Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Wednesday
See the document at Downloads called "BenjaminHistory." I wrote the first page, but the second consists of extracts from Benjamin. Read and respond to it at least once on the blog. Be sure to be specific in your references to the document and mentally engaged as you write. After reading once, you might look for key words: "spiral," "line," "image." What is meant by "progress" and "homogenous, empty time"? Marquez writes of the isolated rebels, history's big losers. He is investigating how to recover the flitting image of the past. Remember -- Colonel Aureliano Buendia lost every battle and then struggled to keep either image of himself or coherent language to express himself on pages 161-168. Think hard, get dirty, grasp an idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
Alright I guess I'll be first. From the document I'll highlight two conflicting ideologies: communism and fascism . The first communism promotes equality while fascism promotes what is best for the community or progress.
The section from OHYS is simply about the revolutionary campaigns of the Colonel and the idea that his actions do not bring the Liberal party closer to their goal. Furthermore, in the end the Colonel chooses to abandon the Liberal ideals and end the war himself.
This passage relates to the document thus:
- if Liberal: Communist; Conservative: Fascist, then the concept behind the pointless, never-ending war is thus: Communism impedes progress. Furthermore, by abandoning Liberal ideals to end the war, the Colonel displays a possibility that Fascism encourages progress. (in the war and a nation)
Just a thought though.
KR: Where did you get a definition of fascism that says it works for the good of community? The Italian community lynched the Fascist Mussolini. Look at the word "communi"sm. It is conceptually based on the idea of community good. It might help to remember that these are polar extremes that both amount to totalitarianism. It is simply that fascism is friendlier to the capitalist, not that it is good as opposed to communism's bad. See Schindler's List.
I'm not advocating communism but reminding you to read the novel without too many preconceptions about its evils. Was the banana company progressive? Did it create community good?
Of course, if you conceive of progress as the Benjamin document suggests, you use it without a positive connotation. Think about Benjamin for a definition of the two competing views of history that Marquez illustrates in his novel. It may be that Macondo is between a rock and a hard place.
I think I may have been trying to make the idea fit a specific purpose and misintepreted fascism, I intended on defining fascism as a focus on the greatness of a nation as a whole such as economic strength. For example, a nation of great wealth and economic power but a large lower class such as China. Honestly, community isn't the word I would have liked to use.
I should have provided further definition but as for elements in the novel such as the banana plantation and the train benefits would include a link to the outside world which Jose Arcadio Buendia sought to form long before these advancements.
Would this rock and a hard place be a conflict between tradition values (Conservative) and modernization? (possibly Liberal) The conflict would then be advancement with the cost of loss in tradition. For example, when Japan lessened its isolation policy, it was exposed to the ideas and technologies of the US and European nations (ex: in the movie The Last Samurai Japan faced much influence from the US and experienced seperation from its traditional elements such as the samurai).
Therefore, can one say with progress comes sacrifice?
i understand what benjamin is saying. history can be a very closed-minded, one-sided view into the past. but it makes sense. the present, obviously, is controlled by the ruling class, the powerful people, the capitalists. and the present, soon becomes the past, so its very logical that the past would be told from the perspective of those who determined it. the question then becomes, is that good or bad? we would all love to say, oh thats bad, we should always look at everyone's side of the story and be advocates of the unpowerful, but maybe that's not necessarily true. according to benjamin, this would create a communist community, which sounds great in theory, but past attempts at this have proven unsuccessful. it kinda seems like there's no real solution, i guess a common problem in society. we "want" everyone to have a voice, but do we really? if that would serve the world better, why has it never successfully been done that way? is it because there must always be a ruling class in order for society to properly function? or because power has never truly been stripped from the higher class and given to the lower? of course once the lower class gained power, they would no longer be the lower class now would they? perhaps a hierarchy is inevitable, and maybe even beneficial, so long as upward mobility is provided. as this applies to the novel, i think they had the same dilemma of never being able to find a solution. the conservative regime was oppressive, but when the liberal party gained power, they were no better. i suppose those in the present learn from the past, and if the past is skewed, the present never turns out the way it was originally intended. then we get that same spiral pattern in our history. we are moving forward yes, but going around in circles making the same mistakes as before. this also directly relates to the novel with the circular patterns found in the family line and the history of macondo. just like the pig's tail. around and around and around.
i believe that when Benjamen says that history is not homogenous, empty time he is say that the present that we live in is not open to whatever happens. I believe he is suggesting that time is resrticted by the past and what happened in the past will happen in the future inevitably. Time is something that is somewhat full of the past and the now. This relates to the novel in that the present and future is limited to what has already been established and therefore has no emptiness to be filled.
In regards to the communism versus facisim i believe that in a communicism society the individual is not under the rule of a higher class to determine its future and happeneings in the now and thus everyone can use his/her "state of emergancy" in order to recall past events and make moves toward the future. In this instance time is empty and is open to new happenings that are not influenced by the past. In a facist society this can not happen because the ruling class controls the future and in their case they determine the future throught the past and time is not empty because it is already filled. In regards to the novel i believe that Macondo is a facist society that has no empty time because the "now" is already determined by a higher power.
Great conversation thus far. You have all three hit on some crucial points already: progress, the (debatable) inevitability of class, and the role of the Now in history. KLB: Are you sure it has never worked? Did Macondo work before the mayor arrived? Of course, it wasn't communism, but it wasn't fascism either. Wonder what it was? In the novel, did the Liberal Party ever gain power?
Try to focus on history and the novel. The "fascism/communism" descriptors are to aid understanding, to give you a dialectical opposition to think with.
Well being that this blog is obviously being answered by intellects I feel the need to step it down a notch so I can interpret this writing in my own understanding. First I would like to start with the definitions of fascism and communism and how they relate to the liberal and conservative parties against each other in OHYS. In the internet definition I found fascism is the ruling brought about by a dictoral leader. From the definition I remember from a for blog writer, communism is the belief of equality to better the community so no one person is higher or lower than another. In OHYS, I found it quite hard to tell who the actual leader was in Macondo. I felt that Aureliano Buendia held the military power, but wasn't he guided into the position by his father-in-law? Where did the original power come from that started the Liberal Party that was led by Colonel Buendia in the war? Did the Colonel appear to be of fascism belief or was that what we were to believe?
Now to other things...
The banana company to me seemed as more of intruders into the town of Macondo than reformers for the town. They may have had good intentions for the town but how was it truly progressive. Eventually their power led to a massacre that killed over 3000 people more like a fascism attack. I don't see any communism in that.
Hey, CH, now you're an intellect too! Great questions, and great work looking up some terms. The terms may need a little refinement. Maybe later posts will help clear up what side is what. Remember that Macondo is isolated but that there is, somewhere out there in the novel, a nation divided between warring camps. The mayor (father in law) seems to bring the seeds of war. He is the town's first government, and he came in from outside.
That was alot to read. What I thought was intersting was the first line on the second page of the download where it says "The true picture of the past flits by. The past can be seized only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again."
I thought this was interesting because it got me thinking about the past and memories. I think it might mean something like when you recall a memory you bring it up and it flashes through your mind, but then your mind tell you what to think about it. Like You see the memory and then you tell what happend... So Your history is what you make it.? or what you make of it? I dunno thats just what I was thinking about.
oh And I had a question is "Po folks" like just poor people or is there really a group of people called "po?" this might be lame but I really don't know
People always say, "Fight fire with fire!" But, logically speaking, what does that accomplish? Nothing but a larger fire.
To answer your question, Mr. Koon, the Liberal Party never was able to gain power in the central government. Its dilemma was that it was, in fact, fighting fire with fire.
When asked whether or not he would renounce certain aims of the Liberal Party, Col. Aureliano Buendia sternly replies, "That means, that all we're fighting for is power."
Trying to save face, his advisor cuts in, "It's a contradiction. If these changes are good, it means the Conservative regime is good." "It means, in short, that for almost twenty years we've been fighting against the sentiments of the nation."
Col. Buendia states, "The important thing is from now on we'll be fighting only for power."
The Liberal Party could not succeed, because there is no possibility of reaching the original goal. If concessions are made to "broaden the popular base," then the war will become a power struggle in which the only victor is the "dung heap of glory"; the only thing accomplished is the transition of power from one vice to another.
Back to history and time and stuff:
This Benjamin guy says that history is time filled with the presence of now. So, time isn't a free, undefined future, but a restricted illusion of chance. The is a framework for it from which the present cannot digress.
Time in Macondo was like this: a basic sequence was set forth in the first generation, to be fulfilled in the successive generations of the Buendias. So, were the scribblings of Melquiades predictions? Or were they predetermined facts which Melquiades simply put on undecipherable paper? This view of history and time may suggest the latter. Melquiades was not the prophet he seemed to be, but just a hapless fellow who noticed a pattern.
... maybe this is irrelevant, but who would be the upper class capitalists in this case? Would Melquiades be this allusion of the capitalists since he wrote the history? That is one question I had.
And to take a stab at what my friend Andrew mentioned above, I think that Melquiades is more of a recorder of predetermined facts as emphasized in this passage: "...progress was regarded as irresistible, something that automatically pursued a straight or spiral course...", found in paragraph XIIV. I think that this paragraph does an exceptional job of defending it's idea as well. Leaving very few holes through which someone could slip a contradictory statement. However, if these ideas are indeed true, then how is it that we can change our fait with hard work and perspiration? This we will never know.
"...progress was regarded as irresistible, something that automatically pursued a straight or spiral course..."
So in this excerpt from the Walter Benjamin’s “theory on the phil..." he states that progress was automatically pursued as a straight or spiral course. This stood out to me because although i agree with the first part of the statement. Progress is a linear process however i do not agree that progress can be of a cyclical nature. I looked up progress and found this definition "the development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level." I think this can be applied to the Buendia family because when they tried to let the gypsies and the banana plantation workers in to Macondo both situations ended badly, however they did not learn from one situation to the next. Progress is learning from our mistakes however “cycle” hints at repetition. When i think of progress i think of it as more of a linear process and being able to build off ones mistakes in order to fix them in the future. In OYHOS i see look at the families cyclical existence yet i somehow do not see progress. In fact the cyclical nature of incest in their family is what ended the Buendia family in the end...and it is just a coincidence that the child that ended their families’ existence was born with a pig’s tail??? (Cyclical)??
So an observant few of the oppressed (or “the intellectuals who side with the oppressed”) are able to realize that their history and their present world were/are essentially not what they seem to have been/be. They are stuck in a seemingly fake reality defined by the powerful capitalists, as if they have this huge secret that they cannot make known, and that even if they wanted to or tried to, the spoken secret would be trampled by their overpowering surrounding environment of conceptual falsehood and “conformism” brought about by “a thousand years of feudal hierarchies.” They acknowledge the thought that the history which they have been told and which they previously thought to be 'true' and accurate might not have really been what actually happened, and that their present status or situation could be or should be (or is) of a whole 'nother framework and structure altogether.
Fighting fire with fire doesn't create a bigger fire at all. Or maybe it does. Or maybe this isn't a comparison between two different fires at all; perhaps the powerful capitalists are the raging fire and the oppressed are merely the wood that is burning, or the gasoline in which the wood is soaked, or a combination of the two, essentially enabling the fire and allowing it to continue burning, “immutable,” rendering the fire dangerous, the “danger” affecting “both the content of the tradition and its receivers,” thus creating or presenting the “threat” (now the imminent, inevitable “reality”) of “becoming a tool” (wood, gasoline, etc.) “of the ruling classes,” their present 'fake reality' being the enabler of the manifestation and truth of the diagram.
But if you still want to view the fire concept as containing two opposing forces, then you have to consider Newton's third law, which states that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” This would create a neutral, balanced situation, but clearly that is not the case with the capitalists-versus-the-oppressed opposition, so perhaps the force or action with the greater magnitude is victorious and pushes, literally against the law, through its opposing reactionary force. So one could consider that not allowing the secret to be known is 'wrong' or unjust, but just because something is wrong or illegal does not mean that it will not continue to prevail or continue to occur. Thus “the fascist 'reality'” continues “immutable” and unstoppable. “This enemy has not ceased to be victorious,” and apparently it's not going to cease any time soon...
And perhaps you are right Andrew, Melquiades was, in fact, not a prophet, but rather a mere transcriber. So Macondo continued with all the injustice and immorality and incest and murder and all the 'wrong,' following the “basic sequence” which “was set forth in the first generation,” “immutable.” Jose Arcadio Segundo was perhaps one of the oppressed, but he was quite mutable. He tried to make known the “secret” of the massacre, but it had already been trampled, forgotten, and lost. His proclamations were suppressed by the majority, by the conformists, and the false/spiral/cyclical/circular/linear history of Macondo continued, unaffected by his “attempt...to wrest tradition away from a conformism.”
Alright. Midnight. Friggin' sweet. I HATE WORKING AT THE MOVIES WHEN MEET THE BROWNS OPENS....
Anywho...
Yall I'ma really try to "get dirty" here. So don't laugh.
Ok. When reading over this, I pulled out a few things from the novel. Benjamin states "This jump, however, takes place in an arena where the ruling class give the commands." I then went back to the novel, and on page 348, it says "...when Aureliano became part of the world, one would have thought that he was telling a hallucinated version, because it was radically opposed to the false one that historians had created and consecrated in the schoolbooks." So these two passages connect in my mind. Marquez is talking about how the powerful write history, and the poor and/or weak have to conform to it...or fight a nearly losing battle. So back to Ben, he talks of an arena, (where battles are held). This is also an arena where the powerful give commands...or in a sense, write history in Marquez's case.
Then we get into a bit about memory and such. On page 348, it talks about how Buendia "stumbled and had accidents and could therefore splinter and leave an eternalized fragment in a room." I feel like that's a fancy way of saying that he in fact made a memory.
And then to connect with what Jessica was getting at, (who has been in bed sleeping since I got off work :( ) she is talking about memories and how they seemingly flash through your mind. On page 223 of the book, these passages talk about when the movies were introduced to Macondo, and how the audience was at one point fascinated by the "living images" that were projected in the theater. That passage for some reason makes me connect with what is being said about the "flashing" memories.
Hey, this thread is red hot. Jess, "po" was just me trying to be cute: "poor" is what I meant.
Think about Titanic for the "flashing" incident. If not for the moment of danger coinciding with Kate Winslet's recognition of Leo de Caprio as a concern of her present, he would have disappeared irretrievably. History would not have known him. We hear of him from her past, a past that remains a concern of her present, even in her extreme old age.
.
i thought the first lines of the second page of the download were interesting. "The true picture of the past flits by. The past can be seized only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again." and also "For every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably". I took these to mean that when an event passes, unless it is recognized, it wont be remembered later or it wont be remembered correctly. Like what mr. koon said about titanic. Jack was important to Rose's history so she remembered him. If the upper class tells our history then things that were not important to that class won't be taught or remembered.
going off of
what mr. koon
carolyn
and haley said
so if the moment in the past
does not concern our present
then it does not matter and is forgotten?
is that what you were saying?
well i am going to assume that it was.
in my psychology class we learned that memory of certain things rely on certain things
retention
attention
motivation
as well as many opther factors
this supports Ben claims if you think about it
especialy with motivation and attention
as well as what carolyn and haley said
when we enter a critical moment in our lives
we call on our memories to help us
for example
if a mother finds out that her child is dying
she may call up memories of them well to get through it
it wasnt until she needed those memoires
that she was able to recall them in such away
it wasnt until they concerned her present that she called them out of the recesses of her memory
that is motivation
she called forth those particular memories of the past
because they were the ones
that could help her deal with the present
that is attention, in the way she focused mainly on those memories that were of use to her
i do not know if these could also support the idea that you lose those memories that arent useful...well yes there is
there is something in psychology called anterograde intereference
where the retention of old info
is interfered with the use or aquirement of new info
so by focusing on certain memoires
they could be helping the other memories of that time
to be slowly forgotten or fade
hmmm now i have a question
if anyone cares
what about false memories
or memories that were created
to fill in a void of a time that was so horroific that it was blanked out
do those
act in the same ways as the true memories
at critical moments do they help us
or can they hinder
considering the fact that they are false
okay to put some input into the question you ask Denzel i think that false memories could help us in critical moments. False memory is like the confusion of imagination with memory so if you were in a critical situation those "False" memories could be hindered even if you didnt experince them-kinda like deja vu.
okay then to answer the original question about homogenous.
"History is the subject of a structure whose site is not homogenous, empty time, but time filled by the presence of the now."
homogenous is something similar in stucture because it comes from a common orgin. so i guess he is saying that history does not originate from a common orgin where things develop the same and stay the same(empty time), but history develops over time and changes and keeps going even into the present time.Im not sure if thats what it really means but thats kind of how i thought of it.
if you think about it in the first place who records history?? the powerful or the poor??
to me i think that the powerful do, and that history is history on whatever the powerful want it to be because they are the ones who write it down in the first place.
also history should be a "linear" path in that we as human beings "should" learn from our past but in many cases we do not. History could be "spiral" in that we as humans being do not learn from the past and keep doing the same thing(s) over and over again. This reminds me of a child in that once they touch a hot stove they know its hot and do not want to be burned again.
also Ben says
"The concept of the historical progress of mankind cannot be sundered from the concept of its progression through a homogenous, empty time. A critique of the concept of such a progression must be the basis of any criticism of the concept of progress itself."
I think that Ben is saying we as human cannot make progress through "empty time" but what is "empty time"?? but isnt something always happening in history or the past, so how could we have a time with nothing happening or "empty"??
Going back to the first couple of lines of the download... it kind of made me think of the first part of the book, being that it was a memory. This being said could some of the events in the first part be “false memories.” Just a thought.
But going back to the fighting fire with fire thing, don’t firefighters start fires to help put out forest fires. So could the Liberal party have been started to “put out” the Conservative party. If this is the case then it is a failed attempt and it eventually turned into just a larger fire (the 32 revolutions that Col. Buendia lost) as Andrew said.
In the paragraph from XIIV, Benjamin talks about progress automatically being pursued in a straight or spiral course, so if that is true this would mean that the saying “history repeats itself” (as we have heard in every history class that we have taken) is always true (in the case of the spiral). So if we progress in a spiral course would that not mean that we would never change like the Buendia family. This would also mean that many cultures would have never expanded ex. the Japanese as Kevin said. Truthfully I cannot understand how someone can see this. To me it always seems that progress always progresses in a straight line.
after reading the document, i think that progress means going forward, changing and i think a 'homogenous, empty time' is meant as a progress-less, empty period of time.
in benjamin's "XIIV," progress always exists, even when it doesn't in a homogenous, empty time.
somethin's always happenin'.
concerning 'the true picture of the past' paragraph V, i feel that after the truth passes by us, we see our own version of it. i don't understand how Marquez investigates how to recover the flitting image of the past, because he's writing magic realism where the author writes his perspective of the truth. i guess he is seeking it while writing it, but i still don't understand.
meh.
first of all, i don't really understand why it matters whether the powerful people or the people with no power record history because either way there's going to be some bias and the whole truth isn't going to be told.
"...progress was regarded as irrestisible, something that automatically pursued a straight or spiral course..."
i think that this relates to one hundred years of solitude because some sort of progress took place throughout the whole book. whether it was new babies being born or new things being invented or whatever, progress was still taking place. there was pretty much no stopping progress from taking place so in a way that kind of made progress "irrestisible." also, walter benjamin uses the word "spiral" which relates to the book as well because the course of the town eventually took a spiral turn when the tornado ripped through the town and destroyed it.
After reading the document and taking into account the time frame in which it was written and the event that was taking place. I think that from Walter Benjamin's "Theses on the Philosphy of History" he implies that history has been and will be written by the powerful and what they say will only be seen as a ligitement representation of the past. This also relates to what Haley was saying about aureliano Buendia going against normalcy and his interpretation of the school books. Everyone thought he had this "hallucinating version" becuase he opposed it. This illustrates how the lower class is taught what to beleive in or follow.
Another thing I noticed that I thought was intresting was the comment in parenthesis about (the good tidings which the historian of the past brings with throbbing heart may be lost in a void the very moment he opens his mouth.) I took it as he was implying that a person (historian) Knows all of these things about the past but as soon as they began to document what they found based on other historical documents, they can become lost because the resources they used have been documented by the powerful.
In my opinion Marquez uses this book as an example to show that the people in power write history, becuase Melquaides meaning god wrote the history of the buendia family and he was considered powerful.
I think that in OHYS we can see how it matters who "writes" the story...the powerful or the unpowerful. As Anna Rae said both provide bias but in OHYS Melquiades writes the story of the city of Macondo, as well as the generations of the Buendia family. We dont see that much bias in his writing because he is neither powerful or unpowerful he is all seeing. He is the one looking down on the people (powerful and unpowerful). He is like God. In a way you can say that God is the most powerful of all, but i find no bias in God. He created the earth, but we know he did not create it perfect.
If you look at the story of Prometheus and Zeus you can see how even though Prometheus betrayed Zeus and brought fire to the people Zeus still allowed it in a way. He punished Prometheus by having a crow eat away at his side every day, and at the end of every day it would heal so Prometheus would keep feeling the pain for the rest of his life. He also killed Prometheus' brother by sending Pandora to him, but the fire still stayed with the people.
In a way this shows how even though the all powerful Zeus tried to rule over the land with an iron fist he still had people who revolted.
This reminds me of Jose Arcadio who spent his time in the school and ruled over Macondo with an iron fist, but Ursula still had some control over him. Just like the people still had some control over Zeus.
Ya so I'm going to bed...Peace...
i think that both the powerful people and the poor people record history. it is just the powerful people's history is what is recognized as history by present day people. but the poor people have history also and it is recorded, but it is just unrecognized, kinda like the people themself. its the figures in the past that are powerful and do great things that people remember. people dont remember some poor guy named billy joe. so there past is forgotten kinda like they are.
Hmm... David, I liked what you had to say. But who has the upmost power here?
Everyone will say Melquiades, because of his role in the book, being the writer, and only allowing the complete story to be read when he felt it time. But was Melquiades always in control? Or was his writing based much like Pilar's fortune telling: based off past events?
Is Melquiades' writings showing the Buendia family that they are not in control of their lives, or is it showing that they have chosen their destiny, but their course of action predictable, and like the fortunes, based off the past?
so i was looking online to find some ideas about the history of macondo that would help me understand walter benjamin's writings a little better and i found this talking about the linear history of macondo:
the linear history of the town falls into four sections: utopian innocence and social harmony, in which Macondo exists like an early Eden, its inhabitants so innocent that no one has yet died and they don't even have names for things, the world "was so recent that many things lacked names, and in order to indicate them it was necessary to point" (11). This section takes up the first five chapters of the book. The story then moves on to the military struggle in the various civil wars and revolutions (Chapters 6 to 9), then into a period of economic prosperity and spiritual decline (Chapters 10 to 15); and finally to decadence and physical destruction (Chapters 16 to 20).
this is part of a lecture given by ian johnston...
so the military struggles happen earlier on in the novel...colonel aureliano buendia joined the liberal party because of the corruption that he perceived in the conservative government... benjamin says that "to articulate the past historically...means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger." aureliano uses the corruption of the conservative party as that moment of danger.... this is historical materialism and mr koon says this is a method for the oppressed to seize the high ground of history... the colonel became a part in history by using that moment of danger...
its also interesting to see that this all came earlier in the history of macondo and after the colonel lost and became a solitary figure there was the banana plantation in which the capitalists prospered a the cost of the unimportant people who were originally in macondo... from here on out macondo seemed to go down hill... there seemed to be a conflict between the historicism of the capitalists and the historical materialism of the poor people and after the colonel lost it seemed that the historical materialism lost as well...since all this happened closer to the beginning of the novel it seems like macondo was doomed from the very beginning...
I agree with Anna Rae. As Benjamin said in his 6th point "To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it ‘the way it really was’ (Ranke). It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger." so no matter who tells it, the progression of history is biased and different depending on who is experiencing what throughout their lives. Relating to Macondo, different people told the history. Melquiades and Jose Arcadio Buendia told the history from when they lived there. Important births of family members and events in the town. Then there were a few who could tell what was going on based on what they knew before, such as Pilar Ternera reading the past in her cards during the widespread insomnia and Ursula's memory of everything that happened in the house, locations of the rooms, people's routine activities, and what she realized about the past events of her life after she went blind. It all relates to their memories and their history. Progress, to Benjamin, is inevitable. Things will keep happening no matter what.
One thing I noticed that Kinsey was touching on about our dear friend Billy Joe, the past of BJ’s people, the Po Folk, is neglected. When their past is neglected, it allows for only one alternative, the past of the “powerful people” must mold into truth, or what is conceived as truth. So we have good ole’ country boy Billy Joe who works and lives on the same earth as our powerful people, but his past is neglected, it is not truly recorded and not really even considered or remembered. This is why we have books like the one in Mr. Galeota’s classroom, the one about lies our teacher’s tell us. Some things are not considered or remembered, some things are lies. Every event we have learned of does not contain an entire truth, but merely a portion of that truth (which is often times tampered with, thanks to “powerful people”, or recorders of history). When you start to think of that, everything seems to become a little “droopy”. Any event written in American History: A Survey (your history book this year), does not contain the story from the Po Folk, “powerful people”, and the little guy that was drinking whiskey in the woods, observing it all while experiencing vertigo.
This brings me to “what is meant by progress”. To me, progress most clearly relates to the development of better ways of life or society. Well, when an event is only recorded by “powerful people”, not Billy Joe, Po Folks, or the whisky guy, the occurrence only explains the “powerful people’s” point of view. How can progress be achieved when only one class speaks their mind? I think this may be something that Marquez was thinking about. He doesn’t really have all these classes labeled, but progress is not achieved in OHYOS. In fact, progress is so far away from being existent that the town pulls a Benedict and turns around. Macondo dies, it does not achieve anything. Maybe the Buendia’s were acting as the only people speaking their mind, making the same mistakes over and again. They never learned because they only read the writings of other Buendia’s, never the insight of a guy drinking whiskey in the woods, who might have something to say…
The point of view which is studied is not always progressive.
I also agree with benjamin in that history is very one sided. often we dont look at all sides of the issue, the society looks at the side of the issue that the government sees is in the governments best issue for the people to look at. History is all based on perspective and the most benificial to the current government in power is the view of history that we learn. that is true of all countries. history also involves on if the person wins or loses because our great hero George Washington could have been just another terrorist if he would not have succeded..
I agree with CHawkins aka chelsea!!! We sometimes think to hard into this book when there is no need. i would also like ot give you the definition of fascism is a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right,typically through the merging of state and business leadership,together with belligerent nationalism. and clearly in the novel the outside figure is the father in law who enters the isolated town of macondo. along the lines of what haley was saying doesn't it seem like only the powerful higher level class write history
and the poor or weak class have to abide by those guidelines. If this is the fact arent they fighting a nearly losing battle in the end?
"The true picture of the past flits by. The past can be seized only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again..."
I think this relates back to OHYS. As you know, at the end of the book, Aureliano Babylonia deciphers the book that Melquiades wrote, which tells the history of the Buendia family. It is that exact moment that he realizes what is happening and reads the family history and then the town and everything with it DISAPPEARS. It's kind of the same when the town went into insomnia. Members of Macondo only knew about certain things such as cows because they were able recognize them at that exact moment by signs, but later they would be forgotten because they were of no use to remember. Okay, in other words, I'm trying to say that Benjamin, in my opinion, is correct in what he says and this can go along with the novel because certain events in the story took place for that second and then weren't ever thought about again.. on to the next point...
"...progess was regarded as irresistible, something that automatically pursued a straight or spiral course..."
Now, refering back to Anna Rae .. I also think this relates to OHYS because progress did seem to be put in the novel many times. Progress was shown from things such as babies being born like Anna Rae said, to inventions, to even Aureliano deciphering the book at the end because I think that in some way that was progress .. there had to be progress in the town to build up for that moment to actually happen .. and the word spiral relates to the novel because throughout the whole novel, words that had something to do with circles or turns were used...
i definately agree with west, kinsey, and anna rae when they say that we never really know the real truth of history because of the bias in the records and history books. we can never really know how a certain person felt if we were not there in the same time they were.
in passage 6, benjamin says,
"To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it ‘the way it really was’ (Ranke)."
so we cannot really "articulate the past" or clarify history because nobody knows how it really was. we must assume things we cannot be certain of, and when these assumptions are passed down and told for generations, it just becomes the "truth".
okay so im going to give this a shot! its really late but here we go.
I also agree with kinsey, west and i guess now morgan because she wrote before me, when they say that there is a bias on history. I mean sure what we are taught is some what right but how much of that have we learned that are hard core facts on. When Morgan said that what people tell other people over a period of time eventually becomes truth is right.
And now to get off of that subject and move onto the whole spiral and linear history subject...
Ben says in XIIV that
"…progress was regarded as irresistible, something that automatically pursued a straight or spiral course…"
I think that every one wants history to be linear, because it would mean that people would learn from their mistakes but infact not all history is linear but a great portion of it is spiral. This means that people do not learn from their mistakes therefore repeating what they have already done. There is a saying that says "History will repeat itself" This is true. Just like in the town of Macondo, the people did sometimes learn from their mistakes, makeing that part of history linear. In other parts though it is spiral because the history they did not learn from their mistakes was repeated. Well its exactly 12:01 and i think i am finshed with this blog. see yall tomorrow.
I agree completely with Marissa. I believe that Marquez is suggesting or supporting in his novel the idea that history may not the "true" history, but only the perspective of those in power who encountered the history. We base our history off of evidence, or historical documents; but what if these documents are not what actually happened from the past?
This is shown perfectly with the banana plantation strike. The Conservative Party killed some 3,000 Liberals protesting and only one survives, Jose Arcadio Segundo. Jose Arcadio Segundo tried to tell everybody: his friends, his family, random people, etc., and they all thought he was crazy because the ones in power, the Conservative Party, had already decided history. Was this was really happened?... No. But it's history now. Same could apply for ANY historical event that we have learned about.
Walter Benjamin acknowledges this thesis as well. In Article VI he states, "To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it 'the way it really was' (Ranke)," and also in Article VIII he states, "We must attain a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight." These quotes are both in agreement with Marquez that today we must accept a "conception" of what history was, but we cannot ever be sure of what history actually was, not even based on historical documents provided by reputable authors.
Maybe history is all a lie...
Not to stray too far from what has just been said by Andrew, but I wanted to focus more on fascism and how our interpretation of history can be somewhat "fascist." Now a basic definition of fascism is a more aggressive and brutal form of communism.
Fascism is great for those in power, but only for them. Walter Benjamin says, "Then we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency, and this will improve our position in the struggle against Fascism. One reason why Fascism has a chance is that in the name of progress its opponents treat it as a historical norm."
He is saying that although fascism has happened all throughout history, it can, and will happen again, if it is not already happening. This shows the cyclical view of history, as seen in OHYOS. Although bad, fascism is part of that cycle, and no one, at the time of Benjamin, had written or described fascism as "bad" so therefore those studying history would not view it as bad.
Well, if government is a cyclical being, like that of Macondo, and as Benjamin says, is the whole world a cyclical being? Are we looking merely at one part, and not the whole? I feel personally that the human race is cyclical, and that we are doomed to make the same mistakes, although not in the same contextual form. for example, Hitler will not rule again, but that does not mean that another evil dictator will rule and call for the elimination of an entire race. Oh wait, that's already happening...
after i read the document by benjamin, i came to the conclusion that i agree that history is very one sided. if there is a issue the government looks at it through the eyes of the people only to better ourselves as a country. he says history is linear and sequential... i agree with this statement also because i believe that history is just a sequence of events that never changes in the sense of opinion. history is different in each person based on their views and beliefs
after i read the document by benjamin, i came to the conclusion that i agree that history is very one sided. if there is a issue the government looks at it through the eyes of the people only to better ourselves as a country. he says history is linear and sequential... i agree with this statement also because i believe that history is just a sequence of events that never changes in the sense of opinion. history is different in each person based on their views and beliefs
"The danger affects both the content of the tradition and its receivers. The same threat hangs over both: that of becoming a tool of the ruling classes."
So according to Walter Benjamin, people in power often use tradition or history as a tool to control the oppressed with. While this is true its is not the only tool that the people in power use.
Religion is what keeps the poor man from murdering the rich
-Napoleon Bonaparte
Religion is another tool that people in power often use to control the oppressed. If the people in power (the rich) can convince the oppressed (the poor man) to beleive in a religion or have faith, they can use that religion as a tool to control the oppressed. A great example of this is the Catholic church in Mexico under the oppressive rule of Porfirio Diaz. Diaz allowed the Catholic church to operate as long as they told the people to obey Diaz and his laws. Diaz's policy was "pan o palo" or "bread or the club" he used fear as an incentive to obey the oppressive laws.
i want to go back to what angela said about social harmony & how the people didn't even have names for things & the world "was so recent that many things lacked names, and in order to indicate them it was necessary to point"
my question is, if society is ignorant, not knowing its own history or even what the word "history" means, how can they change it?
for instance, if there were no names for things, how did history come about & how does it exist now? so history had to derive from the society as a whole because it took the whole society to form themselves and create these names, etc. over time & what we know as "progress", the upper, lower, and middle classes form and therefore, only those with power have the power to change the government, to change history.
another question, just random...
if a person sees an object such as a chair, but the object has no name and has never been seen by the person or anyone before, will the person know what the object, or in this case, what the "chair" is for? this is the basis for the creation of history: language.
if we as humans created language (mentioned as the "carrier of history), we also created history or "time filled by the presence of now." however, this human-made history can be edited, as many have said before me, to where there is a bias above and throughout it. this bias is created by the powerful to include ideals and events of their approval.
Laura's Comments : Kevin's entry is completely correct... everything in history comes down to people with power which is essentially people with money... the reason for this is because they are the one's that wrote the history... they had the money to afford to have someone write down what was happening in their lives and only the good things that happened...i highly doubt that they would have anything written down that portrayed them poorly.
that is what i would have written on the blog if i could get into it.....but i tried and i have no idea why it wont let me in...im pretty sure my user name is laurasinclair but the password wont work
I agree with Kaylyn, when there is no history you can not change it. Also many people have said that history is one-sided, I dont believe this. look at any big event in history, such as a war and you will find two sides, those sides can differ so incredbly that they could be unrecognizable as the same event. just look at 9/11 for instance. as americans we see it as a tragedy, where we lost many lives and came together as a country to fight terrorism. but if you look at it from the other point of view, they see it in a much different light they see it as wonderful, something they are proud of. you can't say history is one sided yes what part is let out for the people to believe is controled by the ruling class but, each family is going to pass down their own version to its members, thats why, as kevin said the people in charage need other methods to help them control of the ones below them. history has as many sides as people who have experenced it
Okay...yes I think it has been established that history portrays the wealthy and powerful, and that only the good things are written down and are swayed with each person who tells it. So as john mentioned earlier and in class today, history is cyclical yet not to a science. We don't and will not make the exact mistakes we made before, and the same people will not be ruling. Therefore I think unlike Macondo, that our history is linear. Yes some things will happen again similiar to past histroy. Whose to say that one of our future presidents won't be assasinated or that we won't ever be hit with a depression? However I think the human race progresses greatly with each decade. Take our presidental canidates for example, a woman and an african american are running for the democractic spot. That is definetly a linear history move. Yes we are going to be able to connect current events to the past, but what can we not connect? Almost everyone who has posted on the blog has connected or at least attempted to connect OYS or the "BenjaminHistory" document to something.
With that being said even though the whealthy and powerful might have most of the control and say in what our histroy was, we still know and hear about the bad things. We still heard about Colonel Aureliano Buendia's fight to stay recognized after being defeated in all his battles...so did anyone think about how possibly the reason we hear and know about "bad history" is because it made the whealthy look better??? or because it gave an underhanded compliment to the lives of the powerful??
"…progress was regarded as irresistible, something that automatically pursued a straight or spiral course…"
i believe that ofcourse progress is irresistable. humans naturally want to better themselves in everysituation this process is called progress. we strive for progress. but do we really know what progress is? form XIIV says..." a critique of the concept of such a progression must be the basis of any criticism of the concept of progress itself. so what is progress: linear or spiral? i believe progress is macondo is spiral because from the beginnig of the book, Macondo is progressing and inevitablly becoming more industrialized and technologically advanced. but throughout the end of the novel macondos progress seems to be slowly digressing and starting over sa it once was at the beginning of the novel. this creates a spiral motion.
right off the back benjamin's first line throws the images from the very end of OHYOS into my head. when he says "The true picture of the past flits by. The past can be seized only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again", it is exactly like the end of the novel when they past and present fly by Aureliano Babilonia and how once in happens in the novel its all over.
secondly in part two, ironicly, i see it as the struggle for power of the ruler, same as in the novel with colonel aureliano buendia becuause it says how neither wish to become a tool to one another.
finally the last part of benjamin's works is great for the reference of the entire theme in the novel. he speaks of how history isnt a one time thing it happens all around us and is the now because the now will be the history of the future. i hope that made sense. its excatly how the novel is perceived, at least by me, that people are so fixed on the past, or the future, that they dont live in the presence anymore. they are crupting the history of the future by not focusing on the now everyone is focusing on certain aspects either trying to repeat them or change them, sort of like the french rev. rome thing. the past is continuiously being brought back up which i believe is ment by the empty time. its empty because all that is being done is a place holder and no change has been made its just there and useless.
I want to comment on Benjamin's quote that states, "History is the subject of a structure whose site is not homogenous, empty time, but time filled by the presence of the now." Thinking of personal experiences, I realize that i rely on history and the past for many answers. I take what is happening in the present (the now), and almost put myself in the time of the past. The show Cold Case is a perfect example. The victims are all investigated and they all tell their stories of the past, but they fill that time in the past with what is going on now either to save themselves or help lead to solving the case. I know this isn't deep, but i thought it was a good conncection to Benjamin's works.
Post a Comment