the library of congress has a flickr photostream & it is awesome.

here they are.

holiday in cambodia

The more I think about this song, the more problematic I find it. Don't worry; it's not about being PC. It's just that Khmer Rouge-era Cambodia was such a shockingly weird and tragic place. The leadership operated under secrecy, they were doing things like abolishing money and clearing out the cities. The numbers from their secret prison, S-21, rare somewhere around 7 survivors for the 17,000 who went through. You had a .04% chance of getting out of there. I was assigned Voices from S-21: Terror and History in Pol Pot's Secret Prison by David Chandler to read in school and I couldn't make it all the way through. It was that disturbing.

So the song is ostensibly about rich kids in the US acting in a self-righteous manner by professing their empathy and understanding of plights less fortunate than theirs, all while driving around on the East Coast in their dad's fancy car that I couldn't even tell you the maker of.

So you been to school
For a year or two
And you know you've seen it all
In daddy's car
Thinkin' you'll go far
Back east your type don't crawl

You're right, Jello Bifra. Nobody likes those people. And you say it in such a catchy way. He next suggests that these kids should check out Cambodia in order to see how bad it can really be:

Well you'll work harder
With a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers
Till you starve
Then your head is skewered on a stake.

One problem is is that that last line there is a little too Orientalist for my taste. It almost says, Oh those wacky Cambodians. They put heads on stakes just like those Polynesians do. And the Indians did. And the Vikings. It's a classic trope of barbarianism, along with, like, not wearing shoes and going months without bathing-- and barbarians, by it's etymology, is simply the group in opposition to us. That's lazy-- which is my main problem with slogans in general; it's a distillation of complex issues into a single, sensationalist soundbite that lets people be lazy about understanding those complex issues that are now lost the moment you put it on a shirt or tote bag.

In fact, the cover of the single is a picture from a 1976 student massacre in Thailand. Thailand is not the same country as Cambodia. They might all look the same, but they're not. Maybe they're the ones that put heads on stakes?

But really what it is is that the lyrics suggest that Jello Biafra's main concern is not describing the problem with the situation in Cambodia, or even exposing it to the casual listener. It's about how the existence of that situation is beneficial to him because it let's him stick it to the fat capitalist cats he has problems with. He is doing the same thing that he accuses the people in the song of doing: using the plight of others to prove a point about himself. Here he is saying that his awareness makes him superior and thus righteous. This is exactly what he says the kids in the song are doing. If we were really going to look at Cambodia under Pol Pot, you could say that that toothless bum living under the overpass has it better than the people over there. Because it's true. That shit was fucked. up. Maybe we all need to be sent back in time over there to truly realize how lucky we are-- the kids on the crew team at the Ivy Leagues, the suburban moms in their SUVs, the punk kids in their squats. But I don't think that's how people learn or solve their problems. If you spend all your time comparing your situation to the desperate conditions of others, you can't get things done.

I thought of this while reading the comments under a Youtube video of the Foo Fighters & Serj Tankian of System of a Down covering the song at the VMAs. The argument, as usual, was how nobody in the audience knew the song & they suck. First off, who cares. If you're worried about who listens to what music, and that's how you decide your tastes, you're giving them an awful lot of control-- you are giving them the power-- and not paying attention to the merits of the actual art. But it also showed me that this song hasn't sparked discussion about Cambodia, history, or even class divides. People were more interested in whether seeing this vid got people into the Dead Kennedys rather than wondering if they became interested in the Cambodia of the title-- a name perhaps only used by the song in a sensationalist, exploitative way? (Second nature to the band in light of their name.) The discussion was thus concerned with labels and constructs and superiority-- could this be the case because that's all the song is about, and the lyrics and phrases and name dropping is simply to rile people up rather than to make them think?

It's still relevant today-- some of the leaders are only just now being put on trial.

It's also too bad that kids today have taken the lyrics seriously and decided to slum it in order to gain whatever cred your scene gets you.

Play ethnicky jazz
To parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin' that you know
How the niggers feel cold
And the slums got so much soul

That's what half the kids I knew in NYC were about-- adopting mannerisms, living habits, and addictions in order to prove that they haven't "seen it all/In daddy's car." That they've seen it at ground zero instead. You're still doing it in "daddy's car" if he's paying for your rent, coke habit, & credit card. These are all addictions they can afford, with the help of their therapists-- and I know your part-time Urban Outfitters pay can't be covering that. The style of proving one's awareness and empathy might have changed but the philosophy behind it hasn't. Nowadays, you might be living IN the slums rather than driving by them, but you're still doing it to prove that you got the "soul" that you presume these slums to have, and that they have it by virtue of deprivation. What's most reprehensible is that they are leeching off others' misfortune and it is in their interest that neighborhoods remain dangerous rather than thriving. Plus their very presence (and its purchasing power) is one of improvement through gentrification rather than community building from within.

But on the other hand, whatever. I like the song. Let's go.

um i think this is funny because i am a 14 year old boy. i also love fart jokes.

Actually, I don't-- I can't stand fart jokes. Or rather, I don't find them funny in the slightest. Which I believe was the subject of a South Park episode? If you believe them, it's men who like fart jokes. Now I'm sure there's some ladies out there who find them hilarious, too, so whatever, but let me tell you-- fart jokes have been around forever and they cross international borders faster than cocaine and immigrants seeking a better life. We read in my Asian texts class (I mention this because I honestly couldn't tell you what the text was) some, like, 6th century Japanese text that was a three page fart joke. Nothing was lost in translation. And I'm pretty sure the Decameron or Canterbury Tales is full of them. Those funny little history people: according to Wikipedia, the "word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary."

SO-- I'm not sure what I signed up for that won me all this free spam (I am convinced it was Skype). Usually these things use a slower approach. They mention the low price, the effectiveness, ]how it will improve your life & relationships. But this one I got is almost revolutionary in its refusal to mince words. Even the name doesn't fuck around. I mean, I could write a postmodernist underground hit right now: "Make your dick good." Art fucking sucks. Spam does too. As a bonus: "Creamy Spam Broccoli Casserole." Ick.

your new favorite website.

oh yes. [image of Martine Carol via starlet showcase cos ps HOW SAUCY is she?]

i can't imagine that tom waits hasn't read gwendolyn brooks.

THE POOL PLAYERS.
SEVEN AT THE GOLDEN SHOVEL.

We real cool. We
Left school. We

Lurk late. We
Strike straight. We

Sing sin. We
Thin gin. We

Jazz June. We
Die soon.

Read more of Gwendolyn Brooks' poems here. I also really like "A Penitent Considers Another Coming of Mary." Hear her read it at Poets.org, via. She explains how the poem had been banned because it contained the word "Jazz." hahaha, those old timey people.

Prohibition was crazier than we thought.

"During Prohibition, however, an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: "Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified." Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. "Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?" asked Nebraska's Omaha Bee."

Read a TIME article from 1927 about the poisoning of alcohol.

young indiana jones was awesome ok?

lazy history sunday!

Before World War II, the war was also known as The Great War, The World War, The War to End All Wars, The Kaiser's War, The War of the Nations and The War in Europe. In France and Belgium it was sometimes referred to as La Guerre du Droit (the War for Justice) or La Guerre Pour la Civilisation / de Oorlog tot de Beschaving (the War to Preserve Civilisation), especially on medals and commemorative monuments [. . .]

The earliest known use of the term First World War appeared during the war. German biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel wrote shortly after the start of the war:

There is no doubt that the course and character of the feared 'European War' ... will become the first world war in the full sense of the word.[214]
—Indianapolis Star, 20 September 1914

The term was used again near the end of the war. English journalist Charles A. Repington wrote:

I saw Major Johnstone, the Harvard Professor who is here to lay the bases of an American History. We discussed the right name of the war. I said that we called it now The War, but that this could not last. The Napoleonic War was The Great War. To call it The German War was too much flattery for the Boche. I suggested The World War as a shade better title, and finally we mutually agreed to call it The First World War in order to prevent the millennium folk from forgetting that the history of the world was the history of war.[215]
—The First World War, 1914-1918 (1920), Volume I, Page 391.

The above was directly excerpted from the wikipedia page "World War I," where you can see links to the citations. It's always interesting to see where history sees itself with that kind of awareness before it's actually history.

"Revolutionaries" by Tony Judt

Was worried I wasn't going to be able to find this online (and I can't find my hard copy right now-- where could it be?) But luckily this Tony Judt piece, 'Revolutionaries." is available on the NYRblog. Huzzah! The following is the last paragraph-- so it might (kinda sorta?) be giving something away and so you might wanna check out the whole piece instead.

No one should feel guilty for being born in the right place at the right time. We in the West were a lucky generation. We did not change the world; rather, the world changed obligingly for us. Everything seemed possible: unlike young people today we never doubted that there would be an interesting job for us, and thus felt no need to fritter away our time on anything as degrading as “business school.” Most of us went on to useful employment in education or public service. We devoted energy to discussing what was wrong with the world and how to change it. We protested the things we didn’t like, and we were right to do so. In our own eyes at least, we were a revolutionary generation. Pity we missed the revolution.

And in other news, some people suck.

Roundup

• Wodehouse & people who are alive get some love from HTMLGiant.

• L'Engle gets some love from everyone.

• Another expert on Haitian voodoo does a Q&A at National Geographic.

• 5 Psych episodes are about to expire at Hulu-- oh no!

• I want to eat these. And wear them.

• I woke up and wanted to hear this song this morning. I don't know why.

• On the other hand, did I ever confess to you guys that I actually (still) like this song?

I'm chairman of the-

I never thought of boredom as a concept that had to develop, so it's very interesting to read this--

Boredom, scholars argue, was something new, different from the dullness, lassitude and tedium people had no doubt been experiencing for centuries. In her ingenious study “Boredom: The Literary History of a State of Mind” (1995), Patricia Meyer Spacks describes it as a luxury — and a peril — born of the Industrial Revolution, reflecting the rise of individualism, leisure (especially female leisure) and the idea of happiness as a right and a daunting personal responsibility. “Boredom presents itself as a trivial emotion that can trivialize the world,” Spacks writes [source New York Times, emphasis mine.]

the devil. true story.

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heal [heel] of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal." [Pat Robertson via Ta-Nehisi Coates]

Ok, we all heard about that and were suitably outraged and embarrassed. There's a bit of a thing going on at The Atlantic's Coates' blog-- a blog I often find things to take issue with but continue to visit on occasion because it does provide interesting and smart discussion.

Coates posted about Robert Tabor's "A Qualified Defense of Pat Robertson." As Coates eventually points out, this article suffers from a misleading title. Besides a brief conciliatory note, which I don't think is hardly ever a bad thing and is, anyway Tabor's opinion, I don't find that Tabor is defending Robertson's intentions. He is instead explaining the background Robertson is drawing upon. It's a very interesting article on its own, just in terms of ideas and history, and gives a brief focused primer on Haiti's political woes. It's well-written and most importantly, it provides a description of what needs to be thought about when viewing Robertson's as-usual nasty remarks.

I take issue with people's reactions to the article. Many are quite nasty themselves, saying that the history and information Tabor's article contains is irrelevant or shouldn't be mentioned if it is used to cast a wider, more revealing but not necessarily more negative light on Robertson.

Both these objections represent the same frightening strength of uninformed opinions. I don't understand how revealing further information about a comment is irrelevant. I agree that Robertson should be criticized, but he must be criticized using as much information as possible to do so. Simply dismissing his statement as loony racist pseudo-Christian babble is, Tabor has proven, not the entire truth. It is the result of a loony racist pseudo-Christian's ideas, but it not itself only something PR dreamed up. Robertson is using information to misinform, a very smart piece of demagoguery because the tiny kernel of fact present, however distorted it eventually becomes, tends to make for even more convincing and thus more dangerous arguments for those willing to believe something.

I think people are upset that Tabor didn't offer anything that outright refuted or proved Robertson wrong. This is obviously not something he chose, and Tabor is doing a favor for those who would rather lazily wholesale dismiss Robertson's comments based on their admittedly warranted dislike of him. Tabor is helping people form informed opinions, vital to any dialogue that is going to get anywhere. Tabor is providing context that anybody who wishes to form criticisms must take into account if they want to create a strong and solid counter-argument. Vitriol only gets you so far, and it tends to bring any and all opinions, no matter how diverse, to about the same muddy place to spin your wheels in.

Coates is smarter than me. This is obvious and so I think I may be misunderstanding what he is saying here:

What really got me, and perhaps too much, was the idea that the history--while very important--offered any kind of defense of Robertson. Suffice to say, I still believe that, and I still stand by my point about the generous reading.

I am not sure about this. The history Tabor provides is the background. It is not defending what he said or what he meant. It is showing that Robertson is not making shit up all on his own, but that he is distorting things. And again that is his real crime, taking something and using it to misinform. Tabor is allowing people to not be misinformed, because those who think Robertson pulled it out of his ass (which thought until I read Tabor's piece-- when I, funnily, caught up with Pat Robertson re: some aspect of Haiti's history, distorted or not) are just as misinformed as those who believe he is telling the historically accurate truth-- in any aspect history is not just "very important," it is critical. Which Coates does say in the same post: "As I told Robert, and I think as was clear in the thread, I certainly do not object to anything that helps clarify the history and origins of Haiti. It's important to understand. Pat Robertson's ugliness aside, I think, as one commenter said, the good thing is we've all been a little enlightened here." History isn't the core of the argument, but it is still vital information.

But is Coates also saying that no context should be given if it makes Roberston look a little less. . . crazier than usual? Because that's what some of the more hysterical comments on all the posts mentioned here are saying, and I find it hard to believe that Coates agrees. But regardless what he's saying, others are saying it. It's a dangerous thing to deny history when you disagree with it. We all know that and all the easy examples of why this is so are found in the last 100 years, which gives us some nice material evidence that is harder to locate the further back in time you go, for example Haiti at the end of the 18th century with an educated non-native elite. See also, Timothy Snyder's article "The Holocaust: The Ignored Reality" for a description of the problems with relatively recent history (again despite the existence of a greater amount of primary, some still living, sources) and how it has been distorted, to history and to its victims loss, by cherrypicking facts.

I appreciate that Coates has provided a forum for mostly reasonable exchange. (Though not quite so in his original post, which contains some odd assertions.*)He is eventually very gracious towards Tabor, who provides a good clarification of what he was writing, and it is good to see a space online for that kind of interaction.

Bonus funtime music: Satan is Real - The Louvin Brothers

The Rumpus has a good roundup of ways to help Haiti.

______
* Coates draws this comparison:

Again, if I go on TV and claim that the Boston Tea Party was actually the Boston Cocaine Party, then claim that the drug trade is what liberated America, and then further claim that the Meth epidemic is a direct results, saying "But there was a party," isn't a defense--not even a qualified one.

This is hyperbolic and does not draw any kind of parallel to Tabor's article. There is no myth, oral tradition, or anything that involves cocaine; Coates is presenting this as the devil of Robertson's argument (and I suppose trying to be as silly as Robertson is), but it doesn't make sense if he is trying to attack Tabor. This is different from Tabor's description of the trajectories of syncretic Haitian traditions and institutionalized Christian traditions.

One of the first things that comes to mind in any discussion of Haiti, Voudou is a complex blending of West African and popular Catholic traditions. Paul Farmer gave the best description of Voudou’s place in Haitian culture and society when he thus described a firmly Christian peasant: “Of course he believes in Voudou. He just believes it’s wrong.” The Voudou question strikes at the heart of Haitian religious life. For its practitioners, Voudou offers a pantheon of friendly spirits, or lwas, that offer avenues to healing and hope. For its opponents, including many conservative Protestants and Catholics, it is spirit possession and satanic worship. The two sides disagree on what percentage of Voudou involves curses and malevolence, but both agree that such things are part of the religion. And, for those who oppose Voudou, Boukman’s ceremony in Bois Caiman sold the country to the devil.

Tabor isn't saying "there was this party." Coates is simplifying what Tabor has bothered to spell out and expand on in his article. Tabor is saying "there was this party, and there are some sources and traditions that suggest they were smoking rocks."

The art of letter writing is not dead, but it is hurtin.

Despite the increasingly incomprehensible emails, texts, and messages this modern age sends out ("urrgggh. ick. ok. cool. see you then." was one gem that went out yesterday), the art of letter writing is getting some cheerleading from joint sites Letters of Note and LetterHeady (via TheRumpus.)

I never really had a penpal growing up, though I corresponded with my best friend who had moved 40 minutes away. Recently, I was wanting to start that up again. Last year I bought from the Met some nice stock cards with a beautiful gold embossed Tiffany bee design, but it's been languishing in my drawer like it's waiting for somebody to invent a WABAC machine so I can, like, write to my cousin in 1920. "My dear cousin. Thank you for the preserves and relishes. Everyday the light fades a little earlier. Blah blah blah." I think it's also waiting for my handwriting to improve.

Looking at the letters as well as (especially) the designs of the letterheads-- which include those of Hitler, Churchill, Nat King Cole, the Man in Black himself, Einstein, and a super sweet old motel letterhead with a cowboy-- makes me want to write fantastically elegant and well-phrased (and legible) letters to people (who I don't know.) It even makes me want to stay at a hotel and use their letterhead, which is something I haven't seen in awhile. Rather than providing whole sheets of paper, they usually just have a half-used notepad, which I have used to write letters, but it's not the same. Small cramped letters poorly written using the hotel/motel cheapo ballpoint pen. Boo. Point is, seeing how nice things used to be inspires a revival. I have always had huge issues with instant messaging and the like, but it was always about the degradation of social interaction and responsibility etc. Now I'm feeling polemic about the aesthetics.

Actually, I think the last letter I sent out (this was for work, thank you notes for the 5 year old's birthday) was "Dear Blah, Thanks for the KNex set. It is fun and I like to build things with it. Thank you for coming to my birthday party." Which is definitely not deserving of a letterhead. (And it should have said, "Thank you for the KNex. I LOVE TO LEAVE IT LAYING AROUND IN PIECES SO SOMEONE ELSE-- THAT'S B--HAS TO PICK IT UP FOR ME. FUCK YOU FOR GIVING HIM THAT THING.")

	The White Stripes - Death Letter
	Found at skreemr.com

Wassailing is not ass wailing. Or is it?

My boyfriend ("J") is the Grinch and hates Christmas songs like some kind of Communist, so we were of course naming as many as we could think of the other night (over the Giants fans whopping at same bar as mentioned before, also over the music that was trying to block out the Giants fans, so we were yelling too which just contributed to the problem) and our buddy brought up "Here we come a wassailing."

Which brought us to how we all thought we were terribly clever back in the day when we figured out Santa was an anagram for Satan.

And then I thought I was terribly clever because I realized Wassailing is an anagram for ass wailing. Mostly because that's what they're doing, right? Going around wailing Christmas songs at your door &c, and you're hiding in the backroom because you don't know if it's like trick or treating, or that St Stephen's day thing, like do you have to give them candy or money or your good china?

Well it turns out wassail is a punch. But don't worry-- wassailing, as a verb, is about still going around irritating your neighbors, presumably drunk. With suggested Anglo-Saxon origins, it was a way during the so-called feudal period to irritate the lord of your manor and, yes, he did have to give you something to eat. If he wasn't a douchebag, presumably. Or if he didn't set his hounds or gangs of color-bearing mercenaries after you. The songs were meant to invoke blessings, good cheer, etc, for the coming year-- which is why you wish people Merry Christmases. In England, the orchard-wassailing was to promote a good harvest.

Naturally, the practice took a violent turn, as if this wasn't a surprise since you were giving people alcohol and sending them around to harass people, with reports of obnoxious drunken early New England versions of the hey-bra types to bust into houses and demand food & drink. Think in "We Wish You a Merry Christmas"-- "we won't go until we got some." Sinister. This should give J. the Grinch, Mr NYHC, something to appreciate about Christmas songs, and all you punk rocker kids, you. (Which means I can start playing the songs in the house, right?)

So I guess maybe you should stay in that back room. Because it's not ass-wailing. It could be ass-whaling. And while you're at it, brew some of that wassail punch stuff. Modcloth has got the recipe up.

1944: D-Day marks start of Europe invasion

D-Day announced by the BBC. Click to listen.

President Franklin D Roosevelt told a news conference the invasion did not mean the war was over.

He said: "You don't just walk to Berlin, and the sooner this country realises that the better."

The American Presidency Project

[from the LIFE archives]

I just came across this resource in what was ultimately a failed bid to compare Iqbal and LBJ. But now I know about this site! You can search presidential documents and speeches, like LBJ's "Remarks At a Dinner Meeting of the Texas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.":

So we must be ready to fight in Viet-Nam, but the ultimate victory will depend upon the hearts and the minds of the people who actually live out there. By helping to bring them hope and electricity you are also striking a very important blow for the cause of freedom throughout the world.

It's easy to be dismissive of the policy and situation in Vietnam, and of LBJ-- whose one wish was to be remembered for his Great Society program-- but it's another thing to take a good long look at the history, as well as the history being written, and to have the opportunity to be able to read the documents and understand the context of the times, which is why this archive is such a great resource.

You can look at Executive Orders from as far back as John Quincy Adams, read party platforms dating back to the 1840s, watch and listen to the presidents including FDR's Fireside Chats, and look at charts of speech lengths; check out the Inaugural Speech Length chart, and be sure to squint and see where the chart peaks in 1841. Yup, the longest speech, clocking in at two hours to read on a very rainy wet day in March, was given by poor "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" William Henry Harrison, who died after one month in office. You can read about what Harrison covered in his speech here.

The only downfall is that it is fairly hard to search documents, or at least not self-evident. The search function is the ity-bity magnifying glass in the upper left, and the text of the documents do not appear to be easily searchable themselves (or at least I had to find the LBJ speech by the title, rather than through the text.) But browsing through the site is a lot of fun, and as there is so much information (86129 documents) including up-to-date numbers all the way through Obama, I suspect it will take them a little bit of time to streamline the functions. Hopefully that will mean being able to easily click on a President's name and view all his data, documents, etc.