I See Dumb People: DONT TALK

Two events in the past week really stood out: KONY 2012 and DONT WALK. One involved a concerted effort by a group of St Andrews students to organise an evening that would have a tangible and positive social influence. The other typified the vanity and self-absorption that one cannot deny has become an unwanted staple of St Andrews. A sharper contrast could hardly be drawn.

And so I would like to thank the DONT WALK committee, and the director, Kitty Owen in particular, for putting on a fabulous show and raising a frankly ludicrous amount of money for charity, £10,000 this year alone as a rough estimate. I had been brooding in curmudgeonly bafflement at this KONY nonsense all week, but DONT WALK pepped me right up! Not quite what you were expecting? Perhaps I should explain…

Much like the events themselves, two thoughts have occupied my journalistic faculties in the past week. The first was the realisation that every student article that has maliciously battered DONT WALK has shot to dizzying readership and comment stardom. Check the top posts on The Saint’s homepage if you don’t believe me. Now that my KKF-bashing appears to have exhausted its potential, how, I asked myself, could I keep everybody happy? The evidence was pointing clearly to the timeless well of bashing DONT WALK instead…

The second was that, in a fit of hilarity caused by my exchanging comments with a friend who found KONY equally ridiculous, I paraphrased our entire conversation into an article that I would be willing to bet J.H. Ramsay will deem too deplorable for publication, even in Viewpoint. But, in case he does, I would like to get something more civilised on the record before the bleeding hearts hoist their pitchforks and run me out of town.

My hazy consideration of both of these events was suddenly and sharply brought into focus when, on Saturday, I listened to Kitty Owen, giving an interview for BubbleTV, talking about Zamcog, the charity to which DONT WALK donates. If you have never heard of it, as I had not, their mission is the running of the Shitima School in Kabwe, Zambia. The School was founded by the charity and takes in orphans and street children.

St Andrews students raising awareness for a charity that operates in Central Africa helping homeless children… Interesting… Sounds oddly familiar…

But there are crucial differences that make a compelling comparison. Firstly, DONT WALK doesn’t just raise awareness, it raises money. Call me a cynic, but no impoverished African child really gives a flying monkey that you are ‘aware’ of their predicament. What they might give a flying monkey about is a school being built for them. Schools cost money. DONT WALK raises money. It’s not hard to follow.

Secondly, I can pretty much guarantee that 99% of you are not actually aware of any impoverished African child’s predicament. You may be aware of a general predicament of poverty, but you know nothing whatsoever about individual people, real locations or what, specifically, could be done to help. KONY 2012 reeks of such sweeping generalisations that are totally devoid of direct contact, local knowledge and specific plans of action (I don’t count ‘Peace in Africa’ as a plan). Zamcog have all three in abundance; they set realistic goals that will maximise the social benefit from their input, and then they follow through. As mentioned repeatedly, they built a school!

But my favourite comparison is that of the attitudes of those involved. I am sure you are familiar with the stereotype of DONT WALKers as pretentious twats. Perhaps you also think that KONYers are selfless luminaries. Shockingly, I beg to differ.

I was tempted to begin my defence of DONT WALK by pointing out the inherent redundancy in complaining that a fashion show is pretentious. It reminds me of people who complain that they NFL is violent. In short, they need to shut up.

But, on second thought, I believe there is more to it than that. It might be worthwhile to consider what ‘pretentious’ actually means. According to the little red book at the bottom of my screen, it means ‘attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture etc., than is actually possessed.’

Now, out of DONT WALK and KONY, who do you think attempts to impress by affecting greater importance than is actually possessed? If we substitute in our variables, we find that DONT WALK want to raise money for a charity by charging people to attend their event, while KONY want to save Uganda by putting up posters. If A is the set of all things ‘affecting greater importance than is possessed’, then within A, KONY > DONT WALK. You can’t argue with that, it’s Maths.

In terms of culture, seeing what some of the girls were wearing (or weren’t wearing) on Saturday night ought to dispel any notion that DONT WALK is grappling with delusions of aesthetic grandeur. Meanwhile, I have heard KONY described as a ‘social phenomenon embracing the tangible power of the people to make change’. One day there were no posters. Then there were posters. Such phenomenal power makes me quiver in awe. I hope Africa noticed.

Talent is an easy one. DONT WALK was a brilliant collage of artistic ability, incorporating fashion design, lighting, music, and choreography, not to mention the astounding logistical operation that encompasses coordinating professional sponsors from all over the world and managing a crew of over 100 on the night. I don’t want to give the impression that I was enthralled; I wasn’t, but the vast majority of attendees were. And while I am not exactly a fan of fashion shows, I could still appreciate that it was fantastically executed (the show, that is, not so much on the after party). Incidentally, I have also put up posters and worn T-shirts in the past; I put neither on my CV.

And yes, it’s moderately irritating that I need to correct Spell-check every time it insists that DONT has an apostrophe, but if I had a quarter for every time I removed a KONY post from my Facebook wall, why I could almost sign somebody into the Union…

It may seem like I am subtly racking up a list of faults in DONT WALK. But if you read the list back, although my observations may be correct, they are utterly petty criticisms that do not at all stand up to the praise that is equally due. Namely: DONT WALK intends to put on an impressive fashion show, entertain their guests, and raise money for charity. They succeed wildly on all counts.

So what exactly do KONYers have on DONT WALKers? They aren’t less pretentious by the actual definition of the word, but I can immediately imagine the suggestion of virtue. KONYers care about our common humanity, whereas DONT WALKers only care about their appearance. It’s magnanimous and considerate versus vain and shallow.

I’m sorry, but I have bad news for anybody that holds this view. The people who really care about suffering and injustice get up off their asses and figure out a way to help people. And more importantly, they don’t care about how other people see them; i.e. they don’t beg for attention by posting their actual, real, charitable work on other people’s Facebook walls.

If DONT WALKers are vain, then KONYers are far worse, because they don’t back it up. The DONT WALK models don’t say a thing; they show off their looks because they are beautiful. This is an integral part of a well-orchestrated process that channels energy and money into aid for those who need it most. KONYers talk and talk and talk to show off their compassion, but will only commit any physical energy to putting up posters, which is almost insulting to those who could benefit from that time and energy if it were directed towards something more tangible than the vague hope of eventually deposing a Warlord.

I feel like I should cut this rant short to make something clear. I am not saying that KONYers don’t actually care at all, or are hopelessly vain, or anything of the sort. It is very unlikely that they would embrace such a movement if that were the case. The problem is that, regardless of how they are, this is exactly how they appear when they tow the KONY line.

Let’s all be honest for a moment. When you posted the KONY status on Facebook, were you really talking about it because you thought that it would be educational to somebody to find out that there are problems in war-torn parts of Africa? Did you really give a flying monkey about raising awareness of Joseph Kony, and did you think that by doing so you would bring about his demise? Or did you talk about it because that’s what all the cool kids were doing?

No, KONY isn’t actually bad, it’s just nothing. It’s probably best described as a fad, and I would offer the following advice to anybody who has been swept off their feet; making you realise your passion for charitable work is the only good thing that will come from this. If this is something that you really care about, find a more productive outlet for your energy that involves real knowledge, real goals, and a real plan. It would be admirable if you made such a plan yourself, but there are plenty of charitable bodies out there who would be happy for you to get on board with theirs.

I might even suggest that you apply to join the DONT WALK committee, but that might tip your sensitivities over the edge. Wait – does it count that I said it anyway? Oops… My bad…

But above all, remember that the act of charity can only be achieved by actual, real work.

If you care, don’t talk: just do.

I See Dumb People: Historical Drama

The inaugural Kate Kennedy Coverage week is over. My favourite contribution to the event was Jamie Ross’s article in The Stand. He advocates ignoring everything to do with what are totally irrelevant developments, and he darn well makes you laugh. But therein lies the problem; if you like laughing so much, why on earth would you want to ignore what is possibly the funniest thing to happen in St Andrews this millennium?

It is precisely the contrast of grandeur and irrelevancy that gives me a hearty chortle every time I hear something new about this merry band of brothers. Where did I last hear something about them? Why, in The Saint, of course!

In accordance with this historic event The Saint released its first ever KK-themed edition. I always enjoy reading The Saint, but I think that, in light of the events it was obliged to cover, it is safe to say that everybody’s expectations for this issue were somewhat higher than normal.

KK plastering was delivered, as expected. And why not? Hillevi Gustafson rightly described the situation as ‘something out of a student journalist’s wet dream’. The urge to say something was almost overwhelming.

What I did not expect, however, is that in an issue containing such illuminated quips as ‘they must come en masse into our library, go into our toilets and masturbate to their heart’s content’ and ‘The guardian of the door is a Norwegian drug dealer with one eye and a face full of scars. His first and last name is Wolverine’, the funniest thing in the entire issue was on Page One.

With all due respect to each writer in question, the fact that the Kate Kennedy Fellowship held a ‘Constitutional Convention’ and want to establish a ‘College of Fellows’ wins the humour stakes by orders of magnitude. I would happily gamble my membership of the KKF if I stood to win the ability to purposefully concoct something so hilarious.

It was funny that the politics of a club widely deemed to be totally unbearable became so fractious that there are now two of them; it was funny that the Principal weighed in on a political squabble between one organisation that is unaffiliated with the university and another that is completely made up; it is funny that we are all now members of a club whose leadership has been decided for us; it is funny that everybody involved with this charade is trying to get away with maintaining their commitment to noble principles and not political gain. The name is funny, the ‘press conference’ was funny, the lies now being exposed are funny.

But Page One of The Saint tipped it over the edge. You see, I have begun to connect the dots. I have become convinced that Sunny Moodie thinks that he is John Adams, Pat Mathewson is Thomas Jefferson and this whole debacle is somehow akin to the American Revolution;

All they wanted was proper representation. A serious debate on allowing women into the KKC would have quelled the issue (temporarily), but the archaic and tyrannical Thomas Pye was having none of it. This was convenient, because in fact there were deeper and more fundamental issues at play.  There were flaws with the KKC that this concession alone would not solve. These men desired in fact for a more perfect union. No affiliation without representation!

With the KKC weakened by an ongoing struggle with the University, and having enlisted the support of the Students’ Union and the SRC, it was time to strike. In the dead of night, independence was declared. The KKC offered far less resistance than was expected, and have backed off, for now.

Soon thereafter, a constitutional convention was called. Moodie and Mathewson, obviously, would be at the forefront of proceedings, their experience being essential. Their aims are pure, however, and they will step aside pending the first election.

So far as we can tell, the convention went well, various administrative and aesthetic details were decided, but there was controversy (and this really is the icing on the cake) over the potential for a deadlock in the College of Fellows.

You honestly could not make this stuff up. And I didn’t; this is all real.

Sunny Moodie is a brilliantly articulate speaker and senior member widely respected within the KKC, compelled by principle to join the splinter movement. John Adams was a respected lawyer who had represented the British defendants of the Boston Massacre, garnering esteem among the administrators of the colonial government, but he too felt compelled to side with the Sons of Liberty.

Pat Mathewson is significantly younger, an inexperienced speaker, but is an intelligent idealist and an excellent writer. Thomas Jefferson was eight years Adams’ junior, and did not care for public speaking, but is credited as having the predominant influence over the drafting of The Declaration of Independence.

The KKC are the British Empire, simultaneously weakened and preoccupied by ongoing battles elsewhere. Their president is King George, towards whom a lot of the stick for the KKC’s dealings has been underhandedly thrown.

It gets a little hazy after that. Is the University playing France? They have long been in conflict with the KKC, and will happily fake idealist concerns in order to offer support to the rebels, when the obvious goal is the KKC’s ultimate defeat. That might make the Principal Louis XVI.

Perhaps Patrick O’Hare is Thomas Paine; while he is always doing his damndest to catalyse a revolution in France (and one day may well succeed), he will happily lend a hand to the American revolutionaries. However, unlike Louis XVI, this is precisely because he does care. The list goes on, and you could have some fun expanding it yourself.

But none of these are even the best bits. The best bits are two events of the utmost importance to the early history of the United States that have no equivalent in this situation, but by some brilliant twist of fate are such that they are bound to happen soon.

The first is the emergence of George Washington. No such person has yet stepped forth for the KKF, and yet somebody must. The Fellowship will have a first president. You have to think that whoever it is will have been around the proceedings for a while. But who? Where was Valley Forge? What was the Delaware and who crossed it? I am convinced that whenever this person emerges, we will all look back and say, ‘ah, that guy!’

The second is the War of 1812. Don’t kid yourself, it will happen. It has already begun; the Trust wrangles are an arms race. The KKC have been defeated, but not destroyed. If, by some miracle, the Procession proves too soon for battle, then it will fall on the May Ball.

One final hopeful prediction, which would truly be too much, could materialise as follows; there is an even number of Electors, right? What if, possibly before the Washington character, but preferably after, with one or both of Moodie and Matthewson running for President, the electors deadlock? Don’t tell me you can’t see that happening. There is probably some clause hidden somewhere in the constitution decreeing that the outgoing Sabbs body break the tie. How beautiful it would be…

Sadly there is a less hopeful prediction. The Sons of Liberty prevailed. The United States of America exists to this day, and the British Empire is practically extinct; this country, its heir, lives on, but the global map could hardly have changed more in the time since. No matter how much anybody laughs about it, I have full confidence that the KKF will prevail and the KKC will diminish, because of the peculiar anomaly that everybody who seriously objects to the KKF does so on the grounds that they don’t care. The path to their domination could hardly be clearer.

Now I have no idea if this correlation is deliberate. If so, it is an amusing attempt to subliminally arouse a particular sentiment amongst those who could halt the process altogether, given enough aggravation: each and every student of this University.

If it is not, this is much worse. It is worse because the KKC does not forcefully restrict the rights of its subjects, or of anybody, does not advocate any such measures by any other group and has not been found wanting in any of its responsibilities or activities. It is worse because no members of the KKF stand to lose anything and in fact intend to gain.

It is worse because it is clear that the stated goals of the KKF (which, in all seriousness, are perfectly worthy) could be achieved in infinitely many ways that do not involve a hostile overthrow of a charitable organisation, and a transfer of power from one dominant clique to another. The British Empire had become destructive of the ends of the responsible and consensual government that the Sons of Liberty sought; the only end of which the KKC is destructive is the subversive desire to acquire its power for oneself.

After scanning what I just wrote, I can see why many people instinctively could not care less. While I forcefully instruct you not to worry (Jamie Ross is right, it’s irrelevant), I will only recommend that you keep your eye on the developments of my new favourite mootiny. Look away if you want, but I guarantee you will miss many a giggle. This only sounds like revolutionary rhetoric. This farce could not be further from a meaningful revolution, and that is why it is so funny.

I See Dumb People: A Pinch Of Salt

Amid the grandeur of this most venerable University, its storied pomp, its ritual and romance, hidden in plain sight is an institution at odds with all that our fellowship of academics ought to love, ought to trust, and ought to uphold. A remnant of a bygone era, this club purports to link our town to its history, while its very existence is a constant reminder of a history we would rather forget. I am speaking, of course, of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club.

This chauvinist regime lays claim to the guardianship of the tradition for which our town is most recognised and most revered, openly garnering prestige from every corner of the civilised world. They profess to operate as a symbol of our community, yet they unapologetically restrict their membership on the basis of gender. Our very own principal, a highly distinguished academic, was the first in the history of her position to be spurned an honorary membership to this institution: our institution.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. The case here is clear; I don’t think that all the things we profess to believe in and hold dear belong only to one gender. Now, in a world of measureless subjectivity, we have to stand up and be counted – to say what we believe in. The Club was founded on beautiful ideas but as it stands it cannot live up to its potential, cannot bloom into the wonderful thing we all think it can be.

Given the tremendous importance of this club to each and every student of this university, there is clearly only one acceptable course of action. My mate Steve and I have moved to form a new body. This will be called the Royal and Ancient Golf Brotherhood and every student in St Andrews, woman or man, will automatically be considered a member unless they choose to opt out.

After careful consideration, it is with reluctant pride that me and Steve have accepted leadership of this Brotherhood, taking the title, Chieftain of Brothers. This will only be on an interim basis, however. As soon as we deem it appropriate we will hand pick a committee of Brother-worthy students, at which point we will step down and the Brothers will elect a new Chieftain.

The new Brotherhood will play an integral part in our university life. It will be dedicated to serving the University, to charity, to promoting the ancient traditions of the University for the future, and to gradually stripping the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of every facet of its existence. We have so much opportunity that we have an incredible responsibility, if not a duty, to do something with it.

I would like to thank the members of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club. Their hard work has, at times, gone unrecognised and its value to our community cannot be doubted, but if they could either join the Brotherhood and swear allegiance to the Chieftains, or pack up and go home as soon as possible, then that would be fantastic.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. In the face of so unjust a practice, good men must act, must stand up and say ‘this isn’t right’, or, more importantly, ‘I’m going to work out a way to do it better’.

At long last, such a way has been found.

I See Dumb People: A Notion of ‘Nation’

As if the furore surrounding this University’s six hundredth anniversary were not enough, a yet more farcical gimmick now looms on the commemorative horizon. The Autumn of 2014 will mark the seventh hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, and it is to the tune of this indulgently politicized celebration that the Scottish people will elect, or not, their Independence.

Unionists have decried the delay of the referendum; present-day polls suggest an SNP loss. The SNP allege the necessity of a thorough public debate. While these arguments are outwardly pragmatic, they do not reflect the discourse to come. The date of the referendum is ostensibly a publicity stunt; appeals to nationalism have taken round one for the SNP.

A great deal of both campaigns will be fought on such lines. Primarily citing the Claim of Right, the SNP will unleash a brand of idealism in the mould of Wilsonian Self-Determination, with a revanchist bend that is subtle, but present. I can exaggerate neither how many times, The Sovereign Right of the Scottish People to Determine the Form of Government Best Suited to Their Needs will be heard, nor the extent to which I believe the notion to be absurd.

I wonder on what grounds it might be claimed to be true. Because Scotland is a nation with a distinct history and culture? On this basis, ought not Glaswegians to govern themselves? And Edinburghers? Are we to instantiate a modern Delian League: The Caledonian League perhaps? Such an approach would hardly be unwarranted; Fife is as much an ancient kingdom as Scotland.

Perhaps, in general, we might feel that groups of distinct race or culture ought to form their own government. This makes no sense to me. I am neither a xenophobe nor a racist, and so I do not see why persons of a different nationality would, for this reason alone, provide worse government than my own kin.

Perhaps we face an exception, in that Scots are better suited to governing fellow Scots, whose culture they share. We may reference, in particular, that Scotland has independent systems of Law and Education that are best administered by those whose experience and understanding thereof would be beneficial.

This logic too is unclear to me. Electronics are an integral part of my life, our culture, and our government, and yet I do not demand that only fellow Scots deliver such produce. Californians make my computers, much as Australians make my shampoo and I believe an Italian made my guitar.

Are these examples trivial with respect to government? What, then, about Defence and Public Finance? Under the proposed change, these will remain with the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom and the Bank of England, respectively. There will be no Scottish Army and no Scottish Currency (current monopoly money notwithstanding)

But are these not of the most essential functions of government? If anything ought to be in the domain of a sovereign nation, would these not be at the top of the list? It seems that only domestic legislative power is to be contended – the fifth, that is, that does not yet derive from Brussels. If the SNP are to claim a truly nationalistic justification, they have a strange notion of ‘nation’ indeed.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that such a justification is inane in this arena. Its adherence translates practically to self-enforced cultural and economic isolation and mercantilism. Clearly this will not actually happen. In reality we face a question of management: whether or not to convert the United Kingdom from an asymmetric to a symmetric federation. We must ask ourselves, not whether we believe in the Sovereign Right of the Scottish People, but rather whether we believe our government will become more or less effective.

I believe not only that the effectiveness of our government will improve, but also that the entirety of what is currently the United Kingdom will experience a similar change. I am weighing up a defence of federacy for next week, but for now I intend only to forewarn of and dispel the arguments from appeals to nationalist sentiment, Einstein’s “ infantile disease … the measles of Mankind.” In two and a half years’ time, we will be drowning in such meretricious rhetoric.

A vote for Independence is not necessarily a vote for the SNP. Given the ideal of implementing a system of government that will reap the benefits of a trans-national federation, such a vote may be motivated by enmity to the pandering nationalism of the party only currently in power.

I See Dumb People: Controversy At Hand

After my last at bat, I spent a good bit of time this week with an eye out for racism. All seemed quiet on the western front until an outrageously juicy episode on Saturday afternoon: Evra and Suarez.

Since it is practically my job to say something controversial, I have given the incident some thought, and have come up with the following; Suarez was petulant and foolish not to shake Evra’s hand, but this has nothing to do with racism. Also, the FA ideally should not have banned Suarez at all, but practically should have banned him for longer. How can I believe all of this at once? All will become clear.

Let’s go point by point. Suarez was petulant and foolish, but not racist. With the full context of the original incident available, this seems undeniable. What is the full context? The FA report reads interestingly, although rather long and stuffed with boring administrative lingo. I will do my best to summarise the critical parts.

Suarez was charged with breaking The Rules and Regulations of the Association, part E3(1) and then E3(2). The relevant portion of E3(1) reads, ‘A participant shall at all times act in a manner that does not bring the game into disrepute and shall not … use threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour’. E3(2) highlights the seriousness of a breach of E3(1) in the event of a ‘reference to a person’s race’.

Suarez admitted to calling Evra negro, but as ‘a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned’, as is customary in Uruguay, and not, as Evra claimed after the match, to be most aptly translated as nigger. Evra claimed that Suarez used the term multiple times in a derogatory (and hence racist) manner, but no witnesses could confirm this. Suarez claims he only used the term on one occasion.

It was actually put forward by Suarez’s lawyer during the trial that Evra invented the majority of the insults so as to gain revenge on Suarez for persistent fouling. This seems completely ridiculous to me. It is possible that Evra was simply wrong, but I find it incomprehensible that he is that devious (the regulatory commission took the same view)

If this were true, then I wouldn’t want to shake Evra’s hand; Evra would be a cheat and a liar, and so you could understand Suarez’s motivation. But what I can’t understand is why you would believe this in the first place. Would anybody really think that Evra concocted this brilliant scheme to get Suarez banned, as opposed to just misunderstanding a language he only partly speaks? It is sad that such a petty grudge led to something so disrespectful as the handshake snub.

However! While Suarez may be petulant and foolish, he is not a racist. If this is true, it raises the curious question of why this whole fuss could be about supposed racism in the first place? In terms of the case, I actually feel sorry for Suarez.

Suarez’s defence rested on the necessity of a subjective interpretation of Suarez’s language that relies, in their words, on ‘the context of a Uruguayan national, and a black Frenchman, speaking to each other in Spanish’. The commission rejected this necessity, insisting instead that, In our judgment, the test for breach of Rule E3(1) is objective … It is not necessary that the alleged offender intends his words or behaviour to be abusive or insulting in order for him to breach Rule E3(1).

I find it baffling how silly this conclusion is: racism is an attitude that is reflected in how we use language. It lies in the meaning we intend to convey. In order for somebody to be unintentionally racist, they would have to mean something they did not mean, which is clearly nonsensical.

Note that I am not saying that people can unintentionally say things that can be construed as racist. This can certainly happen, and is always unfortunate. I am saying that somebody cannot unintentionally be racist, because racism is intentional.

This distinction is important because if we are to use an objective test, as the report requires, but the intention is to be discounted, where then can we look? What about such a scenario could possibly be described as objective? Whether such a remark can be construed as racist is surely far more subjective than the intention, but this is the inevitable fallback.

This entire case is a perfect example of the problems with this approach. Suarez did not intend to convey a racist meaning, but since his words were construed that way, he has violated E3(1). Does it matter that the construal took place in the receiver’s fifth and partial language, and that the dialect in which the words were spoken is one with which the receiver is totally unfamiliar? Apparently not.

The most accurate translation of Suarez’s usage of negro is buddy (who happens to be black). We may immediately become suspicious at my parenthetical, “(who happens to be black)”. Why refer to his colour at all? Surely any such allusion is unnecessary, and demonstrates the desire to call attention and judgement to this irrelevant fact. Or, in a less roundabout way, it is racist.

Here we get in an interesting tangle with the rules. E3(1) mentions ‘insulting words’, and E3(2) mentions ‘reference to a person’s race’ . You can only get to E3(2) if you breach E3(1). But if any reference to a person’s race is insulting, then you breach E3(1) by default, even if you intend to say something nice, or, in Suarez’s case, intend nothing in particular, but are merely conforming to dialectical habit.

Can this be right? Should race be an unspoken taboo, lest someone be offended via misunderstanding?

I think the cornerstone of this confusion can be exposed in the phrase ‘colour blind’ and its various interpretations.

When this expression in used in the popular media, its speaker usually intends to convey that he/she does not see any difference between people of different races. Some may even go as far as to say that race is a myth. This is powerful, well meaning, and utterly false.

I am immediately reminded of an episode of 30 Rock in which Tracy Jordan wants to play Thomas Jefferson in a biopic. Unsurprisingly, he does not receive any backing. Nobody mentions race, but nobody needs to. That’s the joke; Tracy can’t see how profoundly silly it is to have a black man play a white historical figure.

To me, a flat out rejection of race reeks of an unintentionally creepy disrespect. If somebody chooses to ignore something that is obviously true, you have to wonder why. It is not exactly a racist position, but it inadvertently approaches one by sheer idiocy.

What it should mean to be ‘colour-blind’ is that one acknowledges each and every person’s race and makes no false(specifically derogatory) implications beyond that fact.

For example, Tracy Jordan cannot play Thomas Jefferson because one is white and one is black. No derogatory implications are drawn, even though race is explicitly referred to; the reason is the actual, physical colour of his skin, not something that is thereby implied.

As a more serious example, with life and death consequences, African Americans are more than twice as likely than Caucasians to develop prostate cancer with an inherited mutation in the 8q24 genetic loci, whereas the odds between the respective races are roughly the same for defects in every other chromosome. No false implications are drawn here, even though race is explicitly referred to; the reason is the factual statistical probability of the occurrence of inherited genetic markers. It is not currently known what role race plays in this instance, but denying the very existence of race will not help the research process.

For any actual racist incident, the senseless assumption of inferiority is always drawn from the fact of race. This is clearly a false implication, and instances thereof fully constitute racism.

When I describe one friend to another as ‘a black guy’, I am explicitly referring to his race, but I am making no derogatory implications beyond that fact. I am making no implications whatsoever. If I describe a friend as ‘a tall guy’, somebody could quite easily ask if it is important that he is tall, whether I am prejudiced by people’s height, and that if it is not important, then why did I bother mentioning it? Clearly it is just a useful description, and I wasn’t implying anything.

But we do not live in a culture with a ‘heightist’ past. It is only the context of a highly racially charged culture that these interpretations come to be made. And this is where Suarez is extremely unfortunate; he does not come from such a culture, and yet he finds himself in one now. He meant to imply nothing beyond the mere fact of race, but this is not how it was construed.

Did Suarez make any derogatory assumption about Evra based on his race? Did he make any assumption at all, or did he just point it out? Ideally, Suarez should not have been banned; yes, he broke a rule, but the rule is incoherent and should not exist in the first place.

Practically, however, this is another matter. We have no ‘heightist’ past, but we certainly have a racist one. In a system of law, punishment and deterrence are opposite sides of the same coin. We have to consider the ramifications of the commission’s decision, and the FA’s subsequent behaviour. It might be philosophically correct to pardon Suarez and recommend he not use language that has the potential to be drastically misunderstood in England, in the future. But this would set a horrific precedent that subsequent abusers would bend to their defence. I think that in this case, an iron fist is the best approach.

We must ask ourselves if we want a situation where nobody uses racist slurs because they are terrified of the repercussions, or one where nobody uses racist slurs because there are no racist slurs, because there is no racism.

Without a doubt, the latter is better, but sadly it is also impossible; there is racism and there are racist slurs. The FA is only responsible for football, not society, and there is nothing whatsoever they could do to effect the latter, whereas the former is within their power, and would be a significant step forward.

In the end, my feeling is that Suarez is an unfortunate but necessary victim. If anything, he should have been suspended for longer; the more of a message that is sent out, the better.

The messages need not all be so negative, however. Had Suarez shaken Evra’s hand, a wonderfully positive message would have been delivered along exactly the same lines. Instead, we were only reminded of the ugly ordeal that started it all.

I See Dumb People: The Tragedy of the South

Over the Christmas break, I encountered a film that I had not seen since I was around six years old: Disney’s Song of the South. It is a heart-warming tale of newfound friendship and adversity overcome. It was the first ever live-action Disney Film. It’s signature song, Zip-a-dee-doo-da, won an Oscar and has become a classic, ranking, in my opinion, only behind When You Wish Upon A Star and The Circle Of Life as Disney’s best. And yet I bet you’ve never heard of it.

Why? Because it’s been hushed up. It’s Disney’s dirty little secret, a skeleton in the closet, that racist uncle you tolerate in the family but to whom you would never expose the new girlfriend. It has never been released on any home media format in the USA, and was only available in the UK in two VHS releases in 1982 and 1991. But why on earth would a Disney movie be censored? A very good question indeed.

Apparently Song of the South is racist. In fact, it is not, but it is also not difficult to see why it is considered as such. The story is set in Reconstruction era Georgia, where a freed slave, Uncle Remus, tells folk tales to the local children. A young boy, Johnny, is brought to his wealthy Grandmother’s plantation before his father shortly returns to Atlanta on business. Distraught, Johnny decides to follow his father by himself, but he is stopped by Uncle Remus, who convinces Johnny to stay by telling him a folk tale that parallels his situation. Over the course of the film, the two bond, and Johnny begins applying the morals of the tales to his own life.

I don’t want to tell the whole story, nor do I want to ruin the ending. I will stop simply by highly recommending that you watch it, if you haven’t already. Much as I enjoy a bit of linkage, since I don’t want to go to jail for the rest of my life, I will say simply that you can find it quite easily on t’interweb.

All that said, it’s no fun whacking hell into straw men, so I will give full credit to the accusations of racism. While weaker arguments point to the Reconstruction setting, or the mere presence of freed slaves, some more cogent sources of offence are the apparent merriment of the Negro workers despite their obviously subservient role in the presented setting, the primitive Negro dialect in comparison the well-spoken white characters, and the preferential characterisation of whites over blacks, particularly with regard to how the characters interact with one another.

These offensive elements require somewhat more sophisticated observation to discern, which in turn implies that the racism in the film is sophisticated; it has been designed so as to be accepted on the whole, all the time carrying insidious racist overtones, all the more egregious within musical made for children. Has Disney been churning out subliminally racist kiddie cartoons? This is an educated concern with which I can emphasize entirely. But I do not believe it to be the case.

The crux of my argument is that this is a wholly unnecessary interpretation; it finds racism only because it looks for racism.

One way to test for racism (or any prejudice) in artistic material is to stipulate that if the material can, in any way, be interpreted as racist, then it is racist. For example, The Matrix; we may consider the following interpretation; Morpheus, a black man, is engaged in a futile struggle against the ‘agent’ overlords, all of whom are white. It is only with the help of Neo, a white man, that any progress can be made. Hence, the subliminal message of The Matrix is that white men are more powerful and important than black men. The Matrix is racist.

Thankfully, I made this up. I don’t believe this, and neither Mr Google nor I are aware of anybody having proposed something similar. In fact, this is the only thing either of us could find that even considers the subject, and Barry seems to take the antithetical position. It is also safe to say that, in light of the evidence, this test is rather silly. (I believe it comes from an urban-myth-like misunderstanding of the Macpherson Report, but that is another matter)

The relative positions of the characters have nothing to do with their race; it is pure coincidence. It cannot be explained away, it is just an unnecessary interpretation. Interpretations of Song of the South are equally as unnecessary.

However, Song of the South goes one step further; the supposedly racist elements are not unfortunate coincidence; they are necessary elements of the story that deserve to be interpreted properly as being distinctly anti-racist. It is my belief that unnecessary interpretation in fact reveals a perverse desire to locate racist sentiment where none exists, and should be rooted out wherever found.

So let’s deal with each accusation. Firstly, that the Negro characters are gleefully accepting of their subservient role. I actually find this to be the silliest of objections upon proper inspection. The Negroes are not slaves; the film is set during Reconstruction, and the Negroes now work on the plantation. If the objection refers to the opulence of the whites in comparison to the poverty of the blacks, this is based partly on the incredibly obvious history of the region (that the plantation owners would continue to own the plantation, and the freed slaves would likely be rather poor in comparison) and partly on selective accusations; the Faber family are equally as poor, and are white.

Reading further into this, we may continue to object that the Negroes are so happy in this role. However, it is very difficult to justify this without slipping into racism ourselves. They should be unhappy because they are black? Showing happy black people is racist, but unhappy black people would be historically accurate? This is why I consider this a rather silly objection; maintaining the offense requires making unsubstantiated abstractions that both have nothing to do with the story or the presented material, and adopt increasingly passively racist overtones.

The film does not draw any negative attention to the black characters. Assuming that they are slaves, because they are black, is racist. Assuming that they should behave in a certain way, because they are black, is racist. This is an unnecessary interpretation that reflects a perverse desire to find racism.

Secondly, it is alleged that the primitive Negro dialect in stark and open contrast to the eloquence of the white characters is racist. This accusation, however, is uneducated. The dialect of the black characters is known as African American Vernacular English. It is a hybrid of the Creole developed in slave communities and the Southern American English prevalent where the Creole first developed. It is thus primarily a sociolect, and coincidentally an ethnolect (because its originators and transmitters were of the same ethnicity by coincidence; other races could have been involved, but were not due to sociological factors)

Contrary to what may be believed, it is in no way inferior to Standard English; it is not a degradation; it is just as complex, consistent, and coherent. To object that it is primitive and thus insulting to blacks could not be more misinformed. I would argue that its replacement with Standard English for every character would be both a historical inaccuracy and a backhanded insult, insinuating that AAVE is too crude, vulgar etc. In other words, all of the objections that are falsely mounted against it.

The third and final objection is that the general characterisation favours whites over blacks. In think the best way to rebut this point is to offer an unbiased overview of the entire film. Who are the characters? What happens? What is it about?

The film is about friendship and overcoming adversity. A secondary theme is the importance of maintaining a positive outlook amidst such adversity; Uncle Remus is a freed slave, who has certainly lived through great adversity, but his positive outlook has helped him develop into a character who is the hero of the tale, who preaches this very same lesson to the children, regardless of their race.

The Faber boys experience no adversity whatsoever, but their negative outlook incites hatred and envy. They undoubtedly are the villains.

Notice that we are not actually told that Uncle Remus is a freed slave; this information comes from the novel. However, knowing this can only enhance the message of tolerance and respect – Uncle Remus shows no resentment towards anybody, as we might expect if he had been a slave, and especially towards the Grandmother, who we must assume was his owner.

Interpretations that assign a racist message, as opposed to an anti-racist message are wholly unnecessary. They rely on misunderstandings of historical fact, or a perverse desire to locate subliminal racism in coincidences of circumstance, rather than actual characterisation. In fact, it is much easier to find coincidences of characterisation that purport to expose anti-white racism in the film, as follows:

Every single white character is severely flawed – the father leaves without warning, the mother panics and censors the only profoundly positive influence in Johnny’s life, the grandmother is powerless to act in any way, the Faber boys are sadistic, and Johnny is more or less helpless – he is weak and impotent and constantly looking for a figure to look up to, instead of acting on his own.

Meanwhile, the black characters are universally wise, kind-hearted and virtuous. Ergo, it is racist against whites.

Now how ridiculous does that sound? About as ridiculous as declaring The Matrix to be racist, and for similar reasons. I should not need to say that I do not believe the previous analysis one bit.

And yet, it may still be worth asking why the film was set in such a time and place at all. If the story is for children, why include so many potentially divisive elements, regardless of the objections lacking cogency?

There are two answers to this. Firstly, the film is an adaption of a novel, and it is largely faithful. Secondly, on a more critical level, we may see this as a perfect setting for a tale about overcoming adversity because the setting itself is an embodiment of this idea; it has overcome the adversity of slavery and now sees blacks and whites comprising one community in which no racial distinctions are drawn. This is undoubtedly a more effective setting for a tale that preaches tolerance and respect than some other place without a racist past.

When I was a child, I had no notion whatsoever that this film contained a racist message. I considered it a heart-warming tale. But is that the real evil of this piece? Was I unknowingly indoctrinated by propaganda in cartoon masquerade?

I doubt it. In fact, I doubt that any child could perceive a racist message from this film, because the only way to find racism here is to look for it, and what child does that? I am glad my parents showed me this film. I plan to show it to my children, once when they are six for animated bluebirds, and then again when they are eighteen for a discussion of political correctness.

I wouldn’t argue that this film is probably politically incorrect, but then that is hardly a negative trait these days. I would like to make one final observation along these lines. There is something about objections to this film that I find particularly amusing.

The people who do the objecting are unwittingly playing the role of one of the characters in the film. They are the mother. They may mean well, but their paternalistic censorship (no pun intended) is rooted in a lack of understanding of the object of their disapproval and is ultimately harmful to those who are denied its exposure.

I hope as many people as possible do become exposed to this film. Either for its classic musical numbers, fine acting and inspiring moral, to strip it to the bone for subliminal racism, or as a protest against its censorship in general.

You never know; I might be wrong; it might be disgustingly offensive. But how will you ever know if Disney won’t let you watch it?

I See Dumb People: Occupy Everywhere!

When deciding what on earth to write about today, I found this. Read it. Now isn’t that hilarious? Normally, I would just have a hearty chortle upon reading something like this, and nothing more would come of it. I have nothing against Nic Carter. I don’t even know who the guy is. He’s probably a perfectly nice person but he has found himself in the unfortunate position of linking to me as an example of some popular delusion he thinks he has identified.

My pride is hurt. I feel I need to rebut. While I agree with a great deal of the sentiment of Nic’s article, some of his arguments exhibit the combination of being both meretriciously false and mind-bottlingly impertinent. There really isn’t much you can say about things like “proactive efforts such as Obamacare, …(and) …the economic stimulus (which averted another Great Depression)” or “the true issue of global economic competition” that doesn’t come across as yes-no, yes-no. It is also very hard to criticize in the first place because I am rolling in such fits of hysterical laughter that I can’t think properly.

You simply cannot argue with people who believe that government should create jobs, for example. I don’t think it’s too far fetched to assume that Nic believes this. If he does not, then I apologise, but if he does, then this is why he is wrong. If you are really adventurous, then this is why he is really wrong. You can find just about every rebuttal to socialist nonsense on Mises.Org, if you type in the right buzz word. Any readers who are interested in such things should look around. Try ‘affordable housing’, ‘social justice’ or ‘minimum wage’. I have no idea what you will find; these are just off the top of my head.

We can develop this into a fun little game. Pick some contentious political or economic issue. I will tell you what Nic thinks about it, and Ludwig von Mises will tell you why he’s wrong. Well, Ludwig von Mises must be a right-wing crackpot then, right? And it should also work the other way around, right? Nic should be able to tell you what I think, and then Keynes, or Proudhon, or Gramsci would tell me why I’m wrong. I don’t think Nic could accurately predict anything von Mises or I think. He linked to my article as an example of “common themes that have been relentlessly espoused by the conservative critics such as Ann Coulter”. Case in point. Read this. Think that is conservative?

This is my real issue. Nic probably does think I am a conservative, whatever he means by that. He compared me to Ann Coulter, for goodness sake. His line of thought follows that I must therefore oppose the Occupy movement, frequent Fox News and worship Rush Limbaugh. None of these are accurate. I think the Occupy movement is seriously misguided, but I don’t oppose it. I will watch Fox News but I will not take it seriously (The same goes for the BBC, which is far worse) and I think Limbaugh is a dope.

Impulsive categorization of this kind blurs the bajeezus out of any rational political discussion. Epithets fly everywhere, and the candidates may as well shout ‘Shut up you liberal!’, ‘No, you shut up you conservative!’, despite the fact that neither fit these bills, and both may actually have something interesting to say. I certainly think I have something interesting to say. Bear with me on this, and, if you like, try and attach a pointless political epithet to my argument. What do you think von Mises would say? There are just endless hours of fun to be had!

I think that Occupy Wall Street has touched on a serious and obvious issue that eluded the majority of the Tea Party. While the infrastructure that allowed for the financial catastrophe was undoubtedly created at the level of federal government by a politically corrupt drive for affordable housing, this does not excuse the behaviour of those bankers who exacerbated the crisis. Either they knew that the CDOs were bunk and they took advantage of their federal underwriting to profiteer, furthering the feed of misinformation in the market, and worsening the crisis when it came, or they didnt know they were bunk and are totally negligent.

Are these crimes? Technically, I don’t know, but I think they should be. They should also be guarded against in the future. If this requires regulation, then so be it. However, equally theoretically criminal, and equally not likely to be actual technical crimes, are the actions of the generations of politicians who created the environment which allowed this to happen in the first place. Hence I agree with both the Tea Party and Occupy, and I just wish they would drop the bits they are wrong about so that they can agree with each other.

Is that what you thought I would say? Does that fit the conservative bill? If you have read anything I have written previously for this publication, you might have been on the right track. What strikes me about Nic linking to my previous post is that I would have thought he would agree almost exactly with the overall message, even though he may have been agitated by my sarcastic quip at the 99% rhetoric. (I am no fan of Rhetoric)

So why doesn’t he? As I mentioned, I agree with him on at least some of the things he says. More on that in a moment, but first, I think I can explain what Nic has done.

Nic has found an idea,

“There is nothing wrong with amassing wealth—but there is something wrong with bankrolling elections and generating federal favours for the super rich’

And later,

“The electoral, ‘democratic’ process is a sham, and the two-party system no longer offers a choice. Republican or Democrat, the same corporate and special interests get re-elected every year.”

It’s a good idea. I think I like his idea. Unfortunately, he has then assumed an intrinsic association between this idea and an entire ideology of which it may form a part. However, it may instead form a part of any number of other ideologies because there is no necessary and intrinsic association whatsoever. Nic’s assumption to the contrary has resulted in him regurgitating a whole swathe of other ideas that have nothing to do with what he wanted to talk about.

It is possible to have ideas independent from ideologies. The Tea Party and OWS share ideas, yet they undoubtedly do not share ideologies. Since I too share this idea, I support them both, as far as they propose this idea and not something else.

Even Nic and I share ideas! The last paragraph of the Distribution of Lies says almost exactly the same thing as Nic’s second in terms of the mainstream media. It may as well be a paraphrasing. The final two paragraphs of Greed is Good (the title of which is a joke, by the way) would find remarkable favour with OWS. I have heard that Karl Marx had great taste in music, and apparently Martin Luther King was a litterbug. As these are merely incidental facts and not fundamental contradictions, they do not change how I feel about anything in particular. These are similarities in ideas, not ideologies.

The more abstractly you think about this, the more obviously silly these modes of thought become. You would be unlikely to shout ‘shut up you liberal!’ when discussing the best way to cook a steak. But that’s because very few people would use a particular method of steak cooking to back up quantitative easing. These do not seem ideologically concomitant, but then I would argue that no two ideas must be viewed as occupying one and the same ideology. In mistaking potential connections as ideologically necessary we start to take sides for and against everything: economic theory, political movements, steak cooking, whatever…

This is what Nic does. When he talks about the youthful intolerance of injustice and the popular expression of disgust at the state of affairs, I am right with him. But then he starts talking about pseudo-Keynesian monetary theory and how the Tea Party are astroturfed cronies, as if all are one and the same thing. ‘I want it medium rare damnit!’… I’m sure you do, pal.

So what is really the problem here? I think it is ideology in the first place; thoughtlessly accepting ideas because they fit a model that has worked in the past. Taking things on faith is fine, but if you turn around and start using these things in debates then you are asking for trouble. You will be in a much healthier position if you have no such model. That way it is very unlikely that you will thoughtlessly accept ideas.

Does Nic adopt the idea because it suits his ideology? Or does he adopt the ideology because it suits his idea? I don’t think it really matters. Either way, he has an ideology, which means that pretty soon his ideas will come pre-packaged in little plastic boxes. Five minutes in the microwave and you’ll have a tasty rant against globalisation. I hear those go great with steak.

This is why I think I could tell you what Nic thinks about most things. He has demonstrated quite clearly what his ideology is, and he has sallied forth with every epithet he can find. The actual point of his article is extremely interesting, but it is very easy to lose track of it amid the clutter of irrelevant socialist propaganda.

But who am I to speak? Am I such an angel? Obviously, I am not. For all I know I may slip into ideology very regularly. In fact, I think the best possible thing that could come out of this post would be a commenter who points out where I have accepted an idea in an ideological manner; without thinking; because it fits a model.

The difference is that I try not to. If I fail, then that’s a shame, but you can’t ask for much more than 110%. I am perfectly willing to completely change what I think about things. I used to think that if that fell foul of my ideology, I would need to find a new one. Now I think that it is better off not having one at all.

You may object. Clearly I am a libertarian? Possibly, but I have issues with transcendent morality. But I sound awfully Randian? Possibly, but I am staunchly opposed to intellectual property. Friedman couldn’t possibly have said much wrong? He had a terrible conception of economic modelling. If you can pin me down, please say so, and I’ll try my hardest to believe something totally incompatible!

I love the term ‘extremist’, for example used by this silly woman (skip to 3.12). Now I have no idea what she means here. Being funny perhaps? If she is actually applying it to the notion of execution in front of one’s families, then I don’t think she got the joke. Maybe she didn’t; it wasn’t particularly funny. My point is that ‘extremist’ has come to mean anything that does not fit nicely into one of a few very narrow and popular ideological dogmas. I self-categorise as a right wing extremist, a left wing extremist, and probably an upwards and downwards extremist too. We haven’t even gone into the z-axis and I already Occupy Everywhere!

In the sense that she means it, even if she doesn’t understand herself, I think everybody should be an extremist. Try your hardest not to fit into a narrow and popular ideological dogma and you will be doing all right. I certainly consider myself to be an extremist in this sense, outside the realms of popular ideological dogma. And yet this whole thing started because Nic said that I was parroting Ann Coulter. I have far more in common with Nic than with Ann Coulter. I think Nic has seen one thing I have said that he disagrees with and assumed therefore that we must disagree about everything. If I don’t have his ideology, then I must have the other – that nasty, deluded one.

I would encourage Nic, and everybody, to try and Occupy as wide and diverse a political area as they can. It doesn’t mean that you have to have incoherent beliefs, just that you do not use those beliefs you currently hold to exclusively dictate subsequent beliefs that happen to be in exactly the same place. After all, it is the popular spectrum that is incoherent, and I would argue that if you were committed to maintaining as coherent a system of belief as possible, you would by definition Occupy a rather large area as opposed to a single, dimensionless point.

You can lick up everything you want to think from Occupy Wall Street. Or you could take it from Fox News, or the Republicans, or the Democrats, or Ludwig von Mises, or Spongebob Squarepants, or even me.

But then you would have an ideology; it is much better to have ideas.

Finally, I apologise to Nic for being so severe. I propose either that you don’t take it personally and I buy you a beer, or that you do take it personally and start a blogging war that will attract vast readership due to its progressively hostile vitriol.

Or both.

I See Dumb People: In Defence of Film

I read something the other day about University Admissions department ‘black lists’ for A-level subjects. Some are laughable: Leisure Studies, Media Studies, Sports Studies – pretty much anything with the word ‘studies’ in it. After making this observation, my mind immediately jumped to Film Studies. As I will explain, this immediate association is a symptom of something I have come to hate. Bear with me now…

I don’t take Film studies, but I feel bad for people who do. I don’t mean that patronisingly at all. I’m assuming that you love films. So do I. I’m assuming that you are interested in how they are made. So am I. I’m assuming that it hurts your feelings when people look down on your subject as being somehow ‘un-academic’, or ‘a skive’ or something of the sort. It hurts mine too.

 Perhaps you just think it’s rude to say something like that, but perhaps you feel more deeply about it. I certainly feel more deeply about it; in this post I am going to explain why I consider Film to be high art, and why its study should not be shunned in any way. I think people who say nasty things about Film studies are not just rude, but dumb. And yet I see them all the time. By the end of this post, it is my hope that you will see Film as high art. I will be really chuffed if, like me, you consider its potential to be the highest art of all.

People rarely claim that it is pointless to study Literature. The ones who do are quickly branded as stupid. Some people who definitely aren’t stupid say that although it is not pointless, it is easy. Even this is misguided. Some people find Mathematics very easy, some Chemistry. Anything is easy if you are good at it, and difficult if you are bad.

So why is Literature given a golden pedestal, but not Film Studies? What confines Film to the status of a ‘low art’ below the high arts of poetry, prose and drama? I think that this question is misleading. In categorising Literature as being different from Film Studies, we ourselves have performed the confinement. Film is Literature. And Art. And Music.

This may be both obvious and baffling. It is obvious because Film is the audiovisual recording of the written word. Hence, there is potential for great works of visual Art, Music and Literature. The fact that this potential even exists is reason enough to hold its production to as high a standard as possible. The Literature on its own must count as Literature. Ditto the Art, and the Music.

Is the Literature of On the Waterfront or Casablanca not arguably some of the best writing of the twentieth century? Is the Literature of The Departed not arguably some the best of the twenty-first? Is the photography of Out of the Past or City of God not some of the most beautiful of all time? And the Music of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly or Dangerous Moonlight or Taras Bulba? The narrative technique of Memento or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? The narrative twist of The Usual Suspects? The moment of cathartic tragedy of Crash? If you answer no to these questions purely because ‘they are in films’, then you are missing the point.

Furthermore, Film is capable of revealing qualities of Art than no other medium can accomplish. Consider the terrifying conjunction of sound and sight in the Shining, or the sumptuous visual metaphors of Michael Mann’s films. My personal favourite of this variety is a sequence towards the end of the Insider, in which the colour and texture of the different characters’ environments allude to how each are internalising the same event. This is magnificent, and simply could not be achieved in any other medium.

It should be fairly clear by now that I consider Film high art. It may be becoming clear that I believe, due to its innovative potential, that Film could stake a reasonable claim to be the highest of the arts. And yet I feel I am in the minority on this. Why? Is everybody else stupid? Although that is somewhat the theme of this blog, I do not believe it to be the case in this instance. I think people are misguided by several of Film’s more unfortunate elements. I will do my best to explain the position we have reached in the modern world.

In order to create Literature, you needs a pen and some paper. The same strictly goes for Music, although an instrument may also be helpful. Normal visual arts can be a bit trickier, and drama requires other people who are willing to give up their time. Film, however, is a gigantic pain to actually produce, at least in relative terms. A great deal of highly technical stuff is needed, along with highly proficient people who know how to use it. This takes money, and the more the better.

Note that this does not mean that good films are necessarily expensive to make, or that expensive films are necessarily good. But it is difficult to argue against the idea that any one film could always benefit from a higher budget. Because of the sheer complexity of the medium, there is always something that can be improved. The same argument could be made for Literature, Music and Art, but improvement for the first two is totally free, and for the last is of minimal charge. With Film, it can get seriously expensive.

But why does that affect how people view it as an art form? Well, because it requires a commercial investment on a scale that is unprecedented for any other art form. Sure, the raw materials for some form of sculpture may cost a bit of money, but truly nothing like a modern day motion picture. And unlike the olden-timey days, there are no patrons of Film; nobody is willing to splash a cool $50 million on a personal film dedication. Films therefore must make money.

In the most part, this is ensured beforehand by the financiers, who will make certain decisions regarding the film’s artistic integrity that will typically follow one of two paths. Either they will limit the budget on elements of the film that they do not deem will make a difference towards the film’s profitability. Or they will insert elements into the film because it is deemed this will make a positive difference towards the film’s profitability. Nothing like this happens with Literature, or Art, or Music, and is the main reason for there being so many artistically poor films.

Note here that this does not mean poorly made. Almost every major production is ‘well-made’ in the sense of efficient use of the necessary resources. But in the artistic scheme of things, this is like pointing out that an author has used excellent punctuation, or a composer has kept to the same time signature throughout. It does little, if anything, for the artistic integrity of the work. This actual, practical effect that invariably haunts directors, combined with the general distaste for profiteering in the modern public consciousness, contributes significantly to the public perception of Film.

A final practical point is one of unfortunate pragmatics. It is possible to attempt to adapt any work of art from its original medium to another. Some transitions would be rather obscure, but others are entirely natural and obvious. As Film is a conglomeration of Literature, Art and Music, almost any individual piece of Literature, Art or Music could be conceivably adapted into a film. There is no fundamental reason why any form of adaption could not lead to a superior work of art in a different medium. It would not at all be the same, as different media have different modes of expression, but it will not necessarily be worse.

The most common practice of this variety is the adaption into Film of the novel. However, the aforementioned financial constraints will apply to any film, and, almost without fail, the film adaption will be artistically poorer than the novel. The Godfather is the only thorough breaking of this rule that I can think of. The Lord of the Rings does a reasonable job too, and I think it comes close. If that comparison is utterly offensive to you, consider for a moment the scope of the cinematography and the resplendence of the soundtrack; these are not present in the work of Literature, and certainly add a great deal to the overall work of art. Granted, much else is lost; like I said, they cannot be considered the same.

It happens this way around more often than any other method of adaption for much the same reasons; it is a reliable way of making money. Since films need to have the potential to make money in order to be made in the first place, this is a reliable technique. Unfortunately, however, it leads many to assume that Film cannot compare to Literature. This idea is understandable in context, but hopefully you can now see through it.

So where does that leave us? We have established that Film is wonderful, and magical and true and sweet and pure. Let’s return to the very first issue then: Film Studies and our confinement. What should we do about that?

The answer is clear to me. Since Film is Literature and Art and Music, it should be taught as all three. Its Literature should be taught in Literature classes, its Art in Art classes and its Music in Music classes. I would imagine that currently, very little of this actually takes place. It should though; it’s a bloody brilliant idea.

Its not much use leaving them separated though. That’s almost like pretending they don’t exist as a whole. It would be like teaching Grammar in one class and Stories in another, instead of just teaching Literature. We need a class in which we explore all three. Thankfully, we have one.

Damn, I wish I took Film Studies now.

I See Dumb People: Poor Starving Children

Apologies to my legions of devoted readers for the lack of a significant post. I’m falling back on the age-old legal defense of: Come on, it was Raisin!

Instead I give you a limerick about poor starving children:

There once was a poor starving child

Forced to fend for himself in the wild.

Some said who cares

But the poor starving bears

Were thankful and dined in great style.

Happy Raisin everybody. Check back next week for something for substantial!

I See Dumb People: The Distribution of Lies

If you have ever watched the news, you may have come across the phrase ‘the distribution of wealth’. You may also have heard somebody say that it is ‘unequal’. They may even have gone so far as to say that this is ‘unfair’. This is ripe for debunkory.

Let’s engage in a rhetorical conversation with one of these lunatics. Why is the distribution unfair? Because some people get more than others. Why do they get more than others? Because the distribution is unfair. Clearly this line of attack doesn’t get very far. Let’s try another.

Who does the distributing? Obviously, the ones who have more than others. Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. If there was somebody in charge of the distribution, why would this person, or people, give anybody anything? Why wouldn’t they give themselves everything? Maybe because this would make people angry and riotous, and ultimately far more trouble than giving up some of the distribution is worth.

This, I think, is the picture that most of the lunatics have in their head; the poor get given enough of the pie to be happy; not too little so as to become unhappy, but not more than is needed for basic happiness. The ruling class distributors congratulate each other for their wickedly Machiavellian domination over brandy and caviar, and then go home and bathe in their money. Oh yeah, and this is unfair.

While this may be overly rhetorical, I don’t think it is far off the average view. The ruling class, whoever they may be, are all modern-day Jay Goulds. They could always hire half the working class to kill the other half, but that would involve departing with money, a policy to which they are thoroughly opposed. Instead, they just manipulate public opinion through the media, and try their darndest to appease everybody. Politicians, of course, are only their puppets, and corporations their fronts.

This is a far more interesting perspective. Elements of lunacy remain, but elements of insightfulness are poking their little heads through. But let’s return to distribution for a minute. Let’s try to think of all the wealth as being created by people, and not just magically appearing in periodical lump sums. This perspective has the advantage of being true. In the periodical lump sum, or lunatic, version, it is very easy to see how a distribution could take place; the already wealthy have access to the lump (for whatever reason) and they distribute such that the minimal amount is spent on appeasement, and they get all the rest. It is also very easy to see how a ‘redistribution’ could take place; the non-wealthy seize the lump sum and change how it gets cut up. We could call these people the 99%. I don’t know why, it just came to me.

The problem with this perspective is in its lunacy. Clearly there is no periodical lump sum. People create wealth. Why don’t people who create the wealth get to keep the wealth? This is a very good question, but it has nothing to do with distribution. In a world where people kept the wealth they created, there would be no distribution, because in order for wealth to be distributed, it would first have to be stolen from those who created it. In this ideal world, wealth is just earned; there is no distribution, and there is certainly no redistribution.

I am going to introduce one final version of wealth analysis. Along with the ideal version and the lunatic version, I give you the mafia version; wealth is in fact created by people (there is no lump sum), but then the powerful steal it all and distribute it as they see fit. Unsurprisingly, they often see themselves as extremely fit. And their buddies. And their kids.

The mafia version is sort of a cross between the lunatic version and the ideal version. It takes the ideal premise (which has the benefit of being true), and does what it needs to reach the lunatic conclusion (which has the benefit of being suitably ‘unfair’). The most cogent observation possible would be to see the real world as consisting of societies that operate on varying levels of the mafia version. And this is where the lunatic redeem themselves, albeit only slightly.

On a historical scale, our society has very few embodiments of the mafia version in effect. It’s no 1640s Maine (almost total idealism), but its also no 1930s USSR (almost total mafia). Whig history indicates a gradual convergence towards total idealism, and zero Mafioso. I generally subscribe to this, so long as we remember that the convergence is long-term and general, and not everywhere and everywhen. It is no coincidence that there is an enormously high correlation between idealism (as opposed to Mafioso) and both democratic rule and economic growth.

The vast majority of very wealthy people in this country achieved their wealth by being productive. The vast majority of very wealthy people in Nigeria achieved their wealth by being corrupt. There are some corruptors in Britain and some entrepreneurs in Nigeria, but both are heavily outnumbered.

And it is against the corruptors that the lunatics should focus their attention. It is no use denouncing all wealth as immoral, and all wealth holders as thieves. If I have a beautiful painting it should surely be of paramount importance whether I painted it or stole it, rather than the simple fact of my having it. It is not the productively wealthy that anybody should have a problem with, because it is very unlikely that they benefited from, or took part in, any distributive acts. Or, to put it more conclusively, it is only those who took part in distributive acts that anybody should have a problem with.

Saying ‘the distribution of wealth is unfair’ may be totally correct, so long as it acknowledges that the vast majority of wealth in this country was not distributed, but was earned, and there is a very small level of corruption leads to a very small distribution.

It may be interesting to examine why this is not more commonly and explicitly known: Are the figureheads of the mainstream media involved in this corruption? Do they thus have a serious incentive both to hide their role within the mafia version of wealth creation, and to distract attention from the possibility of this being true by fanning the flames of the lunatic version? Is there a distribution of lies? I’m not telling you that you should indulge in any unsubstantiated conspiracy theories here… but the answer is yes.