To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, thatnothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice,have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; whereno law, no injustice.
This a rather cynical interpretation of human nature isn't it? If all we are at our core is just a ball of rather base needs than I don't think we would have gotten to this point as humans.
The first maketh man invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, forreputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men’spersons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, fortrifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue,either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, theirnation, their profession, or their name.
Probably one of the more accurate analysis' as to why conflict among people happens as often as they do. If it is not a combination of all three; "competition, diffidence, and glory" than it one ore the other.
Again, men have no pleasure, but on the contrary a great deal of grief, inkeeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all.
I believe what he is trying to say is that people have a tendency to want to surround themselves with people of similar or greater status. If no such person exist than a person will be more susceptible to harm people who they deem inferior.
I once discussed the phenomenon that it is preciselycommunities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who areengaged in constant feuds and in ridiculing each other -like the Spaniards and Portuguese, for instance,the North Germans and South Germans, the English and Scotch, and so on
I would like to note that Freud has only mentioned European communities in this phenomenon. Which also brings me to my next point. I do not think Freud has taken the time study cultures from outside of his own and compared them to see if most his viewpoints on dissatisfaction hold up around the world. Each civilization is different and the role of men and women for example have held different in each. So to apply his overall thought process them would not work.
Women represent the interests of the family and of sexual life. The work ofcivilization has become increasingly the business of men, it confronts them with ever more difficult tasksand compels them to carry out instinctual sublimations of which women are little capable. Since a mandoes not have unlimited quantities of psychical energy at his disposal, he has to accomplish his tasks bymaking an expedient distribution of his libido. What he employs for cultural aims he to a great extentwithdraws from women and sexual life. His constant association with men, and his dependence on hisrelations with mem, even estrange him from his duties as a husband and father. Thus the woman findsherself forced into the background by the claims of civilization and she adopts a hostile attitude towardsit.
Freud holds plenty of outdated viewpoint towards women. He seems to imply most of their importance lies in relation to men. To claim that their frustrations are birthed solely out of the lack of time that their husbands are able to give them is disingenuous thinking at best.
n the third place, finally,and this seems the most important of all, it is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization isbuilt up upon a renunciation of instinct, how much it presupposes precisely the non-satisfaction (bysuppression, repression or some other means?) of powerful instincts
We need to define what these "instincts" are. It unclear to say that our frustrations our birthed out of base instincts. Base of off what is said in the later passages it's clear that of these "instincts" are entirely outdated and one could argue should be repressed.
The power of this community is then set up as'right' in opposition to the power of the individual, which is condemned as 'brute force'.
I don't know if Freud would still agree with this sentiment today. I would argue that we place an emphasis on individuality today more than we have in a long time. The community still holds significant power but those individuals who hold 90% of the worlds wealth are a testament to the power of individuality.
If there had been no railway to conquer distances, my child wouldnever have left his native town and I should need no telephone to hear has voice; if travelling across theocean by ship had not been introduced, my friend would not have embarked on his sea-voyage and Ishould not need a cable to relieve my anxiety about him. What is the use of reducing infantile mortalitywhen it is precisely that reduction which imposes the greatest restraint on us in the begetting ofchildren, so that, taken all round, we nevertheless rear no more children than in the days before thereign of hygiene, while at the same time we have created difficult conditions for our sexual life inmarriage, and have probably worked against the beneficial effects of natural selection? And, finally,what good to us is a long life if it is difficult and barren of joys, and if it is so full of misery that we canonly welcome death as a deliverer?
It seems lie Freud is trying to say that thirst for technological advancements have birthed new problems related to human existence. When you look at it from that perspective it does paint a rather bleak picture. However I do not think it's quite that simple. A dilemma such this may never have a clear cut answer.
This contention holds that what we call our civilization is largely responsible for ourmisery, and that we should be much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions.
I understand what he's trying to get across here. Returning to primitive conditions would relieve people of the daily stresses that society brings today such as working to bone to meet basic living conditions, societal pressures, etc. However, I believe civilization has brought way more good than harm on most other fronts.
· An important aspect of random, systematic violence is its irrationality.Xenophobic violence differs from the violence of states or ruling-class repression. Repressive violence has a rational, albeit evil, motive: rulers use it asa coercive tool to maintain their power. Many accounts of racist, sexist, or homophobic violence attempt to explain its motivation as a desire to maintaingroup privilege or domination. I do not doubt that fear of violence oftenfunctions to keep oppressed groups subordinate, but I do not think xenophobic violence is rationally motivated in the way that, for examp]e, violenceagainst strikers is.
I fail to see the importance to note the distinction between xenophobic and systematic violence. You could argue that xenophobia is the fear of a potential change something foreign could bring. Therefore xenophobic violence can serve the same purpose as systematic violence.
The culturally dominated undergo a paradoxical oppression, in that theyare both marked by stereotypes and at the same time rendered invisible.
An example of this would be what black immigrants undergo once they enter into the U.S. No longer are they Nigerian, Jamaican, Haitian, etc, they are now simply black and are subject to the same stereotypes that Black/African-Americans get.
n most white racist societies thismeans that many white people have dark- or yellow-skinned domestic servants, and in the United States today there remains significant racial structuring of private household service. But in the United States today much servicelabor has gone public: anyone who goes to a good hotel or a good restaurantcan have servants. Servants often attend the daily-and nightly-activities ofbusiness executives, government officials, and other high-status professionals.In our society there remains strong cultural pressure to fill servant jobs-bellhop, porter, chambermaid, busboy, and so on-with Black and Latino workers. These jobs entail a transfer of energies whereby the servers enhance thestatus of the served
This is a deeply ingrained phenomenon. Service Jobs are promoted heavily to minority communities because of the precedent that was set since the inception of race as a concept. The people in these service jobs are then forced to endure mistreatment by upper management and the people they cater to because they are rarely other opportunities to leave the industry. This racial bias that lands black and brown into the service industry also keeps them out of others. It is not hard imagine an employer not hiring a person because they think they are better suited for a different line of work.
Centuries old wounds are still raw because they never healed right in the firstplace
I agree with this statement a lot. Had the issue been addressed sooner than now maybe there wouldn't have been some much contention on taking them down. Instead we allowed them to stay there for years until it became almost normal.
We justify our silence and inaction by manufacturing noble causes that marinatein historical denial.
Many people would justify the nature of these statues by saying that it is a part of U.S history but that in itself is disingenuous take on it. If anything it is still one of the worse parts of the United States' conception.
It is in this union and in this truth that real patriotism is rooted and flourishes
It's really sad that patriotism was one of the main arguments for taking the monuments down. True patriotism would completely reject the flag and everything it stands for.
As clear as it is for me today... for a long time, even though I grew up in one ofNew Orleans’ most diverse neighborhoods, even with my family’s long proudhistory of fighting for civil rights... I must have passed by those monuments amillion times without giving them a second thought
This was because many people were already numb to it and some did not care because it had no significance to them anyway.
And in the second decade of the 21st century, asking African Americans - oranyone else - to drive by property that they own; occupied by reverential statuesof men who fought to destroy the country and deny that person’s humanityseems perverse and absurd
This is simply a matter of having of displaying empathy and having compassion for your neighbor. Yes it's apart of our nations history but always remember that it was the darkest time in the black populace in the U.S. Displaying statues spits in the face of those same people.
He said in his now famous ‘corner-stone speech’ that the Confederacy’s “corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; thatslavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon thisgreat physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I actually never knew about this speech and that's a shame. This is great talking point to when ever somebody says that maintaining slavery wasn't the main goal for the confederates.
These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocentremembrances of a benign history.
This point here is great! To have these statues up is not just simply "remembering history" it is a disgrace the United States in the first place and to the majority black population in New Orleans.
The Cult of the Lost Cause.
I'll be honest I've never heard of this name in particular but am aware of the group who pioneered it. They were called "The United Daughters of the Confederacy".
You see - New Orleans is truly a city of many nations/a melting pot/a bubblingcauldron of many cultures.
To be honest, New Orleans is really on a smaller scale what the United States is advertised to be.
During the War of 1812, the British sent a large force to conquer the city, but they were defeated early in 1815 by Andrew Jackson's combined forces some miles downriver from the city at Chalmette's plantation, during the Battle of New Orleans. The American government managed to obtain early information of the enterprise and prepared to meet it with forces (regular, militia, and naval) under the command of Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson. Privateers led by Jean Lafitte were also recruited for the battle.
Interesting to see that major battles centered around New Orleans never cause significant damage to the city itself
The United States Army Corps of Engineers designed the levee and floodwall system incorrectly, and contractors failed to build the system in places to the requirements of the Corps of Engineers' contracts
So was it because the U.S Army Corps of engineers designed it wrong? Or was it because the contractors failed to follow design instructions?
In the 1920s an effort to "modernize" the look of the city removed the old cast-iron balconies from Canal Street, the city's commercial hub. In the 1960s another "modernization" effort replaced the Canal Streetcar Line with buses. Both of these moves came to be regarded as mistakes long after the fact, and the streetcars returned to a portion of Canal Street at the end of the 1990s, and construction to restore the entire line was completed in April 2004.
Modernizing much of New Orleans would be to rid itself of much of what gives it a unique experience. I wonder if that was taken in account when they chose to bring back the street cars.
Epidemics
No mention of the recent Covid-19 Virus? Seems strange to title a section Epidemics and not highlight the most recent and impactful one.
In 1849 Baton Rouge replaced New Orleans as the capital of the state
I think their should be a little bit more information on this matter. Maybe a little more information as to why that decision was made?
While the slave insurgency was the largest in U.S. history, the rebels killed only two white men. Confrontations with militia and executions after locally-held tribunals killed ninety-five black people
Notable that the largest slave revolt in U.S history wasn't necessarily the most violent.
Observers at the time and historians since believe there was an undercount and the true population was about 10,000.[13]
I wonder if it has to with the documentation of slave labor? Seeing as slaves were akin to cattle it would not be surprising if there were more that just weren't documented.
The priest-chronicler Pierre François Xavier de Charlevoix described New Orleans in 1721 as a place of a hundred wretched hovels in a malarious wet thicket of willows and dwarf palmettos, infested by serpents and alligators; he seems to have been the first, however, to predict for it an imperial future.
In terms of early settlements I'm sure most would have assumed that an area such as this one would have been one of the worst places to settle. Despite this it would flourish in later decades.
Throughout the 19th century, New Orleans was the largest port in the Southern United States, exporting most of the nation's cotton output and other products to Western Europe and New England. With it being the largest city in the South at the start of the Civil War (1861–1865), it was an early target for capture by Union forces.
Interesting that it was the largest city in the south for a while. A stark contrast from how it is now with Texas and Florida hosting a few cities larger than New Orleans now.
Airports
This section should note the fact that there is an old airport that is no longer in use and how it was replaced by the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.
s of 2011[update], the Hispanic and Latino American population had also grown in the Greater New Orleans area alongside Black and African American residents, including in Kenner, central Metairie, and Terrytown in Jefferson Parish and Eastern New Orleans and Mid-City in New Orleans proper.[155] Janet Murguía, president and chief executive officer of the National Council of La Raza, stated that up to 120,000 Hispanic and Latino Americans workers lived in New Orleans. In June 2007, one study stated that the Hispanic and Latino American population had risen from 15,000, pre-Katrina, to over 50,000.[156] From 2010 to 2014 the city grew by 12%, adding an average of more than 10,000 new residents each year following the 2010 U.S. census.[121]
What was the specific cause of this I suppose you could make the case that housing in New Orleans after Katrina didn't cost much but that does give an adept reason.
New Orleans' colonial history of French and Spanish settlement generated a strong Roman Catholic tradition. Catholic missions ministered to slaves and free people of color and established schools for them. In addition, many late 19th and early 20th century European immigrants, such as the Irish, some Germans, and Italians were Catholic
The Catholic influence through out the city is prominent and is home to the only catholic HBCU in the U.S.
One of the strongest varieties of the New Orleans accent is sometimes identified as the Yat dialect, from the greeting "Where y'at?" This distinctive accent is dying out in the city, but remains strong in the surrounding parishes.
These really seems like a case of AAVE being put in use. The "Yat dialect "is new to me and seems a bit disingenuous.
gentrification, new residents buying property in formerly closely knit communities, and disp
I applaud the authors use and addition of the word gentrification here. It's been a problem for several years now and its an issue that effects New Orleans especially.
New Orleans was catastrophically affected by what Raymond B. Seed called "the worst engineering disaster in the world since Chernobyl", when the federal levee system failed during Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005.[7
This is still baffling to me as such a situation like this seemed avoidable but a lack of negligence and preparation for it caused so much damage. Some of which is still affecting the city.
Another notable example is the street plan and architecture still distinguishing New Orleans today. French Louisiana had early architects in the province who were trained as military engineers and were now assigned to design government buildings.
New Orleans unlike every other major city I've been too is one of the cities that has kept a majority of its old architecture instead of completely renovating it.
By the 1980s and 1990s, scientists observed that extensive, rapid, and ongoing erosion of the marshlands and swamp surrounding New Orleans, especially that related to the Mississippi River–Gulf Outlet Canal, had the unintended result of leaving the city more vulnerable than before to hurricane-induced catastrophic storm surges.
It would seem that even more scientific advancements are needed to keep the city of New Orleans as it geographical location essentially inhibited it from the very start.
In practice, African American public schools and facilities were underfunded across the South.
Much of the effects of this are still prominent today and can be seen by going into predominantly black neighborhoods and noticing the poor conditions surrounding them.
Afro-Creole was present in religious beliefs and the Louisiana Creole language. The religion most associated with this period for was called Voodoo.[40][41]
Although Voodoo is often villainized and commercialized, especially in tourist areas, it is a sacred faith that holds a rather prominent part in the lives of many Black residents in New Orleans.
Nueva Orleans (the name of New Orleans in Spanish)[33] remained under Spanish control until 1803, when it reverted briefly to French rule. Nearly all of the surviving 18th-century architecture of the Vieux Carré (French Quarter) dates from the Spanish period, notably excepting the Old Ursuline Convent.[34]
Even though the Spanish ruled over New Orleans for a period of time, the Spanish influence within New Orleans is often understated compared to it's French.