A Reason for Paine

     Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason, was quite honestly a “paine” to read. Although it is a great representation of the language of the time, and his writing can be observed to be a type of beautiful, I had, at times, difficulty grasping the main concepts. The biggest ideas or themes that I found to be prevalent in The Age of Reason, were Paine’s bias against organized religion, the value and authenticity of the Bible including his problem with revelation, and his advocacy of deism. His bias against organized religion stemmed from the fact that any organization or group created by man cannot be equivalent to teachings of God. Most of Paine’s arguments do have adequate evidence and make sense, however, because he is so confident of his opinions, his arguments can come off as one-sided and arrogant.  He preaches that organized religion has its root in money and making its members feel guilty. His deep-rooted and obvious disdain for the Bible is perfectly shown towards the end of the text where he cites, “the stupid Bible of the church that teaches nothing,” (111), “stupid tests of the Bible,” (112), and, “only stupid sermons can be preached,” (112). It was almost childish to me to see such a profound writer basically throw a fit about how “stupid” he believes the Bible to be in the conclusion of the text. It is almost like he is so frustrated with the fact that people do believe in the things he is so against, that he tries to make it seem like the absolute most ludicrous thing in existence. 

     However, possibly contradicting myself, as Paine does a tad bit throughout his work, I can somewhat agree with his theories on revelation. Although it seems completely impossible to me that God should have to reveal himself or his teachings to us to have it truly be called revelation, I can agree that many true revelations could have been very much skewed through word of mouth. This concept reminded me of the game of “whisper-down-the-lane” in which a person thinks of a sentence and whispers it to the person next to them, after the sentence has been whispered all the way down to the very last person, almost every time the group finds that the sentence has been completely changed through the mishearing of re-telling the original. I do believe it is hard to have faith in a Bible written by many authors through many different recapitulations of events that occurred thousands of years ago. Revelation is supposed to be directly from God to man so I can understand how it is hard to define the stories told by the person who it was revealed to, to those who it wasn’t revealed to, to still be termed revelation. 

     Paine makes a lot of statements concerning the true God or higher-power of Creation. I certainly agree that the wonders and true mechanics of Nature and the Creation can be evidence of a higher-power. This deism that Paine promotes is something he has structured his beliefs and life around through the many experiences and research he has made in these subjects. I think that conscience can be inherently in us when we are born but it is first formed and shaped by our primary teachers, our parents. Our conscious is affected by everything our parents show us and teach us and as we grow, experience life, and learn of the acceptable aspects of society, our conscious is again shaped by what we want and what we receive from our culture and society. If a person grows up learning nothing of religion, is still a good person, and then the culture he or she moves into is all about a specific religion or way of thinking, that person may completely change based on what he or she wants or what he or she agrees with. 

     This text applies to our life and to class by representing further ideas about religion in our Ways of Knowing (Faith) section. Religion has always been one of those very debatable topics that is on the same side as Politics, topics that people are very personal about because they may rule their lives by what they are confident in to be true. However, I will always be a strong advocate for knowledge. I believe that no one should truly be able to have strong opinions about one side before being able to understand and be fully aware of all sides. For Religion, and for culture as well, it adds to a well-rounded individual to be knowledgeable on every possible option or belief, to simply be able to have an open-mind and better understand people who may have completely different backgrounds than you. One last point that I have sincerely taken away from The Age of Reason, is reason. I agree with Thomas Paine in that everything one believes in should contain a certain amount of reason behind it. It is difficult to trust in anything without sufficient foundation on which the “why?” and “how?” are based upon. There are questions that should always be answered but there are also questions that may never be answered, it will forever depend upon how much a person wants, needs, or cares about that aspect of his or her life or society. 

Interpretation is Key - Daodejing vs. The Bible

      My parents have always taught me everything is good in moderation. My elementary, middle and high school education have taught me that the Bible, among many other religious or cultural centerpieces, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Since I hold these pearls of wisdom to be true, I would say this unit is correctly entitled "Ways of Knowing (Faith)," because every person goes through their own unique life experiences that shape what they know and in what they believe. My catholic education has taught me and instilled in me my religious beliefs. However, through simply experiencing life, I have shaped my own values and morals. Through traveling the world and experiencing other cultures, meeting people from a variety of backgrounds, and learning about the vast amount of religions there are in the world, I have come to respect and acknowledge the unity that beliefs and core values bring to a group.
      The Daodejing of Laozi instructs one not to search for the answers or even try to live the dao (the way), de (virtue), or jing (classic), because once one strives to attain these they are instantly following the opposite of the teachings. I believe you cannot really try to interpret the Daodejing, instead you must just read it and accept it. There is a remarkable amount of similarity between the Daodejing and the Bible. Although the Bible contains stories, history, and miracles meant to teach life lessons, it too is emphasized to be taken into many different viewpoints and interpretations. Both readings include a plethora of arguments against jealousy, greed, excessive want/desire, and treachery. A huge example of jealousy found in the Bible is the story of Joseph... and his technicolor dreamcoat. A coat that his father Issac gives him and which his seven brothers decide to fake his death and sell him to the Pharoah over (because they were jealous of him). Fortunately, the Bible continues the story with Joseph rising in power with the Pharoah and forgiving his brothers after seeing his family suffer through the famine. The Daodejing would prefer to instruct us to stay out of problems for as far as to insure our own safety. However, the Daodejing would also tell us to be fair, king, forgiving people, especially in government. I think if both texts were closely examined and scrutinized, one could break down each of the hidden meanings and find similar if not equal core values. Living simply, truthfully, and with nature are recommendations found in both texts. I would not be surprised to see a phrase similar to Daodejing's "do not neglect one's belly in order to please one's eyes," in the Bible. However, while "the Daoist sage is guided by prereflective intuitions and tendencies rather than by preestablished or self-conscious policies or principles," a Christian or Catholic followers is constantly aware of his or her acts and whether they are moral or unmoral according to what the Church teaches, steming from how the leaders interpret the Bible.
      Therefore, I see the texts are being similar in value depending on interpretation but also very much different in outcome. The Daodejing is almost a self-journey while the Bible, most times, connects a group of people on the same path through the same actions and beliefs with which they live. While the Daoist ideal would be to fully live your life free from harm, full of health, and enjoying comfort and contentment, the Bible, on the other hand, includes stories of followers literally dying for what they believe in and cherish. The Bible wants its followers to stand up for what they believe and if you die for it then you are a martyr who is looked upon with much honor.
      So although I kept stating that the texts values can be similar, there is an ultimate view that neither of the texts would be able to agree upon. While in the Dao we "do nothing yet nothing remains undone," we can see great followers, those who live by the Bible, preaching on street corners to get the message they interpreted or have learned out to those who have not. Of course, there will always be a wide range of people who act differently in how they live out their religion, but there will never really be a Daoist person trying to teach another about Daoism because then they are strictly going against anything Daoist whatsoever. The Bible, specifically the Genesis readings, focus on history of family, Creation (which involves nature!), and the horrible acts that people committed and that God made them suffer for and learn from. The Daodejing is about enjoying and fully living life in the complete way. There really isn't a God that punishes or that one must honor or obey.
      A final point I would clarify is that there really is a different interpretation of each reading depending on each person. The Daodejing could be looked at as a more life related text while the Bible readings could be lessons to live by and uphold, believing in what one interprets the stories to mean. No matter what one believes, being the good person that one can be can automatically grant him or her a fulfilling life, no matter what they accept or hold to be true.

DuBois' The Souls of Black Folk & Our Society

     W.E.B. DuBois is an incredibly profound writer and activist. His book, The Souls of Black Folk, depicts a troublesome world that unfortunately took place in our society in the twentieth century. The major issue, as DuBois states, was the problem of the color-line. The color-line is the invisible line that segregates. This color-line in turn creates a double consciousness, which DuBois further discusses along his concept of the veil. Double consciousness is "this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity" (38). DuBois' veil concept is something that is worn by all African-Americans because they are able to see the world they live in but people on the other side, or outside of the veil, are unable to see behind the veil to relate to the world in which African-Americans live. The veil means that African-Americans are seeing themselves through their own eyes as well as the eyes of others while others can only see African-Americans through their own eyes and not the eyes of the African-American. The economic, political, and social opportunities of African-Americans at the time were nothing close to the opportunities whites, especially white men, held at the time. DuBois wanted this veil to be cast aside and he worked towards that goal his whole life. However, in The Souls of Black Folk, DuBois acknowledges the veil as being both a horrible curse to African-Americans but also a sort of blessing. In Chapter XI, "Of the Passing of the First-Born," DuBois accounts his infant son's death and decides that he is, "not dead, not dead, but escaped; not bond, but free. No bitterness now shall sicken his baby heart till it die a living death, no taunt shall madden his happy boyhood" (162). DuBois decides that his baby died before he knew the pain of the veil he was born into, before the double consciousness set in, so he died in love and happiness. I believe that this veil is actually present in more than just the African-American community. The veil can be present in any minority group and also in women versus men. The double-consciousness concept can be for anyone really. A rich man and a poor man, a man and a women, Black and White, Black and Latino or Hispanic, foreigner and American, and any other two groups that have grown up knowing different cultures, beliefs, and identity rules. America has come along way with civil rights but I believe no matter what we do the prejudices that continually pass down to us from our ancestors will never be totally gone. People will continue to have rascist or prejudice feelings, depending on where they have come from, what they know, and what they have learned. No matter what the law says, society still has norms and functions differently depending on the groups in it. The entire group concept is forever strong and will forever be strong. Even before each chapter, DuBois begins with a part of a Sorrow Song which identifies and unites the African-American slave community through the mutual suffering they experienced. People identify themselves as a race, a religion, or even a political party and they stay committed to the beliefs held by that group. So they will see themselves as how they see themselves and how others see them but like DuBois states, others will only be able to see them through their own eyes.
     Another concept that I though was well addressed in both DuBois' chapter on Booker T. Washington as well as his chapter, "Of the Coming of John," was the importance and affect of education. With education, those in poverty and those that were subordinate were able to see how the world worked. Education led to knowledge of and awareness of injustice in the world and the fact that one may or may not be able to do anything about it. For example, John Jones gained a morbid and contempt view of his home town where people just accepted their lives and how the whites treated them with the Jim Crow laws. When Jones traveled north and attempted college and the real world he came to realize his "place" and how he couldn't see how he would ever be accepted for his hard work. He gained the knowledge that opened up the current events of his country. Education is key for any progress in the world to be made, especially concerning the economic, politics, and society. The more people know, the better the decisions they can make because they will understand the concepts they need to understand in order to make those decisions. In today's world, many people may only vote based off what they have heard, and on prejudices or opinions they have grown up with, not on being formally and unbiasedly educated in what they want to be changed and what is problematic in the country to make an educated decision. When people are educated they are able to be, in a way, "free", to think for themselves because they have enough knowledge on enough topics to form strong opinions and beliefs which haven't been passed down to them. One reason I believe many people are stuck in poverty and hardships is the lack of education they receive and the constant cycle of only knowing what they have learned and seen from family and friends. The more people are educated about what has happened in the past and what is happening in the present and the affects present actions and decisions will have on the future, the less likely there will be a repeat of the past. A repeat of these struggles that DuBois so articulately described in The Souls of Black Folk. The more we fight to educate and realize that trying to keep certain groups in poverty or without having a say in our country/world, the less we'll be able to benefit from working together and coming to a mutual understanding of what we need as a whole.

Socrates & Why?

      The Trials of Socrates really makes you think. The conversations in this book between Socrates and others show us the highly inquisitive mind that Socrates possessed. A highly inquisitive mind that made people talk in circles and reevaluate what they held to be true until it was questioned. This text fits into the community section of the course because Socrates' methods influenced the community at the time and still influence people today. Questioning values, beliefs, and theories,  otherwise known as elenchus, is key throughout the text. Socrates makes people realize what they think they know they actually may not know anything about at all. This allows any reader to reevaluate what they grew up and learned, or self-developed, to be true. Socrates believed that philosophizing was so important to the human race that he rather die for it than ever deny it or give it up. He focused on moral education and reform which led to the questioning of the law, what is just and unjust, pious and unpious, and also led to the questioning of parenting and the knowledge parents give to their children. Socrates also held the belief that all we need in life to be virtuous and happy is knowledge. In his quest for knowledge, Socrates had roundabout discussions with a variety of people including Euthyphro, Crito, and Aristophanes. Socrates and Euthyphro attempt to fully define pious and unpious in relation to living and to pleasing the gods. Euthyphro prosecutes his father for an unjust act (murder) and describes his own definitions of pious and unpious. However, Socrates keeps pushing for proof for why Euthyphro defines things the way he does and evidence to back everything he says up. Socrates keeps a constant “why?” within every conversation to extract the most information. Since Plato wrote this section, we do not know if Socrates meant his use of “friend” and “dear” as sarcasm, or if he often used those terms when he spoke with Euthyphro. I see the use of these “pet names” in the conversation as a persistent reminder that Socrates believes no one really knows anything, that “true” means something different to each person, and that Socrates believes Euthyphro is ridiculous to think he possesses all this knowledge. I agree with Socrates throughout the text because when you actually question everything you know, you feel like you really do not know anything. The thoughts I had when I was reading concerned “truth” and “law.” We are brought up to believe what our parents, teachers and even friends tell us and teach us. But as we experience life and live through different hardships, we begin to define things as they affect us. So althought the law is meant to govern us as a people, the definitions of right and wrong can be polar opposites between individual people. Crito mentions the “majority opinion” as being something that defines right or wrong by whether or not the majority agrees upon it.  Another example would be religion, we grow up learning beliefs our parents pass on to us and through going to Church or other services. However, as we experience life and learn about different religions and cultures around the world, we begin to shape our own beliefs, which can either work towards what our parents have taught us or completely break us away from what we have grown up holding to be true (Aristophanes /son). Socrates can be confusing, and even Crito admits to him, “I can’t answer your question since I don’t understand it” (71), but if we question what we know and question what others know, we can ultimately build up a knowledge that may or may not be true, but has much more theories from which to build the bigger pictures.

The Borderlands of Life

Gloria Anzaldúa’s book Borderlands: La Frontera, The New Mestiza, raises many questions and thoughts in the reader. She discusses her life as being an outcast, as Chicano, a woman, and a lesbian. Anzaldúa combines rascism, sexism, homophobia, and issues concerning illegal immigrants throughout her story. She discusses psychological and spiritual borders alongside the physical borders that separate America from Mexico, the tejas-Mexican border. This is the border where, according to the author, people of all different backgrounds, races, and social classes “shrinks into intimacy.” An obvious connection seen in the beginning of Anzaldúa’s writing is with Las Casas’ An Account, Much Abbreviated, of the Destruction of the Indies. The evidence for such a connection is seen with the author’s fact of how America was colonized and how the land’s first inhabitants were forced out or brutally murdered or lynched. She defines “legitimate inhabitants” as those “in power, the whites” and “the Gringo, locked into the fiction of white superiority” which led the way for the total control of the land and the “stripping of Indians and Mexicans of their land while their feet were still rooted in it” (29). Anzaldúa, much like Las Casas, includes numbers of murders to strengthen feelings of horror or concern for the awful treatment of her people.

I also connected this reading with Freud due to the strong feelings of difference between men and women, mainly women being seen as servile to men in Anzaldúa’s culture. There is also the bias present in her writing because she is seeing everything from a women’s viewpoint and from someone who has grown up with an inner resentment towards the cultures and/or people who have been seen as more powerful throughout her life. The bias can be connected with Freud because in Freud’s writing, he is writing from his own viewpoint as well, which could be seen as the absolute opposite perspective compared to Anzaldúa. This reading can fit in with the Self and Others unit because there is the constant comparison between self and others in every crevasse of this book, especially concerning Anzaldúa’s awareness of her own differences. Anzaldúa discusses The Coatlicue State, which “depicts the contradictory,” and which touches on the unconscious and on resistance (another connection with Freud). It describe the constant fear of, yet inevitability of, alienation. It is the wanting to fit in but being aware of the impossibility of the desire. Although Anzaldúa does preach of finding that oneness inside herself, there is too much evidence throughout her writing of a state of instability. One of her poems, entitled, En mi corazón se incuba (166), she speaks in Spanish of sadness invading her, strokes of loneliness that consume her, being immersed in fear, hiding pain, unconfessed dreams, and secret love. In my opinion, after translating the poem, I felt as though Anzaldúa will forever feel a sort of disconnect with her culture. She seems to almost boast of making “the choice to be queer” and the “ultimate rebellion against her native culture is through her sexual behavior,” but she cannot hide her obvious loneliness in her poems. Everyone, including Anzaldúa, seeks that special connection or mutual understanding with another.  I believe homophobia really is the “fear of going home,” not being accepted, being alone, or even being abandoned by a family or a culture that does not approve. I also believe that Anzaldúa wrote her story to allow herself an outlet of emotional struggle that herself and others in the same positions have had to live through and battle with each and every day of his or her life.

I enjoyed this book quite a lot, especially the massive amount of Spanish writing Anzaldúa included. I am a Spanish minor so it was great to read something with so many cultural aspects.  

(Last note: It almost seems unfair that immigrants have gotten such bad treatment, illegal or not, in this country. America is known as the “melting pot” because of the obvious fact that the population is so diverse and each person has ancestry from all over the world. So really, what is an American? I believe it is not easy, if possible, to find an American that traces his or her history back so far as to only be related to people strictly from America. Wouldn’t we all be considered immigrants in such sense, with families and ancestors from various other countries? Therefore, wouldn’t that make Native Americans the only true Americans? ….just some of my rambling thoughts on this topic). 

Freud, Psycho-Analysis, & Sex

      When I read the first portion of Freud's Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, I was intrigued by his theories concerning dreams, manifest content, and latent dream thoughts. I thought, "Wow, this guy has really discovered some incredible concepts!" However, as I read on through the next two portions I soon came to realize Freud's first and foremost reason for all neuroses and problems had their root in sex, sexuality, or sexual experiences in childhood. Freud seemed to me to start off with very intellectually stimulating points about wish-fullfillment through dreams and the latent dream content which he uses to try to seek out the real meaning of the dream. However, he later introduces resistance, repression, infantile sexuality, and the oedipus complex, with each topic being contrasted between the sexes. Since Freud is a man, he is only fully able to comprehend the world he is looking into, through a male's eyes. He cannot completely vouch for women, especially since he is mostly only discussing such issues with women who have money which enables them to have an excessive amount of free time, an ideal many domestic housewives did not even have the option of considering. It seems to me that Freud over-emphasizes gender roles and sexual intercourse, especially toward the end of his book. He explains repression, resistance, and censorship, each having to do with trying to forget or hide things that have occurred in the past or even things not deemed acceptable in society. The main and most prevalent problem is stated again and again as being the sexuality or sexual lives of the affected people. A denial of someone's erotic wishes can lead them to frustration that further leads to illness. Or an interest in types of sex or sexual activities deviating from the "norm" can cause people to feel so ashamed and to repress these desires so deeply that this too can lead to illness. Freud uses homosexuality, fetishists, sadists, masochists, and perverts as examples of such incidents. During the time period in which Freud wrote about such radical ideas, sex was rarely, if ever, talked about. It was, "something improper, something ought not to talk about," and in some cases, the "strange and abnormal" cases, "intensified to the point of being abominable" (380). When I thought Freud was going to stop at that, he introduces the sexual life of children. He explains how all children, "have a predisposition to all of them and carry them out to an extent corresponding to their immaturity ... that perverse sexuality is nothing else than a magnified infantile sexuality split up into its separate impulses" (385). In my opinion, this is absolutely ludicrous. Freud would explain that I refuse to believe his theories because of the educational world in which I have been raised. I strongly disagree. Childhood is free, it is a time when children BEGIN to explore the world, with no knowledge of how anything really works. How is it even probable that a child can really see his mother's breast as anything more than needed for food, for survival? It just doesn't seem the least bit sensible that "sensual sucking" exists for any infant. Freud cannot comprehend that children do not have a sexual life before puberty, but it only makes sense that a sexual life develops during puberty, since puberty is the time when a girl or boy is fully developing their sexual organs and maturing in order to be able to reproduce.

      My last point would be the emphasis on the contrast between women and men. Women, according to Freud, have more illness and frustration due to their sexual lives, while men, also according to Freud, desire to stand up to other male figures as if they were standing up to their father. It seems that since Freud does not have an accurate portrayal of women in this research and comes from a male viewpoint, these theories are completely inaccurate. He also discusses how little girls wish they had the penis they seem to "lack," meanwhile little boys cannot fathom life without a penis. In today's society, men and women have come a long way to be equal on every playing field. Therefore, many of Freud's theories would be seriously contradicted. The theory of psychological illnesses and issues stemming from repressed childhood experiences does still have a strong root in psychology. However, the sexual life of children is not something that is constantly included in research studies in our current society. Freud's lectures were radical at the time and even are partially radical today, but have opened doors to many other theories and discussions that have greatly improved psychological research and knowledge. Sex was rarely talked about in the 1950s/60s, and is now almost an obsession, constantly all over various types of media. We have definitely come a long way from rarely discussing a major topic in society to being comfortable advertising contraceptives and shows like "16 and pregnant" which can help dissuade young adults from having unprotected sex or having sex too early. Yet, there are other aspects like masturbation, among other topics, that have yet to move into the comfort zone of conversational matter. There doesn't seem to be a clear future time when we will arrive at a point where every sexually related aspect is appropriate to discuss in schools or the workplace. Nonetheless, Freud, and others like him, have made examples of how one person's radical views, once voiced, can really change our society and impact future research.

Las Casas' Destruction of Your Emotions

     I can honestly start by saying I did not enjoy reading An Account, Much Abbreviated, of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolomé de Las Casas. The readings did open my eyes to the brutality the Indians suffered when the Spaniards came to the new world. However, the depictions and details of every form of torture, murder, or destruction, that the “Christians” performed, is almost traumatizing. Putting that aside, Las Casas did an excellent job of getting his point across. He wanted people to know and to remember what he saw and lived through in the late 1400s and throughout the 1500s. The numbers of deaths may have been way off, and maybe the stories were stretched pretty far, but the cruelty that occurred needed to be known. I think this account needed to be written the way it was to show the “journey” that both the Christian Spaniards and the Indians lived through during that time period. It needed to be able to shock yet still have truth throughout it, in order for it to be remembered up until the present. 

     This account is about the Christian Spaniards tyranny over the Indian people when they came to the New World. The account consists of all the horrible, malicious, devastating acts that the Spaniards accomplished “in the name of Christianity and God.” The Spaniards, being Christians, believed it was a dire need for the Indians, a lesser people who worshipped unknown gods/idols, to be converted. Any instance, no matter how small, of resistance, would wage a war between the Indians and the Spaniards. The Indians are depicted on almost every other page, as innocence, harmless, “gentle sheep.” Las Casas could be neglecting to include any form of true violence the Indians brought onto the Spaniards to focus on and have a bias towards the cruel Christians. However, it is also possible that he is telling the truth about them. The main point that he is trying to get across, I believe, is just that the Christian Spaniards used their faith in God to justify the way they treated the Indians. (through the cutting of limbs, the burning of bodies, the torturous slave labor, etc.) For example, on page 10, the Spaniards bind thirteen Indians “in honour and reverence, of Our Redeemer and the twelve Apostles” and then burned the them alive. If you have a heart and are actually a sane human being, your jaw will immediately drop to the floor. The fact that something like this has happened in our past, and more than once, is absolutely disgusting. The fact that people justified a hierarchy based on religion, race, gender, or anything else is outrageous and what led to the massacres throughout our history. I would tie this account most closely with the Triangular Trade because of the slavery of the Indians by the Europeans which closely relates to the slavery of the African-Americans, and through the trickery of getting them onto ships which were disguised to be for good. This shows the theme of power throughout our history and how it can lead to destruction once it has corrupted morality. What I mean by this is that once a person or a selection of people, believes that they are better and have more power over those who they believe are lesser and beneath them, they justify incredibly immoral acts based upon what has brainwashed them

     Lastly, I would say this account is another part of the journey of people, (somewhat) learning from their mistakes throughout history. There is evidence of Christianity actually being an honest and good thing for the Indians in one part of the account. In Yucatán, when the friars of St. Francis promise the Indians that if they let them preach their word, they would make sure no malicious Spaniards would sweep in and murder their village/town. However, even when the Indians begin to see the bright side of the religion, the friars begin to sense suspicion and leave. The Indians beg of them to comeback once they realize the friars were truly only trying to inform and convert them without any violence. The friars then return and are welcomed back as “angels.” They do not stay for long though, because the friars come to the conclusion that no matter what good they continue to do, the Indians will one day learn to resent them for the massive amount of brutality the Spaniards brought to their lands. It shows us how we can come so far as to almost turn around the negative view of something brought on by the hate and murder of a group, but the tortured will still see a person from said group (no matter how good they try to be) as apart of what brought the destruction (and therefore attached to that stigma). It is almost like the present-day stereotypes and prejudices that will possibly exist in our society forever.