It is always interesting listening to apologists of something who know that general consensus about what they are saying will be hostile so they wrap up their statements in conciliatory phrases especially if they are eating in your house at the time, but then with rather veiled statements proceed to make outrageous statements. In the UK it is not the done thing to say to them 'your views are entirely offensive stop', society requires you smile and admit they have a point. I would support this view, because I heartily support the view that whilst I may disagree with someone they have the right to express any views they choose and if I tried to prevent them then I would be behaving as badly as the views they outline. As noted in a recent post, some will see that as a weakness of the liberal humanist approach, but in fact in line with a comment I saw in a newspaper recently referring to the BNP (British National Party the main UK fascist party) 'given them enough string [i.e. not even rope] and they will hang themselves' as typically bigots show themselves up as stupid and hateful far better themselves that we could ever hope to do.
Now, in this context, I had a white former South African woman in my house last week. She is 28 so was born in 1980 when apartheid was in place but still only a teenager when it finally ended in 1994. Like people interested in the country she has seen the difficulties with crime, violence, poverty and AIDS that have plagued it since and she now argues that many Blacks in South Africa would prefer a return to the apartheid system because it at least had stability. To some degree that is a rather rosy view of the 'stability' of South Africa especially in the 1970s and 1980s with its economy suffering spiralling inflation and heavily armed police riding around beating and shooting people and internicine murders between different Black factions. It is clear that many Whites who grew up during the period were oblivious to the severity of events going on. They say the British had exaggerated information, but it is clear that having a free press we did not have to have exaggerated reports to see how bad the situation was. South Africa had no television broadcasts before 1977 to help keep people in ignorance and even then news was heavily censored. The one incident that they are most suprised to hear about the attack of the extreme AWB against the ANC conference in 1990 which almost triggered a civil war.
Apartheid South Africa was a society divided on racial grounds denying people access to areas and facilities such as schools and hopsitals based on their racial categorisation, something that had only otherwise been seen in Nazi Germany, hardly a good role model. The woman knew I had been in the Anti-Apartheid Movement in the UK in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which for liberals in the UK was almost assumed and I recognise now I could have been much more active than I was. Anyway, she said to me, had I been to South Africa and I said no (partly because flights there are beyond my income) but I also said because I knew how violent and crime-ridden the country was. She ridiculed me saying well, surely those were the people in control that I had campaigned to liberate. Of course that is a foolish statement but you can see why Whites in South Africa see a direct connection between the end of apartheid and the rise on social problems. This, however, is a very simplistic view and is similar to the difficulties in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is right to campaign against dictatorships but you cannot assume that simply removing them will create peace and democracy; that is actually the harder job than removing the dictatorship and yet it is the one people pay least attention to.
The Anti-Apartheid Movement campaigned not to create a South Africa which was crime-ridden and violent, it aimed for a state which did not have a divisive social and political structure and gave the majority a voice but in the context of freedom for all people no matter what their ethnic background. It also gave people the freedom to be criminals and to be violent in a way that they have that freedom (and use it) in the UK, USA, France and so on. There are some points to note. Democracy does not suddenly manufacture a feasible economy. As in the USSR before its collapse, a distorted economy of the kind which is prevalent in Africa and was also in the Communist state is going to leave certain people in poverty to an even greater extent than they are in the democracies, because the authoritarian state can restrict their movement to find work and to protest against conditions in a way democracies cannot do. So in Russia and South Africa you still have the weak economy from before but people can take action to improve their situation and the easiest way is always to commit a crime. In addition creating democracy does not overnight erase social inequalities and whilst Blacks and Coloureds are now in a position to become prosperous in South Africa, the richest people there are still White as they were in previous decades. This will also take time to change and the Mugabe model in Zimbabwe has proven itself to be the wrong way to go about it.
Democracy itself (let alone a fair society and despite many Americans' views the two are not necessarily linked) takes a long time to establish. In the UK it took centuries and as yet we are still not a truly democratic state as half of our parliament is unelected. In France it took centuries and a bloody revolution. In Germany it took two world wars and the Nazi regime before enduring democracy was established. The USA had a colonial war, a vast civil war, rioting and unrest to even establish its current form of democracy, again taking centuries. So why does anyone think that democracy can really truly be established in South Africa, Russia (which had never even tried democracy before the 1990s), Iraq, Afghanistan in the space of a few years and peacefully, when the bulk of the lauded democracies had to go through decades and decades of bloodshed to get to often quite imperfect democracy now.
It is a human tragedy that when dictatorships end it takes so long to establish some degree of stability, even to reduce the 'normality' of violence to an extent when it becomes exceptional rather than taken for granted. However, this is no excuse to say, well as democracy is so violent and unstable in the first few decades then we should not bother and stick with authoritarian regimes instead. This is like saying a woman should not let the baby out of her womb simply because it is going to be a painful process often needing lots of input from doctors and nurses. When things change you need to look forward. No-one fights to help criminals prosper, they fight for all the ordinary people, the bulk of South Africans and Iraqis who simply want to be able to go work in the morning, feed their families, come home, eat and go to sleep; to not be stopped and checked all the time, not to be arrested with no cause, to disappear, to be tortured or shot. In addition, they would like to be able to shape the government in the direction which fits with their values (though most people are quite happy if it just leaves them alone) and to be able to protest freely when things upset them. These are the people that anyone opposing a dictatorship is campaigning for. Yet, everyone, especially governments must remember, that taking away the dictatorship is not the end of the process rather it is just the brief introduction to a process that will stretch over the following decades.
Friday, 18 January 2008
Online Steampunk Resources: 'The Heliograph' and 'Gothic Steam Phantastic'
Following a recent posting on this blog by MCG, I followed his link and it took me to a wonderful steampunk magazine: 'The Heliograph' which was produced for a number of editions in 1996. I recommend you take a look as it has some wonderful steampunk images and fascinating short stories for passing the time when you are in a steampunk frame-of-mind in front of your computer. The link is: http://www.sottisier.co.uk/heliograph/index.php
P.P. Since posting this link, I have come across another resource entitled 'The Heliograph' (making the third one I have heard of with that name, the other being a magazine about wargaming colonial era wars) which is the title of a blog which covers a whole range of steampunk themes as well as information about actual Victorian history for useful reference and has loads of interesting links to follow up. A lot of it is about a steampunk community in Second Life making my inability to get my avatar in there in any decent shape and particularly in the Goth lord with steampunk gear that I wanted, even more frustrating. Anyway its URL is: http://voyagesofdrfabre.blogspot.com/
While discussing online steampunk resources can I suggest you also have a look at Gothic Steam Phantastic which is a forum for discussion about steampunk and is a good place for references to ideas, books, films, etc. in the steampunk genre. It seems to be run by Dutch and German fans but the bulk of postings are in English. My 'The Grey Commission' was first posted there and there is occasional short fiction located there. The link is: http://www.xs4all.nl/~vanip/gsp/gspindex.htm
While I am thinking about such things you may also enjoy 'Transactions of the Royal Martian Geographical Society' which was produced 1991-2000 in support of the role-playing game 'Space 1889'. It envisaged Victorian explorers of the solar system with imperial battles transposed to Mars. There are editions available online in a wonderful style reminiscent of 'The First Men in the Moon' by H.G. Wells (1901). It can be found at the following link: http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/ The company which produced this now concentrates on 'Zeppelin Age' which is a proposed role-playing game set in the 1920s and 1930s but where airships have been more successful, what I might term 'bakelitepunk'. This link is: http://www.heliograph.com/zeppelinage/
I have just encountered Brass Goggles which bills itself as a looking at 'the lighter side of Steampunk'. It has a good watching brief on examples of steampunk in our modern day culture in visual, video and written media, plus events, from the UK, USA, Europe and farther afield and has wonderful images which may inspire your own steampunk activities. See: http://www.brassgoggles.co.uk/brassgoggles/
I came across another slightly different one which envisages superheros appearing on Earth in the 1880s and distorting the history of the world as we know it in terms of countries, technology, etc. as viewed from the alternate 1994. It is called 'Overman 1994' and was apparently inspired by a rather steampunk story which ran as a serial as part of 'The Two Ronnies' comedy show: http://www.wolfram.demon.co.uk/rp_ch_om_1995_top.html#tl
Another resource supporting a game is the Castle Falkenstein site. It has a lot of interesting resources about things like aerial, land and air vehicles, wars, countries, secret societies, currency, medals and the role of women in a Victorian alternate world setting of 1870, apparently for a role-playing game of the same name, which I must confess I had never encountered. I was interested to find that a character from the CSA I am using in a story I am writing is also listed here. Lots of interest and inspiration for steampunk fiction: http://www.asmrb.org/michaelb/FalkIndex.html
P.P.P. - 22/02/2009. The Gothic Phantastic site seems to be a little moribund these days, but a more vigorous steampunk website is The Smoking Lounge, which appears to be associated with a journal too. It has discussion boards of the kind of the Gothic Phatastic site has about all sorts of steampunk media and culture: http://www.ottens.co.uk/lounge/index.php
P.P. Since posting this link, I have come across another resource entitled 'The Heliograph' (making the third one I have heard of with that name, the other being a magazine about wargaming colonial era wars) which is the title of a blog which covers a whole range of steampunk themes as well as information about actual Victorian history for useful reference and has loads of interesting links to follow up. A lot of it is about a steampunk community in Second Life making my inability to get my avatar in there in any decent shape and particularly in the Goth lord with steampunk gear that I wanted, even more frustrating. Anyway its URL is: http://voyagesofdrfabre.blogspot.com/
While discussing online steampunk resources can I suggest you also have a look at Gothic Steam Phantastic which is a forum for discussion about steampunk and is a good place for references to ideas, books, films, etc. in the steampunk genre. It seems to be run by Dutch and German fans but the bulk of postings are in English. My 'The Grey Commission' was first posted there and there is occasional short fiction located there. The link is: http://www.xs4all.nl/~vanip/gsp/gspindex.htm
While I am thinking about such things you may also enjoy 'Transactions of the Royal Martian Geographical Society' which was produced 1991-2000 in support of the role-playing game 'Space 1889'. It envisaged Victorian explorers of the solar system with imperial battles transposed to Mars. There are editions available online in a wonderful style reminiscent of 'The First Men in the Moon' by H.G. Wells (1901). It can be found at the following link: http://www.heliograph.com/trmgs/ The company which produced this now concentrates on 'Zeppelin Age' which is a proposed role-playing game set in the 1920s and 1930s but where airships have been more successful, what I might term 'bakelitepunk'. This link is: http://www.heliograph.com/zeppelinage/
I have just encountered Brass Goggles which bills itself as a looking at 'the lighter side of Steampunk'. It has a good watching brief on examples of steampunk in our modern day culture in visual, video and written media, plus events, from the UK, USA, Europe and farther afield and has wonderful images which may inspire your own steampunk activities. See: http://www.brassgoggles.co.uk/brassgoggles/
I came across another slightly different one which envisages superheros appearing on Earth in the 1880s and distorting the history of the world as we know it in terms of countries, technology, etc. as viewed from the alternate 1994. It is called 'Overman 1994' and was apparently inspired by a rather steampunk story which ran as a serial as part of 'The Two Ronnies' comedy show: http://www.wolfram.demon.co.uk/rp_ch_om_1995_top.html#tl
Another resource supporting a game is the Castle Falkenstein site. It has a lot of interesting resources about things like aerial, land and air vehicles, wars, countries, secret societies, currency, medals and the role of women in a Victorian alternate world setting of 1870, apparently for a role-playing game of the same name, which I must confess I had never encountered. I was interested to find that a character from the CSA I am using in a story I am writing is also listed here. Lots of interest and inspiration for steampunk fiction: http://www.asmrb.org/michaelb/FalkIndex.html
P.P.P. - 22/02/2009. The Gothic Phantastic site seems to be a little moribund these days, but a more vigorous steampunk website is The Smoking Lounge, which appears to be associated with a journal too. It has discussion boards of the kind of the Gothic Phatastic site has about all sorts of steampunk media and culture: http://www.ottens.co.uk/lounge/index.php
Charity Begins at School
One recent government announcement I welcomed is the review of the charitable status granted to private schools. It seems odd that profit-making bodies which charge fees so hight that only wealthy people can afford to send their children to them get charitable status in the UK which means they get tax breaks which saves them millions of pounds per year. They trumpet their academic success, but it is unsurprising when they have such high staff to student ratios; most children would benefit from having greater time in class with their teacher. In the average school lesson of 45 minutes, with the common class of 30 pupils, each pupil will have an equivalent of 1.3 minutes with the teacher, if you take out the time it takes for them to come in and settle down. Every time another pupil is disruptive they effectively steal this time from their fellow pupils as the teacher has to take out time from teaching to deal with it. Of course typically pupils are taught together, but with smaller class sizes in private schools each pupil is far more liable to get individual attention and their education will benefit. As I have noted in previous postings pupils from richer families benefit educationally even when they are in the public sector let alone when in schools with a selected intake.
Whilst I sympathise with the argument that the UK should have no private schools and certainly no 'public' schools (as in the weird UK definition, i.e. elite private schools, as opposed to state schools which are free and open to the public), you can argue that if someone wants to set up a business teaching people they should be free to do so. The difficulty for private schools is the buying power of the middle class has fallen. If civil servants and teachers had as much buying power as they did in the 1950s they would be annually earning over £80,000 (US$157,600; €111,200) whereas they earn around £25-30,000 per year. This means it is difficult for private schools to charge high enough fees to fund the number of staff they want because otherwise they would lose many of their middle class clients who in many cases are the bulk of the parents using some of these schools. This is why financially they have to retain charitable status. Many grant scholarships and open up their facilities to neighbouring communities, but that is the least that should be expected, as the bulk of us pay for state schools through our taxes and are also paying for private schools through charitable status tax breaks even though our children will never get the chance to go to the school let alone be a pupil at it.
Allowing the private school sector to contract from its current standing (2500 private schools in the UK taking 6-7% of school-aged children) would benefit education as a whole across the UK. The schools do not have to teach the National Curriculum which means that the pupils often miss out on in particular the social education which is important in making the pupils tolerant and open-minded, something which is important to have among the people who will make up our elites in the decades to come. Secondly, money saved from not granting all these tax breaks could be channelled into improving schools and their buildings and paying state sector teachers decent salaries. Many schools are suffering from decaying buildings and over-crowded classrooms, partly because money is being siphoned off to grant tax breaks to private schools. A third benefit is that it would make comparatively well-off middle class parents send their children into the state sector and with it bring funds and support for many ordinary schools which will benefit them. The top echelons of the middle class do not care about ordinary state schools or how far they decay because they exempt themselves from that system; they are rich and articulate so can turn their strengths into these ordinary schools. In addition, their children will mix with ordinary people which hopefully will begin to break down the barriers in our society which are painfully harsh; maybe the rich children will despise the ordinary ones, but the ordinary pupils will see that the elites are in fact just human like themselves. It would also provide a more level playing field for ordinary pupils as those pupils who otherwise would have gone to private schools would have to work for their education and their qualifications rather than being led through it by one-on-one tuition in their small classes.
Thus, I urge the government to strip all private schools and certainly all public schools, of charitable status immediately. The collapse of the private education sector cannot come about fast enough (I imagine many private schools will find ways of wriggling out of it, but even if we lose 30-40% it will begin to help change occur) if we are going to achieve a truly well-educated and less socially-divided UK.
Whilst I sympathise with the argument that the UK should have no private schools and certainly no 'public' schools (as in the weird UK definition, i.e. elite private schools, as opposed to state schools which are free and open to the public), you can argue that if someone wants to set up a business teaching people they should be free to do so. The difficulty for private schools is the buying power of the middle class has fallen. If civil servants and teachers had as much buying power as they did in the 1950s they would be annually earning over £80,000 (US$157,600; €111,200) whereas they earn around £25-30,000 per year. This means it is difficult for private schools to charge high enough fees to fund the number of staff they want because otherwise they would lose many of their middle class clients who in many cases are the bulk of the parents using some of these schools. This is why financially they have to retain charitable status. Many grant scholarships and open up their facilities to neighbouring communities, but that is the least that should be expected, as the bulk of us pay for state schools through our taxes and are also paying for private schools through charitable status tax breaks even though our children will never get the chance to go to the school let alone be a pupil at it.
Allowing the private school sector to contract from its current standing (2500 private schools in the UK taking 6-7% of school-aged children) would benefit education as a whole across the UK. The schools do not have to teach the National Curriculum which means that the pupils often miss out on in particular the social education which is important in making the pupils tolerant and open-minded, something which is important to have among the people who will make up our elites in the decades to come. Secondly, money saved from not granting all these tax breaks could be channelled into improving schools and their buildings and paying state sector teachers decent salaries. Many schools are suffering from decaying buildings and over-crowded classrooms, partly because money is being siphoned off to grant tax breaks to private schools. A third benefit is that it would make comparatively well-off middle class parents send their children into the state sector and with it bring funds and support for many ordinary schools which will benefit them. The top echelons of the middle class do not care about ordinary state schools or how far they decay because they exempt themselves from that system; they are rich and articulate so can turn their strengths into these ordinary schools. In addition, their children will mix with ordinary people which hopefully will begin to break down the barriers in our society which are painfully harsh; maybe the rich children will despise the ordinary ones, but the ordinary pupils will see that the elites are in fact just human like themselves. It would also provide a more level playing field for ordinary pupils as those pupils who otherwise would have gone to private schools would have to work for their education and their qualifications rather than being led through it by one-on-one tuition in their small classes.
Thus, I urge the government to strip all private schools and certainly all public schools, of charitable status immediately. The collapse of the private education sector cannot come about fast enough (I imagine many private schools will find ways of wriggling out of it, but even if we lose 30-40% it will begin to help change occur) if we are going to achieve a truly well-educated and less socially-divided UK.
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
How Does Liberal Humanism Survive in the Age of Fundamental 'Truths'?
This might seem overly philosophical and to some extent represents the fact that my brain seemed to wake up after falling into disuse over the weekend. I thought of a lot of things to blog, but given my poor memory have forgotten most of them, bar this one, but I hope they will come back to mind, probably when I am driving down the motorway and can do nothing about it. Recently at the company I work for I was interviewed by a woman and the only recording device she had was her mobile phone. The first time I have seen an hour's recording captured that way. Anyway, today's posting was prompted by a review in 'The Guardian' newspaper on Saturday of 'The History Man' by Malcolm Bradbury (1975; TV series 1981 - I actually sat behind the author once in a cinema, a nice man, appeared very much as you would expect). A lot of the review was about the economical writing of the book and the focus on the outward perception of things rather than any concern for inner thoughts. However, the part that provoked my thinking was the novel's exploration of the weakness of liberal humanism with, to quote, 'its built-in tolreance and self-doubt' in the face of 'those convinced they have a monopoly of the truth'. When it was written Marxism (represented in the book by the 'hero' Howard Kirk, a university lecturer in sociology) seemed to be the prime source of those who felt they had the monopoly on the truth. Soon after though came two more sources to eclipse the Marxists - the New Right and Religious Fundamentalists. These are the two broad groups who seem to challenge liberal humanism today.
Now, I know for US readers anything called 'liberal' seems dirty, sordid, corrupt even. The USA is the only country in the English-speaking world where you can insult someone by calling them a liberal, maybe because they have more of the truth monopolists of both the New Right and the Religious Fundamentalist categories than anywhere else. For the rest of us, liberal humanism is what marks out life in the early 21st century from that of the early 20th century. It seeks to protect us from the random nature of life which can lay low even the most wealthy and wreck the lives of anyone else less rich. In particular it encourages us to have a 'safety net' for people made vulnerable through disease, poverty, old age, war, ignorance, bigotry and so on. It also tries to stop the spread of violence, corruption, narcotics, etc. reducing us all to barbarians. It makes war seem like something to avoid and embrace instead getting along with people and respecting them. Of course it is a constant battle and one that in many parts of the World is being lost, but that does not mean there is any reason to give up the fight.
People may argue that liberal humanism appeared at the time of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, but it has been around lurking in the background for many millenia. In Ancient Rome you had slavery and gladiatorial fights but you also had the chance for manumission and the grain 'dole'. In the Middle Ages there was constant warring and narrow-minded attitudes and persecution from churches but there was also alms-giving, hospitals and concepts of chivalry (however idealised they may have been) that sought to dissuade people from abusing the poor, slaughtering prisoners and raping women.
Yes, liberal humanism does embrace self-doubt and tolerance. If it did not embrace tolerance then it could not exist, it would not embrace humans and humanity in all of its diversity. To have any feeling for humans obliges you to be tolerant. As to self-doubt, I would argue that it is not really doubt, rather it is self-questioning and self-verifying. You may argue then how does it verify that what it is doing is correct, and certainly approaches can be contested. However, surely it is better to actually seek to verify your actions rather than steam ahead dogmatically. In addition, the truth monopolists are not free from doubt and in fact are often fearful of defeat, part of the motive for driving them on. Take one example, the Nazi regime in Germany. The Nazis argued their empire would last 1000 years, yet on the other hand they were so fearful of the Jews that they felt they had to wipe them out. Yet, in turn, they thought the Jews were weak compared to the Aryan race and corrupt, so you might ask them 'why do you fear these people if they are so weak compared to you?' Thus, to say that fundamentalism lacks self-doubt is wrong. Every revolutionary body or fundamentalist religious group has a tendency to fragment which may show confidence in oneself, but doubt in the self of the broader grouping as it previously existed.
Liberal humanism is certainly under threat, possibly because it is hard to sell the necessary positive image when there seem to so many fears. The threat of nuclear war which it seemed able to address has now been replaced by the threat of terrorism (though of course it has been around for decades, it has just started to be used in a much more aggressive way as a threat) and ironically environmental damage which requires liberal humanism to effectively address. The fact that liberal humanism is still alive at all, reflects the huge leap in communications of the past two decades. Without the internet I imagine we would be living in much more authoritarian times. It is no wonder that dictatorships such as China and Singapore (until it found it was too expensive to continue doing) censor their people's access to the internet. The shift of the post-war consensus, notable in the UK towards the so-called Thatcher Consensus, but common across the Western world with the rise of the New Right in the 1980s matched by similar rise of authoritarian attitudes in many Muslim states made it easier to make the step to the next stage in the 2000s which is a rapid erosion of civil liberties, ironically in the name of protecting freedom in the face of comparatively small threats which have been exacerbated by bigoted, aggressive moves in the first place. In this world it is now normal to accept detention without trial for a month or even years (once you reach Guantanamo Bay), the use of torture by even low-level soldiers, invasion of countries to secure resources, greater control of movement of people and a general sustained hysteria.
How can liberal humanism survive? To some extent by becoming devout. It might seem weird to say 'yes, I am a devout liberal humanist'. Whatever people might say, in fact that is not contradictory with saying 'I am also a Christian/a Muslim/American'. All gods love the people they oversee so any worshipper should love humans too. Religions and the American constitution tend to praise mercy and respect for people and it is there in the Bible, Koran, Torah, US Constitution if you look no matter what people might tell you. The key thing is to see what the key tenets are of liberal humanism. They are few and are easily applicable in many circumstances, it is just that all decent people have to keep saying them loud and proud. The key aspect is to treat people like people. Even to treat people like animals in this age of increased rights for animals, would be a step up in many places in the World. Do not torture, do not detain without charge, do not make people homeless, do not deny them drugs you can afford to give them, do not deny them food you throw away in vast quantities, do not kill or harm someone because they look different from you or follow a different view, let people meet, let people speak, let people travel. Everything we expect for ourselves is the minimum we should allow others.
I passed two postcards in people's windows over the past few months. One showed a refugee family behind a barbed wire fence, with the text explaining how they had fled to the country portrayed to escape repression only to step into repression. The other showed the Statue of Liberty against the Stars and Stripes, and said that the USA that person believes in would never torture people. Liberal humanism is not weak and people need to see that. It is a far better counter to fear and danger than any amount of repression and authoritarian attitudes. What will destroy it is people believing it has no tenets and that it is already dead. The bulk of you know what the World needs because for most people it is what they, as a human like all the rest of us, needs.
Now, I know for US readers anything called 'liberal' seems dirty, sordid, corrupt even. The USA is the only country in the English-speaking world where you can insult someone by calling them a liberal, maybe because they have more of the truth monopolists of both the New Right and the Religious Fundamentalist categories than anywhere else. For the rest of us, liberal humanism is what marks out life in the early 21st century from that of the early 20th century. It seeks to protect us from the random nature of life which can lay low even the most wealthy and wreck the lives of anyone else less rich. In particular it encourages us to have a 'safety net' for people made vulnerable through disease, poverty, old age, war, ignorance, bigotry and so on. It also tries to stop the spread of violence, corruption, narcotics, etc. reducing us all to barbarians. It makes war seem like something to avoid and embrace instead getting along with people and respecting them. Of course it is a constant battle and one that in many parts of the World is being lost, but that does not mean there is any reason to give up the fight.
People may argue that liberal humanism appeared at the time of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, but it has been around lurking in the background for many millenia. In Ancient Rome you had slavery and gladiatorial fights but you also had the chance for manumission and the grain 'dole'. In the Middle Ages there was constant warring and narrow-minded attitudes and persecution from churches but there was also alms-giving, hospitals and concepts of chivalry (however idealised they may have been) that sought to dissuade people from abusing the poor, slaughtering prisoners and raping women.
Yes, liberal humanism does embrace self-doubt and tolerance. If it did not embrace tolerance then it could not exist, it would not embrace humans and humanity in all of its diversity. To have any feeling for humans obliges you to be tolerant. As to self-doubt, I would argue that it is not really doubt, rather it is self-questioning and self-verifying. You may argue then how does it verify that what it is doing is correct, and certainly approaches can be contested. However, surely it is better to actually seek to verify your actions rather than steam ahead dogmatically. In addition, the truth monopolists are not free from doubt and in fact are often fearful of defeat, part of the motive for driving them on. Take one example, the Nazi regime in Germany. The Nazis argued their empire would last 1000 years, yet on the other hand they were so fearful of the Jews that they felt they had to wipe them out. Yet, in turn, they thought the Jews were weak compared to the Aryan race and corrupt, so you might ask them 'why do you fear these people if they are so weak compared to you?' Thus, to say that fundamentalism lacks self-doubt is wrong. Every revolutionary body or fundamentalist religious group has a tendency to fragment which may show confidence in oneself, but doubt in the self of the broader grouping as it previously existed.
Liberal humanism is certainly under threat, possibly because it is hard to sell the necessary positive image when there seem to so many fears. The threat of nuclear war which it seemed able to address has now been replaced by the threat of terrorism (though of course it has been around for decades, it has just started to be used in a much more aggressive way as a threat) and ironically environmental damage which requires liberal humanism to effectively address. The fact that liberal humanism is still alive at all, reflects the huge leap in communications of the past two decades. Without the internet I imagine we would be living in much more authoritarian times. It is no wonder that dictatorships such as China and Singapore (until it found it was too expensive to continue doing) censor their people's access to the internet. The shift of the post-war consensus, notable in the UK towards the so-called Thatcher Consensus, but common across the Western world with the rise of the New Right in the 1980s matched by similar rise of authoritarian attitudes in many Muslim states made it easier to make the step to the next stage in the 2000s which is a rapid erosion of civil liberties, ironically in the name of protecting freedom in the face of comparatively small threats which have been exacerbated by bigoted, aggressive moves in the first place. In this world it is now normal to accept detention without trial for a month or even years (once you reach Guantanamo Bay), the use of torture by even low-level soldiers, invasion of countries to secure resources, greater control of movement of people and a general sustained hysteria.
How can liberal humanism survive? To some extent by becoming devout. It might seem weird to say 'yes, I am a devout liberal humanist'. Whatever people might say, in fact that is not contradictory with saying 'I am also a Christian/a Muslim/American'. All gods love the people they oversee so any worshipper should love humans too. Religions and the American constitution tend to praise mercy and respect for people and it is there in the Bible, Koran, Torah, US Constitution if you look no matter what people might tell you. The key thing is to see what the key tenets are of liberal humanism. They are few and are easily applicable in many circumstances, it is just that all decent people have to keep saying them loud and proud. The key aspect is to treat people like people. Even to treat people like animals in this age of increased rights for animals, would be a step up in many places in the World. Do not torture, do not detain without charge, do not make people homeless, do not deny them drugs you can afford to give them, do not deny them food you throw away in vast quantities, do not kill or harm someone because they look different from you or follow a different view, let people meet, let people speak, let people travel. Everything we expect for ourselves is the minimum we should allow others.
I passed two postcards in people's windows over the past few months. One showed a refugee family behind a barbed wire fence, with the text explaining how they had fled to the country portrayed to escape repression only to step into repression. The other showed the Statue of Liberty against the Stars and Stripes, and said that the USA that person believes in would never torture people. Liberal humanism is not weak and people need to see that. It is a far better counter to fear and danger than any amount of repression and authoritarian attitudes. What will destroy it is people believing it has no tenets and that it is already dead. The bulk of you know what the World needs because for most people it is what they, as a human like all the rest of us, needs.
Sunday, 13 January 2008
How do you Kill a Vampire in the 21st Century?
This is a bit of a continuation of the previous posting and covers some thoughts about the changing aesthetic of the portrayal of vampires in media. I feel that I should be addressing more serious content, but I have to confess that I am exhausted. I have been in bed by 20.00 all this week and yet the return to work has been much more of a burden than I had anticipated and is really taking a physical toll on me. Consequently despite having lots of ideas for posts I am really lacking the mental energy to articulate them properly and the physical energy to stay up and type them into the blog. This is a pity as having steamed ahead with many of my writing projects over the Christmas period I had hoped to be able to continue that momentum now, but I suppose that is the price one pays for getting old.
So, today's posting is nothing very erudite, but when I was thinking about how the fashions associated with vampires had changed, reflecting shifts and interests within contemporary society, I also thought about how vampires are shown to be destroyed in movies, books and games has changed too. Partly this is because vampires since the 1990s have shifted from purely horror movies really into the action genre and consequently there is a desire to be able to blast away at them with excessive amounts of ammunition and yet ultimately be able to kill them. Even when guns are not used, as in the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' series (1997-2003), there is much more martial arts involved before Buffy can shove her stake into the vampire's heart. In addition, typically the vampire dissolves very quickly into dust rather than dying slowly and in a way that they can be resurrected for the next movie.
The ability to resurrect a seemingly destroyed vampire is an interesting one. In movies in which the stake simply keeps the vampire dead, of course, it can be later removed and the vampire can come back to 'life'. I am trying to think of a movie in which I have seen this happen. These days vampires usually dissolve dramatically into a shower of blood or ash. Interestingly in 'Ultraviolet' this ash is collected up and then stored in a chilled repository. However, in the final episode the dust of a vampire (played by Stephen Moyer who apparently plays the lead vampire in 'True Blood') is brought back into existence by pouring the blood of another vampire on him. What is fascinating is that his clothes are perfectly restored too, probably a good thing as he is on a bridge in London at the time and runs off into the streets.
In recent tradition, vampires are killed by exposure to sunlight or having a stake driven through their hearts. In addition if their 'sire', the vampire who made them a vampire is killed, they may die or return to being a human. This is what happens at the end of 'The Lost Boys' (1987) when the grandfather literally drives a vast stake into the chief vampire. Destroying the coffin in which the vampire is supposed to sleep (and often contains earth from where they were conceived) is another way. Vampires are generally thought to be able to be burned by fire and also die if they have their heads chopped off. They also suffer damage from having holy water thrown over them and are repelled by crucifixes and by garlic. The probable reason for garlic being a factor is that it is good for improving people's blood circulation and there is an association between vampires and coagulating blood. Flowing water can either repel or damage a vampire depending on the story.
To some degree the shift in killing them comes from a move from the portrayal of vampirism as something spiritually evil or inherent in a vampire to something more like a disease that potentially anyone can catch. There are some exceptions to this. In 'Dance of the Vampires' (1967; known as 'The Fearless Vampire Killers' in the USA) there is a Jewish vampire not repelled by a crucifix.
The long-running UK science fiction series, 'Doctor Who' has had a couple of vampire stories. In November 1980 there was the 4-part 'State of Decay', with Tom Baker as the Doctor, in which there are ordinary vampires and Great Vampires, an alien race from E-Space. Once the last Great Vampire has a spaceship rammed through his heart all the others die. However, a more interesting twist came in the series in 1988 in 'The Curse of Fenric' which features alien 'haemovores' (literally blood eaters) in North-East England in 1943. The so-called Ancient Haemovores come from Earth's future when the planet has been wrecked by pollution. They transform humans into standard haemovores. In contrast to other vampires they can operate during daylight (or certainly as grey as the light is in Northumberland) but they are immune to bullets. However, they are not immune to faith, but not necessarily just Christian faith and a Soviet soldier who is one of a number at the base where the haemovores appears, manages to destroy one through his faith in Soviet Communism and the Doctor himself uses his faith in his past companions to do likewise; the vicar like the priest in 'From Dusk to Dawn' is impotent because he has lost his faith, in this story because of the inhumanity of the war. So, there are occasionally slightly different methods, but even the newest of these is now 20 years old and pre-dates the growth of Matrix-influenced vampire movies.
Stakes through the heart still seem to work, though in 'Lifeforce' (1985) and another movie I saw that I cannot remember the name of, it is the solar plexus, which many people, such as those who study tai-chi see as the source of human energy, that has to be the target for it to work. Possibly this is because vampires are supposed to have no pulse so there is doubt whether their hearts would be working.
So, what other ways are vampires killed in modern day stories? Many in 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' seem able to knock away crucifixes even if they burn them, suggesting only a very large one would do them serious harm. Many even run around in daylight, simply smoking as they are exposed and able to deflect that by covering themselves in blankets, though sustained exposure will kill them. The most extreme example of this is in 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' (2003) movie in which Mina Harker a vampire, is shown standing in brilliant sunlight sunning herself on the deck of the 'Nautilus'. We never find out what can kill her, she seems to be very powerful, leaping up buildings and turning into a flock of bats when running around Venice.
The issue of immunity to sunlight same seems to apply to some extent in 'Underworld' (2003) though in the unnamed East European city it is set in (one guesses it is Hungarian) there rarely seems to be much daylight anyway. Instead, the werewolves against whom the vampires battle fire bullets containing ultra-violet light sources in them which is like sunlight exposure from the inside out. Artificial light sources are used in 'Blade II' (2002) and in a steampunk way in 19th-century set 'Van Helsing' (2004) (which, to balance back the other way, also permits holy water to harm vampires).
The nature of bullets which harm vampires is an interesting point. Generally the standard lead ones inflict no damage. Interestingly in the UK television series 'Ultraviolet' (1998, not to be confused with recent movies and games) saw the unit opposing vampires firing carbon bullets (there is a mention of wooden bullets being used previously). The sense here is that carbon is the basis of organic chemistry; organic effectively implying 'life' and so life as opposed to death or undeath of vampires. In addition, in fact, a wooden stake really is just a big carbon-based bullet. More controversial is in the 'Blade' series in which it is silver which is said to harm vampires. Everyone knows it is werewolves that are harmed by silver (its similarity in appearance to the Moon); though in 'Underworld' it simply burns and stops the transformation of werewolves. Consequently, the vampires have to use silver nitrate, a form of silver that is liquid at room temperature which kills the werewolves by harming their blood circulation.
Given the connection with blood and perception of vampirism as a disease, there are medical approaches to quelling it. In 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (1992) and 'Blade', characters see through the microscope how the balance of red and white blood cells change in vampires making them need blood to survive. In 'Near Dark' (1987) two characters are cured from being vampires by blood transfusions and in 'Blade' the hero is supplied with an intense anti-coagulant which causes vampires to expand in seconds and burst dramatically. In fact, you would think it would be the reverse and something that stopped blood flow would harm them more. However, the vampires simply kind of suffocating would be less visually dramatic than their bloody explosions.
Water, bar in the game 'BloodRayne' recently mentioned here, no longer seems to do any damage. Though in some traditions vampires cannot pass flowing water let alone go into it. However, in narrative terms this restricts them even further than sunlight, not allowing them out of the average Romanian village. In 'From Dusk til Dawn', holy water works when the priest recovers his faith which he does supririsingly easily. It shows why (holy) water is less popular as a weapon against vampires in movies as I guess it would remove the drama if we saw vampires being levelled by people with water pistols, power showers and hosepipes. A lot of action movies need the hero to act with ingenuity and anything too simple would undermine that.
As noted above, the villain has to be destroyable, but not too easily. It is interesting in 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', when Dracula appeared, he proved to be basically indestructable and it was only through the heroine showing him how tiresome it would be for him to keep rematerialising and being killed again and again that he effectively gave up. Vampires are renowned for taking many forms, usually bats of different sizes, sometimes wolves and occasionally as clouds, but that does through up the issue of what happens if when in that form someone simply sucked them into a vacuum cleaner or dispersed them with a fan or something; probably why that form of manifestation is no longer common.
Another issue is reflections. Again, this partly stems for vampires being seen as effectively dead and so deemed not to have reflections. There is a great scene in 'Van Helsing' in which the heroine sees in a mirror that she is the only human in the crowded ballroom. Other movies do not worry so much about this aspect as it does seem a bit strange that somehow plain glass reacts differently to the light bouncing off vampires compared to that coming off humans, animals and in fact almost everything in the world. Maybe the suggestion is that the vampires absorb the light. In the UK children's televisions series, 'Young Dracula' (2007-2008), Dracula can only see his own reflection when he is actually inhabiting the body of Van Helsing. The most extreme example of no reflections is in the 'Ultraviolet' series. In it vampires cannot even be captured by audio or video recording devices meaning they are invisible to cameras and have to use artificially created voices when they want to telephone people.
It is interesting to see the different rules which apply to vampires in current media and how vampires are becoming more robust, with fewer weaknesses than they once would have had. This reflects the desire of writers to have strong opponents and ones who can stray much farther afield than down from the castle to the local village. I am sure there will be many more twists and re-interpretations in the coming years. I recognise I have only seen a fraction of the relevant movies and very few books, so it would be great to know other different examples of how to kill vampires that you have seen.
P.P. 04/10/2009
With the unending supply of vampire series appearing there seems to be weekly new examples of how vampires can be killed or not. Not having much time or the patience for reading these my input is mainly from television and movies. 'Twilight' (2008) shows vampires sweating in a gleaming crystalline way when standing in bright sunlight, but not burning up. In fact the 'Twilight' the vampires are probably the hardest to kill of all of these movies and series, as, to destroy them both in the book and the movie, you have to rip them 'to shreds' and burn the pieces because otherwise these pieces can reassemble.
Having re-watched 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (1992) recently I was reminded that even the original Dracula was immune to daylight, though he was weakened. I remind the woman in my house of this when she complains that vampires should burn up rapidly in daylight as they sometimes do in 'Blade' and certainly in 'Ultraviolet'. This point is questioned even on the IMDB entry for the 1992 movie, but as that was very close to the original novel, it seems what Bram Stoker intended and certainly overcomes the difficulties of writing vampires to be so vulnerable.
I have started watching 'Moonlight' (2007-8) series which, despite the title, is about vampires rather than werewolves. It is interesting to note it stars Sophia Myles who played vampire Erika in 'Underworld' (2003), but this time as a human, Beth Turner, a television reporter. She teams up with vampire private detective, Mick St. John. In this series vampires can walk in daylight (if wearing sunglasses) but bright sunlight weakens them steadily. Silver simply paralyses them rather than kills them. I have not seen many episodes but generally the only way to kill vampires is to behead them or blow them up. Interestingly in this series, vampires images could not be captured by traditional celluloid photography but can be caught by digital photography which is a variation on the rules in 'Ultraviolet', though when that series was produced digital photography had not yet become common.
I watched the entire series of 'Blood Ties' (2007; series 2 about to be released on DVD) which is set in Canada rather than the USA. In some ways the set up is similar to 'Moonlight', though in this the heroine Vicki Nelson is the private detective and Henry Fitzoy, (Duke of Richmond and illegitimate son of King Henry VIII) is a vampire graphic novelist who assists her. In this story vampires are 'dead' during daylight hours and will burn up if exposed to sunlight. There is also a device called an 'Iluminación del Sol' (Illumination of the Sun) which is a flat circular metal object from which extend claws that dig into a vampire, weaken them and allow them to be controlled by whoever put the device on them. In this series most of those who are killed are other creatures from different mythologies as diverse as Amerindian and Greek, so we see a variety of ways of killing these creatures rather than vampires.
The acclaimed series 'True Blood' has come to the UK on a pretty obscure channel that I cannot receive but is due to move on to Channel 4 which I can get. As yet I do not know what vampires can be killed with in this series, so I will check back here with a discussion of it when I know.
P.P. 04/06/2011
I have now watched three series of 'True Blood'. There are a couple of interesting ways to harm/kill vampires in the story. Silver burns and in sufficient quantities paralyses vampires without killing them. At one stage a vampire is threatened with being locked in a silver coffin for five years as punishment for killing another vampire. The prime way to kill vampires is to ram a wooden stake through their hearts at which stage they inconveniently turn into sticky strands of blood occupying as much space as their bodies did rather than the easier to clean up dust of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. The vampires are harmed by sunlight which steadily burns them though does not kill them instantly. In both the first and the third series various vampires are out in the sunlight being burnt but are able to recover after a good meal of blood. In the first series a small group of vampires are destroyed by fire when the house they are sleeping in is torched.
So, today's posting is nothing very erudite, but when I was thinking about how the fashions associated with vampires had changed, reflecting shifts and interests within contemporary society, I also thought about how vampires are shown to be destroyed in movies, books and games has changed too. Partly this is because vampires since the 1990s have shifted from purely horror movies really into the action genre and consequently there is a desire to be able to blast away at them with excessive amounts of ammunition and yet ultimately be able to kill them. Even when guns are not used, as in the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' series (1997-2003), there is much more martial arts involved before Buffy can shove her stake into the vampire's heart. In addition, typically the vampire dissolves very quickly into dust rather than dying slowly and in a way that they can be resurrected for the next movie.
The ability to resurrect a seemingly destroyed vampire is an interesting one. In movies in which the stake simply keeps the vampire dead, of course, it can be later removed and the vampire can come back to 'life'. I am trying to think of a movie in which I have seen this happen. These days vampires usually dissolve dramatically into a shower of blood or ash. Interestingly in 'Ultraviolet' this ash is collected up and then stored in a chilled repository. However, in the final episode the dust of a vampire (played by Stephen Moyer who apparently plays the lead vampire in 'True Blood') is brought back into existence by pouring the blood of another vampire on him. What is fascinating is that his clothes are perfectly restored too, probably a good thing as he is on a bridge in London at the time and runs off into the streets.
In recent tradition, vampires are killed by exposure to sunlight or having a stake driven through their hearts. In addition if their 'sire', the vampire who made them a vampire is killed, they may die or return to being a human. This is what happens at the end of 'The Lost Boys' (1987) when the grandfather literally drives a vast stake into the chief vampire. Destroying the coffin in which the vampire is supposed to sleep (and often contains earth from where they were conceived) is another way. Vampires are generally thought to be able to be burned by fire and also die if they have their heads chopped off. They also suffer damage from having holy water thrown over them and are repelled by crucifixes and by garlic. The probable reason for garlic being a factor is that it is good for improving people's blood circulation and there is an association between vampires and coagulating blood. Flowing water can either repel or damage a vampire depending on the story.
To some degree the shift in killing them comes from a move from the portrayal of vampirism as something spiritually evil or inherent in a vampire to something more like a disease that potentially anyone can catch. There are some exceptions to this. In 'Dance of the Vampires' (1967; known as 'The Fearless Vampire Killers' in the USA) there is a Jewish vampire not repelled by a crucifix.
The long-running UK science fiction series, 'Doctor Who' has had a couple of vampire stories. In November 1980 there was the 4-part 'State of Decay', with Tom Baker as the Doctor, in which there are ordinary vampires and Great Vampires, an alien race from E-Space. Once the last Great Vampire has a spaceship rammed through his heart all the others die. However, a more interesting twist came in the series in 1988 in 'The Curse of Fenric' which features alien 'haemovores' (literally blood eaters) in North-East England in 1943. The so-called Ancient Haemovores come from Earth's future when the planet has been wrecked by pollution. They transform humans into standard haemovores. In contrast to other vampires they can operate during daylight (or certainly as grey as the light is in Northumberland) but they are immune to bullets. However, they are not immune to faith, but not necessarily just Christian faith and a Soviet soldier who is one of a number at the base where the haemovores appears, manages to destroy one through his faith in Soviet Communism and the Doctor himself uses his faith in his past companions to do likewise; the vicar like the priest in 'From Dusk to Dawn' is impotent because he has lost his faith, in this story because of the inhumanity of the war. So, there are occasionally slightly different methods, but even the newest of these is now 20 years old and pre-dates the growth of Matrix-influenced vampire movies.
Stakes through the heart still seem to work, though in 'Lifeforce' (1985) and another movie I saw that I cannot remember the name of, it is the solar plexus, which many people, such as those who study tai-chi see as the source of human energy, that has to be the target for it to work. Possibly this is because vampires are supposed to have no pulse so there is doubt whether their hearts would be working.
So, what other ways are vampires killed in modern day stories? Many in 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' seem able to knock away crucifixes even if they burn them, suggesting only a very large one would do them serious harm. Many even run around in daylight, simply smoking as they are exposed and able to deflect that by covering themselves in blankets, though sustained exposure will kill them. The most extreme example of this is in 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' (2003) movie in which Mina Harker a vampire, is shown standing in brilliant sunlight sunning herself on the deck of the 'Nautilus'. We never find out what can kill her, she seems to be very powerful, leaping up buildings and turning into a flock of bats when running around Venice.
The issue of immunity to sunlight same seems to apply to some extent in 'Underworld' (2003) though in the unnamed East European city it is set in (one guesses it is Hungarian) there rarely seems to be much daylight anyway. Instead, the werewolves against whom the vampires battle fire bullets containing ultra-violet light sources in them which is like sunlight exposure from the inside out. Artificial light sources are used in 'Blade II' (2002) and in a steampunk way in 19th-century set 'Van Helsing' (2004) (which, to balance back the other way, also permits holy water to harm vampires).
The nature of bullets which harm vampires is an interesting point. Generally the standard lead ones inflict no damage. Interestingly in the UK television series 'Ultraviolet' (1998, not to be confused with recent movies and games) saw the unit opposing vampires firing carbon bullets (there is a mention of wooden bullets being used previously). The sense here is that carbon is the basis of organic chemistry; organic effectively implying 'life' and so life as opposed to death or undeath of vampires. In addition, in fact, a wooden stake really is just a big carbon-based bullet. More controversial is in the 'Blade' series in which it is silver which is said to harm vampires. Everyone knows it is werewolves that are harmed by silver (its similarity in appearance to the Moon); though in 'Underworld' it simply burns and stops the transformation of werewolves. Consequently, the vampires have to use silver nitrate, a form of silver that is liquid at room temperature which kills the werewolves by harming their blood circulation.
Given the connection with blood and perception of vampirism as a disease, there are medical approaches to quelling it. In 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (1992) and 'Blade', characters see through the microscope how the balance of red and white blood cells change in vampires making them need blood to survive. In 'Near Dark' (1987) two characters are cured from being vampires by blood transfusions and in 'Blade' the hero is supplied with an intense anti-coagulant which causes vampires to expand in seconds and burst dramatically. In fact, you would think it would be the reverse and something that stopped blood flow would harm them more. However, the vampires simply kind of suffocating would be less visually dramatic than their bloody explosions.
Water, bar in the game 'BloodRayne' recently mentioned here, no longer seems to do any damage. Though in some traditions vampires cannot pass flowing water let alone go into it. However, in narrative terms this restricts them even further than sunlight, not allowing them out of the average Romanian village. In 'From Dusk til Dawn', holy water works when the priest recovers his faith which he does supririsingly easily. It shows why (holy) water is less popular as a weapon against vampires in movies as I guess it would remove the drama if we saw vampires being levelled by people with water pistols, power showers and hosepipes. A lot of action movies need the hero to act with ingenuity and anything too simple would undermine that.
As noted above, the villain has to be destroyable, but not too easily. It is interesting in 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', when Dracula appeared, he proved to be basically indestructable and it was only through the heroine showing him how tiresome it would be for him to keep rematerialising and being killed again and again that he effectively gave up. Vampires are renowned for taking many forms, usually bats of different sizes, sometimes wolves and occasionally as clouds, but that does through up the issue of what happens if when in that form someone simply sucked them into a vacuum cleaner or dispersed them with a fan or something; probably why that form of manifestation is no longer common.
Another issue is reflections. Again, this partly stems for vampires being seen as effectively dead and so deemed not to have reflections. There is a great scene in 'Van Helsing' in which the heroine sees in a mirror that she is the only human in the crowded ballroom. Other movies do not worry so much about this aspect as it does seem a bit strange that somehow plain glass reacts differently to the light bouncing off vampires compared to that coming off humans, animals and in fact almost everything in the world. Maybe the suggestion is that the vampires absorb the light. In the UK children's televisions series, 'Young Dracula' (2007-2008), Dracula can only see his own reflection when he is actually inhabiting the body of Van Helsing. The most extreme example of no reflections is in the 'Ultraviolet' series. In it vampires cannot even be captured by audio or video recording devices meaning they are invisible to cameras and have to use artificially created voices when they want to telephone people.
It is interesting to see the different rules which apply to vampires in current media and how vampires are becoming more robust, with fewer weaknesses than they once would have had. This reflects the desire of writers to have strong opponents and ones who can stray much farther afield than down from the castle to the local village. I am sure there will be many more twists and re-interpretations in the coming years. I recognise I have only seen a fraction of the relevant movies and very few books, so it would be great to know other different examples of how to kill vampires that you have seen.
P.P. 04/10/2009
With the unending supply of vampire series appearing there seems to be weekly new examples of how vampires can be killed or not. Not having much time or the patience for reading these my input is mainly from television and movies. 'Twilight' (2008) shows vampires sweating in a gleaming crystalline way when standing in bright sunlight, but not burning up. In fact the 'Twilight' the vampires are probably the hardest to kill of all of these movies and series, as, to destroy them both in the book and the movie, you have to rip them 'to shreds' and burn the pieces because otherwise these pieces can reassemble.
Having re-watched 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (1992) recently I was reminded that even the original Dracula was immune to daylight, though he was weakened. I remind the woman in my house of this when she complains that vampires should burn up rapidly in daylight as they sometimes do in 'Blade' and certainly in 'Ultraviolet'. This point is questioned even on the IMDB entry for the 1992 movie, but as that was very close to the original novel, it seems what Bram Stoker intended and certainly overcomes the difficulties of writing vampires to be so vulnerable.
I have started watching 'Moonlight' (2007-8) series which, despite the title, is about vampires rather than werewolves. It is interesting to note it stars Sophia Myles who played vampire Erika in 'Underworld' (2003), but this time as a human, Beth Turner, a television reporter. She teams up with vampire private detective, Mick St. John. In this series vampires can walk in daylight (if wearing sunglasses) but bright sunlight weakens them steadily. Silver simply paralyses them rather than kills them. I have not seen many episodes but generally the only way to kill vampires is to behead them or blow them up. Interestingly in this series, vampires images could not be captured by traditional celluloid photography but can be caught by digital photography which is a variation on the rules in 'Ultraviolet', though when that series was produced digital photography had not yet become common.
I watched the entire series of 'Blood Ties' (2007; series 2 about to be released on DVD) which is set in Canada rather than the USA. In some ways the set up is similar to 'Moonlight', though in this the heroine Vicki Nelson is the private detective and Henry Fitzoy, (Duke of Richmond and illegitimate son of King Henry VIII) is a vampire graphic novelist who assists her. In this story vampires are 'dead' during daylight hours and will burn up if exposed to sunlight. There is also a device called an 'Iluminación del Sol' (Illumination of the Sun) which is a flat circular metal object from which extend claws that dig into a vampire, weaken them and allow them to be controlled by whoever put the device on them. In this series most of those who are killed are other creatures from different mythologies as diverse as Amerindian and Greek, so we see a variety of ways of killing these creatures rather than vampires.
The acclaimed series 'True Blood' has come to the UK on a pretty obscure channel that I cannot receive but is due to move on to Channel 4 which I can get. As yet I do not know what vampires can be killed with in this series, so I will check back here with a discussion of it when I know.
P.P. 04/06/2011
I have now watched three series of 'True Blood'. There are a couple of interesting ways to harm/kill vampires in the story. Silver burns and in sufficient quantities paralyses vampires without killing them. At one stage a vampire is threatened with being locked in a silver coffin for five years as punishment for killing another vampire. The prime way to kill vampires is to ram a wooden stake through their hearts at which stage they inconveniently turn into sticky strands of blood occupying as much space as their bodies did rather than the easier to clean up dust of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. The vampires are harmed by sunlight which steadily burns them though does not kill them instantly. In both the first and the third series various vampires are out in the sunlight being burnt but are able to recover after a good meal of blood. In the first series a small group of vampires are destroyed by fire when the house they are sleeping in is torched.
Monday, 7 January 2008
The Contemporary Vampire Aesthetic
One area which I promised to focus on in this blog which has been pretty much neglected is contemporary Gothic culture, something I am part of, but seems to be hard to sustain surrounded by so many chavs and all the pressures of life. Vampire aesthetics informed the Gothic (Revival) movement of the 19th century as well as its 20th century manifestation.
I am a keen computer-game player (Is that a prerequisite for being a blogger? Possibly) and tiring of wargames I dug through my collection of PC games looking for something immediate. Computer games are my retail therapy. A few years ago I acknowledged that I actually enjoyed buying the games and reading the little booklets as much as I enjoyed playing them. I never pay full price but enjoy scouring charity shops for obscure titles. Consequently I have a few boxes of games I have never played that I turn to in moments of ennui (such as an extended Christmas holiday with bad weather) and came upon 'Bloodrayne' (2002; a very poor movie came out in 2006 surprisingly with Ben Kingsley and Michael Madsen). It features a half-vampire woman battling against various demons and mutants in Louisiana in 1933 and Argentina and Germany 1938. The story owes a lot to sources such as 'The Raiders of the Lost Ark' (1981) movie with the Nazis digging for powerful esoteric relics; the Anne Rice vampire novels set in New Orleans; the Blade comics graphic novels (1973 so to some degree in itself an element of the so-called 'blaxploitation' trend of the early 1970s as Blade is black; 1999-2000) and movies (1998; 2002; 2004) in that Rayne is a 'dhampir' half-human, half-vampire like Blade; it also has shared elements with 'Hellboy' (graphic novels since 1993; movie 2004) notably the Oberst 'Kommando' character resembles Oberst Karl Rupprecht Kroenen from the Hellboy stories and the Thule Society appears in both.
The game is surprisingly unbuggy for a first-person shooter game; the story is interesting (an organisation called The Brimstone Society but it is incredibly hard not because the controls are poor, they are good, more that so many opponents are thrown at you and water and poison gas are additional hazards that it is incredibly difficult to stay alive even on 'Easy' mode; fortunately the game designers provide simple facilities for cheats to replenish energy and so on, otherwise you would miss out on so much of the game. One notable characteristic of the game I have not seen in many others (but then again I am not a big first-person game player) is the ability to execute balletic assaults on opponents even with a function to slow down to 'bullet time' to allow the kind of violent acrobatics of the kind seen in 'The Matrix' (1999).
The game also taps into the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (movie 1992; series 1997-2003) with a female protagonist fighting vampires and demons and clearly aimed at the teenaged boy market. It also draws on the modern, almost fetish, styling of contemporary vampires and that started me thinking about when did vampires in books and movies change from having silk capes to leather trenchcoats and in fact has one approach replaced the other or are they running in parallel?
To some degree the styling for vampires has fed off the Gothic style in itself just as Goths have often modelled themselves on how vampires are shown. This stems from the fact that the explosion of popular vampire fiction in the 19th century portrays them in clothing of that time including capes and formal suits; long dresses and corsets. Movies reflected how the vampires were shown in 19th century fiction and we see such clothing replicated in Gothic clothing from the 1980s onwards. The traditional portrayal was strong in the Hammer horror movies of the 1970s and is sustained in many versions of vampire stories more recently, notably 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (1992) and 'Van Helsing' (2004) though in Van Helsing's clothing with styles similar to something Blade would wear.
The shift from vampires being nobility in Eastern Europe to being more of an ordinary background can be seen as stemming from 'The Lost Boys' (1987) which portrayed vampires in a small coastal US town as a youth gang and referenced comic books as a source of information for fighting vampires. The vampires for the first time dressed in contemporary clothing of teenagers rather than the garb of nobility. Other movies showing similar vampires of ordinary status were 'Near Dark' (1987) with working class vampires in Oklahoma (in the small category of rural American vampire movies you can also include 'From Dusk to Dawn' (1996) set just over the border in Mexico) and to a lesser extent 'Fright Night' (1985) with suburban vampirism typical of the Buffy series, though with Peter Vincent played by Roddy McDowell referencing the 1970s Hammer horror movies with Peter Cushing and Vincent Price. The Buffy series early on shows that shift in series 2 with the arrival of Spike a British, kind of punk Vampire to displace the more old fashioned approach of 'The Annointed' and 'The Master' vampires who had preceded him in Sunnydale. It is unsurprising that vampire movies took this step. It was in line with the shift in other genres of horror movie too and the fact that mundane evil, the kind you could encounter in your own home is far more frightening than more fantastical horror. If you live in downtown Baltimore or Luton you are very unlikely to encounter a windswept Transylvanian castle. Even the more traditional style vampire movies had been moving in this direction with things such as 'Dracula A.D. 1972' (1972). However, making the vampire genre seem relevant to the teenagers queuing to see slasher movies was important commercially and would revive what by the mid-1980s seemed a very tired genre (e.g. 'Nosferatu' (1922) can be seen as the first vampire movie giving the films a 50-year lifespan even by the mid-1970s).
Another aspect is that vampire movies have rediscovered the analogies to disease. In the era of prevalent syphillis of the Victorian era you find a number of analogies to the illness. The 19th century saw an interest in the workings of the mind particularly of obsessions which formed the foundation of the science of psychology and psycho-analysis in the 20th century. There was also the issue of eugenics and of 'blood' often on a racialist (and in turn provoking racist views) and the characteristics they implied. It is unsurprising that with the era of AIDS in the 1980s and 1990s that people have that as a background and vampirism is portrayed as a disease. Maybe the first contemporary movie to engage with this was 'The Hunger' (1983) maybe influenced by the venereal herpes outbreaks of the 1980s as the lead vampire is eventually destroyed by all those he has 'infected' through draining their blood. In 'Near Dark' the hero's vampirism is cured through a blood transfusion. The disease perspective is notable in 'Blade' (1998) as Blade takes an antidote to his illness and works with a doctor specialising in blood conditions to develop antibodies to vampires. In 'Blade II' things go further with vampires seeking to genetically engineer and even more ferocious type of vampire creature. Similarly in 'Underworld' (2003) werewolf scientists are working at selective breeding in order to create a werewolf-vampire hybrid. In this movie vampirism is not simply a disease but one being addressed through genetic engineering. Thus, it plays on concerns and fears of the present day in the way that some 19th century vampire stories did.
So the vampire was made more of the mainstream and tackling contemporary concerns. This meant that really anyone could become a vampire, opening up a wider range of character types than the simple count in the castle on the hill side. Vampires even became the heros. Blade is a half-vampire and wipes out vampires, though in 'Blade II' (2002) he allies with a kind of vampire special forces unit. In 'Underworld' the heroine, Selene is a vampire herself very much wrapped up in the traditions of the species; though interesting the lead vampire, when revived is connected to a very high-tech drip system to revive him. With vampires as heros you need something far more evil still for them to fight. In 'Underworld' the heroine battles werewolves and conspirators among the vampire community. In Blade II, it is against the mutant vampire creatures and similarly in the computer games 'BloodRayne' and 'Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines' (2004) against mutated creatures coming out of vampire backgrounds ('Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines', a first person/third person shooter/slasher had a fascinating storyline featuring different clans of vampire operating in Los Angeles each with different characteristics and a culture with different vampire organisations. The morality of it is deliberately ambivalent. However, it must have been the most bug-infested game released commercially and took years of patches even after the production company Troika had collapsed to make it playable. The fact that so much effort was put into it showed how engaging the storyline and settings were. It is the only game I have played which has had truly frightening locations and settings).
It is probably unsurprsing that vampire movies touch on disease because as there has long been an association between vampires and sexual activity. As someone noted Dracula is all about fore-play, nibbling at the women without actually going for the intercourse an approach to sex that some women would appreciate. Dracula was generally portrayed as suave and enchanting and also promises love that lasts an eternity; elements often missing in contemporary men's approaches to 'wooing' a woman. He wears dark, sleek clothing and lives well. The vampire women are always beautiful, voluptuous and dressed provocatively. This aspect has further influenced the aesthetic of vampire movies and certainly with the 'Underworld' movie and its sequel 'Underworld: Evolution' (2006) has crossed over into fetish clothing with Kate Beckinsale's character eschewing velvet dresses in favour of a rubber catsuit and long boots. In the same way Goth styling with corsets and long leather coats has found fetishists butting up against it in style; sometimes to the great unease of Goths, though many are open-minded they tend to seek more complex relationship with sustained equality between the partners whereas the fetishists often seek power exchange (though typically within what is beneath the surface an equal relationship). In addition, whilst the Goth clothing is similar there is a great deal more intellectually to being Goth than simply dressing up sexily. Thus, the lines are muddied and with the Goth clearly leaking into mainstream fashion especially in winter styles for women with purples and blacks and corsets, one can see how what is established as the vampire aesthetic in movies, books and games actually begins straying into our lives, most particularly of people like Goths most easily influenced by it. In the age of the 'kidult' and women dressed in pink and fluffy, this provides a far more mature, serious, even dangerous look for people seeking something different.
So where does the vampire genre stand in 2008? Well in terms of novels I could not hope to even scrape the surface of the number being written. Authors such as Anne Rice and Poppy Z. Brite have been joined by many others in writing both historic and contemporary vampire novels. A third Underworld movie is predicted if Kate Beckinsale gives her costume back to the studio after using it for her Halloween outfit this past year. Vampire stories are likely to stay popular in these nervous times as they touch on physical, medical and mental concerns we have; provide action; are sexy and give us a look that appears grown-up.
I am a keen computer-game player (Is that a prerequisite for being a blogger? Possibly) and tiring of wargames I dug through my collection of PC games looking for something immediate. Computer games are my retail therapy. A few years ago I acknowledged that I actually enjoyed buying the games and reading the little booklets as much as I enjoyed playing them. I never pay full price but enjoy scouring charity shops for obscure titles. Consequently I have a few boxes of games I have never played that I turn to in moments of ennui (such as an extended Christmas holiday with bad weather) and came upon 'Bloodrayne' (2002; a very poor movie came out in 2006 surprisingly with Ben Kingsley and Michael Madsen). It features a half-vampire woman battling against various demons and mutants in Louisiana in 1933 and Argentina and Germany 1938. The story owes a lot to sources such as 'The Raiders of the Lost Ark' (1981) movie with the Nazis digging for powerful esoteric relics; the Anne Rice vampire novels set in New Orleans; the Blade comics graphic novels (1973 so to some degree in itself an element of the so-called 'blaxploitation' trend of the early 1970s as Blade is black; 1999-2000) and movies (1998; 2002; 2004) in that Rayne is a 'dhampir' half-human, half-vampire like Blade; it also has shared elements with 'Hellboy' (graphic novels since 1993; movie 2004) notably the Oberst 'Kommando' character resembles Oberst Karl Rupprecht Kroenen from the Hellboy stories and the Thule Society appears in both.
The game is surprisingly unbuggy for a first-person shooter game; the story is interesting (an organisation called The Brimstone Society but it is incredibly hard not because the controls are poor, they are good, more that so many opponents are thrown at you and water and poison gas are additional hazards that it is incredibly difficult to stay alive even on 'Easy' mode; fortunately the game designers provide simple facilities for cheats to replenish energy and so on, otherwise you would miss out on so much of the game. One notable characteristic of the game I have not seen in many others (but then again I am not a big first-person game player) is the ability to execute balletic assaults on opponents even with a function to slow down to 'bullet time' to allow the kind of violent acrobatics of the kind seen in 'The Matrix' (1999).
The game also taps into the 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (movie 1992; series 1997-2003) with a female protagonist fighting vampires and demons and clearly aimed at the teenaged boy market. It also draws on the modern, almost fetish, styling of contemporary vampires and that started me thinking about when did vampires in books and movies change from having silk capes to leather trenchcoats and in fact has one approach replaced the other or are they running in parallel?
To some degree the styling for vampires has fed off the Gothic style in itself just as Goths have often modelled themselves on how vampires are shown. This stems from the fact that the explosion of popular vampire fiction in the 19th century portrays them in clothing of that time including capes and formal suits; long dresses and corsets. Movies reflected how the vampires were shown in 19th century fiction and we see such clothing replicated in Gothic clothing from the 1980s onwards. The traditional portrayal was strong in the Hammer horror movies of the 1970s and is sustained in many versions of vampire stories more recently, notably 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (1992) and 'Van Helsing' (2004) though in Van Helsing's clothing with styles similar to something Blade would wear.
The shift from vampires being nobility in Eastern Europe to being more of an ordinary background can be seen as stemming from 'The Lost Boys' (1987) which portrayed vampires in a small coastal US town as a youth gang and referenced comic books as a source of information for fighting vampires. The vampires for the first time dressed in contemporary clothing of teenagers rather than the garb of nobility. Other movies showing similar vampires of ordinary status were 'Near Dark' (1987) with working class vampires in Oklahoma (in the small category of rural American vampire movies you can also include 'From Dusk to Dawn' (1996) set just over the border in Mexico) and to a lesser extent 'Fright Night' (1985) with suburban vampirism typical of the Buffy series, though with Peter Vincent played by Roddy McDowell referencing the 1970s Hammer horror movies with Peter Cushing and Vincent Price. The Buffy series early on shows that shift in series 2 with the arrival of Spike a British, kind of punk Vampire to displace the more old fashioned approach of 'The Annointed' and 'The Master' vampires who had preceded him in Sunnydale. It is unsurprising that vampire movies took this step. It was in line with the shift in other genres of horror movie too and the fact that mundane evil, the kind you could encounter in your own home is far more frightening than more fantastical horror. If you live in downtown Baltimore or Luton you are very unlikely to encounter a windswept Transylvanian castle. Even the more traditional style vampire movies had been moving in this direction with things such as 'Dracula A.D. 1972' (1972). However, making the vampire genre seem relevant to the teenagers queuing to see slasher movies was important commercially and would revive what by the mid-1980s seemed a very tired genre (e.g. 'Nosferatu' (1922) can be seen as the first vampire movie giving the films a 50-year lifespan even by the mid-1970s).
Another aspect is that vampire movies have rediscovered the analogies to disease. In the era of prevalent syphillis of the Victorian era you find a number of analogies to the illness. The 19th century saw an interest in the workings of the mind particularly of obsessions which formed the foundation of the science of psychology and psycho-analysis in the 20th century. There was also the issue of eugenics and of 'blood' often on a racialist (and in turn provoking racist views) and the characteristics they implied. It is unsurprising that with the era of AIDS in the 1980s and 1990s that people have that as a background and vampirism is portrayed as a disease. Maybe the first contemporary movie to engage with this was 'The Hunger' (1983) maybe influenced by the venereal herpes outbreaks of the 1980s as the lead vampire is eventually destroyed by all those he has 'infected' through draining their blood. In 'Near Dark' the hero's vampirism is cured through a blood transfusion. The disease perspective is notable in 'Blade' (1998) as Blade takes an antidote to his illness and works with a doctor specialising in blood conditions to develop antibodies to vampires. In 'Blade II' things go further with vampires seeking to genetically engineer and even more ferocious type of vampire creature. Similarly in 'Underworld' (2003) werewolf scientists are working at selective breeding in order to create a werewolf-vampire hybrid. In this movie vampirism is not simply a disease but one being addressed through genetic engineering. Thus, it plays on concerns and fears of the present day in the way that some 19th century vampire stories did.
So the vampire was made more of the mainstream and tackling contemporary concerns. This meant that really anyone could become a vampire, opening up a wider range of character types than the simple count in the castle on the hill side. Vampires even became the heros. Blade is a half-vampire and wipes out vampires, though in 'Blade II' (2002) he allies with a kind of vampire special forces unit. In 'Underworld' the heroine, Selene is a vampire herself very much wrapped up in the traditions of the species; though interesting the lead vampire, when revived is connected to a very high-tech drip system to revive him. With vampires as heros you need something far more evil still for them to fight. In 'Underworld' the heroine battles werewolves and conspirators among the vampire community. In Blade II, it is against the mutant vampire creatures and similarly in the computer games 'BloodRayne' and 'Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines' (2004) against mutated creatures coming out of vampire backgrounds ('Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines', a first person/third person shooter/slasher had a fascinating storyline featuring different clans of vampire operating in Los Angeles each with different characteristics and a culture with different vampire organisations. The morality of it is deliberately ambivalent. However, it must have been the most bug-infested game released commercially and took years of patches even after the production company Troika had collapsed to make it playable. The fact that so much effort was put into it showed how engaging the storyline and settings were. It is the only game I have played which has had truly frightening locations and settings).
It is probably unsurprsing that vampire movies touch on disease because as there has long been an association between vampires and sexual activity. As someone noted Dracula is all about fore-play, nibbling at the women without actually going for the intercourse an approach to sex that some women would appreciate. Dracula was generally portrayed as suave and enchanting and also promises love that lasts an eternity; elements often missing in contemporary men's approaches to 'wooing' a woman. He wears dark, sleek clothing and lives well. The vampire women are always beautiful, voluptuous and dressed provocatively. This aspect has further influenced the aesthetic of vampire movies and certainly with the 'Underworld' movie and its sequel 'Underworld: Evolution' (2006) has crossed over into fetish clothing with Kate Beckinsale's character eschewing velvet dresses in favour of a rubber catsuit and long boots. In the same way Goth styling with corsets and long leather coats has found fetishists butting up against it in style; sometimes to the great unease of Goths, though many are open-minded they tend to seek more complex relationship with sustained equality between the partners whereas the fetishists often seek power exchange (though typically within what is beneath the surface an equal relationship). In addition, whilst the Goth clothing is similar there is a great deal more intellectually to being Goth than simply dressing up sexily. Thus, the lines are muddied and with the Goth clearly leaking into mainstream fashion especially in winter styles for women with purples and blacks and corsets, one can see how what is established as the vampire aesthetic in movies, books and games actually begins straying into our lives, most particularly of people like Goths most easily influenced by it. In the age of the 'kidult' and women dressed in pink and fluffy, this provides a far more mature, serious, even dangerous look for people seeking something different.
So where does the vampire genre stand in 2008? Well in terms of novels I could not hope to even scrape the surface of the number being written. Authors such as Anne Rice and Poppy Z. Brite have been joined by many others in writing both historic and contemporary vampire novels. A third Underworld movie is predicted if Kate Beckinsale gives her costume back to the studio after using it for her Halloween outfit this past year. Vampire stories are likely to stay popular in these nervous times as they touch on physical, medical and mental concerns we have; provide action; are sexy and give us a look that appears grown-up.
Does Barack Obama's Success Mark Growing Maturity in US Politics?
For citizens of the UK, especially in recent years, we look on the US presidential race with a combination of alarm and powerlessness. Certainly since the Reagan era we have known that because the UK is bound so tightly (though I am glad that the bonds are loosening a little compared to the Thatcher-Major-Blair years) the type of US President that is elected affects many lives in the UK. If Al Gore had been properly appointed in 2000, hundreds of UK citizens would still be alive, not having died in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is that clear a correlation. Thus, the choice of American electors impacts heavily on us British and yet we have no control over the electoral process at all. Though we sometimes elect malicious or misguided people to be our prime minister, we do not elect morons in the way Americans do. Reagan and George W. Bush certainly seemed to lack the abilities necessary to fulfil the post they held and you could even question the capabilities of Jimmy Carter. Nixon was bright but oversaw a bitterly divided party and his obsession with power (similar in some ways to our own Tony Blair's) made his term of office infamous. Similarly Clinton let other obsessions, notably sex, get in the way of putting his abilities to full use.
It does seem rare that the US electorate, their opinions distorted through the electoral college system (though even with direct voting Bush would have made a clean sweep in 2004 there is no denying that), actually pick a candidate by their policies, they pick the person (up until now always a man) that appeals to them, and in fact often who resembles them. This might seem the ultimate form of democracy, but for electing someone to the most powerful position (debatably now the second most powerful after the Chairman of the People's Republic of China given China's rapid economic growth [including recent financial support to leading Western banks], the size of its armed forces and a population 5 times larger than the USA) in the world it is not about class but have the personal capabilities to fulfil the role. A rich man can be stupid; a poor man can be intelligent. US voters tend to vote for stupid, rich men.
Now among the potential candidates for the US presidential election there are ones who are very different to what we have seen ever since the USA was founded. On the Democrat side, Barack Obama who won the primary in Iowa (apparently the fourth 'most white' state in the USA) is the first black candidate (and to people in the UK his skin tone looks incredibly pale for a 'black' person as we define them, but I accept he is racially in the US category of African-American, though he is mixed-race) since Jesse Jackson and also a woman Hillary Clinton. Now, Clinton despite her gender actually fits the recent (last 50 years) mode of candidates in that she comes from a presidential dynasty (like the Roosevelts, Kennedys (effectively I know none of them was elected after John) and the Bushes) and is well-off and less commonly, though not uniquely is intelligent. She and Obama are neck-and-neck for New Hampshire. Ultimately I doubt it matters which of the two of them wins as Obama has now established himself strongly enough and Clinton is holding on well enough that either would have to consider the other as their vice-presidential candidate. Could it really be that by 2009 we have a black man and a woman as President/Vice-President or Vice-President/President? Possibly.
I doubt a Democrat victory because the USA is currently running in a very Republican direction. Bush picked up an additional 3 million votes in 2004 over his 2000 victory. The New Right has continued to be successful in scaring the US population into backing harsh measures against the continued supposed threat of al-Qaeda and in turn to try to wriggle out of any limits on US industry implied by climate change legislation. Attitudes counter to this are currently not popular in the USA. However, as I say the US electorate will often look past any policies to elect the person they like. No-one seems to have noticed that Reagan made a 180° turn between his first and second terms of office from condemning the USSR as the 'evil empire' to meeting with its leader. Whatever he said, however, contradictory it was, was accepted because Americans liked Ronnie (and the rest of the world was terrified of him). I watched '1983 - Brink of Armageddon' last night and it revealed how close nuclear war came on 10th November 1983 and it seems to vindicate that unilateral disarmanent would have reduced global tensions, let alone multilateral disarmanent, and that Reagan's posturing was actually endangering world stability in the way many of us warned).
The difference may be that Obama is mobilising people who are generally politically inactive or non-committed and he may be able to get enough of these to tip the balance against the Republicans in some states. However, given the entrenchment of the New Right and just general Republicans throughout the US system I imagine that if he comes close they will pull off some electoral shenanigans as we saw in 2000 (and we witnessed in the UK in 1992 especially in South-West England). In addition, I think since the moment when Obama won the Iowa primary he became the top candidate for assassination in the USA. The closer he comes to even being a presidential or vice-presidential candidate the more risk he will be under, just remember the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 and he probably stood less chance of winning the candidature than Obama does at this moment. Of course many on the extreme right-wing of US politics have opted out of the political system and are preferring to run around in militia rather than at hustings and I just hope the secret service can defend Obama.
So, does Obama's success mark a shift in the USA? To some degree, no. Despite his background Obama draws on solid roots. He combines the rhetoric of the chapel with the tones of the civil rights movement (which in fact can easily translate into civil rights for the poor as well as the black). Christianity is always a good thing to have on your side in US politics and drawing on the words of the great and good of history is always a good idea too (though sensibly Obama has quoted Martin Luther King sparingly). It seems that his emphasis that freedom is not immoral but actually stems for a decent morality, appeals to usually apolitical people who are beginning to chafe against the restrictions imposed by the perceived threat of terrorism but are in fact more about increasing authoritarian control in line with New Right ideas and about nice wars overseas to control raw materials and provide business opportunities for the President's friends rather than freeing oppressed people. So to some degree people are waking up to the fact that a smiling face does not make their lives better, it is actual policies aimed at the broad sweep of US society rather than a narrow elite. As Bush admitted himself in October 2000 where addressing a dinner costing $800 (£400; €556 at today's rather than 2000 exchange rates) per plate: "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." How can even the middle class vote for a man with such a focus. So maybe we are seeing a changing approach to US politics which can only be for the good for both the average person in the USA and hopefully for the rest of the world. Though, of course policies can be brilliant for US people and damage the rest of the world, the two do not have to correlate, look at cheap fuel in the USA for example. In addition, if Obama does get to be President he might have to be even tougher than another candidate would have been, as given the prevailing hysteria is under attack from a SPECTRE-like organisation named (by the Americans themselves) al-Qaeda, this would be to prove that he is not 'soft' on terrorism an accusation which people will lay against him because of his race and political background.
A victory for Obama or Clinton as president, however unlikely would mark a step forward, showing that actually people from different backgrounds can progress to the highest level. The Bush governments seem to have suggest by their very personalities that only the elites can aspire to such a role. Neither Obama or Clinton are from even lower middle class backgrounds, but they are not white men from rich families which was beginning to seem the only criteria for becoming president. As I have noted before, the level to which a person can rise in a society reverberates through that society and with a black or female president many blacks and women can aspire to more realistically to become manager of their factory or store or wherever. That is the role of symbolism, but also moving to policies which will improve US society which is really decaying and a foreign policy which does not wreak death and destruction wherever it touches would be great things for have not only for the USA and the West but also the broader world. Hopefully the US electorate can see that, though I doubt it and we may have to wait a few more decades yet.
It does seem rare that the US electorate, their opinions distorted through the electoral college system (though even with direct voting Bush would have made a clean sweep in 2004 there is no denying that), actually pick a candidate by their policies, they pick the person (up until now always a man) that appeals to them, and in fact often who resembles them. This might seem the ultimate form of democracy, but for electing someone to the most powerful position (debatably now the second most powerful after the Chairman of the People's Republic of China given China's rapid economic growth [including recent financial support to leading Western banks], the size of its armed forces and a population 5 times larger than the USA) in the world it is not about class but have the personal capabilities to fulfil the role. A rich man can be stupid; a poor man can be intelligent. US voters tend to vote for stupid, rich men.
Now among the potential candidates for the US presidential election there are ones who are very different to what we have seen ever since the USA was founded. On the Democrat side, Barack Obama who won the primary in Iowa (apparently the fourth 'most white' state in the USA) is the first black candidate (and to people in the UK his skin tone looks incredibly pale for a 'black' person as we define them, but I accept he is racially in the US category of African-American, though he is mixed-race) since Jesse Jackson and also a woman Hillary Clinton. Now, Clinton despite her gender actually fits the recent (last 50 years) mode of candidates in that she comes from a presidential dynasty (like the Roosevelts, Kennedys (effectively I know none of them was elected after John) and the Bushes) and is well-off and less commonly, though not uniquely is intelligent. She and Obama are neck-and-neck for New Hampshire. Ultimately I doubt it matters which of the two of them wins as Obama has now established himself strongly enough and Clinton is holding on well enough that either would have to consider the other as their vice-presidential candidate. Could it really be that by 2009 we have a black man and a woman as President/Vice-President or Vice-President/President? Possibly.
I doubt a Democrat victory because the USA is currently running in a very Republican direction. Bush picked up an additional 3 million votes in 2004 over his 2000 victory. The New Right has continued to be successful in scaring the US population into backing harsh measures against the continued supposed threat of al-Qaeda and in turn to try to wriggle out of any limits on US industry implied by climate change legislation. Attitudes counter to this are currently not popular in the USA. However, as I say the US electorate will often look past any policies to elect the person they like. No-one seems to have noticed that Reagan made a 180° turn between his first and second terms of office from condemning the USSR as the 'evil empire' to meeting with its leader. Whatever he said, however, contradictory it was, was accepted because Americans liked Ronnie (and the rest of the world was terrified of him). I watched '1983 - Brink of Armageddon' last night and it revealed how close nuclear war came on 10th November 1983 and it seems to vindicate that unilateral disarmanent would have reduced global tensions, let alone multilateral disarmanent, and that Reagan's posturing was actually endangering world stability in the way many of us warned).
The difference may be that Obama is mobilising people who are generally politically inactive or non-committed and he may be able to get enough of these to tip the balance against the Republicans in some states. However, given the entrenchment of the New Right and just general Republicans throughout the US system I imagine that if he comes close they will pull off some electoral shenanigans as we saw in 2000 (and we witnessed in the UK in 1992 especially in South-West England). In addition, I think since the moment when Obama won the Iowa primary he became the top candidate for assassination in the USA. The closer he comes to even being a presidential or vice-presidential candidate the more risk he will be under, just remember the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 and he probably stood less chance of winning the candidature than Obama does at this moment. Of course many on the extreme right-wing of US politics have opted out of the political system and are preferring to run around in militia rather than at hustings and I just hope the secret service can defend Obama.
So, does Obama's success mark a shift in the USA? To some degree, no. Despite his background Obama draws on solid roots. He combines the rhetoric of the chapel with the tones of the civil rights movement (which in fact can easily translate into civil rights for the poor as well as the black). Christianity is always a good thing to have on your side in US politics and drawing on the words of the great and good of history is always a good idea too (though sensibly Obama has quoted Martin Luther King sparingly). It seems that his emphasis that freedom is not immoral but actually stems for a decent morality, appeals to usually apolitical people who are beginning to chafe against the restrictions imposed by the perceived threat of terrorism but are in fact more about increasing authoritarian control in line with New Right ideas and about nice wars overseas to control raw materials and provide business opportunities for the President's friends rather than freeing oppressed people. So to some degree people are waking up to the fact that a smiling face does not make their lives better, it is actual policies aimed at the broad sweep of US society rather than a narrow elite. As Bush admitted himself in October 2000 where addressing a dinner costing $800 (£400; €556 at today's rather than 2000 exchange rates) per plate: "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." How can even the middle class vote for a man with such a focus. So maybe we are seeing a changing approach to US politics which can only be for the good for both the average person in the USA and hopefully for the rest of the world. Though, of course policies can be brilliant for US people and damage the rest of the world, the two do not have to correlate, look at cheap fuel in the USA for example. In addition, if Obama does get to be President he might have to be even tougher than another candidate would have been, as given the prevailing hysteria is under attack from a SPECTRE-like organisation named (by the Americans themselves) al-Qaeda, this would be to prove that he is not 'soft' on terrorism an accusation which people will lay against him because of his race and political background.
A victory for Obama or Clinton as president, however unlikely would mark a step forward, showing that actually people from different backgrounds can progress to the highest level. The Bush governments seem to have suggest by their very personalities that only the elites can aspire to such a role. Neither Obama or Clinton are from even lower middle class backgrounds, but they are not white men from rich families which was beginning to seem the only criteria for becoming president. As I have noted before, the level to which a person can rise in a society reverberates through that society and with a black or female president many blacks and women can aspire to more realistically to become manager of their factory or store or wherever. That is the role of symbolism, but also moving to policies which will improve US society which is really decaying and a foreign policy which does not wreak death and destruction wherever it touches would be great things for have not only for the USA and the West but also the broader world. Hopefully the US electorate can see that, though I doubt it and we may have to wait a few more decades yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
