Letter from a Birmingham Jail - Martin Luther King Jr.

The Letter from a Birmingham Jail is still very relevant today in regards to racial and other social justice issues.  We must look to the root of problems, recognize the intersections of social justice issues and have solidarity with each other in order to affect change.
A great scatching critique of the mainstream systems: it is useless to wait for government to exact change, change comes because oppressed peoples make demands of those in power.  Concessions are granted by governments, by the legal systems - these were fought for.  The government isn't trying to be generous to us.  There is no point 'waiting'.
I support direct action andhave participated in such acts myself.  The critcism I hear of this form of activism resembles what MLK terms as the moderate 'white' - order over justice.  "Sure, sure, we sympathize with Occupy's statements but camping is illegal.  Go volunteer at a soup kitchen, go sign a petition.  These are the ways to enact change".  While I agree that these actions produce some good, this alone is not enough.  Social change is enacted through a diversity of tactics. How to make such people aware that charity merely provides breadcrumbs?  To enact change, we cannot act as our oppressors do, unless necessary - In large numbers, direct action can be a powerful medium to enact change as Rosa Parks and others have.  I am not saying that direct action is the correct way or the only way to exact change.  I reiterate that social change is a continuum of a verity of actions.
The middle class is our current moderate white - complacement and not willing to give up their privileges voluntarily.
Understanding oppressed peoples' discontent helps us to further understan the bitterness that comes from the feeling of helplessness, of nobodyness.  Putting yourself into the Other's shoes.
"Civil discontent is the highest form of patriotism" - Howard Zinn
Legality does not necessarily means that something is moral; ditto for mainstream/majority, long standing traditions and cultures (e.g. female circumcision, meat eating, hunting for sport, etc.)
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."- Elie Wiesel (in regards to MLK's "the appalling silence of good people".)
Inward spirituality, morality is more important that church dogma.
I love this piece of work from MLK - it contains so much truths.  I will remember the 'radical' and 'extremist' MLK.  Listen to his speech below.

The Outsider (L’Étranger) - Albert Camus

I read this in either English 11 or 12 a looooong time ago.  I confess that although this is the second time I am reading the text, it feels like the first time all over again.  Some random thoughts:
1. Mersault seems neither moral nor immoral.  He is amoral.  Should we hold amoral people as immoral as the justice system did to Mersault?  Does this make society moral?  It seems rather immoral of society to do so if someone is actually truly and completely lacking what we call 'conscience'.  How does this then impact the 'justice' system?  Certainly a punitive one, especially with a death penalty doesn't seem like the moral or correct solution...  Raymond is clearly immoral yet he remains a free man.
2. Mersault is honest, a little too honest.  He refuses to embrace religion which is meaningless to him just because he is sentenced to death.  He refuses to show remorse since he doesn't feel any.  I kind of admire this honesty/principle in this regard. 
3. Making the best of one's situation - this seems to be what Mersault did in the second half of the novel and also what he believes his mother did.  Pragmatic/sensible and a wee bit optimistic, no - kind of like Candide.
4. Should someone's character be used to condemn someone in court?  Are we static creatures?  If someone has been indifferent or callous in the past, must this haunt her life forever?  I suppose that this is what we still do in court today if there is only circumstantial evidence and thus this alone is not enough to convict and so we use character/value judgements instead.  Is this justice?  But there were equal amounts of people who testified that Mersault is an honest and good man as those who claim him to be bad.  Why were the 'good' testimonies heard but disregarded?  Was he not condemned from day 1 of the trial then?
5. Mersault has no control over his fate.  He is not allowed to talk or to defend himself.  His lawyer will take care of things.  Why does one suddenly become a ward/infant all over again when one's life is at stake?
6. Salamano's cruelty to his dog seems to elicit laughter from others (e.g. Marie).  What does this say about society and our relationship with non-human-animals? He later grieves for his dog even though their relationship was unhealthy and abusive.  Makes me think of Didi and Gogo from Waiting for Godot.

Frankenstein (1818) - Mary Shelley

I love this novel and could not put it down last night - a sign of a very good book.  Impressive that this text was written by a very young woman at a time when there weren't that many female authors.  I was surprised that 'Frankenstein' refers to the creator of the  'Monster' rather to the 'Monster' itself.  I think it is unfair to label Frankenstein's creation as a monster - it strips away the 'humanity' for a lack of a better term of creature.  Henceforth, I will refer to Frankenstein's creation as the Creature.

The longings of the Creature - love, companionship, comfort - these are all longings of all sentient beings.  How easily we as humans dismiss them in other creatures.  How arrogant! I know Frankenstein isn't about speciesism  but as a vegan,  I can't help but reflect upon this topic.  When I say pigs, cows, etc. are social creatures who care about their young, who grieve for their dead, who long for companionship, suffer, love, experience pleasure as we, humans do, I hear remarks like "Oh, you're anthropomorphising the animals."   What a load of ignorance...  Anyone who has spent time with animals know that what I say is true.  I am most certainly not anthropomorphising the creatures.  This is just what life is, be it human or non-human.  Then, what gives us the right to take away these natural longings of certain animals (cows, chickens, pigs, sheep) while we coddle and demand the good life for dogs and cats (within the context of North America)?  None, if you ask me.  We have wilfully turned a blind eye when it suits us and to have the audacity to claim cruelty and inhumanity when the same is done to a cat.

We are in a sense, the God and 'Maker' of farm animals, pet animals, fur animals - we have purposefully deprived these creatures of their natural longings, habitat, etc.  I think most of us empathize with the Creature as we see the longings (humanity) that are in essence the same as ours, even if he is not entirely human yet we turn a blind eye when it comes to the reality of life of an animal born in captivity for the sole purpose of human use. Chatter but no action.  It is depressing to me and some days I despair more than others.

Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and 'animals' is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us. ― Carl Sagan 

The same can be said about Frankenstein's Creature.

Random thoughts:
1. Who are we to judge that someone is flawed and not worthy of love/life just because we consider them "ugly"?
2. Thinking of Island of Dr. Moreau and the ethics (or lack of) in vivisections and biomedical experiments on non-humans.
3. What right do we have as humans to cause the (unnecessary) suffering of another? (human or non-human)

Aristotle's Politics

In reading Aristotle's Politics, I am starting to see the connections between his philosophy and the central themes in the modern day constitution, in the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and so forth.  Interesting that Hegel and Marx derived many of their ideas from Aristotle.

I agree with the thesis that all relationships and associations are formed with the intent of achieving good, although 'good' can carry a variety of meanings.  No one can deny that humans are social and political animals.  The community's interests trumps over individual interests (within reason).  But how does one decide which are the community's interests?  Aristotle suggests a democracy in which all citizens know each other and partake in active decision-making processes - quite different from our current conception of democracy.  In some ways, the 'communitarianism' advocated by Aristotle reminds me of anarchism except that within Aristotle's context and view, hierarchies need to exist and not all are qualified to become citizens.  If only a minority can reach the end goal, the life of leisure, contemplation and virtue, does the majority (means) really need to be sacrificed so that the minority can reach this goal (end)?  I asked myself similar questions in the context of animal ethics (or lack thereof issues).

I would have to reply with a very strong 'no'.  Even Aristotle admits that  a constitution (the organisation/guidelines of a community) is just when it benefits everyone in the city and unjust when it benefits only those in power.  Yet, he advocates exactly this - that (generally) only Greek men of a certain amount of wealth are eligible to become citizens - rather hypocritical if you ask me...  I am aware that slavery was the norm in his time and slavery was 'needed' to maintain Greek civilisation at the time but I use the word 'need' with much apprehension - I see a significant difference between 'needs' and 'wants' and while slavery was the norm does not necessarily excuse Aristotle's lack of awareness of the injustice of slavery and blatant discrimination against women and other minorities.

I am not discounting's Aristotle's vast contribution to society, rather I am making the point that the elite class that Aristotle belonged to had an agenda to maintain their power, wealth and leisure - he was part of the status and strived to do exactly this.  Sadly, not much has changed in this respect - we still have this conundrum of who can be a citizen today, who has the right to vote, when do they have the right to vote, when they can dissent and how they can become active members of their community/polis/nation-state.  Economic migrants seem to be the preferred class of migrants in Harper's government - is this just?  Is this really in the nation-state's best interest?  I am not convinced that it is.

The demarcation of labour espoused by Aristotle is also very much alive today and in many ways, they are the 'non-citizens' of our society - they remain in stasis, unable to move beyond their current economic condition and education level which people in the middle class (and the wealthy) are able to 'progress', to have some time for leisure and contemplation - I fall into the privileged middle class in society.

Is this the best constitution?  The best possible world?  I don't think so.  I think we can do better.  While I agree with the general essence of Aristotle's argument in Politics, the privilege of citizenship and the ability to reach the good life should be an opportunity available to all, regardless of their status in society.

What is Enlightenment? Kant

The freedom to make public reasoning while dutifully using our private use of reason - a topic that is very relevant today.  It seems like this is what is encouraged today. Get up, go to work, work hard for eight hours, go home exhausted.  Got beef against economic injustices and environmental degradation?  Write a letter to the Premier.  Sign a petition.  Business as usual.  Obey.  The minute you disrupt business (especially international trade), force and violence may be used against you.

Will we really reach public enlightenment through the method advocated by Kant?  Removal of religious dogma and tight state control is certainly a healthy start, I agree.  If we must conduct business as usual, how will social change really occur?  Would we not merely be paying lip service to issues of social justice and environmental degradation then?  How to create true resistance?  I agree with Kant that the contradictions arising from one's use of public vs. private reasoning creates dissent and resistance but how to activate this resistance in an experiential and material way?  I feel trapped in this paradox right now and have been for a long time...

I have to agree with Kant in some ways on revolution.  I believe that the Occupy Movement, the Arab Springs all constitute a very historical slow revolution.  But while people may be resisting, they may not all be 'enlightened'.  The issue of how to change people's awareness has been deep on my mind especially since 2009.  I struggled to make people see what I see on the issue of the Olympic Games in Vancouver and all around the world.  Now, in the context of the Occupy Movement, many have joined in with the cause but some are in the cause for self-interested reasons rather than for global justice.  The movement is diverse and it cannot be expected that thousands of persons all think alike.  This causes fractures in the movement.  The revolution cannot forge ahead with so much internal dissent.  Kant's discussion is still relevant today and of great importance - how to change the public's awareness and to create mass public enlightenment?  I have many questions but no answers... but the main thing to keep in mind is solidarity and to remember where the battle lies.  Internal bickering, egos must subsist in favour of the utility of the majority.  The 'battle' is not within the 99% at the moment - it is with the 1% and its supporters.

King Lear

I confess that the thought of reading Shakespeare scares me.  The only Shakespeare I've ever read was Taming of the Shrew in English 11 and Macbeth in English 12, many, many moons ago.  I had difficulty understanding the language then and I confess that I still do today.  Somehow, just reading the play doesn't bring about the vivid imagery for me and so it was helpful for me to rewatch Ran, Akira Kurosawa's version of King Lear before reading the text.  Perhaps I rely on the visuals to fully understand Shakespeare as I enjoy and 'get it' when I attend Bard on the Beach plays.

I'll discuss a few themes/events/characters that stuck out for me.

Ironic that the Fool is the wisest character in the play!  He sees through all the characters' motives and the bad and/or wise decisions they make.  He warns Lear of his errors but Lear does not see it.  It is only through a series of unfortunate events causing Lear's downfall and suffering that he begins to realize his poor judgement in banishing Cordelia and Kent and elevating Goneril and Regan.  It is is a sense only by being the "Other" (e.g. the banished: Cordelia and Kent) that he understands what it is like to be banished/refused/disrespected/powerless.  And in the end, the suffering makes turns him into a better man.  A theme similar to Julian of Norwich, Dante's Inferno.  He redeemed himself at the very end but dies from the grief over the one daughter who loved him, Cordelia.

Loyalty seems to me to be a theme that really stands out.  I am impressed by Cordelia and Kent's loyalty (a form of love, I suppose but I wouldn't call it outright love necessarily) to Lear.  Their sense of duty reminds me of the sense of duty advocated by Mencius.  In this particular case, the loyalty of Cordelia and Kent also translates as compassion - compassion and empathy for the now poor and powerless Lear. Again, I see the theme of identifying with the "Other".  It is through identification with the "Other" that compassion can be made possible.

Honesty - Cordelia and Kent's action of speaking the truth causes them banishment and loss of power while Goneril, Regan and Edmund's lies get them 'ahead in the game' - at least in the beginning.  Very Machiavellian.  Deceit brings power.  In his particular case though, Goneril, Regan and Edmund "lose" in the end and suffer tragedy themselves.  Justice is meted, so to speak (except for Cordelia and Gloucester). Kent is elevated to ruler at the end of the tragedy and in a sense, his honesty and loyalty brings him power although in tragic circumstances.  Cordelia on the other hand, is murdered.  A sacrifice of all that is good - sort of like Christ.

Gloucester's gouged eyes - very dramatic.  Perhaps this symbolizes his 'blindness' in not being able to see through Edmund's plots?  Or his 'blindness' in not recognize Edmund as his own flesh and blood (rather than as a 'bastard child').

Aging - Lear's aging is a return to infanthood in the eyes of Goneril and Regan.  He is to be rendered powerless and be told what to do by his two oldest daughter.  He challenges this but to no avail.

Afterclass thought: I find it a bit offensive the ageism discussed in this class.  There was the question of Cordelia as a young passionate/stubborn 'child'.  Ditto with Antigone and also Heloise. I catch myself being ageist at times too, at aged 35, no 'spring chicken' myself.  It is not fair to pick on youthfulness and to equate it with naivity/passion and though unspoken, in a sense stupidity.  With age, does not necessarily come wisdom.  To imply this is incorrect and unfair.  I work with young university students and sure, I encounter plenty of naive youth but I also encounter amazing youth that puts me into awe their awareness and wisdom despite their young age.  I wished I had been that aware at 20 but sadly, I was not.

It was not clear to be that there was a fixed 'ritual' at the beginning of the play until Budra pointed it out...

Interesting that Lear treats the Fool well and accepts his honesty yet banishes Cordelia for her honesty.

"King Lear" and the Fool in Akira Kurosawa's Ran

Antigone

fighting, standing up for the state,
being a good citizen, obeying authority - good

shunning duties to the state, going into exile - bad
money corrupts!  money bad! (73)

dictatorship
ruling for self instead of people (97)
in the most non-compassionate way

hypocrisy
"what wounds cut deeper than a loved on turned against you?" (93)
father to son
yet
the father betrays his niece and nephew

justice (or lack there of)
sentry
wrongly accused (75)
scapegoat
passion, revenge

sentry
self interest over others (8)
in the most non-compassionate way

familial ties
strong bond
protecting family honour
rituals and oaths to gods
trump
over state

state must honour this honour
else it must suffer the wrath

death, holding on to principles and honour
death in own hands than by torture

Afterclass thoughts: I really enjoyed this text and I confess that I took the side of Antigone.  I am biased in that I see quite a bit of Antigone in myself.  I didn't know that 'antigone' means 'unbending' until Brenda pointed it out (which I am glad she did).  While I agree that both Antigone and Creon to some extent were doing what they deemed to be necessary (I like Paul Crowe's concept of avoiding the words "doing the right thing") and Brenda very persuasively presented a strong case for Creon, I nonetheless still have much more admiration for Antigone's strong will, standing by her principles (One could argue that I am allowing my passion to subdue my reasoning, I suppose...).

I do not quite see Polyneices as a traitor.  I find traitor to be too strong of a word.  Dissenter, yes.  Traitor, no.  I am picking on semantics, I suppose...  My mind has been on current global events in which dissenters are labeled as unpatriotic, traitor, etc.  Unfairly, I might add.  If your gut feeling, your principles tell you that what the state is doing is wrong, do you not have a right to oppose this?  I am not saying that what Polyneices did is right.  Rather, he has his own reasons for his actions and I think it is not accurate to label him as a traitor.

Creon's display of Polyneices' body is reminiscient of mulitated bodies/body parts left out in public areas in times of war or discontent to serve as an example to others - defy me (the state/king/etc.) and this is what will happen to you and/or your loved ones.  I have very deep ethical concerns with such behaviours and confess that this one action alone puts Creon in my bad books.

I also have qualms with punitive justice (e.g. in relation to Brenda's second question).  Jumping ahead to Mencius' philosophy which sits better with me.  The proper way to govern is to tend to the people's needs.  You win people's admiration and hearts over by being kind, not by setting examples (display of a "traitor's"body or by killing the person who dared to give the "traitor" a proper burial.