|
I started off with the subject line 'no, no comments, not really' and then started making comments.
I've had to teach the GI section, and sat in class when it was taught. Interesting to watch students wrestle with it and try to make heads or tails of the meaning. Most just stare, or go off at odd tangents. Most refuse to see that there could be any meaning in it; most belong to some sect or movement that fits the description of what the GI offered, and couldn't muster enough irony to step outside their personal points of view for a minute.
On the one hand, FD was anti-Catholic, but that's almost a red herring here. On the other, BK is fairly anti-socialist (sensu lato) and the GI passage falls into that type of screed. That's probably a better take on it, but still facile. Nearly any mass movement tends to do the same--provide awe (inspiration), offer goodies (bread), and say that they're forgiven/absolved/not responsible for what wrong they've done.
It goes for BO's campaign and Reagan's, Liberal Theology and Old Rite Catholicism.
But I think I agree with FD, to be honest. I did the first time I read BK in grad school, and the few times since then. People always want to be told that they're good, and anything bad they do is somebody else's fault; they want to be told that somebody's going to take care of them, esp. if somebody bad happens to them (only as the result of somebody else's actions, of course); and they want to be be uplifted, to believe that they're serving a cause, or part of a cause, that's transcendent.
Primates. Bleah.
|