Re-presenting Religious Texts for Fun

This week we discussed how some believe Globalisation ‘erodes’ national and religious identity; how Governments and other Institutions will, ad hoc, create catergories to suit their agenda (Srivasta & Moore 2012). To flesh out this  theory we were asked to view a movie released by Nina Paley, Sita Sings the Blues that juxtaposes an ancient Hindu fable, the Ramayana, with songs from 1920s Jazz singer Annette Hanshaw. This film could be viewed as questioning the ‘inherent characteristics” (ibid.) postulated by Governments and Institutions; how is it that an Indian epic poem from circa 500 BCE is so compatible with 1920s American Jazz music? 

Another example of postmodern ‘art’ appropriated from religious material is the LOLcat Bible. This is a rather controversial work that was created almost entirely on Wikipedia under a Creative Commons License. Some read this as a work of blasphemy, but another view is as a translation of the Christian Bible. The LOLcat bible translates bible verses into the LOLcat 'language'. 

Ceiling Cat is the LOLcat Bible's translation of 'God'
(Source: The Bible within the Social Network 2012)

Consider the following rather homophobic bible verse: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” with the LOLcat Bible’s translation “No can has ghey... srsly. srry, but no [sic],” (Leviticus 18:22).  Perhaps this translation is a little more effective than traditional translations, perhaps this is simply another entertaining method of spreading the Christian God’s dogma? 

Basement Cat is the LOLcat Bible's Satan
(Source: The Bible within the Social Network 2012)

Sita Sings the Blues and the LOLcat Bible suggest a commonality amongst all people regardless of race, religion or epoch: a need to be loved and acknowledged; fear of death; and the need to create rituals to satisfy or minimise these emotions that are perhaps better representations of the “inherent characteristics” (Srivasta & Moore 2012) of humanity. 

'"I prayed very hard and then the fairy came!" ... Did he? Good have a biscuit"

(Source: Moran 2009)

Reference List
Moran, D. (2009), Dylon Moran on Religion and Polticians, accessed 27 August 2012 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odFJr3Krr3A>

Srivastata, S. & Moore, C. (2012), ‘Global’ media, ‘local’ identities, accessed 27 August 2012 <https://d2l.deakin.edu.au/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?tId=1586862&ou=31220>

The Bible with the Social Network (2012) LOLcat Bible Translation Project and Book, accessed 27 August 2012 <http://bibleontheinternet.weebly.com/lolcat-bible.html>

The Sexist Homosexual

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Criminalising the Unfortunate

This week’s reading discussed refugees, and how the aim of current Refugee Legislation, globally, has moved “from human rights to border enforcement and then to organised crime” (Morrison 2003: 477). If we consider the discourse within Australian Politics on illegal immigration and refugees, we can see how ‘boat people’ are not viewed with compassion by our Government.

I don’t understand this demonising view of refugees, how can this view be anything more than institutionalised racism? Why can't we offer them the help they need?

Some worry that these refugees will be a drain on our country’s resources, fallaciously perhaps. The International Monetary Fund has declared Australia to have “the strongest economy in the developed world … [forecasting our] unemployment rate to remain low at 5.2 per cent” (Wright 2012). A recent study by the Australian Human Resource Institute found that 7 out of 10 employers in Australia were in need of skilled labour (Working in Australia 2012). These facts together suggest that we cannot rely on the population we have to fill these jobs. Doesn’t it seem likely that refugees would jump at the chance to not only to live in the world’s most liveable city but also to work in it? 

I simply don’t understand why we can’t allow more refugees into our country. It is not only a humanitarian issue, it is also a smart economic decision that will continue to strengthen our economy. At the very least wouldn’t it also give us a chance to spread the joys of Globalisation to those who may otherwise not have access to Facebook? 

the kitten is sad because s/he doesn't have access to Facebook
(Source: LOLcat Pictures 2012)

We do, however, allow many New Zealanders the flee their country. Not because they're being prosecuted, but for a little economic downturn. Unfair?

Reference List

LOLcat Pictures (2010), Haz a Sad, accessed 14 August 2012 <http://www.lolcatpictures.net/pictures/haz_a_sad.htm>

Morrison , J. (2003), ‘The dark side of globalisation': the criminalisation of refugees’, in R Robertson & KE White (eds), Globalization: critical concepts in sociology, Routledge, London, pp.474-7.

Working In Australia (2012), Migration and Australia, accessed 14 August 2012 <http://www.workingin-australia.com/visa/skill-shortages/migration#.UCpzWqlUNvc>

Wright, J. (2012), ‘Australian economy leads the world’, the Sydney Morning Herald, 18 April, accessed 14 August 2012 <http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australian-economy-leads-the-world-20120418-1x6ac.html>

Referencing Wikipedia? Naughty…

From this:

Source: FunnyCorner 2012

To this:

Source: LaMonica 2012

This week we learned about Regulation and Ownership. Specifically we discussed copyright, its origins and how it is evolving (or not) today. Last week I discussed the Olympics, so instead I shall discuss a concept mentioned in the lecture, that of copyleft. 

As the name suggests copyleft is the opposite of copyright. As an idea copyleft subverts traditional copyright law. It “uses existing copyright regulations to place a document, idea or programme in the public domain as a universally available product that remains freely available” (Lowes 2006: 49)

Just as the symbol “©” is understood to mean copyright, copyleft has it’s own version:

Source: Wikipedia 2005

No your eyes aren’t deceiving you, I just referenced Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is an example of copyleft. As university students we’ve all been told to avoid Wikipedia as it is ‘amateur’ (each and every lecturer and tutor I’ve ever had). A cNet article discussed a study that compared Wikipedia articles with Encyclopaedia Britannica’s articles. The results were surprising. Britannica was found to have an average of 2.92 mistakes per article; while Wikipedia had 3.86 (Terdiman 2005). Apparently the gap between professional and amateur is not too wide. 

Copyleft is becoming increasingly popular within society today. Some of my friends (fallaciously) prefer Android phones over iPhones, just as another friend studying something science-y tries to sell me on Linux. Willow Garage, a Robotics company, has even released its Robotics Operating System to an open source body, hoping it’ll move robots “beyond curiosities and cool demos” (LaMonica 2012).

An amusing example of copyleft is the Lolcats translation of the Bible.

Reference List

FunnyCorner (2012), Wikipedia, accessed 6 August 2012 <http://www.funnycorner.net/funny-pictures/5792/funny-demotivational-pictures/wikipedia.html>

LaMonica, M. (2012), ‘Do robots need a Linux or a Mac OS to thrive?’, cNet News, 10 May, accessed 6 August 2012 <http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57431621-76/do-robots-need-a-linux-or-a-mac-os-to-thrive/> 

Lowe, D. (2006), The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary , Zed Books, Ebray Library

Terdiman, D. (2005), ‘Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica’, cNet News, 15 December, accessed 6 August <http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html>

Wikipedia (2005), Copyleft image, accessed 6 August 2012 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyleft.svg>