View Single Post
Old 04-08-2006, 09:25 AM   #122
sleeper
Minion of Satan
 
sleeper's Avatar
 
Posts: 8,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lie
Well, possibly many Germans do feel suspicious of their own genetics, but I think it's pretty silly to focus on there being an actual genetic “flaw” in Germans that makes them predisposed to the kind of behavior that contributed to the Holocaust. Not even to wonder, but just to focus and internalize. I realize you're just saying this is something people talk about, and I can definitely understand how that would be a particular obsession, but I think it's up to individual people to overcome that sort of pressure and live their lives regardless. I think putting that kind of concern and extra effort into guilt and worry is just the flip side of self-victimization and revenge, and they all lead to the same place.




I don't know where they intersect, but people are obviously more than culture. It's not just that one family is only a small part of history, it's than people in themselves transcend culture by not fitting into the big picture in an obvious way. Of course looking at things altogether it has to add up somewhere, but looking at history is looking at a summary of events in historical terms, not human ones. So I guess I don't draw an actual line there. I'm interested in historical events because I'm interested in history and humanity, and I'm interested in how people my family reacted to or came out of those events because those things had an indirect effect on me. I have to re-interpret history through the lives of people who have affected me to apply it practically. I don't internalize the stuff directly.




That's just it. I think being human and yourself is the most important thing, and I think people lose that very quickly through giving up parts of their identification to other things. I don't think that identifying yourself through politics, marriage, religion, etc., is an inherently bad thing at all. For some people those things are really positive. I just think it's important for a person to make those things work for them instead of vice versa. The minute that the needs of your party, country, family, church, etc., transcend your own needs as a human being, and you are no longer using those things for your own benefit but they are controlling you without question, there is potential for a lot of bad shit to go down. I honestly think that people cannot be truly destructive to the world and people around them without first being self-destructive.

As for what things I personally attach myself to, it's varied my entire life. As precious as it may sound, I identify mostly as a person who is curious and hungry to see the world from as many perspectives as possible and then attempt to preserve and create something from that. In other words, I identify with writers and artists of various kinds I admire, and with people who like to play things in different contexts, or people who have been forced to define their own surroundings, way more than I do with people who share my genetics, culture, political views, “background,” etc. Basically I think people mainly identify with those who are in a similar situation to them, and it just so happens that I wasn't raised to have a particular solidarity with anything simply defined the way a lot of people are, so I end up more identifying with other people who didn't have that either. That might sound pretentious as hell but it's the only way I know how to put it.




Well, yeah, they do define me, but in a way that “green” defines a tree. You can say I'm Korean, and that's true. You can also say I'm Irish, but I'm like less than 10% Irish, so at that point it gets kind of silly, and where do you draw the line? It's like the one-drop rule. It's like e-prime. I don't think people should actually talk like that, saying “a characteristic of that tree is greenness” but at the same time you have to be aware that the only truly closed, balanced statement you can make about yourself is “I am me.” Everything else is open to speculation and its own definition. I'm not just a sum of my parts, I'm more importantly defined by how I react to those parts, and that element of reaction and that kind of ability to self-define is a purely human characteristic which I think too often gets lost among larger causes. What people are actively is much more important than what they are passively, and yet, those passive elements ARE important and significant because they are opportunities for active definition to present themselves, and how you use them is entirely up to you. “Korean” or “from the Midwest” or “female” are sort of launching pads for me rather than pure stationary elements.

Like I sometimes wonder if my being largely Korean and German has anything to do with me being kind of an anxious and obsessive person. And I can say that and make fun of myself and talk about it all while really wondering if it's genetic or something. And I know that I'm genetically prone to cavities but I can either brush and floss and have beautiful teeth or neglect that and end up with a rotting stinking mouth full of puss and blood like the British and eating soft foods, but really it's the end result that matters, so while I may be inclined to obsess, I can obsess over the results rather than the predisposition (WHICH DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS INTERESTING, BUT YOU GET MY POINT, I MEAN THAT IS MY POINT.)




HA, I would imagine.



Actually my grandfather (who by the way is a full-blooded German but from a family that has been in the United States since the days the original Protestants set up camp) did that (shortly before he began having symptoms of Alzheimer's, if that says anything). There is in a way something sick about it but I always enjoyed looking at it because it's actually pretty interesting.

So really I think developing an interest or curiosity regarding history and race and culture even to the point of minor obsession and offensiveness to other people (like Julio) can be fine, but it's not okay to internalize it directly or expect other people to do the same. Whew, that was long.

ok i didnt mean flaw like they have some "holocaust gene" because its more than just any one thing, but id imagine if i were german id be left wondering just why it happened so, why it was germans that did it. i mean it really is soemthing entirely unprecedented, its so much more notable than the other millions of massacres in history by other peoples, and such a monumental event cant really be just ignored or have its causes relegated to some indiscriminate social or political force or another. its because its so extraordinary that this kind of thinking is partly justified. but at the same time, ok, its a bit of shaky example because the vast majority of the public had no idea it even existed let alone participated in it, the camps were run by very few (a disproportionate percentage of the staff there were austrain actually (as was hitler), so id be more worried if i were austrian), and the widespread persecution of jews that coloured that whole period was hardly something unique to germans or unique at all. but still, i think theres this idea that this event, or any significant event from some peoples history, kind of functions as evidence of yourself and your nature. that can only hold so much weight and its clearly dangerous to put too much emphasis on some perceived character or disposition thats related to a peoples, but its not totally irrelevant in itself. whether its useful for thought is another question.

but, holy shit holy shit, again, look at italy. i mean theyve been consistently pathetic in everything theyve done since the renaissance. look at this: during WWII the italian army was the most miserable force on the planet (they only beat the ethiopians by using illegal chemical weapons) as im sure you know. a huge reason for this was this: practically every single general or official or even lowly bureaucrat puffed up their chests and exaggerated if not outright lied left and right about everything possible. the general would, because of this ego and vainglory and despite having a terribly insubstantial force, refuse to ask for more reserves and tell mussolini in flowering terms how he'll crush the enemy in the upcoming battle. i mean that IS italian. generalization or not, that kind of behaviour is so, so typically italian, and it is so widespread and severe and consistent across generations that its impossible to not take it as evidence (so to speak) as to what it means to be italian, as to who "italians" are (i dont think something like that can ever adequately be explained by culture). again, sure, its a slippery slope taking up this kind of thought but thats kind of apart from the question now, which is just if its right in principle


i think a good way of posing this issue is like this: then why do people take offense when you talk about something bad from their race's history? why are so many japanese so reticent to acknowledge their own crimes during WWII? maybe thats a bad example, because there would have to be ethnic japanese that live outside the country that also feel that way for it to work, but lets assume those people exist. im just trying to illustrate that feelings of relatedness exist often in spite of what you consciously think or know about it. what if i talked about how easily the koreans were bowled over by the japanese and what lousy comfort women they provided (broke down to mush after only 3 rapes!) and whatever offensive comments about koreans, would you take any offense whatsoever? on any level? if so, thats evidence of some kind of connection i think, and that connection works both ways


but could they ever fully transcend?
yeah but theyre related. whether its in historical terms or not, it still has the ability to speak to human element of it, and i think it generally does


ok. this kind of has shifted to the other question, which is not if its right in principle but if its at all something useful, productive, healthy, or just otherwise right to consciously think about and place emphasis on. with that question i fully agree that its not, and youre right to say that this touches on broader problems with identification. youre right to have that kind of pragmatic, utilitarian viewpoint of it. i do think in an ideal world everyone would identify most with just being human. or at least not let other identifications ever take that over or infringe on it
ill ignore the libertarian subtext to that "control" comment and just move on

ive thought about it and i dont know precisely what you mean when you say they have to first be self destructive. what do you precisely mean?


yeah thats a good point and i agree. i always used to pretty much totally ignore race and fully identify myself with certain ideas or practical philosophies or people (artists or otherwise) who i felt in some way similar to. yes, you only can identify with something when theres something common, some kind of shared ground, and i emphatically agree that its so much more healthy to do that towards individuals as opposed to this obscured, abstract notion of "race"


FUCK i finished writing this whole thing from this point on that addressed everything else in this post and firefox just crashed. when im making long posts i save everything periodically to notepad so i still have everythign above this. ugh. now im in a horrible position. im stuck between manually trying to repeat what i think i said, which always leads to shit results, or i can reapproach it all, which is tiresome after already just having done so. ill do bit of both i think, excuse me if i fail



fuck i feel like a tool just repeating things i said spontaneously. i dont know how to do this. i made fun of you for being from the midwest at one point but how would i ever manage to include that in this post in a similar way? i couldnt do it. this is hell

oh look at that, i just did include it. meta

with regards to those last two big paragraphs i basically said that i agree with it all. i started off saying that i still think those things can define you, but only in specific ways and to a specific degree. and something about how people tend to be unable to handle such an idea end up placing an amount of significance and weight on that that is not at all commensurate with its actual value. oh, and that i agree that its always more important to define yourself rather than be defined. and i agreed with your launching pad analogy. i said something like "my pad is certainly distinct from yours but neither of us are shackled to t**** or something purple like that. basically i agreed with everything. i would say that what you said just nicely matched what i believe but it would be more accurate to say that it kind of peeled away some layers and helped me see what i believe, if you get what im saying. i agreed with it but it also actively accomplished something instead of just totally reflecting. new information

fuck this im out

 
sleeper is offline