Tag Archives: books

An Intimate Connection with Nature

For the last 40 years, Norman Hallendy has spent his life learning about the Arctic and the many Inuit people who call the land home. His deep interest in this area has brought him across the Arctic, studying different communities and their connection to nature and one another.

Norman Hallendy began his Arctic journey in 1948, at a time in which many Inuit peoples were moving from the land into permanent settlements.

His work in the Arctic and his role in interpreting the inuksuit earned him the Royal Canadian Geographical Society’s Gold Medal in 2001.

An Intimate Wilderness: Arctic Voices in a Land of Vast Horizons (Image courtesy Greystone Books)

In his memoir,An Intimate Wilderness: Arctic Voices in a Land of Vast Horizons(Greystone Books, 2016), Norman writes of his adventures as an ethnographer in the far north, including wildlife encounters with polar bears, profound friendships and what it means to live alongside nature.

Also an Arctic researcher and photographer, many of his talents are woven within the pages of his book, which is filled with stories about the people and the Arctic and illustrated with stunning imagery.

I recently spoke with Norman about what drew him north and how his bond with Inuit elders strengthened his connection to nature.

As a cultural researcher from Ontario working in the Arctic, Norman had to set aside his previous perceptions of how people live and work in these rural communities and open himself up to new experiences. By faithfully recording everything he saw, he was able to develop a better understanding of Innu culture.

I had to put aside how I was taught to think, along with the beliefs, biases, opinions, and values I learned, shaped by the only material and intellectual culture I knew, says Norman. I had to learn the abandonment of who I thought I was and who I thought they were.

According to Norman, one of the difficulties of living in the Arctic is dealing with the distance and remoteness of communities from the rest of Canada. Away from technology, residents of the Arctic live a different life than someone with easy access to electricity and a Wi-Fi signal. Instead, many residents of the remote north may be more intimately dependent on nature and the land than Canadians in the southern portions of the country.

The Inuit perfectly adapted to their environment, ensuring not only their survival for more than 400 years, but the development and sustainability of a unique culture, says Norman. The expression inuutsiarniq asini,which means living in harmony with nature, is an ancient and powerful metaphor.

As Norman learned through his many interviews with Inuit elders, the Inuit are not only dependent on the land for survival; they have a spiritual connection to nature. This connection forms the foundation of their philosophy and shapes the way they see and care for the environment.

[The Inuit] believe that [nature] is both a physical and metaphysical entity. It is a living thing, says Norman. To behold, respect and understand the forces and behavior of the land, sea, sky and weather was the bedrock of their unique culture.

FromAn Intimidate Wilderness, one develops a sense of looking at nature in a more personal way. By reading this book, you are immersed in a new way of viewing your surroundings. It opens you up to seeing nature, other humans and wildlife as a full circle rather than as individual elements.

This post originally appeared onLand Linesand was written by Raechel Bonomo, editorial coordinatorfor the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Post photo:Author Norman Hallendy with Inuit artist Kenojuak Ashevak (Photo courtesy Norman Hallendy)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Visit link:  

An Intimate Connection with Nature

Posted in alo, FF, GE, Greystone Books, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on An Intimate Connection with Nature

Stuff Matters – Mark Miodownik

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Stuff Matters
Exploring the Marvelous Materials That Shape Our Man-Made World
Mark Miodownik

Genre: Science & Nature

Price: $2.99

Publish Date: March 17, 2015

Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Seller: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company


New York Times Bestseller • New York Times Notable Book 2014 • Winner of the Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books “A thrilling account of the modern material world.” — Wall Street Journal “Miodownik, a materials scientist, explains the history and science behind things such as paper, glass, chocolate, and concrete with an infectious enthusiasm.” — Scientific American Why is glass see-through? What makes elastic stretchy? Why does any material look and behave the way it does? These are the sorts of questions that renowned materials scientist Mark Miodownik constantly asks himself. Miodownik studies objects as ordinary as an envelope and as unexpected as concrete cloth, uncovering the fascinating secrets that hold together our physical world. In Stuff Matters , Miodownik explores the materials he encounters in a typical morning, from the steel in his razor to the foam in his sneakers. Full of enthralling tales of the miracles of engineering that permeate our lives, Stuff Matters will make you see stuff in a whole new way. ” Stuff Matters is about hidden wonders, the astonishing properties of materials we think boring, banal, and unworthy of attention…It’s possible this science and these stories have been told elsewhere, but like the best chocolatiers, Miodownik gets the blend right.” — New York Times Book Review  

Link – 

Stuff Matters – Mark Miodownik

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stuff Matters – Mark Miodownik

Stop Trying to Feel Awesome All the Time, Says Millennial Whisperer

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

“Personal development” blogger Mark Manson got his start shelling out dating advice back in the mid-2000s, when The Game was making waves. Like every other twentysomething of a certain demographic, Manson, who hails from Austin, Texas, was hoping to cash in as a digital nomad: He moved abroad, started a blog, and attempted to earn a living working on internet marketing startups.

HarperOne

But the promise of the young web was elusive, Manson soon discovered. The startups and the jobs they offered were “not sustainable—they’re not real careers,” he says. “If you start looking out 20 years in the future, you have no stability. I started to realize this, and around the same time, I realized that writing is the only thing I’m good at, the only thing I really love about my job.”

So Manson, who is now 32, resolved to focus on his writing. In 2012, while living in Colombia, he penned his first viral post, “10 Things Most Americans Don’t Know About America.” The post received thousands of shares and crashed his website, he says. Manson continued writing in his plain, off-the-cuff style, appealing to millennials with posts like “Stop Trying to Be Happy,” “Love is Not Enough,” and “In Defense of Being Average.”

Nowadays, his eponymous advice blog (tagline: “Some people say I’m an idiot. Other people say I saved their life. Read and decide for yourself”) commands about 2 million unique visitors a month and covers topics from love to the development of habits. I reached out to Manson to talk about his new book, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck, and naturally, to get a little advice.

Mother Jones: What’s up with the book title?

Mark Manson: It actually comes from a blog article I wrote a couple of years ago. I was just joking around with a friend about not giving a fuck, and I think at one point, I said, “Not giving a fuck: It’s not easy, it’s a very subtle art form.” I have a Google Doc, and every time I have an idea for an article, I pull up my phone and jot down ideas. It took me a year to actually write the book, and one day when I was feeling irreverent and ridiculous, I was like, all right, let’s talk about giving fucks, not giving fucks, and just went for it.

MJ: How would you summarize the key takeaways?

MM: The central message is that, in general, people have spent way too much time trying to feel good all the time. Instead they should focus on deciphering what’s important and what’s not. Because problems are inevitable, pain is inevitable, and the only really reliable way to persevere or deal with those problems and pain is to find a worthy cause or a worthy reason for dealing with it. A lot of the culture at large, and self-help material in general, has gone down this rabbit hole of “You can feel great all the time and you’re amazing. You’re a special snowflake who’s going to be the next big thing in the world.” I think that’s really led to a culturewide sense of entitlement and just kind of being detached from reality and from each other.

MJ: So we should feel bad instead?

MM: Feeling good is nice, but the goal should be to find something meaningful and important.

MJ: But isn’t that what everyone is saying?

MM: Yeah, a lot of people, but it’s usually framed like, “You’ll feel really good if you find something meaningful.” It doesn’t work that way. The quality of your life is determined by how good your problems are, not how awesome you feel all the time. The whole point of the book is that self improvement isn’t about getting rid of pain. It’s about not giving a fuck about pain. That’s what growth is. It’s getting to the point where the pain you’re sustaining is a worthwhile thing to endure.

MJ: So how do you know which problem is the right one? For instance, a lot of people work really hard and suffer a lot—and they’re not satisfied.

MM: The quest here is to find better problems. A better problem is the one we have control over, that is pro-social and not antisocial. In a way, it’s about values. Good values are based in reality—they’re socially constructive and immediately controllable. Bad values are superstitious, socially destructive, and not immediate or controllable.

To use one of the facetious examples in the book: If the biggest problem in my life right now is that my favorite TV show got canceled, that’s a pretty poor reflection of my values and the quality of my life. That’s a poor thing to care about, it’s not controllable, it’s not immediate, it has no immediate effect on the people around me or the people I care about. The highest priorities in our life should be something that’s grounded in being constructive toward the people around us, and something that’s immediate and we have control over.

So if someone says they want to be a famous singer on TV, for example, it’s a poor value, because there’s so many factors that could influence that. The thing that will bring greater quality to life is something more controllable, more like, “I want to the best singer that I possibly can,” or “I want to move as many people as possible with my artwork as I can,” whether you’re singing in a coffee shop or onstage at Madison Square Garden.

MJ: That seems obvious. And yet I hadn’t really thought about it.

MM: Culturally speaking, we’re getting a bit lost. The side effect of all this marketing and consumerism is that we’re running into this constant state of distraction, and we don’t realize that a lot of the values that we end up adopting maybe aren’t even our own, or maybe were a little bit imposed on us through marketing messages and TV shows and movies.

I spent a lot of my early adulthood caring about a lot of things, and I was very upset when I discovered that they weren’t very important. I’ve watched a lot of my friends and my readers go through similar experiences. I think a lot of that comes with growing up with the internet and 500 channels on TV. We’re the first generation that grew up with this very distorted expectation of what the world is and what we should expect from it.

MJ: So what can we do?

MM: What needs to be done is a return to simplicity. The answer these days is not more, it’s less. It’s deciding what to cut off from our attention and our focus. There’s way more things out there than any single person people could pursue, way more opportunities and questions. I think the most important question is: What am I going to give up? What am I going to cut myself off from? What are the few things in my life that I am going to care about and focus on, understanding that I’m limited, and a lot of ideas so prevalent out there may not ever happen in my life? I think it’s a really hard thing to swallow.

MJ: So then it’s more like, “What do I actually want to give a fuck about?”

MM: Exactly. The not giving a fuck thing is actually just a silly tool to teach people to think about their values, about what are they choosing to find important in their life, and then finding a way to change those things.

MJ: But suppose I were to say, “Mark, I actually give a fuck about everything. What should I do?”

MM: I would tell you to prepare for a lot of disappointment, and it would really come down to how you react to that disappointment. It’s a process of letting go. Some people react by refusing to accept it. They give a fuck about everything and they’re constantly disappointed because nothing is living up to their expectations, but instead of accepting that their expectations are unrealistic, they blame groups of people and blame the government and blame everybody. What we have to get back to is that people are really limited and fallible. You need to choose the few things that you’re going to work really hard for, and accept the disappointment that comes with everything else.

It’s a very negative philosophy, but it makes people feel better because it relinquishes the pressure. If you think of your typical millennial, since that’s who most of my readers are, they have all these expectations. They went to a good school and they worked their asses off. They did an unpaid internship and they studied abroad and they want to have their amazing career and they want to get there faster than ever. And they want to make a certain amount of money and live in an awesome city, and it’s just, the pressure of having to care about everything weighs them down and creates a lot of unnecessary anxiety. Everything else will eventually come as a side effect: If you get good at a job, eventually you’ll get to live in a good city. If you get good at a skill, you’ll find a good job. If you find a skill that you care about and think is important, then you’ll naturally get good at it. Start at the beginning.

MJ: How do people respond to this advice?

MM: The most common thing I get from people is a sense of relief. People who come to self-improvement content are generally the type of people who are very hard on themselves and constantly feel a need to prove that they’re awesome and that their life is awesome. So when they come around and see something that’s like, “Hey, you don’t need to prove anything; it’s not going to work anyway”—even though it’s a negative message, they kind of feel relief. My goal is never to give algorithmic advice, but to explain the principles and a little bit of the framework, so people can decide for themselves. Because deciding for themselves is the most important thing people can do—it’s often the problem in the first place.

MJ: How did you come up with this stuff?

MM: I’m a recovered self-help junkie. I’ve always been a bookworm, so I’ve been reading about this stuff since I was a teenager. I guess it’s a classic case of what was a hobby through most of my life ended up becoming my profession, even if it wasn’t designed that way. That, and I’ve screwed up. There’s really no better teacher than your own screwups.

MJ: Where do you turn when you feel lost or in need of help?

MM: I have a great support network. My fiancée is amazing. I have some friends who are insanely intelligent and who are willing to keep me in check, and I have my family. Books are great, but for most people, if you’re going through hard times, step No. 1 should be friends and family and people close to you.

MJ: Your last chapter, fittingly, is about death. Why did you choose to write about that?

MM: Because the whole book is about people trying to avoid their problems, and death is the ultimate problem we try to avoid. There are entire religions about coming to terms with death and becoming more comfortable. To use that famous Steve Jobs YouTube video, when you think about death, it’s the only thing that kind of puts everything else in perspective. It is the only kind of objective yardstick for being able to recognize the values in one’s own life, and what they’re worth. So I think it’s important to think about it, and for people to imagine their own death, because it makes self discovery that much easier—even though it’s unpleasant.

MJ: So, um, how many times did you use the F-word in your book?

MM: Ha! I have no idea. A lot! Probably a couple hundred. The editor struck a few of them, because they were definitely gratuitous.

Original article: 

Stop Trying to Feel Awesome All the Time, Says Millennial Whisperer

Posted in Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stop Trying to Feel Awesome All the Time, Says Millennial Whisperer

The Hidden Life of Trees – Peter Wohlleben & Tim Flannery

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

The Hidden Life of Trees

What They Feel, How They Communicate —Discoveries from a Secret World

Peter Wohlleben & Tim Flannery

Genre: Nature

Price: $16.99

Publish Date: September 13, 2016

Publisher: Greystone Books

Seller: The Perseus Books Group, LLC


In The Hidden Life of Trees , Peter Wohlleben shares his deep love of woods and forests and explains the amazing processes of life, death, and regeneration he has observed in the woodland and the amazing scientific processes behind the wonders of which we are blissfully unaware. Much like human families, tree parents live together with their children, communicate with them, and support them as they grow, sharing nutrients with those who are sick or struggling and creating an ecosystem that mitigates the impact of extremes of heat and cold for the whole group. As a result of such interactions, trees in a family or community are protected and can live to be very old. In contrast, solitary trees, like street kids, have a tough time of it and in most cases die much earlier than those in a group. Drawing on groundbreaking new discoveries, Wohlleben presents the science behind the secret and previously unknown life of trees and their communication abilities; he describes how these discoveries have informed his own practices in the forest around him. As he says, a happy forest is a healthy forest, and he believes that eco-friendly practices not only are economically sustainable but also benefit the health of our planet and the mental and physical health of all who live on Earth.

From – 

The Hidden Life of Trees – Peter Wohlleben & Tim Flannery

Posted in alo, Anchor, eco-friendly, FF, GE, Greystone Books, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Hidden Life of Trees – Peter Wohlleben & Tim Flannery

The Uncomfortable Truth About Children’s Books

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Shannon Wright

One afternoon last fall, I found myself reading my picture book The Sea Serpent and Me to a group of schoolchildren in the island nation of Grenada. The story is about a little girl who befriends a tiny serpent that falls out of her bathroom faucet. I had thought it would appeal to children who lived by the sea, but as I looked at their uncomprehending faces, I realized how wrong I was. It wasn’t just my American accent and unfamiliar vocabulary, but the story’s central dilemma: The girl wants to keep the serpent at home with her, but as each day passes, he grows larger and larger.

“What do you think she should do?” I asked, holding up an illustration of the serpent’s coils spilling out of the bathtub.

“Kill him and cook him,” one kid suggested.

It took me a few seconds to understand that he wasn’t joking. If an enormous sea creature presented itself to you, of course you’d eat it! Talk about first-world problems.

I think of that kid from time to time when I need to remind myself that my worldview is pretty limited. Within five years, more than half of America’s children and teenagers will have at least one nonwhite parent. But when the Cooperative Children’s Book Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison looked at 3,200 children’s books published in the United States last year, it found that only 14 percent had black, Latino, Asian, or Native American main characters. Meanwhile, industry data collected by publisher Lee & Low and others suggest that roughly 80 percent of the children’s book world—authors and illustrators, editors, execs, marketers, and reviewers—is white, like me.

Writers and scholars have bemoaned the whiteness of children’s books for decades, but the topic took on new life in 2014, when the influential black author Walter Dean Myers and his son, the author and illustrator Christopher Myers, wrote companion pieces in the New York Times‘ Sunday Review asking, “Where are the people of color in children’s books?” A month later, unwittingly twisting the knife, the industry convention BookCon featured an all-white, all-male panel of “superstar” children’s book authors. Novelist Ellen Oh and like-minded literary types responded with a Twitter campaign—#WeNeedDiverseBooks—that spawned more than 100,000 tweets.

Most hashtag campaigns go nowhere, but Oh managed to harness the momentum. We Need Diverse Books is now a nonprofit that offers awards, grants, and mentorships for authors, internships aimed at making the industry more inclusive, and tools for promoting diverse books. Among the first batch of grant recipients was A.C. Thomas, a former teen rapper who sold her young-adult Black Lives Matter narrative in a 13-house auction. (A feature film is already in the works.)

Problem solved? Not so fast. For years, well-meaning people up and down the publishing food chain agreed that diverse books are nice and all, but—and here voices were lowered to just-between-us volume—they don’t sell. People of color, it was said, simply don’t purchase enough children’s books. But after studying the market last year, the consumer research firm Nielsen urged publishers to embrace “multicultural characters and content.” Nielsen found that even though 77 percent of children’s book buyers were white, ethnic minorities purchased more than their populations would predict—Hispanics, for example, were 27 percent more likely than the average American bookworm to take home a kids’ book. Yet the market for diverse books “can’t just be people of color,” says Phoebe Yeh, the Chinese American VP and publisher at Crown Books for Young Readers. “It has to be everyone.”

In an essay this spring, the book-review journal Kirkus revealed that its reviewers had started mentioning the race of main characters in young-adult and children’s books. The goal, its editor wrote, was to help librarians, bookstores, and parents find stories with diverse characters—and to challenge the notion of white as the default. Many applauded the move, but others were incensed, among them author Christine Taylor-Butler. For The Lost Tribes, her book about a kid who discovers his parents are aliens, she and her editor consciously chose not to reveal upfront that her main character (like her) is black. Highlighting the race of a nonwhite protagonist, she believes, will lead many buyers to conclude that the book isn’t for them—or the children they cater to.

Last year, after Kwame Alexander’s The Crossover won the Newbery Medal and Jacqueline Woodson’s Brown Girl Dreaming was selected as one of the two runners-up, a white school librarian named Amy Koester blogged about the sotto voce grumbling she heard from other librarians who felt these books, with their black protagonists, would be a “hard sell” in their white districts. “If we argue that only black youth will want to read about black youth,” Koester countered, “we are really saying that the experiences of black youth have no relevance or meaning to youth of any other race.”

Color-coding our bookshelves doesn’t just shortchange the black kids. It is well established that reading literary fiction enhances our empathy and our ability to gauge the emotions of others, so what happens to white kids who are raised solely on stories about white kids? Economists note that the ability to grasp the perspectives of people who don’t look like us is increasingly crucial in a nation riven by race and growing more heterogeneous by the day. In a recent TEDx Talk, Chinese American author Grace Lin recalled hearing from a school librarian whose students stopped teasing an Asian classmate after they read Where the Mountain Meets the Moon, Lin’s adventure story starring a Chinese girl named Minli. The book, Lin said, had made being Asian “kind of cool.”

Ellen Oh, the Korean American founder of We Need Diverse Books, points out that librarians don’t fret over whether kids will relate to a title like The One and Only Ivan, told from a gorilla’s perspective, yet faced with a book about a Chinese kid, the literary gatekeepers—from agents all the way down to parents­—may balk. “Some of our most popular books deal with worlds that aren’t Earth and people who aren’t human,” Oh says. “But the people you walk beside on this Earth have stories too.” To complicate matters, a shrinking publishing world has consolidated its marketing budgets. “Readers are led by publishers into fewer and fewer books,” observes Kevin Lewis, a black picture-book author who spent 23 years as an editor at major publishing houses. The result, he says, is that publishers often use a single narrative to represent an entire group’s experience.

A page from A Fine Dessert by Emily Jenkins, illustrated by Sophie Blackall

This puts intense pressure on authors to get it exactly right, even though nobody can quite agree what that means. Over the past year, the creators of two picture books were harshly criticized for their failure to convey the grim brutality of slavery. A Fine Dessert, written by Emily Jenkins and illustrated by Sophie Blackall, both white, showed the same dessert (blackberry fool) being made at different times in history. The book received standout reviews, but after it was eviscerated on social media for its portrayal of a slave woman and her daughter serving the dessert on a South Carolina plantation, a contrite Jenkins donated her writing fee to We Need Diverse Books. (Blackall stood by her work.)

Scholastic recalled this picture book amid criticism that it glossed over the horrors of slavery.

A Birthday Cake for George Washington—written by Ramin Ganeshram and illustrated by Vanessa Brantley-Newton, both women of color—told the story of Hercules, the late president’s enslaved household cook, but glossed over the horrors of captivity and consigned to an author’s note the fact that Hercules eventually ran away (on Washington’s birthday, no less). In the face of internet outrage (#SlaveryWithASmile), Scholastic made the controversial choice to recall the picture book, because “without more historical background on the evils of slavery than this book for younger children can provide, the book may give a false impression of the reality of the lives of slaves.”

(Since this article went to press, two more books—by award-winning children’s authors—have been subject to allegations of racial insensitivity. Lane Smith’s There Was a Tribe of Kids was viewed by some observers as demeaning to Native Americans. The other title, When We Was Fierce, by e.E. Charlton-Trujillo, initially drew high praise, only to have its publication date pushed back indefinitely in response to online outcry.)

Some diversity advocates fear that the vitriol of the internet attacks will give pause to skittish writers and publishers. “For me, the biggest issue is the chill on diversity that is happening because of the feeling that it is okay to destroy people on social media,” Taylor-Butler told me. “We have lost the perspective that these are books and they are going to be imperfect.”

The questions roiling the children’s publishing world are among the pressing cultural questions of our time: Whose story gets told, and who gets to tell it? How do you acknowledge oppression without being defined by it? And to what extent should writers bow to popular opinion? There are no simple answers. But what seems clear to me, as a writer struggling to find the best way to tell stories to kids, is that my inevitable mistakes are well worth making. Children, it turns out, are the best critics of all. They read carefully and passionately, and when they sense you have missed an essential aspect of the story, they will be more than happy to point it out to you.

Source: 

The Uncomfortable Truth About Children’s Books

Posted in Accent, Crown, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Smith's, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Uncomfortable Truth About Children’s Books

This Sociologist Spent Five Years on LA’s Hyper-Policed Skid Row. Here’s What He Learned.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

University of Chicago sociologist Forrest Stuart spent five years hanging out on Los Angeles’s grittiest streets for his new book, Down, Out and Under Arrest: Policing and Everyday Life in Skid Row. (For a taste, read this short excerpt.) “I figured this was ground zero for trying to start over, for testing the American bootstraps story, and I wanted to see if and how it could work,” Stuart explains. I spoke with the young assistant professor about the things he learned amid the street people and cops.

Forrest Stuart

Mother Jones: Why did you choose Skid Row?

Forrest Stuart: I had worked with prisoner advocacy groups and in minimum-security prisons. I’d meet guys who would be released at 5 a.m. with no food, no nothing. If I were a guy who needed food or an addict who hadn’t had any treatment in prison, I would do whatever I had to do to survive, and maybe that would mean something illegal. So how do you start again? I had heard that the 50 blocks of its Skid Row was the place with the most parolees in the country, a neighborhood that is simultaneously one of the poorest and most aggressively policed locations in America. Shuttles run between Skid Row and LA’s Central Jail. I started by sitting in the courtyards, standing on the corners, hoping that people would strike up conversations. I started selling loose cigarettes, and people finally began talking to me.

MJ: What struck you during your time on the streets that might be useful to policymakers?

FS: Right away I started seeing how the police, in part just because of their numbers in Skid Row, were creating a situation I’d never seen before. Just as a guy was starting to get on his feet—for example, he had finally secured a bed at a shelter—some small infraction would cut him back.

It could be as little as getting a single ticket for loitering. For people living on dollars at day, to suddenly have to pay $150 for a sidewalk ticket is huge! If they don’t pay, they can be arrested. Not only do they have to spend time in jail, they usually lose their bed at the shelter or their room in low-rent apartments. In a lot of shelters or apartments, if someone doesn’t show up at the end of the day, the managers give away all their things. So now they’d be right back to square one. Broke, homeless, just trying to get a roof over their head. The bootstraps were cut.

For someone like you or me, you get a ticket, you pay it, it sucks. That ticket can mean we can’t have a drink tonight, or we have to cut back at the grocery store. Our interactions with police and the criminal justice system are generally just a nuisance. But once you go below a certain socioeconomic status, these seemingly trivial, mundane, momentary interactions with the police restructure everything.

The other really important complication is that some of the places that people need most—like a soup kitchen or homeless shelter—become really risky, because that’s where the police are, giving tickets and making arrests for small things like blocking the sidewalk. So people start to actively avoid those places. If the police are stopping and questioning you about, say, loitering, or not having ID, or for talking to a stranger (who happens to be the person handing out sandwiches) and you get hauled off to the station, you start to change your behavior for the worse. You start to avoid or refuse services.

MJ: So we’ve essentially made poverty illegal, and addiction, too—if you’re poor.

FS: We can can think about inequality as income and wealth. But there are a whole host of other things that you don’t see unless you are standing there watching it for a long time. When cities use misdemeanor arrests in low-income communities as a corrective, what they don’t understand is that these policies constrict every decision that someone with so few options has to make.

When I step out of my house, I think about what I might be teaching that day or what I’m going to have for dinner. In Skid Row most of the residents’ cognitive energy is directed to two things: “How do I stay off the cops’ radar” and “How do I stay safe—how do I avoid becoming a victim today?” Essentially, what people have to think about all the time is, how do I prove to police that I’m not a bad person? How can I be sure I don’t look like an addict? (Don’t pick at your clothes, don’t pick at your skin, don’t scratch your head.) It’s an incredible amount for a person to take in. It makes it really hard to concentrate on everyday things—like being a good employee if you do have a job, or pulling off a job interview.

Those of us in the middle class aren’t sitting on the sidewalk, because we don’t have to, or we have a job, or a home to go to. Plus, even if most of us did sit down on the sidewalk, or walk down the street picking at our clothes, we aren’t going to get that ticket. Those policies amount to a double criminalization of poverty.

MJ: What assumption do most people have that should be corrected?

FS: That everyone, or at least the majority of the people, have something wrong with them. Something that the rest of us don’t have—mental health problems, addiction, poor choices, work ethic. But that isn’t true. I’m 100 percent confident that if some of the stuff that happened to them had happened to me, my family or my students or my greater community could help me. There is very likely no way I’m going to end up on Skid Row, because I have so many safety nets. But take away your family and your supportive networks, and we are all one step away.

MJ: The mayor of LA says he’s serious about change. Do you agree?

FS: Mayor Eric Garcetti says “we are going to spend money” yet they don’t really have the money. That said, he has publicly committed to using the Housing First model. That should mean the administration increases transitional and permanent supportive housing. Getting people into homes has shown to work better than anything else so far. And it’s a lot better than the current system, which is to rely heavily on emergency shelters that have been turned into rehabilitation centers. If he follows through, that is a sign Garcetti might be serious.

But overall I’m scared and pessimistic because the city’s history, and Garcetti’s history, shows that whenever they increase funding for social services, they tie it to more-aggressive policing. When that happens, we start hearing city official and police officers saying things like, “There’s no excuse for you to be here, homeless, jobless, because all of you can walk across the street for social service” or “There’s something wrong with you” or “You are criminally negligent.” There are a whole lot of reasons why people don’t go into services. A lot of people see services and police as one and the same.

We need to stop treating homelessness as a policing and criminal-justice problem. We need to let the police do other stuff, and entrust social workers and helpers to address the issues. These are jobs cops don’t want to do. They don’t want to be walking around in piss and shit and dealing with mentally ill people.

MJ: In your book excerpt that accompanies this interview, you write about Jackson and Leticia, a couple who found themselves on Skid Row and addicted to drugs after LA’s aerospace industry collapsed. Have you seen them since?

FS: Last time I saw Jackson was two years ago. He was in the soup kitchen. He told me that the cops started cracking down hard on the vendors. In the hope of avoiding the the cops, the vendors had started to focus on only selling DVDs rather than an assortment of items. They amassed duffel bags full of films, thinking that it would make their sidewalk shops more discrete. But having more than 100 bootlegged DVDs means more fines and jail time. So the vendors started going away for longer periods. Almost overnight, the cops wiped out another way poor people were making ends meet. Despite cycling through jail again, Jackson had been able to stay relatively clean. Leticia was still on drugs, but the two had managed to start the application process for SSI and transitional housing. But I’m still worried for Jackson. He’s got a long, uphill climb ahead of him.

Visit site:

This Sociologist Spent Five Years on LA’s Hyper-Policed Skid Row. Here’s What He Learned.

Posted in Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, The Atlantic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Sociologist Spent Five Years on LA’s Hyper-Policed Skid Row. Here’s What He Learned.

How Zero-Tolerance Policing Pits Poor Against Poor

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Corner of Fifth and San Pedro in Los Angeles. Forrest Stuart

As a graduate student in sociology at the University of California-Los Angeles, Forrest Stuart embarked on a stint of what one might call immersive urban ethnography. Now an assistant professor at the University of Chicago, he was interested in how America’s most desperate people—homeless, addicts, parolees—went about trying to start over. “I had worked with prisoner advocacy groups and in minimum-security prisons,” he told Mother Jones. “I’d meet guys who would be released at five am with no food, no nothing. If I were one of those guys, maybe just a guy who needed food, or an addict who hadn’t had any treatment in prison, I would do whatever I had to do to survive—and maybe that would mean something illegal.”

Forrest had heard that the 50-block section of Los Angeles known as Skid Row was among the most impoverished and heavily policed locations in America—the “ground zero,” as he puts it, of the bootstrap story—so he went there. “I started by sitting in the courtyards, standing on the corners, hoping that people would strike up conversations. I started selling loose cigarettes, and people finally began talking to me.”

Five years of field research resulted in Stuart’s new book, Down, Out and Under Arrest: Policing and Everyday Life in Skid Row. The excerpt below was adapted from the book, which is out this week from University of Chicago Press. Also, don’t miss this eye-opening chat with the author.

—–

Jackson moved with his typical nervous energy as he set up his “sidewalk shop” on the corner of Fifth and San Pedro Streets. The late afternoon light gave a sense of urgency to his motions as he unloaded his wares from his battered shopping cart onto the worn blue tarp he spread across the sidewalk. Six dented cans of chili, a bundle of women’s cosmetics, a stack of college textbooks. The scavenged inventory looked remarkably similar to those of the three other street vendors who had set up only feet away. He grabbed a splintered broom that hung from the chain-link fence behind him and began to sweep cigarette butts, soiled paper napkins, and other small debris into tight piles. He squatted low to better grip the broom’s broken stub of a handle, muttering in annoyance as passing pedestrians disrupted his tidying.

Jackson’s complaints grew audible as he glanced up from his task and noticed that a group of four visibly drunk men had assembled on the corner, pulling tall cans of Old English malt liquor out of brown paper bags. Jackson jogged in their direction, veering slightly from his path to tug on the shirt of another vendor, a clean-shaven, bald man named Larry, who followed without question.

“Hey y’all,” Jackson said forcefully as he pushed his way through the perimeter of the group. “You go a get your drink on somewhere else, you hear? Y’all can’t be partying over here.”

While startled, the men appeared undeterred. Jackson was hardly an intimidating guy; his high-pitched voice matched his five-foot-five-inch frame. One of the men swallowed a mouthful of malt liquor, teetered slightly, and leaned in to offer a slurred response. Just as the words formed on his lips, however, Larry’s deep voice suddenly boomed from above. Standing almost a foot taller than Jackson and outweighing him by at least a hundred pounds, Larry stared down at the group through his dark sunglasses.

“Time to leave, fellas, and I’m only gonna tell you once. I’m really not playing, so don’t test your luck.”

Silence.

The four men exchanged defeated looks with bloodshot eyes. Putting up no further fight, they rewrapped their cans in brown paper bags and vacated the corner. Hands on his hips, Jackson watched with satisfaction as the four staggered their way up San Pedro Street.

I spent roughly two and a half years alongside Jackson, Larry, and 14 other street vendors as they conducted business along Fifth Street, one of Skid Row’s main thoroughfares. These men devoted their time on the block to far more than simply hawking their wares. Tidying the sidewalk, quelling arguments, and, most notably, intercepting alcohol and drug consumption, the men maintained a vigilant system of informal social control.

Since the 1990s, American cities have embraced aggressive zero-tolerance policing policies. Police officers fan out across the country’s poorest minority neighborhoods to detain and search pedestrians, and to issue citations and make arrests for things as trivial as jaywalking, blocking the sidewalk, and loitering. An overlooked effect of these policies: Residents often feel pressured to step outside of their routine activities to regulate the actions of their fellow citizens before the police arrive on the scene and make matters worse. In Skid Row this “third-party policing” now extends all the way down, so to speak, forcing even onlookers and pedestrians to become accountable for the behaviors of others.

Before moving into Skid Row, Jackson spent much of his adult life employed as a machinist in LA’s once-booming aerospace sector. But for decades, Southern California was losing aerospace jobs, and plenty of the region’s semiskilled black workers bore the brunt. Facing a string of downsizings, layoffs, and evictions, Jackson and his wife Leticia reluctantly moved into a dilapidated SRO hotel room on Skid Row’s western border.

“That’s when we got into crack,” Jackson recounted matter-of-factly one afternoon as we shared a basket of fries in a noisy downtown diner. While the couple had frequented bars after work and occasionally smoked marijuana on the weekends, they didn’t try harder drugs until they moved into Skid Row. “At that place, you got people knocking at your door at all times of the day. It’s easy to fall into it.” To pay for their mounting habit, Jackson began peddling “knickknacks” he scavenged from downtown alleyways.

Jackson was at the height of his addiction, smoking crack at least once a day, when he and I first met. I sold cigarettes nearby, but eventually Jackson invited me to set up shop next to his tarp and volunteered to “show me the ropes.” He insisted that it would be mutually beneficial: When pedestrians stopped to buy my cigarettes they might be enticed to buy one of his products, and vice versa. And so our partnership began.

Forrest Stuart

Throughout my time on the corner, I marveled at the rigorous order the vendors maintained along the sidewalk. Of all the nearby activities they stepped in to regulate, none received a more concerted reproach than drug-related behavior. The vendors had become a powerful example of what urbanist Jane Jacobs famously called “eyes on the street.” One afternoon, Jackson was sifting through a mound of wrinkled clothes in his baby stroller. I noticed that a small glass crack pipe had slid out of the pocket of a jacket that had been resting atop the other items. Keith, a round black vendor whom I had only met minutes earlier, saw me staring at the pipe and called Jackson over in a quiet voice: “You know you can’t have that out here,” he reprimanded in a hushed tone, gesturing behind Jackson toward the pipe. “Ain’t no room for that out here.” For the past year, Keith had tried to help Jackson get clean. He occasionally held onto Jackson’s cash while they worked and constantly forbade him from “mixing business with pleasure.”

As Keith lectured on, Jackson finally noticed the pipe. “Aw, shit,” he said, clearly ashamed. He tried to reassure Keith. “I know, I know, I know. It’s just, yeah, okay…I’ll take care of it right now. Don’t you worry. I got this.”

Jackson quickly walked back to the stroller, where he put on the jacket, shoved the pipe back in the pocket, and turned to me. “I go a run home real quick,” he said. “Watch my stuff.” Before I had a chance to respond, Jackson started walking in the direction of his SRO. He returned a half hour later without his jacket and, I assumed, without the pipe. Thus began a regular pattern in which Jackson would “run home” to “talk to Leticia” or “check on something” most days. In the lead-up to excusing himself, Jackson tended to grow irritable toward me and his fellow vendors and customers. He always returned noticeably energized, talkative.

But in a few months Jackson began to curb his addiction, and I realized that returning to the corner meant that he had to leave his stash and pipe back home. It meant that he was able to separate himself, if only for the duration of the day, from the dealers and addicts he complained were fixtures at his SRO building. It meant surrounding himself with vendors who not only demanded abstinence on the job, but who stepped in at the first glimpse of drug paraphernalia.

As conflicted as I felt about possibly enabling his addiction, I also realized that holding Jackson’s place on the corner also helped maintain his exposure to what Princeton sociologist Mitchell Duneier, in his ethnography of street vendors in New York’s City’s Greenwich Village, calls the “rehabilitative forces of the sidewalk.” According to Duneier, vending allows even the most impoverished, addicted, and otherwise defeatist individuals the opportunity to “become innovators—earning a living, striving for self-respect, establishing good relations with fellow citizens, providing support for each other.”

Forrest Stuart

On the other hand, what people are really trying to do is avoid the police. And that means that support and community and providing for each other can only go so far. Fearing harmful and potentially deadly police encounters, the vendors acted like surrogate cops. Although they sometimes protected certain of their peers from detrimental police encounters, they mercilessly punished others for attracting too much law enforcement attention. Knowing that the cops tend to target homeless people, addicts, and idle groups of “suspicious looking” pedestrians, the vendors took it upon themselves to forcibly purge these people from the vicinity. Their attempts to cool off the block ended up exposing fellow Skid Row denizens to even more miseries. As if zero-tolerance policing hadn’t done enough harm, the vendors had introduced their own brand of anxiety, fear, violence, and marginalization.

Leticia spent very little time on the corner. When she did stop by to bring Jackson lunch or money or to pass along a message, she seldom stayed longer than a brief conversation. But that changed. Jackson had been arrested a few months back while trying to steal textbooks from the bookstore at a nearby community college. For this crime, he served just over 90 days in county jail, where he suffered debilitating withdrawal symptoms. But by the end of his sentence he had sobered up.

When he got out, Jackson was determined to get his and Leticia’s lives back on track. Without the income provided by his hustles, Leticia was unable to pay the rent on their SRO room and building management had forcibly removed her from the unit and marked their rental history with the note “abandonment”—a stain that would make it even harder for them to secure housing in the future. With nowhere to turn, Leticia followed her addiction out into Skid Row’s streets. At first, Jackson couldn’t find her. He spent a month scouring the neighborhood, spending a few hours a day scraping together cash on the corner. Finally, he heard from friends that Leticia had been spotted at the Union Rescue Mission. He was overjoyed to reunite with his partner of 17 years, and the two became inseparable.

His fellow vendors, however, were less than enthusiastic about the reunion. Their discontent came to a head one afternoon. Larry, Craig, and Terrance had all set up their shops a noticeable distance from Jackson’s. “What are you looking at?” Craig called out as Jackson glanced their way.

“Not much, apparently,” Jackson shot back, avoiding eye contact.

“What’s that, little man?” Terrance yelled. “Did you say something?”

Jackson turned his back on the two. “These assholes,” he said under his breath.

“What’s going on?” I whispered.

“They’re just being assholes,” Jackson replied, trying to appear unconcerned. “They’re pissed off that I got Leticia out here helping me out, trying to say she’s the reason we all got tickets a couple days back.”

Over Jackson’s shoulder, I saw Craig walking toward us, with Terrance in tow. “You talking more shit? You got something to say to my face?” Craig peered down at Jackson, fists clenched.

I tried my best to intervene. “It’s all good, man. Nobody’s talking shit. It’s all good.”

“No, man,” he scolded me. “It ain’t all good. This little nigga’s fucking it up for every one of us. He knows he can’t have her hanging around all damn day.” Craig turned back to address Jackson. “We told you that last time. Or don’t you remember?”

Jackson stood tall. “I can have anybody I…”

Craig’s fist caught Jackson mid-sentence, thudding into his stomach. Jackson buckled over. Leticia ran to his side. Craig took a step back and turned toward me, as though expecting me to attack. Instead, I froze, at a loss.

Craig continued to lecture, almost reluctantly, as if surprised at his own punch. “I done warned you. I’m done playing with y’all. You need to take this bitch and dip.”

“Who you calling bitch?” Leticia screamed, taking a step toward Craig, raising her fist.

Jackson grabbed her other arm, pulling her back. “Naw, baby.”

Craig stood staring at us for a moment, then turned away. He and Terrance walked back to their shops. I reached down and began gathering Jackson’s inventory and loading it back into his duffel bag. Leticia helped me as Jackson propped himself against the fence, catching his breath. The three of us headed toward their friend’s SRO room, where the couple had been spending their nights, sleeping on the floor. This was a violation of the building’s rules, but Leticia had been barred from the mission for showing up high.

Forrest Stuart

I pieced together the motive for Craig’s attack as Leticia ranted for two blocks. She flailed one arm in explanation, keeping the other arm tight around Jackson’s waist as she huddled close to his body. This was, apparently, precisely the kind of behavior that had been catching the officers’ attention. Over the course of the previous week, Leticia and Jackson had been detained twice while they stood on Fifth Street.

“We was just standing here minding our own business,” Leticia complained, “when two of them came up and asked me if I was ‘working.’ At first I didn’t know what they meant. I thought they was asking if I needed a job or something. But then I realized these assholes was asking if I was trickin’! I said, ‘This is my husband right here.’ But they didn’t even believe me. They made us take out our IDs and show them we had the same last name. Then they asked us if we were on probation or parole, if we had any warrants on us. Just for standing here talking. After all that, they still told me to take off.”

“Not before they wrote us all up,” Jackson added. “Craig too.” Jackson’s sobriety made him seem reserved next to Leticia’s constant fidgeting.

We arrived at the SRO building, where Leticia ran inside to use the bathroom and Jackson and I leaned against the wall. “Those guys really fucked me,” he said after a short lapse in the conversation. He gazed out at the street, deep in thought. “I mean, I know she makes it harder for me, and for them. I understand. But I don’t have a choice, man. That’s my wife.” His voice quieted. “Next week, I’m fucked.”

“Why? What’s up?” I asked. “It’s Mother’s Day,” he replied.

“Mother’s Day already happened.”â&#128;¨

“No. The other Mother’s Day. That’s what they call it when the checks come in. The GR General Relief checks. Her pick-up date’s on the fourth, but I can’t leave her alone at all that week. Last time she damn near smoked up her whole check before I could get her to give me her money. And she fought me on it. When I got out, she was using even worse. I can’t make her stop completely. She ain’t strong enough to go cold turkey like me. It kills me, man. That’s my wife. That’s the mother of my child.”

He sighed, and continued. “I go a make sure she don’t kill herself, or up and disappear or something. We’re broke, Forrest. How am I supposed to keep my wife alive and keep saving enough money to get a place? We can’t be in the mission no more!”

I offered what I assumed to be the most obvious solution. “Dude, why don’t you just move? Set up somewhere else and then you don’t have to worry about Craig or anybody.”

“Yeah, I’m gonna have to. That’s the only way I can have her out there with me. But that was the first place all my regular customers go when they get paid. Nobody wants to go nowhere else for movies ’cause they don’t wanna spend their money on a disc that don’t work. Ain’t no refunds and returns in this business.” Jackson sometimes proved to his customers that a DVD was good by previewing it on one of the other men’s portable DVD players—one of the resources they readily shared. “Customers don’t wanna take a risk on a movie that don’t work. That means I go a sell them for less. Probably half price! That three-dollar movie I got is gonna end up going for a buck, if I’m lucky.”

Forrest Stuart

The two of us stood in silence. We both understood Jackson’s predicament. Returning to Fifth Street would require leaving Leticia unsupervised. Abandoning Fifth Street to support his wife through her recovery would immediately reduce the couple’s already meager income. This would mean they wouldn’t be able to move off the streets and into their own room for the foreseeable future. As research on homelessness consistently demonstrates, Jackson’s chances of keeping Leticia (and himself) away from crack and crack-addicted peers would be extremely low if the two couldn’t find housing.

Down on Skid Row, the intensification of policing does more than just crack down on minor neighborhood problems and disturbances. It alters the equation that determines how residents view each other—and whom they consider a problem or disturbance in the first place. When they act on these views, they sometimes end up hurting the most marginalized among them—people desperate for help. With hyper-policing, neighbors may help keep a watch on crime and bad behavior, do so to the detriment of the larger community. We get eyes on the street, but they’re not the kind of eyes we want.

A week after the altercation with Craig, I stood with Jackson and his wife on Seventh Street, on the opposite side of Skid Row. I watched as he sold one of his DVDs at half price, just as he had predicted. He turned to me, defeat in his eyes. “You wanna know what living in Skid Row’s really like?” he asked, referring back to our very first conversation more than a year earlier. “Trying to make a living down here, getting done the way Craig and those guys did me, you know what it’s like? It’s like hustling backward.”

View original article:

How Zero-Tolerance Policing Pits Poor Against Poor

Posted in alo, ATTRA, Casio, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, University Of Chicago Press, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Zero-Tolerance Policing Pits Poor Against Poor

Alleged Killer of British MP Jo Cox Had Ties to a Neo-Nazi Party

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jo Cox, a member of Britain’s parliament and a “rising star” in the Labour Party, was shot and stabbed to death on Thursday. According to eyewitnesses, the alleged killer, Thomas Mair, shouted “Britain first” as he attacked Cox, a possible reference to the country’s far-right nationalist party. Now, receipts and invoices have emerged connecting Mair to the US-based, neo-Nazi National Alliance, as well.

According to records published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mair was a longstanding supporter of the group, and purchased literature and periodicals from National Vanguard Books, the Alliance’s publishing arm. The receipts, which date as far back as the 1990s, show Mair spent hundreds of dollars on titles ranging from “Ich Kampfe,” an illustrated handbook of the Nazi Party, to the “Improvised Munitions Handbook,” which furnishes DIY instructions on how to build, among other things, a “pipe-pistol for .38 caliber ammunition” out of household items. The National Alliance’s political ideology calls for the eradication of Jews and the creation of an all white homeland.

Courtesy SPLC

The extent of Mair’s allegiances with white nationalist groups continues to come to light. The Telegraph reported shortly after the attack that Mair was a subscriber to S.A. Patriot, a South African magazine published by the pro-apartheid White Rhino club. The Telegraph cites a 2006 blog post that names Mair as one of the publications earliest subscribers.

Cox was known for her extensive work with Oxfam, her humanitarian advocacy for Syria, and her opposition of Britain leaving the European Union.

Source article:  

Alleged Killer of British MP Jo Cox Had Ties to a Neo-Nazi Party

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Alleged Killer of British MP Jo Cox Had Ties to a Neo-Nazi Party

We Watched "Roots" With a "Roots" Expert (Part III)

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

So, we’ve been watching A&E/History’s Roots remake with Matthew Delmont, an Arizona State University historian who literally wrote the book on this: Out in August, Making Roots: A Nation Captivated covers the creation of Alex Haley’s fictionalized family history and the resulting 1977 miniseries on ABC—the most-watched drama in the history of television.

Yesterday, Matt and I talked about the Roots remake as an action flick, and the re-envisioning of Kizzy, Kunta Kinte’s daughter, as a warrior. (You can stream past episodes here.) Today we dig into episode 3—and, yes, there will be spoilers. This penultimate episode revolves around the upbringing of Kizzy’s son “Chicken George” (Regé-Jean Page) and George’s tricky relationship with Tom Lea (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), his ne’er-do-well master and unacknowledged father.

Michael Mechanic: Good morning, Matt! So, Snoop Dogg rants aside, people of all races seem to be welcoming this history. More than 5 million Americans watched the Roots premiere live on Monday, despite overlap with Game 7 of the NBA’s Western Conference finals. (Go Warriors!) And the remake has spawned an interesting Twitter hashtag: #RootsSyllabus.

Chicken George Steve Deitl/History

Matthew Delmont: Yes, like #FergusonSyllabus, #CharlestonSyllabus, #LemonadeSyllabus, people are using this hashtag to share books, articles, films, and other resources related to slavery and African-American history and culture. Five million viewers doesn’t seem like a lot compared to the massive audience that watched Roots in 1977, but there’s a whole different level of viewer engagement with this new Roots. Seeing people express their thoughts in real time on Kizzy, Chicken George, and Tom Lea is amazing, and then having some of the leading historians on slavery tweet to help contextualize this historical fiction is pretty cool.

MM: It’s hard not to love Chicken George. He’s this cocky, vibrant young guy who is allowed to train and fight his master’s gamecocks rather than working the fields. He’s optimistic and trusting, whereas everyone around him, from his mom to old Mingo—who teaches him everything he knows about the birds—has learned by experience that white people are not to be trusted. We also get to know Tom Lea, Kizzy’s serial rapist. He’s a small-time slave owner, an Irishman who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and aspires to be accepted by the Southern gentry. I thought the acting was superb.

MD: The dynamic among Chicken George, Tom Lea, and Kizzy was really well done. The scenes with Kizzy and Lea were difficult to watch, but they painted a clear picture of what surviving slavery looked like for Kizzy.

MM: Every time she sees George showing any kinship with master Tom—his father—it’s like a knife wound for her.

MD: Yes, and I liked the way they slowly revealed how much George knew. In the original series, there’s this tearful reveal where Kizzy tells George that the master is his father. Here he seems to surprise Kizzy by telling her he figured it out on his own. The whole dynamic again shows how tangled the idea of family is during slavery.

MM: At one point, Lea says something that hints at it, and George sort of does a double-take. I think he basically knew, but repressed the thought because he doesn’t want to endanger his position of privilege. He’s light-skinned, gets to travel with the master, gets money and prestige for his showmanship, and some nice clothes—and he isn’t subject to brutal field work. But inside, he knows.

MD: He has to deal with the knowledge that his father owns him. This episode also did a nice job of portraying a dynamic where Lea only owns a handful of slaves. When he talks to Chicken George about the possibility of George getting married, he is very clear that he expects him to keep his wife’s “belly full” in order to “increase my stock.”

MM: Let’s talk about Mingo. Chad Coleman was in The Wire, The Walking Dead—lots of stuff. And he’s perfect as the old slave who has been through the ringer and no longer trusts anyone but his roosters.

MD: Yes, Coleman was really great in this role. I like these moments when you have different black characters sort of mentoring each other, even if they do so reluctantly at first.

MM: Like with Fiddler. Both of these guys had places of relative privilege and were loath to put that at risk.

MD: It also showed how many of these enslaved characters have specialized knowledge that is really valuable. We didn’t talk about that in the last episode, but Kunta had skill with the horses, and Mingo and Chicken George have these valuable skills training the birds. What did you make of all the cockfighting? This has to be the most cockfighting on television this decade, right?

MM: Cockfighting was huge in the South—it’s still popular in some circles, although it’s now illegal in every state. But the fights were a good vehicle for the writers to get off the plantation and get outside characters involved—we get to see a wider range of Southern society and the storyline of Tom Lea’s social ambitions. He’s desperate to prove he’s not trash, and George is his means to get there. As for skills, yeah, master Tom doesn’t know shit about training roosters, which gives George leverage. At one point, George actually says to the master something like, “Well, then you can find somebody else to fight your birds.” He uses his power. Of course, it’s limited—and his cash value is obviously a double-edged sword.

MD: I think Alex Haley would have loved this episode. He did tons of research on cockfighting when he was writing Roots, and it’s clear from his notes that he was captivated by Chicken George. I was surprised at how much time we spent with Tom Lea in this episode, though. The duel scene helped convey Lea’s class-status anxiety and it also cemented his relationship with Chicken George, but it seemed thrown in to gesture toward Game of Thrones or something. Like, “Let’s get a sword fight in here!”

MM: Hmm. Was there never a duel in the original? In any case, I felt like it served a purpose: Because George saves his master’s life, Tom Lea is now beholden to him—and so it’s an even bigger deal when he betrays George.

MD: This duel scene was not in the book or the original series. I agree that it fits in the narrative. I could also see a more subtle commentary on what “civilized” white culture looks like—that you go out in a field and shoot at each other. I couldn’t help laughing when Chicken George has to encourage Lea by saying, “You the gamecock now!”

MM: Ha, yeah! There’s another purpose to that scene as well: It highlights how, if something bad happens to a master, slave families can be torn apart and sold. Which is why George and his free friend attend the duel, and why they push so hard to make sure Tom triumphs. Also, just as an aesthetic thing, this seemed like a more realistic version of what a duel might actually look like than what I’ve ever seen on TV. I mean, usually it’s the old 50 paces, turn, and shoot—and then one or both men go down. But this was a very messy affair: Tom Lea’s hand shaking with nervousness, missing the first shot, then stripping away part of his rival’s face with the second, after which the men fight on, gravely wounded, in the dirt and mud with their short swords. Very, very gritty, and so unlike the past Hollywood depictions of an old-fashioned duel.

MD: Yes, this was a very violent episode, wasn’t it? And in very different ways: The duel is bloody, Lea rapes Kizzy repeatedly, and then the gamecocks are fighting to the death every other scene. Each one has an impact on the lives and futures of the enslaved characters. One thing I liked about the cockfighting theme was the absurdity of Chicken George’s freedom turning on whether that bird won or lost.

Tom Lea Steve Deitl/History

MM: George is so grateful for the opportunity, yet he’s being fucked with in a major way. Lea is betting his own son’s freedom! And then he reneges—I guess we saw that coming.

MD: And that’s why the scene and that story arc works. Things can look like they are going well, or like the master might care for his slaves (and in this case, children), but the fates of enslaved people were still tied up with the whims of slave owners. What did you think of Kizzy in this episode?

MM: She was excellent. She really captured the painful dynamic of having trained up as Kunta’s little warrior child, and here she’s losing her son to this rapist master. I also wanted to bring up the pivot around Nat Turner’s rebellion. When master Tom is told that murderous slaves are on the loose, he stops trusting George on a dime and chains him to the wagon then and there. Every slave is suddenly suspect. I think that was also the turning point for George, when he realized he was no better than the rest of them in the master’s eyes.

MD: Yes, things turn very quickly there. That line where one of the other white characters says, “Nat Turner’s a fever—you never know which nigger’s gonna catch it,” was a good encapsulation of that charged moment.

Mingo (Chad Coleman) Michelle Short

MM: How the hell is a slave supposed to protect himself from that kind of paranoia?

MD: Chicken George and Mingo become immediately suspect. It’s like it suddenly dawns on Lea and other slaveholders that enslaved people do not want to be held in bondage and might actively resist. The reference to Nat Turner also made me think of how much historical ground the series is trying to cover—how we move from the War of Independence to Nat Turner to in the finale the Civil War. Chunks of time keep passing by.

MM: Yeah, like that jump cut from Kizzy’s initial rape to the delivery of Chicken George. So was Nat Turner in the original Roots? It had to have been.

MD: Yes, and it was a similar kind of moment. They got the date wrong in the original series. I believe they said Nat Turner’s rebellion happened in 1841 rather than 1831. TV and history!

MM: What would you say were the most striking departures from the original Chicken George saga, not counting the duel?

MD: First, the casting: Ben Vereen played Chicken George in the original. He had the charm of the character down, but it was harder to believe that he was the son of Tom Lea, since he is a darker-skinned actor. And Vereen was about the same age as Leslie Uggams, who played his mom, Kizzy, but that’s another story. I thought Regé-Jean Page played Chicken George very well. The second thing is that, in the original, going to England is a positive opportunity. Tom Lea loses the cockfight bet, but going to England is a chance for George to leave America—he wasn’t forcibly taken away at the end of the episode like he is here. And, while I’m generally not a stickler for historical accuracy, slavery wasn’t legal anymore in England by the late 1830s, so I don’t know what is supposed to happen to George once he gets there.

MM: I had precisely the same thought.

MD: The UK passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. So Chicken George should be free.

MM: Well, maybe he’ll get his wish after all. So, um, how can a historian not be a stickler for historical accuracy?

MD: Well, I do a lot of TV and film history, so I try to remember that these things have to be entertaining and commercially viable first and foremost. If they can be sort of historically accurate, all the better! They had some very well-respected historians as advisers on this series and they were much more attuned to getting the details correct.

MM: Okay, best moment in episode 3?

MD: Two moments stood out: The opening scene, where we see Kizzy cleaning herself up after Tom Lea leaves after raping her yet again. These details would never have been shown in the original. Anika Noni Rose does an amazing job throughout, and I thought that opening scene really set the tone. And then Marcellus, the free black man who wants to buy Kizzy’s freedom, when he’s talking about how he’s free but he’s growing tired of pulling out his papers every time a sheriff gets in a mood or “some cracker doesn’t like my look.” That seemed like one of the most relevant lines for our contemporary moment. It echoes a line from episode 2, when a white patroller tells Kunta and Fiddler they can’t be in the road after dark. I have to imagine the writers were thinking about Ferguson, Baltimore, and the curfew rules.

Marcellus (Michael James Shaw) and Kizzy (Anika Noni Rose) Kareem Black/History

MM: We’re fearful for Marcellus—almost more so than for the slaves—because we can see how much he’s got to lose, and how much resentment some of the poor whites might have at seeing this free, fairly well-to-do black man in their midst. He would always have to be watching his back. When he rode off in that wagon alone, just going on his way, I was filled with dread that something terrible would happen to him.

MD: Anything else from this episode?

MM: I think we’ve covered it. Until tomorrow, then!

Stay tuned: Michael Mechanic and Matthew Delmont will be back tomorrow to recap the Roots finale, which airs tonight on History.

Source:  

We Watched "Roots" With a "Roots" Expert (Part III)

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Meyers, ONA, Oster, PUR, Radius, Ringer, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Watched "Roots" With a "Roots" Expert (Part III)

Sublime Photos of African Wildlife Roaming Their Lost Habitat

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As an ardent conservationist, photographer Nick Brandt’s early work showing the majesty of the large animals that once ruled East Africa wasn’t enough. Brandt created three gorgeous photo books focused on African animals in danger of extinction: On This Earth (2005), A Shadow Falls (2009) and Across the Ravaged Land (2013). As a result of that work, what he saw, and what he learned, in 2010 he created the Big Life Foundation with conservationist Richard Bonham. Big Life protects more than 2 million acres of the Amboseli-Tsavo-Kilimanjaro ecosystem in East Africa.

Brandt’s new project, Inherit the Dust, pushes his photography further to help visualize the impact poaching and development has on wildlife. Inherit the Dust helps viewers see areas where elephants, giraffes, lions and other animals once roamed by placing 30-foot panels with photographs in the now industrialized landscapes. You see elephants sauntering through large dumps or under overpasses, giraffes blending in with machinery at mining sites. It’s a striking and effective technique. The book includes 68 images that, though admittedly repetitive in their execution and style, are no less impactful.

Wasteland with Elephant 2015

The work in the book has a beautiful bleakness to it. Looking at the photos alone leaves you feeling depressed. But the images also raise an important issue: Who is Brandt to question—let alone criticize—African nations for developing their countries? Brandt addresses this in the introduction. “I had to stop and ask myself, am I just grieving for the loss of this world because as a privileged white guy from the West, I’ll never again be able to see these animals in the wild?”

He answers by taking a subtle swipe at China for its role in the blink-of-an-eye pace of development in African countries. He also says just because Western nations trampled their environments in the name of progress, that doesn’t mean it’s a model to follow. With his work as a photographer and with the Big Life Foundation, Brandt asserts that environmental consciousness and growing a country’s economy “do not have to be mutually exclusive.”

Brandt punctuates his argument with Inherit the Dust‘s sweeping, somewhat painful panoramic photos.

All photos by Nick Brandt, Courtesy of Edwynn Houk Gallery, New York.

Quarry with Giraffe 2014

Quarry with Lion 2014

Alleyway with Chimpanzee 2014

Road to Factory with Zebra 2014

Underpass with Elephants (Lean Back, Your Life is on Track) 2015

Wasteland with Rhinos & Residents 2015

Behind the scenes: Giraffe & Goats

Crew wrapping elephant panel at sunset, November 2014

Photos from Inherit the Dust are on exhibition at Edwynn Houck Gallery in New York (March 10 to April 30, 2016); Fahey Klein Gallery in Los Angeles (March 24 to May 14); and Camerawork in Berlin (May 12 to July 8). Nick Brandt is a featured speaker at this year’s LOOK3 Festival of Photography in Charlottesville, Virginia (June 13-19).

View original post here – 

Sublime Photos of African Wildlife Roaming Their Lost Habitat

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sublime Photos of African Wildlife Roaming Their Lost Habitat