Contents of R:
Race:
Imagine that you take all of the different people on the earth and you
line them up using any phenotype (a certain physical characteristic or trait) as
a means of determining who comes first and who comes last. For argumentâs
sake, we will use skin color as the ãseparation traitä, although skin color
is only one phenotypic distinction recognized as part of oneâs ãraceä. On
one end of the line will be the person with the very darkest skin. At the very
opposite end will be the person with the very lightest skin. Between these two
extremes will be the entire earthâs population, aligned in a magnificent
spectrum of varying hues of brown.
Now, please insert flags along this continuum to demarcate the boundaries
between each recognized ãraceä. Having some difficulty? Where does one race
end and another begin in this grand spectrum? Where does ãblackä end and
ãwhiteä begin? What do we call all the colors in between the extremes, and
how do we know what is ãnormalä? If playing such a game were actually
feasible, one would soon recognize that there is no phenotypic basis for race.
On genetic grounds, race does not exist. This is not to suggest that there are
not genetic differences as we move along the phenotypic spectrum, but to
recognize that there is no scientifically sound means of creating racial groups
based on genetic differences [expressed as various phenotypes]. In truth, the
entire world population of humans share an incredibly similar genetic make-up, a
fact which is betrayed by the seemingly endless diversity of humanity. Does it
make you feel less special knowing that you are not that unique genetically? All
those originalities that are ãyouä are actually the result of unique
combinations amongst a tiny minority of genes in your overall chromosomal
make-up.
Eugenicists and other racists who wish to find a scientific basis for
their hateful beliefs are looking for macroscopic genetic differences between
races. Slight variations in a few gene loci which govern skin color and other
physical features do not provide a sufficient means of separating the races. The
eugenicist is looking for a large group of genes which are consistently
different from race to race; think of this Îmacro-geneâ location as the
ãwhite geneä or the ãcolored geneä, because that is what these
pseudo-sophisticated racists are looking for. In order to substantiate the
claims of the Îscientificâ racists, such a gene need not only to exist, but
must in fact account for all of the phenotypical differences they claim as
ãwhite supremacyä. In their twisted minds, genes which make people
intelligent, hard-working and moral (if such genes even exist) have to be
inextricably bound to the genes which make one personâs skin darker than the
next personâs. Advanced genetics have now mapped most of the human genome, and
specific gene groups have been scrutinized intensely; never has a gene group for
race been discovered, nor does any of our understanding of human genetics point
us towards the future discovery of such a gene. The racistâs position is
ideologically preposterous, and the study of human genetics effectively refutes
its every premise.
Race, loosely based on phenotypes, is a social construct. Race would not
be a reality, in fact could not be a reality, if not for culture. Culture is the
only strange creature capable of creating ãrace distinctionsä in an arena
which defies legitimate grouping. This is not to say that race is not very real,
but to recognize that it is an exclusively social creation not rooted in any
phenotypical or genetic reality. When we refer to ãracial differencesä, we
are really referring to cultural differences maintained worldwide by peoples
indoctrinated to the ãideaä of race.
Realizing that race is simply an idea and not an actual condition of
being does not do much to change the state of racial [dis]harmony on this earth.
Even if every human being on the face of the earth were to awake tomorrow and
say ãwow, I really am not a [black/brown/yellow/red/white] person, Iâm just
a single beautiful shade in the grand spectrum of humanityä the idea of race
would not be eliminated. The construct of race might be in question, but its
cultural infrastructure would remain.
So if realizing that race is simply a social construct fails to eradicate
the scourge of racism, racialism and racial division, what remedy might be
effective? Well, in order to end culturally mediated divisions, we must blur the
lines between cultures. This occurs any time that two culturally separated
people engage in meaningful egalitarian interaction: as co-workers, friends,
partners, spouses or parents. In any such interaction, two cultures meet and
effectively blend. It is impossible to honestly interact with others and not
accumulate cultural values and traditions formerly not your own. The more
interaction flourishes, the more culture is transferred and exchanged, slowly
stirring cultural distinctions into a finely graded continuum. This emerging
continuum would defy logical grouping in much the same way that ãrace
differencesä based on skin color, too incremental to phenotypically construct,
defy genetic grouping. This is not to say that we will some day all share the
same culture; in fact, cultural diversity is likely to increase, as novel
recombinations spawn unforeseen cultural shades. But even as diversity
increases, the socially constructed idea of race will eventually die at the
hands of hybridization. We have a long way to go before this idealized
ãcultural continuumä is established; however, when one considers the grand
scale of cultural change regarding race construction which has occurred in the
latter half of this century, it is easy to see that this hybridization via
interaction has already begun.
With all the inter-ãracialä interaction which typifies pre-millennium
life, it is easy to conclude that we are well on the way to eradicating the
social construction of race. Sadly, this is not true, despite minor progress
achieved in the last fifty years. With so much interaction between people of
differing cultural background, why arenât things changing? The problem is that
not all of these interactions ãcountä towards establishing the desired
ãcultural continuumä. Many interactions only serve to reinforce
racial-cultural difference. The plain fact is: interactions which involve power
imbalance do not lead to cultural blending. When two people meet on equal
footing, they equally exchange culture; but when the interaction between two
people involves a power imbalance, cultural coercion prevents either individual
from hybridizing with the other. This is of particular concern because economic,
political and social power is not only radically imbalanced throughout our world
society, but is particularly disparate on the basis of socially constructed
ãraceä. Simply put, the white guys have way more power than they should;
this assertion comes as no surprise to anyone whose head is not stuck entirely
up their own ass. However, it is important to note that the problem is not that
ãthe white men have too much powerä - although they certainly do - but that
a power imbalance of any kind exists. The answer, obviously, is not to replace
these white men with another cultural group, but to eradicate radical power
imbalance entirely. This kind of progressive democracy does not emerge from a
vacuum, but is the result of proactive and directed social policy; currently we
ãenjoyä a terrible mockery of true democracy, an insult to that which is
touted as truly ãAmericanä - we need to undergo a major democratization
which effectively neutralizes our terrible state of power imbalance.
Obviously, if we are going to blur these cultural dividing lines into
oblivion, we are going to have to do a lot more interacting. This is why calls
for ãdiversityä, even when they trump other selection factors, are so right
on target. Because the cultural dividing lines are so prevalent and strong,
sometimes it takes some degree of deliberate engineering to create conditions
which foster true line-blurring interaction. Sadly, resistance to
culturally-challenging interaction is great, and many people are retreating to
ãsafe refugesä which institutionally restrict inter-cultural exchange (see
Lifestyle Enclave).
The train doors opened and a few of us got off. Up the flight of stairs
we lined up to exit by the one working turnstile that is open after hours. While
passing in front of the closed token booth I, and several other people, noticed
something very odd about the inhabitant of said booth: it was a very large rat.
The rat was climbing around inside the booth, on the counter, on the chair, on
the shelves. We stared at it. Then the rat stood up on itâs hind legs and
placed itâs front paws on the microphone and brought itâs face up to the
microphoneâs level as if it was going to say something into it. It stood and
stared out at us. We stood and stared in at it. It seemed to be ready to take an
order for a token, we seemed ready to place that order. It moved on finally and
so did we.
ÎReaganâ
is ÎAngerâ Misspelled [Sorta]:
Idealism
is synonymous with immaturity and all itâs failings so we age and become
angered at the trivial with no anger left over for the substantial / Anger is
saxifrage cracking rocks / Redefining itself into oblivion / I will not part
with it, without it we are empty and accepting / If thatâs mature Iâll have
none of it / Anger is saxifrage cracking rocks.
At
Eastern Parkway the two cops whistle for the victorious ass of an unknown womyn
/ Now she doesnât doubt that theyâd love to protect her· and serve her
like their idea of Îmanâ / At the turn to the twentieth eugenics was
science, supposed as objective and far Îpost-enlightenedâ... Today itâs
the basis for our Îmore matureâ racists. / And youâre into revisions if
you wonât concede / That now is our time·and that then is this time (Then IS
this time). / And might I suggest to those never angry, that itâs time to stop
shopping?
...Itâs time to stop shopping.
Anger
is a booming trend / Yelling has become a real bore / Futility and style are
what you blend / All aimed at the scene points you can score / Muting any
message that you send / Did you have a purpose? Are you sure? / Regardless of
your means Iâve lost your end / What is all this screaming for? / But as numb
as Iâve become - I feel angry too / What can I do to loose this fear and
anxiety? / Sanity and priority do battle with complacency / Can I swallow this?
Should I swallow this? / There are certain heinous acts / that I cannot and will
not tolerate / and for these I save my ire / to keep me focused and inspired.
Government redistributes wealth. It does so in both active and passive
manners. Actively, it collects taxes and spends money on social programs, most
of which target some but not all of the population. Passively, the government
redistributes wealth through its taxation system. Depending on the how different
levels of income are taxed, wealth can be redistributed from rich to poor or
from poor to rich. Traditionally, democratic governments have redistributed
wealth from rich to poor, both by taxing the rich at higher rates (see Progressive
Taxation) and by providing social expenditure programs for the poor.
This kind of redistribution makes sense, acknowledging that no citizen should
live in absurd luxury while another suffers. No democratic redistributive system
has ever endeavored to completely equalize the lots of the poor and the wealthy;
in fact, their redistributive effects have been rather mild, allowing a large
gap between rich and poor to persist. Sickeningly, over the last two decades
this redistributive process has been steadily reversed. Through changes in the
tax system which allow the rich to avoid taxation under many circumstances, and
through cuts in social expenditures aimed at the poor, our country is now
actively redistributing wealth from poor to rich. The statistics are undeniable
- the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - and these
socioeconomic changes parallel changes in our governmental policy. I can only
hope that we as a society rejoin the effort to redistribute wealth to those who
truly need assistance.
Regressive
Taxation: (see also
Progressive Taxation)
Sales tax is a regressive tax. Regardless of who is buying a product,
that person pays the exact same percentage of his or her income in tax.
Regressive tax systems are inherently unfair to the poorer members of our
society, because for the poor a much higher percentage of income is spent on
necessities. In fact, if one is poor enough, it is quite possible that 100% of
oneâs income will be spent on housing, food, health care and education. Our
richer population, on the other hand, spends a very tiny percentage of its
income on necessary products and services; the lionâs share of a wealthy
personâs income is spent on luxuries. Logically, this luxury money should be
taxed at a much higher rate than the subsistence income of poor or middle-class
citizens. Sadly, regressive taxation is on the rise in the United States, and
increasingly is falsely portrayed as ãfairä. Other regressive taxes include
social-use fees [tolls, memberships, license fees, educational costs, etcetera],
which are increasingly implemented to ãreduce consumptionä of social
services. Obviously such fees disproportionately reduce consumption amongst the
poor; the $7 bridge toll may prevent a poorer person from crossing a waterway,
but will have minimal impact on the consumption of the Ferrari-driving corporate
lawyer.
I was asked, ãSo, if you donât go to movies ever, you donât go to
parties, and you donât have a TV...what do you do when youâre not
working?ä
Richard
Opalsky; Autobiographical Probe:
The following is an interview that I conducted with myself. Why? Well,
Iâve come to the end of my contributions for this handbook, and still feel
like I havenât said enough. I know that may be shocking to you since this is
already an unprecedented amount of text in the realm of Îpunk-rock
music-productsâ. However, most of my contributions are political and
philosophical, and I wanted to write something about what this band means to me;
what it represents. So, I asked myself four questions whose answers should
achieve this end. The result of my responses, effectively, can be safely reduced
to an expression of love. Chris and Ben: I love you guys with all of my heart
and spirit, and thank you profoundly for sharing Countdown to Putsch with me·
1)
What would you like to achieve with Countdown to Putsch?
There are so many reasons to form a band and to create music, and more
than one reason why I think it is important for me to be in this band.
Certainly, there are a few things I would really like to see happen with this
music. In the most ideal case, people would be really interested in and
supportive of this project, appreciate it holistically, and consider it to be a
kind of legitimate resource. I will be thoroughly excited if there are some
people out there who never find the time to read everything in this book, but
regard it to be something that they can consult if they ever need or wish to.
That might sound egotistical- to think the writing herein to be such a resource-
but itâs not to say that the reader would be regarding it as true or
authoritative. What I mean is just for it to be regarded as an extensive
resource of arguments, information and perspectives to which they could refer
for their serious consideration. Of course, that is what this already is- which
is why I consider the release of this product to be the fulfillment of an ideal.
Disagreement, I think, is a big part of what this band should deliver to
those who pay it attention. I would like for it to stretch people out in new,
almost-painful ways; and for it to do so, it needs to sit within the context of
conflict. There is a wasteful surplus of bands that proclaim that theyâre
about change- but they only play other peopleâs music in their own, barely
idiosyncratic ways. In this context, it is very difficult to be conflictual in a
constructive sense... To be constructive and conflictual at once you must build
something up (construction) which isnât easily acceptable to begin with
(conflict). Music that re-articulates what the audience already believes in is
very important and can be highly productive, especially in its fortification of
a Îcommunityâ and a Îmovementâ. These are positive contributions to
something I believe in, and I appreciate them deeply. I just think that with
this band a very different project is intended... Not necessarily one that is
more important or less important, but one that needs to be cultivated more often
in this community.
I donât want for us to be so quickly digested. I want to give you
something that first needs to be mulled over before affirmed or negated. I very
much like the idea of being a hard pill to swallow, but somehow, like a pill,
medicative. If it turns out that the hardcore/punk community is not at all
receptive to our version of hardcore/punk, I will in the very least be a part of
music that I believe in wholeheartedly· and this is no small accomplishment.
Recently, Iâve found that being in a band that is pretty popular and
well-respected in this community is not nearly enough. As much as I believe in
this community and its judgment and actions, it turns out that I find myself
frequently at odds with it. That the community resounds approval of a band is
not the greatest achievement by any standard. Of course, I do hope for approval,
since I think we are doing something important and want to have an enthusiastic
reception- but I would definitely be content if we continued doing what weâre
doing now for as long as we can in the darkest obscurity. Most of my favorite
music, unfortunately, was hardly appreciated at the time that it was being
played. It took years for folks to come back to it and see the beauty that was
there since the Îget goâ. I think that we are trying to create a new beauty-
to bring it into the world with our band. I am very happy about this band
because the three of us care so much about this little artistry of ours- and I
really want to produce something that can make the world, in some very small way
at least, a place with more beauty in it.
2)
Describe how you see the relationship between the sound of the music and the
text of the music (lyrics & other textual accompaniment).
I think that the text, of this response for example, is not to be
celebrated as an incidental extra to the music. What a musician gives you is his
or her music, inasmuch as he or she claims that it is. John Cage, for example,
has given music that made no sound. If a band gives me a print-out of their
lyrics, then I feel confident in taking them to be an aspect of the musical
experience that they do not want ignored. It is obvious, and this is what we
give to you. Unfortunately, many people have fetishized certain
Îcharacteristicâ sounds in hardcore/punk, and have thus relieved themselves
of the burden of having to consider the lyrics. Now, I donât think a band
needs to have a singer, or even a textual basis. My favorite jazz music rather
clearly communicated much of what hardcore/punk has endeavored to say, without
using words at all. And what about graphics? We are told about the racist
politics of the band Screwdriver the very moment that we examine their albumâs
cover-art. I do think that if music is delivered with text, we must insist on
our consideration of it with no less fervor than we consider the music. Still,
this band is very sensitive to the fact that music gets fetishized and has its
characteristic aspects ignored, or at least put off until later. For this
reason, I think we take splendor in making music that really has no fetish
awaiting it. This way, people can say ãWow, the music is creative and cool÷
but the text is so annoying and I canât file it in my CD rack.ä· Or, they
can align themselves with the politics of the band and say, ãI really love
what this band is about, I just hate their music too much!ä The ideal is that
both of these individuals will stretch themselves out so that they can achieve
an appreciation of the unpleasant remainder, be it the Îexcessive textâ or
the Îexcessive sounds.â
I hope, therefore, that what we are about comes across as being both the
text and the music. But I think that we recognize that the cards are stacked
against this and in the favor of sound alone. For this reason, we have
emphasized the textual aspect of the band to such an uncommon proportion that if
someone were to ignore it- they would feel rather foolish· Or, at least, they
would be sharply aware of themselves trying to conceptually edit our band into
something more palatable. I have felt for a long time that music is
propositional... that sounds are textual in themselves. In a jazz improvisation
you can hear a dialogue between instruments which are best described as voices
engaged with one another. Even the band that gets together to mimic the sounds
of Youth of Today is saying something loud and clear by this fact alone. There
is always a subtext in intelligible sounds. In this way, music and text are
always intertwined. With Countdown to Putsch, I hope to embarrass those who wish
to ignore that.
3)
On a personal level, what does this music achieve for you?
Personally, this band is an expression of an irreplaceable aspect of my
life. I play my part in this band with no more emotion at a live show than I do
in a private practice. This is not a show for me; that is - it is theatrical
only as a consequence of its objectives. It brings to me a self-styled kind of
therapy. Sometimes, I just think about when we will play next, and how good it
will feel to be in the noise- to be the noise itself. The creative activity of
this band is demanding. In a band, you can make something to share with others,
even if it is only with those who are making it with you. This is very
important, generally, as a human activity. I witness myself being given, and can
feel my band mates communicating themselves to me through the noise that we
forge. It is, before disclosed to the world, a decided act of community. Each of
us is here for different reasons, but I celebrate the inevitable conditions for
being a part of this band. For example, it is inevitable that we will learn
things from each other, and help each other to grow so that we can embrace those
aspects of each other that we are not set up to take in. This is, in fact, the
very form of our friendship since our absurdly busy schedules have made the band
our only common meeting-place. In this alone, the band makes my life so much
more beautiful. And finally, beyond my contention that we are truly doing
something useful, there is the deeply spiritual experience of creating something
that challenges your own perceptions, judgments, and values. The band is, for
me, no less spiritual than it is political.
4)
What would you suggest to people interested in music who have the time and
energy to get involved in something new- but donât know what?
I would only suggest to examine the world as you make contact with it
daily; your neighborhood, city, and/or country. Give yourself some time to read
about what interests you, and acquire and develop some perspective. There is no
deadline for this, as you will just know when it is time for you to do Îitâ,
whatever Îitâ is. And it must happen, for no person with eyes can
look at this world for very long before finding something in it that should
change. This world is burdened with ugliness, since in it there are too many who
are in want of their fundamental human rights: shelter, food, clothing, etc.
There are a lot of people and a lot of pain, and in this we are each only one.
You might buy a camera, bring food to the homeless, open your own business,
paint a picture, join a band, become an activist, do a zine, fall in love,
volunteer at a wimminâs club, convince your dad that your gay brother is still
his son, make stickers that make fun of your mayor, start talking to your
estranged sister, protest in a rally, free rabbits, or study many books. We
could attempt to change things with guns and bombs, but then we will only have
to change them again when the smoke clears. Like air-strikes over Yugoslavia,
such activity usually produces more of what it promises to abolish. The only
sustainable revolution I can conceive of is one delivered through education and
educated activity- To learn what isnât taught is the crux of our syllabus, and
the revolution shall not be reduced to a single activity. The revolution I refer
to will take a very long time indeed. But we have been waiting since before our
favorite genocidal hero, Christopher Columbus, so we may as well do it right. It
is to be brought in with your photography, teaching, children, farming, etc.,
etc. Effecting your own little corner of this cornerless world is much easier to
do with love... For this I am grateful, and to you I send as much of my love as
I can cram into this.