Sign in with Facebook
withdrawn's Reviews > Waiting for the Barbarians
Waiting for the Barbarians
by
by
Coetzee has written a great little novel for us all. You should read it.
A novel to be read by every generation. An allegory of every empire (including those past, those current and those to come). Empires need enemies in order to maintain control. Hence the 'infidels, savages, Jews, Muslims, barbarians and terrorists' that we civilized empires constantly hold up as threats to our very existence.
And how do empires respond to real or imagined barbarians? By behaving like barbarians, by becoming barbarians.
Think Guantanamo. As an executive with Canada's refugee program, I was once given access to a rather lengthy document provided as a guideline to US officials involved questioning captured suspected 'enemies'. It was a guideline to being 'barbarian'. Guantanamo still exists.
Indeed, when reading the book, I had to go back and check the publication date (1980) to assure myself that it was not written as a condemnation of G.W.Bush and his War on Terror. Of course it isn't. I suspect that it has a lot more to do with South Africa and it's horror of apartheid. Here the memory of Steve Biko and his fellow apartheid colleagues comes to mind.
Basically, this story is about the wrongness of empire. Empire leads to a need for 'them' and 'us', usually in the form of racism, the lowest humanity can go. This in turn leads to the adoption of methods for which the enemy is condemned. Inhumanity breeds inhumanity.
Those who support the empire, such as the Magistrate in this story, are often blissfully, perhaps willingly, unaware of the evil of the empire. They support the empire unquestionably ... until, perhaps, their humanity comes through. One can always hope.
Were the Barbarians really a threat? It is doubtful. They only appear as prisoners who are subsequently tortured. The Empire needs enemies. Think of the British Empire. They had constant little wars against anyone who spoke against them in the colonies. The mess and the tactics we see in Syria, Iraq, Egypt etc. today all copy those of the British Empire. The American Empire carries that British legacy forward. Indeed, think of an American president since the end of World War II who has not sent US forces to fight the undemocratic barbarians out there. (We can give Jimmy Carter a break here.). It's time to admit that empire leads to evil. Even the best of us get sucked into the vortex of this evil.
Coetzee has given us a strong message. A copy should come in every newborn's gift package. A great way to learn to read.
A novel to be read by every generation. An allegory of every empire (including those past, those current and those to come). Empires need enemies in order to maintain control. Hence the 'infidels, savages, Jews, Muslims, barbarians and terrorists' that we civilized empires constantly hold up as threats to our very existence.
And how do empires respond to real or imagined barbarians? By behaving like barbarians, by becoming barbarians.
Think Guantanamo. As an executive with Canada's refugee program, I was once given access to a rather lengthy document provided as a guideline to US officials involved questioning captured suspected 'enemies'. It was a guideline to being 'barbarian'. Guantanamo still exists.
Indeed, when reading the book, I had to go back and check the publication date (1980) to assure myself that it was not written as a condemnation of G.W.Bush and his War on Terror. Of course it isn't. I suspect that it has a lot more to do with South Africa and it's horror of apartheid. Here the memory of Steve Biko and his fellow apartheid colleagues comes to mind.
Basically, this story is about the wrongness of empire. Empire leads to a need for 'them' and 'us', usually in the form of racism, the lowest humanity can go. This in turn leads to the adoption of methods for which the enemy is condemned. Inhumanity breeds inhumanity.
Those who support the empire, such as the Magistrate in this story, are often blissfully, perhaps willingly, unaware of the evil of the empire. They support the empire unquestionably ... until, perhaps, their humanity comes through. One can always hope.
Were the Barbarians really a threat? It is doubtful. They only appear as prisoners who are subsequently tortured. The Empire needs enemies. Think of the British Empire. They had constant little wars against anyone who spoke against them in the colonies. The mess and the tactics we see in Syria, Iraq, Egypt etc. today all copy those of the British Empire. The American Empire carries that British legacy forward. Indeed, think of an American president since the end of World War II who has not sent US forces to fight the undemocratic barbarians out there. (We can give Jimmy Carter a break here.). It's time to admit that empire leads to evil. Even the best of us get sucked into the vortex of this evil.
Coetzee has given us a strong message. A copy should come in every newborn's gift package. A great way to learn to read.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Waiting for the Barbarians.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-21 of 21 (21 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Lizzy
(last edited Sep 12, 2016 10:22AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Sep 12, 2016 10:20AM
Brilliant review, RK-ique! I read and loved it as well. This is one of the reasons I'm am a great fan of Coetzee. You are so right, it's an allegory of every empire and their constant need of barbarians to fight. L.
reply
|
flag
Thanks Lizzy. It wasn't the book I was expecting but it is phenomenal.
Wonderful review! Seems like the work may have had some predictive power in how politics devolved in the 80s, 90s, and to today. Yes, likely "empire leads to evil" but I think you saw the short book my HS social studies teacher wrote, *All Empires Die* (Sidney Speigel) so there's that...
Excellent review of an excellent book, RK-ique! I was rather shocked by it at the time I read it (long before I joined GR), but then I had to ask myself why? There was really nothing that surprising, as you brilliantly point out, referring to real global events. Sometimes it takes literature to understand reality. That is what happened to me while reading England, England and As If I Am Not There.
Marita wrote: "An excellent, thought provoking review with some sound advice in your closing paragraph."Thanks Marita. It would be nice if our various school systems would undertake such a task.
Christy wrote: "Wonderful review! Seems like the work may have had some predictive power in how politics devolved in the 80s, 90s, and to today. Yes, likely "empire leads to evil" but I think you saw the short boo..."Yes Christy *All Empires Die*, usually in a mire of bloody wars and then they are replaced by new empires. Sigh....
Lisa wrote: "Excellent review of an excellent book, RK-ique! I was rather shocked by it at the time I read it (long before I joined GR), but then I had to ask myself why? There was really nothing that surprisin..."Thanks Lisa. I can see why the books you mention have the same effect of 'realization'. It seems that getting the same information via 'the news' is not sufficient. We seem to be numb to what passes for reality until it has been properly fictionalized for us.
Oh, ugh, RK, not you, too."Think of the British Empire. They had constant little wars against anyone who spoke against them in the colonies. The mess and the tactics we see in Syria, Iraq, Egypt etc. today all copy those of the British Empire. The American Empire carries that British legacy forward."
And that is why the U.S. rules its colonies Syria, Iraq, and Egypt as we do?
Thank you for the powerful review RK-ique. I think I'll take your recommendation and read this book soon.
It will be a good investment of your time Carlo.
Great review! Orwell reminded us that we need our Goldstein/state enemies to justify total war and our empires.
Another outstanding review - yes, I fully agree, the book's message is indeed timeless as we keep repeating all the same mistakes.
It has been ages since I read this, RK, but I am still shivering recalling some scenes of torture - I agree with you it is a compelling novel, which should be read by the next geneations - born in a post-apartheid world - its message is universal (and invites to revisit the eponymous, thought- provoking Cavafy poem - utterly poignant and relevant thinking of the millions of refugees all over the world and the reaction of 'empires' on this 'challenge' to their societies).
Thanks Ilse and Jan. I shall have to seek out the Cavafy poem.
Another good one RK, valid concerns. As a minimalist I will say small government cannot become an "Empire" so although I may be the odd man out in your discussions I do agree on many points.
Aaron wrote: "Another good one RK, valid concerns. As a minimalist I will say small government cannot become an "Empire" so although I may be the odd man out in your discussions I do agree on many points."In this case Aaron, I would suggest that 'small government' does become 'Empire". Look at the example of your own country. Your "Founding Fathers" had neither empire nor big government in mind. Indeed, their general mistrust of power made them want to restrict government and deny empire. It wasn't long, however, before they were on their way to accomplishing both, and now the U.S. is trying to maintain an impossible balancing act which appears to be doomed, as is the case with empires in general.
Indeed, I would suggest that human nature is such that we, as a species, cannot help but repeat that pattern over and over again until we go extinct. Our destruction seems to be built into our survival genes. It's just us.
That is interesting RK because earlier you mention the thought of if the constitution were to be turned back. I'm quite certain the Constitutionalists which fall into the Conservative-Libertarian-Right feel that we've already crossed that line. They don't see the constitution as living document, but revere it as something sacred outlining the limitations of Federal duty through fundamental protections of inalienable rights, civil liberties, rather than the lens of fulfilling every need imaginable, which they feel is best left to the states.
The contradiction in the Right is that they want free markets to the extent they're no less culpable than social globalists who would just as quickly redistribute our wealth as they would horde it.
They want national protectionism in the global arena, but not interstate protectionism at home. I think that's where the problem lie.
To get where we are today is to allow allow unchecked Federal supremacy in all matters of American interest. We keep adding laws, privileges, and functions to our Federal government with the expectation of state wealth re-appropriation. If we reduced Federal power to the extent that no single man could send us off to foreign wars and allowing the states to a choice in whehter or not they particpate we would have a much more difficult time becoming that global police force, because frankly people are fed up with things that have no bearing on American needs, but instead cost American lives and American resources. This is the fire behind populism among other domestic concerns of jobs, and social re-engineering, taxation etc.
With the Credit boom of the roaring '20s to the New Deal of the '30s to the Industrial boon of WWII we've created the war machine, and certainly achieved many good things no doubt, but these aren't Constitutional requirements, but examples of Federalism gone wild.
*I should add I don't mean to misrepresent the credit boom, but I mention it as the shift in American mindset towards the notion of getting things on debt.
Aaron wrote: "That is interesting RK because earlier you mention the thought of if the constitution were to be turned back. I'm quite certain the Constitutionalists which fall into the Conservative-Libertarian-R..."Thought provoking, however with how slow the wheels of government move if we got to a place where a single man couldn't send us to war we would never be able to defend our interests.
Tom wrote: "we would never be able to defend our interests"These our interests?
This week, the focus is on over 44,000 US military personnel deployed to “unknown,” which immediately raises red flags, because that’s not a place. Pentagon officials, however, say there is “no good way” to describe where they are.
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
Don't get too excited about a recent report that the Pentagon is going to finally undergo an audit to see where the trillions of missing dollars have gone. Beltway pundits -- including WaPo's Robert Samuelson in an article over the weekend -- are still screaming for more spending!
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
Ron Paul joins The Savage Nation with Michael Savage to discuss President Trump's controversial decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel:
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
Considering how broad "American Interests" are it should come as no surprise we'd be investing in other peoples' media too:
The US State Department has announced that it is going to spend a million dollars to prop up anti-government newspapers in the Hungarian countryside, which would have a direct effect on the upcoming Hungarian elections. Isn't this what the US claims the Russians did to our elections? Is it OK if we do it?
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
Some of the best criticism of the Admin / Establishment comes from the Right. Is it wrong?
inspired largely by dino buzzati's Tartar Steppe, which deals with less specific and therefore greater themes.
