The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The Most Overrated Books
Cosmic's revisionist history post is one of the reasons why I love the idea of primary sources and document based learning in the classroom. You don't necessarily have to consult a "historian" to verify the authenticity or potential bias in the link that Cosmic supplied. If the resources available to you on the internet are utilized in the appropriate manner, you can read the actual documents for yourselves.http://www.civilwar.org/education/his...
A collection of Confederate States of America documents available to view online from Yale Law...
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_me...
A similar collection of Confederate documents available online from the UNC website...
http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/confdocs...
There are plenty of government entities, historical foundations and colleges and universities throughout the north and south and throughout America that have historical document collections posted online. There is no need to be reading someone's op-ed piece and taking it as "gospel" or truth.
Mochaspresso wrote: "You don't necessarily have to consult a "historian" to verify the authenticity or potential bias in the link that Cosmic supplied."But a reputable (peer-reviewed, academically grounded, attributing primary source documents) historian is not too shabby, either. The sources you linked to are great, but they are an ocean of information that a lot of people don't have the time or inclination to swim in all day. It's a very human need for someone to gravitate toward a synthesis and distillation of available information. Consider that you posted three sources of rich knowledge about the American civil war but didn't offer any citation from those sources that would demonstrate Muratto's agenda driven axe grinding masquerading as pompous FAUX historical scholarship.
Just because historical revisionism and bad historical scholarship exists doesn't mean we all have to become historians. We just have to temper our human need for synthesis and distillation with a healthy skepticism about the sources.
Or not, if you have nothing but time on your hands. My point is that there is a happy medium and you don't have to chuck all published scholarship in favor of primary source and document based learning. You can also become more savvy about which scholarship you're paying attention to and tentatively assuming may be correct.
The Pew research on the Civil War Trust site looks solid. And illustrates my point. Because even though it's at only one remove from the primary documents, it's a pie-chart breakdown of what they said (i.e. a synthesis and distillation).
It's funny, I was going to point out that you can often count on human beings to hold in their heart a definite reason that motivates them and then put quite a different reason on paper (which in some situations is a perspective that a good historian would bring to primary source, original document based study), but it seems like in the days leading up to the American Civil War the secessionist states were bullish on slavery and not at all unabashed about saying so. Kind of puts a crimp on Muratto's theories.
Thanks for sharing these links. Might look at them later if I find the time.
Cosmic wrote: "With most of the tariff revenue collected in the South and then spent in the North, the South rightly felt exploited. At the time, 90% of the federal government's annual revenue came from these taxes on imports.""Many Americans do not understand this fact. A non-slave-owning Southern merchant angered over yet another proposed tariff act does not make a compelling scene in a movie. However, that would be closer to the original cause of the Civil War than any scene of slaves."
Thank you for stating what most history professors seem reluctant to mention. Labeling it the War to Free the Slaves allowed the Northern oligarchs to whitewash their corruption.
Monty J wrote: "Thank you for stating what most history professors seem reluctant to mention. Labeling it the War to Free the Slaves allowed the Northern oligarchs to whitewash their corruption."I think you should read the entire thread (assuming you haven't). Cosmic didn't say that but was quoting some historical revisionist idjit with a reactionary axe to grind. While the Northern oligarchs may have used emancipation as a way to cover a multitude of their sins, the person who stated this was also suggesting that slavery would have gone away of its own accord (and, I still think, the subtext of this guy's so called historical perspective is that in his eyes slavery wasn't all that much to fuss about in the first place).
Mark wrote: "Cosmic didn't say that but was quoting some historical revisionist idjit with a reactionary axe to grind."Actually I studied this in college, and the same point was emphasized. If the point of the war was to free the slaves, Lincoln would have freed them before the war.
And originally he freed just the slaves just in the South, in 1863, as a war tactic, hoping they would take up arms against their masters. But they did not.
Only at the end of the war did he free the Northern slaves because it would have hypocritical not to and it was a convenient way to dispense with the true reason behind the slaughter of so many human beings. Greed vs self-determinism. In the world of politics, benevolence seldom triumphs over greed.
It is not well publicized, but until the end of the war Lincoln's avowed solution was to repatriate all the slaves back to Africa. Ethnic cleansing. I believe he had a true change of heart, but only after the massive loss of life.
But the people who write the history that gets taught in grammar school don't mention or downplay many embarrassing facts.
Monty J wrote: "But the people who write the history that gets taught in grammar school don't mention or downplay many embarrassing facts."Yep. I get all of that and don't disagree (although I didn't study it in college).
But, simple folks wisdom is often good, two wrongs don't make a right.
Slavery DID exist and it WAS evil and without abolitionist's pressures and the war and how these two things and a series of other complicating factors finally motivated a "vacillating president" to emancipate, do you really thinks slavery would have just gone away?
Because that's the viewpoint I'm getting from some of the previous posts.
Monty J wrote:Actually I studied this in college, and the same point was emphasized.A southern college?
Mochaspresso wrote: "Cosmic's revisionist history post is one of the reasons why I love the idea of primary sources and document based learning in the classroom. You don't necessarily have to consult a "historian" to ..."I always enjoy getting an education for you guys. Thank you for the references. I have started reading them and they are very understandable. I don't think I need a historian to explain it to me.
War has many facets and the one that we are given is just one side. Usually the side that wins. I prefer to see the big picture. Even the contrary argument has some validity, even if it is to make people question what they been "taught".
I read the first reference that you posted. It seems that slavery was a state right and was suppose to be protected by the constitution of the United States. But the south discovered that their property was not respected as theirs and was being devalued. So the northern states no longer were willing to hold up their end of the constitution but expected the South to adhere to the government of the north that was hostile to them.
When they fought in the Mexican war they were not allowed to have a slave state...after sacrificing their sons.
I am not making judgments about slavery. I think there is a lot of slavery going on, that get unnoticed because it is called debt. And debt exploits the laborer. And this is what the documentary The Secrets Of OZ talks about.
He also has another slant about the civil war and banks and the southern politicians.
I think I read a bumper sticker that "truth was the first victim of war." Probably so.
Mark wrote: "Slavery DID exist and it WAS evil and without abolitionist's pressures and the war and how these two things and a series of other complicating factors finally motivated a "vacillating president" to emancipate, do you really thinks slavery would have just gone away?..."Well Mark I think this is the point that Monty just made:
"And originally he freed just the slaves just in the South, in 1863, as a war tactic, hoping they would take up arms against their masters. But they did not. "
You know the slave were businessmen. They worked to live and provide for their family within the unit of the plantation. This is what Anna Karenina is about. It doesn't matter if you have a family, a feudal system, slavery, a government, a contract between two parties, it must be equitable to both parties. Evidently it wasn't as bad as the north made it sound for the slaves, because they didn't take up arms. Now they are on a different kind of plantation, welfare. Historians will let us know how this made them freer and better off. I am not for slavery. I also, don't like the look of misery in our cities. Police brutality is what we have witnessed in our life time. Seems we could do better. What is a happy family? We are a human race after all.
Paul Martin wrote: "A southern college?"Of course. Do you think a Northern one would rat on the North?
Mark wrote: "...do you really thinks slavery would have just gone away?"In a word, yes, in due time. The pressures were building and would have become overwhelming. Along with slave-produced Caribbean sugar, Southern cotton was starting to be boycotted by abolitionists in England and the Continent.
But the bigotry behind slavery continued well into the 20th century as is so well-documented in this award-winning film: http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/p...
Nothing can erase the stink of Southern racial bigotry, and the peonage mentality it represents exists in pockets even today, and is evidenced by the GOP's steadfast refusal to approve an increase in the federal Minimum Wage.
The vulnerable will always be preyed upon by the unprincipled privileged few who strive for ever more power and control over the masses.
Monty J wrote: "And originally he freed just the slaves just in the South, in 1863, as a war tactic, hoping they would take up arms against their masters. But they did not. ..."Monty it was my understanding that the north did more than this. They put ignorant (African-Americans) in places of power over the white community. This set up the more racist sentiment in the South.
Way back when, my family owned slaves. When they were freed they stayed on the farm as share croppers. They had a relationship with the worker. Maybe in some cases better than the worker/ employer today. They lived with them.
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Tolstoy Anna Karenina.
It isn't just about family but also about workers and investors.
Monty J wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "A southern college?"Of course. Do you think a Northern one would rat on the North?"
No, I don't think it would, for the same reason that I think that a Southern one would.
Cosmic wrote: Evidently it wasn't as bad as the north made it sound for the slaves, because they didn't take up arms.
That's like saying that Sharia law isn't really that bad for women because we didn't see a woman uprising in support of the coalition forces (and later, the ISAF) when they invaded Afghanistan. Dubious, in other words.
Edit: I've changed my mind. It's not only dubious - it's ridiculous and ignorant. I'm sorry, but it really is.
Fijke wrote: The phrase implies that there was plenty of opportunity for this, which of course there wasn't, and it suggests that any group that is oppressed can quickly get organized to form some kind of united uprising. Mhm, agreed. That is the very nature of oppression - the most important thing is to strip the oppressed group of its courage and make it believe that there is indeed no hope at all. Once you've done that, the physical inability to rebel (due to lack of, say, arms and organization) is almost irrelevant, because those means are in themselves worthless if the oppressed group is in such a wretched state of mind that resistance is virtually impossible.
Mark wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "MarkRight. Between would be the wrong preposition."
Actually, I didn't mean it would be the wrong preposition (although I see your point, "among" would be correct). I meant that ..."
No, he/she confuses me as well. It´s not just you.
Cosmic wrote: "Well Mark I think this is the point that Monty just made."You know, you seem like a nice person and all and I'm glad you're part of the conversation, but I have a persistent sense that whatever wavelength you're on, it's a lot different from mine.
The other frustrating thing is, you're more than a touch sloppy with your written communication. Now, I know I'm kind of OCD about this and Philip has rightly called me out on giving people shit about typos before. I own that and I've tried to exercise more control in the area. But there are easily overlooked typos and gaffs of grammar and then there are ...
Well, consider one of the sentences you wrote in your post:
"You know the slave were businessmen.
Now, I'm left to wonder, is Cosmic trying to say that the slaves were businessmen and Cosmic just missed adding an s accidentally? I doubt that. You might flirt with crazy, but you don't seem to be married to it.
Soooo, I am left to assume that you left the word "owners" out of the sentence above ... so your general point is that "the slave owners were businessmen," I think ... but I'm not sure.
I politely suggest that if you feel you have points worth making in this forum, it is also worth your time to make those points clear and understandable. That might be a little more education than you want, but it's how I roll.
In the same vein, "Evidently it wasn't as bad as the north made it sound for the slaves, because they didn't take up arms." Who didn't take up arms? The North (some of them did, obviously, but some of them found a way out of military service)? Or the slaves? I don't know for sure. But I suspect you mean the slaves.
That's dangerous thinking. Africans were captured on their own soil, shipped to this country in such a horrible manner that sometimes two thirds of the prisoners died and then they were systemically oppressed and dehumanized. Saying slavery must not have been too bad because slaves didn't take up arms (in some cases, they did ... so go back and check some websites), is a little like saying that the Jews must have been weak and inferior because they didn't fight back against the final solution. It's victim blaming and wrongheaded bullshit--not adventurous thinking out of the box.
And it's the same kind of reasoning that could be and sometimes is used by the Wall Street fat cats who you seem to have a beef against. Can't you imagine some self righteous hedge fund manager saying, "well, apparently the bottom of the 99% enjoy their poverty, otherwise they'd climb to the top of the economic ladder like I have."? I hope that sounds absurd to you. But can you see how it's similar to " Evidently it wasn't as bad as the north made it sound for the slaves, because they didn't take up arms."?
And as I continue to read your post, I continue to be shocked, shocked, I say: " Now they are on a different kind of plantation, welfare."
They? They ... THEY?! Who the fuck are "THEY"? Black people? There is no homogeneous THEY, Cosmic. Some black people (and white people and Latino people and etc.) are on welfare. And some black people happen to be President of the fucking United States of America. There is not a website in the world big enough to educate you out of ignorance if you're framing these issues in terms of monolithic, homogeneous, you-can-make-assumptions-before-you-have-accurate-information THEYs.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Maybe instead of looking for elaborate coded schematics about WW II in CitR and being seduced by whatever conspiracy theory du jour you happen to see on some half-assed documentary, you could think a little bit before you type.
... then you drift off into statements about police brutality, ask what a happy family is and conclude that "we are a human race after all." Well, yes we are. Even "they" are when you get right down to it.
I. am. just. flabbergasted.
No Monty he did not free the slaves in the South in 1863 by the Emancipation Proclamation. He freed only those slaves who resided in those southern slave lands that were occupied by Unión troops.He didn´t free the slaves before the war because he knew that would be the catalyst for secession. Southerners were so paranoid that he would actually free them and that prompted them to sucede.
Had he freed the slaves in 1863 there would have been no need for Congress to have done that after the war by constitutional amendments.
Cosmic wrote: "Way back when, my family owned slaves. When they were freed they stayed on the farm as share croppers. They had a relationship with the worker. Maybe in some cases better than the worker/ employer today. They lived with them."Now this gem makes me think that (a) Cosmic is a, well, a cosmic sized leg puller and Cosmic is seriously pulling my (maybe "our") leg(s) or (b) high time for someone to see if their prescription needs to be adjusted.
I can´t figure out why there are so many grammatical errors in Cosmics posts either. I suspect he´s a "cosmic sized leg puller" as Mark suggests. Well so much fodder for the guffaws.
Paul Martin wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "A southern college?"Of course. Do you think a Northern one would rat on the North?"
No, I don't think it would, for the same reason that I think that a Southe..."
Actually Cosmic there were hundreds of slave revolts.
MarkYou have my wholehearted support on this issue. Cosmic needs to use better English. That´s an imperative and if Paul and the others come down on me as well, so be it. I will not back dwn either. This is a literatura discussion website and the very least we need to exercise good English usage.
I do take exception to the socio-political comments as well that have been made throughout the message thread and it´s good someone else has taken up the standard and riled up the forces, myself included.
And as far as the Jews are concerned, yes there were bloody revolts there as well, in which both German military were killed and Jewish concentration camp inmates. Read EXODUS
Geoffrey wrote: "No Monty he did not free the slaves in the South in 1863 by the Emancipation Proclamation. He freed only those slaves who resided in those southern slave lands that were occupied by Unión troops...."Per wikipedia, the proclamation: "..directed to all of the areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipa...
The proclamation was unenforceable in regions not under Union control, but it covered "all of the areas under rebellion." The intent was to encourage an uprising, which never occurred, probably because the slaves were, as Paul Martin said, "in a wretched state of mind," living in fear and with no real sense of hope.
"...there would have been no need for Congress to have done that after the war by constitutional amendments."
The amendments were to: a) free slaves in northern states and b) to make all of them citizens. The Proclamation had neglected to give them the right to vote, further evidence, perhaps, of Lincoln's reservations about black people.
In any event, the history books are always written by the winners of war, not the losers, and they will spin the story in their favor as much as they can get away with while the ugly truth of the South is still being told, e.g., Twelve Years a Slave and Slavery by Another Name.
There is shame on both sides of the Mason Dixon Line, but I doubt we will ever see a film that shows the fuller picture encompassing Northern economic exploitation of the South through the abuse of protective tariffs.
Cosmic may be sometimes inarticulate and sound "off the wall" in some areas, but he's not entirely wrong. At least he's engaged and speaks his mind and not sitting on the sidelines.
Cosmic wrote: Evidently it wasn't as bad as the north made it sound for the slaves, because they didn't take up arms. Now they are on a different kind of plantation, welfare. Historians will let us know how this made them freer and better off. I am not for slavery. I also, don't like the look of misery in our cities.Uh oh...did Cliven Bundy just join the discussion?
Fijke wrote: "they didn't take up arms' is kind of an unfortunate way of putting it. The phrase implies that there was plenty of opportunity for this, which of course there wasn't, and it suggests that any group that is oppressed can quickly get organized to form some kind of united uprising. This isn't always the case, though. A huge problem for a lot of oppressed groups is that really, we only see them as groups in retrospect when in reality they were never that organized and lived scattered across a country or area, isolated not only from those groups that were in power, but also from each other. ..."I agree with your point of view here. There is not set in stone absolutes about what people would do and could d when oppressed. I feel that people in the South are somewhat oppressed because of the stigma of being southern. They often can't or don't leave for a lot of reasons, and this keeps wages low, which also makes it hard to just get up and move. The Grapes of Wrath is a history of the "slavery of poverty".
Monty J wrote: "Nothing can erase the stink of Southern racial bigotry, and the peonage mentality it represents exists in pockets even today, and is evidenced by the GOP's steadfast refusal to approve an increase in the federal Minimum Wage.
The vulnerable will always be preyed upon by the unprincipled privileged few who strive for ever more power and control over the masses. .."
I think this is my point that we have oppression going on even today. We sell people into wars through treaties. We have raised the national debt so high it has become meaningless. It is unfathomable. What is the end game of all this debt?
I again am not for slavery, nor trying to justify the southerners position on slavery. I think it is important to understand all sides as this helps us to see the truth more clearly.
I used to wonder why the Russian people did resist Stalin...there were so many people and only one of him.
Anyway this was not the point of our discussion really.
The point was the book Out Of Africa which was mentioned In The Catcher in the Rye. Why do you think he mentioned this book and this author in a favored light over Somerset Maugham's book Of Human Bondage? What was the juxtapose between the two?
This paragraph is what was meaningful to me in light of this discussion and why I brought it up.
"I had six thousand acres of land, and had thus got much spare land besides the coffee-plantation. Part of the farm was native forest, and about one thousand acres were squatters' land, what they called shambas. The squatters are Natives, who with their families hold a few acres on a white man's farm, and in return have to work for him a certain number of days in the year. My squatters, I think, saw the relationship in a different light, for many of them were born on the farm, and their fathers before them, and they very likely regarded me as a sort of superior squatter on their estate." Out of Africa by Isak Dinesen page 9.
Yes you can poke all kinds of holes in my grammar and punctuation. I appreciate the help. I don't pretend to know anything and am just a learner at heart. So you all are my teachers, thank you!
Mark wrote: "And it's the same kind of reasoning that could be and sometimes is used by the Wall Street fat cats who you seem to have a beef against. Can't you imagine some self righteous hedge fund manager saying, "well, apparently the bottom of the 99% enjoy their poverty, otherwise they'd climb to the top of the economic ladder like I have."? I hope that sounds absurd to you. But can you see how it's similar to " Evidently it wasn't as bad as the north made it sound for the slaves, because they didn't take up arms."?..."
I totally imagine this. I am not saying that it is the slaves fault for being slaves. It is more complex than that. But is it my fault they keep raising the national debt and saying I need to be responsible for it? And who are "they". They get voted in and out and the debt lives on and on. It doesn't sleep, it doesn't get sick, it is nearly timeless since there isn't enough money in circulation to pay off this debt. So doesn't this make us in fact debt slaves? If we are Americans? And wasn't it this kind of thing that the American Revolution was all about? Did we not see the oppression of England but we do not recognize the squeeze that we endure as our money becomes more,and more worthless. What are we working for? A certain level on the plantation? (See comment 1616 quote of Out of Africa).
Cosmic wrote: "Mark wrote: "And it's the same kind of reasoning that could be and sometimes is used by the Wall Street fat cats who you seem to have a beef against. Can't you imagine some self righteous hedge fun..."Cosmic wrote: "I used to wonder why the Russian people did resist Stalin...there were so many people and only one of him.
Anyway this was not the point of our discussion really."
Not only am I OCD about typos, I'm a closure freak. This is that motivates me to say, done with ya', Cosmic. Not taking the bait anymore. You've got some very weird sort of passive-aggressive bullshit going on.
Sometimes my Goodreads' back and forths with people are exhilarating exchanges, sometimes they become flogging the dead horse and I'm as unwilling as my dance partner is to put down the whip ... but this is something new. It's me trying to have an exchange and you coming back with yet another circle in an ever-widening circle of bizarre and vague bullshit, misdirection and unanswerable questions.
To quote William Seward Burroughs, "Do not proffer sympathy to the mentally ill, it is a bottomless pit. Tell them firmly, 'I am not paid to listen to this drivel, you're a terminal fool!' Or else they'll make you as crazy as they are."
If you do, indeed, have those kinds of misfortunes, I wish you well in dealing with them. I wish you well in your life's adventure. But I'm done talking with you. I've got better things to do with my time.
On my To Read shelf: Frances Anne Kemble's 'Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation in 1838-1839.' I've read the introduction, which includes her 'Picture of Slavery.' Kemble was an English actress who lived on her Southern husband's plantation. Her writing is clear, detailed, compelling, and makes plain that there is nothing ambiguous or complex about slavery; it was simply a vile, brutalizing, dehumanizing institution and can't be compared to debt or wage slavery. Though I agree that the latter is awful, no employer (in this country, at present) is likely to set bloodhounds after a person who runs away from their job, beat them half to death if they catch them, and sell them 'down-river.' At any rate, Kemble's husband divorced her because she refused to conceal her thoughts and feelings about slavery.
I have to say that I won't jump on anyone over a few typos; some keyboards seem to have a will of their own.
Kallie wrote: "On my To Read shelf: Frances Anne Kemble's 'Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation in 1838-1839.' I've read the introduction, which includes her 'Picture of Slavery.' Kemble was an Engl..."I believe this is the reason that John Taylor Gatto said in The Ultimate History Lesson that slavery was on its way out. It was not popular with the slave owner's wives. So many of the slave women were being sexually abuse and having children with the slave owners.
Slavery was always an offensive and despicable part of our American History. Not just in the South but in the north as well. Not just "those people" but even some of our Presidents owned slaves. It really was terrible.
I did not mean to minimize it by comparing it to a debt slaves. It is different.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bon...
I have to admit that the discussion here has made me question a lot of assumptions and I have learned a lot. I have enjoyed the dialogue. It has been informative. I hope others here have also learned something from the discussion.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Cosmic's revisionist history post is one of the reasons why I love the idea of primary sources and document based learning in the classroom. You don't necessarily have to consult a "historian" to ..."I sometimes rely on primary sources too. They are often as vivid as the best novels. Thanks for these links, Mochaspresso.
CosmicI do believe the federal government has always been in debt. It´s just a matter of degree, and yes, we are now up in our eyeballs in debt. But I do believe we were higher in debt during WWII. I don´t have the facts for that but the combined war machine and huge government spending during the Depression put us in a huge debt.
Debt and freedom are not be equated. It´s callous to suggest that a black slaves loss of personal freedom can be equated to our present debt.
I´ve just checked Wikipedia for the history of US national debt. Yes, we´ve always had debt with the exception of the mid 1830´s. The national debt ballooned to its peak during Harry Truman´s first administration then fell drastically in his second. To give you some more statistics about national debt-it is currently about 80% of GDP. Many economists believe that as it reaches 90% it will take its toll on national economic growth. Currently, the federal debt amounts to approximately 16,000 per capita. Greece´s when its economy collapsed was 42,000. Most countries in the world presently opérate in the red. We don´t have to guess who´s operating in the black.
Geoffrey wrote: "That´s an imperative and if Paul and the others come down on me as well, so be it.I take no pleasure in pointing out typos. English isn't my first language, and I'm sure I make plenty of mistakes. Part of the reason I'm on here is to improve/maintain my English, so constructive criticism would actually be greatly appreciated
In general, I think it's petty jab to berate someone for their grammatical errors, but when discussing somewhat sensible things such as slavery, racism, gender, etc, I have to agree with Mark - one should at least put some effort into making one's points clear, in order to prevent misunderstandings of, errm, cosmic proportions.
Paul Martin wrote: "take no pleasure.Oh, I never took any pleasure out of it (and I've stopped ... I think). I had difficulty preventing myself from doing it. That's the O and the C in OCD.
You write very articulately in the English language for it not being your native tongue. It's an unfortunate thing (among many) about the American public education system that it really doesn't take second language skills seriously.
Hmmm...your profile says you like fantasy, Christian apologetics, and epic poetry...seems like Paradise Lost would be an all-time favorite. What gives?
Actually, it's pretty good till Milton gets to Adam. Then it gets booooring. I'm in pretty good company. Samuel Johnson would have approved of my list, ("fantasy, Christian apologetics, and epic poetry") and he said of Paradise Lost: "No man ever wished it longer."
I agree...that creation thing was going great until God made man.
Mark wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "take no pleasure.Oh, I never took any pleasure out of it (and I've stopped ... I think). I had difficulty preventing myself from doing it. That's the O and the C in OCD.
You ..."
Had Cosmic related that he is not a native speaker, I would have given him some slack but that wasn´t ever stated. None of my students are native speakers but considering the nature of his grammatical errors, there was no match to the ones my students make.
It is my job to correct my students when they do make grammatical errors, after all I am a teacher. Most of the better English teachers here will do the same. It is important for our students to know how to express themselves accurately. That is the teacher´s function.
I was thinking about the book The Jungle when I was comparing slavery with a debt slave. Upton Sinclair uses a horse, or beast of burden to portray this. Unfortunately I got mixed up and thought he had compared it to slavery, because when Jurgis talks to the farmer he ask the farmer "When you get through working your horses this fall, will you turn them out in the snow?" (Jurgis was beginning to think for himself nowadays.)" This made me think about how the slave owners had to take care of the slaves even in the winter. Even in a economic downturn. Even when it didn't rain and there was a drought. He not only had to take care of the slave but also his family. He had to house them as well. The slave owners considered the slaves they had as property. (This doesn't mean I think slavery is good, or that I am trying to minimize how awful it is. I hate slavery in all its forms. I am just talking about history, not an opinion on something that is too huge in scope for me to comprehend. I love freedom in all of its ways that it can be expressed with respect of others.)I just hadn't seen the advantages of being a laborer compared to a farmer's horse before and it gave me a different perspective. It was used, I think to create the humiliation that they felt trying to reach for the "gold ring" and failing. I know The Catcher In The Rye also uses the horse as a motif, so I think this is relevant to our discussion. I wonder if there are other books that you could recommend that share the horse as a symbol or some of the same themes?
I had never thought of a mortgage as "rent" till I read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. The word mortgage is a French Law term meaning "death pledge", meaning that the pledge ends (dies) when either the obligation is fulfilled or the property is taken through foreclosure.[1]. I was surprised that there had been a housing bubble before and that we were just seeing history, that Sinclair wrote about, repeat itself.
Below are just some colorful ways that Sinclair uses the horse to describe the people in his story. Also below is part of the text between Jurgis and the farmer.
"The room is about thirty feet square, with whitewashed walls, bare save for a calendar, a picture of a race horse, and a family tree in a gilded frame. "
" Marija is short, but powerful in build. She works in a canning factory, and all day long she handles cans of beef that weigh fourteen pounds. She has a broad Slavic face, with prominent red cheeks. When she opens her mouth, it is tragical, but you cannot help thinking of a horse. "
"Trimming beef off the bones by the hundred-weight, while standing up from early morning till late at night, with heavy boots on and the floor always damp and full of puddles, liable to be thrown out of work indefinitely because of a slackening in the trade, liable again to be kept overtime in rush seasons, and be worked till she trembled in every nerve and lost her grip on her slimy knife, and gave herself a poisoned wound—that was the new life that unfolded itself before Marija. But because Marija was a human horse she merely laughed and went at it; it would enable her to pay her board again, and keep the family going. "
"So Jurgis went in, and sat down at the table with the farmer's wife and half a dozen children. It was a bountiful meal—there were baked beans and mashed potatoes and asparagus chopped and stewed, and a dish of strawberries, and great, thick slices of bread, and a pitcher of milk. Jurgis had not had such a feast since his wedding day, and he made a mighty effort to put in his twenty cents' worth.
They were all of them too hungry to talk; but afterward they sat upon the steps and smoked, and the farmer questioned his guest. When Jurgis had explained that he was a workingman from Chicago, and that he did not know just whither he was bound, the other said, "Why don't you stay here and work for me?"
"I'm not looking for work just now," Jurgis answered.
"I'll pay ye good," said the other, eying his big form—"a dollar a day and board ye. Help's terrible scarce round here."
"Is that winter as well as summer?" Jurgis demanded quickly.
"N—no," said the farmer; "I couldn't keep ye after November—I ain't got a big enough place for that."
"I see," said the other, "that's what I thought. When you get through working your horses this fall, will you turn them out in the snow?" (Jurgis was beginning to think for himself nowadays.)
"It ain't quite the same," the farmer answered, seeing the point. "There ought to be work a strong fellow like you can find to do, in the cities, or some place, in the winter time."
"Yes," said Jurgis, "that's what they all think; and so they crowd into the cities, and when they have to beg or steal to live, then people ask 'em why they don't go into the country, where help is scarce." The farmer meditated awhile."
How about when your money's gone?" he inquired, finally. "You'll have to, then, won't you?"
"Wait till she's gone," said Jurgis; "then I'll see."
The so-called "housing bubble" in the JUNGLE is not a housing bubble at all. It was merely a scam. Home developers built worker housing out of cheap materials that would not last 5 years and asked a horrendous down payment, clearing out all the savings of the buyers, mostly unskilled workers. Many of the contracts had fine print that jeopardized the ownership. Any late payments and the building would be repossessed and sold to another sucker for the down payments. These developers had no intent to see the buyers keep their homes as there was continual turnover from fleeced buyers, each one handing over a huge down payment to the developers.This was similar to the development that Hillary represented as a lawyer. She even bought one of the condominiums, sold it and when the new owner defaulted, she came to her senses and realized that it was a scam and returned the down payment to the second owners. Very noble of her.
These two examples are not housing bubbles. Housing bubbles occur when the Price of homes skyrocket on speculation, the market crashes bringing down the national economy with it. This did not happen in Chicago with the meatpackers in 1905(Upton Sinclairs story).
Cosmic wrote: "I was thinking about the book The Jungle when I was comparing slavery with a debt slave. Upton Sinclair uses a horse, or beast of burden to portray this. Unfortunately I got mixed up and thought ..."We need an Upton Sinclair to write about working conditions now. I wonder if people would respond to muckraking fiction as they did then. The last such novel that I read was Viramontes' 'Under the Feet of Jesus,' about migrant workers.
I loved Catcher in the Rye when I was a teenager, but agree about he other books. Ulysses?> I did not get past first 60 pages, bored to death.. And yet, my friends think I am the one reading long boring books! I read Satanic Verses twice and that is not an easy read!
Lucie
Lucie
Is there not a new list of the classics that is worth reading?Is there not new authors and stories to retell the ageless themes of struggle, moral dilemma, conflict, discrimination, etc.
Is change so difficult because of those parents and schools and censorship which sends this discussion in a whole different direction?
The lists seem boring at first glance and I think of newer stories that bring dilemmas, conflict, etc.
I think some of the past Booker winners, definitelly- Margaret ATtwood's Blind ASsasin
Rushdie's Midnight Children,
Pat Barker's Regeneration Trilogy. Many more
Rushdie's Midnight Children,
Pat Barker's Regeneration Trilogy. Many more
Maybe The Brief and Wondrouls Life of Oscar Wao
Jane wrote: "Is there not a new list of the classics that is worth reading?"This is an interesting question, Jane. Thanks for asking it.
First of all, the notion of "classics" connotes, I think, books that have managed to sustain a wide readership and critical acclaim of some sort (perhaps being embraced by academia is one form of that) for a set period of time (a decade? maybe longer?).
The idea of an "instant classic" is an oxymoron spawned by advertising copywriters (second only to politicians, perhaps, when it comes to beating up the sanctity of the English language and then throwing it down all sorts of Orwellian pits), so while there may be new ones ... I'd be a little wary of a list of 2013's classics.
Some tentative suggestions:
Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace (on my "to read" list). This would be to heavy for all but the most ambitious high school student readers, but not for college students.
Michael Chabon has made a name for himself in the aughts. The Mysteries of Pittsburgh takes faltering steps as one expects a first novel to, I suppose. I recently read and really enjoyed Wonder Boys. Quite some time ago I read and thoroughly enjoyed The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, for which Chabon was awarded the Pulitzer for Fiction in 2001.
It would be great to hear from some of the other regulars, so to speak, on this list about their take on your question. What are the "new classics"?
I let someone bring up Cormac McCarthy because ... well, I just can't bring myself to do it. :)
Yes Cormac McCarthy- The Road probably is a classic...
I brought him up!
Brief and Wondrous LIfe of Oscar Wao- Junot Diaz!
Lucie
I brought him up!
Brief and Wondrous LIfe of Oscar Wao- Junot Diaz!
Lucie
Lucie wrote: "Yes Cormac McCarthy- The Road probably is a classic...I brought him up!
Brief and Wondrous LIfe of Oscar Wao- Junot Diaz!"
Glad you enjoy him and glad you brought him up. He's definitely not my cup of tea
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
High Fidelity (other topics)
Less Than Zero (other topics)
Adam Bede (other topics)
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)
More...
George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Allan Bloom (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
War and Peace (other topics)High Fidelity (other topics)
Less Than Zero (other topics)
Adam Bede (other topics)
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Leo Tolstoy (other topics)George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Allan Bloom (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
More...
I suspect Cosmic was mislead in Cosmic's apparent zeal to find underlying and not often discussed patterns. I don't know for sure but I suspect Holly is a tea party flavored pseudo-intellectual who might think Ted Nugent is a crackerjack historian, too.
Excellent post, Petergiaquinta!