the romance of protest culture and the luxury of apathy & critique

A lot has happened since I last posted here. The trimester here at Hippie U is almost over, and as we all scramble to finish our grant applications/conference papers/seminar papers/ Qualifying Exam preparations/TA grading responsibilities, we see around us a rising mood of discontent.

Unfortunately for everyone involved, it is not a unitary discontent. Sure, everyone is upset about the rise in tuiti– ahem, fees. But how that unhappiness is being expressed by some has evolved into an unproductive divisiveness that has threatened the formation of any kind of movement, or put more succinctly (if tritely) “change.” Given the true history of Hippie U, this should not be unexpected.

Hippie U, for its part, has always had a radical reputation. But this radicalism was never really expressed by the student body, even in the 1960s. Rather, the radicalism that has been associated with Hippie U since its beginnings in the 1960s was academic, philosophical, and pedagogical. Hippie U was supposed to be a different (read: radical) kind of learning experience by design. Evaluations rather than letter grades, new interdisciplinary and radical conceptualizations for academic departments (see: Community Studies and History of Consciousness), and the hiring of radical and activist faculty through the sixties, seventies, and eighties indicate that Hippie U was supposed to be a breed apart from other public institutions of higher education in California. In my opinion, the tragic mistake that students and outside observers make is that they think that following all of this “institutional (contrived) radicalism” would be a student body that would develop and act accordingly. Yet, looking around over the past few decades (and certainly the past few days), what we see instead is an undergraduate and graduate student culture of intellectualism that is fueled more by either drugs, alcohol, or (most often) a nostalgia for revolutions (or activisms) past.*

If you look closely at the actions this past weekend, it becomes clear that if the current occupations were not fueled by drugs or alcohol (which they weren’t), they were certainly more about nostalgia than they were about change. I personally believe that occupations can be productive forms of protest. But the way it played out was sketchy. One would think that a more well-thought-out occupation would have been more attentive to the realities of administrative and police intervention, and would have prepared those protesting for the inevitable arrival of the authorities. Keeping people safe should have been ideal, and though there were a number of warnings, admonitions, and orders, despite their intentions, it seemed like an afterthought. There could have been training for people who were planning to take part in the protest; discuss ways to interact with authorities that are all at once constructive, respectful (if not respectful of authority, at least respectful of guns and batons), but still very contentious. There should have been a list of people who were ready to go to jail, and more coordination with faculty and others in sympathy with such actions so they only inconvenienced the people that needed to be inconvenienced (and there are people who need to be inconvenienced).

The worst thing about the latest occupation, in my mind, is that the people involved in occupying Kerr Hall were but a small part of a much larger movement to open the eyes of students and faculty, and open a dialogue with the administration about the general invisibility of students within the university system when it comes to decisions that are made that affect us directly. Some (ok, most!) would say that this occupation did more harm than good, alienating a number of people who were at the very least sympathetic with the cause of fighting cutbacks to staff, faculty, and the rise of fees. However, I would respond to this by saying that the same people who do the complaining about the ineffectiveness of occupation as a viable avenue towards making change are in fact the ONLY people who can fix the situation. Despite the energy, adrenaline, and excitement that accompanied the release of the occupiers, the group will only be further marginalized when people who believe in more modest (or I might also say, effective) forms of change start making suggestions and taking part.** Yet, whether it is through the haze of weed smoke or the blurred stumbling after overconsumption of Jagermeister, most people who agree that the university stands at a crucial crossroads are exercising the luxury of apathy & critique– while a small, yet growing contingent of students are on the opposite end of the spectrum, trying (unsuccessfully and perhaps dangerously, in my view) to capture the romance of protest culture.

In the meantime, the UC system is standing back, watching, spinning, and waiting for the eventual and inevitable dissolution of any student voice at all.

*Drugs and alcohol are a reality on all college campuses, to be sure. However, I think it says a great deal that the biggest unadvertised event in the entire university system here is the 4/20 celebration that is held on the lower field behind Porter College. I’m not judging; just stating the fact that drugs of some kind are probably the most notable thing attached to Hippie U, for better or worse. Don’t believe me? Our biggest (and most famous, now) archival holdings are of the Grateful Dead. I think that says something, even if we only recently received the collection.

**I’m really admonishing myself here, since I have attended a grand number of two meetings since the inception of the group.

how smart are you?

There are a lot of problems with the university right now, and none of them will be solved through displays of audacity, arrogance, entitlement, or ego.

I hope people realize this before it is too late.

wins and losses

as the school year starts, I find myself in a weird place.

1) I took out loans for the first time here, and thus I finally have some money to pay rent, get some decent things, and maybe even purchase a reliable car (with which I hope to make a number of research trips to southern California) without having to worry that I may end up homeless. So check one for the win column, even though I will have to pay the money back. Eventually. Probably.

2) I began my research this summer, and I’m beginning to put some things together. I’m really interested in what I am finding, and would like to still find some more. I am in the process of contacting people, reading, and trying to analyze the documents that I managed to copy while I was out. I am interested in doing Children’s History, an interesting new subfield that has some fascinating research emerging. However, despite my research, my thinking, and my reading, I’m not so sure I have anything more than a vague idea of what I am doing. I have a stock phrase that I use when I  talk to people about it, but if pressed, I doubt I could talk about it without stammering. This is a problem, since right now I should probably be writing a proposal and getting my funding ducks in a row. Actually, before I do that, I need to talk to the powers that be to make sure that this is even a viable project in the first place– that is, if I can put together something coherent enough to explain it. And I have yet to do my QEs. You have no idea how much this bothers me. I kind of deserve this, because I probably don’t work as much as I should, but at the same time, last year was kind of weird because “people” convinced me thoroughly that I had no idea what I was doing. I’m coming out of that, slowly. So let’s chalk that up as…well, the jury is still out.

3) The faculty/grad/undergrad walkout happened last Thursday, and I think it was a measured success. I worried that having a turnout of undergrads, grads, and faculty might minimize what UPTE (technical workers at the UC), but it appeared that wasn’t a problem. Our turnout was not as big as the larger universities, but that was not unexpected.* The demonstrations at UCLA and UCB made news, and our campus managed to get on the local news. Bully.

Hours later, the grad commons were occupied. I have so much to say about this, but I think it is something that is better discussed than read. I would say two things: 1) people who felt deeply about the budget cuts and organized around it are kind of pinned in a corner– they feel betrayed, while at the same time they know that the alternative to not (officially) supporting this right now is doing nothing at all, thus jeopardizing any positive traction from the action last week. 2) To me, this smacks more of idealist politics and (especially) ego. To me.

For now, let’s chalk it up as a loss.

 

 

* Despite the hippie and somewhat radical credentials our campus at Hippie U supposedly has, our undergrad student body is among the richest per capita of the UCs (I read that somewhere), and our campus is not conducive to large gatherings or protests. Some say that this was by design, though I find that difficult to believe, since the school opened in the mid-sixties, and the plans for it probably began years before that.

you can escape everything but regret and guilt

people are in Big Basin right now, creating memories and (hopefully) getting drunk. I knew when the topic came up that I would be unable to make it, but now that it is actually happening, I wish I had cancelled my research trip. I mean, I think I need a couple of days away from everything, setting aside the difficulties of the day and drinking instead.

I may get a drink for myself when I get off work, and raise a glass to those committed campers, as I wait for my SO to return from NY.

In the meantime, I will also be thinking about 1) the beginning of the school year, 2) the faculty walkout on Thursday, and 3) when the revolution might start, and what role I should play.

 

I’ll talk about that last one later.

is it really about health care and taxes?

 

new apartment, same old stupid

so I moved. I am now livingin the lap of luxury, in a two bedroom apartment with less roommates that I have in over 4 years. Plus, the roommate happens to be my girlfriend, so it kind of works out.

But the move itself was a four day process that involved cleaning, Chinese food, and a lot of lifting.

Ok, here is the thing with moving: I have moved many many times over the years, and thus I am fairly well practiced at changing residences. I have very little by way of furniture, so usually I can just move using my own car, and it takes only a few trips. It would take even less effort than that, but it ends up that I have around 600 books that I take with me everywhere I go, and that makes the move a bit more daunting.*

So I was moving again, and I figured that even though I was moving not only my stuff, but that of another person, that moving would be a snapp. It is just a question of picking up boxes and furniture, toting them to a door, and setting it inside. Easy.

Well, it ends up that my S.O. is all about getting furniture. She lived in a loft apartment that would fit a television and a chair– max– and managed somehow to get two chairs, a couch, a table, a bed, and an assortment of items that had no business fitting in  a place so small. Indeed, it is a testament to her design skills and ability to rock a tetris game that she was able to make her place look so good and uncluttered.

My point is, that even as I began taking stuff out of her apartment to put into the truck, I still felt that this could easily be a one person job– one and a half persons, tops. In fact, the load up really only took the better part of a day, with minimal assistance, so I totally felt that I was manly enough to get the job done in another day or so. But then, at the last minute, I got smart– I asked for help. This typically isn’t my thing, asking for help, but I went ahead and did it anyway in the interest of my relationship lasting more than a month. So  I sent the call out, and my main man C came to the rescue. After appropriately chastising me for waiting until the last minute and not thinking to ask for assistance earlier, we ended up rocking the entire unload process in about an hour and a half.**

So now the housewarming date has been moved up by about a week or two. Keep your eye out for an invitation.

 

 

*In fact, after my first year here, convinced that I could move on my own, I managed to move all my stuff in one day without a car! Except for the books. I bought a car for that.

**Special shout out to K for answering the call too and asking if she could help! I was two for two!

we’ve got the power…probably

I was reading Huffingtonpost.com today, and there were three posts that talked about the power of the people. Larry Flynt, apparently between publishing not-so-tasteful girl on girl spreads and selling advertisements for sex dolls, called for a national strike. Another former Obama campaign organizer called for the president to live up to his campaign slogan– to create “change we can believe in”– and fight for health care reform, telling the president that the people are behind you, and that “we are ready to fight. Are you?”

Strong words. I especially like the national strike idea, despite the inherent problems in actually realizing it.

But these posts and the others I read all hung on the sincere belief that “the people” have more power than the corporate interests that are controlling not only the political discourse, but politics in general. Well, they are right about one thing: corporations do control the political discourse. Whether it is directly through lobbying, or indirectly through “pundits”* paid by the media to say…well, whatever the media outlets think will give them higher ratings. Oh yeah– and keep them from damaging their other corporate interests (the Olbermann/O’Reilly war ended because Murdoch met with the head of G.E. and they decided that the fight interfered with the profitability abilities of other sectors within their respective conglomerates).

But do “the people” really have more power than these varied corporate interests? Let me say it this way: maybe, but no. The fact is, in addition to manipulating owning the media, corporate interests have also become adept recently at actually manipulating the people themselves into grassroots action. These are the people trying to disrupt town hall meetings by yelling, carrying assault rifles, and holding up posters of Obama with a Hitler mustache and calling him a socialist or a communist. These are the Tea Party people. These are the people who have general angst over having a black man for a president, an angst which corporate interests (the insurance industry) and talk radio (which is heavily subsidized by corporations and at times, the RNC) use to intentionally disrupt and send into confusion any kind of civil discussion about policies that affect them.**  

But if “the people” can be manipulated to maintain the status quo, then could they not also be manipulated into supporting gay marriage? Health Care reform? Clean air?

I say, “yes we can!”

But we won’t. Mainly because, to the credit of those who truly want change, such people kn0w that for the only way for change to last is to educate people and introduce them to the complexities of real life, as well as what it means to be a part of something larger than themselves (a concept that people on the right pay lip service to, while at the same time promoting policies that divide and compartmentalize people into individuals). The democrats are idealists.

Just kidding. I just read an article that reports the DNC is behind an ad campaign that says Republicans want to end medicare. So maybe democrats try to manipulate the people, but they are so ineffective at it that it really doesn’t matter. At this point, the only power the people have is to vote for the Massive Monkees on America’s Best Dance Crew.

*The primary definition of pundit, according to the dictionary, means ”expert,” which is why I put it in quotes, since they often don’t seem like experts to me; they just talk louder. 

**for example, “get your government hands off my medicare!”, despite the fact that medicare is, in fact, a government program.

The Best Revenge is Living Well, or: You Split the Workers, We’ll Split the Hairs

I posted something here for my two readers a while back about the upcoming AHA (American Historical Association) having their annual conference at a hotel that was undergoing some labor strife. I think I ended the post by urging the AHA to get out of the contract, saying that they can afford to stand on their principles. You know, the usual: righteous indignation, respect workers from your privileged position as academics, blah blah blah.

It probably came off kinda dickish, but I feel that I have a responsibility to deliver to my two (maybe four now!) loyal readers what they have come to expect from a Botched blog post, which is one sided commentary, mixed in with biting sarcasm bordering on cruelty. It doesn’t pay well, but what does these days?

Back to the AHA annual conference in San Diego issue.

OK, so I wrote that post, and finally, the AHA chooses to respond to me.* I say it’s about time.

Unfortunately, their response was so cordial and professional, I am put in the awkward position of having to respond in the same manner to what I feel is a rather feeble defense of their position. Which totally sucks.

Ok, I’m not even sure I can do this.

When the email from the AHA arived in my inbox today, I was rather surprised at the defensive tone. Had I read the debate more extensively, I would have found that there is another letter circulating from a UNITEHERE! organizer that subtly attacks one of the AHA members organizing the conference, and downplays the significance of what might be substantial issues for many AHA members. I say attacking organizations is fine, but accusing individuals of either complicity or duplicity is counterproductive– there is no end that would justify such means.** 

In the AHA’s response, they noted that once they found out that the hotel owner supported Proposition 8 (the anti-gay marriage initiative), they considered their options and decided that instead of cancelling their reservation for the meeting space and incur high penalties, that they would instead put together a working group that would foreground the history of LGBTQ(TII) struggles in one out of every eight panels or workshops. In fact, there are some big names in the field that are a part of this working group, people who have been visibly committed to such topics throughout much of their careers.

So on one level, the AHA is saying that this alternative to cancellation, since it is backed by activists within the profession, is acceptable. By “gaying up” the conference, they are putting a thumb in the eye of the owner, who is himself anti-gay rights. This is kind of like being angry about bad service and leaving a 19% instead of 20% for a tip. At the same time, it is not like I do not recognize that this is an actual dilemma; it certainly is not as clear cut as it might be protrayed by some. The AHA, whether I disagree with it or not, is making an effort here, and I suppose we can only guess what might come of it until it happens. For the record, though, my guess is that the owner will be laughing all the way to the bank– which, by the way, is what he would be doing if the AHA decided to cancel. Again, it comes down to principle versus pragmatism, and I guess they made their decision. (Although I would be curious to know exactly how the AHA would respond to this exact situation were the issue something along the lines of, “the ownership supports slavery and lynching”; I think in that case, principles might win out, but…)

The other thing that they are saying is that there is no labor dispute at the hotel, and that the workers are not organized. First, I have to say at non-union hotels, there are always labor disputes. Always. The only difference is that at non-union hotels, the workers live in fear of losing their jobs if they disagree with what management is doing to them (like taking their time cards and clocking them out for lunch while they continue to work). Second, I am left to wonder why we are having a convention at a non-union hotel at all. I’m relatively new to the organization, but is this normal? Is that just the price that we as historians have to pay for being in sunny San Diego as opposed to Pittsburgh? Either way, I guess the real problem is that the AHA has language in the contract that says that if there are labor disputes, they can get out of the contract (way paraphrasing here)– but there are no official labor disputes, aside from “a vague allusion” to something that happened in 2006. Thus, since the pickets outside of the hotel will only be informational rather than indicative of a specific labor struggle, then technically we can cross them.

I’m trying to find a professional way to say “bullshit,” but nothing is coming to mind.

Obviously when people attend, each will have to make their own decision as to whether they should cross the picket line, but I would say that even crossing an informational picket sets a bad precedent, especially for us as an organization.  

I’m not angry that the AHA has chosen to take this route, but I am disappointed at their response, which seems awfully defensive, despite the fact that they encouraged conversation (which I hope happens). Perhaps the best revenge on a reactionary and discriminatory ownership is to let them know that in no uncertain terms do we approve of those views…getting in the way of our good time.

Keep living well.

 

 

 

 

*Not so much to me, but rather to the many many thoughtful and helpful emails and posts on such lists such as H-Labor that offer a fair assessment of the situation and a careful, intelligent debate about what labor conscious folk should do. I, on the other hand, just say “fuck” a lot, so I doubt I am even a blip on their radar.

**There are a number of things that are difficult about being an organizer, but the one thing that is easy is that your job, at the end of the day, is to care about the workers and nothing else. You don’t have to care about the hotel, you don’t have to care about the public perception, and you certainly don’t have to care about misleading people. It is about justice, and if you are a part of an organization that needs to be convinced or cajoled to be a part of it, then perhaps we deserve to be misled. However, calling people out for duplicity, particlarly within an organization that even pays lip service to yoru struggles, is probably not a good way to move forward with your struggle. There.

nobody walks in L.A.

I’ve had about 2 research days so far in Los Angeles with mixed results. Yesterday I went to the City of Los Angeles records and archives department and started exploring stuff. I don’t know yet if they have anything major for me to hang my hat on empirically, but it is nice to know that it is there. Plus, the people there gave me tons of leads, and I am looking to contact the county archives for my next trip– they say that the county archivists are trying to convince the world that they do not exist, either by hiding their offices of pretending they don’t see you when you try to talk to them.

I am equal to the task. Just let that civil servant see if they can ignore me…

Anyway, today I went to the University of Southern California, and it reminded me of what a real college is like. Now, I’m no fan of USC:

 

I tend to think that the school is populated by rich spoiled kids, so fuck’em. (Actually, it ends up I am wrong about this. The rich spoiled kids are the ones that you see out there in the “quad”, but I found a ton of poor kids that were there on loans and need based scholarships working hard at the library.

But it ends up that the library there is awesome! It reminds me of when I used to have a real library at my institution, rather than Sears and Roebuck that passes for a library at Hippie U. The library at USC was old school, and by that I mean, a) it had a lot of books, b) it had them available, and c) they had my favorite thing about univiersity libraries, the bound journal stacks. They are usually located on the bottom floor, there is usually no one there, which means that you can work without getting bothered.

I cannot describe how awesome this was today, but maybe I can show you.

The bottom floor of the library gives you tons of privacy. You can think really hard:

You can read up on important articles that were published in the early twentieth century:

You can try to dance and instead look like a constipated beaver:

Or you can just take pictures of your genitals:

ok, that was a close up of my hand, but you get the point– in a place like this, you can even eat a book if you wanted to

and no one would know. MMMMMM, Social Forces vintage 1922– yummy!

The thing is, no one is down there, no one wants to be there, so I can do whatever I want– it is empty.

I could totally live here.

Novelty

Ok, I am turning off the radio for about five minutes so I can write this. As both of you have figured out, most of what I write here is either sloppy, unformed, and occasionally uninformed. As a general rule, I think this is a good thing; my more coherent thoughts are best saved for the day I become a columnist for teh L.A. Times, or in some kind of position where I am respected (however, to do that, I will have to stop spelling the word “the” t-e-h. But you’ll forgive me, right?). But I noticed something in my reading this evening, and I thought it might be worth exploring here. So, just off the top of my head…

What does the presidency of Obama mean? I’m not talking about the racial issue per se, but instead I am trying to get at what kind of opportunities an Obama presidency offers for Republicans, talk radio wing nuts, and Glenn Beck, and I think race plays a part here, even if only a tangential one.

Check this out– I was reading Glenn Greenwald today (check this link if you want the article), and he made the point that although the Dixie Chicks, Al Gore, and others were villified when they opposed Bush initiatives on foreign soil, Mike Huckabee (conservative talk show host on Fox and former Republican candidate for president) goes to Israel and bashes Obama’s foreign policy quite openly. You can read the article if you want more details– Greenwald was making the point that there seems to be a double standard in the way that the media translates and tells these stories; there seems to be a general fear in the media of angering those on the right wing for some reason. He is right, too (as Greenwald usually is). However, I think that people going overseas to critique, bash, or even disagree with President Obama’s policies on foreign soil points to something deeper, and it has everything to do with what the right wing conservatives feel Obama’s presidency represents:

Novelty.

Whether we are talking about the health care debate, the environment, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama’s opinions, appearances and words seem to be portrayed as great theater, but generally ignored. Sure, they pay lip service to what he says, but for the most part no one is scared of him, or worse than that, no one respects him. Limbaugh, who has never been shy about voicing his opinion, makes allusions to Nazi-ism, says outright that he wants the president to fail. Others pass around racist pictures and jokes about him in emails. Still others simply act as if he and his presidency do not exist. Again, Glenn Greenwald points out that it might be partially because in an effort to unite the parties he ends up looking weak and conciliatory, but…I don’t know, there just seems to be more to it than that.

Is it because as a black man he can’t act too tough and bully anyone (e.g., use the office of the presidency like everyone else has) for fear of losing votes? Does this mean that a person of color can’t govern effectively? Has anyone in the last forty or so (200) years ever governed effectively regardless of race? I don’t know; I mean, this may not be a racial issue, but at the same time it is at least a little bit, because, well, there is no escaping that he is a person of color. 
I’m suggesting here that maybe the American people, in voting for Obama, demonstrated that they are far ahead of politicians and the media in general (who can’t talk about race without talking about racism anymore, since anything else doesn’t sell), and we are now seeing the result of that in the blatant disrespect being paid to the office of the president by people on the right wing. It seemed only a moment ago that the media freaked when Gibbs (the press secretary, not one of the BeeGees) suggested that Dick Cheney was a crazy right wing freak himself– “woe– that was the vice president of the United States you are talking about there!” As if they had such reverence for the office that they weren’t, just twelve years before, calling Bill Clinton a whore in the White House press room. In fact, why all the genuflecting at the altar of Cheney and nothing but disrespect when it comes to the current president?

I think it is fear. I think that everyone in the entire country knows that if he feels like it, Cheney can have you and your family killed. Dude shot a guy in the face already, and that was his friend. Obama? If you are the media or a politician, what is he going to do, talk you to death? Take the black vote or black viewers away from you? They never had them in the first place, not in any sufficent numbers, so what is to lose?

What we need is a president who can scare the fuck out of people. Reagan did it when he fired the air traffic controllers, Bush I did it the first time around in Iraq, Clinton did it everytime he pulled down his pants, and Bush II did it everytime he opened his mouth. Sadly, despite winning the presidency, despite earning respect through his actions and policies, he still lacks it from just about everyone (the left, the right, congress, the media). The only course of action left for Obama at this point, I think, is to just take respect, because for some reason (and I think we all know what it is), politicians and the media aren’t giving him what he has rightfully earned. If he doesn’t, I fear that he will only last one term, and his presidency will be go down in history as the exception taht proves the rule. Either that, or as a novelty.