rfmcdonald: (forums)
Earlier this week, I linked to a post at JSTOR Daily, where Hope Reese interviewed historian Jill Lepore about the crisis facing American institutions in the 21st century. Lepore argued that the sheer degree of polarization

There are a lot of specific institutions that I have a lot of faith in. That doesn’t necessarily leave me with a lot of optimism about the moment, partly because of what I said about the automation, the polarization––that’s very difficult to escape. I think we live in an age of tremendous political intolerance. I think we live in an age where people don’t understand the nature of our political institutions.

I don’t think it’s great that we have made Supreme Court Justices all but elected to the office. That’s actually quite terrible for the pursuit of justice. But, you don’t even hear people talk about that. It’s just, “who’s gonna win the battle?”

That really, really concerns me. Because it’s a symptom of the way people want to win by any means necessary. Because we’ve been given this kind of rhetoric of life or death, we’re on the edge of a cliff. It’s very hard for people to operate as a civic community interested in the public good in that kind of a climate.


Just this weekend, I came across an essay by Canadian writer Stephen Marche essay in The Walrus, "America's Next Civil War". This article's title perhaps somewhat misrepresents Marche's aticle, in that he imagines not so much outright civil war as a breakdown of civil society, as bipartisanship and polarization makes normal political life impossible. This will have, among other things, significant effects on Canada.

To sum up: the US Congress is too paralyzed by anger to carry out even the most basic tasks of government. America’s legal system grows less legitimate by the day. Trust in government is in free fall. The president discredits the fbi, the Department of Justice, and the judicial system on a regular basis. Border guards place children in detention centres at the border. Antigovernment groups, some of which are armed militias, stand ready and prepared for a government collapse. All of this has already happened.

Breakdown of the American order has defined Canada at every stage of its history, contributing far more to the formation of Canada’s national identity than any internal logic or sense of shared purpose. In his book The Civil War Years, the historian Robin Winks describes a series of Canadian reactions to the early stages of the first American Civil War. In 1861, when the Union formed what was then one of the world’s largest standing armies, William Henry Seward, the secretary of state, presented Lincoln with a memorandum suggesting that the Union “send agents into Canada…to rouse a vigorous continental spirit of independence.” Canadian support for the North withered, and panicked fantasies of imminent conquest flourished. After the First Battle of Bull Run, a humiliating defeat for the Union, two of John A. Macdonald’s followers toasted the victory in the Canadian Legislative Assembly. The possibility of an American invasion spooked the French Canadian press, with one journal declaring there was nothing “so much in horror as the thought of being conquered by the Yankees.”

The first American Civil War led directly to Canadian Confederation. Whatever our differences, we’re quite sure we don’t want to be them.

How much longer before we realize that we need to disentangle Canadian life as much as possible from that of the United States? How much longer before our foreign policy, our economic policy, and our cultural policy accept that any reliance on American institutions is foolish? Insofar as such a separation is even possible, it will be painful. Already, certain national points of definition are emerging in the wake of Trump. We are, despite all our evident hypocrisies, generally in favour of multiculturalism, a rules-based international order, and freedom of trade. They are not just values; the collapsing of the United States reveals them to be integral to our survival as a country.

Northrop Frye once wrote that Canadians are Americans who reject the revolution. When the next revolution comes, we will need to be ready to reject it with everything we have and everything we are.</ Michael Enright at CBC Sunday Edition <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-october-28-2018-1.4877630/what-should-canada-do-if-there-s-a-civil-war-in-the-u-s-1.4877641">interviewed Marche for almost twenty minutes.

This scenario reminds me of nothing so much as the decline of Argentina in the 1960s and 1970s, political incapacities leading to economic failure leading to mass violence leading to the terrible junta.

What do you think? What is the United States heading towards? What should Canada do amidst all of this chaos to our south, this incipient breakdown? For that matter, what should the rest of the world do?
rfmcdonald: (Default)
At the beginning of the week on Livejournal, first Keith R.A. Decandido then Steve Roby took part in an interesting meme. What are my Livejournal userpics, and what are their backstories?



This, my default icon was posting, is a crudely grayscaled version of a photo originally taken of me by Bill Pusztai in January 2005. We were just outside the CIBC branch at 90 Danforth Avenue when I got a phone call from some telemarketers I was working for part-time, telling me that my week-long trial was over and I was done with them.



This icon, used for my [FORUM] posts, is drawn from a photo was taken by my ex, G., as I was leaning back against his balcony on a warm summer night.



This photo, which I use for my [PHOTO] posts, was a selfie, taken as I was standing in front of the shiny gold-impregnated windows of the South Tower of the Royal Bank Plaza complex.



My [CAT] icon is taken from a photo I took of Shakespeare when he was young, barely more than a year old, swiping at my visiting mother's leg.



I do not use my [OBSCURA] icon much any more. It's a shame, since there's so much photography I see on my Flickr feed that I would like to highlight, but not such a shame, since to my embarrassment I can't remember where I got this photo of a vintage 19th century camera. I hope it was from the Wikimedia Commons.
obscura forget where
rfmcdonald: (forums)
This evening, I watched Ant-Man. It was a fun movie, a decent story with good actors that builds into the expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe. I was pleased.

What about you? What is the last movie that you have watched?

Discuss.
rfmcdonald: (forums)
Do you have any plans for this specific holiday? Or do you hope for something lower-key than a plan and long simply for rest?

Discuss.
rfmcdonald: (forums)
Meeting and getting to know random people that you meet in different locales can be quite fun. For instance, there was recently a cute news item in the local dailies both free and otherwise, notification that one of Toronto's very own subway stations--Bathurst, to be precise--was deemed the third most romantic transit stop in all Canada and the most romantic in Toronto. The Bathurst TTC station, it seems, is a great place for people who otherwise would never know each other to meet.

Maybe it’s the seductive aroma of freshly baked goods.

“It’s busy, like a mini Dundas Square, and the same people come through. It’s a meeting place.” says Ramzi Hassan, who works at Bakery on the Go.

Would he consider a romantic spot? “Indeed.”

Bathurst station’s No. 3 romantic ranking trails behind Montreal, which officially has the most crush-worthy commuters in Canada. Its Saint-Laurent station was No. 2.

By “officially,” we mean: Craigslist researchers have decreed Montreal’s Lionel-Groulx Metro station the most romantic transit stop in the country.

[. . .]

Bathurst station pulled in only a 4.95 on the TRIST (train romance index score total) scale compared to 8.95 for Lionel-Groulx.

The survey, “Love on the Line,” analyses a year’s worth of “Missed Connections” personal ads on Craigslist that mention individual subway, Metro or rapid transit stations in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. TRIST scale is tallied by dividing the number of Missed Connections mentions at each station or line by the daily ridership and then multiplying by 10,000 and rounding to two decimal places.

[. . .]

It is possible to find love on the line, says Sandeep Kohli, waiting for the subway at Bathurst. “I met someone at Davisville station a long time ago so I know it’s possible.”

As far as Bathurst station goes, “I think it’s pretty centrally located so there is a lot more opportunity for people to connect if they want to. . . . It just has to be the right moment at the right time.”


People make most of their (in person) friends within their social networks: you know someone who knows someone who knows someone, etc. Sometimes the first generation of friend is known from direct physical interactions at school or at work, sometimes initially more remotely via one online social network or another. Regardless, these friendships exist as a consequence of a network, pathways, lineages; they're the sort of things that can be expected.

And sometimes people meet up and get to know each other without any previous contact at all. I've gotten to befriend and date a couple of people being or doing something on the street or in a coffee shop or elsewhere that seemed noteworthy (and likewise been befriended and dated). One of my oldest friends is a guy who saw my blog's title on a Toronto listing and decided to say hi; great things have come from that over the years.

You? What sorts of people in your life have you met at random? Where did you meet them?

Discuss.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
I'll borrow shamelessly from Wikipedia to introduce the theme of this forum post.

The idea of the Panopticon originated with the English utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham as a prison design that would allow an observer to monitor all the prisoners at all times, without any prisoner being aware of whether he was being monitored or not. The French philosopher Michel Foucault later compared Bentham's ideas with modern society in his work Discipline and Punish. The Panopticon concept of continuous anonymous surveillance has been applied to the Internet as a metaphor for the online monitoring of Internet users’ activities and the collection of their personal data. Governments, corporations, criminals, and even regular citizens – in what is called the Participatory Panopticon – can contribute to the mass surveillance of Internet users.


My life is pretty much as transparent as glass. Almost as soon as I got Internet access in September of 1997, at home and at school, I began posting under my own name at the USENET alternate history discussion forum soc.history.what-if. I continued to be quite active on the Internet, not bothering to adopt a pseudonym. When I started this Livejournal in 2002, I continued this behaviour, judging that it was almost certainly too late. By the spring of 2009, any vestigial uncertainty on that has pretty much faded away.

This doesn't bother me overmuch. My thinking is that since I haven't done anything outrageous, never mind illegal, I've very little to fear from anyone trawling through the many many documents and links and personal statements that outline my life, in detail. Sometimes, I even joke that the gaze of the panopticon is warm and comforting, that it's really like that beautiful love song: "Every breath you take/ Every move you make/ Every bond you break/ Every step you take/ I'll be watching you."

Anyway. I think that I have a high tolerance level for this sort of thing, perhaps too high a tolerance level. What do you think about my attitude? What are your own attitudes?

Discuss, please.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
The thing that has most strongly caught my attention about Sarah Palin's so far disastrous time as McCain's putative Vice President is her long association with the Alaskan Independence Party. There's the novelty of hearing of a separatist movement in the fifty states of the Union, for starters, and the whole 1970s retro feel of this radically anti-center movement like something I'd expect Toffler to write in Future Shock.

All that said, I don't see what's necessarily wrong with separatism. Fustel de Coulanges' pointed out that the national affiliations of Alsatians couldn't be determined by the fact of German conquest. Wouldn't it naturally follow that a government couldn't continue to retain legitimate authority over a particular region by force of arms? That seems to increasingly by the norm in the developed world. Take Canada, where the 2000 Clarity Act established clear procedures by which a province (i.e. Québec) could accede to independence. From everything I've read, if Scotland voted in favour of independence by British government would--perhaps eventually, perhaps quickly--recognize its independence. In the case of Belgium, the affiliation of the city of Brussels is allegedly the main thing keeping that federation together. Et cetera.

I'd make exceptions for situations where hopeful states didn't guarantee the rights of people belonging to minority groups of whatever kind. The Confederacy wouldn't pass muster, for instance, while Croatia in the early 1990s would have had to seriously improve its relationship with its Serb minority. (Then again, interethnic relations in the SFRY were already, what with the militias and the early ethnic cleansings and the jokes about mutilation and murder that were too much the rage.) If these rights are guaranteed or better yet taken for granted, what's wrong with (say) a democratic Republic of Alaska, or a [name your own future polity]? I don't want to go so far as to suggest that what better way would there be to demonstrate a polity's democratic nature than to allow some of its citizens to secede in a democratic manner, but still.

Thoughts? Does this make sense? Or am I being facile?
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Labour Day in Canada is fast-approaching, and in Toronto a wide range of events have scheduled by various levels of government and other organizations to celebrate thss holiday. (The airshow and Toronto Island beaches top my list.)

Is the public holiday of Labour Day popular where you are? Is it even legally recognized (I address this question to my non-Canadian readers)? Do you have plans to do anything on Labour Day, or are you just hoping to be able to find someplace to hide from the madness?
rfmcdonald: (Default)
The ever-opinionated Canadian journalist Christie Blatchford had an opinionated article in The Globe and Mail on Thursday, "I'm not blogging this, mark my words".

It is the modern way, but at the blogging Olympics - and these are the blogging Games, as Sydney marked the first all-out Web Games - with 20,000 journalists in the same approximate place, it is impossible to overlook the phenomenon and difficult not to participate. Let us now conjugate blog: I blog, I have blogged, I will blog.

Or rather, after a few desultory efforts in the early going here, let me say that I shall
not blog. It is not because I take a principled stand against blogging. It's not that I don't love the Web. It's not that I'm a Luddite, or at least not just that I'm a Luddite.

It's that, as Michael Farber, the great Montreal sportswriter and Hockey Hall of Famer who works for Sports Illustrated, said the other day on a bus, "I have only a finite number of words in me." He is guarding what's left, properly determined not to squander them.

[. . .]

Michael Phelps's last swim, as with all swim finals thanks to NBC, took place in the morning here, prime time back home. It meant that most Canadian papers could just barely squeak into the next day's editions the news of his record eighth gold. Rosie DiManno of the Toronto Star was poolside; she had five whole minutes to write and file the story. It does not make for thoughtful copy.

Ms. DiManno's work ethic is legendary. When I remarked to her colleague Doug Smith that she had written five stories one day last week, he grinned and said, "Well, the paper has five sections." On one of those multistory days, Ms. DiManno got a snarky comment about one of them on the Star website, "comments" being the remarks Web readers are encouraged to post about the stories they read.

"This feels more like a blog post, Rosie. A good blog, but a lame article," wrote someone identified only as HEC30.

You see? Everyone's a writer now. Everyone's an editor. It's as if the College of Physicians and Surgeons not only encouraged patients to read all the medical websites, but also to do their own diagnoses.

This is the democratization wrought by the Web, and if it has actually helped open up closed societies such as China's, in the West its chief effect, at least upon journalism, is to diminish whatever craft, and there is some, is left in the business.

It is not true that anyone can write. It is not true that anyone can write on deadline. It is not true that anyone can do an interview. It is not true that anyone can edit themselves and sort wheat from chaff. It is not true that even great productive writers like The Globe's Jim Christie or Ms. DiManno or Mr. Farber can hit a home run every time they sit before the laptop. But the odds of them doing it are greatly increased if they haven't already filed 1,200 words to the Web, shot a video, done a podcast and blogged ferociously all day long.


People who have been reading A Bit More Detail for an extended period of time might remember that especially in 2005 but also in 2006, my volume of posts was--well, let's admit it--wildly excessive, occasionally hitting double-digit numbers.

I've cut back since then. I intend to cut back further. You will note that, Demography Matters posts aside, I'm now making only this one [FORUM] post this weekend, and the [PHOTO]-tagged category of posts likewise exists for a reason. Why? It was just too exhausting to blog so much, and I'm quite sure that the quality of my writing--style and content--suffered for it. Quite probably Blatchford is right to argue that for all but a few very talented writers, an excessive number of writing snippets can be enervating.

I'd be willing to fit this into a wider problem with modern electronic culture. In Nicholas Carr's article in The Atlantic, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", the author argues not that Google is actually making people less intelligent but that it's altering people's reading habits, discouraging extended reading in favour of much quicker absoprtion of snippets. Mental architecture, as Carr writes, is plastic. This rapidity arguably contributes to a superficialization of relationships--[livejournal.com profile] imomus wrote quite amusingly this morning about how Facebook has allowed him to become friends with distant tribes ("Thanks to Facebook, I'm connected to the indigenous peoples of Northern Canada"). Where this trend will go, no one knows.

Or does this trend exist at all? Are Blatchford, and Carr, and [livejournal.com profile] imomus, and--I have to admit--me wrong in believing that the informatization of communications has negative consequences for substance as described above? Or are we all right in believing the change to exist or wrong in thinking the change negative?

Your thoughts, as always, are most welcome. Please play nicely.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
A recent post at Joe. My. God. referred to a marketing study commissioned by Logo, an American GLBT television channel, that suggested that a majority of the channel's younger viewers didn't identify themselves particularly with stereotypical patterns, hoping for partners, children, suburban living, friendship networks including large numbers of heterosexuals, and so on. The response to this in the comments thread was fairly harsh, with many commenters denouncing younger members of the various non-heterosexual aggregates as not only ungrateful people brainwashed by heterosexual culture but as people who were willing by their lack of commitment to put the security of non-heterosexuals at risk.

I disagree. I can testify Gay assimilation has proceeded as gay rights have increasingly been acknowledged, this acknowledgment coming not in the entrenchment of social difference from heterosexuals but in the acquisition of the various social and economic rights already enjoyed by heterosexuals. The sharp decline of anti-Semitism in the countries where nearly all Jews live has accelerated Jewish assimilation, as traditional Jewish languages like Ladino and Yiddish die along with their associated popular and religious cultures even as intermarriage grows. Other examples of this can be found in Chinese assimilation in Thailand, Japanese assimilation in Brazil, or Italian assimilation in France.

What do you think about these trends? Do you think that there is there any way, in a liberal society, to prevent this assimilation, to successfully combine active participation in a wider society with the active participation in a culture? Or, as legal and societal incentives against assimilation fall, is a very strong shift towards the norms of the dominant culture inevitable? My readers can doubtless think of other examples of minority groups that have largely assimilated as their acceptance has progressed. Examples of minority groups that have not assimilated would be interesting. Also, do you think that younger members you who adopt the norms of the majority culture are making ill-judged decisions?

As always, please be polite in the comments. Yes, anonymous comments are welcome.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Multilingualism for me on Prince Edward Island was something very nearly theoretical: The 2001 census and the 2006 census both suggest that, out of a total population of nearly 134 thousand people, 117 thousand spoke only English, 17 thousand knew both English and French, and only 55 people spoke neither official language. (5% of the Island population are native Francophones, some 6 or 7 thousand people.)

This changed when I came to live in Kingston in September 2003. After I was there for a couple of weeks, I noticed that the form of Canadian English differed significantly from that of Maritimer English, that in fact the people I came across spoke the way that I heard people speak on CBC broadcasts. In Toronto, things changed dramatically. I can regularly count on hearing Portuguese spoken in my neighbourhood, Korean in the shops and Internet cafes to my southeast, Chinese on the streets all over the city and offered as an operating language at ATMs, French randomly on the streets by different people, Jamaican English commonly, and so on. English remains the common language of Torontonians--the diversity of Toronto's many distinctive immigrant population ensures that-but at the neighbourhood level things change a bit, some language groups (Portuguese Canadians), showing more resilience than others.

How do things work in your neck of the woods? Is there a common language in your community, and if so what is it, and if not how does language work in your community? Does it have a lot of language groups or few, are their distinct neighbourhoods or are they dispersed throughout the community? What sort of official recognition are the various language groups given in your city?
rfmcdonald: (Default)
I graduated the University of Prince Edward Island, with, among other titles, a BA in Anthropology, explaining in part my interest in popular culture. I'd like to indulge that interest right now.

What popular music song, what book or short story or article, and/or what other artifact of popular culture are you enjoying right now, and why?

Myself, it's this remix of New Order's classic "Blue Monday."



Why do I like it? It's energetic and bouncy and it makes me smile.

As always, politeness in the comments is mandatory, and of course anonymous posters are welcome.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Alternate history has been a long-standing interest of mine. It's something abuot the possibility of things having developed differently, at a micro- and macro-levels that interests me. It interests a lot of other people, too: I know quite a few of the readers of this blog, on and off Livejournal, through Usenet's soc.history.what-if, to say nothing of the people I know through this fans of uchronia at one or two or more removes.

One of the major features of alternate histories, apart from the dominance of airships, is the creation of novel states with radically different frontiers from the ones we know. What if Canada had been conquered by the United States, in 1776 or in 1783? What if Napoleon had managed to conquer the Untied Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after the Franco-Spanish victory at Trafalgar? What if Finland's borders stretched to the White Sea? Et cetera.

This leads to the purpose of this post: What countries do you wish existed, or didn't exist, or existed in radically different form? Would you be interested in a history where the 1980 referendum produced an independent Québec, or another where Geralia broke away during Brazil's debt crisis, or a Greater Singapore encompassing most of western Malaysia, or ... ?

As always, politeness is most appreciated. People who'd like to post anonymously are free to do so.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Earlier this week, thanks to [livejournal.com profile] lemurbuoy's generosity, I had the chance to watch Zhang Yimou's 2002 film Hero. The film's quite impressive, between its gorgeous colour scheme, its hyper-cinematic fighting styes, its actors and the plot that they all share, but it's this plot that has caused a certain amount of controversy because of its interestingly conflicted treatment of Qin Dynasty, responsible for the (bloody) unification of the Chinese states in the 3rd century BC. The possible vcontemporary political inclinations of Hero could be treated as something unique to China, as indeed I did, until I remembered the American civil war and how it was viewed (potentially problematically) in American popular culture as a positive thing, something that created the modern American nation if at great cost. We needn't talk about the War of American Independence so close to the 4th, right?

I can't say that the same applies to Canada. Growing up in Charlottetown PE ("The Birthplace of Confederation!") I learned that Confederation was initially a Maritime conference that the Canadas eventually invited themselves to, and later, about the Fenian raids conducted from the United States against Canada. I don't believe that I learned of the extent of the Province of Canada's instability even in high school, never mind the soft sympathy for the Confederacy that let things like the 1864 St. Albans Raid by Confederates based in Lower Canada on Vermont happen. The Red River and North-West Rebellions were treated relatively briefly. I do think that, at one time or another, these different episodes did appear on CBC as episodes in a series or maybe, just maybe, stand-alone TV movies. The world wars do feature prominently in the popular imagination and might have fit this pattern if they hadn't been as much divisive events (Québec's opposition to conscription, say) as unifying ones.

What trend prevails in your countries? Does war, portrayed as a positive uniting force, feature prominently in your popular culture? Or, as in Canada, is it more-or-less absent? Or do you think I'm missing something here?

Please feel free to comment. As always be polite, and if you want to post anonymously, go ahead.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Lacking any interest in adopting as my own any particular religious tradition while being wary of atheism's equally reaching claims--John Grey has a definition of atheism in at least the Western tradition I'm most familiar with as just another Christian heresy ("There is no Trinity, there was no Imaculate Conception, and Jesus did not die on the Cross, oh, and the other religions are wrong, too")--I've been happily agnostic for the past few years. From my perspective, without any clear evidence, why should I bother to make an essentially arbitrary choice?

Other people, including other people reading this, have made different choices. I've always been curious as to why they've done so. Why have they, many of them presumably not starting off from a place very different from mine, come to different conclusions on these matters? Equally as interesting, what journeys have other people who have reached the same conclusions as me made?

Hence this forum. Why did you believe in the particular religious (or non-faith) faith tradition that you do? If you follow a particular religious tradition, why do you do so? If not, why? If you're wavering, why?

Discussion is encouraged on the sole condition that it be polite.

UPDATE (23 June): My apologies for the sloppy and Eurocentric phrasing that I'd included in the first version of this post. My bad.

Profile

rfmcdonald: (Default)rfmcdonald

February 2021

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
212223242526 27
28      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 11th, 2026 09:22 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios