Sunday, August 23, 2009

Asia Finest Discussion Forum _ Debate / Philosophy / Religion _ Western Genocide

Posted by: TheHero Nov 9 2007, 10:56 AM

Warning - some nudity and violence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnyKMT7k7Nc

Part II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfONX0yoOQA

Another interesting analysis: http://www.drummerman.net/shining/essays.html

American paradise built on dead indians. This movie could also be referring to western (more specifically Anglo) crimes in Asia or Africa.

Of course, you know there's two sides to the story. But Kubrick presents some interesting symbolism and cryptic ideas.

Question: Do westerners overlook (The Overlook Hotel) thier past? Are westerners trying repress the truth about thier past?

Posted by: Jor Nov 10 2007, 06:10 PM

QUOTE(TheHero @ Nov 9 2007, 10:56 AM) [snapback]3305392[/snapback]

I remember seeing this in a theatre which is the way it was meant to be seen. It's kind of like the "The Sting" that way. "The Sting" has to be seen in theatre to really appreciate what George Roy Hill was doing. I feel the same way about "The Shining." The movie is actually nothing like King's book but is a whole different study in its own right. And the racial-class undertones of the movie were pretty apparent to me even then. And the way the depth of Jack's profound madness is revealed when Shelley Duval looks at the typed pages of his book-in-progress and sees nothing but "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" typed over and over and over. No other words or phrase appears--just hundreds of pages of that little adage typed over and over again in all sorts of patterns. It's a creepy moment because Jack has been working on that novel long before he and his family took on the job as caretakers of the Overlook for the winter. You realize he's been sick for a very long time. That it isn't the hotel that's doing it to Jack, Jack is doing it to himself and has been for a long, long time--since birth. He was born in madness to reach a destiny of violent madness that was his since the country's founding and based on psychotic racial/class hatred.

The person in the bear costume blowing the man that Shelly Duval's character sees from the hallway is fairly obvious, I think. Someone wearing a bear skin would sumbolize an Indian. But he has been reduced to a pitiful caricature of himself as he has been subjugated and brought to his knees before the white man. He's now just a pathetic, silly-looking clown existing only for the pleasure of white people--his own human identity obscured, wiped out, inconsequential under the bear caricature. He's there to give pleasure to whites, he has no other purpose.

Danny is kind of a shaman. He has this power of communication beyond our everyday world. He represents a part of us that never dies. It's been beaten under and sublimated--corrupted by religious crap--but, in the end, we're all shamans and that power is awakening within us again. It is our connection to the people we subjugated, enslaved and cheated to achieve on our own greatness. And sooner or later there is payback. Soon, all we've buried will bubble to the surface.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 10 2007, 07:37 PM

The white woman in room 237 whom Jack is attracted to turns out to be hideous and diseased. Rob Ager attributes this to the diseases brought by the European settlers but the analysis does not seem to fit. Is Kubrick hinting at some primary schism between the sexes in western society that makes Jack opt for the nagging Native Sherry? Also, Jack is not even aware of his third option represented by the portrait of the beautiful black woman in the black man's bedroom; this is the only woman that is not flawed in any way. Jack hacks the old black man to death (he is the only person to die in the movie), removing the obstacle to access to the black woman. There are no active references to native men and the one black man is physically removed by the end of the movie.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 11 2007, 12:41 AM

QUOTE(Jor @ Nov 10 2007, 07:10 PM) [snapback]3306924[/snapback]

The person in the bear costume blowing the man that Shelly Duval's character sees from the hallway is fairly obvious, I think. Someone wearing a bear skin would sumbolize an Indian. But he has been reduced to a pitiful caricature of himself as he has been subjugated and brought to his knees before the white man. He's now just a pathetic, silly-looking clown existing only for the pleasure of white people--his own human identity obscured, wiped out, inconsequential under the bear caricature. He's there to give pleasure to whites, he has no other purpose.

This is a superior analysis of the bear scene.

I checked the youtube comments under this scene and the only thing anyone could come up with was that Kubrick was crazy to put this scene in so out of context. (of course, we know that Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing). They also pointed out that the original Stephen King book states that the hotel owner was a bisexual who challenged someone at the costume ball to dress like a dog in return for a sexual favor. Of course, Kubrick has completely reworked the novel to conform to a Native American theme and, in that case, this scene would be the only instance of an active Native American male presence in the film. Shelly is thus viewing the deracination of her kinsmen.

Posted by: Jor Nov 11 2007, 12:49 PM

QUOTE(Yuyutsu @ Nov 10 2007, 07:37 PM) [snapback]3307019[/snapback]

One of the primary themes of The Shining is that of an opulent, beautiful facade covering depravity, violence and murder. And I suppose we could add disease to that as well. The Overlook is America itself "overlooking" its horrible past. What the European brought to America was disease both of body and spirit. Yet, we hold up the white woman as the standard of beauty. But when we look beneath, Jack sees the white American for what he or she is--a hedonistic, diseased corpse (i.e. spiritually dead, living only for sexual gratification). Shelly Duval's character represents the real woman--the one who cleans the house, takes care of the baby, makes sure the bills are paid, stands by her man, etc. but she is not the glamorous beauty of Jack's fantasy (white) woman. She's quasi-native in the sense that she's real not a fantasy. And for this, Jack hates her.

It's precisely the same thing you see in those white mwn that live in Asia and only look at Asian women and these women must be pure Asian--not half nor able to speak English. When she reminds him of the "real" women he left behind for the fantasy Asian white-man's whore, he hates her even more than he hates the white women he has turned his back on. He just wants to bash her brains in--just bash 'em--smack!--right the fu-k in!

QUOTE

Also, Jack is not even aware of his third option represented by the portrait of the beautiful black woman in the black man's bedroom; this is the only woman that is not flawed in any way. Jack hacks the old black man to death (he is the only person to die in the movie), removing the obstacle to access to the black woman. There are no active references to native men and the one black man is physically removed by the end of the movie.

Scatman Crothers is not the only character to die in the movie since Jack dies only a few minutes later. I don't think his death was the removal of an obstacle keeping the white man from black women--especially since it is the white man himself who keeps his distance ("If I married a black girl, my parents would kill me!"). Rather the death of Crothers's character is the white man removing the one who upsets his empire so to speak. When the black man is the servant, everything is fine; but when Scatman shows up as the rescuing hero, this is too much because he is usurping the role the white man holds for himself but which he knows is only a sham. I believe they cast an older man to play him to represent that the black man is "older" than the white man. That he was here long before--not America really but the world. The black man has been in the world much longer. It ties in with the butler guy in the bathroom scene telling Jack, "You're always been the caretaker here and I should know...I've always been here." But blacks were in the world long before then and Indians in America long before. And neither tore up the land and polluted the water and enslaved the world's people. The white man is a newcomer, a marauding interloper and his greatest fear and regret is that he is not the originator but a thief. So he kills the earlier ones and dons their clothes, so to speak.

But to make the fantasy as the world's originator and hero stick, he must forget what he has done. He gets a kind of amnesia. And, of course, this means that he will do it again. And again. And again.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 11 2007, 01:43 PM

QUOTE

The white man is a newcomer, a marauding interloper and his greatest fear and regret is that he is not the originator but a thief. So he kills the earlier ones and dons their clothes, so to speak.

Right. And the one instance where he tries to produce an original work (the "novel" that Jack types up) turns out to be a nonsensical monoculture.

Posted by: Jor Nov 11 2007, 03:34 PM

Yes, Jack's novel is just a bunch of pop culture crap. He can't churn out anything else but line after line of the same old cliche. He pins this inadequacy on his wife--she's the cause because she doesn't serve him but rather wants to be his equal. Because of her, he has responsibilities and bills. He can't do what he wants, he can only dream of it. And so all this work has made Jack a dull but very angry and resentful boy.

What everything boils down to for Jack is control. He needs to feel like he controls everything--the caretaker. He views this as a position of responsibility and strength. But he is weak spiritually and easily swayed by those he views as real men--the men in charge, the military, the government, the corporate heads, the king-makers. Delbert Grady speaks for them. He tells Jack that he--Jack--is the caretaker and always has been and this he knows because he's been three along with him. IOW, Jack is being manipulated by these men but willfully so. He allows it. He likes to be told he has always been the man-in-charge especially by those who put him there.

As a modern man, Jack looks to his innate authority as something bestowed by more powerful men than he--the modern man's gods. Such men are taught to look with contempt on those whose authority was given them by "god," by natural forces, by the universal order. The caretaker was never Jack and deep down he knows this. But the higher authorities speaking thru Grady will not allow Jack to make this connection. HE is the caretaker and anyone who gets in the way of that must die. They maintain their power by exploiting weak men like Jack to do their killing for them. Men that like to believe they are strong and are willing to do anything to prove it. Men who believe in intimidating and blaming their women for everything that is wrong about themselves. They remind that it is his duty to "correct" the situation.

The date in the photo of July 4, 1921 is significant not only July 4th is American Independence Day when the white American took over the country but the 1920s heralded in a new age in America. we call it the Jazz Age today. It symbolized a change in the sociopolitical fabric were the white man was no longer the undisputed master. Blacks and women were given the vote (women only having won the right the year before the photo's date). It was when women bobbed their hair, wore short skirts and demanded equality--no longer pleasure-givers or domestics. IOW, the modern white man wanted all women, white especially, subservient to him. They were no less chattel than any other slave or servant. He sees her as part of, if not the primary reason for, his downfall. So along comes Grady who says, "Real men know how to deal with uppity women trying to tell them which way the wind blows."

When the subject of the true caretakers of the world--the black man--comes up, he is spoken of contemptuously as being nothing more than "a n-igger cook." And Grady lets Jack know that we know how to deal with uppity n-iggers around here, don't we? Jack's attempts to maintain his control are themselves out of control. His attempt to be the rescuing hero are hopelessly foiled because it is he whom the world needs to be rescued from.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 11 2007, 05:39 PM

QUOTE(Jor @ Nov 11 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]3307935[/snapback]

There is another layer to be found here. "All work and no play" is a reference to Genesis where the Lord God rests on the seventh day. The monoculture is the sham "tradition" of monotheism. Jack is the Lord God who has been denied his due by all the assorted natives and other characters. I can read these references further in a similar vein.

Posted by: TheHero Nov 11 2007, 06:47 PM

Actually, Stephen King didn't like the movie. Kubrick added all the political stuff; But he did a good job.

QUOTE

It's precisely the same thing you see in those white mwn that live in Asia and only look at Asian women and these women must be pure Asian--not half nor able to speak English. When she reminds him of the "real" women he left behind for the fantasy Asian white-man's whore, he hates her even more than he hates the white women he has turned his back on. He just wants to bash her brains in--just bash 'em--smack!--right the fu-k in!

A good comment on unequal relationships. I'd say some inter-racial relationships are fine but those based on power inequality are not. But you know there's always some inequality. I guess the extremes are wrong.

Posted by: Jor Nov 11 2007, 08:23 PM

QUOTE(Yuyutsu @ Nov 11 2007, 05:39 PM) [snapback]3308006[/snapback]

Interesting observation. It would indicate that the hallowed day of rest is absent. That everyday is now like every other. And if you were living at the Overlook as caretakers, it would certainly get that way. I think of the Torrances as a kind of Adam & Eve except Nicholson plays a dual Adam/Cain role. Or more likely that Kubrick sees Adam and Cain as different aspects of the same entity. The same with Eve and Abel. In fact, the Genesis story is entirely centered on Adam and Cain. Eve and Abel were of secondary importance--he as a sacrifice and she as a helpmeet. All the subsequently biblical characters and indeed all humankind is traced down from Cain. Abel served his purpose and is then gone and the same for Eve since we don't know what happened to her.

One of Cain's descendants is Noah and the movie's plot is also a sort of ark-in-the-flood thing. Here the flood is the great deluge of snow, the Overlook is the ark, and Jack is Noah--the one who must guide the ship through the harrowing storm, the caretaker of all future life on earth. The twist is added to the plot by supposing what would happen if Noah decided to kill everyone aboard the ark. They'd be trapped. And this makes sense in that the whole human race today would be descended from Noah's family, the only family to survive the Deluge. We are all descendants of Jack the caretaker. Born from his madness. And hence we slaughter each other. The story is an allegory.

Kubrick doesn't seem though to be offering much hope. He seems to be saying this is how the human race works and it will ever thus be. But perhaps the "shining" aspect helps out being something that subverts this human pecking order we've established that's eating up the world. The shining "talent" as Grady calls it, offers a new way of living but one that directly threatens the status quo. So it must be killed and everyone kept in a state of psychosis that prevents us from knowing that we shine.

Posted by: Jor Nov 11 2007, 08:38 PM

QUOTE(TheHero @ Nov 11 2007, 06:47 PM) [snapback]3308085[/snapback]

Actually, Stephen King didn't like the movie. Kubrick added all the political stuff; But he did a good job.
A good comment on unequal relationships. I'd say some inter-racial relationships are fine but those based on power inequality are not. But you know there's always some inequality. I guess the extremes are wrong.

I was basing that response off online forums I have visited that are for these types of white men. I actually read a post of this Asianphile that was talking about this beautiful girl he saw in Korea and how she was so perfect...until she opened her mouth and spoke in perfect English. He said that he immediately lost all interest in her. Post after post of white men living in Asia seeking women that absolutely must not violate their fantasy world of cute li'l Asian girl with exotic feminine innocence who naturally sees white man as superior and most desirable of men. So it wasn't some Asianphile straw man i was setting up, I was basing it on actual people I've encountered.

Posted by: Jor Nov 11 2007, 11:03 PM

Another thing that tells us the genocidal violence is a repeating cycle we create by forgetting the past, we see another clue in the photo shown at the end. Taken in 1921 when the Nazi party was just getting started, one of the revelers standing behind the smiling Jack is one who resembles a scowling Hitler. The resemblance is obvious and it would be silly to think this was just happenstance. The photo was showing us the Jacks that were yet to come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sinBkgrqnRg

This scene encapsultes the entire movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vulNlhUI6m0

Posted by: TheHero Nov 12 2007, 09:36 AM

The original theme of the movie was alcoholism. However, Kubirck made it political. Nonetheless, alcohol is still a major theme. Remember, alcoholism was a major problem among Indians after the white invasion. And still is a major problem.

QUOTE(Jor @ Nov 11 2007, 11:03 PM) [snapback]3308559[/snapback]

Your probably reading more into the movie than is warranted. However, that's an interesting observation anyways. Actually, the scene does encaptulate the movie. However, I don't think Hitler is in there.

QUOTE

Kubrick doesn't seem though to be offering much hope. He seems to be saying this is how the human race works and it will ever thus be. But perhaps the "shining" aspect helps out being something that subverts this human pecking order we've established that's eating up the world. The shining "talent" as Grady calls it, offers a new way of living but one that directly threatens the status quo. So it must be killed and everyone kept in a state of psychosis that prevents us from knowing that we shine.

Danny symbolizes the rebels of conscience.

QUOTE

The date in the photo of July 4, 1921 is significant not only July 4th is American Independence Day when the white American took over the country but the 1920s heralded in a new age in America. we call it the Jazz Age today. It symbolized a change in the sociopolitical fabric were the white man was no longer the undisputed master. Blacks and women were given the vote (women only having won the right the year before the photo's date). It was when women bobbed their hair, wore short skirts and demanded equality--no longer pleasure-givers or domestics. IOW, the modern white man wanted all women, white especially, subservient to him. They were no less chattel than any other slave or servant. He sees her as part of, if not the primary reason for, his downfall. So along comes Grady who says, "Real men know how to deal with uppity women trying to tell them which way the wind blows."

When the subject of the true caretakers of the world--the black man--comes up, he is spoken of contemptuously as being nothing more than "a n-igger cook." And Grady lets Jack know that we know how to deal with uppity n-iggers around here, don't we? Jack's attempts to maintain his control are themselves out of control. His attempt to be the rescuing hero are hopelessly foiled because it is he whom the world needs to be rescued from.

The religious right calls it "family values."

QUOTE

I don't think his death was the removal of an obstacle keeping the white man from black women--especially since it is the white man himself who keeps his distance ("If I married a black girl, my parents would kill me!").

White masters had sex with many black women. There was a lot of black-white sex (coming from black women not men) in US history. African-Americans themselves have a mixed heritage. White men were definately not keeping thier distance. But of course it wasn't all rape or coerced.

But you might only be referring to legal marriage.

Posted by: Jor Nov 12 2007, 12:00 PM

QUOTE(TheHero @ Nov 12 2007, 09:36 AM) [snapback]3309082[/snapback]

I never said Hitler was in the bathroom. Someone who looks suspiciously like Hitler is in the photo at the end standing a couple of people behind Jack. It is obviously intentional because he is the only one scowling at the camera. He is the next Jack that will make his maniacal, genocidal appearance.

There is also a parallel of the photo being dated 1921 and there being 21 photos on the wall. The age of majority.

The photos are flanked between two Indian tapestries. The wall is white on top and dark on the bottom symbolizing America's racial/class order. The dark paneling has crosses on it--a graveyard. IOW, whites came to power in the country by killing and brutalizing the "darker" folk.

And that is America's true Independence Day.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 15 2007, 07:20 PM

QUOTE(Jor @ Nov 12 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]3309215[/snapback]

The photos are flanked between two Indian tapestries. The wall is white on top and dark on the bottom symbolizing America's racial/class order. The dark paneling has crosses on it--a graveyard. IOW, whites came to power in the country by killing and brutalizing the "darker" folk.

The crosses are a reference to the conversion and christianization of the natives. The Hitler reference looks backward to Old Europe and the continuation of the Old World Dynamics of Anti-Semitism in new forms in the New World. Rome was built on the ashes of the Semitic Carthaginian and Phoenican Empires.

Kubrick looks forward to the bleak future of the sham Western edifice in Eyes Wide Shut. Of course, this work was sabotaged (drastically re-edited) by the Studios.

Posted by: tinman01 Nov 16 2007, 12:05 AM

Hmmm when I watch a movie I don't really watch for symbolism. That said I watched these clips. I honestly don't draw the same conclusions. Moreover even if a director intensionally used subliminals to communicate a meesage I wouldn't really care about his opinions.
Guess I am dense.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 16 2007, 02:23 AM

Hannibal is the other famous 'dark one' who breeched the icy barrier to make an assault upon the "Shining City on a Hill". Freud had a special fascination with Hannibal as a representation of Semitic vitality before the European depredations came to the fore. Kubrick would have been acutely aware of this scenario given his Austrian Jewish background.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 16 2007, 03:00 AM

QUOTE(Jor @ Nov 11 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]3308261[/snapback]

One of Cain's descendants is Noah and the movie's plot is also a sort of ark-in-the-flood thing. Here the flood is the great deluge of snow, the Overlook is the ark, and Jack is Noah--the one who must guide the ship through the harrowing storm, the caretaker of all future life on earth. The twist is added to the plot by supposing what would happen if Noah decided to kill everyone aboard the ark. They'd be trapped. And this makes sense in that the whole human race today would be descended from Noah's family, the only family to survive the Deluge. We are all descendants of Jack the caretaker. Born from his madness. And hence we slaughter each other. The story is an allegory.

The Icy Deluge is a Persian Zoroastrian narrative of Yima who built an enclosure (vara). It is well known in our Indian circles that this narrative refers to the Kashmir region (from where the Iranians came originally) and is a parallel to the narrative of Manu. I doubt Kubrick would have been aware of these.

Kubrick is not referring generally to the human conditions, but only to foundations of western civilization.

SN Balagangadhara has stated that, in Asia, the Creator has no claims rights over the Creation just because he is the Creator. The same also held true for the North American natives and their view of ownership of nature. As far as this aspect goes, the Caretaker Jack is enforcing the Christian European view of the Sovereignty of the Creator (who passes on his claim right and sovereignty to his 'believers'). But Jack knows that this sham western claim right over the native land is untenable. Jack's entire enterprise is to hold up his crumbling claim rights from the gaze of the converted and deracinated (represented by Wendy) who can at any moment realize the perpetrated sham (represented by the sham novel (ie bible/native treaty) that Jack has penned.

I am referring to the ideas presented in the following: http://colonial.consciousness.googlepages.com/%22...weshallnotceasefromexploration...%22

Posted by: Jor Nov 17 2007, 01:43 PM

QUOTE(Yuyutsu @ Nov 16 2007, 03:00 AM) [snapback]3315118[/snapback]

But Jack knows that this sham western claim right over the native land is untenable. Jack's entire enterprise is to hold up his crumbling claim rights from the gaze of the converted and deracinated (represented by Wendy) who can at any moment realize the perpetrated sham (represented by the sham novel (ie bible/native treaty) that Jack has penned.

I notice too that during the final scene of Jack pursuing Danny through the maze that in spite of the extreme cold, there is no vapor coming from their mouths. I don't think this was an accident. Kubrick seems to be saying that even the "real" characters are ghosts.

Another odd thing is how the sound of Danny's Big Wheel rolling over the floor keeps cropping up. You hear it, for example, in the scene where Shelly Duvall sees the man in the bear costume blowing the other man and hear it again at the end when the camera is showing Jack frozen to death just before the scenes cuts to the inside of the hotel showing the photos on the wall.

The sound of the wheels of history turning? The frozen Jack meaning that he's not dead. He's just inert---for now. Soon, he will thaw out and the wheels will start rolling again.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 18 2007, 01:14 AM

The silence of the wheel as it rolls on the native carpet is the silent massacre of the natives, and the din of the wheel as it rolls on the hardwood oak flooring is western dominance and dynamism (according to an online source).

Danny's cycle is the wheel of history (or time). According to standard Marxist theory, the engine of history is the dialectic (the silence and din of danny's wheel). In the standard western parlance, Asia is the silent female and the West is, of course, the heroic counterpart.

Danny spots the murdered twins while on his cycle. The twins are duplicity (dualism), and of course the precocious child instantly spots the duplicitous lie (online source). Could this be the sham perpetrated on the native? The sham being the western assertion that the Native complements the Western, that Asia completes the West, that the supposed passivity of Asia is necessary for the West to map itself onto meaningfully; and that history thus progresses through the dialectic of the west acting upon the body of the passive Asia. In our Indian circles, we always remark that there is no concept of the 'Other' in Dharma, that is, in Asia. And we always are astounded as to how the 'Other' is so central to the Western mind.

Danny is the Prescient Shaman, the awakened Consciousness, the precocious half-breed, the one able to communicate with the dark ancient one and rally him to aid. He wears the Apollo shuttle emblem (?).

There are three white authority figures in the movie: Ullman (the believer), Grady (the grand manipulator), and Jack (the willing agent). Jack is the only one that expresses a liberal sentiment ('the white man's burden' line to the bartender); the other two are either absolutely self assured of their supremacy (Grady) or oblivious to the very question (Ullman). Again, in our Indian circles, we are absolutely astounded by the rank hatred of the 'liberal westerner' to Asia (as typified by Albright, Nussbaum, Kipling, Marx, Witzel, etc). If Jack is the Liberal westerner who frequents Asia with a veneer of internationalism and who fetishizes Asia and occassionally "bashes" in Wendy, then JAck is the very engine for western expansion. Marx has been more successful than Bush in expanding the frontiers of the western model. Jack will thaw out and continue the trek west.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 18 2007, 03:21 AM

QUOTE(Jor @ Nov 11 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]3307935[/snapback]

Post # 7:
What everything boils down to for Jack is control. He needs to feel like he controls everything--the caretaker. He views this as a position of responsibility and strength. But he is weak spiritually and easily swayed by those he views as real men--the men in charge, the military, the government, the corporate heads, the king-makers. Delbert Grady speaks for them. He tells Jack that he--Jack--is the caretaker and always has been and this he knows because he's been three along with him. IOW, Jack is being manipulated by these men but willfully so. He allows it. He likes to be told he has always been the man-in-charge especially by those who put him there

So, Ullman (the believer) recruits Jack (the agent) for Grady (the puppetmaster). Kubrick seems to have given the entire dynamics of the western civilization in this 'triple' relationship. Ullman never interacts with Grady but they have a tacit understanding through ____???___________. The one inkling of hope in Jack's utterance of 'White man's burden' is just a drunken illusion, a cruel inside joke between Jack and the Bartender (planted by Grady?).

Posted by: TheHero Nov 18 2007, 05:29 AM

QUOTE(Yuyutsu @ Nov 18 2007, 01:14 AM) [snapback]3318039[/snapback]

QUOTE

Jack is the only one that expresses a liberal sentiment ('the white man's burden' line to the bartender);

Jack becomes less liberal as he gets his drink on

QUOTE

If Jack is the Liberal westerner who frequents Asia with a veneer of internationalism and who fetishizes Asia and occassionally "bashes" in Wendy, then JAck is the very engine for western expansion.

There are some sincere liberal westerners. Jack is somewhat racist as most westerners are (and easterners). However, if he rejects alcoholism and listens to his son then maybe he will gain salvation.

QUOTE

who fetishizes Asia

I mean come on. Asian girls are hot. The fetish isn't bad but wife beating is.

QUOTE

then JAck is the very engine for western expansion.

Asians want ESL teachers. Many Asians opposed Communism. Asian people run the prostitution / porno industry. Also they are the biggest consumers of that industry by far.

I'm not saying colonialism and anti-Asian racism is good. I'm only saying that Asians are in on it. Such bad things are not possible without the cooperation of natives (or Asians as in this case).

BTW: As for Communism, it's not a good system as many on here probably agree. That doesn't necessarily mean the USA always acted in a pure interest.

QUOTE

The sham being the western assertion that the Native complements the Western, that Asia completes the West, that the supposed passivity of Asia is necessary for the West to map itself onto meaningfully;

We (the west) can't just ignore the east. If the west ignored the east they would hated 100 times more.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 19 2007, 12:12 AM

There is a definite qualitative difference between East and West, which is what I had tried to foreshadow by posting the link to Balagangadhara's work. Briefly, the West is systematically ideological, that is, Western actions are based upon "theory", eg the theory of race. Ideology as a causation for action is alien to Asia. Asia neither likes nor dislikes; Asia is indifferent to what does not immediately concern it - that is, Asia is practical.

I cannot possibly do full justice to these ideas so i will just post a few relevant links:

http://colonial.consciousness.googlepages.com/%22...weshallnotceasefromexploration...%22
http://colonial.consciousness.googlepages.com/theheatheninhisblindness
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenInHisBlindness/
http://s-n-balagangadhara.sulekha.com/blog/post/2002/12/on-colonial-experience-and-the-indian-renaissance.htm

QUOTE

The American-Indians just could not comprehend that the European settlers would want to buy land from them. â€œHow could we sell what is not ours to sell, or yours to buy? How do you sell a Cheetah or its speed?â€ they asked in one of the most moving and memorable documents ever composed (It is called the â€œSpeech of Seattleâ€). The idea is equally absurd to the world models of the Asian Indians as well. The difference between these two Indian communities is their degree of adaptation to the European demands: one adapted and survived; the other did not and was wiped out. One did not understand, but acted as though it did; the other failed to simulate, and paid the price for it.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 19 2007, 10:37 AM

QUOTE

http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/chiefsea.html Excerpt:

We will ponder your proposition and when we decide we will let you know. But should we accept it, I here and now make this condition that we will not be denied the privilege without molestation of visiting at any time the tombs of our ancestors, friends, and children. Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hillside, every valley, every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days long vanished. Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun along the silent shore, thrill with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of my people, and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to their footsteps than yours, because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch. Our departed braves, fond mothers, glad, happy hearted maidens, and even the little children who lived here and rejoiced here for a brief season, will love these somber solitudes and at eventide they greet shadowy returning spirits. And when the last Red Man shall have perished, and the memory of my tribe shall have become a myth among the White Men, these shores will swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children's children think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway, or in the silence of the pathless woods, they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night when the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled them and still love this beautiful land. The White Man will never be alone.

Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless. Dead, did I say? There is no death, only a change of worlds.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 19 2007, 12:19 PM

QUOTE(TheHero @ Nov 18 2007, 06:29 AM) [snapback]3318283[/snapback]

Jack becomes less liberal as he gets his drink on

Amazingly, the opening sequence shows a yellow Volkswagon Buggy, probably the foremost symbol of the "liberal" westerner.

Posted by: TheHero Nov 21 2007, 11:23 PM

QUOTE(Yuyutsu @ Nov 19 2007, 12:19 PM) [snapback]3319935[/snapback]

Amazingly, the opening sequence shows a yellow Volkswagon Buggy, probably the foremost symbol of the "liberal" westerner.

Many liberals are not as liberal as you think; Alot of conservatives are not as conservative as you think.

Ironically, Hitler started Volkswagen.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 22 2007, 12:28 AM

QUOTE(TheHero @ Nov 22 2007, 12:23 AM) [snapback]3325091[/snapback]

Many liberals are not as liberal as you think; Alot of conservatives are not as conservative as you think.

Ironically, Hitler started Volkswagen.

Hitler was quite the ruffian, a very stark contrast to his ideal of the genteel and aristocratic Bismarck. So the bourbon-drinking Jack would be Hitler, and the Advocaat-drinking Grady would be Bismarck. Grady says they have "always been here", presumably together. So Jack and Grady are two sides of the western enterprise. Grady has already done his dirty work, and Jack has yet to do his.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 22 2007, 02:05 PM

The other thing about Hitler is that he was a cultural dilettante in his early adult years, as evidenced by his application to study classical painting in some Viennese Academy; a failed painter just as Jack was a failed writer. He was also never reconciled with modern decadence represented by the Semitic Other, the relativistic Freud. Grady passed the baton onto Jack and as such the movie is about the progressive mutations in western ideology and power structure, eg from Christianity to Liberation Theology; the mutations happen on the surface but the same racist core is always intact.

Posted by: Yuyutsu Dec 6 2007, 06:51 PM

Catholics through sheer incompetence allowed the native genetic element to survive in the Americas (S. Am). The Protestants, on the other hand, made a clean sweep of the Natives with absolute and total replacement (N. Am). Grady is the Catholic past and Jack the Protestant future. But when we get a temporary reversal with the maverick Catholic Hitler refusing to fade into the past in lieu of the sober Protestant Bismarck, the system is forced to make a crude correction with Protestant American intervention.

Posted by: TheHero Jan 9 2008, 10:27 AM

QUOTE(Yuyutsu @ Dec 6 2007, 06:51 PM) [snapback]3352230[/snapback]

There were more native Americans in Latin America than Anglo America (when the Europeans arrived). The tribes in North America were hostile (with some exceptions) in comparison to many peaceful tribes in South America (who accepted slavery). However, the main factor of survival for the Latin American Indians was thier sheer number.

The Latin American Indians intermarried with the Euros which allowed for better disease resistance. This intermarriage was possible because there were so many more natives than in Anglo America. I'd say if there were less natives then the Spanish settlers would have brought more Euro women.

However, I do agree the Euro treatment (especially in Anglo America) of natives was cruel and wrong.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

The Family of Man

by Bill Blakemore

From The San Francisco Chronicle Syndicate, July 29th 1987

Fans found it surprising in 1980 when Kubrick turned out a movie that was apparently no more than a horror film. The action took place at the Overlook Hotel in Colorado, where the winter caretaker, a chilling Jack Nicholson, became progressively madder and tried to murder his wife and his telepathic son. But The Shining is not really about the murders at the Overlook Hotel. It is about the murder of a race -- the race of Native Americans -- and the consequences of that murder.

The Calumet Connection

If you are skeptical about this, consider the Calumet baking powder cans with their Indian chief logo that Kubrick placed carefully in the two food-locker scenes. (A calumet is a peace pipe.) Consider the Indian motifs that decorate the hotel, and the way they serve as background in many of the key scenes. Consider the insertion of two lines, early in the film, describing how the hotel was built on an Indian burial ground. These are "confirmers" such as puzzle-makers often use to tell you you're on the right track. The Shining is also explicitly about America's general inability to admit to the gravity of the genocide of the Indians -- or, more exactly, its ability to "overlook" that genocide. Not only is the site called the Overlook Hotel with its Overlook Maze, but one of the key scenes takes place at the July 4th Ball. That date, too, has particular relevance to American Indians. That's why Kubrick made a movie in which the American audience sees signs of Indians in almost every frame, yet never really sees what the movie's about. The film's very relationship to its audience is thus part of the mirror that this movie full of mirrors holds up to the nature of its audience.

Bloody Empire

The film is about how the all-male British military establishment, itself forged in bloody empire-building, passed on to its off-spring continental empire, the United States, certain timeworn army-building methods, including separating weak males from the balancing influence of their more sensitive womenfolk and children. The Shining is also about America's current racism, particularly against blacks. Stuart Ullman tells the caretaker's wife Wendy in the only lines in the film in which the Indians are mentioned. Ullman says, "The site is supposed to be located on an Indian burial ground, and I believe they actually had to repel a few Indian attacks as they were building it." This bit of dialogue does not appear in Stephen King's novel The Shining. The first and most frequently seen of the film's very real American "ghosts" is the flooding river of blood that wells out of the elevator shaft, which presumably sinks into the Indian burial ground itself. The blood squeezes out in spite of the fact that the red doors are kept firmly shut within their surrounding Indian artwork embellished frames. We never hear the rushing blood. It is a mute nightmare. It is the blood upon which this nation, like most nations, was built, as was the Overlook Hotel.

No Actual Indians

Indian artwork appear throughout the movie in wall hangings, carpets, architectural details and even the Colorado state flag. Yet we never meet an actual Indian. But we do get to know, and like, and then see murdered, a powerful black character, Chef Hallorann -- the only person to die in the film other that the protagonist, villain and victim, Jack. The murdered black man lies across a large Indian design on the floor -- victim of similar racist violence. Kubrick carefully controls every aspect of his films' releases, including the publicity. The posters for The Shining that were used in Europe read across the top, "The wave of terror which swept across America," and centered below that, the two word "is here." At first glance this seemed to be a poster bragging about the film's effect on America. But the film wasn't out yet when the posters first appeared. The wave of terror that swept across America was the white man. As manager Ullman says in the opening interview, after telling Jack of the horrible murders that took place earlier in the Overlook, "It's still hard for me to believe it actually happened here, but it did." The type of people who partied in the Overlook included, as Ullman tells Jack and Wendy, "four presidents, movie stars." And when the impressed Wendy asks, "Royalty?" Ullman replies simply, "All the best people." King's novel has nothing to do with any of these themes. As he has with other books that gave their titles to his movies, Kubrick used the general setting and some of the elements of King's novel, while drastically altering other elements and ignoring much of it, to suit the needs of the multi-film oeuvre about mankind's inhumanity to man that he's been making at least since Dr. Strangelove.

Visual Puzzle

As with some of his other movies, Kubrick ends The Shining with a powerful visual puzzle that forces the audience to leave the theater asking, "What was that all about?" The Shining ends with an extremely long camera shot moving down a hallway in the Overlook, reaching eventually the central photo among 21 photos on the wall. The caption reads: "Overlook Hotel-July 4th Ball-1921." The answer to this puzzle, which is a master key to unlocking the whole movie, is that most Americans overlook the fact that July Fourth was no ball, nor any kind of Independence day, for native Americans; that the weak American villain of the film is the re-embodiment of the American men who massacred the Indians in earlier years; that Kubrick is examining and reflecting on a problem that cuts through the decades and centuries.

Sound of Moviegoers

And in a final stroke of brilliance, Kubrick physically melds the movie audience leaving his film with the ghostly revelers in the photograph. As the credits roll, the soundtrack ends, and we hear the 1920s audience applaud, and then the gabble of that audience talking among themselves -- the same sound the crowd of moviegoers itself is probably making as it leaves the theater. It is the sound of people moving out of one stage of consciousness into another. The moviegoers are largely unaware of this soundtrack, and this reflects their unawareness that they've just seen a movie about themselves, about what people like them have done to the American Indian and to others. Thus to its very last foot, this film is trying to break through the complacency of its audience, to tell it, "You were, are, the people at the Overlook Ball." The opening music, over the traveling aerial shots of a tiny yellow Volkswagon penetrating the magnificent American wilderness, is the "Dies Irae". At the end of the movie, in the climactic chase in the Overlook Maze, the moral maze of America and of all mankind in which we are chased by the sins of our fathers ("Danny, I'm coming. You can't get away. I'm right behind you"), the little boy Danny escapes by retracing his own steps (an old Indian trick) and letting his father blunder past.

Maze and Hotel

Kubrick carefully equates the Overlook Maze with the Overlook Hotel, and both with the American continent. Chef Hallorann emphasizes to Wendy the size and abundance of the kitchens, remarks upon the extraordinary elbow room (so attractive to early settlers) and begins his long catalog of its storerooms' wealth with those most American of items: rib roast, hamburger and turkey. The Calumet baking powder can first appears during Hallorann's tour of the dairy goods storage locker. In a moment of cinematic beauty, we are looking up at Hallorann from Danny's point of view. As Hallorann tells Wendy about the riches of that locker, his voice fades as he turns to look down at Danny and, while his lips are still moving with words of the abundant supplies, Danny hears the first telepathic "shining" from Hallorann's head as he says, "How'd you like some ice cream, Doc?" Visible right behind Hallorann's head in that shot, on the shelf, is one can of Calumet baking powder. This approach from the open, honest and charismatic Hallorann to the brilliant young Danny is an honest treaty, and Danny will indeed get his ice cream in the very next scene.

The other appearance of the Calumet baking cans is in the scene where Jack, locked in the same dry-goods locker by his terrified wife, is talking through the door to the very British voice of ghost Grady. Grady speaking on behalf of the never identified "we," who seem to be powerful people, is shaming Jack into trying to kill his wife and son. ("I and others have come to believe that your heart is not in this, that you haven't the belly for it." To which Jack replies, "Just give me one more chance to prove it, Mr. Grady.") Visible just behind Jack's head as he talks with Grady is a shelf piled with many Calumet baking powder cans, none of them straight on, none easy to read. These are the many false treaties, revoked in bloody massacre, that the U.S. government gave the Indians, and that are symbolically represented in this movie by Jack's rampage to kill his own family -- the act to which Grady is goading Jack in this scene. Nor is the treaty between Grady and Jack any less dishonest. For Jack will get no reward for doing Grady's bidding, but rather will reap insanity and death.

Weak Males

Kubrick has sought to expose in several of his movies before this one the delusionary tricks by which big powers get weak males to do brutal and ultimately self-destructive battle. We never see ghost Grady in this scene, but if we're wondering whether the voice of Grady is just in Jack's head or comes from the "real" ghost who can do real damage, we are chillingly convinced when we hear the pin being pulled out on the outside latch of the locker door. All ghosts in this movie are real horrors in America today, and indeed in most cultures present and past. The second set of ghosts seen in the movie is that of the British twin girls -- Grady's murdered daughters, alike but not quite alike. The represent, quite simply, duplicity, and not only the duplicity of the broken treaties with the Indians. Only young Danny sees these twins; children have a sensitivity to duplicity in the adult world around them. Kubrick is examining in this movie not only the duplicity of individuals, but of whole societies that manage to commit atrocities and then carry on as though nothing were wrong. That's why there have been so many murders over the years at the Overlook; man keeps killing his own family and forgetting about it, and then doing it again. This is why, too, Jack has such a powerful sense of deja vu when he arrives at the Overlook, as though "I'd been here before." Later Grady tells him, "You are the caretaker (who murdered his children). You've always been the caretaker." ("Born to kill" perhaps, as the ads for Full Metal Jacket proclaim?) Kubrick is not a moralist. He's an artist, a great one, and along with the greatest artists he is holding the mirror up to nature, not judging it. Though he has made here a movie about the arrival of Old World evils in America, he is exploring most specifically an old question: Why do humans constantly perpetuate such "inhumanity" against humans? That family is the family of man.

Friday, August 21, 2009

The Greek Alphabet: Hellenic Invention or Phoenician Invasion?

By: George C. Chryssis

The question whether the Greek alphabet is an invention of the Hellenes, or it is a modified import of the Phoenician alphabet, has long been debated by linguists, scholars and historians alike.

The web site “writingsystems.com” states that “although Greek has traditionally been considered to be the mother of alphabets, the first to represent vowels as well as consonants, scholars are now divided on whether Greek was in fact the ancestor of all others or whether some [letters] came from Phoenician in other ways.”

In addition, in the book “The World of the Bible” the author, Roberta Harris, writes that “to the Greeks also belongs the credit for the invention of the vowel system… when the Greeks founded colonies in Italy, the alphabet was taken up by the peoples there… and has come down to us via the Romans…”

This article is based on extensive (but, by no means exhaustive) research that the author has done on the subject, in an attempt to show that ancient, as well as recent evidence, point to a favorable conclusion that the alphabet is indeed a Hellenic invention, albeit its final form, as we know it today, is the result of refinement and iterations of Hellenic writing systems through millennia of usage in the Aegean basin and the Levant.

The alleged Phoenician “invasion”

Several ancient Greek writers credit various Hellenes as the inventors of the alphabet, i.e. Prometheus, Palamedes, Linus and others, with the exception of Herodotus, who in his History he mentions the following: “Then those Phoenicians who had come with Cadmus, of whom were the Gephyrians, had lived in many other places, and imported in this land different teachings to the Greeks, and in addition letters (“grammata”), which, in my opinion, where unknown to the Greeks, initially those [letters] that they and all Phoenicians used; however, as time went by they [Phoenicians] changed their language and the type [shape] of the letters.” (Book V, 58)

This vexed passage is the heart of a long lasting and continuing debate regarding the origin of the Greek alphabet, since it has been taken at “gospel value” by many to mean that the Greeks “borrowed”, at least some, of their letters from the Phoenicians. However, an increasing number of scholars and researchers argue, with validity, that the Herodotus passage has been misunderstood and misinterpreted, if not taken out of context.

Referring to the Greek original text (quoted in the parentheses below), let us analyze the passage to extract its meaning the way Herodotus, most likely, meant it to read.

First, we notice that Herodotus makes a very important and significant disclaimer in this paragraph: he tells us that what he writes is a “personal opinion” (“os emoi dokeei”), not a widely accepted fact or a definitive statement.

Prior to this, Herodotus also makes a more general disclaimer that “his opinion” was formed not by facts, research or scientific knowledge, but rather it was based on “taking information from others” (“anapynthanomenos”).

“If we look closely in what Herodotus himself says [in his History],” writes Mary Lefkowitz in her book “Not Out Of Africa”, “he makes it clear that he is putting forward his own interpretations and conjectures about what he saw and was told by native informants.” (p. 62)

This is not an uncommon practice for Herodotus. To wit, Professor Perez Zagorin in his book “Thucydides: An Introduction for the Common Reader” writes that Herodotus “in dealing with sources of information, his attitude was neither consistently critical nor generally credulous, but somewhere in between… To his readers he declares that it is his duty to report all that is said, but not obliged to believe it… His work is full of the most varied facts, speeches, stories and digressions for whose truth it is impossible to vouch… Very likely [Thucydides] placed Herodotus among the class of writers who, he said, take little trouble in the search for the truth and readily…accept whatever comes first hand.” (p.16)

This is not to say that Herodotus is not a great historian, or that his writings are not important. On the contrary, his History is a remarkable book based on events that he encountered, but also on stories and folklore that he heard. Regarding his passage about the Greek alphabet he failed to establish a clear distinction between facts and generalizations and, in contrast to Thucydides, the historical evidence (“tekmerion”) in his narrative is missing, rendering his conjecture suspect.

To be fair, despite his controversial account, Herodotus actually makes it clear that the Greeks already had letters of their own at the time of the Phoenicians arrival to Greece and is careful to point-out that the Phoenicians introduced only a few letters (“eisegagon oliga”) that where hitherto unknown to the Greeks (“ouk eonta prin Ellesi”). Surely, the most important and by far the most critical statement that Herodotus makes in his passage is the one confirming that in time the Phoenicians “changed their language and the type (or shape) of their letters” (“ama ti foni metevallon kai ton rythmon ton grammaton”). In other words, the Phoenicians assimilated and eventually spoke Greek and wrote in Greek letters!

However, what is considered the “bone of contention” in this entire debate is Herodotus’s subsequent paragraph. It reads in (translation) as follows: “At that period, most of the Greeks living around the [Aegean] region were Ionians, who were taught these letters by the Phoenicians, and adopted them with few alterations for their own use, and using them they were saying, that the right thing to do was to call them Phoenician, since the Phoenicians brought them to Greece.”

This passage is indeed both paradoxical and suspicious, because if we accept the notion that the Ionian Greeks “adopted and used some” Phoenician letters (“metarythmisantes sfeon oliga ehreonto”), this would be a striking contradiction to the former paragraph’s strong and assertive statement that the Phoenicians where the adopters, not the Greeks! Is Herodotus confused and uses “bifurcated logic” here, or is something else happening? Let’s examine the possibilities.

As difficult as it is to translate a passage from ancient Greek without altering its meaning, keep in mind that the ancient Greek writings can (and will) take an entirely different meaning by repositioning a comma, or by observing the proper gender, or even by inserting a word that the author has omitted.

Consider the following famous Delphic oracle, given by Pythia to an ancient Greek soldier leaving for war: “Thou shall go and thou shall return not thou shall die in war” (“Exeis afexeis ou en polemo thnexeis”). As an exercise to the reader, notice how the meaning of the sentence changes completely, first by placing the comma before the word “not” and then after it!

Furthermore, consider the word “Egypt” (Aigyptos); its feminine form (e Aigyptos) refers to the country Egypt, but its male form (o Aigyptos) refers to the mythical hero Egyptus, a forefather of the Greeks, not connected with Egypt.

Fascinating indeed, but after all, this is the beauty and power of the Greek language and also its mystique and challenge to the user, reader, as well as the translator! Hence, modern translators and interpreters, who do not have either the analytical skills or good command of the language, not only make erroneous translations and interpretations, but unfortunately, these errors perpetuate and eventually amplify the problem.

With this in mind, let us reintroduce the later mentioned Herodotus paragraph, by inserting a key word (in brackets, bellow) that Herodotus may have omitted as redundant (“autonoete”): “At that period, most of the Greeks living around the region were Ionians, who were taught these [Greek] letters by the Phoenicians and adopted them…”

The suggestion that Herodotus meant “Greek letters” is consistent with what he told us in his first passage, i.e. that the Phoenicians had adopted the Greek letters (and language) and abandoned their own. Furthermore, it is important to note that he mentions the Phoenicians as “importers” of these letters rather than “inventors”, while his subsequent statement that the Ionians called the letters Phoenician (“Phoenekeia keklesthai”) is consistent with the ancient Greeks’ tendency to attach exotic origins to home-grown products, even if that practice had an unintentional long-term negative impact on their creativity and intellectual capital. This practice continues even today, inasmuch we attach “origins” to certain common items, such as French fries, Danish rolls, Canadian bacon, Venetian blinds, etc, even though it is highly unlikable that these products where actually “invented” in the named localities.

If this explanation is not sufficient to persuade the skeptics, advocates of the belief that the alphabet was indeed a Greek invention, have expressed the opinion that the second paragraph may have not been written by Herodotus altogether, but it may have been inserted at a later date by someone with the intention to reduce the importance of Herodotus original passage.

Could this be so? Well, we know that through the ages, ancient Greek writings have been altered and edited for various reasons and some more significantly than others, by various scribes and copiers of the original texts.

Herodotus History may have also been a victim of a later-day Hellenized zealot scribe, who in an attempt to minimize Hellenic cultural hegemony and inventiveness he targeted the crown jewel of all Greek accomplishments, their alphabet!

Could Herodotus been “altered”?

It would be historically unjust and unfair to claim that in a multicultural region where Greece is located, there were not intercultural interactions, influences and possibly adoptions of customs, thoughts and rituals.

The Greeks traveled throughout the Mediterranean Sea (and beyond) and came into contact with various peoples and cultures, and had an open mind and a voracious thirst for knowledge and new ideas.

Having said this, it is also safe to say that the Greeks invented what has been credited to them, and their contributions to philosophy, philology, mathematics, history, democracy, architecture and the arts, are well documented and do not need apologists.

The ancient Greek culture was “home-grown” and unique, and its accomplishments were the result of this uniqueness. However, since ancient times, other cultures studied and copied (or usurped) ancient Greek thoughts and ideas, in an attempt to lift their own ethnic group culturally, spiritually and socially.

The blatantly flawed “Afrocentric Theory” that was developed in modern times to satisfy nationalistic and multicultural tendencies, was an attempt to defraud and deceive academics, scholars and simple folks by erroneously claiming that Greek thought and civilization was “stolen” from Egypt (i.e. Africa).

Fortunately, this theory was ingeniously dispelled and totally discredited by Professor Mary Lefkowitz’s scholarly, courageous and widely accepted book “Not Out Of Africa.”

Similarly, the “Phoenician Theory” about the origins of the Greek alphabet, was developed at a time when, “as the British scholar Dr. S.G. Remproke says, the Phoenicians were given an intermediary role that is not based on any historical information, in other words, a role of the transporter of wisdom from the chosen people of Israel to the uncivilized nations, and specifically the Greeks. This, of course, could be forgiven, since this was established around the end of the Medieval Ages, when religious fanaticism and backwardness had reached such a point that Iphigenia was presented as the daughter of Ieptha; Deukalion as Noah… Orpheus (Musaeus) as Moses and other similar distortions.” (Magazine Davlos, pp. 13741-13750, January 2000)

During the last three centuries BCE, the Egyptians and the Jews, primarily those living in Alexandria during the Hellenistic times, tried very hard (and at times succeeded) to assert their own ideas and cultural beliefs through the written works of the Alexandrian Greeks, who for millennia lived, worked and flourished in Egypt and continued to exert the Hellenic influence to other cultures through their language, philosophy, science, religion and the arts.

Alexandria was the most cultural city of the Mediterranean, and “within a century after Alexandria was built [by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE]… it had become the center not only of Hellenism but also of Judaism… the finest teachers, philosophers, and scientists flourishing within its walls”, writes Theodore Vrettos in his book “Alexandria, City of the Western Mind”

In her book “Not Out of Africa” Dr. Marry Lefkowitz writes: “The Jews shared the Egyptians’ patronizing attitude towards the dominant Greek culture. Jewish historians were determined to show that although the Jewish people were now subject to Greeks, they not only understood Greek culture… but these writers sought to show that Greek religion and philosophy had been inspired by Hebrew ideas… But an even more definitive assertion of the derivative nature of Greek culture was made by an Alexandrian Jew called Aristobulus in the second century BCE. Aristobulus did not hesitate to invent information, or to report information invented by others… He said that Greek philosophers Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato knew and studied the books of Moses… Of course, no scholar today would take seriously that claim… [but] by the first century CE some people believed [it, and]… the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria and the Jewish historian Josephus both speak of Moses influence on Plato… Later, church fathers like Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) and Eusebius (260-340 CE), took a decisively more hostile line… accusing the Greeks of theft and plagiarism… The determination of both Jews and Christians to assert the priority of Hebrew culture over the Greeks, helps to explain why the Egyptians where eager to point out… that, the famous Greeks were inspired by Egyptian learning. It was a way of asserting the importance of their culture, especially in a time when they had little or no political power… But the fate of Jewish ethnic historians like Aristobulus offer a warning to modern day advocates of Greek cultural dependency. How many people have ever heard of Aristobulus? And, more importantly, who believes him?” (pp 85-86)

It is well documented, that scribes and book editors published “revised” ancient Greek writings and books in a form that, implicitly or explicitly, attempted to favor a specific ethnicity for nationalistic, religious or other subjective reasons.

Professor Richard E. Rubenstein writes in his book “Aristotle’s Children” that the Catholic Church allowed universities to teach Aristotle’s philosophy and science, provided that his books “had been examined and purged of all suspicion of error.” (p. 173)

In other words, Aristotle’s books would be analyzed, interpreted and “corrected” (read, “changed”) to fit the specific needs, teachings and dogmas of the Catholic Church!

Even the New Testament, the most revered book for billions of Christians, was not immune to considerable changes by various scribes. Professor Bart D. Ehram in his book “Misquoting Jesus” writes that “… [in] thousands of places… the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed by scribes… [with] additions of sizable length… there are lots of significant changes (and lots more insignificant ones) in our surviving manuscripts of the New Testament” (pp. 68-69)

What, then, could have prevented the alteration of Herodotus’ History, by racially or nationalistically motivated scribes and book copiers, in an effort to elevate ethnic pride, by asserting that a non-Greek culture had inspired and was responsible for the origins of the Greek alphabet?

Unfortunately, we do not have the original Herodotus manuscript to compare and offer a definitive and conclusive proof to this theory, but why should we passively accept the negating rather than the assertive statement of his account about the Greek alphabet?

After all, in the absence of conclusive evidence for a claim that the Greeks themselves had arrived from the East – the Greeks always regarded themselves as “indigenous” (“autochthones”) -- the Levantines and their advocates were determined to show that at the very least the Greek alphabet was an eastern import, and had Sinaitic-Phoenician-Semitic roots!

The subsequent topics further examine this claim and present documented historical facts, as well as recent archeological findings that dispel a derivative theory, and raise claim to support the theory that the Greek alphabet (at some shape, form and factor) not only was invented and used by the Hellenes before Phoenician times, but eventually this alphabet made its way to the Levant, to be used first by the Philistines and subsequently by the Phoenicians and the Semitic peoples of that region.

Was Minoan Crete the birthplace of the alphabet?

Long before the excavation of Knossos in Crete by Sir Arthur Evans, scholars believed and taught that Greek writing began around the time of Homer, at 800 BCE.

The excavating work of Sir Arthur Evans in Crete, unveiled the Minoan writing scripts, known today as Linear A and Linear B.

Michael Ventris, an English architect, deciphered Linear B writing and proved, beyond any doubt, that the Minoans of the second millennium BCE were speaking and writing in Greek. The Aegean of that time was indeed Hellenic. In fact, as it turns out, the Linear scripts use many symbols that resemble letters of the Greek alphabet.

Recent work that has been done on the decipherment of an even earlier Cretan script found on the Phaistos Disk, especially by Dr. Steven R. Fischer, proved that the disk writing is also Greek (contrary to hitherto various theories that the disk script was of Northern Semitic, Hittite, Egyptian, or other origins) thus extending the Hellenic connection of the Minoans into the third millennium BCE.

Dr. Fischer in his book “Glyphbraker” presents a meticulous and scholarly account of his decipherment of the Phaistos Disk that was based on the glyph correspondences between the Phaistos Disk and symbols of Linears A and B. His work has been endorsed by “The National Geographic” and is by far the most credible and realistic decipherment of the Phaistos Disk to-date.

In his book, Dr. Fischer concludes that “the Minoan language of ancient Crete is the oldest documented language not only of Europe but also of the entire Indo-European language family… it was a Hellenic tongue, sister to Mycenaean Greek [Minoan Greek]… the Phaistos Disk indicates a preference for the written word in ancient Crete (it also suggests widespread literacy)… [and] the Hellenes were the first in the Aegean, indeed in Europe, to use writing…” (pp. 119-120)

The Minoans spoke and wrote in Greek, at least 1300 years prior to the appearance of the Phoenicians! Some may argue that the Phaistos Disk is “written” in pictorial script (glyphs) and it is syllabic, not alphabetic. This is true. However, the relation of the Phaistos Disk to the syllabic Linear A and B scripts is stunningly similar, thus proving the continuity and evolution of these writing scripts. Furthermore, the similarity of the Minoan writing symbols to the Phoenician scripts (i.e. Proto-Sinaitic, ca. 1700 BCE; and Phoenician ca. 700 BCE), which are also syllabic and not alphabetic, suggest a relative connection that should not, and must not, be taken lightly or go unnoticed.

Hence, the question at hand is, did the birth and early evolution of the Greek alphabet begun in the East (Phoenicia) or the West (Crete)?

The ancient historian Diodorus of Sicily mentions in his writings that Dosiades, a writer of epigrams, told him that the letters were invented by the Cretans (“Dosiades de en Kriti phisin evrethinai auta [grammata].) (Diodorus, II 783.14)

Furthermore, according to the “On-Line Encyclopedia Britannica”, the late Sir Arthur Evans, the brilliant archaeologist and scholar who dedicated most of his life excavating, deciphering and documenting the advanced civilization of the Minoans, argued ingeniously that “the alphabet was taken over from Crete by the Cherethites (Kereti=Cretans) and Palestu (Philistines=Pelasgoi) who established for themselves settlements on the coast of Palestine. From them it passed to the Phoenicians, who were their neighbors, if not their kinsfolk.”

This is a statement and scientific observation of great importance, and has far reaching implications in the quest to identify not only the origins of the alphabet, but the origins of civilization in the Mediterranean.

Unfortunately, Evans’ theory of the origin of the alphabet laid dormant (and frankly, in my opinion, purposely ignored) until recent archaeological findings in Israel regarding the Philistines, a race that, until recently, we only knew from Old Testament references, have shed new light on the migrations, settlements and cultures of the people in the Mediterranean basin, and has stirred renewed interest in the relation between the Levantines (Middle Easterners) and the Minoan Greeks.

Will, finally, Evans be exonerated and his theories be proven right? Well, we are now almost certain that, despite previous theories that the Minoans migrated from the Levant, recent scientific and archeological findings are proving that it was the other way around!

As we understand and analyze these new findings, not through the prism of narrow nationalistic, ethnic or political interests, but in true and responsible scholarship, old misconceptions will tumble and the truth will prevail.

The Philistines: Savage warriors or peaceful innovators?

The Philistines was an immigrant culture and appears to settle in Palestine around 1200 BCE, establishing important cities like Ashrod, Ekron, Ashkelon, Gath and Gaza that constituted the Philistine Pentapolis (Five Cities).

The Philistines were known to the Egyptians as “Palestu” and also as the “Sea Peoples” and their migration to the Levant from their homeland might have been due to famine, outside invaders or devastating earthquakes and natural disasters.

Moshe and Trude Dothan, professors of Archeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, have spent over 30 years excavating, analyzing, reconstructing and painstakingly recording the Philistine civilization, hence we now have a good, albeit still incomplete, understanding and appreciation of the contributions and the positive impact of their highly advanced culture in this area.

Historical and scientific evidence show unequivocally that the Philistines “were composed of Greek-speaking tribes” and recent archeological evidence point-out that they most certainly came from Crete (Caphtor). It is interesting to note that the biblical Cherethites were Cretans (Cherethites=Kereti=Cretans) and they became King David's personal and professional military force (1 Sam. 30:14).

The Cherethites are linked to the Philistines by Ezekiel, “I stretch out my hand against the Philistines, cut off the Cherethites, and destroy the rest of the seacoast” (Ez. 25:15-17). Zephaniah also mentions four of the five Philistine cities in his prophecies against Philistia, “For Gaza shall be deserted, and Ashkelon shall become a desolation; Ashrod’s people shall be driven out at noon, and Ekron shall be uprooted” (Zep. 2:4-7). Zephaniah further affirms that the Canaanites and Philistines were kinfolks from Crete: “Ah, inhabitants of the seacoast, you nation of the Cherethites! The word of the Lord is against you, O Canaan, land of the Philistines…” (Zephaniah 2:5-11)

The link and relation of the Philistines/Canaanites to Cretans is further strengthened by the fact that the Philistinean city of Gaza was also known as Minoa, the same name given to several trade stations that started from Crete. Joseph Yahuda, in his book “Hebrew is Greek”, associates the name “Philistines” with that of “Pelasgoi”, early inhabitants of Crete (Pelasgoi => Pelaskoi (g turns dialectally into k) => Pelastoi (k turns dialectally into t) => Palestoi (e and a interchange) => Palestu => Philistines.) (p. 3).

Although the Old Testament portrays the Philistines as “godless violent warriors, dull-witted and uncouth barbarians”, the Dothans, through their excavations and scholarly work, have revealed a culture and civilization just the opposite -- questioning whether the Biblical authors were vilifying their more cultured enemies, because of ethnic hostilities.

The archeological discoveries revealed that the Philistines were accomplished architects, sophisticated urban planners, highly artistic potters (using Mycenaean/Minoan decorative motifs), weavers, skilled iron-workers and advanced technologists. In short, the Philistines were a culture that profoundly affected and influenced other cultures around them. A civilized race, indeed, that used Aegean-style hearths in their buildings, practiced Aegean-cultic religion and cremated and buried their dead in Minoan/Mycenaean-style, rock-cut chamber tombs.

Gerhard Herm in his book “The Phoenicians” writes that “the Philistines had not only had close contact with the Achaeans (i.e. Hellenes) but in fact stemmed directly from them. Goliath, who challenged David wearing Mycenaean armour, could have been a descendant of Menelaus, Achilles, Odysseus… Thus, here in the Gaza strip the last act of a drama was played out which had begun in Crete…” (p. 56)

Until recently, scientists and scholars were unsure whether or not the early Philistines had a writing system. But, is it possible that an advanced culture like the Philistines, with established trade, religion and social structure could not write, while less advanced cultures around them allegedly did?

The Dothans in their book “People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines” show a tablet that they excavated in Israel, dated around 1100 BCE, with early Philistine writing, that is related to the Minoan Linear scripts. Although not many examples of this writing have been found as yet to establish the definitive link and to aid the decipherment of this script, scholars are now almost certain that the Philistines used linear writing to record events.

In early 2007, in an article that appeared in “The Israel Exploration Journal”, distinguished Harvard professors Lawrence E. Stager and Frank Moore Cross commenting on several Philistine inscriptions found in the ancient city of Ashkelon in Israel, wrote that the inscriptions "reveal, for the first time, convincing evidence that the early Philistines of Ashkelon were able to read and write in a non-Semitic language, as yet undeciphered… perhaps it is not too bold to propose that the inscription is written in a form of Cypro-Minoan script utilized and modified by the Philistines — in short, that we are dealing with the Old Philistine script." Cross further states that the script had some characteristics of Linear A, the writing system used in the Aegean from 1650 B.C. to 1450 B.C. This undeciphered script was replaced by another, Linear B, which was identified with the Minoan civilization of Crete and was finally decoded in the mid-20th century.

Hence, these Cretan migrants brought with them not only the Minoan Greek language, but also the linear script, the early Hellenic syllabic alphabet that planted the seed for the evolution of a regional rooted alphabet.

To wit, excavations at Tel Miqne in Israel in 1996 unearthed a Philistine dedication inscription of the seventh century BCE, written in a script dubbed by scholars “Phoenician-Canaanite”, in the absence of a more precise alternative nomenclature.

This tablet of Ekron, as it is commonly known today, is written in none other than a “Philistine” (i.e. Cretan) script that most likely evolved from the Minoan linear scripts, and was eventually adopted by both the Canaanites and the Phoenicians “their neighbors [and] their kinfolk”, according to Evans.

Furthermore, Aaron Demsky in an article published in “Biblical Archeology” suggests that the inscription of the tablet of Ekron names one of the Philistine kings as “Akys” (Greek: Acheos = Hellene), and his patron deity as “Ptnyh” (Greek: Potnia = Divine Lady => Great Goddess of the Aegean.), further confirming the Hellenic origin and lineage of the Philistines, their language and their writing (pp. 53-58.)

Sr. Arthur Evans may have finally been proven right! The letters of the so-called “Phoenician” alphabet were first used by the Philistines and had Minoan Hellenic roots!

Further Evidence and Conclusion

I have been and continue to be intrigued by the many theories presented in Joseph Yahuda’s book “Hebrew is Greek” where, through extensive linguistic research, the author builds a strong case that the language of the ancient Hebrews, who were known as Khabiru and Hepiru respectively in the Syrian and Egyptian annals, “was continental Greek” and that “the Greek and Hebrew alphabets bear a striking resemblance to one another, in the order of letters, their names shape and pronunciation.” (p. 19)

Yahuda further states in his book that “it is Greek that anciently – long before the Trojan War – started altering into Hebrew, and not Hebrew into Greek.” (p. 633)

The same author convincingly asserts in his book that “when the Hellenic affinity of the Phoenicians had long been forgotten, it was assumed that the identity of the Greek with the Phoenician alphabet was simply a matter of borrowing.” (p. 8)

These are powerful statements, based on thirty years of painstaking and meticulous scholarly research, by Joseph Yahuda, the results of which were compiled in the above mentioned book, a monumental work of about 700 pages.

The results of this research may be viewed as controversial and thought-provoking, yet they are well documented, compelling and scholarly, hence they cannot be waived-off, dismissed or ignored. This book diverges from narrow nationalistic motives and through science it casts doubt to the hitherto widely accepted theory that the Hebrew alphabet and language - as well as the Phoenician - are of Semitic origin!

Nor we can ignore the fact that as far back as the third millennium BCE, the Middle East was colonized by Minoan Philistines, and that the Phoenicians were related to the Philistines, and they all spoke Greek dialects and wrote using Greek characters.

In fact, the ancient historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-117 CE), in his book “The Histories”, writes this: “Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete… Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighboring tribe, the Ideaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name.” Could this obvious etymological similarity be a mere coincidence? Furthermore, could it go unnoticed?

I submit that as archeology unearths more evidence, old theories will be revised and the new findings will eventually reveal the facts and truth. I also submit that the early Hellenic influence goes beyond the Aegean and Mediterranean basins. As Joseph Yahuda writes in his book, “four thousand years ago the whole of the Middle East was overrun, colonized and controlled by Greeks and allied tribes.” (p. 7)

Consequently, the languages and the writing systems that people of these regions used were developed and originated in the Aegean basin and mainland Greece and made their way to the Levant (and not the other way around) through these settlers.

The Greek alphabet is a product of this human migration and cultural evolution and was developed, in full circle, among people that shared a common Hellenic lineage, heritage and culture. The Greek alphabet, indeed, has Hellenic roots!

The debate on this and several related issues may not stop, and it should not, albeit debates of this sort must be based on historical and scientific facts and, as Dr. Dianne Ravitch of NYU said, “history must be based on evidence, openly arrived at and openly argued, not myth, ideology or opinion.”

About the author: George C. Chryssis is an entrepreneur, an award winning poet, a community activist, and a philanthropist. A prolific author, he has written four poetry books, a technical book (translated and published in Chinese also) and has contributed numerous editorials, commentaries, literary and general articles in various publications. He is also a founder and former publisher of “The Hellenic Voice” weekly national newspaper. For his contributions to Hellenism, community, business, literature, education and philanthropy, he has received over twenty awards and citations. He lives and works in Massachusetts.

Selected Bibliography

1. Demsky, Aaron, Biblical Archeology Review (NY, 1998)

2. Dothan, Moshe and Trude, People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines (Macmillan, New York, 1992)

3. Ehram, Bart D., Misquoting Jesus (HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 2005)

4. Fischer, Steven R., Glyphbraker (Copernicus, New York, 1997)

5. Friedman, Richard E., Who wrote the Bible? (HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 1997)

6. Greenberg, Gary, Myths of the Bible (Sourcebooks, Inc., Naperville, IL, 2002)

7. Harris, Roberta L., The World of the Bible (Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1995)

8. Herm, Gerhard, The Phoenicians: The Purple Empire of the Ancient World (William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, 1975)

9. Hopper, R.J., The Early Greeks (Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1976)

10. Kalopoulos, Michael, The Great Lie (Xlibris, USA, 2003)

11. Lefkowitz, Mary, Not Out Of Africa (Basic Books, New York, 1996)

12. Rubenstein, Richard, Aristotle’s Children (Harcourt, Orlando, FL, 2003)

13. Vrettos, Theodore, Alexandria, City of the Western Mind (The Free Press, New York, 2001)

14. Yahuda, Joseph, Hebrew is Greek (Becket Publications, Oxford, 1982)

15. Zagorin, Perez, Thucydides: An Introduction for the Common Reader (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005)

back to index

Miscellania

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Asia Finest Discussion Forum _ Debate / Philosophy / Religion _ Western Genocide

Posted by: TheHero Nov 9 2007, 10:56 AM

Posted by: Jor Nov 10 2007, 06:10 PM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 10 2007, 07:37 PM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 11 2007, 12:41 AM

Posted by: Jor Nov 11 2007, 12:49 PM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 11 2007, 01:43 PM

Posted by: Jor Nov 11 2007, 03:34 PM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 11 2007, 05:39 PM

Posted by: TheHero Nov 11 2007, 06:47 PM

Posted by: Jor Nov 11 2007, 08:23 PM

Posted by: Jor Nov 11 2007, 08:38 PM

Posted by: Jor Nov 11 2007, 11:03 PM

Posted by: TheHero Nov 12 2007, 09:36 AM

Posted by: Jor Nov 12 2007, 12:00 PM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 15 2007, 07:20 PM

Posted by: tinman01 Nov 16 2007, 12:05 AM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 16 2007, 02:23 AM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 16 2007, 03:00 AM

Posted by: Jor Nov 17 2007, 01:43 PM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 18 2007, 01:14 AM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 18 2007, 03:21 AM

Posted by: TheHero Nov 18 2007, 05:29 AM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 19 2007, 12:12 AM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 19 2007, 10:37 AM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 19 2007, 12:19 PM

Posted by: TheHero Nov 21 2007, 11:23 PM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 22 2007, 12:28 AM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Nov 22 2007, 02:05 PM

Posted by: Yuyutsu Dec 6 2007, 06:51 PM

Posted by: TheHero Jan 9 2008, 10:27 AM

Saturday, August 22, 2009

The Family of Man

by Bill Blakemore

The Calumet Connection

Bloody Empire

No Actual Indians

Visual Puzzle

Sound of Moviegoers

Maze and Hotel

Weak Males

Friday, August 21, 2009

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me