You know what the last post was really about--I didnt know what is was about until very recently--it's about people who define themselves in a certain and only think in that certain way.

I'm in this seminar about Francophone Sub-saharan Africa. It's ok, some good readings and one particularly inspired book that has got me interested in writing again (hey posts). It's a solid topic, good stuff about orientalism and cultural hybridities and some decent academic concepts that don't make me want to vomit (like agency). But it has seven women grad students (one guy but he's forgettable). And they are what I hate about school. What made me say I'd never come back for so long and what is pushing me away everyday I consider any sort of grad school.

They show up with at least 4 scarves among them. Three of them always have a scarf--those are the worst--and then the last scarf rotates among the others. Scarves are important I've found. They are some sort of talisman that emits douchebaggery. That mystery 4th grad student who wears the scarf on that particular day seems to adopt the nausea-enducing power of the others.

Anyway these scarf-wearing students just go on and on and on about some form of racism or social injustice or they just pick some offensive piece of literature and go the fuckk offfffff about it. It's usually Heart of Darkness, but at this point we've just accepted as a class that Conrad is the reason for all the problems in the world.

Occasionally they'll go the other direction. They'll pick a native politician from the 60s who stood up against France or Britain and refused their tryanny. They will talk about him like churchgoers talk about Jesus. They are practically turned on at points (that's probably beyond what happens at church). Anyway, it's left at that. They pick the devils and the saviors, and we go home to another set of interesting readings that won't really get discussed.

The core of the class is really strong. There's lots of smart, inquisitive people with a lot of background in Africa. They understand the mechanics of its history and how they continue today. The readings support this and offer a lot of strong analysis. But I've never discussed because we're busy killing the bad and celebrating the good. They're wasting my time and my brain power and I loathe them for it, though this by itself is not why I am hesitating about doing any kind of grad school (history, urban design, edu, french, what-the-fuck-ever). No, that is so because I tried talking to them.

With normal people, even grad students (who can be very cool, just as anyone else can) I can usually talk about any number of subjects. Music, food, movies, cars, sports, rent, girls, architecture, funny habits they have, pollution, anything. This is why I love people. They force me to think thoughts outside of what I could grasp without them. That's why I force myself to interact. To learn or remember or change. These people do/think/feel/say/breathe nothing except for a very narrow range of thought, usually whatever the dissertation is on. So in line at the coffee shop, hoping for some enlightening conversation with someone who I would hope is smarter than me, I was drowned in dissertation talk.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love dissertation talk as much as the next guy. I love research and finding out new things, especially if it's something that has current application. I once talked to a geography student about how architecture in Mongolia/China is making their transition to urbanization so difficult AND--here's the key--how to improve the current situation. Oh praxis, how I love thee. Oh people informing others and what's wrong with the world and what can be done. It is such a lovely idea, yet so rare in our white plastic towers. I even think telling the untold or even the forgotten story is quite worthwhile if it engages people towards other problems. Even if that sorta forgotten story/idea just gives the reader pause, I think it's a worthy venture. However, I was not in for one of these sorts of dissertations.

I can't even really remember. Something about this guy and how he did this and it was bad and people who said he was were right. No mention of anything that could impact or even interest anyone. It was just what I have come to call "Offensive Studies." The problem for searching for what is "offensive" is not in the search itself, its stopping the search once you've found the politically incorrect object. Offensive objects don't create problems in and of themselves--they are reflective of problems. CAUSALITY!!! It is so easily forgotten.

***

This I transition in my problem of Judgement. Judging can be done in any direction with any purpose and any degree of malice. It is always bad. It's not avoidable sometimes, but it can be minimized. I think I used to be more judgemental, but I've seen how little purpose it provides. Occasionally it is avoidable. Sometimes it even is necessary. But most of the time it is our instinct. Now that I'm thinking about it "judging" is a very vague term. Moral claim or opinion or something like that might also work, but I can't quite grasp it. Maybe it's a judgement that does not help, only hurts. Obviously those offensive objects were judgements to begin with, and they were wrong. But after they were established as wrong, continuing to judge and judge and judge does no more good. The only good from the original object can come from erradicating its cause.

I am sick of myself.

Wow. A post.

I'm not sure wy I decided to post. It's been a while. A lot has been building up. Many things have happened since whenever the last one was. I'm pretty sure this one might go a month or two or forever till its read, so I can be candid--not really.

Unfortunately in lots of ways I'm a lot more cynical than I had been at the end of last year and throughout my Europe trip. I should qualify that though. I'm more cynical about rhetoric--not that I had ever not been cynical about it, but more so ya know.

The closer I get to adulthood I see more words and less action. This is certainly how it's always been but I was anticipating a change. I can't even give examples right now of what the hell I'm talking about. It's more of a feeling I guess, which is the whole probelm to begin with--feelings in places where there shouldn't be any. Obviously relationships, romantic and otherwise, should be feuled by emotions, but everything else, EVERYTHING, should be ruled by action--and logical action not emotional reaction.

People seem to talk in what they believe in a lot more than they act in what they believe in. If we assume a certain level of awareness (big assumption) isn't everything else a matter of drawing lines? Isn't it all relative? Isn't it hard to critique those who haven't pushed the line as far as you have when there are so many others that have pushed it incredibly further? can't we recognize taht judgement has always, always failed us. Action is the only solution to anything. Why waste a moment on judgement when action can gain you so much more.

If you don't really know what I'm talking about thats ok because I don't really know what I'm talking about. An example I can think of is alternative music...It celebrates itself as being 'the other,' though that claim has really died in the past 5 years. It critiques the mainstream by being different, by stepping out and creating something that is less-consumable. It opposes the accepted by excluding itself from the accepted--though the 'accepted' is quickly accepting most alt music.

I do not challenge any of the artistry of the alt movement. I am a fan, a huge fan. My problem that occasionally it makes value judgements. This band is better than that--possibly true in an artistic sense. This band is acceptable to us and this one is not--never true. This is the same action that they critique in the mainstream, isn't it? It's not about the music for lots (though not nearly all) of these kids--it's about being identified as not something mainstream. The negative identification is the talking--lack of action--in this example. A movement that was forced into into existence by a mainstream that wouldn't except certain sounds now identifies itself purely on the basis of not being something. What really created the genre is now just a backdrop for everything else--fashion, slang, general pretention.

Here's my real problem--I don't know if this is at all related to what I've been talking about. Alternative music has become exactly what it hates--exclusivity. Its naive of me to think of the early days of alt music, which for me are as old as electrified music, as inclusive. But its undeniable that there are those who are in and those who are out. It's a popularity contest that continues way past high school. Another problem is that its not at all critical of itself. While being the stage of young liberal, young liberal arts students with humanitarian leanings, it doesn identify itself as music about ex girlfriends. It doesn't realize its own irrelevance. Its self important in the worst way.

***

Closer to my original idea is everything surrounding inequality, race, affirmative action, gender, all this stuff. I sit in a bunch of history classes that go over these ideas from various examples and moments in time. I hear countless conversations barrading this and that, talking about this that and the other. Im just sick of it. I don't care about what's offensive to whom. I don't care about what reflects this historical inequality. I don't care about who isn't doing enough (as long as they are trying something). The conversations are over. The Civil Rights Movement started almost 50 years ago, and, YES, it's not over. But the discussion is over. We know what's wrong. Racism is no longer a secret. There are no longer any white elephants. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT AND DO SOMETHING.

There is so much to be done AND NOTHING NEW TO BE SAID. Yet what dominates. Discussion. Maybe I'm just as bad as anyone, but having conferences and meetings and lectures and discussions about the problem only distracts from the war on the ground that's actually IMPROVING LIVES. Why is that always forgotten? Does anything else really matter? Education on the problems are necessary, and I'll submit that we need to discuss this to understand gaps in equality--but isn't that just theory? Ccouldnt the best that discussion could get us is theoretical equality? WE'VE HAD THAT SINCE 1865 and the 14th amendment retards!

couple more on this same thought:
people who judge others who are trying to help but not helping 'enough,' unless you're talking about a large infrastructure (govermental, huge non-profit) shut up. Individuals are allowed to help as they see fit (assuming that it lies in action and not just talking). I rarely approve of actual judgements, but ones against individuals who are working in their chosen way to help the world should feel no shame in doing so. At the end of the day we all do the best we can do be happy. This idea is a whole other discussion, but people have the right to choose however they like to play a role in society. Many many many roles help all of society.

I hate the French foulard/head scarf scandel. It should stop being discussed. Talking about that damn moment in time without talking about French history and French attitudes towards Arabs is like talking about the swastika without mentioning the Nazis.

Outpourings of emotion by white people are meaningless to the masses, so shut up about it. Emotion in general is just not convincing. This is why good writers 'show' and dont 'tell'. Political speeches in recent memory have forgotten this and so have the rest of us. Lincoln's 2nd inaugural was not filled with tears our personal beliefs--it was the truth told in a truthful way. Your emotions make you important. (near) impartial telling of a situation or discussion of a topic forces your audience to recognize the truth and make their own emotions. far more powerful, id say.




That is all for now. A confusing re-entry into blogging. Isn't it sad that blogging has been replaced by facebook. We don't care what people say and think, we just care about how many friends they have and what they look like.