car bruléeMonday, November 7. 2005Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
as you know, i have an armchair interest in the near-revolution of mai 1968. (in fact, the revolutions around the world that year -- seems to have been a busy year!) we have been pondering and murmuring about events there, not least of all cuz we think of you guys there.
megan and i rented the battle of algiers ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/ ) about a year ago, somewhat hoping to understand one more chunk of history. i dont know if it worked, but its well worth a viewing. its probably not available presently in france, i would guess. -grin- i also find it frustrating/confusing how things are targeted during (for lack of a better word) revolts. cars, starbucks, etc. some things are obviously symbols (starbucks). there is probably a wealth of information about the psychologie of the power of symbols (cross-reference: steev, heh), so in some way, this makes sense to me. i guess you could even argue that a car is a symbol -- if its a nice car (even if its a poor person in debt because of it); however, i think cars fall more into what i would call the "language" category. during a revolt (or whatever), you speak using a different vocabulary. a mass of people says "we are really serious". hurled objects means "pay attention". burning cars means "do not forget this". or something along these lines; you get the idea. i dont think these things are necessarily illogical or even random, but rather some sorta animal vocabulary. then again, i dont really know how this would all fit in with, um, uninspired vandalism (see: devils night in detroit). i guess, though, that this would also be frustration reaching a point where words, having no where to go most likely, turn into other language. i could go on, about my undecided thoughts on property damage, etc; but i will spare the greater world wide web. i just hope that some constructive outcome can be gleaned from all this.
phrasing it in terms of language is right on, i think. there was a great show on prime time tv here tonight with a moderated discussion of about ten politicians, teachers, writers, and sociologists. they had video clips periodically giving background on the subtopic to be discussed next. the stuff goes back a long way, and burning cars is a normal weekly occurrence actually. but unlike a show you'd see even on PBS, there was little video of burning and violence, but only very well presented discussion by everyone there. i was amazed. it was ten rational adults interested in figuring out the topic handling themselves gracefully. i guess i'm not used to seeing adult behavior on tv. related: i didn't understand most of it, but partly they talked about how the rioters are not politicians. they don't have that clout or language. these actions are the best way they can think of to express themselves. the counterargument came that children don't instinctively know how to express themselves "properly" either and have to be taught what's acceptable in society and what isn't. tantrums aren't condoned even though kids are genuine about their feelings. maybe a good way to phrase it is as an explanation but not an excuse.
Add Comment
|
Recent Entries
QuicksearchCategories |