Sunday, November 22, 2020

Banter 59: Healing Divides: How did the German People Heal their National Culture after the World Wars

Date and Time: Sunday, December 20th at 1100 MST

Location: Zoom Meeting. Mitch sent meeting info by email on 11/25/2020.

Please email materials to Mitch by 12/11 so he can post them to this blog.


This should be an interesting topic, especially with two members of our banter group residing in Germany. It is timely, as well. At the risk of over-dramatically comparing the ravages of post-war Germany to the U.S. today, there may be some parallels and lessons that could be learned about bringing a divided nation together (before war starts and reconstruction is needed).

The focus of this topic isn't so much about rebuilding cities from rubble, the Marshall Plan, the way that Germany was divided by the Allied Nations or, even, the disease, hunger, and economic issues that the German people suffered. Nor is the topic about pre-war Germany and how Hitler could have risen to power with the support of such a large portion of the German populace. Those concepts may weave into the discussion, to some extent, but, as I understand it, the intent is to look for materials on, research, and discuss how Germany, more or less, succeed in a post-war societal and cultural reconstruction.

How did the German people come together and build a nation with a new community, a new culture and new socio-political beliefs after the war? When and how did those that supported the Nazi Party come around to recognize that they were the 'baddies'? How did those that made the switch more quickly deal with the underground Nazi resistance?  What was the guilt like for those that always opposed the war but were afraid to speak up? Most importantly, what was it like for German family, friends, and neighbors, all in different stages of grief, acceptance and denial, with different opinions on the future of the nation, when they gathered around the post-war dinner table? 



From Kirk B.
 

The German recovery from the Nazi period is a very interesting topic and has to be looked at from many angles, especially the differences between East and West Germany.  As I understand it, Neo-nazi groups are re-emerging in the East where the economy is weak, but not so much in the West where the economy is much stronger.

When we had the baby boom Germany had the opposite.  It was predicted that this would lead to an economic collapse.  The opposite happened proving the economic experts were wrong.  Expensive labor was an asset, because it forced Germany and Japan to be more efficient. 


From Sabine

 

Leave it to the German language to give us a single word to summarize this complicated topic: Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

It is the German term for efforts to deal publicly with the Nazi past.

Sabine recommends reading Wikipedia's overview on the word here (link).

 Here are some more materials from Sabine:


 

A 15 page article on Vergangenheitsbewältigung (link) as revealed by German literature in Boston’s great literary journal, AGNI.

 

A 20-ish page article about Vergangenheitsbewältigung (link) as it applies to the United State's problematic history that it won't face with race etc.


Note: The links to the two papers, above, will take you to a webpage where you can read them in your browser or, if you prefer, look for the download icon in the upper right where you can save it to your computer as a .pdf document.

 

From Isaac:

 

I'm thinking the aftermath of world war one might be a somewhat more relevant time period? And the questions posed at the end are exactly addressed by Sabine's mr. Rogers video:

 https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/12/06/exp-gps-1206-macmillan-on-political-lies.cnn

 

Also pre-World War II, but I'm really interested especially in hearing what our current residents of Germany think of this. And again, it seems awfully relevant to the question of how to deal with the present moment

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence

 

I mean, I'm interested in what everyone thinks about it, and I'm especially curious what residents of Germany have heard relevant to this while living there.


From Mitch:

 

I'm going to take publisher's privilege here and post a silly placeholder, for now. After I've had a chance to read Sabine's posts and do some research I may find something to post with some more depth. In the meantime, I am submitting a short segment from the BBC's 'That Mitchell and Webb Show'. It is quite well known so, I'd imagine, that many have already seen it....just the first thing that came to mind when the topic was proposed. Here is the less than three minute comedy sketch (link) of Nazi's having a sudden battlefield epiphany. I'd imagine that the civilian German population went through a similar (albeit, slower) realization in the days and weeks after V-E Day.











Friday, June 26, 2020

Banter 58: What does it even mean to be a human?


Sunday, June 28th at 4pm
at Chris' deck (outside only) and via Zoom for those who can't or don't wish to join in person

Back in 2010 our very first banter topic was "What does it even mean to be a human?" Some of us went in the direction of animal vs. human definitions such as: "What are the complications and/or benefits of personifying animals or anthropomorphizing them?  How do you splice the divide between human rights and animal rights?  What are the historical complications (ie, Animals of the Third Reich excerpt) of leveling out human and animal rights if we bring humans down to animals?  Can we bring animals up to humans, why would we?  Why does the definition of what a human is often go scientific or push off of animals, yet not get too intricately into emotional, philosophical approaches to this definition?  Is it even possible to create a definition for a human that is meaningful, comprehensive, and artful?"


I'm curious to see where our 2020 group discussion takes us with this vague question.  We can do a combo of winging it (since most of us haven't come up with materials & since most of us will be out recreating all weekend and not doing much prep work) and diving into the below from those who gave us some direction: 

   
Nia's contribution (not to be confused with Naya):


The group might find this podcast episode interesting, an interview with a woman with autism and ADHD who wrote a book to explain being human to people like her, a kind of manual that she said she would have liked to have growing up: https://futurespodcast.net/episodes/16-drcamillapang
There are a number of podcast episodes from that podcaster that deal with transhumanism, AI, cyborgs, and the future versions of what being human might look like. 


Isaac's contributions:

“Man need not be degraded to a machine by being denied to be a ghost in a machine. He might, after all, be a sort of animal, namely, a higher mammal. There has yet to be ventured the hazardous leap to the hypothesis that perhaps he is a man.” ― Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind




Jared P.'s contribution

In 2019, Congress passed a law prohibiting movies of animal torture and cruelty. https://www.peta.org/blog/pact-act-signed-into-law/

A federal law against animal torture demonstrates an evolving moral sensitivity to the suffering of non-humans. It recognizes a broader sympathy and understanding of suffering that may seek to diminish that suffering--even as life cannot exist without some suffering. Suffering can impel us to act when nothing else can. Here, however, even Congress recognized that some suffering can have no benefit to the life that is suffering. Perhaps humanity's morality is expanding with our abilities to fill our needs without causing that unnecessary suffering, so we have the luxury of stopping some unnecessary suffering. Or perhaps we are seeing more in common with animals than we see in the cold universe outside. Or perhaps this reflects the long arc of history moving closer to justice. 

Sabine's contributions:

Some definitions across eras and fields: https://www.brainpickings.org/2011/12/09/what-it-means-to-be-human-joanna-bourke/

A journalistic piece that my friend Ben Polley wrote a few years ago, and that I helped him edit.  This reminds me of how often our definitions of how we differ from animals (tools, language, property/territory, art/culture) have little to do with what is and mostly to do with what we humancentric creatures don't notice of the other creatures: https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/the_real_twitter_feed_that_we_have_lost_track_of/

Friday, April 24, 2020

Banter 57: Fear and Nativism (the behavior of)

Date: Thursday, May 21st at 6pm via Zoom

Let us discuss the drives behind, purposes of, problems with, and seemingly universal human aptitude for fear & nativism.

With this topic we are ideally trying for getting at how fear & nativism comes up for humans now and historically across varying groups of people, and not just making it about Trumpsters, unless we want to also explore how us pointing at Trumpsters with a sneer is partly us making them into outsiders (outside our own norms and expectations, us being the insiders, in that case, and above such base behavior).  In other words, we are trying to think more broadly about this behavior itself in humans & have sought prep material (see below) via sources that aren’t beholdenly biased to praise for their own echo chamber.


As we said when we chose this as a possible topic, WF and other small mountain towns fearing outsiders bringing in the virus and the rising up behavior to keep em out is one example where liberals show their own cracks with inclusivity (public health issue or not). A small town in Maine took this to an extreme when they chainsawed down a big tree recently to block in a NJ family at the home/driveway they were at, preventing them from getting to town for groceries & making sure they clearly knew they were not welcome. (See novel The Last Town on Earth by Thomas Mullen.) Whether it was right or wrong, can we trace what happens to the mind and group think when gathering up to get that chainsaw, cut that tree, block that family in makes sense?

In sociology, this is called the in-group and out-group. In religious studies, this is referred to as the insider/outsider problem. Every field likely has a trove of inquiries into facets of this, so much has it wreaked havoc on living peacefully for humans (and animals) across the ages.

From a political history perspective (Thanks, Jared!)

“Nativism Across Time and Space” by Hans-Georg Betz, Swiss Political Science Review, 2017. Full article here, beginning right after abstract paragraph: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/spsr.12260

From a religious studies perspective:

20 minute audio interview between two religious studies scholars, “The Insider/Outsider Problem.” https://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/podcast/podcast-george-chryssides-on-the-insideroutsider-problem/


From a sociological perspective:

John Turner (developed social identity theory & later self-categorization theory) - lecture about social psychology of ingroup / outgroup: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g3pX3msaA64

From Wikipedia about Turner’s research:
“In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group biasin-group biasintergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-groupover out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.[1][2]
This effect has been researched by many psychologists and linked to many theories related to group conflict and prejudice. The phenomenon is primarily viewed from a social psychology standpoint. Studies have shown that in-group favoritism arises as a result of the formation of cultural groups.[3][4] These cultural groups can be divided based on seemingly trivial observable traits, but with time, populations grow to associate certain traits with certain behaviour, increasing covariation. This then incentivises in-group bias.
Two prominent theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of in-group favoritism are realistic conflict theory and social identity theory. Realistic conflict theory proposes that intergroup competition, and sometimes intergroup conflict, arises when two groups have opposing claims to scarce resources. In contrast, social identity theory posits a psychological drive for positively distinct social identities as the general root cause of in-group favoring behavior.“
More details about Turner & his further development of self-categorization theory which shows the individual within the social group much more clearly than social identity theory had originally allowed: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02091.x

Personal example / case study of a text chain that demonstrates
(Thanks, Anna!)

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1-Sf4_RdbLVR3tj78Cqw6dvKiFmUWFanGBPWKDGTkj-4/mobilebasic

From a Philosophical perspective we might look at Personal Identity (see below) or Group Rights:

Derek Parfit, philosopher, Oxford - two part YouTube video: 


From a literary perspective:

Robert Frost’s “Mending Wall” - https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44266/mending-wall

“The Paper Menagerie,” short story by Ken Liu.  http://a1018.g.akamai.net/f/1018/19022/1d/randomhouse1.download.akamai.com/19022/pdf/Paper_Menagerie.pdf

Popular fiction: The Last Town on Earth by Thomas Mullen.

From a songwriter / musician perspective (Thanks, Annette!):

“This Charming Man” by The Smiths

Possibly Helpful insight about a lyric with the song-

“The line "a jumped up pantry boy, who never knew his place" comes from the movie Slueth(its on youtube). Where Michael Caines character is being confronted for having an affair with Laurence Oliviers characters wife. Oliviers character says to Caine "Youre nothing but a jumped up pantry boy , who never knew his place!" He is making a stab at Caines character for being working class - a pantry boy being a servant working in the kitchen of an English manor house.”

Lyrics-

Punctured bicycle
On a hillside desolate
Will nature make a man of me yet?

When in this charming car
This charming man

Why pamper life's complexity
When the leather runs smooth
On the passenger's seat?

I would go out tonight
But I haven't got a stitch to wear
This man said "it's gruesome
That someone so handsome should care"

Ah ! A jumped-up pantry boy
Who never knew his place
He said "return the ring"
He knows so much about these things
He knows so much about these things

I would go out tonight
But I haven't got a stitch to wear
This man said "it's gruesome
That someone so handsome should care"
La, la-la, la-la, la-la, this charming man
Oh, la-la, la-la, la-la, this charming man

Ah ! A jumped-up pantry boy
Who never knew his place
He said "return the ring"
He knows so much about these things
He knows so much about these things
He knows so much about these things


Second song is “Left of Center” by Suzanne Vega featured one the movie Pretty in Pink.

If you want me
You can find me
Left of center
Off of the strip
In the outskirts
In the fringes
In the corner
Out of the grip
When they ask me
"What are you looking at?"
I always answer
"Nothing much" (not much)
I think they know that
I'm looking at them
I think they think
I must be out of touch
But I'm only
In the outskirts
And in the fringes
On the edge
And off the avenue
And if you want me
You can find me
Left of center
Wondering about you
I think that somehow
Somewhere inside of us
We must be similar
If not the same
So I continue
To be wanting you
Left of center
Against the grain
If you want me
You can find me
Left of center
Off of the strip
In the outskirts
In the fringes
In the corner
Out of the grip
When they ask me
"What are you looking at?"
I always answer
"Nothing much" (not much)
I think they know that
I'm looking at them
I think they think
I must be out of touch
But I'm only
In the outskirts
And in the fringes
On the edge
And off the avenue
And if you want me
You can find me
Left of center
Wondering about you
Wondering about you

From hormone-related / immunological/  psychological perspectives: (Thanks, Isaac!) 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2015.00183/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728892/?report=classic

From a film perspective

Dogville, with Nicole Kidman


Tuesday, April 7, 2020

Banter 56: The Empty Promises of Marie Kondo & the Craze for Minimalism (podcast episode)

Date: Thursday, April 23 at 6pm

Host: Virtual meeting via Zoom (link sent via email)


Topic: The Guardian’s Long Read “The Empty Promises of Marie Kondo & the Craze for Minimalism” (podcast episode). We’ll listen to the podcast together at banter night & then discuss. No prep needed. Full essay below if you’d like to read it: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jan/03/empty-promises-marie-kondo-craze-for-minimalism

See topics voted on here: https://doodle.com/poll/4t3vf2hsiiuixx3g


Monday, January 27, 2020

Banter 55: Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality

Host: Zoom session due to pandemic
Date: Friday, March 27th at 6pm
Topic:  The group decided on going with a topic that allows us to listen to a podcast episode or TED talk/lecture together at this session, and then discuss the podcast episode/topic after.  We did this the one time with Laughter with much enjoyment. See possible topics voted on below. Final topic voted was Anil Seth’s TED talk “Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality.”  https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality/up-next

Poll for topics:  https://doodle.com/poll/8mqha9fgya44fzzk

Monday, January 13, 2020

Banter 54: Elitism


Topic: Elitism

Date: Saturday, January 25th at 4pm

Chris Holdhusen's house



Becoming interested in the topic of elitism might willfully take us up, down, and under all manner of our habits, tendencies, and limitations with our concepts of social class or groups that we are and aren't a part of; particularly, it seems worth noting, with more and more clarity, our own placement within a social class or various social groups and how that impacts our point of view, behaviors, use of language, and every other aspect of how we see and make our way through interactions, sense of self, and the world.  Some of us will likely be interested in how Trumpsters see liberals as elites, and how this has led to a dismantling of facts, experts, science, academic voices being valued by a large portion of the country and media; others will likely be interested in elitism on smaller scale interactions we have in the aisles of grocery stores or at school drop off/pick up or in other daily social interactions with those in and outside of your social groups/class; and others will be interested in the concept historically, across cultures, philosophically, psychologically, and so on.  Bring all layers of this topic to the table via your contributions below.



Here are some preliminary articles to get started if you want a briefing of how elitism has been used in some of the media lately:  



"Which Force is More Harmful to the Arts: Elitism or Populism?" from the NY Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/books/review/which-force-is-more-harmful-to-the-arts-elitism-or-populism.html





"Americans are Fast to Judge Social Class" in Scientific Americanhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/americans-are-fast-to-judge-social-class1/



Sabine's interest and contribution:


Coming from two sets of grandparents who lived very different quality of lives pre- and post-WWII in Berlin, and later finding myself with one foot in the kitchens of rural Wisconsin dairy farmers (stepmom's family), one foot in the kitchens of my German grandmothers, one hand in the kitchens of the Blackfeet reservation, and one hand in the kitchens that make up a ski town (lofty log mansions to trailers and cabins without enough heat), I have had a sense of how much each set of people are putting their all into the foods they are used to or value or lucked out in having at all.  I've loved being in each one of those kitchens, and have grown my tastebuds on all of it.  


The first time I had a sense of judgment of other people's kitchens it came from my mom distinguishing that we did not eat maple syrup on our pancakes, other people did that; we rolled ours (crepes) in fine sugar. In my mind though, while swallowing my very tasty crepes, I thought of how I very much enjoyed fluffy buttermilk pancakes with loads of Aunt Jemima knock off syrup with my young divorced dad, later with my stepmom's family, at Wisconsin restaurants with my cousins, so I knew that this "we" she was referring to had little to do with what I did eat, but had to do with a group she wanted me to be part of and, conversely, a group she didn't approve of, nor want me to be part of.  


Now, part of this is complicated (as always with human behaviors & rudenesses), as she and my grandparents were grieving a loss of Germany and all things German, and trying to keep hold of that for their families even while integrating into America.  Part of her phrasing had to do with assuring my sense of being German over being American, and part of me is very grateful for that. The other part cringed and planned never to allot people's food preferences as below or above mine.


The second time I came across this off-color sense of judgement in an equally jarring way was at the local Montessori preschool, among mommies who were eliminating sugar for their children, only feeding them organic, requiring it be so also parties, and so on.  I reacted viscerally as though a spoon had gagged me, as well as I felt a flash of anger in defense of all those kitchens I've known whose cooks would not feel anything other than bad about themselves and very snubbed should they be privy to bring an item to such a potluck or preschool bbq or birthday party, only to realize it isn't going to be eaten by this set.  Thankfully these groups rarely cross over, so my rural Wisconsin family or my rez friends haven't been at any Whitefish potlucks or bday parties to experience this elitism.  Yet it is that lack of cross over that is precisely the problem as well.  The lack of weighted, caring awareness of those outside of one's own means, insights, habits, and class is as common among all strata of humans as Wonder Bread and jello wigglers are in rural Wisconsin kitchens.  Marie Antoinette's lack of purview outside of her own context comes to mind as an easy example to clarify what I'm trying to bumble my way through saying:





"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!” Though to be accurate (and elitist in that need for accuracy and awareness of Antoinette being German and French speaking), she said, upon finding out that the peasants had no bread, "Let them eat brioche!" which was even more out of the peasants' reach than the basic bread they couldn't acquire.  "Let them eat organic, stevia or honey sweetened, dye free, heirloom, local, hormone free foods and have the time, insight, different family traditions to do so, so that my child doesn't have to be exposed to what your family has survived on for at least three generations!"  Getting off my own rude soapbox, this does tie into a decent scholarly article titled " Let Them Eat Cake, Caviar, Organic, and Whole Foods: American Elitism, White Trash Dinner Parties, and Diet" which I'll have to email to the group as I only have a pdf and no way of attaching it here on the blog.  



From Chris / Lynda:  

Brainpickings blog, such as:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/12/27/in-praise-of-idleness-bertrand-russell/

or, https://www.brainpickings.org/2019/11/25/the-school-of-life-book/?mc_cid=3342fcd10c&mc_eid=20675c7769

From Isaac: 

"I was looking for something on inequality and civilizational collapse, and found a bunch of stuff suggesting that it was inevitable...but chose to go with this instead.  I listened to the audible version: 


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/02/the-rich-cant-get-richer-forever-can-they?fbclid=IwAR1WGSoPJq95Me90QHBo3_wG8pR0vRmrKQbZ9vzr6dJ2kBXWYV29k5hn_70

Also from the below resource, "Those participants who had spent time thinking about how much better off they were compared to others ended up taking significantly more candy for themselves -- leaving less for the children."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/?fbclid=IwAR1oJJIoeXNlvcGl7pPjVNJwG_HiGeTjj2HzN-cR0YNgZJwMMm_-NsyzVM4


From Mitch: 


‘Elite’, to my ears, is more often used as a positive word than ‘elitist’, which seems has negative connotations (and hints at pomposity and exclusion).


In my field of work hotshot crews are often described as ‘elite firefighting crews’. To me, this is meant in the sense of being highly specialized, well trained, and experienced for their particular niche of work, but many dictionary definitions of elite include words like ’superior’, ‘best’, ‘most powerful’. Those broad, all-encompassing usages of the word have caused me to bristle.

Not to be pedantic, but I’m wondering if the meaning of the word has changed, over time?  

Elite, to me,  is a descriptive and complimentary word to be used to describe others for being  ’specialized’, ‘expert’, ‘highly trained’.…to use it to describe yourself is, well, elitist.

I saw a short video of Richard Dawkins where he made the point that most people want their doctors and pilots to be elite. I want all specialists to be elite, I don’t want them to be elitist.

The first that I heard the word ‘elite’ being used in politics, and always negatively, was during the Obama administration.

Since that time, the word seems to have become code for those who see intelligent and well-spoken political leaders, teachers, experts, and scientists as suspect. To be sure, a lot of elites are pompous asses and snobs, which doesn’t help but, politically, I see the term being used in a new fashion….a ‘my opinion is as valid as your experience and education’ attitude that seems to be getting worse in our society.

I would be interested in discussing the opposite of elite, as well. Are there any good antonyms for the word? I can’t think of a good single term, but there are two tangential topics from the reverse side of the elite coin that would be fun to discuss.  One is the Dunning-Krueger effect (see image, below) and the other is the Galileo Gambit Fallacy (which asserts that if your ideas are met with ridicule from the establishment, that they must be right).
At the risk of falling into Dunning-Kruger myself (if I haven't already), I will close with a quote from the elitist author and professor, Isaac Asimov (what a snob):


The full context for the above quote is in the short article from 1980 (so, it appears, this whole anti-intellectual thing is not such a new phenomena?