NOTES ON CHARLOTTESVILLE:
OR, WHY WHITE PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST AS A PEOPLE
I've heard some several buddies, people I know well and care about (most of them not in comment boxes or in public) asking about the moral equivalency between the neo Nazis, white nationalists, and other white ethnostate type supporters and groups like Black Lives Matter, Antifa (short for Antifascists), and other direct action groups.
I'd like to speak to that comparison a bit and then turn to a more important part of it that I worry about. Before I get to that, I should first say that I've said enough about Trump. Honestly, the guy confuses me. He swings from a nihilistic idiot to a idiotic nihilist. His inconsistencies pile so high that you either get lost in them or you use them wholesale to try and make your point. He wins in the time and toll it takes. He also, I think, has found a very particular niche worldview for his newfound politics and is willing to, at the end of the day, embrace ANYONE willing to give him what he wants the most: affection. Never, at least to my memory, have we had a more emotionally needy president. But that's neither here nor there at the moment.
If you look at most social protests and revolutionary movements you will find a basic set of factions that don't change. They tend to spread between non violent oppositions and even less violent moderates, both winged by some type of pragmatists who are not in principle opposed to violence. Different sides will use the radicals of different parts of this division to throw away the entire argument of one side or another, and this is not an even equivalent exchange in the history of US racial tension. But I want to stay away, mostly, from broad historical claims here.
The point I am driving at is evident when we realize that the Civil Rights activists who practiced non violent acts of resistance were often lumped in with Black Panthers, or others not opposed to violence, although the two groups were ideologically fairly different. But I am not willing to say that they were so different as to not be judged as being on roughly the same side of the discussion. After all, the Civil Rights movement was not just the movement for the passage of legislation nor did it belong to the non violence of MLK Jr entirely. This is not historical. If you don't see that the US institution of slavery was a grave moral evil and that the Jim Crow laws that succeeded it were demonic in their formal and informal application, and that, as a result, those determined to end these things were in principle on the side of justice, then you really have no moral compass. Say what you will of the vast differences between MLK Jr and Malcolm X, but it is hard to argue that their social protest was off key in the tonic.
The more popular -- but equally as appropriate -- comparison these days is to Nazi Germany. (Of course, a great deal of the sentiment of the Civil Rights movement was a direct result of the effects that US wars had for those within its ranks who were not white, but that might be slightly off the mark in this case.) There is a bright and clear moral line between the Nazi ideology and its perverse Final Solution and those who sought to oppose it. This line, by the way, finds its way directly into the symbolism and rhetoric of the neo Nazi's at Charlottesville. Not only were there swastikas, there were Nazi crosses and other niche paraphernalia. There were the salutes, yes, but there were other salutations and insider ways of speaking going on. There were also the tiki torches, the modern Pepe Wal-Mart replacement for the burning torch rallies and burning crosses of the KKK. The grand knight of that sick group was standing by. They brought their own military-grade armed militia to protect those who came in homemade riot gear. This was not the making of a peaceful protest or free speech of the sort that we see the Westboro Baptists practice (not that they are emblems of public virtue, far, far from it!).
As I said earlier, if you find yourself unable to distinguish between Nazism in its original form and neo Nazis, white nationalists, and others like them and those who through what ever means they find useful (which one can disagree with in practice while still endorsing in principle) oppose them, then you are morally corrupt. If you can't quite figure out how the math works in this moral calculus, you are morally mindless and incompetent.
Of course, within any opposition to these (supposedly) easy immoral targets one can find many arguments and even passionate disavowals. But there are real moments when these lines are simply drawn and one must take a side. I have in the past even used the language of "alt left" in an entirely different usage, but I regret it deeply, now, seeing its life-cycle. I will not exchange my allergies to the ideological types of identity politics I have long opposed nor will my more specific critique of the critics settle. All that fuss gets set aside in these events. If I have to choose whether to stand next to a neo Nazi or Antifa, I'll choose the latter on pain of eternal damnation. To those who say you don't have to choose, that risk is one I am not willing to make. I would rather be a black panther than a lynch mob, as much as my truer sympathies lie somewhere else. Despite all my oppositions to modern warfare, I would pick up arms against the Nazis long before I'd "peacefully" cheer on their side. I think most people feel this way.
But something remains and this is what I worry about and even dread most: we are not fighting Nazis or lynch mobs. Most people would never go to march in Charlottesville. And even when you talk to many of the white nationalists they will say something along the lines of "I'm not racist." To them, their present politics is no longer that of the slaver or the KKK. They don't wear hoods and they don't want to own people as property anymore, it seems. They hate the Jewish people for reasons I am still not able to process in my mind, but their argument is more separatist than colonial -- so they claim.
They seem to think that the USA was founded by *their* ethnic ancestors, who hailed from Europe, gathered together in this ancient race called "White" that has recently, especially after the activism surrounding police brutality against African Americans, fallen into a disrepute that is sending the world into a globalist terror to come, in the biggest of the big governments.
Now, these conspiracy theories do not need to be true or believed to find where they hit a live nerve in a lot of people. Some people do ask why white people cannot have rallies for themselves without longing for ethic purity. Some people do think that white folks today are being washed away through interracial marriage, but many more who don't mind interracial romance still worry that white people are on the losing end of public sentiment. Lots of people who try to counter this tend to make it worse by appealing to gotcha replies about privilege or other things. I tend to find that too complex.
I recently commented to one of my friends that I don't think of myself as having very many "white" friends. Some of you might balk since many extremely intimate people in my life are, supposedly, white. And of course if we use one way of thinking about what "white" is, that is true. On the same logic, I would be, in certain real scenarios, white as well. But what I meant when I wrote to my friend was that I see my friends of European descent as from where they are. Those who don't know where they are from share with me a genealogical confusion that I can also understand.
Maybe this weirdness is partly because, on the vulgar ethnic analysis I am used to, I am neither white nor Black. And, of course, as many Africans who are neither black nor American will remind you, things become quite complex depending on what rules we are using to count the deck.
My point is this, and if you read nothing else, please read this: There is no such thing as "white people" in history. Most folks who use the expression were not allowed to use it only a few decades ago. The white supremacy of the KKK of old hated Blacks, yes, but also Mexicans, and Catholics, and Jews (of course), and atheists, and more. Depending on how you see it, whiteness was either more or less ecumenical, but just as ideologically religious.
Let me say it again: There will never be a "white ethnostate" based on European culture because the history of Europe is covered in ethnic feuds and wars. If you've never heard of a guy named Napoleon, check him out. I'm being serious. If you think of yourself as being "white" in some serious ancestral way, you're not. You are wearing a name tag your family was GIVEN at some point but never had by its own right. There are no white people in this familial sense. (Settle down critical race theorists, I am well aware of the whiteness that is real, too, but this ain't it.) There is no such thing as a white European culture or of a white heritage in that sense at all.
Again and again: The most scandalously false part of the neo Nazi mentality is as old as its previous, original half baked idea in Hitler's weak mind. The concept of a master race doesn't work for mastery of people nor does it work for figuring out who you really are. We come from places with names and languages and peoples and legacies that are concrete. Some of us lost a lot of memory at the hands of another, and others lost through the same hands. Today we tend to think that the ancestors of slaves, or indigenous peoples, or mixed-up mestizos are the ones who lack a strong identity and the rest have theirs in bold font. Not true. From your family to your soul, you don't really know who you are if you are using ideological pet words to hang the hat of your self.
I'm not a real Mexican and I'm not a real American -- and I'm no Canadian, either. My father was an orphan, so I've taken his bloodless name as my own, a Portuguese word by etymology. I of course will pass as a white guy at a Black family reunion, just as I passed as an indigenous guy today on the pier (until I produced a fishing license instead of a status card), just as I passed as an Iranian at a birthday party last week, and so on. But the real facts of who I am don't work in the abstract.
This is why if you want to find a better substitute for whiteness find a Greek Festival or an Irish Pub or a German Beer Garden or a French Restaurant. This is food and drink, and it is a set of multicultural cliches, but enjoy an Italian family dinner and tell me there is nothing about who someone is at stake there. The point is that the real identity we can and do celebrate is everywhere and it is not necessarily riddled with guilt, even if sometimes it could use some (or far less). None of it calls itself "white." None. If you are using "white" as your only name tag, then I am sorry to say that you've been fooling yourself. You don't have a people by that name. There is no such thing. Your great-great-great grandmother would mostly likely not answer to "white."
Personal history quickly becomes social, national, and regional histories and we find ourselves, again, at Charlottesville. All I can say for now about it, to my dear and beloved friends who I suspect think that they are "white," is this: We cannot have white rallies because there is no such thing as a "white" people. Black Lives Matter is not a movement for everyone who is of one dark color in the world -- it is about the US experience for those living within the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow over the past three years (some Black activist groups are critical of this aspect of BLM, by the way). If you want a "white" identity, then look to the folk expressions of it that we have and should treasure like music, food, and regional folk ways of being. Poetry, dance, dialect, accent, story. These are not safe or sanitary places -- I tend to think this story of a "white people" got made up there, too -- but they also don't pretend like people are any more or less related than they really are.
Donald Trump is a German-American man, not a white man. His whiteness is an entirely different issue that I am disinterested in getting into right now. If you wonder why white people are seen as bad sometimes, it is largely because of this false assumption: that white people exist as a people when they so manifestly do not.
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過84萬的網紅超粒方,也在其Youtube影片中提到,##黑暗騎士三部曲 #邁向天能 #諾蘭全解析 最新影片: 《最後生還者》如何將遊戲化為藝術?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1JVdvfdD8Y --~-- 你自稱是諾蘭忠實腦粉嗎? 快來追蹤這個系列來一起慶祝這位當今最最討厭椅子的奇才導演! 在這個「邁向天能...
「how i wrote the dark knight」的推薦目錄:
how i wrote the dark knight 在 超粒方 Youtube 的精選貼文
##黑暗騎士三部曲 #邁向天能 #諾蘭全解析
最新影片: 《最後生還者》如何將遊戲化為藝術?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1JVdvfdD8Y --~--
你自稱是諾蘭忠實腦粉嗎? 快來追蹤這個系列來一起慶祝這位當今最最討厭椅子的奇才導演!
在這個「邁向天能」系列之中,我們將會一起深入解析諾蘭的每一部電影,迎接他的最新作品。
歡迎來到黑暗騎士解析系列的第二集,這次我們要來談的是史上最有深度的超級英雄電影 黑暗騎士
第一集《蝙蝠俠:開戰時刻》:https://youtu.be/biXnYy2-RV0
第二集《黑暗騎士》:https://youtu.be/zOnzIW3-7YE
第三集《黑暗騎士:黎明升起》: https://youtu.be/EjlXZsOLDWA
00:00 開場回顧
02:53 三角爭奪
04:06 哈維丹特 騎士的殞落
07:37 小丑 混亂的化身
10:17 小丑的目標
13:56 高尚的謊言
15:55 911後恐怖時代的寓言
18:18 蝙蝠俠的意義
監製/編輯: 黃豪瑞 (Jasper)
加入會員:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0Q-fBheHysYWz9ObSEzMdA/join
=====================================
Source:
How I Wrote The Dark Knight (Writing Process of Christopher Nolan)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqlhU6hE14A
The Dark Knight Christopher Nolan Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp94gmtVTfs
Creating The Ultimate Post-9/11 Allegory: The Dark Knight on Risk and Terror-
https://youtu.be/W4evCOctDrc
還可以在哪裡找到我:
FB: https://www.facebook.com/tessereq
twitter: https://twitter.com/TessereQ
twitch實況台:http://www.twitch.tv/chantienchiu
=====================================
如果你不喜歡此影片的話歡迎指教
我會盡量改進
喜歡的話也請不吝嗇分享啦!
All videos on my channel are only used for commentary.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
《黑暗騎士》2008年在美國上映創下多項票房紀錄,美國影史上的票房第四高,全球票房已逼近10億美金(其他三部是《鐵達尼號》、《魔戒三部曲:王者再臨》、與《神鬼奇航2:加勒比海盜》後。 也是影史上唯二在美國票房破5億美金(約台幣165億元)的電影,另一部是《鐵達尼號》。
演活片中大惡人小丑的希斯萊傑獲得2009奧斯卡最佳男配角,他是死後獲此殊榮,成為1976年之後(彼得芬奇在1976年時以《螢光幕後》(Network)獲得奧斯卡最佳男主角獎。他於奧斯卡獎提名公佈前一個月逝世),第2位死後才領到奧斯卡榮譽的演員。
在《黑暗騎士》中,蝙蝠俠向日益囂張的街頭犯罪宣戰,警長吉姆戈登和檢察官哈維丹特始終在一旁協助。蝙蝠俠與他們兩位合作無間,掃蕩了無數危害城市的犯罪組織,打擊犯罪成效卓著,但是他們也很快就發現自己成了邪惡犯罪首領的攻擊目標,也就是令高譚市民聞之喪膽的「小丑」(The Joker)。
這個邪惡的角色由曾獲奧斯卡獎提名的希斯萊傑飾演。除了希斯萊傑外,本片的演員陣容堅強,還包括《蝙蝠俠:開戰時刻》中現身的蓋瑞歐德曼飾演吉姆戈登,亞倫艾克哈特飾演檢察官哈維丹特,加上奧斯卡得主米高肯恩、摩根佛里曼及瑪姬葛倫霍等。
《黑暗騎士》由華納兄弟影片公司聯合Legendary影片公司出品,Syncopy影片公司製作,幕後的創意團隊人才雲集,導演是克里斯多福諾蘭,他多才多藝,除了擔任導演,也參與這部電影的其他許多創意或製作工作,包括編劇和故事構想。電影中的人物原型來自DC漫畫大廠出品、由鮑伯肯恩創作的蝙蝠俠系列。
克里斯丁貝爾眾望所歸將再次出演蝙蝠俠一角,老管家和老科學家也同樣分別由老牌演員米高肯恩和摩根佛利曼等原班人馬擔綱,令人意外的是反派高手蓋瑞歐德曼這回改邪歸正,扮演蝙蝠俠的夥伴警察局長高登。飾演小丑的希斯萊傑日前在家中意外暴斃身亡,為影迷留下許多遺憾。
#黑暗騎士 #諾蘭全解析