Hello, my name is Enis Bektesevic from LaGuardia Community College. I am currently studying a course in Violence in American Art and Culture. This has been an interesting class that has me focusing on why people commit violence and if it is every justified. We have studied violence from real and fictional text. Right now we are reading Caesar's Column by Ignatius Donnelly, a fictional story involving the clash of the classes about a secret society that is trying to over throw a corrupt-rich favoring American Government.
The theme that catches my eye in this novel is the Sociopathic nature displayed by the rich people and Oligarchy-who are obviously also rich. While the corrupt and poor man hating Prince Cabano forms a meeting with other members of the Oligarchy, a description of the members are given. Donnelly points out, "You can tell them at a glance-large, coarse, corpulent men; red faced, brutal; decorated with vulgar taste; loud-voiced, selfish, self-assertive; cringing sycophants to all above them, slave-drivers of all below them. (93). All these characteristics are all little elements that make up a sociopath, but the keywords are "slave drivers". This sociopathic nature is basically what is the main force that drives the rich to take all the money in the world for themselves while allowing the poor just enough to eat and survive in order to have the ability to work for pennies that ultimately allows the rich to maintain their wealth. There is absolutely no other way for the rich to be able to do something so inhumane, they have to be unemotional and unsympathetic towards the people they are causing such misery to. In the beginning of the novel, Gabriel describes the rich, "The chief features of the men were incredulity, unbelief, cunning, observation, heartlessness. I did not see a good face in the whole room..." (15). Again, we see the rich described with elements that point out to sociopathic nature. This theme floats around constantly whether it is describing physical features of the rich, or the actions of the rich. I think Donnelly uses theme heavily to really make the rich stand out as the "bad guys."
Friday, October 24, 2014
Friday, October 17, 2014
Caesar's Column
Hello, my name is Enis Bektesevic, I am currently studying a course in Violence in American Art and culture at LaGuardia Community College. We've started out this course studying infamous violent riots that took place in America and now shifted to fiction novels, we are currently reading Caesar's Column by Ignatius Donnely which was published in 1891. This is an interesting science fiction story about a secret society that is trying to overthrow a corrupt American government and implant a system which is fair for all of mankind to enjoy.
As Gabriel theoretically discusses with his companion Maximilian about the way he would reform world business regulation, he comes up with many interesting and well thought out ideas. The one that really stuck out to me was when he says "I should establish a maximum beyond which no man could own property. I should not stop his accumulation when he had reached that point, for with many men accumulation is an instinct; but I should require him to invest the surplus, under the direction of board of management, in great works for the benefit of the classes." (63). This greed stifling regulation sounds promising and most importantly effective because it minimizes poverty by producing more valuable resources that also produce more jobs for people such as schools, orphans, libraries etc,. that provide a much needed lift for people in the lower classes. Imagine, having rich people being required to build Colleges with the extra money they have laying around. Even though this all sounds like the ethical thing to do, it seems to be absolutely ridiculous to ask any government to make this type of tweak to the existing system because the rich have so much say in terms of policies and regulations that shape the system of how businesses need to run. They would laugh at this very idea and make it seem like it is completely absurd and some how make convincing arguments against it.
Looking back at the Railroad riots of 1877, I try to picture how things would have unfolded if this kind of system was in play. Even if wage cuts would have still happened, Railroad workers would have some type of resources to fall back on to ease their loss in pay. Maybe the surplus would have been used for welfare that didn't exist at the time. Railroad owners would also be limited to own a specific amount of profit earning railroads, that would probably open more doors for other aspiring business men who are trying to climb up the ranks of their place in society. Business men would be known for how much they've contributed to the lower classes and not by how much wealth they have accumulated. Today, we usually say "wow, that person is so rich" but imagine saying "wow, that person did the most for mankind, God bless him/her."
As Gabriel theoretically discusses with his companion Maximilian about the way he would reform world business regulation, he comes up with many interesting and well thought out ideas. The one that really stuck out to me was when he says "I should establish a maximum beyond which no man could own property. I should not stop his accumulation when he had reached that point, for with many men accumulation is an instinct; but I should require him to invest the surplus, under the direction of board of management, in great works for the benefit of the classes." (63). This greed stifling regulation sounds promising and most importantly effective because it minimizes poverty by producing more valuable resources that also produce more jobs for people such as schools, orphans, libraries etc,. that provide a much needed lift for people in the lower classes. Imagine, having rich people being required to build Colleges with the extra money they have laying around. Even though this all sounds like the ethical thing to do, it seems to be absolutely ridiculous to ask any government to make this type of tweak to the existing system because the rich have so much say in terms of policies and regulations that shape the system of how businesses need to run. They would laugh at this very idea and make it seem like it is completely absurd and some how make convincing arguments against it.
Looking back at the Railroad riots of 1877, I try to picture how things would have unfolded if this kind of system was in play. Even if wage cuts would have still happened, Railroad workers would have some type of resources to fall back on to ease their loss in pay. Maybe the surplus would have been used for welfare that didn't exist at the time. Railroad owners would also be limited to own a specific amount of profit earning railroads, that would probably open more doors for other aspiring business men who are trying to climb up the ranks of their place in society. Business men would be known for how much they've contributed to the lower classes and not by how much wealth they have accumulated. Today, we usually say "wow, that person is so rich" but imagine saying "wow, that person did the most for mankind, God bless him/her."
Friday, October 3, 2014
The Destruction of Gotham
Hello my name is Enis Bektesevic, I am a student at LaGuardia Community College. In am studying violence resulting from rioting in past America in my Violence in American Art and Culture class. The course has covered important riots that are often overlooked today. Currently, our class is reading Joaquin Miller's fiction novel The Destruction of Gotham.
Dot Lane is a very young character from the story whose father, a southern American soldier, passes away at war with her mother dying shortly after. According to a passage from chapter three, Dot is all alone in the big city of Manhattan appearing to be so small and insignificant in her new environment (28). According to the text, "every poor waif of this world, no matter how poor, lone, friendless, despised, did, at one time, fill some such young mother's cup of life completely with unalloyed delight."(28). The narrator suggests that observing a "wretched" person will make more fortunate people feel "tender" for such a person (28). Furthermore, a "waif" at some point in the past could have meant the world to someone else, therefore the narrator may be suggesting that we should try to relate and feel sympathetic for a person in this situation.
In another passage, Dot Lane is sitting on a bench with her daughter. The day drags on and Dot is feeling very idle (54). Then, "She suddenly sprang to her feet" (54) after seeing the father of her child (Matherson) walking towards her, "her face radiant with love and hope and fear, her glorious eyes glowing with uncommon fire, her whole frame quivering and trembling with a wild delight."(54). Matherson's presence completed shifted the mood of the passage and Dot's emotions after making her face "radiant with love and hope and fear,...) (54). Furthermore, this shows that Dot is extremely emotionally attached to Matherson. The connection between these two passages is that both give different angles of how significant others are emotionally attached to another person. Dot meant the world to her mother, and Matherson means the world to her.
Dot Lane is a very young character from the story whose father, a southern American soldier, passes away at war with her mother dying shortly after. According to a passage from chapter three, Dot is all alone in the big city of Manhattan appearing to be so small and insignificant in her new environment (28). According to the text, "every poor waif of this world, no matter how poor, lone, friendless, despised, did, at one time, fill some such young mother's cup of life completely with unalloyed delight."(28). The narrator suggests that observing a "wretched" person will make more fortunate people feel "tender" for such a person (28). Furthermore, a "waif" at some point in the past could have meant the world to someone else, therefore the narrator may be suggesting that we should try to relate and feel sympathetic for a person in this situation.
In another passage, Dot Lane is sitting on a bench with her daughter. The day drags on and Dot is feeling very idle (54). Then, "She suddenly sprang to her feet" (54) after seeing the father of her child (Matherson) walking towards her, "her face radiant with love and hope and fear, her glorious eyes glowing with uncommon fire, her whole frame quivering and trembling with a wild delight."(54). Matherson's presence completed shifted the mood of the passage and Dot's emotions after making her face "radiant with love and hope and fear,...) (54). Furthermore, this shows that Dot is extremely emotionally attached to Matherson. The connection between these two passages is that both give different angles of how significant others are emotionally attached to another person. Dot meant the world to her mother, and Matherson means the world to her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)