Most Reviled State of the Union,
It must be hard being the last state of the contiguous 48. So much pressure. Do you get tired of the hand-me-downs from older states? Does civil rights legislation not fit right? Would you like to try on something else, something more fashionable and in? The civil war, the end of slavery, and the massacre of Native Americans--these all occurred before you were born. Your decision to create a police state in response to immigration is great idea. It's always overrated to learn from others' mistakes.
I write you this letter, knowing that you don't want to hear what I have to say. After all, you're an Arizonan! It's your state. You own the land and make the laws. It helps that 19th-century wars allowed you to usurp power over the inhabitants of the land, both Native American and Mexican. And that power sure did help you enslave them, play them off of each other and work them to death before you found another gardener.
We both know all that scheming paid off. For a while there, your economy was booming. Middle Americans went to work everyday in the freezing North, dreaming of a retirement home in Mesa, and they got it. Lots of good, honest folks moved in, started companies, and took advantage of that founding ideal of America--opportunity. There was only one problem. Other "people" moved in, or at least started showing up in schools and neighborhoods. They thought they deserved opportunity too. Hmph! They didn't even speak English like our families with our Scandinavian and German last names did.
Sure, they work hard. But, like so many of you have said, they "stand around on corners" all the time. It's so un-american. After all their time in your homes, they should know that Americans loiter around television sets, not out in the open. Crowds outside are dangerous. They might talk, laugh, dance, or learn something!
In the end, it's all for the best. All of your unemployed MBAs need jobs, and the sooner you kick out or harass away anyone with brown skin, the sooner your baby boy with so much potential, your pride and joy who sleeps, just for now, in your basement, will be able to buy his first pair of work gloves.
Horrifiedly yours,
Dave Fife
25 April 2010
20 April 2010
Historical Truthiness
Sources: Black Thunder by Arna Bontemps and the news coverage of the Texas school board
I went to school for many years in Richmond, Virginia. 2nd through half of 8th grade, plus high school. That comes to about ten years of public school instruction and ten years of instruction in history, both local, national, and world.
Why in the world did I have to come to a Mormon university (with a great library) in order to stumble upon the story of Gabriel Prosser and the almost-destruction of Richmond? Did they think the story would scare little white kids? Did they think they should censor history to preserve some vestige of southern respectability? I have not been entirely silent about the conservative state school board in Texas making "cosmetic" changes to their history texts. I find it despicable and overtly political. That board is making a concerted attempt to delete any white heroes whose pure reputations they may have trouble defending. Thomas Jefferson was fairly radical, encouraged equality of man, but also had intimate relations with his slaves? Too controversial, too hypocritical, he is now stricken from Texas' record of national history.
But, in the vein of Stokely Carmichael, I now find that my own backyard is not quite in order. Virginia (and other states, for sure) has been involved in the same political games. Why give a month to black history if (mostly) white and (all) middle-class folks decide what that history entails? Why don't children learn about Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, and the Black Panthers? For the simple reason, as I've stated in other posts, that the conflict of the 60s and 70s (and the 1800s) has not been resolved. The root causes still exist. And teaching children about revolutionaries might re-ignite the revolution against corruption, inequality, and privilege.
I don't mean to act as if I didn't know history is and has always been shaped by politics. Maybe I should even applaud the Texas school board for being so frank about it. At least, with it out in the open, interested parties can seek out alternative information more easily. However, the major quality of all this politicking is our continued skewed vision of "America." I know the History channel is starting a six-part program called "America: The Story of Us" on Sunday, and I'll be interested to see what they show. But six hours of television will never trump 12 years of educational instruction during a child's most formative period. I'm almost looking forward to the extra "homework" I'll be assigning to my children when they get to school. Is that too revotionary?
I went to school for many years in Richmond, Virginia. 2nd through half of 8th grade, plus high school. That comes to about ten years of public school instruction and ten years of instruction in history, both local, national, and world.
Why in the world did I have to come to a Mormon university (with a great library) in order to stumble upon the story of Gabriel Prosser and the almost-destruction of Richmond? Did they think the story would scare little white kids? Did they think they should censor history to preserve some vestige of southern respectability? I have not been entirely silent about the conservative state school board in Texas making "cosmetic" changes to their history texts. I find it despicable and overtly political. That board is making a concerted attempt to delete any white heroes whose pure reputations they may have trouble defending. Thomas Jefferson was fairly radical, encouraged equality of man, but also had intimate relations with his slaves? Too controversial, too hypocritical, he is now stricken from Texas' record of national history.
But, in the vein of Stokely Carmichael, I now find that my own backyard is not quite in order. Virginia (and other states, for sure) has been involved in the same political games. Why give a month to black history if (mostly) white and (all) middle-class folks decide what that history entails? Why don't children learn about Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, and the Black Panthers? For the simple reason, as I've stated in other posts, that the conflict of the 60s and 70s (and the 1800s) has not been resolved. The root causes still exist. And teaching children about revolutionaries might re-ignite the revolution against corruption, inequality, and privilege.
I don't mean to act as if I didn't know history is and has always been shaped by politics. Maybe I should even applaud the Texas school board for being so frank about it. At least, with it out in the open, interested parties can seek out alternative information more easily. However, the major quality of all this politicking is our continued skewed vision of "America." I know the History channel is starting a six-part program called "America: The Story of Us" on Sunday, and I'll be interested to see what they show. But six hours of television will never trump 12 years of educational instruction during a child's most formative period. I'm almost looking forward to the extra "homework" I'll be assigning to my children when they get to school. Is that too revotionary?
15 April 2010
Dream Job
Sources: The Baader-Meinhof Complex by Stefan Aust and The Way the Wind Blew by Ron Jacobs
I've decided that my absolute dream job would be working for a think tank, especially for the government. Nobody else seems to think like I do. I have a strange (dare I say delightful?) way of looking at the world, and people rarely completely agree with me. Though they may agree with my conclusions, they won't agree with my philosophical underpinnings or argumentative assumptions, and vice versa.
If any think tank recruiters are reading, let me give you a little taste of what I can bring to the table. I've been learning about the violence of the 60s and 70s (a period that I think needs to be studied much more thoroughly--it was not all about flower power and Dick Nixon), and I've been stuck with the impression that the domestic violence so widespread in this period was not a singular flare-up. Governments maneuvered quite skillfully to extinguish the fire, but the fixes were only temporary. The changes on higher levels produced the impression that there was more equality, but failed to really correct the underlying issues of disparity and conspicuous consumption. As we've seen with government bail-outs, even that invisible hand of the market won't be allowed to slap America awake to its destructive liason with consuming (as opposed to producing).
I've started to feel that much of my research in the next coming years will be to understand intimately groups like the Black Panther Party, the Weathermen, the RAF, etc., in order to see what embers are still lit or still flammable. I'd like to be in a position to change government policy in a way that corrects the underlying issues before we have another international flashpoint. For me, the end of violence is the ultimate goal, and while its abolition must occur on both the local level (i.e. the family) and the world level, it needs to happen from both ends simultaneously. How's that for a taste, Mr. Think Tank recruiter?
I've decided that my absolute dream job would be working for a think tank, especially for the government. Nobody else seems to think like I do. I have a strange (dare I say delightful?) way of looking at the world, and people rarely completely agree with me. Though they may agree with my conclusions, they won't agree with my philosophical underpinnings or argumentative assumptions, and vice versa.
If any think tank recruiters are reading, let me give you a little taste of what I can bring to the table. I've been learning about the violence of the 60s and 70s (a period that I think needs to be studied much more thoroughly--it was not all about flower power and Dick Nixon), and I've been stuck with the impression that the domestic violence so widespread in this period was not a singular flare-up. Governments maneuvered quite skillfully to extinguish the fire, but the fixes were only temporary. The changes on higher levels produced the impression that there was more equality, but failed to really correct the underlying issues of disparity and conspicuous consumption. As we've seen with government bail-outs, even that invisible hand of the market won't be allowed to slap America awake to its destructive liason with consuming (as opposed to producing).
I've started to feel that much of my research in the next coming years will be to understand intimately groups like the Black Panther Party, the Weathermen, the RAF, etc., in order to see what embers are still lit or still flammable. I'd like to be in a position to change government policy in a way that corrects the underlying issues before we have another international flashpoint. For me, the end of violence is the ultimate goal, and while its abolition must occur on both the local level (i.e. the family) and the world level, it needs to happen from both ends simultaneously. How's that for a taste, Mr. Think Tank recruiter?
12 April 2010
Glasnost
Dear World,
Having seen the mess you're in, I'd like to suggest a few changes. I realize, of course, that 6 billion other people will scream "idealist!" in a variety of languages, but I'm used to it. Just block it out, it works wonders. Goethe once said, "If you treat an individual as he is, he will stay as he is. But if you treat him as if he were what he could be and ought to be, he will become what he ought to be." Yes, I'm assuming it takes a somewhat different form in the original German, and no, I don't actually have a primary source for the quote. But the sentiment fits with my world-view exactly.
Let us transition. Let us transition to Gandhi, so I can quickly make my point and dish up some delicious chicken taco soup from my crockpot. Gandhi treated men and women, especially the British occupation, as rational human beings. He expected them to realize that if hundreds of thinking, unhysterical people were passionately, though passively, resisting their rule, then maybe those people had a point. The British left. There were problems, snafus (literally), and bad spots, but the direction was always the same.
The relationship to American foreign policy is not too far of a jump. The sooner we start treating the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the entire Arab world as human beings capable and partial to compassion, we'll have a much more peaceful world. What that means, in other words, is letting them operate outside of our dour military shadow. The longer our soldiers, who don't speak Pashtu or any other dialect, communicate with grunts and rifles, the longer the United States will be perceived as an imperialist power looking to forge a united Afghanistatn for the sake of a natural gas pipeline. The longer we sequester ourselves in the Baghdad green zone, the longer we will be that group of strangers that rides into town every so often in humvee.
All people are capable of compassion. All people have the ability to listen, even the predisposition to do so. So let's leave. Let's tell them our side of the story without air support. Let's give them information and trust them to make good use of it.
Impossible, you say? The insurgents and the Taliban and the bad guys would poison their minds against the West? Maybe so. But this world is shrinking. I watched the Kyrgyz government fail the other day, and I watched it on my laptop. How many of us can locate Kyrgyzstan on a map? How many of us saw the videos and pictures of a smokey Bishkek? There's a great disparity between those numbers, and in that disparity lies the hope for a new century of peace.
If we leave our occupational endeavors now, will we (Americans) lose a degree of safety? In all likelihood, yes. There may even be another September 11, where innocent lives will be lost at the hands of fanatics. But what if, instead of invading sovereign nation states, we simply invested in Middle East fiber optic cable networks? What if we made sure that every village in the world could access and contribute to youtube? Could see what their neighbors had done to another neighbor? Where would the fanatics' power be then? Who would join their training camps?
Violent radicalism can only be nurtured in an environment devoid of the perceived enemy. Pogroms started in courts and bars where no Jews dared to come. Violence ensued. A system of segregation enforced racial stereotypes and blanket judgments. Violence ensued. Homophobia flourishes in communities where "gay" is a dirty word. Violence ensues. While these horrible memories occurred (and occur) in various forms of isolation (time, custom, etc.) that resist any effective tinkering right now, there is one kind of isolation we can correct. The sooner we connect the world with silly things, the sooner the world will connect on more important issues. If a fraction of the war budget had been spent on extending the reach of the internet, we would live in a different world. If we had a fraction of the kind of courage that brings peace, thousands fewer people would be dead. So stand up world, or rather sit down. Take some losses. Make the fanatics look stupid for once. Stop prosecuting people for thought crimes and "threats." Try people in an open court. Abolish the idea of military justice. As we open up the world, we're going to see some ugly things. But stay strong and sit tight. A better world will grow from that ugliness.
Having seen the mess you're in, I'd like to suggest a few changes. I realize, of course, that 6 billion other people will scream "idealist!" in a variety of languages, but I'm used to it. Just block it out, it works wonders. Goethe once said, "If you treat an individual as he is, he will stay as he is. But if you treat him as if he were what he could be and ought to be, he will become what he ought to be." Yes, I'm assuming it takes a somewhat different form in the original German, and no, I don't actually have a primary source for the quote. But the sentiment fits with my world-view exactly.
Let us transition. Let us transition to Gandhi, so I can quickly make my point and dish up some delicious chicken taco soup from my crockpot. Gandhi treated men and women, especially the British occupation, as rational human beings. He expected them to realize that if hundreds of thinking, unhysterical people were passionately, though passively, resisting their rule, then maybe those people had a point. The British left. There were problems, snafus (literally), and bad spots, but the direction was always the same.
The relationship to American foreign policy is not too far of a jump. The sooner we start treating the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the entire Arab world as human beings capable and partial to compassion, we'll have a much more peaceful world. What that means, in other words, is letting them operate outside of our dour military shadow. The longer our soldiers, who don't speak Pashtu or any other dialect, communicate with grunts and rifles, the longer the United States will be perceived as an imperialist power looking to forge a united Afghanistatn for the sake of a natural gas pipeline. The longer we sequester ourselves in the Baghdad green zone, the longer we will be that group of strangers that rides into town every so often in humvee.
All people are capable of compassion. All people have the ability to listen, even the predisposition to do so. So let's leave. Let's tell them our side of the story without air support. Let's give them information and trust them to make good use of it.
Impossible, you say? The insurgents and the Taliban and the bad guys would poison their minds against the West? Maybe so. But this world is shrinking. I watched the Kyrgyz government fail the other day, and I watched it on my laptop. How many of us can locate Kyrgyzstan on a map? How many of us saw the videos and pictures of a smokey Bishkek? There's a great disparity between those numbers, and in that disparity lies the hope for a new century of peace.
If we leave our occupational endeavors now, will we (Americans) lose a degree of safety? In all likelihood, yes. There may even be another September 11, where innocent lives will be lost at the hands of fanatics. But what if, instead of invading sovereign nation states, we simply invested in Middle East fiber optic cable networks? What if we made sure that every village in the world could access and contribute to youtube? Could see what their neighbors had done to another neighbor? Where would the fanatics' power be then? Who would join their training camps?
Violent radicalism can only be nurtured in an environment devoid of the perceived enemy. Pogroms started in courts and bars where no Jews dared to come. Violence ensued. A system of segregation enforced racial stereotypes and blanket judgments. Violence ensued. Homophobia flourishes in communities where "gay" is a dirty word. Violence ensues. While these horrible memories occurred (and occur) in various forms of isolation (time, custom, etc.) that resist any effective tinkering right now, there is one kind of isolation we can correct. The sooner we connect the world with silly things, the sooner the world will connect on more important issues. If a fraction of the war budget had been spent on extending the reach of the internet, we would live in a different world. If we had a fraction of the kind of courage that brings peace, thousands fewer people would be dead. So stand up world, or rather sit down. Take some losses. Make the fanatics look stupid for once. Stop prosecuting people for thought crimes and "threats." Try people in an open court. Abolish the idea of military justice. As we open up the world, we're going to see some ugly things. But stay strong and sit tight. A better world will grow from that ugliness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)