Context
The Washington Redskins are not having a good season. They're in no danger of breaking the Detroit Lions' futility record, but as I read in this article today, their fans are unhappy. The article refers to a fan briefly holding up a sign saying "Black Sunday," which refers to this Bruce Dern movie, until security personnel took it away.
Commentary
Ah yes, time for another football post! Eight previous ones right here, so enjoy! In this case, though, I don't want to talk about sports. I want to talk about the right to be offensive. My husband read the part of the Redskins article to me about the Black Sunday poster and we both agreed that it's pretty darn tacky to invoke a terrorist attack just because your team's 2-4. On the other hand, we both enjoy some forms of offensive humor (we often think South Park is a stitch and a half, for example), and as comic book readers we often know that what we consider highly creative is considered irredeemable trash by others.
So is it just a matter of taste, or do some people have more of a right to be offensive than others? I don't mean a legal right, but rather an ethical entitlement, someone I'm less likely to accuse of crossing a line of decency, even if I disagree with her/him. In discussing this over dinner, my husband and I came up with three factors that contribute to our acceptance of outrageous speech or behavior:
1) Artistic license. Although this occasionally drives conservatives up the wall, art is expected to be "out there." It's hard to consider a work creative if it follows convention, and unconventional can sometimes shade over into offensive. "Black Sunday" gets some points for creatively expressing just how bad she thought her team was.
2) Putting your name on it. Anonymity when being offensive makes it seem less like you're making a cogent social statement and more like you're surreptitiously tossing spitballs from the back of the classroom. Our Redskins fan falls about in the middle on this one. She didn't put a bag on her head at the stadium, but neither did she hold up a sign that said "I'm Mary Smith and this is what I believe." A Robert Mapplethorpe photograph says "Robert Mapplethorpe" right on it, so you know who to complain to. Or about, since he died 20 years ago.
3) The social contract. If I go to a Lenny Bruce concert and get offended by the cuss words, I'm not really keeping up my end of the bargain. After all, Bruce himself said he wasn't there to get laughs. This is where the lady at the Redskins' game's justification falls completely apart. NFL football is, as they say, "sports entertainment." Invoking terrorism in a place where people generally go to forget the troubles of the real world is not only offensive, it's also kind of mean.
What did you see today?
10/23/2009
10/16/2009
I saw a story about violence
Context
I'm still working through John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. A passage I read today talked about the Akron Rubber Strike, and how part of the reason for its peaceful resolution was the fact that the striking workers made a show of being armed and organized.
Commentary
I used to plow through books, but that is no longer the case, possibly because of the number of things that divide my attention. And it's not only reading that suffers. During my attempt to write this entry I have removed a kitten from my sleeve seven times, overheard a conversation between my neighbor and her child (my windows are open) and played with the dog and let her out. And back in. My progress through the Grapes of Wrath is not helped in the slightest by the number of times I put the book down and go "huh!"
Steinbeck seems to be making a clear point in his discussion of the Akron incident: vigilantes in Akron were perfectly willing to violently put an end to the strike up until the time they realized the workers might fight back. Then they backed down.
I can see the reasonableness of this approach. No point in fighting if you can't guarantee yourself a victory, after all. In the U.S. we try to make sure we're never in this situation by "acting against emerging threats before they are fully formed," which is known as "preemptive self-defense." Even the Just War Doctrine (#2309 at this link), which is supposed to give a good ethical grounding to death and destruction, requires "serious prospects of success," a.k.a. "Don't be a David going up against a Goliath."
So there you have it. If you engage in violence, you run the risk of either getting hurt yourself or looking like the worst kind of coward by beating up on an obviously weaker opponent. Can you see why I'm a pacifist?
What did you see today?
I'm still working through John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. A passage I read today talked about the Akron Rubber Strike, and how part of the reason for its peaceful resolution was the fact that the striking workers made a show of being armed and organized.
Commentary
I used to plow through books, but that is no longer the case, possibly because of the number of things that divide my attention. And it's not only reading that suffers. During my attempt to write this entry I have removed a kitten from my sleeve seven times, overheard a conversation between my neighbor and her child (my windows are open) and played with the dog and let her out. And back in. My progress through the Grapes of Wrath is not helped in the slightest by the number of times I put the book down and go "huh!"
Steinbeck seems to be making a clear point in his discussion of the Akron incident: vigilantes in Akron were perfectly willing to violently put an end to the strike up until the time they realized the workers might fight back. Then they backed down.
I can see the reasonableness of this approach. No point in fighting if you can't guarantee yourself a victory, after all. In the U.S. we try to make sure we're never in this situation by "acting against emerging threats before they are fully formed," which is known as "preemptive self-defense." Even the Just War Doctrine (#2309 at this link), which is supposed to give a good ethical grounding to death and destruction, requires "serious prospects of success," a.k.a. "Don't be a David going up against a Goliath."
So there you have it. If you engage in violence, you run the risk of either getting hurt yourself or looking like the worst kind of coward by beating up on an obviously weaker opponent. Can you see why I'm a pacifist?
What did you see today?
10/13/2009
I saw a passage in The Grapes of Wrath
Context
John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath is the Big Read for Shreveport this year. The book intersperses chapters about the Joad family and their journey west in the wake of the Dust Bowl with those containing background and commentary about the wave of history.
One of the latter types of chapters contains Steinbeck's theories about how oppression creates fertile ground for the rise of collectivism. As for the oppressor, Steinbeck encapsulates his state thusly: "For the quality of owning freezes you forever into 'I,' and cuts you off forever from the 'we.'"
Commentary
The Grapes of Wrath is an interesting book. It's a polemic, but that doesn't make it any less interesting. And I agree with Steinbeck that there are things in this world that inhibit the creation of community and that ownership can be one of those things. I don't believe it's the only thing though, and I don't believe that people who own stuff are doomed to self-absorption.
I think anything we are trying to keep safe has the potential to poison our relationships with others, because it tends to create a "me vs. them" mentality. The desire to hold on to our possessions makes us believe that every person we meet wants to deprive us of them. On the other hand, the habit of evaluating people based strictly on how much of a potential threat they are to our children also erects unnecessary walls. Even the steps we take to protect our own hearts from hurt can separate us from interactions that could pay us back a thousandfold.
I'm not saying yearning for security is wrong. I'm saying that left to our own devices we tend to want the wrong kinds of safety and use inappropriate means to accomplish them. I believe we're better off commending our stuff, our children, our hearts and yes, even our community to God and trusting that He will both provide and protect, to His greater glory. So I'm not looking for the "I" or the "we." I'm going for the "Him."
What did you see today?
John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath is the Big Read for Shreveport this year. The book intersperses chapters about the Joad family and their journey west in the wake of the Dust Bowl with those containing background and commentary about the wave of history.
One of the latter types of chapters contains Steinbeck's theories about how oppression creates fertile ground for the rise of collectivism. As for the oppressor, Steinbeck encapsulates his state thusly: "For the quality of owning freezes you forever into 'I,' and cuts you off forever from the 'we.'"
Commentary
The Grapes of Wrath is an interesting book. It's a polemic, but that doesn't make it any less interesting. And I agree with Steinbeck that there are things in this world that inhibit the creation of community and that ownership can be one of those things. I don't believe it's the only thing though, and I don't believe that people who own stuff are doomed to self-absorption.
I think anything we are trying to keep safe has the potential to poison our relationships with others, because it tends to create a "me vs. them" mentality. The desire to hold on to our possessions makes us believe that every person we meet wants to deprive us of them. On the other hand, the habit of evaluating people based strictly on how much of a potential threat they are to our children also erects unnecessary walls. Even the steps we take to protect our own hearts from hurt can separate us from interactions that could pay us back a thousandfold.
I'm not saying yearning for security is wrong. I'm saying that left to our own devices we tend to want the wrong kinds of safety and use inappropriate means to accomplish them. I believe we're better off commending our stuff, our children, our hearts and yes, even our community to God and trusting that He will both provide and protect, to His greater glory. So I'm not looking for the "I" or the "we." I'm going for the "Him."
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)