Re:

["James Daly" <james.irldaly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

re: John Cleese (and imperialist humour)

My "case" is not that Cleese = Rumsfeld; it is the elementary but
sadly neglected Marxist one that there is no abstraction called humour
which is neutral, relaxing and "as simple as the air we breathe". Like
the air we breathe concrete humour (including for instance class,
racial and gender humour, black and sick humour) is complex and often
poisonous. Indeed the poison is often a weapon, as in the form of
satire (which some might think is all too prevalent in Marxist
literature, beginning with Marx and Engels). It can also be a
defence -- there are mechanisms (repetition, timing etc.), which can
be studied in Rumsfeld's little speech for instance, which tickle our
laugh nerve (I'm only joking!) and divert us from the dangerous matter
in hand -- such as responsibility for deaths caused by the looting of
hospitals.

There was a brilliant French film recently called "Le Ridicule". It
was set around the French Royal Court just before the Revolution, and
in it a victim of highly organised ridicule commits suicide. I am sure
there are psychological and sociological laws of ridicule, such as
that laughing at people presupposes or causes a superior/ inferior
social relation, which is where imperialist humour comes in. For
decades, including while prisoners were dying on hunger strike (with
loyalist graffiti calling Bobby Sands "Slimmer of the Year") what was
the Polish joke in America was the Irish joke not only in Britain, but
in Dublin and its surroundings (the historic Pale of the English in
Ireland), where it was taken by many to be a sign of maturity to be
able to "take a joke at one's own expense" -- though the pain was
sometimes passed on to other "whipping boys", as in "the Kerry man"
joke. The Spanish-dubbed version of Fawlty Towers makes Manuel
Portuguese.

Humour in a given society has a wide scope and spectrum, and as a
social relationship a wide variety of receptions and sensibilities.
But though it has not enhanced my chances in the popularity stakes I
do not apologise for my subject line which sees a common thread of
imperialist humour in Rumsfeld and Cleese, however different they may
be in situation, actuality, degree -- from horror to mere
offensiveness -- etc. -- and I think that is just recognising reality.
Pointing out that Cleese was a splitter was not ad hominem (-- i.e. "
with his record *he* should not be joking about splitting"); what I
had in mind was that for him (at least for his idea of humour in the
film) when little people split that is farce, but when he splits that
is History. By the way, he may be no commander of troops, but he was a
major supporter of Lord Owen who after receiving his well earned
peerage went on to draw up the plan for the partition of Bosnia.
However, my case as I said in the first line, is universal, and John
Cleese is only an illustration of it.

I had all this argument out with a Catholic priest who is a professor
of philosophy. He is an anti-anti-imperialist snob from the Pale, who
wishes the British had never left any part of Ireland and has no
criticism of their or their supporters' behaviour in the North now. As
I told him I was surprised (I'm only joking) to find myself teaching
him lessons in charity. I am also delighted to call it political
correctness. I think political correctness is morally correct, being
just common decency and respect for all other people who do not
forfeit their right to respect. I thought everyone was brought up to
believe that it is wrong to laugh at other people, especially the
unfortunate. But one of the Rev. Professor's defences was precisely
that the Spanish made Manuel Portuguese. That was supposed to be some
kind of argument from the need to accept "original sin". It is not one
I accept.

As a victim of imperialism I could not share his finding the "What
have the Romans done for us?" speech funny. I refuse to be browbeaten
into accepting that I -- or any humanist human being -- should. And I
would even argue that by right (reason) we should not -- but of course
it is not always easy to connect reason and the laughter nerve.

Comradely

James