I am today rather impressed by my eloquence and decided it was worth blogging rather than leaving my opinions to the tender mercies of facebook!
First an article by Andrew Doyle in Spiked on line that was posted by a good mate got my black womans heart/mind connection buzzing... I sent him anwers on Twitter but am not expecting, or needing a reply - could be groovy though....
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/its-time-us-left-wingers-stood-up-to-pc/19639#.WOTPzUT-ubm
While there are valid points in this article. Yes, we do need to critically examine our criteria for what is considered pc. And yes, there is a scary left trend towards authoritarian bigotry. Some of the opening comes across to me as just 'white male whinging' at potential loss of privilege.
Why can't Dr Who be a woman, whatever colour? Dr is a gender neutral term. What is killjoy, unschooled, mindless about the idea of him not being a white man for a change? What tf is wrong with proposing that idea? Why is that pc?
I spent years only reading books by women. To be honest at the time I only read feminism and fiction, mostly sf and fantasy. The experience changed/formed me and the way I see the world.
I hadn't realised how the white manmind dominates, controls and makes 'normal/obvious/natural/matter of course/obvious/self evident so very many things that actually when presented with the possibility of another perspective are not!
Later, reading books by women of colour, I learnt about what I term the white manmind and it's perspective, as often mirrored by people of colour as the manmind is mirrored by wimim.
Personally I think everyone who reads should have a look at their shelves and take a dive into what is now termed 'outsider fiction' starting with limiting themselves to women. It didn't have a term when I did it. Apart from getting me called a bigot on numerous occasions.
So, of course, I think that if young girls followed Caitlin Moran's advice (not for their whole lives obviously!) I can only see benefit arising.
There are a huge number of black (e.g. Whoopi Goldberg) and poc who disagree with destroying art for whatever reason.
This inflammatory demand only allowed the high number of valid points in Hannah Black (& co signatories) open letter to be ignored.
The quoted points in the above article referring to white freedom and speech are however true. However much they stick in Mr Doyle's craw
There are many points within the letter that a perfect springboards for dialogue e.g. What are natural rights'?
There are people in every group who are voluble with dodgy ideas including Andrew Doyle with is comment about the historically illiterate. Which is a ignorant, supremacist jibe.
What we know for sure is that Africa's great cities and libraries were decimated, razed to the ground by greedy, (illiterate) Europeans as an excuse for blatant theft and rape of the continent that continues to this day. This plus enslaving and dehumanising it's people, continually supported by flagrant deception and lies of superiority/inferiority
These are more important questions/issues/problems to be addressed in the lefts destruction of itself surely?
This article raises many an excellent point but alas has a few extremely unhelpful (dodgy) examples
Then I watched the video edited by Zeezee Branson - mother of Dick!
And my English work class heart/mind connection took a little leap.
It reminded me of meeting American First Nations people in Amsterdam who had been invited over and were being hosted by the Anarchist squatters movement. We went for a long walk one night through the city as we talked and shared our experiences and thoughts on the insistence on veganism in their spaces (not as much of an issue as the way it was expressed) and their at exactly the same time/space lack of respect/agreement for indigenous peoples right to define how their cultural identity/notions/religious symbols/plants/herbs/discoveries etc. are used and utilised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2co3CX5VGvI
This film is quite (for me very) judgemental.
How many people, (living in cities) never have the opportunity to see/feel/experience these amazing natural spaces and therefore have no realisation or connection with them or these images?
Nature was just telly programs, examples of privileged peoples possibilities for most of my life.
Now I am so much more privileged I have an inkling of their importance and value gleaned from short moments in Dominica when I went as a child, Mexico, New Zealand and Australia but never grasped in the places I could access in the U.S., Dominican Republic,Thailand, Tunisa or Europe.
I have never felt safe enough as a black woman - based on my experiences in the last five places to travel further in the America's, Asia or Africa let alone India
How are people with even less privilege than me, supposed to make the connection between these images and their mobile phone or their meat consumption?
They are being asked to forgo, give up tangible pleasures in their lives.
For What?
Who is asking them to do it?
What are they being asked to save and for whom?
Top end consumers of these places they will never get to go....?
The places shown in this film are mostly uninhabited by humans, inaccessible without huge amounts of available income
They might seem like 'home' to the likes of Zeezee Branson, Leonardo DiCaprio and the crews of Greenpeace and the BBC.
Home to most is a tiny little space within a massively crowded one with meat and mobile as the only highlights in a fairly dark existence!
