Blame

A theme that I've noticed while reading Libra is that there's always someone to blame. Win Everett is mad for being demoted from an important CIA officer to a CIA recruiter at a small college because of the CIA's claims that he's dysfunctional in some way after the Bay of Pis.s Parmenter was an opportunist who he and his friends invested a lot of money in Cuba and then lost that money in the failed invasion. Mackey is mad because he and his troops were stranded on Cuba with no rescue during the Bay of Pigs. All three of these conspirators blame Kennedy for the ruination of their lives and careers all because of Kennedy not sending in air support, instead of blaming themselves for their poor judgement and morality. It is with blame as the main driving force that kick starts their conspiracy to kill the president.

For Lee, the blame that affected him was the blame his mother Marguerite had for her ex-husbands, especially Mr. Ekdahl who cheated on her and denied her a reasonable settlement. She believes that it's because her ex-husbands that she can't keep a steady job, has to move around the states constantly, and doesn't take good care of Lee. We know well enough that a lot of Marguerite's problems are self-caused, like when she gets fired for not putting on deodorant, and she takes no responsibility and instead diverts it to her ex-husbands whenever there is trouble. This produces a rough childhood for Lee and gets him disillusioned of America.

When Lee kills Kennedy, the U.S. immediately blames Lee because of the rifle found in the School Book Depository that could be traced back to Lee. We the readers know there is a bigger picture but people just blame Lee right away and people like Jack Ruby, without anyone knowing the full story, counter-assassinates Lee in the name of patriotism and glory. This quick murder of Lee prevents anyone from truly knowing the full story of the assassination of Kennedy and the conspirators behind it.

Delillo shows how easy it is to blame someone and take no responsibility. Blaming someone produces an order of events that doesn't get anything productive done. In the case of the three conspirators, killing Kennedy did nothing other than provide revenge for Mackey which is useless. For Lee, Marguerite's constant hounding of her ex-husbands gives Lee a lackluster childhood. For the U.S., blaming Lee right away led to a quick assassination of Lee by Ruby without garnering any useful information out of him and the conspiracy.

Similarities between 1800s and 1976

One thing Butler does is that she makes 1976 as similar to the early 1800s as much as possible. She does this by having Dana have a white husband. Their marriage, being super progressive for 1976, is extremely strained by Kevin's white male patriarchal attitude as he asks Dana to type up his stories for him, a demeaning task, instead of letting her focus on her own work. Although this is not as intense as the institution of slavery, Kevin still feels entitled to have Dana do menial work for him because of her relation to him as a wife. Butler makes marriage seem like a slave-like institution that is exacerbated by Kevin's race.

Another thing that connects the two time periods is the reactions from both of Dana and Kevin's families. Dana's uncle was disappointed in Dana while Kevin's sister said she wouldn't allow Dana and Kevin to enter her house. These types of attitudes show how close-minded people were about interracial marriage in 1976 and how stigmatized love was between interracial couples. This stigma is similar to the type of things people thought during Rufus's time. This only brings the two time periods closer together as the progress that’s supposed to happen in 150 years from the early 1800s isn’t enough to completely dis-associate one era from another. This offers one explanation for how after a few months, Dana gets used to the antebellum south as there were similarities between the two lifestyles.

By showing the racism and patriarchy in both the 1800s and 1976, Butler was able to link the two eras by its similarities and show that there is still much more work to be done to further society from the antebellum era. 

Rufus's final evolution

When we first see Rufus, he was an innocent little boy who seemed to be goodhearted. He was friends with Alice and Nigel who he treated quite nicely despite the historical time period and he showed Dana respect and fondness. He even accepted Dana's correction of calling her a "black woman" instead of the n-word. Because of this, we feel that Rufus has the potential to become a good person and not be like his slave-owning father. Dana also thinks the same as she continuously takes care of Rufus and shows him affection as she thinks she could teach him tolerance.

But later in the book, we can see that Dana's efforts were mostly ineffective as Rufus turned into a copy his father. However, there is a key difference between him and his father and that is that he "loves" Alice, a black woman, which makes him seem more tolerant. But other than Alice, there is no other reason to think of him as more tolerant than his father as he also sells, beats, and rapes his slaves and breaks up slave families with an agenda. This only gets worse as he grows up and he becomes more and more like his father despite the occasional flashes of empathy and humanity with Dana and Alice.

The reason for Rufus's degradation is result of the power he was handed. As the son of a white slave owner and eventually an owner himself, he believes that it's his right to do whatever he wants with his slaves and as such, this corrupting influence changes him for the worst. It is worthy to note that Rufus does have feelings of regret for some of his actions, but instead of changing himself for the better, he keeps doing what he wants and makes other people change for him. A example of this is when he wants Alice. He makes Dana coerce Alice into having "consensual" sex with Rufus instead of him raping her. These backhanded attempts are Rufus's way of making himself feel better for his horrific actions.

In the end, because of the power given to white slave-owners during the Antebellum period, Rufus turns into a monster. I wonder how Kevin would turn out if he was given a bunch of slaves.

Mumbo Jumbo by Kurt

Billy Pilgrim is everything one wouldn't suspect as a hero in a war novel. He's is cowardly, suicidal, and weak preferring to let snipers take shots at him than duck under cover. But this apathetic demeanor is all chalked up to his Tralfamadorian perspective on time in which all moments in time happen at the same time repeatedly. Because of this he believes that he already knows the future as he has already experienced every moment repeatedly and knows there is no free will. This gives Billy an excuse and justification to not care about or do anything productive because he knows that all of his actions are predetermined.

But I don't like this interpretation of his actions as I find it too unrealistic. I think this Tralfamadorian perspective is a derivative of his instability from trauma inducing moments from war. This is the more realistic approach to Billy's actions as it doesn't involve aliens and other nonsense. Instead Billy has an unstable grasp of reality, frequently afflicted by powerful flashbacks to different moments in his life. But these flashbacks are aided with the creation of the Tralfamadorians and their ideology in his imagination to help him cope with the trauma. In fact the creation of the Tralfamadorians could've been  as soon as Billy's capture in the war as the Tralfamadorians had also abducted Billy and put him in a zoo. This would mean that Billy's despondency is due to war trauma and PTSD with the usage of the Tralfamadorians as a coping mechanism.

The idea of Billy suffering from PTSD also fits in nicely with Kurt Vonnegut's goal of writing an anti-war novel as it shows the wild imagination and suffering from one of its participants as they re-experience past traumas through a warped reality caused by the war.

Other Atonism

The main driving force behind the book is Papa Labas trying to find the Text for Jes Grew and at the end it is revealed that Abdul Hamid had gathered all the parts up and completed the text. But in a twist, it is revealed that  Abdul Hamid, with his Islamist traditional values, had burned the text for being too lewd and doomed Jes Grew. The fact that he did this has changed my perception as to who the Atonists are because by burning the text, Abdul seems like an Atonist himself.

I used think that the Atonists were only white people that hated black culture so much that they wanted to erase and repress all traces of it. This was the most obvious characterization of the Atonists as all the members and organizations featured in the story were European based or white like the Knights Templar, the Teutonic Knights, Biff Musclewhite, etc. Also, because of Atonism's oppressive nature, it was very easy to draw historical parallels with European colonialism and imperialism. But after Abdul's betrayal to Jes Grew, I realized that Atonism is more than white versus colored, its about freedom of expression and passion versus discipline, control, and stability. JGC's are non-white because of the oppression in the Americas while the Atonists happen to be mainly white because of their institutional power in America.

Atonism's "diversity" can be seen further in its North African roots where it was first started with the Egyptian god Set who celebrated the traits of discipline and strictness while yearning to subjugate and conquer. Obviously Set and his followers weren't white because they were in North Africa. This shows that Atonism isn't synonymous with white people. This however doesn't mean that Abdul is in cahoots with the white Atonist organization as he was killed by Wallflower agents and very much opposed to them. It's just  Abdul is a different kind of Atonist that might be more prevalent in other parts of the world as he believes in many of the tenants of Atonism being an Islamic traditionalist.

Doctorow's Henry Ford

When Doctorow introduced Henry Ford, it was confusing as to if he actually liked him. In Ford's first chapter appearance, Doctorow said that "Instead of having one man learn the hundreds of tasks in the building of one motorcar (...),  why not stand him in his place, have him do just one task over and over, and let the parts come past him on moving belts. Thus the worker's mental capacity would not be taxed. (...) the men who build the products be themselves interchangeable parts." This quote makes it seem as if Doctorow has disdain for Ford since he describes Ford as exploiting his workers by making them do simple repetitive tasks in the assembly line and basically turning them into a machine.

Although Doctorow shows Ford dehumanizing his workers, he still seems to have some sort of respect for Ford as he also emphasizes Ford's genius in creating the assembly line. He shows Ford being an eccentric character who was a pioneer truly invested in his work as can be seen when the first car rolled off the assembly line. You can see that he was truly excited as he allotted a whole 60 seconds to appreciate the moment. We can also see that Doctorow likes Ford more than JP Morgan when Doctorow starts giving us his version of Morgan's background. 

Doctorow describes Morgan as top of the business ladder and how he was born rich and used his wealth to get richer. This is unlike Ford who Doctorow depicts as a person who started small and was able to work hard to amass their fortune. Doctorow is showing the two different types of capitalism that is represented by these two tycoons. In Morgan you have the old capitalist who was successful through using his ancestor's assets and Ford, the new capitalist who used innovation, hard work, and young perspective to succeed in society. 

This comparison with Morgan shows that although Doctorow is against the exploitation of workers in Ford's assembly line, he is more supportive of Ford's rise to success than how Morgan rose. Doctorow appreciates this new type of capitalism than emphasizes innovation and also believes that everyone is able to participate in this new type of capitalism and not just the very rich.