oyceter: Stack of books with text "mmm... books!" (mmm books)
I found this to be very eye opening, but I also don't know much about global agriculture or environmental justice, so YMMV. I admit that I've been a bit skeptical of various environmental movements before, not because they're wrong, but because there are way too many examples of privileged white people espousing environmentalism while culturally appropriating and especially not thinking about how their movement fits in with other social justice movements. Patel specifically addresses these issues, especially in terms of class, colonization, and global agriculture.

Patel touches on a huge number of topics, from the rise of soy in everything we eat to high-fructose corn syrup to how big agricultural companies use genetically modified crops to control small farmers. But the central threads through the book are Patel's critique of the system that rewards big agricultural companies and the middlemen between farmers and consumers, how they are privileged over farmers and consumers, and his understanding of how this works globally. I find the last bit most helpful; Patel doesn't just look at the UK and the US, but focuses a lot on the Global South*. He also makes an effort to focus not just on the "big" players, but also on grassroots organizations and farmers themselves.

I had a problem with Sonia Shah's The Body Hunters, which is on big pharma, because I felt the focus was so much on those organizations that the people they were testing medicine on became a faceless crowd of victims. Patel does do this more in some chapters than others, but the sense I got from his writing was that he's worked very closely with the farmers he's writing about. As such, they come across as people, not victims. It also helps that he continually returns to solutions that small farmers and consumers have come up with; he focuses on how they help themselves, not on how the same international organizations that contributed to the poverty of the Global South are "saving" them.

One thing I took away from this book and others I've been reading (ex. Conquest, Dragon Ladies) is the power of bottom-up movements, how important it is for movements to focus on the people who are the most oppressed and have the least power in the system, because it generally seems easier to start there and end up with solutions that benefit everyone, whereas going from top-down tends to generate solutions that help those on top, but overlooks those on the bottom, particularly people who suffer more than one oppression. For example, feminism's focus on middle-class white women, the male focus in a lot of anti-racism and LGBTQ movements, etc. Of course, this is not saying that those of us who are more privileged should just not do anything, but just that we cannot center movements on the more privileged. I am still trying to figure out how to apply all this to my own attempts at social change and to IBARW, but right now, I have more questions than answers.

Anyway, highly recommended and very eye opening for me.

Links:
- [livejournal.com profile] furyofvissarion's review
- [livejournal.com profile] sanguinity's review


Note: Patel uses the term "people of colour" to describe non-white people (he is from the UK). I can't tell if this is only in the US edition, because it preserves the British spelling of "colour." I also can't remember if Patel footnoted or explained this usage or not; I, uh, already returned it to the library.

* He notes that he prefers this term over "developing countries" or "third-world countries." I have the same problems he does with the prior two terms, and I like that "Global South" does not sound like it is passing judgment, but I think it may overlook countries in the Northern hemisphere that also suffer the effects of colonization.
oyceter: Stack of books with text "mmm... books!" (mmm books)
This is a collection of essays by Asian-American feminists about Asian-American feminists (with the "American" indicating the US, although there is one that focuses on Canadian healthcare). From my recollection, the range seems fairly large—there were quite a few essays on lower-class women and I think the essays spanned a good range of ages, although I could be remembering wrong. I was especially pleased to see good representation of South and Southeast Asian women. I think there could have been more by and about queer women and differently-abled women, though I really loved the round-table with three punk queer Asian women.

I had read about half of this maybe half a year ago; I reread most of it and dashed through the rest to cope with some RL race-related unfunness. I find I don't read these kinds of collections of fairly personal essays by WOC very often, but when I do, they are so inspiring and so life-saving. Maybe that's why I can't read them often... I have to save them up so I have something to turn to when it feels like everything is working against me. I'm not going to be particularly academic in this write up because my reaction is so emotional. This book inspires me and makes me want to do more and to do better, to keep working at things, to try to give back some of the support that I've found within.

One piece that particularly stood out for me was "Bringing Up Baby: Raising a 'Third World' Daughter in the 'First World'" by the mother-daughter team of Shamita Das Dasgupta and Sayantani Das Dasgupta and how jealous I was that Sayantani Das Dasgupta had her mother when she was growing up, how she had a personal role model for radical politics. I hate envying other people's positions, because I'm sure they have problems I do not, and because I am and will always be grateful to my parents for giving me Taiwan. But my family and almost everyone I grew up with were not particularly radical (or liberal even), and I wish I had had something outside of ink and paper, someone human and alive and breathing and talking to go to when I was growing up.

Other themes that struck me were all the mentions of grassroots organization and community outreach; several groups described in the book are grassroots organizations started by women of color to fight sexual violence in communities of color or lower-class women of color mobilizing to fight racism and classism and sexism. It reminds me of how Andrea Smith starts from Native women in Conquest and works out from there, and how by doing so she finds solutions that help those women and help many other communities as well. But I was thinking of activism and fighting oppression and how important it is to start from the ground up, especially because of how oppression works from top down. I am also not sure I am making sense here; I'm still working through what I can do and how I can do it.

One of the pieces was annoying, with the American woman author talking about a group of women in another country, and it just felt so condescending and "I am the outsider talking about these foreign people." I am pretty sure it was Deila D. Aguilar's "Western Feminism and Asian Women," but I am not entirely sure because I do not have my copy of the book next to me.

That said, overall I very much liked how international the book was, how so many of the pieces recognized that many of us might have been born in the US, but we still have families in other countries, still have stakes there that we cannot give up. I also liked how the book not only pointed out racism in the US, but also global structures that support racism, such as the piece on Canadian healthcare and how much of the cost of national healthcare has been offloaded onto immigrant Filipina nurses.

I found this book so personally necessary and so comforting that I have no idea how useful this write up will be to anyone who's not me. Still, recommended!
oyceter: Stack of books with text "mmm... books!" (mmm books)
I picked this up after reading [livejournal.com profile] sanguinity's write up and after becoming more aware of the subject after reading Conquest and Killing the Black Body, particularly the chapters about the forced sterilization of Native and Black women (and I am sure of other women of color) and the unethical means of getting those women to agree to Norplant or Depo-Provera.

Shah's book focuses less on reproductive health and more on Big Pharma and the drug testing industry. She goes through recent history, from the rise of testing with the Salk vaccine to the Nazi and WWII-Japanese experiments on human subject to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to testing nowadays in "third-world" countries.

She explains the many factors that led to this: the more and more stringent requirements for drug companies to first prove that their medicines do not harm and then to prove that they actually do what they say they do and the growing protection of patients. But only patients in the right countries, only patients with money, only patients with power. Points she especially emphasizes are testing experimental drugs against placebos versus testing them against the best proven treatment, as companies have found ways to worm their way around "best proven treatment." After all, if they're testing in Africa or India, those people couldn't access the best treatment anyway, so a placebo really is their best treatment. And it would be unethical to provide access to good drugs during the trial and then to take them away afterward.

I agree with her analysis, particularly the way companies take advantage of the ravages of colonialism to subject even more testing and experimentation upon the very people hurt most by colonization. However, I think at times her argument gets a little confusing, particularly when she first argues against siccing experimental drugs that may or may not hurt patients on test subjects, and then argues that a drug study was unethical because they did not provide experimental drugs they thought might or might not help, as opposed to a placebo. I think I needed a little more data and a clearer picture of what counted as "known to help" and what didn't before I could quite figure out what was going on.

The other problem I had with the book was the lack of individuality of the people submitted to drug tests. She has several portrayals of individuals within the drug industry (none flattering), a few of people protesting the lack of ethical standards, Peter Lurie in particular, and a few of regulators and doctors in assorted countries. I wanted portraits of the individuals hurt by the drug tests as well, because although I do not think it is at all her intention to do the "third world as teeming masses of oppressed people who need to be saaaaved!" some of that still came out in the book. There is a lot of contempt for the people being tested on from the drug companies and the regulators, and it would have been nice to see the people as people, with their own stories and pain and difficulty. That said, they are in the book and they are quoted, but I still felt they were less individualistic.

I also wish her portion on drug testing in the US had focused more on things like testing on the poor, on women of color, on populations least equipped to say no. She does mention testing in prisons and on the homeless, but much of that chapter is on university students taking up drug testing for money. While it does prove her point about how someone can make an informed decision when there is money involved and that person needs the money, I think the argument would have been much, much stronger had she focused on populations that not only need the money, but are also caged by issues of social justice. I was thinking mostly about forced sterilization on the mentally ill and the differently abled, drug testing and monetary compensation on the lower class, Norplant and women of color (and how frequently the categories overlap and are the same).

Still, a good read, and I think I need to find more books on this subject.

Links:
- [livejournal.com profile] sanguinity's review
oyceter: Stack of books with text "mmm... books!" (mmm books)
For [livejournal.com profile] coffeeandink

Roberts writes about reproductive freedom for poor black women and how that reproductive freedom often differs from the standard definition used by most white feminists, particularly the mainstream feminist movement for the right to abortion and birth control versus the right to not be coerced or deceived into sterilization or into taking birth control drugs you did not agree to. From there, she examines the meaning of liberty in the United States and what to do when the idea of negative liberty butts up against the idea of social justice.

I suspect I would have found this book much more mind-blowing had I not read Andrea Smith's Conquest first (read it! READ IT!); as such, I still think it's a very necessary read, although it's a bit more dated and Roberts doesn't synthesize her argument quite as well. The book goes through the history of black reproductive freedom, particularly black female reproductive freedom, from the days of slavery, when a black woman's reproductive system was, along with the rest of her, property of white men, when masters could and would whip their pregnant slaves even as they dug holes in the dirt to protect the property in their wombs. And while slavery is over, Roberts shows again and again that the same attitude about black women's bodies and reproductive systems are perpetuated.

She goes on to show that if black women's babies cannot be the property of white people, they are instead portrayed as a burden ("crack babies" and "welfare mothers"). While I completely agree with her argument, I felt she could have drawn more parallels with how race and sex and class intersect; frequently she would point to classist language ("welfare mothers") and note that they were racially coded, even if not explicitly so in the language. It's not to say that she ignores class; class is a constant throughout the book, as it is always the poorest black women who have the worst choices forced upon them. I think I just wanted a more detailed connection.

I had the same issue with ablism. Roberts cites several cases in which black mothers are classified as "mentally disabled" as a convenient way to convince others of the need to sterilize them. In some of the cases, the mother was not differently abled, but in some of the others, she may have been, and I think the book would have been stronger had Roberts incorporated a critique of the ablism inherent in many of the arguments for sterilization. This goes doubly when she discusses the eugenics movement, which she mainly writes about as being a barely coded means for white people to talk about black genocide. Again, I completely agree with her here and in no way want to lessen the strength of her argument. But I think synthesizing classism and ablism further into her analysis of racism and sexism would only make it stronger, a la Andrea Smith drawing parallels among sexual violence against Native women, Native American genocide, and environmental violence.

Many of the chapters on medical experimentation on black women, forced sterilization, uninformed drug trials, and coerced birth control are familiar from Smith, and though I don't have the book with me anymore, I'm fairly certain Roberts is talking about present-day happenings. Norplant and Depo-Provera again, and who knows what big Pharma is doing in Africa (thank you, Sonia Shah). She also links the present with the past, from owning black bodies to the Tuskegee Syphilis Studies.

Still, the most painful part of the book is when she shows how the interests of poor black women and middle-class white women have collided, particularly when it comes to a waiting period for sterilization and informed consent for birth control. This is where I think Roberts does her best work; this is where she takes the idea of negative liberty and contrasts it with social justice:

This notion of liberty rests on the assumption that privileging individual autonomy over social justice is essential to human freedom. [...] The primacy of liberty over equality, then, accepts the possibility that inequality may be inevitable in a liberal society. Although the pursuit of equality, once liberty is assured, is commendable, liberalism cannot guarantee its realization.


She manages to critique the mainstream feminist movement and how it has historically ignored issues central to the well-being of poor black women while still arguing for a need of both increased access to abortion and birth control along with protecting those who have historically been the most abused. I'm still thinking over many of her points about liberty and justice and especially wondering how it works in places that promote positive liberty instead of negative.

Dramas and me

Wed, Jan. 2nd, 2008 01:25 pm
oyceter: teruterubouzu default icon (Default)
I may be a little obsessed right now, as I am sure you have all picked up on.

Currently on my to-watch list: Fantasy Couple (watched first few eps), Hwang Jin Yi, Jumong, The Snow Queen, Dae Jang Geum, Legend, Sandglass, Que Sera Sera, Dal Ja's Spring, Flowers for My Life.

I feel a little like I did when I dipped my toe back into the world of anime and manga a few years ago, nostalgic and overwhelmed with newness all at once. On the other hand, it's less with the nostalgic and more with the overwhelmed with newness when compared to anime and manga, just because I used to be a huge anime and manga fan (and am again!), whereas I never thought of myself as a drama fan.

Nostalgia )

Newness )

Language )

Tropes, Gender, Race, and Class )

ETA: [livejournal.com profile] rilina's post on why she's watching kdramas.

Profile

oyceter: teruterubouzu default icon (Default)
Oyceter

March 2021

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910 111213
1415 1617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags