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.

Rich and Poor

In these early pages of Doctorow's Ragtime, I was most stricken with the dichotomous attitudes of the poor and the rich on things such as culture, art, and entertainment. Perhaps this first scene this truly come up is when Houdini is escaping from the cell across from Thaw. After he has escaped and is dressing, he is mirrored but in the inverse by Thaw as his strips himself an a article of clothing at a time. He then begins to thrust his hips and contort his face in an extremely vulgar and primitive manner, perhaps to show his...disgust with Houdini and his so-called "art?" I am not sure, as it has not been clearly explained at this point. However, there is more to this scene as Houdini further shows his feelings on the matter by comparing this situation to one he has experienced previously in the presence of the upper class. First they had debased by appealing to his greed, and then sealed the deal by showing there true feelings of him by placing him with the circus and the freaks. However, I still do not see where this schism comes from. Certainly these feelings don't exist today, or maybe they do and I simply don't now about it. I am really confused about this point and this moment of the book.

The next instance occurs during Freud's visit to the States. While that whole chapter is laden with imagery of arrogance and disappointment, the thing that really got me was when he mentioned how American's were gobbling up all the European art and architecture with no discrimination and somehow this reflected on their cultural development as a whole. So in this scenario the whole of America is shown to be of the lower class, while Europeans are not. Hopefully Freud returns in this novel, because as of now he and his motivations have not been explained to really any effect at all. Docotorow is really keeping the deeper meanings of this novel tight to his chest, because everything is really confused and unexplained at this point.

The Role of Language and Mechanization

In most of our current times and positions the ability to read and otherwise effectively communicate ourselves is almost a skill taken for granted, especially when attending a technical institute. However Twain, through his characters, seems to place special emphasis on this skills. One of his first orders of business when attaining power is to establish a reputable newspaper and further train somewhat competent journalist and writers. Later on he is constantly bringing up Sandy's unbearably circuitous mode of speech. He comments on her diction, syntax, and overall effectiveness as a communicator. In this way, Twain can be seen as having some of the same beliefs as Frederick Douglass or George Orwell, who both viewed proper language as not only valuable skills to the individual but as keys to maintaining civilization as a whole. 

In fact, is speech not how Hank distinguishes himself from the so-called  "crazies" towards the beginning of the novel. He views speech and language in general as a certain trademark of the more intelligent. The nobles and royalty, of course, all can read and write, however they still speak rather like children so they also still fall mostly in the unintelligent group.

Stay tuned! Next week I'll discuss the impact of words, ideas, and concept such as chivalry!

Initial Reactions to A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

There are definite interesting statements that emerge when comparing the feudal era of Europe and the "modern" times represented by the blacksmith in Twain's A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court (Arthur's), when viewed through the lens established by Richard Wright's introduction that we previously read. To Wright, the feudal era was something to overcome, and when it was conquered by the sort of bourgeois revolution of the Industrial Revolution, a new dawning of Man was started. Now take Wright's view and compare it to how Twain is describing, at least at this early stage of the book. The blacksmith sees as the people of that particular pre-modern time period as backwards both in knowledge and technology, but also in morality and civilization. So the two seem to match up, and when one considers that this period of time was considered the "Dark Ages" of Man it sort of makes sense. It is ironic though because characters in the book keep referencing Christianity, namely Catholicism, and invoking that particular set of morals, however they seem to be completely devoid of everything that they supposedly stand for. This much is obvious. However, since I know a little of the history of the writing of this novel, I know that the blacksmith is not to be viewed as a sort of paragonic ideal. The question is, how does his unwavering certainty of his superiority reflect on the society that bred him, and following that, Twain's society? How will he, despite his superior knowledge, ultimately fall? Or does Twain completely eschew the route of the tragic hero altogether? These are the things that I am looking forward to seeing answered in the future.

Another question, this really is the main one considering the topic of the class, is how does this all relate to the dehumanization and cheapening of lives due to a due discontinuity between the powers that be and the people, cogs in the machine, that make life go, or in other words the concept of machine politics. How does this pre-modern world, with its lack of advanced technology relate to this this? I suspect that at some, the blacksmiths introduction of technology will start to generate some of the bad consequences experienced in his own time which will start to royally screw things over for the people of King Arthur's court. Exactly how is yet to be seen, especially since they are already, as the blacksmith puts it, behaving like and being treated like animals.

They Both Suck

Is it better to be sexually inadequate or sexually inconsistent?

"Fascination" And The Art Student

Have you ever been fascinated by something? Truly and deeply engrossed in some subject that you think about constantly. It could be a hobby or sport, or perhaps some aspect of your job. Fascination is not a world to be used lightly, such as "love" or "hate." Now, if you have ever taken an art class or perhaps a architecture studio class or anything of the sort, where large groups of so-called "creative minded" people assemble en masse, you will know that this particular group's lexicon is infatuated with certain intense sounding words like "fascinated," "obsessed," and the such. Let me just say this now: if you did not think about the topic of the work for more than an hour--nay 6 hours--then you were not "fascinated" by it. It may have been the subject or main focus of your work, but there was no fascination involved. Don't just use the same words that your instructors or peers use. Use the same vocabulary that you did before; if it was good enough for you then, it is good enough now and people will respect the chance of pace.

Barack Obama And The Social Revolution

            As we are now going through primary after primary and eventually a presidential election, certain questions raised by Wright become again especially current not only in that fact that the new administration of our country will lead, and set the example for many things, including possibly race relations. While this would not normally be considered a major issue of the nation today, the affects of age old racism and segregation haunt our everyday lives and psyche to this day, although perhaps in subtler or in less perceived ways. For example, many would pin the flooding of New Orleans and the subsequent rescue and emergency help efforts to the wall as an event greatly influenced by either subconscious or low lying racism (this sentiment is perhaps epitomized—immortalized?—by Kanye West’s statement, “George Bush hates black people”). It is not only rappers who still feel pressures of an overbearing society. Although Wright citied some works that deal with the topic, I state again: does not the presence of  ghettoes indicate the dehumanization existing today. These are places of the forgotten and the left behind. Mainstream society has no use for them—or hardly anymore, with progress of robotics and other industrial enabling technology less and less emphasis is placed on the value of manual labor (at least American—cheap, Indian is fine but that is another story altogether). I see now that I am straying from my original point about the election.

            This is the first election where minorities have has an immediate, massive, and direct effect on the election at large. At the beginning of the race there were three (four if you count Mormon Huckabee) minorities vying for the presidential nomination. While the number has gone down to two (three), the country is still being confronted by the very real fact it may for the first time ever have a truly minority president—nay, not only a minority president, but a black president at that. Does this mean that America has finally overcome or corrected its behavior in terms of ethnic minorities, specifically Blacks? I don’t think so. I don’t think we as a people, as a whole will ever realize the error of our ways. The stereotypes will never die. They will eventually be changed however. Eventually, be it 10 years or 100, it won’t be Blacks who are stereotypically lazy, violent, or stupid. It will be the whites. Wright was correct in his analysis of the seeds of revolution. While I think the time violent uprisings has come and gone, a social revolution of sorts is stewing right below the surface. The New South doesn’t refer to the reconstruction of the South post-Civil War. The New South and counter-culture movements all over the country are the domain of Blacks and other ethnic minorities that will reshape the land into a completely different social landscape.