In the aftermath of a series of mass shootings, culminating with Adam Lanza's massacre of 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut before Christmas, America's epidemic of gun violence has (re)emerged as a pressing issue of public concern, one that directly impacts the Common Good, and which subsequently cannot be ignored.
In the first of a two-part interview about mass shootings in America, I was lucky to speak with Professor Ann Little (author of Abraham in Arms: War and Gender in Colonial New England regarding the connections between white masculinity, the Gun Right, and the historical antecedents which drive a fetish-like obsession with guns on the part of many people in the United States.
Our conversation was rich and revealing. We worked through some very delicate issues--such as the relationship between Whiteness, aggrieved white masculinity, and how the media framed the Newtown Massacre--that are little discussed by the corporate media. Based on the number of folks who downloaded the show, Professor Ann Little definitely struck a chord.
The second part of this interview features Professor Richard Slotkin, the Olin Professor of English and American Studies at Wesleyan University. He is one of the foremost experts on the connection(s) between America's gun culture, our national mythologies of the West and the frontier, and how such foundational social fictions impart meaning, legitimacy, and identity to the "gun rights" movement in the present.
Slotkin's book Gunfighter Nation is a go to text for those interested in the historical foundations of America's centuries-long gun culture. His thesis about the connection(s) between what he terms "regeneration through violence," masculinity, and firearms use have been widely discussed--most recently, by the NY Times and its exploration of the movie Django Unchained.
In this conversation, Professor Slotkin generously offered up his time to We Are Respectable Negroes. We discussed a range of issues ranging from the relationship between guns and American political development; to the Newtown shooting and the connections between the Right, the gun lobby, and neoliberalism/hyper conservatism; and how racial formation and citizenship intersected in the World War One era.
I learned a great deal talking to Richard Slotkin. It was an amazing conversation that came into being thanks to some helpful intermediaries who are friends of WARN, and of course because of the generosity of our guest.
I have some good folks lined up for the podcast series here on We Are Respectable Negroes. Do share this (and our other shows too) with your friends and colleagues.
I hope you enjoy this interview with Richard Slotkin.
1:00 Introductions
2:13 What was your initial response to the Newtown Shooting based on your understanding of America's gun culture?
3:42 How is America an extraordinarily violent culture?
6:12 How did America, as a liberal democracy, come to fetishize guns?
10:00 Historically, how is America's pattern of gun ownership different from Europe? How is wanting a gun a perfectly "rational" goal in the United States given its violent culture?
11:45 How some people feel vulnerable and then decide to need guns. The "equalizer fallacy" and how there is an error in reasoning by those who believe that guns "secure their freedoms and liberty."
13:56 The Hobbesian state of nature and the magical thinking of the Gun Right
15:28 The elites of the Right and the connections between hyper-conservatism/neoliberalism and the "gun right's" movement
19:20 Whiteness, white masculinity, Adam Lanza, and mass shootings in America
22:39 Dealing with the sources of social violence that lead people to think they need guns, and also feel justified in making guns easier to carry in every public space
25:35 How would the NRA respond to black and brown folks joining the NRA in mass and arming themselves against police and/or State violence?
28:55 Race, citizenship, Jim Crow, the Black Freedom Struggle, and gun ownership
34:00 Confronting gun violence by limiting the lethality of guns, improving background checks, making sure that the mentally unstable and poorly trained do not have access to firearms, and confronting the country's deep veins of interpersonal violence
38:08 How did the United States muster the willpower to limit public access to automatic weapons in the 1930s?
44:15 How do we locate Barack Obama, as a black president, in a moment when access to guns may be restricted? How does this complicate (or fit into) narratives about race and citizenship in the United States?
47:12 What was the genesis for your writing the book Lost Battalions about race, ethnicity, and citizenship in the World War One era?
51:22 Where is American Studies going in the future?
20 comments:
Took a class with him -- go Wes!
What was he like? Didn't know that you were familiar with the area. Small world? Pepe's or Modern?
Screeds? Never. A fair conversation that you may agree or disagree with. Sure. Listen to Slotkin, an expert on the topic with multiple books and awards, and feel free to reconcile his deep work with your own thoughts and opinions.
I get that you believe that the world is a Hobbessian place. But, you are part of society and the social contract by tacit consent. You work for the State, use its roads, and benefit from all manner of public goods and the Commons--you use the Internet for example. I get your prepper worst case radical autonomy. But, that is no way to organize a society in the present.
If you want to live off of the grid in a bunker and totally disconnected from society by all means then you can truly be a society onto yourself where none of these concerns about gun violence and public health apply.
As you know, and I ask again because I do not understand the objection, I am all for reasonable gun control policies. What do you have against a mandatory background check, licensing, a certificate of mental health, and having to take a course? I also believe in mandatory gun insurance. If you want twenty guns for whatever reason pay the cost.
If you actually think that your freedom flows out of the barrel of a gun and your masculinity is tied to having 25 guns and 50,000 rounds of ammo then pony up the insurance money and transform your house into a safe.
Getting a gun is easier than getting a car. That is perverse.
Observations about the polite rural parts of the country being a dependent variable where guns are the cause of such exaggerated politeness is just specious. We can talk about population, denseness of social ties, and any other number of variables if you want. By your logic a failed state like Somalia or a war zone like Syria should be more "polite" because they have access to more guns.
A black clown overly identified with a white herrenvolk group called the tea party brought a gun to a presidential rally. there were blacks in the jbs likely, and klan as well. such data points are not very compelling. his fool butt should have been put in jail.
Please, when you start talking about "urban vermin" you sound very close to the white nationalists and their overly identified red state freepers who masturbate to thoughts of killing black and brown people after the "urban rebellions" jump off when ebt is disconnected. It is bad Turner Diaries stuff. You are better than that.
The politics of the NRA are not that simple. There has been a good amount written about how it transformed from a hobbyist club started in the 19th century to an arm of the gun manufacturers. And please don't recycle that fool liar Barton's claims about the NRA being founded to arm free people against the Klan.
jtoll [url=http://newestredsoleshoes.com]christian louboutin[/url] cfjfwh http://newestredsoleshoes.com ibyef [url=http://redbottomsoutletsale.com]red bottom shoes[/url] tmuudg http://redbottomsoutletsale.com uupvy [url=http://cheaplouboutinoutletforwomen.com]christian louboutin[/url] dnqgp http://cheaplouboutinoutletforwomen.com uzcql [url=http://newchristianlouboutinssale.com]christian louboutin sale[/url] xuqnf http://newchristianlouboutinssale.com vfzfo usreo [url=http://bestchristianlouboutinstore.com]christian louboutin[/url] npcgq http://bestchristianlouboutinstore.com feksu [url=http://louboutinonlinestores.com]christian louboutin sale[/url] dtcnu http://louboutinonlinestores.com jxses
axhcu [url=http://newestredsoleshoes.com]red bottom shoes[/url] pmyoit http://newestredsoleshoes.com psini [url=http://redbottomsoutletsale.com]red bottom shoes[/url] uxilzk http://redbottomsoutletsale.com oqmqk [url=http://cheaplouboutinoutletforwomen.com]christian louboutin outlet[/url] hnmgd http://cheaplouboutinoutletforwomen.com ohocl [url=http://newchristianlouboutinssale.com]christian louboutin shoes[/url] mfxnc http://newchristianlouboutinssale.com pkneu mtaox [url=http://bestchristianlouboutinstore.com]christian louboutin[/url] swznc http://bestchristianlouboutinstore.com zfddz [url=http://louboutinonlinestores.com]christian louboutin outlet[/url] vnfko http://louboutinonlinestores.com rzuqp
Listen to Slotkin, an expert on the topic with multiple books and awards, and feel free to reconcile his deep work with your own thoughts and opinions.
lol, he's a competitive target or combat shooter?
You know better than to make a fallacious appeal to authority.
On second thought, no you don't. That's pretty much the mother's milk of many of your arguments, at least you didn't use the term "priors".
What do you have against a mandatory background check, licensing, a certificate of mental health, and having to take a course? I also believe in mandatory gun insurance. If you want twenty guns for whatever reason pay the cost.
rotflmbao..., none of these things is going to happen because Stephen Obama doesn't have the wherewithal to impose the necessary consequences for non-compliance. He's going to back down because he won't have any alternatives, watch.
Observations about the polite rural parts of the country being a dependent variable where guns are the cause of such exaggerated politeness is just specious.
Says you, and we're to accept that on what factual basis? The causative/correlative data is squarely on my side. You're far more at risk among Chicago's vermin than you are out in the middle of methhalla.
Please, when you start talking about "urban vermin" you sound very close to the white nationalists
What do you call the murderous thugs who've brought international shame and disrepute to Chicago, to Kansas City, and who constitute a much greater actuarial risk to your own safety and security than the most corrupt police or zealous tea bagger anywhere in the U.S.?
What does being a competitive shooter or combat expert have to do with being a social historian? Come now. I am sure there are lots of folks with those skills who couldn't tell you one iota about the broader social implications of gun ownership or one damn thing about American history or the sociology of crime and violence.
someone can be a starred chemist and a horrible cook to use the analogy. one often has little to do with the other.
"The causative/correlative data is squarely on my side.
Cnu I offered up an obvious example. If you want to claim that guns equal safety look at parts of the world awash with guns and see what the life expectancy, health, and other measures are. It is really isn't that hard. It is a common sense counter-argument. Social order and disorder are caused by many things, a simple more guns equals safe society argument is laughable on its face. The book which tried to advance a claim was demonstrated to be a fraud.
Someone who has been doing this for decades, has put in the research and published the books and won the awards is not a false appeal to authority. He isn't joe q troll on some message board.
It is a an appeal to real authority from someone who has put in work. Again, feel free to agree or disagree, but put in the work as well by reading Slotkin's articles and books and then commenting on the substance of his claims. You are an archivist look up some critical reviews and summaries if so inclined.
If you already have a conclusion, i.e. that we live in a hobbessian world like the Road Warrior and that your guns are your liberty then there is nothing to arbitrate. You have come to a conclusion, based on your own understanding of reality, however incorrect or not, reconcilable with the facts or not, and are not going to be moved.
Because you do not believe in the social contract then your freedom only extends as far as your ability to use your gun. I would prefer to not live in such a state of chaos. Personal choice.
But as a I said, you are part of this society whether you want to be or not. Tacit consent is real.
Correlation is not causation. That is social science 101. Moreover, by your argument then inner cities many of which are full of guns should be safe. Which is it?
Uh..certificate of mental health???
absolutely. a simple note from a dr. or other licensed person saying that said person is not "insane" or a threat to others and likely to use a firearm is said way.
japan has a great model for gun ownership for example.
But our system generally works the other way around. The state has to prove that I'm not worthy of a right before they strip it from me.
Background checks should (do) verify if the person has been/is institutionalized or determined by a court of law to be mentally unstable. I don't want the onus to be on the citizen to prove that he's not insane.
rights are subject to any number of limitations and qualifiers. what if the person has avoided the system or had the money and resources to play it, i.e. like Lanza? If someone is that determined to get a gun then they should not have a problem with a 15 to 30 minute medical exam.
What does being a competitive shooter or combat expert have to do with being a social historian?
We're talking about the social impact of guns right?
I'ma venture a guess that it puts him on exactly the same footing as economists talking about genetics, epigenetics, extended phenotype and population genetics. The lack of detailed, intimate familiarity with his subject matter coupled with a partisan agenda having nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying business at hand, may lend itself to winning accolades - but have little or no objective bearing on the actual subject matter.
Cnu I offered up an obvious example.
You offered up obvious straw men.
For my part, I pointed to Russia and the U.K., rich, developed western/quasi-western societies bound up with extremely strict gun controls in which crime and violence are running rampant and in excess of levels currently experienced in the U.S.
Someone who has been doing this for decades, has put in the research and published the books and won the awards is not a false appeal to authority. He isn't joe q troll on some message board.
Please clarify how your man is different than Charles Murray or the two economists you posted taking a page from the Charles Murray playbook. Unless we're talking falsifiable empirical sciences, please clarify how his work doesn't represent anything more than academically highly regarded opinion, and that opinion slanted toward definite and easily articulated urban liberal feminst biases?
Nah brah..., I ain't say he's a troll, I ain't characterize anything the man said except to note that it's an opinion, a non-expert opinion wrt the specific subject of guns, and that between the two of you, you didn't even make a close approach to a compelling case.
If you already have a conclusion, i.e. that we live in a hobbessian world like the Road Warrior and that your guns are your liberty then there is nothing to arbitrate.
Your characterizations come right.out.of.a.comic.book...., like yourself, I live in a culture of violence with an exceedingly flimsy veneer of civilization. Where we differ is that I'm basically a country boy and I believe in a very high level of competence and self-sufficiency.
Because you do not believe in the social contract then your freedom only extends as far as your ability to use your gun.
I don't disbelieve in the social contract, I believe in confining it to folks who uphold their side of the contract, and making no exceptions for vermin or for those who abuse positions of trust.
Correlation is not causation. That is social science 101. Moreover, by your argument then inner cities many of which are full of guns should be safe. Which is it?
Vermin are vermin and the least expensive method of ridding oneself of vermin is death squads...,
Good brotha, father of three sons shot to death in his barbershop this afternoon, fourth homicide since 7:00pm last night. http://fox4kc.com/2013/01/29/kc-police-investigate-shooting-on-east-side/ heard about it on the bus ride home today.
Too bad he wasn't strapped and able to competently defend himself against his vermin assailant....,
Lanza did not buy the guns, though. He did try to purchase guns but was declined because he refused to submit to background check. AFAIK, the guns all belonged to his mother.
There is no quick medical exam which can show what someone may or may not do in the future. And unless a court legally finds someone dangerous, you can't limit their right to purchase a weapon. We don't ask people to prove they can use a right responsibly..
How about too bad that ign't didn't have a gun? Or that we had more police?
I know that you believe that concealed carry is a solution to all that ails us. Is it a uni-tool? Should all kids be issued a gun in school as a means to have a peaceful society?
Again, this is a public health problem with many dimensions and aspects. A simple "we need more guns" approach won't work. Nor will a logic that picks out examples and says "see if x had a gun it would be better" work either as it ignores the negative externalities that would come from such decisions.
Slotkin knows his stuff. You can agree or disagree. What criteria would make someone qualified to talk about the social history of guns in your estimation? What training, education, etc.?
Again, please read his work before rejecting it. Also, I have no doubt that if he confirmed your priors and conclusions that you would singing his praises.
death squads and urban feminist biases? vermin? come now. that should be a t-shirt. are those your explanations for all complex social problems? the former and all that vermin mess is especially problematic, and I hope others call it out, as there is nothing funny about talking about eliminationist murder.
are you going to lead anti-black pogroms? is that what you are advocating? or will this be a door-to-door sweep and clear where you decided according to some rules of your own choosing who to "exterminate?" Doesn't that sound noxious to you, just saying it aloud? Again, I hope you are being a provocateur.
i hope that is your dark sense of humor playing itself out and not some actual public policy suggestion as if so it makes some of the interesting observations you have very suspect.
"a non-expert opinion wrt the specific subject of guns"
Huh. He is one of the foremost experts on gun culture in the country--if not the expert. who would you suggest? again, what type of qualifications would a person need to have to talk about the history of guns and social violence in this country?
"For my part, I pointed to Russia and the U.K., rich, developed western/quasi-western societies bound up with extremely strict gun controls in which crime and violence are running rampant and in excess of levels currently experienced in the U.S."
Crime is part of a complex social phenomenon. As you know there is a range of evidence pro and con. Do countries with strict gun laws do it because of crime? How do we account for countries like the u.s. with very lax gun laws and rampant gun violence. What of suicides or accidental shootings? How would common sense gun laws prevent mass shootings and other types of murder, if even on the margins? If you are that part of the distribution you will still be alive.
There are some smart, reasonable things that can be done. It should not be so complicated save for how a few folks have been brainwashed to think that guns equal liberty and--here is where I agree with Breyer--misread and were hoodwinked by the Gun Right and the NRA's twisted read of the 2nd amendment.
I know that you believe that concealed carry is a solution to all that ails us. Is it a uni-tool?
lol, nah brah.., I believe in open carry - like back in the day when J.C. Penny and Sears had pants on the rack with a pistol pocket. Can't you see it now, "Old Navy has Pistol Pocket Pants", you could feature old crusty Clint Eastwood in that ad.
Seriously, I believe in open carry, because it's more comfortable, and, clearly signals the desired message. The open carry of firearms and edged weapons to put us on an Edo era Japanese footing, 21st century style. Do you suppose there has ever been a more advanced and more civil era in complex human civilization than the one instituted under the show-guns?
Of course the show-guns used guns to conquer all of Japan and then universally banned them because of the threat they posed to the samurai cultures of competence.
But since the government can't afford more police, and besides, police are a seriously unproductive waste of resources, and because the vermin aren't going to self-correct, and no one else should be subject to their predations or even their obnoxious emanations in the commons, the simple and cost effective solution to dealing with vermin in the collapsing economy is....?
there is nothing funny about talking about eliminationist murder.
There is nothing funny or socially acceptable about ignant vermin scum murdering innocent fathers/barbers in their shops. I'm tired of watching resources squandered on remediation of problems engendered through lack of home training and parental investment, and I don't care to make the retroactive investment. There's nothing funny or acceptable about the preposterous policy proposition of throwing increasingly scarce resources down that rat hole.
are you going to lead anti-black pogroms? is that what you are advocating? or will this be a door-to-door sweep and clear where you decided according to some rules of your own choosing who to "exterminate?" Doesn't that sound noxious to you, just saying it aloud?
"anti-black"?!?!?!
lol, you also inevitably and self-damningly define "blackness" by the ignant vermin scum who've inflicted so much damage on the brand and on the community it once defined.
Here's the bottomline CDV.
You don't have fundable, sustainable policy prescriptions to offer.
I have a simple, feasible, and historically demonstrable prescription which would be wildly popular amongst everyone but the banksters who're scared to death of an openly restive and self-sufficient populace, neither afraid or in need of an untrustworthy and insufficient state monopoly on violence.
You're stuck in a nonstarting policy paradox CDV.
1. you don't trust the police, and have written to that effect - present social contract blather notwithstanding.
2. there isn't enough local or national treasure to fund an enhanced policing capability to control the proliferation of vermin aborning for the past three or four generations
3. it's no more feasible to take away folks guns than it is to deport 12 million illegals simply.not.gonna.happen
4. it's no longer fundable/sustainable to throw people in jail for smoking marijuana - so marijuana is being legalized at a grassroots level
5. enter the show-gun-ate..., and a return to the era of personal self-sufficiency and pedestrian politess
everything else is merely academic conversation.....,
I didn't do film or English, so I had no chance to interact with him, really. Just wanted to take a class with the man! Gunfighter Nation came out while I was there, so a big deal and all . . . Pepe's, of course, although I did not make it down to New Haven all that often. Middletown had everything I wanted. *snort* (Usually I just hit New Haven and kept right on going to NYC!)
If you want to learn more about vimax, vimax, vimax Visit official website
donlgo8252
Post a Comment