Happy birthday to me

Or at least, the blog. It just turned seven today I just realised, while slogging through the archives manually converting posts to the new WordPress based incarnation of this blog that escaped slightly too soon into the wider world. On this day seven years ago I blogged my first post. It wasn’t very interesting, opefully that has changed over the years even if I sometimes feel that I’m forever plodding where others seem to be able to jot down great posts with no effort at all…

I still have a lot of fun blogging even if the hopes of getting famous through it have long since faded. There’s been some good writing here, also some pretty horrible writing, but who cares?

Greg Egan does the right thing

So yesterday I posted about Greg Egan’s somewhat dumb and insulting comparison of “geek” and “nerd” to certain incredibly offensive racial insults. What made it even worse was that he made this comparison in the context of responding to Adam Roberts’ review of his latest novel, Incandenscence. Well, Egan popped up in James Nicoll’s post discussing this action. He got into a discussion with Carlos and after some prodding, decided Carlos was right in thinking this comparison was offensive. Egan therefore altered the paragraph in question and it now reads:

These days there’s often ranting about “nerds” and “geeks” — terms that the world would be better off without, though I have to admit there’s something gloriously awful, in a Love And Death on Long Island kind of way, when would-be sophisticates who spend half their time discussing Joyce or Sophocles switch to a vocabulary whose current usage was largely forged in the supremely inane universe of American high school cliques.

I still wouldn’t agree with his argument that nerd or geek are slurs; they used to be but they’ve long ago been reclaimed. But this doesn’t matter. What’s important is that Greg Egan saw he had made a mistake and had inadvertently insulted people and then apologised and took action to recitify this. Well done!

In related matters, cluefulness has not broken out everywhere in science fiction land, as another of James’ posts shows:

Apparently in their current version, the skin of Drow who convert to good becomes lighter coloured while the “blackness of the drow’s skin has become a permanent sign of their depravity”. The Curse of the Lamanites angle seems to have been introduced by self-confessed Canadian author Lisa Smedman in The Lady Penitent.

Oi. That really is some old skool racist imagery, isn’t it? With fantasy there’s always the danger, if the writer isn’t careful, that old racist stereotypes are redeemed by applying them to Orcs or other fantasy races, but this is so obvious that there really is no excuse. This isn’t just an awkward appropriation of an “exotic” culture to populate some generic fantasyland with, but use of an old idea that has served as a particular pernicious justification for slavery: the “curse of Ham”. From wikipedia:

According to pro-slavery literature, Ham’s transgressions, particularly the shaming of his father by looking upon his nakedness, provoked “Noah’s curse”. Allegedly, Ham’s son Canaan and his descendants were thereafter doomed to serve their American lines for all of eternity. Indeed, when discussing the slaves of the pharaoh in Exodus, Origen specifically identifies them as descendants of Ham who were punished due to their ancestor’s skin color. In 1823, amidst controversy concerning the justice and morality of slavery, South Carolinian Frederick Dalcho argued: “and perhaps we shall find that the negroes, the descendants of Ham, lost their freedom from the abominable wickedness of their progenitor (Ham).”

Much worse than some of the offenses that have driven racefail 2009…

Oh No Greg Egan No!

As you may have encountered if you’re following online science fiction fandom, for months now there has been an increasingly poisonous but important discussion about race, cultural apropriation and science fction going on in various sf blogs, mostly on Livejournal. Science fiction/fandom prides itself on being open and inclusive, but in reality has huge blindspots when it comes to matters of race, culture and gender. Which in itself is not a new conclusion of course, but which Racefail 2009 –as this increasingly acrimonious discussion has been dubbed by cynics — makes clear is still a sore spot for the genre. Even well intentioned writers have been shown to be –how to say– less than tactful in their handling of these matters.

Greg Egan’s throwaway remark that the use of words like “geek” or “nerd” is as bad as certain racial slurs could therefore not come at a worse time:

These days there’s often some ranting about “nerds” and “geeks” — words that belong in the same rubbish pile as “niggers” and “gooks” — though I have to admit there’s something gloriously awful, in a Love And Death on Long Island kind of way, when would-be sophisticates who spend half their time discussing Joyce or Sophocles switch to a vocabulary whose current usage was largely forged in the supremely inane universe of American high school cliques. It’s also quite handy to have a word or two around whose use swiftly identifies a proud scientific illiterate just as effectively as the words that mark a proud racist. Of course, there are a handful of scientifically literate people who have decided to self-identify with the same vocabulary, but when it comes to using n-words the example of Fifty Cent is a great deal less appealing to me than that of Barack Obama.

But you have to admit that there is no better proof than this that yes, science fiction is clueless about race. Nerds and geeks may be bullied in high school sometimes, but it’s all a far cry from being forced to use separate water coolers and such, now is it, or being stopped “randomly” for wearing pocket protectors… Especially considering the context in which Egan makes these remarks, his attempted putdown of a negative Adam Roberts review of Egan’s latest novel, this show an astounding level of entitlement and cluelessness.

If you want to read more about Racefail 2009, Torque Control has a good overview post up. I myself have been reading, but not writing about the discussion as I have little to add and there are enough half assed opinions being slung around in it already…

Alex calls for the end of “call for”

In the midst of a splendid takedown of David Hare’s onemanshow on Berlin, Alex Harrowell articulates his disdain of the phrase “to call for”:

There is a broader issue here; the phrase “to call for” repels me more and more. Its function is to get you out of responsibility for your opinions. I didn’t want war – I merely called for solidarity with the US in fighting terrorism. It also acts as a way of escaping the healthy discipline of detail. It is telling that it is fashionable with the neoconservatives, the Decents, and the hard left all at once – all the retailers of the goods dream-hungry youth demand, according to Leszek Kolakowski.

I call for action on Darfur! But I say nothing of the mountainous problems of projecting force into the roadless and railless interior of western Sudan, nothing of whose infantry are to actually go and get killed there, nothing of who exactly they are meant to kill or threaten effectively to kill, or for what aims. I just called for. Let’s decommission this phrase, like a worn-out nuclear power station – switch it off gracefully, sever the lines and fill the damn thing with concrete, and watch it carefully for a hundred years to see nothing leaks out.

One minor quibble is that by and large the socalled “hard left” (which in any case usually sems to mean whomever is to the left of the speaker) isn’t the main offender in this. Socialists, anarchists, communists all have a healthy, historically validated distrust of relying on the state to further their projects. Social democrats and liberals on the other hand have a history of enthusiasitc support for state intervention. If Iraq and Afghanistan are too obvious, take a look at who the main cheerleaders for intervention in Yugoslavia were.

UPDATE: Interesting discussion of Alex’s post over at Aaronovitch Watch in which ejh takes exception to Alex’s thesis:

The problem comes not when people without power express principle, provided they don’t do so ungenerously: it’s when people do have power and piss about. This is why it’s problematic (though not necesarily entirely wrong) to suggest that Macmillan should have called for an uprising against the bulding of a Berlin Wall, because it would quite likely have been writing a cheque he couldn’t cash*. Geroge Bush Sr wrote a cheque in Iraq 1991 that he probably could have cashed, but then didn’t: that was worse still. But to be honest, in just saying “Stop Apartheid Now” (“Now”? What does that mean, “now?”) more than half my life ago, I wasn’t writing any cheques or taking any risks.

Except the risk of becoming Andrew Anthony. Well, yeah, I’ve met a few. But there’s an opposite but equal risk, that many have also fallen victim to, that people who want to concentrate on practicals to the exclusion of ideals turn into New Labour. That’s what that particular movement in politics was and is all about. Lots of the Anti-Apartheid people ended up like that – and I don’t think I’d err in detecting a large crossover between the people who were most keen to follow the ANC line in toto in the Eighties, and those who were the keenest Blairites ten and twenty years later. I think there are as many ill consequences in going one way as in another.

Dutch Finance minister attacks shareholders

It’s a bit late, considering even I already argued this same point four months ago. Bos also ignores the role his own ministry has played in fermenting this crisis. After all it’s the ministry of finance, through the various insitutions it controls that’s supposed to safeguard the financial markets and which failed miserably. They completely missed the problems with the Icelandic banks for example, gave their blessing to the takeover of ABN Amro which destroyed four banks and counting and in general stayed true to the neoliberal partyline of minimal interference as the market knew best.

The anger at the bankes is understandable, but it was the whole system that failed. The recession isn’t caused by a few too greedy CEOs, but because capitalism always encourages short term greed no matter the consequences and the measures and safeguards that were put in place after the last Great Depression were deliberately dismantled from the seventies onwards. Something in which succesive finance ministers actively colluded. The Netherlands should become more American in its approach towards the markets, with less state control and more freedom for business. The current recession is the logical end result.