#but could we consider he's actually got some literacy problems | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

evidence-based-activism · 4 years

Text

Mass Media vs Porn

So, a series of comments made me interested in the relationship between sexualized mass media and pornography. My views on porn are already well fleshed out (I’ve made and reblogged a few posts about it, and have more I haven’t posted yet), so I decided to look through the literature and try and form some kind of an opinion about mass media.

Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, considering “media” is far more broad than “porn” the data is less clear.

For starters, while harm is inherent to the production of the porn (I and others have made/reblogged several posts about this but you can start here and here), production of movies or television shows (even when they contain horror or action scenes) does not usually cause harm to the actors/those involved in the creation.

(Of course, there are exceptions and accidents where actors are hurt doing stunts or because of negligence. There’s also a very significant sexual harassment and assault problem in the entertainment industry. However, these problems are not, for lack of a better term, endemic to the entertainment industry, while rape and exposure to STDs (for example) are endemic to the porn industry.)

So, that’s a main difference between the two. But what about the consumption of mass media?

That’s where things got...fuzzier.

Looking through the research, some studies concluded that there was no evidence at that time of a relationship between violent media and violent behavior:

A meta analysis in 2009 indicated their results “do not support the conclusion that media violence leads to aggressive behavior” [1]

Another meta analysis in 2008 concludes that “he evidence is not adequate to claim that exposure to violent TV is a significant source of violence in U.S. society” [2]

A meta analysis in 2004 concludes that there is “the body of published, empirical evidence on [media violence] does not establish that viewing violent portrayals causes crime” [3]

A review from 2007 indicates that “when integrated with other long-term studies on the development of crime, it is concluded that the link between media violence and crime is weak after other environmental factors are taken into account” [4]

Another study from 1986 finds no association between rates of violent crime and prevalence of violent media in a population based study** [5]

Another study from 2009 found “television violence exposure was not predictive of any form of youth aggression” [6]

**This result should be interpreted with caution as attempts to isolate specific causes of crime or violence on a population level are generally full of confounding factors. I included this study because it helps complete a picture, not because it definitely determines any particular relationship.

However, these were primarily concerned with violent behavior, which doesn’t necessarily give us the full picture, for example:

The studies complied in [1] either measured violent behavior or used unreliable scales for aggression

Studies [2] [3] [4] and [5] looks specifically at criminal aggression/violent crime

Only study [6] looked past overt criminally violent behavior

Note: This is another place where mass media effects diverge from effects of porn, as there is significant evidence linking porn use to criminal behavior (start here and here).

---

Other studies found some relationship between media violence and aggression:

One study found individuals with high trait aggression (a predisposition) were (1) more likely to select a violent film when given a choice, (2) reported a greater increase in anger than individuals with low trait aggression after viewing the violent film, and (3) displayed more aggressive behavior on a lab specific task [7]

Another study documents that there are short-term increases in negative emotions and subsequent behavior after viewing violent media, at least for younger children. Long term effects are harder to establish, but there does appear to be a trend that possibly emerges only in combination with other risk factors. [8]

Another study found modest affects of media violence on aggressive thoughts of behavior. This one found that only children displayed longer-term effects [9]

A study from 1986 found media violence in and of itself didn’t not predict violent behavior, but that heavy doses of violent media consumption in combination with parental violence did [10]

A final study indicates that media violence is a risk factor for aggression, but is only one among many. This article mainly focuses on the need for a multivariate approach that considers interactions between consumption of violent media and a host of other factors [11]

Note: These results appear more similar (if more mild) to the effects of porn on violence and misogynistic beliefs. (Again see this post). They mirror how certain individuals are at a higher risk for maladaptive responses, and how the issue is multifactorial. However, they also indicate the effects are more limited (i.e. only to children) or less primary than the effects of porn.

---

Another difference to porn is that the negative effects of violent media on children (the main “at risk” group) may potentially be alleviated by discussing and evaluating the media with them (i.e. helping them develop media literacy). [12]

---

Despite this, I found a few compelling articles linking media violence to aggression:

One extensive meta analysis found a link between violent video game use and physical aggression. They suggest that other factors either moderate or facilitate this association. [13]

A report by the American Psychological Association confirms this effect of video games [14]

Another study found a significant connection between the exposure to violent content involving real people on the internet and seriously violent behavior. [15]

Note: I tentatively suggest that the connection between violent media and violence found in these studies may be stronger due to (1) the interactive nature of the mediums and (2) the exposure to real people. By this I mean, both video games and browsing/searching for content on the internet is more interactive than passively watching movies or television. Further, the effects found in [15] applied mainly when the observed violence was happening to real people.

This has substantial implications for the effects of porn, as most pornography is now sought out on the internet, closely engaged with (masturbation), and depicts real people (engaged in real violence).

---

So what does this suggest?

Overall, this literature suggests to me that (1) there is a connection between violent media and aggression, (2) this connection is embedded within a framework of other risk factors, (3) certain groups are at higher risk which indicates we are right to limit children from accessing some forms of media**, (4) the negative effects of violent media may be alleviated through the development of media literacy, (5) pornography has an effect on cognitions and behaviors that violent media in general does not appear to have.

**A report by the American Academy of Pediatrics discusses this more throughly. [16]

---

What happens, however, if we introduce sexualized elements to the mix?

One study found that sexually violent and sexually explicit mass media correlated with acceptance of domestic and sexual violence acts and myths, as well as actual perpetration and victimization. Preexisting attitudes moderate this relationship. [17]

Exposure to sexualized violence in mass media decreased sympathy to rape victims [18]

When women are shown as deserving or enjoying the sexualized violence aimed against them, men indicated more acceptance of violence against women [19]

Exposure to objectifying media later increased men’s self-reported likelihood to act as an acquaintance rapist [20]

As such, there is evidence of a correlation between exposure to media that affirms misogynistic attitudes (such as the endorsement of acquaintance rape) and belief in these attitudes.

Therefore it is also important to note that some studies [19] [20] and [21] indicate that improving media literacy (i.e. critical examination of the media) could mitigate acceptance of rape myths and misogynistic attitudes. This potential to critically examine the material presented potentially separates sexualized violence in mass media from sexual violence in porn.

On the other hand, other studies elaborate on the connection between objectifying media and self-objectification [22] and the damaging prevalence of sexualization of girls in various forms of media [23] and [24]*. This strongly suggests the sexualization of girls in media has far-reaching, negative, consequences.

*there is evidence that girls exposed to sexualizing and objectifying media are more likely to experience body dissatisfaction, depression, and lower self- esteem ... [as well as affecting] girls’ sexual development. Furthermore, girls’ relationships with boys and men are affected in that exposure to sexualizing and objectifying media has been shown to relate to girls’ and boys’ views on dating, boys’ sexual harassment of girls, and attitudes toward sexual violence.

These, I think, provide compelling evidence that sexualization of women and girls in media still perpetuates sexism. In some cases, this may potentially be addressed via increasing media literacy. The prevalent sexualization of girls however, would likely require more approaches.

---

tl;dr Violence in mass media is not the same as in porn. It may still be harmful, and such effects should be addressed (potentially via media literacy). Some groups are more vulnerable to media violence, and some forms of media violence are more severe. In any case, media violence is one of many components in a complex web of factors leading to aggression, and should be addressed within said web. Sexualized violence may help perpetuate misogynistic myths in society and negatively impact women and girls. Some of these affects may be addressed though improving media literacy, others require different approaches.

---

[To deal with how tumblr handles links I’m going to reblog this post with the sources list.]

----

#feminism #sex industry

102 notes · View notes

umabitchiguess · 3 years

Text

So I have some thoughts on writing for television and the concept of “pandering”

It makes my blood boil when tv writers and networks disdain the idea of “pandering” to fans and act like network television is too sophisticated an art for the masses to understand, and treat fans like an enemy to their art.

Yes I am talking about Supernatural

Now, I don’t know the intimate details of the network or authors or actors previous words on destiel so maybe I’m exaggerating something here, but these are just my observations from what’ve I’ve seen this week. I do know that Spn fandom is not perfect, and some people definitely go too far. The writers have a right to creative license that isn’t required to align exactly with audiences’ wishes. That said, I’m seeing a problem here that has nothing to do with fans just “disliking” the fate of a single character or ship. I haven’t watched past season 11 and I haven’t been in the fandom for years but I’ve been dragged back in in the past month because Of Course. And the fact that some people COUGH the C*W COUGH see cannon destiel as “pandering” is just upsetting, but also deeply ironic.

The only reason, I repeat, the ONLY REASON that supernatural ran for fifteen seasons instead of five -an extra TEN SEASONS- is because of fans. The first five seasons of the show have a clear, cohesive arc with a satisfying ending. It came back for more because of its popularity.

For anyone who doesn’t know what popularity means (sarcastic) it means that the show has high enough ratings and enough of a dedicated fanbase to justify renewing the story, because you know you will have an audience. Fans are the reason that the show ran for as long as it did, and characters like Cas and Bobby stuck around because they were beloved by fans. Calling Destiel “pandering” is ridiculuous, because by the very same logic, ALL of the show is formed by “pandering”.

Which brings me to my next point

I think that the disdainful use of the word “pandering” when it comes to television is kinda hilarous when you think about it in a historical context. Television is arguably the most viewed art form in the modern-day west. It has the least intellectual pretentiousness, and network can be viewed by people of most any economic class. Television is the entertainment “for the masses” if you want to get Shakespearean. It’s (broadly speaking) the most accessible for a number of reasons.

Speaking of Shakespeare

Shakespeare is considered by the US to be fairly highbrow literature, and by the rest of the affluent west to be one of the greatest writers ever. That was NOT the case during his lifetime. Theater was not considered high brow literature at the time, and it was the most accessible form of media. It was the entertainment for the masses. Literally. Anyone could see a Shakespeare play, they just stood on the floor and maybe payed the equivalent of a single cent if that. And you know what Shakespeare did all the fucking time?

He “pandered” to his audience

Oh sorry I meant “he understood that his work would be put onstage and he would get paid and his theater would stay open if he wrote what his audience- the source of his income- wanted to see.” He wrote his plays with enough layers to them so that anyone from any economic class with any level of literacy could enjoy them. Deep overarching themes about love and mortality and humanity drew in the educated upper class people who would buy real tickets , and in the very same play, swordfights, dick jokes, and a coherent plotline entertained the less educated audience. (I’ll write a whole thing about the extensive queer history of Shakespeare plays later). He tailored his art to what he knew the audience would respond well to.

How does this relate back to Supernatural of all things? Well, I’m glad you asked!

I’m not here to compare supernatural to Shakespeare because there is a clear difference in writing quality, but neither of them were considered highbrow in their heyday, and were written for public entertainment. But Shakespeare knew how to play to his audience, and the C*W clearly doesn’t. They disdain “pandering” when that’s exactly what they should be doing. But instead of writing for their people that have been the reason for the show’s continuance, they aim to appease a bigoted audience instead.

In general conclusion,

There is no part of the show that has not been influenced by fans one way or another, save MAYBE the very first season. Yielding to the fans that so ardently support Destiel is not a weakeness on the part of the writers, but actually a strong choice from a business perspective. Supernatural has its issues, but an ending where the two of them are alive and in a cannon relationship would be an incredibly powerful form of representation, and would be narratively satisfying, and I bet would have an amazingly positive reception that could serve as an example for future television shows. Instead, we get whatever half baked censored mess we got. This is why disdain for fans instead of just going with the flow gets you nowhere.

It’s late where I am but I wanted to get this all out of my system while the craze was still happening, I’ll probably edit tomorrow

#supernatural #deancas #destiel #theysilencedyou #theysilencedthem

19 notes · View notes

inexplicifics · 4 years

Note

How do neurodivergent people exist in your AU?

I’ve taken a couple of days to think about this, because it’s an important question, and I guarantee you I won’t get it completely right; for the errors I will undoubtedly make, I apologize in advance. But here’s what I’ve got so far:

It varies, both by culture and by variety of neurodiversity.

I know I’ve seen posts going around pointing out that people on the autism spectrum, or with neurodiversities that make them more sensitive to noise and light and so on, might well have had an easier time dealing with the world when the world wasn’t so damn loud. The AW AU doesn’t have electricity, after all; no constant buzz of lights and machinery, no artificial fluorescent lighting, so on and so forth. Someone who develops a strong interest in, say, weaving might well become a particularly noted and respected weaver, lauded for their work ethic if considered maybe a little strange in their personal interactions. Someone who prefers the quiet of sitting out watching the sheep could become a very successful shepherd. Concomitantly, in a world with a very low literacy rate, many people with dyslexia or dyscalculia might not run into nearly as many problems as they do in the current age, when literacy is pretty much required to get by in society.

On the other hand, this is a universe with magic and - notably - fae folk, and there’s a theory I’ve seen a couple of times that legends of changelings were created to explain neurodiverse people - children who were “normal” until suddenly something happened and then they were Odd. I could see that same legend taking hold in the AW AU, with all the attendant nastiness that would go with it: people trying to get their “real” child back by means both baffling and, often, cruel. Alternately, “changelings” might be treated as signs of the fae’s favor, or as god-touched in some manner, depending on the society around them.

On yet a third hand, one of the things that makes humans people and not just bipedal apes is that we care for our tribes. There’s strong evidence in archeological records from back into the Stone Age of such things as children with Down syndrome (and the heart conditions which commonly go along with that disability) who survived well into adolescence and were buried with items that indicate they were well loved, or adults with significant physical disabilities who clearly lived to ripe old ages despite those handicaps, and were valued members of their tribes. (Even that one golden-eyed priestess down in Egypt, who must have been terrifying in real life.) People in the actual real-world Middle Ages did care for their kinfolk who had physical disabilities or assorted neurodiversity, and I can’t imagine that would be any different in the AW AU.

On a fourth hand (I’ve had to borrow some hands from somewhere, please don’t ask where), we see with Yennefer’s backstory that people are often unkind to those who have visible differences of one sort or another. Someone with, for instance, Tourette syndrome might well find themselves in a worse case than someone with a less easily noticeable form of neurodiversity.

On yet a fifth hand (be honest, you’d all guessed I was an octopus, right?), the people of the European Middle Ages were...superstitious I think is the best word. Many of the people who got denounced as witches or demon-possessed or otherwise Evil would quite likely have been neurodiverse and therefore Odd, though of course there’s also the stuff about women and especially women with medical training running slap-bang into the whole mess between female midwives and male doctors (insert digression about witches and broomsticks and brewing and how beer-making switched from being a female to a male art and medicine switched from being a female to a male art and along the way the women who did either got quite literally demonized...that’s a couple of essays right there and I don’t have time to pull sources). That level of superstition probably doesn’t get any better in a world where there really is magic.

That’s...all I’ve got right now, I think, for the wider society.

In Kaer Morhen...Witchers are, and know themselves to be, Odd. They don’t fit into human society, for an abundance of reasons, starting with but not limited to their intense distaste for lying, their absurdly long lifespans, and their inhuman physical abilities; moreover, they haven’t been taught how to live in human society, nor to react to various things as humans do. So against a background of Oddness, further Oddness might not be as notable, or matter as much. A Witcher who memorizes everything there is to know about monsters and will tell you about it in detail, after all, is a sensible Witcher. A Witcher who is sensitive to loud noises might well have an edge in dangerous situations. A Witcher who counts his potions almost constantly and is extremely precise about how he arranges his gear is a Witcher who will be able to find what he needs the instant he needs it. A Witcher who has trouble understanding and articulating emotions, both theirs and others’...is a Witcher. But there are a lot of forms of neurodiversity, and I’m not sure how well all of them would fit into the frankly unpleasant life of a Witcher pre-Warlord.

Witchers consider humans to be baffling and strange most of the time. A human who doesn’t act quite like other humans is just a different flavor of baffling and strange. When a Witcher meets a neurodiverse person, he probably chalks any unusual aspects of the interaction up to “Witchers don’t really understand humans anyhow” and goes on with his day. A neurodiverse servant at Kaer Morhen, assuming they were good at their job and got on with Witchers and the other servants, would probably be given any support they needed; I can’t imagine Jan would let a good, loyal worker slip through his fingers for silly reasons.

There definitely are neurodiverse people in the AW AU, though saying that when I haven’t explicitly put any on the page is a bit...useless, really. And attempting to claim that some minor character or other is neurodiverse after the fact, when I’ve put no evidence of it in the text, feels very cheap and downright insulting to my readers. (And writing neurodiverse characters respectfully while using period-typical terminology is an interesting challenge, and one I shall have to put some thought into.)

As you may know, I welcome headcanons and plotbunnies and other people playing in this AU. If people want to fling headcanons and plotbunnies at me, about Witchers or human characters and their possible neurodiversity, I’m happy to add them to the Horde and see what comes of it. And if people want to write their own fics with neurodiverse characters in the AW AU, I’ll be delighted to read them.

I’ve gone and written an essay, Anon, and at the end of it I’m not completely sure I’ve answered your question, but this is what I’ve got. I hope at least a little of it was of use.

#questions answered

61 notes · View notes

thejackmeister-mongolhistory · 4 years

Note

Have you read/what are your thoughts on Jack Weatherford's books?

I have indeed read some of Weatherford’s work: Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, and his Secret History of the Mongol Queens: How the Daughters of Genghis Khan rescued his Empire. He has another book which is something to do on on the Mongol Empire laid the foundation for modern religious tolerance, I believe, but I have never read it.

Before I go much further, I should state a few things. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World was the first ‘serious’ book I ever read on the Mongol Empire. I had finished reading Conn Iggulden’s Conqueror series, which sparked my interest in the Chinggisid Empire: that I was able to, some time after, pick up a copy of Weatherford’s book is what fanned the flames of my passion for the topic. At the time, I can remember being so impressed by the depth of Weatherford’s description and his own passion in Mongol culture, and I do believe without it, there would be no The Jackmeister: Mongol History. Especially in my own earlier videos, before my skills as a researcher had developed alongside my access to sources, Weatherford’s influence can be seen. I think in a video I did on Chinggis Khan’s sons, I basically called them all failures, as per Weatherford’s depiction of them.

Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World was also a huge boon for Weatherford, as it sold magnificently. There is a good chance today if you go into your local bookstore for something on the Mongol Empire, you’ll find a copy of it there, 15 years since its first release. And online, a search for ‘books on the Mongols’ will likely turn it up in the top results. It’s been translated into multiple languages, has brought him honours and awards even in Mongolia. I think it can be created to some extent to assisting in the increase in westerners (i.e., average people, not researchers and historians) to view Chinggis Khan as something other than a blood crazed maniac. That Bodrov’s Mongol came out just a few years afterward contributed as well: before that, probably most North Americans exposure to Chinggis was Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. No disrespect to Al Leong, but it’s not the most accurate depiction.

Weatherford is a skilled writer, and a key to Modern World’s success is that it is a very readable work. The image he presents of Temujin’s flight to Burkhan Khaldun after Borte’s capture, and the choices he faced, I found a poignant image which has stuck with me. Weatherford’s background is as an Anthropologist, and that is apparent in the attention he gives to discussing Mongolian culture. Not an extensive description of steppe tribes and politics, he places Temujin into a cultural context recognizable to modern Mongolians, a focus on his human side, rather than that of the conqueror. Considering that his entire book is on the positive transformative aspects of the Mongol Empire, that shouldn’t be surprising.

Now, that’s a lot of words talking about the books and Weatherford and things about them. My own thoughts on them? Well…

As I have dug deeper into the works of specialists and primary sources, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World has not aged well. Weatherford is a skilled writer and an anthropologist with a deep appreciation for Mongolian culture. But he is not a historian. And when you read it from an historian’s viewpoint, it is a deeply frustrating work. Because there are so many details and facts it gets wrong that it it very distracting. Opening to a random page while I write this, while discussing the opening of conflict between the Mongols and the Jin Dynasty, he writes:

“The unexpected death of the Golden Khan of the Jurched and the ascension of his young son to the throne in 1210 offered the Jurchen court an opportunity to assess Genghis Khan …” (page 82).

A few points just in this line: the Mongols called the Jin Emperor the Altan Khan, so literally the Golden Khan. Unusual to do so in a secondary source though, and rather annoying for a reader who may want something more specific, and to find out who the name of this particular monarch. Likewise, to call them the Jurched is unusual: the -ed is a plural ending in Mongolian which you will see on the end of tribal names. But the Jurchen weren’t Mongolian, and Weatherford’s section on them as a whole emphasis their tribal origins, which is a slight misdirection considering how sincizied they had become over the 12th and early 13th century. Not 100% sinicized, but more than one might expect reading just Weatherford’s work, and enough that the increasing adoption of Chinese culture and customs by the Jurchen Jin court brought friction with the military aspects and particularly those Jurchen who still remained in the homeland, in what we generally call Manchuria. However, the succession changes he described are completely false: from 1208 until 1213 the Jin Emperor was Wei Shao Wang, a man whose reign was so poor he was posthumously demoted from emperor to prince, but was probably similar age to Chinggis himself! He was succeeded by a cousin, the Emperor Xuanzong of Jin, who was again of similar age to Chinggis himself.

The Jin had plenty of difficulties with their emperors, but they never put a child upon the Dragon Throne (I think the third emperor, Xijing of Jin, may have been around 15 when he became Emperor? That was the youngest). This is just one example, but I could flip around the book and find many more (but I don’t want this response to be 20 pages long).

Weatherford is also frustrating in his relative lack of citing his information, especially particularly interesting claims. The importance of footnotes and endnotes in History, is so that others can see where you got your information from. Essentially, so we can see you’re not making it up, or misrepresenting them entirely. For example, on page 235 he says the Mongol conquests led to an increase in tools carpenters in Europe had access too, and that they built new cranes and other devices based off knowledge gained from routes opened by the Mongols. A very interesting point to raise, one I’d love to follow up on, but there is no hint to where this information comes from, or what evidence supports this statement, or if he is even accurately representing what someone said on this matter. Or when he makes those inaccurate statements, we can’t even follow up to see what it was that misled him in the first place.

Finally, while I agree with the general point of his thesis (the Mongol Empire transformed Eurasia) much of his support for this argument I find either unsupported, or just wrong. Page 233, he says literacy increased under the Mongol Empire, presenting Kublai Khan’s construction of a printing office in 1269 so government mandates can be disseminated, as support for this. That isn’t even evidence for increased literacy in China because of the Mongols, let alone the entire Asian continent. And does establishing a printing office offset the destruction of libraries, archives and deaths of learned people in the initial conquests? He presents the Mongol invasions to Europe as ending the Middle Ages, saying at one point.

“European Knighthood never recovered from the blow of losing nearly one hundred thousand soldiers in Hungary and Poland, what the Europeans mounted as the ‘the flower’ of their knighthood and aristocracy. Walled cities and heavily armoured knights were finished, and in the smoke and gunpowder of the Easter Season of 1241, the Mongol triumph portended the coming total destruction of European Feudalism and the Middle Ages.” (page 155)

This is ludicrous. Heavily armoured knights didn’t even end in Hungary, who suffered the worst of the 1241-1242 invasion, let alone in all of Europe. Saying that it portended the end of Feudalism is like saying the death of Augustus portended the end of the Roman Empire. Sure, one occurs before the other, but they’re only tangentially related. As shown in studies by Erik Fügedi, Hungarian castle building actually increased after the Mongol invasion, now largely in stone instead of wood and earthen walls. And of course, European armour making increased in complexity, as the Mongol invasion predated the famous full suits of plate European knights are famous for.

That is in general the problem with much of Weatherford’s evidence for the impact of the Mongol Empire. There is a huge amount of actual effects the Mongols had, both positive and negative. But Weatherford misses much of these in favour of flashier statements like the above. And by trying to prove this point so much, he ends up minimizing the lives lost in the first place: for some regions, that was the entire experience of the Mongols, and the only place they held in those local popular memories after the disintegration of the Khanates. From what I recall of The Secret History of the Mongol Queens, it had many similar problems. That is why I find Weatherford’s work so frustrating: because it ultimately cannot reach the lofty goals it sets for itself, miring the reader down in distracting, inaccurate representations and doing a disservice to a fascinating and important topic for world history.

14 notes · View notes

sophoreads · 5 years

Text

Annotation notes for Wicked Saints

Attached under the cut are my word-for-word annotation notes pulled straight from my copy of Wicked Saints. Check out my previous post and goodreads review before reading the annotation notes.

I only decided to start annotating this book 115 pages in, because I realized that there were so many problems I was complaining about to my friend Sophie over text that I thought “Hey, I’d better write this shit down so I have receipts/can easily reference my thoughts.” I’d never really done annotations before, so I pulled out a new pack of sticky notes and color tabs that someone gave to me for free when I was in college and got to work. I ran out of sticky notes (started a new pad) and yellow tabs (borrowed last few from a weird tab/highlighter I found at the bottom of my college study stuff bin). I also got so frustrated I had to put the book down several times, because I’d paid eighteen dollars to pre-order this fucking garbage.

Pg 115 Pink tab – Character note --Bitch do you want to kill him or not? This is like bad Reylo fic— (Nadya being ~~inexplicably~~ held back from killing Mal, because she really wants to kill Mal, but just CANT for SOME REASON)

pg 123 Yellow tab – writing/literacy/grammar note --no note written— “He braced himself for the inevitable summons from his father. It arrived immediately by way of servant wearing a plain brown mask that left only his eyes visible. One of his father’s personal servants.”

Pg 137 Yellow tab – writing/literacy/grammar note --WTF is “it commanded attention”?! This whole throne bit is needlessly over-explanatory and could be fixed by adhering to golden rule “show, don’t tell”—

pg 139 Yellow tab --you don’t have to repeat the same thing twice!— “…Serefin paused, swallowing down the anxiety threatening to choke him. He was suddenly unspeakably nervous.”

Pg 140 Yellow tab --you just said they didn’t know who it was and now, not even a page later, you’re literally describing Mal and saying you DO know who it was?! WHO TF EDITED THIS SHIT— (Izak telling Serefin that they don’t know the vulture who escaped, then the vulture lurking behind him describing the backstory of the vulture who escaped)

pg 145 pink tab --what, is she Canadian now?— “You’ve realized your father isn’t so good a father to you, eh?” she [Pelayega] asked.

Pg 146 Yellow tab --For all that Duncan over-explains things in this story I still don’t fucking understand the High/Low prince thing??? Not once has she gone into it. And what the fuck is a slavhka?— (in reference to the first mention of there being “low princes”)

pg 148 Blue tab – Plot note --Why is the church still standing they LITERALLY TORE IT DOWN! THIS PART OF IT COLLAPSED!!!— (in reference to parijahan lying on top of pillows in the church Mal and Nadya just destroyed to get rid of the Vultures)

pg 153 Yellow tab --Are we really still saying “invalid” in the year of our unbridled insanity 2019?— “…Your mother, Estera, is an invalid…” (Mal making up a fake background for Nadya)

pg 153 Blue tab --SINCE WHEN DOES HE HAVE TATTOOS ON HIS HANDS— (in reference to the very first mention of Mal having tattoos on his hands, 153 pages into the story)

pg 155 Pink tab --Anna is so flat a character she could be removed from the whole book and not one thing would change— (in reference to Anna deciding to leave the group to re-join Kalyazi forces. I hold by this statement because Anna had no fucking role in the end of the book, and was therefore a useless character throughout)

pg 157 Pink tab --I’m sorry are we ETHNIC CLEANSING?! IS THIS WHAT WE ARE ENDORSING?! WTF?— “…then we can cleanse Kalyazin of the heretics entirely”

pg 163 Blue tab --this is the first we are hearing about any hierarchy in the vultures, which we should have read many chapters ago, not just when convenient for the author/plot— (in reference to first mention of Crimson Vulture)

pg 164 Yellow tab/Blue tab (overlapping domains) --Inches? FRACTIONS? IN THIS ECONOMY?!— (what is math in medieval Poland)

pg 167 Yellow tab --Still have not defined nobility and what makes a family “noble” or slavhka or whatever “low prince/royalty” or some shit— (In reference to yet another mention of low princes/royalty and somehow differentiating them from slavhka)

pg 168 Blue tab --I am more interested in gay Romeo/Juliet in a blood mage society than I am the entire plot of Wicked Saints— --Also this interaction feels cringey and thrown in for…no real reason?— “You’ve missed so much! Did you know that Nikodem Stachowicz was caught in the palace archives with the youngest Osadik boy?” (Zaneta)

pg 170 Yellow tab --FIRE YOUR COPY EDITOR— He shrugged, burying his tattooed hands in his pockets. “It binds over time, magic does. Especially blood magic. It’s so accessible. You don’t have to have a true affinity for it…” (Mostly I got furious over the fact that we’re only just getting Mal’s tattoo hands, which was obviously written in as an afterthought for his character partway through the writing process and not retconned into the story. I also just hate the sentence “it binds over time, magic does.”)

Pg 170 Yellow tab --Page 170: “walked on” Page 177: on horseback. WHAT IS THE TRUTH?— “Malachiasz stopped to wait for Nadya while the others walked on ahead” (this note coincides with a future note)

pg 173 Orange tab – blatant parallels to and lifts from Dragon Age franchise --you get a special shame-color for copying Dragon Age (also WHAT IS YOUR MAGIC STRUCTURE HOW IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE) (it’s just bad writing)— “He was referring to witches—apostate magic users outside the gods’ approval—but there had been no witches in Kalyazin for decades. Their route of magic was considered just as heretical as blood magic…”

pg 176 yellow tab --Emily A Duncan focuses [more] on the little actions of Malacheezit than she does for any other character and it hurts the story— (specific reference to line “He fidgeted, fingers picking at a hang nail” interjected in dialogue. This action-dialogue tag does no service to the story at all.)

Pg 177 Pink tab --What the fuck? Is this about Holy War or is this a romance fantasy? (note the order: not “fantasy romance”)— “In a flash, his hand was underneath her chin, thumb brushing against her jaw…If Nadya hadn’t been sitting down she suspected her knees would have given out on her.”

Pg 177 Yellow tab --SINCE WHEN DO THEY HAVE FUCKING HORSES?! FIRE ALL YOUR EDITORS FIRE THE PUBLISHER— “Nadya let her horse wander instead of tying it up, sending a short prayer up to Vaclav to keep an eye on the animal so it didn’t stray too far.” (These horses were never mentioned before (note connects to a prev. note) and were never mentioned again after this. I literally cannot fathom how or why this book made it to final printing in this state.)

Pg 183 Pink tab --All this romance shit seems so forced for both Nadya and mal. I see no actual attraction on either party?— (I’m not recording the second note as it is a crude remark against the author, a remark of which I still stand by, but would be damaging to both her and myself. However, the emotion of the second note follows the concept of “anyone who knew what they were talking about wouldn’t write this kind of bullshit.”)

Pg 185 Yellow tab --“Per se”? I’m sorry is there LATIN in this world? (it’s bad writing)— “He wasn’t putting it off per se, he…”

pg 186 yellow tab --“It was fitting THAT assassins…” ugh— “It was fitting assassins chose to strike that same evening” (Doesn’t the author have a masters degree? And works in a library? How is her writing this chopped and sloppy, omitting crucial subject/action markers?)

Pg 198 Blue tab --Jesus, are prostitutes of war a NORMAL THING? WE SHOULD BE SAVING THESE POOR WOMEN— “The girl is…” He faltered, convincingly. “Well, you understand.” He winked at the soldier. (the soldier doesn’t even remark on Nadya’s sex slave status) (Also I realize that “prostitutes of war” is not the correct vernacular, however I’m committed to giving you my direct and exact notes. I know that they are slaves of war, sex slaves specifically, and do not receive true compensation or reparation for their suffering.)

Pg 201 Pink tab --HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT NOBLES? YOU LIVED YOUR WHOLE LIFE IN A MONASTERY!— “Nobles are nobles,” she [Nadya] said waving a hand. “Regardless of where they come from. The pettiness of court transcends all cultural boundaries.”

Pg 202 Blue tab --WHAT THE FUCK? EXPLAIN YOUR MAGIC/MYTHS— (referencing the blasé and brief mention of Wolf Changers, which we never hear about again)

pg 203 blue tab --WHAT NECKLACE? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?— --Oh, that necklace, that was mentioned in the first chapter, forgotten, reintroduced the following chapter, then COMPLETELY forgotten again! Bad writing. Bad props.— “Her prayer beads were safely in her pocket, so she clutched at the necklace Kostya had given her.”

Pg 205 Blue tab --Is her accent suddenly better?— (reference to previous statements of Nadya having a terrible travanian accent, hence the sex slave thing to the border guard so she doesn’t have to talk, but now she’s talking and there was no reference to her improving her accent at all or even working on it.)

pg 207 yellow tab --I can see Emily has a kink for masks + chin grabbing— “He [Serefin] reached out and took her chin in his hand, lifting her face up to his” (Mal has also done this to Nadya countless times and she orgasms almost every time.)

Pg 209 Orange tab --The veil, yet another stolen Dragon Age concept!— “…closed her eyes, letting herself feel the invisible wall separating gods from men. She felt it the moment they had stepped into Tranavia, the weight of the veil pressing down against her, choking off her only access to the divine.” (This is also the very first reference to any such veil being in place. It took 209 pages for this to be mentioned, in a book chock full of a girl talking to gods in her head. Also, they’ve been in Tranavia for awhile. Why wasn’t this mentioned when they first stepped foot inside? (because it’s bad writing))

Pg 209 Pink tab --Nadya’s powers seem almost limitless at this point— “Holy speech whispered through her head and she moved to disassemble the spells woven through the walls. She couldn’t take them apart completely— someone would notice, precautions in place—she was just making them fuzzy, bleeding them out. She dulled them so any information imparted back to the mages who set them would appear mundane.” (If Nadya’s powers (at this point in the book) are tied to the gods, there is no mention of which god provides these powers. If this is meant to foreshadow that Nadya has her own powers, it’s a lazy job. It’s simply overpowered and oversimplified. )

Pg 210 [no tab just a sticky] --oh FINALLY we hear how they met!— “I’ve known him [Rashid] my whole life. And we crashed into Malachiasz about six months ago after getting into trouble with some off-duty Kalyazi soldiers.”

Pg 214 [no tab just a sticky] --also can we acknowledge the whole “brown girl serves a white girl” thing because WOW— (in reference to Parijahan playing handmaiden to Nadya at the palace)

pg 215 Pink tab --“Couldn’t worry about the prince”? wasn’t HE the one she wanted to kill in revenge for Kostya? (IS THAT ALL FORGOTTEN NOW?)

pg 216 Pink tab --First Zaneta is Indian [coded] and now she’s black [coded]? WHAT?— “…a tall girl with luminous skin like onyx threaded with gold…her spiral curls fanned out around her head like a halo.”

Pg 217 Orange tab --The game? Court intrigue? Masks? This all reeks of Orlais and direct theft from Dragon Age— (in reference to basically the whole castle competition, masks, etc)

pg 217 Yellow tab --And now we’re switching perspectives mid-chapter? Just start a new chapter!— (in reference to the very first mid-chapter perspective switch, which will occur more from here on out)

pg 232 yellow tab --I am so sick of these italicized words without any translation or description— (in reference to szitelka which I still DON’T KNOW WHAT IT IS)

pg 233 pink tab --what the fuck is Nadya’s perspective? Does she want to kill all Tranavians or not? Emily make up your fucking mind— (in reference to Nadya getting pissed at Mal for killing the other blood mage girl in Nadya’s duel, so that Nadya wouldn’t die and the duel would end)

pg 234 pink tab --literally when has Nadya worried about his safety, esp. when she’s the one always threatening to kill him?— “She hadn’t forgotten, not even while she found herself worrying about his safety and wanting him by her side.”

Pg 235 Pink tab --oh FINALLY we get a description of his tattoos! 235 PAGES IN!!!! BULLSHIT YOU HACK WRITER!— “She found her eyes drawn to the tattoos on his long, elegant fingers. They were simple, straight lines: two on either side of each finger and one down the back that started at the bed of each fingernail and ended at his wrist in a single black bar.” (I literally vomited in my mouth when I read this)

Pg 238 Pink tab --Oh so Mal can’t murder to save you but you can murder Tranavians and its fucking justified? Nadya is such a bad Nazi char.— “It’s not an apology for murdering that girl, she noted. But it was a start. It was something from this boy who obviously had no morals and no regard for anything that didn’t serve his own interests.” (Nadya is the worst hypocrite and I want to punch her in the face)

Pg 239 Yellow tab --Hanged? Since when? Has hanging? Been a threat? Ever? In this world?— “…or else this whole mess of a plan will go up in smoke and we’ll all be hanged for it.”

Pg 240 Pink tab (this is another omitted note because it is a crude comment in part against the author, but the other half does say that Nadya is such a virgin and that I am second-hand embarrassed because this book and the “romance” scenes are so bad)

pg 242 blue tab --If Nadya used blood magic, why don’t the gods cut off her powers for her heresy? It would only make sense— (this is just a general comment on the chapter and how, after the duel and Nadya used blood magic, her gods were still talking to her. This is also before we find out that Nadya has her own powers)

pg 247 yellow tab --the way this is lazily written we’re supposed to assume it’s Ostiya at the door. Could be written much better (all of this could be written much better)— “Serefin hastily wrapped his still-bleeding hand with cloth while Kacper got the door. Ostiya blinked her single eye at the sight of both of them.”

Pg 248 Blue tab --“delicate gov[ernmen]t? we don’t even know how the gov’t is even structured!— “This was too far. It would crumble Travania’s already delicate government.”

Pg 259 Blue tab --Oh good, a love triangle. Good to know Nadya’s type is “blood mage tortured/charming boy” that grabs chin + kisses hands— “…and wasn’t sure what to do with this charmingly awkward boy. That he was one of the most powerful blood mages in Tranavia...She wavered too much already; she couldn’t allow herself to feel any more.”

Pg 260 Pink tab --Literally all that Parijahan does is be soft + comforting? That is literally all she does to Mal + Nadya + Rashid?— “Nadya usually didn’t see this side of Parijahan. It relieved her to see there was a warm softness to Parijahan’s flinty gaze.”

Pg 270 Blue tab --What do you mean? When did you mention that the gods had withdrawn their power from Nadya?— “She had no magic. She had nothing. She had no hope without her gods.”

Pg 275 Blue tab --But they would abandon her for using blood magic you dumbass— “The gods wouldn’t have abandoned her. Not for a few doubts, not for kissing a heretic—not even that.”

Pg 278 Blue tab --Okay this is actually a really cool scene— (when Nadya is first using blood with the pendant to see her way out of the room the rogue Vultures locked her in)

pg 280 blue tab --Calls her “little bird” is this Mal?— (referencing this unnamed god that Nadya is talking to via Kostya’s necklace)

pg 287 yellow tab --sloppy transition makes it seem as though a new person is talking— (Basically for the next two pages Emily incorrectly punctuates her paragraph breaks while Pelayega is talking.)

Pg 294 Orange tab --Velyos=Solas=Mal? Oh my god is this whole plot a regurgitation of DA:Inquisition/Trespasser?— “Have you heard of him? I suppose not. The veil went up, Velyos broke away. Your gods were probably relieved, but here he is once more...”

pg 298 blue tab --fucking called it (“acted like he was dead”? Literally said before that he was “sent to the country”)— (in reference to Serefin seeing Mal and discovering that his cousin is the Black Vulture. Previously, a not so subtle mention of a nameless male cousin of Serefin’s was “sent to the country” when he was young. I immediately pegged it as being Mal. But now it is written that Serefin was led to believe that his cousin died? The inconsistencies are rife.)

pg 308 pink tab --Does Nadya literally have no self control or sense of morality (for her own morals)? What the fuck is this?— “Then her traitorous, heretical hands betrayed her as she reached up and wove them into his hair, pulling his face down to hers and kissing him. Because she was angry with him, furious with his lies, but not even her anger was enough to cool the burning she felt when he was near; the heat that spread through her nerves when he touched her.”

Pg 308 Pink tab --ooh power shift, she’s doing the chin-grabbing now!— “She took his chin in her hand, directing his gaze down to hers.”

Pg 309 Blue tab --except for the vultures that kidnapped her? What about them?!— “Go to the cathedral when you’re finished here,” he said. “None of the Vultures will give you any trouble.”

Pg 313 Pink tab --Didn’t want the fate of nations? She LITERALLY came here to topple the monarchy and uproot Tranavia and start a mass ethinic cleansing— “She was only one girl; she didn’t want the fate of nations resting on her decisions.”

Pg 314 Pink tab --YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS YOU DUMB BITCH— [the dumb bitch being Nadya] “The war took something important to me,” she said, fingering Kostya’s necklace unconsciously. She couldn’t think about how it had been Serefin who had led that attack. (Nadya literally forgets and completely forgives Serefin for what she believes is Kostya’s murder (we know that Kostya wasn’t killed by Serefin but his BABY BRO WAS). Like, wasn’t Kostya super important to her? And she tried to kill Serefin in revenge but Mal stopped her? And in literally less than a week she totally forgets about it?)

Pg 318 Pink tab --Honestly, Mal deserves better than Nadya. He’s clearly doing his best and she’s just being racist and unwavering.— He opened his mouth, at a loss for words. Finally, he asked, “Will it always be like this?” Would it? She couldn’t say. Would she ever be comfortable with what he was? Or would it always be this constant hot and cold, friends one second and enemies the next? “I don’t know.” (Nadya is so abusive in this whole relationship I feel bad for Mal)

pg 321 yellow tab --He literally said he only told her the truth?! Mal has literally not told one lie?— “He was a liar and she wanted his truths”

pg 322 yellow tab --The whole order of this scene description + the characters is clunky and wrong— (no further comment really, that pretty much explains it)

pg 326 pink tab --Did she literally forget about Kostya? Did Nadya literally just forgive Serefin b/c she thinks he’s cute and tortured? LITERALLY? WHY?— “Serefin. He’s good,” She nuzzled his chest. “I like him. He should live.”

Pg 327 Blue tab --Can Serefin suddenly write his own spells now?! I thought only Mal could do that— “As he sat down at his desk with spells sprawled out in front of him, blood still drying on the pages, he couldn’t shake the feeling…”

pg 335 pink tab --That’s right, bitch! You’re damn nigh abusive to him and for some reason he keeps coming back! I don’t know why since you have the personality of a Nazi but for some reason Mal just really wants to fuck you!— “How could she be the only good thing to happen to him? She had almost slit his throat, had hung him off a railing. She didn’t even trust him, not really.”

Pg 351 Blue tab --since when have we seen a fucking calendar system?— “…turned the tide of a battle in 625 when…” (this is a “Vasiliev’s Book of Saints” entry for chapter 33. There is one more reference to a year in an earlier codex entry (tsk another Dragon Age ripoff) for something like 15XX. We don’t know what year it is, nor do we know when/why they started counting. Maybe it’s not critical for the story but it IS critical if you’re bringing it up.)

pg 357 orange tab --Literally Solas’s plot in Trespasser— “She bit back a cry of pain and shoved her magic harder up at the veil. If this was when she died, then fine. Fine. She would tear this veil down first and bring the gods back to Tranavia with her dying breath.”

Pg 360 Blue tab --How did she get here? Already? These scenes are so lazy, show me Nadya scrambling up the dais to Mal’s waiting neck— “He idly spun a chalice on the armrest and Serefin watched as the cleric stood and darted for a dagger that reseted a few steps away. It was time to test just what he could do with this power. (now it’s Nadya’s POV) Malachiasz’s eyes closed. He tilted his head back, baring his throat to Nadya’s blade.”

Pg 363 Yellow tab --Did we just miss Serefin fighting his father for Nadya’s sexy threatening? Was that really a real choice the author made?— (Nadya looks over at Serefin) “Serefin was on his knees, hunched over in pain, blood oozing from his head, one hand white-knuckled on the ground holding him up. Dead moths littered the floor around him. The stars around his head began to flicker out.”

Pg 368 Yellow tab --you CANNOT call it an “Adam’s apple” when there is no “Adam” or Christianity in this fantasy world! Lazy writing indeed!— “His head tilted back, Adam’s apple bobbing, as he swallowed hard.”

Pg 376 Yellow tab --this line is so cliché and fucking bad why the fuck is it even in here?— “The king is dead, long live the king,” she said, handing it [the crown] to him [Serefin].

Pg 376 Yellow tab --And why didn’t you write that the other vultures disappeared? There is so much missing here— “Where are all the Vultures?” Ostiya asked “Most probably fled with their king,” Serefin said.

Pg 378 Yellow tab --Is what enough? Power? Crown? What the fuck? This is so sloppy— “Will this be enough?” she asked him [Serefin]. “To stop the war?” … [Serefin:] “It will”

pg 380 yellow tab --No clear description of where Mal is. Is this physical or ethereal? What the fuck is happening?— (Mal’s whole epilogue)

#review #wicked saints spoilers #spoilers

1 note · View note

earlyandoftenpodcast · 6 years

Link

(Source)

As New York rapidly approaches the Revolutionary period, political life becomes a confusing whirlwind of populist factionalism.

>>>Direct audio link<<<

(iTunes) (Spotify) (Podbean) (Libsyn) (YouTube) (WordPress) (Twitter)

Transcript and Sources:

Hello, and welcome to Early and Often: The History of Elections in America. Episode 36: What About Livingston?

Last time, we looked at two periods of factionalism in colonial New York, the merchant-landowner rivalry of the 1710s and ‘20s, and the Morris-Cosby dispute of the 1730s. During these decades the various elite factions within the colony were slowly learning how to appeal to popular opinion, as a weapon in their fights against each other.

Today, we’re going to talk about the final few decades of New York’s colonial history, from the 1740s to the 1760s. Once again, there will be two separate rounds of factionalism. The first will be like the Morris-Cosby dispute, a battle between elites which goes public. The second round will be a confusing whirlpool of different interest groups aligning and dealigning with each other as New York goes through increasingly rapid changes in the run up to the American Revolution.

But first, a few words on how New York has changed over the last several decades, just to put things in perspective.

The population had grown from 19,000 in 1700 to 80,000 in 1750, though plenty of other colonies were still bigger.

The Dutch domination of Albany was declining sharply, thanks in part to the influx of men to fight in the wars with Quebec. According to the historian Michael Kammen, “One measurable result was that the proportion of voters with Dutch surnames in Albany County declined from 82 percent in 1720 to 57 percent in 1763.” So the old Dutch-English split was still there, but becoming less important with each passing decade.

Literacy was growing, and the colony was becoming more cultured. The first college in New York, which would become Columbia University, was chartered in 1754, a full 118 years after Harvard in Massachusetts. Print culture was starting to develop as well. The first public library was opened in 1754 and an increasing number of books were published within the colony. And twenty two different newspapers were printed in New York during the colonial era, almost all in New York City. These were mostly weekly newspapers, with just a few pages per edition. But they were widely read.

And the press paid an increasing amount of attention to politics as time went on. According to Kammen, during the 1750 election there were 40 political titles published. During the 1761 election, 59 titles. And in 1769, 135 titles.

So, just like how New England was becoming less Puritan over time, I think that New York was becoming less mercantile. It was still very focused on trade, but the other aspects of civilization were being brought in as well.

So that’s New York in general, but let’s get into the narrative for this episode. To begin with, I need to introduce the leader of one of the two factions that are about to form, James DeLancey.

DeLancey, born in 1703, was the son of Stephen DeLancey, founder of one of the leading merchant families in New York. As a young man he studied law in England and come back to America to work as a lawyer there. Thanks to his family’s connections, he was made a member of the council at age 26, and a member of the supreme court soon afterwards.

Now, you’ll remember from last episode that Governor Cosby got into a fight with Lewis Morris, the chief justice of the supreme court, and he had Morris removed from the court altogether. Well, that was good news for DeLancey. When Morris was fired, DeLancey was promoted to be chief justice at age just 30, an office he’d hold for the next 27 years.

So DeLancey was already in a great position for such a young man. But he wasn’t content to merely hold one of the most powerful posts in the colony. He was also determined to build up a network of supporters, and with the help of his family he did just that. The DeLanceys became one of the most powerful families in the colony, and his father and two of his brothers all served as Assemblymen at various periods. A bit like Thomas Hutchinson in Massachusetts, I suppose.

And on top of all that, DeLancey was also very well connected in London. He and his sister had both married into very prominent English families plus he had economic and personal ties with other important Englishmen. In fact, DeLancey was so well-positioned that he was often thought to be more powerful than the governors were.

But although he was accumulating all this power, he wasn’t using it to oppose the government. Instead, the best path for him was to support the governors, since that was the way to get even more power. So when a new governor, George Clinton, arrived in 1743, he received a warm welcome from DeLancey, who promised to use his network of supporters to back Clinton. In return, Clinton appointed several of DeLancey’s friends to the Council, which increased his influence even further. DeLancey became Clinton’s chief advisor.

(Governor Clinton, by the way had served as an officer in the navy for the last 35 years and he’d also been governor of Newfoundland for a time.)

But although DeLancey and Clinton started off as close allies, within just a few years, the two had a serious falling out, probably thanks to the start of King George’s War. Now, no one in New York was looking forward to another war, especially considering how the last wars had been ruinously expensive disasters. So none of the New Yorkers were looking to prosecute the war with any vigor. They wanted minimal involvement.

Governor Clinton, on the other hand, since he represented British interests, was duty bound to push the fight as hard as he could, to goad the colonists into supporting the war even against their will. But almost none of the local politicians wanted to back him on this, including DeLancey. They were all hemming and hawing, hoping to avoid publicly supporting an unwanted war.

And so, after DeLancey declined to attend an important conference with the Iroquois about the war effort, Clinton replaced him as chief advisor with another man who might actually help him fight the war.

That other man was named Cadwallader Colden. Colden had been born in Scotland, and he studied medicine there before setting off for America. In America, he did well for himself, becoming a scientist of some note, and corresponding with the likes of Benjamin Franklin and Carl Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy. Like many scientists back then, he was also active in political life. In fact, Franklin had encouraged him to remain involved in politics, and not just retreat to his study to conduct his research in private.

But he had a reputation as rigid and pugnacious, and he had managed to offend many prominent men in the colony. Normally that might be a problem, but I suppose in this case it was an advantage, since Colden didn’t have much to lose by helping the governor do unpopular things. He was already used to picking fights, so this was no different.

But the point is, DeLancey was out and Colden was in. However, no matter which advisors he had, Governor Clinton’s popularity was bound to decrease. So an opposition began to form, and naturally James DeLancey stepped in as leader. It was an obvious choice for him: of course you should oppose the governor who had spurned you and who was now leading an unpopular and unsuccessful war effort. It was all upside. DeLancey took his network of supporters and used them to assemble a broader coalition of different groups opposed to the war. Albany merchants, farmers worried about economic disruption, and so on.

But actually, King George’s War ended in just a few years, when the factionalism was only getting started. So at first, Governor Clinton wasn’t too worried. He figured that with the end of the war he could easily win the colony back to his side. He started by removing supporters of DeLancey from the upper house and replacing them with his own men. That was simple enough, but the lower house was a harder nut to crack. The Assembly was thoroughly controlled by DeLancey’s faction. In order to govern effectively, he was going to have to fight for control of the Assembly, and that meant appealing to the people.

It was an uphill task. DeLancey had much deeper roots in the colony that he did. But Clinton set his advisor Colden to work, replacing many of the appointed officials throughout the colony with his own men, that he might have better control over the election process. By 1750 he was ready to call for a new election. Both sides fought hard, going after each other in the newspapers. DeLancey himself went out into the countryside to encourage supporters to vote.

Well, according to Governor Clinton’s faction, DeLancey wasn’t just out in the country to shake hands and be nice, he was out there to browbeat people into voting for him. Supposedly, DeLancey even threatened to forcibly enlist men in the army if they didn’t support him. In fact Clinton’s faction made numerous accusations like that, saying that the DeLanceys were threatening and bribing voters, as well as shipping in people from outside to cast votes in elections they weren’t supposed to vote in. Whether or not those accusations were true is hard to say. A lot of the evidence that we have comes from unreliable partisan sources. But there were a lot of accusations like this being thrown around, and I have to imagine that at least some of them were true.

In any case, whether through fraud or genuine support or both, DeLancey’s faction won the election handily. Governor Clinton was so depressed by the results that he wrote to London asking that either he or DeLancey be removed from office, as “it is impossible, that I can maintain his [Majesty’s] Prerogative in opposition to the Influence & crafty Wiles of him at the head of the faction”.

However, Clinton wasn’t recalled from office yet, and so that next year he decided to try again. He dissolved the Assembly and once again called for elections. But once again, he and his men were thoroughly defeated.

However, fortunately I guess, in the spring of that next year, 1753, Clinton was relieved of his office. Officials in London had decided that the only way to fix the colony’s problems was with a fresh start. Finally his tribulations were over. So goodbye Governor Clinton.

A new governor was sent to New York to fix things, but as it turned out the new guy was very depressed over his wife’s recent death and he hung himself just a few days after he arrived in the colony. With the new governor’s suicide, DeLancey, who had recently been appointed lieutenant governor, now became acting governor, a position he’d hold for most of the rest of the decade.

The opposition was now the government. Now that he was in command, DeLancey took steps to lower tensions within the colony. He reached out to his rival Cadwallader Colden and the two were easily reconciled. Pretty soon all the old rifts were healed. Which just goes to show that the divisions had never been all that big to begin with. There were some real issues at stake, in particular the war effort, but mostly this was just a personal rivalry which ended as soon as one of the leaders involved had left the colony.

Anyway, DeLancey ruled New York for the rest of the decade, as powerful a figure as the colony had ever known. But in 1760 he died unexpectedly of a heart attack at age 57. The loss of such a powerful figure put New York in a state of what you might call uneasy calm. No one quite knew what politics would be like in a post-DeLancey world.

With DeLancey gone, Colden now became the acting governor. As I’ve already said, Colden was always a pretty offputting figure to a lot of New Yorkers, and that didn’t change now that he was in charge. Simply put, he lacked tact and restraint. In particular, Colden made several attacks on the independence of the judiciary. He raised the possibility of giving the King greater control over judges, and he undermined the authority of juries to decide cases on their own. These actions alienated him from the lawyers of New York City, who were becoming an influential group by this point.

But perhaps most importantly, he was a strong defender of the royal prerogative. When the Stamp Act was passed in 1765, it was just as unpopular in New York as in New England, but Colden felt compelled to enforce it anyway, which alienated everyone else in the colony. Soon, New Yorkers were burning Colden in effigy. Only five years after DeLancey’s death, they were back at it again, fighting over politics

So, that brings us to the next phase of factionalism in New York. Well, the last phase of factionalism before the Revolution. It’s a confusing period and I’m not even sure that people at the time were entirely sure what they were fighting over, but I’ll do my best to make it simple.

First, we need to describe some of the most important groups within New York at this time.

To begin with, the Livingston family. I’ve mentioned them a few times before, but only in passing. The Livingstons were one of the biggest landowning families in the Hudson Valley. As a result, many members of the family were politically active within the colony, although never quite important enough for me to mention by name. Well, that was starting to change. Back in the elections of 1758, just before DeLancey had died, a full four members of the Livingston family were elected to the Assembly. They didn’t yet form a coherent faction or anything. In fact, they often voted against each other.

But over time, they were starting to come together. The DeLancey family were merchants, and under DeLancey’s rule, the merchants within the colony had been ascendant. Well, now the landlords were regaining their political footing, forming a faction of their own, with the Livingstons in charge.

Some of the most prominent lawyers in New York City sided with this faction as well, because they were opposed to Colden for the reasons I already mentioned. Plus one of those prominent lawyers was himself a Livingston, so there was a family connection as well.

And while this elite opposition was growing, popular opposition was rising as well, thanks to anger over the Stamp Act. The unhappy colonists formed a group called the Sons of Liberty to fight back. The Sons of Liberty soon spread throughout the thirteen colonies.

Within New York, the elite faction of Livingstons and lawyers decided to ally themselves with the movement. They hoped to harness the unrest for their own benefit, by taking over leadership for themselves. But their attempt didn’t quite go according to plan. The passions of the people overtook them. Within just a few months, the Sons of Liberty had split into two groups, the moderates and the radicals. The Livingston faction sided with the moderates, but they were left controlling only half of a protest movement.

And unfortunately for them, a new figure used that opening to jump into politics himself, James DeLancey, Jr., the son of the late James DeLancey. DeLancey, Jr. had served as a captain in the British infantry during the French and Indian War, but after his father’s death, he returned to New York City to manage his family’s affairs. Now, he wanted to become a politician just like dad. He made his entry into the political arena by siding with the radical faction of the Sons of Liberty. This was a very opportunistic move on his part. As we’ll soon see, DeLancey had no real commitment to radicalism.

But in any case, the battle lines were being drawn. DeLancey Jr., backing the radicals, and the Livingston/landowner/lawyer faction backing the moderates. You’ll note that there was no faction in favor of Colden and the Stamp Act. Colden was so unpopular he hardly had any support at all. So these two factions are the important ones.

It’s hard to concisely state what these two groups were all about. After all, both factions were in large part alliances of convenience between popular movements and small elite factions looking to capitalize on those movements for their own reasons. You had two elite groups, and two popular groups, and which elite group sided with which popular group was more or less just coincidence. If history had gone slightly differently it could’ve been reversed. There was no ideology holding them together. For convenience's sake, I’m going to call them the radicals and the moderates, but again, there’s a lot more to it than that, and not all of the radicals were really that radical.

But actually, the Stamp Act was quickly repealed and a new governor came in to replace Colden, so the issues which had caused this factionalism had gone away, at least temporarily. However, the factionalism remained. As we’ve seen before, partisanship can continue on long after the root causes have faded into memory. It doesn’t have to continue, but it can.

And within a few years, it was time for new elections, since now they had to be held at least once every seven years. The new governor would’ve preferred not to dissolve the current Assembly, but his hands were tied.

And so, both sides geared up for battle. I’ve already described how New York elections worked in general, so let me focus in on one election in particular, the election in New York City, so we can explore some of the details.

Now, New York City sent four delegates to the Assembly, but instead of holding four separate elections, there was one big election all the candidates ran in. The top four vote-getters would become delegates.

In this particular election, there were seven candidates running. Two of the candidates had no real shot at winning, so we can ignore them, which leaves five real candidates to discuss. The two leading men were Philip Livingston, a moderate, and James DeLancey, Jr himself, supposedly a radical. Of the other three candidates, one was a moderate lawyer, while the other two were radical merchants allied with DeLancey.

This was a complex election, which required some serious strategizing if you wanted to win. The radical faction decided to let Livingston win a seat without challenging him. He was already popular, and so he was likely to win no matter what they did. That way they could focus all their attention on the moderate lawyer. If they could attack him successfully, then DeLancey and his two allies would all win seats in the Assembly, thus coming out ahead three to one.

So they went after the lawyer as hard as they could. In pamphlets and in newspaper articles, they argued that he was unfit to represent New York City. Firstly, he was a lawyer rather than a merchant, and New York City, being a commercial town, ought to be represented by merchants. Secondly, as a lawyer, he had ties to landowner families who opposed the interests of New York City. In fact, he had represented some of them in court in their lawsuits against poor families. Thirdly, it was a bad idea to elect lawyers in general. “[It] would be more gross and dangerous to choose Lawyers than other Men, in Proportion as they have more Cunning, Ability and Temptation to injure us, than other Men have. The more eminent their Abilities are, the more ought we to dread and avoid them, for we may be assured, that all those Abilities will be exerted against us, if our Folly should give them an Opportunity.” (By the way, you may be interested to know that these days, over a third of members of congress are lawyers, although the numbers have been dropping for a while.)

Anyway, the moderates tried to push back against these attacks, but they were always on the defensive.

Soon enough, the polls opened and voting began. In fact, the polls were open for five days straight, giving New Yorkers plenty of time to go vote. During that time, both sides were busy trying to woo voters as best they could. In fact, campaigns like these were becoming pretty expensive, given the need to entice voters with food and alcohol. According to the historian Patricia Bonomi, at one tavern alone, DeLancey had to pay for “248 “meals of victuals”, 134 bottles of wine, 106 ½ “Double Bowls of punch,” 117 “mugs of Beer and Seyder” and a variety of other beverages.”

The moderate lawyer also went around town scrounging up votes, though in a less grandiose fashion. Instead of buying food, he offered to bribe voters directly, supposedly even offering to buy someone a canoe in exchange for his vote. He also threatened to sue someone if he didn’t vote for him. Or at least he was accused of doing those things. As always, it’s hard to know for sure.

In any case, the clever strategizing by DeLancey and the radicals paid off. Livingston won his seat as expected, but they won the three other seats, by a very comfortable margin of a few hundred votes out of around 6000 cast.

Outside of New York City, the radicals weren’t quite as successful, though they still did reasonably well. Roughly speaking, a third of the winners were moderates, a third were radicals, and a third were unaffiliated with either side, and might support one group or the other depending on the situation.

However, this Assembly lasted less than a year. Already there were new problems with Britain flaring up. Parliament had just passed another set of hated laws aimed at America, the Townshend Acts, and once again the colonists were in an uproar. When the Assembly began to challenge the Townshend Acts, the governor quickly dissolved the Assembly and called for new elections. The Stamp Act may have been repealed, but none of the problems with Britain had been solved at all.

So that brings us to 1769, just 7 years before the Declaration of Independence. Once again, the factions were gearing up for the next election. The moderates, seeing how well the radicals had done with their simple arguments -- “lawyers bad”, “Stamp Act bad” -- decided to come up with a simple argument of their own. They decided to use religion as their issue.

Let me briefly talk about religion in New York. The relationship between church and state in New York had always been complicated. Officials in London wanted the government to promote the Anglican church, but Anglicans were always a minority within the colony, so in practice compromises had to be made with the Dutch, with the Puritans, and so on. In 1693 the Anglican church had been sort of established as the official state religion, but only in a limited way. For the most part, toleration was the order of the day. There was some discrimination -- Anglicans were always privileged -- but not that much discrimination.

Now, as it happened, right around this time there was some discussion of sending an Anglican bishop to America for the first time. America had never had a bishop of its own, just priests, and many dissenting Christians were happy to keep it that way. They feared that a bishop would increase the Church of England’s control over them, that it might lead to greater intolerance over time.

And so the moderates thought that this might be a good issue to latch on to. They hadn’t challenged the Stamp Act enough for voters, but maybe they could challenge the idea of an American bishop, and link the radicals with the evils of Anglican control. As it happens, the DeLancey family were prominent Anglicans, so there was at least some surface plausibility to the accusations. If it worked, the moderates would suddenly seem like the real opponents of English oppression, not the radicals.

Sadly for them, though, it didn’t work. I think that it was just too much of a stretch, too obviously opportunistic. It sounds like all they did was alienate Anglicans without attracting enough dissenters. The real issue was still the colony’s relationship with the British government, and on that count, the radicals were bound to be much more successful than the moderates.

Let me go over the next election in New York City, to compare it with the previous one.

After the moderates only managed to win one of the four seats in the previous election, this time they proposed a compromise with the radicals: instead of campaigning, why not agree to each nominate only two candidates? Wouldn’t that be much easier for everyone? But of course, to the radicals, that compromise meant losing a seat, so they refused. Instead, they made a counteroffer where they would nominate 3 candidates and the moderates would only nominate one, which would leave things the way they were. However, the moderates refused that offer, and so once again both sides had to fight it out.

By this time, caucuses were commonly held by various factions to nominate candidates for upcoming elections, but typically this was done behind the scenes, in those proverbial smoke-filled rooms. But this time, both factions decided that it would be in their interests to include the public in the nominating process. Hopefully, that would increase their support when the election came. So the moderates held a large gathering of several hundred people in one of the fields around the city, while the radicals met indoors. Both sides nominated four candidates.

But this time, the radicals did even better. They won all four seats by a comfortable margin. And they improved their performance outside of the city as well, winning a solid majority of seats. Anti-British agitation was becoming very popular very quickly.

And the radicals used their power to strengthen their control even more, by having several of the Livingstons expelled from the Assembly. They passed a law which excluded members of the Supreme Court from sitting in the Assembly, which got rid of one Livingston. They then kicked out another Livingston because he wasn’t a resident of the district he was elected from. They also expelled Lewis Morris III, grandson of the Lewis Morris we talked about last time.

By kicking all these enemies out, the radicals gained a much more absolute control over the Assembly. However, the so-called radicals in the Assembly were also rapidly becoming less and less radical. It wasn’t really the radicals who had won, it was the DeLancey part of the radical coalition. And now that they controlled the Assembly, they were detaching themselves from the real radicals. So although the election had been won on the grounds of fighting British tyranny, the Assembly soon began governing in exactly the opposite way. Naturally, everyone felt betrayed. The real radicals became even more radical.

As a matter of fact, by the time the Revolution came around, in just a few years, the DeLanceys and the Livingstons had basically swapped places. The DeLancey faction became conservative Loyalists who rejected independence, while the Livingstons were more on the side of the radicals, although they weren’t really radicals themselves. Not only that, James DeLancey Jr. himself wound up in exile in Britain, just like Thomas Hutchinson. So you can see why I said that his alliance with the radicals was purely opportunistic. He betrayed them at the first opportunity, as soon as they seemed to be more of a liability than an asset.

Hopefully, now you can understand why John Adams called New York politics “the devil’s own incomprehensibles”. Ideologies, family loyalties, class interests, regional interests, were all mixed together in one big political stew, and you never could know what the next bite would taste like.

I think that I’ll end the story here. The political landscape was still shifting, but we’re already almost to the Revolution itself. I’ll leave New York in a state of flux for now. This whole confusing sweep of ever-shifting factions would only be ended thanks to the question of independence, which clarified things in a way that nothing else could. New York will be the last colony to declare for independence, but it’ll get swept up in the war just as much as everywhere else.

So that brings us to the end of New York’s colonial history. A lot has happened, so let me give a quick recap. In the 1690s and 1700s you had the feud between the Leislerians and anti-Leislerians. In the 1710s and 1720s you had the feud between the merchants and the big landowners. Then in the 1730s through the 1750s you had several different instances of factionalism, all of which centered around local leaders enlisting local support in their fights against the governors. Court vs. country, basically. And finally, in the 1760s you had a much more confused round of factionalism, as I just described.

And those are just the biggest examples of factionalism, there were plenty of smaller instances as well, which I didn’t have a chance to discuss.

But apart from what happened in New York, I’d also like to draw your attention to something equally important: what didn’t happen. There was a lot of factionalism in New York, but there were just as many issues that New Yorkers could have fought over, but didn’t. I mean, many of the problems which confounded politics in New England barely left a ripple in New York. For example, although in the early 1700s New York had had a big problem with its debt and with its paper money system, unlike in New England, New York managed it much more successfully. There were difficulties in the 1710s, but by the 1720s the government had a handle on things. There was much less inflation and there weren’t those big swings in the value of money that you saw in Massachusetts.

Another big difference was the Great Awakening. In New England, with its close union of church and state, the Great Awakening was a super big deal. But in New York, it passed almost without notice, at least outside of the Puritans of Long Island. New Yorkers were just not a very religious people.

I haven’t talked about Pennsylvania yet, but things were different there too. In Pennsylvania, many of the divisions were over ethnicity and religion, as new groups of immigrants came in and began taking over from the Quakers, who had become a small minority within their own colony. Obviously nothing like that applied to New York.

The point is this: in all of these colonies -- at least in the North, since the South was a bit different -- in all of these colonies the issues being fought over were very different, but the overall political developments were similar. Factions became more organized over time, and they started to appeal directly to the people, even if they weren’t yet real parties. The colonial legislatures became more assertive and powerful. Despite their different cultures and histories, they were all on the same track.

Something to keep in mind as we approach the Revolution. Often it can seem like these colonies were in their own separate worlds, with nothing in common but the English language, but in fact they were converging politically in many ways, which no doubt helped them to cooperate when the time came.

This was often, but not always, more of a top down process. In the beginning, every colony had this network of elites in which disputes were supposed to be resolved internally, within the elites themselves. But sooner or later, one group of elites realized that they could gain an advantage by appealing to the people. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, which had elected governors and elected upper houses, popular support was all you needed in order to take power.

If the governor was appointed, things were a bit more complicated. Popular support helped, but it was insufficient. If all you controlled was the Assembly, then the most you could do on your own was block legislation. Then, maybe the governor would negotiate with you. But if he refused, then you could keep blocking all of his legislation. That would make him look weak and incompetent to officials in London. Then, you might convince the Board of Trade to have the governor removed from office and replaced with someone more to your liking. So in a colony like New York, you didn’t want to win popular support for its own sake. It was really a way to send a message to London: “This governor sucks and we refuse to work with him.” The will of the people thus only had an indirect effect.

But either way, there was still an advantage in appealing to the people. Whoever did so successfully had an edge over everyone else. And that meant that politics in every colony became more democratic, more populist over time. In order to appeal to the people, you actually had to offer them something. Sometimes, like with James DeLancey, Jr. supporting the radicals, that something was offered cynically and in bad faith. Other times the offer was more sincere.

But again either way, the changes produced were similar. Once candidates were regularly appealing to you for your vote, it naturally seemed to you like you had the power, not them. The elites had invited the people in for their own short-term benefit, but the people had no intention of leaving. What had begun as a top-down process became more bottom up over time. And then elected officials had to change their mindsets to match the new reality as well. They could compete for popular support or risk losing office or even being attacked by a mob.

But I don’t want to imply that if the elites in each colony had never sought popular support then this could have been avoided. I’m certain that sooner or later the people would have realized their power and started to organize on their own behalf. After all, the New Lights in Connecticut were bottom up from the very beginning, so it was certainly a possible alternative.

If you have a broad franchise and if elected officials have real power, then sooner or later someone will try to appeal to the voters in order to wield that power. It might be top down, it might be bottom up, but sooner or later it’ll happen. These divisions within the elite accelerated the process, I think, but they weren’t essential.

But still, that’s how it happened, and I think that that’s the best way to understand events in New York. All of that factionalism may seem like random noise, but if you take the long view, it really was building towards something: populist democracy.

Next episode, we’ll skip over New Jersey and jump straight to Pennsylvania, to see how William Penn and his fellow Quakers are faring in the wake of the Glorious Revolution, and to see how they slowly lose power after being swamped by new waves of not-so-pacifist immigrants. So join me next time on Early and Often: The History of Elections in America.

The podcast is on twitter, @earlyoftenpod, or go to the blog at earlyandoftenpodcast.wordpress.com for transcripts of every single episode. And if you like the podcast, give it a good review on iTunes. That helps. Thanks for listening.

Sources:

Themes and Directions in Middle Colonies Historiography, 1980-1994 by Wayne Bodle

A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York by Patricia U. Bonomi

Colonial New York: A History by Michael Kamen

The American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century, Volume II by Herbert L. Osgood

How the most disliked — and elected — profession is disappearing from politics by Ana Swanson

12 notes · View notes

joshua-guererro-blog · 5 years

Text

Personal / Literacy narrative

In life people experience many bad and good things in their life and some of these events can defined them as a person. In my life, I have had many events in my life that have made me the person I am today. One true moment that change my life was when I was a freshman. I came to the USA with my aunt because my mother wanted me and my brother to have a better life and to get a better education than the one I was getting in my country. I wasn’t too happy with the decision that my mom was making and I was just angry at everyone when I came to the United States. I didn’t want to be here without my mother and i wasn’t happy with going to school because I didn’t know anyone and I couldn’t really communicate with anyone because I didn’t know the language which was frustrating. I started hanging out with the students who were in similar situation but I started doing many wrong things with them. I wasn’t in the right path back them. I was making many mistakes and wasn’t listening to the people that care about me. I thought I knew what I was doing and just wanted to blend in with the wrong people. i stop caring about school and I almost failed the year because of the mistakes I committed back then. Everything change when I started my sophomore in high school. I met a person who change my life and made me care about school and my future. In my sophomore year my school hired a new gym teacher which was also the new soccer coach. He saw me play when i was in gym class and asked me to join the team but I wasn’t really interested on playing soccer back and I told him I couldn’t. I didn’t consider joining because I thought it was just a waste of time and plus I was too busy hanging out with my “friends”. I continue on doing the wrong things and wasn’t listening to my aunt who was the one taking care of me. She would try to give me advices and help me out as much as she could but I would just ignore her and many times I was completely rude to her, I was surprise she didn’t give up on me and send me back to my country. I continue this behavior until one day I got in a fight with another kid at school which got me suspended. My aunt was extremely mad and I believed she finally had enough and decided that by the end of the semester I was going to be send back to Ecuador. I truly didn’t care at the moment and continue with my stupidities. One day after school I was with some friends who were smoking in lunch outside the school and we got cough by our gym teacher. He took my friends to the office and came back to talk to me about the consequences. He told me many things but the one the hurt the most is when he asked me why was I ruining my life and my brother’s life too. He told me that I was been selfish and only thinking about myself and wasn’t aware of the people I was hurting around me. I didn’t realize that my younger brother was following the same steps that I was taking like been disrespectful to my aunt and getting bad grades. Listening to my coach telling me how much I was messing up my future really hurt me and also got me thinking of why was I making so many mistakes in my life. I decided to put more effort into my life and to get better grades. I also joined the soccer team so I could learn more from coach Hoyt. After I join the team I realize how much he truly cared for all the soccer players and he would give us pieces of advices and motivates us to get good grades in school. He also would stay after practice with any student that would need help in the field or outside the field. He also shows me the meaning of honor and dignity and taught me how to be a better man. He knew what I went through and always was making sure I didn’t go back to the way I used to be. I was truly happy to be in the soccer team because for the first time since I came to the U.S that I felt like I belong somewhere and coach Hoyt was always there for me whenever I needed him and now I would actually look forward to going to school instead of hating it. my grades went drastically up and I was also able to convince my younger brother to change his attitude and to join this school soccer team. I also apologized to my aunt for putting her through all those difficult times even knowing she was just trying to help me be a better person and to have a better person in life. It was thanks to my coach I was able to realize that I was just wasting my time and hurting the people I love. I made a promise to myself to never be that immature and irresponsible person ever again. I played for my coach the rest of my high school years and went to states finals my junior and senior year and I was also named captain of my team. I’m extremely blessed to have met coach Hoyt and also thankful he decided to have a talk with me that day because I believe thanks to that I became the men I am now. Thanks to him I learn how to be a dedicated, mature, responsible guy who deals with his problems instead of running away from them. Whenever I would feel stress out or when I have to many things in my head I would go to the soccer field and just work on drills or shoot around and that would me calm down and remind me of the promise I made to myself and what kind of men I want to be in the future.

I had many events that has been significant in my life and that have defined me as a person but I believe this is the most important one I have had in my life. Thinks to this I was able to discover just not myself but I was able to discover my passion to soccer. I was also able to stay in this country and live the amazing life I have now. I will always be thankful to my coach and to my aunt for not giving up on me even though I put her in many ugly situations. I believe that everything in life happens for a reason and I will always be thankful this kind of event happen to me and was able to improve my life in a better way.

1 note · View note

tinyshe · 3 years

Text

Why you should worry if you have a Chinese smartphone

China’s use of technology for social control of its citizens is extensive – but it could affect users elsewhere too, says security analyst Samantha Hoffman

Chinese firms have signed deals with cities around the globe that include facial recognition software. Photograph: Bobby Yip/Reuters

Ian Tucker

Sat 26 Oct 2019 11.00 EDT

Last modified on Sun 27 Oct 2019 09.25 EDT

3,543

Samantha Hoffman is an analyst of Chinese security issues at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Aspi). She recently published a paper entitled Engineering Global Consent: The Chinese Communist Party’s Data-Driven Power Expansion.

Internet pioneers heralded a time when information would be set free, giving people everywhere unfiltered access to the world’s knowledge and bringing about the decline of authoritarian regimes… that’s not really happened has it? Bill Clinton said that, for China, controlling free speech online would be like “nailing Jell-O to the wall”. I wish he had been right. But unfortunately, there was too much focus on the great firewall of China and not enough on how the Chinese Communist party was trying to shape its external environment.

When did China pivot from seeing the internet as a US-generated threat to something it could use to discipline and punish its own population? It’s not just the internet, it’s technology in general. If you go back to even the late 1970s and early 80s, the way the Chinese Communist party (CCP) talks about technology is as a tool of social management. It’s a way of not only coercive control, but also sort of cooperative control where you participate in your own management. It’s this idea of shaping the environment, shaping how people think, how they’re willing to act before they even know they’re making a choice. That’s the party’s idea.

When did that develop into what is called the social credit system? Former Chinese leader Jiang Zemin spoke about this in 2000. He said we need a social credit system to merge rule by law and rule by virtue. I don’t see it as different from the way Hannah Arendt describes how regimes attempt to make the law inseparable from ethics in The Origins of Totalitarianism.

How does the social credit system work for the average citizen? As they are going about their lives, are they continually earning and losing points based on their behaviour? A pop cultural reference might be the Black Mirror episode Nosedive. But it isn’t the same. It’s not really a number score that goes up and down. There are multiple inputs. So you have, say, legal inputs, like a court record, and financial inputs. Then there are third-party inputs, such as surveillance video or data about your sentiment on social media. The system includes blacklists, records on public websites, and platforms to support decisions on creditworthiness that integrate things like “sentiment analysis”. This applies to companies and individuals. Muji’s Shanghai branch had a mark of dishonesty on its credit record with the Shanghai government because one of its products was labelled “Made in Taiwan”.

The number of people affected is enormous: 17.5 million people were prevented from buying flights in 2018. Is there much pushback from the Chinese population about this system? An average person might not see how it’s affecting them yet. Social credit is technology augmenting existing control methods. So if you’re used to that system, you aren’t necessarily seeing the change yet. Blacklists aren’t new, but the technology supporting this social management is. And over time, as it becomes more effective, that’s where more people will notice the impact.

So there isn’t much concept of user privacy or anonymising data in China? Privacy matters to the average Chinese citizen and there are privacy regulations in place. But privacy stops where the party’s power begins. And so, you know, the party state might put controls on how companies can share data. But again privacy stops where the party’s power begins. And that’s a huge difference in the system.

One thing that’s interesting to keep in mind is the system itself. When we think about China’s authoritarianism, we think about surveillance cameras, we think about facial recognition. But we forget that a lot of the technology involved provides convenience. And control happens for convenience. Some of the technologies involved in increasing the party’s power are actually providing services – maybe Mussolini and his timely trains is a useful way of thinking about it.

The most egregious example of this surveillance technology would be in Xinjiang for controlling the Uighur [Muslim] population? The most visibly coercive forms of what the party is doing are unfolding in Xinjiang. It’s a virtual police state. There are QR codes on people’s doors for when the party goes in to check on who is in. Some researchers have found that if someone leaves through the back door instead of the front door, that can be considered suspicious behaviour.

Is the wider Chinese population aware of how the technology is being used in Xinjiang? Do they realise this is a more enhanced version of what we’ve got in their own lives? I don’t think people are aware of how bad it is. A lot of people don’t believe Western reporting. If they see it. Even if they do believe it, propaganda has shaped a bad public opinion of the Uighurs.

Do you think the Chinese Communist party has a file on you? I imagine that they probably have a file on a lot of outspoken researchers. I try not to think about what mine would look like. In general, a lot of researchers on China have a fear, whether it’s conscious or unconscious, about losing access or the ability to go to China.

You have written about your fears that a commercial deal struck between Huawei and a Turkish mobile operator could be used to monitor the exiled Uighur population in Turkey. Chinese tech giants like Huawei are signing agreements for smart cities globally – in April we at Aspi counted 75. These agreements include public security, licence-plate and facial recognition tools. As a local government you’re taking what is the cheapest and best product for your city. You’re deploying it in ways you’ve decided are reasonable, but what might be forgotten is that these services require data to be sent back to the company to keep it up to date – and who else has access to that data once the manufacturer has it? One agreement was made with Turkish mobile provider Turkcell. Turkey has about 10,000 Uighurs living in exile – that system could be used to further control and harass exiles and family members in China.

More generally, I found that the party central propaganda department has made cooperation agreements with a number of major Chinese tech companies. As their products are bedded in they become ways of collecting tons of data. A language translation tool, for instance, doesn’t sound like a surveillance tool but it’s a way to collect a lot of data. Technically it’s not different from what Google does but their intent is different – it’s about state security.

So western governments should be wary of installing Chinese-designed tech infrastructure in their cities? Yes. It’s perhaps uncomfortable for a lot of people to acknowledge, but the party is very clear about its intent. Its intent relates to state security. The party talks about “discourse power” – the party’s version of the truth being the only thing that’s accepted. The Chinese government ultimately controls all Chinese companies through its security legislation. You might be comfortable with someone collecting data to tailor advertising to you, but are you comfortable with sharing your data with a regime that has 1.5 million Uighurs imprisoned on the basis of their ethnic identity?

So we should be cautious about buying Chinese smartphones and smart home products? I would be. You may think “I’m not researching the CCP or testifying in Congress, so I don’t have anything to worry about”. But you don’t really know how that data is being collected and potentially used to shape your opinion and shape your decisions, among other things. Even understanding advertising and consumer preferences can feed into propaganda. Taken together, that can be used to influence an election or feelings about a particular issue.

Some of these elements of monitoring and nudging are present in western life. For instance, fitness tracking that earns you discounts on health insurance, or local authorities using machine learning to identify potential abuse victims. Should we be careful about letting this stuff into society? We need to be very careful. It’s easy to see what the benefits are, but we aren’t adequately defining the risks. Some of the problems can be dealt with by introducing more data literacy programmes, so that individuals understand, say, the privacy issues concerning a home-security camera.

The Chinese party state is going to take advantage of the weaknesses in liberal democracies, whether they’re legal or cultural. They take advantage of our really weak data privacy laws. GDPR is a good step, but it doesn’t really deal with the core problem of technology that’s providing a service. By its nature the company providing the service collects and uses data. Who has access to that data, their ability to process it, and their intent is the problem.

0 notes

liberalartssustainability · 3 years

Text

‘Ecological Intelligence’, S. Sterling – A critique of the UN Sustainable Development Goal framework

‘Ecological Intelligence’ is the tenth chapter in the 2009 ‘Handbook of Sustainability Literacy’ (ed. A. Stibbe). This chapter discusses the need to change our mentality and think more critically when considering matters of sustainability and the environment. Amongst other things, Sterling discusses ten dominant assumptions which were applied when approaching any problem. He then goes on to say that these assumptions have since changed, and a new set of assumptions was implemented(1). Whilst reading this chapter, I realised that I could apply the assumptions to my own opinions about the UN SDGs. Each assumption had some link to the way in which the SDGs were created and structured. After researching a bit further into the SDGs, I discovered that they were actually a follow-on plan from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), created in 2000 as part of the first 15-year agenda towards a sustainable world. Eight goals, with a total of 21 targets aiming to “combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women”(2) implemented in 2000, the MDGs were the culmination of decades of summits and meetings between world leaders.

Although the MDGs did have some successes (3), there were other areas which did not improve or even got worse. The SDGs were an attempt by the UN to go beyond the boundaries of the MDGs and do better. We can look at the MDGs and apply the dominant assumptions seen in ‘Ecological Intelligence’; in theory, the SDG framework should fit the new assumptions, since they are supposed to be an improvement, a more advanced system if you will. However, some sectors outlined in the SDGs are already failing, and through reading the facts, figures and targets of each goal, I found myself being able to apply the old dominant assumptions to the new Development Goals. Which leads me to ask – If the new SDGs were intended to be an improvement on the old MDGs, why is this the case? Furthermore, will the Un simply continue to make new goals with new deadlines until they get it right? Surely this cannot be a sustainable approach…

These are the 10 dominant assumptions referred to by Sterling: 1. Problem-solving - the belief that there is a solution to every problem 2. Analysis - if we look at the details of a "complex whole" we will be able to understand it 3. Reductionism - the whole is no more than the sum of its parts 4. Cause-effect - most processes can be described as "linear" - there is a definite start and end point 5. Atomism - most issues are independent of each other and unrelated 6. Narrow boundaries - we shouldn't feel the need to look beyond our own concerns and needs; anything which does not involve or concern us is outside of our circle and we should not pay attention to it 7. Objectivism - when analysing anything or making a judgement, our feelings should be excluded so as to be completely objective, which is "possible and necessary" 8. Dualism - the idea of putting a boundary around something which we value in order to distinguish it from anything that it is not (in order to define it) 9. Rationalism - a rational response is the most efficient way through which something may be understood 10. Determinism - "a belief in certainty, prediction, and the possibility of control"

And here is how I believe we can apply them to the MDGs and SDGs: 1. Problem-solving: The belief that there is a solution to every problem in the world and that it can be solved through an MDG/SDG 2. Analysis: the idea of "targets" within each Goal 3. Reductionism: The idea that there is nothing more to the Goals than their targets 4. Cause-effect: The suggestion that there was a start point to every problem identified in the MDGs SDGs and that there will be a definite end point (2015/2030) 5. Atomism: The suggestion that the MDGs/SDGs should be looked at individually and are not interconnected (some targets may inhibit others, there seems to be little thought about how all 21 or 169 targets could be interconnected) 6. Narrow boundaries: Only doing what is possible within the realms of our life to help achieve the Goals instead of going out of our way to do something. 7. Objectivism: Lack of proper consideration/empathy for LEDCs compared to MEDCs when making policies/targets 8. Rationalism: Not thinking outside the box when coming up with solutions to the problems presented by MDGs/SDGs. This is especially the case with the old MDGs that only had 21 targets, compared to the 169 for the SDGs, showing the lack of depth or breadth. 9. Determinism: The year set as the end point for the SDGs is 2030 (and 2015 for the MDGs), there is a belief that we could control/predict the year in which the SDGs will be completed. The fact that a specific year was set for all 17 goals (8 for the MDGs) goes to show this. [As you can see, one assumption from the list above (Dualism) has been omitted due to lack of a supporting argument linking it directly to either the MDGs or the SDGs.]

Here are the new assumptions, which I believe should only be applicable to the SDGs, since they were designed to be an improvement: 1. Positive synergies - developing solutions which generate more solutions rather than problems 2. Larger context - looking at the bigger picture, at the issue/idea/object as a whole, not just at the details 3. Emergent properties - these are shown in complex systems; a complex system will possess properties which the individual components of it do not 4. Feedback loops - looking at what influenced the start, and what are the "knock-on effects" at the end 5. Interrelation - most issues/events are not independent of each other and are in fact related, thinking of them in this way will allow them to be better understood 6. Boundaries - refers to the need for us to expand our worldview and re-evaluate our "boundaries of concern" - not everything is about our individual experience 7. Relationship over opposition - opposites can be in a relationship, one should not be valued over the other, they should be considered together 8. Objectivity - complete objectivity is not possible. Instead we must think about how we fit into the bigger picture, and how we are involved in the perception and interpretation of the world 9. Left brain and right brain - balancing intellect with intuition and rational with non-rational thinking 10. Impossibility to predict - it is impossible to predict outcomes. Therefore, we must accept uncertainty and lack of control, and learn from the change.

Whilst some of these may be true for the Sustainable Development Goals, many still are not. For example, number 10 – the impossibility to predict: the new Goals have still got a deadline, we have not accepted the fact that this may not be achievable, despite seeing the MDGs fail in the same time frame with fewer Goals and Targets. Why would the same amount of time be equally applied to something which demands more from the population and the scientific community?

Some targets have already seen failure only 5 years into the new plan. Target 12.5 (Reduce Waste) is going the opposite way it should be: “The total amount of solid waste generated is projected to almost double from 3.5 million tonnes a day in 2010 to 6.1 million tonnes a day in 2025”(4).

Overall, I would say that this goes to show we are living in a sort of dystopian future. The initial 15-year agenda did not work, so it got extended and re-imagined. We are not where our leaders predicted us to be in some areas of the new agenda, and unless drastic changes are made, it looks like we will be seeing some new Development Goals in 2030.

- Jagoda C.

References:

1. Stibbe, Arran, ed. The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy: Skills for a Changing World. Totnes: UIT Cambridge Ltd., 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central.

2. World Health Organization: WHO. “Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).” Who.int. World Health Organization: WHO, February 19, 2018. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/millennium-development-goals-(mdgs).

3. World Health Organisation. Health in 2015: From MDGs, Millennium Development Goals to SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. (World Health Organisation, 2015). https://www.who.int/data/gho/publications/mdgs-sdgs

4. ODI. Projecting Progress – Reaching the SDGs by 2030. (ODI, 2015). https://www.odi.org/publications/9895-projecting-progress-reaching-sdgs-2030

https://0-www-nature-com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/news/policy-five-priorities-for-the-un-sustainable-development-goals-1.17352

0 notes