Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: February ::
Re: Welsh etc.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0465  Wednesday, 28 February 2001

[1]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 27 Feb 2001 04:59:23 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.

[2]     From:   Harry Hill <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 27 Feb 2001 08:28:52 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.

[3]     From:   Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
        Date:   Tuesday, 27 Feb 2001 10:34:29 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.

[4]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 27 Feb 2001 20:40:00 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.

[5]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 27 Feb 2001 20:40:00 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 27 Feb 2001 04:59:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.

Clifford Stetner writes:

>Regarding the cultural relativity of human cruelty,
>we might look to
>some of the practices used in popular festivals
>throughout Europe, at
>least through the end of the Middle Ages: riding a
>cuckolded husband
>about the village on a rail, for instance.

I am not entirely clear about what side of the argument this, and his
remarks on South Africa, are intended to support.  Could Mr. Stetner
help me understand this?

In the interim, a comment: this example, to me, seems more like evidence
of certain enduring human traits, rather than of incidents which require
a cultural relativist perspective for full understanding.  It has long
been a pet theory of mine that Jerry Springer, Rikki Lake et. al. serve
an equivalent function in contemporary culture to that served by
medieval charivari and the various other public-ridicule and
scapegoating rituals.

Cheers,
Karen E. Peterson

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Harry Hill <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 27 Feb 2001 08:28:52 EST
Subject: 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.

Here in the Province of Quebec less than twenty years ago there was a
bar in the Eastern Townships that used to have inmates from a nearby
asylum entertain on Saturday evenings. I don't think it's unreasonable
to believe in Bedlam weekend visits.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edmund Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Date:           Tuesday, 27 Feb 2001 10:34:29 -0500
Subject: 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.

Cliff Stetner writes," Regarding nostalgia for apartheid peace and
prosperity, it would be hard to establish just how much of South
Africa's current problems are the direct result of its many years of
oppressive colonization rather than its natural condition from which the
white man's burden temporarily rescued it."

Well said. I take it that Cliff delivers the last possible "cause" with
more than a dollop of irony.  One of the real causes is, of course, the
fact that governing is all new to many African countries, for they have
no experience or tradition to fall back on.

If I'm reading Larry Weiss correctly, his is a philosophy of
triumphalism: capitalism has won because it is indeed better (and proof
of real progress).  That is a popular conservative position, though
often uttered with contempt and disdain for all those still in doubt.
But where does this position lead you, Larry?

It seems to lead you to the view that colonization was not only
necessary but good because it introduced aspects of capitalism.  Is this
your myth of progress?

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 27 Feb 2001 20:30:27 -0500
Subject: 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.

Fran Teague writes,

>reading one analysis of the thread on Bedlam,
>which concludes that the early modern response was either comic or
>cruel, prompts me to ask why we should view it as an either-or
>proposition.

And, of course, she's absolutely on target.  What in our experience
would lead us to believe that all visitors to any hospital came or come
for the same reason?  Shouldn't we assume that early modern visitors to
Bethlehem Hospital were motivated by a wide variety of reasons -- a full
house of motives?

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 27 Feb 2001 20:40:00 -0500
Subject: 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0456 Re: Welsh etc.

Don Bloom asks:

>isn't Prince Hal
>unique in actually enjoying the company of people from the lower orders?

How do I know that Hal "actually" enjoys the company of the "lower
orders"?  He metaphorically refers to these folks as "foul and ugly
mists/Of vapors that did seem to strangle him" (1 Henry IV, 1.2.196-197
Bevington).  He himself is the sun, of course.

Yours, Bill Godshalk
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.