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: 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