i posted a tirade about book burning in december 2008. this week i posted a flyer and announcement about a dj gig i recently acquired at the kenton pub in hackney. four months have passed in between these two events. for some reason i am compelled to account for that time.
i am not compelled to testify to some imaginary audience that might be reading this blog but i am compelled to testify to myself. i would like to reflect on the time that has passed as 'productive', or 'directed', or at least not as a total write off. and so i write frantically, attempting to excavate something from the silence that has pervaded my blog - and this certainly part of a larger pattern of simultaneous silences and supernovas in other parts of my life - for the past 16 weeks. making it public lends it some legitmacy that i need. permit me a bit of self indulgence here.
court is in session.
after a long trip home to canada in december and january, i returned to be completely swamped with preparation for upcoming conferences and a relocation of my long lost lover to london for march 1st. add one move to london and another trip to america for yet another conference, stir, and that almost brings us to the beginning of may. and yet, although i can submit this evidence in support of my unannounced virtual absence for the last third of a year*, i sense there is something else that has kept me away. or rather somethings.
#1. lack of inspiration or lack of perspiration?
i think this is either as a result of not sitting still long enough to develop a coherent thought (don't you just hate how transcontinental travel stifles your creative processes?), or because my engagement with ideas has been changing over the past half of a year. both my interests and my method of critique is morphing into a much more contemplative, dare i say stoic, approach. i have always been critical of my tendency to snarl my way in and out of debates, but recently i am much more (philosophically) interested in considering the limitations of such hostile, self-righteous techniques. and it is not a patronizing performace of tolerance that i am edifying here, but a genuine realization that i have been caught in a self-woven web of moral righteousness that offers intellectual security through intellectual stagnation. in other words, me and my brain have just signed up for a one-year subscription at the local YMCA. i hope they have rowing machines.
#2. fear?
some cliche deep inside me made me write this.
#3. time?
both time passing and not enough time. by 'time passing' i refer to that often referenced fear that 'too much time has passed' and now it is impossible to go back and set things right (i.e., rather than post four months late, it would be easier to just start a new blog, or to move to dubai, change your name, and when asked, refuse to ever acknowledge the existence of anything called 'the internet'). and, of course, there is the jessie spano syndrome, that not only speaks but sings, all of our deepest anxieties about never having enough time to devote to 'extra-curricular' activities.
all of these alibis are, of course, bogus and yet the stronghold they have on my inclination to write is fantastic. my explanations are fundamentally limited by the language i have to make sense of thoughts and feelings and as a result, will inherently be misrepresentative. this however, is inadmissable reasoning at a trial and so i will stick with my original alibi and hope that the performance of this ritual will clear the air of any bad feelings between myself and myself. besides, it is the ritual - not a hopeless attempt to define a genuine truthfulness behind my lack - that i need.
*converting months into their relative relationship to the overall year is a sure way to induce heart-stopping panic attacks.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
radio rebelde.
a live dj night at the kenton pub.38 kenton road, hackney, e9
first friday of every month.
www.kentonpub.co.uk
*electronic*newindiesounds*feminist
Mayday!Mayday!
FRIDAY MAY 1st
8 to 11pm
Finish off the day-long celebration of workers’ struggles with us at the Kenton.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
out of her senses like a dog she barked
this week i listened to someone give a presentation of a book review. the book was what you might call an obviously orientalist text, complete with uncomplicated universalizing of western christian values as global values, and tokenistic reference (one chapter) to 'other' worldviews such as those homogenous cultures in 'india' and 'china' that are just so darned easy to summarize. the book was presented to a group of students, myself included, as a text that would be worthwhile for new scholars and their teachers in the field in which the book was immersed - ethics.
as the book sat silently on the table beside its puppet, i was shocked at the amount of violence such a tiny little thing could carry - the book, i mean. while of course the book is only significant in the context of multiple other influential sites of orientalist meaning-making, the innocent looking little paperback of not more than 200 pages sitting before me allowed its reviewer to read the story of contemporary western ethical principals as simply passively inherited. according to my gracious interlocutor, religious wars and longstanding principled regulations launched in the name of christianity, are apparently rendered insignificant to the current ethical frameworks of the west. i take issue with this because as these culture-shaping events are ignored in the book, they further erase the extensive histories of imperial cultural domination through which the contemporary moral foundations of the west are stabilized. some examples of these textual omissions include, enduring legacies of islamophobia (from varying scales of christian cultural domination such as the crusades and including canonical literature such as dante's inferno), gendered violence (the eradication of pagan and feminized medicinal practices through the practiced burning of so-called witches), and colonialism (if enlightenment taught us anything, it was that the civilized know better than the savages). indeed the sanctity of modern ethical frameworks in the christian world, including western legal traditions, rests on these historical practices of active suppression. although the christian moral foundation of the west as often (mis)taken as an acquiescent invisibility, it is certainly not a set of values that simply 'came to be.'
as the reviewer concluded by reiterating the great pedagogical value of the text, my levels of anger reached their boiling point. there, in that university classroom, i found myself thinking an unthinkable thought...'i would like to burn that book.' pause. 'i would like to burn that book?' pause. if i burned the book, people would call me a fascist. granted, if i burned the book, i would call myself a fascist. im sure i could never bring myself to burn a book. but this got me thinking, what is it about burning books in the west that is so evocative?
certainly, the books of iraq, palestine, and afghanistan have been recently burned - and continue to burn as i write - by the hand of allied forces' bombs and airstrikes. certainly, poorly funded individuals and organizations who collect archival materials necessarily subject their collections to unsafe environments because they cannot afford secure storage. these practices can result in the loss of years of documents and ephemeral materials from minority cultures due to things like basement flooding, or violent eviction measures. moreover, the foundational structure of the publishing industry itself is such that there are certain types of knowledge, certain languages, certain subjects, and certain ways of communicating, that are (pardon the pun) bound to be published. the industry itself thereby regulates the fundamental concept of what can be considered 'a book.' do these examples, not also represent forms of, albeit in some cases more subtle, 'book burning'?
of course, the burning of books conjures up images of dangerous, alarming scenes - with particular historical reference - where freedom of speech is under attack and ideologies have gone to such extremes that textual forms of dissent cannot be tolerated. however, do the less-prescriptive forms of exterminating books not also embody the same fundamental issues that we are fearful of when we think of infamous public book burnings such as freedom of speech, and ideologically informed censorship? why is it okay to burn some books and not others? whose practices of book burning get labelled fascist and whose are exempt from criticism due to insitutionalized excuses such as 'collateral damage' or a normalized capitalist private property ownership model that systemically discriminates against those who cannot, or refuse to, engage with it?
my deeply entrenched liberal values urge me to guard against a reading of my words here as an endorsement of book burning, but actually, im not sure what that i would be defending. the moral value attributed to the sanctity of 'freedom of speech' is not a passive right or inherited foundational principal of freedom divorced from historical and political context, but a device that actively legitimizes some kinds of 'freedom of speech' over others'.
as the book sat silently on the table beside its puppet, i was shocked at the amount of violence such a tiny little thing could carry - the book, i mean. while of course the book is only significant in the context of multiple other influential sites of orientalist meaning-making, the innocent looking little paperback of not more than 200 pages sitting before me allowed its reviewer to read the story of contemporary western ethical principals as simply passively inherited. according to my gracious interlocutor, religious wars and longstanding principled regulations launched in the name of christianity, are apparently rendered insignificant to the current ethical frameworks of the west. i take issue with this because as these culture-shaping events are ignored in the book, they further erase the extensive histories of imperial cultural domination through which the contemporary moral foundations of the west are stabilized. some examples of these textual omissions include, enduring legacies of islamophobia (from varying scales of christian cultural domination such as the crusades and including canonical literature such as dante's inferno), gendered violence (the eradication of pagan and feminized medicinal practices through the practiced burning of so-called witches), and colonialism (if enlightenment taught us anything, it was that the civilized know better than the savages). indeed the sanctity of modern ethical frameworks in the christian world, including western legal traditions, rests on these historical practices of active suppression. although the christian moral foundation of the west as often (mis)taken as an acquiescent invisibility, it is certainly not a set of values that simply 'came to be.'
as the reviewer concluded by reiterating the great pedagogical value of the text, my levels of anger reached their boiling point. there, in that university classroom, i found myself thinking an unthinkable thought...'i would like to burn that book.' pause. 'i would like to burn that book?' pause. if i burned the book, people would call me a fascist. granted, if i burned the book, i would call myself a fascist. im sure i could never bring myself to burn a book. but this got me thinking, what is it about burning books in the west that is so evocative?
certainly, the books of iraq, palestine, and afghanistan have been recently burned - and continue to burn as i write - by the hand of allied forces' bombs and airstrikes. certainly, poorly funded individuals and organizations who collect archival materials necessarily subject their collections to unsafe environments because they cannot afford secure storage. these practices can result in the loss of years of documents and ephemeral materials from minority cultures due to things like basement flooding, or violent eviction measures. moreover, the foundational structure of the publishing industry itself is such that there are certain types of knowledge, certain languages, certain subjects, and certain ways of communicating, that are (pardon the pun) bound to be published. the industry itself thereby regulates the fundamental concept of what can be considered 'a book.' do these examples, not also represent forms of, albeit in some cases more subtle, 'book burning'?
of course, the burning of books conjures up images of dangerous, alarming scenes - with particular historical reference - where freedom of speech is under attack and ideologies have gone to such extremes that textual forms of dissent cannot be tolerated. however, do the less-prescriptive forms of exterminating books not also embody the same fundamental issues that we are fearful of when we think of infamous public book burnings such as freedom of speech, and ideologically informed censorship? why is it okay to burn some books and not others? whose practices of book burning get labelled fascist and whose are exempt from criticism due to insitutionalized excuses such as 'collateral damage' or a normalized capitalist private property ownership model that systemically discriminates against those who cannot, or refuse to, engage with it?
my deeply entrenched liberal values urge me to guard against a reading of my words here as an endorsement of book burning, but actually, im not sure what that i would be defending. the moral value attributed to the sanctity of 'freedom of speech' is not a passive right or inherited foundational principal of freedom divorced from historical and political context, but a device that actively legitimizes some kinds of 'freedom of speech' over others'.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
facebook walls' inexhaustibility are exhausting
on tuesday, november 11th i became aware of a facebook group called the "york anti-strike group." intrigued by the provocative name, i visited the group's page only to be (i suppose unsurprisingly) berated by an onslaught of anti-union and anti-strike sentiments, expressed through such enlightened statements as "The [strike] may not be illegal but it is immoral" and "Some of my friends are TAs and they are against the strike. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they decided to work as TAs."
i joined the group and tried to enter into these discussions via the group's facebook wall. naively, i thought that by using a little irony - a la steven colbert - that i might highlight some of what i saw as the direct outcome of mike harris' common sense revolution...youthful minds moulded by the incessant rhetoric of law, order, and above all, neoliberal economic reforms at the cost of workers' rights. of course, 2, 300 members, 82 pages of wall postings, and 3 days later, i withdrew from the battle, tired and hopeless. although there were a lot of people trying to make intelligent, poignant pro-union interventions in the anti-CUPE discussions, the easy-to-post, visual interface of the facebook wall meant that these affective ruptures were continually lost to the backlogged pages of the group's wall. since it's such a shame that more people couldn't have been privy to some of the highly entertaining discussions on this site, i pasted some highlights below.
however, my infiltration did not prove totally useless. while fishing around on the group's wall i found a post from the policy chair of the york ndp group which read:
PP:
um, what? about one week and 40 impassioned exchanges later from multiple people (members and non-members alike), the group decided to change their position and support the striking workers. however, my experience in conversing with these folks has really shaken any lasting belief I had in what kind of alternative political potential the ndp can offer if they continue to attract members who believe in "staying out of labour disputes" or think that the party offers a place for a whole spectrum of ideologies, including being a Liberal: "Even within the NDP there are those at centre of left (if that make any sense) and those of left left (or further left). One can think of centre of left, closer to centre (LIBERAL)." Yikes.
____________
from the "york anti-strike" facebook group
some highlights
nov. 11-13th, 2008
SD:
i just hate unions. weekends, safe working conditions, power against an increasingly powerful ruling class of bosses and managers - how dare they try to make the lives of working people better. what a bunch of dicks!
now the administration, that's who i'd like to see come out of this one on top. they're the ones who are really being hurt by all this. i mean, just think of all the extra money they have to spend on gas for their new ford explorers as they wait to cross the picket line. and it also means getting back to their 2 car garage home in vaughan a few minutes later then normal. this is all not to mention all the extra work that this strike is causing for them...handling media phone calls to maintain the university's reputation, dealing with uninformed, ignorant undergraduates (and their parents) who think education is about consumer rights...honestly, those TAs are just plain rude!
why dont the TAs see that they alone have the power to end this thing?
AJ:
I don't think unions are the problem Stacy, it's how they are misused. I personally have no quarrel with what the TA's are doing in principle, I'm sure if I was in their position I'd probably be concerned too, however I cannot condone their methods. I refuse to accept that the best way that they can think of making their point needs to negatively affect 50 000 plus students (and that's just the people who actually take classes in York University.)
SW:
Seriously, Stacy? This is the students' education our "educators" are putting on hold and inconveniencing. And you know what? Maybe these TAs deserve more money, maybe they don't, the point is that I AM PAYING their wages, regardless of the digits. MY TUITION is what goes into all their pockets whether they strike or not. Their inconvenience to me is not earning them any sympathy from my wallet. I don't agree or disagree with the terms or reason for the strike, my disagreement is with the inconvenience to my education. I'm so glad other students have also realized this. I was afraid I was the only one who realized this.
Jay, I had no idea the union provided those busses! I did, however, think it was ridiculously irresponsible and ironic that the YFS would support the CUPE strike and the drop fees rally on the same day. Sometimes, I get the feeling the YFS has no idea what they're arguing, they just like to argue.
I, for one, just want to get back to school. This is my LAST semester, and I'm not even a York student. I'm a visiting Western student studying 2 half courses because it was cheaper for me to move back in with my parents than to spend another semester in London. If this strike goes on too long for me, I miss out my timeframe to apply for graduation at Western and I know the admin will not be sympathetic to York's strike.
PM:
I thought the YFS represented undergraduate students?????
SD:
yeah, that stupid YFS president - doesnt he know that the vast majority of us consumers, i mean undergraduate students, will be in positions as TAs in the future if we pursue an academic career? who does he think he is, having an intelligent analysis of labour and foresight into struggles that might affect us in the future?!? like i said before, i think it makes a lot of sense to be attacking the TAs and union organizing when the administration has absolutely no power in the situation! i mean, its not like my tuition fees pay the administration's salary as they continue to refuse to meet the union's demands and run an effective PR campaign that turns our attention away from their role in the dispute and onto the underpaid workers (aka. us in the future).
SD:
forgot to add: union = a bunch of dicks!
...
BM:
I busted through the picket line today at Chimneystack Rd on my motorcycle, man were they pissed!! Definitely worth it tho
SH:
the administration has already agreed to binding arbitration. now it's up to the union to go to the table. as far as im concerned the union is holding students hostage!
SD:
Yes, if we use binding arbitration, we can force them into a corner without any rights!
"As an alternative to judges or courts settling disputes between consumers and businesses, binding arbitration works out a deal through a third party body. The arbitrator's decision is final and cannot be disputed or appealed. Businesses prefer to resolve claims through binding arbitration because it is more private, avoiding possible bad publicity that could erupt in a trial. They are also not bound to certain legal requirements, such as "discovery" whereby the persons involved in the claim have access to otherwise private information. A consumer has basically waived their constitutional right to sue when they sign a mandatory binding arbitration clause as part of a contract. Consumer advocates point out that many people do not know they have denied themselves that right. Nor are they aware that the independent arbitrator may have an interest in siding with a corporation for financial reasons."
...
BD:
I assume the members of this group are not thinking about graduate school at York in the future. Otherwise, they would be supportive of the strike and their financial future as a graduate student.
NM:
U know what they say when assume...
Actually I AM thinking about Grad and law school. Why would I be out striking in the cold? I happen to like what I would be getting if I were to become a TA.
It's the contract faculty who have the raw deal.
SD:
actually, it's the administration who are getting the raw deal! the president of york is only making a measley $500, 000! if anyone should be on strike it should be the president and vps who are especially hard hit by the global financial crisis. and those TAs and contract faculty have the audacity to ask for higher wages - i mean the cheek of it all!
read all about how little ontario university president's are getting paid here:
http://www.thespec.com/article/396776
i joined the group and tried to enter into these discussions via the group's facebook wall. naively, i thought that by using a little irony - a la steven colbert - that i might highlight some of what i saw as the direct outcome of mike harris' common sense revolution...youthful minds moulded by the incessant rhetoric of law, order, and above all, neoliberal economic reforms at the cost of workers' rights. of course, 2, 300 members, 82 pages of wall postings, and 3 days later, i withdrew from the battle, tired and hopeless. although there were a lot of people trying to make intelligent, poignant pro-union interventions in the anti-CUPE discussions, the easy-to-post, visual interface of the facebook wall meant that these affective ruptures were continually lost to the backlogged pages of the group's wall. since it's such a shame that more people couldn't have been privy to some of the highly entertaining discussions on this site, i pasted some highlights below.
however, my infiltration did not prove totally useless. while fishing around on the group's wall i found a post from the policy chair of the york ndp group which read:
PP:
New Democrats at York University are officially NEUTRAL on this strike.
um, what? about one week and 40 impassioned exchanges later from multiple people (members and non-members alike), the group decided to change their position and support the striking workers. however, my experience in conversing with these folks has really shaken any lasting belief I had in what kind of alternative political potential the ndp can offer if they continue to attract members who believe in "staying out of labour disputes" or think that the party offers a place for a whole spectrum of ideologies, including being a Liberal: "Even within the NDP there are those at centre of left (if that make any sense) and those of left left (or further left). One can think of centre of left, closer to centre (LIBERAL)." Yikes.
____________
from the "york anti-strike" facebook group
some highlights
nov. 11-13th, 2008
SD:
i just hate unions. weekends, safe working conditions, power against an increasingly powerful ruling class of bosses and managers - how dare they try to make the lives of working people better. what a bunch of dicks!
now the administration, that's who i'd like to see come out of this one on top. they're the ones who are really being hurt by all this. i mean, just think of all the extra money they have to spend on gas for their new ford explorers as they wait to cross the picket line. and it also means getting back to their 2 car garage home in vaughan a few minutes later then normal. this is all not to mention all the extra work that this strike is causing for them...handling media phone calls to maintain the university's reputation, dealing with uninformed, ignorant undergraduates (and their parents) who think education is about consumer rights...honestly, those TAs are just plain rude!
why dont the TAs see that they alone have the power to end this thing?
AJ:
I don't think unions are the problem Stacy, it's how they are misused. I personally have no quarrel with what the TA's are doing in principle, I'm sure if I was in their position I'd probably be concerned too, however I cannot condone their methods. I refuse to accept that the best way that they can think of making their point needs to negatively affect 50 000 plus students (and that's just the people who actually take classes in York University.)
SW:
Seriously, Stacy? This is the students' education our "educators" are putting on hold and inconveniencing. And you know what? Maybe these TAs deserve more money, maybe they don't, the point is that I AM PAYING their wages, regardless of the digits. MY TUITION is what goes into all their pockets whether they strike or not. Their inconvenience to me is not earning them any sympathy from my wallet. I don't agree or disagree with the terms or reason for the strike, my disagreement is with the inconvenience to my education. I'm so glad other students have also realized this. I was afraid I was the only one who realized this.
Jay, I had no idea the union provided those busses! I did, however, think it was ridiculously irresponsible and ironic that the YFS would support the CUPE strike and the drop fees rally on the same day. Sometimes, I get the feeling the YFS has no idea what they're arguing, they just like to argue.
I, for one, just want to get back to school. This is my LAST semester, and I'm not even a York student. I'm a visiting Western student studying 2 half courses because it was cheaper for me to move back in with my parents than to spend another semester in London. If this strike goes on too long for me, I miss out my timeframe to apply for graduation at Western and I know the admin will not be sympathetic to York's strike.
PM:
I thought the YFS represented undergraduate students?????
SD:
yeah, that stupid YFS president - doesnt he know that the vast majority of us consumers, i mean undergraduate students, will be in positions as TAs in the future if we pursue an academic career? who does he think he is, having an intelligent analysis of labour and foresight into struggles that might affect us in the future?!? like i said before, i think it makes a lot of sense to be attacking the TAs and union organizing when the administration has absolutely no power in the situation! i mean, its not like my tuition fees pay the administration's salary as they continue to refuse to meet the union's demands and run an effective PR campaign that turns our attention away from their role in the dispute and onto the underpaid workers (aka. us in the future).
SD:
forgot to add: union = a bunch of dicks!
...
BM:
I busted through the picket line today at Chimneystack Rd on my motorcycle, man were they pissed!! Definitely worth it tho
SH:
the administration has already agreed to binding arbitration. now it's up to the union to go to the table. as far as im concerned the union is holding students hostage!
SD:
Yes, if we use binding arbitration, we can force them into a corner without any rights!
"As an alternative to judges or courts settling disputes between consumers and businesses, binding arbitration works out a deal through a third party body. The arbitrator's decision is final and cannot be disputed or appealed. Businesses prefer to resolve claims through binding arbitration because it is more private, avoiding possible bad publicity that could erupt in a trial. They are also not bound to certain legal requirements, such as "discovery" whereby the persons involved in the claim have access to otherwise private information. A consumer has basically waived their constitutional right to sue when they sign a mandatory binding arbitration clause as part of a contract. Consumer advocates point out that many people do not know they have denied themselves that right. Nor are they aware that the independent arbitrator may have an interest in siding with a corporation for financial reasons."
...
BD:
I assume the members of this group are not thinking about graduate school at York in the future. Otherwise, they would be supportive of the strike and their financial future as a graduate student.
NM:
U know what they say when assume...
Actually I AM thinking about Grad and law school. Why would I be out striking in the cold? I happen to like what I would be getting if I were to become a TA.
It's the contract faculty who have the raw deal.
SD:
actually, it's the administration who are getting the raw deal! the president of york is only making a measley $500, 000! if anyone should be on strike it should be the president and vps who are especially hard hit by the global financial crisis. and those TAs and contract faculty have the audacity to ask for higher wages - i mean the cheek of it all!
read all about how little ontario university president's are getting paid here:
http://www.thespec.com/art
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
twas the night of the election and all through the white house
i just had a lovely evening smoking greek cigarettes and drinking vintage port while discussing american politics with a bunch of british intellectuals. apparently i'm spending the election night just like obama, disguising my bourgeois self with smoke and mirrors. unfortunately, as a result of my being on new labour time, the results of tonight's marquee event will come in while visions of joethesugarplumbers dance in my head. but am i excited at the prospect of waking up to a whole new era of american empire? can obama invade pakistan? yes - he - can!
all cynicism aside, i really am going to bed with a stomach full of anxiety and nervousness, wondering what the election fairy might put under my pillow tonight. i really hope it's not a corporate tax cut.
all cynicism aside, i really am going to bed with a stomach full of anxiety and nervousness, wondering what the election fairy might put under my pillow tonight. i really hope it's not a corporate tax cut.
Monday, October 27, 2008
extrey, extrey, margaret wente does it again
canada's most popularly recognized national left-of-centre newspaper, the globe and mail, has recently published an article by regular columnist margaret wente in which wente makes the case that aboriginal people are not as sophisticated as europeans. she makes this argument by citing one author Frances Widdowson, who Wente herself describes as someone who "has been accused of hating aboriginals." there has (thankfully) been a massive, intelligent response to wente's article through online discussion boards and letters to the globe. however, some people are uneasy with the response...and rightly so, for a few reasons.
first of all, many people, including myself, have or would like to further encourage these discussions to include a continued critique of the g&m's content even when wente isn't writing provacative, racist tirades that resound so strikingly with biological essentialist practices such as crainiometry. certainly, wente and her pal phillip rushton who belong to the 'science says it so it must be true' school are outrageous, but some people feel that over-emphasizing this particular case of blatant eurocentrism in the globe overshsadows the daily practices of a more subtle racism that perpetually pervades the papers' pages. the globe's hopelessly orientalist coverage of last year's kenyan elections comes to mind, not to mention their inclusion, last spring, of a parents' guide to canadian private schools. one can only assume that this guide, smattered with young white shining faces, comes in an effort to feed the papers' demographic which they swear allegiance to daily by broadcasting in their classified section - young, urban couples who make...is it upwards of $45, 000?
someone on an online forum (was it facebook?) articulated the problem quite nicely...there is a danger in hanging wente out to dry because it suggests that this article represents one instance of racism that can be rectified by getting rid of her. indeed, this approach neglects to consider a whole series of historical and contemporary practices of racialization and racism that lead the article - with its shockingly uninformed research - to be published in the first place. moreover, the roots of racism run deep, especially for white canadian subjects, so that it becomes very difficult to distance oneself from the tantalizing myths of racism and racial superiority. white liberals 'know' that wente is a racist, not like 'me' who believes in equality and justice. but is there a little bit in that 'knowing' that doesn't quite want to throw wente's baby out with the bathwater? the power of institutionalized racial subjugation has transformed the way white subjects think about themselves, their entitlements, their relationship to science and intelligence, so that some people maybe left wondering if there wasn't a little scientific 'truth' in wente's exposition.
george elliott clarke once gave a talk where he discussed the organizing of a small town in the north-eastern united states to change the name of their city which, at the time, was called 'slave lake.' obviously some of the town's inhabitants wanted it modified to reflect their modern emergence as an open-minded and tolerant place that they felt may have gone unrecognized under the historical moniker. clarke's point was that the townspeoples' desire to change the name represented to him, a desire to do away with the historical legacy of slavery and to pronounce to the world that _______ (insert newly named town here) was indeed no longer living under the historical weight of those who had gone before them. but clarke points out that these townspeople (as are we all) ARE still living under this historical weight and that the changing of the name was a negation of the myriad ways in which we are all continually implicated in enduring legacies of white supremacy.
im not saying that we should let the g&m (or wente) get away with publishing this kind of uninformed trash, but that perhaps instead of hoping to get rid of wente so we can wash our liberal hands of this 'icky' incident, we might also be able to consider what makes the potential of her removal so comforting? what is being soothed when the everyday practices of racism are buried in the op-ed pages of the globe?
also, i am happy to now have Frances Widdowson and her rushtonian ideology on my radar.
so thanks for that margaret.
Deborah Simmons on Widdowson
http://newsocialist.org/newsite/index.php?id=1012
Re: A recent academic blowout between Widdowson and Kiera Ladner
http://janetajzenstat.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/harvey-mansfield-on-canada/
first of all, many people, including myself, have or would like to further encourage these discussions to include a continued critique of the g&m's content even when wente isn't writing provacative, racist tirades that resound so strikingly with biological essentialist practices such as crainiometry. certainly, wente and her pal phillip rushton who belong to the 'science says it so it must be true' school are outrageous, but some people feel that over-emphasizing this particular case of blatant eurocentrism in the globe overshsadows the daily practices of a more subtle racism that perpetually pervades the papers' pages. the globe's hopelessly orientalist coverage of last year's kenyan elections comes to mind, not to mention their inclusion, last spring, of a parents' guide to canadian private schools. one can only assume that this guide, smattered with young white shining faces, comes in an effort to feed the papers' demographic which they swear allegiance to daily by broadcasting in their classified section - young, urban couples who make...is it upwards of $45, 000?
someone on an online forum (was it facebook?) articulated the problem quite nicely...there is a danger in hanging wente out to dry because it suggests that this article represents one instance of racism that can be rectified by getting rid of her. indeed, this approach neglects to consider a whole series of historical and contemporary practices of racialization and racism that lead the article - with its shockingly uninformed research - to be published in the first place. moreover, the roots of racism run deep, especially for white canadian subjects, so that it becomes very difficult to distance oneself from the tantalizing myths of racism and racial superiority. white liberals 'know' that wente is a racist, not like 'me' who believes in equality and justice. but is there a little bit in that 'knowing' that doesn't quite want to throw wente's baby out with the bathwater? the power of institutionalized racial subjugation has transformed the way white subjects think about themselves, their entitlements, their relationship to science and intelligence, so that some people maybe left wondering if there wasn't a little scientific 'truth' in wente's exposition.
george elliott clarke once gave a talk where he discussed the organizing of a small town in the north-eastern united states to change the name of their city which, at the time, was called 'slave lake.' obviously some of the town's inhabitants wanted it modified to reflect their modern emergence as an open-minded and tolerant place that they felt may have gone unrecognized under the historical moniker. clarke's point was that the townspeoples' desire to change the name represented to him, a desire to do away with the historical legacy of slavery and to pronounce to the world that _______ (insert newly named town here) was indeed no longer living under the historical weight of those who had gone before them. but clarke points out that these townspeople (as are we all) ARE still living under this historical weight and that the changing of the name was a negation of the myriad ways in which we are all continually implicated in enduring legacies of white supremacy.
im not saying that we should let the g&m (or wente) get away with publishing this kind of uninformed trash, but that perhaps instead of hoping to get rid of wente so we can wash our liberal hands of this 'icky' incident, we might also be able to consider what makes the potential of her removal so comforting? what is being soothed when the everyday practices of racism are buried in the op-ed pages of the globe?
also, i am happy to now have Frances Widdowson and her rushtonian ideology on my radar.
so thanks for that margaret.
Deborah Simmons on Widdowson
http://newsocialist.org/newsite/index.php?id=1012
Re: A recent academic blowout between Widdowson and Kiera Ladner
http://janetajzenstat.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/harvey-mansfield-on-canada/
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
against michaels
in response to WALTER BENN MICHAELS' "AGAINST DIVERSITY" in the New Left Review #54
____________________
it is no surprise that the political performances of the democratic primaries pander to an empty politic. anyone who would assert that clinton or obama's rise to fame on their upwards of $150 million election expenditures constituted some sort of victory for social justice would be sadly misguided.
in this article michaels uses the current american election, and some under-analyzed figures, to paint a picture of poverty in america as having little to do with race or gender. moreover, he polemically suggests that any introduction of race or gender into debates over inequality in america suggests a clear sign of a) false consciousness or b) unwavering support of neo-liberalism. i think this is the worst kind of social analytic work and one that perpetuates an over simplistic understanding of history and materiality.
in his article michaels neglects to mention what the demographic of that bottom fifth of wage earners looks like. not surprisingly, statistics show that women of colour largely make up the lowest income earners in the united states. in 1953 the median income for male workers (overall) in the US was $20,000 while for women (overall) it was less than $7, 000. in 2005 the median income of female hispanic workers has just now equaled that of males in 1953, sitting in the lowest economic income bracket at $20, 000 annually. black women are next sitting at about $25, 000 in 2005. michaels also leaves out any historical context regarding the history of capitalism in america - rooted in the imperial expansion projects of spain and britain which forcefully annexed indigenous land, further expanded through the trans-atlantic slave trade and the installation of slavery, the continued depedency of the economy on the backs of undocumented and illegal workers, many who are from mexico, as well as the prison industrial complex which contributes to the national economy by forcibly confining 1 in 9 black men aged 20 to 34 - which has lead to very different experiences of capitalism (historically and in a contemporary context) for racialized people (albeit, not all racialized people).
sure poor people are getting fucked but who are these poor people that michaels is so desperate to lump together in order to start the revolution? how have they been fucked in different ways and why? his politics of solidarity align so forcefully with class that he neglects to address the complex and intersectional ways that gender and race are at once at play with class in the composition of the underclass majority. even if we concede to agree with michaels that capitalism is the root of inequality, his denial of any serious theoretical engagement concerning the complex ways in which it has affected subjects differently based on their respective gendered, racialized, classed, sexed or corporeal identities is testament to a privileged perception of oppression that does not have to include these factors. for people who experience the historical materiality of colonial-capitalism that masks enduring legacies of white supremacy, these considerations are integral to any radical reimagining of the world.
____
check out "black wealth/white wealth" by oliver and shapiro for their take on the "racialization of state policy," the economic detour," and the "seditmentation of racial inequality" in america.
____________________
it is no surprise that the political performances of the democratic primaries pander to an empty politic. anyone who would assert that clinton or obama's rise to fame on their upwards of $150 million election expenditures constituted some sort of victory for social justice would be sadly misguided.
in this article michaels uses the current american election, and some under-analyzed figures, to paint a picture of poverty in america as having little to do with race or gender. moreover, he polemically suggests that any introduction of race or gender into debates over inequality in america suggests a clear sign of a) false consciousness or b) unwavering support of neo-liberalism. i think this is the worst kind of social analytic work and one that perpetuates an over simplistic understanding of history and materiality.
in his article michaels neglects to mention what the demographic of that bottom fifth of wage earners looks like. not surprisingly, statistics show that women of colour largely make up the lowest income earners in the united states. in 1953 the median income for male workers (overall) in the US was $20,000 while for women (overall) it was less than $7, 000. in 2005 the median income of female hispanic workers has just now equaled that of males in 1953, sitting in the lowest economic income bracket at $20, 000 annually. black women are next sitting at about $25, 000 in 2005. michaels also leaves out any historical context regarding the history of capitalism in america - rooted in the imperial expansion projects of spain and britain which forcefully annexed indigenous land, further expanded through the trans-atlantic slave trade and the installation of slavery, the continued depedency of the economy on the backs of undocumented and illegal workers, many who are from mexico, as well as the prison industrial complex which contributes to the national economy by forcibly confining 1 in 9 black men aged 20 to 34 - which has lead to very different experiences of capitalism (historically and in a contemporary context) for racialized people (albeit, not all racialized people).
sure poor people are getting fucked but who are these poor people that michaels is so desperate to lump together in order to start the revolution? how have they been fucked in different ways and why? his politics of solidarity align so forcefully with class that he neglects to address the complex and intersectional ways that gender and race are at once at play with class in the composition of the underclass majority. even if we concede to agree with michaels that capitalism is the root of inequality, his denial of any serious theoretical engagement concerning the complex ways in which it has affected subjects differently based on their respective gendered, racialized, classed, sexed or corporeal identities is testament to a privileged perception of oppression that does not have to include these factors. for people who experience the historical materiality of colonial-capitalism that masks enduring legacies of white supremacy, these considerations are integral to any radical reimagining of the world.
____
check out "black wealth/white wealth" by oliver and shapiro for their take on the "racialization of state policy," the economic detour," and the "seditmentation of racial inequality" in america.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)