US practices of race-making and freedom-makingdeveloped in che sugar plantations of the Caribbean, especially Barbados.
I'm also in a Caribbean History class this semester so this is something I've been reading about pretty in depth. What happened in the Caribbean even goes beyond ugly freedoms because it was just so horrible. This is definitely a good example of the terrible consequences of ugly freedoms.
heroism seemsbeyondthereachof ordinary peoplewhoareconstantly doggie paddlingjusttokeeptheirheads above water
I feel like this is a really good way to describe that feeling. Like I feel like I do have a lot of freedoms, but I feel pretty powerless to actually make any change because issues are so systemic and so engrained in our politics that to change them it would take much more than me, an average person.
What if freedom might look like willing participation in one’sown domination?
Yeah, because throughout history dictators have gained power through massive public support, despite the fact that the public will literally lose power and rights in order to support them. I guess my question is why?
claims material inequality and economicexploitation are nonpolitical and thus unadjudicable.
This is such a valid criticism though because the economic sector is so closely linked with politics. Politicians are the ones who have the power to create more equitable systems and to enact workers' rights, and for them to claim that the economy and politics are separate is just a lame excuse so they can continue to sit on their hands and do nothing.
Freedom refersto many, many ways of attending to and tending a world, and to varied ca-pacities for worldmaking possible in different moments.‘
This emphasizes the diversity of freedom. Freedom looks different for every person because everybody's situation is different. Those diverse backgrounds are necessary, though, to keep society moving forward, so it's important that everybody has the same access to freedoms.
she articulates a version offreedom as participation in public action that has become deeply influentialin contemporary democratic political thought.
This idea of freedom to participate in government through voting, protests, etc. has always been interesting to me because in theory, it makes sense, but nowadays politicians have so much power that protests don't really make an impact. So we have the freedom to protest, but nothing changes. Which makes me then question if we really play a role in our government at all.
mustbefoughtagainst,andwhatareworthfightingfor
This is definitely an interesting clarification. Reminds me of my first point where I mentioned that on both sides of an argument people are arguing with belief in the same values, they just have different ways of interpreting those values. Here the author is clarifying that they will not be deciding what is and isn't freedom, but instead what types of freedom we should move forward with.
romotemutualityacrossvariancewithourdevolvingintoclaimsofabstractsameness,andcultivatepleasurethroughencounterswithvariety—
This is also one of the arguments for the importance of sending kids to public schools. Kids who are raised in a bubble aren't exposed to people not like themselves, and meeting different people and learning to understand the differences through exposure is vital to development.
unfree.
I feel like this is an interesting line because it shows how people who are in power will create their own narratives in order to keep their power and deny others equality.
Whatfreedomsarecultivatedbyand withintheseputativelyuglyconditions, practiceschatmightother-wiseseemtoodisturbing, minor,orcompromisedtoqualifyforchegranddescriptorof“freedom”?
I guess I'm a little confused by this. I'm getting a little lost in the descriptions of ugly freedoms. It feels a bit like an extended metaphor. I'm sure it'll make more sense when the author digs deeper into this idea in the actual book.
eandextermination.Asintg!'
This idea of framing people a certain way to make it easier to deny their freedoms or even their humanity can be seen especially clearly in Spanish conquistadores, who condemned Caribbean Natives as cannibals in order to make it more palatable for them to be enslaved.
“Ugly Laws,” lawscreated around the turn of the twentieth century in various American cit-ies to forbid visibly poor or disabled people from inhabiting public space.
I'm not sure where the justification came from for these laws. Seems like a very clear violation of these peoples' constitutional rights, but then again, like the book says, Americans have time and time again taken away the freedoms of others to benefit themselves.
enslavementunregulatedbytheBritishCrownwaspreciselywhatledthemtosupportthe self-ruleofnationalindependence.
Even now, some people still refer to the Civil War as being fought over "states' rights." People will so fervently defend their own freedoms, but unless an issue affects them directly, people are much more reluctant to stand up for the freedoms of others, especially if they themselves are benefitting from others not sharing the same freedoms. We see it now in modern society with the inequalities associated with the wealth gap, and the reluctance of those in power (the rich) to change the system to be more equitable.
partofwhat makestheAmericanpeople coalesceintoapolityisthattheytogetherholdthetruthofinalienablefreedomsoobviousastobeself-evident.
Yes, freedom is definitely a major uniting factor in America, but it's also highly divisive because Americans often cannot agree on what freedom should, or does, look like.
sexualizestheviolencethatmarksthewatercureasaformofcontrolakintorape.
This line touches on it, but the undertones of sexual violence are especially indicative of the power and superiority that the American soldiers felt over the Filipinos. It's also especially disturbing because it shows that the soldiers derived some sort of pleasure from exerting their control over the Filipinos.
Yetforthe soldierson theground,who continuedtoperformit,thewatercurewasviewednotastheoppositeofAmericanpoliticalvalues butasanexpressionofthem.
This reminds me of a discussion we did during orientation on how to argue or debate effectively. People on both sides of an argument usually have their opinions for the same core reasons (loyalty, freedom, etc.), but they believe that these values should be demonstrated in different ways. In this case, the soldiers' belief, although violent and horrible, was motivated by the same core values (freedom, patriotism, etc.) as the war effort from Americans at home who condemned this form of torture.