Forbidden Texts – Page 2

Thoughts about H.M.

As soon as I stepped into the elevator of the museum, it was clear to see the amount of detail that went into the place and what they chose to display. There were red smears on the inside and later there was a train cart that you could walk inside of where Jewish people were transported.

Also seeing the connections America had with the Holocaust was frustrating. There were a lot of sentiments from the American people saying they felt bad and it was terrible what they were doing overseas but also wouldn’t like refugees to enter the country. There were also mentions of systemic issues like immigration and controlling what information is allowed to be circulated. Although not surprising, it was still discomforting to see those same issues be prominent today.

It’s interesting to see which genocides history decides to focus on. This museum also presented a main slogan repeated throughout the walk though, never again. It’s presenting genocides in general as something that only occurred in the past. I didn’t get to learn about other genocides because the portrayal made it seem like the Holocaust was the only relevant one.

I couldn’t help but see the irony of the sentences people involved were given. Many of the people who were sent to trial had an involvement with deciding who gets to be killed. Choosing who gets to live and die. When I learned some of the punishments given were death sentences, it also sounded like a group of people deciding who gets to live and who get to die. I understand the people have committed horrendous crimes and many would want a punishment that reflects those crimes. I don’t think the government should have the power to institutionally take someone’s life away.

I also was interested to see how the artifacts from the museum were obtained. In a seminar for one of my other classes, the topic was, “Should countries have to be forced to give back the artifacts they stole?” To answer a broader series of questions, one of the points brought up was, “How were they obtained and how ethical it was?” A country profiting from the removal of this artifact only benefits the country who has the artifact. At the end of the walk, there was a sign that was dedicated to the people who made the exhibit. They mentioned the artifacts were obtained from negotiations with the governments of Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, and the Chairman of International Affairs.

Movies Watched Together

Thoughts: Life of Brian

This is a movie I haven’t seen before viewing it as a class and it was interesting to see it for the first time. I knew this was an older movie based on the style but I later connected the dots that the things that would be considered controversial today wouldn’t have the same effect then.

This movie doesn’t make fun of religion itself but instead critiques the people who decide to blindly follow. Many decisions the followers make aren’t really based on what Brain says/ try to find a deeper meaning in his words. They follow along with what fits their interpretation.

This is emphasized by the divide when the followers have a disagreement and create their own methods. Although satirical, this could be interpreted as judgemental.

Similarly to how things are banned today, I read about how the policy makers banning the film hadn’t seen it before.

The crucifications at the end of the movie are supposed to be a moment of grief but the narrative gets flipped when it ends with all the characters singing a happy song about looking on the bright side. This can be interpreted as mocking Christ and belittling his story.

In another class I’m in, we discuss a lot about assimilation, identity, and cultural significance. I found it interesting how I could connect the lessons I learned there when watching this movie. Brain proclaims he is proud to be Jewish (?) until he is confronted by Caesar. He saw there was an opportunity to benefit from his Roman side he rejected until now.

Protocols of Elders of Zion

Reading(s)

I was only able to access the Protocols of Elders of Zion and not the other reading. What we know based on the context is that it was first published in Russian in 1897 by Philip Stepanov, for private circulation. Sergei Nilus made a second edition in 1905 when it was published between The Great and the Small. The way this gained popularity in the US was Henry Ford’s involvement, He made sure the text was accessible to the public. Later we found out during class, since the introduction isn’t scholarly, it has less credibility.

This was a pretext for the rationale of anti-Semitism. A lot of stereotypes about Jewish people can be seen in this text. Examples like Jewish people being money hungry and wanting to take over the world are the most prevalent. Even after the whole text was confirmed to be plagiarized from Dialogue from Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, many of the hatred holds on. This later lead to it playing a role in the Holocaust.

The Marquis de Sade

Background of the Text

A lot of the information I found about the background of the text/ how we got the text comes from the scholarly introduction and notes about the translations.

The translated publication we have from Penguin Classics is from 2016. A direct quote from the book,”This translation is based on Maurice Heine’s edition of Les 120 journées de Sodome (Paris: Stendhal et Cie, 1931-5).” This was the second edition of the novel after Iwan’s version. This is also one of the only copies based on the original piece.

The translators make a note that the only editing they will be doing is translating directly from what the text means so the original intention isn’t lost. The only changes they made was correcting verb endings and making sure things stay consistent.

An important thing to note while Marquis wrote 120 days of Sodom was his work kept getting taken away from him while he was in jail. Him being in jail and slowly losing his sanity could also add to the reason why some parts were inconsistent.

The effect of his work being published seemed to only hurt him as a writer. Since many believed books had the power to corrupt others in the 18th century, they believed the people would become more violent. There were more crimes being committed but it couldn’t be proven the crimes were committed because of the book release.

A lot of the effects were exaggerated, like the increased rates of crime, due to information being spread verbally. The truth and fiction blended together and by the time all the scandals reached everyone, no one knew which parts were real.

The Marquis de Sade

First Impressions

In the beginning, I didn’t understand how graphic it would be. The descriptions got very descriptive and it sexualized almost everyone who came into contact with the group: The Duke, the Banker, the Bishop and the Judge.

There were points in the scholarly introduction where they tried to separate the author from the text and give Marquis some breathing room. Both the people and the text do some horrific actions. He is later said to be trying to defend his actions against the women he abused,

” Yes I am a libertine, I admit; I have imagined everything that can be imagined of this kind, but I have surely not done everything I have imagined and will surely never do so. I am a libertine, but I am not a criminal or murderer.” (Marquis xix)

This is him not taking accountability and trying to say there could have been worse things he could have done but chose not to do.

I understand why others would want to analyze Marquis behavior and what would get someone to act like this and his work could be interpreted as a commentary. I believe this takes away any responsibility and any accountability for his actions. They try to paint a picture of him being an innovator of sorts.

Gospel of Judas

Thoughts

While reading the Gospel of Judas, this was one of the first phrases that caught my eye, “It is impossible to sow seed on rock and harvest its fruit.” To me this means that the disciples and the current generation make mistakes so that the people from the future can learn from them. Then eventually there would be a generation like the one Jesus describes as their physical bodies dying but their soul is still alive.

A reason this text could be considered forbidden is because it implies that the disciples and others can never reach enlightenment. This comes from the part specifically in section three where Jesus says,”No person of mortal birth is worthy to enter the house you have seen, for that place is
reserved for the holy.”

Another controversial take could come from the way Jesus is depicted. He is seen laughing at his disciples, although never intended to be malicious could come across as looking down at them. This is a contrast from what I know, how he is seen as compassionate.

There is also a similar scene as our last reading: Disciples getting angry for not understanding a concept and there is only one person who tries or understands what he is saying.

In the middle of the text where Jesus teaches The Spirit and the Self Generated is where I started to get confused about what he meant. There were also many parts throughout where there are parts of text missing and without the added context, makes the sentences harder to read.

Gospel Of Mary

Discussion

The historical memory the Gospel of Mary gave us was the idea to there being different perspectives. This was one of the only texts to be written down at the time since most of the communication was carried out through speaking: teaching and preaching.

It started off with ugh I can’t believe the savior told a woman such in depth information and it became it’s obviously not true because it came from a woman and it’s too confusing.

I understand the confusion or anger that can come from learning about a new perspective that changes your world view. Treating it as something that certainly must not be true because I don’t understand it, is one of the ways other people’s perspectives get erased. The concept of this is the way I learn so it’s the only way that leads you into having tunnel vision.

When cultures were developing independently, they were taking Christianity and making it their own. Religion itself isn’t a monolith and has many different aspects that fall into an umbrella.

I’m curious about the class’ interpretation of this line from the reading:

“ People sin because they don’t recognize their own spiritual nature and instead, love the lower nature that deceives them and leads to disease and death”

I interpreted this phrase from a class structure and it being, “I won’t ever stoop that low to a peasant.”

Recent Posts

Categories