Lurker Rants, Too!

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

Mark Novitz writes:

> You and I can discuss the merits and demerits of free-markets and
> killing and saving Jews whenever you like.  But 54 million other
> people came away from that movie thinking about nothing even
> REMOTELY close to that level of analysis.

People don't have to be able to articulate an argument to be swayed by
it (it's a very Aristotelian conceit to think they do - if only poepl
ecould be shown what was good, naturally they would follow it). If you
want evidence of this then consider how the Nazis manipulated public
opinion against the Jews to such intensity. Not by leading people from
simple unreasoned prejudice to complex reasoned prejudice. No, by
shaping that prejudice and puffing it full of the vanity and conceit
in which it was originally germinated. Unfortunately, capitalists -
and here I include not just Hollywood and its favourite communicator,
Mr Spielberg, but also the Murdochs, Thatchers, Saatchis etc of this
world - these people are much more sophisticated than the Nazis when
it comes to manipualting people's opinions. They have had 50 more
years to perfect both their media and their message.

> I'll bet my left nut on that.  There's nothing wrong with your level
> of intellectuallism (read previous post: it's why I'm here lurking
> in the first place)--but you've got to step down for one god-damned
> minute.

You overestimate the intellectual content of my observation and
underestimate the intellectual abilities of yer average Joe in the
street. It's not lack of nous that stops people being fooled again
(and again and again). It's the lack of any support network to ensure
that those who have money are stopped from using it to queer the pitch
of those who don't. Where are people to find the time, the space and,
crucially, the information which allows them to understand exactly how
far, frequently and vigorously they are being screwed. And I pity
people in your country where the bargain was struck on your behalf so
long ago that it is much much harder to resist the blandishments (I
use the term advisedly) of commercially sponsored radio and television
(uh, anyone round here know who this agenda belongs to? is this yours,
mister? nope? oh well back to the scheduled program). The phrase `way
too cheap even in 1970s dollars' somehow springs to mind.

> You must be out-of-that-high-mind-of-yours if you think that any
> more than a tiny percentage (or even less than a percent) of the
> viewership came away from SL thinking that "free market capitalism
> is the best safeguard again totalinarianism".  They probably didn't
> even think of the words "free" "market" and "capitalism" in the same
> sentence.  Granted, _you_ did, and a bunch of other people, but not
> 55 million.

I know I'm going to sound like an old Ludwit bore (again) but you have
to learn to start distinguishing between sagen und zeigen (showing and
saying). Or rather between the ability to absorb a message and the
ability to comment on the message you have absorbed. Contrary to
popular opinion, not everyone is a critic. By which, not everyone can
(or even has to) employ their critical faculties when they are
presented with an argument. Most of the time people just follow the
thread from A to B without questioning the purpose, significance or
relation to the subject domain of the particular inferences arrived at
or deductive methods employed along the way. And that applies
irrespective of the intellect of the parties involved and irrespective
of the acceptability of those deductive methods to those who claim to
have the canonical goods on the `logic' behind human reasoning. It has
to be this way otherwise people would spend all their time thinking
about thinking and never actually make any judgements.

And actually, I have a very low mind, lucky given that differences are
only to be found in details. Here's a low question. What type of
people wear the black hats in Spielberg's magnum opus? And how much
sunlight would they block if you turned them side on? Ditto for all
those Jews? And where exactly are all the grey hats? You suggest that
people are going to think about the Holocaust thanks to this film?
Which Holocaust? The one were everything is in black and white? At
best it will leave people with no more information about why it really
happened. At worst they will buy the simple(istic) answer because its
the only answer they've got and, hey, the film got an award, lots of
Jews said it was good, that Israeli government liked Schindler, so it
must be true, more or less.

> The other 54.9 million saw something that made them wonder about
> simpler things: how'd that happen?, what if that were me?, do we
> know anybody who was there? why are they doing that to them?

Yes, and where are the answers to these questions? The film says it
happened because of bad men like Amon Goeth, or maybe that Hitler (the
book sure as hell doesn't make it out to be so simple). You can just
see Stephen Junior stamping his foot in front of daddy and saying `Bad
men. Bad men.', right on cue. Only you and I know (you have read GR
haven't you?) that it's more than just bad men. That actually it's
just as much - actually much more so - it's bad systems driving weak
and unempowered men, systems out of control controlling men out of
control. That the source of the error is woven into the status quo.

> Is this so hard to understand?  Fact of the matter is that _your_
> film about the fuelling and milking of Free Market Capitalism
> leading toward a Jewish Holocaust probably wouldn't be seen by
> 1/100th of the people that watched SL Sunday night.

But consider if Spielberg had not made this film. It's not as if
people would thereby have had *less* exposure to the truth of the
Holocaust. This film does not present the Holocaust which really
happened, but rather a sanitised, palatable, easy to digest version of
the Holocaust. It says don't look inside yourself for the roots of
bigotry, mass hysteria, hatred of `the other', abuse, torture. No,
look for bad men who are different to us virtuous people. Look for
someone to reinforce your belief in your own virtue, the virtue of
your way of life, your culture and society. I am concerned not that
this film was a lost opportunity to get across the message about the
Holocaust (it was never going to do that given where it came from) but
at the way it can reinforce complacency and ignorance.

> Sometimes you have to make concessions for the better of the
> population at large.  This is one of them.  Take it or leave (it).

I don't mean to offend but I find this comment condescending and
patronising. The population at large is neither stupid nor wilfully
malicious. But people have been and probably always will be fooled by
manipulators out for their own interests (some poeple all the time,
all some etc but lets not quibble about percentages). I think
Spielberg is a nasty manipulator, using this cheap holiday in other
people's misery to boost his own credibility and income. And behind
him there are lots of Hollywood sharp suits with even sharper teeth,
bigger bank accounts and more horrible agendas. And behind them there
are governments, multinational companies etc etc etc. I may indeed be
paranoid but it's also the gospel truth. Proof left as exercise for
the Pynchon reader.

> I'm done.  Thanks for letting me have the floor.

It's still there, not yet in the possession of any media conglomerate.
Make use of it while you can. The freedom to do so may not last much
longer.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.