Author: Yongho Kim 김용호

  • white supremacy as privatization

    so there’s all this tendency towards generalizing, right?

    the art prof (forgot name) says that you desire to “own” the space/idea represented in the space. so maybe generalizing is a manifestation of how individuals in a capitalist society try to “own” more ideas than their immediate experiences. thus, you generalize and extend your knowledge (a property according to sheller, or without going so far, just use “cultural capital”) over entire societies or epistemic dimensions. even though it might a rhetoric device for your own jouissance.

    now isn’t racism a form of particularized “knowledge” about racial hierarchies and relations in a given society? so the racist individual is trying to expand upon your individualized white supremacist prejudices over a more generalized theory (trying to orthodoxize it, following Bordieu) that you can apply over subaltern discourses as well. so that you can override alternate knowledges with your racistalized knowledge. so, racism is a manifestation over how the white man in society feels this unending need to keep on “owning” more and more material and intellectual artifacts. if your motivation driving racism is thirst for property, isn’t this another aspect of how capitalism and white supremacy are intrinsically intertwined in the syntactics of public discourse? or, a reactionary measure to the impending “disowning” or “disenfranchisement” of the wages of whiteness among whites? (so in this second sentence my argument becomes middle-class specific)

    now, my argument is generalizing as well. so, you can deconstruct it and say that all I am trying to get at is to engage in a power grabbing struggle against the white supremacist orthodoxia with just another competing heterodoxia. or, catching on Gramsci, just another privileged hegemonic discourse. this is true, but I don’t think deconstructig my argument (or any) disproves an argument, but rather contextualizes it giving it a more critical focus. you can’t criticize a discourse by just pointing out the outer edges, without engaging directly with it .

    (based on a memo at the principles of art class feb 22)

  • these guys prove ontologically what they fight against…

    these guys prove ontologically what they fight against. boldface is mine.

    New Internationalist Publications is a communications co-operative based in Oxford with editorial and sales offices in Toronto, Canada; Adelaide, Australia; Christchurch, Aotearoa /New Zealand; and Lewiston, USA. It exists to report on issues of world poverty and inequality; to focus attention on the unjust relationship between the powerful and the powerless in both rich and poor nations; to debate and campaign for the radical changes necessary if the basic material and spiritual needs of all are to be met.
    newint.org/niabout.html

  • after watching Malcolm X so when chicano activists…

    after watching Malcolm X

    so, when chicano activists say “we did not cross the border, the border crossed us”, are they borrowing from Malcolm X’s saying in the NYC church, “we did not come to Plymouth, Plymouth came to us”?

    the “did you know brother minister what so and so did before going to heaven? to eat” was sharp.

  • first I read this If you’re too much…

    first, I read this

    If you’re too much of an impressionable idiot to watch “Sideways,” then don’t.
    thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sideways

    Now every idiot who has seen the movie has suddenly become a wine expert, and Pinot sales have shot through the roof. NPR interviewed a guy who said, and I quote:

    I used to drink merlot, and after I saw the movie, they say “don’t drink merlot,” so [now] I’m drinking pinot noir…
    Click here to listen (226k mp3):

    You shallow idiots, get your own opinion.

    then, this

    43things.com (via salon.com/tech/feature/2005/02/08/tagging/index1.html gatorlog.com/linked/archives/2005/02/eeeee_ieeeeii_i.php gatorlog.com/mt/archives/002158.html#comments 그리고 실마리를 놓친 별주부뎐 글)

    ahem.