Eat, Travel, Oppress: Travel Discourse and Imperialist Nostalgia - Shameless Magazine - your daily dose of fresh feminism for girls and trans youth →
The self-obsessed language through which travel and travelling is typically talked about in our culture is rooted in an imperialist mode of thinking that sustains itself through othering poor people of colour. In fact, the ways of talking about travel have made it so that travellers going on vacations for fun, or trips to help others, do so in manners and behaviours that are strikingly similar to the trips that European colonizers took centuries ago when they first came to “civilize” the rest of the world.
In this light, travel discourse is directly perpetuating colonial ways of thinking: it markets travelling as an apolitical, carefree, schism-free and fluffy experience, unaccountable to historical and present violence caused by ongoing colonization. It ignores the reality that the actions of global powers are the main causes of the poverty and oppression in travel destination countries. We need new ways of talking about travel that does not equate gaining personal fulfillment at the expense of poor people, Indigenous people and people of colour.
(Source: stabra, via iggymogo)
“If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there’s no progress. If you pull it all the way out that’s not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven’t even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won’t even admit the knife is there.” --Malcolm X
"there is no such thing as an organism without an environment. Nor is there a human without culture. In terms of sexuality, our biological impulses have genetic roots, and individuals learn cultural norms as to the various ways those impulses might be appropriately expressed. But there is one more step. Individuals do not just passively receive cultural norms; they also construct them. And different cultures, at different times, have come up with various prescriptions to balancing our diverse needs."
"I have reached the point where I am no longer in touch with life … I have only only one occupation left: to remake myself."
"The standpoints of the subjugated are not ‘innocent’ positions. On the contrary, they are preferred because in principle they are least likely to allow denial of the critical and interpretive core of all knowledge. They are knowledgeable modes of denial through repression, forgetting, and disappearing acts- ways of being nowhere while claiming to see comprehensively. The subjugated have a decent chance to be on to the god trick and all its dazzling- and, therefore, blinding- illuminations. ‘Subjugated’ standpoints are preferred because they seem to promise more adequate sustained, objective, transforming accounts of the world. But how to see from below is a problem requiring at least as much skill with bodies and language, with the mediations of vision, as the ‘highest’ technoscientific visualizations."
Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective” (via augustuscarmichael
I rang the literary editors of a few ‘respected’ papers and asked them how much space they were giving to women writers in their ‘review’ sections. Perfectly predictable response. They all said the allocation was fair. One said it was equal, and one prominent editor went so far as to say women are dominating the reviews!
… What happened when I asked who was doing the talking in mixed sex conversations? Well, it was the women of course. And then when you get to measure it you find that women get to talk about 10-20% of the time in conversations with men. A woman who talks about a third of the time is seen to be dominating the talk.
And what happened when I asked teachers who got their attention in class? Well, it was all equal, wasn’t it? No preferences there. And you measure it and find that girls get about 10-20% of the teacher’s attention. Any more, and the boys think it unfair - and go into revolt.
So what do you think I found with the reviews?
I would have predicted about 10-20% of the space went to women’s books. Well, it is less than 6% of the column inches. And the reasonable editor who thinks that women are getting more than their share is one of the worst offenders. Poor boys! It really tells you something when they think only 94% of the review section is not enough, doesn’t it? When 6% for women is too much you get some idea how much men think they are entitled to - as a fair deal.
Dale Spender, correspondence, in Dale and Lynne Spender, Scribbling Sisters
(Camden Press, 1986), pp. 31-32 (via radtransfem
"There is no single jurisdiction in the U.S. where a minimum wage worker can afford the fair market rent for a home."
if there is one thing radicals/progressives/liberals have failed to get right in the new age
its the notion of boycotts
you wanna know why the bus boycotts of the civil rights movement were so successful?
because an alternative black run transportation system was created for those who couldn’t walk to work or whatever they had to go
they didn’t just tell people “oh the bus enforces racist policies so don’t take it and FUCK if you can’t get to work on time or where you need to be!”
they said “hey you’re paying to get on the bus and not even being given a seat let alone being ejected if a white passenger needs your seat. here’s a potentially better alternative where you pay to sit down and get to where you need to go”
all this “boycott Target, Walmart, Monsanto owned companies” comes from a notion of boycott located in the politic of privileged white people
and that’s why they are largely unsuccessful
its why Obama just gave Monsanto the green light to commit even more fuckery to your food
its the reason why cooperation are considered people
its the reason why Walmart is allowed to usurp safety and labor regulations in their factories, and underpay their American workers
because you say “don’t spend your money there” and that’s the end of the story
you expect people to locate their survival in a politic of “abstaining from unethical choices”
and then from there those unethical choices are somehow supposed to magically disappear. when really only a small percentage of people are able to boycott so many things
there wouldn’t be a movement located around the “99%” if 99% of people could really afford to stop shopping at the unethical places and stop buying the unethical brands
good luck with your hocus pocus activist logic