kleptoquark: (Default)
Prompt: Hopepunk says that kindness and softness doesn’t equal weakness, and that in this world of brutal cynicism and nihilism, being kind is a political act. An act of rebellion.

Completion:

"It's pretty hard to equate the dark side of [Blind Willie's] side with the light side," Hustepunk says. "Kung fu is the most violent act of rebellion, and he sings about that with a lot of anger. The only problem with nationalism is that you have to have all these characters singing about love and love."

Blind Willie, who was born and raised in Connecticut, has been a strong advocate of American political conservatism for at least two decades. In a 2013 interview with the Huffington Post, he wrote that "the kindest people in this life are not those who strive for right-wing ideals but those who have invested their lives into the deep-pocketed interests of an increasingly corrupt media, particularly the Democratic Party, and have found success in creating an atmosphere of insecurity and fear."

Blind Willie is Indigenous and is an American-born Canadian national. "I suffer from depression," he says. "I've experienced it at the hands of the forces that cut my down to earth community."

Hustepunk is a member of the American Red Cross, a military advisory group for the Middle East and South Asia. In a 2011 interview with The Huffington Post, he sweetly states:

"When I was growing up, because I was from the South, and our culture was completely rejected, I went out and bought weapons, bought boxing cards, bought stereos. I got to be an average person. My life is almost nonstop. It's a constant struggle. Knowing the depth of my pain, being able to overcome it and the complications of it, is going to be a constant struggle for all of us."

♦◊♦

Hustepunk says that he's fed a number of misconceptions across his life about how people view him and the issues that he has come to face. He says that he, his very life, and his countless fans share a deep hatred against capitalism. "I've never had a feeling for the United States," he says. "So it was a really, really instituting feeling that I was about to die just for the sake of people's lives."

One of the most harrowing quotes from Hustepunk's 2010 memoir Raindrops, as cited in the piece, comes from Waxman:

"I still have a dark side to the country. I'm a believer in black and white. I believe that the white country was a continuation of slavery. In fact, I still
Tags:
kleptoquark: (Default)
[epistemic status: this popped into my head and seems to be a useful lens]

There's a popular (originally Bedouin) quote: "I am against my brother, my brother and I are against my cousin, my cousin and I are against the stranger."

And there's an Emo Philips joke, which is too long to quote here.

You can think of someone's group allegiances as being vaguely hierarchical, with coarse-grained divisions (nationality or religion) at the top and fine-grained details (rationalist drama of the week) at the bottom. Of course, a lot of groups don't sort neatly into a hierarchy: does religion come before or after nationality? Depends who you ask.

Lots of political conflicts are horizontal, between groups at the same tier of this hierarchy: state vs. state, religion vs. religion, rationalist catgirl polycule vs. rationalist catgirl polycule. In a horizontal conflict, you're asked whose side you're on, with the sides helpfully laid out in advance.

In a vertical conflict, on the other hand, different tiers are pitted against each other. A lot of the time, this involves people with the same set of group identities fighting over the ordering of the hierarchy. I vaguely recall being asked, as a child in Hebrew School, to consider whether I was a Jewish American or an American Jew. They aren't synonyms: a Jewish American is an American who happens to be Jewish; an American Jew is a Jew who happens to be American.

Not to imply that higher (more coarse-grained) levels are always considered more important; other vertical conflicts center on exactly that question. Most Americans would agree that the US is part of a larger "Western" grouping of countries, but many would reject any narrative pitting "Western civilization" against other supra-national groups. Members of separatist movements (in e.g. Quebec or Catalonia) identify more strongly with their region than with the country it is (currently) part of, and any separatist conflict is inherently vertical: politicians in Madrid who opposes Catalan independence describe themselves as Spanish, not Castilian. While pro-independence Catalonians may not consider themselves Spanish, Eurosceptics in France or Germany do consider themselves European; they just insist that European identity take a backseat to French or German identity. (There are several different Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament, which is an interesting concept. The closest analog in American politics that I can think of is "states' rights" parties, but those have usually been firmly on a particular side of a strong regional (and racial) divide. Here's a very vertical-politics quote from Wikipedia: "The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats)...")

There isn't a nice clean prototype for vertical conflicts the way there is for horizontal ones, which makes them a bit harder to describe. I think it's still useful to notice when vertical politics are at play, especially because the rhetoric used in vertical conflicts tends to obscure things.

Vertical politics often shows up when there are horizontal conflicts on multiple tiers. When a country is at war, there will often be internal factions who are more hawkish or dovish, sometimes corresponding to preexisting political or demographic divisions. The hawks are likely to emphasize that "we" are at war, call for unity, and denounce the doves as traitors and cowards. (Treachery and cowardice are usually thought of as individual acts: a traitor defects to the other side, a coward selfishly puts their own needs before the needs of the group. The language of treachery and cowardice keeps the focus on the international conflict.) The doves will probably emphasize existing divisions, accusing the more hawkish party, region, (etc.) within their country of starting a war for their own benefit and at the doves' expense.

This gets interesting when the domestic divides also exist on an international scale. The Bolsheviks capitalized on the unpopularity of World War I, urging workers of all nations to unite against the warmongering bourgeois imperialists of all nations, while the French Section of the Workers' International (note the hierarchical language) faced internal conflict between French patriotism and Socialist solidarity. Most other leftist parties in France decided that they were socialist Frenchmen, not French socialists.

The most interesting thing about vertical politics, other than how ubiquitous it is, is how rarely it's discussed directly. Most political discourse focuses on two armies, a battlefield, and the question of which army will win. It's often more interesting to ask, "Which battlefield will win?"

Profile

kleptoquark: (Default)
kleptoquark

June 2019

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112 131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 14th, 2025 11:52 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios