#demythologization

[theetwinkleboy]

‘one for all was made to save’ no it wasn’t! it was a stupid accident forced on an unwilling participant, and then it was a weird gift from a dead friend, and then it was a self-fulfilling death prophecy because it was both a beacon for a monster and ostensibly the only weapon that could defeat said monster. it wasn’t a holy torch or a beautiful legacy—it was the baton in a desperate relay race against a hungry wolf. toshinori yagi was the one who made it about saving and legacies, because he was mythologizing it to himself the same way he mythologized all might to the rest of the world as the symbol of peace. all might is a made up character to help the world feel safe, and one for all being a fated legacy is a made up story to make himself feel like he’s doing the right thing in making a martyrdom of his entire life.

[olive-is-awakened]

The more c!Dream character studies I read, the more this song aligns with him

[tomorrowusa]

« Why do children’s stories about the Civil Rights era generate such visceral MAGA opposition, including passionate demands to ban books in schools and libraries? Because the savages in these stories are not hatchet-wielding Indians on the prairie or slaves bound on ships from Africa. They are Southern white Christian conservatives who blow up little girls in church, shoot Black heroes in the back and murder courageous young men under the cowardly cover of a Mississippi night.

[ … ]

There was a time when mindless natives whooped and scalped their way through the stylized plains of 1950s Hollywood. Conservatives continue to view that era as a cultural lodestar. But the old sets have been struck. »

— Francis Wilkinson at Talking Points Memo, one of the most enduring political blogs.

Yeah, concepts like the "winning of the west" and the "paternalistic plantation owner" will die hard with rightwingers.

It's true that Hollywood and even the early years of TV programming had much to do with perpetrating these distortions of history. But as long ago as the late 1960s attempts were being made to take a more reality-based view of history.

This is actually from a comedy group called "The Firesign Theater" The blurb at YouTube gives the original release date as 1968. Although it's obviously satire, it must have given people back then a more unvarnished view of history than John Wayne films.

So the effort to demythologize the more blatant distortions in US history goes back more than half a century. The difference is that it's now trending mainstream and therefore is being strongly resisted by those with an interest in preserving such distortions.

[size-two-shrimp]

My Eternity by Vanelily is so Gabrielcore

[thewhitelilysociety]

"It took Angela Carter to demythologize “Sleeping Beauty” and break the magic spell that has taken us all in ever since Basile, Perrault, and the Brothers Grimm codified the fairy tale. “In a faraway land long ago”: Disney’s Sleeping Beauty begins with words that remind us of the drive to preserve the mythical power of tales from times past, to perpetuate the cult of the beautiful corpse that is the fairy tale in the form told in times past. Just as Carter’s Sleeping Beauty in her story “The Lady of the House of Love” repeats “ancestral crimes,” so the fairy tale enables us to lose ourselves in a mindless cycle of repetition compulsion that reproduces and reinforces social norms. The house of fairy tale, like the House of Love, degenerates into ruins—“cobwebs, worm-eaten beams, crumbling plaster”—when left to its own devices, visited only by sycophantic suitors driven more by the lure of beauty than the desire to reanimate. Without the right suitor, Carter’s somnambulant beauty has become “a cave full of echoes,” “a system of repetitions,” “a closed circuit.” Leading a “baleful posthumous” existence, she feeds on humans to sustain her." "Sleeping Beauty and Briar Rose, with their magnetic beauty and supremely passive status, remain hauntingly seductive figures in our cultural imagination, reminding us of the pleasures of beauty but also of the attractions of morbidity. [...] Sleeping Beauty, a true hermeneutic puzzle in her many cultural incarnations, preserves the magical, mythical elements of fairy tales, even as she cries out for disenchantment."

From Maria Tatar's "The Classic Fairy Tales"

[blushedfemmes]

need to have lesbian sex SO BAD but i'm SCARED.

i am squeezing your hand anon. do it scared!!!!

for me it helps to demythologize it. sex is not that big a deal and kinda silly when you think about it. we’re just human animals getting all up in each other’s business for a few hours and doing whatever feels good. it has lots of little moments that are transcendent and mindblowing and lots of little moments that are awkward and lots of little moments that are just nice :) i think many of us dykes really build up how amazing and otherworldly our sex is and like yes it is great but this can make it quite intimidating when you don’t have much experience. basically, i try not to place too much importance on it. when you feel safe and turned on with someone, the excitement wins out over the scary. but if you want it, you gotta get out there and start!!! do it scared suck it soft suck it floppy etc.

[bitchhiker]

"Hooper’s Hitchhiker is a nightmarish figure, too grotesque to be pitiable, a displaced slaughterhouse worker who carries photographs of steers he has killed with a sledgehammer. What is most remarkable is the fascination that he inspires in Franklin, who engages in a spirited conversation with him about the craft of killing steers: the sledgehammer versus the pneumatic gun. Franklin acknowledges a direct connection with the Hitchhiker—his own grandfather used to send his steers to the Hitchhiker’s slaughterhouse. And even more telling, Franklin has an uncle who works in one. Franklin and the Hitchhiker also discover that they share an enthusiasm for head cheese. After the Hitchhiker demonstrates his bravado by laughing while using Franklin’s knife to cut open his palm, Franklin finds himself admiring the act—even though the Hitchhiker also cuts Franklin’s arm with his knife, against Franklin’s will. Although the two do not exchange blood, the corresponding cuts via the shared knife suggest blood brotherhood. And when the group forcibly puts the Hitchhiker out of the van, he smears its side with his bloody palm, marking it. Later when the van reaches the family homestead, Franklin gazes ruefully at the bloody mark and says, 'I bet it’s about me.'"

The Demythologizing of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Jeff Jeske

[kaze-no-yurei]

We are now faced with a massive propaganda alleging Hindu persecution of Buddhism. Let us study one example: the story of alleged Hindu persecution of Buddhism by Pushyamitra, a general in the service of the declining Maurya dynasty, who founded the Sunga dynasty after a coup détat. This story provides the standard secularist refutation of the myth that Hinduism has always been tolerant.

The Marxist historian Gargi Chakravartty writes:

"Another myth has been meticulously promoted with regard to the tolerance of the Hindu rulers. Let us go back to the end of second century B.C. Divyavadana, in a text of about the second-third century A.D., depicts Pushyamitra Shunga as a great persecutor of Buddhists. In a crusading march with a huge army he destroyed stupas, burnt monasteries and killed monks. This stretched up to Shakala, i.e. modern Sialkot, where he announced a reward of 100 gold coins to the person who would bring the head of a Buddhist monk. Even if this is an exaggeration, the acute hostility and tensions between Pushyamitra and the monks cannot be denied."

We need not comment on Chakravartty's misreading of Divyavadana as a person's name rather than a book title. Remark the bias in the assumption that the supposedly undeniable conflict between the king and the monks proves the kings intolerance; for what had been their own contribution to the conflict? There is no good reason why the Buddhist monks should, by contrast, be assumed to be blameless when they came in conflict with a king.

The story is in fact given in two near contemporaneous (2nd century A.D.) Buddhist histories, the Asokavadana and the Divyavadana, the two narratives are almost verbatim the same and very obviously have a common origin. This non-contemporary story (which surfaces more than three centuries after the alleged facts) about Pushyamitra's offering money for the heads of Buddhist monks is rendered improbable by external evidence: the well-attested historical fact that he allowed and patronized the construction of monasteries and Buddhist universities in his domains, as well as the still extant stupa of Sanchi. After Ashoka's lavish sponsorship of Buddhism, it is perfectly possible that Buddhist institutions fell on slightly harder times under the Sungas, but persecution is quite another matter. The famous historian of Buddhism Etienne Lamotte has observed: To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof.

In consulting the source texts a significant literary fact is noticed which has not been seen mentioned in the scholarly literature (e.g. Lamotte, just quoted), and which must put on record. First of all, a look at the critical edition of the Asokavadana (Illustrious Acts of Ashoka) tells a story of its own concerning the idealization of Buddhism in modern India.

This is how Sujit Kumar Mukhopadhyaya, the editor of the Asokavadana, relates this work's testimony about Ashoka doing to a rival sect that very thing of which Pushyamitra is accused later on:

"At that time, an incident occurred which greatly enraged the king. A follower of the Nirgrantha (Mahavira) painted a picture, showing Buddha prostrating himself at the feet of the Nirgrantha. Ashoka ordered all the Ajivikas of Pundravardhana (North Bengal) to be killed. In one day, eighteen thousand Ajivikas lost their lives. A similar kind of incident took place in the town of Pataliputra. A man who painted such a picture was burnt alive with his family. It was announced that whoever would bring to the king the head of a Nirgrantha would be rewarded with a dinara (a gold coin). As a result of this, thousands of Nirgranthas lost their lives. Only when Vitashoka, Ashoka's favourite Arhat (an enlightened monk, a Theravada-Buddhist saint), was mistaken for a Nirgrantha and killed by a man desirous of the reward, did Ashoka revoke the order."

Typically, Mukhopadhyaya refuses to believe his eyes at this demythologization of the secular emperor Ashoka:

"This is one of the best chapters of the text. The subject, the style, the composition, everything here is remarkable. In every shloka there is a poetic touch.( ... ) But the great defect is also to be noticed. Here too Ashoka is described as dreadfully cruel. If the central figure of this story were not a historic personage as great and well-known as Ashoka, we would have nothing to say. To say that Ashoka, whose devotion to all religious sects is unique in the history of humanity (as is well-known through his edicts) persecuted the Jains or the Ajivikas is simply absurd. And why speak of Ashoka alone? There was no Buddhist king anywhere in India who persecuted the Jains or the Ajivikas or any other sect."

Contrary to Mukhopadhyayas confident assertion, there are a few attested cases of Buddhist-Jain conflict. The Mahavamsa says that the Buddhist king Vattagamini in Sri Lanka destroyed a Jain vihara. In the Shravana-Belgola epitaph of Mallishena, the Jain teacher Akalanka says that after a successful debate with Buddhists, he broke a Buddha statue with his own foot. The same (rare, but not non-existent) phenomenon of Buddhist fanaticism can be found outside India: the introduction of Buddhism in Tibet and Mongolia is associated with a forceful suppression of the native Shamanism. In recent decades in Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks have been instrumental in desecrating and demolishing Hindu temples. None of this proves that Buddhist doctrine incites its followers to persecution of non-Buddhists, but neither should anything human be considered alien to Buddhist human beings.

[vincentpriceofficial]

I almost didn’t watch the Brady Corbet / Sean baker directors on directors interview but I’m so glad I did because corbet said some stuff in it about wanting to demythologize and deconstruct the conservative mythology surrounding the 1950s that was like. 10x more interesting to me than anything he could say about the movie as informed by moviemaking

[gumi-megpoidd]

this world ! is decorated by the hands of lies!

if i opened up the walls to show the astral sea, then would that me alright ?

if i break ! this body into bits i'll never die

i'll bring the ones i love to my eternity and

demythologize my lines

[dustedmagazine]

Jonathan Cott — Let Me Take You Down: Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever (University of Minnesota Press)

Whether you adore, loathe, or are indifferent to the Beatles, it seems fair to ask in 2024 what exactly could be left to say about them. Surely at this point the most written about, discussed, mythologized, demythologized, simply covered band (although to be fair, have they blown up on TikTok yet?), it’s understandable both that people would feel compelled to express themselves about the Beatles and that the rest of us might have our eyes glaze over in response. Jonathan Cott has more bona fides in this area than most, having written about and interviewed the band from the 1960s on (including an interview with John Lennon a few days before his murder), and he’s made two smart choices in putting together this particular book: narrowing the focus, and going in a more idiosyncratic, personal direction.

That focus is apparent from the title on down, and it’s a relief to see the scope reduced to two songs. Who needs another general overview of this particular band? (Yes, it’s good those exist in general, there will always be new, curious people as time passes, but it feels like that category is pretty densely populated at this point.) The Beatles are also one of the few acts that could conceivably sustain (in a financial sense) a whole book on one of their singles, even a double A side. But Let Me Take You Down is only partly a history of the two songs. The first section here covers, in 50 pages, the circumstances of the two songs’ creation. It looks at the first period where the four members tried taking a break from the Beatles (and, in some cases, had existential crises about what not being a Beatle might mean), Lennon and McCartney’s artistic partnership/slight rivalry, the personal history that fed into both songs, and so on. It’s well done and moves briskly; someone who knew nothing about the Beatles would probably come away wanting to know more, and those already deeply steeped in the lore won’t feel their time has been wasted.

The second and final section here is nearly twice as long as the first; Cott, clearly a seasoned interviewer (with an impressive ability to either quote other myriad other works and authors out of thin air, or an impressive dedication to keeping potentially relevant quotations on hand to refer to), sits down with “five remarkable people” to discuss the single. Only two of them, Laurie Anderson and Bill Frisell, are primarily known as musicians. The other three are the urban planner and Gramavision Records founder Jonathan F. P. Rose, Jungian analyst Margaret Klenck, and actor (and, more significantly for his section, noted Buddhist) Richard Gere. These conversations feel like they make up the heart of the book, and are where it will succeed or fail for most readers.

The tone throughout all five conversations is loose and friendly, with everyone involved engaging with the songs (lyrics, sound, historical context, personal context) deeply but informally. It’s worth noting that the median age of all six interlocutors is in the early 70s, and all come at “Strawberry Fields Forever”/“Penny Lane” from the perspective of people who were there at the time and who’ve been playing and thinking about these two particular songs ever since. Although Cott does have a bit of a thesis (based on James Hillman’s The Dream and the Underworld, with Paul as Zeus taking you “back” and John as Hades taking you “down”), he doesn’t impose it on any of the conversations and they all go in their own directions. Are these songs about depression? memory? love? the illusion of the self? all of the above? Let Me Take You Down’s most cardinal virtue is the way it might remind you of your own deep conversations with friends about music (Beatles or not), digging deeply into shared passions and volleying insights and theories back and forth.

The result is a book small in scope that goes to surprising places. If there are quibbles to be had, they’re along the lines of wishing “Penny Lane” got as much space from any of the people involved as “Strawberry Fields Forever” (but then again, isn’t the underworld something most of us find more fascinating, and easier to talk about, than our pasts?), and that the dense repetition of “said,” “explained,” “commented,” etc. might make one wish these interviews were presented in a more transcript-like style. Those small issues aside, the only big issue Let Me Take You Down really has is the obvious one, that most can answer for themselves instantly: in 2024, do you want to read another book about the Beatles?

Ian Mathers

[meatcute]

i think that we should demythologize doctors as a culture tbh. when doctors pick treatments its usually in order of "what would be easiest, cheapest, and least invasive"/"what would be the nicest way to solve this issue." but besides that theyre guessing just like you are when you search google, only that they have studied this kinda thing, had experience, and know what treatment options will hurt you and shouldnt be taken (THEORETICALLY! doctors hurt people in practice all the time). generally a doctors guess is better than the average layperson but its still just a guess and some egotistical doctors believe in their mythology so much that hearing theyre wrong makes them throw tantrums. idk ive had to correct doctors at my work all the time. i think that the more checks and balances we can have in medicine the better

[danceundersparklinglights]

and always in good fun, of course

[power-chords]

On Zionist Literature, which aims to demythologize the origins of Jewish nationalism, is an analysis of Zionism from the vantage of the people upon whom it was inflicted. With a verve verging on swagger, Kanafani challenges the very foundations of Jewish historiography on the origins of Zionism through a close reading of the literary precursors to the colonization of Palestine. Along the way, he makes historical claims that radically contradict the conventional wisdom of both his day and ours about Jewish ethnic identity and assimilation in Europe.

While some of these claims are myth-breaking, others are ahistorical. But as Palestinian American scholar Steven Salaita notes in his introduction to the new edition, his controversial analyses are usefully provocative, as Kanafani “inverts the common narrative of Zionism as an existential necessity.” Indeed, the strength of Kanafani’s contribution lies less in its ability to intervene in Jewish historiography than in its power as a method of reasoning from his own existential condition as a colonized Palestinian.

Ever the revolutionary, Kanafani’s intellectual pursuits were in direct service of a positive political project. After immersing himself in these texts—and in the wake of the total collapse of the Arab front following its military defeat in the June 1967 war (colloquially known as the “Six Day War” in Israel)—Kanafani began to believe that unlike Zionism, which turned the racializing logic of antisemitism on its head to produce its own racial chauvinism, Palestinian liberation must chart a path that destroys, rather than inverts, the essentialisms that undergird their oppression.

[complicitgirlfrot]

Heyyy, are you still doung that ask game? If so please suffer with me in regards to the question I had to answer the other day:

3: What's the kink you are most embarrassed by? Why is that?

okay so i totally forgot about this ask for like a month and a half aaaaand I can't really be bothered to go find the post this is referring to,,, but I will still happily answer this one as best I can!

3: What's the kink you are most embarrassed by? Why is that?

ok so this one probably has some nuance depending on how we interpret the phrase "embarrassed by." cuz on one hand it could be like being shameful of a kink. but on the other hand it could mean like flustered by or sheepish about a kink

In the case of the former: uhhh none. I've put in a great deal of effort to break down shame around sex and kink and am now fairly open about that portion of my life. literally just the other day i (kinda loudly) explained one of my kinks to a friend on a busy sidewalk by her bus stop without care of who heard cuz i thoroughly believe that kink and sex need to be destigmatized/demythologized

In the case of the latter: y'know how i just said that i explained one of my kinks to a friend? yeah she asked me about puppyplay and my brain overloaded and i blushed and stammered and hid my face for like 20 minutes before getting myself together enough to actually tell her about it cuz thats easily the one i get the most flustered by because it is unequivocally subby (in the way that i engage with it anyways) which is not really aligned with how i try to present myself irl. there is somefhing uniquely humiliating (in a good way) about being big strong transbutch lesbian outwardly but also exposing to someone just how badly you want to be submissive puppy plaything and seeing their perception of you shift. shits great.