Is subjectivity pointless "emotion"?

Is patriarchy benevolent in its general structure?

Let's examine these questions more closely, shall we?

I was one who was born in Rhodesia, and was forced to emigrate whilst still a child (as this was my parents' decision, not mine). Regrettably, I found my 'welcome' into the First World to be anything but. To this day, I keep up that the general level of moral reflection and self-discipline among much of the populace in my current milieu are frighteningly low. I wonder if it could cross the minds of some of the moral ideologues on the evils of colonialism that acting upon their unchecked assumptions about colonial whites could give the colonial white immigrants, to whom some denizens of the western left are pleased to give short thrift, imputing to them collective guilt. This only leads to the blindsided newcomer learning complete contempt for those who wish to punish us for nothing we had done wrong. To act to punish without even the preliminaries of an introduction to the person whom you are punishing is quite without morality or decency, in my view.

Ashis Nandy, the Indian post-colonial theorist and intellectual cautions us against making monsters out of the ex-colonials. To do so, he says, is to reinforce colonialism as a psychologically potent force. These disempowered colonials as victims of Modernity, dwarfed in relation to the gigantic mechanisms and devices of modern warfare.

Nandy's position on colonialism lends itself to a psychological appraisal of the colonials, who and what they were, and how they are really in relation to contemporary manifestations of power. The children of the white colonials are particularly vulnerable, even compared to their uprooted parents. My generation is also the victim of colonial secrecy about what went on, and religious shame, which prevents free communication, and makes us victim to both right-wing and left-wing propaganda.

A simple-minded anti-colonialist position, by contrast to Nandy’s more enlightened perspective, only contributes to a highly unethical and destructive blaming of the generation of the white colonial's children, who did not play any part in the politics of the era.  Identity politics theorists who have a reflexive need to condemn the colonialism of the past, whilst not looking at the issues of the present, are reinforcing the violent psychological legacy of the colonial era, and is creating more of the anguish which the astute Zimbabwean writer, Dambudzo Marechera, railed against:

"We are refugees fleeing from the excesses of our parents,” he said.

Marechera, hardly a partisan for the order that preceded colonialism, went on to say, “Tradition, on closer examination, always reveals secrets we prefer to flush down the toilet."

Freeman Chari I think it takes another man for another man to realise that he too is human, man in isolation is a mere animal

Jennifer Frances Armstrong Well maybe you can stop tearing at your flesh if you go to church and meet a fellow male?

If you can't tackle an issue because it seems too hot to handle, then you can pretend everything is as it's supposed to be. Like the young boys being molested by priests were really expressing their own agency in accepting priestly domination. As I said yesterday, this was Freud's mode of analysis as well -- you are a totally free agent, with no social forces to limit or obstruct you, so if he end up in harm's way, you must have chosen that out of pathological idiocy -- or, as some feminists might term it, "agency".

There was a bush fire, so there was a bit of wood smoke in my eyes.  Please forgive.

A Room of One's Own (Annotated): Virginia Woolf, Mark Hussey, Susan Gubar: Amazon.com: Books

This must be why I haven't become a beneficiary of bourgeois ideas. Whereas I agree that it would be nice to have a fixed income, in order to create, and one certain can benefit from privacy, Dambudzo had neither of these and still created.

In particular consider his MINDBLAST.

The sheer audacity of the circumstances under which the book was written is three-quarters what makes it so appealing.  I may do a video on this at some point.

The ideology of the 1950s was along the lines that if anything was natural, it was probably suspect.  The imposition of science as a kind of straitjacket, and cultural mores as a kind of straitjacket, along with religion as a kind of straitjacket, were considered imperative.  You can see this ideology reflected in Jacques Lacan's writings, whereby the infant is considered "mad" until a straitjacket of convention is imposed on it.

The question is: Isn't that mad?