Journalists don't just report the news, they make it too. Now, I've given you two heavy posts, and this sounds like another one- but its really much lighter.
A-Rod is the best player in the game today. Possibly the best player to ever play the game. He does EVERYTHING well. And he makes money because of it. Some people don't like A-Rod because he doesn't cause the teams he's on to automatically win. Others don't like him because he's kinda sulky. Others don't like him because he knows that he's good.
But now Jeff Passan had gone out and called him Barry Bonds. You know, the most arrogant and rude player in the game today. The one with a personal entourage that completely dominates the clubhouse. And admitedly took steriods.
A-Rod is nothing like Bonds. But because Passan says so, and because A-Rod will be chasing, reporters will be making the comparision. And when they pop that question- how can A-Rod respond? No matter how he responds, he only 'proves' their point. Unless he gives them a hug, says 'I Love You' and looks like a general twat.
That's the power of propaganda.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-arod103007&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
The 'problem' with free speech
Every once and a while someone comes out and effectively says that they like free speech except that it grants bad people the right to say stupid things. And from that follows destruction of moral values etc. Now, that may (or in my opinion may not) be a good point, but I think there is a more insidious problem latent in free speech- and one that does not have to be there at all.
The well known proverb is that though I may disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it. What does that mean? Why do I disagree? This last question is the important one: What are the content and value of my own opinions, that I am willing to 'agree to disagree' with you?
More often than not, the value of these opinions is worthless. And I don't mean the people opposed, I mean the people 'granting' the free speech. Free speech is a very simple notion. It means everyone gets to voice their opinion. It doesn't mean that I have to forget about me and mine.
But that is how most people take free speech nowadays. Look at the well know proverb- the person responds that he will fight for someone's right to say something not liked. Now, it may not be everyone's first reaction, but for many the structure of this proverb is telling. The reaction is to blanketly assert the other person's right to free speech, with a dim disapproval, and NO REBUTTAL.
That's the egregious sin- no one, except apparently offensive people, gives a crap about anything today. They only care about letting everyone have rights. Which is nice, but not sufficient. Life is not about the 'right' way to live, but about the 'good' way to live. Making space for other people's conception of the good DOES NOT entail that you forfeit your own. Unfortunately, most people don't think this way. They confuse the rights provided in liberal society with a moral ideal.
Surely they are right that it is moral to uphold free speech, and immoral to suppress it. But the speech of free speech is not, in itself, of any value. It is only a vehicle, a means, to the ends of expressing, demonstrating, arguing, eloborating, mocking, crying about, etc., your conception of the good. People indeed have a right to vacuous free speech, but that does not make such speech moral.
I think it is this underlying point that affects another central problem evident within the 'free speech arena' today- that of public 'censure.' I take it as axiotomic that everyone realizes that free speech grants them the right to formulate an opinion about the good. It also grants everyone the right to dissent. The latter is the more important part of free speech. Free speech, as a right, is worthless where people agree. It only comes into effect where there is disagreement. And it allows both parties to disagree. And that disagreement is just that- disagreement. Not coercion, not stifling. Nothing more.
Why have I brought that up? One broader, older issue, and one more narrow, and more recent issue. The broader issue is the arguments of the book the Israel Lobby, and Jimminey Carter. Well, not their arguments per se, but their concurrent arguments that they are being stifled. What's the stifling exactly? 1) People have written exposes trying to show factual error 2) People have written exposes trying to show bias and misinterpretation. 3)People have played the evil evil 'Anti-Semite' card.
The first two, unless you're a dumbass, are not stifling debate. They are contributing towards it. So, it's only the last one that warrants any appraisal of whether its called stifling. Sadly, I've seen many cases where types of responses such as the first two (not only with regards to Israel, and more specifically other subjects) are called stifling. That's right- argument is called stifling. Having a counterposing opinion is deemed stifling. Why? I'll get back to that one.
But what, about the third answer- the 'anti-Semite' card? Well, first comes a simple question- are the positions espoused anti-Semitic? Well, what would that mean?- that after 1) and 2) some people have come to the conclusion that the reason for the 'errors' is not good faith, but pure bias. In other words, more often than not, the anti-Semite card is an outgrowth of the first two charges. And here it becomes important to go through the data and see why point 3) is even raised. If there is clearly no bias, and people are just being stupid- that's important to note. But many people take the mere appearance of the word 'anti-semite' as proof that the accused is right. Why? Why not investigate? (This is a rhetorical question, we both know the answer)
But there is a much more basic and fundamental point to be made here. What purpose does proclaiming 'anti-Semitism' serve? It serves the purpose of moral disapproval. Effectively- 'go ahead and say that, but you're being a bigot.' Now comes the fundamental issue- is (and does) this stifling (or stifle for those of you on the 'does' track) debate? Certainly people feel stifled- why? Because being a bigot is a cultural taboo- the one broken more than any other. How does this affect my point? Simple- it is only stifling debate because the person on the other side has already accepted the premises of the accuser. In other words, the only reason any 'stifling' is going on is because the 'stifled' lets himself be. How could he not be, you may ask. Repeat after me, 'Nu-uh!' That simple. If someone calls you a bigot, say no you're not. That easy- it's only stifling because you let it be. You have the right to your opinion, and so too do others. You have the right to make moral judgements on them, and they the very same right on you. And it's not stifling. Its a moral judgement. On the other hand, crying like a baby that you are being stifled every time someone disagress with you IS a attempt to stifle. You are shifting the burden of proof from neutral to the other person. You are 'silencing' the other person, because everybody loves a martyr, and noone like high-handedness. So, good job- you've learned propaganda 101. And guess what- its not called stifling when everyone's talking about it.
So, what's the more recent and narrow event? Apparently there is a group on Facebook (and possibly other places) called 'Mayim.' It defines itself as group for religious (meaning here in Judaism) pluralism and against religious coercion. The first point is probably obvious, and I think rather laudable. The second point is stupid. They aren't talking about Israeli politics- where groups (both religious and anti-religious) hijack real issue for their own gains. And they arent talking about violence. And they arent talking about NRP youth settling in the hilltops of Judea and Samaria forcing Israeli policy.
So what are they talking about? Well, I saw two basic points- 1) That religious groups offer gifts (meaning free, or cheap trips mostly) in order to provide a forum to 'sell' Judaism. 2) That religious people say things that make people feel guilty.
Well, wtf? 1) Don't go on the f***ing trips if you don't want to hear what they are going to say. Simple as that. Don't borrow money from a bank if you don't want to pay interest. Are they supposed to give you the trip for no reason? And don't answer me that its just an opportunity for propaganda. No sh** sherlock. Of course it is. And you still don't have to buy into. If you want to go for the free stuff and space out, go ahead. Guess what- they aren't brainwashing, they are propagandizing. What's the difference. Well, everything is some form or another of propaganda. It's just spouting your view. And it happen every time anyone says anything. Granted that most stuff isnt only propaganda, but it certainly works as that also. And we deal with all the time, every day. The only remedy is having the cahones to have your own opinion.
Brainwashing is actively manipulating a situation so that only a certain view CAN register. Forcing people to stay up till really late is one tactic, so is discouraging ANY dissent. Neither of those happen on these trips. The point of these things is SPECIFICALLY to question things- your own opinion.
And what about 2)? It's this simple again- don't accept guilt for things that you don't feel guilt for. Are religious people not allowed to make a metaphysical claim about normativity? And especially one thats in the F*****g Bible? (That G-d does also punish) Tell them that they are wrong. And why they are wrong. A person can't guilt you into something unless you accept that guilt in the first place.
So why don't you? Because you hold vacuous opinions. Notice I didn't say you were wrong. Just that your opinions are valueless. You could be right. In fact, a lot of the time you probably are right. But your opinions are so little invested to you that all you can do is shout 'stifling', or 'coercion' or 'it's my right.' Does your opinion matter to you? If so, did you spend a lot of time thinking about why you are right, and the other position is wrong? If not, how the held can you hold a strong opinion- unless you yourself are the dogmatist? And if you have invested enough thought and energy into forming your opinion, why do you shirk so cowardly from defending it? If your opinion holds water, then show people why.
You know why you don't- free speech. You think that because other people have the right to an opinion, that your opinions are questionably. And it is because of that disrespect you put on yourself, that you feel the need to stifle others. Because you don't see how you could be right, you need to just tell people they are coercing you, or stifling you- instead of proving your point.
If you're perceptive, you might have picked up a really deep, and important, point here. Tyranny doesn't just coming from thinking you are right. It also comes from cultural relatively. When rights replace content, you become a dictator on rights. You herald your right to have a meaningless opinion, and announce your insecurities by calling out everyone who dissents.
The well known proverb is that though I may disagree with what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it. What does that mean? Why do I disagree? This last question is the important one: What are the content and value of my own opinions, that I am willing to 'agree to disagree' with you?
More often than not, the value of these opinions is worthless. And I don't mean the people opposed, I mean the people 'granting' the free speech. Free speech is a very simple notion. It means everyone gets to voice their opinion. It doesn't mean that I have to forget about me and mine.
But that is how most people take free speech nowadays. Look at the well know proverb- the person responds that he will fight for someone's right to say something not liked. Now, it may not be everyone's first reaction, but for many the structure of this proverb is telling. The reaction is to blanketly assert the other person's right to free speech, with a dim disapproval, and NO REBUTTAL.
That's the egregious sin- no one, except apparently offensive people, gives a crap about anything today. They only care about letting everyone have rights. Which is nice, but not sufficient. Life is not about the 'right' way to live, but about the 'good' way to live. Making space for other people's conception of the good DOES NOT entail that you forfeit your own. Unfortunately, most people don't think this way. They confuse the rights provided in liberal society with a moral ideal.
Surely they are right that it is moral to uphold free speech, and immoral to suppress it. But the speech of free speech is not, in itself, of any value. It is only a vehicle, a means, to the ends of expressing, demonstrating, arguing, eloborating, mocking, crying about, etc., your conception of the good. People indeed have a right to vacuous free speech, but that does not make such speech moral.
I think it is this underlying point that affects another central problem evident within the 'free speech arena' today- that of public 'censure.' I take it as axiotomic that everyone realizes that free speech grants them the right to formulate an opinion about the good. It also grants everyone the right to dissent. The latter is the more important part of free speech. Free speech, as a right, is worthless where people agree. It only comes into effect where there is disagreement. And it allows both parties to disagree. And that disagreement is just that- disagreement. Not coercion, not stifling. Nothing more.
Why have I brought that up? One broader, older issue, and one more narrow, and more recent issue. The broader issue is the arguments of the book the Israel Lobby, and Jimminey Carter. Well, not their arguments per se, but their concurrent arguments that they are being stifled. What's the stifling exactly? 1) People have written exposes trying to show factual error 2) People have written exposes trying to show bias and misinterpretation. 3)People have played the evil evil 'Anti-Semite' card.
The first two, unless you're a dumbass, are not stifling debate. They are contributing towards it. So, it's only the last one that warrants any appraisal of whether its called stifling. Sadly, I've seen many cases where types of responses such as the first two (not only with regards to Israel, and more specifically other subjects) are called stifling. That's right- argument is called stifling. Having a counterposing opinion is deemed stifling. Why? I'll get back to that one.
But what, about the third answer- the 'anti-Semite' card? Well, first comes a simple question- are the positions espoused anti-Semitic? Well, what would that mean?- that after 1) and 2) some people have come to the conclusion that the reason for the 'errors' is not good faith, but pure bias. In other words, more often than not, the anti-Semite card is an outgrowth of the first two charges. And here it becomes important to go through the data and see why point 3) is even raised. If there is clearly no bias, and people are just being stupid- that's important to note. But many people take the mere appearance of the word 'anti-semite' as proof that the accused is right. Why? Why not investigate? (This is a rhetorical question, we both know the answer)
But there is a much more basic and fundamental point to be made here. What purpose does proclaiming 'anti-Semitism' serve? It serves the purpose of moral disapproval. Effectively- 'go ahead and say that, but you're being a bigot.' Now comes the fundamental issue- is (and does) this stifling (or stifle for those of you on the 'does' track) debate? Certainly people feel stifled- why? Because being a bigot is a cultural taboo- the one broken more than any other. How does this affect my point? Simple- it is only stifling debate because the person on the other side has already accepted the premises of the accuser. In other words, the only reason any 'stifling' is going on is because the 'stifled' lets himself be. How could he not be, you may ask. Repeat after me, 'Nu-uh!' That simple. If someone calls you a bigot, say no you're not. That easy- it's only stifling because you let it be. You have the right to your opinion, and so too do others. You have the right to make moral judgements on them, and they the very same right on you. And it's not stifling. Its a moral judgement. On the other hand, crying like a baby that you are being stifled every time someone disagress with you IS a attempt to stifle. You are shifting the burden of proof from neutral to the other person. You are 'silencing' the other person, because everybody loves a martyr, and noone like high-handedness. So, good job- you've learned propaganda 101. And guess what- its not called stifling when everyone's talking about it.
So, what's the more recent and narrow event? Apparently there is a group on Facebook (and possibly other places) called 'Mayim.' It defines itself as group for religious (meaning here in Judaism) pluralism and against religious coercion. The first point is probably obvious, and I think rather laudable. The second point is stupid. They aren't talking about Israeli politics- where groups (both religious and anti-religious) hijack real issue for their own gains. And they arent talking about violence. And they arent talking about NRP youth settling in the hilltops of Judea and Samaria forcing Israeli policy.
So what are they talking about? Well, I saw two basic points- 1) That religious groups offer gifts (meaning free, or cheap trips mostly) in order to provide a forum to 'sell' Judaism. 2) That religious people say things that make people feel guilty.
Well, wtf? 1) Don't go on the f***ing trips if you don't want to hear what they are going to say. Simple as that. Don't borrow money from a bank if you don't want to pay interest. Are they supposed to give you the trip for no reason? And don't answer me that its just an opportunity for propaganda. No sh** sherlock. Of course it is. And you still don't have to buy into. If you want to go for the free stuff and space out, go ahead. Guess what- they aren't brainwashing, they are propagandizing. What's the difference. Well, everything is some form or another of propaganda. It's just spouting your view. And it happen every time anyone says anything. Granted that most stuff isnt only propaganda, but it certainly works as that also. And we deal with all the time, every day. The only remedy is having the cahones to have your own opinion.
Brainwashing is actively manipulating a situation so that only a certain view CAN register. Forcing people to stay up till really late is one tactic, so is discouraging ANY dissent. Neither of those happen on these trips. The point of these things is SPECIFICALLY to question things- your own opinion.
And what about 2)? It's this simple again- don't accept guilt for things that you don't feel guilt for. Are religious people not allowed to make a metaphysical claim about normativity? And especially one thats in the F*****g Bible? (That G-d does also punish) Tell them that they are wrong. And why they are wrong. A person can't guilt you into something unless you accept that guilt in the first place.
So why don't you? Because you hold vacuous opinions. Notice I didn't say you were wrong. Just that your opinions are valueless. You could be right. In fact, a lot of the time you probably are right. But your opinions are so little invested to you that all you can do is shout 'stifling', or 'coercion' or 'it's my right.' Does your opinion matter to you? If so, did you spend a lot of time thinking about why you are right, and the other position is wrong? If not, how the held can you hold a strong opinion- unless you yourself are the dogmatist? And if you have invested enough thought and energy into forming your opinion, why do you shirk so cowardly from defending it? If your opinion holds water, then show people why.
You know why you don't- free speech. You think that because other people have the right to an opinion, that your opinions are questionably. And it is because of that disrespect you put on yourself, that you feel the need to stifle others. Because you don't see how you could be right, you need to just tell people they are coercing you, or stifling you- instead of proving your point.
If you're perceptive, you might have picked up a really deep, and important, point here. Tyranny doesn't just coming from thinking you are right. It also comes from cultural relatively. When rights replace content, you become a dictator on rights. You herald your right to have a meaningless opinion, and announce your insecurities by calling out everyone who dissents.
The innocuous Bristol I-Soc
I joined the I-Soc this year to learn more about Islam and Muslims. I figured it was safe here (in Brizzie) because the I-Soc is meant to be rather 'innocuous', 'moderate', and whatever other adjectives you care to throw around. I had been told that the I-Soc and the J-Soc have had good relations, even if not perfect.Strangely enough, the I-Soc and J-soc stalls at Fresh were located next to one another. Thus any possible contrast between the two would be easy. I figured that neither would have particularly strong words to say about Israel or Palestine (being a public forum), but that neither would leave their 'version' unmentioned. I was wrong about that. On the J-Soc side there were only two mentions of Israel 1) subsidized trips 2)a case for peace between Israel and the Palestinians and Arabs. Seemingly missing an opportunity to in some way defend the legitimacy of Israel, but I supposed it was felt that the J-soc should be as dovish as possible.Not so on the I-soc front.They had ready and visible material pleading for the Palestinian cause. Fair enough, and I should certainly hope they care about their brethren. Of course, I looked in the pamphlets and saw a great deal of half-truths, outright lies, and outright incitement. Suffice it to say, not what I expected from a 'innocuous' group. Nonetheless, I realize how important and pervasive the conflict is within Arab and Islamic society, and why it pushes so many buttons. Maybe it wasnt the best place for it, but still- the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a sensitive and passion-filled subject, and it must e hard for Muslims not to continually show their support. I only wished they'd do it just a little more 'politely.'So, all in all, stuff I didn't expect, but also didn't blow me out the water. Muslims don't like Israel? Muslims think Israel is evil and commits tons of crimes? Well, duh. That's nice for them. Besides, I was more bothered by crap that the 'Respest' people put in their pamphlets at the UWE fresh. This seemed....almost innocent.But why I am I writing about this now????Why a month later? Was I really busy starting the semester? Ha!- I wish that was my excuse.Our flat (or rather, my flat-mates) was doing some cleaning to impress the people who might give us a new sofa tomorrow. And one of my flat-mates discovered a pamphlet I picked up at the Fresh- 'The Hijab Why.' Why did I pick it up? I know the basic reasoning behind it- the same as why Orthodox women will dress more modestly and cover their hair when married. Simple, huh? Well, I wanted to know if there was more to it. Islam isnt a different form of Judaism/Christianity. There is a good deal in common, but a great deal of divergence. The creation story, the volition of angels, the order of the Prophets, etc. I wanted to know any additional reasons.But that wasn't my only motivation. I am fascinated by the psychology and process of belief- how do beliefs form, why are some arguments persuasive and others not,etc. I've looked at Jewish pamphlets trying to do similar things (like get people to marry Jewish, believe in G-d, etc) and wanted to see about similarities and differences. Basically, how do they convince people to wear the Hijab?So, about 40 minutes ago, I opened to the middle, as is my wont, a found a nice suprise in the justification of Hijab. (p. 29)
" (10) Tabar'roj is the way of the Jews
"Jews have an important role in the destruction of nations through the Fitna (seduction/temptation) of women. The spread of Tabar'roj is an effective weapon of their widespread establishments. They have an extensive experience in this field. One should look around only to see who runs Hollywood and famous Houses of 'Fashions' and 'Magazines' as well as the world of advertisement."
(Tabar'roj being defined as 'display of woman's charm' p. 20)
NICE!!! Always a little jew-roasting to rouse up support for your religious practice that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TINY TINY AMOUNT OF JEWS IN THE WORLD.
'Nuf said.
Seriously, if want to see it- come ask me and I will you show where it says it.
" (10) Tabar'roj is the way of the Jews
"Jews have an important role in the destruction of nations through the Fitna (seduction/temptation) of women. The spread of Tabar'roj is an effective weapon of their widespread establishments. They have an extensive experience in this field. One should look around only to see who runs Hollywood and famous Houses of 'Fashions' and 'Magazines' as well as the world of advertisement."
(Tabar'roj being defined as 'display of woman's charm' p. 20)
NICE!!! Always a little jew-roasting to rouse up support for your religious practice that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TINY TINY AMOUNT OF JEWS IN THE WORLD.
'Nuf said.
Seriously, if want to see it- come ask me and I will you show where it says it.
Saturday, 20 October 2007
Blasting bias
I'm taking political philosophy this semester, so I thought it would be a good idea to read up on the relevant material on the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Specifically, I was reading an article on 'authority,' which, in political philosophy, is not taken for granted as legitimate. The article was an enjoyable to and fro, until the very end- when the writer 'decided' that democracy had legitimacy above and beyond any question. Now, even taking for granted that Churchill's assertion that democracy is the 'lesser of all evils' when it comes to government, that does not, in and of itself provide justification. However, this myth- the supremacy of democracy- is so entrenched in our society, that some (apparently) believe it beyond any kind of question.
This rather inane point leads me to a much larger one. The West views itself as proud heirs to the Greeks- ethical philosophers who pondered the wonders of the universe and were generally freedom loving. However, this premise seems to be completely false. The Greeks may have been philosophers, but they hardly seem to conform to our standard of ethics. What say you, that 'of course not, they were ancient'?- grant that, but understand just how brutal they were. Even in Athens, oh so wonderful Athens, only about 5-6% of the denizens were allowed to vote. And this was within a 'democratic,' and not 'aristocratic' conception of the polis. In truth, even after the reforms of Solon that saved the poor from revolting, the paupers still had no 'effective' power.
Greek treatment of slaves was horrendous. I know that you are probably shocked by what I mean by this- isn't all slavery bad? Yes, but there is bad and worse- Jewish treatment of slaves, or general Eastern treatment of slaves. Now, there are significant differences between the two, each one being, in some ways, 'better.' The Jewish slave had more 'rights' as a human, but the Eastern (for example Persian) slave could own property, and was usually actually paid. Yup, paid.
This only goes to show that you can't simply answer for the Greeks that "everybody thought it was okay back then." They simply didn't.
It goes deeper than this. Every now and again, there was a slave revolt and the ruling aristocrats were driven out. Usually these revolts, although resulting in the deposition of the aristocrats, did not result in their murder, but rather their banishment. The leaders of these revolts would pass legislation to ease and equalize economic burden. And they were called tyrants.
What gives? It's easy to explain ancient Greece's horrible view of 'freedom,' and their lies about 'tyranny,' but why do we accept their labels?
At http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cruxcontents.htm, Prof. Gil-White tries to explain that the writers of history are generally aristocrats themselves, and therefore 'buy into' (although he might be a bit more cynical than that) the hype. I don't buy it. It's an easy conclusion, especially given his Marxist assumptions.
I think it clearly is a case of historians buying into the hype, but I think it has more to do with perception-formation, and concept-formation, than outright bias. This is a current fascination of mine: just how do perceptions form, how do they change, and what does it mean to believe. To sum up, propaganda. Or, at least I think that has a large part of it.
When I say propaganda, you probably think Goebbels or Stalin, or if you're a moonbat, the 9/11 commission. And I do mean those things, as well. But here's the rub- what is the difference between what Stalin did and any acquired information? I don't mean in truth-value, but in how that information comes to be believed. I think they are the same, and I think that's a rather intuitive postulation. It explains why propaganda is no less believable than regular information- because the assimilation process of all information is done, is essentially (except through one's own 'research' and 'insight', and yes, I am being purposely vague) no more than propaganda.
But to highlight my point let's look at the flip side of what I am saying- human being are very gullible. They believe what they are told, often without questioning it. And, even after questioning, they still tend to hold convictions. Take religions. There certainly aren't all true. (in the strong sense) That means that most people are definitely wrong about religion. Further, religion seems to have little, or no, evidence whatsoever. But, do people believe any less? Indeed, intellectually I'm a veritable sceptic when it comes to religion. Yet, I still believe in (have a conviction might be a better way to phrase it) Judaism. And, it's a belief I cannot, for the life of me, shake.
So, people form beliefs that are transmitted to them from others, and they often cannot shake those beliefs. Sometimes this is despite a conscious struggle. Other times, it is through cognitive dissonance, whereby people simply blank out the evidence. But more frequently, people simply do not register evidence- not because it contradicts their preconceived notions, but because it does not even fit into their frame of reference. Quick example: could the concept of dharama be true? Yes. Is there any evidence for it? I have absolutely no idea- because it just simply isn't my frame of reference. Now, I could spend years assimilating the concept. And that would probably help, but I would have to look in the first place. Otherwise, it's rose coloured glasses from here on out. (Ha! the Britishness is seeping into me, which, btw, only validates my point)
How does this relate? Simple- who do we get (most of) Greek history from? The aristocrats- who else would have time to sit and write in the ancient world? So, our shared legacy of Greece is seen through the people who considered the aristocrats 'fair' and 'just.' In other words, our conception of Greece necessarily starts from an aristocratic point of view.
But it's more than that, and here a little feminist Bible-criticism will provide an good parallel. One of the main critiques of feminist writers is that the Bible is andro-centric- it is written from a man's perspective. Why does this matter? Because it does not distort femininity, but rather makes it so that it is never heard! The world painted in the Hebrew Bible (so those critics claim) is not anti-woman, rather is one where woman are on the outside. The narrator is conveying the story of the men, through the eyes of the men, and as such the story we receive is only of men. As such, we associate with the 'male side of the story,' and we don't even think to ask the question, 'well, what about the women.' In Yeshivish there is a phrase called 'E Gores,' meaning that it is so irrelevant that it is not in anyone's conception.
So too with the Greeks. We see history through the eyes of the aristocrats- where the slaves and the women weren't even playing the game. They are so off to the side that it is incredible hard to realize how much of a slanted view we are getting- especially if it is the only view we are getting.
Now, I don't want you to think I in cahoots with post-modernism, or deconstructionism, etc. I certainly believe that there are facts, and that we can use our faculty of reason to sort through them. But, just because we can swim doesn't mean that water is shallow, or that there isn't a strong tide.
This rather inane point leads me to a much larger one. The West views itself as proud heirs to the Greeks- ethical philosophers who pondered the wonders of the universe and were generally freedom loving. However, this premise seems to be completely false. The Greeks may have been philosophers, but they hardly seem to conform to our standard of ethics. What say you, that 'of course not, they were ancient'?- grant that, but understand just how brutal they were. Even in Athens, oh so wonderful Athens, only about 5-6% of the denizens were allowed to vote. And this was within a 'democratic,' and not 'aristocratic' conception of the polis. In truth, even after the reforms of Solon that saved the poor from revolting, the paupers still had no 'effective' power.
Greek treatment of slaves was horrendous. I know that you are probably shocked by what I mean by this- isn't all slavery bad? Yes, but there is bad and worse- Jewish treatment of slaves, or general Eastern treatment of slaves. Now, there are significant differences between the two, each one being, in some ways, 'better.' The Jewish slave had more 'rights' as a human, but the Eastern (for example Persian) slave could own property, and was usually actually paid. Yup, paid.
This only goes to show that you can't simply answer for the Greeks that "everybody thought it was okay back then." They simply didn't.
It goes deeper than this. Every now and again, there was a slave revolt and the ruling aristocrats were driven out. Usually these revolts, although resulting in the deposition of the aristocrats, did not result in their murder, but rather their banishment. The leaders of these revolts would pass legislation to ease and equalize economic burden. And they were called tyrants.
What gives? It's easy to explain ancient Greece's horrible view of 'freedom,' and their lies about 'tyranny,' but why do we accept their labels?
At http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cruxcontents.htm, Prof. Gil-White tries to explain that the writers of history are generally aristocrats themselves, and therefore 'buy into' (although he might be a bit more cynical than that) the hype. I don't buy it. It's an easy conclusion, especially given his Marxist assumptions.
I think it clearly is a case of historians buying into the hype, but I think it has more to do with perception-formation, and concept-formation, than outright bias. This is a current fascination of mine: just how do perceptions form, how do they change, and what does it mean to believe. To sum up, propaganda. Or, at least I think that has a large part of it.
When I say propaganda, you probably think Goebbels or Stalin, or if you're a moonbat, the 9/11 commission. And I do mean those things, as well. But here's the rub- what is the difference between what Stalin did and any acquired information? I don't mean in truth-value, but in how that information comes to be believed. I think they are the same, and I think that's a rather intuitive postulation. It explains why propaganda is no less believable than regular information- because the assimilation process of all information is done, is essentially (except through one's own 'research' and 'insight', and yes, I am being purposely vague) no more than propaganda.
But to highlight my point let's look at the flip side of what I am saying- human being are very gullible. They believe what they are told, often without questioning it. And, even after questioning, they still tend to hold convictions. Take religions. There certainly aren't all true. (in the strong sense) That means that most people are definitely wrong about religion. Further, religion seems to have little, or no, evidence whatsoever. But, do people believe any less? Indeed, intellectually I'm a veritable sceptic when it comes to religion. Yet, I still believe in (have a conviction might be a better way to phrase it) Judaism. And, it's a belief I cannot, for the life of me, shake.
So, people form beliefs that are transmitted to them from others, and they often cannot shake those beliefs. Sometimes this is despite a conscious struggle. Other times, it is through cognitive dissonance, whereby people simply blank out the evidence. But more frequently, people simply do not register evidence- not because it contradicts their preconceived notions, but because it does not even fit into their frame of reference. Quick example: could the concept of dharama be true? Yes. Is there any evidence for it? I have absolutely no idea- because it just simply isn't my frame of reference. Now, I could spend years assimilating the concept. And that would probably help, but I would have to look in the first place. Otherwise, it's rose coloured glasses from here on out. (Ha! the Britishness is seeping into me, which, btw, only validates my point)
How does this relate? Simple- who do we get (most of) Greek history from? The aristocrats- who else would have time to sit and write in the ancient world? So, our shared legacy of Greece is seen through the people who considered the aristocrats 'fair' and 'just.' In other words, our conception of Greece necessarily starts from an aristocratic point of view.
But it's more than that, and here a little feminist Bible-criticism will provide an good parallel. One of the main critiques of feminist writers is that the Bible is andro-centric- it is written from a man's perspective. Why does this matter? Because it does not distort femininity, but rather makes it so that it is never heard! The world painted in the Hebrew Bible (so those critics claim) is not anti-woman, rather is one where woman are on the outside. The narrator is conveying the story of the men, through the eyes of the men, and as such the story we receive is only of men. As such, we associate with the 'male side of the story,' and we don't even think to ask the question, 'well, what about the women.' In Yeshivish there is a phrase called 'E Gores,' meaning that it is so irrelevant that it is not in anyone's conception.
So too with the Greeks. We see history through the eyes of the aristocrats- where the slaves and the women weren't even playing the game. They are so off to the side that it is incredible hard to realize how much of a slanted view we are getting- especially if it is the only view we are getting.
Now, I don't want you to think I in cahoots with post-modernism, or deconstructionism, etc. I certainly believe that there are facts, and that we can use our faculty of reason to sort through them. But, just because we can swim doesn't mean that water is shallow, or that there isn't a strong tide.
Friday, 19 October 2007
my evil computer, and why I blog so little
I just had 50 minutes worth of effort deleted by a single, and irrevocable, stroke of misfortune. This is not the first time this has happened, and its part of why I blog so sporadically. I think I will start writing my posts in word first, so that this does not happen again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
