"Help, help, I'm being repressed!": Satire in Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Frequently ranked as one of the best comedies of all time, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is undeniable comedic genius. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a series of comedic sketches which parody the legend of King Arthur's journey to the Holy Grail. During his travels King Arthur encounters two peasants, one of whom is named Dennis, who spout anarcho-syndicalist ideology in resistance to Arthur's repression of their freedom by being king.

The most obvious technique of satire used in this Monty Python sketch is parody. The legend of King Arthur and the quest for the Holy Grail is quite well known, and through costumes and setting they are able to recreate it. The comedy of the parody comes from the less than perfect recreation of King Arthur-rather than actually riding a horse Arthur gallops about while his servant bangs coconuts together to mimic hoofbeats. Instead of working the peasants sit in the mud and slap it about in an exaggeration of the actual menial work done by 10th century peasants. 
The skit also relies on hyperbole. As Arthur attempts to find out who lives in the neighboring castle, the peasants object to his superior attitude and reject his right to call himself king:

King Arthur: Well, I am king.

Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever gonna be any progress...

The language here exaggerates the loquacity of the peasant in order to make fun of the unnecessary complexity of language in progressive thought.

Monty Python uses situational irony to as a tool of satire in this skit. In a scene in which a king encounters peasants the audience may expect respectful and deferential treatment from the peasants. Instead, Dennis and the peasant woman are downright rude and challenge everything the Arthur says with anarcho-syndicalist rejections of authority.

Finally, this Monty Python skit is satirical because it uses these tools of comedy in order to comment on a larger aspect of society. The dialogue between Arthur and the peasants shows a power dynamic between leaders and citizens which bring up the degree of autonomy that people should have from the government. When Arthur shakes Dennis he screams, "Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!" The skit criticizes an over use of power by leaders and questions what determines the authority of leaders at all. When asked why he is the king, Arthur says the Lady of Lake gave him Excalibur, to which Dennis replies, "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government." Although placed in a historical context, Monty Python and the Holy Grail's skit criticizes the same power relations between the government and the governed that existed during it's 1975 release and continue to exist to this day.

Stepping Into Their Reality

The biggest "wow" moment for me was when I was watching, rather experiencing the first VR video, The Displaced, and I was able to see the different little kids who were alone, with no parents to look after them. It was cool, but a little depressing. We got the chance to see what those people's lives are like on a daily basis. Even though we got a slight glimpse of what it's like there, we're not actually there. We're very privileged and have advantages that those people don't have. While watching the video, I felt guilty and responsible in a way. I felt guilty for obvious reasons, I have things they don't. For instance, a home to live in. Their lives are full of struggle, when all I had to do was turn off the video and it was over. I was able to go back to a good life. They can't go anywhere because that is their reality. I felt responsible because we have everything in this country, they have nothing. I felt like we needed to give back to those who are less fortunate.

General Thoughts on Citizen

I'm going to open this by saying that I am not good with poetry. Since middle school started to make poetry more of a task than a fun way to express myself, I've turned away from the medium for better or worse. However, Citizen is a key exception. While I may not be able to grasp all the meaning that Claudia Rankine has carefully placed into the page (for example, when she talks about using I,) but I can understand more than enough. This book, collection of poems, whatever you want to call it really, is an experience. While I may have reactions to other books I've read, Citizen brings out a much deeper response. This book, more than any other has managed to give a clear idea of what it is like to be the "other."

When we talk about binaries, we usually split things into the "us," and the "other." The idea is that binaries exist because in order to define ourselves, we must first set a group as the "other" in order to more clearly define ourselves. Usually binaries will get stuck as they are because of an inability for one group to really empathize with, see through the eyes of, and recognize the other group. Depending on who you are, Citizen fixes that issue. I am white, and Citizen very quickly and very effectively gave me an idea of what it is like to be an African American surrounded by white people.

Something that I thought was interesting was how Rankine kept coming back to how the white backdrop emphasized color. (Maybe not those exact words, but something close to it.) It makes me think of my hometown and how in many places, its very uniform. We have a decent amount of diversity here, but there are still some problems, and as some of my older teachers said, you can know whether a class is AP or not just looking at the kids in the class. There are problems all through the US with racism, and before anyone says "Hey! You're wrong! Things are better than they were!" I just have to say that a lot of the issues have just become more invisible. People are (supposed to be) on their best behavior in public, being sure not to offend anyone, and so we aren't made aware of the problems. Additionally, how can you know if society has planted subconscious racist patterns? I think that the unconscious programmer is the greatest threat at the moment. It's a hard issue to fix, but books like Citizen can help to spread awareness and show people the do's and don'ts so that everyone can get along better. Hopefully eventually a resolution will be reached, and Citizen  is the book to get the ball rolling.

What You Look Like Indicates Who You Are?

"Stop and Frisk" Script for Situation Video created in collaboration with John Lucas interested me and stood out to me. I am familiar with the injustice of black people being pulled over and treated harshly for no reason. I have heard stories of people feeling forced to be cautious and overly polite just to avoid violence.
One time my family was driving in Freeport, Illinois when my dad rightly got pulled over by the cops for speeding. If my father had not been white he would have driven off with much more than a warning.
However, this description of a cop pulling over a black man, we can presume, allows the reader to empathize with his anger due to injustice because of the second person point of view. Over and over Rankine writes, "And you are not the guy and still you fit the description because there is only one guy who is always the guy fitting the description."
This quote reminds me of how people view black men, in particular, as the same. They "fit the description" of a thief, a hoodlum, a murderer when really there is no reason to believe that the way they look indicates who they are or what they have done. In history class we are talking about famous black men such as Frederick Douglass, William Still, and Denmark Vesey. (Notice how even though they are famous, you may not have heard of William Still or Denmark Vesey before. Oftentimes the Grand Narrative of history leaves out the successes and achievements of African Americans.) When these men are pictured online or even in books the same picture is used. While that may simply indicate the lack of historical records for the way these men looked, I think it can also symbolize how America generalizes black men and refuses to see their individuality and importance.

Land of the Free?

Beloved describes life for black Americans post slavery. Although Sethe, Paul D and many others are no longer slaves, many black Americans were still susceptible to violence and unfair treatment by white Americans. America, today, has made some vast improvements from the Beloved era, but racism is still very prevalent in modern society. America tries to pride itself on being the "land of the free" and tries to describe itself as such a progressive country, but as recent news of racism in the media show, America may not be so free. Events, such as police brutality in Ferguson, Donald Trump (who has made racist remarks about people of color) being elected, and the mere fact that the KKK is still a group being supported. Although slavery may have been abolished, racism did not disappear.
I think learning about the time period presented in Beloved is critical for Americans to read because learning about history let's us learn from our mistakes, and I think America needs to needs to start to be honest about the racism shown in our country.

What Silence Does to a Body

"Then the voice in your head silently tells you to take your foot off your throat because just getting along shouldn't be an ambition."

But it's as if the soles of your shoes have found a home there and there's no prodding them from the quicksand that is your larynx. You have learned that silence equates to passivity and passivity equates to an avoidance of conflict, and hasn't that been your ambition since you were torn from your mother?

You wonder if you were ripped a silent baby. If they thought you were dead as they severed the cord not because you were tinted violet but because your vocal cords didn't shake like the white ones. Since then you have been welded shut to silence but you sponge all the things you do not want to.

All the double snaps that corroded the tissue in your neck because you could not believe the reality of your being. All the ordinary moments that are knotted together with a string around your throat that squelches protest inside of you. Decades of pressure are culminating in your trachea because you have sat still for too long.

That is when you realize that quicksand is so unforgiving because it has been settling inside of you for decades. You wonder how many shoes have been swallowed by it. How many shoes will be swallowed by it? There is ambition in your throat where there hasn't been before and you know that soon enough you will volcano, erupting onto everyone's silent feet.

You Can Have a Great Life! But Only if You're a Wealthy White Man

Alright, so perhaps the title is a little cynical, but I have been having some major problems with all this existentialist theory. We all die in the end, that much I buy. But that's about where I draw the line with existentialism. Can I really believe that acknowledging that life is made up of meaningless suffering will make me the freest person ever? No. Is that because I'm a woman? Maybe!

I think it is extremely elitist to say that merely accepting your fate will make it better. Take Sisyphus, for example. Camus claims he was the happiest man to ever exist simply because he understood that his fate was filled with suffering, so now he could be free. On a more mortal level, the logic is that if we understand that all of our lives kind of stink for no reason and that all the social institutions familiar to us merely try to cover that, then we can be free to be whoever we want to be.

I would be surprised if Camus could look in the face of a Syrian refugee mother (hypothetically, of course) and tell her that if she accepts that her life and the lives of her children are all absurdly horrible, then they are truly free from any pain and misery. Make your own choices! Fly away if you want to!

Maybe I am misunderstanding existentialism. Maybe there is some profound explanation that Camus would throw at me, and I would fall at the feet of all existential philosophers. But Camus is dead, and my understanding of this theory is that it is a privileged one. I'm not saying I can even begin to understand oppression; I am a white girl from River Forest. But I know stories of the prejudice people have faced, and I could not even begin to imagine telling them that they should just accept the absurdity of their fate in order to be free from all their suffering. I mean, could you?

Why Can't We All Be Saints?

I believe singer's fundamental argument is that we have internalized the ideologies on which capitalism is based. We, like Bob and his Bugatti, believe we are entitled to all of our unnecessary possessions because we have bought them with our hard-earned money. Material possessions have become extensions of our identities (like the cars we choose to drive or the clothes we choose to wear) and have become increasingly difficult to part with. We are perfectly content with our excess.

In reality, we have simply gotten lucky. We live comfortable lives and have opportunities to make money because of where and when we were born. Humans' access to food, water, and shelter is based on something arbitrary. Singer's response is simple: no individual is inherently more entitled to the basic necessities of life than another. One's excess is another's deficit. I think most of us would agree, yet we are unable to shake the entitlement that capitalism has instilled in us.

Unless we actively work to uproot the system of capitalism from our lives, we are perpetuating it. We are all aware of its detrimental effects and its illusory nature. Singer's thesis is radical and idealistic, but it is only unrealistic if we want it to be. There is no reason why we can't all be saints.

The Unfortunate Disparities Between Privileged And Poor And What We Should Do

The article by Peter Singer about privilege and priorities in society is one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time. It is fascinating because it talks about such an important topic of the disparities between the rich and poor in the world. As a society, we tend to recognize and address these gap issues. But what are we actually doing about it? Singer offers debatable insight about it.

Singer dives into the idea that people with stability are obligated to assist children and families who are less fortunate. In his article, he uses an example of a guy named Bob who has saved up for a Bugatti. When Bob sees a young child about to be hit by a train, he realizes if he hits the switch button to stop the train, the train will fall on top of and destroy his Bugatti. Bob doesn't hit the button and the kid dies. This is terrible in my opinion and an example of how people in society have their priorities out of order. A life is far more important than a car. However, I begin to disagree with Singer when he says what Bob did is the same thing as not donating $200 to an organization or charity. Not everyone has the money or ability to give to these organizations, but everyone can save a kid who was in Bob's situation.

Ultimately, I see both sides to Singer's argument. Even a few dollars can help, but not everybody has the extra money to give to organizations and save other lives. I am a strong believer in selflessness and providing for the less privileged. However, the wealthy population of people should be the ones donating if anything. They are the people in the world with money to spare and if they choose to buy themselves things, that's one thing. But I don't think someone is in the wrong if they are caring for their own family first, whether that's going to eat, buying clothes, paying for their school, taking them out, etc. We definitely can be more mindful as a society about how we are spending because Singer is definitely right when he says a good amount of money people spend unnecessarily could go to these impoverished children. He's also definitely right about how it's wrong that people put objects before humans. I can't believe someone would ever choose to save their car over a life. You can replace a car but you can't replace a person. In a perfect world, everyone should donate to the poor. It is however unrealistic considering not every stable middle-class family has that type of money to give to organizations.

I wish poverty wasn't a thing. It's truly unfortunate that society is separated in that sense. In the end, I believe privileged individuals are obligated to spend less on themselves, form more donation groups within their communities, and donate some type of number whether its 200$ or 1$. The problem is that many people indeed do these acts of kindness such as save a kid from being hit by a vehicle or donate to a charity. Yet, we still have disparities and an overwhelming amount of families in destitute. Either more privileged people need to wake up and be selfless or something in the structure of society needs to change.

Obligations and Morality

People who are privileged do have some obligation to help those in need, but not as big of an obligation as Singer believes. Singer's ideas about donating the majority of one's income to charities that help save lives are very sweet, but very unrealistic. He forms his beliefs around utilitarianism, which seems like a very reasonable philosophy on the surface, but in actuality holds humanity to insanely high standards. For example, why should parents pay for their children's college education when the money could be spent saving lives? Why should we even go to college? And consider this scenario: two people you do not know are tied to some train tracks, with a train speeding toward them. You stand next to a switch that can shift the train to a different set of tracks; only one person is tied to these tracks, but she is your mother. According to utilitarianism, you would be morally obligated to kill your mother and save the two strangers.

The only people who are morally obligated to give almost all of their money to charities are those who believe in utilitarianism. However, people who are fairly wealthy should certainly consider donating money whenever they can. When people earn more than around 70,000-75,000 dollars per year, their happiness typically no longer rises based on earning more money. After this point, people should have a stronger obligation to donate money to charities, and would probably be far more likely to donate more money anyway. The higher a person's income, the higher their obligation to donate should be. For someone earning one million dollars a year, donating upwards of 250,000 dollars would not hurt them at all, and serve to help a great many people. Someone earning 50,000 dollars a year with two kids, however, might not be obligated to donate anything at all.