A return to the Sweet 16.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
What's Bush Reading Lately? A Photo Essay
Someone Get this Man a Chomsky... Stat! The security of the world depends on it!
Bush's Book List
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 by Andrew Roberts, who "proudly declared himself 'extremely right-wing' in a recent Financial Times interview" and who calls the war on terrorism "the Manichean world-historical struggle" against fascism, including "Totalitarian Islamic Terrorist Fascism".
Roberts believes almost all the advances of freedom in the 20th century have been made by the English-speaking peoples. The Iraq invasion was just another example of English-speaking countries doing what the UN should have done. (read more in this gushing review)
America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It by Mark Steyn, Toronto's favourite racist (although he moved to New Hampshire, no doubt to get away from the scary diversity here, oh and he calls himself a "culturist" not a racist). In his spare time Steyn keeps himself busy preparing for the upcoming Muslim takeover of the world.
Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime by Eliot A. Cohen, which "argued that the greatest civilian wartime leaders, notably Abraham Lincoln and Churchill, had a far better strategic sense than their generals"
Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground by Robert D. Kaplan, who thinks the world is one big Western, and the US military is operating is trying to civilize "injun country".
And let's not forget The Stranger by Camus, "a classic novel about a westerner that kills an Arab for no good reason and dies with no remorse" as summarized by Jon Stewart.
I'm sure we can all agree, we'd prefer if he the leader of the free world got back to basics:
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 by Andrew Roberts, who "proudly declared himself 'extremely right-wing' in a recent Financial Times interview" and who calls the war on terrorism "the Manichean world-historical struggle" against fascism, including "Totalitarian Islamic Terrorist Fascism".
Roberts believes almost all the advances of freedom in the 20th century have been made by the English-speaking peoples. The Iraq invasion was just another example of English-speaking countries doing what the UN should have done. (read more in this gushing review)
America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It by Mark Steyn, Toronto's favourite racist (although he moved to New Hampshire, no doubt to get away from the scary diversity here, oh and he calls himself a "culturist" not a racist). In his spare time Steyn keeps himself busy preparing for the upcoming Muslim takeover of the world.
Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime by Eliot A. Cohen, which "argued that the greatest civilian wartime leaders, notably Abraham Lincoln and Churchill, had a far better strategic sense than their generals"
Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground by Robert D. Kaplan, who thinks the world is one big Western, and the US military is operating is trying to civilize "injun country".
In one way or another, each affirms core neo-conservative ideas: the essential beneficence of U.S. (and Anglospheric) power even if the "natives" are ungrateful; the supreme importance of both "will" and military might in wielding that power, particularly against enemies that can never be "appeased" or "contained" and that, in Roberts' words, are motivated not so much by legitimate grievances against U.S. policies, as by "loathing of the English-speaking people's traditions of democratic pluralism"; the evils of "liberalism", "secularism" and "moral relativism" of western societies that undermine their will to fight; and the catastrophic consequences of retreat or defeat.
All of these also play to Bush's own Manicheanism and self-image as a courageous, often lonely, leader in the mold of a Lincoln or Churchill, determined to pursue what he believes is right regardless of what "old Europe", "intellectuals", "elites", or even the electorate thinks about his course and confident only in the conviction that History or God will vindicate him.
And let's not forget The Stranger by Camus, "a classic novel about a westerner that kills an Arab for no good reason and dies with no remorse" as summarized by Jon Stewart.
I'm sure we can all agree, we'd prefer if he the leader of the free world got back to basics:
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Inventing Whiteness
Who is white? What are the criteria? Is it the paleness of one's skin? If that were the case then Takao Ozawa (1922) would have been granted naturalization, since his skin was white. But he was Japanese, so the Supreme Court determined that white meant Caucasian.
So a white person is someone who is Caucasian? Well... not exactly. When an immigrant from India, Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), attempted to gain citizenship by arguing that he was Caucasian. He was rejected, using a weird non-definition of white, appealing to the authority of the common man, whoever he is: "the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences" between a South Asian and a white person.
As any sociologist will tell you, race is meaningful only as a social construction. There's no significant difference between "races", except for their shared experiences (i.e. ethnicity or cultural differences of course, but mostly the shared experience of being discriminated against, being designated "other"). Whiteness in America was constructed as a legal system designed to economically benefit a small elite, by entrenching disadvantages for most groups.
It was also designed to "divide & conquer", to prevent the feared solidarity between white indentured servants and black slaves. (see People's History of the United States)
There's no essential "white". Neither is there a monolithic group of "non-whites". The connecting thread among so many diverse groups is that experience of being excluded from certain things that white people take for granted - being marginalized.
For a really interesting discussion about the complexities of marginalization, read Intersectional Identity by Thinking Girl.
Today is International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Check out this research project: Discrimination in the Job Market: Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?
Also read the 10th Erase Racism carnival.
So a white person is someone who is Caucasian? Well... not exactly. When an immigrant from India, Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), attempted to gain citizenship by arguing that he was Caucasian. He was rejected, using a weird non-definition of white, appealing to the authority of the common man, whoever he is: "the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences" between a South Asian and a white person.
As any sociologist will tell you, race is meaningful only as a social construction. There's no significant difference between "races", except for their shared experiences (i.e. ethnicity or cultural differences of course, but mostly the shared experience of being discriminated against, being designated "other"). Whiteness in America was constructed as a legal system designed to economically benefit a small elite, by entrenching disadvantages for most groups.
It was also designed to "divide & conquer", to prevent the feared solidarity between white indentured servants and black slaves. (see People's History of the United States)
There's no essential "white". Neither is there a monolithic group of "non-whites". The connecting thread among so many diverse groups is that experience of being excluded from certain things that white people take for granted - being marginalized.
For a really interesting discussion about the complexities of marginalization, read Intersectional Identity by Thinking Girl.
Today is International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Check out this research project: Discrimination in the Job Market: Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?
Also read the 10th Erase Racism carnival.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
