At first glance, the graphic rape scene in Blindness is out of place in the novel. It shocked me and caught me off guard. I had certainly not been expecting anything this atrocious. After class, as I was reading my paper, I read an article in the Times that struck me as very similar to what happened in Blindness.
Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, has repeatedly denied that the Japanese military coerced women into sexual slavery during World War II. In actuality, this is documented history and there is plenty of evidence that suggests Abe and other Japanese politicians are simply covering up the ugly truth. The reports were initially submitted to the Tokyo war crimes trials way back in 1948. It took until the 1990s for many of the victims to come forward and share their stories. In 1993, Japan came as close as it has to a confession, admitting to having ran "comfort stations."
This connection struck me as even more relevant to our reading because the Japanese government is trying to keep the public blind to the truth. I think this is also an underlying theme in the novel. We as a society are blind to a lot of things because we don't want to face them. If we recognize these problems then there is a moral imperative to make changes. It reminds me of Galbraith's quote from The Position of Poverty: "We ignore it because we share with all societies at all times the capacity for not seeing what we do not wish to see."
3 comments:
So Ross, what you are saying is that we as separate societies are blind to our extreme shortcomings and embarrassments of the past. According to the quote by Galbraith that you posted, we ignore our these types of events because we have the choice to. Is the confrontation of such events really that hard to face? My question would be why societies feel it is so difficult to face their own "demons" of the past (Hitler's Germany, U.S.A.'s Japanese concentration camps, Japan's sexual slavery, etc.)? Is it the embarrassment of confirming the truth behind these event? Is the lack of confrontation a way of dealing with the fact that one's own society committed such immoral acts? Perhaps not confronting these events is a way to ignore the consequences of their society's actions, thus the resulting guilt never comes into light. Is this example you gave a matter of avoiding a guilty conscience? What are your thoughts on this?
I believe that it is a combination of the things you mentioned. I think that we like to think of ourselves as civilized and humane and any facts that go against these assumptions are conveniently swept aside. Many leaders use nationalism and patriotism to rally support and come to power. It is hard to feel patriotic about one's country if certain past atrocities are accepted as history. It is much easier to deny that these terrible things ever happened.
Sometimes the debate is semantical. For example, Turkey denies the Armenian genocide of 1915 claiming that death counts have been exaggerated. Every reputable historical source tells us that perhaps over one million Armenians were slaughtered but this provokes violent debate to this day in Turkey. Just google "Hrant Dink" and you'll see how ugly the debate is.
I think it is interesting you ask if it is a matter of avoiding a guilty conscience. I think alot of people ignore cruel acts they performed themselves or America has done because it is hard to think that one did something so unjust and unfair to another. Nobody wants to believe the Germans were capable of murdering so many people and yet they felt no remorse. I just think it is hard in general to admit to the cruel acts one commits. When a person hurts another it is hard to say yes, I did that so what. They may feel sorry or realize they shouldn't have done it that may be another reason why it is so hard to cope with it and admit to it. It is easier to just avoid it.
Post a Comment