Horrors of History

I'm currently writing a paper on La Amistad, and one of the articles I've read makes a point I want to explore further. It is discussing the unsanitized and realistic depiction of the trans-Atlantic crossing of slave ships and the author, Joseph K. Adjaye, says:

As painful as this episode of the past is, it cannot and should not be erased from historical memory. 

 I think this is true of most horrors to be found in history. I have a personal obsession with the Rwandan genocide and trying to understand that. The atrocities of history need to be remembered and remain horrific and unsanitized to remind us that they are horrors and should not be repeated.

Quincy Adams in the film Amistad: "Whoever tells the best story wins." Oddly true to history, not just the illustrious court case. Another article I just read for the same class was discussing the representations of WWII in works of history, film and fiction. The grittier, more true-to-life representation of war will likely be forgotten because it's not the one the public wants to hear. And yet it is what should be remembered. If we don't remember how horrible these things actually were, then we are more inclined to repeat them. There is a reason people say history repeats itself. It only takes the right conditions...

The Invisible Beauty

I was watching a movie last week that brought up an interesting point. Dennis Hopper's character in Elegy was talking to his friend about how beautiful women are invisible. Ben Kingsley's character disagreed, saying that he couldn't help but notice them because they were gorgeous. Hopper argues that you don't really see them. You see only the outer shell which is beautiful, but the inner person is ignored because of the outer beauty.

There's a certain extent to which I tend to think extremely beautiful people are more inclined to be uninteresting or ugly in their personalities because they've come to take for granted that they can get by on their looks and thus lack personal development. This is why I thought it was an interesting take on beautiful people, it challenged what I normally think... and yet, I've met exceptions to my own 'rule'. Hopper's speech seems to be true, too, when one considers Hollywood. We all marvel at the beauty of the actors we love (and sometimes their talent as well), but do we really know them? Whatever we believe about these beautiful people, we do not actually know them, only our perceptions of them.

Then again, do we ever really know anyone? Everyone gets judged for how they look. Perhaps with the ugly, ordinary or less beautiful people know to look past what they see to the true personality. I've always found that to be far more attractive than however a person may look. Appearances fade, personality does not.

Let me know your thoughts... I think I'm still pondering this one myself.

The Art of the First Impression

The impression we leave on others has always fascinated me, perhaps it's why my favourite game is something called True Colors: a game wherein you have to guess how many people 'voted' for your statement to be most associated with yourself. It's not so much a game of how well people know you, but how well you know how people perceive you. Both being topics that interest me. If you look it up, apparently the game has been butchered into a 'mean-spirited' and not quite as fun a game since it's original 1989 incarnation, but I digress.

I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine about first impressions. She believes she must make a terrible one because she's never acquired a job where she didn't already know someone currently working there. I have never had a job where I knew someone there beforehand; this may be partly due to the fact that I was the first of my friends to get a job so I couldn't exactly rely on them in this manner. Then again, once they did get jobs I wasn't interested in working where they did, and possibly just not working with them at all (I think having personal space apart from friends or family is a good thing). It's an interesting point though, that we have entirely different experiences with the job market and yet she seems like a friendly enough person.

However, she did make a couple of other statements which made me wonder whether she wasn't correct about her first impression theory. But what is it that makes a good impression on people? She told me she hates searching for jobs (I think most would agree) and the need to pretend you really want to work wherever you're applying, etc. Perhaps I'm not quite as misanthropic as some of my friends and so don't feel quite like I'm 'acting' when I apply for jobs. There is a bit of that inherent in the art of the search, but there's no reason you can't come across as sincere as well. Maybe my friend gives a bad impression because people can see through her feigned interest and enthusiasm when she applies. I know I'm a bit more 'over the top' friendly and enthusiastic than I normally would be in my day-to-day life when I'm applying for a new job, but it goes with the territory. However, I also make a point of genuinely being in a good mood when I go out to apply. I can't 'fake' being nice when I'm in a bad--or even blah--mood, and I wonder if my friend doesn't have the same problem. People are subconsciously aware of a lot more than we realize. Whether you're aware of it or not, when you meet someone you do register their body language and the volumes that it speaks. It's why we make snap judgements on people within 5-7 seconds of seeing or meeting someone.

So, how does one make a good first impression? I'd have to say sincerity plays a large part. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they like 'fake' people. Disagree? Leave a comment and we can discuss.

Repentance and Regret:

"Repentence is not a virtue, that is, it does not arise from reason. Rather, he who repents what he did is twice miserable." -Baruch Spinoza

So what then of the repentance of the Bible? Is it necessary?
There are two definitions given for repentance:

1] to turn away from sin and reform one's life
2] to feel sorry for something done; regret.

But if regret is bad, making us "twice miserable", then why bother. Is it really necessary to 'confess' to God (or man) if we recognize we've done something that we shouldn't have and don't wish to do again. If the recognition and decision/resolve to 'turn away' is there, are confession and repentance not redundant?

I cannot bring myself to agree that I should dredge up old 'sins' and misdeeds deliberately during "prayer time" to confess and repent and ask forgiveness for something that as far as I'm concerned is over and done with and not to be repeated if it can be helped. Isn't it better to live with no regrets (because regret holds us in the past, often to the detriment of our present) but vow to learn from the situations that are now undesirable (i.e. regrets)--I mean, isn't that what regrets are, decisions made that seemed like a good idea at the time, but (for whatever reason) are no longer viewed positively.

The definition of regret is as follows:
regret - to be sorrowful for something that is beyond your control to remedy.

Essentially, regret is a waste of time. It's like the Serenity Prayer: "God grant me the ability to change the things I can, and to accept the things I cannot." If regret is a part of repentance, and regret essentially makes you miserable, then no wonder I was miserable when I was going to church... it's structured into the program! But that's another topic.

We are tortured with regret by constant confession rather than taught to live a life of 'no regrets', which does not mean not living, but rather leaving the past where it belongs--in the past--and learning from your mistakes.

Until next time...

As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.