turistas go home!

[intertribal]

The title is my reaction to Indiana Jones: The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  The above is also my reaction to every Indiana Jones movie, so I guess if you like Indiana Jones, you'll like it.

Let me just say though, that as someone who watched 9 FUCKING seasons of the X-Files, this sanitized, Americanized, and abridged version in 2 1/2 hours and M&Ms packaging just feels like a smack in the fucking face.

+ : every time Indiana Jones fails at something. 
- : every time Indiana Jones succeeds at something.
best character: crazy professor man + mutt
worst character: marion ravenwood + indiana jones
best impossibility: Indiana Jones gets pulled out of a sand trap by holding onto a snake that is somehow able to hold his entire weight!
worst impossibility: Indiana Jones survives a nuclear explosion by hiding in a refrigerator and doesn't die of cancer in three weeks!

Comments

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I guess we're always going to disagree on this point, because I really could not disagree more.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, it's just like, for instance, feminists who try to assert their identities as women, be proud of their bodies and femininity, and criticize men. Makes me want to say, "Yeah, go you, reclaim that objectification," most of the time. Not to mention the whole idea of criticizing men is ridiculous, as if they are demons to be conquered. Anything here that's just polarizing the two groups more is keeping the system of patriarchy intact. Criticism is possible, it just can't be directed at the dominant group, because hegemony is systemic, there isn't a good side and a bad side, "men" and "women" are not homogenous groups, they do not have essences--those come from the socially created categories, and everyone has a right to define themselves. I know they, or at least the more intelligent of them, are going against older feminists' tendency to become equals be being more like men, but they're really doing a disservice to feminism.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I hope we're just misunderstanding each other about what sort of criticism we're talking about. Because I do think it's possible for criticism to be productive, even though I see much of it as negative and unproductive (only when it serves to harden divisions, further antagonism, moralize, things along those lines--that includes creating identities as members of social groups (vs. as individuals), e.g. black pride). And I do think there's an objective truth to the matter, whether or not either of us is supporting a position that corresponds to it.

I admit I'm taking a lot from Nietzsche and Bourdieu and Judith Butler and various other authors and Steve...so it'll probably take a lot to convince me otherwise.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

sorry 'bout the deleted comment. i fucked up a carrot-thingy somewhere. I think i forgot to add that I don't claim to be accurately representing the views of the aforementioned authors when I rewrote it.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

not that it has to be that over-intellectualized. i could cite a punk song instead (not that punks don't read). which is i guess where steve comes in. *wince*

i do realize i didn't represent myself very well before, as saying that's true of "all criticism" is blatantly false, and I contradicted myself, so if this is a misunderstanding, I take a good share of the blame. sorry.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it's as unproductive as you like to think. I do agree that separating from everyone else is counterproductive and that's why I don't think schools should allow religious or ethnic groups. And I do believe in changing the system from within, which is why I want to work in government instead of being an activist. But I can tolerate doing that and not die of frustration because I can be part of the hegemonic structure as well as the subaltern structure. There's a lot of people I know who would not be able to stand it and just go off to the corner to fume and hate the hegemons. And saying, oh, boo you, what the hell is that going to accomplish? to them reminds me of military generals telling student protesters, "why don't you do something constructive instead of just yelling at us, huh? why don't you try to help instead of making it worse, wink wink nudge nudge?" And yeah, I think we're working with different time spans and contexts.

I have no authors backing me, but I will admit that I come from a lot of anger, especially regarding race and wealth. Just reading what you write makes it difficult to breathe/not scream, so I'll have to stop now. Sorry, I'm an idealistic hick. But since it'll take a lot to convince you lot otherwise, I'm not going to try.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

And I do believe in changing the system from within, which is why I want to work in government instead of being an activist.

I'm not sure I'm arguing against this.

And saying, oh, boo you, what the hell is that going to accomplish? to them reminds me of military generals telling student protesters, "why don't you do something constructive instead of just yelling at us, huh? why don't you try to help instead of making it worse, wink wink nudge nudge?"

I also don't think this has anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm not arguing for anyone to help military generals, for chrissake.

I have no authors backing me, but I will admit that I come from a lot of anger, especially regarding race and wealth. Just reading what you write makes it difficult to breathe/not scream, so I'll have to stop now. Sorry, I'm an idealistic hick. But since it'll take a lot to convince you lot otherwise, I'm not going to try.

In other words, a lot of resentment. I really think that anger will only hurt you in the end, even if you manage to do amazing things despite it. I just want people to be able to be proud of themselves without having to define themselves against anyone else, to love one another, to start treating each other like human beings and not essentially different types. To not have to join the dominant people to be equal, but not give into the false illusion of "separate but equal" either, to be able to accept individual difference, and above all for one group not to have hegemonic power over the others. It's tricky, and it's fucking hard, but I really think it's the best way, maybe even the only way, to create real change for the better.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

In fact, if I wanted to be a bitch, I could say that you're the one who's arguing for the student protesters to help military generals because you're the one who thinks you have to change the system from inside it. But I really don't think that's a fair characterization of either of our positions, and we're both struggling to deal with a situation where you have to have power to create change but having power means being part of the system you want to change. So, I'm not accusing you of that, and I would appreciate it if you had the same respect for me.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I think in a democracy you have to change the system from inside. I think in an authoritarian government you probably have to create an outside shock, although there are a lot of very well-respected political scientists who do believe that it's best to cooperate with military generals in order to begin democracy, and there are some cases where, historically, that seems to be the case if it's done at the same time that the generals are being eased out of power and there's institutional support, usually in the form of stronger democracies, for a young democracy. So I'm afraid that's not really an insult, if that's what you were trying to accomplish.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Hegemony exists in both democracies and authoritarian governments, but no, I was not trying to insult you, and if that's how you want to read it, I might as well give up. In fact, what I was trying to say is that I think we are both intelligent people, who are capable of thinking this through rationally, who aren't arguing for stupidly "joining" the military generals but for something more substantial and complex. Which you have demonstrated. I am just trying to say that I have respect for you, and if you have none for me, well, that makes me sad, but I guess that's your right.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Of course it exists in both democracies and authoritarian governments, but political structure does make a difference.

Ok, if you were trying to say that you have respect for me, you could just say that, instead of saying, "In fact, if I wanted to be a bitch" and then proceeding with saying what would make you a bitch by, presumably, insulting me. It's like saying, well I could say this, but I won't because I'm too nice, but here, I'll let you know what it is anyway, but don't blame me for it, because I'm not actually saying it. WTF?

I'm not sure why you have any respect for me anyway because I have no Great and Important People on my side, like you. I respect you and I respect your opinions, even when they anger me. But I am insulted by the way you phrase some sentences and I am insulted by namedropping. Because it gets really hard to stay calm when you feel that you're being talked down to.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I had assumed that your saying, "And saying, oh, boo you, what the hell is that going to accomplish? to them reminds me of military generals telling student protesters, "why don't you do something constructive instead of just yelling at us, huh? why don't you try to help instead of making it worse, wink wink nudge nudge?"" was meant as a characterization of my opinion, which I objected to. If you have respect for me, then why do I remind you of military generals? I shouldn't have responded to your anger by taking offense, and for that I am sorry, but really, I think we are both guilty of doing that in this conversation.

In what followed after "if I wanted to be a bitch," I was trying, obviously stupidly, to say that your attack on me was unwarranted and that in fact I would be a "bitch" if I accused you of what you had just accused me of. In that sense, I guess yes, it is an insult--I was saying your attacking me was unwarranted and 'bitchy' in a very indirect and cowardly manner. However, I was not saying that you yourself were guilty of what you had attacked me of, and I'm sorry that it looked that way.

I have respect for you in general, and it is not the prestige of "Great and Important People" that I'm concerned with (personally, I'm more concerned with their actual arguments, but it's true that I read more about "how the representation of social reality is constructed" than "how to change the representation of social reality", though I think the two projects can and should coexist and inform one another). I have respect for your opinions, and I enjoy arguing with you even when we disagree, but I am insulted/saddened by what seemed to me to be righteous anger and indignation against me. I see no reason for "namedropping" to be insulting. I think I am not the only one to phrase some sentences in an insulting manner, though I'm sorry for what I've done to contribute to that. I'm not trying to talk down to you, and if you feel like it, I can only imagine it's because I am staying calm and you are not. Or because I think I'm right? But this is true of any opinion I hold and doesn't mean that you don't have equal basis to make an argument against it. I would simply prefer actual argument to anger and accusations.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

...I think most of the frustration here is stemming from both 1) not trusting one another, and 2) not respecting ourselves (both of which are the only ways that anything either of us has said that seems insulting can actually have an effect). So please, respect yourself, and I will try to do the same. I think both of us are just as capable of being wrong as being right, we actually agree on a number of points, and even if you were wrong, that doesn't mean I would lose respect for you. I hope the same is true of myself (if I couldn't be wrong, I probably couldn't learn and would be significantly less intelligent, in any case...despite the fact that I'm actually terrified of being wrong). Also, I find that when I'm confident in my own knowledge and ability, I have an easier time asking questions, admitting to being wrong, and arguing in general. Anyway, I really hope I haven't offended you for life or anything, because I'd be very sad to think I'd ruined the only friendship I've managed to maintain in my life with so little effort. Please believe me.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

And I know the feeling (of being talked down to--happens when I talk to steve sometimes), but really, me talking down to you would be not bothering to seriously have this conversation at all, just saying, "no, no, you don't understand yet. you'll get there eventually." as if you weren't capable of it, or even worse, "Yeah, sure, that's good. You're doing good things in the world," and not even bothering to say if I disagree, which is I suppose how a lot of the world gets by, on little white lies.

I'm trying to be honest and open, but I do apologize for offending you, and for not making it as clear as it could be that I do both respect your opinion and invite you to share it, as well as value you and your friendship generally (and for anything I've said that has not made that clear, incl. the phrasing of some sentences, for being sometimes too quick to be insulted, etc.). I just refuse to back down unless I'm genuinely convinced, and I don't see anything condescending about that.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that sounds like a great world. How do we get there? Specifically, how do we get there? Your solution has to be workable and livable. I don't think that if you fail to get 100 you get 0 with this kind of thing, because things have improved, slowly, in a lot of places. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't better and I think that's something we fundamentally disagree upon. I don't aim for perfect because I don't think perfect is possible.

Yup, I'm one of those resentful stupid types driven by the calculus of emotion. And you know, I'm proud of that. And you know what's funny? I only get this angry when I'm arguing about it. I'm far more angered by being made to feel like a dumbass by you than by Indiana Jones. I make snarky comments about the media but I'm never enraged by it - it doesn't actually get to me. Does that mean I'm somehow angry on the inside? I'm sure it does. I'm sure there's an expert you could call to testify to that. I'm full of anger and hate, I'm just a toxic little ball of spite.

I'll work on that!

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying we instantly get there, and I'm not saying that you can ever reach perfection/utopia. I don't think that is possible. In short, far from fundamentally disagreeing, I agree with you there. I just want to make steps toward improvement and change that aren't actually steps backward.

I'm not saying you're stupid, and I'm not saying, even, that there is something inherently wrong with emotion. I never said you were a dumbass, and if you feel like one, I refuse to take blame for it, as I really do not think you are, nor am I arguing that you are. As for the rest, I don't think I can say anything productive, so nevermind.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and I don't think they are steps backward.

I'm not arguing about intent. I'm arguing about your result. Throwing out statements like this: "I admit I'm taking a lot from Nietzsche and Bourdieu and Judith Butler and various other authors and Steve...so it'll probably take a lot to convince me otherwise" is going to make me feel uneducated and dumb.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I just wanted you to know this wasn't something I made up myself, that I had thought about it seriously, if not from a perspective you're used to. Seeing as we are both students at small liberal arts colleges with decent reputations, I really don't think I'm the only one of the two of us who has a background in authors who take some aspect of this as their concern, or the only one of us whose opinion has a basis in our education. There is nothing about my comment that necessitates it being taken as a statement of my education in comparison to your lack. We are, in most respects, equals here, and your taking my statement as indicating otherwise shows something, I guess, but it's neither contained in my intention or the statement itself.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Also, I'm an idealist too. Very much so.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

because otherwise, all that happens is the government says, "Okay, you're right, now we'll punish people for being mean to you," and then people think, "Okay, it's all taken care of. We don't have to worry about discrimination now because we have laws against that." But it's still there, and it only becomes more hidden and harder to bring out in the open and deal with, so long, especially, as race is correlated with socioeconomic class/the means to real power and influence.

They say language is the only place left where it's politically correct to discriminate--because then it's not that "you're not white/stereotypically American enough", it's that "you don't speak Standard." People get denied jobs because they don't speak Standard, even though it's clear that English-speakers can understand them. They don't present a good "image", therefore they don't sell, so the businesses don't take responsibility--they say it's just a business decision. And I suppose that's true. The audience doesn't want to see their newscaster "talking black" either. Because all that says is "black" (which, here, is clearly a stereotype for lower class, which is shown whenever a black person "talks proper" and is therefore tolerated, because you don't talk that way without education/money), whereas the other says "unmarked objective news."

And I swear to god, you don't need hate speech and violence to keep a group down, all you need is to exclude them from equal opportunities, exclude them from everything the dominant group has, just tolerate them, by keeping them as the marked group, where everything they do is tainted with their status, where they don't have the freedom to be taken as equally rational and equally objective, while the middle class white people get to be unmarked, get to be the voice of everyone, the generic human, and things will stay more or less the same. That unmarked, that one group being the voice of everyone, is what hegemony is. And identifying yourself as what it already draws itself in contrast to (any marked group), plays into the way it creates its power. It will tolerate those marked groups the whole time it oppresses them.

I should probably be clear from this that I think there are a number of things that can, that have to, change for this to improve. One is related to class, and that's the hardest one. Actually, no, the hardest one might be the part that's related to nation-states.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

It also, needless to say, creates an essentializing view where having whatever characteristic that marks you as being a member of a marked group, be it your skin color, way of speaking, sex, clothing (incl. religious dress), age--whatever happens to be relevant in any particular context--limits you to the marked status that it's bound to by history. This because people tend to think, "one form, one function/meaning," being black = x, y, z; being a woman = x, y, z; and that really only does a disservice to individual freedom, individual variation, individual choice and opinion, and also those characteristics that get excluded, which are invariably what the marked can't share with the unmarked--rationality, humanity, power, mercy, objectivity...

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

"And identifying yourself as what it already draws itself in contrast to (any marked group), plays into the way it creates its power. It will tolerate those marked groups the whole time it oppresses them."

The above is where we disagree. I'm not saying that you're not right. I have often wanted their to just not be race, or for everyone to be mixed. It's a nice idea. I'm saying you're not being realistic, and in the mean time, objecting to marking yourself has as many negative psychological repercussions as being angry about it, not to mention that I don't think people will ever stop marking themselves. So you have this wonderful long-term goal, but it's never going to happen, and in the meanwhile, your short-term requirements are impossible to meet and detrimental to the human soul. That is how I see it. I don't know how you can be outspoken about who you are - and yes, what ethnic group you belong to - without marking yourself. And I don't know how you're going to accomplish telling people they are not allowed to mark themselves ethnically. Realistically, that is.

The best way to do it in terms of elections is by doing cross-cutting cleavages and forcing moderate ethnic parties to cooperate. That has tended to work in terms of keeping radical politics out of power and keeping violence low, but does it mean that in everyday interactions India and Malaysia are free from ethnic hierarchies? I doubt it. Still, it's something. People not dying in ethnic riots is something. And I think in terms of political results, not everyday results. I feel like the everyday stuff is just something you have to deal with, because that's what it was like in Indonesia - it's the institutionalized stuff in legal books that I worry about, and that stuff is a lot easier to fix.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I don't think not marking yourself has negative psychological repercussions, or at least, it doesn't have to. Surely it doesn't for the unmarked. There are other ways of going about it, and I believe I'm not the only one to suggest so. It doesn't mean you have to give up an essential part of yourself, and I s'pose the idea that it is is what I disagree with. I really don't think my "short-term requirements are impossible to meet and detrimental to the human soul," but if I suppose if I did, I wouldn't have the opinion I do. I see no reason to identify with being a woman, and doing so tends to make me feel weak, because that's what being a woman means to me, I suppose--pretty and weak. I think, however, it's possible to accept yourself, and whatever characteristics people use to put you into a certain category, without identifying with that category. Furthermore, it has been the case in certain times and places that things like skin color were simply not seen as relevant. And when the 'mark' doesn't have the same meaning, it doesn't marginalize anyone. This is not to say that there has ever been a utopia where everyone was equal and their physical forms meant nothing--just that it's neither natural nor universal which characteristics are seen as relevant, and without the underlying hierarchy, they don't accomplish the same social domination. I think the human understanding is fundamentally individual, although it's been shaped by social reality and social groups, and so while what ethnic group you 'belong' to may indeed be a very real part of your experience, it doesn't represent you...you can be outspoken without simply being a token of the ethnic type you belong to. But that doesn't solve the problem either, of course, because you get marked anyway. To break the association between the outward signs and the identity they purport to represent, you have to break the divisions of power and experience. So long as skin color can be a sign of low class and lack of education, the 'mark' retains its meaning. But when that ceases to be the case, it also ceases to be a part of the shared identity. Maybe that's "unrealistic" to you, and I do know that change in actual means is very slow, but the signs, the representation of social reality, change quickly enough (at least in a few generations) when the basis for the associations it's built on change--without even anyone needing to bother questioning their identity (maybe...).

I guess I agree that what you're arguing for in terms of political results is "something" too, although I don't think I know as much about that.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

As someone who is unable to mark herself, because she doesn't belong anywhere, I can say with certainty that (personally) it does have negative repercussions to not be able to say you belong to a group, to say, I am THIS. On the one hand it is liberating, but on the other it alienates severely and not even your family understands, let alone your friends, because they are all marked and you're the only one that's not. So I don't see so much that there are unmarked (white) and marked (ethnic) people, because to me white is marked. There's unmarked (me, bad, alone) and marked (everyone else, good, group).

I don't think the human understanding is fundamentally individual either.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

That's not quite what "unmarked" means. It's a term borrowed from grammar, really, whatever inaccuracies may come with the analogy (in the sense of "masculine is the unmarked" and that's why we use "he" and "man" when we refer(ed) to generic people or those of unknown gender (at least those that aren't demoted to "it") as well as the specifically male, while the feminine is only used for those that are specifically female. PC movements obviously worked against this in English, but it still happens in a number of languages...not that I'm taking a side, for the moment). In that sense, you are marked. Any non-white is. Outside of grammar, it's not that you can't tell what is unmarked by some outward sign (which is, indeed, a mark) but that it somehow gets to represent the general case, when it isn't actually. But yeah, you're right otherwise, I imagine, in that you aren't specifically 'marked' then, but just sort of ambiguously so. As is Tara. I'm sorry you feel the need to be.

I only mean it in a very limited sense, and if I were totally a social determinist who didn't have the least belief in human agency, I wouldn't even bother to bring it up.