The Veil

Du Bois's veil metaphor, "In those somber forests of his
striving his own soul rose before him, and he saw himself,
-darkly as though through a veil" is an allusion to Saint
Paul's line in Isiah 25:7, "For now we see through a glass,
darkly." Saint Paul's use of the veil in Isiah and later in
Second Corinthians is similar to Du Bois's use of the
metaphor of the veil. Both writers claim that as long as
one is wrapped in the veil their attempts to gain
self-consciousness will fail because they will always see
the image of themselves reflect back to them by others.

Du Bois applies this by claiming that as long as one is
behind the veil the, "world which yields him no
self-consciousness but who only lets him see himself
through the revelation of the other world." Saint Paul in
Second Corinthians says the way to self consciousness and
an understanding lies in, "the veil being taken away, Now
the lord is the spirit and where the spirit of the lord is
there is liberty." Du Bois does not claim that transcending
the veil will lead to a better understanding of the lord
but like Saint Paul he finds that only through transcending
"the veil" can people achieve liberty and gain
self-consciousness.

The veil metaphor in Souls of Black Folk is symbolic of
the invisibility of blacks in America. Du Bois says that
Blacks in America are a forgotten people, "after the
Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and
Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a
veil. The invisibility of Black existence in America is one
of the reasons why Du Bois writes Souls of Black Folk in
order to elucidate the "invisible" history and strivings of
Black Americans, "I have sought here to sketch, in vague,
uncertain outline, the spiritual world in which ten
thousand Americans live and strive." 

Initial Thoughts

Dubois' theory on "double consciousness" explains a state of mind, a way of being, that results from being disenfranchised from American identity and therefore from effectiveness in the political sphere.  He feels that until an African-American person  can merge his sense of being African with his sense of being American--for he sees these as separate and constitutive of two disparate ways of understanding himself--until he can merge these, says Dubois, a black person will not be able to participate effectively in American society as a whole nor understand himself as a complete human being: he will always see himself within "the contradiction of double aims." I wonder if his view on "double consciousness" is only considered by him to be experience of disenfranchised African-Americans, who or does he think this idea can help explain the feelings of any estranged group within society.

"Double consciousness is the sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others." This dual identity of being "Negro" and American doesn't allow blacks to have another source upon which to base their identity. This results in a "veil" between the black man's world and the white world that establishes blacks as both American citizens and American victims. Blacks brought their slave status with them into American society, and the double identity of being both "free" and "unequal". To achieve freedom, progress for blacks should include economic success, education, the right to vote, and recognition of their spirituality, but never were all of these issues addressed at the same time. This "veil" taught blacks in rural communities to accept that what they have is good enough, resulting in the world asking little of them, and the blacks giving little to the world. Urban blacks can attain material wealth, but they must turn their backs on their spirituality that distinguishes them as black people.

Overall, I believe DuBois believes that double consciousness does not offer any solutions for blacks, but by recognizing its existence and getting rid of it, only then can we come up with solutions. When blacks achieving self-respect and respect in their own communities becomes the same as achieving them in white society, only then can real progress be measured.

General Thoughts

In 1901, Booker T. Washington published this autobiography. Born into slavery, after emancipation, Mr. Washington developed a philosophy that African-Americans needed to sweep away the ignorance that their subservient position had left them with, and earn the respect of the whites through hard work and excellence. He founded the Tuskegee Institute to teach African-Americans how to study, how to work hard and intelligently (producing better results than the white businesses of the day), and how to have respect for themselves and others.
It is fascinating that he, though cognizant of the racism that often surrounded him, never lost his faith in the basic goodness of the people of all colors that he met. The only problem I am having with this excellent book was the knowledge I could not shake, that Washington's faith was not rewarded, and the white community of the day would not give the African-American community respect and fair treatment.

The first couple of pages are startling for the nonchalant way he relates that he doesn't know the year of his birth, nor the exact location, nor with certainty who his father was. He does, on the other hand, describe the tiny dimensions to the cabin where he lived and what life was like for the slaves.

More Human Than Human

I find the religious allusions and themes contained within Blade Runner to be incredibly intriguing. Even moreso than the actual main character of Deckard. To view this film as a a shadow puppet version that epic struggle between God and the Fallen opens up myriad views of the imagery employed by Ridley Scott.

There are effectively two different type of Replicants displayed. There are the older models such as Leon that do not have any implanted memories, but still yearn for some sense of their identity at this late stage in their life. Although these types, again like Leon, can be extremely violent, in a way its not really their fault as they are basically children and this is what they have been taught to do. The other type is like Roy and Rachael, either they have implanted memories like Rachael or they like Roy, but don't miss them. These are the truly human Replicants.

The analogy between Tyrell and God kid of falls to pieces since he is actually killed by his so=called prodigal son, rather than casting him down (or out of Earth as the case would be).  That is why  I originally described this happening as a shadow play of the real events. But, perhaps that is not correct. A shadow play is a mockery of real life, but the Blade Runner with its super-humans, the replicants, is more like super-reality. I suppose this only makes sense with Tyrell Corp's motto, "More Human Than Human.

Shock Value

As I was reading through Davis' Life in the Iron Mills, I remember seeing her points about the oppression of the industrial workers, and the apathy of the bourgeois middle class, but I never recall at one point being enthused to take any kind of action (if I had been living during that period). There was never any outrage, never any disgust--her passion never shone through the narrative. Perhaps this is part of the realist creed, to just tell the story and let the facts speak for themselves., but the sickness incurred by say The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. There is no shock value.

While Deborah commits a crime and is thrown in jail, and yes she is treated poorly, it just is not the same as seeing human body parts get mixed into deli meat, or having your blushing, new wife forcibly raped by your manager. These instances just seem incomparable in their tragedy. I think that perhaps Davis relies too much on the more subtle queues of her deformation or the stifling of Wolfe's art. I can see that Wolfe's creativity and intelligence are meant to be representative of the industrial working class as a whole. In the Jungle it was easy to see the traits of the oppressed within each of the characters. In Life in the Iron Mills, these traits are sort spread thin to begin with, and even then they are not centered on one or two core characters.

Violence and Terminator

While Terminator 2 does make some attempts at philosophical justification for the actions of its characters, most of these are superseded and watered by the Hollywood requirement for glitzy, "rock-em sock-em" action.

John Connor's "coaching" of Schwarzenegger's character supposedly is representing the good side of humanity and that we are not just a self-destructive species. However, in the world of John Connor violence against and perhaps the maiming of a person seem to be mere vices compared to the sin of actually killing somebody. Even obviously, unnecessary violence is hardly even blinked at. Take, when John and the Terminator are breaking into Pescadero in order to free Sarah. The Terminator shoots the gate watchmen in the legs when he could have just as easily knocked him out or otherwise restrained him. The argument of Utilitarian violence isn't even applicable in this situation.

Perhaps it is just "modern sensibilities" that seem to be uncomfortable with the violence. However, I do not think it is just me. In the new Terminator television series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, there is almost no death or killing, and when there is it is completely obvious how it really was not preventable. The characters, even the hot-headed Sarah Connor, seem much less inclined to do harm unto people than there movie predecessors. That is the show's main criticism of the current re-programed terminator under there command. She is too quick on the trigger, too quick to use killing as a means to an end.

On the argument that Terminator 2 makes violence almost fashionable or cool. I would say that this movie definitely plays on that theme or motif. In Hollywood violence, and explosions, etc. are cool.

Reality v. Extreme

Throughout Ragtime I found that Doctorow seems to imply that despite the somewhat graphic and extreme actions and behaviors of the characters that these are the ways that in fact "real" act. And perahaps this is true to an extent, however that at many points he in fact crosses the line. I know that this book is supposed to be somewhat of commentary on certain social issues and whatnot, but there is a big difference in shock value and what could be considered accounts of near psychotic people. Take Coalhouse for example. He seems to be a normal person, with a strong streak of pride. At first. Then he somehow metamorphosizes into a deranged killers, who just goes around shooting people up. while yes this does make apparent the effect that racism is having on the black community, its seems to be somewhat over the top, pretty much to the point of being unbelievable.
Emma Goldman is another example of an extreme character, however her actions seem more suiting and fitting to how she may have been (or other feminists may have been) in real life. The way she discusses woman-kind with some kind of mysticism is in fact effective in speaking out against the oppression that. The reason Doctorow's treatment of her is more effective than that of Coalhouse's is that he does not bend the rules of normality of attempt to rationalize her actions. They speak for themselves, and exist within the limits of normalcy. Doctorow attempts to set Coalhouse's actions to some sort relativist standard, but it just does not fit. His suffering was great this is true, but there is no justification for his actions whether in fiction or not.