Considerations on “liberation struggles”

The 20th Century has been noted as the most violent in History. The majority of the deaths have been civilian incurred in the course of violent struggles to liberate their land from foreign rule, “imperialism”, “exploitation”, poverty, racism, and other assorted causes considered liberation struggles.

Yet, for all the protestations of desire to help the people, such struggles have been the most total and dehumanizing of all struggles. The struggle to free Russia from (alternatively) Capitalistic exploitation/Bolshevist terror during the Russian Civil War was extraordinarily brutal and even Russians considered themselves to be less valuable human beings than Westerners. The dehumanization and conflict of the Civil War made the brutality of Stalin’s deportations, executions, and the purges possible.

The liberation struggles in Latin America were also noted for brutality and especially those in Africa. The struggle against the brutal Belgian rule over Congo was more brutal that the very rule the proposed liberation from. The Vietminh(alternatively VietCong) was brutal in its treatment of government teachers, mayors and anyone associated with the government. The moderation that was claimed to exist did not reach 1975 when the Communist government imprisoned 300,000 people who had worked for the ROV government and their families. The aftermath was a disaster for the South.

The most accepted liberation struggle in recent history has been that of the ANC to replace the Afrikaner Government in Pretoria. Yet after the fall of Apartheid, the civil service has lost its professionalism, the most skilled are leaving the country (which remains the economic superpower of Africa), and the military was completely purged with the attendant loss of discipline and quality. This may be an acceptable price if democracy is the result but the farm murders (1,500+ since 1992), and devastating crime rates, and the system of racial preferences known as Affirmative Action are undermining the unitary state and the overwhelming loyal vote for the ANC makes political competition difficult.

Another but less volatile and more ridiculous is the struggle in the US over “White Privilege”. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton explain the relative failures of US Blacks on a legacy of slavery and justify antagonism and even incite violence to right it. The consequences can be immediate and tragic (the Crown Heights Pogrom) or slow and poisonous as the government of Mayor Marion Barry (D.C. is barely recovering).

The problem seems to be that when the Oppressor/Liberator dichotomy is used, other factors and gradations are ignored and one is forced into one camp or the other. Gratitude is also expected to the liberator and this allows the liberator to ignore the promptings of common sense and allows dangerous flights of fancy like Julius Nyerere in Tanzania.

A few reflections on Art

Art was traditionally both a means of communicating beauty and ideals. The classical statues were designed to be both adornment and a focus for displaying ideals. The art of the renaissance attempted to communicate both beauty and truth. The beauty could be communicated by the quality of paint, scenes, humans in the picture and other factors. The ideas could be communicated by various visual cues well understood by a yet largely illiterate society.

The means of modern art are those of free expression. The central theme is to let the whim of the moment take ahold and see if the product is considered artistic. The spirit of art is considered to reside in the individual that the elimination of external constraints will allow the freer expression thereof. The act of self-expression is hailed as a value in of itself and ideas have become a more important element of modern art while shape has become a new element in the non-idea side of art.

The difference in the philosophies of the ancient artists is stark in contrast to many trendy artists. Why is self-expression valuable in itself? Is it that the pressure to communicate is more pressing? If so, the ancient artists and those under totalitarian regimes must have been remarkably unimaginative and left with little to communicate. Rather it appears that an element of modern culture is the narcissism that what one desires to communicate is necessarily worth communicating. The idea of beauty has also disappeared from the trendy artists and leaves us with more ephemeral concepts like “expression” or “profundity” that communicates nothing in any easily understood visual language. The ideas communicated in much modern work like Diego de Rivera and his ilk are those of separation and revolution. We’ve been down that sorry road before. The Italian futurists also supported WWI as a revolutionary event. The goal of shocking the viewer has become an element of a modern art that seeks to overturn taboos as limits on self-expression.

Yet did not the ancient artists also know how to express themselves. Did they not have emotions and ideas as well? They saw horror and yet could paint beauty while modern artists declared that there could be no more beauty in response to the SHOAH. They accepted the use of standard mediums of expression in a manner that the viewer could understand the message without and explanation that the saltshaker juxtaposed to the aspirin bottle on the chessboard is symbolic of something none but the author has heard of.

Greetings (first post)

Good Day, this being my first time posting a Blog, may you forgive any possible clumsiness and errors on my part.

As per the title, you may accurately discern that my views are not widely shared. This is likely the result of vastly different backgrounds and experiences between I and whomever. In order to render this universally comprehensible, I will endeavor to explain my background while detailing my arguments.

That said, I am still rather different due to a certain perspective I bring to life. While but a young lad in Kindergarten, I asked myself what why should I do what all the individualists are doing? All individualists watch television and have more important things to do than read. Individualists care about themselves, what is so great about me? Individualists all rebel against authority and support idealism. Why should I support rebels who lead a comfortable sheltered life and have little experience of both the brutal and higher sides of life? Why is idealism so great when, as the Portuguese phrase puts it, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and idealism seems to cover up flaws in reasoning and to serve as an emotional salve?

In reaction to the behavior of individualists, I have chosen to be one of the few conformists in the country. I do not use obscenity unlike individualists who challenge arbitrary standards of politeness designed to show respect for other people’s humanity and the higher things in life and to make the grossness of life more bearable. I read to gain knowledge of the world, ideas and for pleasure instead of the highly individualist medium of television. I rely on the work and ideas of those before me in deciding philosophical matters instead of innovatively reconsidering the wheel. Unlike individualists, I treat everyone with a general standard of respect and base further respect based on their actions and ideas rather than as a member of a nearly immutable group or as a given.

Please leave comments and if free to do so, long explanations on your reactions to my postings.
My own postings may be somewhat intermittent due to a relatively unusual schedule.
Please form your conclusions AFTER reading the postings and digesting their contents.