richlind33: How do you conclude that racism isn't a systemic problem
when societites are promoting narrow identity politics, governments continue to collect racial data and encourage racial identity, and poverty correlates very closely with racial demographics, among other things
I didn't really conclude my "rant" by stating that oppression isn't systemic. I even wrote that the general systema throughout the world has seen positive changes throughout history, and that said change is gradually which also mean that its more difficult to pinpoint racistic behavior, because there is less racism and seggregation nowadays than it was even mere 50 years ago.
Let me tell you this, I don't have a strong oversight in American economics and I don't think its the most important issue (it might be for you for obvious reasons) but my assumption is that the American bureaucracy and the general addiction towards the persue of wealth within its superstructure (I'm using this term loosely here, I'm also refering too the general inequality/wealth divide between Americans) is so gargantuan that marginalized communities are still not accounted for, this includes all ethnicies living in impoverished suburbs. So in laymans terms, those with the smallest voice are left out and have less chance to succeed compared to the louder ones. Its a shame that for such a rich and wealthy country a lot of people seem to be left out no real reason, while like a fraction of a percent have like most wealth there.
Just out of interest, if you have statistics regarding the correlation between racial demographics, please post them here or send me a PM. I'm very interested in that sort of stuff.
If we contrast the overt fascism associated with the past, with what has been called the "friendly fascism" of today, which would you say represents a greater danger?
Thats not a loaded question at all, hahaha oh my. First you must establish what "friendly fascism" means, however. Because without proper context this phrase is practically meaningless and I've also never heard of it. So what do you mean, exactly?
Also, would you say that the appreciation for subliminal communication that modern artists have is roughly the same as that of their predecessors? And what of the general public's ability to consciously perceive, has that changed significantly with the passage of time?
I'm not a scholar in art, but I would say that nowadays the abilities of sublimal communication are fairly more developed.
Who the hell opened the window and let all that fresh air into the thread! LOL
I like the way you think.
Yeah, it's not people that cause things to happen, it's spirits. lol
This has nothing to do with fairytales, regardless of what you believe. People have an inert drive towards (technological) progress and the fight for freedom, which only accelerated things thanks to the time we call renaissance. I'm fairly sure you can track back and quantify the "degrees of happiness" within each cultural timeframe within most countries and compare them to data that was gathered during this or the last year to compare how people (in the first world at least) suffer less than ever before.
I do kinda agree with your assesment that the Death-of-the-Author is an impossible state, though what do you mean with "having first hand experience"? I mean everyone can make their own assessment in judging art, you're an expert with the craft so your word matters more obviously. But you don't really say anything else but "I don't think you can declare death of the author and I think its dumb and impractical", at least establish some axiomatic principles and talk about them so people can see your viewpoint better. Establish some rules of what you've learned, please.
I know nothing about this topic and I believed that observing art is a deeply individualistic persuit (and thus is also the general persuit of creativity) but I might be totally wrong here.