The Absurdity of Truth in the Wake of Propaganda

One of the most terrifying aspects of public outlook is the ability for the public to be swayed by the opinions of the so-called intellectuals or public servants. It is in this vein of discussion where opinions are solidified and rules and regulations are set in stone. The difficulty with these judgments though is that so many ride on the necessitation of a further goal and sometimes goals which can be of a more incendiary nature and ultimately criminal. Propaganda, to be exact, has been a tool utilized with the aforementioned goal in mind; but to what extent and how ought the public at large know when propaganda is being used to further these goals of say world domination? Through the lens of philosophers, authoritarians, and victims the oft-arbitrary nature of truth will be examined as well as how propaganda has historically played a role in shaping societal truths.

The very word truth poses difficulty; when heard it is assumed that the speaker is genuine and has no ulterior motives. However, as Friedrich Nietzsche so eloquently states, “[knowledge’s] most universal effect is deception” (Nietzsche 43) because of the very nature of knowledge/truth. Nietzsche’s explanation of this deception for the Nazi’s comes in the form of the human’s inherent vanity. In the interest of ones self-preservation, too often - and similarly in Albert Speer’s memoirs Inside the Third Reich- one is “acting a role before others and before oneself” (Nietzsche 43).

Speer’s account of the vanity of Nazi’s and their desire for power could be drawn not from his words, but the very pictures themselves. His “Cathedral of Ice” for example not only raised Hitler above his audience so that they were forced to raise their heads in awe, but also gave the illusionary quality of the people being in a prison. The lights formed bar-like structures around the perimeter, and moreover, the name itself conjured up images of reverence and obedience. This use of visual propaganda can be likened to what Nietzsche refers to as the Nazi’s “deeply immers[ing their subjects] in illusions and dream images; their eye glides only over the surface of things and sees “forms”; their feeling nowhere leads into truth, but contents itself with the reception of stimuli […]” (Nietzsche 43). Not only does the structure call for the audience to heed to its impressiveness, but it also calls for the audience to ignore the true motives of the Nazi’s.

Speer’s architectural endeavors - with the purpose of control through propaganda – echoes Nietzsche’s idea of truth being likened to “[a] mobile army of metaphors” (Nietzsche 46) for Speer utilized the structures with the same intent of obedience and reverence. His constructions, like the “Cathedral of Ice” and “the New Chancellery,” themselves are the very metaphor to promote feelings of unworthiness in respect to their size, as well as, imposing order with the application of the neoclassical design.

“The New Chancellery” was Hitler’s conversation with the western world. He wanted it to not only “impress London society by the sumptuousness of the embassy” (Speer 108), but specifically to affect the “smaller dignitaries” (Speer 102). This specificity of person with which Hitler wanted to impress upon was a lower caliber, and thus, more easily swayed away from reality towards power and prestige. Hitler made excellent use of Nietzsche’s “mobile army of metaphors” and employed someone who was adept at making his propagandistic vision a reality.

In Elie Wiesel’s Night, the affect that the Nazi’s had on the Jew’s in Sighet was palpable. Wiesel recalls the German soldiers wore “steel helmets” (Wiesel 27) that bore a “death’s-head emblem” (Wiesel 27) and while this in itself suggests impending doom, the Jew’s stayed in a state of denial. Before they had heard that the German’s were anti-Semitic, Wiesel stated that while they “had heard of the Fascists, […] it was all in the abstract” (Wiesel 27). In other words, the metaphor of the Fascist and their inevitable appearance in Sighet only spoke of the governmental responsibilities of this new command. The compliance with which the Jews in Sighet bore suggests the power of the propaganda and the ease at which one gives up sovereignty. They were “reassured” (Wiesel 27) by the soldier’s demeanor and hadn’t the slightest inclination of the true motives of the Nazi’s. Wiesel’s story shows this slow but pervading power that the Nazi’s employed beginning with their arrival, to the yellow star, and ultimately the Holocaust.

Even when the citizen’s of Sighet heard the stories that they were heading towards a terrible fate, they remained blind to their inherent right to freedom and one must take pause as to why anyone is not vigilant towards their personal preservation. The philosopher Alfred Jules Ayer saw truth as something that is asserted. He said as humans it is our responsibility to recognize when something is “false, not because it is formally defective, but because it fails to satisfy some material criterion. And it is our responsibility to discover what that criterion is” (Ayer 90). It is assumed that, like the soldiers initial demeanor, the ruler’s actions were proper, just as the Hungarians - who allied themselves with the Nazi’s - believed the lies Hitler was speaking about the Jews were true. Truth became a tool used to manipulate, and propaganda was its “mobile army.”

But propaganda is not only affective through the use of carefully constructed rallies, buildings, and lies disguised as truth; its implementation during times of crisis is paramount to fundamentally changing the way a nation views it’s fellow citizens, as well as how a people view one another. John Okada’s image of America in No-No Boy speaks volumes that societies consent in having an unrealistic sense of their surroundings, one that leaves the viewer in a fuzzy state of ignorance. Ichiro asks “[w]here is that place they talk of and paint nice pictures of and describe in all the homey magazines?” (Okada 159) This is in part the American Dream that people so ravishingly devour in hopes of being the “tired, hungry, and poor” that America accepts with open arms. Okada poignantly remarks through Ichiro that “[o]ne hears the voice of the Negro or Japanese or Chinese or Jew, a clear bell-like intonation of the common struggle for recognition as a complete human being […]” (Okada 134). Through No-No Boy’s characters, the reader experiences this struggle that fractures the lives and families when they realize even the American Dream comes with exceptions.

The level of splintering among the Japanese-Americans is a true testament to the misinformation we readily accept. Those, like Ichiro, who chose to conscientiously object the draft, were considered traitors, but those who fought for the United States, like Kenji, were emotionally being chipped away at. The image of Kenji’s leg being cut inch by inch until his untimely death illustrates the hardship of fighting among a people who had just recently interned the Japanese. It also finds expression in his own need to delude himself when “[he] downed his thankfully” (Okada 119) and then surveyed his own father appreciating the alcohol he himself mindlessly ingested, suggesting it is not the taste to enjoy, but it’s physical and mental numbing properties.

Alcohol plays an important role in denying the facts of Japanese-American lives during WWII. Kenji not only drinks it to forget the pain of losing a leg inch by inch, but Ichiro’s father drowns out the truth as well. He not only uses it to drink away the reality of his son, Ichiro’s, misery, or his wife’s insanity, or his other boy, Taro’s, running away to the Army; but as a disinfectant as well (Okada 174). Moreover, as soon as the mother dies – symbolizing the nisei’s break from the issei – he quits drinking and begins life anew, suggesting the difficulty of maintaining ones culture and identity in a foreign land.

When Okada discusses the “apostrophe” (Okada 229) of an Irish name versus the removal creating a Japanese last name, this need to remove the traditional is further pressed upon the reader. Naomi Klein states in her book The Shock Doctrine this need to remove identity from the group who is being derogated. To further instill a level of inferiority, the CIA manual of 1983 stated a prisoner for example must be “segregated immediately,” (Klein 459) and then “[i]solation, both physical and psychological, must be maintained from the moment of apprehension” (Klein 459). When America was attacked at Pearl Harbor the immediate removal of the Japanese, regardless of their birthplace, was necessary to keep the level of fear among the “natural” Americans. It was also a tool to encourage the subordination of the Japanese-Americans. Much to their chagrin, they complied in order to show their American loyalty.

The Japanese paper “The Rafu Shimpo” encouraged their readers during the war to “[s]peak up now!” (2-14-42) to show that they were “loyal American[s]” (2-14-42) but with the local American papers, such as “The Los Angeles Times” or the “San Francisco Chronicle” it was difficult to break away from the pervading fear. Cartoon pictures in the Times just four days after “The Rafu Shimpo” was calling for their undeniable support of America, shows a Japanese – with knife in hand and scull encrusted on the uniform - drooling aggressively over helpless bits of meat which are attempting to inch themselves away from the devourer. Just below the derogatory depiction, a concerned citizen is writing into the Times suggesting that the “West Coast” ought “not overlook all those German and Italian “refugees”” (Times 2-18-42).

Furthermore, an editorial in the “SF Chronicle” relishes in Washington “oust[ing] enemy aliens” and calls the internment and separation “necessary and proper acts of national defense, regardless of the individual hardships and injustices involved” (SF Chronicle 2-1-42). This use of fear mongering and causing unnecessary hysteria does not help when the aforementioned paper’s front page saying the “Jap Armada” is invading a “Dutch [s]tronghold” (SF Chronicle 2-1-42). This “mobile army of metaphors” creates an atmosphere of hate and confusion.

These papers helped shape a world-view of the Japanese. Their derogatory statements clearly created a false sense of who the Japanese really were. “The Rafu Shimpo” was the voice of the steadfast Japanese but it was unheeded by the hysteria which propaganda so effortlessly stirs. Calling themselves “[l]oyal Americans of Japanese ancestry [who] pledge[d] to live and die for the Stars and Stripes” (2-3-42) would have been the ultimate American testament of their national pride, yet this truth was veiled in comments rich with strife.

Humans can be easily swayed when tragedy strikes or during times of civil unrest. We allow ourselves to be overcome with emotions based off of ignorance, and do not vigilantly search out the truth of the matter. When Nietzsche believed that truth could so easily be mocked by disguising words as knowledge, he makes a poignant statement: unless we are vigilant, the light will never be exposed.

Hitler made nations believe, by his use of grand settings and over-the-top gestures that the Jews really were enemies and the Jews believed that nothing terrible was going to happen until it was too late. Both Okada and “The Rafu Shimpo” illustrated what the tearing apart of families looked like and how loyal they truly were, while local newspapers cultivated peoples fear of the Japanese and misinformed the reader with assumptions based off of ignorance. Seemingly, no one sought the truth of the matter; they kept with the status quo and believed their lives would be blissful - unbeknownst to them – in ignorance and with blood on their hands.

Works Cited

Ayer, Alfred Jules. “Truth and Probability.” Language, Truth and Logic. 2nd ed. New York: Dover Publications, 1946. 87-90. Print.

Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007. Print.

The Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] Feb. 1942. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. "From On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense." The Portable Nietzsche. Ed. Walter Kaufmann. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Penguin Books, 1976. 42-47. Print.

Okada, John. No-no boy. Seattle: University of Washington, 1981. Print.

The Rafu Shimpo [Los Angeles] Feb. 1942. Print.

The San Francisco Chronicle [San Francisco] Feb. 1942. Print.

Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich. New York: Scribner, 1981. Print.

Wiesel, Elie. The Night Trilogy Night, Dawn, Day. New York: Hill and Wang, 2008. Print.

Zombieism

“… we see it from coming overseas and that’s what really scares us.” (ZAPT: The Zombie Attack Preparedness Team)

 

Any classic Zombie movie utilizes the formula of predator versus prey; within the scope of Orientalism however, the Zombie can be likened to the marginalized groups of the Orient. By examining the practiced management of a threat known as the “Zombie Apocalypse” in the short documentary on ZAPT, the Orientalization of the Other becomes metaphorically clear, and the theory of Orientalism exposes how the Other systematically becomes demonized in the application of texts in order to exert control over the Occidental citizens.

Orientalism bases itself on the “textual attitude” (Said 3) one acquires through reading without having any knowledge that is based in real life experiences. In the case of the Zombie Attack Preparedness Team (ZAPT), this impending reality is all too real. The group, based out of Louisiana, is prepared for a biological attack that would result in the Zombie metamorphosis of their peers. They tout the acceptance of killing one another in the event of turning to that of the un-dead and they teach their children the inevitable Zombie extermination skills. They are driven from fear based off the application of various texts dealing with ‘Zombieism’ and what Orientalism teaches through propaganda is how to marginalize the Other. 

Edward Said speaks very clearly in the oddity of taking a text for doctrine. However, he states that people in fact “have tried and do try to use texts [to apply what one learns out of a book literally to reality…]” (Said 3). In the case of ZAPT, all they know about the world is through their own application of Zombie text to real world experiences. This paper is not so much to prove Zombie’s ought to have a chance before one systematically demonizes them, but rather to show how a discourse shapes ones views to an Orientalistic approach in the dealings of the Other. For the militia group, they are on constant guard against the threat of their version of the Other, Zombies. And in promoting fear of those “overseas” carrying a biological disease that would turn loved ones into the undead who feed off the flesh of the living, their experiences correlate with how one views fantasy and the zeitgeist of the nation, more specifically the military presence in the Middle East.

Orientalism was employed during WWII through the propaganda spread in the states; newspapers abound applied fear-based tactics to sway the US constituents in order to promote aggression towards the Japanese culture, and thus, caused the internment of Japanese American’s. This correlation in terms of Zombie movies and ZAPT arises out of a fear of the East in terms of the “War on Terror.”

What must be feared today are the Middle East countries who harbor terrorists and the threat of biological warfare such as Anthrax and nuclear bombs. ZAPT exemplifies a group who uses the information given and internalizes it by its application to a fantastical creature known as the Zombie. The Zombie can only be likened to a doll with which they are able to practice their aggression upon. However, this fear is rather irrational. A study completed in 2001 comparing the chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBNR) use at the Monterey Institute Center for Nonproliferation Studies, states that the actual “proportion of incidents of use to total incidents, although rising, continues to be lower in the United States than any other region.” (CNS) Following up with the study updated in 2003, another article by the same group states that “the anthrax incidents have been small in scale, with the apparent intent of frightening rather than killing large numbers of people.” (CNS)

In addition, out of the roughly 354 Zombie movies beginning in 1932 to those in post-production, 205 were made between 2000 and 2009 (Wikipedia: “List of Zombie Films”). That seems to be a large cluster during the same time of the US invasion/ occupation of the Middle East, and while other sources are not factored in, such as the increase in demand as well as the increase in motion picture industry wealth, there still seems to be a need by groups like ZAPT to make judgments about the Other based off of those movies and their own fear of the Other.

Said references Michel Foucault as being an influence in his analysis of Orientalism. Much like ZAPT who arrive at conclusions based off of various Zombie movies. Foucault discusses in “Discipline and Punish” the influence that a power structure needs to acquire and maintain control on an individual. It’s written in Foucault’s meditation on the Panopticon in that the individual might not see a threat, but what these movies show and how they have affected a group in the South, has manifested a choice to kill based only off what they cannot see. This uprising of a homegrown military presence to protect the states from the Other is the perfect result of the propaganda of the divisive: Middle East bad, Americans good.

 This particular Zombie aficionado group is genuinely fearful of the “Zombie Apocalypse.”  They have been watching movies and in turn Orientalizing groups they have yet to meet. In describing Napoleon and de Lesseps, Said states, “they knew, more or less, about the Orient [] from books written in the tradition of Orientalism” (Said 3), and furthermore, for them the Orient [] was something to be encountered and dealt with to a certain extent because the texts made the Orient possible.” (Said 3) So too have the Zombie movies made those overseas possible and the culprit of turning the West into an apocalyptic vision of the flesh eating, undead.

The first Zombie movie was made in 1932 and called White Zombie which follows the jealousy of a man, Charles Beaumont, who owns a plantation in Haiti and acquires the services of Murder Legendre. Legendre turns Beaumont’s love into the living-dead and provides Beaumont with cheap labor for the opportunity to experiment on the young woman. What should first be noted lies in the mystery surrounding a place like Haiti; it provides the perfect threat so close to home, one that employs much different customs than that of the traditional view of Occidentals. The other important factor can be found in the use of exercising power over an individual. Beaumont’s love falls for another and in the guise of feigning a celebratory party, takes control of his lost love by turning her to the undead.

Similarly, in 28 Weeks Later the use of the American military is all too a common element in any movie whose subject matter requires control. The military knows the best way to handle a Zombie outbreak, and shows the people of England how they protect the citizens from the Other who are lurking at their borders. This is similar to Said’s description of this phenomenon in respect to Orientalism “as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient…” (Said 1) With respect to ZAPT, they are taking it upon themselves to “deal[] with the Orient.”

Just as 28 Weeks Later utilizes the institution of the military to show the Occidental prowess, so too does ZAPT take the initiative to become just like the military power of the army in 28 Weeks Later. They own fully automatic weapons, they perform drills, and they state they will shoot to kill anyone that threatens their livelihood. ZAPT can protect the citizens who remain unaffected in order for them to go about their daily business. They can learn form the snipers in 28 Weeks Later who hover above waiting for the split second to shoot anyone who breeches the border. The use of fear of the Other has become palpable for groups like ZAPT witnessing this protection of the borders or rather the protection of the threat of the Other against the One.

Furthermore, because their militia camaraderie is directly related to the viewing of the destruction of Zombies, the common thread among Zombie movies is this protection through violent means. It seems to be resonant with Said when he discusses that “Orientalism is premised upon exteriority” (Said 2).  In the case of Zombies, the extermination of them is based off this “exteriority” and groups like ZAPT are more than prepared to utilize what the surface has unfolded. They know Zombie’s from the “textual attitude” (Said 3) they have gained through the viewing of Zombie films, one that necessitates the removal of the Other.

When biological attacks occur they will with the utmost confidence gun down all those who threaten their sameness. After all, what they know is based off the Zombie “canons of taste and value” (Said 2) so-to-speak. It is through the lens of Zombie movies, which has molded their ideas and these ideas have provided them with a paranoid view of the Other.

This resonates with Said’s assertion, which says that Orientals are unable to speak for themselves and must be spoken for. Fido provides an excellent experimental look at how the Other can be spoken for. In this particular Zombie film, the Zombie’s are chained in people’s backyards, hooked up to “The Domestication Collar,” (Fido) and treated as slaves by “becom[ing] productive members of society, even after [they] die” (Fido). If this were an option, to treat the Other as a slave, then why would a group like ZAPT want to automatically kill when the One turns to the dark side? If the Other is able to have a mind to think and plan, this threatens their world. So, a group such as ZAPT is forced to take measures that are drastic but lasting. With even the inclination that the Other might have an effect on the One it is best to rid this threat all together.

The movie Fido, furthermore, shows the threat quite clearly when the mother, Ms. Robinson, falls in love with their pet Zombie, Fido, as well as when the high-ranking military officer is turned into a pet Zombie. Firstly, the discourse, which Said understands to be the most significant factor of Orientalism, is expressed in the blossoming love. It is what Said points at in respect to a “cultural discourse” (Said 2), one which he states “is commonly circulated by [] not “truth” but representations.” (Said 2) The mother is attracted to the elusive and exotic elements of the Other. In order to make the Other unattractive, they must have a disparaged identity given to them.

The military destruction is another cautionary tool developed. The antagonist of Fido is not the Zombie, but rather Mr. Bottoms, the head of security at Zomcom, the institution that developed the ability to domesticate the Zombies. At the end of the film, Fido saves Timmy Robinson, the son who treated Fido as a part of the family, from Mr. Bottoms and in turn, Mr. Bottoms is turned into the domesticated Zombie. Thus, Fido serves as a caution to discourage the humanizing and rather demonize the Other to protect against the adverse affect, one that will ultimately break the familial foundation.

Tokyo Zombie utilizes this enslavement of the Other as well, however, this comes directly from the Other. This film takes a gladiator approach to the Zombies by having an arena, which the wealthy citizens watch fights between enslaved humans and Zombies. The wealthy citizens similarly with the citizens of 28 Weeks Later and Fido are protected in a ‘healthy’ enclosed environment with the Zombies just lurking outside the border walls. Interestingly, in Tokyo Zombie the proper way is to watch the poor and Zombies fight to the death, because this city does not respect the inferior. They give them no voice, resonating with Said’s “relation between Western writing (and its consequences) and Oriental silence the result of and the sign of the West’s great cultural strength, its will to power over the Orient.” (Said 3)

Just as might be suspected, in the end of Tokyo Zombie, the protagonist flees the city towards the uncaged Zombies. This is a very symbolic scene because Mitsuo, even though able to kill the Zombie’s quite easily in the arena setting and hence closer to securing a better life for his family, flees this promise of luxury for freedom from the Western capitalistic ideals. Mitsuo rejects the Western influence that is expressed in the spectators who wear luxurious furs and throw their money around quite effortlessly, for a more authentic Oriental version that he may be proud of. 

For Said, he describes this Orientalization of the Other as the lion being touted as fierce and therefore is. ZAPT is treating the Zombie as “irrational, depraved (fallen), childlike, “different”” (Said 4) versus ZAPT’s own “rational, virtuous, mature, “normal”” (Said 3) persona. As Said says, “we might expect that the ways by which it is recommended that a lion’s fierceness be handled will actually increase its fierceness, force it to be fierce since that is what it is, and that is what in essence we know or can only know about it.”(Said 2) ZAPT has no concept beyond what a biological attack based Zombie text has provided them with and are armed to deal with this “fierceness” they are imposing on Zombie’s whom they have yet to meet.  Even when a text attempts to humanize or use the Zombie metaphor to expose the absurdity in treating any being negatively, groups like ZAPT continue to press on because of the unyielding strength of propaganda.

Works Cited

Ackerman, Gary, Kimberly McCloud, and Jason Pate. "2000 WMD Terrorism Chronology: Incidents Involving Sub-National Actors and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear Materials." CNS. 30 Apr. 2001. James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. 15 May 2009 .

Fido. Dir. Andrew Currie. Perf. Carrie-Anne Moss and Billy Connolly. DVD. Lionsgate, 2006.

Foucault, Michel. "Discipline and Punish." Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 549-66.

"List of zombie films." Wikipedia. 11 May 2009. 13 May 2009 .

Pate, Jason. "Assessing the Threat of Mass-Casualty Bioterrorism." NTI: Working for a Safer World. Mar. 2003. CNS. 15 May 2009.

Said, Edward. "Orientalism." Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 1^st ed. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.

Tokyo Zombie. Dir. Sakichi Sato. Perf. Tadanobu Asano and Sho Aikawa. DVD. Manga, 2005.

28 Weeks Later. Dir. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. Perf. Robert Carlyle and Rose Byrne. DVD. Twentieth Century Fox, 2007.

Webb, Morgan. "G4 Underground - Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse." G4 Underground. G4. G4, Los Angeles, CA. 29 Apr. 2009. 29 Apr. 2009. 15 May 2009 .

"White Zombie." Monsters from the Id. Ed. Chris Benedict. 13 May 2009 .

Miss America

The following is a copy of an online discussion. It's amazing the varying views expressed by eight different people, much like the battle of voices between the various theories.

Speaker 1

Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 7:54am

Wow! I think this has to be the best clip I have yet to show... Not only is the Miss America Beauty Pageant the epitome of "heterosexual identity [] propelled into an endless repetition of itself" (Butler packet), because the women wear the "gender proper" (Butler) attire and discuss the "gender proper" roles they can play in society; moreover, the last contestant assumes that heterosexuality as proper and natural allows only the marriage between a man and woman. I'm floored that she said "no offense, " as if to say 'oh, I'm sorry sir you're an irregular part of society, and therefore, can not express whom you may love, no offense I'm taking away your right to choose.'  Furthermore, these women almost look like they are in drag, and this pageant is all just a farcical comedy and imitation of the real.  Ps: Rachel Maddow and Kent Jones are both unnatural homosexuals, I like seeing their reaction to the charge of heterosexuality being the proper way.

Speaker 2

Date: Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:48pm

Hahaha, I am probably one of the few conservatives in the class, so I know everyone is going to bash me, please don't! I think it is interesting how ... points out that women have turned into one of the groups that have overcome trials and should be more liberal and progressive. That puts them into the same category as racial minorities and homosexuals, thus, according to that argument, they should all be on the same page. However, I do not believe that there was anything wrong with what Miss California said. Honestly, I would answer the same way. One of my best friends is gay and we talked about the whole Prop 8 issue and I must say, there were good points on BOTH sides. I am sick and tired of the whole Prop 8 thing, so I'm going to leave it at that. I would say "no offense" too because some people are homosexual and they might take offense at what she said. I think that just because she is from a liberal state and she is a woman who has benefitted from the women's rights movement, people are making a big deal out of it and it is unfair. Those are her beliefs, and she has a right to them, just as people who believe gay marriage is acceptable have a right to their beliefs. I personally, do not believe gay marriage is right (due to my religion and conservative beliefs), but if the law said that homosexuals could get married, I would not go and protest. If my friend were to get married to his boyfriend, I would go and support them! So, I would be alright with it, but as far as my value system goes, I am against it. As Miss America said, no offense to anyone, that's just my prerogative.

Speaker 3

Date: Monday, April 27, 2009 1:36pm

Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is one of the great things about the class; we do not have to agree with each other. My problem with the statements made by Miss California, aside from the fact that I do not agree with her views, is that I do not think it is ok to put the two words, "No Offense" in front of anything and sugarcoat the fact that it may hurt somebody's feelings; this is quite an ignorant view of the world. What she needs to realize is that her words may be offensive and that regardless of whether or not she wanted to offend somebody, she may have. Aside from that, I am interested to hear what your best friend's response to you being against gay marriage is. You said, "If my friend were to get married to his boyfriend, I would go and support them! So, I would be alright with it, but as far as my value system goes, I am against it." Maybe I did not read your comments correctly, but I was wondering how you can be against it, but still show up and support your best friend for doing it...

Speaker 4

Date: Monday, April 27, 2009 11:53pm

The answer to your question might be within the very quote you posted, .... "I not agree with what you [marry], but I will defend to the death your right to [marry] it." At least, that's the only thing I could come up with that made sense to me.  I agree with you, however, .... It's incredibly disingenuous to say what Miss California said and then try to hide behind a front of politeness. It's easier for people to stay hurtful things if they imagine that it isn't actually hurting someone. People are capable of quite impressive levels of cognitive dissonance in this way.

Speaker 5

Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:46pm

Come on you guys, she's a freaking beauty pageant contestant and a terrible public speaker.  She made a poor word choice by saying "no offense" but I think anything she said would have come out sideways.  She's not the brightest crayon in the box.  So to argue against "taking away people's right to be happy" based on one moron's poor locution seems a little bully-ish.  Her point was poorly-made but it is still her right make to it and it was still pretty clear.  She does not support gay-marriage.  That was her answer.  It would be the same if a Catholic asked her the question and she said, "no offense, but I think a ban of gay marriage should not be written in legislature."  That was her attempt to be diplomatic.   Some of us fall short in wearing bathing suits attractively, and well, she falls short in public speaking.  To each his (or her's or its) own.

Speaker 1

Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:25pm

I have to disagree on three points; first it's not just  "a freaking beauty pageant contestant" because like a barbie, she is looked up to and at that moment some child is getting their views molded. Secondly, in saying that I am offended at the idea of 'no offense' to the stripping away of other's happiness is not "bully-ish," I'm merely trying to point out the ridiculousness of saying that to someone with whose rights and mental/emotional health is adversely affected. It is disingenuous and thoughtless,  with the pretense that everything is okay. Finally, one says "no offense" if they're telling someone they don't like the casserole, not to the priest when you are saying sorry I'm making out with my same sex partner in front of you while your at the pulpit. Of course, I'm being dramatic to make the point as I usually do. Everyone is entitled to opinions, that's why we have a forum in which to make them, however not at the cost of others well-being.

Speaker 5

Date: Sunday, May 3, 2009 6:41pm

I lost you halfway through because I think you reached rant status : ).  Anyway, I just felt compelled to play devil's advocate because that's what I do.  I took issue not with you having a problem with her disagreeing with gay marriage, but rather with you arguing against two things and seeming to call it one.  She 1) disagreed with gay marriage on public television and 2) prefaced it with an empty, careless phrase to soften the blow because she was probably aware she was committing political suicide.  You argued that she, like barbie, molds the minds of children who are watching.  What exactly is she molding their minds into?  Would it only be okay for her to mold their minds into approving of gay marriage?  Should she be brutalized by the media and thus mold into their minds that speaking one's opinions is not okay?  One side of the spectrum is "okay" for children to hear, but the other is not?

Speaker 1

Date: Monday, May 4, 2009 8:32pm

I wasn't ranting, actually making light of this looong debate... Regardless, I like devil's advocates, but you said that it is just a beauty pageant and i was stating that it's more than that and used Barbie as a reference to why it is more than just dumb women making their views be known. Again, I am saying dumb women as a general term for her poorly phrased speech... She could be brilliant and just have different views and morals than I and a bad public speaker. I think all are entitled to their opinions, I think it is healthy to speak one's mind, I just don't think that it makes the conversation null and void because it is a beauty pageant specifically because this is popular among the pre-pubescents. That is my opinion and ultimately this is all up to the parents to instill the good morals, or even bad if they so choose :)

Speaker 6

Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 1:33pm

Dear ,  As a devil's advocate, do you support the right of satanists and Republicans to marry?  :) ps: this post does not represent its author's views, institution, or favorite movie starring Katsuhiko Sasaki.

Speaker 6

Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 1:35pm

It just occurred to me that the smiley face : )  is another way to say "no offense."   ....It's the end of the semester, that's why.

Speaker 1

Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:35pm

Can be, or as a way to show you're being cheeky, can be seen as pretty ambiguous...

Speaker 3

Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 7:17pm

I put in a Voltaire quote (see above). Nobody said we are attacking people for their points' of view, but rather simply mentioning that we disagree. Also, my problem is not that she said something offensive. I get offended and I probably offend people all of the time. I simply think it is ignorant to think that people will not be offended just because someone said, "no offense." Aside from that I think she is a pretty good public speaker (I mean, she made it to runner-up of Miss America), I just don't like her.

Speaker 2

Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:22am

In response to ..., my friend and I have talked about it before, and we both understand each others views. I love your Voltaire quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." My friend and I agree to disagree on this issue, and that's completely fine since if everyone was the same it would be boring! Basically, what I meant is that I personally do not agree with gay marriage since it is in opposition with my church's teachings, but I love my friend and I support him, and I think that he and his boyfriend had the right to get married, then they should go and do that and I would support them in their decision to do so. If it makes him happy, then I want him to be happy!

Speaker 1

Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:11pm

however, we are taking away peoples right's to be happy because one groups value system does not agree with another's. It's all very hypocritical and a cope out to hide behind a religion. This is where the "no offense" gets me and I think what Judith Butler is attempting to expose. And it's not just Butler, but Orientalism as well; the text even mentions the Bible being a piece of literature that is held to such a high esteem that despite your acknowledgment of wanting your friend to be able to choose, your religion tells your intuition and love of your friend to think otherwise. It's terribly sad that we allow a text to influence us to the point of making others miserable in the hopes of attaining a place in heaven. If that's heaven, I don't want any part of it.

Speaker 2

Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:55pm

Well, I am a devout Christian (LDS), so religion is something that has been a huge part of my life since day one. It is not a cop-out as far as I am concerned that my answer is due to my religious beliefs. My religious beliefs have helped to shape my value system. I believe in the Bible as more than just a work of literature, I believe there are mistakes in it, but I believe it to be true. However, you may completely disagree with me, you are free to believe as you wish, just as I am free to believe as I wish.  I see your point on the whole "no offense" thing. In our society, we are so concerned with being politically correct. I believe by Miss California saying that phrase, that was her attempt at trying to be considerate to the other side. I totally understand that. However, she shouldn't have to apologize for her beliefs. I believe gay marriage is wrong. Other people believe it should be allowed. Both sides have their reasons why. I just wish people would try to understand each other instead of bash the other side and actually listen to what the other side has to say. I listened and I'm glad I did. I'm tired of this issue, so I'm going to drop it. I just don't think that it's fair to say that just because of my religious beliefs, it's unreasonable to think this and that I'm hiding behind it. I believe in God, you may not believe in God, that's fine, but please respect my beliefs as I respect yours.

Speaker 1

Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009 1:23am

Okay, I know I am as tired as you to keep this conversation going and I think that the whole point has been lost in it. This is not about anyone's religion, or a lame beauty pageant, or even about Prop 8  for me and that is why I originally made the post. I'm bothered that we make laws allowing others to mold one another based off of their beliefs. Marriage is a symbol that some feel they need to express - I'm not even one of those people! My boyfriend and I have no interest in marriage. I wear a ring on my finger as a token of our love and he brags to all of his friends that I bought him a motorcycle - that's just us. I think this is ultimately my point - but it was totally lost - we are all attempting to express who we love in our own ways and if that means marriage then it shouldn't be hindered.

Speaker 3

Date: Monday, May 4, 2009 10:14pm

HELLO.  This is where this conversation makes me so sad. I know we have established multiple times that we all respect each others' views, even if we disagree with each other, on any given topic. It is hard to sit back and not share how one feels, when that person feels attacked. Unfortunately, some people do not agree with gay marriage because o what they learn from their religious teachings and this puts us at opposition with one another. Some people take this to the extreme and violence is therefore bred. Yes, the Bible is a canonical work which is held at quite a high esteem, but hopefully in our modern state we can take its teachings and interpret it to teach love, respect, and equality. To teach inequality would be to do an injustice to the Bible and to future generations; our children. Regardless of what the Bible says itself, religion in general does NOT teach hatred at any place in its writings. No religions have scripture which tells its constituents to hate. The hate emerges in the opposition. When one religion feels threatened by another, often fights break out and this is quite a sad aspect of our society as a whole. Many of us live in opposition with the other. I was reading a book recently which shared that, "The corollary of 'war is caused by religion' should be 'peace is the result of the absence of religion.' It has never been that simple." This scholar is right; it really is not that simple. Truthfully, before monotheism came into existence, about 3,000 years ago, the world was in a constant state of warfare. Amidst classical Greek and Roman societies, the world was also in war. It is hard to escape and it is not religion's fault. What we need to recognize most of all, I think, is that peace and war are not in fact opposites, war and creation are the true opposites. I know I have gone off onto a tangent, but I feel so deeply that we, and this includes myself, need to learn how to live civilly with one another. I am not naive, and I don't need everybody to be baking cakes of flowers and sunshine for one another, but how can we continue to go on like this? This is not a reflection of this small disagreement in a University class in 2009, it is a reflection of the society in which we live. It's Panopticism's untrustworthiness, it's Orientalism's marginalization, it's Feminism's assertion of the identity of the self, it's Postmodernism's inability to stick to one thought or idea to explain, well anything.  It is not enough to sit around, mind our own business, and wait for the world to change. Stephen Belber, who is a resident of Laramie Wyoming, where Matthew Shepherd was brutally murdered, explains that, "'Live and let live' is, at best, a load of crap. It basically boils down to: 'If I don't tell you I'm a fag, you won't beat the crap out of me'. What kind of solution is that?" Truthfully, I wish I could have found a more universal quote to explain of my ideas but this quote serves the purpose quite well. Insert any ethnic group, religion, race, or whatever in place of the word "fag." Trust me it applies. As stated, I do not care what anybody's personal views are, but don't spread hatred, and don't spread inequality. The quote sort of wraps up this argument, so I think I will leave it at that. Thank you for reading (if you got this far...)

Speaker 7

Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009 3:58pm

I thought your post was great! This quote was perfect: Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is one of the great things about the class; we do not have to agree with each other.  I always enjoy reading your blogs as well as your posts! Keep up the good work.

Speaker 8

Date: Monday, May 4, 2009 2:20am

You are not the only conservative in the class....Me too so we can get bashed together. I personally was proud of her answer and yes she stumbled a bit on her wording but why wouldn't you? Almost half of the audience and Californians disagree with her. Its unfair that she was robbed of her crown because the judge who happened to be gay didn't like her honesty. Since when is your opinion wrong? As for her answer, I agree on her beliefs, anyone can go ahead and bash me, I just brush it off and defend my standpoint. Bashing people for their individual beliefs is utter ignorance.