"From a world he experienced as spherical from atop ships’ masts, Melville perceived a sea-level humanity, embracing and celebrating the latitudes and longitudes of human variation, now termed diversity. When Ishmael finds himself compelled to share a blanket at the sold-out Spouter Inn, he declares, 'No man prefers to sleep two in a bed.' But he settles in, waiting for his mysterious South Seas roommate who, he’s informed, is peddling a shrunken head on the streets of New Bedford. Queequeg’s appearance terrifies Ishmael mute. But after things equilibrate, Ishmael reconsiders: 'For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal … a human being just as I am. … Better sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian.'... Reflecting on Queequeg’s tatted visage, he concludes: 'Savage though he was, and hideously marred about the face — at least to my taste — his countenance yet had a something in it which was by no means disagreeable. You cannot hide the soul. … Queequeg was George Washington cannibalistically developed.'... Nearly two centuries ago, Melville showed us how easy it is to welcome as our own the touches of others, their equivalent colors, customs and beliefs; their journeys, their transitions. And to remember those who, unwelcomed, suffered. How much could have been avoided, and embraced, had we heeded...."
From "Melville’s Whale Was a Warning We Failed to Heed" (NYT).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
२७ टिप्पण्या:
Nearly two centuries ago, Melville showed us how easy it is to welcome as our own the touches of others, their equivalent colors, customs and beliefs; their journeys, their transitions.
Dude! No touching! Governor's orders!
tatted visage
His face was a kind of knotted lace of cotton or linen thread?
that makes as much sense as this, meaning none,
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/05/comment-on-this.php
My daughter, Mary Dahlman Begley, read "Moby Dick" when she was about 10 and then spontaneously acted out a 15 minute skit about the book. I was astounded. At that age, I was reading comic books and believed TV wrestling was real.
Nearly two centuries ago, Melville showed us how easy it is to conflate fiction with reality.
Fun fact: Dana Scully's dog was named Queequeg, who, unwelcomed, suffered and was eaten by an alligator. How much could have been avoided, and embraced, had we heeded.
The best film adaption of Melville's magnum opus was John Huston's 1956 version with Gregory Peck as Ahab. He took Ishmael's description to heart when he cast a genuine Austrian count as his tattooed Polynesian chieftain cum harpooneer. Look up an image of Friedrich Anton Maria Hubertus Bonifacius Graf von Ledebur-Wicheln sometime, and see if he isn't a bit like our dollar bill Washington... Just a wee bit around the gills.
Heck, I'll do it for you lazy bums: Here's one bearded... here he is as the commandant of Slaughterhouse Five, the only interesting character in the film (except for topless Valerie Perrine)... and as yet another spear-chucking savage (One hopes he wasn't in a rut casting-wise. Does a Viennese accent resemble Ojibwe?)
And here's the Count as Queequeg... Lose the tat then gain a powered perruque and he's Lafayette's Caesar incarnate.
From "Melville’s Whale Was a Warning We Failed to Heed" (NYT).
Paywall... Should I assume the warning the NYT failed to heed concerned its Orange Whale editorial farrago?
When I read "Moby Dick" in high school. our teacher gave us a list of chapters we should skip. Years later I was teaching a marine biology class, and I went back and read those chapters. Although Moby himself is anthropomorphic, the rest of Melville's descriptions of whales is pretty good biology. Chapters and chapters of observation.
While Melville had no hatred for the South Sea Islanders, the idea that he'd be in favor of flooding the USA with millions of Muslims, Africans, and Asians in the pursuit of cheap labor, is rather absurd. That's what liberals today want, not Melville.
IRC, he was a reluctant supporter of the North during the Civil War, and rather indifferent to the issue of slavery. But then, that describes most people in 1860.
Melville thought we should have left the South Seas islands alone, and not "civilized" them. He was no globalist.
"their equivalent colors, customs and beliefs . . . How much could have been avoided, and embraced, had we heeded...."
A contradiction there: avoiding the greatest disasters required not treating the "customs and beliefs" of others as "equivalent."
Basic public health, mechanized agriculture, the Green Revolution: all disrespected old customs and beliefs, on the assumption that longer, healthier lives were better for all.
With greater effort, we might have avoided the most destructive set of "customs and beliefs" of the twentieth century, i.e., communism, but of course that would have depended on an even more vigorous rejection of equivalence.
Anyway, how do postmodern let-a-hundred-flowers-bloom(-but-not-really-don't get-any-deplorable-ideas) progs decide that customs and beliefs are equi-valent? By fiat, or by argument? If the latter, what kind of argument?
Zzzzzz. Tiresome moralizing from the NY Times.
It was the New England whalers who took in QueeQueg, not the South Sea cannibals who took in Ishmael. Had he turned up on their shores, they might have taken him in, but not in a pleasant way.
"IRC, he was a reluctant supporter of the North during the Civil War, and rather indifferent to the issue of slavery."
In Melville's mystery novella Benito Cereno, an American ship comes upon a Spanish ship, whose crew behave very strangely. It turns out it is a slave-ship, and the slaves have rebelled, and the surviving crew are their prisoners. Their plan is to force the crew to take them back to Africa. Fortunately, the Americans figure out what's going on and restore order.
This is hideous, even for NYT standards.
Likening modern immigrants to noble cannibals. Making the absurd case that sharing limited time and space with someone from a foreign culture is the same as sharing an entire nation.
The NYT is worse than unserious when it comes to the challenges of multiculturalism. Its cartoonish portrayal of race relations as nothing more than Good Whites & People of Color vs. Bad Whites -- now the standard progressive take -- is making relations demonstrably worse.
This narrative can't endure.
I've worked my way through it. Typical NYT "think piece" in that the story is forced to fit into the author's own world view. Made to support his interpretation, his fears, his biases. Moby Dick is irrelevant to this piece. It could have been almost any book.
"Melville tried to warn us (about global warming)."
Ridiculous.
mikee opined: "It was the New England whalers who took in QueeQueg, not the South Sea cannibals who took in Ishmael. Had he turned up on their shores, they might have taken him in, but not in a pleasant way."
Not very up on Melville's actual life story, are you?
Sufficiently different cultures can live together, as long as they all agree to live by the dictates and norms of just one of the cultures.
"Melville’s Whale Was a Warning We Failed to Heed" (NYT).
I've said it before, and once more unto the breach, "I despise, detest, and distrust the NYT (the WaPoo, too!)
Another fine example of mental masturbation in the NYT. If only we had heeded the warnings!
How does one explain the civil strife within a homogenous society- let's use Ireland as an example?
I happen to be reading Moby-Dick at the moment and was wondering how it’s faring these days with the pc censors. I think the Times was making a defensive move to keep the book out of their claws, which is a good thing. But I give it 3 years before it the way of Huckleberry Finn. Notice that book too has a white guy who learns to accept a black guy as a brother.
what a pile of crap. The NYT reading everyone else's mind, and not seeing the asshole within
When I read "Moby Dick" in high school. our teacher gave us a list of chapters we should skip.
Ugh, I remember those cetology chapters. But isn't the whole fast fish/loose fish riff in the midst of one of those otherwise dreadful taxonomies? Be careful skipping stuff: there's humor, and anger and angry humor sprinkled throughout. I always had the feeling that he was contemptuous of me, the reader, during that book, although not in a way that made the experience less pleasurable.
I am not a slave and I never was a slave, and I thank the Lord Jesus for that.
That being said,Melville was a great writer.
"How much could have been avoided, and embraced, had we heeded...."
Ishmael ("God has heard"), son of Hagar, Sarah's Egyptian slave girl, was welcomed but only for a while. Sarah tormented Hagar even before she gave birth to Ishmael, to the point that Hagar fled until the Lord told her to return and accept the abuse at Sarah's hand. After Sarah bore Isaac, she insisted that Ishmael and his mother be banished and sent away. Abraham did as she demanded. As they wandered in the desert to the west, Hagar eventually lost hope and abandoned her son when she ran out of water to drink. But the Lord heard Ishmael's cry and, directing Sarah to rescue him, revealed a well to her where they could drink. And he made Ishmael the father of nations (just not the chosen one).
Unlike the NYT, Melville was steeped in Biblical lore. His Ishmael survives by grabbing onto Quegqueg's empty but floating coffin after Moby D destroys Ahab's ship. Not much about Melville's retelling of the story of Ishmael that offers an easy fit with lefty-land narratives. And the larger setting in the Torah regarding Ishmael presents a narrative that is pretty much the opposite of 'diversity and inclusion.'
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा