my critique of single mamis…and encuentros…

i am having a lot of issues around access, communication,
expectations, and trans national community building.  so i want to
bring those to the table.

i have been really dealing with this for the past couple of months.
but honestly felt insecure about bringing these to the table.

ok so a few weeks ago i was in this conversation by email.  and i was kind of taken a back by the responses in this email.  mainly because i was speaking about issues i was having accessing communication technology and folks in the us.  you know how so much of our media work is us centered, hell us exclusive, and that marginalizes and excludes me.  since i dont live in the us.  pretty simple right.

the responses were… um… special.  one, silence.  two, hesitation.  three, defensiveness.

then i kind of just dropped the convo because the convo itself was marginalizing and excluding me.  and it was getting pretty exhausting. or more accurately i was having a hard time convincing myself to take the whole convo seriously.  i think it just came to a point.  the point when i was told that i was critical of single mamis.  that i just laughed.  and laughed.  and was like ok.  and trying to think of what to say that wasnt snarky, lol lol, or otherwise pushing up the dada absurdity of the conversation.  like.  yeah, i hate single mamis.  i hate my mother.  i hate all mothers.  whatever.

but the thing about this convo.  is that it was such a classic well intentioned pile on.  like there was one of me.  and then other folks responding to me.  supporting each others vision of what i had said.  misquoting me and then repeating the misquotation.  and me responding to the folk in increasingly long emails- because increasingly more people are coming into the convo each their slightly dift perspective on what is ‘going on’.  and me, trying to explain, why, and how, they have misconstrued my vision through their own lenses.

and in the moment in that convo. it all seems so logical.  that this is the way the convo happens.  no matter how absurd it gets.

the privilege of traveling

i have been thinking  about writing this post for a while.  in part i have not done so because i do have lots of privilege and have been able to travel.  and i felt awkward, felt like i was making myself vulnerable to criticism if i wrote this.  but then i figured, fuck it.

i had one of those conversations that i seem to have every few months with someone new about how i do not take into account how privileged i am to be able to travel and live abroad.  and how privileged i was to be partnered. when i talk about my experience of being a mother.

privilege.  privilege. privilege.

1. i do take how much privileged i am into account.  actually in some ways i am more aware of certain types of privilege because i travel.  for instance, the power of my US citizenship comes into stark relief when i am abroad.

2. and i know that it is a privilege to be in a happy partnership, both of us dedicated to loving aza and each other.

3. but i also know that traveling and being partnered is not in and of itself simply privileged.

MOTHERS TRAVELING

let me see if i can put it this way:

through out history.  as long as there have been wars.  mothers have traveled with their children.  they have to survive.  they become refugees.  they become slaves.  they travel to find a safe place to live and create a life with their families.  they leave home to flee abusive husbands, or advancing troops, to find doctors, to find lost family, to take care of sick family, to find work, to find food, to find peace.

yes it can be a privilege to travel.

but it can also be a privilege to stay home.

on plato’s republic and the deconstruction of western philosophical assumptions and some shit…

i know that we say that plato is the father of european philosophy.  who is it who says that all other philosophy is a footnote to plato?

but in thinking today about greek philosophy and literature.  specifically plato’s apologia, odyseus and the plato’s republic- i am wondering if plato could better be seen as a the high critic of this european project.  in that the republic is a critique of the foundations of european philosophy.  and if it can be seen as a deconstruction of european totalizing and idealizing foundations.  i mean plato puts forth the idea of the perfect state.  right?  the perfect government.  and the philosopher-king to rule us all in perfect wisdom.  but within this we know that plato is not advocating for such a government but showing us the impossibility of such a government.  showing us the impossibility of achieving such an ideal.  and in his work, he reveals the incredible violence and destructiveness of creating and living by these ideals.  and yet he is acknowledging that we as human cultures do create these ideals.

so in real life.  our project.  rather than trying to re-construct the ideal.  on this earth.  is to create a world that is open to all of the imperfections (aka not ideal) aka diversity in the world.  nothing is ideal.  right?  but in place of the ideal.  we get variety.  we get multiplicity.  we get hybridity.  we get fractures.  and pieces.  or at least that is how it seems to us looking through the paradigm of the ideal.

once we realize this.  then we can begin to talk about how can we contribute to a world that supports this diversity.

i mean what does one see in the blinding light outside of the cave?  color.  colors.  so many different colors.  and so much life in so many different forms and shapes and movements and embodiments…so so much…

the justifications of the torturer

found this today:

A discussion with an Egyptian State Security officer raises questions and suggests a few answers.

By Alaa Al-Aswany
May 31, 2009

Writing From Cairo –

Some years ago, I was invited to a relative’s wedding, and at the wedding, I sat next to one of the bridegroom’s relatives. He introduced himself to me by saying: “My name is such-and-such, police officer.”

The justifications of the torturer

The man was in his 40s, very elegant, polite and quiet. I noticed a prayer mark on his forehead. We exchanged the usual pleasantries, and I asked him, “In which department do you work?”

He hesitated for a second, then he replied: “State Security.”

We both kept silent, and he turned his face away from me and started to watch the other guests. My mind was torn between two conflicting options: Should I resume the previous polite conversation, or should I express my opinion candidly on the State Security Investigations department? In the end, I couldn’t help but challenge him, and I will reconstruct the conversation that followed to the best of my ability:

“Excuse me. You are religious, it seems,” I said.

“Thank God.”

“Don’t you see any contradiction between being religious and working in State Security?”

“Where would the contradiction arise?”

“People detained by State Security are beaten, tortured and raped, though all religions prohibit such practices.”

He started to get emotional and said: “First, those who are beaten deserve to be beaten. Second, if you study your religion thoroughly, you will find that what we do in the State Security department is fully compatible with Islamic teachings.”

“But Islam is a religion that safeguards human dignity.”

“That’s a generalization. I have read Islamic jurisprudence, and I am well aware of its provisions.”

“There’s nothing in Islamic jurisprudence that makes it legitimate to torture people.”

“Listen to me until I finish, please. Islam has nothing to do with democracy or elections. Obedience to a Muslim ruler is a duty for his subjects, even if he has usurped power, is corrupt or unjust. Do you know how Islam punishes those who rebel against their rulers?”

I kept silent.