Reflections: The Nature of History

X
History is a published selection of partial truths collected by the winners of various local or regional conflicts to justify the continuation of their more or less oppressive regimes.
X

Readings: Go Set a Watchman ~ Harper Lee

X
I just finished reading Harper Lee's long-suppressed novel, Go Set a Watchman. I found it disturbing. I did not read the novel with the intention of writing about it; the mixed reviews, and the history of its road to publication (with the suggestion that a semi-senile Harper Lee was coerced into allowing it to be published under less than scrupulous circumstances) were off-putting enough that I had pretty much decided to take a pass on it. I don't now recall what changed my mind. It would be dishonest of me to say that there were not parts of it that I very much enjoyed. The novel had moments that brought a lump to my throat. It kept me reading, (although I found it slow to get moving) and I finished it rather quickly.

I suppose Go Set a Watchman would have seemed quite enlightened as the work of a Southern lady in the mid-1950s, when it was written. But having not been published at that time, it probably would have been better to leave it residing quietly, with the rest of Harper Lee's papers, in the archives of a library somewhere. It is a profoundly conservative work, in all the worst ways. Its ideas are paternalistic, segregationist, pro-states' rights in the Dixiecrat sense, and subtly, but unmistakably, racist.

Because I had no intention of writing about Watchman when I picked it up, I was not taking notes as I made my way through it. Its racist elements are for the most part, as I say above, subtle, and it would require quoting long passages with added explication to highlight the underlying bigotry. That said, the first truly cringe-worthy passage that I came across occurs on page 156. Jean Louise Finch (Scout), home on a visit to Maycomb, Alabama from New York City, has gone alone to the house of Calpurnia, the beloved black maid/nanny who helped raise Scout after the death of her mother. As Zeebo, a member of Calpurnia's family, leads Scout into her home, we get this:

"She followed him into a dark parlor to which clung the musky sweet smell of clean Negro, snuff, and Hearts of Love hairdressing." [emphasis added]

The "smell of clean Negro"...Really?

A less blatantly offensive, but still indicative, thing that popped out at me as I read further along, occurs in a flashback.  Here we accompany a nervous fourteen-year-old Scout Finch on her first big date, with Henry, the boy who is to become her presumptive spouse later in the plot::

"She was sensible enough to sit out jitterbug numbers and avoid music with a South American taint, and Henry said when she learned to talk and dance at the same time she'd be a hit." [emphasis added]

Why does something "South American" so immediately possess a "taint" rather than a "flavor" or a "complicated rhythm" or anything else non-pejorative? 

Now for all of you contemporary gals out there who refer frequently to your misogynometers, I will add that what it takes in this book to bring Jean Louise Finch back to her senses concerning all of the above, after having been corrupted by Northern liberals in evil New York City, is a hard backhand to the mouth, delivered by her loving Uncle Jack for all the "right" reasons. And this is the denouement of the novel's plot.

So I found this to be a flawed work; and only partially because it is anachronistic and was left that way by its contemporary editors. Much of the flaw clearly resided in Harper Lee herself. 

There is, however, one other passage of which I made note, and I will close this review by quoting it. The line is delivered by Scout's loving Uncle Jack--the man who popped her a good one in the paragraph above:

"Prejudice, a dirty word, and faith, a clean one, have something in common: they both begin where reason ends."

I like that. 
X

Reflections: Why Free College is an Empty Promise

X

How stupid I've been. It just this morning occurred to me why neither Bernie, nor anybody else, is ever going to provide a free four-year college education for all.

The reason is that without the promise of free college on the other side of military service, it would be impossible for the military to keep enlistment levels high enough to man the perpetual war and line the pockets of the oligarchs.

It would mean reinstating the draft--this time with girls being taken--and that would mean living the 'sixties all over again, and then some.

Free college: it ain't gonna happen.

X

Rants: Pop Quiz

X

"A global, hierarchical cult of pedophiles, magicians, and uranists."

"Describe the characteristics of the [...........]

Reflections: Hillary-Shrillary

 X
The ship of state is sinking and the passengers and crew are too busy squabbling among themselves to grab a can and start bailing. 

When one can't criticize HRC's history and the policies that she's supported during and before her political career without being called a misogynist, the discourse is over. 

The unavoidable perception is that Hillary's campaign, with its knee-jerk finger-pointing and labeling (one is tempted to use the "S-word" here) is creating more misogynistic sentiment than it is correctly identifying. 

If she is the candidate, and if this continues, I predict that she won't win. Kiss the SCOTUS good-bye.
X

Reflections: Berniebros

If this "Berniebro" phenomenon is symptomatic of a deeply ingrained societal strain of misogyny, I find it strange that there were not "Barrybros" operating in a similar fashion in 2008. Has this epidemic of misogyny erupted for the first time just this campaign season?

I can't help wondering if at least some of these "Berniebros" do not constitute a dirty tricks squad, deployed by the DNC to discredit Bernie Sanders and help ensure a victory for the Establishment candidate.
X

Reflections: Some Thoughts on the Elections

X

As for Hillary vs. Bernie:

Well, certainly if you're going to vote at all for a potentially viable candidate, Bernie is the best choice. That said, he's too much of a hawk for me to be very happy with him. If the perpetual war isn't ended, none of the other problems are going to be adequately addressed, because there won't be the funding available. So, as far as I'm concerned, the difference between Bernie and Hillary, or even any of the GOP assholes, is largely cosmetic.

As for Bernie’s “Political Revolution”:

To me, what it boils down to is that Bernie was an activist in the '60s and must remember well what happened in the presidential election of 1968 and again--to a lesser extent--in the election of 1972. So for him to imply that a "revolutionary" change is going to occur now, within the two-party system, is disingenuous. If he were a true “revolutionary,” he would have run as an independent and not worried about what that did to the Democratic Party (to which he does not belong.)

The choice between Bernie and Hillary in terms of workable policy is basically a coin toss.

The one thing that I care most about is ending the Orwellian perpetual war in the Middle East. And on that consideration, the difference between Bernie, Hillary and any of the GOP thugs is basically another coin toss: they are all hawks, even if it is for slightly different reasons.

As for a Michael Bloomberg candidacy:

I really can't take the prospect of a Bloomberg candidacy seriously. In the first place, nobody in fly-over territory knows who he is, or cares. And he doesn't have time to tell them. Americans don't like New York, or New Yorkers. Other former NYC mayors have had presidential aspirations and quickly found that their tenure in that office was minimally negotiable, at best—more probably, a negative.

Bloomberg is a rich Jew. Many Americans, whether publicly or privately, don't much like rich Jews. Bernie is at least not a billionaire. He is rich by the standards of ordinary working people, I suppose--but it's not his primary claim to fame.

Bloomberg running would just be a stunt--like Nader's candidacies were stunts--not a thing to be taken seriously.

Add to that—Bloomberg is boring. Boring doesn't sell; particularly not in today's political climate. I think the idea of a Bloomberg run for president is a non-starter.

Finally, on the subject of a Bloomberg candidacy, people in fly-over territory would vote for another Kenyan Marxist who's coming for their guns faster than they would vote for a New York Oligarch who's coming for their Super-Sized fast food sodas.

As for Bernie’s demographics:

It's also true that Bernie Sanders is originally from New York City. (At least a small percentage of the Americans who know that Bernie is originally from Brooklyn also know that Brooklyn is part of New York City.) 

Bernie, however, has had the good sense to get out of that vile place where his mother happened to have been when he dropped from the womb and into Vermont: Bernie is now a full-fledged, gun-totin' Green Mountain Boy! He’s been inoculated against his New-York-Jewishness by the fresh mountain air.

As for Donald Trump’s chances:

It's true that Donald Trump, who has drawn a fairly large number of enthusiastic followers, is both a billionaire and a New Yorker. But he is also a xenophobic fascist. Americans like fascists. Atlas Shrugged continues to be a best-seller sixty years after its publication. But I don't really believe that Trump will get the nomination. One way or another, it will go to a career politician, because The Machine is stronger than any individual.