DawgNotes

America has always been a place where people from other countries have run away to. It has always been changing and changed by those people. It was designed to be changed. That's what all those founding documents were designed to allow. And the fact that I have to share my citizenship with self-righteous, ignorant and arrogant morons who write the kind of trash quoted above makes me very sad, and a little bit sick. No one has ever said such things in my presence. I wish that meant no one actually thought such things.

On May 2, statistics assembled by the Pew Hispanic Center appeared in the same paper as these comments. They indicate that 90% of illegal immigrant men are part of the labor force. That hardly seems like a collection of "lazy bums" to me. Only 5% of the U.S. labor force is illegal aliens. 5%. That's it. To listen to these misguided folks, you'd think it was more like 70%.

I don't understand the concept of "illegal" immigrants in these globally modern times. But I'll bet the elders of the local Haudenosaunee tribe could explain it to me. And INS wouldn't be in the answer.

Note: excepts are taken from letters published in The Post-Standard on May 4, 2006, in response to the May 1 demonstrations by immigrants around the country.

Update:: Heard in a meeting earlier this week that somebody managed to tack on a little rider to an immigration bill passed last week by the U.S. Senate that creates English as the official language of these United States. Ugh. We just won't learn, will we? (By the way, any specific on said bill, like name, title, or date of passage would be most appreciated and save me search time...)

Posted by cageyer at 11:22 PM | Comments (0)

May 12, 2006

Done

I am done with coursework. Done. Finished. Finitea.

I turned in my last seminar paper this morning. Whatever I do from now on, I do in furtherance of my own interests.

How cool is that?

Posted by cageyer at 06:14 AM | Comments (5)

May 03, 2006

What he said...

Found over at Desparate Houseflies, from Ben Stein.

yeah - what he said.

Posted by cageyer at 09:16 AM | Comments (0)

May 02, 2006

Late to the [Crowley] Carnival

I'm very late joining this carnival on Sharon Crowley's newest book, Toward a Civil Discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism. Jenny Edbauer, Jeff Rice, and Debbie Hawhee all posted thoughtful comments right at the beginning, and though I had finished my reading in time to post on time, I couldn't bring myself to put my comments in public.

After thinking about it for a week or so, and reading the other comments again, I know I don't have much new to offer, but I want to get my say in anyway, since I did want to participate.

I have read Crowley's other books, and I am a fan of hers. I have argued time and again in favor of her "modest proposal" and I am often the one willing to seriously engage the discussion of rethinking the very nature of composition as a college subject. I tend toward the classical in my understanding of, use of, and teaching of rhetoric, and I find myself appreciating other scholars that Crowley seems to respect or champion. I offer all of this because: a) Sharon Crowley is a senior scholar and long-time professor, b) I am but a lowly graduate student (despite my age and experience in the world), and c) because of what I'll say next: I was very disappointed in the tone of this book. From the first chapter, where Crowley offers her argument that "apocalyptism does more than [do ideological work]: it actually connects political activity to Christian duty" (9), I had the sense that Crowley had stumbled upon an entirely new (to her) genre of text and discourse, and wrote the book on the assumption that this would be as new to others. Maybe it is. So maybe its my own background getting in the way here. And if Jenny is right that liberals have a tendency toward dismissal of conservatives, Christians, or fundamentalists, then I stand corrected in my initial response. But I also agree with Jeff that Christian fundamentalism isn't really different from any other fundamentalism, (except to those who practice it), and that both the celebrity factor and the nature of democracy are important to understanding the toehold fundamentalist Christianity has in this country.

I agree with Jenny about the danger of a singular notion of "fundamentalism," and I agree with both Jenny and Crowley that there is a limit to "understanding" where real differences and real life decisions are in play. I spent a significant portion of my life in what might be termed a "fundamentalist" ministry (following Crowley's distinction of "fundamentalism" as a system where foundations are "primary, noncontingent, and non-negotiable.") I could, but won't, debate some of the notions she presents from other scholars (such as the seven dispensations she picks up from Darby), because these are not her arguments. I do think, though, that it's important that there are multiple understandings of such things as biblical time even among the most devout believers, and some of those believers can't even discuss that difference among themselves. My learning, for example, is largely based on what would qualify as classical rhetorical structures (precept upon precept, line upon line...) I lived in a "blue" state most of my life and swam against the current as a conversative, Christian, Republican (three terms I still use to self-identify). Yet I believe in rationality, liberalism, and tolerance within the limits of a civil society. I voted Republican right up to the 2000 election, when it was for me morally impossible. I am regularly amazed at how little my students and colleagues know about or understand the processes of government the determine their lives. I believe the key to peaceful co-existence with others who are different in any way is education - learning about those others and what they believe and value, and why. Now, I also understand that, as Crowley argues, if that other has no interest in returning that posture, there is no communication to be had. And this seems to be the important theme of the book: those who tolerate no discussion and who have built a belief system around apocalypticism not only won't engage in argument or discussion, but believe they have no reason to. The beauty of apocalyptic vision is that you get out of this world, so you don't have to be deeply invested in how it works out.

Debbie also talks about the problem of dismissal. If we think of fundamentalists as any other marginalized group who, when dismissed without feeling heard or understood (I know that's hard, but play along...), then it is less surprising that they pack the courts and the legislators as best they can with folks sypmathetic to their cause. What often surprises me is how a group with a deeply held value set and a sense of urgency can mobilize enough people to swing an election or an appointment when there are so many other eligible and differently minded folks who could prevent it by participating themselves. (That's another subject, though, isn't it?)

It seems to me that Crowley's book, as an attempt to build an understanding of the belief systems in play for fundamentalists and apocalyptics is valuable if it allows liberal minded academics to find a way to seriously engage in conversations intended to draw out those beliefs from individuals around them. It seems to me that a genuine attempt at understanding the other's position, of building that Burkean sense of identification, is the only way to get to the consubstantiation that can modify the extreme edges of both the discourse and the actions that follow from it. I also think Jodi Dean's observation is vital: "I believe that they believe...". And I guess that for myself (to try and bring an end to this long post) I, like Dean, am interested in "the diversity of truth claims; the multiple ways in which people construct and authorize them; and, finally, what this means for notions of community and the public sphere" (169). Understanding at that level seems to me more challenging and more engaged than a mere acceptance of an other's right to believe whatever s/he wishes.

If the goal is understanding the extremists to move "toward" a civil discourse, then I think it's necessary to realize that it's not enough just to understand what the other side does (i.e., in terms of winning elections, etc.) There also has be to be deliberate move to respond, to mobilize, to raise votes and awareness and participate in discussions ourselves.

Well, this is a start, and I have more I'd like to say in relation to the book. I'm still not comfortable that I'm responding well, so perhaps if there are any carnivalers out there still willing to talk about the book they will respond.

Posted by cageyer at 09:04 AM | Comments (2)