UNCEASING WAVES

Avengers, Black Panther etc.

Posted in Society and Culture by Karthick RM on May 13, 2018

This was a boring weekend so I decided to write this. Dont take it too seriously. Or maybe you can. I dont know. 

When I watched Black Panther, I couldn’t help but draw real life parallels. The ‘villain’ Killmonger was Steve Biko, Thomas Sankara and Malcolm X combined. Of course he had to be killed. The ‘hero’ T’Challa on the other hand was Mohammed bin Salman, Benjamin Netanyahu and Shah Reza Pahlavi combined. Of course he had to be saved. Killmonger’s Wakanda would have been a nightmare to every imperialist power that bleeds the poor countries of the world in a thousand different ways. T’Challa’s Wakanda is a wet dream come true for the American military-industrial complex. Killmonger, who believes in a global solidarity of the oppressed, refuses to live in such a society and prefers an honorable death. “Just bury me in the ocean with my ancestors that jumped from the ships. Cause they knew that death was better than bondage.” Killmonger joins other great revolutionaries who were defeated/killed by Hollywood liberalism, like Magneto in X-Men, Bane in The Dark Knight Rises and Koba in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Watching Avengers: Infinity War, it seemed fitting that Thanos should avenge Killmonger. Cannot Thanos be read as a radical person of color who is battling white superheroes and their stooges of color? And where Killmonger was motivated by fighting against global oppression, Thanos is motivated by global ecological concerns. Academic Joel Hodge correctly points out that “Thanos is selfless – he is seeking a higher good for the universe, not himself – and offering a systematic answer to the problem of sustainability.” On the other hand, western liberals, especially those suffering from an overdose of white guilt, have been thoroughly disturbed by the film. One has compared Thanos to America and complains that “America has been Thanos, and it got over the slaughter without much difficulty. America has claimed that killing thousands of people irrespective of their age, occupation, status, or personal storyline was for the greater good.”

This is blatantly untrue. America has always been selective in who it murders, who it allows to be murdered, where it promotes human rights, and where it violates it. A dictatorial North Korea and a Syria which is accused of war crimes are America’s enemies, but a Sri Lanka that committed genocide of Tamils and Turkey which indulges in ethnic cleansing of Kurds are America’s strategic partners. America has maintained its financial order by augmenting fiscal, political and ecological disorder in countries where it seeks to hold influence. Thanos, on the other hand, is truly indiscriminate in his attempts to bring balance to a world that abuses nature, technology, man and itself. His thinking and actions defeated the American warriors and their allies on screen and baffle social justice warriors who watched it. Maybe Thanos represents a posthuman politics that a few philosophers have been trying to theorize. Maybe he represents the Nietzschean overman, the one who is not afraid of the Truth in its entirety and the one who does not resent taking terrible decisions, thus casting terror in minds conditioned by a liberal human rights thinking. Maybe he just took Gandhi’s famous quote “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need but not every man’s greed” to heart and decided to act upon it.

A political reading of such films is not entirely fanciful. Consider Captain America: Civil War where Cap beats the daylights out of Ironman. The movie was prophetic. The good Captain is an ultra-militarist chest-thumping patriot with neanderthalic ideas of nationalism while Ironman is an ultra-militarist pro-assassination cosmopolitan patriot with deep roots in the arms industry. The political parallels are too obvious to miss. Trump defeated Clinton in the US Presidential elections a few months after the release of this film. But remember, at the end of the day, Iron Man and Captain America are on the same side. So are those like the Hulk, who represents the destructive potential of an angry white ‘involuntary celibate’ male nerd, and T’Challa who, as said before, represents a Third World monarchy that is a strategic partner for American interests. Thanos, however, is quite the outsider not just to the world, but to the hegemonic liberal democratic ideology of the West.

What is more important is that every Marvel movie till now has been about crisis, ending the crisis, and getting into a newer crisis in a loop – much like the history of capitalism. The multi-billion dollar enterprise of Tony Stark that invests so much in defense technology and not in health, education or sustainable aid to poor countries should be seen as a part of the crisis, not a solution. And including a diversity of characters changes nothing. Capitalism can function smoothly with any face and with any race. When Thanos eliminates half the world, he is not killing humanity – he is showing humanity a better path from the crisis-ridden one that capitalism has forced upon the world. The fact that he does not choose to preside over the new order, even after sacrificing family and friends to achieve it, but instead retires to solitude makes him the true heroic character of Infinity War. In the interests of the balance that he achieved, the Avengers should stay down.

That they won’t is another story.

Advertisements
Tagged with: ,

The Young Karl Marx

Posted in Society and Culture by Karthick RM on May 9, 2018
The Young Karl Marx

Marx giving it to Wilhelm Weitling

Saw Raoul Peck’s ‘The Young Karl Marx’. An excellent film, which beautifully captures the roots of the Marx-Engels friendship. Marx admired Engels and decided to engage in a partnership with him for two reasons: Engels was empathetic towards the working class. More importantly, he understood how the industrial bourgeoisie functioned. Empathy to the bottom class, alone, does jackshit unless you understand and analyze how the top class functions. In fact, such isolated sentimentalism deprived of any critical understanding only ends up reproducing the rule of the top class.

Through this basic Marxist understanding, you can also infer why Brahmin scholars are more interested in doing/assisting/promoting Dalit studies than Brahmin studies – in fact, maintaining a focus on the former prevents an interrogation of the latter. You wont dismantle caste by empathy (academic or literary) to the cheris or by glorifying them in cinema. It is fashionable, but it is also seasonal. Caste can be understood and, hopefully, dismantled only when the critical focus is turned on the power/knowledge of the modern agraharas.

For that, we need Marx, Ambedkar and Periyar.

Tagged with: , ,

Doctor Zhivago

Posted in General by Karthick RM on April 7, 2018

Finished reading Doctor Zhivago few days back. It took me about 4 months to read the the first 100 pages, and 4 days to finish the remaining approx 400 pages. It is a surprisingly fast paced novel, and like all such novels, there is much sentimentality and a lack of critical substance. Though there was much politics around this novel securing Paternak the Nobel, Doctor Zhivago is not a political novel. Its a love story, which is sometimes quite cheesy and often quite melodramatic, and the revolution happens in the background. In a somewhat reductive but still justifiable reading, one could also say that Paternak was dismissing the Revolution because a couple in love – both cheating on their marriages – could not happily conclude their relationship. Soviet authorities were pissed because Paternak did not appreciate the revolution – but his true problem was that he did not understand the revolution.

Tagged with: ,

‘Islamic Feminism’ and its Defenders – A Short Comment

Posted in Politics by Karthick RM on March 25, 2018

The brilliance of scholars and activists who defend forms of ‘Islamic feminism’ like the late Saba Mahmood, Sara Ahmed, and Linda Sarsour is their ability to conjure strawmen and maintain a sustained attack on them which, to the uninformed, might even seem as the articulation of a very legitimate grievance. One of such strawmen is the western liberal feminist, who does not understand the radical meaning of the veil (just as they cannot understand the radical meaning of Sati, Hindu feminists can also argue) or the radical possibilities within Islam. The accusation is that such liberal feminists contribute to a climate of Islamophobia. The manner in which these ‘Islamic feminists’ frame things, one would assume that there are only two groups critical of Islam and Islamism – the liberals and the Islamophobes – and that both are hand in glove.

Well, dig up the archives of The Guardian or the New York Times from the past ten years and find out how many articles were written by these ‘western liberal feminists’ criticizing the practice and right of wearing a veil as opposed to those blindly supporting it in the name of multiculturalism, diversity etc. The reality is that the vast majority of the so-called western liberal feminists have been cowed – thanks to white guilt – into not just accepting the veil as a right, but also into defending this practice as a duty. The ‘progressives’ maintain a vulgar silence for fear of being branded racist. The pitiful result being that it is only the right-wingers or the ‘security state’ thinkers that emerge as the loudest, screeching, and uncritical voice that is now critical of the veil, the sharia or other Islamic practices. The other historical possibilities – say for instance, like the Albanian Communist women who trashed mullahs in the streets – do no even figure in these discourses, thereby placing sharp limits on political imaginations. Indeed, Communist women scare liberals, Islamists, and right-wingers alike. No wonder, more than the Muslims themselves, it was the western liberals who criticized French leftist Melenchon when he defended the ban on the veil in France. So contrary to what Mahmood or Sarsour might state, Western liberals are more likely to defend Islamic practices than take a principled and critically informed opposition to the same.

On another note, it is quite interesting that the Western liberal university is still the best space from which Islamists can defend Islamism while simultaneously undermining the institutions and people that give them their space. But its not surprising, considering that almost all of the Hindu revivalists in India received some or other form of patronage from the British.

Tagged with: ,

The Death of Stalin

Posted in Society and Culture by Karthick RM on March 25, 2018
The Death of Stalin

Screenshot from the film

Among Western films critical of the Soviet Union, Armando Iannucci’s “The Death of Stalin” is remarkable, probably one of the best. It is also light years ahead of the usual liberal tripe (like Ivan Passer’s Stalin) in its understanding of Stalinism. Iannucci again demonstrates that organized political horror like Stalinism can be best captured through comedy than through melodrama. Gulags, executions, purges, cultural policing, the ‘Jewish Doctors’ plot, Beria’s rapist streak, the Malenkov-Khrushchev power struggle are all brought out in a humorous vein, to the point of being thoroughly hilarious at the expense of human suffering. Some fainthearted liberals have accused Iannucci of taking a flippant approach to such ‘tragedies’, but ‘tragedy’ assumes that the victims have dignity. Dignity is the first quality to be crushed in totalitarianism, especially of the progressive variety. Only a joke remains.

One insightful-comic scene showed political captives hailing Stalin just prior to being shot. You usually dont have this performance with the victims of fascism. For instance, I doubt if anyone summarily executed at Auschwitz would have shouted “Sieg Heil.” There is always some room for moral heroism under fascism. Stalinism offers no such possibility. The victim could either die for progress or die against progress, as brilliantly captured by Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon.

Yet despite its moral totalitarianism, the USSR was still an inefficient, imperfect system. Iannucci brings that out in his satire. It is not always historically accurate, but compared to “Darkest Hour”, “The Death of Stalin” is to the point.

8.5/10

Tagged with: , ,

Few Points on the Andal Controversy

Posted in Society and Culture by Karthick RM on January 26, 2018

1. Andal’s poetry is beautiful. I say this with reference – and with reverence – to the aesthetic quality of her works. But what is beautiful need not be progressive, and vice versa. What is beautiful need not even be true or good.

2. It is wrong to condemn Andal’s poetry as regressive, using modern Dravidian anti-caste ethos as a standard. You cant expect that from someone who lived in the 7th/8th century. It is equally wrong to praise Andal for being a sexual libertarian. One anachronism does not cancel out the other. Prejudice of modernity does not only affect the male gaze, but also the female gaze.

3. The addressing of god in sexually intimate terms is not unique to Andal – several others in her time, after her time, have done it. Those in the Christian mystic tradition did it in defiance of the established orthodoxy and in face of persecution.

4. If ‘radicalism’ and ‘transgressiveness’ is a criteria, then Basavanna and Akkammadevi stand way ahead. Their approach is universal and social, while Andal’s is particular and asocial. But that is a problem with Vaishnavism as such.

5. Sexual liberalism alone is a lazy standard for evaluating the progressiveness of a person or a society. Sparta had remarkable sexual freedom for its women citizens. Slaves and slave women are a different story.

6. Vaidyanathan’s apology was plain cowardice. Vairamuthu should have been more assertive in defending himself. For someone who writes so much on the Tamil martial tradition, he cuts the figure of a fresher weakly protesting against the college bully. Contrast with how boldly Thirumavalavan stands by his comments on the Hindu religion.

7. Fundamentalist groups threatening and initiating violence over academically inaccurate comments on Andal (or silly cartoons on Muhammed for that matter) are enemies of democracy, decency and sanity. The argument that the poet or the cartoonist should be more responsible so as to not provoke these groups is only a cheap defense for fundamentalism.

Tagged with: , ,

Some Comments on The Purananuru

Posted in Society and Culture by Karthick RM on December 2, 2017

1. On Amazon.in, the cheapest copy of the best English translation of The Purananuru (Trans. George L Hart and Hank Heifetz. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999) available is at Rs. 1670 (last time I checked). I got my as-good-as-new copy at a second hand book store in the UK for 2.50 £, roughly Rs. 220. Lucky me!

2. This work of poetry is also a passageway into the world of the ancient Tamils, a people who celebrated war, love, meat-eating, wine, knowledge, and generosity. And the poems indicate a strong sense of ‘Tamilness’ in terms of a people and a geography.

3. Martial ferocity is praised. So is compassion, charity & righteousness. The strong and wealthy are urged to provide for the weak and needy.

4. Providing for agrarian prosperity, building dams, protecting order in trade and society and curtailing banditry are considered desirable qualities of kings. And the Sovereign is considered ‘the life of the world’.

5. The poems are thoroughly secular in nature, though there are occasional references to gods, including Brahminical ones like Rama – Ravanan is referred to as an ‘arakkan’, translated as ‘demon’. The first poem is an ode to Shiva. Murugan is the most referenced god in the poems.

6. There is clear reference to Brahmins who are learned in the Vedas, who are considered as holy as cows, and who are deserving of protection and gifts. Likewise, there are also vague references to the ‘low born’. (But a Tamil scholar recently told me that the system of caste in the Tamil land as we know it today originated only after the fall of Cholas.)

7. Chastity and purity of ‘women of the house’ is glorified. At least one poem attests to the practice of Sati.

8. Though it appears that war and wealth are praised, a closer reading also suggests a stoic asceticism of the poets.

9. The most celebrated animal in these poems is the Tiger. No wonder…

Diversity – Again!

Posted in International by Karthick RM on November 23, 2017

As far as diversity goes, I find movies like Baywatch, Fate of the Furious, Central Intelligence, Ocean’s Eleven etc a lot more genuine, down to earth in their approach to race and representation. While ‘people of color’ are given key, even lead roles to play, its not an in-your-face sort of cynical gesture towards diversity. The colors of the human community are a given fact in such movies, neither frivolously celebrated nor condescendingly patronized. On the other hand, politically correct crap reaches its nadir in Superhero movies, especially the Marvel ones where you know that the inclusive gestures are just calculated market strategies to reach out to a growing non-White audience (much like the decision of Barbie to manufacture faceless dolls in hijabs). Funniest among all of this was to see Idris Elba thrown at us as a Norse god in the Thor series. The argument for this was that when Ben Kingsley could play Gandhi why not this? The counter-argument would be to suggest that a ‘person of color’ be cast as Himmler, or even Hitler, in a future movie on the Nazis. Why not? To deny that POCs can be evil is also a sort of race fetishization. And if history and myth can be re-written to suit fragile postmodern senses, one must give full scope to the several ridiculous manners in which representations can be made.

On a more poignant note, the highest subversive point of the Hollywood multiculti left will be when they let a Black man play the role of Batman. That is what we need the most in the Trump era.

Tagged with: , , ,

The Not So Curious Case for Colonialism

Posted in International by Karthick RM on November 23, 2017

A policeman who tells that “we only kill negros” is a racist; but the policeman who shoots dead “a black male suspect who is possibly armed and dangerous” is doing his duty. A CIA agent who uses torture is a bad guy; but the agent who uses “advanced interrogation techniques” is a good guy. Defending misogyny is bad; but you can defend the “subversive potential of rap” and other mass culture crap. Advocating the treatment of women as chattel-slaves is bad; Defending islamic sharia as a “minority right” is seen as a moral duty.

This is the context in which Bruce Gilley wrote his theoretically crappy article called “The case for colonialism” which is now the subject of much controversy. Gilley, despite being an American academic, is not familiar with the rules of the game. He could have written more or less the same thing and gotten away with it had he only titled it differently – some possible alternate titles below…

“The case for humanitarian intervention”, “The case for human rights”, “The case for free-trade agreements”, “The case for diversity in Walmart”, “The case for strategic co-operation in the Asia-Pacific” and so on. Not only would he have not been criticized, he could have also been felicitated at prestigious universities in the West.

Such is the world.

22554746_1335933249849486_8660643457187021818_nAnyway, this poorly written article defending colonialism in the journal Third World Quarterly led to mass resignation from the journal’s editorial board. There were quite some sober and strong theoretical criticisms of the article, but some allegations were the usual “I am offended, therefore this article is wrong, and therefore it should be removed.” It turns out that Taylor & Francis has taken down the article, but not because the article was substandard, but owing to the journal editor getting “credible threats of personal violence.” Great way to end this debate I say. But if this is the attitude the offended among the marginalized are going to adopt and if left-liberal intellectuals are going to remain silent about it, one should also not criticize the right-wing lumpens (Hindu, Islamic, White etc) shutting down what offends them. Besides, right-wingers are professionals at being offended and using that as an excuse to be on the offensive. They can play better at this game and beat you at it.

Tagged with:

What is Transgressive? What is Offensive?

Posted in General by Karthick RM on November 23, 2017

There is this collection of short stories called “Little Birds” which is quite explicit in its treatment of sex and sexuality. And there is one particular story where a woman describes being taken by a man in a crowd as she goes to witness a public execution, without the man ever asking for her consent; she first submits passively, and eventually enjoys it. Then there is this other story of a bisexual woman more or less drugging her lesbian friend to get the latter to have intercourse with a man. And another about a married man fantasizing about and eventually exposing himself to schoolgirls. Other stories too are filled with stuff which would greatly offend the campus liberal’s mind.

Here is a thought experiment: should one introduce this collection to a lib-left student crowd and say that it was written by Bataille, there would be explicit disgust, if not outrage at coarseness and vulgarity and, of course, white cis-gendered male entitlement.

But reveal that these stories were written by Anais Nin, and the stories become transgressive feminist erotica.

Should art be evaluated by its content or by the identity of the artist? Can transgressive content be only the prerogative of those who have had the actual experience of transgression? Can artistic creativity be reduced to one’s immediate or obvious identification? If one’s representation of others is constructed, isn’t one’s representation of self equally so? And if representation is to be critiqued, again, shouldn’t the focus be on the content and form of the art rather than on which race or gender the creator was born into?

Tagged with: , ,