Today I had one of the most meaningfull conversations in the campus. Basically one year ''gathering'' as an ''engrafted plant'' in the middle of an ''african group''. The ''latina with african friends''. The ''wanna be african''. An ''african-latina'', that is what I thought and playfully would always say.
I stil need to digest all the things that I have talked with K and with J.
Everything started with this email that connected a group of a bunch of western; white death dude in order to be create a group called SMARTIE.
As in IB English A literature we do not study those names a lot already;
even worst: as the only way to be ''smartie'' was throughout by white death dude from western countries.
I listened to Joy. She was the first one to send that email saying how she felt offended. And she got good reasons for that. She is from Cameroon and studied in UK for 2 years of her life. This year English A course is finally offering Chimamanda -an Nigerian author- as one of the books. Besides that, IB is filled with white classical death dude men. She was correct in the idea that she got offended by what they said! Because that is her perspective. How frustranting can that be to live in an African country and expend her whole life without read the local books? How can people in the world change anything about africa, if they do not read their books? If they do not get into their world and try to understand them?
VERY FAIR POINT.
Another factor was the playing with words: ''the white death dude''.
I discuss that with K. I asked her why the responses were mainly from ''back people''? And instantaneously I assumed that they should take it easy and mock at those things as well in terms of overcoming this.
She firstly pointed out that I would never understand her condition. Because she is black and it has an overly historical exploration behind it. People see her in small details not as her, K, but firstly according to her color. It is emotionally attaching. Especially when this people are innocently accused for being robbers in the USA just because of their color. Because of the fact that they were persecuted and over explored in the past. The fact that people still think -even in UWC- that everyone who is black is from africa.
K starts to point my own prejudice saying that she did not go as a ''black offended person'', but as a literature student, but the fact that racism is so present and were just ''black people taking'', she was targed into the ''black group''.
-What I think personally was quite unfair that she thought I was racist! It had not to do with racism. Whereas, if someone play with ''whitness'', is natural to think that people who are not white will react to that. It just points the color of the person, because of the joke that was about color as well. However, I do not ignore the fact that being black has conotations in it, indeed.
She talked about how I would never understand her fully, because even thought I come from a latino country that was widely explored, I still reast under some privilege compared to African continent.
And I have no right to tell her what should she feel offended for or not. Because who am I to do so, while I am here sitting on my throne of privilege? Who am I to say anything if my identity is not immediately attached to the instinct to point me out as black, because I am?
She said that accept and insult silently is the same as a men who is raping a women and she keeps silent accepting the oppresion.
I said her that use of jokes and mocking was important since its aims was actually to empower people, because those events are so ridiculous, that laughing at them can actually overcome them...
She said that yes! Seeing by a broader perspective, it is easy to laugh. What an absurd to see a 40 years old men raping a 3 years old child? Fine! Laugh at it, because it is ridiculous indeed.
But the point is that people can not just laugh of those things and do anything about it.
The pain is there and just who is in those shoes will understand how it feels.
I am honesty frustrated that I can not understand this ''black universe'', but I am trying. I am really trying to do so.
sexta-feira, 26 de fevereiro de 2016
Does human nature lead us to be capitalists? -question 26/02/2016
To ask a question another question: do we even have something such as ''human nature''?
Today I had a very interesting conversation in the mensa with Nikola about human nature... Actually we talked about a bunch of things together, what was super interesting. He is such a smart guy.
Well... we were talking about biology and how the we ,humans, in the beginning of the homosapiens existence in order to establish ourselves as the strong predator, basically, we had to kill other strong animals, as mamutes, and therefore they got extinct etc.
But my question then layed in the fact that... Can we actually point something as human nature? Is the human nature that builds our sistem as it is now? Do we have something as human nature that make us ''naturally capitalists''?
And then he argued that not. That the notion of capital started when we had to exchange our commodities, because we had over productions during the time of the agricultural revolution. This perception of power was human builded concept -therefore can be deconstructed as well- and has not to do with nature.
-''But still... Power is based on competition... and even in a very non-complex society -in the beginning of sedentarism and settlement of men to produce his and her own agriculture- human showed that they needed to be the strongest, therefore they need to compete, therefore they want power. How what they did in the past can be different from what is nowadays?''
He argued firstly, we can not see that the motivation of the humans at this time were merely seeking for power, but perhaps the killed the strongest ones because they were seeking for protection!
I thought that was fair enough.
Another question came to my mind.
Considering hypothetically that TODAY we reach the level of small communities and everyone lives in self-sufficient small communities again. If the man started capitalism after the agricultural revolution, due a over production that exceed in what they needed for self-sufficiency: which guarantee do I have that men will not do seek for power again in the new context of small independent groups? Especially now that everything floats in terms of market. Even time is a commodity. ''Time is money'', they said.
If there is something such as human nature -which is endorsed by the mindset that we have right now- how realist would be to have the basis of the ideological essence of communism happening in practice?
He said that could have happened anything in the past. Was one minimum possibility that leaded the agricultural revolution turned to be the cradle of capitalism. (what I disagree and think that were very highly possibilities instead).
I am still not convinced about whether there is such a thing as human nature. Because if there is such a thing, it will explain loads to me...
sexta-feira, 19 de fevereiro de 2016
terça-feira, 9 de fevereiro de 2016
Abuso pós-moderno
Querido Pós-Modernismo,
Por quanto tempo tirei proveito de ti?
De toda a tuas verdades parciais
De todo o teu conjunto de construtos sociais
Por quanto tempo tirei proveito de ti?
Para justificar Minha Cultura quando não estou nelas?
Posso inventar Minha Cultura própria.
Em todo lugar do mundo,
mas não na Minha Cultura própria.
A Minha Cultura é minha porque me escolheu?
Ou a Minha Cultura eu a escolho e ela é minha?
Por quanto tempo tirei proveito de ti?
De toda a tuas verdades parciais
De todo o teu conjunto de construtos sociais
Por quanto tempo tirei proveito de ti?
Para justificar Minha Cultura quando não estou nelas?
Posso inventar Minha Cultura própria.
Em todo lugar do mundo,
mas não na Minha Cultura própria.
A Minha Cultura é minha porque me escolheu?
Ou a Minha Cultura eu a escolho e ela é minha?
sábado, 6 de fevereiro de 2016
quinta-feira, 4 de fevereiro de 2016
Was God sexist for sending Jesus- a male figure instead of a women? [Arguing with my christian beliefs 04-02-2016]
Today we argued in the debate wether religion organizations contribute to equality of women or not.
I was in the afirmative team, meaning that I was defeating religion as promoter of women equality.
The negative team pointed out tones of examples in which women was explored. They talked about how Burca oppresses women; how christian values of Virgem Mary -even thought she was an important female simbol- her function was to raise a baby whom was a baby and MALE baby.
I wondered then if people point out that religion is sexist just because they were more postmodernists. I would point out as well how the assumption of religion as sexist completely ignores the meaning of equality within the religion. Notice that inside of a religion is possible to say that equality no longer means that you do need the same roles for being equal, because diferent roles can be precisely how equality is perceived within the religions.
(What is also a contradiction of the posmodernist teory in my opinion: point out that there are no fixed values and no absolute truths, while the previous conservative religious ideas are no longer obsolete and throwed away as there is an absolute truth of the human rights or whatever you want to call it. Basically the moral relativism just does not work with traditional abraham and hinduist religions)
Buuuuuuuuut, coming back to the debate!
I said then that we look at the past and get shocked towards having a male baby, but it is just because we look with the lents of NOW! POSTMODERNISM. Buuuut if you look at the time in which patriachialism was pretty strong (could we actually measure it as ''patriachalism'' since ''patriachalism'' was a word that come in the postmodern history to understand postmodern history!?!?!!!!) and if we think that God is an inteligent being, of course He would play the ''game'' of those times and send a men figure since it would make more social impact.
But by other hand with that assumption I wondered with myself if God did not care about gender equality then. If He just stuck for the status quo of those times and did not interview in order to empower women. I just thought for a second that God did not want equality as well. As all the society past times.
I just started to think that just with postmodernism we started to think on things as gender equality!
But as a counter claim for that I would say that the society in the times of Jesus birth was not as complex as it is right now! Postmoderninsm and human rights come as a product of a new globalized era: an shift of the society. So, having a male figure would not be a matter of inequality for Jesus' birth times.
If sexism was not a problem in Jesus time -notice that if you point it as sexism, it is only because you are postmodern mind and those terms born to understand its own time, not the historical past of Jesus!- why would we say that God was sexist?
I was in the afirmative team, meaning that I was defeating religion as promoter of women equality.
The negative team pointed out tones of examples in which women was explored. They talked about how Burca oppresses women; how christian values of Virgem Mary -even thought she was an important female simbol- her function was to raise a baby whom was a baby and MALE baby.
I wondered then if people point out that religion is sexist just because they were more postmodernists. I would point out as well how the assumption of religion as sexist completely ignores the meaning of equality within the religion. Notice that inside of a religion is possible to say that equality no longer means that you do need the same roles for being equal, because diferent roles can be precisely how equality is perceived within the religions.
(What is also a contradiction of the posmodernist teory in my opinion: point out that there are no fixed values and no absolute truths, while the previous conservative religious ideas are no longer obsolete and throwed away as there is an absolute truth of the human rights or whatever you want to call it. Basically the moral relativism just does not work with traditional abraham and hinduist religions)
Buuuuuuuuut, coming back to the debate!
I said then that we look at the past and get shocked towards having a male baby, but it is just because we look with the lents of NOW! POSTMODERNISM. Buuuut if you look at the time in which patriachialism was pretty strong (could we actually measure it as ''patriachalism'' since ''patriachalism'' was a word that come in the postmodern history to understand postmodern history!?!?!!!!) and if we think that God is an inteligent being, of course He would play the ''game'' of those times and send a men figure since it would make more social impact.
But by other hand with that assumption I wondered with myself if God did not care about gender equality then. If He just stuck for the status quo of those times and did not interview in order to empower women. I just thought for a second that God did not want equality as well. As all the society past times.
I just started to think that just with postmodernism we started to think on things as gender equality!
But as a counter claim for that I would say that the society in the times of Jesus birth was not as complex as it is right now! Postmoderninsm and human rights come as a product of a new globalized era: an shift of the society. So, having a male figure would not be a matter of inequality for Jesus' birth times.
If sexism was not a problem in Jesus time -notice that if you point it as sexism, it is only because you are postmodern mind and those terms born to understand its own time, not the historical past of Jesus!- why would we say that God was sexist?
quarta-feira, 3 de fevereiro de 2016
Someone explain to me this contradiction of postmodernism?
The idea of no primitive and non evolved come from the basis of there is no ''superior'' but just a different. And that is what postmodernism stands for: fragmented truth. But even the idea of pos-modernism is characterized for being after modern and factually after primitive history. Even though pos-modernism stands for non primitive, it is self-promoted for thinking differently from a primitive way of think that considers the the notions of primitive and superiority accurate.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)