Otter's Rock

So, we all know that stories shape perception, right? Of both individuals and societies. There is a reason Jesus taught in parables, and a reason charities pick someone's life story to use in their advertizing for why their work should be supported, and a reason that the debate over what should be taught to schoolchildren in history class can be so heated. The way we look at ourselves and the world is determined by the way we interpret the "story" of our lives, which in turn is guided and shaped by the stories we are told about the world around us. This is why I get real tense when people dismiss what happens in shows as being "just television" or "just a movie" and try to dismiss its importance. It is not just about being PC, not by a long shot.*

This is a major problem for people of color, particularly those living in the Western world, because on those few occasions when the stories that shape their culture are used in mainstream media, they are just that--used. Shaped in ways that fit the perceptions and needs of the white people who, by and large, control the entertainment industry. Shaped in ways that are unhealthy for the people whose stories they are.

( Enter the Remyth Project: )

I particularly recommend:
"Little Girl With An Inner Dragon" by tielan
"pirates of the caribbean" by bossymarmalade
"Mirrors" by the-willow
"a moses moise" by skywardprodigal
"I am not what you call me." by gabby_silang
"in the sky, there is no distinction of east and west" by ciderpress

*BTW, the protest against the casting of The Last Airbender's Asian and Inuit characters with White actors is still going strong, check out aang_aint_white for details about how you can help.

We just checked out of Mt. Bachelor Village (in Central Oregon, just outside of Bend). Mom and Dad were here for a Professional Photographers of Oregon conference. Verdict: it's an okay place for a professional conference, but sucks as a resort because it's small and there's not much to do besides swim in the pool--they don't even have paths or trails to walk around the place, if you don't drive you have to walk on the road. If you want to go to a resort in Central Oregon, I'd suggest either Inn at the Seventh Mountain or Sun River instead of this place.

Most Annoying Thing: all the wide expanses of green lawn. People think Oregon is rainy, but that's only the coast and the Willamette Valley (the Northwest corner of the state). The rest of the state is one huge desert. You don't hear much about it because most of the people in Oregon live in the Valley or along the coast. (Although Bend is growing fast, and has been for a few years.) I do not consider myself an environmentalist, mostly because most "environmentalists" in Oregon are nuts, or at least they're the ones who seem to be in control of the environmentalist groups. (Don't get me started on the Spotted Owl idiocy or the problems in the way they're regulating the timber industry and all the public forests.) However, I am a huge fan of common sense, and of being good stewards to the creation that God has given us.

Huge green lawns in a desert is NOT GOOD STEWARDSHIP and it is also STUPID. (Mt. Bachelor Village has lots of huge green lawns.) The water could be put to much better use. The water table in the area has been decreasing at an alarming rate and everyone knows it because there are already too many people living here for sustainable water use at current levels of usage, and it's getting worse because of all the people moving into the area. They're going to be in a world of hurt in a few years because there aren't many big rivers in the Oregon desert, so once the water table is used up they're SOL. Bend is almost certainly too far south to be able to draw from the Columbia and its tributaries, and it's too far east to draw from the Willamette. (Not to mention they'd have to get the water over/through the Cascade Mountains, to draw from the Willamette.

So I was reading this post by chopchica which asks why is it that it isn't alright in fandom to be obviously racist or shut people down over racial issues, but it apparently is alright to do it to Jews? Why is it that racial prejudice issues get explored in mainstream culture, but not anti-Semitism? It's an interesting discussion, go read it.

Anyway, it got me thinking about a conversation over lunch in the refectory this week, about anti-racism workshops in general and one we had last year in particular. We were talking about how so many of them (and being mostly middle-class WASPS we've all had to sit through many of them) are counter-productive, which makes even the ones that aren't counter-productive somewhat useless. Which is really bad, because it's a topic that everyone needs to be thinking about constructively.

( Let me use an example from my own history. )

Anyone interested in how censorship works on the internet needs to go read this post. Right now. Particularly if you're active in fandom. It talks about some frightening things happening in today's society as regards free speech and the way it works online, and the witch hunt being led by a lot of legislators, law enforcement, and citizen's groups against child pornography.

(I think going after child pornography and predators who target children is an excellent idea. I think doing McCarthyist-style witch hunts is a very bad idea, because in the hysteria a lot of people who are completely innocent get persecuted, and many times that number have their legitimate rights and freedoms curtailed through fear. And I think that, unfortunately, it looks like we're heading into a McCarthyist-style era, here.)

We hear all the time about how the Liberals are nicer people--they want to take care of people, and the environment, etc. Conservatives, being against government programs that do these things, are inherently less compassionate, right? After all, argue the Liberals, sure, in principle it would be better if people would actually donate their time and money to charity than have the government do it, nobody in today's era would actually do that, right? Which is why the government has to step in and do it.

I've always believed that in most cases, that belief that people would never give to charity says more about the people who say that than it does about people in general. And whaddaya know, an economist named Arthur C. Brooks did a study and found out that I was right! Note that he was expecting to find that Liberals gave more to charity (in general) than Conservatives did, and was quite shocked by his actual findings. That's a good indication that his findings aren't tainted by his own biases; I'm always a little leary when people find exactly what they set out to, y'know? Even if it does agree with what I believe. Anyway, here's the Amazon editor's review:

"Surprising proof that conservatives really are more compassionate--and more generous--than liberals

We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers?

Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.

Charity matters--not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole. It is crucial to our prosperity, happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. In Who Cares, Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.

About the Author
Arthur C. Brooks is professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He is the author of numerous articles and books on topics relating to charity and civic life, and his work appears frequently in the Wall Street Journal and other publications."

Among the findings of the book:
Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes

Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%

People who mistrust big government give more than those who rely on the government to take care of the poor. This includes giving and volunteering even to traditionally “progressive causes” such as the arts and the environment

( More stats )

Quote of the Day:
I am not an American who “will cut the cloth of my conscience to fit this year's fashions.”
-Lillian Helman, The Senate Committee on Un-American Activities, 1952

When you have a government big enough to give you all you want, it will be big enough to take it all away.
-Barry Goldwater

God has a special providence for fools, drunks and the United States of America.
-Bismarck