Sagar’s Social Commentaries

Real Life Moral Dilemma – can you help? Thursday, Feb 28 2008

Politics and Sagar's Social Commentaries and Stuff only I know why is here Paul Sagar 12:55 am

As those who know me personally will attest, I have not eaten meat for what is going on for 6 years, and quite possibly longer. For a good 3 of those I was vegan, as opposed to just vegetarian. The thing is, I’m starting to have some seriously challenging thoughts about this particular practical ethical stance of mine. Here’s the reasoning leading me to think I should just pack it in…

To begin, note that my not eating meat has made absolutely zero difference to any animal, ever. I never killed my own meat, so my going vegetarian didn’t stop any animals from dying at my own hands. My objection has always been to modern high-intensity agri-business farming methods. Indeed my objections to that still stand: I think that the way we use and abuse animals in modern industrialised society, the way we raise and kill them, is morally indefensible. I’m not going to tell anyone that what we do to animals is OK – I think it clearly isn’t.

Yet nothing I have done for the past 6 years has saved a single animal life. Those who say that vegetarians save animals lives are living in a sort of Sorites Cloud Cukoo Land. For while it might be true that given the total number of vegetarians in, say, the UK, the corresponding decline in market demand has led to X number of cows not being born and therefore not being reared for slaughter. This X can then be aggregated out amongst the number of vegetarians, concluding that each vegetarian saved (or rather, prevented the creation and then destruction of) X/n number of cows. This might be true (though I suspect it’s actually uncalculable due to limited information). The point is it has made no difference whether I was a vegetarian or not: my impact on market demand is far too small to make any difference – either in the past or if I start buying steak tomorrow. Thus my not eating meat has saved no cows’ lives, and if I start eating meat, the same number of cows (or whatever) will die.

Which leads to another point. If I really did care about saving animals lives, I should have done far more: for example I should have bought cows and a field to put them in, or barricaded the gateways to slaughterhouses, or at the very least given out leaflets in the street encouraging people to go veggie, thus potentially altering market demand. The fact is I have done nothing of these things – and i’d be lying if I said I care enough to start now.

So why be vegetarian? I think we get to the heart of the issue when we turn reflection towards me and why I want to do or not do certain things. Part of the sentiment here is, I think, laudable: the meat industry is morally abhorrent; I cannot justify it, and so want no part in it. That is a sort of ‘clean hands’ argument against meat-eating. The other part is less laudable: it comes down to quite liking the smug superiority of being a non-meat eater, and feeling great about the fact that I have the moral wisdom and strength of character to do what I see to be right. I don’t like that thought about myself, because it is massively egotistical and thoroughly self-interested: the animals aren’t the issue here, my ego is.

Given that those are the things which seem to really matter, ethically speaking, as to whether I should be vegetarian, I can pose a neat question. Firstly, I want to get rid of the ego stuff: I don’t want to keep endorsing moral principles which at root I know to be motivated by self-flattery not genuine ethical sentiments. So we can chuck all that stuff out. All that remains is the ‘clean hands’ considerations, and it seems we then have a clear confrontation. For what matters more to me? That I keep my hands clean? Or that I live a less inconvenienced life, where I can eat the same food as my friends, not worry about ingredients in prepared foods or when going to restaurants, make my Mum’s life less difficult, make my Gran happy and relieved (she thinks i’ll die young and soon if i keep not eating meat), not have to make a scene every time I go round to other people’s for dinner, and generally just be normal?

Right now, i’ve got to be honest and say the latter things are pressing more strongly than the clean hands considerations. Part of me just doesn’t care if my hands are clean – after all, the rest of me is pretty dirty already.

So what should I do? I’m giving 48 hours for anybody to come up with a solidly convincing reason why I should stay vegetarian. And don’t talk to me about consequences unless you’ve got some really nifty moves lined up. I want to know why I, an individual moral agent with projects, commitments, life-plans and designs upon the world, should for the sake of my soul (as you might like to think of it) not eat meat. After 48 hours, if no good arguments are forthcoming, I’m eating steak.

Secondly, is this a paradigmatic case of clear eyed akrasia? I can’t decide, but i’m tempted to think that it might very well be…

43 Responses »

The Day Balliol JCR Died Monday, Feb 18 2008

Politics and Sagar's Social Commentaries Paul Sagar 1:56 am

This evening at the Balliol JCR bi-weekly General Meeting, a majority of members voted in favour of using communal JCR funds in order to purchase The Sun newspaper on a daily basis. What is especially sickening about this meeting is that I have been so tied up with work that I didn’t even know this motion was on the agenda – and it passed on one vote.

The writing has been on the wall for a very long time, but as far as I am concerned this is final confirmation that the supposed ‘left wing’ ethos of Balliol JCR is dead and buried. Formal hall has already been introduced via the back door without a whimper of protest, black tie balls were overwhelmingly demanded, and this is for me the final symbolic nail in the coffin.

I am not prepared to list the dozens of reasons why I think it is appaling that the JCR should fund the purchase of this newspaper – so don’t ask me to. I will say only this. The Murdoch-owned Sun has consistently been one of the most viciously right-wing, hate-spreading, persecutory and vindictive publications in existence. It has lied on many, many occasions. It spreads hate specifically in order to make money. It represents so much of what is wrong with this society.

That such a piece of filth, which lacks any intellectual merit of any possible description could be deemed an appropriate purchase for collective funds because of such pathetic and selfish arguments as “the Sports reporting is good” or “the Dear Deadrie gossip page is funny” makes me sick to the bottom of my fucking stomach.

That immensely privileged Oxford undergraduates could be so utterly casual, nonchalant and dismissive about the political symbolism and importance of such a newspaper brings it home to me what a horrible festering hive of over-privileged, self-obsessed ignorant little fucks this university is full of. Apparently Balliol, and for a brief period even Oxford, was once different – it’s hard to believe right now. And frankly this confirms that I cannot wait to leave. I don’t expect the rest of the world to really be any different, but hopefully it wont stink quite so badly of privilege, wealth and indifference to the non self-serving and immediate gratifications of selfish trivialities.

Do not post asking me to explain or defend in any more detail my views on this matter: if you cannot see what is wrong here then I have nothing to say to you.

36 Responses »

On Hatred Saturday, Feb 9 2008

Politics and Sagar's Social Commentaries Paul Sagar 11:26 pm

It’s practically a common-place for people to talk of how the Serbs hated the Croats in the 1991-5 Balkans war, or how Tutsis hated Hutus in Rwanda, or even how Sunnis hate Shias in Iraq, or Protestants hated Catholics in Belfast (and vice versa in all cases). I think that to affluent, prosperous and secure westerners such hatreds can seem rather odd, the behaviour of semi-barbarous peoples. Contrary to this I want to offer an example of how easy it must be for such hatreds to develop and how they can culminate in things as extreme as genocide.

I play for the Balliol First XI football team, and we have a fairly long-standing rivalry with Hertford College. Where did this rivalry come from? I couldn’t tell you. They write things like “We Hate Balliol” on their football trials posters, we do things like have Facebook groups where we slate them and talk about how much we hate them (knowing they will see it). This season things have been pretty nasty: at the first fixture (of two) there was no official referee so their substitute did the honours - hence they pushed, kicked and abused their way to a 1-0 win. Last week we beat top of the league St Catherine’s on a pitch adjacent to which Hertford were playing bottom end of the league Lady Margaret Hall. As our game finished 10 minutes earlier than theirs, a few of us went over and had a laugh at the 3-1 scoreline in LMH’s favour.

Today was the second Balliol-Hertford fixture of the season, and it was a nasty, nasty game. Now, the Hertford centre forward and myself have a long-standing and well established hatred. Why? Again, I couldn’t tell you. He hates me and I hate him; every time we play there is violence and we abuse each other, it’s been like that since my first year. So 15 minutes into the game as I was making a clearance and he slid in and tried to put his bottom studs as far into my right ankle (which was two yards off the ground) as possible. Later in the half he did the same, but with my right ankle on the floor this time. In the second half, I saw him coming in and played the ball off, and rather predictably he stamped on, yes, my right ankle. As he’s a very good player, it’s safe to assume he was doing this deliberately to take me out of the game. Of course, i’m no angel. As a general rule I prefer not to hurt other players – at least not during the game, but see below – yet today I decided on some revenge. Thus in the second half and following his third attempt to incapacitate me, I slid in when he had the ball with absolutely no intention of winning it, and did my level best to break his right leg. He was off for a good five minutes, but luckily for him I’m as bad at tactical fouling as I am at putting away easy chances in front of goal.

Anyway, with about 10 minutes to go both Hertford centre forwards and two of their midfielders - knowing that the 2-1 scoreline was likely to stand – started giving me some serious abuse (the usual “chat” about me being a cunt, their age-old favourite of saying I smell, how they were going to do me in after the game etc etc). This continued after the final whistle (we lost 2-1) and as I made my way off the pitch they followed me. I ignored this consistently. However their goalkeeper came the full length of the pitch just to abuse me, (I play in defence) getting right up in my face and saying some rather rude things (as you can imagine). More out of reflex than latent aggression – I was more disappointed than angry - I head-butted him, and then the boxing training took over and I punched him in the face (though he moved quickly and didn’t catch it very hard). As you can imagine, a fracas ensued, but luckily (this being Oxford) it was all pretty tame and over quickly.

The point I want to make is this: at the University of Oxford, a rivalry between two colleges, the students of whom are well educated, privileged and set-up to do incredibly well in life, violence ensued because of something as stupid as a football rivalry. The truth is, I don’t know any of the Hertford players. For all I know they are great guys, and in a different life they’d be my best friends. But I hate them, and they hate me just as much.

Now imagine if that centre-forward had killed my brother, or their goalkeeper had raped our captain’s sister. Or if their fathers had killed our fathers…or our grandfathers and theirs before them. Imagine what it would have been like. Or imagine if we were all unemployed with no futures worth speaking of, in developing countries where the ‘developing’ has effectively ground to a halt. Imagine if we were one colour and they another. Imagine if we had guns.

The point I’m trying to make is that hatred forms and flows very, very quickly.

And it scares me. A lot.

7 Responses »

Three things that annoy me Friday, Jan 11 2008

Current Affairs and Sagar's Social Commentaries Paul Sagar 12:24 pm

I have a general thesis about the rise of mediocrity combined with the general infantalisation of society. This will, in time, be articulated and presented here.

For now, here’s a rant about three things one often sees in the media and which really annoy me. They annoy me for two reasons. Firstly, because they represent idiocy and sloppiness. Secondly, because for some reason I expect (at least some) media outlets to achieve certain standards in exchange for my money.

Number One: Abuse of the world ‘literally’. This happens all the time. For example ‘Tony Blair is literally walking into the history books’. Oh really? Is he? Because that’s going to really hurt if he keeps doing it. Again, it is not literally raining cats and dogs. I am not literally the biggest dickhead in the world even if I am something of a pedant. Stop misusing this word because it loses its efficacy in the correct context.

Number Two: ‘Beg the question’ versus ‘raises the question’. This is another common one, famously committed by Jeremy ‘I think I have the biggest brain in the universe so I am permitted be rude to people’ Paxman. ‘Beg the question’ is a technical expression meaning to assume what is in need of proof. ‘Raise the question’ means literally to give rise to other, further questions. So it is unacceptable to say ‘The findings of the inquiry into Enron’s activities begs the question about other corporate practices in America’. It raises the question.

Number Three: Refute and Reject. To refute something is to show via argument that it is untenable and must be dismissed. To reject something is to do simply that – to not accept it. You can reject something just because you feel like it. You cannot be refuting something just by not liking it; refutation requires argument. So do not say ‘David Cameron refuted Gordon Brown’s claims that the Conservatives have no substantial policy proposals’ if all Dave did was reply that this was untrue, and left it at that. For that is rejection not refutation.

Rant over.

3 Responses »

On Music Wednesday, Jan 9 2008

Sagar's Social Commentaries Paul Sagar 10:26 pm

Music is one of the things that for me makes life worth living. Sometimes the only reason I get out of bed is because then I can listen to music. I find it amazing how a guitar riff, or even a piece by an orchestra, can move me. Or how lyrics written by somebody I’ve never met, and who could even be long dead, can resonate with how I feel or what I am going through. I own over 400 CDs and 100 LPs/EPs, ranging from Wagner, to Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, Metallica, Tool, The Clash, Stone Roses, Smiths, Arctic Monkeys – as well as a tonne of bands most people will never have heard of.

Many people have tried to explain music over the years. Schopenhauer thought it was the ultimate embodiment of the metaphysical Thing in Itself. Goethe believed music to be one of the highest pinnacles of the worth of human existence, leading him to classify beautiful architecture as frozen music. Plato famously thought that his ideal city state would have to choose its music very carefully, because the composition of music resonates deeply within the soul, and it is well known that revolutionary times are always accompanied by changes in music. Nietzsche thought that music cut to the heart of a person’s being, transcending individuation itself: when losing one’s self in a piece of music one embraces the primal being of Dionysian ecstasy.

Utlimately I think all these tries are inadequate. Music is something which can’t be classified and analysed. Indeed, trying to analyse it and say what makes it special seems to necessarily lose the je ne sais pa that makes music what it is.

One of the most bizarre things for me when arriving at Oxford – and this is still to a large extent true – was realising that most people in my college simply don’t feel about music the way I do. Since as long as I can remember, music has been of paramount importance to me. Since high school I have always gravitated to people with a like passion. Yet with the noteable exclusion of enthusiasts for classical music, here at Balliol most people just have no special interest or attachement to music. There are some noteable exceptions (especially a group of guys who share my passion, and whom I have consequently gravitated towards) but most people seem to think that Britney Spears is as worthwhile a musical artist as any other, that The X Factor is a medium for discovering genuine musical talent, or that Angels by Robbie Williams is not only a deep and meaningful love song, but possibly the most deep and meaningful love song of all time.

For me this is incomprehensible. And I’ve given up trying to comprehend it.

On another note, I was reflecting today about what is in many ways an impoverished state of music for my generation. Those growing up in the 1960s had bands like Beatles to kick it off, but then phenomena like The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan (to mess with the chronology) and The Doors. In the 1970s they were given Led Zepplin and the birth of heavy metal in the form of the best Black Sabbath records. By the end of the 1970s there was the punk explosion, but when that died there came bands like Joy Division and The Cure. The 1980s gave The Smiths, as well as for metal lovers, pioneering bands like Slayer and Metallica, and later even bands like Guns N Roses to name but the most famous. By the late 1980s and early 1990s the Manchester Hacienda bands like The Stone Roses and The Happy Mondays exploded onto the scene: never have such great tunes been written around the dual kick of letting it all go because all you want to do is dance while off your face on drugs. For those not into that scene, Grunge music provided a genuine alternative as movements in music are concerned in the form of Nirvana, Pearl Jam and The Smashing Pumpkins. (I’ve talked only about those artists I have reasonable knowledge of; the list could go on).

What does my generation have? There is no comparison. At a stretch there was Oasis and Blur when I was still young, but there has been nothing to resemble the musical genius that has preceeded my generation’s blandness. The Liberteens may have tried to act all punk, but ultimately it was always style over substance. Taking drugs is only Rock n Roll if you either die or keep writing tunes that continue to bring the house down (e.g. Keith Richards, Shaun Ryder). There’s no real substance to bands like The Killers, The Fratellis, Franz Ferdinand, and so on. Although I do like the Arctic Monkeys, they don’t really do much more than write catchy tunes with clever lyrics reminding me of growing up in a shit town. My generation never really had a movement, something exciting that was happening here and now, and mattered.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, there is still great music around. Bands like Radiohead or Belle and Sebastian in the more mainstream areas have consistently produced high quality music, and if you like metal or hard rock or punk, there’s loads going on over there (even the new Against Me! record is fantastic). Likewise, i’m sure people into dance, or drum ‘n’ bass, or more heavily into dub, ska and reggae than I am know of quality current artists.

And equally, there has always been shit: Bananrama were not invented on The X Factor, and Phil Collins is getting old. Cliff Richard has not been assasinated.

But my generation has never experienced a musical movement like previous ones did. Why is this?

I can think of a few possible reasons. Firstly, musical movements usually accompany social change, and usually turbulence – Plato may well have been onto something. So the Rolling Stones and the Doors chime with a generation experiencing radical social reformation. Joy Division capture the depression of the late 1970s following the failure and futility of the punk rebellion. The Stone Roses capture the optimism of a world emerging from the Cold War where things appear to be getting better for everyone. My generation has experienced no such social change, hence there has been no music embodying that change and reacting to it.

Secondly, money has ruined music. Even the majority of metal and punk music made now is controlled by a few major labels for whom profit margins determine everything (see for example Linkin Park and other so-called ‘metal’ music, or the nauseating Kerrang! magazine which specifically targets 13-year-olds). As for mainstream music, this is now dominated by lowest-common-denominator unit-shifting crap like whatever The X Factor, or Pop Stars: The Rivals has produced lately (I honestly wouldn’t know). Music has been to a large extent emptied of its soul, and is made no longer for passion, but for profit.

Those, i think, are the two biggest factors in explaining why so many of my peers accept so much bland rubbish as if it were musical genius, and why my generation never experienced a meaningful musical phenomenon – and why kids like me with a real passion had to go looking for music, hence ending up listening to obscure metal, drum ‘n’ bass, reggae-dub or whatever, carving movements out in scenes where bands played in pub back rooms and people’s garages.

Ultimately I guess it doesn’t matter: great music will always be written by the artists who simply feel compelled to create it. And we’ve got, forever on record, the great works already produced, whether they be by Beethoven, Black Sabbath or Belle and Sebastian.

I just feel cheated that I never got to be really part of something that will go down in history. I guess that’s another one of the dampening factors in being part of the most prosperous and well-off generation in history.

16 Responses »

I Am Legend: A Post-Iraq Possibility Friday, Dec 28 2007

Current Affairs and Middle East and North America and Sagar's Social Commentaries Paul Sagar 1:45 pm

The other day when staying in France I went with my cousins to see I Am Legend (although in France they call it Je Suis Une Legende, so they lost something in the translation there). I was pleasantly surprised. A film in which Will Smith is the last man in New York, and he has to save the world…well it sounds nauseating. However it’s surprisingly gripping, and his acting is at times very convincing and shows an emotional depth I never thought he had. After I’d seen it though I couldn’t help but put my analysis hat on, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it is a film which could only have been made post-Iraq, and represents a significant shift in American attitudes, or at least tries to encourage said shift. Below is my analysis, although I warn anyone who hasn’t seen it that this contains major plot spoilers.

Firstly, the zombie-killers that have taken over the world are enormously allegorical on a number of levels. In the film they were the result of an attempt by American science to make the world a better place, but something went wrong and in America’s cock-sureness it created a monster (or several billion of them). This is straightforwardly allegorical for a number of things: the American invasion of Iraq with the aim of ending dictatorship and spreading liberal democracy resulting only in chaos and bloodshed; the fact that much of the Muslim world has become embittered against the spread of American values and culture – which the American spread only with good will and intention – as well as with American foreign policy; the arming of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980’s to stop the spread of communism resulting in a new and more deadly enemy emerging (in the film, the virus that turns people into zombies was originally developed as a cure for cancer). If one was pushing the boat out, one could say that the figure of a blood-thirsting zombie psychopath, who is both intelligent and resourceful in killing people, but cannot be reasoned with, is pretty much the American popular conception of Muslims in general.

Developing the last point, towards the end of the film Will Smith discovers a cure for the virus, but it’s too late. The zombies have broken into his compound and are going to kill him. Through the bullet-proof glass that is about to be shattered by the head zombie, he pleads with them to stop because he now knows how to cure them, having learned from the error of Man’s ways. But they do not – cannot – listen to him. These creatures that have been made by man might slowly be saved with great effort – but many of them will have to be killed. It’s not too hard to read into that particular scene, although if my reading is correct it is interesting to note that Americans are now starting to face up to the fact they may have had a hand in creating their latest and most deadly enemies.

The film also has messages about American values in the post-Iraq world, not just commentary about Muslims as zombies. For example, in the aforementioned scene when Smith has discovered the cure, he locks a young boy and a woman who have recently come into the film in a bomb-shelter thing. Then he blows himself up with a hand grenade to take out all the zombies in his house. There are a number of messages here.

Firstly, just before the zombies attack Smith repudiates any belief in God. He believes that God never existed, only man’s follies. By the end of the scene with the hand grenade, he has received a sort of subtly-pulled off revelation. The message is that God looks after good people, though they may have to put up with immense hardships in the intervening period. This is reminiscent of loads of stuff in the Bible of course, the Book of Job, the Israelites spending 40 years in the desert, the Flood that destroys all but righteous Noah and his family etc. Generally it’s just a message about God, that all Americans can continue to easily digest.

Secondly, it is worth noting that the woman who comes into the film is Puerto Rican. Here we have a Latin American woman who not only saves an American’s life at a crucial moment, but goes on to transport the anti-virus that will save the world. Again the message is clear: America has shat on its “back yard” since it became America, but now it realises that the War on Terror might go an awful lot better if the peoples of South America repudiate past injustices and abuses and rally behind the U.S.

Thirdly, Will Smith says repeatedly in the film that he cannot leave New York because that is where the zombie crisis began, and this is where he must stay to put things right. He simply cannot leave until the job is done, even if that means he must die in the process. It’s not hard to think of somewhere in the real world Americans have decided they wont leave until the job is done, no matter how many must die in the process.

Fourthly, and most importantly of all, there is one over-riding message about individual American attitudes. Whereas in the past, American films have often had a dominant feel-good factor, with the all-American hero saving the world and being reunited happily with his family in the final scenes – take as a prime example another Will Smith film (which happens this time to be total tosh), Independence Day - I Am Legend is different. To begin with, Smith’s wife and daughter are dead. The film springs this cleverly by making you think that they are alive and waiting for him, but we find out that they died the night New York descended into zombie-ridden anarchy. In the end, Smith sacrifices his own life to save that of others, indeed to save the world. There is no happy ending for him, and so the message is clear: modern American man may have to sacrifice everything to safeguard the future, and even before he does that he may have to accept that those he loves and cares for – those who are completely innocent – may have to suffer and die. The message in a post-9/11, post-Iraq world is again pretty obvious.

So there you have it, a short run-through of the major propaganda messages embedded in Holywood’s latest. Having said all that though, it is surprisingly enjoyable and gripping as a disaster-action movie, and as I mentioned Smith’s acting, for example his relationship with his dog who is his only friend, and his portrayal of the effects of total isolation on a man, is convincing and at times moving. This is a far better propaganda film than, say, Top Gun, which is just sickening from start to finish, or Independence Day, which is just tripe. But ultimately, this is a film with an awful lot of messages for young Americans.

6 Responses »

Cliche Guevara

Pages

Categories:

Search:

Monthly:

RSS Feeds: