Responses to NPR podcast on language and assimilation

I listened to an NPR podcast Luke sent me, involving the "Race Card Project" and language and assimilation. Here are some of my thoughts:

• It's an interesting turn when she says "more American...whatever that means" -- at 1:22 - and then goes on to explain what she thinks/knows they meant. She knows what it means -- it means speaking only English or English without an accent, and I'm not sure why she makes it sound like she doesn't.
• "Language of the new homeland, where in America that means English" - I wish they'd be a little more critical here, because an older language of Ft. Worth Texas is Spanish, so in this case you could actually claim that the (a) language of the homeland is Spanish.
• I'd also like to hear more about the labels "hispanic" and "latino" in the podcast. Both of those words were created by people outside of those groups, and because of this, among other reasons, I don't like them...but I realize that many people identify as such.  There's enough effort from outside the groups to create groups in order to control or marginalize them -- let's not use this kind of motivation to self-identify.  On the other hand, the label "chicano" was created from within the Mexican American group as part of the liberation movement in the U.S in the 60s.
• I can definitely empathize with the "internalized criticism" and her saying "I'm not Mexican, my parents are."   I wish she would elaborate on her reflections of this statement now, as "making amends for a deep wound."  Does she mean the wound of not being able to identify?
• I'd agree with this statement, except for "my dad's chicano, not me" - it's really hard to own any of this because being Mexican sucks in this country right now (and has for a while).
• She said her "whole family has regret around not learning Spanish" -- I wonder if this is true for my family. I certainly do regret not speaking more Spanish with my grandpa.
• I wonder why she can't master the language as an academic?  (Those are the interviewer's words, but I don't think they're correct -- more like why she hasn't decided to.)  I wish they'd talk more about her struggle (if there was one) to learn Spanish - does she want to? What gets in her way?
• I recently seen the answer to this question for myself clearly -- that internalized racism and racism were the factors getting in the way of me learning Spanish. Since finding this out, and with the support from others, it's been a little easier to speak it and feel more comfortable doing so lately.
• It was really touching when she answered "what do you lose when you lose your language? home, relationship" - that's definitely true. "Family" is what I'd say.
• Most of all - it's cool to see someone else's experiences that are similar to mine represented in big media. It's going to be a growing topic as more and more latinos/Latin Americans come to and are born in the U.S.

Travel 2013: Mumbai

People living in shacks and cooking over fire, taken out of a room with A/C and a flatscreen TV - click for more photos

5.21 - Mumbai

The first thing I smell in the morning is the faint but definitive thick scent of burning plastic.  The hard bed provided a balance of comfort and support to sleep well and not have an achy back.  We had the luxury of air conditioning for most of the night, but waking up without it means hot, frizzy hair and a grease-shined face.

Colonization here by the British is much different than it was in the U.S.  At least the way I see it, most Indians don’t bear physical resemblance to the British, whereas the majority of U.S. citizens have European descent – at least for now, before “latinos” take over the majority position.

My sister and I are staying at my friend’s parent’s (and grandparent’s) house, who own their own business.  They have a nice, clean, new car (where, by the way back seat belts are not compulsory and therefore do not have a hole to click it in to) and a big apartment – not crowded with stuff or technology. A wooden swing is the living/dining room separator – bars on the windows on the third floor.  Our temporary bedroom looks out to the construction of another neighboring tower. 

Uma asked us first thing in the morning what we’re doing still lounging in bed – “come out and make yourself at home.” She then proceeded to sweep the room and the rest of the house with a  small, short natural fiber broom. Breakfast was idly (kind of a soft rice paddy) and tomato coconut chutney; we talked about how globalization and development is, in the man of the house’s words “eroding the character of India.”

We took a $2 A/C bus with a TV and “tequila” song playing to downtown Mumbai. Building stories are propped up with bamboo and rebar sticking out like candles on the birthday cake for a 200 year old.  Extreme poverty butts up to the roadside: garbage, stray dogs, naked children squatting in the dirt.  The periodic rivers are littered with brightly colored plastic wrappers picked at by tall, leggy white shorebirds.  We mostly receive unabashed staring, kids’ warm, dark, curious eyes included, though not all are as friendly.

Jose Antonio Vargas on Immigration

Instead of watching the presidential debates tonight, I'm reading this article, something that lets me think about immigration rather than be filled with anger toward the two men "debating" and avoiding answering questions.

Quotes from Jose Antonio Vargas' Time Magazine article called "Not Legal, Not Leaving:"

• I am now a walking conversation that most people are uncomfortable having. (Pg. 1)
• The probusiness GOP waves a KEEP OUT flag at the Mexican border and a HELP WANTED sign 100 yards in, since so many industries depend on cheap labor. (Pg. 2)
• Of all the questions I've been asked in the past year, "Why don't you become legal?" is probably the most exasperating. But it speaks to how unfamiliar most Americans are with how the immigration process works. (Pg. 3)
• For all the roadblocks, though, many of us get by thanks to our fellow Americans. We rely on a growing network of citizens — Good Samaritans, our pastors, our co-workers, our teachers who protect and look after us. As I've traveled the country, I've seen how members of this underground railroad are coming out about their support for us too. (Pg. 6)
• Though roughly 59% of the estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are from Mexico, the rest are not. About 1 million come from Asia and the Pacific Islands, about 800,000 from South America and about 300,000 from Europe. (Pg. 6)
• According to the Office of Immigration Statistics at DHS, 86% of undocumented immigrants have been living in the U.S. for seven years or longer. (Pg. 7)
• There are no overall numbers on this, but each day I encounter at least five more openly undocumented people. As a group and as individuals, we are putting faces and names and stories on an issue that is often treated as an abstraction. (Pg. 7)

• Technology, especially social media, has played a big role. Online, people are telling their stories and coming out, asking others to consider life from their perspective and testing everyone's empathy quotient. Some realize the risks of being so public; others, like me, think publicity offers protection. (Pg. 8)
• I am still here. Still in limbo. So are nearly 12 million others like me — enough to populate Ohio. We are working with you, going to school with you, paying taxes with you, worrying about our bills with you. What exactly do you want to do with us? More important, when will you realize that we are one of you? (Pg. 9)

Rethinking development, an inspiring quote

From a reading (specifically: http://web.idrc.ca/openebooks/470-3/) for a graduate level course on Gender Relations in International Development I'm currently taking.

"A speech given by Robert F. Kennedy on 4 January 1968, encapsulates the limitations of GDP as a measure of what makes life valuable:

The Gross National Product of the United States is the largest in the world, but that GNP, if we should judge our nation by that, counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear the highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and jails that break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder and chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead and armoured cars that fight riots in our streets. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

Myths of Corporate Personhood

Here's the short version, for the longer (explained) version, click here.

Text of Belden Fields teach in "The Myth of Corporate Personhood"

THE DISEMPOWERING FOG CREATED BY 14 IDEOLOGICAL MYTHS

Prepared for Occupy the Quad at the University of Illinois, Urbana 1/19/12

by Belden Fields

1. The myth that the corporation is a person with the rights of individuals.

2. The myth that Supreme Court represents a higher interpretation of law that transcends partisan politics.

3. The myth that money is speech; therefore, money spent freely in elections is protected by the First Amendment right to speech.

4. The myth that the interests of large corporations is in the interest of workers because they create jobs and raise standards of living.

5. The myth that “right to work” laws really protect workers’ rights.

6. The myth that government is the only source of bureaucracy that disempowers people.

7. The myth that economics is above moral concerns and the market will always, by definition, result in the greatest good for society.

8. The myth that the United States is a democracy.

9. The myth that the only legitimate human economic human right is the right to private property.

10. The collateral myth that that social security, health care benefits, and pensions are unearned and unaffordable “entitlements."

11. The myth that privatization is always more “efficient” than public goods and services.

12. The myth that the “official” unemployment rate in the United States is accurate and comparable to the unemployment rates in other countries.

13. The myth that the U.S. offers the highest rates of upward mobility in the world.

14. The myth that there is no alternative to the capitalist system that manifests the above characteristics and treats the worker as a commodity.

only when the last tree is dead,

when the last river is poisoned,

and when the last fish is trapped,

then we will understand that we can't eat money

Charity

A couple of points on charity:

"To me, charity is often just about giving because you're supposed to, or because it's what you've always done, or it's about giving until it hurts. I'm about providing the means for providing something that will grow and intensify its original investment, and not just require greater giving next year, not trying to feed the habit." - Majora Carter, from a TED talk

Also, see RSAnimate's version of Zizek's First as Tragedy, Then as Farce

TSA scanners and gender

"After all, masculinity implies sexual privacy -- the privilege of moving through life unmolested. Or unnoticed. The most powerful, and to men, mostly invisible, sexual privilege of masculinity is the ability to remain unaware of oneself as a body."

I suppose I never included that in my concept of male privilege, but it seems dead on.

Quote from an interesting (and concise) take on the TSA scanners:
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=screening_for_gender

Agricultural Complex

What do bananas, Colombia, and Disney have in common?


I don't know, but this is what I found at my local food co-op.

"Huge Eco-Possibilities"

I like efficiently using small spaces, but this guy takes it to a whole new level. Check it out:

Two month report: Americorps

I chose to do Americorps so I could stay in my own country. Perhaps it was also slightly motivated by some underlying "white guilt," my struggles with the current re-definition of colonialism, or neo-colonialism. I want to make sure I'm not part of it, or at least to understand it more and then become a part of it intentionally.

However, I'm not sure I'm able to do that. I have felt like an "outsider" here, still, even in my own country. Also, ironically, one of my strong points for getting this job was my ability to speak Spanish, which I mostly gained from travelling to other countries, and, arguably, spreading ideas of American colonialism.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised though; I am working for the US Government. I am an agent of propaganda as much as I wear that identity, which, incidentally, is strongly encouraged. So far, I've received 5 items of clothing from VISTA with the Americorps logo. "You're our best advertisements," they told us during training. I don't doubt that. Here is where the articles of clothing are produced:

So much for not taking part in neocolonialism!

(Pakistan, Sri Lanka, China, Honduras, and Haiti)

I guess I could contextualize this journal entry a little better. I'm currently reading an article by Kim England called "Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionality, and Feminist Research." It's part of my work toward researching the feasibility of low-income car-sharing. There's a specific section of my research called 'research approach' so we can be more reflexive, and more intentional about our methods. England brings up several good, albiet challenging, points. In a nutshell: how can the researcher NOT bring a power struggle into the relationship of researcher-researched? She suggests "supplication", in which “the researcher explicitly acknowledges her/his reliance on the research subject to provide insight into the subtle nuances of meaning that structure and shape everyday lives.” (3) I'm really glad to be reading this kind of critical article.

Also, sort of on a side note (at this point, because I'm not sure how to integrate it), England quotes Stanley and Wise (1993): "treating people like objects – sex objects or research objects – is morally unjustifiable." I've honestly never thought of this, and it's quite an interesting wrench to throw in the gears of normal qualitative research methonds.

How does this boil down into the work I am and will be doing in Buffalo's lower-income neighborhoods? How will I continue to negotiate the boundaries between my status as a US citizen and an outsider to this city?

Stay tuned to learn the answers to these questions and many more!

The Story of Stuff

I just received an email from a friend with this link in it: http://www.storyofstuff.com/ ...I watched it and I love the movie. If you want to bypass it and go directly to their action steps, click here. What follows is an excerpt from a 20 minute video, jam-packed with facts in a really easy to digest way. There's a lot we could talk about regarding this video, so if it gets you inspired, comment or email me!

I do have one suggestion for the website and movie makers, which I outline in an email I just sent:

Hi -

I just watched The Story of Stuff. I think it does an amazing job at explaining complex problems in an engaging and simple way. I've already sent the links to many of my friends and family and I'll probably end up blogging about it a little later.

But I have one question, why not mention the other 3 "R"s? Sure, recycling is great, but it's on the bottom of the hierarchy of the other R's. I was recently working on a project to network sustainability efforts in Costa Rica and learned about the 4th R, "rechazar" in Spanish, or "reject" in English. In this hierarchy, rejecting products comes first - never buying those which are toxic, disposable, or otherwise harmful. Next would come "reduce," then "reuse," and, finally, "recycle."

We seem to have become obsessed with only the last R, the lowest on the hierarchy, the one with the least potential to change the linear system Annie Leonard spoke of -- to the neglect of the other 3, more helpful Rs. These 4 "R"s can be guiding principles, in addition to the 10 steps you have already outlined on the website. I think your website, and the organization of people behind it, could surely use it in a productive and educational way.

So, though I was disappointed to hear Annie only speak of recycling, and forget about its counterparts, I really enjoyed the video. I appreciate the work you're doing to bring these kinds of facts, statistics, and big picture problems to the computer screens of so many people in such a well-done effort.

Thanks, and keep up the great work,
Ari Sahagun

This particular issue, the over-focus on recycling to the neglect of the counterparts, has been on my mind lately. Writing this email-letter makes me want to write to some of the local papers around here and tell them about it. I think I just might.

Design Feedback

I guess I haven't thought very critically about web design within the context of American society. I'm in Costa Rica working to co-create (i.e. hopefully with the influence of others) a social network for non-gov'tal organizations. Recently I've been seeking feedback about the site in face to face meetings, because I haven't been getting any though digital means (email, chat, feedback forms). I'm realizing that I have culture googles on. So I'm learning that looking at the forefront Web 2.0 standard-creating designers in the States (or other Northern countries) is perhaps not the only inspiration I should seek to design here, in Costa Rica. A lot of NGOs that do have websites have sites that look pretty old, I'm talking Geocities-era. If these are my peers, and the audience I work with is used to navigating these kinds of sites, I better pay more attention to them, and see how I can emulate Geocities within a Web 2.0 framework.

It's an interesting issue. Here's an example, the default tabs created by Drupal and the Zen theme are pretty standard, at least from my perspective. (Take a look)However, recently a professor at a national university told me that if he sees these tabs, he thinks that the "Editar" section is grayed out because it's unavailable -- so he wouldn't bother to click it. I had never thought of it that way.

Another prominent example I've heard a few times is genearl unfamiliarity with the Google Maps. Being pretty tech saavy, I take this fluency for granted, and I know what happens if you scroll with your mouse placed over the map. I haven't seen anyone here use Google Maps as the American designers intended them to be used.

Not to mention that the idea of a "social network" is much different than navagating the web more like a book, with a linear lay out and table of contents you can reference. My advisor calls being able to navagate something like a social network "branching literacy". Apparently, this skill isn't very developed in Costa Rica.

Just some food for thought. If you have any tips to suggest, please do!

Latin America + Shock Doctrine

Naomi Klein has been at UIUC for the past few days. Today I had the privilege to attend a panel discussion with her and two academics (Prof. Fernando Coronil, Univ. of Michigan; Prof. Andrew Orta, UIUC) on "The rise of current social movements and protests in Latin America."

It was interesting, to say the least, and refreshingly reminded me that I am situated very close to a college campus. I'd been away from the academic air for a while.

Klein built upon arguments presented at her main lecture last night (I was unable to attend) and in her book, Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Her project is to promote a counter-narrative to the unquestioned neoliberal responses to disasters. Lately, see: 9/11, Katrina, and the bailout "plan." The government has responded to these catastrophes by capitalizing on public shock and fear to push an agenda (war in Iraq/Patriot Act, racism/commercialization of NOLA/overlooking of basic infrastructure problems, free reins with $700B). Additionally, we haven't done a good job at remembering history as it happened either. Thus, we're shocked at the shock...and during this our freedoms are stolen right out from under us, without question.

Klein says we Americans are "addicted to shock."

In the context of Latin America, she said that it is the most advanced site of resistance against this "shock doctrine" and neoliberalism. She cited a few reasons (and noted that it's an incomplete list):

1. It got neoliberalism first.
2. It was an extremely obvious un-democratic (violent and/or racist) overthrow of the status quo.
3. The left there wasn't discredited. Compared to the Soviet bloc, the left (socialist) side didn't fall; in Latin America, it was put down. People can't point to the left and say they screwed it up before.

She said we have a lot to learn from Latin American organizing during our own "reconstruction period."

I think she's got some good points, and I'll put her book on my "to read" list. ...Also, she was recently on Colbert Report if you'd like to see her in action.

This is also an interesting story.

3/3/08

i am confused. there are so many questions that are going through my head, and very rarely do they get affirmation. i can't find support, or at least some acknowledgment that what i am going through now is right, acceptable, good, and will lead to something better in the future. sometimes i talk to michael who also works at the ovp and she reminds me that it's ok, and that i shouldn't "shit all over myself." i reluctantly agree. i think what i need to do to help sort this out a bit more, as well as provide a reference for myself that progress isn't an illusion is: to write. write about what i'm struggling with, write about why i choose to do this, what i think i'm embarking on, what motivates me, and whatever other questions come up. // what is suffering? who are we to define it? // the question isn't whether or not we should go, but /how/ we should go. // link of the day from michael: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i26/26a03401.htm title: american students abroad can't be 'global citizens' by talya zemach-bersin. i haven't read it yet but want to before work is over. i have to finish a homework assignment first.

with so much happening in my life here at school ...classes, clubs, boyfriend, friends and social ties, family, etc...how can i possibly focus on a larger picture? am i ethically supposed to? what about that question...should we care about people we don't know?

i don't intend to go somewhere and do something with a clear conscious, determination achieved by sorting out all of the questions i'm facing right now. i don't intend to feel that i know what i'm doing is right, but, rather, moving away from doing something i feel is wrong, in search for something different. // what exactly is wrong with this? i suppose what's wrong with this is that if i keep living here like this, (even knowingly?) i'll be living into the life of privilege, unquestioningly in practice, perhaps different in theory, but all the while at risk of falling into it after losing momentum to question, constantly swimming against the stream. this, i think, is what i'm trying to avoid right now: complacency created by buying into the system. i think this definitely stems from my parents saying they empathize with many of the counter-cultural feelings i experience now, but looking at them from my perspective, are part of that system (culture) themselves.

yeah, i guess granted that we can never really escape this privilege given to us at birth, and not that i'm trying to necessarily avoid the facts, but i'd rather not continue the treadmill.

what can i do to end this culture of privilege, of imperialism? this is what i seek to answer.

this, though, should not be the motivation to go abroad, to seek to find it outside of ourselves. or should it? can we not get a good glimpse of our own culture without contrasting it to another? taking ourselves and placing our cultured selves into another culture, and examining the differences? i think the answer is: both are needed. we need to be fully grounded here at the same time as exploring our boundaries with contrast to other cultures, and noting the details of the differences. perhaps in this way we can inform ourselves about our culture, about its deficiencies and about parts that should be embraced and celebrated.

questions from justin

--------------------------------------------
(1) from justin: "If there is a group of people who have always been cold, would it be wrong to send them a box of heat. They don't even know about boxes of heat, it wouldn't occur to them they they didn't have one before. Further more, they have no reason not to think that cold isn't the way things should be so they have desire for heat the way we know it, and maybe they wouldn't even like it... Would it be wrong to assume they want the same thing we have just because we can't conceive of them not wanting it?"

(2) another: "There is a place where women are taught that they are inferior to men and that they are stupid. They have only ever known this and have no reason to question it, additionally they live in an oppressive social situation and are strongly discouraged from questioning it. Would it be wrong to tell some of these women that this isn't the case? Furthermore, to help them realize this physically and become self actualized even though this would severely change their culture, way of life, and actual life they have at this point? Is it presumptuous to say that our way of looking at the world (all people being equal) is the right way? Why or why not. This is obviously a different question that the previous one because it deals with human rights and social issues, and more so because it broaches the issue of absolute or subjective morality. I still think it is interesting in its own way to consider, especially before going into other cultures as an outsider."
--------------------------------------------

(1) The box of warmth

My initial response to the first sentence is: yes (it's wrong), if it's unsustainable and locally unavailable. If you show them something they can't have, you just make them want it and tease them with its potential. If they've never wanted it before, why give it to them? Who are we to say that warm is good, when they're perfectly fine with it being cold?

That also immediately reminded me of a question posed a few years ago. Something like "if there was a starving child, and you had enough water to elongate his life for one day, would you give it to him or just let him die?" I think that the answer to this question is obvious: give him the water, because the next day it's possible to come across a less limited source of water. At least there is potential for survival. However, you are promoting suffering; living on the bare minimum of water is probably not very pleasant. Though, do you think it would even be physically possible to deny yourself the water? The kid would almost physically /have/ to drink it. (I realize this example doesn't relate directly, but again, something to consider in brainstorming.)

I don't think there's a clear answer to your question. I think it just morphs into another one, rather than getting 'cleared up'. I think the question becomes: what makes warm "good"? Why would we even think of providing this to them? Think about it from their perspective: "What the hell is this? These people are crazy, giving us a totally different environment...we're used to coldness, warmth is so different. It's not how it's supposed to be, it's not how it has been, and we don't have any idea how to make it stay warm, even if we did like it." (Something like that?)

I think your last question is confusing, so I'm gonna try and work it out: "Would it be wrong to assume they want the same thing we have, just because we can't conceive of them not wanting it?" Initial response: yes, it would be wrong of us to assume. But here's more thinking: let's disregard our conceptions of them wanting it, and just focus on our assumptions. (<<>There is a place where women are taught that they are inferior to men and that they are stupid." Hmm...let's just call this "mainstream society."

"Would it be wrong to tell some of these women that this isn't the case?"
What if telling them made them so socially deviant that they would be killed?

Just because it's something they've never known, doesn't mean they have no reason to question it. I think human nature calls that into question. Oppressive regimes are generally called 'oppressive' because they're oppressing people -->who don't want to be oppressed<-- I think they probably know that other things are possible. I think 'hope' may be a generalizable ideal...that "all humans have hope for something" may be true. ...For this case, I suppose women would hope that one day their intelligence could be recognized, that they could be recognized as an entity separate from men, and not merely defined by a hierarchical relationship to them. Lots of people are told they're inferior and stupid every day. I think it's when these "inferior" and "stupid" people get together that they can realize that---related to each other at least---there are other ways to define oneself. From here, the movement will start. Again, though, if they were told "you're not really inferior to men" or "you're smart" they might respond: "No, we really are inferior. We really are not smart and we should let men control all the things that require intelligence. Our position in society is to be inferior, and if we were anything other than that, we wouldn't know what to do. We actually find it comforting to be in this position, because society reinforces this, (ok, they wouldn't say it with these words, fine) and embraces it when we are this way." Bottom line, though, coming from a group of women who recognize that they are different ways to define themselves, is much different than coming from some outsider trying to tell them that there are different ways to define themselves. ...not that the latter is wrong necessarily.

gender & womens studies

originally written to noah, but worth sharing:
sitting on a bus trying to read by gender womens studies assigned readings but i'm particularly moved by this quote and wanted to share it with you. it's from an article by hazel v. carby entitled "postcolonial translations."

"in the north american imagination the caribbean is overwhelmingly located in relation to two dominant discourses, tourism and an unwelcome source of migrants. the first reduces the region to america's backyard - a paradise for the realization of hedonistic desire; the second positions its subjects as abject, as 'boat-people' in a common, hateful euphemism. the aim is to explore the ways in which what has been represented as "caribbeanness," is not, in fact, fixed in relation to any particular geographic space but, on the contrary, is a condition of movement over-determined by global forces enacted at a local level."

first - i wonder if you find this interesting. i realize this is kind of out of the blue for you, relative to the context in which it's been placed for me (i.e. 1/3 through a semester in a class about these kind of topics). more importantly, i hope, is the discussion it could generate. here goes: i think she does a superb job of breaking down the labels and constructions of nationality. we americans relate to caribbeans and the caribbean in an extremely exploitative way (tourist industry) but refuse to grant them any rights in "our" country. the paragraph is lined with detailed examples and craks open a space for new discourse - a discourse of redefinition, of, possibly, self-definition. the class that i'm reading this for is different than most of my other classes. the readings, for one, elicit new discourse - spaces to talk about concepts previously hidden by current discourses...which is what most of my other classes focus on (and praise) - the learning and reinforcement of specific and particular theories, which are, in most cases, archaic and cliche. this class is radical. rather than reading aristotle and kant to get a better understanding of ethics, we push our own boundaries - boundaries we didn't know we had - to feel what ethics means, to feel out the space it fills. (not necessarily to say anything bad about studying aristotle or kant) back to the quote. i find it interesting that these people (caribbeans) are not defined by where they're from (the caribbean), but rather the movements of which they're a part. i realize most of what i've said are only basic comments, but i'm interested to hear what you have to say.