![[JohnTripPhotoCropped.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOVXkeq6j6mZXkDLavPCCqXNGOpnnsLCOHkv9TKDssRyXHa4u7-oQV4zoBI0BXxeJ4IXBElJhlg4yrgyg_JVypTh5s9Vc_NKcbk0RYtNbfxJ1Un5gld-8nO4OPA_pJLPIGSjT1r6I22e50/s220/JohnTripPhotoCropped.jpg)
[There is an update here, which may be taking a more constructive turn. I've posted the latest batch of comments, exchanged between John and me, below. This was updated on 12 July 2010.]
Background:
I wish that the few libertarians who aren't sexist-racist jerks would hold accountable those who are.
I remain convinced that libertarianism is in service to the PPP and WHM supremacy. And I've seen so many examples of it reinforcing white and male supremacy, and ignoring Indigenist philosophies and politics, that I've got the same reaction now to someone saying "that isn't what libertarianism really stands for" that I do to hearing about someone proclaiming there is such a thing as feminist pornography. Which is: nothing about your version of libertarianism/pornography, in the context of WHM supremacist libertarianism/pornography, convinces me that what you stand for isn't in alliance with the WHM supremacist libertarians/pornographers.
And, if you oppose them, why do you use the same terms they use to describe what you do, when what they do has academic and industrial strength and power--when what you stand for, according to you, does not? Reclaiming libertarianism and pornography as possibly radical or even liberatory in social contexts in which, even if it were progressive or radical, will only be a drop in the toxic ocean of oppressive libertarian and pornographic gross hostility to women of all races. So isn't detoxifying the ocean more important that adding drops of something that merges with that ocean as soon as it makes contact? And isn't "libertarianism" and "pornography", because of the alliances you make by using the same terms, a form of irresponsible ideological assault against the Global South by the Global North? That makes no emotional or political sense to me. But call me "fucking insane". Oh, wait: the MRArsenals already have, so check that off the "to do" list.
And the same holds true for white het men on the Left. [<--Warning: that link goes to a site with some very triggering bigoted imagery.] U.S. Leftist white men, based on their political objectives and acted out values, are intellectually thugtastic gang of anti-Indigenist misogynist-racists, with a couple of notable exceptions. But even the exceptions don't centralise women of color from the Global South, or Indigenous women globally, in their analysis of "what's wrong" and "what the solutions are". Here's one part of the solution, whiteboys: CAREFULLY LISTENING TO RADICAL ACTIVIST WOMEN OF COLOR!!
So a couple of days ago I post to my blog the video and transcript from Democracy Now--the exchange between Dr. Vandana Shiva and some white dude with the last name Dyer who is all about geoengineering as the solution to our problem of running out of time--it is his solution to "buy time". HIS time, mind you. White men's time. Because women--particularly poor women of color--ran out of time a long goddamned time ago! And their dead bodies are proof of it. So when white dudes get nervous about THEIR lives, then it's an emergency. And this is partly what I hear Dr. Shiva addressing, but white dudes can't fucking listen their way out of a paper bag. What isn't evident, is that Democracy Now ALREADY gave him a whole segment of their hour to speak his mind and argue his views. And then they invite her on to debate him, or leave him there to debate her. Because, even in progressive and alternative media, the woman of color, especially if she is Indigenous or from the Global South, is rarely allowed to speak without some white fool cutting in. Seriously. Why isn't Dr. Vandana Shiva the primary guest? SHE'S the expert, not Gwynne Dyer. (See this for more proof.)
I heard the tension in the debate, with the white dude doing his condescending and patronising best to appear cool, calm, and collected. He's got to come off as the more "rational" one, the more "objective" one, the more "logical" one, after all, because we can't have things like passion and emotional investment--because we know who is dying and where, get in the way of our "objectively stated views". No. We can't have that. Truth is, white dudes get emotional and "irrational" all the damned time. It's called being condescending. It's called rape. It's called battery. And it's called using women and girls as "sexual service stations". What do men call those behaviors? "Logical"??? I'd argue that in the discussion/debate on Democracy Now, there's nothing more irrational that what this dude is proposing as a solution to buy white men more time.
I wondered how this debate would get framed up by fellow bloggers. And I checked. And below is what I found. I offer to the court this piece of sexist-racist "political analysis". It was recently written, two days ago, by a white dude named:
John Madziarczyk
- Age: 30
- Gender: Male
- Astrological Sign: Pisces
- Zodiac Year: Monkey
- Industry: Communications or Media
About [John]
From the Michigan to the Northwest via Florida. Contact me at J dot Madziarczyk at gmail dot com.[John's blog is called:]
___________________________________
Lost Highway Times...Paths in Oblivion
Working for something new, a radical left which reflects reality, which is democratic yet authentic. Anti-Racist. "You're a disease"--reporter for ABC news New Jersey. Libertarian Socialist. 2nd Series
___________________________________
___________________________________
John doesn't get that a blog post he wrote, titled "Vandana Shiva is f*cking insane..." is sexist and racist because he's got the most LIBERAL-ASS view of what being racist and sexist means. (So much for his radical politics.) And he's gonna be all defensive about it--of course, and say stupid shit like "Wow, so I can't say that someone was acting insane if they're female?" He does say this. AND he's not able to hear WHAT THE WOMAN--THE EXPERT--WAS SAYING. Because he can't conceive of her as "the expert" and include in her expertise her ways of being and communicating--when given about one quarter of the time to speak that he was given. And I contend that if it were a white man arguing as she does, ol' whiteboy John wouldn't title his blog post the same way. I stand by that. And, if it were a white man he were critiquing, the criticism wouldn't participate in the same fucked up dynamics it does when it IS a white man from the Global North calling an woman of color from the Global South "f*cking insane". His white boy-brain can't grasp that simple fact.
Dr. Shiva was annoyed with the some of what the white dude says. I was annoyed with him too, as I listened to him call her views--or is it her?--"ridiculous".
Julian's spontaneous joke of the moment:
Question:
When are WHM being "ridiculous" or "fucking insane"?
Answer: According to WHM? NEVER.
White dudes, not only white dudes, but plenty of white dudes, are annoying as hell, waaaaay too often. And they've got the power that men of color do not have, so they ARE, structurally and institutionally, if not interpersonally, way more dangerous to women globally. Read on, people. Fortunately it's not long...
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Democracy Now! today. Vandana Shiva is fucking insane...
Democracy Now! just broadcast and you had Vandana Shiva ranting and raving about science and the narrowness of science, in the context of Geoengineering, and saying that global warming and the immediate threat of global warming doesn't matter, in the face of someone who has actual proposals to make the world better. Not that they're necessarily the right proposals, but they're based on empirical facts nonetheless. All this might sound strange coming from someone who just recently criticized scientistic thinking and advocated going back to a more holistic viewpoint such as that believed in by the people of the Renaissance. But the problem isn't the scientific method or science as an abstract pursuit, the problem is the cultural context in which science exists, which draws on philosophy from the 18th century that doesn't necessarily have real validity. When you talk about 'science' in the United States there's a lot of cultural baggage that comes with it that doesn't have to be there, in other words. What Vandana Shiva was doing was using the cultural context that science exists in to shoot down the actual objective work that people have been engaged in, suggesting that no science whatsoever is valid if it appears to violate Shiva's pet ideology. [JR's note: Never mind that Dyer has a "pet ideology" that he doesn't wish to have "violated".]
The last interchange between Gwynne Dyer and Vandana Shiva was interesting. In the face of an immediate threat to human life caused by climate change, that will intensify over a tipping point in the next decades if something isn't done about it, Shiva questioned the ideology of immediacy, just as she questioned the importance of global warming because mother earth would adapt, and suggested that if all farming worldwide changed to organic farming it could be done in three years. Yeah. If all the farming in the entire world changed to organic farming. Think about that for a second. Here you have objective proposals about how to stop global warming versus pie in the sky thinking about how something that would likely require a social revolution, or several social revolutions globally, in order to take place. And Dyer ended by suggesting that if Vandana Shiva was the dictator of the world and could change land ownership in a second she could do it, which Shiva responded to by sputtering about "The Young! The young people!" that they'll do it.
I don't particularly have any feelings about Geoengineering, but there's nothing in Shiva's critique of it that couldn't be applied to almost any large scale science based attempt to stop climate change, no matter how well considered, and I think that that's pretty unreasonable to say the least. In fact, I'm restraining myself from saying what I really think about it. [JR's note: the emphasis by enlarging the text size was done by me. The meaning of his enlarged statement is something I'd like to hear more about from him. Or not.]
To go on, there's quite a difference between science as a pursuit, what might be part of the culture of doing science, and the effect of classical scientific ideology on society as a whole. Science itself can go against the sort of deterministic mindset that came out of the 18th century. The culture that science exists in can similarly change to be more accommodating of critical views of the deterministic model. What's the most hard to change is the effect of this cultural ideology on the greater society at large. It appears, though, that in some circles of science, particularly those dealing with the environment, the critique of deterministic thinking is gradually getting more of a hearing, which demonstrates that not all science and large scale projects dependent on science are therefore by definition bad.
Posted by John Madziarczyk at 9:22 AM
18 comments:
Julian Real said...
You really go out of your way to inaccurately misrepresent, in rather sexist ways, what Dr. Shiva, a scientist, philosopher, and author of a book you obviously haven't even read the back cover of, said on Democracy Now. What you recall her saying vs. what she says tells me a whole lot more about you than it tells me about what she said. It's sexist of you to only refer to her as raving, ranting, and sputtering. Your misogyny is showing. To actually deal with what she did say, which isn't anti-science at all, and offers many solutions, not one very culturally biased one that is pie in the sky like Dyer's, see here: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/8/a_debate_on_geoengineering_vandana_shiva
You really go out of your way to inaccurately misrepresent, in rather sexist ways, what Dr. Shiva, a scientist, philosopher, and author of a book you obviously haven't even read the back cover of, said on Democracy Now. What you recall her saying vs. what she says tells me a whole lot more about you than it tells me about what she said. It's sexist of you to only refer to her as raving, ranting, and sputtering. Your misogyny is showing. To actually deal with what she did say, which isn't anti-science at all, and offers many solutions, not one very culturally biased one that is pie in the sky like Dyer's, see here: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/8/a_debate_on_geoengineering_vandana_shiva
Next, you might try posting in response to her actual words, but please read her book first. Your commentary here demonstrates a glaringly Western patriarchal bias in favor of subjective and highly problematic concepts like "objectivity" and being "reasonable". You might want to learn more about that bias of yours, so you know when its operative in your written work.
John Madziarczyk said...
Wow, so I can't say that someone was acting insane if they're female? Have you listened to the interview? She was shouting at him, going at a mile a minute, wouldn't let him get a word in edge wise. She was literally screaming at him. Yes, she was acting insane. Western patriarchal bias doesn't exactly cut it when someone is fucking up so bad that it's apparent to anyone but the most dedicated believer that there's a problem. I don't need to read her book to react to the interview she gave. That should be able to stand on its own. Otherwise, you're just engaged in special pleading for her. Please save your comments about my bias unless you have something to say besides things based on your own ideology and not on objective facts.
Julian Real said...
And when do we get to the part where you quote her and respond to her words? Or do you just want to skip over that part, so you can come across as a sexist jerk, calling a woman ranting, raving, and sputtering? What do you HEAR in her upset? What do you hear it in? When a woman is angry with a man, what do you HEAR in that anger? That's partly what I'm asking you. And, I'm asking you to write responsibly, in response to what someone says, not in reaction to how they sound to you. Why can't you respond to what she says by quoting her directly? Would that be so difficult to do? Wouldn't your case be made stronger by you doing that?
John Madziarczyk said...
Yeah, okay, I did quote some of what Vandana Shiva said. The guy said that we need action for climate change now and that we can't wait, Vandana Shiva said that we could potentially switch the entire world to organic agriculture in three years, after which, when the guy tried to object that while this was maybe nice theoretically it was absurdly unlikely to happen she started screaming at him again, and quite frankly not making much sense since she started talking about how the kids, the kids would do it. This doesn't make much sense because the kids that are doing organic agriculture are unlikely to switch the entire world's agricultural system to organic in three years, to say the least.
The guy, Gwynne Dyer, was pointing to a time frame with 2040 being it, at which point there's nothing we can do to change it. He made the point that if Vandana Shiva was the dictator of the world she could do it, to which Shiva said very loudly "But I wouldn't be the dictator!", which kind of misses the point. Unless we can organize a world wide revolution in thirty years, that totally and completely alters land distribution and the power structures associated with it the scenario of moving to totally organic agriculture is sort of distant. A lot was made about the hubris of science, and that he was promoting disruption of the natural world, but, from a public speaking standpoint, she clearly failed and failed severely, which casts doubt on the arguments that she uses, even though in another context and in another presentation they might seem less completely out of the box impossible to live up to. But, then, I'm being objective, which I shouldn't be.
10:51 PM
Julian Real said...
And what ELSE did she say, John? You've summarised about one minute (or less)--the last moment of the rushed-to-end show. I'm curious why you don't quote the REST of what she said, which was far more sophisticated, complex, radically critical, grounded in REALITY, than the geoengineering nonsense he was talking about. She called him on it and he had no good rebuttal--at all. Why don't you quote THE REST of her statements. Why not post the whole transcript, also found here, and let the readers make up their own minds, rather than seeing things through your ignorant eyes? Because you leave out the BULK of what she says--why is that??
Take, for example, this:
VANDANA SHIVA: Well, three thoughts. The first is, it is the idea of being able to engineer our lives on this very fragile and complex and interrelated and interconnected planet that’s created the mess we are in. It’s an engineering paradigm that created the fossil fuel age that gave us climate change. And Einstein warned us and said you can’t solve problems with the same mindset that created them. Geo-engineering is trying to solve the problems of the same, old mindset of controlling nature. And the phrase that was used, of cheating, let’s cheat—you can’t cheat nature. That’s something people should recognize by now. There is no cheating possible. Eventually the laws of Gaia determine the final outcome. But I think the second thing about geo-engineering is, we’ve just had the volcano in Iceland, yes it was Iceland. And look at the collapse of the economy. And here are scientists thinking that’s a solution? Because they are thinking in a one dimensional way. Linear issue of global warming, anything to do with global cooling. I work on ecological agriculture. We need that sun light for photosynthesis. The geoengineers don’t realize sunshine is not a curse on the planet. The sun is not the problem, the problem is the mess of pollution we are creating. So again we can’t cheat. 7:30 AM
[Julian Real posted...]
And the final issue is, that these shortcuts that are attempted from places of power, and I would add places of ignorance, of the ecological web of life, are then creating the war solution because geo-engineering becomes war on a planetary scale with ignorance and blind spots, instead of taking the real path, which is helping communities adapt and become resilient. That’s the work we do in India. We save the seeds that will be able to deal with sea level rise or cyclones so that we have soil tolerant varieties; we distributed them after the tsunami. Last year we had a monsoon failure. But instead of sending armies out, we distributed seeds. And the farmers who had seeds of millets had a crop. The farmers who were waiting for the green revolution chemical cultivation had a crop failure. So building resilience and building adaptation is the human response, it’s the ecological response. And we don’t have to panic. The panic and fear is coming out of ignorance.
OR THIS:
VANDANA SHIVA: You know my last book, “Soil, Not Oil” I talk about the fact that, you know, the oil culture has given us climate change. And if we continue in that same paradigm, the only next step is eco-imperialism. Grab what remains of the resources of the poor and take it to create insularity, and a false defense of security. Because the planet is interconnected, our lives are interconnected. The rich cannot isolate themselves in islands of defense against a planetary instability. The other option is earth democracy, as I talk about it. Now those who have power and money and those who are driven by greed and injustice are now seeking to grab the land of the poor. It’s happening on a very large scale in Africa, it’s happening in India. The World Bank is promoting it because this is a very false idea, that large-scale farms will help us with food security with all the details showing smaller farms produce more food. So if you have to be food secure, you’d better be small. Diversified farms can deal with climate change much better because if one crop doesn’t do well, some other crop will do fine. And the monoculture of large farms will be more vulnerable to climate collapse. And, of course the biggest issue is half the world farms, you can’t rob them of their livelihoods.
[Julian Real posted...]
Forget the running out of water and climate wars related to water wars, you’re going to have, you’re already having in India, as a result of the land grab, in this case more for mining and industry, what we’re seeing is a war within. And Operation Green Hunt has been launched by the government in order to clean out the lands to be able to grab the lands on behalf of corporations. We talked about the Kashmir crisis and the shootouts. But those scenes are taking place in every remote tribal area today. And that issue of war for resources, that as long as you’re powerful you have the right to grab anyone’s resources and you have a right to use all kinds of illegitimate violence, that militarized mindset that I say comes from capitalist patriarchy, is really at the root of so many of our problems which is why we need to feel at home with nature and we need to recognize that the resources of the earth belong to all, have to be shared. In the land rights of the poor defenseless indigenous person is the biggest peace initiative of today and it’s the biggest climate issue of today.
And this:
VANDANA SHIVA: [T]he problem is that geoengineering is an experiment. It is not a solution. And you cannot experiment in such a violent way without full assessment of the impact. And as I said, just a simple thing a blocking the sun’s rays is a problem for the planet. Its a problem for humanity…
GWYNNE DYER:—You’re talking 1% I mean you are talking one percent-–
VANDANA SHIVA: But iron filings—
GWYNNE DYER:—I don’t like iron filings-–…that is ridiculous.
VANDANA SHIVA: But iron filings in the ocean-–
GWYNNE DYER:—that is ridiculous.
VANDANA SHIVA:—Reflectors in the sky? Or Artificial Volcanoes.. But thats [inaduble]. Everyone of them, if the solution is looked at, all its spinoffs, in a full ecological way, and a full social impact, what does it mean? And the most important thing is its undemocratic. I think the crisis of the climate is so serious that people need to be involved. The problem of geoengineering or genetic engineering is a bunch of experts sitting with a bunch of corporations saying we’ll decide on behalf of the people. That is part of the problem. That is why I really respect Evo Morales, he called the people of the world after the collapse of Copenhagen, and said the people will decide the solution.
And this:
GWYNNE DYER: The people of the world will not decide you know that and I know that. This is not..
VANDANA SHIVA:—But they are deciding.
GWYNNE DYER: I havn’t noticed yet—–.
VANDANA SHIVA: Well there’s a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth that came out of that amazing gathering that we need to shift to an earth centered paradigm—rather than an arrogant, narrow, reductionist, mechanistic science, expert-based paradigm.
* * *
And, John, you fail to note how much he interrupts her constantly, even though he's already had a whole segment to sputter out his "experimental" nonsense.
Source: here and here. Why don't you note what an obnoxious fool Gwynne Dyer is and what a jerk he looks like and sounds like? Is it because you think he "makes sense" with all his experimental nonsense?
John Madziarczyk said...
Wow, thanks for posting the transcript. She sounds more rational when the person who had to wade through her talk puts it in order. [Note to my readers: there was no putting it in order, only transcribing it as it appears in the video/as it was spoken live. -- JR]
But the thing is, that besides this: "[T]he problem is that geoengineering is an experiment. It is not a solution. And you cannot experiment in such a violent way without full assessment of the impact. And as I said, just a simple thing a blocking the sun’s rays is a problem for the planet. Its a problem for humanity… "Reflectors in the sky? Or Artificial Volcanoes.. But thats [inaduble]. Everyone of them, if the solution is looked at, all its spinoffs, in a full ecological way, and a full social impact, what does it mean? And the most important thing is its undemocratic. I think the crisis of the climate is so serious that people need to be involved. The problem of geoengineering or genetic engineering is a bunch of experts sitting with a bunch of corporations saying we’ll decide on behalf of the people. That is part of the problem. That is why I really respect Evo Morales, he called the people of the world after the collapse of Copenhagen, and said the people will decide the solution."
All of it besides this and a few other short sentences is rhetoric so general that it could be used to defeat any proposal coming out of the scientific community whatsoever.
Aren't electric cars the product of a reductionist, mechanistic, science, expert-based paradigm? Isn't the EPA, the thing regulating pollution in the United States, as well as the equivalents in Europe and in the United Nations, then subject to "arrogant, narrow, reductionist, mechanistic science, expert-based paradigm", even though there are people in there who are doing their best to try to come up with solutions to the whole thing based on objective, experimentally verified, science, that shows results---and that doesn't just make us feel good about ourselves by being nice and holistic. Unless you can separate the honest efforts on behalf of the environment being done by people who want to change things from folks who want to do stuff that might have bad unanticipated consequences, you, in my opinion at least, don't have much of a leg to stand on. And you undercut your thesis by then relying (presumably) on the very scientists that you're condemning for data on global warming, pollution, etc..
John Madziarczyk said...
The irony here is that to a certain extent I believe in what Vandana Shiva is saying. I believe that science, not in the sense of honest inquiry but as an ideology that's a product of the 18th century, has in fact had bad consequences both for the world as a whole, with both the cultures of the third world and the cultures that created it both being negatively effected, although in drastically different ways.
The difference seems to be that I myself am careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And I can see how a way of relating to nature that just sees it as a tool that can be exploited could be seen as male or patriarchal, but without wanting to start another front of a fight, I take issue with the idea that simple instrumentalism and domination is necessarily a male characteristic. It's neutral, in my opinion, not having any gender, but men have been the ones in charge and so have been the biggest ones to use it.
Julian Real said...
Hi John,
The irony here is that to a certain extent I believe in what Vandana Shiva is saying. I believe that science, not in the sense of honest inquiry but as an ideology that's a product of the 18th century, has in fact had bad consequences both for the world as a whole, with both the cultures of the third world and the cultures that created it both being negatively effected, although in drastically different ways.
I know that you do agree probably with more she has to say than what he has to say, given your other posts. So that's partly what seemed problematic to me about your post. That, in some sense, you were letting how "upset" someone was get in the way of listening more deeply to what they were saying, not just in one interview--and judging them based on that--but learning where they are coming from, reading their work, and determining a point of view that is based on knowledge of what they are doing--what they've been doing in the world, not "how they act in an interview".
And, I was challenging you to check your sexism when it comes to being so quick to react to a woman challenging a man's "rationality" as her being "fucking insane". Given her level of intelligence and knowledge on these issues "fucking insane" is not a very rational conclusion to reach, in my opinion. She's not someone who ought to be categorised as "sputtering", ranting, and raving, and she's not fucking insane. And I honestly believe you owe her more respect than that, regardless of her race and gender. Does that make sense? If anyone is doing the kind of pro-sustainability and community empowering work she is doing, so responsibly and respectfully, why don't you show her more respect, John, than by heading up a post about her calling her "fucking insane"?
Julian Real said...
The difference seems to be that I myself am careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think that's intellectually dishonest of you, as your blog post title does exactly that, effectively, by making anyone who comes upon it begin to read with a huge bias against Dr. Shiva, that she DOES, according to you, fit with all manner of misogynistic stereotypes of being an out of control, crazy lunatic of a person who isn't even capable of arguing "rationally", when, in fact, what she has to say is far more rational and grounded in applied science than what Dyer has to say. And you don't call him anything close to "fucking insane".
That's what I'm saying is sexist and white male supremacist in what you did with that title and some of your other descriptions--you mislead your visitors, with loaded up bias against, in this case, an Indian woman who is a philosopher and scientist and activist and someone who does very responsible community empowerment work--all in keeping with your professed values. And I can see how a way of relating to nature that just sees it as a tool that can be exploited could be seen as male or patriarchal, There's so much written about this, John. From Susan Griffin's Woman and Nature, to Dr. Marimba Ani's Yurugu.
The understanding of the Earth and non-human animals and other life as being "for" men is not, in any way, a transnational, cross-era belief or practice. It is unique to Western Civilisation, in its destructive force, and there are ideological reasons for that based in the philosophies, political interestes, and religious views of the dominating culture. This isn't an abstract matter at all. The amount of murder of life on Earth accomplished by European men, and men of European descent, based on very specific ways of viewing the world and "its uses", is responsible for this destruction.
Dr. Shiva wants that exposed, the whole paradigm exposed of "the Earth being manipulatable, "for" men to tinker with, and something to exploit for "man"'s benefit. She understands humanity as living with the Earth, not existing to dominate and control it, through all kinds of means, including those of Dyers. That's a philosophical/political stance with integrity. Dyer's problem-solving has no such integrity. He doesn't even know how to discuss or critique the worldview it operates out of.
Julian Real said...
but without wanting to start another front of a fight, I take issue with the idea that simple instrumentalism and domination is necessarily a male characteristic.
Domination exists on several fronts, which Dr. Shiva experiences personally, socially, culturally and politically: through Western domination, white supremacy, male supremacy, and Eurocentrism. I think you'll find that analysis in her work, not Dyer's.
Again, I take issue with the ways you disrespect her here. Why do you do that with someone who has such valuable things to offer humanity?
It's neutral, in my opinion, not having any gender, but men have been the ones in charge and so have been the biggest ones to use it.
John, men are in charge not at all accidentally. Men have forced their way into being in charge and white men use great force to maintain it. We are, after all, waging two and a half wars right now to maintain that power: Afghanistan--another Vietnam in terms of waste of lives, committing mass murder, mass rape, and not achieving anything at all of value. Iraq--an illegally and dishonestly started war, again, with the purpose of imposing Western Christian white male supremacist ways of behaving on lands where people of color who, in large part, are not Christian and Western, live--or once lived, until a million or so were killed over the last eight years. And Pakistan. And, the white men's wealthy elite in this country still wages war against the poor, who are disproportionately of color and women, not at all by accident, but by use of institutional and interpersonal force. Such as forced sterilisation, forced destruction of communities, genocide, slavery, forced removal of children, mass rape and battery of women by their husbands, forced trafficking and sexual slavery. You can read all about it, if you haven't yet. This isn't a perspective that I'm making up. This is historically verifiable stuff.
Julian Real said...
To obfuscate the fact that there is a verifiable racist and sexist dimension (a willfully organised plan and practice--just look at the Roman Catholic Church or the U.S. military as two such institutions) to what's going down is, in my view, to be guilty of being willfully ignorant, and I see you as someone who is determined, for many good reasons, not to be. It is not an unreasonable position to note that those who don't know what philosophies, ideologies, worldviews, paradigms, and political frameworks they are operating out of--that govern some, if not all, of their actions--ought not be in charge of creating solutions to world problems, especially if done undemocratically.
I'm asking you to be more thoughtful and less reactive in coming up with your assessments of someone who is, rightfully, upset with someone who is demonstrating a kind of ignorance that Dr. Shiva knows kills people--disproportionately people from the Global South, where she lives, where people do not have the same access to Western media that Dyer has--he got that whole other segment on "Democracy Now and Then", after all. And she sees people in peril now, not in a few decades. He has the regional, gender, and race privileges to not know what he's really saying, and those privileges allow him to determine what is an emergency, and who is best qualified to act when there is one.
9:20 AM
Julian Real said...
From an Indigenous point of view, John, the last 500 years have been an emergency of grotesquely dire proportions, of atrociously horrific genocidal and misogynistic proportions, including Witch Burning, during which time European men, most of whom have consolidated a multi-ethnic experience into a fake but powerful "white" identity and "culture" of destruction and domination, of a constructed race and gender-based ideology of supremacy and domination, during that time. Those "white" men have slaughtered, without mercy of regard for humanity, the lives of hundreds of millions of people globally. There's nothing accidental or "unraced" or "ungendered" about it. And the belief that the order of dominion goes from a white male sky-god, to white men, to other men, to animals, to plants and the Earth, is a very particular way of seeing things, and a very hazardous and disastrous one, not just in the next thirty to fifty years. Especially not in the future, unless you're so privileged that you can ignore what has gone down genocidally and in ways that are terrifying and destructive specifically to women, and continues to this very moment in this day. Dr. Shiva in a far better position, intellectually and experientially, to know what's happening around the world than is Dyer, or you, or me.
9:26 AM
Julian Real said...
She deserves more respect from you that what you initially showed her in your blog post. I am asking you to show her that regard and respect, in part by reading her book, Soil Not Oil.
From Amazon.com:
With Soil Not Oil, Vandana Shiva connects the dots between industrial agriculture and climate change. Shiva shows that a world beyond dependence on fossil fuels and globalization is both possible and necessary.
Condemning industrial agriculture as a recipe for ecological and economic disaster, Shiva’s champion is the small, independent farm: their greater productivity, their greater potential for social justice as they put more resources into the hands of the poor, and the biodiversity that is inherent to the traditional farming practiced in small-scale agriculture. What we need most in a time of changing climates and millions hungry, she argues, is sustainable, biologically diverse farms that are more resistant to disease, drought, and flood. In her trademark style, she draws solutions to our world’s most pressing problems on the head of a pin: “The solution to climate change,” she observes, “and the solution to poverty are the same.”
Using Shiva’s organization Navdanya—praised by Barbara Kingsolver as “a small, green Eden framed against the startling blue backdrop of the Himalayas”—as a model, Soil Not Oil lays out principles for feeding the planet that are socially just and environmentally sound. Shiva then expands her analysis to broader issues of globalization and climate change, arguing that a healthy environment and a just world go hand in hand. Unwavering and truly visionary, Soil Not Oil proposes a solution based on self-organization, sustainability, and community rather than corporate power and profits.
Vandana Shiva is the author of Earth Democracy, Water Wars, and Staying Alive. She is the editor of Manifestos on the Future of Food and Seed. [this sentence was edited due to duplication with what follows, by me, Julian]
About the Author
A world-renowned environmental leader and recipient of the 1993 Alternative Nobel Peace Prize (the Right Livelihood Award), Shiva has authored several bestselling books, most recently Earth Democracy. Activist and scientist, Shiva leads, with Ralph Nader and Jeremy Rifkin, the International Forum on Globalization. Before becoming an activist, Shiva was one of India's leading physicists.
9:27 AM
9:27 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment