I was of three minds,
Like a tree
In which there are three blackbirds.
—Wallace Stevens, “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird“
When I read Conrad DiDiodato’s terse, intelligent political post this morning, the first thing that came to mind was a rousing “Yes!” There are brutal assaults on human rights going around the world that deserve our attention.
The second thing that came to mind was the above stanza from Stevens’s famous poem. It brought with it the shadow of a doubt. There are always brutalities that deserve our attention. Does that mean that our political actions can’t address conditions that affect us directly? And if protests against the global capitalist elite are as irrelevant as Conrad implies they are—as they may well turn out to be—: well, how much more irrelevant would such actions be against the Iranian theocracy?
My third blackbird-mind kept chattering something along the lines of “can’t we do both”? Can’t we declare solidarity with Marzieh Vafamehr against the totalitarian I’m-a-dinner-jacket regime, and with Mexican poet Javier Sicilia’s campaign against Calderón’s drug war, and with environmental activists whose compatriots are being murdered in Brazil—and still agitate for the elimination of “corporate personhood” (the protection that in the U.S. at least serves as ideological cover for corporate crime families like Goldman Sachs)? Surely we can.
In any case, it would be shortsighted to simply dismiss what’s going on with Occupy Wall Street. As this philosophy professor from Columbia notes, its a movement that could be the beginning of big changes. And until there is economic and social justice at home, it’s hard to believe we can effectively demand changes abroad.
Only language geeks like us would notice niceties like misspellings. Like excellent typesetting, fluid design, and the use of semicolons, spelling is no longer "relevant." U no wht i meen?
Thanks, Joseph<br /><br />I love the exchanges. Keep 'em coming.<br /><br />By the way I apologize for the misspelling of "protesters".
Hey, Kokie—I don't believe you when you simply reject mass movements. Yes, some come to bad ends. But without them, we end up Gadhafis and Mubaraks and King Georges comfortably esconced in their murderous seats of power forever. Stew is always better if you stir it up once in awhile….
Oh, Conrad—no bickering here!<br /><br />FIrst, I take your point about American v. Canadian politics. I'm not sure what the economic/political situation is for you and meant only to speak for myself and our situation. You're post was the first news I had that protests were on the menu north of the 49th.<br /><br />Second, I appreciate that conservative streak. I've been a registered
polotics and religion are b=o=l=o=g=n=a<br /><br />crowds/mass movements at best just rotate who is the Oppressor and who is the Oppressed<br /><br /> both 'sides' continually seek out (a) scape-goat(s) to <br /><br /> … attack and, ultimately murder<br /><br />any hard evidence/facts are beside any point and are usually fabricated … then nonstop broadcast on <br />"
Joseph,<br /><br />is this one of those times we have to respectfully bicker?<br /><br />You'd think a poet (me) would be able to look at things a bit more like, well. a poet. The Wallace verse is priceless, & I do know what you are both saying.<br /><br />But politics for me (when I'm forced into it)is purely visceral; it's hard for me to separate the logic (or imagery) from the