The history presented, a narrative of Oregonian development

Just visited the Oregon Historical Society, where the disappointment turned into contempt and anger.

A state with around 200 years of history.

The first thing that I noticed is how everything was presented as a story of ‘doing’ instead of a series of histories emerging in equal importance on the narrative of what is new America.

The natives, the African Americans, the Asians presented as sharing the same space in an assumptive scenario that puts them in the otherness of America’s existence.

No narrative of their histories, just the acknowledgment they exist.

The pioneers who made this land in the forefront. The dislocations of indigenous people to securitize vast areas of land. The securitization agenda in its earliest form.

Securitise from what? This word serves the interests of those who are pursuing the agenda without equitable considerations for those marginalized in the process.

A history of half-hearted stories, incomplete narratives, equalization said but not existing in any form or story in real life.

The marketization of ideas, becoming ideas in themselves and accepted as currency fueling development, without any fundamental structure for emerging cooperation.

Forcibly changing a world that doesn’t want to change and presenting it as de facto.

I can dig a thousand words to describe the disappointment in American history. Mostly, because whoever took the lead in making this the common reality, had not thought through all they lost in the process of focusing on the small detail of the multiplicity the size of land has offered them.

Agrarian change for who, and to feed who?

The land of the amble, producing less for less.

The establishment of fake stories as a level of understanding of what might have been better imaginable.

 

 

 

Our Society is under attack

If it wasn’t for the neo liberalism that is driving vacant messages with questionable ethics, the alt-right and visibly present far right are continuously on attack of the basic principles that make us human, and therefore civilized.

There is a lot of anger, and even more so the internet and free flow of information has opened Pandora’s box. Corrupt regimes and individuals have been revealed, whilst governments have their resources diminished and police and health services struggling to deliver fairness. Law maybe the only dynamic challenge to all of this.

And now art is under attack, again.

I remember when following the financial crisis local government budgets were slashed letting thousands of staff go.

Youth services and cultural activities were the first to go and the arts council was told it has to raise the funds itself and from corporations. This the sector frowned upon and questioned the viability of independence in the circumstances.

Luckily the arts sector, used its creativity, and survived.

However we now have another attack under the wider hostile environment agenda.

The Guardian newspaper reported dozen authors who were planning to attend this year’s Edinburgh international book festival have had their visas refused. The ultimate right to creativity, refused. 

How does this hostile policy justify this? For they really believe we will silence our human nature to this extend? And what next, will they shut down the Internet so we can no longer share? 

What is the cost of this to society and why they feel the need to isolate? 

The ones kept inside, as always are the ones that have the key. 

I’m pretty sure this isn’t the way.