea when the big one comes, while Florida is going to dissolve into madness and alligators and toxic waste. I believe that antibacterial soap is destroying our resistance to dirt and disease so that one day we’ll all be wiped out by the common cold like the Martians in War of the Worlds. I believe that the greatest poets of the last century were Edith Sitwell and Don Marquis, that jade is dried dragon sperm, and that thousands of years ago in a former life I was a one-armed Siberian shaman. I believe that mankind’s destiny lies in the stars. I believe that candy really did taste better when I was a kid, that it’s aerodynamically impossible for a bumblebee to fly, that light is a wave and a particle, that there’s a cat in a box somewhere who’s alive and dead at the same time (although if they don’t ever open the box to feed it it’ll eventually just be two different kinds of dead), and that there are stars in the universe billions of years older than the universe itself. I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do. I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and doesn’t even know that I’m alive. I believe in an empty and godless universe of casual chaos, background noise, and sheer blind luck. I believe that anyone who says that sex is overrated just hasn’t done it properly. I believe that anyone claims to know what’s going on will lie about the little things too. I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies. I believe in a woman’s right to choose, a baby’s right to live, that while all human life is sacred there’s nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system. I believe life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when you’re alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”

After having read this (and after picking my brain matter off the wall), I started writing my own sort of 'belief' poem (instead of taking notes in class). Here is what I came up with:

-I believe if dining halls didn't want us to steal bananas, they shouldn't charge 9.78 for their crappy cafeteria food. I believe teachers are grossly underpaid and that they bitch about it too much. I believe in cold pizza on couches and stale fries in backpacks. I believe in the Story. I believe it does not matter that there's no evidence oft he Jews being in Egypt, and that the Sphinx was not built by slaves; the story of the Exodus is still TRUE, regardless of if it actually happened. I believe you are not BETTER if you are stronger, smarter or more ambitious. I believe people will appropriate any document to justify their position.I believe it's silly to wear plastic galoshes and short skirts at the same time, since EVERYONE knows the purpose of rain boots is to make jumping in puddles easier.
Or maybe it's better so you don't soak your pants, since few things are more unpleasant. I believe there's only one true path, and we can never be certain we're on it and anyone who says they are, live like a diver walking along the sea floor, in one of those diving suits the bad guys wear in Scooby Doo. I believe Joseph Smith was either crazy or a conman and that this does not make Mormons or their faith illegitimate. I believe you can tell what groups are considered the "enemy" by who our comic book heroes are fighting. I believe professionalism should not require you to give up who you are, but it does and maybe it needs to. I believe in divine healing and I believe those douche bags who spend millions of donation dollars on private planes don't have it. I believe the Devil has better things to do than bothering infecting your kids through Magic the Gathering, rock and roll, Dungeons and Dragons and Harry Potter. I believe no on has ever been convinced or "woken up" by someone blowing up a building. I believe the best socializers are South Park and the Daily Show and college kids should be required to watch it. I believe sky scrapers and condoms are as much a part of nature as beaver dams and glaciers. I believe money and time spent in the service of others is never wasted. I believe it is completely possible to think a war is stupid, wasteful and corrupt and still admire and encourage those who fight it. I believe those who advocate direct democracy, total socialism, or otherwise gripe about our government should travel internationally so they begin to comprehend just how BIG the United States is. I also believe it wouldn't make much difference to them. I believe philosophy isn't dead, it has just changed addresses. Now we call it Science Fiction. I believe anything you say can and will be used against you in a Goggle Search. I believe in spanking, biting and handcuffing...someone you love very much. I believe that anyone who considers killing innocent people as an appropriate way of dealing with anyone is not intelligent, misunderstood or functional, only selfish and suicidal. I believe the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are mind-blowingly amazing living documents that changed the world amongst great odds. I believe that in no way diminishes the tragedy of tolerated slavery, which led to a century of pain and a Civil War we should never have needed to fight and generations of racism we've yet to overcome. Nor does it absolve the founding Fathers from the responsibility of dehumanizing and subjugating other people. I believe there should be a dictionary called "Obscure Words for Pretentious People to Feel Haughty for Knowing" which will be self-defeating since everyone is pretentious on some level and once everyone knows them, they're not obscure anymore, are they? I believe hoods, cloaks, high Edwardian collars and double-breasted longcoats should come back into fashion, but I don't want them to because I'm secretly afraid others will look better in them and I won't even have the benefit of being strange and unique. I believe every person on the bus has a secret story...the difference is some read like Neil Gamian and some read like Stephanie Meyer. I believe in free will and I believe in destiny and I don't claim to understand how either work, let alone how they work together. I believe in tipping food service workers even when you don't think they deserve it or as much as you're giving because at some karmic point, we have all been them. I believe some people dance in the rain, and some people cry in the rain and both are tragically beautiful and beautifully tragic. I believe in obvious things and subtle things and I believe I don't know anything about anything but talk like I do out of fear and habit and because, well, you were just so WRONG. I believe anyone who thinks free love is more "natural" than monogamy should give up contraceptives, Wendy's and soap and see how often they get laid then. I believe we grow when we suffer and I believe that anyone inflicting suffering upon others is evil. I believe a benefit of the "real men don't cry" stereotype is how special their lovers feel the first time he breaks down in front of them. I believe it doesn't matter where you were born, how poor you were, what your religion says, what color your flesh is or how good your parents were...you are responsible for your own actions, always. I believe there's a purpose and reason to everything and I believe everything was just arbitrary, indifferent cause and effect and I believe that IT DOES NOT MATTER. I believe everyone should live their life as if they were being held accountable, as if they had free choice because living the other way is nasty, brutish and short. I believe everyone should should stop calling the philosophers dumb until they've changed the world the same way. I believe that imagination is the last thing to endure after faith, hope and love, as it is born out of the second two and makes the first one possible. I believe if I could help just one person, make their lives better, my life will be more complete.

~~

There will undoubtedly be more at some point. That is what I have for now.

Mother Revolution

The birthing was hard
Heat and starvation
Fatigue and fear
Who could claim fatherhood of her progeny?
Even she did not know
Painters and Poets and Rebels
Philosophers of heart and tree
There are some who consider such growth a virus
Plague
Uncontrolled, rampant
She did not believe it such
The birthing was hard but quiet
And the neighbors remarked upon her grace and strength.

The families of three houses
Having played midwife
Went muttering into the night
Regarding their lack of recompense.

But oh, her children were delighted
And the neighbors smiled indulgently
And she delighted in her children
Their songs to her
Their festivals
They made a new faith
A new world in her name.

All her children
Of all, she loved sweet Max the most
With his rich little voice and bright eyes
The others followed him
He led their games and parties
Designed to make her laugh and clap her hands.

And the neighbors were so impressed
"What obedient children!" they exclaimed.

They brought her food
And she grew fat
And each day hungrier
More, she cried
And more they brought
More, she wailed
And some of her children tearfully fled, away from her gnashing.

But Max, loving Max
Stroked her hair and fed her more.

Maybe she did not notice
Her peaceful smile was filled with razor teeth
A guillotine maw for masticating
Her fingers grew long and gnarled
Everyday her stomach growled.

And the neighbors whispered amongst themselves
And hid her frightened orphans.

Blinded by her hunger-filled rage and need and inertia
More, she whispered to Max
I love you, he smiled
She hungered and did not see
Her children disappearing into the gleam of her mouth.

She devoured her children
One after the other
Max said it was a game
A party, a festival
A feast
And they skipped and danced
And screamed and cried
And their autumn silence outweighed
Their songs of summer.

Chew and suck and bite
The great tragedy
Her mind was filled with the orgiastic violence of want
Always, always she cried for more
Swallowing her own precious children.

And the neighbors heard in horror
Her children's terror caught on red mist winds.

They called her mad
...She probably was.

More, she called and when
Max could find no more, she ate him too
He who'd served his brothers and sisters
To satiate her demands.

Finally
All her children gone
Eaten or hiding, adopted by new mothers
Creating new families
She collapsed, opening her eyes again
Her wail was long and shook the seas
Gouges in the wall looked like scars
And she stared at her own twisted claws and Knew
And she saw the bubbling streams
The ones that carried dreams and hopes everywhere
Now dammed up with the corpses of her children
She tasted blood in her mouth and she Knew.

She lay down and wanted to die
And instead she slept and dreamed.

She dreamed of a song
An Orphic sonnet of love and truth and beauty
And everyone believed.

And she remembered a war
Drums and paper and rope
A battle fought with ideas
Of truth and reason
And entitlement
And everyone believed

And she remembered feeding
Tears and death and betrayal
Her children vanishing
Sliding down a blood-lubed gullet
Her house degenerating into lice and snakes and hawks
And nobody
Believed
Anymore.

And there she stayed
Weeping in her fitful sleep
Until he came
And he sang her a new song
Not just of her house, but all the neighbors
All the world
A world of equality
Everyone would be the Same before the Absolute that was him
And she believed
And he promised to carry her with him
Everywhere, always
And she'd never want for anything
And she believed
He told her that her children who were all gone
Had never loved her as much as he did
And he would hand her the world
And she believed

And she hungered.

Divides

I am not here to tell you the Truth. That's not what historians do. At least, according to the basic zeitgeist of modern (or rather post-modern) historians. There are still professors at my school who teach as if This Is How Things Were Period. They are all retiring in the near future. Historians create historical documents ABOUT the past, within the context of their present circumstances. I cannot separate who I am from my perceptions of what has gone on before.
If you've read this blog long, you know I don't like it when people claim to have "the Truth." It delegitimizes the perspectives of others and in general, tends to be incredibly arrogant. "Authenticity" is a very sticky subject in historical circles. People engage in tourism (cultural voyuerism if one wants to be a bit more snarky) and they want the authentic experience. They'd rather get a sombrero from Mexico, because somehow that's more authentic. Of course, it isn't just the outsiders who do this. Going back to this sombrero example, think how much art, posters or other Mexican created cultural symbols use the sombrero, because it represents "who they are." Or think of our conceptions of Native Americans. Beads, feathers, buckskin...as if they weren't allowed to modernize. People rose up in protest to hear the Makah were using guns to hunt whales, because it wasn't "authentic" hunting. It's still Makah hunting in traditional Makah hunting waters, all they did was change tools. Caucasians don't ride around in horse-drawn carriages. Does that make them unauthentic?

Most of the time, authentic can be defined as "that which agrees with what we already think we know." When my Public History professor teaches Pacific Northwest History, he is frequently criticized for not giving the "authentic" story of Lewis and Clark. That is, the story the students are familiar with.

This is where things get messy. It should not be understood that I think there is no correct, or most correct version of history. My professor knows more about the Oregon Trail than his students do. When he says "Lewis and Clark were [pretty much dicks] and their relationship with the Native Americans was not as pleasant as most text books make it out to be," he has good reason. That doesn't make his word the Absolute Truth, but quite simply, his evidence is stronger than theirs. People are frequently bothered by the lack of concreteness in history, much as they are in philosophy. As humans, we want to KNOW.

~~

That was a very long winded way of reaching what I really wanted to talk about. It's been interesting to note how many things discussed in my classes come up in "the real world." In Public History, I just read about Ken Burn's documentary "The Civil War" and last night I was watching Thursday's Daily Show, and Jon talked about how Virginia has named April "Confederate History Appreciation Month." This, along with some conversations with my partners-in-crime (read: housemates) got me thinking.

The Civil War is an incredibly complex, emotional and all around terribly tragic issue of American History. Every level, at every point, there is a multitude of interpretations. The origins of the war, the reasons it continued, the roles of the government and the soldiers on both sides and race and gender...it really can never be over-emphasized just how dense this subject is. And, like virtually all Civil Wars (in fact, I think in some ways it's part of the definition), there was no real "winning" and no clear cut good guys/bad guys. Hence, the tragedy.

So, Confederate History Appreciation Month. Like every other aspect of the War and it's aftermath, this has very mixed thoughts. On the one hand, I freely admit that, in the North (where I am decidedly from), the Confederates have been largely dehumanized. This is truly unfortunate, because certainly there were brave men defending themselves, their homes, their way of life, things they believed to right. It is good to remember that they, too, were Americans and that their loss of life was needless and sad. If this was being used to say, encourage people to read diaries or journals, to do research or to be involved in historical study, I would be all for it.

That's not, however, what it's being used for. At least, as far as I can tell. The main issue comes from the Causes of the Civil War, something that is hotly contested to this day. It's like the Grey Ladies said:
"Can't say I've ever been too fond of beginnings, myself. Messy little things. Give me a good ending any time. You know where you are with an ending."
There is never one reasons wars start. And not everyone fights for the same reasons.
When the Governor of Virginia announced why he was proclaiming this month, he never once mentioned slavery. When asked about it, he said that he wanted to focus on the "war aspect of it." Yet he seems to be ignoring a major reason for the war itself.
Again, messy territory. There is a clear political bent when discussing the causes of the Civil War. Depending on where you are from, it usually boils down to one of two things: Slavery (North) or Federal versus States Rights (South). I maintain that both of these were true, along with the very important role of economics (after all, much of the South was a slave-based economy). And it's easy to overstate any of these causes, but I think some things are worth pointing out.
The Southern slave-owning states WERE the Federal Government when the war was brimming. They controlled all three branches of government. They specifically said that the federal government was more important than state government. When the Northern states said they would not comply with some federally passed mandates (such as: If you find an escaped slave in the North, you must return him/her to the South), the Southern-controlled Federal government through a fit. It wasn't until they lost power with the election of Lincoln that they (the legislators) started spouting off about State rights. So at the governmental level, there was quite a bit of hypocrisy, and I don't think they really cared about State-rights. I'm sure many of the soldiers did, I'm sure that's why they joined the Confederate army. But considering that the war started BEFORE they started utilizing that sort of rhetoric, it can't be said that that was the only or even main reason for the war.

I remember, when I was younger, one of my neighbors said Lincoln was the worst president ever, because he allowed us to go to war. I remember being really upset by this, but unable to defend the 16th president. Now, we can tell from looking documents from the time that the war would have started even had Lincoln not been elected. Really, it was his predecessor who allowed us to go to war by not acting when the trouble started brewing. It wasn't like Lincoln was a huge proponent of social justice. He was as racist as many of the Southern Democrats (who were, at the time, the most conservative party), but he wanted to keep the country together. And he did, and for that, he should be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.

From what I can tell, and again, I'm not down in Virginia, I can't say with certainty, but it does seem like these "Big Bad Federal Government shoving its will down the throats of the Poor Little States" is the narrative being pushed by those in power. This was the story written in Southern history text-books at the turn of the century, and to this day. If the Texas Education Board has its way, I'm sure that's what most of our textbooks will say. Again, this is an incomplete picture, and one which gives a false impression. This has much more to do with current political climate, considering which states are the ones pushing it (read: conservative/"right wing" states). Some of it is playing on Southern pride, which isn't a bad thing to have as long as you recognize that much of Southern identity was based on the subjugation and inhumane treatment of other people.
And that's not to say that the North is blameless. Hypocrisy is/was rampant there as well. The North didn't take action, was extremely flakey when dealing with the fundamental issues which led up to the war, did not mind benefiting from the South's economy and in fact helped to perpetuate the slavery system. Like I said before, there was good and bad on both sides.

Which leads me to my (hopefully) final point, not totally connected, but worth bringing up. When I lived in the dorms, my friend and I went to a meeting concerning a certain controversy. A young man had moved in and all of his housemates had a flag that represented their heritage. I believe one had a Union Jack, one had an Irish flag, and so on. He hung the Confederate flag, as he was from the deep south (Alabama, I think). This flag was visible through the window and caused a great upset among the other students, particularly of the African American community. The meeting was to discuss symbolism and meaning and responsibility.
In the young man's defense, as soon as he found out he was offending people, he moved the flag so that it was only visible in his room. He never intended to hurt anyone and he was very apologetic without giving up his pride or identity, which I don't believe anyone was asking him to do. Some of the African American students related why it bothered them: they remember, not as long ago as we'd like to think, when seeing that flag meant danger for them, meant that there were people who did not perceive them as human and would likely try to hurt them. It represented pain and humiliation and fear. to the young man who put it up, it was just remembering where he came from and the values he associated with it: strength, bravery, morality, individualism, hard work, etc. It can't be said that either side was "right" because symbols are, by definition, interpretive. I thought the young man displayed great sensitivity.
For my part, I'm wary when I see people displaying the Confederate flag. I was in class with someone who had a patch of it sewn onto his backpack, which meant wherever he went, people could see it. Now, I'm totally open to the idea that it meant something very specific to him, and he is completely entitled to that belief. However, it also seems that he has decided that his interpretation is more important than anyone else's, that he is somehow "more right" than they are. I actually think he was just being a troll and wanted people to fight with him, which is why I never asked him about it (I'd seen him pick fights with people over less). I think it is important to be conscientious of the effect our words, deeds and mannerisms has on others, of how we can give off the wrong impression (intentionally or no) and that they too have the right to their interpretations.

I don't know if you've learned anything here. To be honest, I think I lost my thesis statement somewhere in this mess. But I hope it at least got you thinking.
People are complicated. War is complicated. There are a variety of reasons we do what we do. Rarely, should we say one reason is more important or valid than another. That doesn't mean we get to ignore the ones that don't fit the narrative we want.

Clash of Opinions

So, just went to see Clash of the Titans. My thoughts will probably not surprise anyone. It was very shiny, the action was good, there was an acceptable amount of cheese and...it was not a good movie. Well, it was not a great movie, certainly in the tradition it theoretically stems from.

First, it should be noted that the script was written independently, the director didn't even want to CALL it Clash of the Titans. It was supposed to be a totally different story, but the studios knew they'd make more money with a "remake." Furthermore, as many of my cohorts noted, it felt like there was a lot cut-out.

My father, upon hearing some of my initial comments, asked some insightful questions, which I will copy/paste here.

"Want to hear more - was it because the hero was in cropped hair and had an australian accent or because they monkeyed with original mythology and revised the stories? And really, is that so bad? Don't mythologies evolve over time and don't they serve the needs of the time and the societies in which they are told? Given the disparity between ... See Moreancient pagan Greek culture and our post Christian Western culture - aren't there numerous cultural gaps that are bridged easier by revising the story for our audiences to better relate or understand? Just asking."

To the first issue: To be honest, I don't care that poor Sam Worthington is forced to play the same character all the bloody time. Well, I doubt he's forced, I mean, he's basically Mr.BadassSciFi Guy now, and who wouldn't want to play those sorts of roles? If I could get type cast as a sword-weilding hot-chick, preferably one with snappy comebacks, believe me, I would not be bothered. And it's not like anyone else had even remotely Greek accents. Actually, I approved of a lot of the costume choices, the full togas, the rich fabrics. The only one I didn't care for was some of Io's outfits. A world of WTF for that thing that looked like she hooked a rug around herself.

For the second, and really more intense criticism, my good friend, and fellow history/mythology lover, Z, was visibly bothered by some of the alterations made to the "original"/"traditional"/known myths. This is thoroughly understandable, because they "monkeyed" a LOT. The Pegasus (or in this case, Pegasi) had absolutely no basis in the literature and the origins of Perseus were nudged a bit.

[Edit: It has been pointed out to me that, quite correctly that the story regarding Medusa was actually "correct" and so I apologize for not being more explicit about the plurality of Medusa's origin stories. Here is the Wiki entry.

In one version of the Medusa myth, Medusa who was very beautiful and very arrogant, boasted that she was even more beautiful then the goddess Athena. For this Athena became wrathful and cursed her that anyone who looks at her face would be turned to stone. In a late version of the Medusa myth, related by the Roman poet Ovid (Metamorphoses 4.770), Medusa was originally a beautiful maiden, "the jealous aspiration of many suitors," priestess in Athena's temple, but when she and the "Lord of the Sea" Poseidon lay together in Athena's temple, the enraged virgin goddess transformed her beautiful hair to serpents and made her face so terrible to behold that the mere sight of it would turn men into stone. In Ovid's telling, Perseus describes Medusa's punishment by Athena as just and well-deserved.

/end Edit]
The reason this is so frustrating is because the source material is already SO rich and epic, there doesn't seem to be any reason to change it. Quite simply, it couldn't be 'improved.' And I admit, it didn't seem to help much. They could have kept their basic storyline intact and maintained a closer version of the mythos, particularly Perseus and his birth.

There is another aspect though, that softened the frustration blow for me. There is no TRUE version in Greek mythology. Even in their own time, they maintained contradictory versions of their religion. Aphrodite has two different origin stories, yet the Greeks were not concerned by this conflict. To them, it was more important to keep everything, rather than risk losing even one. So, yes, the evolution of the story, the changing...it's actually very Greek.

What DID bother me is related to the last statement my father made.
A great deal is made in the movie, about sin and redemption. And of course, the entire premise is people being angry with the gods, wanting to rise up and say they wanted no part, and after all, didn't the gods really need them?

This is a VERY post-modern idea. It would never even OCCUR to the Greeks to question their place in the universe in respect to the gods. Like the "climate of opinion," there was a certain way they understood things to work. That the gods need worship to survive is very much a 20th century invention, masterfully penned by the likes of Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett and other people with funny accents.

However, this is another place where they (perhaps inadvertently) maintain a highly Greek tradition. There is no real conception of "sin" as Western Post-Christ people would understand it. However, the notion of "hubris" is very important to Greek legend. Most of the time, when a human is punished, it is for this flaw, for arrogance, for their presumption. Ajax is not punished for raping Cassandra, he is punished for doing so inside Athena's temple, at the very foot of her statue. Arachne is punished for competing with Athena, even though Arachne's weaving is superior and she wins the competition. Belleraphon is loved of the gods until he decides to take Pegasus to be with them. Time and again, the theme of pretentiousness and then destruction comes up in Greek mythology. "Pride goeth before the fall," as the Bible says. So, in that way, the movie does a fine job. The humans get all uppity and a lot of them die for it.

So there is my paradoxical review of Clash of the Titans. I can't say they got a lot "wrong" since there is no right, but they certainly ignored traditional literature, or else chose to alter it for reasons I did not quite understand. However, they got a lot of the SPIRIT of the lgends right, though that may not have been intentional.

From a technical standpoint, I was a bit disappointed that the special effects were not more hardcore. Considering that the original Clash of the Titans is one of those huge moments in science fiction/fantasy where special effects were taken to a whole new level, I hoped that this would at least try to keep up. It didn't need to be Avatar, but I expected better than The Mummy Returns. As someone said though "It was the longest metal music video ever!" Seriously, you could use virtually any shot as power metal album art, and should.

~Peace out~

Some Administrative Work

What? I can't come up with clever Titles all the time!

Okay, first, best laid plans of mice and men, eh? I'd really like to get back into blogging because besides enjoying writing, I feel it helps my academic work by encouraging me to explain what I'm learning to people outside my class. We all know we learn by teaching, right? It helps me focus and take really good notes, because I will be talking about it here later. So that's in the positive column. However, I'm also acutely aware that I have a lot of reading to do, a lot of studying, and not a ton of time. So there will undoubtedly be days I want to write where I'm simply unable to, and then will lose the drive. So here's hoping.

Secondly, while I always appreciate when people tell me in person or via some message that they enjoy something I wrote, or they give their opinion on it, I would really prefer if people posted in the comments section. It's what it's there for and it makes it look like I'm popular >.> Don't judge me for wanting to be internet famous.

Alright, I will probably be doing a mind vomit later today, after homeworking, but I wanted throw out some thoughts stemming from a conversation I had with a friend. He was lamenting the loss of the 'Renaissance Man.' The jack-of-all-trades, brilliant in many fields, not bound to a single discipline. Leonardo Da Vinci is, of course, considered the paragon of such individuals, but all the other Ninja Turtles could certainly be considered, as could Newton and Galileo, among others. Now, we are apparently without, as our society does not allow for them.

I disagree with this dichotomy for several reasons. First, there's the nostalgia that always comes with considering the past, especially that which is most removed. We love the idea of warrior-poets, trabadour-knights, those who were "classically" trained in a variety of arts. Of course, we can have these romantic conceptions because we're not there. We don't if they consider themselves the same way we consider them. So I posit that these well-rounded folk are not so different from us.
Which brings us to my second issue: the notion that they are exceptional. Don't mistake me, Da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, they were brilliant men. Fundamentally altered the world as we know it, no doubt. I do not, however, subscribe to the idea that our society systematically discourages us from being well-versed in a variety of fields.
It's easy to see where such an idea comes from. After all, economics is based on the concept of specialization. Jane can make 12 sweaters or 4 pairs of socks in the same amount of time while Jim can make 4 sweaters and 12 pairs of socks. Sure, both could do it, but society as a whole would benefit most if Jane made sweaters and Jim made socks. Trade, exchange, barter, all based on this idea. so yes, we are encouraged to focus on one field. That doesn't mean that people can't expend energy on other fields as well. Many people have hobbies, which are completely independent of their vocation, do they not? If we are separated from those men of the 16th and 17th century, it is more likely by how we fill our time. I'm not saying that leisurely activities are inherently bad. I play video games, watch movies, read books both deep and vapid. But if we were really interested in a variety of studies, we would pursue them. What they had and we (in general) lack, is drive, focus. That is an individual flaw, not the fault of society.
Furthermore, I don't think we do too badly. Think about our general education system. Yes, it is flawed, no argument. But students are exposed to a variety of sciences, right? They do chemistry, biology, physics...exposure let's them see what grabs their interest. It is unfortunate we do not teach philosophy until secondary-higher education as rhetoric and logic do not seem to be highly valued by the Powers-That-Be, but you ARE required to take a bit to get a college degree. We REQUIRE people to try different subjects, to study things that they may not think interest them, to make sure they get a wide range of exposure. Not as rigorous as Jesuit schools of the Counter/Catholic Reformation, but the effort is made.

After all, our idea of the Renaissance man as being free, not tied down to a career is already flawed. All of these people had day jobs. Da Vinci and Galileo both worked in ballistics. They helped their respective governments make war more effectively by working out the science of things like cannons. Newton was a professor. It seems we have the idea of the starving scientist, someone who rejects the materialistic/capitalist notions of work and salary to pursue internally-motivated studies. I don't think they would have conceived of themselves that way. After all, they had to pay the bills too. The only ones would would not need to maintain some sort of 'normal' vocation would be those sponsored by the government, such as Tycho Brahe, the first royal astronomer. They still had a job to do, however, and we tend to look down upon those paid by the government, as if the politics stains the science. And of course it does, but trying to separate politics from science would be like trying to disentangle a knot of yarn with your teeth.

These were great men. But nobody forces us to not emulate them. Nobody says we can't pursue lots of different studies, try to better ourselves academically, intellectually, artistically, martially...But if you don't think you can, don't blame society or capitalism or anything else for it, save your own lack of motivation.

~
PS: I'm well aware that circumstances do not always allow us to pursue what we'd like. Economic, political, social issues get in the way. I don't wish to say that it is solely the individual's fault. Things happen, go wrong. It is just that in my personal experience, people blame the system for things that it does not enforce. Okay, disclaimer over.

Secondary Note

Somewhat attached to my previous post.

In my economics class (which you'll notice I didn't go into a lot, mostly because I hate economics. It's an extremely important study, no doubt, it's also totally not how I think and...well, you get the idea), my teacher makes certain statements which could be considered either "positive" or "normative."

A positive statement is simply relaying some factual information. 2+2=4 is a positive statement.

Normative statements are made based on value judgments. "Lower taxes is the best way to improve the economy" is a normative statement. It is based on opinion and sets of values. That doesn't make it invalid, but the two should not be conflated.

Both kinds of statements can be WRONG. Correctness is irrelevant, although for normative statements, "correctness" is usually a matter of perspective.

Perhaps it is because in the Humanities, teachers have to walk on such eggshells, I am used to professors apologizing or putting disclaimers on what they say. Yet my economics teacher will just throw stuff out there, and the reason is this:
To him, it is NOT a normative statement. It is a mathematical equation. Now sure, if you wanted to argue the significance, or the consequences, I'm sure he'd probably say it depends, but for the most part, I don't think it occurs to him to question what he's saying.

In my experience, the Humanities (that is, anthropology, human services, history, philosophy, and to a lesser extent, sociology and psychology) place a much greater emphasis on questioning one's presuppositions than any other field. I'm not sure what it all means, but it's something I'm going to be watching for more now.

Also, math students scare me.

Mind Vomit #1

School has started, and this is probably the heaviest workload I've ever had. I need to read three to six books a week, plus around 150 pages of articles or more, plus 30-100 pages in text books, plus write two articles a week, plus keep up with Economics homework. Virtually all free time is spent reading and taking notes. You can probably already tell I both love and hate the situation.

"My head is full of thoughts, my ears are full of stars..."

I'm learning and reading a lot of interesting stuff, and I want to share it, but the act of forcing it into coherent and cogent processes is a bit beyond my capacity while I'm studying and then past my interest when I'm not. The neverending paradox with blogging I've found. So I give you Mind Vomits, hopefully encouraging some discussion, maybe helping me arrive at new thoughts, and maybe just being silly.

First, I give you the idea of "Heritage." The dictionary gives a woefully dull definition involving inheritance that has little to do with the emotional and psychological connotations of the word. Try this one:

"Heritage is that part of the past which we select in the present of contemporary purposes, be they economic, cultural, political or social." (Graham, et al)

See, History does not equal The Past. Historians are not chroniclers in that they objectively write down This Happened, followed by That, ad infinitum.
For one thing, that would be so wretchedly BORING. What historians generate are "historical documents," that is, something about the past. This does not need to be in writing. Museums, artifacts, highway signs, tours, lectures...there really is no difference between academic and public history, whatever the elitists will tell you. And these historical documents much often have more to do with the time period in which they are written than they do with the time period they are written ABOUT.

I think that people have an impression that some are "outside" of their environment. What springs to mind is philosophers, historians and religious writers. I think we work under the presupposition that such people are transcendent, that their circumstances do not touch them. This is easy to understand when you think of how many of our underlying beliefs stem from such individuals. People want to believe their religion is The Truth, and that is much more difficult to swallow if one thinks it was influenced by events thousands of years ago. It stops being so universal then.

But everyone has an argument and the way things are interpreted now is not the same as they will be ten years from now, regardless of the event in question.

Public Historians, those that work outside a classroom or lecture hall or research room think that Academic Historians (those that work INSIDE all those places) live in an ivory tower, with little connection to the real world. Academic Historians think Public Historians are a bunch of crazy SCA/Reenactment buffs out there making them look bad.
Okay, so it's really not that hostile (usually), but there is certainly a perceived difference, which is unfortunate because in the end, they are doing much the same thing.

So that's History 493: Public History.




Intellectual History is the one that is going to kill me. Tons of very dense reading and I'm not sure I'm always thinking about the concepts in the "correct" way. In fact, as I type, I should be reading a hundred pages in my text book. >.>

But a certain concept, a certain way of thinking, what we would call "a climate of opinion" or a zeitgeist has got me thinking. This is called the Great Chain of Being. It is the notion that all of creation falls along a continuum from least perfect to most perfect. Not that anything CAN be perfect, simply more perfect than others. Plato wrote of Matter and Form. Matter was what we perceived with our senses, while Form was where Truth resided, where the real essence of creation was. Aristotle claimed this made him an escapist, but the idea of imperceptible essence is a long perpetuated one. Later, this notion would be Christianized into the Great Chain of Being as it was understood during the Renaissance. Now the continuum was from most material to most spiritual, with Hell being the most materialistic thing (it was at the center of the Earth at the time too) and God being the most spiritual.

As you can imagine, artists LOVE this idea.



One draw was that there is an "everything in its place" mentality, which makes the universe nice and orderly. Of course, it also says that humans are teh uber, and reinforces the notion of domination over the rest of the world, but it meant no one had to wonder about their place in the world, at least on a cosmological scale.



This led me to ponder some elementary but fundamental lines of thinking.

Is the concept of a raison d'etre or "reason for being" or purpose of existence, or whatever way you'd like to contrive it...incompatible with free will?

Can we have a purpose but be required to find it for ourselves?

If we did know it, could we choose not to do it or is it tied into who we ARE, and to not fulfill it would be to stop being ourselves?

If we chose not to fulfill it, would that be considered sinfully wrong?



Obviously, on some level, this is a theological question, dependent on your view about a personal Creator. Maybe our function is dictated by our circumstances. I think most people prefer to think they are here for a reason.

So that's Intellectual History. We're going to be reading Nietchze, Darwin and Freud soon. Be afraid.

Finally, there is History of the Religion in Early America, or How the White Man and the Native Went Like Whoa Over Each Other's Faith.
Right now ,we are reading a biography of a Mohawk from Canada who became a Jesuit. She is actually up for sainthood still, which I think is pretty cool (the process of canonization has always fascinated me). She died at 24, it always seems a prerequisite for holiness, dying young. There are some very interesting discussions about the effect of constant, immediate death on the methods of missionaries. Smallpox was still demolishing the native populations, which caused many well-meaning missionaries to despair, not only out of sympathy for the pain and suffering of the those dying and their loved ones but also for all the souls lost to eternal condemnation.
It is also interesting to note that probably the only reason Catherine Tekakwitha is NOT a saint is because at the time the idea that a "savage" could reach such a high degree of holiness was completely anathema to the understanding of the universe of her contemporaries. Savage and Saint just did not go together. There was an exception. At Catherine's side as she died were two French Jesuit missionaries. One worked fervently to get her sainted, believing her worthy even before she died. The other was far more conservative and skeptical, believing it impossible for God to choose such a person. He respected her, certainly, she was very special. But saintly? Both men knew her, both saw the same things, and both wrote biographies of her life. Same event, two different perspectives, and let me tell you, it makes a radical difference.

Well, I don't think I can justify not doing homework anymore. I hope this has raised some questions in your mind. As always, feel free to comment and we can have a conversation.

~Peace Out~