A Confusion in the Text
The recent debate over the senate bill that would issue an apology for the lack of prosecution in cases of lynching has left me somewhat divided. On one hand, the inaction of the government certainly merits an act of contrition, and yet the magnitude of their offense makes any response seem paltry and inadequate. I watched Kill Bill (again) recently and during the Beatrix's first killing of Vernita Green, Green says 'you have every right to want to get even'. To which Beatrix replies that in order to make them even, she would have to kill Vernita, Vernita's young daughter, and wait for her husband to come home so that she could kill him as well. In order for black and white Americans to be even, we would have to subvert the power structure, enslave them, and force them to live with a constant undercurrent of violence, humiliation, and psychological terror, crushing their spirit to the point that they would undermine each other even when we were not around. A formal apology seems an inadequate substitute.
This makes me wonder if other countries also get roped into issuing apologies. For instance, did Germany ever issue a 'we're sorry' to the Jewish people? That would actually make more sense because the execution of Jews was more of a singular event. It was more directly contained within World War II (although, not, obviously, entirely) than the three hundred years of oppression that went on in this country. Also, the Holocaust was an act perpetuated more by the government than its citizens, so it is a lot easier to mete out blame. Still, "we're sorry for brutally murdering millions of your people' seems almost comical in its deficiency. 'Sorry' just ain't gonna cut it.
It occurs to me that the phrase 'Do you want me to have sex with you?' is particularly odd. It is a synthesis, I believe, of two more popular phrases, 'do you want me to make love to you?' and 'do you want to have sex with me?' What we have here is a request, 'can i have sex with you?' made hidden by an attempt to illicit the desire of hearer. The speaker repudiates the fact that he has to ask permission while transforming the listener into the actor. With an affirmative yes, the listener seems to suddenly become the agent, while in reality the questioner was the provocateur of the act.
In addition to turning the solicitor/solicited dichotomy on its head, the question, 'do you want me to have sex with you?' with its cached allusion to 'do you want me to make love to you?' adds a hint of the romantic while preventing that romance from becoming love. An easily impassioned listener hears 'do you want me to have sex with you?' but feels its contextual cousin-- 'do you want me to make love to you?' and is subsequently seduced by the phrase. It is a rather brilliant literary calculation on the part of the author.
This makes me wonder if other countries also get roped into issuing apologies. For instance, did Germany ever issue a 'we're sorry' to the Jewish people? That would actually make more sense because the execution of Jews was more of a singular event. It was more directly contained within World War II (although, not, obviously, entirely) than the three hundred years of oppression that went on in this country. Also, the Holocaust was an act perpetuated more by the government than its citizens, so it is a lot easier to mete out blame. Still, "we're sorry for brutally murdering millions of your people' seems almost comical in its deficiency. 'Sorry' just ain't gonna cut it.
It occurs to me that the phrase 'Do you want me to have sex with you?' is particularly odd. It is a synthesis, I believe, of two more popular phrases, 'do you want me to make love to you?' and 'do you want to have sex with me?' What we have here is a request, 'can i have sex with you?' made hidden by an attempt to illicit the desire of hearer. The speaker repudiates the fact that he has to ask permission while transforming the listener into the actor. With an affirmative yes, the listener seems to suddenly become the agent, while in reality the questioner was the provocateur of the act.
In addition to turning the solicitor/solicited dichotomy on its head, the question, 'do you want me to have sex with you?' with its cached allusion to 'do you want me to make love to you?' adds a hint of the romantic while preventing that romance from becoming love. An easily impassioned listener hears 'do you want me to have sex with you?' but feels its contextual cousin-- 'do you want me to make love to you?' and is subsequently seduced by the phrase. It is a rather brilliant literary calculation on the part of the author.