tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2006987619093676904.post3811202917526052035..comments2023-05-09T05:29:23.918-04:00Comments on Alienated Conclusions: "It's Just a Pile of Rocks"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2006987619093676904.post-78043045101565880442010-01-04T13:38:48.822-05:002010-01-04T13:38:48.822-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2006987619093676904.post-61832230419813307502009-07-30T23:39:01.234-04:002009-07-30T23:39:01.234-04:00one of my professors plays a "game" with...one of my professors plays a "game" with his students. he puts up a bunch of quotes and gets them to try to guess which ones were Darwin and which were Hitler. it's a hard game.<br /><br />i fucking hate freud. as an english major, i heard a lot of freudian theory and kept wondering "doesn't anyone realize he was a misogynistic psycho with no grip on reality??? why are we still talking about him." there are plenty of other psychoanalytical theories available, most of which are a lot more in touch with reality, but no, it's gotta be freud. i'm sure a lot of scientists feel the same way when they want to think about evolution, but can't escape darwinism. i'm also sure that science is bullshit and refuse to believe in anything that i don't have to. if gravity stops working, i won't be surprised. it'd be more convenient if it didn't, and i generally take for granted that it won't... it just won't shake the foundations of my beliefs.uppitywhorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10900094626102924867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2006987619093676904.post-73301809738330784912009-07-30T09:59:13.305-04:002009-07-30T09:59:13.305-04:00"one of my friends works for a person who *ac..."one of my friends works for a person who *actually* believes that there is a darwinian-type science to economics and the smart, white, northern people have been naturally selected to dominate and exploit"<br /><br />And this is the problem with darwinism in general. It's based on heirarchy, domination, and other capitalistic tendencies and puts a "Mother Nature approved" stamp on it. <br /><br />For that reason, I find Darwin no more interesting than I find Freud. There are probly theories about the development of humankind that make more sense, but we will never hear about them because 1. We don't much like "other world" ideology as it relates to science, especially if they are not capitalistic in some way or from the "civilized" (white?) world. 2. It doesn't justify our way of life.<br /><br /> I'm agnostic and all, but just because I don't believe in creationism doesn't mean I'm gonna support the theory of evolution to a tee. What is science if not another religion, after all? This is a binary like "good" or "evil" "science or creatonism" "capitalism" or "anarchy". Binary thinking in all shapes or forms has proven totally irrational, because nothing about humans or animals exists simply in duality. Just as "black men are victims, so they must be saints", "you are either gay or you're not", "you are black or white". This is magical thinking. <br /><br />"it is beyond my comprehension that this guy could ever take himself seriously, but apparently he does"<br /><br />I'd like to say that's hilarious. But it's actually such a popular belief that it's just plain sad and pathetic.Ionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01632942297801438795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2006987619093676904.post-7120327945179535002009-07-29T18:36:09.125-04:002009-07-29T18:36:09.125-04:00I've been think abut the word "tribe"...I've been think abut the word "tribe" because we don't use it a lot here (nor would *any* newspaper publish the word Indian, unless referring to the Indian Affairs Ministry or people from India). We use the word nation, probably because aboriginal sovereignty is somewhat recognized here (so is French sovereignty, oddly enough... I wonder what would happen if the US recognized Mexican-American and South American First Nations sovereignty). I think American progessives should start doing the same thing- to show support for aboriginal people and to force people to actually think about the genocide of first nations citizens and cultures. I will start using "first nations" in place of "aboriginal" in this blog from now on.uppitywhorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10900094626102924867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2006987619093676904.post-68138424733070804152009-07-28T23:22:31.448-04:002009-07-28T23:22:31.448-04:00i should add that viewing slaves, and most people ...i should add that viewing slaves, and most people of colour everywhere ever, as undeveloped, uncivilized and unimportant helps whites justify abusing them.<br />one of my friends works for a person who *actually* believes that there is a darwinian-type science to economics and the smart, white, northern people have been naturally selected to dominate and exploit the economies of less developed and less intelligent people of colour in the global south. it is beyond my comprehension that this guy could ever take himself seriously, but apparently he does. and he's in a position to share this crap with other people.uppitywhorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10900094626102924867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2006987619093676904.post-48583629595482982392009-07-28T23:16:42.354-04:002009-07-28T23:16:42.354-04:00I think the comparison to how slaves are viewed is...I think the comparison to how slaves are viewed is quite valid. Maintaining slavery meant wiping out any existence of African cultures on plantations. Devaluing their histories as "primitive," "savage" and "tribal," compared to "enlightened," "civilized" and "modern" white culture was a way of keeping them in line- leaving them no alternatives to which they could compare their lives under white rule, and no identities as free people to rally around. Aboriginals in the US and Canada have undergone the same blatant and ongoing attempts to eliminate their cultural histories and identities from the second white people got here, because our "modern" use of their land is supposed to be more important than their "primitive" use of their land- like for religious worship or historical understandings of their roots, even though "modern" churches and museums might make a claim to aboriginal "artifacts" that should have been left where they were in the first place. From giving them smallpox to residential schools to the constant destruction of sites of cultural importance, aboriginals are expected to "catch up" with "modern" whites by forgetting about their own culture and traditions. And if they don't, we treat them as hostile, backwards "Indians" trying to stand in our way, using that to justify why we had a right to their land to begin with (ie. the "we had better technology. that's what happens in war. we gave them an easier way of life but they didn't want it" arguments). In this case, the goal is to enslave the land, and hope the people just disappear.uppitywhorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10900094626102924867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2006987619093676904.post-44603822869355368162009-07-28T10:00:47.312-04:002009-07-28T10:00:47.312-04:00"Classical vs. Ancient"
I meant to say ..."Classical vs. Ancient"<br /><br />I meant to say Classical vs "Primitive" here.Ionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01632942297801438795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2006987619093676904.post-11520242410488749522009-07-28T09:59:15.455-04:002009-07-28T09:59:15.455-04:00Now see, this is exactly the problem with sociolog...Now see, this is exactly the problem with sociological racism and viewing groups through this sort of weird anthropological lens. <br /><br />For example current excavations in Cairo and Mexico. Anthropologists have been exploiting the land over there, digging up tombs to see what the dead ate, wore, etc., I don't think I have to argue the point that surely if this was done to Roosevelt, or digging up Arlington Cemetery or picking apart George Washington's decrepit old asshole skeleton to see what he "ate" and displaying his genitals in the Louvre Museum, would be "different". He is an <i>important</i> part of our culture after all. <br /><br />There's this respect for old dead white people that simply doesn't exist for anyone else because they are considered more "anthropological" than they are civilized and worthy of respect after life. We don't value these people in life, why would we in death?<br /><br />"tribal artifacts"<br /><br />This is what I mean, the word "Artifacts" doesn't even really even acknowledge the USAGE of tools made by these people. Because they don't care enough about making dead POC look "smart" they give words like "artifacts" so the objects have no contexts. Lemme explain what I mean.<br /><br />Europe vs other cultures in antiquity in word usage alone:<br /><br />Classical vs. Ancient<br /><br />Chief vs. King<br /><br />City vs. Village<br /><br />Language vs. Dialect<br /><br />Jungle vs. Forrest<br /><br />Can we think of any European culture we've studied as "tribal" for example? It's the same shit, but a different word. "Tribal" applies to brown people all over the world though.<br /><br />There's been this movement for years in Brooklyn to tear down Greenwood Cemetery, this massive Cemetery in Brooklyn and build things there since the city has no space, I heard. But in general people are flipping out about it (out of the same 'respect for the old dead white guys and gals' Native Indians apply to their own culture). But if that were slaves, we would've had pricey condo's and fancy boutiques all over that area by now. <br /><br />Wall Street still has massive slave remains underneath it in NYC. But that's "different" because those people <i>are</i> "different", and not really people.<br /><br />This article is <b>SO</b> angering.Ionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01632942297801438795noreply@blogger.com