It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White (Except For When It Does)

This book should really be called 'The Second Race And Its Discontents', because I'm seeing a lot of Beauvoirisms and Freudisms, though perhaps Fanon was just trying to appeal to the adolescent boy market with all those references to genitalia.

Here's some Second Sex quotes that could easily be applied to 'Black Skin, White Masks', just replace women with 'Blacks' and men with 'Whites'.

"Woman has to be compared with man in her becoming"

"It is very difficult to give a generally valid description of the notion of female"

"Woman is her body ... but her body is something other than her"

"Woman's nature as suffering from natural defectiveness"

I find it interesting how it mentions that language can be used as a mask, especially after learning in Psychology how our language affects our perception of colour and time, and leaning in Anthropology how vital it is to learn the language of whatever culture you are studying, in order to become more immersed. The fact that colonised countries are still speaking English, French, and Spanish is an ugly reminder of Europe's past; Europeans took these countries' languages away from them, and they won't be getting them back.

Saying that having black skin is only a surface level thing and not symbolic of any black identity sounds quite controversial. It reminded me almost immediately of the 1969 White Paper, which proposed to eliminate the legal status of 'Indian'. It caused quite a bit of controversy, mainly because the Aboriginal community wanted to keep their identity, as assimilation would've meant the destruction of their culture.

Still, it makes me glad that this book was written over 50 years ago, and now racism is gone forever.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Wait, it's not? Darn.

Like Downton Abbey, But In Book Form

I swear in the first 100 pages of this book, nothing actually happens. I can summarise the first 100 pages like this:

Catherine: likeable, if really, really naive and innocent. "A woman in love with one man cannot flirt with another" (140),  sorry to disappoint you Catherine but...
Her brother: nothing much going on there.
Isabella: seems nice enough (OR IS SHE?) and truly loves Catherine's characterless brother (OR DOES SHE??).
Her brother: I want to punch him in his stupid face.
Henry: dreamy, sarcastic love-boat (OR IS HE?).
His sister: nope, nothing much here either.

And X fancies Y but Y fancies Z while X's sister fancies Y's brother. But this takes 100 pages! And I still don't know what happens in a pump-room.

(pg. 5) Catherine is fond of "base ball"? I never even knew they had it back then. I mean, what did they put on their hotdogs?
(pg. 140) And I think many people would take issues with the statement that "No man is offended by another man's admiration [i.e. flirting] of the woman he loves". I think you'll find they usually are.

I'm having trouble connecting Shaun of the Dead to this book though. Is it just that outside influences (gothic novels) are dictating Catherine's actions without her thinking? If so (and that claim seems a bit dubious), I though Shaun of the Dead was more about satirising modern consumer day-in-day-out-everything-stays-the-same culture. I guess Northanger Abbey's characters do seem to be doing a lot of pump-rooming and not a lot else, but what else was there to do back then? You couldn't exactly go hand gliding or quad biking, your options were quite limited.

Great film though. Anyone who hasn't seen the films in the 'Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy' (as it's grown to be called) really should, they're three of the funniest films I know.

Hacking My Brain Off

I'm still on shaky grounds with this book, but couldn't Rewriting the Soul's main themes of

1. Many supposed 'facts' only being being contingently true and

2. 'making up' people through descriptions

be also representative of some of the key elements of prejudice? If humans are all about erroneously categorising and compartmentalising and generalising (like with the child abuse = MPD connection) then we couldn't we just as easily be talking about prejudiced stereotypes that are perpetuated through acting under descriptions? Just as 'child abuse' was not a recognised thing, so too, was racism (hence Heart of Darkness being a totally normal thing for its time. Also, accidentally racist old people).

Then the descriptions attributed to events in the past that are a formative influence on a person's being could quite easily be talking about the symptoms of internalised racism!

There, now where's my Nobel Peace Prize medal?

On a different note, this book's mentioning of semantic contagion of something improbable and (when seen from a completely neutral perspective) quite ridiculous reminded me of the hysteria around the Salem witch trials, and all the arrests in the US in the 80's over satanistic day-care centres. While these seem crazy now, I'm sure someone who was being told about multiple personality disorder for the first time would have many issues with it as well.

Term 1 Essay Reflection

My only real fault is that I'm just too much of a perfectionist. Oh, and all of these other things.

I think my biggest hurdle when I started writing these essays was formulating thesis statements and introductory paragraph sentences. While I've gradually improved at doing this, I still need to put more effort in linking paragraphs together thematically. This will also help eliminate random points that have little relevance to the topic and that I've just crowbarred in to try and sound clever (like my Heart Of Darkness references in my Tempest essay, which didn't really add anything). I need to spend more time before actually writing my essay thinking about the grand scheme of it, and whether an apparent 'overarching' topic/idea I have is strong enough to support an entire essay. Apparently my "insightful arguments" are my strong point, I just need to work at putting every single one of those strong points together in a way that clearly supports my thesis.

Another area that I think needs work is properly expanding on points (for example, Antigone and her supposedly 'ambiguous' morals, as well as her relation to a Knight Of Faith), as well as citing evidence from the text whenever the opportunity arises. So many times I've said a conclusion to a point without properly explaining how I came to it. I can help reduce this by getting other people to read my essay before it's submitted; if they are confused, then the marker probably will be as well.

I seem to always mention the same topics: personal freedom, oppression, power. These topics must come easier to me, so I should probably keep on writing about these whenever I get the chance. My essay's concluding sentences have also been consistently praised. I'm hoping this is not due to an unconscious feeling of relief for having finally finished my essay! Sadly, I cannot make my essay consist of only concluding sentences, which is a shame.

Simply Having an Error and Illusion-filled Christmastime

 Merry Brain-diseases-of-sickly-web-spinners-mas everybody, and a happy New Year! Goodness, this book is making me feel so festive.

Neeche takes a pretty highbrow stance in Twilight of the Idols, saying how many other ‘intellectuals’ are deluded. Yet considering his views on the ‘real world’ are to not over-analyze life and to basically take what you see at sensory face value, they aren’t very intellectual sounding. His version of progress, as shown in How the “True World” Finally Became a Fiction is also to abandon the delusions of celestial or intellectual grandeur that characterize Plato or Christianity. Nieeqcher does not want to elevate humanity or (in the case of Rousseau) necessarily regress it, which also does not seem very intellectual. If you’re going to be an Important Philosopher, at least say something exciting like everyone’s been living in a metaphorical cave!

Nicherr criticizes Socrates, but isn’t he essential doing what Socrates did? questioning values that most would contentedly leave unquestioned. If there is a difference to Socrates’ dialectic and what Neeziche is doing, I’d like to know what it is.

Netichee was also ahead of his time – though maybe not in regards to his views on women.  It seems detrimental when discussing his philosophies to bring up his persistent misogyny, but I wonder why someone who says how “reality shows us a captivating treasury of types” (28) would tar all women with the same brush.

The Power Of Equality

Barker's Notes

- (A) The difference between Rousseau's and Hobbes' 'natural' men is that Rosseau is harkening back to the primitive man, whereas Hobbes envisions 17th century man, and how he would react if the entrapments of civilisation completely vanished. Therefore I think its a bit unfair to compare one with the other.

- (B) I'm not sure if nakedness and lack of medicine are really assets to the savage man, though I can understand how the savage is no doubt stronger than the modern civilian (if less cultured).

- (C) I was left thinking that the savage man will also not have any concepts of freedom/morals. The more complex ideas we have of freedom and morality are human-generated constructs, in tandem with the human constructs of the sovereign/ruling government.

- (D) Considering how peaceful the Rousseau's state of nature is to Hobbes', it's interesting how Rousseau's formation of the state through revolution is a lot more violent than the social contract's desire to promote peace in the Leviathan. It's almost like Hobbes decided to flip that book on its head.

- (E) Just as fear was the 'good guy' in Leviathan, leisure is the 'bad guy' in A Discourse On Inequality. Which makes sense, as I rarely get fearful (or feel like I'm a productive member of society) while I'm watching old episodes of Flying Circus.

- (F) This book should have ended with a 'to be continued....' as I was left thinking it'll be interesting to find out what solutions to this state of inequality Rousseau has in mind, though apparently that's sorted out in his Social Contract. 

Hobbes' Leviathan vs. Punk Rock

Alternate title:

I Knew Hobbes Was Trouble When He Walked In (Trouble, Trouble, Trouble)

Needless to say, my understanding of Hobbes before yesterday's lecture was minimal at best. I get it a bit more now, but still, I reckon if you want some actual enlightenment on the contents of this book, it'd be best to scroll down to the blog post below mine.

Whenever faced with the intellectual demands that a comes with a book like Leviathan, my mind inevitably shifts to something that doesn't require thought, like punk rock. But then, with a flash of minimal inspiration, I realised that when Johnny Rotten sang

"I am an antichrist, I am an anarchist"

he was talking about the direct opposite of Hobbes' State = God analogy! The Sex Pistols, therefore, must have been scholars of the Hobbesian variety, and with their decree of destroying passersby, Johnny Rotten was fully acknowledging that sudden and violent deaths would result form his anarchistic ways.

The band Crass, on the other hand, promoted anarchism and pacifism as ways of life, saying things like

"External control are you gonna let them get you?

Do you wanna be a prisoner in the boundaries they set you?"

but also telling the embittered 'common man' who wishes for a bloody revolution that

"freedom has no value if violence is the price

Don't want your revolution, I want anarchy and peace."  

Hobbes, however, wouldn't be too happy with Crass. He'd say that the 'boundaries' (which involve fear) are necessary, and that violence is only other outcome.

Indeed, I think the idea of Hobbes getting cosy with any anti-capitalism and anti-establishment music from the likes of Fugazi or Refused would have been a definite no-no. What he would have thought of The Buzzcocks' 'Orgasm Addict' though, still remains to be seen.

Hopefully I'll have an even better grasp of this book by the end of the week. I wonder if any reproductions of the book have ever been attempted with a more modern vernacular and clearer arguments. I'm sure I'd enjoy reading that a whole lot more, as it's hard to follow Hobbes' traynes of thought when his now outdated diction gets in the way.