WTF I hate native Americans now

>Glanton and Holden actually existed

But The Judge is a pedophile, and The Kid has already become The Man by the time the book ends.

Judge Holden killed the man

Throughout the book, he talks that he likes to record things, then destroy them so that he's the only one to know of the thing.

He likely records the exploits of the glanton gang, and puts them in situations where they die. The kid gets away, and becomes a man, they then meet. The Judge then kills the last of the glanton gang so that the judge is the only one who knows the whole story of the gang.

youtube.com/watch?v=dEVX42Pg1xw

What about Samuel Chamberlain? Checkmate atheists

>when this is supposed to be a thread discussing the epilogue
>and people start discussing the last chapter because they don't know what an epilogue is

painfully unfunny, I want my 4 minutes back.

The burning holes are planets and the digger is God.

Am I deep enough for ye?

wait really?

Nah m'haiti, somecunts building a fence and it's a metaphor for history

can you explain more?

>omg native americans aren't peaceful woodland medicine men like the history channel has taught me my mind is blown

American pls go

Gonna paste something I found in the archive I wrote about the blood meridian epilogue. It's pretty vague but t has something about the fence building history man:

>Not 100%, but I've read that the man "progressing over the plain" is depicting someone building a fence. Which I guess relates to the ironic theme of the novel, of the civilized characters, the Judge and Glanton and the gang, "civilizing" and fencing in the wild west, despite being utterly barbaric themselves (hence, ironic).
>It's pointless to come up with a single meaning for the wanderers looking for bones, because its such a vague image. McCarthy wants us to interpret that in whatever way we like really. Searching of whose bones, I guess is the question.
>Also, I see the linearity of the holes as an ironic comment on narratives, i.e progress, history etc, but that's my reading of it, I don't know if McCarthy was thinking that way. I think it's important to note that the man is traveling not just while making these holes, but "by means of" these holes, i.e. this linear demarcation of progress is the means by which he progresses, not the result of his progress. (Little bit of cause-effect fuckery).
>The BM epilogue I don't think is really meant to be "understood". It's meaning depends so much on how you've read the rest of the novel, that I'd say there are very few dependable symbols in it, which remain the same for every reading.

My two cents :)

god damnit do you have to be spoonfed? The post holes being dug are punctuated moments of history where death or hardship occurs, the endlessness and inevitability the post holes being dug is the inextricable presence of evil existing in perpetuity. The digger is the nebulous inalienability of human nature as being forever violent, viscious, and depraved

Yeah, all natives were peaceful hippies who had no sense of property and just stood around a campfire and smoked pot all day.

They weren't like an entire race of slavers, rapists, and warmongers who were constantly killing, enslaving, and kidnapping each other in order to gain territorial rights, and perpetuate mourning warfare in which they were constantly avenging everyone they knew who died in wars.

Not saying the europeans were a whole lot better, but we had guns and a plan to build something, so we win.

Thank you. Still doesn't help explaining really much though

ok cool but what about the scavengers of bones

Representative of men always trying to understand why humans have done the things they did, always trying to correct for it, always documenting, but never finding answers or discovering the origins of a past that had no beginning

Nothing to explain. The epilogue to BM is supposed to be impenetrable. I said in my lost that it resists being captured by one interpretation and I believe that

The scavengers of bones are searching for dead things. That can be interpreted many many many ways, but I take it to have something to do with facetious, pointless dwelling on the past. They cobble together the present from the past and are obsessed with it (much the same, in a way, as McCarthy himself)

it seems you completely fail to get what McCarthy is all about

>perpetual state of warfare, slavery and exploitation

yeah, there were scrimmages between tribes, only a few people died, and they were years apart

the only empire of that perpetuated what you're saying were the aztecs and mostly because they had temples, probably inspired by traders from egypt since we know tobacco and cocaine (both new world plants) have been found in pharaoh(?) tombs

mmm I like this interpretation a lot. All the guys n gals at my comminty college are gunna cream when they hear what I have to say to them now.

>No, no, no, that's a very bad interpretation. That two-handed implement is, as I say, doing one thing and one thing only: it is striking fire which has been put into the rock, clearly a Promethean motif, and he is clearly contrasted with creatures who are either goulish [sic] human beings, if they are human beings, or already are, in fact, shades, looking for bones for whatever nourishment that might bring about.... I cannot see that as any kind of allegory of anything that has happened to the American West.

How so, cunt?

Study more, even if you want to go with your dumb ideas, you'd also be forgetting the Incas who were basically same as the aztecs. South american injuns in general had a habit of having one central empire in a region which would vassalize and enslave all other nations around them.

North americans didn't form anything like empires, but still had pretty damn strong tribal confederacies that would would do the same to any tribe they didn't agree with....or just because they were bored, or needed slaves or new family members.

Classic Bloom, dismissive of logical interpretation, making muh vague reference to Greek Myth and calling it a day. What a despicable mind

Yeah, this is a particularly bad example of his latter-day criticism. Surprised he didn't mention something about how McCarthy was railing against gun violence and the Bush administration (just before he condemns political interpretations of literature)

I hope you aren't stupid enough to believe this. The reason they've found trace amounts of tobacco in Egyptian mummies was because the scientists in the early 1900s smoked all the time around those mummies and inundated them with tobacco in a non-sterile environment.

This is some facebook-tier anti-intellectualism.

he and Heidegger have totally opposite approaches to interpretations of art, and both miss the point as a result. Art is neither pure aesthetics nor is it purely a vector for cultural study . It is both of those things as well as something intersubjective that doesn't fall into either category

The judge is metaphorical. Whatever happens to the man is him finally succumbing to his own predatory past. He's the last remenant of a violent world that no longer has a place for him.

Group A does X.
Group B does X.

I HATE GROUP B!!!

Yeah I know man

It's almost as if aesthetic and political readings of texts can coexist simultaneously

Crazy idea

pretty much the only reason Cortes and Pizarro were successful was that the empires that subjected the entire areas were so despised by the local people that they gladly allied with the Spaniards. It was only a few thousand Spaniards, yeah, but several hundred of thousand of indian allies who toppled the empires.

north america is similar in that plenty of native tribes were willing to ally with europeans in order to destroy their rivals.

Or...injuns were just peaceful people who made jewelry and tripped on mushrooms all day, whatever you want to believe.

the only reason the magnitude of death was relatively small was due to a lack of organized, industrialized means of waging war, and also due to the tribes themselves having to spend much of their time struggling against harsh climates and environs

I don't get what you're trying to accomplish with this post. Is it just to demonstrate middle school knowledge to people who don't care?

it hasn't appeared this obvious to some of the supposedly great minds in critical theory of the 20th century

>indians
Fixed that for you.

Just realised my post might have come across like I was criticising you

I wasn't btw

aww....did you get proven wrong?

not even a good attempt at redirection.

>Human nature is unacceptable if they dont match my race
>Fighting for pride and killing a couple people is way worse than mass genocides over god and idealism.

nor was I criticizing yours, just commenting on the unfortunate tunnel vision of our lauded literary critics

>>Human nature is unacceptable if they dont match my race

not really, just pointing out that injuns weren't angels. They were just as bad, or much much worse in the case of South America, as the Europeans.

>Fighting for pride and killing a couple people is way worse than mass genocides over god and idealism.

Who killed injuns in the name of god? For one, most of the time euros were happy to be peaceful with indians, going back as far as Jamestown, it was the indians who provoked that shit, read up nigga. Most of the wars that took place with indians was because certain tribes had allied with enemies of different european factions, which naturally would mean those tribes would be brought into the wars between the factions.

Nobody killed indians on a mass scale. 90% of their deaths were from disease because they had no immunity to european illnesses.

It was mostly in the euro's favor to have as many indians on their side as possible for most of the colonization period. Then the assholes went tits up from smallpox or locked themselves in trailers out in the desert drinking firewater or huffing gas and we were on our own.

It's bad at the top, in terms of respected critical theorists, but it gets unbearably worse when you have to engage with their peons, the derrideans, Foucaultians etc. I just started Uni, and already I think in getting brain damage from the sheer , blunt repitition of literary truisms, presented as these mind-blowing new discoveries. What's worse is the hostilility towards all the writers they teach. I had one lecturer talking about the preface to lyrical ballads, and he wouldn't shut up about how we had to take Wordsworth with "a pinch of salt" and not accept his positions. Like we wouldn't naturally have done that as an essential part of the reading process. Roland Barthes watered down to nothing, from what scant substance he had already. It's all very, "fuck you dad, I'm not gonna clean my room" if you know what I mean. Throwing their toys out the pram.

stupid people only care about knowledge when it is reduced to parroted memes and soundbytes that make them sound smart when they namedrop around friends. Unfortunately you'll be running into this at your university for the rest of your degree, it's a very small minority that you'll find will actually care about the content of the thinkers they study

>Chamberlain described Holden as well-spoken, intelligent and physically quite large. He also described Holden as perhaps the most ruthless of the roving band of killers led by Glanton.
shiieeeet

God I know. I don't know what I was expecting, but not this. It's terrible.

>Judge Holden is wandering the Earth RIGHT NOW
>You might meet him some day

>Chamberlain was born in Center Harbor, New Hampshire and soon afterward moved to Boston, where he spent most of his childhood. In 1844 at age 15, he left home without permission to go to Illinois. Two years later he was to join the Illinois Second Volunteer Regiment, then headed to Texas for the Mexican–American War. In San Antonio Chamberlain joined the regular army and became part of the First United States Dragoons. He fought at the Battle of Buena Vista and several other operations in the Mexican-American War. In 1849 he was found to be a deserter when he returned home to Boston to raise a family.

Samuel Chamberlain is the kid and therefore Holden can't have killed him. Discuss.

Jesus, can't believe something like that was never mentioned before. Really interesting, either McCarthy purposely chose to depart significantly from the historical account, or the kid actually survived the encounter with the Judge. Really forms new connections between your neurons and stuff.

You must go to a shitty university. Reading Derrida at Berkeley was a treat. Maybe you just don't get it yet, which is understandable. Just try to keep your head open. Derrida will scalp it open if you don't.

you guys are fucking retarded if you think chamberlain = the kid

You're part of the problem with your Derrida dicksucking. I mean he's pretty good, but he has like 2 ideas that he just repeats in different ways ad nauseum, gets old fast

Speak out against it. Write a paper which balances viewpoints or engage in a discussion with a professor about how you feel about their teaching style. Your education belongs to you.

>Indians were just as bad or worse than Europeans.

They both killed each other for stupid ridiculous reasons and desecrated their corpses.

>Who killed Injuns in the name of God.
The Spanish and Americans.

The Spanish forcibly converted them and the American's cited Christianity as one of their excuses to fight them.

There were more than one tribe. It wasn't just Injuns, you stupid hick. Some tribes were wary, some befriended whites and then got shitty deals from them.

Many tribes began fighting after hearing what happened to other tribes. The tribes were never treated fairly, and sometimes they fought back. Just like when you get mad about feminists blaming the white man for everything, you don't deserve the hate. Problem though, is that Indians were purposely abused in the attempt to whiten and kill their native blood, which is genocide. Us law still in effect today limits who can be called native, and they were intended to make the Indians have no options other than to marry outside their race, and dilute the heritage and blood. That's why the nations are so small in population but there are plenty of natives. We can talk about the long walk too.

The Europeans tricked the natives most of the time, and the response that basically screams "Lel stupid natives got trolled" isn't good enough for me. If one of our allies did that to us, you would decry it as a crime.

The poverty came from the lack of infrastructure. They werent included in the white world, and made to stay out on their land. They've taken up addictions just like white people, but they look differnt so it's ok to make fun of a native alcoholic than a meth addicted white person.

Source: Someone who knows natives beyond what my dad told me.

I really loved Suttree and Blood Meridian. Didn't really care for No Country For Old Men. Is it safe to assume that McCarthy's other works are high quality? Veeky Forums has never let me down on recommendations before

>The Spanish forcibly converted them

Well yeah, that's true.

Spaniards weren't crazy about that whole HUMAN SACRIFICE BY THE TENS OF FUCKING THOUSANDS AT A TIME, MULTIPLE TIMES A YEAR thing, so they viewed this with genuine horror and converting them was their number one goal, before conquering them even.

But also keep in mind, they didn't kill them in the name of god, they killed them to conquer the riches of their land, the religious angle was to convert people who they genuinely believed to be worshiping the devil, a view many of us would probably take even today as human sacrifice is that one thing that just smacks devil worship like no other.

Many indians also freely converted, in order to gain favor of the euros, and genuinely came to believe in christianity.

Once again, however, the main cause of death of indians was disease, not war. And the wars the Spaniards waged didn't kill nearly as many incans or aztecs as one year of their own human sacrifice celebrations would.

North america, though, I don't know of anyone who killed the indians in large numbers for religious reasons. Euro/injo relations were actually pretty damn good there, as opposed to south america.

>Those people were murdering people? Quick lets make them murder for god!
>PS we really did it because we care, we took wives and murdered people who didn't agree with us because we really care and murdering tens of thousands because of Christianity is way better than doing it for those smelly brown gods.

>Many Indians freely converted

Yeah and many were sent to reform schools or killed if they didn't.

>The main cause of death was disease.

Im not arguing a six gorilion here, I'm not even arguing innocence on behalf of the natives. Im just arguing that the natives didn't deserve what they got and in many ways whites were just as savage and incorrect about the world as they were.

Also, you again paint too broadly. The Aztecs weren't the only people in the south Amercias to be destroyed, and the other tribes didn't even like the Aztecs. So why did they the Spanish do the exact same thing to them?

North Americans were considered savage beastmen with no true Christian god. Thats why the ones they didn't kill, they attempted to indoctrinate. That's why they set laws on reservations and tribal blood, to try and breed them out.

Your definition of pretty damn good apparently includes rape, forced cultural destruction, abuse, forced dependence on the government, and generation after generation of broken uneducated people bumbling in the desert because they were only allowed to join up recently.

...

> I'm not even arguing innocence on behalf of the natives

Good, I'm done with you then. Because that was my main point, if you vilify the euros for being asshole conquerors, then you got to vilify the injuns for being the same, but with shittier technology and a gay immune system, so they lost, and you can't feel sorry for them.

Aside from that you ramble like true peyote scorched gas huffer, and I'm going to go whack off and go to bed.

Well I never fucking did that you lonely loser faggot. You were the one who started out "fucking natives deserved it fuck em they are shit." So it wasn't your main point that they weren't saints, your main point was some dumb alt right bullshit that you are now trying to distance yourself from. Your main point was to shit on native Americans, I don't know why, to feel better about yourself, and I wanted to call you a fag for whitewashing history the way you probably cry about when black people do it.

If you are going to whack off, I heard using a rope helps. Just make sure you kick the chair out from underneath or you wont get a good high.