We Need A Revolution In Literature!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

What are you on about now? Oh, the Jews suffered more so the Blacks can't complain? Really?! You are vampirically draining from me what little faith in humanity I still have.

---

You are saying that blacks suffered more than whites so whites can't complain and discrimination of whites isn't as bad.

Discrimination is bad. Period. If you altered how "bad" something was each time a catastrophe happened, there would be no sense of humanity left.

The difference is I am looking at the whole picture while you think you are special because you care about other people being tortured and hurt. That doesn't make you special. You are expected to care. The important thing is to not allow things to happen again, and rationalizing discrimination is not a good pathway.

God you're so dense. I was clearly mocking your line of thinking. How did you miss that?

So what is your opinion of abortion? You know, since 1/3rd of all potential blacks in America are aborted? More black babies have been aborted since 1972 than blacks died during slavery. Why the selective outrage? Oh yeah, they weren't born yet, so what do they matter?

The essence of humanity is not something affected by catastrophes. It is beyond that dimension. If every enormity affected the essence of humanity than there would be nothing of it left.

I'll admit that it is more understandable to vote for a black president because they are black as it is to not vote for them because they ARE black, but only because it is understandable for a human being to act out of emotion. However if you can stand back and look at the way things SHOULD be, which in this circumstance there is no reason not to, people really SHOULDN'T judge someone based on their skin color. That is wrong.

For example, let's say that some guy had his daughter raped and murdered by 6 black men. Should that father resent or mistrust all black people because of that? No. But would I be more understanding if he did as opposed to someone who has never had any harm done to him by a black person? Absolutely. Ideally, if you can help it, skin color should not come into play either way.

This is what I am saying. Please see that because you seem to have distorted my message, or maybe I did a very bad job explaining myself.

And you know it was a bush-league move of you to take my "What does slavery matter?" out of context. There is no reason for you to do that to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

Oh yeah, they weren't born yet, so what do they matter?

---

Again, here go you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Again, here go you.

---

I didn't mean that argument and knew it was a low-blow. I was very angry. I've calmed down a bit now. I don't like it when people misrepresent what I am saying, which that guy was very guilty of doing.

The only people who I think are inherently inhumane or whatever when it comes to abortion are the people who parade it as a triumph in liberty and woman rights. There are people like that, and they make me sick. Look at the motives for murder and the motives for abortion, and the reactions the murderer and the person who had an abortion has. They are completely different in every way. That is because it is a lot different. However the people who can look at such an unfortunate thing and come away with the conclusion that it is a proclamation of liberty and "the woman doing what she wants with HER body!" ... All I can say is that they have a terrible disconnect.

They are who I was talking about.

I agree with most everything you said in what you linked me to, except for this:


Whether the woman in question falls into any of the above-mentioned reasons to get an abortion or if there is some other reason, the fact remains that it is her body. She is the one who is going to have to endure all of the pain and suffering of the labour process and the pregnancy. Denying her the right to choose how to operate her own body is to deny her the most basic of human freedoms.

No, the most basic of human freedoms is being able to live in the first place. I don't see how you can argue that.

Belaway and Darcy - you are both talking about two different things....10 posts in and none of you have yet to undersatnd that the other has understood nothing of what you were saying.

@Belaway, yes voting a man based on skin color, is wrong, does not matter if he is whte black green or red, a moral man votes for the best men, not the one with his favorite color.

But Obama was undoubtedly the best man at the time. So your argument is mostly irelevent in fact, tough in theory it makes sense.

@Darcy, everyone agrees that the fact that a black man could get elected president considering America's history is a beautifull thing. Also if you think what the americans did to the affricans is one of the worst acts of human history, you are ignorant in said departmen. It is a typical act of human history. Genocide, slavery, brutality are common troughout all of history.

But yes in the context of America, it is nice to see a nation progress so far in such little time.

Also Obama is not black, he is half-black. Huge difference. The day a man with the complexion of terry crews becomes president, that will be a day to rejoice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

No, the most basic of human freedoms is being able to live in the first place. I don't see how you can argue that.

---

Nah, many people have exercised their feedom by choosing to die. Choice is liberty, not life.

I guess that someone could argue "is the choice to kill liberty?" Well, I guess it is technically, but that's taking "freedom" too far for social animals like humans. We live in large groups so there are trade-offs: I don't want my family or friends to be slaughtered, so I give up some freedom for that not to happen. Someone might also compare killing to abortion, and say that if freedom doesn't extend to murder then why should it to abortion which some might consider comparable. In that case, I'd refer them to my other arguments and point out that to equate abortion to killing is to radically oversimplify a complex social issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

The only people who I think are inherently inhumane or whatever when it comes to abortion are the people who parade it as a triumph in liberty and woman rights.

---

Actually that annoys me, too. I don't think that a young girl who just chose to have her father's baby aborted wants to be congratulated for her bravery and hear about how she's struck a blow for civil rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I encourage you to add to the list of innovators.

And I can't help but wondering if I'm the only one who had to discover these innovators on my own. 16 years of formal education and nobody discussed these innovators. Nobody assigned their work. 16 years of formal education (with a BA in English literature) and it was ALL conventional literature that was assigned.

Wolf... I serious question whether you really read all you suggest you were "forced" to read because I have a hard time with your notion of "conventional literature". From my experience with literature, the greatest of the old and the new masters were anything but "conventional". I can't imagine reading Dante's Comedia, Cervantes' Don Quixote, Sterne's Tristram Shandy, Blake's Poems, Rousseau's Confessions, Whitman's Leaves of Grass, Melvilles, Moby Dick, or any number of other "classics" and not being stunned by the absolute audacity of the writers. "Conventional"? Do you even know what the word means?

As for your list of "innovative" poets... some are not bad: Andrei Codrescu, Pablo Neruda, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Rilke, October Paz, Henri Michaux, Yves Bonnefoy... You might enjoy Cesar Vallejo, Rafael Alberti, Antonio Machado, Federico Garcia Lorca, Boris Pasternak (as poet), Marina Tsvetaeva, Fernando Pessoa, Charles Wright, Louis Zukofsky, Samuel Beckett, J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Paul Celan, Geoffrey Hill, Anne Carson, etc...

Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath are both overrated... along with a majority of the "confessional" poets IMO. Of the Surrealists/Cubists/da-da poets Apollinaire, Breton, Eluard and a few others are interesting... but can't rival their Symbolist predecessors... nor what was going on at the same time in Spain.

I can't see what your complaint is with regard to your never having been exposed to these writers in 12 years of public school and 4 years working toward a BA in English Literature. Grade school is rarely the place for the exploration of contemporary literature, and your focus upon English Literature was not likely to result in an exploration of a great many writers outside of the English language. Seriously, my college studies of World Literature included Neruda, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Rilke, Apollinaire, and many others...

---

Not to mention a BA in English is only 12 classes over a 4 year period, so that averages out to be 3 classes a year. How much can a person really cover in so short a time period in their courses? Not to mention I remember having a discussion with Mortalterror a little while ago on Lit Net in which he asserted that many people he knows with BAs in English spent too much time reading contemporary work in their courses, while getting little to no background in the older classics. So Wolf's claim that students are forced to only spend their time with the Old Masters doesn't match up well with everyone else observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Nah, many people have exercised their feedom by choosing to die. Choice is liberty, not life.

I guess that someone could argue "is the choice to kill liberty?" Well, I guess it is technically, but that's taking "freedom" too far for social animals like humans. There are trade-offs: I don't want my family or friends to be slaughtered, so I give up some freedom for that not to happen. Someone might also compare killing to abortion, and say that if freedom doesn't extend to murder then why should it to abortion. In that case, I'd refer them to my other arguments and point out that to equate abortion to killing is to radically oversimplify a complex social issue.

of, pertaining to, or forming a base; fundamental: a basic principle; the basic ingredient.

This is the definition of basic. I have no idea how you can seriously be arguing that being able to live is not the basic human freedom. It was what you deprive with abortion, no matter which semester. They are destined from a natural biological action to have life, and then someone goes ahead and exterminates them.

Actually that annoys me, too. I don't think that a young girl who just chose to have her father's baby aborted wants to be congratulated for her bravery and hear about how she's struck a blow for civil rights.

---

I guarantee you that 5 years after her abortion she isn't going to be reminiscing about her "bravery".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Not to mention a BA in English is only 12 classes over a 4 year period, so that averages out to be 3 classes a year. How much can a person really cover in so short a time period in their courses? Not to mention I remember having a discussion with Mortalterror a little while ago on Lit Net in which he asserted that many people he knows with BAs in English spent too much time reading contemporary work in their courses, while getting little to no background in the older classics. So Wolf's claim that students are forced to only spend their time with the Old Masters doesn't match up well with his observations.

---

The bigger question is that of course a single teacher is biased. A single school. Or single Academy. But if you look to hundred academies, curses, teachers is just an illusion to consider all of them have the same bias (which obviously would cease to be bias).

One could easy make a case for: This place does not teach enough african literature. This does not teach woman literature. This does not teach popular literature. This that and that. But as student you can opt the kind line you will follow and form yur own bias.

All his list proved is that his argument does not follow: several of those authors are marginal authors and are widely studied. Baudelaire for example, thanks to Walter Benjamin use of the author is almost pop to exaustion in social studies. I find hard to believe he is ignored, I just remember to see some guy impressing a girl with a few verses of Muse Malade, which the girl was impressed just because it was Baudelaire. Of course, most people has just a general notion about Le Fleurs and not all rest, but obviously in studies dedicated to French literature or even in France, Baudelaire must be as pop as coca-cola.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Belaway and Darcy - you are both talking about two different things....10 posts in and none of you have yet to undersatnd that the other has understood nothing of what you were saying.

@Belaway, yes voting a man based on skin color, is wrong, does not matter if he is whte black green or red, a moral man votes for the best men, not the one with his favorite color.

But Obama was undoubtedly the best man at the time. So your argument is mostly irelevent in fact, tough in theory it makes sense.

@Darcy, everyone agrees that the fact that a black man could get elected president considering America's history is a beautifull thing. Also if you think what the americans did to the affricans is one of the worst acts of human history, you are ignorant in said departmen. It is a typical act of human history. Genocide, slavery, brutality are common troughout all of history.

But yes in the context of America, it is nice to see a nation progress so far in such little time.

Also Obama is not black, he is half-black. Huge difference. The day a man with the complexion of terry crews becomes president, that will be a day to rejoice.

---

That is simply not true. American slavery was especially brutal. For instance, in Ancient Greece a slave was more akin to a farm-hand, he or she was not dehumanized and brutalized as the African slaves in America so often were. And when you consider that there was another century post-abolition of rank discrimination, so bad that, like I said, the mere act of a woman moving to the back of a bus sent shockwaves, the tragedy of the Africans' experience in America is thus seen to have been far-reaching and immense.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain lay mostly in rhetoric. The greatest difference between them was that one represented a race that had endured centuries of abuse and discrimination. To want to see that once enslaved, once lynched, once grossly discriminated against race assume the presidency is neither racist nor wrong. Like I said and Bewlay conveniently ignored, many who voted for Obama were likely happy when they voted for Clinton.

And Bewlay, I did not take you out of context. The context is that you think what the African Americans endured was nothing in the larger view of things. You say things like slavery should not alter us. Its not just slavery. Its discrimination. Blacks couldn't even vote in the early 1960s. There are many people alive today who can remember that time. I suppose if they rejoiced at Obama's electoral victory and felt happy that a black man had become president you would call them racists. Even if, like me, they were white.

That is simply not true. American slavery was especially brutal. For instance, in Ancient Greece a slave was more akin to a farm-hand

Ummm... I think you seriously need to brush up on your history. The brutality of American slavery was in no way unique. Look to the Brutality of the Romans, the various "Barbarian" tribes, the Vikings, the Chinese during the An Lushan Rebellion to say nothing of Mao, the Mongol Invasions, the Russian Civil War, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Witch Hunts, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Armenian Genocide, Aztek Human Sacrifices, Rwandan and Darfur genocide, etc... Some involved greater losses of life; some less, but this is not the issue. All revealed the darkest side of humanity and its willing participation in brutality and the dehumanization of "others". Yes, the experience of slavery and the subsequent institutionalized racial discrimination in the US had a profound impact that is still being felt. Do you imagine the experience is any less for the Native Americans, the Jews of post-WWII Europe, the Chinese post-Mao, etc...?

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain lay mostly in rhetoric. The greatest difference between them was that one represented a race that had endured centuries of abuse and discrimination. To want to see that once enslaved, once lynched, once grossly discriminated against race assume the presidency is neither racist nor wrong.

You seem to be employing some rather slippery logic here. Employing race as the determining factor in an election or in hiring or in accepting a student to a university is "racist" regardless of whether it is done in order to rectify past racist policies. One does not rectify a past bias by reversing it in the present. One rectifies it by eliminating such biases altogether. To have voted for Obama based solely upon the color of his skin (And I might note that I did vote for him) would most certainly be "racist" and "wrong". Indeed, I might add it would amount to stupidity as well. The election of the President of the United States is far too important a matter to be left to a preference for a certain skin color, hair style, or religion. The President of the United States is not merely some symbolic figurehead. If he were, then surely I would say go ahead... elect the black guy simply because you wish to prove to the world how far we have come as a nation. But such is not the case. The proper way of electing the President is to consider which individual, regardless of race, gender, gender preference, religion, political party, etc... will likely prove the best leader for the nation as a whole.

By the way... slightly off topic, eh?

I consider the position to be precisely that - a symbolic figurehead. Also, people who voted for Obama likely also voted for Clinton, who was white.

The Africans were seized and taken across the sea, shackled to a foreign land, forced to drudgery, considered less than human, discriminated against for centuries, as a matter of policy up until a few decades ago. For centuries. And I would also consider it a positive development were a Jew elected Chancellor in Germany, an aboriginal elected Prime Minister in Canada.

Many of the atrocities you mention are centuries or even millennia old. The suffering of African Americans is still fresh in the national consciousness.

Maybe the logic is weak, but I don't see how anyone could be faulted for acting here out of emotion, for caring most for the symbolism of a Black man becoming president.

And yes, very off topic.

I think Bewlay Brother dwarves some kudos for actually arguing pretty coherently, really, considering that first rant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

I think Bewlay Brother dwarves some kudos for actually arguing pretty coherently, really, considering that first rant.

---

"Dwarves"? That's a heck of a malaprop. Can I ask what your other train of thought was that crashed into this one? :-)

:lol: No, it's just the stupid autocorrect on my iPad, which I'm very close to turning off. Though, I think "dwarves" makes it more interesting than "deserves."

Darcy... serious question.. do you know who Josef Stalin was?

Oh and Darcy, you know there is still slavery going on in Africa right now as we speak, and it is blacks enslaving blacks.