Hate with a Burning Passion

After continuing my reading of Shalom Auslander's Foreskin's Lament, I have understood the absurdity of the society Auslander criticizes. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, this memoir is a satirical piece, who's aim is to criticize the overwhelming attachment (and fear) to God of the community of Monsey, New York. However, I have now understood Auslander actually criticizes himself, as well, and what he believed in. This is revealed by the author's tone, which is lampooning, ironic, and certainly humorous.

Honestly, I've greatly enjoyed the memoir so far. Its comical take on the unreasonable beliefs of the (very) Orthodox Jewish community that abides in his hometown is enlightening and revealing. Auslander is especially critical of his father, whom he hates with a truly burning passion. So much so, actually, that he wishes him dead and takes advantage of the words of Rabbi Goldfinger, who explained, "until the age of thirteen, all of a boy's sins are ascribed to his father" (page 14). Being eight at the time, Auslander proceeds to do what every other eight-year-old would do to get rid of his father: he "touched [himself]" (page 17), he "partook of bread without first ceremoniously washing [his] hands" (page 17), and he "sat on the edge of [his] bed and carefully recited 'shit,' 'fuck,' and 'ass' a dozen times" (page 17) before going to bed. Typical, eh?

Furthermore, Shalom Auslander censures Rabbi Kahn's enforcement of rules, and his way of treating the children: "Thursday I didn't wear tzitzis. Rabbi Kahn noticed that the strings weren't dangling from my sides, and he grabbed me by the ear and pulled me to the front of the class. Speak to the children of Israel, he quoted loudly from the Torah as he spanked me hard on my bottom, and tell them to make tzitzis on the corners of their garments" (page 17). This dislike became a deep hatred towards the man, enough to overshadow the antipathy towards his father: "I touched myself- twice- and silently begged God that just this once to credit those sins to Rabbi Kahn's account" (page 17).

After continuing to show his hatred for these two men, Auslander reverts back to his original (likely) intention: satirize the belief that God will hold anything, and everything, against you. He "can't help noticing that every time [he begins] to make some progress on [his] stories about God, attacks on Israel increase, and [he feels] guilty and [stops]. [Is he] causing these attacks? Is God showing [him] what it will be like if [he pisses] Him off, if He decides, once again, to let [they're] enemies destroy [them]? [His] rabbis taught [him] that it was wrong to say God caused the holocaust; that He had simply, in 1938, turned His head. He looked away. What? Huh? Geno... really? Shit, I was in the bathroom" (pages 26-27). Criticism couldn't be put in a more obvious, or funnier for that matter, way. And that is what I've seen throughout this memoir: the criticism is so obvious that you sometimes wonder if he means what he's saying or if he's just mocking these beliefs.

 It's quite a dark book, in truth. He lampoons his childhood, and part of his adult life, but he does so in such a way that you simply love it. At least I do, that's for sure.

Satirical Suicide

After reading the first chapter of Foreskin's Lament, by Shalom Auslander, I have been captivated in a world of (what I think is) satire and criticism towards Orthodox Judaism. Auslander seemingly mocks the Jewish community of Monsey, New York, and lampoons its outrageous beliefs.

So far, I have learned that Auslander was taught to believe in the might of God, but more so the impossibility for humans to survive His cynical "pranks," if you will. A prime example of this is how when one dies, "all the souls of every sperm [you] wasted during [your] life would chase [you] for eternity through the firmament" (page 6). Hilarious. Furthermore, Auslander, finishes the ironic "endings" by saying, "That's so God" (page 7). This drives the idea of a critique towards the exaggerated beliefs of the Orthodox Jews of Monsey.

Shalom Auslander also conveys the idea that everything ends in God's delight. This is expressed through God's "Department of Ironic Punishment" (page 8), where God makes use of "the novelists, the poets, the sitcom writers, [and] the stand-up comedians" (page 8), when they die.

There is an obvious denunciation of God in this book. As an Orthodox Jew, Auslander was taught to fear God, and to obey his every command in order to not die a tragically horrible death, as most do. Moreover, he is taught that God is essentially unforgiving, as portrayed by the Moses example in which  it is explained that Moses is "who escaped from Egypt, and who  roamed through the desert for forty years in search of a Promise Land, and whom God killed just before he reached it- face-plant on the one yard line- because Moses had sinned, once, forty years earlier. His crime? Hitting a rock" (page 3).

Auslander, so far, has presented a truly comical memoir. But really, it's more than that. This memoir is much like a death wish, because if God didn't forgive Moses for hitting a rock, he'll certainly not forgive Auslander for making "[Him come] off like an asshole" (page 9).

You Had Me, for a While...

I searched through what seemed like an endless amount of blogs from classmates, until I finally found a blog post I disagreed with. Cristina Samper said in one of her blog posts that "historically, there is proof that when there is no balance, things tend to lean in to absolute chaos and disaster." I examined this statement for a while, and resolved to agree with it. Then, as I read more and more blog posts, I kept thinking about that remark, and I came to the realization that I, in fact, did not agree with it!

It's a valid point of view, though. There is much evidence to back it up, as Cristina clearly showed, but there is a counterargument for each point she made. She explained that once Douglass learned to read and write, "he lost his sense of balance. He was never content, never satisfied with the amount of learning he obtained, and gradually he became his own teacher of language." However, this doesn't translate to her original thought of "absolute chaos and disaster" always being created from and unevenness. Rather quite the opposite, this unbalance in Douglass' life didn't lead to disaster, but rather to triumph and resiliency in what was ultimately his escape to freedom.

The Incessant Search for Sympathy

I must be honest, the ending on Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave was disappointing, yet really exciting for me. As you can infer from my previous blog posts, I adored how Douglass' seemingly made every part of his past a sort of epitome of tragedy... at first. Yes, it's beautifully written, and the imagery that Douglass creates is superb,

but, after one-hundred-ten odd pages of constant reminders about the cruelty and suffering he endured during his life, I felt drowned in an abyss of relentless sorrow and incessant pleads for sympathy. At the beginning, Douglass' explicit detail was powerful, as was the case when he portrays the violent whipping of aunt Hester: "And after rolling up his sleeves, he commenced to lay on the heavy cowskin, and soon the warm, red blood (amid heart-rending shrieks from her, and horrid oaths from him) came dripping to the floor" (page 22). However, he continued this trend, as I stated above, to a tiring point: "I did not allow myself a single word; but was resolved, if he laid the weight of his hand upon me, it should be blow for blow" (page 103). His unending use of pathos, his search for sympathy, and his ludicrous descriptions of, well, everything, made the book overwhelming, if not mundane, to me as I felt he was simply exaggerating to get his point across.

However, as I have mentioned in previous blog posts, I don't want you to think I am a cold-hearted person in any way. I sympathize this man's story, his suffering, his past. What I do not relish, though, is his book. To me, it was simply a burdensome task to read all of his preposterous portrayals of events and ,unfortunately, this translated into my animosity of the narrative.

animosity: noun- extreme dislike, hatred.

Abyss: noun- an immeasurably deep chasm, depth, or void.













incessant: adjective- (of something regarded as unpleasant) unending, continuous.

Answers to essay

• A. define the term Glut on page 2.
• Glut (n) = excessive/abundant supply of something
• B. Evaluate this article's lead using the criteria we established in class.

  “Slaves are cheap these days.” It leaves the why out of it → doesn’t explain why slaves are cheap or why it is such a worrying issue. C. Create a visual organizer for some of the statistics cited.

  - 27 million people are enslaved right now (more than any other amount in world history) • 3rd revenue earner in organized crime after drugs and arms. - 14000-17500 people are trafficked into the US every year - debt bondage is the most common form of slavery (traps from 15 to 20 million people) - Slaves used to be worth $40,000 → they can be bought for $30 now in the Ivory Coast - 80% of the people trafficked across national borders are female • 70% of those females end up in the slave trade D. How has the United States government tried to stave off human trafficking? Cite examples. Are these measures fair? Why? Why not?

  
  

  The increase of trafficking in the U.S has been answered with new laws such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act 2000, a confirmation of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime which began in 2000, and an increase in the information shared between nations to fight trafficking. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act has a purpose to “combat trafficking in persons…to ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.” While the UN Convention was more of an agreement between countries which had a similar purpose. These methods seem fair because they try to promise safety for the victims as well as punishments to those who traffic, to top it off, they were planned and discussed on a global scale, which makes them more useful over all. E. Why does Leach use Deng's story ?

  Leach uses Deng’s story to exemplify slavery today and make it more real in readers’ heads. It is an appeal to pathos from the author, where she tries to make the readers feel sympathy for a slave in this time and open their eyes in a more brutal way to the fact that slaver is in fact real in our lifetime. F. Compare this understanding of slavery to the antebellum slavery in the United States according to Douglass.

  This understanding of slavery seems a lot bleaker than it was in the United States during Douglass’s time because slaves are worth even less than they were before (this implies that they can be more easily bought around the world and that they need to be exported on a mass scale in order for the traffickers to make any kind of profit), and because it isn’t even noticed around the globe. Slavery now is centered more around women and children with emphasis on the sex trade, while before it was more centered around working. Certainly slavery is more restricted now than it was before: it is illegal in every country and most people around the world are morally opposed to it while in Douglass’s time it was a wide culturally accepted phenomenon.

Brilliance is Resilience

After reading two more chapters of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, I honestly can't focus on much, besides the fact that Douglass is unbelievably intelligent and resourceful.

He himself explains my thoughts exactly when he says, "Mistress, in teaching me the alphabet, had given me the inch, and no precaution could prevent me from taking the ell" (page 49). Douglass realized the impossibility of having a good life while he was a slave, and the fist step towards escaping was learning how to read and write, so that he could be successful when he was finally able to leave. Of course, he had to take advantage of certain opportunities, like the "little white boys whom [he] met on the street" (page 49). In fact, these boys became such an important tool for Douglass, that when he left Master Hugh's home, "it was those little Baltimore boys that [he] felt the strongest attachment [to]" (page 59). Furthermore, Douglass portrays his brilliance and ingenuity by competing against the boys while he was still in Baltimore, something done to learn from the boys through the contests: "After that, when I met with any boy who I knew could write, I would tell him I could write as well as he... In this way I got a good many lessons in writing which is quite possible I should never have gotten in any other way" (page 53).

Ell: a unit of measurement that is approximately

the length of an arm from the elbow.

The resiliency of Frederick Douglass is what really astounded me. The fact that he is so focused on learning how to read and write, and so perseverant on being successful is astonishing, considering his past and how easily he could have convinced himself into remaining uneducated because it was "wrong." 

Ignorance is Bliss

Dear Mr. Fitzhugh,

The so-called “White Slave Trade” that you created to define white labour is a fallacy. White labour created by capitalism is unfair and cruel, and it is also unjust for white rich people to collect the fruits of poor white workers who support the rest.  However, never, under any circumstances, can this be compared to black slavery given that labourers receive pay, and they have certain work hours. The workers are free to do what they want at any time, and can have what they want at any time. They are not controlled or commanded by a superior, nor are they ever punished by they’re bosses arbitrarily.

You claim that your slavery is humane and kind, and that you tend to your slaves while securing their freedom. Yet, if a slave flees from your property, they are punished severely. Furthermore, slaves are fearful of exercising their freedom of speech due to the master’s not allowing them to speak poorly of him. I even doubt that they have a choice or say in what they eat, what they wear, and where they sleep (which, incidentally, are the only things given to them, amongst physical abuse).

Mr. Fitzhugh, your argument is so weak, that you do not defend black slavery, but rather attack “white slavery,” which you invented based on a false analogy.  If you so strongly believe that your slavery is better than white labour, then why don’t you permit your slaves to state their honest opinion on the matter?

Thank you for your time,

Jose Suarez

Knowledge is Power

These are the answers to the questions on the essay, "The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and Me".

1. Alexie remembers the clear image of Superman breaking down a door. As it is Superman, Alexie likely assumes it was to save someone’s life. This is an important detail to remember at the end of the essay, because Alexie “throws [his] weight against their locked doors” (page 18) to save the Indians’ lives.

2. The verb Alexie used fourteen times was “read.” The repetition of this verb helped emphasize the fact that for him to learn to read, he had to read everything and anything he could find. The repetition shows that there were many obstacles that he had overcome in this process, and the only way of learning was to practice as much as he could.

3. In comparison, Frederick Douglass’ quotation suggests that he is quite the opposite from Alexie. Douglass says he “envied [his] fellow slaves for stupidity” (page 129). Alexie, on the other hand, is reluctant in being “stupid,” and actually pities his classmates and wants to help them break out of the patterns of civilization at the time (he wants them to learn, to be educated).  Obviously, Alexie does not envy his classmates; he rather wants them to follow his example. His situation is different from the other aboriginals’ because he is one of the few who realizes that with knowledge comes power (or in his case, the ability to do something with his life).  This sets him apart from the others because he is willing to learn how to read and put a real effort into doing so.

4. There were countless thoughts running through his heads. The sun shone radiantly as the car left the hotel. He drowned in his muse of relinquishment. It was a day he’d never forget. That moment, in which he got in that car, was a sort of revelation to him. He was leaving. He was truly leaving. There was no stopping it; no amount of will power could change this. And, as he left the car, he was overwhelmed in the thought of loss, and the thought of rebirth. He walked through the airport with tears falling from his eyes. He was helpless. He took a look out the window, and made his way through the corridor. He stopped. He took a deep breath as he reminisced all the memories, as he recalled every moment of happiness and realized it was all over.

Writing about myself in the third person has a really powerful effect on me. By doing this, I am able to really concentrate on the emotion and the feeling behind a memory, rather than just saying, “yeah, I was there.” It’s interesting to do this and it really makes me understand myself better.

It's a Shame...

After 20 minutes of further reading Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, I've come to understand that perhaps it can be slightly annoying when an author plays so much with the audience's emotions. That's not to say, though, that there aren't moments where the sentiment that the narrative provides isn't gruelling and overwhelming, but in my opinion, there is simply too much of an attempt at pathos for it to have a real impact on me.

By now, you'll probably be thinking what a cold-hearted person I am; but, I would like you to understand that I sympathize Frederick Douglass greatly, and I don't criticize anything but the method he chose to write this book. If you look back at my first blog post on this matter, you'll notice how captivated I was by the emotional content that dwelled in the pages. Now I find myself tired of the constant reminder of how difficult times were, and how terribly people behaved. These aspects are especially evident when Douglass explains how he "left [the plantation] with joy" (p. 40), and how he "could not feel that [he] was leaving any thing which [he] could have enjoyed by staying" (p. 41). It's a shame, really, that Douglass has to keep drowning the reader with emotions that try to persuade us into absolutely loving this book, because it's really done quite the opposite. The story of this man's past is tremendous, a sublime showcase of the apprehension that slaves had to endure. The execution? It was great... for three or four chapters, maybe.

I'd love to be able to say how great the book really is, but: first, I haven't finished it, so I can't come to that conclusion yet; second, there are aspects that simply beguile the reader (me, at least), but some that quite honestly make the telling of the story overemphasized. Again, I empathize Douglass and the hardships he had to go through, but I can't praise the book as a work of art because, for me, it simply isn't.

Abolishment

Mandatory school attendance in the United States has become a grave problem for the proper education of many. It is a threat to the quality of schooling in the U.S, and so should be abolished immediately.  Benefits of this would begin in Elementary schools, as they would “change because students would find out early they had better learn something or risk flunking out later” (Sypher). It is important that this law be abolished, because schools are not to be considered “day-care centers” (Sypher) or “indoor street corners” (Sypher). Furthermore, the “decline of standardized test scores” (Sypher) is possibly due to “recalcitrant students” not wanting to learn anything. It is said that “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” (Sypher), but we do not apply this theory in education. If we want to improve the American education system, we must “abolish the compulsory-attendance laws” (Sypher).