I heart Huckabees

So it finally got done downloading and I was able to watch it. So the movie was confusing, but very enjoyable. I enjoyed how it was an "existential detective" agency that helped them all figure out there questions about the world and how everything connected. As I was talking about downloading this movie, I was immediately hit with a variety of views on it. Some people really really enjoyed it, and even came down to my room to watch it, whereas some said it was really dumb. There were alot of well known actors in the movie which made me look forward to it a bit more. When you really tried to stop and follow whast they were saying it was a bit mind boggling. I enjoyed how he was put into a body bag to help him remove his layers and that most of the time he was cutting people up. I enjoyed how it ended, coming to realization that the two of them were linked and how Tommy hooked up with the Huckabees girl, even with her bonnet. I enjoyed the theme and even its interesting humor.

soooo themes.

Race
Fashion
... not sure ona third at the moment.

So one of the major issues in this book is obviously race. Race however can branch in a few directions. One that I really think is key is wrapped up in the character Levi. He can be related to things such as fashion or music ect. I just find Levi such an interesting character because he is so different than the rest of the family. He is matching what people see as the "typical" African American young male. His family is middle-class however he acts like he is from the Ghetto. I think it is interesting that Levi picked up an accent from a town his family doesnt live in. His Brooklyn accent stands out because no one else in the family speeks like he does. It is also key that Brooklyn isn't seen as one of the most wealthy areas in the world. This poor ghetto type area matches with Levi's personality and fashion. He fashion attire clearly is seen as odd from a prominently white neighborhood. He stands out and draws attnetion to himself. He wears his doo rag and baggy clothes. This sterotype of a typical african american child is a key to this book. Each child is going thorugh a different struggle with themselves, family, and society and I feel this is important.

ahhhh this is frusturating. I want to somehow incorporate that Levi's being sterotyped wrongly just because of his race and the way he dresses. People are scared of him not simply because he is african american, but more due to the fact of how he dresses and presents himself.


I cant find a quote... I give up... im to tired to this at the moment. I need a nap!

Genre-contem.

I am not very well at categorizing books, but I'd agree with the fact that it is more contemporary fiction. It is obviously a fictional story for the characters are not real people. The fact that it would be labeled as contemporary is due more to the fact that it is a modern book. It points out racial issues and the hardships. It describes just a typical families life and shows how issues are affecting each member of the family in there own way. The book uses many modern things that helps point out that it is indended to be a modern day story. The clothes that Levi wears in an excellent example. His doo rag and just his "street" type outfit makes me think of a modern day teen. Everything this family does is more or less typical to a modern day family. Another thing that points out that this story is dated recent is the fact that Jerome is sending them messages via email and not regular mail. This shows that obvious the internet exists and is therefore pretty recent.

Ohh right... a book. Hmmm... well I haven't really read any modern day stories. I read mostly fanatasy personally and for English classes, rarely do we read a modern book... so... ITS ORIGIONAL**! :D

**to me

Race Issues.

The book was indeed a pretty easy read. Thankfully! The story at first I thought was going to be quite confusing, but not to bad to follow at all. It is most interesting to me how the whole race issue is affecting each kid. All three seem to be branching in there own direction. Levi is much different than the rest of his family in a few ways. The first is his speech and accent are from Brooklyn. The way he dresses makes him stand out from everyone else. His family however doesnt live anywhere near Brooklyn. He is embracing more of the African American side of his family. He doesnt seem to act like he is middle-class, more like a poorer area... such as a ghetto. The daughter however is completely different. She seems to be a typical Caucasian girl and this tends to show. Jerome is a third case. It doesnt really specify which race he tends to lean more towards, but he has left the house and has become more conservative and living with the Kippses. This is a big slap in the face to the family because they seem to be the complete opposite of there family. Jeromes family, well more the father, seems to have a strong resentment for the Kippses and is quite upset by his sons choices. The Kippses apparently feel that minorities are in there current situations of lower class due to there laziness. It is interesting how each family member seems to be in there own personal battle against society for who they are and it makes the story quite interesting.

Two Tortures

Before this class, when the word torture was mentioned I would have never really thought of any difference between one way or torutre over another. I mean sure I was aware that there were different way in which to inflict the torture, but I never realized it was done to pursue a different approach.

The torture in which Foucault speaks of is more the "classic torture" in which it was done in order to serve justice through realization and truth. This is what torture is most often thought of. A way to inflict pain in order for people to see that this person was guilty, the reason they were found as such, as well a means to serve justice through a fair mean. I guess what I am trying to say is that this was a way of dealing with a crime only after the person was found guilty... it was more fair than the torture spoken about in Kafka's writting.

The major difference between Foucault and Kafka is that Kafka's torture in the penal colony was not really a fair means of justice. Of course it was "fair" in the colony, but htis was a secluded colony that had its own standards. The man was put to death by torture without even allowing him to defend himself. This is not classic torture nor is it a fiar means of justice. Even if the individual is actually guilty as charged, he should be able to at least make a statement... even if it is even to apologize to the society. The man should not be forced to learn of his "wrong doing" as he is dying, especially if it by means of reading the inscription that is being engraved into his body.

This is the major difference between Kafka's torture and Foucault.

penal colony justice

From the reading I chose the following passage fore my writting:

“‘But surely he knows that he has been sentenced?’ ‘Nor that either,’ said the officer, smiling at the explorer as if expecting him to make further surprising remarks. ‘No,’ said the explorer, wiping his forehead, ‘then he can’t know whether his defense was effective?’ ‘He has had no chance of putting up a defense,’ said the officer… ‘But he must have had some chance of defending himself,’ said the explorer,” (pg. 197).

This book is very interesting and immediately catches your interest and attention. This officer has been given the power to run this machine in which causes pain upon its victim. This is the colonys current for of "justice" although they are being to turn away from this technique. I dont believe that this machine serves justice to the victim at all. The man isn't just tortured a little, it is excruciating pain for relentless hours and he ends up dying from this. The words that are carved into his body are not just a reminder of his "fault", but the machine runs until the poor victim is without life and blood. The fact that the person that is to undergo this torture receives no sort of trial or even questioned about the event that is brought against him is rediculous. This cannot serve justice for people can be wrong. A persons perception of a situation could be incorrect and for that reason a trial system should exist. This colony keep the "criminal" in the dark on what he is in trouble for, what his punishment, or even when it is, until he is to be tortured. He learns of his crime through the writtings that to be to placed on his body.

This oddly enough actually relates still today. After watching that movie on Thur. I have just made the connection. The men in The Farm, once sentenced, are given very little, if any, chance to defend themselves and possibly there innocents. It took that one man 17 years to gather all the evidence thawt was placed against him. They are left in the dark and have virtually no say in there case. This is a wrong system of government. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now. This is not supposewd to be the great American Judicial system thast keeps our country running strong! This is an unfair and corrupt system that needs to be changed. Ahhh! here i go ranting again...

Movie on Thur: Not the America I have been taught to know...

The movie on Thursday, for myself at least, served as a bit of an eye opener on the way this country is run. So much corruption and lack of justice runs this country behind closed doors. Many of those men that appeared in the movie appeared to have very VERY strong cases to prove there own innocence, yet have been kept quiet for quite some time without the chance to show this. I remember one account where he had been trying to gather his evidence for the past 17 years just to prove that he didn't do it. This is a LONG LONG time to have to passively wait to prove a crime that you did not commit. Also the one chance that one man got to show that he was innocent in the rape case, his evidence was overlooked quite unfairly. He was served unjustly and it enrages me that such actions go on in this country that I call home.

Another subject that came up in this video that got me upset was the fact that these men that have been sent to prision are forced to work... sometimes starting at a mere 4 cents, working in the fields as slaves no less. The fact that the prison is set upon an old plantation itself doesn't upset me, just the fact that it is still run as such. On the bright side these men have a chance on getting a raise all the way to 20 cents! *rolls eyes* This just gets me enraged. These men are exploited to work for mere nothing to make millions for others. This is WRONG!! Even if these men are all 100% guilty for the crimes they are found to commit, they still should not be forced to work for such wages! In no way can this be justified. FOUR CENTS FOR GOD SAKES!! AHHHHHH... bottomline... I now have a bit of compassion for some of those men and a bit of hatred towards the system.

The fact that this is what our system is built upon today is appaling. This can actually relate to the Penal Colony. The system sentences a harsh and serioius sentencing, but fails to serve any sort of justice. People are given life sentences of crimes that very much point out that they aren't the criminals. They are sentenced just to please the victim, without any real sort of comfort. The system fails to even really give them a chace to defend themselves once convited. It is wrong and makes me quite upset!

Penal colony thus far...

So... amazingly... its a English class book that is actually interesting! YAY! I wasn't much of a fan of his other writing, Metamorphisis, but I enjoy this story. This story seems to correlate quite well with what we had discussed and learned in class. This is a prime story that goes hand-in-hand with Foucault's story. This story has set the scene with an explorer at this penal colony present at the beginning of a torture punishment sentence. What Kafka is trying to show is that this method of torture in the ways of the previous leader is now frowned upon in the present colony. The other main character thus far, the officer, seems to be the last that supports this method. I enjoy this set up because he gives us a hint at the explorers thoughts on the apparatus as well as the officer's justification for such a contraption. The machine seems quite painful and the fact that the victim learns of the crime he has been comitted for through this torture, doesn't really seem to serve any justice. The man had no chance of defending himself and really cannot come to any real terms during this process. The crime he is found guilty for is apparently scratched into his body over and over, deeper and deeper for a very extensive period of time. This painful technique just seems to put the victim through extensive pain vs. serving real justice and may be a prime reason as to why it is being phased out of current society.

I really am looking forward to see how this story progresses and am pleased to learn that it is actually interesting!! A+ for interesting. :D

Views on Foucault

Foucault... hmm... well... for this being an English class and it, like all English classes, forces you to read novels and stories you might have otherwise never even thought of picking up, I enjoyed it... suprisingly. This first off all isnt your classic English book about a family you is hit with some hardship and is forced to travel somewhere and everyone dies from like rats or typhoid or something. This is an authors personal view on an interesting subject, torture. I enjoy Foucault's piece mostly because he uses his argument through the history or society itself. He speaks about torture and its past roles on society. He discusses how it was a major part of punishment and justice, and that in turn links to power and the sovereign. I enjoyed this read so much because he talks about a subject that is clear to everyone, yet when you stop and think about it, he hits on points that you never quite linked. He talks about how torture was a way of punishing someone who had done wrong. He also connects how it adapted overtime.

Through this piece we learn that the sovereign played a large role in the proceeding of torture. The sovereign how example could pardon someone who was to be tortured. Torture was in a big way, a strategy or keeping the people in line as well as occasionally pleasing them... or the off-chance of upsetting them. The fact that torture existed and was often done out in public was a way to keep his followers in line by showing them what is done to wrongdoers. There were amazingly revolting ways to torture someone and the more harsh the punishment, the more of an example it was to the people, thus largely reinstating or showing the rulers power. He had total control of who was to be killed and saved. This is a prime example of how Foucault showed the relation between punishment and power. Occasionally the ruler would torture or attempt to torture someone that the people saw as undeserving of such treatment and they could possibly rebel against the ruler in retaliation.

I had always thought of torture back in the old ages as just a form of punishment, never really relating it to a form of showing the kings power. This linking of punishment, pain, and power was a very indepth one and I enjoyed alot due to way of the argument. The fact that he used examples throughout history really solidifies his statement on the subject of pain.

The example of this power through punishment and force is the movie Lord of War. This movie shows the uprising of regimes through weapon purchases and illegal activity. Nowadays you have power either due to the people liking you, or though fear. This movie shows that those with lots of weapons can inflict alot of punishment and pain to force cooperation or followers and this raises there power. This link has been a clear example just by looking at governments and wars then and now. People has always used threats and/or force to help state there power in a declared area. Another such example would be regimes or facist leaders in todays world. A leader that will kill those who step out of line in a heartbeat and without resentment is a leader not to be messed with. This unwavering certainty keep the people under them faithful and fearful. This is an example or power through punishment and pain. People fear pain and will therefore do alot to keep it from being inflicted, even if they are forced to act in ways that do not wish. This does and has always existed. By reading this piece by Foucault, I more clearly see these link and exmaples that I may have otherwise overlooked.

Issue of Justice and Pain

(This is extremely long and I apologize) Bare with me:

Both writers, that is to say Scarry and Foucault, have very strong topics on which they write. Although they do not discuss exactly the same topics, in my opinion, there stories and examples to support there theory’s can when analyzed, go hand in hand. Both have a key topic of correlating there issue with justice and that in turn brings in possible pain. My main argument is to say that physical pain is more or less unnecessary and wrong and that it actually serves an injustice. In the paragraphs below I shall attempt to show that justice can and should be morally served with as little pain as possible.

Scarry’s first reading, “On Beauty and Being Fair” strongly supports my theory though our unconscious actions. She stated that, “Noticing its beauty increases the possibility that it will be carefully handled.” (pg. 65). And that in turn lead to, “…the extraordinary vase involuntarily introducing me to the recognition that vases are fragile, and I then voluntarily extended the consequences of that recognition to other objects in the same category.” (pg. 67). To sum this up she is starting that once we notice an objects beauty, it is our unconscious action to serve it justice by handling it properly, thus preventing pain to it. Once you hit this recollection, you unconsciously adapt to do it justice and prevent it pain. She would agree that we need to keep noticing objects beauty so that we can do it justice and prevent if from receiving unnecessary pain. In her next piece, “The Body In Pain” she takes a different route. Although a bit more difficult to correlate, her topic here is the fact that physical pain is destructive to language. Torture is used to attempt and expel information from a captured victim, through brute pain and force. Through both pieces we see that causing physical pain is wrong and should not be done. Your body unconsciously wants to prevent you from causing physical pain on anyone or anything. It is unjust to cause such torture, even when done for “good” reasons. Socrates once stated that, “One should never do wrong in return, nor injure any man, whatever injury one has suffered at his hands.” ** To cause such a destructive action to occur is unjust, regardless of the reason. Although punishment is needed to serve justice, it should not be with the intention to cause as much physical pain as possible. Physical pain can be prevented and/or reduced and still serve an object or an issue justice. Scarry’s quotes prove that she is in agreement that justice should be served to everything and that the destructive nature of physical pain is not necessarily needed or deserved to grant this.

Foucault’s piece was titled, “Discipline and Punish” and the section I used for this piece was labeled, “The body of the condemned”. Foucault indirectly agreed with all of my arguments. I believe that society naturally realized that causing intentional physical pain was wrong and began to drift away from in. In the mid 1700’s quartering apparently was an acceptable punishment for a wrongdoer. Many things in addition to this horrific pain were also involved, including, “…flesh will be torn away from his breasts, arms, thighs, and calves with red-hot pinchers, his right arm…burnt with sulphur, and, on those places where the flesh will be town away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax and sulphur melted together.” (pg.3). This is an unimaginable way to be killed, especially out in public with no one willing or even wanting to save you. Even in Foucault’s piece he made a comment on how, “…though he was always a great swearer, no blasphemy escaped his lips; but the excessive pain made him utter horrible cries…” (pg.3). While this victim was under excruciating pain he was not able to say a word, thus proving the theory of the destructive nature of pain. Luckily things have drastically changed over the year through our natural understanding of justice and pain. Over time, “Punishment had gradually ceased to be a spectacle.” (pg. 9). Naturally public physical pain was dying out and new thoughts began to form on the issue of justice through pain. On pg. 10, Foucault explains, “It is ugly to be punishable, but there is no glory in punishing. Hence that double system of protection that justice has set up between itself and punishment it imposes.” People no longer found it right to cause such public physical pain for someone found guilty of breaking the law. Instead it began to become, “…less cruelty, less pain, more kindness, more respect, more ‘humanity’.” (pg. 16). I think that people began to see that it was wrong to cause such pain and began to naturally or unconsciously turn towards less painful ways of fulfilling punishment. Punishment is needed, even though no one wants to do it, it must be done to keep the balance of justice and the well being of society. I think that the society began seeing the true punishment being served through a different way. Society began to lean against this physical materialistic way of punishment and began to indulge in the theory of the “soul”. Foucault states that everything had been about the body, when in fact, “The soul is the prison of the body.” The soul had control over the body and therefore physical punishment was not only wrong, but ineffective to true justice. Foucault therefore undeniable agrees that through society’s natural adaptation to justice, it has proved that causing physical pain is ineffective and wrong.

Although physical punishment still exist today, punishment is way less severe. For the death penalty, those found guilty are first put to sleep so that they do not feel the pain, they simply just sleep forever. We have turned towards human ways of fulfilling people justice by naturally causing them less pain. We have seen where we were at fault and have since adapted to this need of less pain. Through each writers stories I have come to the conclusion that both writers would agree with my statement that physical pain is not the correct way of serving justice and that it is also destructive and wrong. Reflecting on oneself or a particular object serves it true justice. It is not the physical body that is to receive justice, but the inner “soul” of it and what it stands for. This is true justice.


** (pg. 45) in Steven M. Cahn’s, “Classics of Western Philosophy” Story of Crito.