I'm in an even more passive disposition than my standard issue working order but I have to do something constructive this weekend which might be me getting this post out there.
It's a good meme.
Three things really took my brow in tow this recent span of days.
The briefest to present happened today, when we were writing and discussing some information about fairy tales in Romanian class. The case study was a specific, somewhat archetypal version of such a type of fairy tale. What is important is that this fairy tale, as did most others, featured some Emperors assigning errands and issuing challenges to prince charmings.
It's a stretch to call me a history buff, but I know my generalities. And knowing that this country has always been a crossroads (An apter analogy is that of an ulcer tbbbh Trianon worst day of my life never forgetti) of Empries before its recent unification.
This made me lose cool of my skull by raising a question that has also intrigued the teacher - If the nation's proximity and engagement with benevolent or animous empires had shaped the rural population's folklore so that it incorporated such figures of authority. She responded that should most definitely be the case, in short.
We advance in the lesson and reach a point where examples of assistant characters that work alongsides the protagonist of the story to defeat the antagonists. Some recurring characters named after the days of the week are given mention and at this point I rasie my hand ask if they are supposed to be anthropomorhpic representations of the weekdays. The teacher responded that they're closer to deities as a concept.
Not musing on this didn't bode well with the lobe - In class I associated polytheism with the Dacian pantheon, but in hindsight these deities could have also been introduced to the population by the pagan slavic populations to the east. Nevertheless I ruimante on this and inquire if the fairy tales we have written down could retain distorted vestiges of Dacian oral tradition that have otherwise disappeared. She also confirmed this, but I decided to give a try at keeping this question of mine in mind for the next time we have history class and ask the respective teacher about it.
And this brings us to the next evocation of contemplation. But for that I need to describe who my history teacher. History is a pretty cool guy, eh refutes authoritarianism and doesn't afraid of anything.
Memes aside, he's a very good teacher that is in my opinion outperforming for the kind of school he is in. He's willing to answer some history-related questions I have every class especially if they pertain to the lesson's topic. He's a good source for where my father would have some issues, though he's not free of biases myself. Where my father idolizes the Catholic Church and is always ready to vindicate Austria-Hungary, my history teacher would seem inclined to believe the Church is the devil manifest* and he does view things through a more humanist lens. Both perspectives offset one another into a deadlock that lets me pick the facts and form a better image of what happened throughout time.
Okay, time enough spent on that paragraph. Time to get to the pulp of the real thinking. Two days ago our history teacher acted as a substitute because another one couldn't come, and since we didn't have our notebooks on us he dedicated the hour to discussing what he could with a few enraptured children. I was one of them, and tried maintaining a discussion which was rickety for an abundance of requests from the behalf of other curious classmates. And also because I'm an autist with barely coherent speech** (and writing, for the matter).
Less important was a short exchange on human race, which stemmed from something about totalitarianism being brought up, where I stated that while race in the "traditional" (conventional would have been the better word) does not exist because humans are themselves a race of the hominid genus, there still is some genetic variation between humans across the globe.
Then I make a contradiction that is very stupid in retrospect. I say that whether race exists or not doesn't matter because in the ideal system - a hierarchic meritocracy - people would be ranked only according to their skill, and if some races are worse they will be relegated to the lower ranks while their talented members could still ascend. He didn't have the time to argue against my stupid argument besides one or two sentences cut short by the others, but I had plenty.
One, if there is a belief that some races are superior or inferior, regardless of whether it is true or not, would this not make the human evaluators of skill in various circumstances biased against members of the supposedly inferior race even if they exhibit more prowess than the members of percievedly more proficient races?
And what does an ideal organization have to do with race not mattering? By definition an ideal system is not feasible so race remains a problem.
Really makes you think huh.
He's a saint for enduring me, I'll give him that. But there's more.
Still on the subject of race the discussion drifted on how to deal with the minority population in the country after some real racist*** remarks by a few classmates. He condenses the concept of affirmative action and social programs to them and how this can help. After he's done I decide to give my own take on the issue, which is conjunct with his when it comes to granting some privileges to minorities for the while it takes them to integrate. What I believed was necessary in addition, though, was that we need increased intervention from authorities. If my teacher believes the state should intervene so that minorities can drag themselves out of adversity, I believe the state should drag minorities out of adversity. But as amiable as he is as a person, his personality is also imposing, which made me beat around the bush of believing that some eggs have to be broken to make some eggs. That is, attendance of education from minority children must be closely supervised, and violent perpetrators of poverty culture have to be neutralized****.
Because at the end of the day, poverty and poverty culture are the two snakes of an ouroboros. Where poverty creates poverty culture, poverty cultures creates an attitude that instill rectulance to make one's fortune licitly. Which only creates more poverty for the affected.
So someone has to step in and break this cycle from one end. While at it, break the cycle from both ends - hence me believing we need social benefits and affirmative action to combat poverty, and police intervention and active suppression to destroy poverty culture and help minorities assimilate.
Authoritarian? Yes. But also effective.
So teacher didn't really change my mind on this. What he might have, though, is my adoration of authority figures. Long story short, earlier in this whole discussion I make allusions to preffering authoritarian regimes and methods. Nothing too descriptive of what those really were. But for each time I offer authority or things begotten by authority as a solution or alternative the teacher always shot them down with the accusation of this being just a craving of a providential authority figure.
And the thing is, he's right. I've cognized the fact that maybe my desire of a strong, authoritarian state that brings order and social cohesion might spring from a lack of proper parental figures. And insecurity. And other personal flaws. And my Kenyesian take on economics might be a subconscious product of my consuming various games where the responsibility of developing infrastructure was put in the hands of an all-powerful player. But this was all introspection, and his observation seemed to confirm it.
R-really m-makes you t-think, h-huh???
I want to cut down on the excesses with the third situation because I've meandered on enough with the second.
Two days ago we had dirigency class. Teacher organized it in a way that would have children give their own insight on what could be done to curtail chitchat in classes and strengthen a sense of colleagueship between the class' constituents. At some point I honestly state that I do my cleaning duties when it's my turn, go to school, and consider that that is where my duties as a member of the class end. Later on I pedantically try to correct a classmate's statement that, (very loose paraphrase) "we are put here together to form a group/clique". I say that we are actually a group of children because the state does not have the resources to allocate to teaching smaller groups of students. The form teacher says something, which I forgot. She says something, which includes an accusation of political correctness.
I'm kind of startled by this statement, because I though my cynic outlook on life was anything but politically correct. Not up to date on her definition of the concept, or even if she was operating under the progressive western or soviety definition of the idea, I wait until the meeting is dismissed to politely and amiably request a clarification - Turns out she wanted to say that I just take words too literally and that my classmate referred to us being together on a more psychological, relational level.
That was a rile up over nothing.
Really makes ya think huh.
___
* - Hmmmmmm...... Rly maeks u think......
** - Yet it seems I've improved from my last year at school, somehow.
*** - By this I mean authentic hate towards a group racism, not "I like to call people slurs on the internet" racism.
**** - Don't get me wrong, I think these perpetrators should be neutralized indifferent of their ethnicity, it's just that those that belong to disprivileged groups are more nocive in the short and long runs.
No comments:
Post a Comment