DruBlood
Home
Dramatis Personae
Archives
Contact
Feed the Bleed
Amazon wish list
Cole’s birthday - 10/24
Monk’s birthday - 12/2
Dru’s birthday - 1/5
Search
Archives
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
Categories
all my isms
anarchism
Animals and Pets
Art of Protest
audblog
austin
Being Mom
blog
Book Talk
civil rights
class war
Consumption
corporation watch
crushing
Day in the Life
deep introspection
Divorce
eating
Family Stuff
Fat Politics
Feminism
free press
geography
Green Machine
holidays/special occasions
Home Improvement
Homeschooling
humor
I am a nerd.
Important People
Lactivism
Linky Links
listening to
listy lists
Lit-Richer
living
Love & Stuff
lyric links
Memories
monk speaks
music
no war!
observations
politics
privilege
race
random news items
rant
reading
reading2kids
reminiscing
social justice
sxsw
Take Back Your Birth
Terrorism
The Spectacle
Those Crazy Kids
Travel
work
worker's rights
Special thanks
adam host
julie template queen
kd general lusciousness
pea guru
Powered byMovable Type 1.5
John Edwards on Now...talking about poverty and interconnectedness
July 27, 2008
I had to show this video to all of my friends, and now I am sharing it with you. I can't remember the last time I have seen a politician addressing not only poverty with such absolute understanding of the issue, but also the interconnectedness of people and all of the issues we face as a nation and a world.
This quote made me cry:
"One of the greatest responsibilities of the next president is to convince americans that we are completely linked to one another, both as americans, AND we're completely linked to the people in the rest of the world. In fact, we are all ENTIRELY connected." -John Edwards
Here's the link. Watch it all. It's amazing.
Brancaccio: What is it about now...that gives you any hope?
Edwards: That we're faced with great challenges that can not be dealt with, except together.
Imus
April 10, 2007
I am tired of reading reports about Imus' racist comments that are couched in this language of "black people are angry."
Seriously...what the fuck is up with THIS:
"[Howard Kurtz was quoted on NPR as saying] he thinks Imus is NOT bigoted, and he thinks most listeners understand that, but several major groups of black and women journalists have called on the networks to fire Imus..."
Relegating the offense Imus' racist bullshit inspires to the realm of "women and minorities" is just the same bullshit racism that makes it ok for someone to make the fucking comments in the first place. And what the fuck is up with this "Oh, he's an ass to everyone, therefore it's ok." bullshit? I am going to start walking around and kicking everyone in the shins, and no one better arrest me, because I'm not kicking any one racial/political/cultural/orwhathaveyou group any more than I am another!
Shit fucking A. It is all OVER the media, too, this "Well, what do you have to say to these black leaders" line.
I guess I am just glad I am a woman, and am therefore justified in my anger. Oh, thank you, holy media...for giving me something to be justifiably pissed about!
frickin' frackin' fuckin' a!
Why We Banned Legos
March 1, 2007
"Why We Banned Legos" is an article in a magazine I subscribe to called Rethinking Schools. I wish the article was accessible online without fee, but unfortunately it is not, so I will attempt to summarize it here.
Basically, a group of teachers in an after school program at a school in Washington State were struck by the social dynamics surrounding the construction of a Lego town. They found that kids were excluding other kids and hording "cool pieces" in an insidious way that wasn't always vocally objected to (in fact, many of the excluded kids seemed resigned to exclusion, in spite of the fact that they later proved that they wished to participate and did not know how to break through the invisible wall). So, the teachers banned the Legos and created a unit study to examine the issues of wealth, power, privilege, and inclusion with their students (ages 5-9).
The original article goes on to describe a fascinating and well-organized exploration of this concept designed by the teachers. Students were asked to voice their opinions about property rights, ownership, and power...and they examined those opinions by taking field trips and playing games that were geared towards helping the children question the notion that power can somehow be benign and that really brought the idea of meritocracy into sharp focus for these children.
However, the reinterpretation of this article is somewhat staggering and reveals much about how strongly we want to protect the idea that the capitalist system of meritocracy. An article was sent to a homeschooling list I subscribe to that basically completely misinterprets the lesson in such a way that it could only have been intentional. I responded to the article thusly:
I suggest you read the actual article on which this editorial is based before leaping to the conclusion that the crafters of this lesson were in any way advocating that landowners be stripped of their property rights so big businesses can have them. I have this issue, and I have only skimmed the article, but I find the article below to be grossly slanted and inaccurate.[...]
In fact, now that I think about it...it would be a really good homeschooling lesson on media to read this editorial and then go back and read the actual article about the lesson to note the evident slant of the editorialist.
Of course, the response to this was to skip right to communism. One of my fellow listmates said, basically, that while he believed the article wasn't supporting the usurpation of property by big business, he did feel that the lesson was promoting communism, to which I replied:
I imagine the responses on this list will also be useful in a study of media, as well as individual responses to the media. It is interesting to me that Brad has immediately decided that the only possible system of shared wealth is communism, and therefore declared any questioning of how property rights are handled in our society to be answered before they are even asked.I think critical thinking would encouage children to experiment with several alternative methods of creating equity, and from what I have read in the original article, it looks like that is exactly what the children were encouraged to do.
Of course, all of that was before I actually read the article. hahaha. I had skimmed it, but had not had time to sit down and read it. Later that night, I did so, and found the lesson to be quite well-planned and executed, and nothing at all like it had been described by the author of the editorial linked above. So, this morning when I found another response that insisted the lesson was an insidious method of brainwashing our children to accept the tenets of communism (evil, evil communism!) I responded:
If you read the article, you would find that property rights were a very minute portion of the lesson. The main objective of the lesson was to encourage egalitarian and inclusive behavior among the children, while at the same time exploring the larger issues of power and privilege. Also, there was a lot of discussion and insight in the article about how we tend to assume that power is benign if it is not misused in such a way that would spark verbal protest. There was a really interesting portion of the lesson where arbitrary point values were applied to legos (to mirror how privilege based on skin color, family of origin, and other factors give some of us an unearned advantage over others), and those who "won" were allowed to make rules for the next round of the game.Additionally, there is a huge leap from discussing equitable sharing of resources by a community and stripping individuals of rights to give them to corporations. The point of the experiment, and I think the objective of a communal social order (of which communisim is ONE example), is to distribute wealth and power in such a way that all members of society have an opportunity to participate. Perhaps we haven't seen such a social order yet in our lifetimes, but I am not sure why anyone would object to exploring how power and privilege operate in our society to give unearned advantage to some and undeserved disadvantage to others.
Later, someone equated the lesson with that urban legend that has a child skipping to school with all of her wonderful school supplies, only to get there and find that she is FORCED to dump her supplies in a communal bucket and comes away with *gasp* INFERIOR CRAYONS! Evidently, those individuals who send their children to public school to mix with the masses are very indignant about this concept of forced sharing. I gotta say, if you hate it so much, keep yr kids home. You won't hear me complaining about the taxes I am forced to share with the school district in spite of the fact that I have chosen to not participate. We LIVE in a society. We all benefit from its resources, and those resources include the other people in our communities. If you can't bear the thought of your child going to school and sharing his or her crayons, honey, I dunno what to tell you! At any rate, my response to the idea that "social engineering" was overtaking our schools was this:
That would be an interesting thing to discuss, but it does not have anything to do with the redistribution of legos that were already assumed to be a shared resource. I am curious how you think this experiment, and the exploration into how power and resources are shared, is equivalent to social engineering, and yet the very world we live in and are shaped by is not.In fact, I think that's an interesting thing to think about. Do we all just assume that the way we live and the society we are shaped by is natural? And therefore any attempt to question and/or reorganize the order of things is somehow unnatural, or "engineered?"
And then I decided to explore further, and read a discussion about a reaction to the article (there is very little actual reading of the article in any of this. Mostly, people were just responding to the slanted reactions to the article, which led many to believe that the teachers noted that students were not behaving appropriately and therefore they simply yanked the legos away in a reactive manner, rather than the actual reality that the teachers got together and planned a very sophisticated lesson surrounding the removal and subsequent reestablishment of lego privileges, which encouraged the children to examine the issues of ownership, power, inclusion, and equity.
Boy, do I ever NOT have my finger on the pulse of America. What I read on this board shocked me. People are actually decrying the lesson these teachers were attempting to teach, and basically saying "children will be children" and therefore should not be encouraged to examine the power dynamics that come into play when groups of children exclude other children. In fact, I imagine that many of the people on that board believe that it's probably preferable that children learn to grab what is theres without considering how their unearned privilege influences their "rights" of ownership.
While I realize there are many within the public school system who are trying desperately to counteract this idea that the distribution of wealth and resources in this country is somehow equitable and meritocratic, I am frankly somewhat appalled by the response to this article by people who are allegedly parents of children. Are there really that many people who are so opposed to their children learning that perhaps our system is less equitable than those in positions of privilege would lead you to believe that they need to demonize an earnest attempt to point out the inherent inequities of our system and work with children to combat those inequities in the classroom?
Obviously I am in total support of any curriculum which moves our children towards examining "rights" that are essentially extensions of unearned privilege. I am concerned, however, that this is such a controversial thing to stand for. If we can't even address these issues with something so benign as Legos without a firestorm of opposition, how on earth do we address global poverty, hunger, and health care crises?
Adoption and Privilege
February 25, 2007
I have always really admired Dawn for speaking up about the inherent inequity of even just the concept of adoption. Like many institutions that we take for granted, it depends upon gross disparity for its mere existence. It's something that seems so obvious now after reading Dawn's blog for so long, but I don't think I ever would have thought about it if Dawn did not work so hard to keep putting the issue on the table.
Today, she linked up this post by another mama who is also tireless in her efforts to keep raising the important issues about adoption and inequality, who says:
The question is, how did I end up in a position to adopt and how did Rose and so many women like her, end up in a position not to be able to keep their babies (or to be able to prevent having them in the first place if they choose)? I do think that in a considerably more "perfect world" there might very well still sometimes be women who become pregnant and yet just simply don't want to be parents. There might be orphans whose parents have died. There might be women who want to parent with people not genetically kin to their children. So sure, there would be adoption in that world. But there would not be such disparity of privilege--race, class, cultural and national privilege--that render some women adopters and some women first mothers automatically, almost as if stamped on their heads at birth.
I am thankful that she did.
"The Look"
April 6, 2006
Janine posted a little something about Dr. Leary and post traumatic slave syndrome:
you know *the look* that all black women can give a child, whether hers or not, that will stop whatever behavior it’s aimed at? i know you know cause we all have it. dr. leary reminds us of how we don’t let our children play unchecked in public. white children are free to run about in a bank, for example, but we don’t allow our children to exhibit that kind of behavior in public and use *the look* to curb it instantaneously. her theory of PTSS posits that that behavior is an adaptive response to slavery when it wasn’t safe to let our children romp like that.
And it made me think about the conversation that erupted on this blog awhile back about children in public spaces and the expectations people have of parents to control their children.
I'm pretty sure we talked about how privilege interacts with child-rearing, and how lower-income mamas and mamas of color are more apt to feel pressure to force their children to behave in a certain way in order to feel "acceptable." But I had never considered the further-reaching implications of this. I really didn't tie it in with slavery and safety and an ingrained cultural response.
I think this raises way more questions than it answers, so I guess I need to read Dr. Leary's book.
Kicking ass. Taking no names.
April 4, 2006
Cheryl has an awesome post about Feminist Alliances up at women's space:
Life has taught me that when we, as women, stand up to ANY institution of male heterosupremacy — not just pornography, not just prostitution, not just sadomasochism, ANY: capitalism, racism, classism, the military, war, agribiz, the meat industry, patriarchal medicine, big business, psychology, the institutions of marriage and the family, the pro-life industry, the fashion, beauty and diet industry, heteronormativity, patriarchal religion, in any meaningful way, we are going to suffer for it. We are going to pay for it. Male supremacy will take us out if it can.
I concur wholeheartedly, and, too...I think we need to create spaces where we can call out racist/sexist/heteronormative/etc. behavior without invoking defensiveness. I keep thinking if people would only learn to listen and acknowledge our own imperfection without denying someone else's experience of it, we'd all be better allies.
Laundromat Revolution!
February 20, 2006
If I were to attempt to instigate a revolution, I would begin at the laundromat. In fact, I wish I had more time today to hang out and talk to the men who were there, talking about hard times and how "Those people in the government need to be told, once and for all, that there's no incentive to work! Making money only forces you to owe more money, and they get it all in the end!" Wow! If that's not the seed of revolution, I don't know what is. And it's all happening at the laundromat.
In fact, when I think about it, what better place? Generally speaking, laundromats are utilized by people who are not property holders and who have limited means. You have to sit there and wait for your clothes, so there is plenty of time to gab and shoot the shit and you are also sort of trapped there to listen to the opposing viewpoints of your neighbors. In such close quarters, civility is a necessity. I think, when my kids are a bit older and more able to do without me here for an hour or so at a time, I might just start hanging out at the laundromat - at least on wet, cloudy days like today where the clothesline is not an option. Maybe I'll just start hanging out there without even doing any laundry. Reading a book and waiting for an opportunity to engage in interesting conversation with my neighbors.
Thoughts on the weekend...history, social issues, and my mental/emotional state.
February 19, 2006
I spent the weekend at the Historians Against the War convention at UT, which was kicked of ceremoniously with a brilliant keynote one-two of Andrea Smith and Howard Zinn. I thought both of them gave compelling presentations, and I jotted down copious notes in spite of having to deal with really cramped quarters. At some point, I will share my notes from that keynote and from the rest of the event, but I think I really just want to write about my experience of the event in general.
First of all, DAMN, people are impatient. Including myself. The first person who approached the mic for Q&A rambled on a bit about the lovely performance activism she is doing, and within a minute, the audience was telling her to get to the point, in a not very nice way. I felt myself feeling the same way - and it happened multiple times throughout the weekend. By the 3rd or 4th time I really began to grow uncomfortable with the whole method of mob silencing that was happening & I was pleased when some with louder voices would counteract the "Shut up and ask a question" crowd. I wondered, too, why I wasn't the person counteracting, considering I was one person feeling uncomfortable with it. So, one lesson learned at the history conference was that I need to find my voice and use it.
The panels and the speakers throughout the event were informative, intelligent, and remarkable. I did kind of wish there was a way to include dissenting voices among the crowd to get a richer discussion, but in my heart of hearts I knew a) that wasn't really the point of the conference and b) it is rare for that kind of dialog to take place in a non-threatening way - particularly when there are elements of the crowd who find it necessary to silence even the voices of agreement.
At lunchtime, I situated myself in the far corner of the room to avoid all human contact. I guess I'm in that kind of mood lately. I dunno. I sat eating and pretending to write in my journal, but really I was observing everyone. Mr. Zinn was sitting two tables away, facing me...so I laughed to myself about the fact that I was practically eating lunch with one of the greatest historians of our time. I thought about maybe going back to school to study history. And then two nice boys joined me and we talked briefly about last night's speech and education and whatnot. It was a nice, pleasant conversation & allowed me to feel good about the fact that I didn't avoid human contact altogether, in spite of my best efforts to the contrary. Ha!
I was exhausted when I arrived home Saturday night, but I went out to dinner with J anyway. We went to Swad and it was pleasant, but there was dis/ease. I get the feeling it is painful for him to hang out with me, and that painfulness is maybe exacerbated by the fact that it's NOT painful for me. Or maybe he's just in pain in general. I don't know/can't claim that it has anything to do with me at all, but the dosa and chole bhatura and sev potato puri was fabulous, and it was nice to see J as he has been ill for a bit. He even helped me to fix a computer problem I have been having. I couldn't find the R. Kelly videos I told him I was going to make him watch with me, which was kind of a bummer, and he left early in the evening...which was probably good because I was so tired & sort of overwhelmed with being around people.
I was invited to a party, which had been making me nervous all week. The person who invited me is someone who I really enjoy hanging around, and actually would love to go to a party with at some point, because he always makes me feel at ease...but I just have not been feeling the whole "large crowd" thing lately & I was balking. So there was this dynamic of me feeling torn that I wasn't going to get to see my friend, but fairly certain that I would have a crappy time going to a party that was making me feel extra-super wishy washy about giving a definitive answer. I did SAY no to the party several times, but I'm fortunate that my friend is pretty sensitive about how I'm feeling, so even though he heard no, I think he sensed my feelings of hesitation and kept asking (because normally he accepts my boundaries pretty readily, actually, which is why he's so very very dear to me) - but the thing is that in addition to the original party, he was now going to be attending a fucking FRAT party, and all of the reasons for me not wanting to go were suddenly increased 5 million fold & not only that...suddenly the very idea was making me feel upset and agitated. I told my friend I was just going to go to bed, but when I laid down to sleep, I started feeling really upset about the whole party/meat market atmosphere.
I dunno...it started to really get to me that what I look like - and what others look like to me - dictates to such a great extent whether or not we ever really get to know them on a deeper level, whether we are even talking about a relationship level or not. Plus, it made me feel all shaky and weepy to think that going to a party is an exercise in dressing myself up to be judged and evaluated and deemed worthy/unworthy by random strangers in a room. blah! I'm not quite sure what actually precipitated all of this. I can't really say it has anything to do with hanging around in a room full of history nerds all day. And it's not even that I don't feel like I "measure up" or whatever...it's just the very act of feeling like other people are measuring me...in mass quantities...that started to ook me out a bit. Maybe, too, you know...I'm 36 years old! I guess to a certain extent I feel like my friend is inviting his mom out to a party with him, which seems kind of silly.
At any rate, I was able to express these feeling abruptly to my friend and get them out enough to where I was able to actually fall asleep, but it's still bothering me today that I felt so weird about it. Part of me feels totally justified in feeling that way, and part of me is like "Whatever, lady - it's just another background for whatever you experience...why get all bent out of shape." And I wonder if I would have refused to go last month or if I will refuse to go next month or the month after that. I spent much of the day today trying to figure out when I have last been to a party - like a house party of someone I don't know - and I just can't remember. And then I started trying to remember when I have ever actually met anyone worth knowing at a party, and I can't remember that, either...so I don't feel so bad. But, then, I do recall having been to some parties with friends and just enjoying the experience...so maybe that's the key. But, I guess going to a party with a male friend who is scouting for a relationship is probably what was making me feel like it wouldn't be such a good idea.
I dunno. I've already spent way more energy on this than it probably deserves, but I'm just sort of interested in why being asked to a party evoked such a strong, reactive emotional response in me. So I'll probably think about it more, but if anyone out there has any thoughts about that, I'd love to hear them.
Today I woke up late, but managed to only miss the one speaker in the whole event who made me feel impatient and irritated. There were only about 5 people on the 3-hour panel this morning, so there was lots of time for discussion in the end, and I really enjoyed hearing from all of the regular people in the room. One woman mentioned that the closest she has ever been to going to university was attending university conferences & I wanted to stand up and applaud her as she mentioned that it might be good for the panelists to consider that there are lots of people who don't have degress who could benefit from what they are saying. Then the ever-present Carl Webb made the important point that we need to bring this stuff off-campus and share information and solidarity with those who don't ever set foot on campus. I requested more resources for younger children, which is something I'm probably going to write about later, as so much of the historical research and documentation is geared towards high school and up - and even in our very good library, there are still tons and tons of books that teach the kind of history that I have to go back later and say "Oh, by the way, everything in this book is either wrong or told from a perspective that invalidates what really happened."
And now I am home. And it is fucking cold out there. And I have a million bajillion things to do, but I just want to curl up in a little ball under all of my covers and think through all of the events of the week - both educational and emotional - and breathe, and listen to music, and think, and allow myself to feel all of it, and work through all of it, and come out on the other side with some ideas about how to deal with it all.
But first I need to make myself a fucking sandwich, because I am HUNGRY!!!!!!!!
Walkin' to New Orleans
November 5, 2005
Well, actually, I'm driving. Anyone want to join me? I have room for 5-7 adults (depending on how comfortable you want to be) and I should be leaving sometime around Thanksgiving Day (either the day of or the day after). Here's the scoop:
Come lend a hand over the week of Thanksgiving until November 27th. That's less than three weeks away!The folks at Common Ground invite you to join an estimated 300 volunteers from around the continent to converge in New Orleans the week of Thanksgiving.We want to encourage those in attendance to arrive with building & clearning supplies, donated equipment and, if possible, funds that can apply directly to help rebuild and the 9th Ward.
For more information, visit the Common Ground Road Trip for Relief page.
Gah! I just realized the relief party ends ON Thanksgiving. I'm going to see if I might be able to leave the day before. It just depends on work. If I can't, then I am definitely leaving early early Thanksgiving morning or after 9 the night before.
UnGah! I was looking at a stupid October calendar. The relief party continues through the Sunday after Thanksgiving. Which means I will leave either Thanksgiving Day (which I'm hoping would be a good travel day) or the day after. And coming back either Saturday night or Sunday morning...although I'm pretty open to whatever days are best for whoever wants to come with.
I can sum this up on one word:
September 21, 2005
Amanda does an excellent job of analyzing men and ennui:
Another big factor in all of this is that historically speaking, men really have been encouraged to seek identity through being superior to other people and this is an option that's just not realistic anymore for your everyday man. In the past, men could count on being superior to women, being both the boss of and the protector of the women in his life. Women's financial independence has basically pissed that away for a lot of men. The other option offered to men in our society is to Be Somebody--an athlete or rock star or something--and that's just not within most people's reach. Getting involved in your everyday life and finding meaning from that is sort of disdained in our culture. Taken altogeher, it's easy to see why there's a lot of ennui and alienation in American men.
As usual, she is thoughtful, intelligent, and spot-on. But there's really one word that describes people who can afford to be bored and depressive and indecisive and despondant.
Privilege.
I really think this is the problem I am having with my relationship right now. In spite of the fact that my partner is kind and loving and sweet when we are together; in spite of the fact that he seems to have a decent amount of understanding for how privilege operates....he still HAS privilege. He is still able to make choices about how he spends his time. Choices that I'm unable to make. He still has extra money to burn. Money that I don't have. He still has the independence to sit and mope without having to deal with the effect of this moping on the little community of small children. Independence I don't have.
And I think independence is the key word here. I heard it several times at the luncheon I went to yesterday. Everyone was congratulating everyone else on our non-profit's success at opening up opportunities for people in the community to gain the skills and experience necessary to be independent. What the fuck is that? Independence is NOT the goal of society. Independence is the goal of a teenager leaving his or her parents. The goal of society is INTERDEPENDENCE. The goal of society is COLLECTIVISM.
The problem with independence is that it encourages individual privilege and it promotes privileged individuals to the top of the hierarchy. Whereas interdependence promotes shared privilege and promotes collectivism, conservation, and "sharing of the wealth."
I'm sure I could go on and on, but I have two little men that are reliant on my ability to be solutions-oriented and unbound by ennui in order to keep them going through their day. Hopefully, when all is said and done, they will grow up to be more willing to sacrifice their privilege to be bored for the sake of the greater good.
I guess this answers the previous post about competent presidents
September 14, 2005
Everyone who has gone to college, whether that college was Central West Northeastern State or Yale, remembers the spoiled rich kids who lazed their way to gentlemen's C's while waiting to take their appointed positions in Daddy's firm. (Indeed, a key factor in the otherwise inexplicable enthusiasm so many privileged people have for affirmative action is their inside knowledge of how much of their own social privilege has been inherited rather than earned).The Mediocre Frat Boy Theory of Life predicts that a lot of incompetent people are going to be promoted to positions they have no business holding. And, as long as the spotlight doesn't shine too brightly, they may well hold onto such positions for years and decades, protected by the same factors that put them into those jobs in the first place, while talented subordinates labor to compensate for the deadweight at the top.
For obvious reasons the Mediocre Frat Boy Theory of Life will seem least plausible to those who have benefited from it the most. President Bush, for instance, would probably dismiss it out of hand.
Helen Keller knew
July 9, 2004
I want to tie this Helen Keller quote:
"I had once believed that we were all masters of our fate - that we could could our lives into any form we pleased....I had overcome deafness and blindness sufficiently to be happy, and I supposed that anyone could come out victorious if he threw himself valiently into life's struggle. But as I went more and more about the country I learned that I had spoken with assurance on a subject I knew little about...I learned that the power to rise in the world is not within the reach of everyone.
with
this post at ^^^Living on Less
I don't consider someone who lives very far away geographically as being any less of a fellow traveler in this life than the person who lives down the street. Therefore I don't subscribe to the notion that my or anyone's concern for the struggle for survival taking place half a world away arises out of a kind of paternalistic impulse for charity toward the unfortunate and downtrodden. It's just an accident of birth that I am here with my computer and my supermarket foods and hot and cold running water. I could just as easily have been born in a shantytown and have to get by scavenging for metal scraps and go to bed hungry as often as not.
And I'm wondering if these posts have anything to do with the patriotism post I'm trying to write. Because I'm wondering if patriotism and privilege are somehow related.
Mostly, though, when I read that quote by Helen Keller, I want to make business cards out of it that say on the front "Helen Keller Knew" and have that quote on the back, and keep them with me at all times so that when some stupid overprivileged individual tries to feed me some crap about how America is the land of opportunity, or tries to get all superior about their privileged position in life, I can hand them the card and just say "Helen Keller knew, you ignorant asshole...figure it the fuck out."
Because if someone who is blind and deaf can figure out that her (no doubt hard-earned) achievements in life have been unearned to some extent. Have come to her through unearned membership in a privileged social class, there really is no excuse for anyone else to have not figured that out by now.
"The future of America rests on the leaders of 80 million working men and women and their children. To end the war and capitalism, all you need to do is straighten up and fold your arms." - Helen Keller
Chomsky on Privilege.
December 2, 2003
'Responsibility I believe accrues through privilege,' he begins. 'People like you and me have an unbelievable amount of privilege and therefore we have a huge amount of responsibility. We live in free societies where we are not afraid of the police, we have extraordinary wealth available to us by global standards. If you have those things then you have the kind of responsibility that a person does not have if he or she is slaving 70 hours a week to put food on the table - a responsibility at the very least to inform yourself about power. Beyond that it is a question of whether you believe in moral certainties or not.'Guardian Unlimited Books | By genre | Noam Chomsky: Thorn in America's side
Thanks to George for the link.
Driving
August 11, 2003
Some of you might remember that I was going to have a grand experiment of car-free by choice as soon as I got back from DC. Well, that's pretty much gone to shit. I have been justifying my use of the car in various ways: it's too hot, there are too many things going on, I'm tired, etc. But the fact is that I took the bus almost every day last summer and didn't have the same issues.
It's not that I haven't taken the bus at all, but lately it's the exception, rather than the norm. I think it boils down to kind of being lazy and too tired. I could probably make a good case for the fact that I just have too many places to go during the day, but it's not always the case, and I would just be justifying my laziness. Like, right now I have about 2 or so hours before I would have to leave for the bus stop. This is plenty of time to prepare myself for the walk, but I'm spending that time trying to come up with excuses to drive.
The sucky thing is that I REALLY need the exercise. And, while the walk TO the bus stop would be a 100 degree nightmare, the walk home would be so lovely.
I'm hearing thunder out there, and I'm hoping that it will rain so that I won't have a choice but to take the bus. Rain will cool things down, and there will be no excuse. Right?
Maybe I should go take a nap while the kids are occupied.
Calling my own bullshit.
August 7, 2003
I have been obsessing about this all day, so I might as well get it out. I was so busy justifying my outrage (and expression thereof) about this whole issue with zelda and her heterosexism that I totally neglected to acknowledge the fact that someone used the "n" word (and then kind of tried to justify its use) in a comment on someone else's blog.
I just feel kind of like an asshole that I kept on and on about how this crap needs to be interrupted...and then I completely failed to interrupt it. And I worry that I made it all about me. So while I was reading all of these posts applauding my "right on"-ness, I kept feeling in the back of my mind like I wasn't quite so right on. I started to comment several times about this on that blog, but it felt wrong to then go on about how I should have said something. I had intended to say something about the use of the word initially, but I pretty much dropped it because I had had enough.
It certainly reeks of privilege that I can choose what comments to react to and what comments to ignore, based on my own personal comfort level.
Just thought I'd point out my own stupidity. I like to keep record of these things.
Wanted:
August 6, 2003
One Misguided homosexual to take the place of Zelda on my links list. Deviants and rebels preferred.
(rant forthcoming. Suffice to say that there are some things I CANNOT "agree to disagree" about...BIGOTRY is one of those things. Buh-bye Zelda.)
Someone in Washington has REALLY BIG HANDS
July 18, 2003
I just got a link to this article from one of the homeschool e-lists I'm on.
The Department of Education has cited its obligation under federal law to revise the formula and played down the impact. Sally L. Stroup, its assistant secretary for postsecondary education, told The Washington Post last month that "the changes will have a minimal impact on a handful of students."The figures cited in the report made clear, however, that the new formula would trim the government's primary award program, the Pell grant, by $270 million once it takes effect in the 2004-5 academic year. That amount, financial aid experts said, probably means that hundreds of thousands of students will end up getting smaller Pell grants, not counting the 84,000 who it is estimated will no longer qualify.
"It's pretty hard to call several hundred thousand students a handful," said Brian K. Fitzgerald, director of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, which was created by Congress to advise it on higher education. He estimated that more than one million students could receive smaller Pell grants because of the new formula
Digital Divide and Online Activism
July 18, 2003
I think this article had potential to expose something really important, and did a piss poor job of doing it.
Although MoveOn does not track member demographics, anecdotal evidence suggests that its base is disproportionately white. (Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun, for example, faired poorly in the group's recent "primary.") This reflects the persevering digital divide, in which, according to a recent Pew survey, a full 24 percent of Americans are totally offline, and those who are online still tend to be younger, whiter, suburban, better-off and better educated. But defying online trends, the majority of MoveOn's active volunteers are female. And staffers says its members are diverse in other ways, with thousands in each state, ranging in age and income.
First of all, I'm totally dubious about the 24% figure. Even if it is true that 76% of the population has access to the internet (which I doubt, very much, is accurate - or even close to being accurate) I'm certain that figure doesn't take media savvy or know-how into account.
So, basically, what the article ends up saying to me is that yet another layer is being placed between decision-making and the people who are truly in need of services, and who are truly "voiceless". The potential for silencing those who don't have access to or input into the online world is so great with stuff like this, and its something that warrants far more consideration than one or two brief paragraphs in a 5-page article.
The interests of the middle class are NOT the same as those who are much more economically disadvantaged. All voices need to have access as well as valid means of participation before we start congratulating anyone on having revolutionized a damn thing.
Privilege and, um, legal issues
July 15, 2003
I'm not sure how much of this is ok for me to disclose, so I'm going to keep things kind of vague here. However, I think it's important to talk about how privilege (or the lack thereof) affects and informs everything we do. My current situation and my attempts to extract myself from it are being complicated by the fact that it's nearly impossible for me to extract myself from it without legal aid, and yet legal aid is difficult if not impossible for me to obtain with my financial resources. Since the other party in this situation is unwilling to negotiate with me directly, and since his lack of ability to negotiate seems to result in the situation remaining unchanged, and since the situation remaining unchanged results in me remaining in an environment which is uncomfortable at best, I am forced to beg and borrow money in order to hire a third party to legally dissolve the relationship and solve the problems.
This flies in the face of everything I stand for or believe in, but I feel like it's my last best option. And it leaves me wondering how difficult it is for women who are in far worse situations get by. Because the system is clearly not set up to help those with limited financial resources. I can definitely see why women feel forced to stay in abusive relationships because they feel like they have no other options. Sure, there are legal aid services available for people who need them, but how hard is it to muster the energy to stand before a stranger with a hat in hand. It's fucking difficult enough feeling like you've "failed" in a relationship without having to have a totally unrelated third party judge whether you are worthy of receiving aid from them.
Is there ANY level on which the system is not totally fucked? I mean, I'd like to hear about an area where people are provided for unconditionally, because I'm really tired of feeling like anywhere I turn there are people who are getting screwed.
The most interesting part of my little situation is the well-meaning advice that so frequently reflects privilege. People have frequently offered solutions that are not options for me due to my limited resources, and then acted as if I was insulting them or "playing the victim" by not taking those options. At least that's been my perception, which is not always accurate. I think a lot of people are totally unaware of how out of reach it is for someone without money to get legal help. And above and beyond my personal legal issues, this really gives me insight into why so many people who are in jail are people who had limited financial resources. And how the cycle continues on and on and on.
At times like this, it helps me to remember first that I'm not alone in my difficulties, and that, in fact, I have a great deal of privilege that others do not. For instance, if I really REALLY need money, DESPERATELY, I have relatives who would no doubt help me out. It would be kind of embarrassing for me to have to ask for help, but I could do it. Secondly, there's kind of an internalized privilege that assures me that everything will work out OK simply because, in my life, pretty much everything always HAS worked out OK and, whether my past informs my future or not, it is helpful to have a pattern of success to work from. If I was in this situation with a pattern of failure, I might not even try to get out of it.
So much to think about. In the end, though, I'm content with the choices I'm making and, in spite of my frequent bouts of panic, I'm confident that I'll get through everything OK. The point is that I have options. Options that not everyone else has. I'm thankful for those options, but I'm also resentful of the fact that others might be trapped in similar situations with a lack of such options.