Robin Hood Party!

Here is a link to the Robin Hood Party fan page on facebook where you can find our video!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Robin-Hood-Party-Democracy-Not-Plutocracy/195907710431004

I hope everyone is enjoying summer so far:)

Link to our video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByI5-b6neA0

The Final Protocol...Finally (5/5/11)

At 11:05pm Ahmed, Heidi, Jordan, Hallie, Sophie, Emily, Hong Fa, Gina, and were already in class. Then Ben entered dragging lots of paper and a garbage bag of paper into the center of the room. After throwing his pile of archives into the center of the room everyone sat quietly. Ben threw more paper into the center of the “archives”, and it looked like a bonfire waiting to be lit. Ben looked pretty happy while he was throwing various yellow and purple squares from a previous Difficultation. Ben then played a song on the computer. Then he placed a photo on the whiteboard. It looked like a bird with a human face. Mandi entered the classroom, took one look at the “archives” pile and Ben tossing more squares into it and said “Oh my God”, before taking her usual seat next to Heidi. Ben told us to listen to the lyrics of the song and look at thesis 9 of the Benjamin reading. He pointed to the photo on the projector and said it was a painting of an “angel”. Ben began calling out attendance then turned off the projector and music. Almost everyone showed up to class. Ben announces that the “archives” have been sitting in his office. He said he has been looking at it as a pile of rubble like thesis 9. He asked, “This is how history presents itself…progress? Of a sort. What progress have we made? What have you learned? Was this an utter waste of your time? He thinks having a nice day as a finale of the class would be too right wing. Ben had no idea where the “Beck Sex” picture went. Hegel was the only face photo we had left in class. Alyssa then entered the room. Ben wanted everyone to arrive at class next Thursday on time at 1:30 and he wants to have a tea party. “Bring what you can.” He said. Ben is really excited to see the projects. He said that trick with projects is the crazier the better. Paige has now arrived. Ben then started muttering into his attendance sheet. “Paige’s last name means ‘enemy of the peasants.’” He wanted to know where her family came from. The class quietly chuckled. “You get a lot of history from last names.” Ben said. He then gave some more directions for our projects: no power points, they give him rashes. Mandi wanted to know how long they were supposed to be. Ben said 10 minutes. Ben also wants everyone to talk at some point during their presentation. Marika then arrived to class. After the projects he said that wants to talk and ask questions about them. Ben was still talking about Housekeeping until 11:23pm. Ben asked if there were any questions. Ahmed wanted to know how much percent the final is worth. It is worth ten percent. Ben and Tom discussed doing illegal things. Ben said that we shouldn’t get hurt. Then Ben had us get back into our groups from Tuesday. The groups then circled around each other. There were three groups. Rachel wanted us to make connections to the articles. The room became pretty quiet. Hallie read an interesting article about Bin Laden being killed, and whether it will make stereotypes of Arab-American’s go away or get worse. Rachel then talked about one state of emergency against another state of emergency in group 2. “We got him, we are happy.” Who are “we”? Hallie and Rachel asked. Group 1 was discussing a Martin Luther quote about dying. Ben was saying that it may not be true. Group 2 was not really saying anything and they seem confused as to what they were supposed to be talking about. They were not saying anything. Ben gave the groups two more minutes. Ben then kneeled in Group 2’s circle and scanned it. Hallie brought up Thesis 7. Then he moved around the room and began listening to Group 3. He said that a Benjamin question about the Martin Luther King quote is why is it important? And why is it important that Martin Luther King said it? “Make sure the person who is talking is not the same person who talked on Tuesday.” Ben said. Group 1 did not want to move closer to Group 2 and 3. Eventually everyone started moving into a wide circle. Ben pointed at the pile and pointed to his shoe to show that the purple square “family” is stuck to his shoe. He was allowing “family” to stay stuck on his shoe. The class then formed a squiggly circle reminiscent of a kindergartner drawing. Ben began dramatizing the fact that no one wanted to move. He then asked Group 1 to discuss what they talked about. They turned to Page 256. “Read the sentence a little slower…This is Benjamin talking as a dialectic thinker. We need to question and deal with that.” Ben said. Alyssa was reading the barbarism part. Then “Brushing against the grain” was brought up. Kate talked about the barbarism in the joy and happiness of Bin Laden dying. Mandi brought up the point about people being sad about it too. Hallie talked about listening to the “black people” radio station. The station asked the people if they wanted to see the photos of Bin Laden being shot. “We had to see pictures of people jumping out of buildings, chaos and death. We should get to see the photos as payback.” One caller responded. Another caller said no because people just want to see it as entertainment. Alyssa was arguing that seeing the photos because of “revenge” is barbarism. Mandi brought the fact up that some people want to see the photos as proof. “The people who are paranoid of the government: how does are last fifteen weeks help with this question?” Ben asked. Liz said it doesn’t matter because the government could use photo shop. Ahmed agreed and thought that the government probably had an even more advanced version of it. Hallie was saying that anybody in a turban and beard the people will say looks like Bin Laden. Everyone laughed at that. Then Shukri wanted to know why we dumped his body in the ocean. Rachel responded saying that no country wanted to claim his body. (24 hour burial Islamic tradition) Ben wanted us to keep this discussion in mind when we write stuff down. Hallie said that when we killed Hussein we didn’t give him Islamic burial. Ben asked if everyone agrees with the government actions as “we”. Jordan doubts the story too, but thinks it was sad that everyone was disagreeing with this only a day after it happened. Ben wonders if it wouldn’t be sadder if everyone agreed. Liz brought up Obama’s approval rating which had been raised. How this would affect Obama politically? In regards to the variables of Bin Laden and Hitler supposedly being killed on the same day, Ben thinks any day on the calendar could be Hitler related. That is a part of the popular Hitler fetish. You could always find something. Marika kind of believes that he is dead, but wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t. She that Tu Pac was dead for ten years and then they found him in Barbados. Then Ben had everyone raise their hands if they believed Bin laden was dead. Hong Fa, Shukri and Ahmed did not raise their hands. Ben wanted to know what would convince Hong Fa. Rachel wanted to know if everyone had read the live tweets about the raid that some guy in Islamabad had tweeted. Ben then wanted to be a “good teacher” and wanted to discuss the Benjamin reading and it’s relation to the articles. Group 3 (Heidi) used Thesis 12: Discussing who, from the killing of Bin Laden, who is it redeeming? Or is it trying to create a better future for our grandchildren. Ben thought redeeming was a good word and a good question. Sophie was struggling about how it makes the article dangerous. Ben asked the question to what extent was that a redeeming act? Free from space and the past or about the past existing in the eternal present. Mandi said it was kind of related to that (Thesis 6) if the enemy wins even the dead….there is more than just him now. Terrorism is not going to die with him like the death of Hitler and the Nazis. Ben and Hallie said that Nazis are still around, just smaller. But terrorism is not going to stop just with him she pointed out. It’s not really a safer world, we just knocked down a bigger player, and terrorism is still there. Ben said that to most people the truth is that he is dead (the classroom). Bury at sea means there is no place that he is fixed. They want to make a clean break from the past. (Obama administration) At the same time: they want to make him “deader”. Ben said. He also said that if no country claimed him he could exist through all time, in no way past but ever present. Alyssa wanted to know if anyone Muslim had done this in the past. Ahmed said ignorant people had, but not the norm. Liz asked if by us killing him, if it was going to piss al-Qaida off more. Kate said that news shots of everyone celebrating made her confused. “Yeah his death is kind of exciting, but terrorism is not dead because of him.” She said. She didn’t feel safer. Mandi that she didn’t either, she is just happy he is dead. Kate brought up the fact that 18-25 year olds disagreed the most about whether Bin Laden was dead. But, everyone screaming in the streets was mostly 18-25 year olds. How were they disapproving the most but partying in the street? Ben said that Alyssa and him talking about intertextuality. They brought up how a lot people on Facebook and Twitter were making comments along the lines of Team America: F-yeah. Ben wanted to go back to redemption. He said Benjamin was this weird messianic Jew. In Thesis 2 it says that our image is bound up with the…redemption. He asked if when we are redeemed the past will finally make sense. Is the sense that in this death of Bin Laden, a whole lot of things have been redeemed? He asked. Ben wondered about Obama say that we are united in killing one guy. Mandi said that Bush’s reputation was redeemed through this. Ben said that the past changes constantly. Hallie brought up Obama’s top priority changing from first the economy to Bin Laden. Mandi thinks that charmers are bad. Her dad told her to avoid people like that. Ben brought up charismatic truth. Liz had an issue with how many times Obama used the word “I”. Alyssa said that he can talk like a sovereign, because he took responsibility for stuff he may not have done. Kate said that he has to be the head because the CIA can’t be. Marika said that Obama had to take credit for it. Ben said that he is the great man, the sovereign. The more legitimacy he gets as a leader the better. Liz said that from a more conservative background it sounded very …odd. Hallie agreed from an opposite background. Then Heidi asked about an inflatable Bush in the mall? Ben knew the guy as a friend: he does it to prompt conversation. Ahmed thought that Obama needs a break. Marika brought up that Obama is black, so he is being treated differently from previous Presidents. Alyssa said that it just comes from being President. Marika thinks that negative commentators on Obama are nitpicking. Hallie said that she was reading an interesting article on the mythos on the names of Osama and Obama. Ben said that Limbaugh kept “confusing” Osama and Obama. Again, he asks what truth is. Then Ben had everyone stand up. Then he had everyone put their hand on the shoulder of someone who they have learned a lot from this semester. Then he had everyone do various shoulder touching exercises like: the person we most learned from, the person we wanted to talk to more, and then get into partners and pick up something from the archives that resonated with us. Then the class went around the circle and explained what they had picked and why. Then we did evaluations and everyone left.

Article That I Just Mentioned in Class

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201152121358887979.html

The Mythos of Obama and Osama, from Al-Jazeera

Protocol 5/3/11 and an interesting article from the Star Trib

There was a water bottle laying in the middle of the room and as Ben entered, he asked if it was one of ours. No one responded that it was and Ben kicked the water bottle across the room. He announced that he had to grab some papers but that we should check out an article from the Star Tribune that he had on his computer, shown to the class via projector. “How does Fasolt help us make sense of this problem?” Ben asked then left the room while the difficultators began to set up. The class look at the article, which was about the issue of gay marriage among religious officials, focusing on how a Pastor Sergio Choy feels same-sex marriage would be like trying to make water out or hydrogen or oxygen alone.

Ben returned and wrote the program on the board which was as follows:

1) Gay Marriage and H2O: Fasolt Lives!

2) Housekeeping

3) Difficultation

4) On historicism and historical materialism – or, who’s Wally B, and what’s he trying to do?

Ben sat down and took attendance and invited us to move into a more condensed circle. Rachel noted that one of Ben’s shoes is untied and Ben said that he knows, then directs our attention back to the article, asking us what we see and what Fasolt would say about how Pastor Choy lives and breaths. Jordan said that one part that stuck out to here was the risk of overstepping role and going against the tide of history. This would be stopping change and the way history is going by legislators that oppose gay marriage. Liz added that the part about the church leaders not being members of the state church of Minnesota stuck out to her. Ben added in a bit about medieval universalism and that separation of church and state makes no sense before the historical revolt where the emperor controlled space and time. Sophie spoke about the social structure of marriage and natural law, mentioning how Choy likens gay marriage to trying to make water out of only oxygen or hydrogen, and that to him gay marriage goes against natural law. Ben tied this back to Fasolt, saying that the historical revolt is still being played out. Gay rights activists are trying to be progressive, to make a break from the past and change to a different and better future while residual elements of medieval universalism still exist. In pop culture, Ben argued, medieval universalism is not gone, by trying to make social arrangement like natural law, and arguing how it is, or how it was when we lived with the pope and the emperor in power, as timeless as a water molecule. Elissa asked if this was a division in the religious community and Ben said absolutely. There are huge breaks in the Lutheran Church concerning homosexuals and the idea of breaks in the church itself is a concept that we could not have without Luther.

Next, we moved on to housekeeping. We received our papers back along with self-evaluation forms to fill out and bring with us when we meet with Ben to discuss our grades for the paper. Ben then asked if we found external writing three difficult and by asking us to raise our hands in a sort of social experiment, he compared how much experience we had in the past with writing such papers with how difficult we found writing this paper. Ben said that this semester was a bit like watching figure skating then, at the end, being asked to figure skate. He understood that we might have a bit trouble writing in this style if we didn’t have much previous experience and that we wouldn’t be marked down for something we didn’t know. Kate G. mentioned that the most difficult part for her was the act of trying to come up with the actual question. Ben said that practice would help, then asked us if other classes had asked us to something we didn’t know how to do. Many people raised their hands and Ben said that at least he wasn’t alone in making that mistake and, if we had this problem in the future, that we should go talk to the professor about it, as that will help immensely.

We moved on to the Benjamin reading and the difficultation began. We numbered off into groups of three and each group was assigned a thesis, find important concept in it and connect to two other theses. My group – Elissa, Kate L, Mandy and Tam – discussed how thesis VI was anti-Ranke and what the idea of a dangerous event could be. Our group finished discussing a few seconds early and the topic of papers came up. Mandy informed us that papers can be made to appear longer by tweaking margins, character spacing and changing the font size of periods.

Our group was called on to share first, and Elissa spoke about the first sentence of the thesis: “To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it ‘the way it really was’” (Benjamin 255). Elissa said that this was anti-Ranke and that “wie es eigentlich gewesen” is that it is a too selective view of history. She also mentioned that we had been confused by Benjamin’s mention of a moment of danger. Ben said that in Hegel and Ranke’s methods of doing history, one went back to the archives and string things together “like beads on a rosary.” However, this is a problem. Ben decided to leave the question in the air of what the problem of Ranke is. Elissa also mentioned the passage about men singled out by history and that it sounded Hegelish. Mandy mentioned that we had connected this thesis to V and VII. In V, we linked to the line, “For every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably” (Benjamin 255). Karrie mentioned that this was the concept of a stepping stone and that if one isn’t important enough, it disappears. Ben clarified the idea of the moment of danger as the Nazis and Hitler, as this was written in 1939. The threat of the 3^rd Reich was extremely immediate and palpable. If we see the past as just in the past, as nothing to do with us, it’s one step from forgetting about it entirely. In Benjamin: “Only that historian will have the gift of fanning the spark of hope in the past who is firmly convinced that even the dead will not be safe from the enemy if he wins. And this enemy has not ceased to be victorious” (255); this being that if the enemy wins, the dead will not be safe. Ben mentioned the digging up of corpses and desecrating them, along with the more figurative sense of people in paintings being removed during the French and Russian Revolution if it was decided that they shouldn’t be remembered by history. Today, it is much easier to do such things with Photoshop. Ben said that the Holocaust wasn’t just about killing Jews but killing the history of Jewry. Elissa asked about who Benjamin talked about religion in the reading, as she found he had be interested in Jewish mysticism. She asked if those moments about Judaism were in the religious sense or about Hitler. Ben said that it was both, in the same time with the same thing. Benjamin was interested in negative dialectics and how God and the Anti-Christ could be the same thing. Carrie added that in thesis VII, “The nature of this sadness stands out more clearly if one asks with whom the adherents of historicism actually empathize. The answer is inevitable: with the victor” (page 256) was important. Ben said to look at think about what the sadness Benjamin was talking about could be and to look the quote from Flaubert. We looked at the quote then Ben asked the class how many people had heard of Carthage. Three people had. Ben asked how many of us had heard of Rome and we all raised our hands. Ben explained that Rome and Carthage were two great empires that had existed at the same time. They fought a serious of wars, Rome won, Carthage lost and now everyone remembers Rome. For those that try to tell the history of Carthage, the trampled people, there is a great cost in trying to tell their story; it is difficult and spiritually hard. Viewing history from the losers does not view people moving towards a happy future. In historicism, however, you end up empathizing with the victor. In things such as the American Pageant, Fort Snelling and High Hitler, the benefits of the victors tramping on the losers is shown. If only this perspective is shown, then a whole other history (that of the Dakota, in the case of Fort Snelling) is forgotten entirely. We preserve the archives of the victors, but not all archives. Ben noted that before the Nazis began burning people, they burned books.

Group two then discussed their section, thesis VIII. Hallie pointed out the first sentence: “The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the ‘state of emergency’ in which we live Is not the exception but the rule” which she said states we’re constantly in a state of emergency, which gives us authority to do nearly anything. We need to realize that we’re not the exception but the rule otherwise we have no chance of fighting fascism. Ben asked, “Who’s we?” and Hallie said they were the people who disagree with fascism. Ben added they were the people who, like Benjamin, looked upon the immediate world and said, “What the fuck?” They wondered what had happened and how they could do anything about it. There are two levels to this piece by Benjamin – how we understand history, and how we make history. Hallie said that the state of emergency is treated as a historical norm and that a real state of emergency needs to occur – in a revolution, perhaps in our own consciousness in how we view progress. Ben added that it was breaking out of continuity, something we’ve never seen before. Though it would be impossible to have a revolution in the mind that didn’t have to do with the body, it was all part of how to get out of the iron cage. Hallie then mentioned thesis XIII and the Social Democrats, who were against the Nazis. Ben said that they were a bit like the Democratic party in the US, a mainstream left-of-center Marxist worker party that Benjamin didn’t like very much. Liz brought up thesis IX and the Angel of History and “one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet” (page 257) and that this was an image of the continual state of exception. Ben explained that in our idea of a timeline, this is like a continuous shit pile, what history is like right here, right now, which we can’t see if we are looking at history like Hegel. Brittany brought up the critique of concept in thesis XIII: “A critique of the concept of such a progression much bet the basis of any criticism of the concept of progress itself” (page 261). Liz added that we have to step back and look at what we are talking about to understand current state. Ben said that Social Democrats spoke to workers of things always getting better, but this led to Nazism and there is something wrong with this perception of history. We have to criticize this idea of progress.

Group three went next with thesis XII. Sophie mentioned the shift in perception of viewing working class as avenger to liberator, which Benjamin criticizes, saying the working class forgets the sacrifices they have made. Ben asked what the connection was to Fasolt and Rachel said you can’t make a clear break from the past; you have to know where your are coming from and have memories of where you’ve been. Ben added that if you are always told about positive progress, you are not going to fight, you’re just going to sit on a “conveyor belt.” But if you are motivated by every generation before you, as avengers of them, you see things differently. Ben also mentioned how in Judaism, each generation is taught that they brought themselves out of Egypt, rather than it just affecting the past. This is the concept Benjamin argues is lost and that we need back. Sophie connected to thesis XI, with the Protestant work ethic, which led to workers being enslaved.

Rachel then said we were going to look at articles relating to the death of Osama Bin Ladin and take concepts from the Benjamin reading and see how they articles were dangerous and where there were holes in the story. First we watched a video about Bin Ladin’s death that showed a great deal of footage from 9/11, including the towers falling with a woman screaming in the background and a man hysterically yelling, “Oh my God” over and over. It also showed people celebrating Bin Ladin, which the video described as an “outbreak of joy” over the death of man who was “one of the most hated men since Adolf Hitler.” Ben said that the difficultators were arguing that the articles and video presented the idea of historicism and, given what we’ve talked about thus far with Benjamin, what are the problems and what’s dangerous? Mandy mentioned the connection with Hitler and Bin Ladin both having their deaths publicized on May 1^st, though she said she wasn’t sure it was true. “Even if it’s not, it makes so much sense,” Ben said, and described how you can group names like Hitler, Bin Ladin and the USSR into a signifier box. We went back into our groups to discuss the articles and we will continue the discussion on Thursday.

On a side note, I found this article from the Star Tribune the other day and thought it might be of interest, given the discussion we had today: http://www.startribune.com/world/121047769.html

one step forward, two steps back

As Fasolt emphasizes in his text, there is a distinction between past and present that must not be blurred. Benjamin also mentions on page 254: "There is a secret agreement between past generations and the present one." and continues on to say, "A chronicler who recites events without distinguishing between major and minor ones acts in accordance with the following truth: nothing that has ever happened should be regarded as lost for history." Fasolt and Benjamin seem very connected in their thoughts considering they both believe that there is an undeniable distinction necessarily existent between past and present as well as the fact that nothing in history should be lost. Of course, Fasolt reinforces how much of history truly is lost and how nothing is ever objectively documented nor is every piece of history even recorded to begin with. These connections I found to be very valid and prominent.

I also found that much of the content was related to Hegel. Benjamin's passage that he included in part IV said, "'Seek for food and clothing first, then the Kingdom of God shall be added unto you.' -Hegel 1807" I found this particularly interesting because I am familiar with a saying in the church that goes, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." I was not sure what Hegel meant by replacing the ideas of God and His righteousness with the items of food and clothing, but perhaps he was trying to emphasize that one must live for him or herself and gain his or her necessities in order to gain the Kingdom of God?

There was another connection I found in regards to Hegel in that Benjamin in part XIII on page 260 when he describes progress. Social Democratic theory has been formed by a conception of progress of: mankind itself, infinite perfectibility of mankind, and irresistibility. The last form of progress was interesting to me because he goes on to say, "Thirdly, progress was regarded as irresistible, something that automatically pursued a straight or spiral course." Hegel reinforces that paths in life are unidirectional and that man lives to fulfill a certain vocation. I think it is intriguing how Benjamin believes Social Democrats regard progress as something that is inevitably on a straight or spiral course as Hegel tends to think of progress as linear as well.

I found Benjamin's thoughts on how Social Democrats view progress intriguing and relative to my life because how I see progress is not linear at all. When I think of progress, I believe it wavers and despite the progressive incline, there are definite moments of decline as well. My best friend is struggling with a personal issue, and something I keep emphasizing to her is that progress is not linear. To be realistic, it is important to remember that with every step taken forward, there will be times that you break down or feel weak, but that is all part of the process of progression. Progress simply is not linear.

Geez, getting out of the small cage just to realize I’m in a bigger cage.

Just a word of personal feeling before “serious business” starts. Even though this is not a piece of history itself but a study of history (historiography), it sounds so poetic… or the language is just too “uncool” for me. I find myself going back and forth, looking through the Eng-Viet dictionary every other sentence I read. Of course the last blog post, Ben won’t give his students an easy time. And “Angelus Novus” looks more like a demon than an angel to me… or maybe I just don’t have any artistic sense, or I just fell into the trap of stereotype, which is historical related (--_,--). I also find this text harder to connect to real life than any other text I’ve read in this class, even though I try my best to connect it to a real-life-ish moment, I afraid my connections won’t be much relevant, or not ‘my’ experience.

“[N]othing that has ever happened should be regarded as lost for history” (254). In this quote, I think Benjamin says quite the same thing as Fasolt, that history moves on to the present. While we (people of the present) keep refer to the past event with the time frame (like the 40’s the 70’s…), the past events seems like it’s no longer relevant to this day. As time moves on, we tend to cut off ties with the past, like things from the 40’s will be less related to us than things from the 90’s. “[O]nly a redeemed mankind receives the fullness of its past—which is to say, only for a redeemed mankind has its past become citable in all its moments… [A]nd that day it Judgement Day” (254), Benjamin says the same thing as Fasolt again, the history that does not get cut off and still flows to the present has to do with the Bible’s end of history. “The past can be seized only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again. For every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably…. To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it ‘the way it really was’ (Ranke). It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger.” (255), Benjamin simply says that if we don’t connect history/past events with our development in the present, that part of history/past events will be lost, even though it’s in the history book or record… it will still be lost because we don’t consider it relevant to us of the present. The only way that history won’t be lost is to connect history with the present. Like how you are your parents’ child, your parents are the past and you (the child) are the present… but without your parents, you will not exist. This example is somewhat a poor example because it is too close in time, while the history that Benjamin says facing the danger of disappearing is the history far back in time (like the Pop/Church rule time).

“Historicism gives the ‘eternal’ image of the past; historical materialism supplies a unique experience with the past. The historical materialist leaves it to others to be drained by the whore called ‘Once upon a time’ in historicism’s bordello. He remains in control of his powers, man enough to blast open the continuum of history” (262) (even though I don’t understand the last two sentences, I feel like they are important so I just leave them there). This quote explains the two key points nicely (though not quite nicely, I had to google them anyway). ‘Historicism’ explains/analyze the record of history base on the culture or what happen at the time, instead of explaining it the more universal way, like ‘Why did they (people of the past) do it?’. ‘Historical materialism’ explains/analyze the record of history using a more universal method, like trying to understand ‘Why did they do it? Why did this event happen?’ As of why Benjamin says that ‘historical materialism’ “beats” ‘historicism’, I think it is because ‘historical materialism’ related more with the explaining/analyzing progress of history more than ‘historicism’. History is needed because of the struggle between the people and the sovereignty (I think both Benjamin and Fasolt says so), if history just states the facts without explaining those facts in term of progress, that kind of history is useless. It is just the same as giving study of the Pop/Church (lol at my language) ruling time without explaining that the people at the time revolt to get democracy because they want better lives, the people of the present won’t know that there may be something even better than democracy to strike for in the future. (Now my story comes in.) For example, in Vietnam, students have no right to talk against teachers because they are the absolute, just like the government/authority, they are the absolute. Whatever they say, one must obey (unless you have money to bribe them though. But then they know you have money, they will try to give you more trouble so you will need to give them more money to get out of the trouble, which means once bribe, you will have to bribe forever). So that is why I WAS such an obedient girl in Vietnam. Now, after I come to the U.S._ a democratic country that gives people more rights, I look back at myself in the past, I feel like I was just a puppet, feeling nothing (I do feel things like pain and stuff, I’m just saying), caring about nothing, I don’t think I was conscious back then (not humanly conscious, of course I was, I just wasn’t conscious with my rights and all the thing that related to disobeying the authority). I think I was in an iron cage back in Vietnam, now after I come to the U.S., I THINK I’m out of the ‘Vietnam’s iron cage’ but in another ‘iron cage’_ the ‘U.S. iron cage’… (--._.--).

Historical Materialism

One term that bothered me was historical materialism. From Wikipedia, is states that “Historical materialism started from a fundamental underlying reality of human existence: that in order for human beings to survive and continue existence from generation to generation, it is necessary for them to produce and reproduce the material requirements of life.” This concept was developed from Karl Marx and it also sort of explains how the economy works.

The iron cage, according to Benjamin, is damaging because it limits a person’s view about history. We would look at history from a set point such as in the present. In the text page 262, “a historical materialist cannot do without the notion of a present which is not a transition, but in which time stands still and has come to a stop.” The historical materialist does not contemplate about the future; the focus is from the present and here on out to the past.

One thing that I can relate to myself from Benjamin’s work is on page 259 in the text, “smelling a rat, Marx countered that, ‘the man who possesses no other property than his labor power’ must of necessity become ‘the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners…’ This rings true for people in my class; the working class who must sell their labor in order to be slaves of other people of higher authority. I hate my workplace because I just don’t like feeling inferior to my boss when sometimes, I honestly feel like they’re just as dumb or smart as me, yet they only get to be my boss because of their seniority in the retail business.

Benjamin ,Illuminations

The quote that stood out to me was “every day our cause becomes clearer and people get smarter” (43 Dietzgen) I’d have to agree with this quote as time goes on people are able to apply more concepts and can take knowledge from different sources that we can add to and talk about. As history progresses we have all these different philosophers that enlighten us with iron cage concept, state of exception etc.. and that’s how future thinkers are born. Also another quote that I liked was “History is the subject of a structure whose site is not homogeneous, empthy time, but time filled by the presence of now.”(261) which pretty much define history as we were discussing this in class with history in the past and present I think it ties perfectly together. The past is many events that took place and therefore gets carried on into the future. Even though many of us weren’t present as that history was occurring but the evidence that Fasolt spoke about is still there.


I would say history is always moving therefore it’s never over; it would be in the historical revolt of the FUTURE modern times where it’s ever changing. The reason why "historicism" (Benjamin's term for the iron cage) been so harmful is because it keeps you within one moment instead of making you progress and thrive, like the Germans did with Hitler when he ruled, the people were taken by his craziness and charismatic beauracracy that they dismissed what was really in front of them. Which is why people in that time were stuck in a iron cage and didn’t oppose his views which inevitably led to the worst historical tragedy. Thus I think Benjamin is trying to say that people can easily get stuck in an iron cage if they don’t exercise their rights and do something while they can.

Walter Benjamin

This text was confusing but some of the things i found interesting was, "history is the subject of structure whose site is not homogeneous, empty time, but time filled by the presence of the now (261). History is made every day and everything that happens today will become history. Along the way we can't forget where history comes from. we have to remember/ reclaim the past as present. "socical democracy thought fir to assign to the working class the role of the redeemer of future generations, in this way cutting the sinews of its greatest strength. this training made the working class forget both its hatred and its spirit of sacrifice, for both are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren." (260) means we can't forget our past, since they say history repeats itself. but we need that clean slate and start all over. This somewhat relates to my past or everyones past because since history is made every day we want to have those unforgettable days but we can't forget those "mistakes" that can be made. those "mistakes" that our parents also made and i guess they try to protect us from it. "nOthing that has ever happened should be regarded as a lost history" (254).

OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEADDDDDD.

woooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :)

Who Is the Angel of History?

I am struggling with this text, for a number of reasons, I think -- because I have trouble with terms, always, and "historicism" and "historical materialism" are no exception; because I am exhausted, and when I am exhausted I am prone to being overly emotional. But the horror and sadness at the root of this text distress me, so much so that it is difficult for me to draw my mind away from those piercing moments and focus on the larger message of the Theses.

Since Benjamin obviously did not have The Answer, I cannot give an Answer. It is not to be found. But I think the imagery he uses and the structure of the text itself bespeak, in part, the method of historical materialism. Benjamin writes that "[t]he past can be seized only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again" and that "[t]o articulate the past historically...means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger" (255). By referencing memory and recognition, I think Benjamin locates the brief appearance of history in a self, or in a body; the past is embodied within the vision of the present. It is a fleeting image, and it is only true and only possible in one moment, when it resonates with a truth in the present. This I think corresponds with his distinction between historicism and historical materialism: that "[h]istoricism gives the 'eternal' image of the past; historical materialism supplies a unique experience of the past" (262). Time is reduced to and expanded upon within a singularity, the Jetztzeit.

And this reconceptualization of time, this interruption of the flow of homogenous time, disrupts the concept of progress itself. What is the connection between progress and redemption? I was struck by the passage in Thesis II, in which Benjamin says that "our image of happiness is indissolubly bound up with the image of redemption" -- because just on Thursday, Professor Rothe was telling my Worker class that in East Germany, people were inspired by the promise of 'collective redemption'. They were dedicated to Communism / Socialism because it was a fight against fascism; it was a way to gain redemption after the Third Reich. It makes me wonder how much we are still engaged in that project. And how much is Benjamin engaged in that project? Why does Benjamin write, if not for progress? I cannot help but imagine Benjamin as the Angel of History, himself. He stares with horror at the wreckage while he is blown blindly into the future. He stares at the mass death of the Third Reich while he runs toward his own.

I am overwhelmed by the tragedy of these Theses, perhaps because of the dense singularity of time within the text -- Benjamin's death permeates every word, because I know it is coming; it has already happened. His words have a terrible urgency: "every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own threatens to disappear irretrievably. (The good tidings which the historian of the past brings with throbbing heart may be lost in a void the very moment he opens his mouth.)" (255). A throbbing heart, lost. An image, unrecognized and irretrievable. It seems so lonely to be in the past. I am paralyzed with power, in the present. Benjamin speaks to me from a quiet grave, but his words resound thunderously in my mind.

Honestly, my understanding of what Benjamin is suggesting is so fragmented that I find it nearly impossible to apply it to a real life situation -- as one might apply a formula to set of data. It's not so simple. I understand it as being akin to Fasolt's history, in which the historian (or the reader) constantly refers back to one's self, in order not to get lost. In order not to do violence to history. And I think it is also related to the way I attempt to read texts (as a literature major) -- I never claim to know what the author intended, or attempt to offer an 'eternal' interpretation. I always do a reading through myself. I strip myself of authority. This is perhaps not exactly what Benjamin is proposing, but I think it is related to his "unique experience of history," and the Jetztzeit. It is a new way of writing.

Benjamin

The first time I read Benjamin was last year, when I was writing a paper on Aaron Siskind, an American photographer. I’d randomly come across an article by him (“The Author as Producer”), so decided to add it to my bibliography…only to have my professor comment that this was one of her favorite pieces, and that she was very excited that I’d found it and to see how I used it. Crap. That meant that I actually had to read it and at least partially understand it. I ended up being able to get the gist of it, but this week’s reading reminded me how hard it was. Even though it was difficult, I found this reading to be very interesting, especially because of the insight it gives readers into Benjamin’s mind. It’s one thing to read a polished essay that has been reviewed by editors and undergone several drafts, but it’s totally different to read these fragments (even more so since he wrote this while on the run from Nazis). Aside from the fact that I found this reading to be difficult (and sort of annoying…), I found it interesting and (sort of) enjoyable.
One quote that stuck out to me was in thesis 3: “nothing that has ever happened should be regarded as lost for history” (254). This, obviously, is very applicable to last week’s Fasolt reading, and to many other things that we’ve done in class. I’m not sure that I completely understand what he’s saying in this thesis. Are all events that happen in the world equally important to history? Probably not- I don’t think he’d say that the fact that I just ate goldfish is just as important as when Kennedy was assassinated. I think he’s more saying that nothing is ever irrelevant for history. Who knows: maybe me eating goldfish will somehow turn out to be important. But even if it doesn’t, it’s still never “lost for history” (254). This actually made me think about packrats- my grandmother is one of those people who hates to throw things out. She’ll give us random things every time we go to her house, just because she doesn’t want them but can’t bear to throw them out. She loves clipping out newspaper articles and sending them to people- it’s sweet, but really, just because I’ve been to India and study Hindi doesn’t mean that I need every article the NYT writes on India (or Indian food, traveling to India, etc. etc.). Anyway, my point was that for packrats like my grandmother, nothing is ever lost for history (literally, because they keep it all). But I don’t know that this is necessarily a good thing- do you really need to keep everything you’ve accumulated your whole life? I think that there is a happy medium between keeping everything and keeping nothing. Same with history: not everything needs to be actively remembered, but we should keep in mind that nothing can ever be completely discounted as irrelevant.

The Final Post

As you said, Ben, this text is difficult to read one time and completely understand everything that Benjamin was talking about. I had to reread the text multiple times and I still don’t think I have a complete understanding of the key terms he uses such as historical materialism and historicism. From what I understood historical materialism is a different way to look at history than historicism. Historicism according to Benjamin “gives the ‘eternal’ image of the past” (262). Historicism simply makes connections between different moments in history. I think that Benjamin is saying that historicism concentrates more on telling history “the way it really was” like Ranke does. The process of empathy, which is the root cause of sadness, is another important point that Benjamin says historical materialism broke historicism. Benjamin states that adherents of historicism empathize with the victor. Cultural treasures come along with this and “a historical materialist views them with cautious detachment” dissimilar from historicism (256). Some cannot look at these historical treasures without acknowledging that they are tainted with horror and barbarism.

Historical materialism “supplies a unique experience with the past” (262). Benjamin believes that historical materialists are in control of the power and are able to “blast open the continuum of history” (262). To effectively articulate the past historically one must “seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger” (255). Historical materialists want to preserve that image of the past. Benjamin describes what a historical materialist does saying that a historical materialist only looks at a historical subject where he encounters it as an indestructible entity that is the basic constituent of the universe. In this way he recognizes “a revolutionary chance in the fight for the oppressed past. He takes cognizance of it in order to blast a specific era out of the homogeneous of history—blasting a specific life out of the era or a specific work out of the lifework” (263). Then, after all of this the “lifework” is preserved and at the same time canceled.

So I already mentioned how Benjamin talked about historians empathizing with the victors in history. This is one way how historicism is dangerous because “empathy with the victor invariably benefits the rulers” (256). Benjamin continues saying, “Whoever has emerged victorious participates to this day in the triumphal procession in which the present rulers step over those who are lying prostrate” (256). This quote brought me back to my external writing #3 where I talked about Fort Snelling regarding why it has not been able to be given back to the Dakota people. In this example the cultural treasure would be Fort Snelling. As Benjamin said the cultural treasure cannot be looked at without recognizing the horrific and barbaric origins of the site.

Benjamins View on things

The quote that stuck out to me the most was on page 256 of Illuminations (41 of the course packet) it stated “Whoever has emerged victorious participates to this day in the triumphal procession in which the present rulers step over those who are lying prostrate”. The first thing I thought of Economy and Society by Weber when he talks about who qualifies as a charismatic leader or who qualifies as someone who holds the world spirit within them. In Benjamin’s reading I feel as though he depicts the same ideas that Weber does. He talks about the idea that only the people who walk over people (stomping them down on their way) are the ones who rise above the rest. They are the ones that become the charismatic leaders; they are the ones who we learn about in history. As Benjamin said “the story is told of an automaton constructed in such a way that it could play a winning game of chess, answering each move of an opponent with a countermove”, to me this quote is saying that we pick and choose what we put in the textbooks. Since we pick what we want to be included in the textbooks we usually only learn about the people who rise above the rest, the ones with charismatic authority, and the ones who hold the world spirit.

This is really similar to the news stories that we hear about, we only hear what the reporters want us to hear and not the actual story. Why? Well for the exact reasons that Benjamin, Weber and Loewen say…we only hear about the charismatic authorities and the people who rise above the rest.

Historicism vs. Historical Materialism...and art!!

Perhaps what stuck out most for me was what Benjamin called “historical materialism”, in contrast to “historicism.” These are two concepts I am still unsure if I understand entirely. Early on, Benjamin describes historical materialism as something that “wishes to retain that image of the past which unexpectedly appears to man singled out by history at a moment of danger” (255). I really did not understand what this means. Would it have anything to do with the idea of using history as a sort of tool to refer back to in moments of conflict? There was one other part in the text that attempted to differentiate between historicism and historical materialism, and that is found on 262: “ Historicism gives the “eternal” image of the past; historical materialism supplies a unique experience with the past.” I take this as meaning that “historicism” is a more traditional and static view of history, “wie es eigentlich gewesen”, while “historical materialism” seems to make history more applicable for certain situations, and some how more present and alive.

In relation to what else we have read this year, the Ranke stood out, how Benjamin is clearly states that “To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it “the way it really was” (Ranke) (255). Clearly, Benjamin shares a very different and perhaps a more open view of history. He also makes a Schmitt reference in talking about the state of emergency, but where Schmitt describes it as “the exception”, Benjamin ('the tradition of the oppressed'?) describes it as “the rule” (257). Personally, I think that this is a dramatic and pessimistic view of history and “Jetztzeit”, but maybe there is truth to it.

There was one part of the text that really rang some bells for me, that being where Benjamin talks about what he calls “cultural treasures”, and how they have “an origin which he cannot contemplate without horror. They owe their existence not only to the efforts of the great minds and talents who have created them, but also to the anonymous toil of their contemporaries” (256). Its the whole idea of “to the victor goes the spoils.” This reminded me a lot of a trip I took last summer to Rome. I visited one of the most beautiful art collections I have ever seen in the Villa Borghese. There were many beautiful sculptures by Bernini and paintings by other famous artists. But I found out, that back in the day, the villa was actually owned by a very rich nobleman who would go to great means to acquire these pieces. Since he was so high up, he even had people killed so he could get these particular pieces for his collection. I think this is a really go example of what Benjamin and other historical materialists mean when they view these so called “cultural treasures” with “cautious detachment” (256). The pieces may be seen as beautiful, but they were acquired by not so beautiful methods. In cases like these, it would seem that the ends would by no means justify the means.

Get Involved With History

I really enjoyed this reading. I thought it was a quick read. However Benjamin covered a lot of concepts it was a lot to take in.

Benjamin views that the understanding we have for history is not working for us. The iron cage of historicism blinds us to things and forces us to accept things as just the way they happened and the way it was. Throughout this text Benjamin is fighting historicism. He builds a counter practice called historical materialism. Historical materialism is the Marxist understanding of history through materials. This practice relies on the understanding of who did what and who are the people.

There were many connections to concepts from past readings in Benjamin. The one that stood out most to me was the state of exception. "The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the 'state of emergency' in which we live is not the exception but the rule" (257). Here it states that it is easy for the exception to become the rule. In oppression, the ruler starts out by acting that something needs to be done in a state of emergency, however then never goes back. Benjamin is saying that when this happens "we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency, and this will improve our position in the struggle against Fascism"(257). We need to fight one state of emergency against the other.

I also found it interesting on Benjamin does not look at everything that has happened in history as progressive. "The concept of the historical progress of mankind cannot be sundered from the concept of its progression through a homogenous, empty time" (261). The idea that we are always progressing and so is mankind excuses some actions in the past. Things just happened in history cause it had to in order to progress is a dangerous concept.

What Benjamin wants to done is for people to look at history as historical materialism. "Universal history has no theoretical armature. Its method is additive; it musters a mass of data to fill that homogenous, empty time. Materialistic historiography, on the other hand, is based on a constructive principle" (162). We must look at more than the facts of what happened and look at the people and who they were. We also as I previously stated must challenge the state of emergency and not let it become the norm. Through historical materialism it acknowledges who the people are and who did what. It is more than just looking at the facts.

Benjamin put a little bit of my family past in perspective. "This training made the working class forget both its hatred and its spirit of sacrifice, for both are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren" (260). Where you come from helps shape who you are. My life experiences have made me who I am. This passage reminded me a lot about the relationship with my father. It is important that as I am growing in my future that I do not forget my past, yet I also do not hold onto it too strongly. My father was unable to support his family and has suffered anger issues. He was not able to give me a home as he was forced to move in with his mom in Arizona when I was a teenager. I have learned a lot about how not to be from him. Growing up with him as my father made me a stronger person. Seeing him fail has pushed in the mind set that I must succeed and failing is not an option. My past has given me a lot of knowledge and strength. If I broke off from the past I would not be as driven as I am. However, it is unhealthy to dwell on the past, so you must find a balance of the things you learn from and the things you let go to move on.

Jam to the Spring.

One the the passages that really stuck out to me was, part VI. "To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it 'the way it really was' (Ranke). It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger. Historical materialism wishes to retain that image of the past which unexpectedly appears to man singled out by history at a moment of danger (Pg. 225). Not sure I completely understand what he was getting at with this idea but I find it interesting that he doesn't agree with Ranke's view of history, and one of our major themes in our class, "wie es eigentlich gewesen." From my understanding, it doesn't matter how the past happened, it matters how it appears to reflect to a person in a moment of danger. Maybe this is where the "life flashing before your eyes" when you have a near death experience thing originated. I really wish he had had a chance to expand on all the parts of this reading because I know it would have made a lot more sense and I wouldn't currently be so flustered from trying to make sense of it.

History as Experience

Like Hallie, I really enjoyed this piece, but like Ahmed, I had a very difficult time understanding it. After looking up background on Benjamin and reading the article several times, I feel like it’s starting to come together in my mind, but I just don’t feel completely confident that I completely understand the claims he is making. Probably because the ideas are very fragmented and presented more as sketches – which is completely understandable. If I were on the run from the Nazis, I doubt I’d have time for much of any writing, let alone deep philosophical works. The fact that he was able to write this amidst all the turmoil of the Third Reich utterly astounds me.

There were many parts that stuck out to me, but I’ll just focus on a couple towards the last few pages. This part in section XVI (page 262) really struck me: “Historicism gives the ‘eternal’ image of the past; historical materialism supplies a unique experience to the past.” It reminded me a lot of Fasolt, from page 39: “The way to extricate oneself from history’s spell many therefore not lie in books at all. Perhaps the only way is through experienced.” I feel like one of the issues both Fasolt and Benjamin have with the iron cage/historicism is that it presents history in a very flat, supposedly unbiased form. Benjamin argues that historicism empathizes with the victors (page 256) and is not unbiased at all. Though we accept it as fact, it is really a political position we are taking. Historical materialism, however, has a different approach – through experience. “To be subject to that authority is to be violated, to feel the urge to disagree, make points of which the examiner could not have been aware, and generally to rebel against he claim that any examiner can ever speak for the examinee” (Fasolt 39) touches on what I think Benjamin means by experience. History can’t be learned merely from reading a textbook and learning “facts.” One must “blast open the continuum of history” (page 262) or as Benjamin says later: “A historian who takes this as his point of departure {not making something historical “posthumously” by looking back at something that happened a thousand years ago} stops telling the sequence of events like the beads of a rosary. Instead, he grasps the constellation which his own era has formed with a definite earlier one.” Instead of looking at a string of events in order (like Hegel’s march towards the end of history) Benjamin seems to encourage the view of “constellations,” little pockets of time that take into account that we are viewing things from the present.

This class has acted like a “constellation” or an experience with history. We’ve focused on a cluster of events (World War II, the Reformation, the present via the Tea Party) and made connections between them all. History has begun to take on a whole new (if more complicated) meaning, one that I’m slowly being to understand and really appreciate. Is this going to make it a lot harder to talk to my high school friends about our past experiences in AP US history and history in general? Hell yes. But I look forward to those difficult conversations now, rather than dreading them like I did before.

One last section I was really glad Benjamin included was the short section XVIII (page 263), where he discussed the concept of time with the scale of a 24 hour day accounting for the whole existence of the earth. “‘On this scale, the history of civilized mankind would fill one-fifth of the last second of the last hour.’” We discussed this a bit in the astronomy class I took last semester, and it’s something that still utterly blows my mind. Though it seems like humans have lived for a great amount of time, we don’t even account for a second compared to how much time has passed since the beginning of life on Earth. The question I have is whether this understanding of time is for better or for worse. Does it allow us to humbly accept how unimportant certain things are in the long run? Or does that allow for us to too easily forget errors we have made? Does it show how great we despite our limited time? Or does it show that we have become too prideful in ourselves? I wish Benjamin had included more in this section but alas, you can’t have everything. I have more questions than answers at the end of this, but I like that. If I had all the answers, what fun would that be?

Benjamin and the Proletariat

In reading the Benjamin text, the aspect that stood out to me the most was (no surprises here) how he wrote about the working class. I really enjoyed this reading, and I didn’t find it as difficult as Ben had made it out to be. I also really liked Benjamin’s depiction of the working class and his discussions about labor. I thought that it was, unlike many other texts I have read, empowering to the proletariat, but not in a condescending way. The way he writes make me believe that he is actually part of the working class (even if he isn’t), instead of attempting to be an outside savior. In this blog post, “we” refers to the working class, and the “Hitler”, the dangerous force, is the ruling class. The thesis that stood out most to me was number seven: “Not man or men but the struggling, oppressed class itself is the depository of historical knowledge.” (260). The point that Benjamin makes in this thesis is that, through a historicist perspective, the role of the proletariat in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie has not changed necessarily, but the reasons, the cause for revolution, has shifted. Previously, in a Marxist perspective, “[the proletariat] appears as the last enslaved class, as the avenger that completes the downtrodden task of liberation in the name of generations of the downtrodden.” (260). But from the view of the Social Democrats in Germany, a view that is historicist, the working class must complete its mission in order to redeem the future for future generations. Benjamin points out that this effectively takes away the greatest strength that the proletariat holds: “its hatred and its spirit of sacrifice… nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors.” (260). Instead, historicism has retrained the working class to act for its “liberated grandchildren”. By looking to the future, instead of the past, the proletariat has lost its roots. How are we to rally the masses behind a call for a brighter future, when we don’t know what that will necessarily be? But if we look to the past, and keep our roots in the past, the images of the downtrodden masses could reignite the “hatred and spirit of sacrifice”. We must look to the past to remember all who lost their lives at the hands of capitalism, not to a future that seems bleak. We can change the future, but without a memory of past exploitation on the part of the ruling class, we will have no perspective and no fuel for which to complete the mission of the working class. We are in danger of continuing to be in a place where “the ruling class gives the commands” (261), which according to Benjamin is moving forward in the name of “progress”. “Nothing has corrupted the German working class so much as the notion that it was moving with the current.” (258).

I see this issue play out today in the labor movement. The big unions, and indeed many working people, have forgotten their past. We take certain things for granted today, such as workplace safety regulations, but we also assume that these laws are the result of a benevolent government looking out for the safety of all people in the country. But this is just not true. It took the force of a united working class to bring about these changes. Wisconsin, a once-exciting and revolutionary place just two months ago, is now stagnant, and unions and working people are relying on the system to solve their issues. They forget that nothing of merit has ever been solved purely through the bureaucratic system. It takes the strength of masses to make mass change. Perhaps if we were more grounded in our past struggles, things would be different. How many working people in Minneapolis are aware of the 1934 Teamster strike that effectively shut down the entire city? The knowledge and memory of events like these would make more people believe in the power of direct action, instead of dismissing it in favor of going through the legal system of the ruling class. I don't know how this will change, however, since it is in the best interest of the bourgeoisie to keep the status quo.

Does Benjamin try to be puzzling on purpose? :(

""It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness (Marx)." That being said... Benjamin was one (if not) of the hardest readings we have read in this class in my opinion. He keeps moving from topic to topic...very confusing. I haven't been so frustrated in my life until I read Benjamin's text. The quote above was one of Carl Marx's quotes which was said to be the sentence to describe historical materialism which comes up frequently in Benjamin's text. In the beginning of the text, Benjamin brings up a problem with Historians and how some history is lost. This takes us back to Fasolt's text where he states that historians rather take the easy way out and only account for recorded history and history that actually has evidence (at least to my understanding of the text).

On p. 257, Benjamin brings up a point on one of Ben's questions on what could be done; in this case, he states what the problem is against Fascism. "Then we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency, and this will improve our position in the struggle against Fascism." This quote stands out because according to recorded history (one in which students were taught by TEXTBOOKS) is that many countries did take a stance against Fascism in WWII. Benjamin then goes on explaining a reason why Fascism was successful at one point and states that it is because its opponents treat it as a historical norm.

What I understood from this passage is that the people are the problem thinking that it is normal. Benjamin also discusses an important point in which the Germans did not progress and the reason he gives is that "they moved with the current" meaning they went with the flow... didn't question Hitler and did not complain. This is actually very interesting because I learned in the past that prior to WWI, the Germans were deep in debt, unemployment was at an all-time high, inflation, etc. So Hitler was their only resort to freedom; though this sounds ironic. A similar story we see in the news today is Libya... even though Al-Qadafi is known among Libyans as a corrupt leader, some still want him in power.... my conclusion from that and this may sound weird, but I have hear many discussing this point. Libyans would rather have their own native leader lead the country then an outside western world leading it.

Libyans do not want to see another Iraq. Every Arab country on earth knows that the US is running Iraq and not the Iraqi gov't.... the Iraqi gov't is just for show...puppets. So the Libyans do not want western people running their country. This isn't just my opinion, I hear many talk about this issue. Americans think that most of Libyans oppose Gadhafi which is false. Western media only shows one side of the story; they only show the opposition in intention to show the world the most of the Libyans want Gadhafi out... which isn't true. That was my experience... now back to the article. I however failed to see Benjamin position himself with the text... maybe because of the phrasing he uses. Benjamin also brings up a good point in the text where he states that if we really want to make sense of a time period in history (the Holocaust for example) then we must forget about all the history that follows it.

Posting assignment #10 (due Sunday 5/1, 11:59 P.M.): Can we break out of the iron cage?

In a lot of the reading we've done this semester -- including Fasolt, Weber, Schmitt, Arendt, Adorno, and Ranke -- we've been working toward an understanding of the "iron cage" in which we find ourselves, as we experience, read, write, and make in the United States in 2011.  This iron cage, as we have seen, is made up of a whole lot of interrelated and interlocking parts, such as the lonely isolated self-conscious ego, the state of exception, the manipulation of past and present in the media, and the capitalistic ethos of obsessive self-betterment (or as Charlie Sheen would say:  "Winning!"). 

In "Theses on the Philosophy of History" (better translated as "On the Concept/Idea of History"), Walter Benjamin considers how we might break out of this cage. 

He does not have The Answer.  You'll note how short, and how fragmented, this text is.  What he presents are thoughts, ideas, sketches, and beginnings of strategic possibilities.  And -- as you'll find out when you do some context research on him -- he wasn't writing these things while idling about in his study:  he had just watched his whole life-work, toward creating a world in which workers could have better lives and a better government, get consumed by the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party -- a negative dialectic indeed.  He wrote this text while on the run from the Nazis.  He would not make it out alive.

In this final blog post -- which I intentionally leave a little more open than previous posts -- I want you to

(1) reflect on some the things you find most striking and important in this text, including answers to some (not necessarily all) of the following questions:

-- Why has "historicism" (Benjamin's term for the iron cage) been so harmful?  What damage has it done?  How, and to whom?
-- What is "historical materialism," and how and why does Benjamin think it can defeat "historicism"?
-- How does Benjamin position himself in relation to people such as Weber, Schmitt, and Ranke (who are all directly quoted in the text), and why?
-- What is to be done?  How, in the most concrete and immediate sense, can "we" make history differently, and use that new history to fight Hitler?  And all the other Hitlers in our midst?  (And who is "we"?)

and,

(2) connect your reflections on Benjamin's text to one or two things in your life/experience -- personal stories, news stories, work stories, etc.  How might Benjamin's understanding of history help you both understand these things better and, perhaps more importantly, do something about the problems you have faced there?  You may want to think about your final projects here:  how can Benjamin help us strategize effective ways to make history, charismatically?  You may also want to think about experiences from this class, and things people have said, and stuff you're taking away with you; remember that this is (*tear*) your last required blog post.

As always, be as specific as you can -- cite relevant moments from Benjamin, and from whatever other texts or experiences you're connecting to -- and as thorough as you can, thinking ideas through as opposed to just mentioning them and moving on.  Benjamin's theses, especially, encourage us to make the unexpected, unconventional, untraditional moves and connections -- so do it!  Everything (and everyone!) in this class, and in the wider world, is fair game.  As I once heard the German military historian Michael Geyer say, in his gravelly old staid German voice:  "When you study history, you've got to be ready to go wild."

CSCL Reading History Protocol

Today’s CSCL Reading History class started at 11:15 am. The date is Tuesday, April the twenty-eight of two thousand and eleven. The instructor, Ben Fink, writes the program on the white board of the room. The desks in the classroom are assembled in a circle as it always is. Ben takes attendance rather quietly and gives the difficultators the ok to difficultate. Difficultators go up to the front of classroom. Ben looks rather sick or maybe is acting?

Program:
1. Difficultation, Teil Zwei: a man walks into a bar…
2. Fasolt’s negative dialectic: big (Hitler) and little (loneliness)
3. WTF indeed: putting it together
4. Housekeeping: blog posts, final projects, external writings

Class separates to the two groups they were on Tuesday, which were Junker and Hegel.
We will be discussing the dangers of history today, state the difficultators. Go through notes last time and see what we can refute to each other. Ben goes out of room and Mandy goes to the board and writes, “OUCH!” at the end of the first thing on the program. Ben comes back acting rather drunk, holding a brown lunch bag while also carrying big white sheets of paper, which seems to be the class’s works last week. He has on a multi-colored flannel shirt and cap. It is obvious that he’s not in his usual attire.

The difficulation continues. The other group, Junker, speaks with Sophie. Hallie speaks; you’re stuck in one place. History is supposed to progress. You can’t be sovereign under U.S. history. You’re bound by tradition so you can’t change.

Ben speaks up asking what you mean by enlightenment. The class is quiet. Ben talks about the enlightenment.

Ben is playing Nick Lennon? Lindsey plays Adolf Elizabeth Hitler? Lindsey speaks out to Junker and Hegel. She claimed Junker and Hegel as parents. The discussion goes back and forth between the Junker and Hegel group. It was revealed that the difficultators didn’t explain they were in a bar, which made is confusing for the class to interpret the scene that was portrayed.
Ben says let’s condense. Students start moving the desks closer together. We discuss about the difficulation. Ben asks for thumbs up or down on the understanding. I was the only one with a thumbs up and I had to explain to the class why the Junker will side with Hegel more than the emperor. I said that Hegel gave the Junker more freedom than the emperor. I was partially right. Mandy says that everyone is probably really tired from staying up to finish their paper that’s why they are so quiet today. Ben goes on explaining the freedom of space and time like what was discussed on Tuesday. We’re going to break with traditions. If you read the bible in a post historical revolt way, yes it’s good, but it was written back then and doesn’t make sense now. There’s no distinction. We see a lot in the constitution. They say that this constitution is alive and we should be thinking about the law. This is illegitimate. Yes, it’s important but you have to interpret it b/c it was written in a different time. It’s not controlling every aspect of your life. Take the declaration of independence for example. They use the word men a lot, but men back then meant something different to men now. Men don’t mean that for example, Ben and Ahmed are created equal and every lady in the room was not. Men back then meant human kind.

Ben writes on board:

Negative dialectic (Adorno)
thesisantithesissynthesis this is the positive dialectic, which leads to higher freedom.

Adorno though, came up with a negative dialectic.
The thesis and antithesis arrow are facing each other downwards; t=medieval, pre-historical revolt time and A = Hegel/Ranke/historical revolt

This leads to Hitler in the middle where the arrows meet. The t always remain inside of a. Ben says in what way did t + a lead to Hitler? The reference is in Fasolt. The guiding pages are: 28, 31, 42, and 25.

Five minutes pass by. Class comes back at noon to discuss. As long as people had enemies, there was a clear knowledge and purpose for a battle. Once it was destroyed, there was nothing else to fight. At that moment on page 26, history became objective in a novel sense. History doesn’t need to stand for something. It got bureaucratize. We read from course packet page 62; what do you make of this and what does this have to do with that (on the board), which is the negative dialectic?

If you are going to be an individual you have to be separated from the world. Then comes caring and not caring. Ben asks the question, does it speak to you? Do you identify with it? Avoidance of boredom drives our lives; you create things to do to not be bored. This relates to Fukuyama; history is going to be boring and that will be the end of history; maybe we’ll create history again.

Fasolt talks about life after the end of history or historical revolt; the idea that I can listen to something bad and go about my life without giving it much thought; this is the base of this class. It has everything to do with the loneliness. On page five, the distinction between past and present does more than merely set aside a piece of reality for historical inspection. With this, class concludes with a few notes: Ben needs emails before midnight about final projects. Also, put external writing number three into the folder that is laying on the desk for Ben.

Class ends at 12:31 pm.