Saturday, June 4, 2011
Courtesan's of France just as important as Venice.
Another Doctor Who reference. because there is no such thing as too many of those.
Madame de Pompadour was a royal mistress that served the same purpose as Veronica in Dangerous Beauty, but she didn't get put on trial for witchcraft...
Crime and Punishment.... and the dark side?
This doesn't really tie directly into anything but I thought that the crimes and both Darth and Hitler commit could be seen as a connection.
IT is FILLED with dirty language so if you are offended by that don't watch it. It is pretty funny though.
IT is FILLED with dirty language so if you are offended by that don't watch it. It is pretty funny though.
The Sad Story of the Pappenheimers
The narrative from Kunze in the Highroad to the Stake and his ability to weave truth narrative almost makes one forget that it is a historical crime story. The family that was originally arrested under suspicion of small stakes crimes quickly saw their plight progress to being made an example of and then after being interrogated during torture they saw it develop to witchcraft.
I thought Kunze tying the historical facts of the time with an interesting narrative. It became somewhat drawn out at times, seemingly getting caught up with the details and side facts and not really focusing on the case itself, which was interesting enough.
I thought Kunze tying the historical facts of the time with an interesting narrative. It became somewhat drawn out at times, seemingly getting caught up with the details and side facts and not really focusing on the case itself, which was interesting enough.
Vampires of Venice?
Couldn't help but think of this episode of Doctor Who when I watched Dangerous Beauty.
Private Lives
Huppert discusses the private goings-on for many in society, those that had to deal with being orphaned or simply lacking in money to live a better life.
Unwed mothers were of particular note, the hardships that they almost certainly would face just emphasizes the hypocritical nature that early modern Europe existed in.
Marriage also seemed much different than the modern sense. there was almost no marriage based on what we consider love today, that there was always a dowry and arrangements involved in coupling. It was not unheard of for the rare case of marriage based off of the desires of the two people involved. There were areas of Europe that started to show a development of equality between men and women but it was the exception to the vast majority of rules.
Unwed mothers were of particular note, the hardships that they almost certainly would face just emphasizes the hypocritical nature that early modern Europe existed in.
Marriage also seemed much different than the modern sense. there was almost no marriage based on what we consider love today, that there was always a dowry and arrangements involved in coupling. It was not unheard of for the rare case of marriage based off of the desires of the two people involved. There were areas of Europe that started to show a development of equality between men and women but it was the exception to the vast majority of rules.
Margins of Society
Huppert brings light to an interesting aspect of society in the time period, that the outcasts and stigmatized members of society do not rise up against those that cast them out. That the rebellions of the period are often led by those that have a stake in society such as middle class shop owners or other merchants.
The "margins of society", as Huppert referred to them, were barely hanging on and too busy trying to survive to worry about social goings-on in the greater scheme of things. He noted that they would be blamed for problems in the society but that they were often being taken advantage of themselves. The baby transporter is a development of grotesque injustice in the world that the poor lived in. There was also the distinction of the rightful poor and not. The interesting thing was middle class members of society often took advantage of the poor, with some working in human trafficking and slave trade of the poor.
The "margins of society", as Huppert referred to them, were barely hanging on and too busy trying to survive to worry about social goings-on in the greater scheme of things. He noted that they would be blamed for problems in the society but that they were often being taken advantage of themselves. The baby transporter is a development of grotesque injustice in the world that the poor lived in. There was also the distinction of the rightful poor and not. The interesting thing was middle class members of society often took advantage of the poor, with some working in human trafficking and slave trade of the poor.
Modern Queens
The idea of homosexuality in the true modern sense is something that did not exist in the early modern European world, or at least it was just starting to develop. The generally believed understanding of homosexual acts is that in the early modern world it was still considered just an option given to people. The term homosexual didn't develop until the nineteenth century.
The idea of the effeminate nature connected to homosexuality is also something that developed during the modern period after starting in the mid eighteenth century. The Queen is a term that came form that growing effeminate connection. Sodomites before that were still considered masculine often and there was often no social stigma that was connected to sodomy.
The Council of Trent along with changing perceptions in society, such as the development of the term and understanding of sexual orientation, combined to bring about the modern understanding of the term homosexuality
The idea of the effeminate nature connected to homosexuality is also something that developed during the modern period after starting in the mid eighteenth century. The Queen is a term that came form that growing effeminate connection. Sodomites before that were still considered masculine often and there was often no social stigma that was connected to sodomy.
The Council of Trent along with changing perceptions in society, such as the development of the term and understanding of sexual orientation, combined to bring about the modern understanding of the term homosexuality
Does Increased Punishment Mean Increased Crime?
The idea that growing persecution in crimes is directly related to actual crimes committed is a misconception that many hold. The development of the accusative institution of judicial punishments is one that keeps crime convictions down artificially. The idea that one has to accuse the criminal in order to start any sort of a trial is something that will keep any looking into beggars or other stigmatized groups from trying to accuse higher standing citizens of crimes.
Even citizens in decent standing could not accuse some crimes, either ones that would potentially stigmatize themselves or a crime that was committed by a upper elite in society. This creates an extremely skewed sense of justice and would eventually give way to inquisitorial justice that would bring about many more punishments and give the appearance of more crime even though it likely remained the same as in past time periods
Thoughts on Dangerous Beauty- I AM SPARTACUS
My cage seems bigger than yours but it is still a cage- Victoria Franco
Such is the life of a courtesan in Venice. Veronica embarks on a path of her life when she is unable to marry her love Marco. What then transpires is an interesting walking of the line between love and lust. She proves to have so much more freedom than the married women of the city and time period. She is allowed to consult with the men of the city, powerful men, she does so because she offers her body in return. The movie shows an interesting story arc that brings Veronica from the bottom to the most important Courtesan in Venice and arguably the most important person when she gets the French King to offer ships to Venice to assist what would have been a losing war.
The movie shows many insights to the world of prostitution that are interesting but I find the end of the movie almost unforgivable. I understand that Hollywood loves a happy ending but the Spartacus-esque ending to the inquisition courtroom scene was on of the biggest movie blunders with something that could not be considered a true story.
Despite all of that the story apart from the courtroom scene was very interesting and brought light to just how much power courtesan's held during the time period.
Such is the life of a courtesan in Venice. Veronica embarks on a path of her life when she is unable to marry her love Marco. What then transpires is an interesting walking of the line between love and lust. She proves to have so much more freedom than the married women of the city and time period. She is allowed to consult with the men of the city, powerful men, she does so because she offers her body in return. The movie shows an interesting story arc that brings Veronica from the bottom to the most important Courtesan in Venice and arguably the most important person when she gets the French King to offer ships to Venice to assist what would have been a losing war.
The movie shows many insights to the world of prostitution that are interesting but I find the end of the movie almost unforgivable. I understand that Hollywood loves a happy ending but the Spartacus-esque ending to the inquisition courtroom scene was on of the biggest movie blunders with something that could not be considered a true story.
Despite all of that the story apart from the courtroom scene was very interesting and brought light to just how much power courtesan's held during the time period.
Various Levels of Stigmatization
The separation of different levels of stigmatization creates an extremely interesting segmented societal structure within an already segmented social structure. Having various levels of acceptance within the stigmatized group is something that people who are not part of the stigmatized will generally not even consider in everyday life.
Difference in varying levels of stigmatization within a single group of stigmatized peoples is an interesting aspect of stigmatization in society. The point brought up by Goffman that there can be an discriminatory nature between the lesser stigmatized against those that are considered to be worse off or further down the scale away from normal is an interesting argument. I had never thought of it before but now that he brings it to light it makes complete sense.
The other aspect of various level of stigmatization is the different types of the process. That there could be those that live among society either in the discreditable section or the already discredited but that could still live among normal society with some sort of connection to a normal life. There are also those that are so discredited that they are either unable to live with society or are so shunned that they might as well not. Either way they are held to a lower standard than the other stigmatized groups.
Difference in varying levels of stigmatization within a single group of stigmatized peoples is an interesting aspect of stigmatization in society. The point brought up by Goffman that there can be an discriminatory nature between the lesser stigmatized against those that are considered to be worse off or further down the scale away from normal is an interesting argument. I had never thought of it before but now that he brings it to light it makes complete sense.
The other aspect of various level of stigmatization is the different types of the process. That there could be those that live among society either in the discreditable section or the already discredited but that could still live among normal society with some sort of connection to a normal life. There are also those that are so discredited that they are either unable to live with society or are so shunned that they might as well not. Either way they are held to a lower standard than the other stigmatized groups.
Discredited vs Discreditable
One aspect of stigmatize people that I had not realized before taking this class was the idea that the stigma would not be openly obvious to those that see the person. The idea of stigmas being hidden from the public is something apart from what the original intent that came with stigma, with the original intent being a clear marker of someones difference from the "normals".
The idea that stigma is a much more wide-spread than just something that is apparent like being a convict in jail, or that it something that extends to ex-cons and how they have to deal with that for the rest of their life. It is something that adds an entire level of psychological turmoil that effects the life of a stigmatized member of society. The choice of the discreditable to either share their true nature or hide it from the normal part of society and try to blend in is something that makes them an intriguing part of society
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Youth Clubs and Globalization
I think the creation and development of youth clubs in order to preserve the right of young single men towards the marriageable women of the city is an interesting response to a problem.
What makes it interesting to me is that the development would and could never happen in a modern First world country today. Taking away the feminist movement and the equal rights that everyone shares now, the youth clubs would still never be resorted to.
The lack of mobility that people as a whole had to deal with during the the Medieval period and into the Renaissance era had a extreme influence on their lives. Where ever someone was born had a large effect on many different outcomes of their life, including potential marriage candidates. A problem that would not ever reveal itself during modern times because of the increased mobility options, not only with increased physical mobility with cars, trains, plains and other means of transportation but also the game changer that is the Internet. Those changes make the fear of only having a limited number of marriage candidates and the response of the youth clubs null, at least in the first world.
This is one of the many differences between medieval times and modern era, and one that many people probably don't think about when looking at the contrasts between the two time periods.
What makes it interesting to me is that the development would and could never happen in a modern First world country today. Taking away the feminist movement and the equal rights that everyone shares now, the youth clubs would still never be resorted to.
The lack of mobility that people as a whole had to deal with during the the Medieval period and into the Renaissance era had a extreme influence on their lives. Where ever someone was born had a large effect on many different outcomes of their life, including potential marriage candidates. A problem that would not ever reveal itself during modern times because of the increased mobility options, not only with increased physical mobility with cars, trains, plains and other means of transportation but also the game changer that is the Internet. Those changes make the fear of only having a limited number of marriage candidates and the response of the youth clubs null, at least in the first world.
This is one of the many differences between medieval times and modern era, and one that many people probably don't think about when looking at the contrasts between the two time periods.
Monday, April 4, 2011
First blog question: Do I believe in the death penalty?
I do not believe in the death penalty.
I also don't believe that it is a very black and white situation. As history has proven that there are some people who are unable to be part of society to a safe extent, but the idea of removing the person from society to the extent that execution does. I think my main problem with the death penalty, aside from the financial cost, is that the problem arises regarding where to draw the line of what deserves a death penalty sentence and what does not. Does murdering 1 person deserve a death sentence or life in prison or just 20 years? Falling into a confusion of what type of crime deserve the harshest of penalties is a very easy one.
I think their is also a moral implication of how does whatever governing body have the right to decide to take someones life? Especially when sometimes they do not take another person who might have committed the same exact crime as the first.
I think the other problem with the death penalty is that despite all the science that is used in crime investigations in modern times there is still the chance of an incorrect conviction and with the death penalty as an option it could prove to be a disastrous if not discovered before the execution is followed through with.
Overall there are just too many problems with the implementation and enforcement of the death penalty that I can't be in favor of it.
-Trevor Kuss
I also don't believe that it is a very black and white situation. As history has proven that there are some people who are unable to be part of society to a safe extent, but the idea of removing the person from society to the extent that execution does. I think my main problem with the death penalty, aside from the financial cost, is that the problem arises regarding where to draw the line of what deserves a death penalty sentence and what does not. Does murdering 1 person deserve a death sentence or life in prison or just 20 years? Falling into a confusion of what type of crime deserve the harshest of penalties is a very easy one.
I think their is also a moral implication of how does whatever governing body have the right to decide to take someones life? Especially when sometimes they do not take another person who might have committed the same exact crime as the first.
I think the other problem with the death penalty is that despite all the science that is used in crime investigations in modern times there is still the chance of an incorrect conviction and with the death penalty as an option it could prove to be a disastrous if not discovered before the execution is followed through with.
Overall there are just too many problems with the implementation and enforcement of the death penalty that I can't be in favor of it.
-Trevor Kuss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)