I’ve been teaching Le Guin’s “The Ones That Walk Away From Omelas” for many years, and now I’m thinking about adding Jemisin’s “The Ones Who Stay and Fight” as a companion piece. Thank you, A.P.!
Recently started reading The 5th Season by NK. Such richness, so well executed... definitively an author that does not shy away from weaving difficult cultural and social issues into her fiction, and I respect her a lot for that. ( I think I now have an idea of why she nailed 3 consecutive Hugos... stuff seems to be genuinely outstanding)
The Fifth Season is absolutely fantastic. I think that it is brilliant. I am not as big a fan of the next two, but it is a great trilogy and well worth reading.
The Ones That Walk Away From Omelas is such an emotional punch to the stomach, and I'm still not sure exactly what in Le Guin's writing makes it so effective, but it's great. It seems I should probably find the Jemisin story too! This was a very interesting topic, thank you. :)
Great way of talking us through your analysis. It also reminds me why both LeGuin and Jemisin are favourites of mine and why I have this deep urge to reread LeGuin. Thank you, A.P.!
The ideas explored by both authors are so intriguing I have had to listen to your analysis several times. They cut to the core of societal ethics. Thank you for exercising my brain 🙏.
I am glad that you enjoyed it Francois. Both stories are excellent, and are wonderful counterpoints to one another that raise some distinct issues and approaches. They are both brilliant authors.
This was great, I went and read Jemisin´s story before watching your video, and it was wonderful, even though I haven´t read Le Guin´s story yet. Thank you AP.
I have an essay due tomorrow and i have to write it about either ‘the ones who stay and fight’ or ‘the ones who walk away from omelas’ I know both stories pretty well but this helped me a lot on what I could write about
Jemisin's work reads to me as an exploration of the Paradox of Tolerance. It's framing is better understood not as majority vs minority, but as compassion vs bigotry. But I suppose that is the important context you refer to.
Exactly. This video was less about the example texts and more about the different approaches to analysis, and what they entail. They are both great stories and are brilliantly thought provoking.
What a great discussion, thanks AP. I always liked the notion of trying to flip the narrtive (or the characters gender) and see if I still agree with the arguments made.
I venture a guess that this was brought about by a recent television offering which asks a similar question but in a manner less abstract where the child literally holds the world together. The conceit there is that the child is allowed the choice of self-sacrifice but has been bred for the role his or her whole life, rendering the "choice" moot. Having not read LeGuin's essay, I don't know how the choice was made of who to put in the cage and if they are allowed to survive to adulthood or replaced before then but then, that's not the point she was making. Dostoyevsky posed this same question, one of the responses being that we do this when we have children because they may end up being in the cage, so we shouldn't have them.
@@ACriticalDragon Lol, it wasn't an accusation, had we been more familiar with the LeGuin work, we probably would all have noticed it. They did try to make it more humane by making it seem like the boy was fully aware of his sacrifice, but he ended up being mini Jesus anyway.
I get the feeling you like to fight for critical thinking. I prefer the age old technique of digging my heels in and refusing to accept that there are other viewpoints. Seriously though I've heard of these stories and I really should get around to reading them. Thanks. Got any of those Star Trek SNW videos coming? Edit: Happy Bloomsday
I like to yell at kids to get off my lawn as much as the next grumpy old man, but occasionally I enjoy slightly more nuanced discussion. I have a video next week with Robert J. Sawyer discussing SNW. I am waiting on Erikson returning from his book tour to chat to him about it.
I do recall discussing Omelas at some point but was long before Jemisin. It reminded me a lot of The Lottery as well as the Milgram experiment. Another Star Trek example would ve the planet that eliminated all crime by making everything punishible by death. But regarding Jemisins story, it does touch on another item. Many people struggle for an ideal trying to make the world a better place. But few ever think about what happens if they actually win. History is full of examples of this that did not end well. But I do agree with your final points that an author's words do not equate to an author's thoughts. The map is not the territory.
Also, since you brought the pointy-eared Vulcan into the conversation, there might be some fundamental difference between Needs and Desires. Also, an argument might be made that Omelas is in fact not a utopia, since not all of it's citizens are having their needs met.
It isn't an argument, Omeals and Um-Helat are not utopias except in the fact that they are no place. The argument could be that they are Eutopias, Good Places. But both stories are not trying to create the perfect place, they are asking questions about the cost, the balance between good and bad, who bears that cost, and the actions one could take when one disagrees with the cost.
Ah, a utopia is perfect and unachievable, whereas a eutopia, a good place, is something that is actually possible in contrast with a cacotopia which is a bad place.
@@marsrock316 Somebody's good place is somebody else's bad place, unless it's no place like Omeals, which is a shame because feck it, I love me some Irish food. 🤣🤣🤣 Sorry AP, I thought four hours of resistance might have done it. Nope.
I haven't read either story before - and I want to before diving too deep into this. But it seems to me that what you're saying is that there is a difference between a story, and the basic bones - the idea - the story is built upon. Unlike with an academic treatise or a philosophical essay, a story doesn't need to be founded on a premise the author supports, working towards a conclusion to support that premise. A story is founded on a thought experiment, but given meaning by the context. The meat and skin, instead of the bones. Somewhat related, I recently saw a video discussing the Agatha Christie novel 'And Then There Were None'. In the original many racial slurs can be found, which since have been mostly removed. While understandable this does change the meaning of the text, as those racial slurs - common for the time it was written - were used to offset the cast of privileged white people against the 'other'.
Stories still have structures... hence narrative structures such as Freytag's Pyramid/Triangle. We can use those self-same techniques used to identify structures to strip away certain contextual elements and that reveals different aspects contained within the narrative but not necessarily endorsed by the narrative. Something endorsed by the narrative is not the same as saying it is endorsed by the author, inclusion is not endorsement. Stories can be founded on many different premises, not just thought experiments, and many stories are founded on principles that the author wants to explore. So these techniques are useful in multiple ways, including revealing implicit or even explicit bias, underlying political or ideological aspects supported by the narrative but that run counter to the surface narrative, and so on.
First, thank you. I thoroughly enjoy your videos, especially the ones where you analyze sections sentence by sentence. If my writing seems uncharitable, please read it as a simple ploy to strengthen an argument, not as hostility. I don't think you are making a fair assessment of Jemisin. She wrote what she wrote, that is, a pseudo-post-social-justice-communist-semiutopian society, with an Inquisition that kills anyone who exposes themselves to ideas not supported by the state. _That_ _is_ _a_ _city’s_ _purpose,_ _they_ _believe-not_ _merely_ _to_ _generate_ _revenue_ _or_ _energy_ _or_ _products,_ _but_ _to_ _shelter_ _and_ _nurture_ _the_ _people_ _who_ _do_ _these_ _things._ _This_ _is_ _the_ _paradox_ _of_ _tolerance,_ _the_ _treason_ _of_ _free_ _speech:_ _We_ _hesitate_ _to_ _admit_ _that_ _some_ _people_ _are_ _just_ _fucking_ _evil_ _and_ _need_ _to_ _be_ _stopped._ _Um-Helatians_ _are_ _learned_ _enough_ _to_ _understand_ _what_ _must_ _be_ _done_ _to_ _make_ _the_ _world_ _better,_ _and_ _pragmatic_ _enough_ _to_ _actually_ _enact_ _it._ _The_ _forbidden_ _is_ _so_ _seductive,_ _is_ _it_ _not?_ _Even_ _here,_ _where_ _only_ _things_ _that_ _cause_ _harm_ _to_ _others_ _are_ _called_ _evil._ _The_ _information-gleaners_ _know_ _that_ _what_ _they_ _do_ _is_ _wrong._ _They_ _know_ _this_ _is_ _what_ _destroyed_ _the_ _old_ _cities._ _They_ _begin_ _to_ _perceive_ _that_ _ours_ _is_ _a_ _world_ _where_ _the_ _notion_ _that_ _some_ _people_ _are_ _less_ _important_ _than_ _others_ _has_ _been_ _allowed_ _to_ _take_ _root,_ _and_ _grow_ _until_ _it_ _buckles_ _and_ _cracks_ _the_ _foundations_ _of_ _our_ _humanity._ _Ah,_ _but_ _they_ _did_ _not_ _choose_ _this_ _battle,_ _the_ _people_ _of_ _Um-Helat_ _today;_ _their_ _ancestors_ _did,_ _when_ _they_ _spun_ _lies_ _and_ _ignored_ _conscience_ _in_ _order_ _to_ _profit_ _from_ _others’_ _pain._ _Their_ _greed_ _became_ _a_ _philosophy,_ _a_ _religion,_ _a_ _series_ _of_ _nations,_ _all_ _built_ _on_ _blood._ _Um-Helat_ _has_ _chosen_ _to_ _be_ _better._ _But_ _sometimes,_ _only_ _by_ _blood_ _sacrifice_ _may_ _true_ _evil_ _be_ _kept_ _at_ _bay._ _“Why_ _would_ _they_ _do_ _such_ _things?_ _How_ _can_ _they_ _just_ _leave_ _those_ _people_ _to_ _starve?_ _Why_ _do_ _they_ _not_ _listen_ _when_ _that_ _one_ _complains_ _of_ _disrespect?_ _What_ _does_ _it_ _mean_ _that_ _these_ _ones_ _have_ _been_ _assaulted_ _and_ _no_ _one,_ _no_ _one,_ _cares?_ _Who_ _treats_ _other_ _people_ _like_ _that?”_ _And_ _yet,_ _even_ _amid_ _their_ _marvel,_ _they_ _share_ _the_ _idea._ _The_ _evil_ _..._ _spreads._ The killing is justified because the ideals this society holds are seen as the pinnacle of moral values. The imperative they hold: The few cannot be allowed to jeopardize the many, and the cost of this is killing them. This is the definition of a fascist state. No matter the ideals they profess to uphold. Sure, you could name it “Social Fascism” or even “Perfect Statehood” if you like, but it’s fascist nonetheless. The description of Um-Helat makes clear, as you say, that this society represents one where the current struggles of our society (race, gender, body acceptance, etc.) are resolved. And the solution to bring this society, is the fascist state that you repeatedly say she doesn’t advocate for. By saying that "this is not what she intended" (which may perfectly be so, I do not know what she intended. It would be wonderful if you could have her on and ask her directly :D) I think discredits, as it were, her ability as a writer. If the message/structure that you so clearly showed was not what she intended, then she has done a poorer job than if that was exactly what she intended. Sure, she may not personally think that a fascist state is the solution, but the text does. Also, I think there is a structural difference that you did not point out so clearly: _So_ _don’t_ _walk_ _away._ _The_ _child_ _needs_ _you,_ _too,_ _don’t_ _you_ _see?_ _You_ _also_ _have_ _to_ _fight_ _for_ _her,_ _now_ _that_ _you_ _know_ _she_ _exists,_ _or_ _walking_ _away_ _is_ _meaningless._ _Here,_ _here_ _is_ _my_ _hand._ _Take_ _it._ _Please._ In Omelas there is the thriving society, the suffering minority, and the individual. The individual has a choice: To accept the suffering of the few and thrive, or leave. (Whatever this may entail; life in the wilderness, suicide, a more unjust society, etc.) In Um-Helat there is the thriving society, and the persecuted minority. The individual has a choice: To accept the persecution of the minority (and perhaps become a persecutor) and thrive, or become part of the persecuted. There is no “third option”. You are either in, or you are out. _Here,_ _here_ _is_ _my_ _hand._ _Take_ _it._ _Please._ _Good._ _Good._ _Now._ _Let’s_ _get_ _to_ _work._ What other way could this plea be answered? To not take the hand is a sentence to death. Thank you again, I would be very happy to hear your response.
Jemisin did not intend to endorse a facisitic regime, there is no reading of the content or context of the story that supports that, which was precisely the point of the video in which I reiterated several times that if you remove the content and the context you can find a structure which is antithetical to the narrative. So the point of the video was to both show how you go about this style of analysis but also warn about how this style of analysis can be abused. The context of the story, in response to LeGuin's, and in the context of American civil rights politics emphasises the need to fight for what is right, protect it when it is achieved, and continually maintain it. The values of the society are antithetical to state power as the rights are found in the individuals not in the maintenance of the state. So reading the story as facisitic is a misreading of the text...
The history of democracy is that it leads to fascism. Thus far the USA has been the exception. The justification of a society does not necessarily make its actions just. If seen from a utilitarian perspective you have a denouncing utopia vs a shattered utopia. The ones who walks away from omelas has a narration of someone walking into the society and meeting those walking out. Have not read the other story but from what I gather there is that you can eradicate the notion of a better/smarter/moral/etc minority by corporal punishment. That in my opinion would lead to a stagnant world where no progress would be possible.
I’ve been teaching Le Guin’s “The Ones That Walk Away From Omelas” for many years, and now I’m thinking about adding Jemisin’s “The Ones Who Stay and Fight” as a companion piece. Thank you, A.P.!
It is an excellent story and places Le Guin's story in a new context. I can't recommend it enough.
Recently started reading The 5th Season by NK.
Such richness, so well executed... definitively an author that does not shy away from weaving difficult cultural and social issues into her fiction, and I respect her a lot for that.
( I think I now have an idea of why she nailed 3 consecutive Hugos... stuff seems to be genuinely outstanding)
The Fifth Season is absolutely fantastic. I think that it is brilliant.
I am not as big a fan of the next two, but it is a great trilogy and well worth reading.
The Ones That Walk Away From Omelas is such an emotional punch to the stomach, and I'm still not sure exactly what in Le Guin's writing makes it so effective, but it's great. It seems I should probably find the Jemisin story too! This was a very interesting topic, thank you. :)
There is a link to Jemisin's story in the description. They are both brilliant authors. I am really happy that you enjoyed the video.
Great way of talking us through your analysis. It also reminds me why both LeGuin and Jemisin are favourites of mine and why I have this deep urge to reread LeGuin. Thank you, A.P.!
You are very welcome. I am glad that you enjoyed it and that I did not mess up too badly with this one.
The ideas explored by both authors are so intriguing I have had to listen to your analysis several times. They cut to the core of societal ethics. Thank you for exercising my brain 🙏.
I am glad that you enjoyed it Francois. Both stories are excellent, and are wonderful counterpoints to one another that raise some distinct issues and approaches. They are both brilliant authors.
This was great, I went and read Jemisin´s story before watching your video, and it was wonderful, even though I haven´t read Le Guin´s story yet. Thank you AP.
Oh, you should absolutely read Le Guin. There are plenty of reprints of it knocking around.
I am really glad that you enjoyed the discussion.
I have an essay due tomorrow and i have to write it about either ‘the ones who stay and fight’ or ‘the ones who walk away from omelas’ I know both stories pretty well but this helped me a lot on what I could write about
I hope that the essay writing went well.
@@ACriticalDragon it did thank you
Jemisin's work reads to me as an exploration of the Paradox of Tolerance. It's framing is better understood not as majority vs minority, but as compassion vs bigotry.
But I suppose that is the important context you refer to.
Exactly. This video was less about the example texts and more about the different approaches to analysis, and what they entail.
They are both great stories and are brilliantly thought provoking.
What a great discussion, thanks AP. I always liked the notion of trying to flip the narrtive (or the characters gender) and see if I still agree with the arguments made.
Thanks for watching and the great comment. I am glad that you enjoyed the discussion.
I venture a guess that this was brought about by a recent television offering which asks a similar question but in a manner less abstract where the child literally holds the world together.
The conceit there is that the child is allowed the choice of self-sacrifice but has been bred for the role his or her whole life, rendering the "choice" moot.
Having not read LeGuin's essay, I don't know how the choice was made of who to put in the cage and if they are allowed to survive to adulthood or replaced before then but then, that's not the point she was making.
Dostoyevsky posed this same question, one of the responses being that we do this when we have children because they may end up being in the cage, so we shouldn't have them.
You would be right about what made these examples pop into my head, and there are lots of variants on the story. But, guilty as charged.
@@ACriticalDragon Lol, it wasn't an accusation, had we been more familiar with the LeGuin work, we probably would all have noticed it. They did try to make it more humane by making it seem like the boy was fully aware of his sacrifice, but he ended up being mini Jesus anyway.
I get the feeling you like to fight for critical thinking. I prefer the age old technique of digging my heels in and refusing to accept that there are other viewpoints.
Seriously though I've heard of these stories and I really should get around to reading them. Thanks. Got any of those Star Trek SNW videos coming?
Edit: Happy Bloomsday
I like to yell at kids to get off my lawn as much as the next grumpy old man, but occasionally I enjoy slightly more nuanced discussion.
I have a video next week with Robert J. Sawyer discussing SNW.
I am waiting on Erikson returning from his book tour to chat to him about it.
I do recall discussing Omelas at some point but was long before Jemisin.
It reminded me a lot of The Lottery as well as the Milgram experiment.
Another Star Trek example would ve the planet that eliminated all crime by making everything punishible by death.
But regarding Jemisins story, it does touch on another item. Many people struggle for an ideal trying to make the world a better place. But few ever think about what happens if they actually win. History is full of examples of this that did not end well.
But I do agree with your final points that an author's words do not equate to an author's thoughts. The map is not the territory.
I think that part of Jemisin's point in the story is that there is no final 'winning', it is an actively maintained state of being.
Also, since you brought the pointy-eared Vulcan into the conversation, there might be some fundamental difference between Needs and Desires.
Also, an argument might be made that Omelas is in fact not a utopia, since not all of it's citizens are having their needs met.
It isn't an argument, Omeals and Um-Helat are not utopias except in the fact that they are no place. The argument could be that they are Eutopias, Good Places. But both stories are not trying to create the perfect place, they are asking questions about the cost, the balance between good and bad, who bears that cost, and the actions one could take when one disagrees with the cost.
@@ACriticalDragon So a eutopia is a different thing from a utopia? Interesting...
Ah, a utopia is perfect and unachievable, whereas a eutopia, a good place, is something that is actually possible in contrast with a cacotopia which is a bad place.
Then there's the case where the Good Place is actually the Bad Place.
@@marsrock316 Somebody's good place is somebody else's bad place, unless it's no place like Omeals, which is a shame because feck it, I love me some Irish food. 🤣🤣🤣
Sorry AP, I thought four hours of resistance might have done it. Nope.
So, AP, have you watched Star Trek Strange New Worlds episode 6, and was that the inspiration behind discussing these stories?
I haven't read either story before - and I want to before diving too deep into this.
But it seems to me that what you're saying is that there is a difference between a story, and the basic bones - the idea - the story is built upon.
Unlike with an academic treatise or a philosophical essay, a story doesn't need to be founded on a premise the author supports, working towards a conclusion to support that premise.
A story is founded on a thought experiment, but given meaning by the context. The meat and skin, instead of the bones.
Somewhat related, I recently saw a video discussing the Agatha Christie novel 'And Then There Were None'. In the original many racial slurs can be found, which since have been mostly removed. While understandable this does change the meaning of the text, as those racial slurs - common for the time it was written - were used to offset the cast of privileged white people against the 'other'.
Stories still have structures... hence narrative structures such as Freytag's Pyramid/Triangle. We can use those self-same techniques used to identify structures to strip away certain contextual elements and that reveals different aspects contained within the narrative but not necessarily endorsed by the narrative. Something endorsed by the narrative is not the same as saying it is endorsed by the author, inclusion is not endorsement.
Stories can be founded on many different premises, not just thought experiments, and many stories are founded on principles that the author wants to explore. So these techniques are useful in multiple ways, including revealing implicit or even explicit bias, underlying political or ideological aspects supported by the narrative but that run counter to the surface narrative, and so on.
First, thank you. I thoroughly enjoy your videos, especially the ones where you analyze sections sentence by sentence. If my writing seems uncharitable, please read it as a simple ploy to strengthen an argument, not as hostility.
I don't think you are making a fair assessment of Jemisin. She wrote what she wrote, that is, a pseudo-post-social-justice-communist-semiutopian society, with an Inquisition that kills anyone who exposes themselves to ideas not supported by the state.
_That_ _is_ _a_ _city’s_ _purpose,_ _they_ _believe-not_ _merely_ _to_ _generate_ _revenue_ _or_ _energy_ _or_ _products,_ _but_ _to_ _shelter_ _and_ _nurture_ _the_ _people_ _who_ _do_ _these_ _things._
_This_ _is_ _the_ _paradox_ _of_ _tolerance,_ _the_ _treason_ _of_ _free_ _speech:_ _We_ _hesitate_ _to_ _admit_ _that_ _some_ _people_ _are_ _just_ _fucking_ _evil_ _and_ _need_ _to_ _be_ _stopped._
_Um-Helatians_ _are_ _learned_ _enough_ _to_ _understand_ _what_ _must_ _be_ _done_ _to_ _make_ _the_ _world_ _better,_ _and_ _pragmatic_ _enough_ _to_ _actually_ _enact_ _it._
_The_ _forbidden_ _is_ _so_ _seductive,_ _is_ _it_ _not?_ _Even_ _here,_ _where_ _only_ _things_ _that_ _cause_ _harm_ _to_ _others_ _are_ _called_ _evil._
_The_ _information-gleaners_ _know_ _that_ _what_ _they_ _do_ _is_ _wrong._ _They_ _know_ _this_ _is_ _what_ _destroyed_ _the_ _old_ _cities._
_They_ _begin_ _to_ _perceive_ _that_ _ours_ _is_ _a_ _world_ _where_ _the_ _notion_ _that_ _some_ _people_ _are_ _less_ _important_ _than_ _others_ _has_ _been_ _allowed_ _to_ _take_ _root,_ _and_ _grow_ _until_ _it_ _buckles_ _and_ _cracks_ _the_ _foundations_ _of_ _our_ _humanity._
_Ah,_ _but_ _they_ _did_ _not_ _choose_ _this_ _battle,_ _the_ _people_ _of_ _Um-Helat_ _today;_ _their_ _ancestors_ _did,_ _when_ _they_ _spun_ _lies_ _and_ _ignored_ _conscience_ _in_ _order_ _to_ _profit_ _from_ _others’_ _pain._ _Their_ _greed_ _became_ _a_ _philosophy,_ _a_ _religion,_ _a_ _series_ _of_ _nations,_ _all_ _built_ _on_ _blood._ _Um-Helat_ _has_ _chosen_ _to_ _be_ _better._ _But_ _sometimes,_ _only_ _by_ _blood_ _sacrifice_ _may_ _true_ _evil_ _be_ _kept_ _at_ _bay._
_“Why_ _would_ _they_ _do_ _such_ _things?_ _How_ _can_ _they_ _just_ _leave_ _those_ _people_ _to_ _starve?_ _Why_ _do_ _they_ _not_ _listen_ _when_ _that_ _one_ _complains_ _of_ _disrespect?_ _What_ _does_ _it_ _mean_ _that_ _these_ _ones_ _have_ _been_ _assaulted_ _and_ _no_ _one,_ _no_ _one,_ _cares?_ _Who_ _treats_ _other_ _people_ _like_ _that?”_ _And_ _yet,_ _even_ _amid_ _their_ _marvel,_ _they_ _share_ _the_ _idea._ _The_ _evil_ _..._ _spreads._
The killing is justified because the ideals this society holds are seen as the pinnacle of moral values. The imperative they hold: The few cannot be allowed to jeopardize the many, and the cost of this is killing them. This is the definition of a fascist state. No matter the ideals they profess to uphold. Sure, you could name it “Social Fascism” or even “Perfect Statehood” if you like, but it’s fascist nonetheless.
The description of Um-Helat makes clear, as you say, that this society represents one where the current struggles of our society (race, gender, body acceptance, etc.) are resolved. And the solution to bring this society, is the fascist state that you repeatedly say she doesn’t advocate for.
By saying that "this is not what she intended" (which may perfectly be so, I do not know what she intended. It would be wonderful if you could have her on and ask her directly :D) I think discredits, as it were, her ability as a writer. If the message/structure that you so clearly showed was not what she intended, then she has done a poorer job than if that was exactly what she intended. Sure, she may not personally think that a fascist state is the solution, but the text does.
Also, I think there is a structural difference that you did not point out so clearly:
_So_ _don’t_ _walk_ _away._ _The_ _child_ _needs_ _you,_ _too,_ _don’t_ _you_ _see?_ _You_ _also_ _have_ _to_ _fight_ _for_ _her,_ _now_ _that_ _you_ _know_ _she_ _exists,_ _or_ _walking_ _away_ _is_ _meaningless._ _Here,_ _here_ _is_ _my_ _hand._ _Take_ _it._ _Please._
In Omelas there is the thriving society, the suffering minority, and the individual. The individual has a choice: To accept the suffering of the few and thrive, or leave. (Whatever this may entail; life in the wilderness, suicide, a more unjust society, etc.)
In Um-Helat there is the thriving society, and the persecuted minority. The individual has a choice: To accept the persecution of the minority (and perhaps become a persecutor) and thrive, or become part of the persecuted. There is no “third option”. You are either in, or you are out.
_Here,_ _here_ _is_ _my_ _hand._ _Take_ _it._ _Please._
_Good._ _Good._
_Now._ _Let’s_ _get_ _to_ _work._
What other way could this plea be answered? To not take the hand is a sentence to death.
Thank you again, I would be very happy to hear your response.
Jemisin did not intend to endorse a facisitic regime, there is no reading of the content or context of the story that supports that, which was precisely the point of the video in which I reiterated several times that if you remove the content and the context you can find a structure which is antithetical to the narrative.
So the point of the video was to both show how you go about this style of analysis but also warn about how this style of analysis can be abused.
The context of the story, in response to LeGuin's, and in the context of American civil rights politics emphasises the need to fight for what is right, protect it when it is achieved, and continually maintain it.
The values of the society are antithetical to state power as the rights are found in the individuals not in the maintenance of the state.
So reading the story as facisitic is a misreading of the text...
The history of democracy is that it leads to fascism. Thus far the USA has been the exception. The justification of a society does not necessarily make its actions just. If seen from a utilitarian perspective you have a denouncing utopia vs a shattered utopia. The ones who walks away from omelas has a narration of someone walking into the society and meeting those walking out. Have not read the other story but from what I gather there is that you can eradicate the notion of a better/smarter/moral/etc minority by corporal punishment. That in my opinion would lead to a stagnant world where no progress would be possible.
Libération for us all. Well being for all CONGO SUDAN PALESTINE. Collective Care.
Genesis 18:23 Abraham and God discuss virtue and minority of vitue and then Sodom and Gomorra. Seems to be a contrasting tale but relevant here too.