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

[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.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

It is not because I am staying calm and you are not - and if that's not a condescending statement I don't know what is (you know, not calm = emotional = not logical = irrational, as opposed to calm = logical = rational, and thus superior). It is because I feel that I am discussing social structure with someone who has a hegemonic viewpoint. I'm sorry that I feel that way, I guess, and I'm sure that's not entirely true, but there it is, that's the problem. That's how I see your background and that's how I see your circumstances. In that context, namedropping is insulting, because it's a mark of what/who you know, to be used as artillery in an argument against me, the subaltern of the two of us. I'm really surprised that this is not more obvious to you. That also explains what you see, and what very well might be, my righteous anger and indignation towards you, and why I see insults and condescending language.

We've never been able to discuss race and wealth, I think that's just a fact. The only thing we can talk about is gender, and that sparingly. I can only talk about race and wealth with my friends who are poor minorities. I know that is petty to you, and exactly not what you want or what you see as helpful, but to me, you and your authors and Steve saying that comes across as something the hegemons are telling the subalterns to keep them from complaining too loudly. Yes, still and yet, that's how it comes across, and I guarantee if I showed this conversation (which I wouldn't) to my friends who are poor minorities, that's how it would come across.

I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong. Far from it. But it's the same problem with rich Western countries trying to tell poor violent countries elsewhere to adopt democracy because democracy is what they see as the right way to run a country, whether you're rich or Western or not. And that may very well be true. But because it's coming from these particular countries, the poor violent countries just see it as "be like me - I am right, and you are wrong because you are different". Which sucks for democracy, because there's a very good chance democracy is the way (just an example), but it'll have a hard time being accepted in those parts of the world precisely because of the people promoting it.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, okay, fine, I'm not calm now. Happy? It really, really makes me unbelievably sad and frustrated to see you react this way and try to respect it, because, let's face it, I can't.

I am not saying that you are irrational, and in making this about race and me a hegemon you are refusing to see that this is fundamentally a disagreement between two individuals, and you are refusing to see your own insults as effective and having the same basis in power as my own. You could. You could say, "I'm sorry I insulted you." Then at least you would admit that you possessed the power to do such a thing. I admit you do. I admit you can offend me, and that you in fact have. If you place so little value on my own friendship, and my own integrity, well, that hurts. Does that make you happy? Does it make you happy to make me cry? And I have admitted countless times that you are, or are at least able to be, both rational and highly intelligent. That's not what this is about.

Also, this--this that you wrote here--is HUGELY condescending. As if I could not have my own opinions or at all respect you merely because I am white. As if you understand all of this, and I will remain, can only remain, in ignorance for the rest of my life because I have no real experience. As if I am not at all capable of ever being your equal.

What I see is this: I see you being insecure about your own position, I see you therefore interpreting things I say as being intended to insult and condescend to you when they never were because of that, and I see you becoming angry because of these insults that exist more for you than for me. I do the same thing talking to Steve. It's not about race, it's about power, and I don't know why you're giving it to me when you could just as easily treat yourself with the same respect any decent human being would, when you could just as easily see the real power you have to both win this argument and deeply hurt me.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

See, this is why I didn't want to say it until now, although that's what I've been thinking for a long time. I'm sorry that you're taking this as an insult, and I'm sorry that I've insulted you (although you're right, I don't really think I have the power to insult you, but if you feel insulted I guess I do), but the fact that you're taking this as an insult says something as well, doesn't it? Anyway, okay, I am sorry I insulted you. I can be quick to throw things out there, and when you don't respond to them with belligerence I usually assume they had no impact.

And I truly felt that you were saying that I was irrational.

I do think you can have your own opinions. I doubt that you can really respect me because I am not a Great and Important Person, or one of your college friends who you've learned from. I haven't taught you anything and I feel like those (teachers) are the only people that you respect. I'm not saying that you can't respect me because you're white, I don't think that has anything to do with it. I don't even really expect you to respect me to be honest.

I don't think this is just a fundamental disagreement between two individuals. I guess that's a difference. I've said that I don't think people are just individuals, and I don't think we are either. I think it would just be wrong to assume that we are - and if you want, that you believe we are individuals and I don't is a fundamental disagreement between us, although now I'm getting twisted up. I think that we can try to "transcend" that, as you say, but I don't think we have. People come into every argument with biases, no one is a clean slate, and that's what the hegemon/subaltern thing is in this case, a bias.

"It's not about race, it's about power, and I don't know why you're giving it to me when you could just as easily treat yourself with the same respect any decent human being would" - well, why do you think I give you that power?

Okay, I'm insecure. This is just a last ditch effort to win an argument that I'm bound to lose. Whatever.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

With regard to my comments about Jason...I should add that he convinced me to see poverty as creating many racial stereotypes and identities a bit more than I had previously. I still don't think it can be reduced totally to that, as if the way people see 'race' does not matter at all in the creation of it, as I believe that such things are socially created, and Jason is more of a materialist. But the whole conversation did consist of a lot of yelling before we got to reach the agreements we did, although we were always both participants in the argument, not victims of attack. I see no problem with yelling or emotion (it's an emotional topic) so long as that holds true.

Anyway, your remarking on the academic tradition got me to thinking about the various backgrounds of the authors I'd had to read for Language & Politics, a lot of which, admittedly, I don't remember or know so well. I know there was a black lawyer who argued for the censorship of hate speech (Lawrence Summers III, I think), but I remember that because of the explicit "I am black and I'm going to talk about black people being oppressed" nature of the piece. But thinking further I remembered a book I'd started reading outside of class--The Evasion of American Philosophy by Cornell West, which I'm much more inclined to agree with politically, philosophically, etc. It's partly about American pragmatism, of which Peirce was the founder, though I also respect Dewey, who the book is much more about, but it's more than that:

"So just as my earlier texts emerged out of my own political praxis in and my identity with prophetic Christianity, this book consists of my attempt to come to terms with my philosophic allegiances in light of my participation in the U.S. democratic socialist movement (Democratic Socialists of America), my particular role in the American academy (Princeton University), and my existence on the margins of the black church (as a lay preacher).

"This book is principally motivated by my own disenchantment with intellectual life in America and my own demoralization regarding the political and cultural state of the country. For example, I am disturbed by the transformation of highly intelligent liberal intellectuals into tendentious neoconservatives owing to crude ethnic identity-based allegiances and vulgar neonationalist sentiments. I am disappointed with the professional incorporation of former New Left activists who now often thrive on a self-serving careerism while espousing rhetorics of oppositional politics of little seriousness and integrity. More important, I am depressed about the concrete nihilism in working-class and underclass American communities--the pervasive drug addiction, suicides, alcoholism, male violence against women, white violence against black, yellow, and brown people, and the black criminality against others, especially other black people. I have written this text convinced that a thorough reexamination of American pragmatism, stripping it of its myths, caricatures, and stereotypes and viewing it as a component of a new and novel form of indigenous America oppositional thought and action, may be a first step toward fundamental change and transformation in America and the world.

"I write as one who intends to deepen and enrich American pragmatism while bringing trenchant critique to bear on it. I consider myself deeply shaped by American civilization, but not fully a par of it. I am convinced that the best of the American pragmatist tradition is the best American has to offer itself and the world, yet I am willing to concede that this best may not be good enough given the depths of the international and domestic crises we now face. But though this slim and slight possibility may make my efforts no more than an impotent moral gesture, nonetheless, in the heat of battle, we have no other choice but to fight"

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Anyway, I probably overreacted to this at first. I apologize for that. But if so, I feel like this just shows that we both feel condescended to when neither of us is being condescending (this has happened with me and Jason, for somewhat unrelated reasons). Because sometimes people have power over one another through friendship rather than one person having power over another through domination, and I care what you think of me.

This is bordering on the obvious, but I can only say that I'm not saying you're wrong because you're different, I do think it's possible to discuss race and wealth, though maybe not with you individually if that's how you want to see it. I am not for anyone not complaining. I want there to be critique. I just want that critique to be conscious of what it's critiquing, and what it aligns itself with. In other words, I'm not for people subordinating themselves to hegemony by accepting their role in it rather than critiquing the whole hegemony, including their own role if need be. There are no victims and villains here, though there are certainly oppression and oppressed people. Most of all, I don't want people to accept anything as part of a marginal identity that silences them, denies them agency, or denies them social power. I don't think that's healthy for anyone, but more likely to happen for groups that aren't dominant, and I don't mean to set out "rules for the marginal ones" by it (as if I'm at all in a position to do such a thing anyway--apparently I am in your mind, but I don't think what I say counts for much to anyone else). It's open to critique.

I've apologized for saying a number of things a number of times, and that's all I can do. For like the twentieth time, I don't think you're stupid or irrational. I won't apologize for considering you as an equal who I could discuss such things with, but if you don't want me to do mention it ever again, I suppose I can censor myself for you. But I will write what I will on my own journal. I can lock it for you, I suppose. Would you rather I do that?

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

And in fact, yes, I should and do see this happening, though I was trying to explicitly acknowledge that I don't see you the way you are taking me as seeing you instead of pointing it out and going, "Look at you! You're behaving in a subordinated way!" which only seemed counterproductive. But yes, what you're saying here is all very similar to what Bourdieu says.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

but I suppose you already know i'm sick and tired of being ashamed of myself for you, for wanting to be brown-eyed and dark-haired and less fair-skinned for you, for not saying what I think for you. I reserve the right to accept and define myself just as much as I insist that you do yourself the same favor.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Please believe me. I love you.

That's all.

[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.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

there may be problems with that formulation of condescension. i could probably point to a couple things I said that seem condescending myself. I've already apologized for them, but just know that they don't reflect what i think of you as a person.

[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.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Actually, you are the only one of the two of us who has a background in authors who take some aspect of that as their concern. Cross-cutting cleavages is as far as my education goes. And the fact is I haven't thought intellectually about this. I haven't read anything about it or heard lectures about it. My opinions really are based solely on my experience and my upbringing.

Well, if you don't see it, I guess you don't see it. I see it as an arrogant remark and I don't think I'm the only one who would see it that way.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I didn't know that until now. I have no idea what authors you've read or what they have said.

Fine then, we don't have equal background here. That still doesn't mean I think you're dumb, as what someone has read is by no means equal to either what they know or what they are capable of knowing.

I refuse to be ashamed of myself, to say, "Okay, I'm wrong, I give up, you're right" just because I'm white. That would be truly condescending. because race has got nothing to do with being right or wrong.

Fine, if you want a minority pedigree instead, does it help that it's not just white people who think so? That Jason (who is very much mexican-american) largely agrees with me about issues of race (although I suppose the elementary school kids he was teaching before he left for bulgaria thought him a race-traitor for not speaking like he should, for going on to college and acting like a white kid--if that isn't racial identity keeping people from opportunity, I don't know what is)? That there are actually people, of various races, that debate issues like this and that it's horribly racist to say that just because someone is not white means they will have a particular opinion on these issues?

Furthermore, Bourdieu is very much a working class provincial guy who ended up in academia and became disillusioned with it, causing him to write lots of books about how the social position of academics influences their opinions and struggle with being an intellectual, trying more and more to be a part of the public domain. Butler is, of course, a woman, and hugely influential in gender and queer studies. These are people who are arguing against social domination... Nietzsche, however, is sort of unabashedly elitist. Although most of all, what he is against is the sort of weakness (invariably created by hierarchy and culture) that he sees as ruining the pride and happiness of men. These are interesting and complicated issues, and reducing the argument to a matter of upbringing does it a huge disservice.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't know Jason. I know my friends. I'm sorry if I claimed to be speaking for everyone who is not white. I will say that I agree with my friends who I have talked to about this.

"I refuse to be ashamed of myself, to say, "Okay, I'm wrong, I give up, you're right" just because I'm white. That would be truly condescending. because race has got nothing to do with being right or wrong."

Okay. Don't. I have told you repeatedly that I don't think you're wrong, I'm just explaining to you how it's coming across, and fine, take everyone out of the equation, it's how it's coming across to me as a person. That has not entirely everything to do with race and nothing to do with what is right or wrong.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Also, because this is bothering me - this whole statement you're making has nothing to do with minority/working class pedigree. At all.

"it's horribly racist to say that just because someone is not white means they will have a particular opinion on these issues" - this to me, is what the fuck, because I did not say that at all, and you completely made that up.

This goes back to the idea of namedropping, right? Ok. I don't associate namedropping with being white or hegemonic or anything. What I meant by saying that I felt it was arrogant and that there were people who would agree with me is that I felt it was elitist and over-intellectual, and anybody can do that. And by "other people who would agree with me" I mean my friends who dislike it when people namedrop in class. The particular backgrounds of the people you're namedropping has nothing to do with the namedropping itself.

And a "minority pedigree" of people who agree with your position on issues of race has NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I said about namedropping and people who would agree with me, because that's entirely related to classroom politics.

I know I should leave this alone but this whole argument is entirely misplaced.

And of course there are minorities who would agree with you on issues of race. Bill Cosby, for example.