- “Shadows of the Summit Pointing West” (1960)
- ! Entire cities were used as items to “trade,” like pawns for larger powers.
- ? Why did Meinhof call Khruschev a “peasant storyteller”?
- “Hitler Within You” (1961)
- ! People who participated in the Nazi regime who wanted to alleviate suffering considered themselves exonerated.
- ? How can a society move past its dark history when most adults were complicit in the evils of its past?
- “Everybody Talks About the Weather” (1969)
- ! Nations that claim to be “free” are not afraid to ally with repressive regimes if it benefits them
- ? In modern negotiations, how can you know which nations have the most power? (thinking about Iran threatening to trade w/ Eastern Bloc when Germany might be seen as more “powerful”)
- “Women in the SDS: Acting on Their Own Behalf” (1968)
- ! Women’s household work is not seen as valuable because its effects aren’t obvious to society.
- ? Must an entire system be overturned to change one issue?
- “Columnism” (1968)
- ! Using methods of a system to change it are not true efforts towards change. (not sure if I agree with this point)
- ? Does the columnist write to shre their truth or simply to make a profit?
- ! & ? on The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum
- ! The journalists could so easily twist words
- ? How many people in real life had the same fate as Katharina Blum in Germany?
- ! & ? on Baader-Meinhof Komplex
- ! The accused got out of a day of trial for using profanity against the judge
- ? How did the RAF justify their goal of a more humane world with inhumane methods of trying to achieve this?
In our AT group, Skylar and Leen chose the Thomas translation, whereas Olivia and I chose the Anderson translation. I personally chose the Anderson translation because it felt natural, whereas the Thomas translation didn’t flow well. When comparing line by line, for example, Thomas said “Sons in irons and husband clay.” and Anderson said “Husband’s dead, and son’s in jail. When you pray tell God my tale.” Anderson’s word choice and rhyme scheme flows better than Thomas’s. Skylar said she liked Thomas’s work because she preferred its structure and word choice. She felt he used words with heavier connotations that had more of an impact on the reader than Anderson. Olivia said she preferred the Anderson translation because she said the translation felt organic, whereas the Thomas translation felt stiff. She said the Anderson piece eases into the rhyme scheme, which creates a sense of wholeness in her piece. Leen chose Thomas’s version because she said it seemed raw and gave the truth of the story rather than making it easier to read. She said her choice was likely influenced by her being bilingual, as it would be more important to understand the piece word-for-word rather than made-up to seem easier for English speakers. I put a ! and ? in the plenary response form.
Why don’t scientists and literary intellectuals understand each other’s methods?
“They have a curious distorted image of each other” (4)
Scientists are considered to be optimistic.
“The non-scientists have a rooted impression that the scientists are shallowly optimistic” (5)
I recognized Eratosthones, Harvey, Mendel, Newton, Curie, Pavlov, and Paine.
How could people believe that African-Americans were happy in a society in which they were enslaved? Likely, the classes who could not own slaves had rarely interacted with slaves and observed their demeanor. However, being unable to comprehend the degradation of enslavement lacks awareness and empathy for anyone else. The perception of the “Sambo” as a happy black man was incredibly degrading and harmful to everyone in society.
Music was used to depict the happiness of blacks in America, whereas much of the music enslaved people sang was out of grief. The white slave owners turned the relief of music around on blacks to keep them in a perceived state of subservience.
! Historical landmarks only have historical meaning if the viewer is aware of its past.
“Nearly 40 years later, it is just a bridge, a routine piece of infrastructure. Only the observer ‘knows’ of its history, and is there to mark it.” (page 19)
? How did Lemon choose which states to portray in his art when most states in the history of America have had racial violence of some sort?
“Minnesota, often seen as a progressive commonwealth free od racial strife, has its own brutal history: (page 21)
! Performance loses something every time it is taken on by a new performer.
“archivists Mary Edsall and Catherine Johnson descried the problems of preserving performance, declaring that the practices of ‘body to body transmission,’ such as dance and gesture, meant that ‘you lose a lot of history.’” (page 101)
? Why do we have to define ourselves by the work of our predecessors?
“we understand ourselves relative to the remains we accumulate,” (page 100)
I attended John Kasich’s talk the other night. I was not surprised to hear his mention of “traditional family values” within the first five minutes of his speech, and I did not know exactly how that related to much of his talk. He talked about his early life, particularly in college, and about activism on lower levels in one’s daily life, and how we should all envision being in each other’s shoes. Although it was interesting, it had the tone of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” and failed to address many systemic issues that prevent bottom-up activism; he did not discuss many of the legislative aspects of activism and their importance in making change. Later on in the talk, he mentioned “fixing race problems” in Ohio, which I was also slightly confused by, as he kept repeating this phrase but did not mention any specific measures he took to fight discrimination.
Ida B. Wells was an African-American journalist who lived in Mississippi. She focuses mainly on mob violence, specifically lynching. She was raised in a strongly religious household and used Christianity in her activism. The racial violence that she wrote about contradicted her Christian ideals. Mary Church Terrell focused more on the idea of “racial uplift,” that racism could end if African-Americans advanced through education. She attended Wilberforce University, which is affiliated with the Methodist Church.
Yesterday, I attended the production of MacBeth. It was a great experience because I have not read or seen much Shakespeare. I found the set design very interesting. I liked how it reached into the rows of seats to make the audience feel more engaged. I liked how the set jutted out because when Lady MacBeth was grieving at the beginning and sitting at the front of the stage, I saw the contrast between dialogue in the background and a character in the front. It was also interesting how the trap doors were used to portray different actions, such as the letters being given to Lady MacBeth by the witches. I also enjoyed how the characters sometimes came into the audience, as it was another chance to be immersed in the show. I also wanna give a big shoutout to the esteemed Turner Wood on the lights.
These chapters are similar because they both discuss censorship of pictures and words. For example, Sontag explains censorship in war with photography, as non-military cameras are strongly regulated. Similarly, American refusal to acknowledge that the Rwandan genocide was in fact a genocide dealt with censorship of certain kinds of language. In addition, Sontag mentions that the most graphic images of war are presented from Asia and Africa, and there were graphic images released from the Rwandan genocide.
I found Tintin Wulia’s project intriguing, as I had never heard of statelessness, which sparked my curiosity. I learned that stateless people are not considered to hold any nationality, which can be determined at birth or later in life. While this strips individuals and families of some of their abilities in countries they reside in, it also leads to a sort of dehumanization. Regardless of whether someone likes the country that they are from, having a nationality is a strong part of identity. I enjoyed this experience because it opened my eyes to an issue that many face with regards to identity. I wrote “who am I” in my passport because nationality is tied to identity.
Sontag discusses the power and lack of power of photographs in representing war to the public. She described that all moral people hope to end atrocities when we see images of them, but that we cannot imagine its reality for long enough to do anything. She also discussed the generic nature of war to the neutral observer, but how images of war confirm the biases held by those who are convinced the fighting is for a good reason.
Photographs of war are valuable in creating shock, but this shock is not channeled into any meaningful attempt to end war, as we forget it quickly.
Although images of war and brutality create shock, this shock can draw the viewer back. Many thinkers believe humans are drawn to seeing images of horror, and feel the need to keep looking. One writer said that humans have a love of cruelty, which comes just as easily as sympathy. Additionally, Sontag says that people look at images of horror because it makes people less weak and number. Sontag says that any sympathy and compassion we feel when looking at horrible acts must be transformed into action, otherwise it is meaningless, and just a way to cope with the fact that we do not help.
Humans are drawn to the sight of atrocities, which can weaken or strengthen one’s capacity for compassion.
In this chapter, Sontag discusses the modern-day use of photography to depict atrocities and how it affects people. She speaks of the importance of recognizing that humans can be evil and truly harm one another. She also says that it is hard to ignore, today, atrocities, as there are so many images of evil in the world. She discusses the difference between remembering and thinking. She says that looking at images of suffering is important because it makes us reflect, although many disagree, saying that it is not fair to gaze upon the suffering of others.
Sontag discusses the importance of looking at horrific images, if only giving us a space to reflect and attempt to question the actions.
- Eichmann: ordinary bureaucrat, extremely normal
- Actions all based around advancing his career
- “Evil deeds without evil intentions”
- Banality of evil theory controversial – many believed that everyone in the Nazi genocide had to be evil in intention
- Counterpoint: Eichmann lacks ability to think, making him a monster
- Historian Bettina Stangneth saw Eichmann as strongly ideological Nazi
- Eichmann was committed to Nazi ideology and genocide
- Eichmann joined the Austrian Nazi Party and SS in 1932
- Nazi Party was banned in Austria in 1933, and Eichmann moved to Bavaria
- Joined Austrian Legion: organization for Austrian Nazis
- Eichmann started to work for the Security Service Main Office in 1934
- Watched Jewish organizations
- Deported 3,500 Jews during beginning of WWII
- Deported 1.5 million to concentration camps throughout the war
- Fled to Argentina w/ help of Catholic officials until 1960
- Taken to Israel for a trial
- Eichmann while in Argentina said “he made a mistake by not murdering all of Europe’s Jews”
- Eichmann did have evil intentions
- Eichmann seemed to be a regular bureaucrat during his trial
- Claimed he wasn’t responsible for Holocaust
Last week I attended the presentation of the Mind the Heart Project by Maya Gelfman and Roie Avidan. They spoke of their journey from Tel Aviv to America, living out of a van and installing art in public spaces. I found it interesting how much of their motivation to do the project was by putting art in “ugly” spaces, triggering your senses to notice the often ignored area. I was also intrigued by the way they made their lives complete, by asking themselves what five things needed to happen in a day to make them happy. They spoke of their serendipity experiment, in which they would speak to new people every day, and say yes to nearly every request from strangers. I was amazed by how spontaneous and alive this art project is. I am very glad I attended the presentation, as it made me reflect on what makes my life complete.