anikalenaanika - Tumblr blog

[anikalenaanika]

Tumblr Post #5

Examining Benjamin Isaac’s chapter about his definition and exposition of racism in ancient Greece and Rome seems like a great way to discuss intersectionality in Classics. We talked briefly about a New York Times article much earlier in the semester that focuses on the future of Classics, inclusion, racism, and way more that I don’t have the time or space to get into. I want to base my blog today on the topics brought up in this article, but focus on Isaac’s chapter. I also want to start by saying in no way am I a “Classicist” and this is the first and only Classics class I have ever taken, so my knowledge on the subject is really limited. When I first read Isaac’s chapter, I was kind of surprised by how defensive it came off. I didn’t really have the necessary context to properly process it, since I haven’t read the original book nor the critiques of it to which Isaac is responding in this chapter. I had to just rely on the endnotes and still don’t have all the information. The main thing I think is important to note here is that Isaac is a white author writing on race and racism in antiquity, then defending himself from accusations of being racist himself by other Classics scholars: “A few critics attempt to delegitimize the argument by accusing me of racism.” He cites this sentence with a footnote that refers to Shelley Haley’s review of his book. Haley is a Black woman who is known for applying Black feminist and critical race approaches to Classics. Of course, this comes full circle for our class, as now comes the question of which part of this entire scholarly interaction could be considered discriminatory, racist, or hateful (I don’t really think any of it is hateful, but it’s very meta to see how this unfolded in my blog post alone). Aside from the interactions between Classics scholars, there’s also the fact, which we have mentioned, that most (if not all) of our accounts of ancient Greece and Rome are written by white, upper-class, men (and occasionally a woman). This means that studying race is inherently difficult, as there is little to no first-hand or primary accounts of life for marginalized groups. This topic is enough for an essay, and too much for a blog post, so I’ll stop here, but very open to more discussion in the comments!

[anikalenaanika]

Tumblr Post #4

Our discussion on Wednesday about the Beyond Barriers meeting was interesting. I want to use this opportunity to further extend my thoughts on the meeting in particular, and the implications of it in general. To preface that, I will say that I do not really care what Nazis have to say (former or not) and I do not think anybody, especially not people of color/other marginalized groups, owe them forgiveness or compassion. Jeff and T.M.’s personal stories, which is what the meeting seemed to focus on, are horrifying and concerning. Much less so about how they got involved in the organizations than about they got out. The notion that they each ‘encountered’ a person of color who made them realize that what they were doing was ‘wrong’ is extremely unfair. I really don’t understand how people live life thinking like that, but clearly they do. Putting the burden of ending white supremacy onto the very people it harms without taking any responsibility for your own actions and complicity is vile. I honestly do not believe that engaging these stories from neo-Nazis is helpful. People do not owe them anything! Another thing that I have been thinking about is the so-called ‘atonement’ they are participating in. As a white person participating in a society that is built off of and profits off of white supremacy, I am constantly working to unlearn the racism that exists everywhere. I have no confidence that neo-Nazis and ‘former’ white supremacists have even close to the same critical thinking capacity as me on this, and even I know I am not doing near enough to atone for my societal position.

[anikalenaanika]

Tumblr Post #3

Satire today is a humorous critique used to ridicule or scorn, usually used in reference to politics or social issues. Roman satire, though, specifically Juvenalian, is bitter, ironic, and often aggressive criticism of people characterized by invective, indignation, and pessimism. Out of all ancient texts  we have read in class so far, Juvenal’s poetry seems closest to my definition of hate speech. We have a lot in class about how to define hate speech, and my (working) definition agrees with the idea that hate speech usually incurs hatred towards a specific group of people, of which membership is not really optional (think race, sexuality, etc). Juvenal’s attacks are also towards group of people. He exhibits xenophobia, misogyny, classism, etc, etc, etc. One thing that I find interesting about our comparison of hate speech and satire is the question of intent. Contemporary satire is pretty much universally accepted as humor, and people seem to think it’s okay. Of course, there are exceptions to this - Charlie Hebdo attack, Kathy Griffin’s photo stunt - but overall satire does not fall under the umbrella of hate speech. This ancient satire, though, is much more aggressive. Did the audiences of Juvenal’s writing accept it as humor? Was Juvenal playing a character? We touched on this in class but I’m curious to think more about the role of satire in entertainment in ancient Rome. Much of Juvenal’s writing is pretty nasty by today’s standards. Here he is harshly criticizing sexuality:

I also wish I knew Latin, for I’m sure the translation takes away some of the authenticity of the satire and the implications of the word choice. I’m exciting moving forward to continue to make the connections between contemporary hate speech and ancient writings, because it really is crazy to see how long this sort of thinking and expression has been going on. 

[anikalenaanika]

Tumblr Post #2 CW: Mention of rape, sexual assault

Since my last update, we have shifted our focus back in time - antiquity, specifically. Looking at ‘hate speech’ in the Greek and Roman era has really put into perspective how long these kinds of discussions have been happening. Hate speech, as a category, didn’t exist back then. They instead had a form of literature called invective. We read some iambus poetry by Catallus, known for, ironically, his love poetry and the twisted story that came out of it. One poem in particular stuck out to me:

Upon first glance, this poem was amusing. It’s not often in a college class that you sit down to do your readings and see the words “dick you in the face,” “sexy-soft,” and “flaccid prick.” Our analysis in class, though, along with my own critical thinking exposed how horrific the implications of this poem really are. Catallus is threatening sexual violence/rape/penetration to Furius and Aurelius for insulting his masculinity. This is pretty violent, insulting, and frankly unacceptable, although now considered to be literature. It reminded me of some memes I came across during my research for the service learning project. Specifically, this one: 

I found this on iFunny after literally less than 5 minutes of searching. I didn’t even have to put in any search terms - the account just popped up on my “collective” page. The post has over 1000 likes, and many of the comments are the same video reposted to that section. One commenter even noted “I laughed harder than I should have.” We talked in class today about the use of accusation of sexual perversion or misconduct as a way to attack groups of people, but this goes even further. This joke isn’t even clever - it’s literally just a video of an unmoving image with a “joke” song and an awful caption. I was struck to find parallels between Catallus’ writings of thousands of years ago and an iFunny users insensitive, degrading, and misogynistic post of 2021

[anikalenaanika]

Tumblr Post #1

Both while reading this week and during Friday’s discussion, my thoughts kept circling back to Kaitlin Bennett, a.k.a. “Kent State Gun Girl”. My close friend attends Kent State currently, and we’ve had many a conversation about the conservative phenomenon who is Kaitlin Bennett. She earned her so-called ‘fame’ by taking graduation pictures at Kent State with an AR-10 strapped over her shoulder. Kent State was the site of a massacre in 1970, when the Ohio State National Guard shot and killed four unarmed students who were participating in a protest against the Vietnam War. Ironically enough, Kaitlin cites this event as reason for her to arm herself on campus (self-defense). The massacre’s legacy has influenced debates of Freedom of Speech for fifty years, and the implications of student deaths are incredibly relevant to our discussions in class. Unarmed students were literally killed for attending a prohibited rally. The specifics of the event, including violence and destruction that led up to the murders, is important but I won’t get into that now. The most important implication is that, in this case, freedom of speech and assembly were not offered to the protesters at Kent State. Kaitlin Bennett’s presence on campus has led to events of what I would categorize as “mass public shaming” referenced on page 28 of Freedom of Speech on Campus. The effects of this in relation to her spouting of conservative ideas and conspiracy theories, as well as interviewing students about offensive questions, are interesting to consider. My friend who goes to Kent State told me that Bennett is pretty much universally hated at the school. There are numerous videos available on Twitter of her being accosted, harassed, and mass publicly shamed while on campus. While many people are supportive of this behavior, given her history of making incredibly offensive comments and supporting harmful conspiracy theories, another camp of people believe it would be more beneficial to completely ignore her. Due to her outright aggression and desire to rile people up, what is the correct response? Possibly, the outcry is what she is after, and complete ignorance would be more effective in counteracting her harmful speech.