Krog’s Predicament with truth in “Country of my Skull” and its connection with the word lie, demonstrates similar idea to Coetzee’s novel disgrace through both of their contexts, connection of horrific events and both of their unique connections with truth, lies and the overall idea of uncommunicable communication.

Namely the use of truth in Krogs work on page 50 demonstrates the difficulty of the word and further the ease of using its synonym of lie. “I hesitate at the word; I am not used to using it. Even when I type it, it ends up as either turth or trth. I have never bedded that word in a poem. I prefer the word lie” (Krog 50).  In contrast to this, when Lurie in Disgrace is placed before a hearing, he admits to what he has done however refuses to show guilt for his actions, in a way of refusing to lie. However later on, following his daughters refusal to report the rape, we can see in her, his stubbornness and refusal to admit guilt publicly. As we see this we can also witness his admission of guilt. not as much through his own words but those spoken around him and his own emotions.

This further relates to Krogs novel as we see the difficulty faced in communicating. Furthermore the trauma Lurie and his daughter experienced seems to not be able to be put into words. This, is similar to the difficulty of communicating the trauma shown on page 57 in Krog’s novel. Krog states that “to witness that cry was to witness the destruction of language” (Krog 57), showing how words are not always needed to express the pain that has occrued, whether the pain the victim has felt or the pain someone has caused. Furthermore the idea that pain is connected to truth, equally shows through in both. in Krog, only through expressing the pain, whether in words or otherwise, the victims can then truly express what happened. Similarly, Lurie only truly acknowledges his guilt and truth of what he did after the rape of his daughter. 

As a child, many of the stories we read and watch are ones represented by different animals. In Max and Ruby they are sibling bunnies living near their grandmother, Stuart in Stuart Little is a young mouse adopted into a new family and Peppa and her family are all pigs. its slightly less common, as you get older, to find these same tactics put to use in describing such serious events as the holocaust. However,  American cartoonist Art Spiegelman does just this in his graphic novel Maus. He portrays in his work, the persecuted Jewish as mice, The German’s as the cats, and the Polish as pigs. This begs the question, why cats and mice, and pigs?

Throughout the holocaust, the jewish people were always  represented as being vermin and at times not human through anti-sematic propoganda put forth by Germans. From the German perspective they were considered rats against the Arian nation that Hitler attempted to construct. It seems that by portraying them as mice, Spieglman has changed that representation from being something vile that no one would go near, to a small, generally sweeter version. Mice’s long tails are very noticeable much like the common stereotype of Jewish people with big noses. This further lends itself to the dynamic of the game of cat and mouse. In this metaphor, the German’s are seen as predatory, hunting down their prey, the mice, encircling it and then finishing it off. This sounding coincidentally like the germans steps to eradicate the Jews. Firstly making them wear the star on their arms to identify and watch them. Then moving them to ghettos where they were kept before being sent to camps where they did not return from. The use of pigs to describe the Poles was clever, as a pig would not typically be thought of as part of the same food chain as the cat and mouse. However, the stereotypes of pigs being somewhat grotesque and overall vile does show through in his graphic novel and is helpful in showing the poles ill tempers and unwillingness to help.

Overall, Spieglman’s use of the cat, mouse and pig to describe the three main character groups within his graphic novel. One of the most interesting features about this is that, for the most part, all the mice, cats, and pigs look the same as each other. This goes to show that Spieglman might be implying a common them that many jewish people faced. What happened was universal and not specific to few people.

Through the excerpts we have read this term, William James and Sigmund Freud’s equally interesting views on  consciousness and trauma seem to complement each other when explaining the connections between the two as well as demystifying to some degree how people can seem to be repeating their past traumas or experiencing bad luck. James, thankfully, clearly defines and outlines consciousness in a way that can be applicable to Freuds views on trauma,  and furthermore, Freud gives a reasonable if somewhat depressing explanation of why trauma reoccurs in the form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and shell shock.

Without the help of James’ four main concepts of consciousness it would have been very difficult for me to understand Freuds work. The key points to his concepts were that everyone has what he describes as their own ‘state’ which encompasses their own personal thoughts and is unique to them. This ‘state’ is also constantly changing as our minds wander and we are in constant motion. As such, for James, consciousness is both an integrated and unique to ones person while being continuous and  constantly changing. his use of the phrasing stream of consciousness is therefore purposeful as a chain could be missing a link but a stream is continuous.

This understanding of James played a vital role in my interpretation of Freud. When describing trauma, his base argument which I would like to highlight is the idea that rather than remembering things we act them out, and thus end up repeating them. This ‘memory’ is therefore re-repeated not as memory but as an action and as such the person repeating it can be unaware of its significance as a ‘memory’. This concept is what connects to the idea of PTSD and Shell shock as well as the feeling someone might have of them simply being unlucky or even ‘cursed’.  One of the more mundane examples Freud gives is the unwanted repetition someone who is experiencing which they might refer to as a cycle of bad luck, that in spite of themselves every relationship, friendship and  job  seems to end the same way, as though they are victims or fate. His argument stating that their repetitions are negative compulsions and as such they are doomed to repeat it eloquently connects to our sociological discussion on how humans are merely victims of the system which they are produced from and as such truly have no freedom or choice.

Although this realization Freud comes to is eye-opening as well as somewhat disheartening, for me it raises sociological questions related to free will. Is it possible for someone to realize what it is that they are constantly repeating and even if they were able to, could they change it? Furthermore, would changing or correcting for their repetition truly make a difference or, like free will, is it pointless. Freuds example Traumatic neurosis caused by The Great War as well as from train crashes further relate to what is now known as PTSD. If we were to view a persons traumatic experience, for example a horrific train crash as being the cause for someones PTSD, and if as it is commonly known, PTSD has not cure, although there are tools to improve quality of life, does that furthermore mean that there is no escape from those unpleasant memories and the different ways in which they manifest?

The novel which we have been reading in class these past few weeks is that by Mohsin Hamid called “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” and is about a young man who attends university at Princeton and recalls his journey (through self-reflection) in the lead up and aftermath of 9/11 as he lives in New York. One of what I feel to be the most important aspects of the book is the “us vs. them” rhetoric that George W. Bush set forth in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. This furthermore lends itself to the ‘culture of fear’ that surrounded the US in the years to follow, much of which has had extreme implications of US policy, an example of which being heightened airport security. While discussing the wave of fear that engulfed the US, began comparing it to Satrapi’s “Persepolis”, the story of a young girl and her life while living in Iran during the 70’s and 80’s, a time where political tensions were a growing concern.

Changez’s story in TRF and Marji’s in Persepolis seemed to be two different sides to a very similar story line. In both, they seem to be reflecting upon the events of the past, and both discuss aspects of their lives from their home country, Changez when he reverts back to present discussing customs and foods and Marji with her struggle with her religion and her want to rebel. What intrigues me about these to pieces is that in both storylines, Changez and Marji both face a culture of fear. Changez is viewed by others, following 9/11, as the one to be feared merely by his appearance. In contrast to this Marji faces fear in her homeland of Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. The fear she faces is also similar to that which Changez’s family must feel while Changez is in America and they are in Iran, fearing for their lives. Because of the reading of Persepolis, I found it easier to understand the fear Changez’s family must have faced as it would have been similar to that of Marji and her family those 30 or so years prior.

The culture of fear seen in both further showed a connection between how countries operate when under duress and in times of war. The US, after 9/11 presents the front that people are either with them (Americans), or against them (terrorists/ from Iran and the middle-east), refusing to believe that you could be neutral. This can be seen in the media following 9/11 in the many years to come as the number of hate crimes against those of middle eastern descent has yet to decrease to the level it was before as shown in a graph from CNN- Anti-Muslim hate crimes: Ignorance in action?

Differing slightly but still holding true to the idea of a culture of fear, in Satrapi’s graphic narrative. She describes how women were forced to wear “the Veil” (a sign of one’s religion) at school and were shunned in public if they didn’t. Nearing the middle of the Graphic narrative, Marji is seen breaking her religious connection with god and seems to struggle later on with her religions as well as her place among the revolution that was occurring. This similarly ties to Changez’s in turmoil, as he struggles with his betrayal of Underwood and Samson (furthermore the US) and his return home. Both of these novels further end with an unfinished story, leaving the reader to speculate as to what happens next and if they are both going to be alright. I find this indicative of current culture and many fears people in the middle east as well as he US still feel today, we are all unsure of how, if ever these stories of turmoil and fear will end.

Persepolis- Satrapi

The Reluctant Fundamentalist- Hamid

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/us/islamerica-excerpt-hate-crimes/index.html

The MOA exhibit which I visited for this blog assignment was the “Arts of Resistance” exhibit shown in September. This exhibit, as explained on the MOA website displays “art and performance by artists in Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, El Salvador, Ecuador and Chile, and paying special attention to marginalized communities, this exhibition explores the role of creativity during times of political turmoil.” The pieces which I chose to focus on were by artists in Mexico.

The piece of artwork from the exhibit which I have chosen to focus this reflection on is that displayed as “The Defence of Maize”. This piece of artwork consists of multiple different parts. The first is a graffiti stencil which has multiple layers to it and is split into different segments. The layers are displayed approximately 1-2 feet in front of one another in order to give depth to the piece. The second part is a canvas work which was shown beside the graffiti stencil. The image I have below is that of the canvas. I found the canvas to be most interesting as it included a colourful background unlike the stencil. I specifically enjoyed this collection and furthermore chose to focus on the Defence of Maize portion of the exhibit as I also have some background knowledge of the difficulties Hispanic communities have faced in regard to maize (corn) as well as the important role which it has played in their daily lives and traditions throughout history.

Photo of Canvas in MOA- Arts of Resistance (The Defence of Maize)

When in the exhibit, there was a brief history of the artwork, specifically the stencil shown opposite the works, within this it details that the stencil was “made in 2006, when the city Oaxaca was occupied by the APPO”, however more importantly it give context to the powerful image of the indigenous woman wielding a rifle at the engineers that genetically modified the maize meaning it could be more cheaply sold across markets, however through the degradation of its nutrition (from MOA exhibit). I found this collection within the exhibit to be particularly interesting and I could understand the important of this problem. This further relates to the book “I, Rigoberta Menchu” as on multiple occasions she discusses the importance which Maize plays in her life and the lives of those in the many communities and town which she visits. At one point she even states that “The basis of our culture is maize” (169).

When observing this exhibit, I began to wonder, how does this portrayal of the indigenous people protection of maize given its historical and modern relevance express contemporary political realities? Not only in Maize considered to be the staple of Hispanic, specifically Mexican, diet but it also encompasses close to 7 thousand years of agriculture (articles.latimes). As such the woman represents the indigenous population as a whole (much like Menchu does for her people in her book) and their protection of the maize showcases their protection (and what could also be considered them taking control) over their history. Furthermore, it demonstrates their want to improve their situation. This can be seen from a different perspective if you were to think of the maize in terms of their main source of nutrition and further think of the engineers modifying it as damaging that source. Through this lens you could further hypothesise that by protecting their traditional ways of growing maize, they are not only protecting their history, heritage and traditions but they are furthermore trying to improve their current situation (if you were to assume that the improvement of general health was a symbol of a general improvement in condition)

My final thoughts when viewing this exhibit began to raise some questions on the effect which the “defence of Maize” exhibit had within its originating community. How have these pieces of art been viewed and interpreted by the people who live where these works originate from? Do they have a positive outlook on the impact these works will have and have had?

Links and sources:

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-02-18/news/wr-2329_1_national-heritage

I, Rigoberta Menchu by Rigoberta Menchu

Arts of Resistance

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!