a postcolonial order governed by predatory capital-ism, racial hierarchy, and neglect.
In an attempt to gain freedom, people may restrict this same gift to others. The destruction of one form of power hierarchy granted certain groups of people freedom but only served to remove freedom for other groups of people.
uture is not the demise of political action, however. Instead, it stillcultivates viable and potent political acts, just in less expected registers ofaction
Freedom does not have to just come from removing the negative but can also be found by creating your own sense of positivity among the chaos.
Ugly freedoms open to the disappointments andambivalences of freedom’s practice
Freedom is not so easily attained and comes with its own consequences. One must decide if gaining that freedom is sweet enough to live with said consequences.
“Iwant myvoicetobeharsh,|don’twantittobebeautiful,|don’twantittobepure
Freedom is dirty and rough, not easy fun. It is gritty and tough to attain but the end result is sweeter then any end game possible. It is this satisfaction that has waged wars and caused bloodshed to bring us to where we are today.
Other traditions of political thought reckon with the ways that freedom’spractice can entail violence, including revolutionary arguments in whichviolence can be part of freedom’s expression when fighting against domi-nation.
This part emphasizes the role that power plays in attaining freedom. The fight to gain freedom is largely based on mismatched power hierarchies and wars over freedom disrupt this power, thus making the fight to freedom even more significant.
The problem is not chat normative visions of freedomas nonviolent are wrong, but that when also taken for definitive limits theydo not address violent forms of freedom that also operate in modern life.
This goes back to the idea that different groups of individuals are forced to gain freedom through different methods. While some may easily attain the desired level of freedom, history shows how other groups of people have gone to war to fight for their freedom.
Negative freedom entails an absenceof constraint and coercion, a condition whereby an individual is left aloneto make autonomous decisions
Its interesting how this is considered negative freedom when the word 'negative' implies that there are consequences that come with the freedoms.
freedom has been associatedwith a practice of sovereignty that is expressed through private property,territorial control, and human exceptionalism, then different practices offreedom enacted by bodies composed of other bodies, other animals, and theland might seem b
This emphasizes my earlier idea that ugly freedoms play with disruptions in power hierarchies that cause unwanted negativity.
What if encounterswith ugliness produce different ways of seeing and feeling possibilities forfreedom, even or especially when they don’t feel grand or inspirational?
This is an interesting concept that I definitely agree with because fitting the social standards that grant certain freedoms allows easier passages to whatever it is you want. However, facing the ugly side of freedom forces you to cherish that which others take for granted. It is very similar to the idea of 'pretty privilege' in a way.
1)theymightbedeemed“unruly”bytraditionalgatekeeperstopolitics;(2)theyare“mattersoutofplace”—whenbeinginplace requiresobediencetostandardpractice,toestablished hierarchiesofpower,ortothe sensible;(3)theyare,inthe case ofthe thirdexample,human-animalhybrids,
This bit gives examples of different groups of individuals who are deemed unworthy of freedom. Although they are all examples of different scenarios, there is one base commonality; there is a disruption of power of some kind. The disruption of power plays with the human mind, thus emphasizing the ugliness behind granting freedom.
Whenpeople andpracticesdeemeduglyclaimpublic spaceorexercisepowernevergrantedcothem,thiscanappearreflexivelyfearfulordreadfultothoseun-accustomedtoorantagonistictomoreequitablesocialrelations
This is a very intriguing concept because it emphasizes the idea that in some perspectives, freedom simply cannot be a universal human right because people out there deem certain groups of individuals as unworthy of freedom. Just because they do not fit a certain standard.
She pointstofreedoms overlookedbecausetheyeitherdonot takeplaceincelebratedspacesofpublicfreedom, becausetheactionsmayseemtooinsignificant,orbecausetheBlackwomenexperimentingdonotconformtowhitenedimagesofuniversalpersonhood.
This part restates the earlier themes of freedom being dependent on the type of person, in this case specifically, race. Freedom is not a concept granted universally to humans and different groups of people are granted the same freedom in different ways.
While someuglyfreedomsintheseconduseofthetermemanatefrompettinessorweakness,othersbidetheirtimefortherightmomenttostrike,Oroperateundertheexpectationofpowerlessnesstocarveoutanobscurespaceofself-governance,orlocateexpansivepotentialinbeingundervalued,
Freedom can be formed in different ways by different people. Some find their freedom through being at another's mercy and finally being granted what they want while others disguise their way through it, forcing their way to their end goal while being seen as 'undervalued'.
thatmakeoneperson’spovertyasourceofprofitforothers.
This supports the earlier stated idea that freedom is not an equal concept. What is freedom for some is punishment for others. Freedom comes with a cost to others involved.
link between freedom and torture explicit and celebratesrather than dissimulates their connection.
This further supports the idea that the phrase 'ugly freedom' brings out the hidden struggles that come with gaining freedom. However, in this case, the army celebrated these struggles because they themselves were not forced to give anything up.
ugly freedoms.
This phrase speaks volumes. Freedom is generally a cherished concept, one that sheds light on our wants and brings with it power to unshackle ourselves. To call such a concept 'ugly' goes to show the hidden truths that come with gaining freedom.
Practicesoffreedominclude enslave-mentand exploitationasmuchasindependenceandemancipation
This statement proves two things. One: the definition of freedom changes over time as conditions and ideologies change, further proving that there is no set definition to what freedom looks like. Two: Freedom is not a straight-forward act of rebellion. It comes at the cost of others and is not a black-and-white idea.
tentailedthefreedomoflocalcontrolandcitizens’self-rule.
This statement continues to highlight the idea that freedom is dependent on, in this case, race. White people had the freedom to use those races they deemed below them to achieve their own level of independence.
torture, dis-possession, and racial domination?
This changes the overarching idea of freedom because this statement highlights how freedom is relative to the person. Freedom cannot be a basic human need as there are different forms of freedom based on race, gender, etc, and in this case, white people deserve the highest level of freedom.
noideaismorefundamentaltoAmericans’senseofthemselvesasindividu-alsandasanation thanfreedom.”
Ironic statement seeing as the army focused on restricting the freedom of the Filipinos.
sexualizestheviolencethatmarksthewatercureasaformofcontrolakintorape.
This is an intriguing concept because the general idea of rape usually does not refer to this specific form of torture. However, the principle of this act does partly coincide with the idea of unlawfully penetrating another person in an unjustified way.
Freedom,forFilipino captives,isexperiencedsensoriallyasdrown-ing bytorture.
This is a very interesting concept because drowning is categorized by the feeling of suffocation, where your airways do not have the freedom to breathe and let air through. As such, claiming that this act of torture was considered freedom is a contrast to the act itself.
ShoutingtheBattleCryofFreedom.
This bit is ironic because the army sings about freedom while actively prohibiting Filipino captives from experiencing freedom. There is no 'taste of liberty' that the Filipinos are facing. The army on the other hand face no freedom either because they began this war in an effort to annex the Philippines, so their freedom had never really been restricted in the first place.