Many, many nonprofits are remarkably inefficient at solving the problems they're aimed at. They're so universally inefficient that the only explanation is that there is some sort of structural flaw inherent to them as a type of organization.
A basic survival-of-the-fittest idea applies to any and all organizations. At their core, any organization has the purpose of perpetuating its own existence- those that don't will obviously cease to exist. As such, the primary focus of any nonprofit is to raise enough money to perpetuate itself, not to attack whatever problem they say they're going to. This is where the inefficiency arises. Any nonprofit has to siphon off funds aimed at its problem for itself.
Another interesting thing to note- think about it. If any nonprofit were to actually solve their problem, they as an organization would cease to exist. Without the existence of breast cancer, the giant Susan G Komen (among others) would have nothing to raise money off of. These organizations actually have a pretty large incentive to not actually solve the inherent problem.
Of course, some might ask "So what? At least some money is going towards the problem, and there's not a better way to do it." Well, there is. I realize the references to Elon Musk and Tesla Motors are getting old on this blog, but I';; bring them up any way. Modeling off of the story of Elon Musk, I like to think of something I call Social Capitalism as a far more efficient method of tackling social problems. I wanted to cal it Philanthro-Capitalism, but that was taken.
Tesla Motors was founded off of an ideological motivation (similar to a nonprofit) to create sustainable transportation off of renewable fuels. His other company, SpaceX, was founded on the ideological goal of eventually making human life multi-planetary by establishing a foothold on Mars. Solar City was founded to promote green energy consumption.
The key to all of these, is that the business product is the solution to the social problem. They don't waste time with "awareness campaigns" or fundraisers, they actually solve the problem by creating a product that does so. In this manner they properly align their incentives- perpetuating themselves means selling their product to the public, the use of which means solving the social problem.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Witnessing History Part 2: 3D Printing
I think I was supposed to do a part 2 for a different posting, but whatever. This is my blog, I do what I want. This post was based off a conversation I had with a friend who worked with 3D printing over the summer, where I again had a vision of the future that I thought i'd share with you.
Most people think of 3D printing as a cool niche technology while the most bullish people see it as a way to revolutionize factory production (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNqs_S-zEBY). I don't think that anyone fully appreciates what this technology will mean for our future.
To get a taste of what I'm talking about, I'll introduce a guy named Cody Wilson whose nonprofit firm has created a downloadable blueprint for an operational 3D printed gun. Now this guy is kind of a douchebag, but that doesn't mean that what he's done isn't important. Its obviously raised a huge debate regarding gun control. After all, how can you regulate what anyone can just print out?
If Cody Wilson's story doesn't alarm you enough, my vision of the future takes it one giant leap further. The friend that I had this discussion with worked with 3D printing centrifuges primarily for spinning biological materials. That concept blew my mind. Centrifuges are the primary mechanism for refining Uranium (a relatively abundant and easy-to-access element) into its isotope Uranium-235, the key component for nuclear weapons. He assured me that 3D printing can't print those types of centrifuges, but if you've seen the youtube link I posted above, I think you'll agree with me in saying that it'll be there soon.
Think about that. 3D printed nuclear weapons. Now obviously there are concerns regarding states like Iran and North Korea, but this tech is so readily available that it can be accessed by non state actors too, including Hamas, Al Qaeda, and any separatist/radical group in the world. Anyone can have the power of a nuclear bomb 3D printed in their basement. This might be a somewhat simplification of the process, but the threat is real. And I'm not crazy, I swear.
On an more uplifting note, think about the implications of 3D printing biological materials. The medical implications- 3D printing new limbs, organs, and blood, obviously being a great way to heal injured people, but also a way to erase the damage of any genetic deficiencies.
And here's where it gets weird again. Think about 3D printing biological enhancements for already-healthy humans. What about 3D printing eyes that can see the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum. What about augmenting human muscle and organ performance to make what we'd consider super human into just human. I'm sure there are more implications for what I'm talking about, but I think what I've ranted about so far is sufficiently close to making you all think that I'm a crazy person, so I'll stop.
Again, no the technology is not there yet. But thats the whole point of this blog post. One day it will be. We're witnessing the birth of a new technology that'll change humanity forever.
Most people think of 3D printing as a cool niche technology while the most bullish people see it as a way to revolutionize factory production (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNqs_S-zEBY). I don't think that anyone fully appreciates what this technology will mean for our future.
To get a taste of what I'm talking about, I'll introduce a guy named Cody Wilson whose nonprofit firm has created a downloadable blueprint for an operational 3D printed gun. Now this guy is kind of a douchebag, but that doesn't mean that what he's done isn't important. Its obviously raised a huge debate regarding gun control. After all, how can you regulate what anyone can just print out?
If Cody Wilson's story doesn't alarm you enough, my vision of the future takes it one giant leap further. The friend that I had this discussion with worked with 3D printing centrifuges primarily for spinning biological materials. That concept blew my mind. Centrifuges are the primary mechanism for refining Uranium (a relatively abundant and easy-to-access element) into its isotope Uranium-235, the key component for nuclear weapons. He assured me that 3D printing can't print those types of centrifuges, but if you've seen the youtube link I posted above, I think you'll agree with me in saying that it'll be there soon.
Think about that. 3D printed nuclear weapons. Now obviously there are concerns regarding states like Iran and North Korea, but this tech is so readily available that it can be accessed by non state actors too, including Hamas, Al Qaeda, and any separatist/radical group in the world. Anyone can have the power of a nuclear bomb 3D printed in their basement. This might be a somewhat simplification of the process, but the threat is real. And I'm not crazy, I swear.
On an more uplifting note, think about the implications of 3D printing biological materials. The medical implications- 3D printing new limbs, organs, and blood, obviously being a great way to heal injured people, but also a way to erase the damage of any genetic deficiencies.
And here's where it gets weird again. Think about 3D printing biological enhancements for already-healthy humans. What about 3D printing eyes that can see the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum. What about augmenting human muscle and organ performance to make what we'd consider super human into just human. I'm sure there are more implications for what I'm talking about, but I think what I've ranted about so far is sufficiently close to making you all think that I'm a crazy person, so I'll stop.
Again, no the technology is not there yet. But thats the whole point of this blog post. One day it will be. We're witnessing the birth of a new technology that'll change humanity forever.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
American Virtues, Part 1: Celebrities
One of my favorite novels is The Tides of War by Steven Pressfield, a historical fiction novel that describes the role of Alcibiades in the Peloponnesian War. In one poignant scene the Spartan Polemarch Lysander gives a speech to his fellow Spartans, some of which I think will be useful in introducing the topic and thought process of this article.
"We, Spartans and Peloponnesians, possess courage. Our enemies [the Athenians] possess boldness. They own thrasytes, we andreia... Boldness is impatient. Courage is long-suffering. Boldness cannot endure hardship or delay; it is ravenous, it must feed on victory or it dies. Boldness makes its seat upon the air; it is gossamer and phantom. Courage pants its feet upon the Earth and draws its strength from God's holy fundament. Thrasytes presumes to comman heaven; it forces God's hand and calls this virtue. Andreia reveres the immortals; it seeks heaven's guidance and acts only to enforce God's will." (pages 333-334).
Though this is a fictional book, I think Lysander's discussion of society-wide virtues can be readily applied to American life. The above quote is all about the war between Athens and Sparta, but I'm not going to discuss American virtues in terms of its military here, I'll save that for part two.
This article is about the American fetish for celebrities, which has long baffled me. Sure, other countries and cultures have celebrities, but we are far and away the celebrity creating-and-stalking capital of the world.
We Americans value the explorer, the astronaut, the pioneer, and the frontiersman. We idealize the cowboy on the open range of the western frontier, or Captain Jack Sparrow exploring the edges of the then-known map. We value individualism- those that dare strike out to do something alone, that go into the darkness and leave and trail for the rest to follow.
Earlier I wrote an article (http://thusspokithyu.blogspot.com/2011/04/psychological-analysis-of-sports.html) discussing how sports fandom is a manifestation of one's inability to achieve that which sports stars do. I think our fetishization of celebrities is born of a similar force, but at a much deeper and profound level.
I think that we've found our virtue of individualism to ultimately be hollow. I think that our individualistic nature, combined with our Protestant work ethic as described by Max Weber, has led to hyper individualism, where interpersonal social ties are few in number and low in strength, and where family bonds have weakened beyond any point in history. I think that we as a society are lonely.
To compensate for our own lack of deep personal ties and for the lack of a social life, I think people turn to celebrities to vicariously live out lives they don't have access to otherwise. We pretend that the actions of one celebrity out of a population of 300 million Americans matter, because we don't have anything else in our lives that does. In a very existentialist and nihilistic sense, our consumer culture and our rabid appetite for celebrity attempt to fill the gaping hole that is our lives.
I think we should find meaning elsewhere.
I'll write up part 2 soon, which'll be a discussion of American/Greek virtues as they relate to our recent military history.
"We, Spartans and Peloponnesians, possess courage. Our enemies [the Athenians] possess boldness. They own thrasytes, we andreia... Boldness is impatient. Courage is long-suffering. Boldness cannot endure hardship or delay; it is ravenous, it must feed on victory or it dies. Boldness makes its seat upon the air; it is gossamer and phantom. Courage pants its feet upon the Earth and draws its strength from God's holy fundament. Thrasytes presumes to comman heaven; it forces God's hand and calls this virtue. Andreia reveres the immortals; it seeks heaven's guidance and acts only to enforce God's will." (pages 333-334).
Though this is a fictional book, I think Lysander's discussion of society-wide virtues can be readily applied to American life. The above quote is all about the war between Athens and Sparta, but I'm not going to discuss American virtues in terms of its military here, I'll save that for part two.
This article is about the American fetish for celebrities, which has long baffled me. Sure, other countries and cultures have celebrities, but we are far and away the celebrity creating-and-stalking capital of the world.
We Americans value the explorer, the astronaut, the pioneer, and the frontiersman. We idealize the cowboy on the open range of the western frontier, or Captain Jack Sparrow exploring the edges of the then-known map. We value individualism- those that dare strike out to do something alone, that go into the darkness and leave and trail for the rest to follow.
Earlier I wrote an article (http://thusspokithyu.blogspot.com/2011/04/psychological-analysis-of-sports.html) discussing how sports fandom is a manifestation of one's inability to achieve that which sports stars do. I think our fetishization of celebrities is born of a similar force, but at a much deeper and profound level.
I think that we've found our virtue of individualism to ultimately be hollow. I think that our individualistic nature, combined with our Protestant work ethic as described by Max Weber, has led to hyper individualism, where interpersonal social ties are few in number and low in strength, and where family bonds have weakened beyond any point in history. I think that we as a society are lonely.
To compensate for our own lack of deep personal ties and for the lack of a social life, I think people turn to celebrities to vicariously live out lives they don't have access to otherwise. We pretend that the actions of one celebrity out of a population of 300 million Americans matter, because we don't have anything else in our lives that does. In a very existentialist and nihilistic sense, our consumer culture and our rabid appetite for celebrity attempt to fill the gaping hole that is our lives.
I think we should find meaning elsewhere.
I'll write up part 2 soon, which'll be a discussion of American/Greek virtues as they relate to our recent military history.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Witnessing History: The Privatization of Outer Space
I had brief vision of the future, and I thought I'd share it with you all. I am an atheistic prophet.
Anyone who has ever talked to me about stocks knows that I'm a huge bull regarding Tesla Motors. One of the reasons why I am is because of their CEO Elon Musk (Jon Favreau's inspiration for Tony Stark in the Iron Man Movies). But this article isn't on Tesla Motors, although they are kicking ass in the market as I write this, it's on the other company he's CEO of, SpaceX.
2012 was widely proclaimed the year of private space flight, and for good reason. SpaceX made history by being the first private company to deliver cargo to the International Space Station. Not only has SpaceX succeeded, but a host of other companies are starting to compete here too. Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, as well as a host of smaller startups come to mind. I don't really care which business ends up dominating this market, I'm more concerned with the drastic impact these companies will have on the course of human history.
Elon Musk's stated goal behind SpaceX is to hedge the survival of the human race by making us a multi-planetary civilization. He plans to launch a manned mission to Mars in 10-20 years. Another company, Golden Spike, plans to land mining equipment on the moon to gather lunar resources. Another company with even bigger ambitions, Planetary Resources (funded an run by a huge list of entrepreneurial billionaires) plans to mine the extraordinary amount of precious minerals in asteroids.
I often think about how fun it would be to travel back in time and astound people there with our smart phones, our airplanes, our computers, etc. In my vision, I met myself from the future and had my mind blown.
With the privatization of space, travel between planets will become as ordinary as taking a flight from Dulles to Miami. Think about that. Within a definite timeframe after making the decision, you'll be standing at the Martian Spaceport staring back at the Earth. Extraterrestrial mining will increase the raw resources available to the human race a million fold, driving costs of producing down, increasing the proliferation and facilitating the development of higher technology.
Permanent human settlements will grow on other planets and moons until they cannot be simply governed by international treaty like the ISS, they will need a permanent human government of their own. Our current concept of "countries" may become equivalent in the future to the concept of planets. Or maybe the human race will remain splintered in their terrestrial nations, in which case there will be a race to grab extraterrestrial land and resources. We may even have wars spanning space, planets, and moons.
So many of Earth's current problems will be solved. We could drastically reduce Earth mining in favor of asteroid mining. Settlements on other planets and moons will serve as a pressure valve for our burgeoning overpopulation. We can get rid of any unrecycleable waste by simply shooting it into deep space. This all sounds like science fiction, but it is realistically within our grasp. It's happening now.
We are at a special moment in human history, as we as a species grow into a Type 1 civilization. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) I am proud and honored to have witnessed the moment in time when man took his first steps venturing forth into the cosmos.
Anyone who has ever talked to me about stocks knows that I'm a huge bull regarding Tesla Motors. One of the reasons why I am is because of their CEO Elon Musk (Jon Favreau's inspiration for Tony Stark in the Iron Man Movies). But this article isn't on Tesla Motors, although they are kicking ass in the market as I write this, it's on the other company he's CEO of, SpaceX.
2012 was widely proclaimed the year of private space flight, and for good reason. SpaceX made history by being the first private company to deliver cargo to the International Space Station. Not only has SpaceX succeeded, but a host of other companies are starting to compete here too. Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, as well as a host of smaller startups come to mind. I don't really care which business ends up dominating this market, I'm more concerned with the drastic impact these companies will have on the course of human history.
Elon Musk's stated goal behind SpaceX is to hedge the survival of the human race by making us a multi-planetary civilization. He plans to launch a manned mission to Mars in 10-20 years. Another company, Golden Spike, plans to land mining equipment on the moon to gather lunar resources. Another company with even bigger ambitions, Planetary Resources (funded an run by a huge list of entrepreneurial billionaires) plans to mine the extraordinary amount of precious minerals in asteroids.
I often think about how fun it would be to travel back in time and astound people there with our smart phones, our airplanes, our computers, etc. In my vision, I met myself from the future and had my mind blown.
With the privatization of space, travel between planets will become as ordinary as taking a flight from Dulles to Miami. Think about that. Within a definite timeframe after making the decision, you'll be standing at the Martian Spaceport staring back at the Earth. Extraterrestrial mining will increase the raw resources available to the human race a million fold, driving costs of producing down, increasing the proliferation and facilitating the development of higher technology.
Permanent human settlements will grow on other planets and moons until they cannot be simply governed by international treaty like the ISS, they will need a permanent human government of their own. Our current concept of "countries" may become equivalent in the future to the concept of planets. Or maybe the human race will remain splintered in their terrestrial nations, in which case there will be a race to grab extraterrestrial land and resources. We may even have wars spanning space, planets, and moons.
So many of Earth's current problems will be solved. We could drastically reduce Earth mining in favor of asteroid mining. Settlements on other planets and moons will serve as a pressure valve for our burgeoning overpopulation. We can get rid of any unrecycleable waste by simply shooting it into deep space. This all sounds like science fiction, but it is realistically within our grasp. It's happening now.
We are at a special moment in human history, as we as a species grow into a Type 1 civilization. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) I am proud and honored to have witnessed the moment in time when man took his first steps venturing forth into the cosmos.
Monday, March 4, 2013
How the Catholic Church Ironically Screwed Itself
I can't claim that all of the ideas here are my own, but I will deliberately not name the source most influential to this writing.
In the Catholic Church, women aren't allowed to become priests, and men who do so must take a vow of celibacy. Now ask yourself, what would the general profile be of a person who fits those stringent requirements? What kind of male would be most willing to forgo the biological purpose of his existence to dedicate himself like that?
For a long time, homosexuals have been heavily persecuted and socially ostracized, most often by the religious whose holy books proclaimed them to be affronts to God. Now if you were an individual (male) whose sexual orientation was grounds for ostracism or other forms of punishment including execution, how might you integrate yourself into society to live as happily as possible? What if there were a socially acceptable profession that deliberately forbade consorting with women?
The end result of these social dynamics was that with tremendous irony, many who chose to enter the priesthood were those whom the Abrahamic religions abhorred. The persecuted ended up persecuting themselves. In one most recent example, Cardinal Keith O'Brien admitted to (homo)sexual misconduct despite being one of the most vitriolic opponents to same sex relationships (See link below).
As we all know, sexual urges are VERY hard to simply ignore; they need to find one outlet or another. And so, the Catholic Church has been mired in sexual scandals, from the infamous priest pedophilia to the rumored hiring of male prostitutes in the Vatican. One current theory is that Benedict XVI didn't resign due to his health but rather due to some sort of blackmail from male prostitutes hired by Catholic Priests. I make no attempt here to excuse pedophilia, I'm just speculating on one of it's causes.
The Vatican has botched the handling of its priest's transgressions, leading to a public relations debacle. In terms of their views towards homosexuality and women they remain obstinately in the past, alienating more and more of the younger generations. They thus ever recede in relevance from the public sphere.
And so, the Catholic Church is being destroyed by those whom they decided to persecute. You'd think they would have learned something about that from their own past overcoming Roman persecution to eventually dominate a huge swath of the globe.
Link (courtesy of Reddit): http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/03/cardinal-keith-obrien-admits-inappropriate-sexual-conduct-following-allegations/
In the Catholic Church, women aren't allowed to become priests, and men who do so must take a vow of celibacy. Now ask yourself, what would the general profile be of a person who fits those stringent requirements? What kind of male would be most willing to forgo the biological purpose of his existence to dedicate himself like that?
For a long time, homosexuals have been heavily persecuted and socially ostracized, most often by the religious whose holy books proclaimed them to be affronts to God. Now if you were an individual (male) whose sexual orientation was grounds for ostracism or other forms of punishment including execution, how might you integrate yourself into society to live as happily as possible? What if there were a socially acceptable profession that deliberately forbade consorting with women?
The end result of these social dynamics was that with tremendous irony, many who chose to enter the priesthood were those whom the Abrahamic religions abhorred. The persecuted ended up persecuting themselves. In one most recent example, Cardinal Keith O'Brien admitted to (homo)sexual misconduct despite being one of the most vitriolic opponents to same sex relationships (See link below).
As we all know, sexual urges are VERY hard to simply ignore; they need to find one outlet or another. And so, the Catholic Church has been mired in sexual scandals, from the infamous priest pedophilia to the rumored hiring of male prostitutes in the Vatican. One current theory is that Benedict XVI didn't resign due to his health but rather due to some sort of blackmail from male prostitutes hired by Catholic Priests. I make no attempt here to excuse pedophilia, I'm just speculating on one of it's causes.
The Vatican has botched the handling of its priest's transgressions, leading to a public relations debacle. In terms of their views towards homosexuality and women they remain obstinately in the past, alienating more and more of the younger generations. They thus ever recede in relevance from the public sphere.
And so, the Catholic Church is being destroyed by those whom they decided to persecute. You'd think they would have learned something about that from their own past overcoming Roman persecution to eventually dominate a huge swath of the globe.
Link (courtesy of Reddit): http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/03/cardinal-keith-obrien-admits-inappropriate-sexual-conduct-following-allegations/
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Biased News
There's always been a lot of shouting on both sides of the political spectrum about biased news reporting on both sides of the media. These arguments are actually pretty different from how they present themselves. If that made sense.
Look at the things around you right now. Maybe you're in your room, maybe you're outside. But look around. Do it. Right now. Observe everything around you. Now take a small part of your environment, and in your mind, try to turn it into a news headline. American Idol Still a Bad Show, Seat Currently Uncomfortable Says Ass.
Done?
Whatever headline you made, hold it in your head. Now look at everything else you didn't make into a headline. You picked something out of that other stuff and made it news. News-worthiness is not an objective attribute of something. You made a personal value judgement about deciding what to make into news Everything else around you was exactly as newsworthy, but you chose something.
All news is an inherent personal value judgement. While it may seem obvious that a headline should say 18-Car Accident on Freeway, there is no objective reason why it couldn't also be (regarding the exact same thing) Teens, Bored in Traffic, Decide to Play 'I Spy'. Newsworthiness is a choice.
Accusing someone of biased news reporting assumes the existence of unbiased news reporting. However, as I've discussed before, all news is a value judgement. There is no such thing as unbiased news. When people accuse others of reporting the news biased or unfairly, all they're really saying is 'your frame of reference is very different than mine, and I don't like it.'
The take-away point of this? I have no idea. I just thought it was something kinda interesting to think about.
Look at the things around you right now. Maybe you're in your room, maybe you're outside. But look around. Do it. Right now. Observe everything around you. Now take a small part of your environment, and in your mind, try to turn it into a news headline. American Idol Still a Bad Show, Seat Currently Uncomfortable Says Ass.
Done?
Whatever headline you made, hold it in your head. Now look at everything else you didn't make into a headline. You picked something out of that other stuff and made it news. News-worthiness is not an objective attribute of something. You made a personal value judgement about deciding what to make into news Everything else around you was exactly as newsworthy, but you chose something.
All news is an inherent personal value judgement. While it may seem obvious that a headline should say 18-Car Accident on Freeway, there is no objective reason why it couldn't also be (regarding the exact same thing) Teens, Bored in Traffic, Decide to Play 'I Spy'. Newsworthiness is a choice.
Accusing someone of biased news reporting assumes the existence of unbiased news reporting. However, as I've discussed before, all news is a value judgement. There is no such thing as unbiased news. When people accuse others of reporting the news biased or unfairly, all they're really saying is 'your frame of reference is very different than mine, and I don't like it.'
The take-away point of this? I have no idea. I just thought it was something kinda interesting to think about.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Django Brings History Alive (To John Gillen, with love)
Django was a spectacular and well-told story, but it's brilliance extends beyond it's face-value.
Slavery existed in this country 150 years ago. That's within my generation's great and great-great grandparent's lifetimes. We as a country tend to have an inflated picture of ourselves, and since slavery is such a recent happening, it has been taboo in cinema. Sure, there have been some works about slavery, but no one did a war movie until the gritty realism of Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. The same holds for slavery: there have been no hollywood blockbusters on the scale of Django Unchained that display slavery for what it truly is, unfiltered.
History textbooks do little to evoke the emotions of school kids. We students of history read statistics all the time about mass casualties, but no one breaks down in tears seeing that. We see old drawings of people wearing klan outfits, but that does not come close to evoking the fear and awe I felt watching the scene in which the klan crested a hill, wearing the masks out of the Strangers (http://www.impawards.com/2008/posters/strangers_ver4.jpg), on horseback waving flaming torches. I felt the same fear I felt when I watched the strangers, both because of their similar masks but also because of both villains had the same malevolent intent. That one brief scene brought the klan alive for me. For the first time, I felt something of what it means to fear them.
Sure, we read about slavery in our textbooks, but nobody feels the revulsion or the disgust like they do when they actually see the people get whipped or see them hunted and torn apart by dogs. Nobody feels the hatred and contempt of slave-owners until they see how they treated their fellow man.
Now, why is this important? It is important because we as a nation have to face our demons. A people that ignores portions of their past learn nothing from it, and are doomed to be poorly prepared for the future. A similar story is of the Japanese, who to this day ignore the vast suffering they created in the WWI and WWII era's when they systematically raped and pillaged virtually all of east Asia. This is why till the day he died my grandfather held a grudge against the japanese. Ask anyone of korean, chinese, or vietnamese descent, and I'll bet you they have at least one family member who still hates the Japanese.
Django takes our past as it was and shoves it in your face. You can't ignore what slavery and the south actually were having seen this movie, it's wound up too closely to the plot. This is important because it shows all those southern pride, confederate flag-waving motherfuckers what they're proud of. Being proud of who you are as a person and where you come from is fine, everyone has a hometown, but is a problem when these people glorify a history full of brutality and oppression. It is a problem when they yell about the 'south rising again', it is a problem when they're still racist. Know who you're channeling.
We have racial problems in this country, and who knows if they'll ever be completely solved. But we cannot face them as a prepared people if we are too embarrassed about our history to learn from it. And if you can still be immersed in our history of slavery as Django Unchained does and you can still yell about your southern pride, then from the bottom of my heart GO FUCK YOURSELF
Also, Tarantino's directing was on point, but his acting could use some work.
EDIT: by the way, it's 'to john gillen with love' because he suggested I write something about movies. Well, here you go.
Slavery existed in this country 150 years ago. That's within my generation's great and great-great grandparent's lifetimes. We as a country tend to have an inflated picture of ourselves, and since slavery is such a recent happening, it has been taboo in cinema. Sure, there have been some works about slavery, but no one did a war movie until the gritty realism of Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. The same holds for slavery: there have been no hollywood blockbusters on the scale of Django Unchained that display slavery for what it truly is, unfiltered.
History textbooks do little to evoke the emotions of school kids. We students of history read statistics all the time about mass casualties, but no one breaks down in tears seeing that. We see old drawings of people wearing klan outfits, but that does not come close to evoking the fear and awe I felt watching the scene in which the klan crested a hill, wearing the masks out of the Strangers (http://www.impawards.com/2008/posters/strangers_ver4.jpg), on horseback waving flaming torches. I felt the same fear I felt when I watched the strangers, both because of their similar masks but also because of both villains had the same malevolent intent. That one brief scene brought the klan alive for me. For the first time, I felt something of what it means to fear them.
Sure, we read about slavery in our textbooks, but nobody feels the revulsion or the disgust like they do when they actually see the people get whipped or see them hunted and torn apart by dogs. Nobody feels the hatred and contempt of slave-owners until they see how they treated their fellow man.
Now, why is this important? It is important because we as a nation have to face our demons. A people that ignores portions of their past learn nothing from it, and are doomed to be poorly prepared for the future. A similar story is of the Japanese, who to this day ignore the vast suffering they created in the WWI and WWII era's when they systematically raped and pillaged virtually all of east Asia. This is why till the day he died my grandfather held a grudge against the japanese. Ask anyone of korean, chinese, or vietnamese descent, and I'll bet you they have at least one family member who still hates the Japanese.
Django takes our past as it was and shoves it in your face. You can't ignore what slavery and the south actually were having seen this movie, it's wound up too closely to the plot. This is important because it shows all those southern pride, confederate flag-waving motherfuckers what they're proud of. Being proud of who you are as a person and where you come from is fine, everyone has a hometown, but is a problem when these people glorify a history full of brutality and oppression. It is a problem when they yell about the 'south rising again', it is a problem when they're still racist. Know who you're channeling.
We have racial problems in this country, and who knows if they'll ever be completely solved. But we cannot face them as a prepared people if we are too embarrassed about our history to learn from it. And if you can still be immersed in our history of slavery as Django Unchained does and you can still yell about your southern pride, then from the bottom of my heart GO FUCK YOURSELF
Also, Tarantino's directing was on point, but his acting could use some work.
EDIT: by the way, it's 'to john gillen with love' because he suggested I write something about movies. Well, here you go.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)