queenlua: (horse galloping silhouette)
At the Ginko Petrified Forest in eastern Washington, there's a little spot of lawn at the campgrounds, by the visitor center. As you stand there, on one side the land plunges down into canyon—the Columbia River stretching vast between those ancient rocky walls. On the other side is broads stretch of shrub-steppe, scraggly little desert-grasses and bare desert-bushes, curving slowly a distant ridge.

But at that little spot of lawn, those unkempt beautifully-twisted shrubby bushes turn, all at once, over a stark line, into bright-green short-cut suburban-as-hell grass. There's four enormous revolving sprinklers going off all the time, because when you're in the goddamn desert you have to do that kind of aggressive maintenance to keep anything so mundane as grass alive.

And even though I'd seen sights like this before, even though I'd been to this exact spot before, when I stood there Saturday morning I felt a flash of hot, unbridled anger. Perhaps the shrub-steppe just struck me as particularly beautiful that morning, or I was feeling particularly temperamental, or something else. But I thought, how stupid and wasteful and ugly seems. How stupid and wasteful and ugly lawns everywhere seemed—here we were in the heart of sagebrush country, the last untamed bit of the American West, and instead of respecting that for what it is, even in the grounds of a state park, we've got four damn sprinklers going off all at once just to preserve some perverse purity, some symbol of civility.

Read more... )
queenlua: (Default)
i found it quite curious to see "My Family's Slave" percolating through the facetwitsocialsphere. it has "slave" in the title. it is about a slaveowner. and yet the comments accompanying the article weren't outraged so much as awed.

i read the piece. and it is written quite tenderly & beautifully. i had two major impressions of it: first, i was quite gripped by the author's pained relationship with his mother, the pain and complexity of it, her legitimate sacrifices just as obvious as her casual cruelty. second, i was bothered that the author never seemed to do much to help Lola. or rather, really, i guess, the author didn't seem troubled enough by his failure to help Lola. it's hard for a twelve-year-old to turn on their mom; i get that. it's easier for a young twentysomething to just avoid contacting a family that's doing a horrible thing than to turn in your own mom for doing a horrible thing; i get that. when mom dies and she's left behind a slave who's ill-equipped to get a proper place of her own, taking her in may seem benevolent; i get that.

but none of those choices should rest easy. none of those were the only choice, much as the author tries to imply that. the relationship with mom is hard, sure, but Lola had it hard too, and the author found it easier to stay distant and yell at mom rather than truly help. and i was especially bothered at the very end—the author didn't try to help Lola get a place of her own, or learn to read, and so on. even if the author was benevolent, it was a relationship based on a hideous imbalance of power; if the author couldn't repair or make moves to amend that then at least they could've tried.

so yeah, i found it quietly troubling.

and yet all the generally urban-lefties i know on the facetwitsocialsphere seemed to love the piece. "wow" and "so powerful" and so on. i couldn't quite grok what exactly they meant by "amazing read!" without further qualifiers.

so when a friend directly linked it to me, i shared my thoughts with him directly: it's a nice piece, but, isn't it kind of fucked up too? don't you find the author's actions, even if understandable, still troubling? isn't it messed up that we're only hearing about this after both the author and his slave is dead?

Read more... )
queenlua: (Mejiro: Hanging)
Here, have an abstract-y ideological-y post about Brexit, "The New Politics of Meaning".

It reminded me of my own post on enlightenment vs technocracy, but I think this guy states it a little more cleanly. In particular, I like his term "systematic mode" better than what I call "technocracy", since it pins the root of this sort of thinking further back historically, and avoids the Soviet-Russian-communism insinuations I think of when I hear "technocratic."

I do not have the time to dig through the whole of his blog, which seems like one of those things that's aiming to offer a Grand Master Theory Of Culture and Ethics, and thus would probably be interesting to scour through once I do have the time. His blog has the faintly wild lilt you'd expect from the sort of internet person who has a Grand Master Theory, and thus I suspect I will mistrust/quibble/argue with a lot of it (already in this other post I skimmed I'm raising eyebrows hardcore at the offhanded "mostly only STEM majors who can make [the transition to a higher mode of thinking]," and I'm a little skeptical of his leaning so hard on some dude's theories which, granted, I've not heard of before but feel really similar to Kohlberg's theories, which I have some familiarity with), but it's nice to see some of my own confused, intuited understandings reflected in the words of someone else, and I'm hopeful perhaps he has a better resolution to the dilemma than I found.
queenlua: (Magpie (Snow))
here, have an article on campus activism, focused on oberlin specifically, but probably more broadly applicable than that. (also, the list of student demands referenced in the article.) also, a tumblr post on the subject, and some blogger dude.

i share these links because i think they're the only ones i've been able to find that try to offer a balanced perspective on the recent spate of student agitation over SJ-y issues. i thought the new yorker article was interesting enough that i tried to google responses to it, and i couldn't find anything beyond "lol these oberlin students are so DUMB and SPOILED and want to GET PAID TO SKIP CLASS whiny yanks need to stfu and go back to class," which was depressing. given that a lot of similar movements have been sparking across the country (u of missouri, yale, stanford, seattle university are the first ones that come to mind, but i know there's many others), i think it's important/interesting to try and understand where the students are coming from.

so, here's me cobbling together my own response.

the sense i get from the new yorker article is, the current wave of activism is a sort of third-wave pomo activism. the previous wave of student activism in the 60's/70's gave rise to stuff like, say, affirmative action, which is a good way to get more underrepresented/lower-class students into universities, where they can then learn upper-middle-class values and join a middle-upper-class profession and have middle-upper-class babies. for folks who had been kept down for so long, this was awesome progress, and i don't have actually statistics/links on hand, but i know people have drawn pretty strong links between these policies and stuff like "hey now there are actually black lawyers" and "hey now there are actually enough black lawyers that they can support each other and form professional networks" and "hey now the idea of a middle-upper-class mostly-black suburb is a thing that can actually happen." hashtag progress.

but the most recent generation of underrepresented students is showing up on campus and saying, jeez, this is a sham, upper-middle-class values suck. why am i learning only about dead white guys? how come no one cares about non-western cultures? how come i feel like a token rather than a fully-integrated part of this campus community?

Read more... )
queenlua: An adorable puffy little bird. (Broad-Billed Motmot)
this is me throwing some half-formed pseudo-philosophical thoughts into the wind. they are not fully fleshed out at all, but, thoughts along these line have been cropping up in my brain a lot lately, and i want to take an initial stab at formulating The Problem As I Perceive It.

so!

the Enlightenment was kind of cool because it decided everyone has this cool thing called Rationality and therefore all humans have a right to liberty and self-determination and all that. democracy, in its most optimistic form, is based on the idea that all us rational agents can use the combination of our rationality + our particular position in society to vote for The Best Possible Thing and come up with The Most Optimal Society.

except modern psychology, statistics, and biology increasingly suggest we’re pretty bad at being rational, even when we’re totally convinced we are making free, rational choices. companies dump gajillions of dollars into advertising because it fucking works, and if merely hearing a stupid jingle on the radio a couple times can make you more likely to buy some shit you don’t need, then what other ways are advertising/mass media/etc influencing us without our knowing? if we have all these unconscious biases against people-not-like-us, if we can be consistently and persistently racist/sexist/etc without even realizing it, and if merely being aware that unconscious bias exists may actually make us more biased, then how the hell can we fix that?

Read more... )

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags