The Books/Reading Thread

[Einherjar86]

That's fine, but you do realize that the difference between the Visigoths and the Romans is still a racial difference, correct? Barbarism fuses itself to race, and it does happen instantaneously: "Oh, but these people are inferior. It must be racial, of course." [understanding that the "it must be racial" portion retrospects itself subconsciously, meaning that it's understood by the subject to have been racial all along]

 

[rms]

Can you explain this? I unfortunately don't understand what you're saying. I agree that there is a dialectic of civilization and barbarism (or culture and nature), but I don't see how this is distinct from (i.e. unrelated to) race.

The Aus/NZ thing? No problemo. England of course as well know went to Aussieland, found the aborigines and (from the primary source diary of the ship captain) went to greet the natives, they 'attacked' the whiteys(rocks/spears) and fueled a relationship of anger with each other. English also assumed their culture was primitive because they did not establish real agriculture and were basically just living off the land with no real development in the thousands(hundreds? I can't remember) of years they inhabited the island, and we all know the conquest the English gave them and now we have Australia as we have it today.

But in NZ, when the English went, they greeted them (both races were brown people btw--NZ are by origin Polynesians and not sure exactly where Australia's people's are from off the top of my head) and deemed them a non-barbaric society because of their 'advanced' ways of cultivated the land for agriculture etc, and basically never tried to conquer the island, especially in any way similar to Australia.

So if you look at these two examples, in the same historical context and by the same nation, race is clearly not the issue here because they were both primitive in relation to industrializing Britain, but the differences in the relations between the two is incredibly differend i'd say.

So I personally think the idea of barbarians vs. 'intelligent' tribal peoples is a great distinction in the relations between White nations and non-white nations

That's fine, but you do realize that the difference between the Visigoths and the Romans is still a racial difference, correct? Barbarism fuses itself to race, and it does happen instantaneously: "Oh, but these people are inferior. It must be racial, of course." [understanding that the "it must be racial" portion retrospects itself subconsciously, meaning that it's understood by the subject to have been racial all along]

But the Romans still conquered the barbaric island of England, as well.

I got homework for a little bit gents, gotta stay focused! haha

 

[Dak]

That's fine, but you do realize that the difference between the Visigoths and the Romans is still a racial difference, correct? Barbarism fuses itself to race, and it does happen instantaneously: "Oh, but these people are inferior. It must be racial, of course." [understanding that the "it must be racial" portion retrospects itself subconsciously, meaning that it's understood by the subject to have been racial all along]

Well that's a better explanation, and I can see how in some cases it could have been racial all along, or could have been understood to have been all along. I just don't think this is necessarily (always) the case. But a much better explanation of "simultaneity".

 

[Einherjar86]

The Aus/NZ thing? No problemo. England of course as well know went to Aussieland, found the aborigines and (from the primary source diary of the ship captain) went to greet the natives, they 'attacked' the whiteys(rocks/spears) and fueled a relationship of anger with each other. English also assumed their culture was primitive because they did not establish real agriculture and were basically just living off the land with no real development in the thousands(hundreds? I can't remember) of years they inhabited the island, and we all know the conquest the English gave them and now we have Australia as we have it today.

But in NZ, when the English went, they greeted them (both races were brown people btw--NZ are by origin Polynesians and not sure exactly where Australia's people's are from off the top of my head) and deemed them a non-barbaric society because of their 'advanced' ways of cultivated the land for agriculture etc, and basically never tried to conquer the island, especially in any way similar to Australia.

Australia was used as a prison by Imperial England. It was large, and the territory permitted it. Furthermore, aboriginal peoples look very different from Western European whites.

Also, the Colonial interaction with the Maori was not civilized in any real sense of the term, on both sides. There were supposed instances of cannibalism, and massacres as well. Furthermore, Christian missionaries to the island repeatedly attempted to convert Maori, which suggests a firm belief that Maori beliefs were inferior to Christianity.

As I said earlier, even if the colonial/imperial power deems the people they're interacting with to be even slightly agriculturally advanced, this doesn't mean they look on them with racial equality. The Native Americans were agriculturally advanced, and they were annihilated by European settlers. Racial inequality doesn't even necessitate violence, although violence often accompanies such interactions. I'm highly skeptical that non-racial attitudes existed between natives (of any country) and European colonists. That said, it clearly manifests (I think) in most interactions.

But the Romans still conquered the barbaric island of England, as well.

Are you suggesting that the Romans and the English were racially/culturally similar, or even the same skin color?

 

[Dak]

Also, the Colonial interaction with the Maori was not civilized in any real sense of the term, on both sides. There were supposed instances of cannibalism, and massacres as well. Furthermore, Christian missionaries to the island repeatedly attempted to convert Maori, which suggests a firm belief that Maori beliefs were inferior to Christianity.

Um, isn't it a firm belief of most religions that they are superior to other religions?

As I said earlier, even if the colonial/imperial power deems the people they're interacting with to be even slightly agriculturally advanced, this doesn't mean they look on them with racial equality. The Native Americans were agriculturally advanced, and they were annihilated by European settlers.

It appears to me that charges of racism have devolved into accusations of "noticing that there is a difference in skin pigmentation (or eye set, hair characteristics,etc)". Well of course no one can ever avoid this claim - thus making it useless.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, race isn't reducible to skin color. The darkness of African skin tone was appealed to in certain treatises that wanted to argue for their inferiority. Well-traveled Europeans likely didn't respond to those of different skin color in a shockingly violent manner because of the fact that they were well-traveled, and probably used to seeing people of different skin color. This doesn't mean they didn't consider themselves to be racially superior though.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Taught Lambs to the Slaughter by Dahl to my 10th graders today. A lot of them really loved it. Next week we're starting a unit on Greek mythology, Antigone and On Civil Disobedience. Gonna throw in a bunch of contemporary examples of civil disobedience as well. Super stoked for this unit.

 

[unknown]

nice. We read Lamb to the Slaughter in 10th grade as well. Read lots of cool stuff that year...1984...Harrison Bergeron. My teacher was the one who inspired me to major in English

 

[Summerian]

Good read.
Won't spoil anything. But George R. R. Martin ain't holding back.

 

[Dak]

Welcome to the year 2000.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

In the year 2000...

 

[Summerian]

I've starting reading:

And it reads 2005, as if that's of any importance.

 

[Dak]

@Einherjer:

Timing is amazing:

http://www.xenosystems.net/the-litmus-test/

By counterposing the tradition of Black American self-advancement (represented by Booker T. Washington) with that of Afro-Marxist agitation (represented by W. E. B. Du Bois), it implicitly describes an ideological quadrant.

1. To side with Du Bois against Washington is the position of the radical Left.

2. To seek a reconciliation of the two is an agonized equivocation, tilting inevitably to Leftist advantage, of the kind that has predominated in the development of Anglophone political culture. This is is position of the author, of mainstream liberalism and conservatism, and of progressive Cathedralization.

3. To admire Washington, whilst repulsed by Du Bois, is the neoreactionary stance Outside in defends.

4. To dismiss both Washington and Du Bois as irrelevant Black nonsense is a departure into confrontational White Nationalism, of a kind that has no imaginable reach beyond itself.

Thomas Sowell, as the most articulate inheritor of the ‘outsider’ Washington tradition, is the emblem of this racial ideology test today.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's unbelievable timing. Does Land follow the UM social forum?

I should say that my response to Washington's book was resistant because I tend to favor the opinion that we always need to be critical of what we read/watch/see/know/think/etc. I feel like in recent decades there has been a backlash (of which neoreaction-ism is a part) against this kind of criticism, and in a lot of ways this reaction is warranted because criticism has flown by the seat of its pants and, in many ways (like Horkheimer and Adorno suggested, perhaps), has dialectically and tragically encountered its own antithesis - that is, criticism itself has become the "Church of Reason" (self-contradictory, yes; but to make a point).

Neoreactionism is only one path to pursue in countering this problem, however; in many ways, I think that Land's view has a lot in common with more current strands of "speculative realism," but I also think the neoreactionary route risks the total abandonment of criticism, which is a dangerous path (this is just my reading of his views, maybe not accurate).

The more recent brands of speculative thought are equally critical of the radical turn of the '60s and '70s. Furthermore, English curriculum itself has become far more accommodating and accepting. I have to state that my professor (who is African American) who taught the Washington book adamantly defended the author, arguing that Washington could only do so much in trying to carve out a practical and positive role for African Americans in post-slavery United States. In all honesty, I wouldn't condone trashing Washington or tossing him to the bonfire. I think it's merely important to retain the trace (and there's always a trace) of racial marginalization and oppression that remains in Washington's honest and admirable attempt to promote African American interests. It would serve no practical purpose for Washington to admit this in his book, even if he consciously acknowledged it. But it is the responsibility of critics to at least identify and comment on this problem. It isn't an excuse for denying Washington and going full-blown DuBois; it's merely the task of maintaining our critical perspective.

Hopefully this expresses the distaste for some of the more radical Afro-Marxist "intellectuals" who are willing to abandon the majority (of black Americans) in favor of inaugurating the great African revolution. Ultimately, the text I would gravitate toward in finding a middle ground between Washington and DuBois would be Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, which is staunchly opposed to the ideology of the Afro-Marxist movements in America while maintaining its scrutinizing view of the institutional marginalization of African Americans post-Civil War.

 

[Dak]

That's unbelievable timing. Does Land follow the UM social forum?

I should say that my response to Washington's book was resistant because I tend to favor the opinion that we always need to be critical of what we read/watch/see/know/think/etc. I feel like in recent decades there has been a backlash (of which neoreaction-ism is a part) against this kind of criticism, and in a lot of ways this reaction is warranted because criticism has flown by the seat of its pants and, in many ways (like Horkheimer and Adorno suggested, perhaps), has dialectically and tragically encountered its own antithesis - that is, criticism itself has become the "Church of Reason" (self-contradictory, yes; but to make a point).

Wouldn't that be weird? But he says it was in response to this:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=1496
(See point #2)

2. To seek a reconciliation of the two is an agonized equivocation, tilting inevitably to Leftist advantage, of the kind that has predominated in the development of Anglophone political culture. This is is position of the author, of mainstream liberalism and conservatism, and of progressive Cathedralization.

I don't think Land (or any other neoreactionary) would characterize their positions as a "criticism of criticism", rather an acknowledgement or embrace of aspects of reality that Progressivism vis-à-vis the Cathedral is at war with/in complete denial of. To say that Progressivism/the Cathedral is merely "critical" of things outside would be the most gross of understatements.

I don't consider myself NeoR for its insistence on some sort of coercive hierarchy, but it eschews the farce of nominal democracy so that's at least a move in the right direction.

Edit: See Batshit thread for further on this:

 

[Einherjar86]

Henry James's The American:

 

[Yelloweyedemon]

Just read it!

No words needed!

 

[Summerian]

The date is 17 nov 2013.

Done with A Feast for Crows (2005) and more than half way thru A Dance with Dragons (2011)
A Feast For Crows (2005) and A Dance With Dragons (2011) play out concurrently so those who haven't read these already - pick up both of them. After half A Feast for Crows (2005) I read a little from the A Dance With Dragons (2011) and then went back to A Feast for Crows (2005).

George R. R. Martin was born September 20, 1948.

More time and dates later...

 

[Einherjar86]

Reading this for one of my seminar papers:

Damn, the problem with writing about As I Lay Dying is that there's just too much shit to say. Part of our papers need to consider Faulkner's novel as a modernist text, since that's what the course is about; but modernism is so fucking unwieldy that it gets overwhelming. I'm trying to work posthumanism into the mix, since it's one of my personal interests in studying literature. Fortunately, As I Lay Dying is an incredibly posthumanist/antihumanist text.

 

[unknown]

yeah I can see that. As I Lay Dying is great, but Absalom, Absalom is still my favorite Faulkner