The Move Back Home

Aloha, California!

It's been three weeks since I officially moved back to the Golden State (The California Golden Bear has returned). In that time, I have performed a wedding ceremony for two of my favorite people on the planet, have received more support, love, guidance and advice from those I trust than ever before, and got my motorcycle shipped, registered, and I passed the fuck outta the license tests. Also rode Amtrak for the first time ever. Met a couple new folks who I really dig. Have spent time with some of the people who are parts of the overall reasoning why I moved back, and will be spending more in the next week and a half. Agreed to jump into starting a business with another of my favorite people. Was invited back up to Bearskin which set my heart aflame. And that's not all...

Towards the end of my time in Hawaii, my perception of how things happened was pressured, so I've given it all some thought during the whole transitiony thing. I was absolutely disappointed about a lot things, but I don't usually talk about what I don't feel good about. Not typically my style, although I've done enough of that since getting back to last me months. I tried to work my ass off to earn a Ph.D. which didn't work out. Of all the reasons, I think the most important is that the place I was living and working in wasn't the right place for me. People have asked me a number of times, "so you miss Hawaii, don't you?" And I have to say, not so much. I miss many of the people I met, especially the folks with which I built friendships. They, I miss. Hawaii, with its expansive physical beauty, its stunning sunrises and sunsets, and brilliant snorkeling, is a fun place to hang out. All of this was overshadowed, for me, by the sheer nastiness of the cost of living. And why was it so expensive, you might ask? Well, my inquisitive friends, a great majority of the food, transportation junk, and everything else is shipped into the state.

Think about that for a minute. If shipping lines were disrupted, there's approximately enough food for the population living there for a maximum of roughly 3-4 days. This coming from the state gub'mint. I mean, holy grass skirts Batman! So yeah. There's the economic bullshit. Then there's the rent, which is somewhat comparable to San Francisco or Los Angeles, but is complicated by the realities of building shit in a tropical place: wood gets gobbled up by termites relatively quickly, metal gets nom-nom-nom'd by the salty air, and bricks don't make good windows. And the fuckin' Cane Spiders!!1! Those little bastards charge the shit outta humans! Fast! What the fuck?!!? Impressive little buggers, but what the hell, man. What, the, hell.

There were also some goings ons in my professional life that really sucked, but I'll leave out the details. I'm simply grateful that I'm for the most part leaving the larger thing of academia behind me. I'll always enjoy teaching, and I think it's something I want to keep doing in some form or another if possible. As a full-time gig it's brutal. Got mad respek for academics, as for the most part they are brilliant, interesting, and delightful after just enough booze. After teaching six undergrad courses in one bitch of a semester, I can honestly say that I love it, but I can also honestly say: fuck capitalism. Fuck it, right in its ear. That being said, I really loved teaching at HPU, and got over my reservations regarding private universities pretty quickly. I felt very supported in my work by the department administration, and really all of the administration I worked with at some point or another. The other faculty were welcoming and interesting. Also, the students were great! I enjoyed both the in-person and online courses there, and the folks earning grades with me were a lot of fun. My students at UH I will miss greatly, as they were very much my motivation for doing good work.

Also took the LSAT last week. Pretty sure I punched it in its solar plexus, although until my score surfaces from the depths of the LSAC intertubes I won't really know. So yeah, law degree or something. It's been an interest of mine for years, I just never pulled the trigger out of fear, anxiety, uncertainty, misinterpreted advice, yadda yadda. After getting through the professional shit-show that was my life on the island, law school and a startup: that I can and will do. Hell yeah.

My people are spectacular human beings. All of you. And to anyone thinking of moving to Hawaii: if it's really what you want, be prepared to kick some serious ass. Avoid acting like an entitled dickhead; Hawaii has a history, a relatively recent colonial history, and it would behoove you to read up on the actual history of the state we know as Hawaii. I never felt threatened or unwelcome anywhere, but I was challenged occasionally. I welcomed it, and it made me better. I'm a living sign of social privilege, regardless of my own challenges that I face. Be aware of what's been going on, and take it to heart. Avoid thinking you already know everything you need to know about being a good person in a given context.

The three years I spent on Oahu were perfect. I learned a shit-ton, possibly a metric shit-ton. Took opportunities as best I could. Worked my ass off both personally and professionally. Learned a lil bit of pidgin. Swam with fish who were literally eating each other alive. It was exactly where I should have been, until it wasn't. And that's a good thing to figure out; how to measure whether a place and space is working for me or not (and the complimentary part: whether or not I'm working for a place/space is just as important a thing to be able to see and internalize).

Alrighty then, time to get back to life. Or something. Holla atcha boy.

-Nick G.
a.k.a. The Golden Bear
a.k.a. Gibbey
a.k.a. Gibbo
a.k.a. Bigbo
a.k.a. Gibbs
a.k.a. Muthafucka
a.k.a. Haole Boy (thanks Shawn)

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.

The Larger Implications of Terry Jones

The Terry Jones Quran-burning fiasco is troubling to say the least. Not in just the immediate sense of, "how could this jackass use this time of remembering a tragedy to further racial and religious bigotry and hatred," but also in giving the news media and our politic a way to pass over the discussion of everyday racism in the United States.

Terry Jones is the pastor of a very small congregation. He does not have hundreds or thousands of followers (read: minions) with which to move a lot of hatred capital. He now has international attention, which is of course absurd and sickening in the same moment. He also has fostered the hateful shift toward insanity in the name of righteousness and "Godly" belief that many people, and I couldn't say exactly how many, believe to be their god-given right. That national and subsequently international media has jumped all over this scumbag says a lot, however the fickle ways of our current media institution is for another post. It's sad, and mostly for the reason I will now discuss.

That Terry Jones could be categorized as a backwoods nut makes the case for racial and religious bigotry in our nation to be attributed to crazies and whackjobs. He's obviously too wrapped up in his attention-getting enterprise to realize what he has done. Although, if he did realize it, he'd probably be okay with it. My point here is this: we're just starting to see major players in the media and politics begin talking about racial and religious bigotry, hatred and mistaken fear in a way that really addresses the issue. The truth that most Americans don't want to face is that our entire society is built upon racism, and the many facets of our political realities, educational institutions and social organization are guided by this reality on a very basic level. We have been climbing up this very big hill upon which our future as a loving and self-realized nation rests. And now, we have a nutcase to blame for fear, anger and societal unrest.

This could end up a serious blow to our national discussion of where we are and why we think what we think. The damage that the media frenzy around this asshole may have caused, could be the case that people were hoping for. It's not the everyday person that thinks these wacky thoughts, it's just the weirdos. This is not true, and could undermine the very important work of those looking to lift up the rug covering our cultural inadequacies regarding equality and collective understanding. But we now have a way to compare the everyday epistemic leaps that an average person may make about people who observe the Islamic faith, to this nutjob and those who sound and think the way he does. Many people can quickly and easily equate Islam to violence, thanks in part to media as well as public institutions. (Both Christianity and Islam share a belief that non-believers are lesser folk, and violence is kind of implied in both in a number of ways. I do think that decisions about whether or not someone ascribes to the faith is handled with much more decency in Islam, but that is beside this larger point.) That we could write that off in the wake of this emotional and psychological terrorist is disconcerting, and unfortunate. We must continue our efforts to evolve and understand ourselves, no matter how much we don't want to.

This whole thing seems mighty convenient. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders: did someone pay him to put on this show? I don't actually believe that, however it is a possibility. I will say, that given the state of affairs here in this nation, his public display of intolerance and systematic degradation of an entire nation of people took a sharp turn in recent hours. If he is so convinced that the Muslim faith itself is evil and of the devil, why the change? The minuscule possibility that the Islamic community center a few blocks away from the site of the Twin Tower attacks might be moved farther away from the site of the attacks presented itself, sort of. However, his entire basis of burning the Quran, a book that many believe is the word of God, was that it supported evil. He actually said that moderate Muslims should support his plans, which is ethnocentric as well as nuts. Not to mention that thinking 9/11 is a Christianity against Islam fight is missing the greater point altogether anyway. So, was he really that scared off by the outrage he might have felt in the spotlight? I doubt it. What's the real deal, Ter?

I'll never make light of what happened on 9/11. I've never been convinced of any storyline, whether sanctioned or marginalized. That being said, what happened was tragic, and this fucker not only took advantage of it, he did his best to spit on the collective soul of the United States. He not only should be ashamed, but he should feel enormous guilt at having provided our leadership (both media-based as well as political) cause to back away from the very real and consistent ways that inequality, bigotry and racial and religious prejudice is an undercurrent in our society. If you believe that God punishes the wicked, you're in for a real treat big guy.