The Mascot War

A very interesting exchange between Simon Montoya-Smith at I Am Not a Mascot, and Brad Schaeffer from biggovernment.com from back in December. First, Montoya-Smith's original post here, a response to that post and then a final chapter here. I posted my response below, but anyone else care to chime in?

I think Schaeffer is ignoring a number of remarkably important points, and easily so; most of us white folk don't have to deal with the true nature of inequality embedded in our social world. We do not have to constantly be on guard in order to avoid feeling "overly sensitive" because every day is white people day. Every day, we do not have to be concerned with whether someone will make an off-handed racist comment, and think that we can't feel pissed about it because then we're just too sensitive, or too politically correct.

And here's something that really bothers me: us white folks have never had to protect ourselves physically from racially motivated denigration of our singular 'selves' and our collective 'selves'. I'm not saying racism doesn't come in all forms, but institutional racism is not punishing white folks for being born. We've had to deal with almost no racially motivated social sanitation of who we are, or had to be legitimately concerned about becoming one of millions wiped off the planet through a holocaust, which is what happened when the white folks with a severe superiority complex and a capitalistic bloodlust arrived here.

So, while it is fair to say that Mr. Schaeffer did make a somewhat strong case for Mr. Moya-Smith's contradictory argumentation, the reality stands on its own. People fighting against the change of a mascot, doesn't stand up to scrutiny in light of the true nature of our nation-state's history. So, my advice: get over it, and rename them the murderers, with a suit carrying a briefcase in one hand and a coffin in the other. Then we can see how many wall-streeters come crying foul.

Are whites racially oppressed...fuckin really?

This was actually on CNN.com. I hate this saying, but I'll use it here: fuck my life. Check it out: Are whites racially oppressed?

So, my answer is this:

Change is slow. And social change is slower than we like to think. 
If we are living in a racially equal time, it won't make any difference what our half African-American President says about race...but it makes people angry. 

If we are living in a racially equal time, white folks won't feel uneasy about talking about race, ever, and our first instinct as white folks won't be to blame people of color for the inequalities we have created generation after generation.
 
If we are living in a time of racial equity, white folks won't feel a need to try to 'take OUR COUNTRY back' because things are actually becoming MORE equitable, even though that equity is visualized through job loss, job insecurity and obvious shortfalls in public assistance programs now finally affecting white folks at almost similar rates as they have affected whole communities of color for decades.
 
No one heard cries of outrage against predatory lending in the 90's when it was only being used within communities of color. Washington defended bailing out fortune 500's, mostly manned by white folks, after THEY TANKED THE ECONOMY.
 
No one heard cries of outrage about the absolutely disgusting shows of 'patriotism' at the rallies to 'protect gun rights' in DC where white protesters spit on, screamed at and threatened both congressmen, congresswomen, senators and the President, as long as we saw white faces.
 
Now we have a racial panic when things are actually equal on the negative??!! Get the whole way the fuck outta here with that bullshit. It's still white people day every day. Black people will still get pulled over more times for driving while black than white folks for actually breaking traffic laws, even in February.
 
We've never needed a 'racial identity' until recently, and I still think it's bullshit anyway. So forget it, and go with cultural heritage instead. And quit the 'white supremacy is dying' whining. Enough already: grow up.

Health care, a patient's perspective II

I wanted to write a little bit about how insane Ann Coulter is, but I think I'll leave it to all the others who are doing a great job: Glynnis MacNicol from Business Insider and Frances Martel from Mediaite featured on Talking Points Memo. Onward, to my next official blog post which hasn't happened since...crap, since I posted my last quickie for a class last semester.

This edition of Health care from a patient's perspective is going to focus on what happened when I tried to get insulin here in Hawaii. I gotta tell ya, my Weird Shitometer went batshit crazy. Here's the deal:

Last semester I didn't have health insurance...in fact, I didn't have health insurance from July 2010 until last week. I do feel lucky, in that calling up the health insurance folks who enroll us Instructors in the plans did move things along extremely fast, so thank you HMSA/EUTF employee I spoke with last week. Back to reality: I was running rully, rully low on 'slin. For those of you who know what I'm talkin bout, that ain't good. I saw my doc on campus, which cost me $20...doesn't seem like much, but hey, I was broke-ish. My bottle of Humalog was gonna cost me almost $150, and I'm grateful to my girlfriend who covered it for me at the time. Really grateful; I think I still owe her a couple foot massages.

After seeing the doc, I got my script, and headed to Walgreens here in Honolulu. As I was trying to pick up the insulin the first time, I started getting weird questions.
Pharmacy tech: "This doesn't say how much you're supposed to take per day."
My reply: "yes it does; it says I have an Insulin pump for a basal, and to take boluses by sliding scale with meals as needed...it changes based on how many carbs I'm eating, my exercise/activity, other factors..."
Pharma: "no, that won't work. We need to have specific directions otherwise we can't give you this lifesaving health product that you won't survive without. Sorry. Better luck tomorrow when the doctor's office opens and we can confirm."
Me: "uhh...ok? What's the deal, yo? I've never heard of this kind of weirdness before."
Pharma: "It's Hawaii law, so we can't get sued if you overdose."
Me: "Really? Is this state this weird? I've had diabetes for two decades, I'm in great shape and I'm really healthy. I think I'm capable."
Pharm: "Sorry, can't do it. We have to know that you know what you're doing."
Me: "20 years as a diabetic. Seriously. If I fuck up my own diabetes care, what am I suing you for? Irresponsible pharmaceutical activities? Slangin the wrong 'slin to a shady character such as myself?"
Pharm: "We'll call their office tomorrow, and we'll see you after."
Me: "Right on. I know this isn't your fault, but I'd love to know what the background is..."

So that's my Hawaii diabetes weirdness that sent my Weird Shitometer off the scales. Anyone else seen something funky like this?

Nationalism: the poison of belonging

It's been a while since I posted. I know this Will Austin. I've come up with a bunch of really interesting topics to blog out. But alas, 'tis the end of a semester. I'm in the midst of a big ol' paper for Social Stratification, and it's really fun. It has taken over my life as of now, and so I must be honest about getting back to bloggin' come mid-December. So, I'm posting my final short paper for Social Stratification. The book was written by the professor of the course, who at first seemed a little over-the-top critical, but as the semester has progressed I have gained a whole lot of respect for her style. She not only tackles subjects with tenacity, and doesn't let us get away with anything, but also acknowledges her own limitations regarding subjectivity. She's a damned good editor as well-I can't remember a professor since 7/8th grade English that really took my writing to task. If you attend UH Manoa and need some Sociology coursework, I'd highly recommend taking courses Nandita Sharma is teaching.

So, even though I've already gotten feedback from her about this shorty, I'm posting it as-submitted. Hope someone enjoys it.

SOC 754, Social Stratification

Due: 11/18/10

Evaluation of: Home Economics: Nationalism and the Making of ‘Migrant Workers’ in Canada

            Why is citizenship in a capitalist nation-state so coveted? What are the benefits of citizenship in a capitalist nation-state? First, we must truthfully admit that in first world capitalist nation-states, the benefits of citizenship can include certain protections as an employee, and fewer personal restrictions on movement within and without the nation-state. Further, citizens are far less likely to face discrimination in as many forms, and can find that there are solutions to some complicated issues available to citizens that are not available to non-citizens. Citizenship certainly does not alleviate racial, gender, and sexuality biases; however, being a citizen means there is one less category in which to find the self punished for naturally occurring realities. When acclimating to a new place to live, work and engage in socialization and social mobility of some kind, being classified as a non-citizen can be extremely damaging. Employment opportunities cease to be viable for legal or social reasons; education can be almost impossible if not incredibly difficult to obtain and maintain. However, in terms of access to basic lifestyle resources, non-citizenship in a society favoring nationalism creates a severely limiting situation.

            Canada seems no different from any capitalist nation-state in terms of political action against marginalized peoples who move there from other nation-states in order to better their lives. Groups of citizens who hold seats of power use fear tactics such as blaming economic challenges on ‘immigrants’. To say that immigrants are ‘stealing’ opportunities from citizens is ludicrous at best, at worst a way to ingrain a constant feeling of fear of an ‘other’. The creation of the Canadian person as a non-immigrant is also a false representation of ownership of place, if we take into account that peoples of European descent are not the first folks to inhabit the physical land designated as Canada. Further, race is always a factor in the operationalization of placing nationality upon a person, regardless of their compliance with state-mandated requirements regarding citizenship. Not to mention the never-ending and forever progressive requirements of attaining legal citizenship, let alone being forced into a perpetual state of legal non-citizenship worker status. People who look different than what is assumed to represent a ‘proper’ idea of a citizen are marginalized within the social order of Canada, such as we might see from looking at the social order of the United States. The structure of the nation-state of Canada has allowed for peoples of European descent who migrated to Canada to attain a position of political and social dominance over others that are labeled and therefore publicly assumed to be ‘others’. With this in mind, a very interesting discussion emerges: the framing of internal ‘us’ and external ‘them’ within the context of globalization.

            In Canada as well as in the United States, people moving to the capitalist giants with the intention of staying, do so at great personal risk. Not only can things go wrong during a transition to a different country, but upon arrival in the new place creating a life may prove to be more challenging than anticipated. Especially when we consider that nationalist tendencies involve some very strong xenophobia. This seemingly natural xenophobia, when coupled with the fear of globalization, makes for a much more difficult daily life, and far fewer options as a newly relocated resident. If the local culture is such that nationalism has overridden a sense of hospitality towards newcomers, the reality of not only marginalization but exclusion will settle in. Laws regarding the restriction of citizenship can start to emerge and be seen by mainstream society as commonplace to a society such as this one. Restrictions may limit citizenship to those who are ‘natural born’ or born when the parent is in the country. Some countries may even restrict citizenship to people born to parents who are already citizens, making the attainment of citizenship practically impossible. All these restrictions or threats of restriction stem from a nationalist perspective of wanting to minimize the ‘pollution’ of the presumed existing strong natural nation-state. The perceived damage done by an influx of folks moving to a country that holds the promise of wealth becomes folklore with assumed truth associated with it. This in turn creates a seemingly natural fear of outsiders, or those not associated with appropriate levels of nationalist spirit are cast out of the potential area for belonging, and the comfort of home is forever unattainable. But now I ask: when nationalism assists in a fight for release from oppression, should we argue against the retention of the language of nationalist movements, in exchange for a global inclusion?

            My only critique of this text is this: how can we de-nationalize nation-states to create a global community? It is certainly a much more civilized and compassionate way to think about the population of the earth. But with nationalism in such a place of significance, what could we do to eliminate this fundamental part of understanding who we are? If we were to eliminate the need for identity politics of all kinds, how would we bring about the kind of global change that would make nation-states obsolete? I am not saying I do not support the thesis; I am saying that the challenges associated with the pure emancipation of the singular person from an identifiable and definable collective would, I imagine, prove to be spectacularly complicated. Though I believe the difficulties within this process would stem from a lack of understanding of how to relate to others without the defining factors of nationality, and not from a lack of desire to expel exclusionary and compassionless politics. In a post-nationalist global society lies a world of true democratic purpose and freedom; the way to reach this kind of almost-utopian world is still out of reach within a capitalistic structure of the ultra-comfortable vs. the perpetually exploited.

Aime Cesaire's Discourse on Colonialism

Sorry it's been a little while, if anyone was thinking, "ya know, that Street Philosopher dude hasn't posted anything in a while. Wonder if he's alive?" The answer would be alive-ish. Loving the life here in Hawaii, although I'm still workin' out some of my time management. I did get to do dinner last night with my dad, cousin, her hubbs and their friends which was a great relief from the everyday.

Here's a shorty I wrote on the above titled work for Social Stratification. Hope it actually makes some sense...I wasn't sleeping and was hopped up on caffeine. Enjoy if you will.

SOC 754, Social Stratification

Due: 11/4/10

Critical Evaluation for: Discourse on Colonialism

            Cesaire pulls no symbolic punches in Discourse, and weaves a compelling narrative of what it means to colonize. Not necessarily a narrative in the simple sense of a story from beginning to end, but in a context-heavy and consequence focused description. The main concepts derive from an anti-colonial viewpoint, and seem simple enough:

• The act of colonizing[1] dehumanizes the colonizers just as much if not more so than the colonized, and;
• Colonialism holds within itself the destruction of the colonized world at both the point of colonization and the origination.

            Here we have a wonderful opportunity to examine the effects of colonialism on the institution of governance and social control. To visit the first concept, as colonial powers institute rule over peoples that were previously free of colonial rule, there is always a backlash against the colonialism in some way. More often than not, this backlash is necessarily violent and easily understood by the colonizing power as the actions of uncivilized lunacy. This easy categorization of non-European peoples[2] as uncivilized, which includes undeveloped both technologically and politically from the colonizing point of view, allows for a forceful ‘civilizing’ to be undertaken. Languages are un-taught and the colonizing language is substituted in the example of the Native Americans’ ‘re-education’ otherwise known as the ‘save the native’ campaign in early United States history. Familial organization is reorganized to resemble the colonizing ideology of family and community as we can see within the Christianized Samoa and familial values undergoing a massive shift to unquestionable male domination. Land and the means of personal and cultural subsistence are appropriated to assume the appearance, or more subtly the feel, of the original socio-physical place of the colonizing force as we might observe in the constructed forts and surrounding townships in Africa and the Europeanization of the social and political landscape there.[3] Because such serious steps to ‘civilize’ the peoples of colonized places were deemed necessary, it is not a far logical jump to then assume that the resistance whether violent or otherwise is obviously lacking in foresight and proper temperament. Ethnocentricity and blatant racism aside, to forcibly adapt someone to another culture would seem unconscionable if perpetrated against the colonizing force; however, the colonizers excuse their lack of compassion and self-respect, and overabundance of violent oppression as necessary steps in what they might describe as the objectively right direction. An inference to our current militaristic occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is easily bridged.[4] The colonized will fight, and simple answers to the deep philosophical questions of what liberation and progress mean are inadequate when accounting for the social realities of other peoples.

            So, we can see that relatively contemporary documentation to support the theory of the brutality and dehumanization of colonialism is well within reach, as are historical parallels. Cesaire draws upon the history of the Roman Empire and its downfall from both external forces of attack and rebellion from within. The symbiotic relationships of neighboring peoples is described deftly, as are the repercussions of enveloping others in order to assume control of a people different from the crusading colonizing force. As the colonial empire grows; as the people who are colonized are forcibly removed from their own culture and communal spirit; as biting hunger for further expansion escalates within the colonial force; so too does the danger of revolt from within the colony and without. Protecting interests not yet appropriated for the use of the colonizers would hold as much validity as reclaiming a colonized home. If there are only those within and without, instead of a cacophony of cultures, civilizations and peoples, we are left with the idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’ instantly creating the divisive and fear-inspiring totality within the binary language of colonial rights and responsibilities.[5] Cesaire is also adept at pointing out the inherent dangers of nationalism substituting for collective organization and identity as a colonized population. While the colonized peoples may break free of the direct control of colonial rule, he argues that care must be taken to avoid settling in within the institutional structures left behind by a defeated colonial occupation. This is not only an interesting philosophical point, it is also practical if we think of the effects of living within a rigid system of right and wrong, or proper and improper for an indefinite amount of time and awakening to find that some form of social cohesion and direction must be found.

            Cesaire’s only weakness that I perceived was his dual recognition of the bourgeoisie as both negligent controlling class and potential saving grace of the proletariat. I would agree that if a shift in bourgeois consciousness regarding the malformation of colonial intent were to occur, the bourgeois could in fact play a vital role in the art of reorganizing a more equitable societal foundation and structure. Conversely, I would argue that it might seem impractical for a class of people, who benefit both directly and indirectly from the social and cultural enslavement of a perceived lower class of people, to do anything to change the fundamental nature of the system supporting their comfort. To say that it might or should be the underlying foundation of a truly civilized society to never accept such audacious colonial abuses I think would be appropriate. Thinking that it might one day be more than likely I would posit is a stretch. This would require an awakening from comfort such that has not really been seen in contemporary history, and I think it is safe to say neither is there evidence of such an awakening occurring in a significant historical context. That said, there is no reason not to fight for such a monumental call for equity, sustainability, and from what I can see, global survival.

---

[1] And the subsequent acts of barbarism as described by Cesaire.

[2] In this case, European colonialism is the current colonizing power under literary scrutiny, and in contemporary effect.

[3] Including masterfully organized and socially reinforced apartheid and racially motivated brutality.

[4] Invade country, enable corporate development projects and force a specific style of governmental rule on the people of the country, continue to eradicate dissenting voices; this sounds like colonization to me. Couldn’t we have done with a black-book operation to remove an oppressive regime instead of resorting to poorly excused slaughter?

[5] I recognize that I wrote this in a style similar to Cesaire, however I must say that it seems quite effective. I promise my work is still my own.

Missing

My decision to move here to follow my soul's passion is testing me in ways I didn't anticipate. I have everything I need to succeed long term: patience, stamina and determination. However, I find myself missing the people I have grown to love over the last seven years in southern California, and my people back in nor Cal. It will be worth it I know; I'm just feeling the distance right now. Time to kick it into gear, yeah?

This goes out to my favorite people in no specific order starting with the friends: Marvin, Kristin, the new Mrs. Aguilar, Will, G, Bob, Mark, Willy, Ana, Holly, Bling (Chris, fine I said it), Rach, Derek (and Jo), Kizzle, PZ, Fabunismus, Alexa, Koma, AdavBigRed, Smitty, Mad Dog, the rest of the crew.

The fam: Dad (who I'm very glad to have nearby), Momma, Russ, John, Wolfram (I couldn't be happier about your arrival and plans to stay), Malcolm, Heidi, Julie and Scott, Pam, Gary, Emery, Rosie, Jesus and Rainette, etc.

I'm hoping this can do some justice. I know it will make me feel a little better.

The late nights, the early mornings,
Deep conversations and timely bullshit warnings.
That time I tried to let go of my sanity,
You reminded me to silence the panic inside me.

A decision made, a thousand more to make,
I try to remember to give more than I take.
It's not as easy without you here,
I grew so accustomed to having you near.

It's not always painful, and sometimes seems fleeting,
But it's hard not knowing the next time we'll be meeting.
Investing in the future sometimes seems fatal,
Even so I'm certain that with patience I'll be grateful.

For everything we've done together or apart,
I know that living well is a true form of art.
In everything I've done, know I've tried my best,
To thank you for literally being the best.

Not usually with a card or a dollar invested,
Time spent is the currency of this market life-tested.
To think I may not have done enough,
Is the fear that haunts me and makes daydreams rough.

You're best human being I could ever have asked
To think me worthy of your time that's passed.
I hope you understand, know and feel,
That I would do anything to be your shield.

From pain, suffering, anguish and attack,
That I could feel for you, the knives aimed at your back.
To be someone you trust with yourself and your soul,
I will do anything, to help you keep yourself whole.

I know I haven't always been the most stellar,
Friend, colleague, companion or bullshit detector.
I just want you to know, from my truth to yours,
I will strive to be everything you need, want, and deserve.

It almost never seems that I have kept,
My end of this mutual bargain we've decided to accept.
I hope that eventually, I'll know for sure,
That I've done my part; you sure as hell have done yours.

I don't know how this could be any more infuriating...

If you ramanticize Nazis, then there's something wrong going on in your brain: 

http://gawker.com/5659792/meet-the-tea-party-candidate-who-plays-nazi-on-weekends?skyline=true&s=i

Please don't vote him in. Please.