Month: March 2016

I’m going to write about Invisible because it seems like no one else is but also because I think it’s very cool. I didn’t read the whole thing but just went through it stopping at different points and reflecting on them. I probably will read it all once term is over and I have the time if I can still access it by then. I obviously loved that it’s in three languages. Obviously many texts exist in multiple languages but very few, to my knowledge, exist all at once, in three languages. When I tried to find out more about the project I had a lot of difficulty  so I wasn’t able to contextualize it or learn about it to the degree that I wanted to. I am still unsure exactly what the text was trying to accomplish specifically, but I actually love that. The foreword reads, “here, there is neither praise nor triumph, nor cynicism or sarcasm, but rather a sincere love for human beings in their entirety, flaws and limitations included. This is a book about us, the people, excessive, possessive, sluggish, shaky.” For this reason, I think this texts lack of clarity (in an academic sense) is deliberate and telling. It is not trying to give us just one perspective or opinion.

Honestly, this sort of reminded me of my two favourite texts of the semester, combines. It’s composed of what may seem like excerpts or vignettes, like Cartucho but the voice is often really effusive, like Omar Cabezas’.
I love the language in diction in the sections. Like in one entitled, “The Social Mask,” the ending reads, “the masquerade will last until we return home; there, we will find, deep in ourselves, the lucid being that we were ceaselessly trying to conceal. slightly disgusted, we will simply fall asleep, in our insignificance.” I like how this connects our internal life to the way we may feel we do or do not fit into revolutionary action/movements. To be clear, this except doesn’t necessarily show that, but to have it amidst other excerpts that are referring to political individuals does that for me as a reader.

While reading this I am reminded of poetry and also a little of Kurt Vonnegut, especially of his books that include pictures. He is always writing with a lot of exclamation mark and he is often saying things that feel similar to or related to the content of these sections. I hope that when we talk about this book in class we are able to make more sense of the connections in this book. I am often failing to see how these things are connecting and interacting, and I’m unsure whether everything would become clear if I read the whole thing or if the whole piece is like this. A portrait of Gandhi is followed by a section in which the narrator speaks about walking around in the rain and body falls from a window and impales itself on the narrator’s umbrella. What’s up with that?

I wasn’t sure how class would go but I actually feel like it went really well. I think we were able to connect the movie and the article well and that they, combined, lead to a good discussion. I also felt like people really did read the article and that they found it, at least to some degree, stimulating. Thanks everyone, for that. By the end I felt that we were potentially going in circles a bit, but that we were still agreeing with each other in the process. I felt our discussion hit a bit of a brick wall in that I felt my only options were to suggest that we all drop out of school right away, and then to do so. Obviously I didn’t do that but I still don’t feel optimistic about my time here, as the university is a site of violence and began as a colonial instrument (to teach Indians to be more Western/British in their thinking) Maybe, if I had been payed to go to Cambridge I’d be thinking about this differently, but as it stands right now, that isn’t the case and never will be.

Sorry everyone, I’m very sad this morning reflecting on these conversations, and also I’m sad because Jian Ghomehi just got acquitted of all five crimes.

Here is a rough lesson plan:

I thought we would discuss:

Times when we have felt ourselves hitting a proverbial “brick wall” and brainstorm as a class ways to potentially avoid those experiences in the future?

“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”  – Audre Lorde
What does this quote mean for us/the university/us, at the university?

Do we ever personally see ourselves as “embodying diversity”?

What are some concrete examples of radical action, coming from below, in the university?

I’m gonna teach a little bit tomorrow but I probably won’t focus too heavily on the content of the text I picked out specifically–mainly because it’s the only one that has yet to pique anyone’s interest (at least in the blogs.) Can’t say I’m surprised.

I find all the documents that were chosen to be quite related, actually. They all succinctly identify structural problems that we endure/reproduce/maintain. Despite our (obvious) differences I get the feeling that we all care about critically engaging with these concepts/realities. So, mainly, I’m hoping to facilitate a mini discussion about something we haven’t explored that much, if at all, this term which is: how can we apply what we’re learning about in this classroom practically to our daily lives? Additionally, or maybe, specifically, what exactly can we learn from within academia, which is not separate but functions in conjunction with all the harmful structures we’ve already identified?

I’m reminded of the Audre Lorde quote, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

I know that Jon said, at least in regard to Fire From the Mountain that school for Cabezas was a place where he was able to meet people who eventually became political allies, etc. And that’s not untrue. Certainly in that story and in that case that was true. But should we be re-evaluating the idea that academia might fill that role now, given what we know about social media (and the internet in general.)  For all the harm it does it certainly makes connecting with others, specifically others who may share your passions/ideologies, very easy to do. A good website/Instagram account/Twitter/hashtag/whatever might do a better job than four years struggling through your undergraduate.

Obviously that’s not true for everyone, but I definitely feel that, for the most part, I’ve only met people who sadden and enrage me. (Which, yes, may say more about me at this point.)  Getting saddened and enraged is helpful in it own way, but I can’t imagine looking at UBC for any help dismantling these systems.

I think this could be because increasingly I feel even I am being trained out of my rage. Or, to channel my rage into five succinct paragraphs, a thesis and a bibliography.

I really appreciated the other texts that were chosen for this week, specifically the “What is Canada” one. Excited to see what you all have to say.

One of the things this book does well is show us the interpersonal relationships behind or maybe I could say that comprise a revolutionary movement. We are often given accounts of the narrator’s first impressions of people. At one point she remarks that a woman she met resent her at first and then grows to love her. Here, we are actually given a lot of information about the atmosphere this revolution takes place in.

When the narrator first discusses Humberto we get a glimpse into the difficulty of positioning ones self into the complex personal relationships that contribute to the success or failure of this movement. She is not fond of him, she even remarks on how he skillfully evades the questions he does not feel like answering and notes the rhetoric that posits ambiguity as an integral part of the revolution and even as a natural. While I would never argue that ambiguity is unnecessary, of course it is in many cases, it is precisely that assumption that allows it to be abused at different times.

Something else I found fascinating was the narrator’s account of second-guessing herself, or questioning her own intelligence when she disagrees with Humberto. When he says, “if shit is what we need to make the revolution happen, shit is what we’ll use,” which is so obviously a horrible thing to say and completely erases all of the harmful things that can and are done in the name of “revolutions” (which often gets defined by so few individuals) the narrator goes so far as to remark, “I even toyed with the idea that his tolerance was the sign of a political wisdom that I lacked.” This reaction can certainly be attributed to an overall sense of insecurity that can affect any person. It is natural to second-guess ones self or to question one’s ability. However, I think my analysis would be lacking if I did not at least acknowledge the fact that often these feelings of insecurity arise from a complex set of social relations. You might second guess yourself because you are the minority in the room, because you occupy a lower rank than the person who disagree with, because you have less experience, and the list goes on. This is, in a sense, what I mean when I bring up intersectionality in class. We do ourselves and the texts we are reading a disservice when we commit to the most cursory analysis we can make.

When the narrator suggests that they should write a letter detailing their specific unease with Humberto’s plan he i told to, “write it herself,” which could be read as evidence of her skill, or it could be read as evidence of laziness on the part of her peers.

 

 

This is probably my favourite book we’ve read so far. Or a close second to Cartucho, I haven’t decided yet. What I really like about this book is the overall tone which manages to be both truthful and sardonic and the voice of the narrator who I have come to think of as personable, or at least relatable. Reading this directly after two of Che’s books definitely enhances its convivial nature (almost as if it was planned that way…) I get the feeling that the narrator takes his roles/tasks seriously but knows when and how to joke around. (Think we discussed in class how this was definitely not one of Che’s qualities.) I think this is a decidedly better way to come at revolution than the stoic approach Che has, but I can see myself getting a lot of flack for this opinion. I recognize the importance of discipline but I also think that many people have difficulty empathizing with or committing to a cause or a person that cannot affect them in a real and visceral way. A narrator like this one, who is organized but fallible, is more endearing to me and frankly, more believable. We see his relatability when he says things like, “I was scared shitless of getting myself killed.” (9) or when he compares joining the Frente to “the end of your childhood happiness.” (13) Basically, I can see myself saying/feeling those things so I immediately identify with the narrator. Call it what you will.

One part I particularly like is when he says, “I remember the motto […] FREEDOM FOR THE UNIVERSITY. I thought, what garbage!” And he defaces the dean’s house with the words: THROUGH THESE DOORS ONE ENTERS THE 15TH CENTURY,” (31) an obvious parody of the university’s slogan, about reaching the stars, or some similar metaphor. I think this is an interesting scene because it illuminates something we have really talked little about (ironically) in our classroom together which is: how effective (if at all) is mobilizing from within an institution that has perpetuated all kinds of subjugation since its inception? I am tempted to say: not at all but then here I am, fulfilling my contractual obligation to write this, hoping I will learn anything during my undergraduate degree that I can use to make a positive impact on anything. By not only attending UBC, but paying to do so I am, however sad it makes me to think about, condoning the hierarchies prodced by/within the university/academia, in general. I am curious to know what other people think but I wonder: if I can only conceptualize addressing a problem through the same avenues and with the same skills which sustain the problem am I really addressing it at all, or just making it bigger. Why do we suspect that the knowledge systems that have paralyzed us (the myth of higher learning, for example) are ultimately the ones that will save us? There’s a fitting quote to go here, something about shackle becoming tools but I can’t remember it exactly or who said it so I’m going to quit while I’m ahead.