Wiscon 31: Romance of the Revolution
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 01:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oyceterDescription: In authors ranging from Heinlein to Macleod, Spinrad to Cordwainer Smith, the revolution is glorified — sometimes a violent one, sometimes (but far more rarely) a peaceful one. How do we avoid making the same errors of glorifying violence and hero worship when coming at things from a revolutionary perspective in fiction? (Some people may not find these to be errors — they're welcome to come discuss that POV too.)
Panelists: Paul Kincaid (mod), L. Timmel Duchamp, Laurie J. Marks, Chris Nakashima-Brown, Lyn Paleo
Just so people know what they're getting into, this is the panel that made my head explode, thanks to unthinking racism and Europe/America-centrism. I not-so-sarcastically note that I was completely unsurprised to see the two going hand-in-hand. So please note that this write up is going to be incredibly biased, that I am still angry about it, and that I didn't take down any notes or pay very close attention because my hands were shaking (as stated, I was angry) and because my head had just exploded.
Non-literally, for the anime and manga fans out there ;).
So I will have to rely on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
coffeeandink to provide more detailed quotes, as she was actually writing things down.
I originally went to this panel because I wanted to talk about the aftermath of the revolution, particularly in fiction, as I adore Lloyd Alexander's Westmark and Ursula K. Le Guin's Voices for dealing with that aftermath.
However, the panel ended up being on historical revolutions.
Mely later noted that the two of us were the youngest people in the room by far: one of the beginning annoyances was how quickly the panelists and the audience were to assert that the spirit of the sixties had died out and that the current generation was apathetic, capitalistic, and generally unconcerned with anyone but themselves. While I think the statement could be correct in some cases, I was irritated by how it was presented as fact without any attempts at nuance (both the generalization about my generation and the unthinking nostalgia and idealization of the sixties). It was also frustrating and anger-inducing because hi! I'm still waiting (and agitating) for my revolution!
The other thing that really, really, really pissed me off was that everyone (panelists and audience) only discssed European and American revolutions. Not only that, but they specifically only discussed white revolutions -- the Civil Rights Movement came up once, maybe twice.
Four out of five panelists were white, and I think Chris Nakashima-Brown may have been mixed race, due to his surname. Paul Kincaid was British; I think the rest may have been American, though I honestly don't recall.
The panel: Not only was this frustrating on a race level, it was incredibly sloppy.cofax7 immediately noted when I was ranting to her that focusing on European and American revolutions basically means having to look a few decades back, and often a few centuries.
But the most frustrating thing was that no one on the panel or in the audience seemed to even notice that they were basically excluding the majority of the world from their discussion. I can't remember what the panelists had said, but at one point I tried to yell out "Meiji Revolution!" only I don't think anyone heard (also, Mely said it sounded like "major revolution").
As another note, all these discussions of European and American revolutions focused on the revolutionaries and what they did, My sense was that they also tended to focus on "good" revolutions or revolutions that may have started out with good intentions but ultimately ended up failing. Revolutions that I remember being discussed: the feminist movement, the American Revolution, the French Revolution ("Which one?" asked a panelist), the revolution of the American 1960s, the Russian Revolution, the Civil Rights Movement (brief mention). I remember most of the discussion centering on the 60s and various sub-movements during that era and on the American Revolution.
I was fuming so much that I was shaking, which made knitting difficult. I originally wasn't going to even try and point out the European/American-centrism; it seemed completely useless. But then I figured I was going to scathingly write up the panel later in LJ and probably start the next new flamewar (LJ, I will love you forever if you prove me wrong), so I might as well attempt to wreak havoc there as well. It took a while for me to get called on, largely because I was sitting in the very back behind someone.
And before I talked, at least someone else mentioned being Muslim and revolution in the Middle East; I wish I could remember her comment more, but I was really, really angry.
I ended up asking the panel if they could discuss non-European, non-American revolutions, particularly how they might be affected by colonialism, post-colonialism and imperialism. I wanted to add a note to not talk about the Cultural Revolution, as I very cynically thought that the only non-European, non-American revolution familiar to everyone might be that. And, of course, I was preemptively irritated that while people could think of many "good" revolutions for Europe and America, the one they associated with Asia was a "bad" one.
(I note here that I am not judging the effects of the revolutions and am going by general popular perception.)
The panel did not disappoint.
Chris Nakashima-Brown was the first to comment, and he said something like, "I think Pol Pot had the right idea, you have to wipe out the adults and start from kids" (Mely has more accurate quotes). First of all: what the fucking fuck? Second of all: What the FUCKING FUCK? Third of all: I find that insulting on so many levels that I don't even know where to start. Fourth of all: Of course the top-of-the-head revolution associated with a non-European, non-American country is an atrocity. Fifth of all: What, the discussion of non-European, non-American countries starts off with "kill off all the brown people"?!
Thankfully, the panel and the audience seemed rather stunned as well. I think Lyn Paleo asked him if he was kidding. He sort of danced around what he was saying for a while, but never retracted it. I wish I had quotes.
After that, Paul Kincaid, who is British, very slowly and very thoughtfully talked about the Indian Revolution. He was spending so much time and thought picking out his words (and though I am angry, I do appreciate that he at least cared enough to think about it beforehand) that I first thought he was joking when he began with how India was a political mess before the British came in and that the British came in not with the intent to oppress people, but to trade.
I mean, seriously. I thought that he was going to then append his remarks and say that this was the textbook apologia for colonization and then remark that, of course, to the Indian people, it looked really different. Also, given what I know of British and other imperial countries' attempts to "trade" with countries, I wouldn't characterize it as trade, but more as exploitation.
But no. He continued to talk about how the British set up a tidy government and discovered to their surprise that the Indians could actually govern themselves (the part about "to their surprise" was sarcastic, thank goodness), and then he concluded with a note that the Indian Revolution succeeded not because of the strength of the revolutionaries, but because of the weakness of those being rebelled again. The quote that I have is: "It's not the revolution that's effective, but the weakness of the ruler." He said that had Great Britian not been distracted by other things at the time, India may very well still be under British rule even today.
I will note again that every single revolution discussed prior to this focused on the revolutionaries and their agency and what they did. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Until India came up.
Later, when I asked about this again, Kincaid mentioned that he thought that the success of revolutions depending on the weakness of the oppressors applied to all revolutions, so I will give him that, but I still think it is extremely telling that this point of view only came up when the focus shifted to non-European, non-American countries.
I can't quite remember what the panelists said after this; I was too busy scribbling down "WTFOMG?!" in my notebook. I think Lyn Paleo mentioned Venezuela, to which Chris Nakashima-Brown said, "But they're just a nation of slums, aren't they?"
L. Timmel Duchamp then talked about a revolution in Mexico that I really wish I had the details of, because it was interesting and possibly the only non-sporkworthy comment during the entire time.
After that, the discussion turned right back to European and American revolutions for some time.
When non-European and non-American revolutions came up again, the language changed completely. I remember audience members saying things about "giving" the opportunity to revolt or "allowing" revolution; the focus shifted so quickly from being about the revolutionaries and their agency to "permitting" non-European and non-American people to revolt that I barely had time to blink.
I also recall other comments to the effect of the American Revolution inspiring the world; Nakashima-Brown added another note in which a Muslim revolutionary compared himself to George Washington. While the second statement is factually correct (as far as I know because I was too angry to take notes), and while the first statement is true in some cases, it is so patronizing and condescending to relate all these non-European, non-American revolutions back to America, particularly when there were already remarks stripping colonized revolutionaries of their agency and when the entire discussion prior to my question had focused solely on excluding colonized revolutionaries.
Mely notes that someone also talked about the poverty of Africa and how "we" should help Africa without ever noting why Africa was in the state it was in, nor how the western world had profitted off of the subjugation and colonization of Africa for a few centuries. I put "we" in scarequotes because it was very clear that the "we" the panel and the audience were talking to and about was the middle-class white American and European we. They were not talking about me; they in fact did their best to exclude me from the discussion via rhetoric. I am not saying that the panelists deliberately excluded me from physically talking; I got called on to speak twice, probably because I was in the very back behind someone. But I am saying that the entire panel was phrased such that it excluded people of color. I mean -- one brief mention of the Civil Rights Movement? No talk about race at all in a panel about revolution?
My reaction: In case anyone had any doubt in their mind, I was and am really fucking pissed off. I am angry that I can still walk into a random panel, picked specifically because I thought I should go to something other than a discussion of race, and get metaphorically slapped in the face and told that once again, I do not belong because I am a person of color and because I have lived in a non-European, non-American country.
I am raising this as a racial issue because while the exclusion of non-European, non-American countries is not inherently racial, it has become racial because of racial lines of colonization and racial rhetoric encouraging imperialism.
Also, the discussion itself was very clearly polarized in terms of race: white revolutions got the bulk of the discussion, got an affirmation of agency, got a detailed look at their effects and how they influenced the world. Non-white revolutions were given the shaft, denied agency, and attributed to being inspired by white revolutions.
Mely mentioned that a lot of Americans really don't know much about non-American, non-European revolutions, or even much non-American, non-European history at that, not to excuse people, but just as an FYI. And I do think this is true. Why this is true is another matter all together, but one cannot really blame people for their education system.
But what pisses me off is that I don't think anyone in the room even noticed that they were excluding most of the world in their discussion. Ignorance is one thing, but you should at least know enough to know that you have gaps of knowledge. Also, the panelists had had time to research and to look things up.
I am angry about the lazy scholarship and generalizations. I also snarkily note that despite the self-congratulatory tone with regard to the revolutions of the sixties and the talk about my generation being capitalist and apathetic, I and the Muslim woman in front of me were the only ones there trying to challenge the status quo.
Ok, maybe my challenging the status quo didn't even come off as such. I gave up after my second question/comment, in which I noted that Kincaid's prior remark took agency away from the Indian Revolution. I wish now that I had not asked questions but instead flat-out stated that I found the description of the Indian Revolution offensive and that I was also disturbed by how quickly and easily once-colonized countries were yet again ignored and glossed over.
And while I was most offended by individual people's comments, aside from the general "WTF?" to Nakashima-Brown's comment on Pol Pot, I was also offended by the fact that aside from a few brief attempts (my own included), no one tried to redirect the conversation.
I am angriest because of how easy it was to have a panel solely on white revolutions, because even after the point was raised that all discussion was on Europe and America, no one actively tried to discuss other countries, aside from a few apologias, which I do not count as discussion at all. I am also angry because Kincaid and Nakashima-Brown thought it was ok to make their comments; I am angry that Kincaid had clearly put a lot of thought into his answer and still came out with something that glossed over the entire British occupation of India; I am angry that no one else really called them on it, so the general impression was that it was and still is ok to make comments like that.
Most of all, I am angry that I even have to type out this post and worry that I have to explain even more why I am angry.
ETA: Nakashima-Brown's explanation of what he meant and L. Timmel Duchamp's write up and follow-up
ETA2: transcript (partial; I think it starts somewhere in the middle of the panel)
Panelists: Paul Kincaid (mod), L. Timmel Duchamp, Laurie J. Marks, Chris Nakashima-Brown, Lyn Paleo
Just so people know what they're getting into, this is the panel that made my head explode, thanks to unthinking racism and Europe/America-centrism. I not-so-sarcastically note that I was completely unsurprised to see the two going hand-in-hand. So please note that this write up is going to be incredibly biased, that I am still angry about it, and that I didn't take down any notes or pay very close attention because my hands were shaking (as stated, I was angry) and because my head had just exploded.
Non-literally, for the anime and manga fans out there ;).
So I will have to rely on
coffeeandink to provide more detailed quotes, as she was actually writing things down.I originally went to this panel because I wanted to talk about the aftermath of the revolution, particularly in fiction, as I adore Lloyd Alexander's Westmark and Ursula K. Le Guin's Voices for dealing with that aftermath.
However, the panel ended up being on historical revolutions.
Mely later noted that the two of us were the youngest people in the room by far: one of the beginning annoyances was how quickly the panelists and the audience were to assert that the spirit of the sixties had died out and that the current generation was apathetic, capitalistic, and generally unconcerned with anyone but themselves. While I think the statement could be correct in some cases, I was irritated by how it was presented as fact without any attempts at nuance (both the generalization about my generation and the unthinking nostalgia and idealization of the sixties). It was also frustrating and anger-inducing because hi! I'm still waiting (and agitating) for my revolution!
The other thing that really, really, really pissed me off was that everyone (panelists and audience) only discssed European and American revolutions. Not only that, but they specifically only discussed white revolutions -- the Civil Rights Movement came up once, maybe twice.
Four out of five panelists were white, and I think Chris Nakashima-Brown may have been mixed race, due to his surname. Paul Kincaid was British; I think the rest may have been American, though I honestly don't recall.
The panel: Not only was this frustrating on a race level, it was incredibly sloppy.
cofax7 immediately noted when I was ranting to her that focusing on European and American revolutions basically means having to look a few decades back, and often a few centuries. But the most frustrating thing was that no one on the panel or in the audience seemed to even notice that they were basically excluding the majority of the world from their discussion. I can't remember what the panelists had said, but at one point I tried to yell out "Meiji Revolution!" only I don't think anyone heard (also, Mely said it sounded like "major revolution").
As another note, all these discussions of European and American revolutions focused on the revolutionaries and what they did, My sense was that they also tended to focus on "good" revolutions or revolutions that may have started out with good intentions but ultimately ended up failing. Revolutions that I remember being discussed: the feminist movement, the American Revolution, the French Revolution ("Which one?" asked a panelist), the revolution of the American 1960s, the Russian Revolution, the Civil Rights Movement (brief mention). I remember most of the discussion centering on the 60s and various sub-movements during that era and on the American Revolution.
I was fuming so much that I was shaking, which made knitting difficult. I originally wasn't going to even try and point out the European/American-centrism; it seemed completely useless. But then I figured I was going to scathingly write up the panel later in LJ and probably start the next new flamewar (LJ, I will love you forever if you prove me wrong), so I might as well attempt to wreak havoc there as well. It took a while for me to get called on, largely because I was sitting in the very back behind someone.
And before I talked, at least someone else mentioned being Muslim and revolution in the Middle East; I wish I could remember her comment more, but I was really, really angry.
I ended up asking the panel if they could discuss non-European, non-American revolutions, particularly how they might be affected by colonialism, post-colonialism and imperialism. I wanted to add a note to not talk about the Cultural Revolution, as I very cynically thought that the only non-European, non-American revolution familiar to everyone might be that. And, of course, I was preemptively irritated that while people could think of many "good" revolutions for Europe and America, the one they associated with Asia was a "bad" one.
(I note here that I am not judging the effects of the revolutions and am going by general popular perception.)
The panel did not disappoint.
Chris Nakashima-Brown was the first to comment, and he said something like, "I think Pol Pot had the right idea, you have to wipe out the adults and start from kids" (Mely has more accurate quotes). First of all: what the fucking fuck? Second of all: What the FUCKING FUCK? Third of all: I find that insulting on so many levels that I don't even know where to start. Fourth of all: Of course the top-of-the-head revolution associated with a non-European, non-American country is an atrocity. Fifth of all: What, the discussion of non-European, non-American countries starts off with "kill off all the brown people"?!
Thankfully, the panel and the audience seemed rather stunned as well. I think Lyn Paleo asked him if he was kidding. He sort of danced around what he was saying for a while, but never retracted it. I wish I had quotes.
After that, Paul Kincaid, who is British, very slowly and very thoughtfully talked about the Indian Revolution. He was spending so much time and thought picking out his words (and though I am angry, I do appreciate that he at least cared enough to think about it beforehand) that I first thought he was joking when he began with how India was a political mess before the British came in and that the British came in not with the intent to oppress people, but to trade.
I mean, seriously. I thought that he was going to then append his remarks and say that this was the textbook apologia for colonization and then remark that, of course, to the Indian people, it looked really different. Also, given what I know of British and other imperial countries' attempts to "trade" with countries, I wouldn't characterize it as trade, but more as exploitation.
But no. He continued to talk about how the British set up a tidy government and discovered to their surprise that the Indians could actually govern themselves (the part about "to their surprise" was sarcastic, thank goodness), and then he concluded with a note that the Indian Revolution succeeded not because of the strength of the revolutionaries, but because of the weakness of those being rebelled again. The quote that I have is: "It's not the revolution that's effective, but the weakness of the ruler." He said that had Great Britian not been distracted by other things at the time, India may very well still be under British rule even today.
I will note again that every single revolution discussed prior to this focused on the revolutionaries and their agency and what they did. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Until India came up.
Later, when I asked about this again, Kincaid mentioned that he thought that the success of revolutions depending on the weakness of the oppressors applied to all revolutions, so I will give him that, but I still think it is extremely telling that this point of view only came up when the focus shifted to non-European, non-American countries.
I can't quite remember what the panelists said after this; I was too busy scribbling down "WTFOMG?!" in my notebook. I think Lyn Paleo mentioned Venezuela, to which Chris Nakashima-Brown said, "But they're just a nation of slums, aren't they?"
L. Timmel Duchamp then talked about a revolution in Mexico that I really wish I had the details of, because it was interesting and possibly the only non-sporkworthy comment during the entire time.
After that, the discussion turned right back to European and American revolutions for some time.
When non-European and non-American revolutions came up again, the language changed completely. I remember audience members saying things about "giving" the opportunity to revolt or "allowing" revolution; the focus shifted so quickly from being about the revolutionaries and their agency to "permitting" non-European and non-American people to revolt that I barely had time to blink.
I also recall other comments to the effect of the American Revolution inspiring the world; Nakashima-Brown added another note in which a Muslim revolutionary compared himself to George Washington. While the second statement is factually correct (as far as I know because I was too angry to take notes), and while the first statement is true in some cases, it is so patronizing and condescending to relate all these non-European, non-American revolutions back to America, particularly when there were already remarks stripping colonized revolutionaries of their agency and when the entire discussion prior to my question had focused solely on excluding colonized revolutionaries.
Mely notes that someone also talked about the poverty of Africa and how "we" should help Africa without ever noting why Africa was in the state it was in, nor how the western world had profitted off of the subjugation and colonization of Africa for a few centuries. I put "we" in scarequotes because it was very clear that the "we" the panel and the audience were talking to and about was the middle-class white American and European we. They were not talking about me; they in fact did their best to exclude me from the discussion via rhetoric. I am not saying that the panelists deliberately excluded me from physically talking; I got called on to speak twice, probably because I was in the very back behind someone. But I am saying that the entire panel was phrased such that it excluded people of color. I mean -- one brief mention of the Civil Rights Movement? No talk about race at all in a panel about revolution?
My reaction: In case anyone had any doubt in their mind, I was and am really fucking pissed off. I am angry that I can still walk into a random panel, picked specifically because I thought I should go to something other than a discussion of race, and get metaphorically slapped in the face and told that once again, I do not belong because I am a person of color and because I have lived in a non-European, non-American country.
I am raising this as a racial issue because while the exclusion of non-European, non-American countries is not inherently racial, it has become racial because of racial lines of colonization and racial rhetoric encouraging imperialism.
Also, the discussion itself was very clearly polarized in terms of race: white revolutions got the bulk of the discussion, got an affirmation of agency, got a detailed look at their effects and how they influenced the world. Non-white revolutions were given the shaft, denied agency, and attributed to being inspired by white revolutions.
Mely mentioned that a lot of Americans really don't know much about non-American, non-European revolutions, or even much non-American, non-European history at that, not to excuse people, but just as an FYI. And I do think this is true. Why this is true is another matter all together, but one cannot really blame people for their education system.
But what pisses me off is that I don't think anyone in the room even noticed that they were excluding most of the world in their discussion. Ignorance is one thing, but you should at least know enough to know that you have gaps of knowledge. Also, the panelists had had time to research and to look things up.
I am angry about the lazy scholarship and generalizations. I also snarkily note that despite the self-congratulatory tone with regard to the revolutions of the sixties and the talk about my generation being capitalist and apathetic, I and the Muslim woman in front of me were the only ones there trying to challenge the status quo.
Ok, maybe my challenging the status quo didn't even come off as such. I gave up after my second question/comment, in which I noted that Kincaid's prior remark took agency away from the Indian Revolution. I wish now that I had not asked questions but instead flat-out stated that I found the description of the Indian Revolution offensive and that I was also disturbed by how quickly and easily once-colonized countries were yet again ignored and glossed over.
And while I was most offended by individual people's comments, aside from the general "WTF?" to Nakashima-Brown's comment on Pol Pot, I was also offended by the fact that aside from a few brief attempts (my own included), no one tried to redirect the conversation.
I am angriest because of how easy it was to have a panel solely on white revolutions, because even after the point was raised that all discussion was on Europe and America, no one actively tried to discuss other countries, aside from a few apologias, which I do not count as discussion at all. I am also angry because Kincaid and Nakashima-Brown thought it was ok to make their comments; I am angry that Kincaid had clearly put a lot of thought into his answer and still came out with something that glossed over the entire British occupation of India; I am angry that no one else really called them on it, so the general impression was that it was and still is ok to make comments like that.
Most of all, I am angry that I even have to type out this post and worry that I have to explain even more why I am angry.
ETA: Nakashima-Brown's explanation of what he meant and L. Timmel Duchamp's write up and follow-up
ETA2: transcript (partial; I think it starts somewhere in the middle of the panel)
(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 08:33 pm (UTC)I think I am v. v. glad I did not go to this panel, b/c I think I would've just been rude & not constructive.
Holy shit.
(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 09:24 pm (UTC)I so wish I went to "Colonialism in Space" or "Mixed-Race Characters" instead.
(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 08:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 09:26 pm (UTC)The Pol Pot comment was just completely a WTF?! moment, but the part that really got to me was Kincaid's remarks on India, just because at least the entire room seemed to collectively think "WTF?" at the Pol Pot comment, whereas no one commented on the India one and Kincaid was obviously trying to be non-inflammatory.
(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 08:47 pm (UTC)'Course, and unsurprisingly, he's just a symptom of the problem and not an exception, but given the way people in general react, I have a slight fear that people will focus so much on how stooopid he was and not look at the wider implications of the general panel.
(Your write up is admirable, however, in attempting to explicitly state the plethora of systemic problems you saw, so possibly that will forestall that issue.)
(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 08:48 pm (UTC)Also, wasn't this panel supposed to focus on fiction? The only references I can remember being made to any fiction, was L. Timmel Duchamp, to her own fiction.
I'm at work now, but will probably be more elaborate when I type up my own panel report. Mostly, I was disappointed because I attended another panel that Kinkaid and Nakashima-Brown were both on, and enjoyed it immensely.
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:21 am (UTC)But yes, I was immensely frustrated by the panel on many levels, but mostly by the racism and the colonialist attitudes.
(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 08:58 pm (UTC)They get bonus points for turning a panel that's nominally about **revolutionary perspectives in fictional works** (i.e. not even about real-world revolutions) into a Eurocentric wank-fest.
FWIW, my first example of a non-U.S., non-European revolution would have been the Indian revolution, not the Cultural Revolution. (Admittedly, this has more to do with the fact that I know far more about British history than I do about Chinese history.) Second would be the Palestinian Intifada, but I probably would have avoided bringing that up in a panel, for fear that it'd totally derail the discussion.
Also, the Pol Pot comment? WHAT. THE. HELL.
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:26 am (UTC)I have no other words! Just... WTF?!
(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 09:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:27 am (UTC)I want to see what other panel participants thought, largely because I don't want to be the only person who saw the Euro-/American-centrism. Because really!
(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 09:15 pm (UTC)I'm amazed that you can put something this coherant together. I'd still be sputtering.
Later, when I asked about this again, Kincaid mentioned that he thought that the success of revolutions depending on the weakness of the oppressors applied to all revolutions, so I will give him that, but I still think it is extremely telling that this point of view only came up when the focus shifted to non-European, non-American countries.
It's exceedingly telling. Because although I agree that it does depend on the weakness of the oppressors, I think the most compelling, prime example of that would be, oh, the American one.
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:28 am (UTC)Because although I agree that it does depend on the weakness of the oppressors, I think the most compelling, prime example of that would be, oh, the American one.
That one did come up as well, though again, not when the American Revolution first came up.
(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 09:29 pm (UTC)I am angry, too, and I wasn't even there. Thank you for the writeup, even if it must be painful having to lay this all out.
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:29 am (UTC)(heh, I feel like Wiscon might not want me back since I keep doing this. But really! The provocation!)
(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 09:49 pm (UTC)*in* context, however, it's pretty seriously not okay. and thank you for pointing that out.
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 09:56 pm (UTC)Thirded. Oh, those silly Asians; what they need is a good massacre. Bleah.
I am sorry I missed this panel, as I talked it over in brief with -- was it
Aside from the whole "Whoops, not actually talking about literature" issue, it's a logical failure to posit any one revolution as an individual movement. They learn each other's tactics and rhetorics, like illnesses that are catching. If not for Gandhi, what would the US Civil Rights movement have looked like? Oh wait, I forgot, Gandhi's not from Europe.
(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 10:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 09:59 pm (UTC)Thanks for writing it up.
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:36 am (UTC)Well, no, not really, because I value your unexploded head. But the panel really could have used more protesters.
(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 10:00 pm (UTC)I can't even match the actual contents of the panel to the panel description. I mean, they could have spent an hour talking about Cordwainer Smith alone.
The comment about the American Revolution inspiring the world... um, try suggesting that to anyone over here (UK), and you'll get at best a blank stare and at worst outright laughter. Um, no.
The comments about the British Empire's occupation of India, though? Scarily, that really is the general viewpoint over here. Not that the Empire tends to get taught in schools very much, but it does seem to get heavily romanticised in an odd, back-handed sort of way ("oh, of course it was wrong to invade other countries, but by the way, the wonderful infrastructure built by the Victorians is still working.")
Thanks for a really good writeup, and your crunchy brains.
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:41 am (UTC)Oh, I believe it.
I am also selfishly hung up on the trade bit, as the East Indian Company used India to grow opium and sell it to China, thereby exploiting not one, but two countries at the same time!
(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 11:09 pm (UTC)Well, damn. Because I would love to have heard the reports on that panel.
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 11:12 pm (UTC)(Okay, I came up with one more: the Green Revolution. I suspect this is not the kind of revolution they wanted to talk about, though, and besides I don't know enough about it to know how much of it was home-grown; I know there are a lot of issues with it being imposed on people from outside, and the way that they were injured by that, but I don't know if it was, say, the Indian government or a bunch of American NGOs doing it.)
(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 11:19 pm (UTC)And of course you learned about it that way (aka, not blaming you); history is written by the winners.
My list off the top of my head includes: the Haiti revolution, the Nationalist revolution against the Qing Dynasty in China, the Indian revolution, the Meiji revolution, and etc.
But I guess the thing is, the sixties aren't necessarily termed a revolution in textbooks either, and that came up a lot.
(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 11:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Wed, May. 30th, 2007 11:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:08 am (UTC)AH what???
Wow. Who is that dude! I mean the Pol Pot comment is worse but... wow...
Timmi might have been talking about Oaxaca, the Zapatistas, and Subcomandante Marcos - who often speaks about sexism within the revolution, for example this speech about Atenco,
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10423
"In the assembly instructions for the merchandise known as "Woman," it explains that the model should always have her head bowed. That her most productive position is on her knees. That the brain is optional, and its inclusion is often counterproductive. That her heart should be nourished with trivialities. That her spirit should be maintained by competition with others of her same gender in order to attract the buyer, that always unsatisfied customer who is the male."
it's an amazing speech!
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:45 am (UTC)Timmi has a post with more details about the revolution she was talking about and hits some of the same "Huh?" moments that I had, but I don't think she comes to the same conclusion of Euro-/American-centrism.
(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:10 am (UTC)Duchamp actually talks about the panel; she brings up some of the points you've mentioned, although she doesn't sound anywhere near as angry. She's asked for comments and such, so maybe there'll be discussion there too?
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:46 am (UTC)Ah well. Maybe there will be an explanation of the Pol Pot comment, because I really want that explained to me!
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:22 am (UTC)I'm glad you wrote this up, though.
(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 12:46 am (UTC)*sputters incoherently*
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear
Posted by (Anonymous) - Thu, May. 31st, 2007 03:24 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Sorry if I didn't make myself clear
Posted byoh hell to the no.
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 07:19 am (UTC)Re: oh hell to the no.
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 06:14 pm (UTC)Re: oh hell to the no.
Posted byRe: oh hell to the no.
Posted by(no subject)
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 07:46 am (UTC)Or those revolutions that feature prominently in recent American history are not termed as such, or at least ignored if not approved of. Hello, Vietnam, we're here to save you from your own corrupt Communist government. Please ignore our long-standing relationship with your former colonists behind the curtain.
And the ex-hippies missed that one? That's pretty damn weak.
The panel as a whole sounds stomach-churning. Did anyone bring Kincaid's remark denuding Indian revolutionaries of agency to reflect back on the American Revolution? I know it would have done nothing to dismantle the white-centric focus of the discussion, but perhaps it would have lent some (needed) perspective on his comments if the (mostly American) audience had been told their self-governance was due to a bad case of porphyria.
today's bit of trivia
Thu, May. 31st, 2007 01:32 pm (UTC)Did you know India played a role in crafting the American national anthem?
"The rockets' red glare" is a reference to Congreve's rockets. Congreve in turn was inspired by Kingdom of Mysore's habit of using large (up to 2000 at a time) rocket salvos on the British during the Mysore Wars.
ObSF: Jules Verne made Nemo a nephew of Tipu Sahib, the Tiger of Mysore.
(no subject)
Posted by(no subject)
Sat, Jun. 2nd, 2007 09:14 am (UTC)I‘m one of the “ex-hippies” who was at the panel; one who spoke a couple of times, too.
The closest I‘ll come to defending the narrow stuff that went on is to say the the couple of outstandlingly worst lines dumbfounded the entire audience, not just a few.
OTOH, the panel gave me probably the most important new acquaintances (I guess it‘s early to say friends) of the con. I talked to you and vito_Excalibur in the hall for a while later on.
!P!L!E!A!S!E! when next year's programming is beginning, put in a couple of topics which address your issues here. Wiscon is there to blindside us about our blind sides, and your help could be invaluable.
You didn't mention it, but most of those “old hippies” all have known each other for years. If the group mind was so blind and tone deaf, it clearly needs a good kick in the but, and damn the mixed metaphors!
(no subject)
Sun, Jun. 3rd, 2007 03:55 am (UTC)Also, while I appreciate the support, it's really tiring feeling like the only person raising issues up; I think a lot of POC feel this way. So you and others like you could also put in topics as well so it's not just the POC speaking, because a lot of us have been speaking up about things like this for a very long time, and it is exhausting.
Revolution Panel
Mon, Jun. 4th, 2007 02:46 pm (UTC)Re: Revolution Panel
Tue, Jun. 5th, 2007 04:31 pm (UTC)I am glad to have explanations from both Chris and Paul, and while Paul did mention later in the panel that his remarks about the strength of those being rebelled against, I do think it is telling that the point first came up wrt India. And it wasn't just the two of them; whenever people in the audience talked about non-white countries, the language and the POV they were talking from changed completely. Again, I think it was unconscious, but it was there nonetheless.
(no subject)
Mon, Jun. 4th, 2007 04:10 pm (UTC)http://aqueductpress.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-thoughts-on-romance-of-revolution.html
(no subject)
Mon, Jun. 4th, 2007 05:38 pm (UTC)Also, am a little out of it thanks to the stupid cold.
(no subject)
Mon, Jun. 4th, 2007 05:34 pm (UTC)In my comment to Timmi Duchamp I note:
"Coming to this late, and for what it's worth, I wasn't saying that colonial powers 'allowed' revolutions to happen, but that some debilitation in their power, usually though not always economic, meant that they were not in a position to fight the revolution with anything like the overwhelming power they might otherwise have employed. In South Africa, for example, factors such as international isolation had reached the stage where, for the rulers, it no longer even seemed worth while to oppose the ANC.
And I raised this not because I wanted to take anything away from the revolutionaries. But all the discussion to that point had been exclusively about the revolutionaries - and, particularly from those recalling the 1960s, from a remarkably romantic perspective. I wanted to point out that simply having a revolution was not, in and of itself, sufficient to sweep all before it. In appraising how revolutions succeed or fail, you have to take cognizance of the state being revolted against. India (or, rather, portions of Indian society) had risen up against British colonialism countless times from the early 19th century onwards, but these attempts at revolution always failed, until Britain itself was too exhausted by war and economically weakened by the withdrawal of US loans to put up any resistance."
Secondly, India was pretty much a political mess when the English moved in - it was by exploiting this mess, and fomenting further wars, that the English managed to take power with such relative ease. After a period in which the British ruling class seemed to adopt the manners and mores of the Indian ruling class, there was a significant change of attitude sometime early in the 19th century associated with a very clear superior attitude to all things non-British. But the biggest surprise for the British rulers was how quickly thereafter the Indians themselves became adept at all the things the British believed were their own preserve. And having unified the country for our own administrative convenience, that unity quickly began to work against us.
And for the record, I would have been happy if the panel had spent no time discussing the 1960s (from my point of view the hippy movement was not revolutionary in the way that the civil rights and feminist movements were), and equally I would have liked more discussion of, for instance, China. I was also hoping that the panel would have been able to discuss the contrast between revolutions in reality (usually nasty, brutish and all too often unsuccessful) and in literature (often romantically successful against overwhelming odds) but with the best will in the world panels at conventions rarely go the way the panelists might expect or intend.
And by the way, I called on you to speak twice for no other reason than that I saw your hand in the air twice. I don't know what it's like from the floor, but I do honestly try and give everyone in the audience who wants to speak a fair and equal chance to do so.
(no subject)
Mon, Jun. 4th, 2007 09:51 pm (UTC)While I think you have good points about the state being revolted against, I also think that much of the language used by the panelists and by the audience reflected unspoken assumptions regarding race and revolution and agency, and mostly the cultural dominance of the white Western world (in terms of what people know and in terms of what people talk about most). Again, I suspect it was not deliberate on anyone's part, but even so, the assumptions were still there, and that is why I was (and am) so angry about this panel.
Paul's comments on the comments here
Tue, Jun. 5th, 2007 02:53 pm (UTC)Re: Paul's comments on the comments here
Tue, Jun. 5th, 2007 08:16 pm (UTC)