7 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2018
    1. In my case risk relates to the potential sacrifice of privilege.  By demanding that education be the practice of freedom I risk rocking what is, for the most part, an extremely comfortable boat. The truth is, I don’t ever have to do anything to combat oppression, and my life will be just fine. However, for anyone marginalised by systemic oppression, incurring risk is an unfortunate but necessary element of speaking truth to power. On the daily.
  2. Sep 2018
    1. Put more directly what you are really saying is that you claim the right to be unhappy – Alright, I claim the right to be unhappy

      The use of the phrase "claim the right to be unhappy" here is most indicative of the type of culture that the film created. Emotions are no longer inherent or natural, they are something you must claim or fight for. To have "the right" to something inherently means that it is not simply given. It makes the issue one of possession rather than oppression. It's not that the new society is oppressing the emotions, but rather that they are no longer claiming/possessing them.

  3. Mar 2017
    1. binaries

      I noticed this in the excerpt above, too. The binary nature of her worldview is something that I've heard her critiqued for before, as it is a pretty restrictive way to view the complex gears of oppression.

  4. Feb 2017
    1. It is true I am a woman; it is true I am employed; but what professional experiences have I had? I

      This reminds me of Iris Young's "Five Faces of Oppression." Young argues that we often neglect to see the many faces of oppression, and that we misrepresent reality by comparing dissimilar experiences of oppression as existing under the same general umbrella of subjectivity. Anyone who experiences even one face of oppression is oppressed, but many individuals and groups experience oppression differently because they may experience different combinations of the faces of oppression. One face of oppression which often goes overlooked is "powerlessness."

      Powerlessness is a distinction between technical freedom and actual self-possession and choice. Examples Young gives are that although we are technically allowed to choose our employer, many employees are placed at the bottom of the totem pole, where they are dictated to, rather than consulted about their own work. Those who work menial jobs, for example, in which the minutia of their jobs (what to do and how to do it) are strictly controlled are powerless. In contrast, professionals such as doctors, teachers, managers, etc. are given a degree of freedom and choice about how to best go about their work, and they might even have employees working under them, whose work they get to control. This freedom gives one "respectability" in the eyes of society and one's own eyes. If someone does not have access to professionalization, they are denigrated for this lack of "respectability," by the implication that they are inferior to professionals. This, of course, becomes a vicious economic and psychological cycle.

      This system of oppression through powerlessness is what Woolf is referencing here. Although she is employed, society has denied her the freedom allotted to most literary professionals, most of whom are men. She is employed, but she is not a professional because she is denied the freedom and respectability that being a professional connotes.

    1. Garrison, although a paternal mentor to Douglass, brooked no deviation from his own doctrines, and he and other while abolitionists apparently wanted little the· orizing from Dougla<;s. His role was to be the eloquent example, literally and figura-tively displaying the scars of the lash to prepare audiences for white speakers who would lay out the abolition philosophy.

      Okay again back to Lorde... Her concern was that feminist theorists had coalesced around a consensus that left out the very voices of those whose difference was essential to the project of overturning the patriarchy. Lorde asked, “What does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy?” I guess I see a similar flaw in the white abolitionists' dismissal of Douglass, in that oppression cannot be disrupted using the logic that justifies oppression, i.e. the use of Douglass as a black man as "tool" in himself and the exclusion of his very relevant experience from their dialogue; are these not other forms of bondage? Also thinking about how "tool" can be interpreted here, i.e. tool as logic, rhetoric, government, Christianity, whiteness, Douglass himself, etc.

  5. Sep 2016
    1. The author affirms that “Zombies—lacking interior, lacking mind—cannot look; they are, for this reason, completely realized colonial objects. Zombies cannot be recognized, accommodated, or negotiated with; once identified, they must immediately be killed.” He contends that the coding of the zombie figure in the biopolitical terms of epidemic is evidence that “The biopolitical state . . . needs to create this sort of racial imaginary in order to retain its power to kill.”

      I've been a big fan of the zombie/living dead sub-genre since I was pretty young, and the interest has grown even more in the last 12+ years. Overtime, I have wondered whether this sub-genre, our fascination with zombies/infected apocalyptic themes/elements, has deeper meaning for us that can point back to the innate nature of othering or ingroup/outgroup. There are stories of genocide and wars in literature throughout time and across every culture. Humankind has an extensive history that involves the oppression and marginalization of many different civilizations and people. We have an intimate relationship with war and conflict. In the past, it may have not been so usual to see apocalyptic literature with themes that target a certain race or groups of people, even a race that was deemed inferior or less than fully human, due to the prevailing ideologies and worldviews during those times. But the same attitude and worldview is unacceptable today, at least to many. Survivors of the apocalypse can't go all feral and Purge on another group of people, at least not on such a wide scale. However, zombies/infected seem to take that place. Zombies serve a similar function. Not only is there the classic world-ending event that has existed in religious literature for millennia, but survivors get to maintain human supremacy (rather than racial) over non-humans. It becomes unacceptable because these things are no longer conscious or recognized as a living, sentiment human.

  6. Dec 2015
    1. But hyperlinks aren’t just the skeleton of the web: they are its eyes, a path to its soul.

      I don't know why, but this sentence almost made me cry. It is so effectual and concise. The web is a living thing and we are limiting its potential. Same as we do to people through oppression.