Still busy, another parable
In the film Braveheart, the Mel Gibson character hardly ever stops talking about "freedom" and, of course, iconically inspires his brave clansmen to charge into battle screaming "FREEDOM!" at the top of their lungs. But in the context of the film, he's clearly being totally hypocritical. He doesn't actually propose anything of the sort - the system of government he's in favour of is another autocratic monarchy, just with him in charge.
Isn't it interesting a) that nobody seems to spot this (just as in A Few Good Men, surprisingly few critics noticed that despite the contention of the Jack Nicholson character in his big speech, it's very obviously that you do not "save lives" or "guard people while they sleep" by beating your own recruits to death for minor disciplinary infractions). And b), that as proved by the film's ticket sales and continuing popularity, the concept of "freedom" embodied in this film (ie, xenophobic authoritarian power-worship) seemed to resonate so deeply across the English-speaking world, which when thinking with its brain rather than its blood, is quite clear that "freedom" means something very different indeed.
More on today's startling events in the financial markets coming never (or at least, not till I write my memoirs). Project Africa restarts soon as I crack open The Kapelwa Musonda Files
Update: Another parable, of sorts, at Chris Brooke's site. How the disastrous design flaws of the Daleks, can show us that disability is a socially constructed concept rather than a real one (Update: Matt McGrattan think it doesn't, see comments). (thanks to Charlie in my comments on that post for the key insight).
300 is an even better example than Braveheart.
ReplyDeleteMore on today's startling events in the financial markets coming never
ReplyDeleteThis is profoundly disappointing to me. All week I have been thinking: "Where's dsquared when you need him?" Oh well.
Is there something similar going on in The Matrix? We don't want tyranny, we want... theocracy!
Next time I'm in Paris I'll buy you a pint and tell you all about, but there's quite a lot of money involved in this situation, and I really don't like the practice of "talking one's book".
ReplyDeleteWe don't want tyranny, we want... theocracy!
ReplyDelete¡Vivan las caenas!
"More on today's startling events in the financial markets coming never"
ReplyDeleteOh come on dsquared... what's the point of pugnacious economic analysis if you don't analyse this? You can write the memoirs later.
At least explain to us Americans if we're all just regular fucked, or completely fucked.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't actually propose anything of the sort - the system of government he's in favour of is another autocratic monarchy, just with him in charge.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't the whole thing, though, is it? In the first place, there are genuinely-felt concepts of national (as opposed to personal or political) freedom which are widely recognised both in the contemporary world and the historical one, and in this context, having your local man as the autocrat rather than a conquerer might very well be perceived - and experienced - as a species of freedom.
I'd like to claim that from the point of view of the serf, it made no difference whatsoever, but that's probably not quite true enough.
Now one can argue about what nationhood meant in thirteenth-century Scotland, to which one answer would be something less than it does today but something more than it did a thousand years previously. And besides, there's quite a link between wishing to be independent as a nation and wishing to be free of outside rule as a people, or a tribe. One of the consequences of the Norman Conquest, for instance, was that large numbers of Anglo-Saxon nobles (to use an inaccurate term) found themselves subordinated to incomers where they had previously been locally powerful. They would certainly have experienced this process as a loss of freedom, though whether they would have used the word, I am not sure.
In the first place, there are genuinely-felt concepts of national (as opposed to personal or political) freedom which are widely recognised both in the contemporary world and the historical one
ReplyDeleteI'm glad we've got you around to explain these things Justin, otherwise we might have to approach them using parables ;-)
I've added a bit more on the Dalek thing over at the Stoa...
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem with parables, y'see, they're open to multiple (indeed infinite) interpretation. It's my view that God, for instance, wasn't that smart to employ so many.
ReplyDeletejust as in A Few Good Men, surprisingly few critics noticed that despite the contention of the Jack Nicholson character in his big speech, it's very obviously that you do not "save lives" or "guard people while they sleep" by beating your own recruits to death for minor disciplinary infractions
ReplyDeleteBut unlike William Wallace, Col Jessup was the Bad Guy(TM). And the script explicitly states his contention was wrong in the penultimate lines of the movie with the 'we were supposed to fight for people who can't fight for themselves; we were supposed to fight for Willy."
If you bring in the social model of disability you could submit it to Disability and Society (journal). I mean you *could*, not that I *would*
ReplyDelete