Another K'zoo down

Another K'zoo Down

Wow. That was a different Zoo. Really fun, but exhausting. And it definitely confirmed my theory that having papers entirely finished before the conference starts is really the best way of doing things. Still, the evil back-to-back panels went well (the panels were not evil, only the scheduling). Or so I'm told. A friend asked for a copy of my paper, so I am chuffed. The other papers on my panel were very good, and I especially liked the one with the number-crunching, because it was something we haven't seen much of in the past. The roundtable was also very good, and a couple people told me after that they had found it thought-provoking. Went to a couple of interesting medieval panels, where at least there was a Carolingian question, if no actual Carolingian papers. That needs to stop. Also went to a wonderful panel on antisemitism in the 12th C, where I heard three very good papers, one of which talked about revenants and mentioned vampires and zombies. I LOVED that paper. The rest of the panels were sort of blurry. This may have had something to do with the fact that I was still working on my paper and also dealing with lame SLAC business.

Socially, this was a wonderful Zoo. I'm really sad that I missed the Babel party, which I think was the primo event, and the Bonnie Wheeler party, where I could have seen a dear friend I haven't seen since the Berks conference. But the blogger meetup was fab. I saw Rebel Lettriste, Carl Pyrdum, Dame Eleanor Hull, Medieval Woman, Steve Muhlberger, Stephen Chrisomalis, Vaulting and Vellum, Matt Gabriele, Janice Liedl, Curtana, Notorious, PhD, Girl Scholar, Dr Virago, Heu mihi, Jennifer Lynn Jordon, Dr. Moonbeam, Lisa Carnell, Prof de Breeze (I think), owlfish, and a few people I never got to meet. It was great fun, and I spent much of the conference with some of these folks -- and some I didn't get to see nearly enough of. One of my favorite things was realizing how many real life friends and collaborative colleagues I've met through blogging. And just how many of them I felt like I knew when I saw them, because we have been talking to each other now for years. Now if only Mug Shots would serve decent pastries...

I also got to spend some, but again, not nearly enough, time with with my Beach U peeps. It was so very nice to see them, and again, to be reminded of just how very lucky I have been in my life. So many of the people I saw have somehow or other been instrumental in making me the person and the scholar I am, and having them in my life makes me want to keep up whatever good work I am doing, and fix the things I probably should. I also ran into other online friends, and missed some others. I never managed to see Jeffrey Jerome Cohen at the dance, and Scott Nokes was only there for a drive-by. Never did see Mike Drout. Many people asked where the hell Cranky Professor was, too.

I was also able to spend some time with a wonderful postgrad who convinced me to come to a conference at St Andrews this summer, and a dear friend with whom I always enjoy spending time. Plus, a bunch of us went out on Saturday night for dinner and talked slash and fanfic and sf/f for hours. Saw other colleagues I see only rarely, and one with whom I may try to plan a panel for next time. I should do it if only because he's an amazing dancer. In fact, at one point I was dancing with him and two other people who often work on things Carolingian, and two of them were really good and fun dancers. So basically, a very good conference.

And right now, I'm sitting in the lobby of the K'zoo Radisson, procrastinating on the marking. And just plain exhausted. Won't get home to Dabbaville till something like 1:00 in the morning. Ugh

Lone Medievalists at the Zoo

Lone Medievalists at the Zoo

Sorry for the late notice, all, but somehow I dropped this in the hustle and bustle of yesterday. Anyway ... a friend sent this to me to post, and I'm posting it!


If you're going to be in Kalamazoo this weekend, I'd like to invite you to the business meeting of the Lone Medievalists Society this Friday at 5:15, Valley II room 203, especially if you are the sole medievalist in your discipline and/or in your college or university. The Lone Medievalists Society is intended to provide support and a sense of community to any medievalist, particularly those who feel isolated at their institutions and would like to have a network of other scholars in medieval studies with whom to discuss research, pedagogy, and professional development. Though the society interacts largely digitally, we will schedule business meetings like this at conferences as often as possible to encourage face-to-face interaction.

K'zoo blogger meetup reminder

K'zoo Blogger Meetup reminder

Don't forget -- Mug Shots, 8:00 a.m., Friday. More information here -- leave a comment here or there if you think you're coming and haven't said yet -- it's looking like we'll have to grab lots of tables and chairs!

Reasearch Bleg

Research Bleg

Um ... D'oh!

You know how sometimes, you write a paper abstract, and then put it away till a couple of weeks before the conference, only to find it's not exactly what you remembered saying you'd write?


Or does that only happen to me?


Anyway, I spent part of the day googling references for an upcoming paper, and midway through, realised that actually, I'd only been googling for a tangential part of the paper. Oops.

I have a fantastic blogroll here, and am planning on mining it. But if you can think of people not on that blogroll who are pseudonymous bloggers with a voice that you think of as a legitimate academic voice (and I'm all for a wide range of academic voices), please shoot their urls my way.

I'm as interested in blogs by grad students and contingent faculty as in blogs by full-timers. Blogs my junior people and those who are lone medieval (or other) people on their campuses are especially welcome.


Thanks!

It's the Conversation

It's the conversation

I'll post about my feelings about the recent news when I've finally processed it, but thanks again, everybody, for the good wishes.

In the meantime, I have been mulling some things about in my head lately. This has been rather an interesting year, personally and professionally. And some of it is interesting in that Chinese curse sort of way. Recently, I had a conversation with a colleague that resulted in a disagreement over 'the real business of the university.' The real business is apparently scholarship, and the life of the mind. Now, let's all remember that SLAC is, well, a SLAC. There are graduate programs, but really, there's no crossover between faculty or students. For all intents and purposes, I teach in a SLAC. We have a standard 4-4 teaching load, and most of us have a 4-3 load due to one release for research time.* (I know!) Our promotion standards, unlike those at many similar campuses, are really commensurate with our teaching loads. They are achievable, but it's clear that teaching is our primary job. And for those who can really only manage the minimum requirements in scholarship, service can count for a lot.

And that's how we tend to think of our jobs, all of us. It doesn't really matter where we work -- we see our jobs as some combination of teaching, research, and service. But are those the real business of the university? I think yes, absolutely. And also no. I think that my colleague is right -- the life of the mind is an important part of the university. But I'd like to suggest that the life of the mind does not exist in a vacuum. Big surprise, right? The life of the mind doesn't mean a damn, unless it's part of a conversation. Not a bunch of people talking about what they do, and quietly researching away, and presenting what they find to others. Actually entering into a conversation that exists on many different levels is what I mean.

There isn't just one conversation, although I think there is also The Conversation -- the constant ebb and flow of thoughts and the articulation of thoughts, of new knowledge building upon and revising old -- but there is the sharing of our work and our knowledge with each other, crossing the boundaries of our own research and asking questions of each other. It's there when we work with our students -- I mean, seriously... well go to interviews and tell the nice people how our research informs our teaching, and how we all use the Socratic method, but how many of us really think about what that means? The best classes are conversations. Yes, we're the experts, and we are trying to make sure our students acquire content knowledge, and get the approaches of our discipline. But aren't the best classes the ones where our students make us think, that shake us up, that -- even if the students are wrong -- make us look at things in slightly different ways?

The conversation is there when we go to conferences, too. And blogs. You all know this -- you read blogs! But when we go to conferences, is the point to talk about our research, or to share it? Why do we do it? Ok, partially to keep our jobs and pad our CVs. But I know for me, it's more that giving a paper is a ticket to The Conversation. It's a chance to hang out with cool, smart people and share ideas. I want to hear about what other people are doing, and yes, tell them about what I am doing, too -- but mostly in the context of seeing how it can all fit together. What I do is dreadfully dull, unless it's part of a bigger picture. Blogs are just another kind of ticket.

We, and I think especially those of us who are medievalists and classicists, are often challenged, and challenge ourselves, about why what we do is relevant. Yesterday I had the wonderful experience of meeting a colleague in a very different field. The colleague presented some really interesting ideas, and was incredibly flattering to my departmental colleagues about medievalists and how versatile we are. Nice, when one is the only medievalist! The thing I liked best about this colleague, though -- a scholar from a strong research uni -- was that the colleague reminded me about the conversation. We were all over the place, picking each other's brains, suggesting approaches to his research, considering sorts of evidence to broaden the study... it was great fun. And my mind was alive.

Yeah. There's a subtext. I'm not going to go there at the moment, though. Realizing what this means to me is enough.

It's Mostly Official

It's mostly Official

Caught the Provost's assistant coming out of today's Board meeting. She says they approved my promotion to Associate, and the permanent contract (we don't have tenure).


I still don't know that I'll believe it till I see it in writing, but ...

w00t!

ETA: Thank you so much, everybody, for the good wishes! It's finally starting to sink in. My dean told me I can order new business cards, so I guess it's real!

Dear Mr Cheney

Dear Mr Cheney

I think you are missing the point. It doesn't actually matter if in some cases, torture resulted in useful information. It's still torture.

Just as, if a person had had the chance to kill Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or any of the other people we know were responsibility for the deaths of millions, and had taken advantage of the opportunity, it would still be murder.

We might feel it was justifiable. We might be grateful to that person. We might even consider it just, in a way. But, absent actual trial and conviction, absent a judicial process that we accept as necessary to our way of life, it would still be murder.

It's pretty basic, as far as I can see.

Carnivalesque 49

Carnivalesque 49

Hey everybody!!!! Carnivalesque 49 is now up at Muhlberger's Early History. It's a fantastic one, with lots of interesting stuff on women and by women! It's going to be my reading at breakfast tomorrow!

Collegial advice

Collegial Advice

Dear colleague,

I understand that you are an Important Person at your institution, whose very nature is based on understanding hierarchy and conforming to it. But you have come to me asking a favor. It may be that, in the past, you have had similar favors granted by my predecessors. But we are in a new era of accreditation standards. So if I send you a very polite request asking for further information on which to base my judgement, and make it clear that I am consulting with other colleagues on your request while performing due diligence to make sure, if we grant that request, our accrediting agency will approve, let me give you a little advice:

Do NOT send a curt response to me that denies me my academic title, let alone my professional one (not that being department chair carries any extra rank at SLAC -- just more work!).

Do NOT spell my name incorrectly.

In short, do NOT write:

Ms. AMD


[insert grudging response to polite request for more information here]

[replacement of courtesy close with a statement that implies that I owe you your request]



Because seriously. Dude. Your insignia don't outrank my PhD. I don't owe you a thing, and I have every right to review your current connection with my department and see if we should discontinue that.*

no love,

ADM, PhD

Department Chair from whom you are asking a favor.


*I should point out that I will not be making this decision on my own, although that is within my rights. I will be consulting with 4 colleagues who have expertise, and then presenting my advice to my Dean. Because in ADM land, we consult and discuss and work for consensus whenever possible -- especially when there might be conflicts of interest -- and we document.

Late Antique conference blogging, part one

Late Antique conference blogging, part one

So a couple of weeks ago, I went to a Late Antiquity conference. It was much fun, and there were some good papers. Unfortunately, I missed a few good papers, too -- first because I missed my plane! and second because I decided that falling down a few steps was better than actually, you know, walking down them. But anyway, here's a summary from my notes. If you want details on authors, e-mail me:

The first paper I heard was on Evagrius of Pontus. I only caught a bit, but basicaly the argument was that Evagrius used the image of the exiled Odysseus in talking about monastic exile, and that Evagrius's letters were deliberately written in a 'this contains a secret message' kind of way, in which the intended reader would have understood three different levels of interpretation.

The seond paper was on Varro and his influence in Late Antiquity. Let's see -- we all know Augustine hates Varro, right (well, we do now!) -- and that antipathy is rooted well before Civitas Dei. Anyway, Varro's Hebdomades apparently had some effect on both of the Symmachi, especially the elder. And in general there's an influence in the late 4th C in terms of many things numerological. Oh, but we don't have any precise evidence that the Symmachi were inspired by the Hebdomades. Basically, I understood the argument to be that Symmachus' original letter collection was arranged in 7 books, like the Hebdomades, and that there is other evidence to show that the number was significant to both Symmachi, and the 10-book collection of letters we know was a later compilation.

After the break, there was a very interesting paper on Glycerios and the Dancing Virgins, in which it was argued rather well that early Christians really didn't object to dance, per se. In fact, the imagery and vocabulary of dance permeate much of early Christian writing, and there is evidence to show that virgins were considered especially well-suited to choral dance. However, in examples like that of Glycerios, who appears to have been a ne'er-do-well who led a troup of dancing virgins from town to town, we get a case where the conduct of the leader is suspect, and leads to much crankiness.

Next came one of the best papers of the conference, hands down. All about the prostitutes. Actually, it was about the shift in the perception of and rehabilitation of prostitutes as Christianity took hold. The paper argued that in pre-Christian Roman society, shame equaled social death; all prostitutes pretty much suffered this. But the focus on sin in Christianity meant that the idea of volition played an important role; one chooses to sin, and one can choose to repent and be forgiven, and be welcomed back into the fold.

This is especially problematic in a world where many prostitutes are slaves, and therefore their sins are not volitional. This situation is upsetting to many early church fathers. The presenter went on to draw parallels between Greek romances where boy meets girl, girl is cast into many misadventures, often including into a brothel, and then is rescued, virtue intact, just in time to marry the boy, and the lives of prostitute saints, where the brothel plays a part, but the prostitute is redeemed and becomes a saint. This marks a transition from the social death that accompanies shame to a partial redemption when sex is seen as a sin. I say partial redemption because all of the examples given were of women who are never really redeemed socially, and in fact seem only to regain any social status by redefining their positions by becoming anchorites, hermits, or other religious who cut themselves off from most of the rest of society. In the best example, the repentent prostitute actually dresses as a man and lives a semi-eremitic existence in the desert, so her 'redemption' comes at the cost of becoming a man, or the denial of her female sexuality, at the least.

The last paper of this, the second session I attended, was on athletics in Late Antiquity, and was also rather good. It compared athletics in Classical Greece, which often included people in the upper classes, and also allowed people who began fairly low on the social (and often economic) ladder to gain income and status, which could lead to political influence as well. Moreover, the focus of classical athletics was on glory and winning as intrinsic goods. However, by Late Antiquity (and Roman society), there was a decline in funding for civic games, and the financial prospects for athletes and the comcomitant reduction in opportunities for a rise in status and the chance of gaining political influence. As the benefits of participating in athletics declined, the sorts of people interested in participating also shifted -- as did the goals of the games. The shift was exemplified in an increase of professional athletes who worked for money and popularity (the income could still be good, but because the games were not tied to civic life in the same way, we're looking at merely a rise in economic status for very hard work), and games that focused more on providing spectacles for the masses.

And that's the first installment!

fun for the weekend ...

fun for the weekend

Girly-men teachers?

Girly-men Teachers?

Apropos of a conversation at Historiann's, this idea just struck me. I don't have time to go into it in great detail, and it might not even be original. But here it is:

The discussion of Judith Bennett's book last month focused in part on the idea of patriarchal equalibrium, and Bennett herself focuses a great deal on the consistant wage disparity between men and women. At SLAC, as at other universities all over the country (and possibly the world) -- at least where there is no union scale -- men tend to be paid more than women faculty of the same rank. I want to take that further, though. Those of us in Liberal Arts programs know that the folks in hard sciences are typically paid more than their peers in the humanities and social sciences. And hard sciences have traditionally been dominated by men.

Let's take that a step further, though. At SLAC, faculty in the (mostly male-dominated) professional schools make more than those of us in the Liberal Arts. Moreover, their teaching loads (and often service loads) are lighter, and publication requirements somewhat higher (although many of us in my school meet those higher requirements for scholarship even with our heavier teaching loads). We are 'teaching faculty' and they are 'research and professional' faculty. My question is this -- does the overt masculinization (is that a word?) of the 'research and professional' faculty that exists in terms of actual staffing lead to a de facto feminization of all faculty in the 'teaching' side? That is (partially), do even male faculty in Arts and Sciences get less respect and have they less clout because they teach and are willing to take lower salaries (because what man would do that? it's only natural that women do, but ...)?

Just a half-baked thought.

Shopping bleg

Shopping Bleg

So I'm getting a new macBook (the small one) in the next couple of months. This means I might really need a new computer bag. So if you're bored and want to do some virtual online shopping, give me suggestions!

I'm also looking for a pair of low-heeled black shoes to wear with skirts for teaching and such like.



I will blog about the conference I just went to as soon as I get caught up!

Judith Bennett Roundtable Finale

Judith Bennett Roundtable, the Finale

The final post of the roundtable on Judith Bennett's History Matters is now up at Notorious, PhD. It's a post by Bennett herself, and is well worth a read.

If you've just now caught on to this, you can find previous posts at Notorious, PhD, Historiann, and Tenured Radical, as well as at Magistra et Mater (even more here).

Join in and enjoy -- and thanks for participating in our first Women's History Month Roundtable!

Thought for the day

Thought for the day

Apropos of discussions at Making Light, In the Middle, and A Corner of Tenth Century Europe (really, at Cliopatria, but I'm too lazy to find the link), I have a thought.


Historians are the Cassandras of the Humanities.

Discuss.

Kalamazoo Blogger Meet-up

Kalamazoo Blogger Meet-up

I am so behind on reading blogs. So I kind of missed this the first time around. But if you go over to Medieval Woman's blog, details are there. It looks like Friday morning at 8 in the coffee shop whose name we can't remember in whichever Valley it is. The one where we always meet. Considering how many of us there are these days, we it's a good idea to get there early, though (unless it opens at 8?), because we always end up begging for chairs and tables.

Judith Bennett Roundtable, the Penultimate Part

Judith Bennett Roundtable, the Penultimate Part

Hmph. Here's me, trying to think up something original to say, when Notorious, PhD, Historiann, and Tenured Radical have already covered most of it! Not to mention that this series has also created some wonderful spin-offs over at Magistra et Mater. Let me tell you, these are tough acts to follow! But follow I must, so I'm going to revisit some things from the point of view of someone who comes at this from the perspective of the Early Middle Ages, who doesn't really have the chance to teach grad students, and who seems to be hitting every interstice possible in background and approach. I also freely admit that I may be opening myself up to criticism here, but there you are!


One of the first things that struck me about Judith Bennett's History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism (besides the fact that I deperately want to call it "Feminism and the Challenge of Patriarchy") is how modern it all seems to me. Another is how good Bennett is at articulating clearly some of the issues that so many of us, whether or not we think of ourselves as feminist historians, need to deal with when we teach any history. Finally, I have to admit there was some, "but what about this???" going on, too.

In the discussion at Notorious, PhD's place, we turned to the issue of whether or not history should be political. I tend to think not, even as I admit that we all bring our own interests and beliefs to our scholarship and teaching. But I'm fairly uncomfortable with pushing a particular agenda with the idea that it will make a difference to how our students deal with the here and now, in part because I don't think that Late Antiquity or the Middle Ages really have much to do with the here and now, despite Bennett's arguments for continuity. I really do think that the study of history is every bit as much about acquiring a set of tools and skills for critical thinking and writing that transcends the study of the past, and that that is the continuity that is most important to us as teachers.

Having said that, Bennett's call to arms seems to me to be one that is natural. Bennett herself touches on this when recounting her experiences in re-writing Hollister's Medieval Europe. Adding more on women might be a feminist thing. It might be a response to half-hearted attempts to toss some more women into the mix because publishers feel they have to (who was it who talked about the 'chick boxes'?). But the reality is that adding women means offering a richer, better-developed picture of what was going on. While I certainly admit that it is down to feminist historians of a slightly earlier generation for pushing this aspect of history, for making it political, I think we may now be at a point where it is becoming much easier to include the history of women and minorities as necessities than it was even ten years ago. It occurs to me that in my own case, teaching about women allows me to engage students in things that they are interested in -- even though I teach at a SLAC where much of the student body is pretty conservative, the students, male and female, really do enjoy reading primary sources that have to deal with women's lives. And they often want to compare them in presentist ways. All I have to do is question their assumptions about 'choice' and 'oppression' -- and combat the "Oh, look! things are so much better now!" impulse. Which means, I suppose, that I've been pointing out the patriarchal equalibrium without the focus on the continuity that Bennett argues for.

About that continuity... Damn, but I wish that there had been more. I really enjoyed that section of the book, but it still seemed fairly narrow to me. All England, all pretty late. And I'm still leery of continuity when we can't really talk about the causation except in terms of general patriarchal equalibrium. This is a real problem for me, and perhaps for others. Patriarchal equalibrium feels like it exists. It looks like it exists. It explains so damned much. But I think Bennett shows enough evidence that it's an equalibrium made up of different factors in different times and places that it's ... hard to get a grip on. I want to dig deeper, splitter that I am. The continuity section also seemed to me to be begging for more in terms of both time-span and evidence. Most of the the evidence that Bennett uses is fascinating; I've used some 17th C English wills for teaching before, and am glad that some of my students noticed the disparities in how property was divided between men and women, and between widows and children, that Bennett mentiones (90). And obviously I can't fault Bennett for writing what she knows best. But as she admits, the continuity discussion is based mostly on wages and standards for working women in mostly urban environments. I wanted more. I wanted the laws, dammit!

The laws. They're problematic. If we look at women's legal status in the very long term, I think that examining various law codes supports the idea of patriarchal equalibrium in many ways. But it also throws a spanner into the continuity argument, if only because we have to unpack an awful lot that looks like (and sometimes is) transformation. But I think we have to do it. The fact that there are examples in so many law codes in the western tradition (including the Ancient Near East) of women-as-property, of violence against women punishable not because of the crime against the woman, but because a crime had been committed against a man and his family, seems to me an essential issue in teaching the history of women. I don't think anyone can argue with Bennett's evidence on the value of women's labour, but in teaching, at least, it seems to me that we cannot leave out the many ways in which women were themselves valued less. The problem is, I suppose, that we can look at the world around us and argue, as Bennett does, that the wage gap has been more or less constant for as long as we've been able to measure it. When we look at women's legal standing, there is difference. And in some cases, transformation. My question here is: how can we teach that transformation and still demonstrate that the idea of a patriarchal equalibrium really does hold true?

Another place where I feel we need more integration and study is on women and their ties to their birth families. Bennett's women are mostly defined as singletons, wives, or widows, i.e., their families are defined by their spouses. It makes sense when looking at the women she does. But from the perspective of someone more familiar with Rome, Late Antiquity, and the Early Middle ages, there is something lacking. The idea of husbands -- or even widowers -- blithely alienating away their wives' dowries may work well in the 14th - 18th centuries, but I'm not entirely sure that it works earlier on. The sorts of things I've been reading suggest that, at least before the High Middle Ages, there was an expectation among the elites (and who else owned and held enough property that their actions were recorded?) that daughters would act in the interests of their birth families. In these cases, patriarchy really did have to do with fathers. And again, I'm not sure that by looking more closely at how women were identified, or identified themselves, in terms of family we aren't opening up another can of transformational worms. It's always something, isn't it?

So ... even though I'm convinced by most of Bennett's arguments, and more convinced that there are ways to teach a stronger feminist history that is legitimate because it is interesting and necessary and just better history, I am not sure that it can be done as well as it needs to be, unless we get a bit messy, and figure out how all of these other things fit in.


Speaking of making things messy again ... I need to address the concept of "lesbian-like". I can see how it can be initially useful, but I think in the end it can distract us from a lot of questions that help us to write better history. As Magistra pointed out, if we use Bennett's definitions, we end up with Heloise living a 'lesbian-like' life, despite the fact that she is one of the most clearly self-identified heterosexual women in the MA! Hell, I fit in there, and there are women I know who identify as lesbian who don't fit Bennett's definitions. Tenured Radical deals with most of my concerns at length, so I won't go into too much detail here, except to say this: if we have to construct an almost asexual category of 'lesbian-like', how do we then deal with teaching our students about the differences in how people conceived of sexuality in the past -- at least of what we know? How do we deal with the idea that women in sexual relationships with women didn't exist in some people's minds because sex = penetration? And how do we deal with the growing corpus of evidence for ideas of masculinity where sometimes men having sex with other men is masculine and 'not gay' and sometimes it is gay and wrong? I think lesbian-like is a term that muddies the water more than it filters it.

So what's my point? I think it's that Bennett's book is an important starting point. I think it reminds us of many of the things that historians, especially younger women historians, often take for granted. The frameworks for dealing with women's history, especially the ideas of patriarchal equalibrium and remembering to look at continuities as well as transformations, are useful and can improve the ways in which we teach history. And although I think this is probably not what Bennett had in mind at all, I think that those frameworks make it possible to show that including women's history in the master narrative is necessary because the narrative is just plain better with extra! added! women!


Don't forget, the ultimate part of this discussion will take place next week at Notorious, PhD's place, where Judith Bennett herself will offer her own take on the discussion.

Because you want to know what I think about AIG, right?

Because you want to know what I think about AIG, right?

And the rest of this financial SNNAFU, (that would be "not-normal") while I'm at it. Note -- I'm not an economist, and gods know, my pension is tanking, but I'm employed (yay) and my consumer debt is relatively low in comparison to the national average, I think. Higher than I like it, and I wish I'd downsized a year before I did. But I'm fairly sure I've got this year's England trip covered (maybe not if I go to St. Andrews, too), and part of me is still hoping to swing WorldCon/Anticipation -- if you are going, feel free to twist my arm -- mostly I am reticent because it's big and expensive, and I don't want to go unless I know I have people to hang out with).

So right -- I'm pretty normal for an employed recently divorced female academic -- If I lost my job tomorrow, I'd make it through another month, but then I'd be totally screwed. I'm worth more dead than alive.

So AIG. As I understand it, the bonuses are in their contract. So to me, that means they get paid. Period. This isn't up for argument. It SHOULD be up for negotiation, but the people receiving bonuses shouldn't have to give them up just because the taxpayer is paying them, rather than the customer. That's why we have contracts. I'd be very pissed if someone tried to not honor my contract.

And this newest attempt to tax the bonuses at 90%?? No, that's wrong, too. Federal laws should not be passed in order to punish/benefit one very small group of people. That's wrong. That's not the purpose of laws, although laws of those types are awfully interesting to historians. They really do provide a 'wtf?' quality to our research. So ... we get a law that taxes these guys 90%, and then there's a precedent to tax any bonus at 90%.

I've worked in sales, and earned commission and bonuses. Had my bonuses been taxed at a higher rate, I'd have made very little more than my base rate. But then, my commissions and bonuses were directly linked to my performance!!!

Having said all that ... I once worked for a company where we all took 10% salary cuts to help keep the company going. I'm wondering why this isn't happening at AIG. Honestly, I'm wondering how any of the AIG execs getting salary PLUS huge bonuses can live with themselves. Are they not ashamed? And I'm NOT sure that there shouldn't be more negotiations over reductions in pay for the execs at all of the companies getting the bailouts.

In the meantime, pay the bastards their money. It's a comparative drop in the bucket. Stop being distracted by this, and think about what is going on with the rest of the money -- where is it going, and what is it doing?? What safeguards are in place? And here's an idea for any of the people taking the cash -- name and shame. Publicize their names and pictures. hell, if you have the time, protest outside their homes and workplaces ...

And then think. Because what the hell allowed them to have contracts like this anyway? Anybody with half a brain should have been able to see that the kind of overextension of credit over the past 8-10 years was going to have some awful consequences. Anyone with half a brain should have noticed that top execs were making far more money than company profits -- real profits, not income -- justified. Hell, anybody could see that, when the people at the top are making hundreds of times what the people at the bottom are making, and there are still people in this country without health insurance and safe homes, that there is something just wrong with the world. Remember when suggestions that those people be taxed at even higher rates were dismissed (mostly by the GOP) were dismissed -- even attacked -- as a plot for socialist redistribution of wealth? You should -- it was happening as recently as ... last month?

The horse has left the barn. Congress, if you want to fix this, then put in lasting measures -- executives in any company or industry that gets a tax break can't get bonuses or compensation above 100 times the pay of the lowest-paid worker in the company, for example. And if a person makes over a million a year? Tax it at 50-60%. Own stock? Exercise your stockholder rights, and don't buy into this idea that you're paying for the best. Because if the best are stupid enough that they bought into the bubble? Maybe we need to redefine the best.


And by the way -- can somebody explain to me how having the federal government buy outstanding mortgages and re-finance them is not a smarter idea than just handing the banks some cash? Seems to me that the lenders would be out the interest, but would still be better off than having to unload property on a foreclosure market, and if the federal government is going to piss away taxpayer money, it might as well be on something that keeps people in their homes. But then, I want to see a new WPA and NRA. Some of my students would be better off working in construction.

Judith Bennett Roundtable, pt 3

Judith Bennett Roundtable, pt 3

Hi folks --


Part Three of our discussion of Judith Bennett's History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism is now up at Tenured Radical. If you've missed the first two parts, go catch up at Notorious, PhD's place , and at Historiann's blog. Lots of good discussion so far!

And next week, part four will be here. The wrap-up the following week will be at Notorious, PhD's place, where Judith Bennett will offer her own comments!

A cool blog I hadn't seen

This is cool, and useful

I hope the authors don't mind my publicising this, but I think it's very neat. An ongoing collaborative translation of Hincmar's De Divortio.

publishing in the humanities QAD

Publishing in the Humanities, an Introduction

Over at Historiann where, by the way, the discussion of Judith Bennett's (another medievalist) History Matters: Feminism and the Challenge of Patriarchy is still going strong (hint, hint, plug), Ruth Mazo Karras writes up a nice summary of "here's what happens when you submit an article to a typical humanities journal and why it can take so long for it to get into print." If you are thinking of submitting a first article, especially, this is good stuff to know. It's also nice for anybody who might feel that the process is less than transparent. Of course, double-blind reading is supposed to be not that transparent, and I think is a good thing ...

Also, Ruth puts in a plug for the journal she co-edits, Gender and History and explains a bit more about the sorts of articles they're looking for.

History Matters, part 2

History Matters, part 2

Hi folks -- after getting off to a great start at Notorious, PhD's place last Monday, the discussion of Judith Bennett's History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism has moved to over to Historiann's blog. Come and join in the fun. Even if you haven't read the book, there's a lot of good discussion. And don't forget, next week, the conversation continues at Tenured Radical, and then here the week after!

Ah, Facebook ...

Ah, Facebook

So I have a facebook account, mostly so students can find me thre and don't look for me here. I don't put personal stuff up there, and am very careful even about my status, after a couple of students came by my office to check on me when I said I was depressed. But I have lots of colleagues and family, so they see a part of me. And occasionally one of my friends posts something a little unprofessional, but that's ok, too. I never look for my students, and only add them as friends at their request. I don't go to their Facebook pages and snoop. But ...

They sometimes forget that friending me means I can see stuff they do. So one of my advisees popped up in a photoalbum named after a local bar. And I clicked. And saw several students (a couple of my advisees) who are definitely underage getting blasted. Do I mention this to them? To anyone else? Or just put in a call to the alcohol board that they might want to do a check one of these nights? Or forget I saw it because there's a bar like that in every college town?

History Matters, pt. 1

History Matters Roundtable Discussion, pt. 1

Hey everybody -- Notorious, PhD, Girl Scholar has posted the first post in our Roundtable discussion of Judith Bennett's History Matters. The conversation is fast and furious (but not angry) -- go there and join in!

Going to Leeds

Going to Leeds Bleg

Hello, Leeds Attendees --

I'm registering for Leeds -- just discovered that this has to be done by mail, wtf?

I'm checking boxes for accommodations -- where do I want to check? Do I want to share? HELP!!!

Any advice from people who have been (especially fairly regularly) would be appreciated.

Place-name bleg

Place-name Bleg

Could someone with access to Bach's Deutsche Namenkunde or sim. check for me and find out if there is (and what is) the better-known name of 'Rezi' in the following:
'villa qui dicitur Thininga sitam in pago Rezi super flumen Agira'

Thininga is modern Deiningen, Agira is the Eger.

But I'm stumbling over Rezi and don't have the resources here on campus.

Thanks in advance!

Carnivalesque LXVII

Carnivalesque LXVII

Hey, everybody! Just in time for Carnival, Carnivalesque LXVII (or as my mind is calling it this morning, "El Ex Vee Eye Eye -- need more caffeine) is up at Notorious, PhD: Adventures of a Girl Scholar. It's got some really good stuff, and as Notorious herself says, it's got some great reminders of how much good stuff is out there that we sometimes miss.

The next Carnival will be in March -- mid-Lent, which seems entirely right for an Early Modern version!

And as always, we're looking for brave souls to host the next Ancient/Medieval editions. Anybody? Muhlberger? Noakes? Drout? Bueller?

Economy Ramblings

Economy ramblings

I've been thinking about the economy, as are many people. And I have to admit that my spending, when spending large, tends to be global. I spend money on travel, and my biggest expenditures that aren't on things like vet bills and car maintenance are for visiting family and research. Leeds will cost a bundle ...

Fortunately, I fritter money away at the local pub, too.

But anyway, I've been thinking about houses. It looks like I'll be staying here for a while -- at least till I get a second book well under way (and that means getting the first one out the door). (and let's touch wood on that -- the last round of approvals still has to go through).

But as my TIAA-CREF takes huge, sucking dives, I am thinking that it might not be the worst thing to buy a house. Preferably detached. I'm only in the 'thinking about it' stage. And even now, prices are probably too high for a middle-aged single woman to buy what she might like ...

But anyway, I was thinking about the housing boom. And Prop 13. Yeah -- the one in California that has been such a long-term success in terms of state revenue.

Whatever.

Mostly, though, I was wondering: did the unreasonably low property tax rates in California (and in those places that have followed California's lead) contribute to the ridiculous prices for houses and the mortgage bust? That is, if taxes had been higher, might there have been less speculation by buyers and by lenders?

It just seems to me that, had the taxes been higher, California might not be in quite the trouble it's in right now, and (if property taxes are figured into the income checks for mortgages -- I can't remember) there might not have been quite so much crazy borrowing and crazy lending.


Strangely, I'm not so worried about the economy per se, although I'm worried about my retirement and am slightly concerned about my job, although SLAC seems to be in pretty decent shape and fills a niche in our area, and they seem to approve of me, and I'm the only person who does what I do. So not really worried yet. And I did hear someone on NPR today say that he'd rather think of the economy right now as in re-set mode, rather than a depression -- and that actually sounds about right to me. Those boom years boggled my mind, because I never felt I had money to spend on the kind of things people were buying. Why on earth would I want to spend a year's income on a car? Do I need to spend $100 a month on cable?

So I'm thinking a lot of industries will suffer. I'm really pissed off that money going to auto makers isn't tied to re-tooling plants and building smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Hell, if the result is that we'd end up with long-run savings and a cleaner planet? I'm fine with subsidizing that.

And why are we not funding more public transit? There are tons of white- and bluecollar jobs involved with building more train and light rail systems. Where I live, lots of people commute over an hour to work to the nearest big city. Why not spend the money on public transport? And maybe it would even be ok to encourage more markets and shops immediately near that transport, so that people don't need to drive to the store so much, either...

And sidewalks! And encouraging developers to develop communities that encourage walking and have shopping available ...?

I could see that kind of rescue package.

In the meantime, my credit card company is talking about raising my interest rate to 18%. How is that going to stimulate the economy?

I'm confused.

Oh, Look! Stanley Fish, being an Asshat!

Oh, Look! Stanley Fish, being an Asshat!

The asshat king of straw man butchering is at it again! This time, he's pulling out selective comments to his last column so he can build some more straw men.

Here's a nice little excerpt -- "Look! people objected, so I'm going to say in different words that, really, those pesky, spoilt faculty members really do think they are all special snowflakes and would do this if they could!" :

It may be outlandish because it is so theatrical, but one could argue, as one reader seemed to, that Rancourt carries out to its logical extreme a form of behavior many display in less dramatic ways. “How about a look at the class of professors who … duck their responsibilities ranging from the simple courtesies (arrival on time, prepared for meetings … ) to the essentials (“lack of rigor in teaching and standards … )” (h.c.. ecco, No. 142). What links Rancourt and these milder versions of academic acting-out is a conviction that academic freedom confers on professors the right to order (or disorder) the workplace in any way they see fit, irrespective of the requirements of the university that employs them.

I have a book to work on and a department meeting to run. Excuse me for not writing more, but please, can I just say: Gods. What. A. Feckin'. Tool.

Judith Bennett Roundtable

Judith Bennett Roundtable

So last week I opened my e-mail to find an invitation from Notorious Ph.D., Girl Scholar (who, by the way, is hosting Carnivalesque in a few days!) inviting me to participate in a cross-blog discussion of Judith Bennett's History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism. Notorious and Historiann are the forces behind this venture, and they also invited Tenured Radical. On each successive Monday one of us will offer a post talking over a few of the many provocative ideas in Bennett's book, and invite our readers to join in. So think of this as an extended version of the Book Events they hold at Crooked Timber, but spread across time and space!


Our hope is that all of our readers will follow each conversation and participate, which is why we're announcing this while it's still February. There's still time to get your copy of the book--either from a book seller, or from your local library. Please join us!


Here's the schedule:

• Monday, March 2, Notorious Ph.D. will get us started, since she is one of Bennett's fellow medieval European historians
  
• Historiann will roll the chariot along on Monday, March 9, straight outta the colonial Americas
  
• Tenured Radical will weigh in with her perspective as a modern U.S. historian on Monday, March 16
  
• And I'll be bringing a different medievalist's perspective to bear on Monday, March 23
  
• And since March has five Mondays, we hope to offer a special guest post on March 30 -- and invite you all to use that day to post your own thoughts on Bennett's book, or on the conversation we've been having

Stanley Fish: Hating on the Academics

Stanley Fish:Hating on the Academics. Again.

Is it me, or can Stanley Fish no longer write on topics where most sensible people -- including academics -- would agree with him without sounding like a complete and utter tool?

Short version: Academic Freedom doesn't protect you from not actually doing your job.


Longer version:

I have a faculty meeting to go to, so this will be shortish. What the hell is it with Fish? This entire piece reads as though those of us in the professoriate actually support idiots like Denis Rancourt. No, really. Most of the people I know are incredibly frustrated when we have colleagues who hide their tendencies to be lazy, stupid, or just plain ol' mean bastards behind a false banner of academic freedom. We know that Academic Freedom doesn't mean that. We've read the AAUP definition, among other things.

So it would be really nice if blowhards like Stanley Fish would not set up straw man arguments that basically imply that "academics" think this way. Because you know? Most of us don't. We aren't the enemy, Stanley. You are.

Parenting again

Parenting again

Well, the question of how parenting affects academic careers, especially those of women, has surfaced again. There's a discussion here, at Crooked Timber on whether parents should be hired. It's sort of a follow-on from Harry Brighouse's earlier post, which addresses an article sadly behind the CHE firewall. I've done this from both sides, and I have to say, there's no way that parenting doesn't accentuate the problems many women have in academia. Get pregnant (or, in my case, start raising a pre-teen), and people start to write you off.

There is a perception that people will be distracted by parenting. It's worse for women than men. Or at least it has been most the places I've worked, and was definitely the case in my R1 grad department. Woman gets married, profs start to worry. Woman gets pregnant, and there's a subtle shift in the kinds of opportunities the student is guided towards. As it happens, I have a bunch of medievalist women friends who have kids. They mostly started having their kids while on the tenure track. But I think we medievalists are a little bit anomolous -- medieval history is one of the first places to have let women into the club (no pun intended). But I don't know that it's that much easier for us. My advisor was certainly very supportive, but I think much of the rest of the department despaired of me -- and some washed their hands of me -- when I stayed abroad and became a non-resident, new parent student.

And you know what? grad school with kids is hard. Grad school while working with kids because you're out of fellowship is harder. Getting back on the job track when the parenting and supportive wife thing has required that you step off for a time? Even harder. I wouldn't recommend it. And I know that I'm damned lucky to have landed a job. I'm still worried about my T&P (although that will be true till I have the paper in my hand, even though I know I've made it past hurdle 1). And I work at a fairly family friendly university.

Or at least SLAC seems very friendly to faculty families. Our top two administrators have young children, and they regularly bring them to campus events. Most of my colleagues with kids have little trouble scheduling around them, and one colleague interviewed for and got her job while pregnant with her second child. When there were complications, she was given a reduced load. I have a couple of male colleagues who regularly leave campus early and work three-day contact weeks so that they can share in the child care. Parties generally include people bringing their kids of whatever ages. It's very family friendly.

I really do like that. In so many ways, it counters what we are hearing in the Chronicle. I think one of the reasons it works is that we are a 'teaching' campus. Service and scholarship are important for promotion, but not as much as at research-heavy campuses. I wouldn't trade it. And I agree with everything that Harry and many of his commenters, especially Kieren and Magistra, say.

So why write anything? Well, first, I think you should go read the posts over there. But second, I'm now in a different postion. I'm single, with cats. So now I'm finding that people can't make it to meetings, because they have kids. They can't show up at non-course-related events, because they have kids. If kids are our of school when we aren't, then classes sometimes get cancelled. Not all the time, but enough that it's noticeable. And you know? lots of things do require faculty attendance -- job talks, guest lectures, meetings, workshops. So frequently, it's those of us without children who pick up the slack. It's as if our 'free' time is less important. And some of my colleagues with young children are actually able to find more time to write, because they can often arrange things at home so they can supervise kids and write. The important thing is that they are home. So, for example, when students come to the department to ask an advisor for help, they end up on my doorstep. The bodies who are on campus working are also the bodies that administrators, students, and even sometimes parents can find.

I know, I'm grousing. And I really prefer working in a place where people can parent. And part of this really is our own fault -- we are all aware that women (and more recently men) with families tend to get screwed. No one wants to rock the boat and say, "hey, this is your choice, but you also took a job with stupid requirements when it comes into having a life." But one of the things that I think hasn't been mentioned (and usually is in any such discussion) is the affect that the family life of other academics has on those of us without children. There really is often an attitude of, "of course you can do X (where X = service outside teaching and scholarship), you don't have any responsibilites, and you can always write/go to the gym/hike/read/whatever it is that you may have chosen over children later." And I have noticed that the brunt of this work falls on the childless women. So if academia has been making strides on equality for women who want to have children, or for families where the men want to be more active parents, I think it's improtant to look and see where the shifts of responsibility are taking place. I bet it's not just anecdotal that single, childless women are still getting the short end of the stick.

It's just that that stick gets used to beat a lot of us.

RBOC -- Sunday Edition

RBOC -- Sunday Edition

My, it's been a while, and I haven't updated in forever. So here's some random bullets of crap to tide you over.

• I keep seeing Barack Obama on TV, magazines, newspapers, and every time, I do a double-take. He doesn't look like a president. By that I mean, he looks like someone I'd actually want to work with and have a drink with. He looks like somebody I'd hang out with. Damn. He looks so young. Actually, he's a little older than I am. But to me, that's young. I wonder if this is how people in their 40s felt when JFK was elected?
  
  
• I was going to have my cable TV cut as soon as the election was over. But I seem to have got hooked on Sunday morning news analysis. What I really need is someone to help me analyze my rapidly dwindling TIAA-CREF account. I'm never going to be able to retire. But at least I have a job. And I do need to get rid of the cable. It's a time such I don't need.
  
  
• I committed filk for the first time yesterday.
  
  
• I think it's fairly clear that I didn't get Dream Job. The history job wiki shows that campus interviews indeed were scheduled, and I didn't get the golden ticket. I think I mentioned that I thought I'd totally botched the interview -- both too nervous, and not nervous enough; three pages of notes and questions that I never took time to refer to because I felt terribly rushed, and also a bit worried that they thought I didn't want it enough. Well, no. I mean, I didn't apply because I needed a job. I didn't apply so I could try to leverage my position at SLAC. I applied because it's a totally fantastic place, with what appear to be great students and great faculty, a good teaching load and support for research, and the opportunity to work with one of my favourite fellow-bloggers. I admit to a deficiency in Anglo-Saxon (that never came up), but did suggest all kinds of ways my courses could fit into their larger curriculum. But whatever. No golden ticket. I'm really bummed about it, but have to say that it's a different feeling when you don't get the interview when you're already employed in a job you like, working with people you like.
  
  
• Speaking of which, life at SLAC is still kicking my ass. I'm hiding from my publisher (must write tomorrow with update). I think I will be back to work on the book this week, though. I've got a good teaching schedule this semester: rather than 4 classes plus a colloquium (and one new, one drastically revised prep), I have a three class schedule, two days a week. One class is a new prep, and the other is again drastically revised but it's going well, I think. My T&P portfolio made it past the first hurdle, and I should be hearing whether it passed the second one this month. I'm hoping there are no problems. In the meantime, I'm now chair of my department and on yet another new task force which will probably end up being a time suck, but not till next year. And there are benefits to it, at least, although as with most things at SLAC, they aren't really in tangible form, like course release or money. Having said that, I'm just now starting to feel a little less burnt out.
  
  
• As soon as I find out about the promotion, I think I'm going to start looking for a house. I am not closing my mind to the idea of taking another job elsewhere, but it seems to me that, housing prices being what they are (there are lots of foreclosures in Dabbaville), I might actually be able to have my own place for about what I'm paying in rent, and it would certainly help me in terms of taxes. I spent about $3k last year on research trips and conference travel, and because I don't have more than the standard deduction, I end up eating that. Also, as much as I hate moving and love my flat, I'd like not to share walls with neighbors. But again, just as I feel no need to run from my present position to a different one, I am not desperate to move unless it really makes sense.
  
  
• My classes seem to be going pretty well this semester, and that makes me really happy. My biggest problem with SLAC is that we admit students who would likely not have a chance elsewhere, but we don't offer remediation, nor enough tutorial support. This is reflected, I think, in our retention rates. And sadly, many of us feel that this particular message is not one that TPTB want to hear. We also have faculty who seem to think that it's ok to 'weed out' the less qualified, rather than changing their teaching to help these students succeed. It's hard. I really understand the attitude. After all, we're supposed to be teaching at a certain level, and if we'd wanted to teach high school (or even middle school) skills, we'd be teaching in the public schools and probably making more money! But you know, once the students are in, they are people we need to teach. My larger question is how this should figure into our outcomes and assessments. I mean, one of my personal learning outcomes is that students will write clearly articulated analytical essays. But when about a third of the students can't write a good sentence, how do we communicate this to the accreditation agencies? (I think I just found a topic for a post!)
  
  
• I am reading a novel to review here. Bernard Cornwell's Agincourt. Free book through blogging!
  
  
• I really need to clean up my apartment. I'm doing laundry at the moment, and tidying and cooking come next. If I get a move on, I'll also get my hair cut and get to the gym AND do work on the book.
  
  
• Speaking of the gym, honestly, I'm feeling old. I really need to start strengthening the muscles that hold my hips and knees in place. And maybe start taking glucosamine?
  
  
• And that's me for today. I think I'll write about assessment next. Or maybe about the circus that is being a department chair when you are the most junior person in the department (at least I'm older than half of them!)

Karl Ferdinand Werner, RIP

K-F Werner, RIP

I just found this out from Magister et Mater.


K-F Werner died several weeks ago. I can't find an obituary anywhere, except the one that Magistra links to, which is rather puzzling. My own relationship with the man was entirely through his books, of which there were so many, and about which I found myself saying, over and over again when hitting a research hurdle, "Shit. This is in Werner, isn't it?" Even if he said something you didn't agree with, there are so many times when it seemed like he was there first, and there was never a way to ignore him.

That's Hedley

That's Hedley

There's a documentary on right now I'd really like to watch. Cinema's Exiles: From Hitler to Hollywood. I'd always known about people like Peter Lorre and Billy Wilder, but I hadn't realised just how many others had come over. Apparently, most of the cast of Casablanca, for example. And there's lots of interesting stuff on Ernst Lubitsch and how influential he was, really an important node in the network of emigrés and exiles. Must try to catch this sometime.

Lawrence Summers

Lawrence Summers

He's on Meet the Press right now. I was very much on the bandwagon to see him lose his job when he said women were just not as good at science and math. But He sounds pretty good talking on the economic plan. I don't feel like finding my login info for the WaPo today, but apparently the editorial is complaining about the plan, and uses the example of more money being put into Pell Grants (federal college need-based aid) as not efficient.

Summers rightly points out that not only are college prices driving out students, which has long-term effects, but also that, if students are currently at uni, they'll not have to scrimp as much. OK, maybe some will just work a little less, but honestly, one of the big reasons why students from poorer backgrounds don't do as well is because they are working too much to to the learning they need to do.

When even community colleges (free in my day) are often charging a couple of thousand dollars in tuition, grants could really make a difference.

Of course, this won't help a bit if higher ed institutions do what they often do when grants go up -- and raise tuition.

Call for posts

Call for posts

Hey all --

Notorious, PhD is hosting the next Ancient/Medieval .

Since we had a hiatus, you can actually submit posts all the way back to December! Please send her your suggestions, either via the submission form, or by emailing her at notoriousphd ~at~ mac ~dot~ com.

She'll be putting it up In February.

In the meantime,

Carnivalesque 46!!!!!

The newest Early Modern Carnivalesque is up now at Chronologi Cogitationes

A different Medievalist on Gaza, from Israel

A different Medievalist on Gaza, from Israel

I haven't written about what's going on in Gaza because it depresses me and pisses me off far too much, and honestly, I just didn't want to go there and end up writing something that ended up being taken in ways I didn't mean.



A few days ago, Caroline Walker Bynum sent the following two items to the Mediev-l listserv. The first is a blog post by Gadi Algazi, an Israeli scholar of Arab descent (the post is translated from Hebrew). The second is a fund-raising statement for Tarabut–Hit’chabrut, an Arab-Jewish social movement.

I'm posting both here, not because I'm trying to push things on you, and not even because I particularly agree, although honestly, I can't find much to disagree with. I'm posting mostly because we hear little about what is going on besides the conflict -- in fact, as I write this, NPR is broadcasting an interview with a policy expert who is using a sledgehammer to get the point across that Hamas has support from Iran, and we all know what that means (and if we didn't, the commenter is making sure that we know that Iran is entirely evil) -- and I've seen LJ comments that indicate people do want to know more. So here they are.

Update: A reader has contacted me offline to point out that this could be considered soliciting political donations. I'm not. I'm passing on information. But just in case it violates Blogspot's policy, I'm going to leave the contact details and remove the donation information. You are smart enough to find it again if you want to.

(If anyone can remind me how to do cuts, I'd appreciate it

The blog post

Free the hostages from the hands of the politicians of death

Gadi Algazi

The following text was published in Hebrew on was of Israel’s most popular blogs, ‘The Sting’ (www.haokets.org) on 29.12.2008; the author is a long-time peace and social activist, member of the Israeli Arab-Jewish left movement Hit’chabrut-Tarabut (www.tarabut.info) and one of the Tel Aviv organizers of the campaign against the bloodshed.

And here we go again to another round of killing, without pomp and fanfare, but with a herd of proud corpse counters (“the balance is still positive, there’re more dead on their side,” the commentators assure us). Israeli TV tells us not to watch the horrific images on Al-Jazeera. You should not look at the outcome, the wounded, the parents and the children; Jews must not share the Arabs’ feelings, you should not think of the suffering, or the future. The ‘final blow’ will bring the next counter blow.

From Kadima to Labor, from Olmert to Barak, they recommend not to think of the past either, of that which was wrought by the previous bombings in the Second Lebanon War (July 2006, Prime Minister: Ehud Olmert, Public Relations: The Labor Party), in “Operation Accountability” in 1993 (Chief of Staff: Ehud Barak), and in Operation “Grapes of Wrath” in 1996 (Foreign Minister: Ehud Barak). All were “proper responses,” achieved through blood and flames, “Once and for all,” which have lead, time and again, to the next round.

The conflagration was predictable. The months of ceasefire, the Tahdi’a, did not lift the siege from Gaza, did not prevent the deprivation of pencils, food, and books from children, fuel and electricity from families. Those who have tormented the residents of the Gaza Strip so that their suffering would “put pressure on their leadership” – have engaged in state terrorism against civilians. Months of Israeli terrorism have only spread despair in Gaza and emboldened those who promise deliverance through the force of weapons, and have strengthened the sense, that the only way out of life in terror is counter-terror, exacerbating the suffering of the Israeli residents of Sderot, and adding the residents of Ashkelon, Netivot, and their environs to the circle of those directly threatened.

Even now, when the call for revenge is heard everywhere, it must be said: the airplanes that bomb Gaza do not guarantee peace and quiet in Sderot, Netivot, and Ashkelon. Those bombs that spread terror and death all across the Gaza Strip while school children headed to the streets after their early classes—these will not bring quiet. On the contrary: the poor and the oppressed of this land, the residents of hungry Gaza and the Israeli periphery, who, against their will, have been turned into a “safety belt” for the occupation—all of them, Arabs and Jews, are being held hostage by unscrupulous politicians, who will not spare their lives. They exploit civilian misery to justify the misery and death they bring on others. At the end of this round of killings “indirect” talks will be held, and cynical politicians will reach “understandings.” Neither agreements, nor solutions—only temporary understandings that will enable the arms race towards the next round. Vague understandings will allow those whose hands are on the trigger to lead to another conflagration at any given moment. As long as we remain hostages to such security managers we will not be able to live in peace, and we will not be able to expect a different life, free of constant threats.

The two people of this country are hostages of the politicians of death. But they are not all being held hostage on the same terms. The lives of Arabs are considered very cheap in comparison to the lives of Jews, but there are cheap Jewish lives too. Not by accident, the poor of both peoples, the disenfranchised, the ones who are “cheaper” from the perspective of the rulers, are the ones usually sent to serve as hostages and cannon fodder. For the politicians’ war is the cynical war of the merchants of death and the elites, the well-protected privileged, while the people, both peoples, do the fighting for them.

* * *
Anti-war protests in Israel:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050470.html;
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051563.html; http://things.co.il/942
* * *
Please feel free to circulate the text further. Contact Hit’chabrut – Tarabut in Tel Aviv: tarabut@gmail.com




Tarabut–Hit’chabrut

What is Tarabut? Tarabut is a joint Arab-Jewish social movement seeking to address the most burning issue – the division in Israeli oppositional politics between struggles against the occupation and struggles against inequality and for social justice within Israel itself.
Its members come from very different backgrounds: long-time activists against the occupa-tion, activists involved in projects against unequal access to education, Arab activists involved in campaigns for empowerment and equal rights for the Arab minority within Israel, experienced activists against the exploitation and discrimination of oriental Jews and the delegitima¬tion of Arab culture, young refuseniks, feminists involved in local campaigns for women’s empowerment, students involved in campaigns to defend public higher education against creeping privatization, etc.

All of us have felt that activism requires a broader vision and grounding in concrete analysis of the links between different forms of inequality – for example, between the expansion of the settlements in the West Bank and rampant privatization within Israel, which has drawn tens of thousands from among the poor into the colonial process in the West Bank and to enjoy government subsidies in urban settlements. Tarabut seeks to build a non-dogmatic context for thinking from practice, for trying to forge alliances and strategies that bring together isolated struggles. Hence the name (‘come together’’ ‘associate’ in Hebrew and Arabic): Ad-hoc coalitions can hardly withstand the enormous pressures and daily racism in Israeli society. We seek to bring together people, not organizations, to think together without dogmatic certainties, and to work for social change.

Tarabut was formed in October 2006, in the aftermath of the campaign against the War in Lebanon of the summer. Until its formal founding meeting, in January 2008, some 250 people have joined. It has been active in several campaigns: against house demotions of Arab residents in Wadi Ara, in the student’s strike in Israeli universities (Spring 2007), against the eviction of poor inhabitants of Tel Aviv’s popular neighborhoods in the interests of real-estate developers – and that of the Arab residents of Jaffa, which faced a combined campaign of gentrification with nationalist discrimination; in labor struggles over the recognition of local unions in unorganized branches, and so on. At the same time, it has sought to bring new ideas and analysis to public discussion: Tarabut has warned that the Annapolis summit did not spell peace for Israelis and Palestinians but an attempt to consolidate American hegemony and an exacerbation of divisions among Palestinians and imposing Israeli demands on the Palestinian leaders. It has urged the Israeli left to support the demand of the Arab minority for full equality – including recognition of its collective rights, and to realize that the democratization of Israeli society demanded by the representative of the Arab minority is in the interest of all under¬privileged groups in Israel.


www.tarabut.info











I am thinking about it a lot, and may post something, because I have to teach the second part of World Civ this semester, and I'm reconstructing the course to make sure that I spend plenty of time on 19th C imperialism and colonialism, and on post-colonialism. I may not get past the 1970s, but this time I will get there. To me, it means teaching relatively current events, but if one of the points of a university education is to understand the world around us, and I can show them the kinds of things that give direct background to what's going on in their world, AND it's in the scope of one of my service courses, why not?

What kind of Medievalist am I?

What kind of Medievalist am I?

JJ Cohen asked that the other week or so, and I started to write something else, which I shall no doubt post later. Because really, Jeff asked what kind of medievalist I yearn to be. This last week has put that a bit clearer in my mind.

On Saturday, I went to AHA. I went for an interview. I went for an interview for Dream Job. Now, I need to make it clear that I'm not looking to leave SLAC. I have a good position, and I feel very settled. I get a lot of support, physical and moral, from my Dean, and it does look like I can be continually successful there. My colleagues are mostly lovely people, and I have made good friends.

But realistically speaking, I'm the only non-US historian in my department. I don't spend a lot of time being a medievalist. I spend most of my time being a generalist, and worrying about falling behind in my research and writing. I teach a 4-3 load -- plus an additional course that isn't quite a course. I manage to crank out a couple of conference papers a year, one usually pedagogical, but the other definitely medieval. I have a book in the works -- and advance advertising on it has begun. I have two articles in the works, and two book projects I'd like to work on. In my head, and I think more and more among my medievalist colleagues, I think I might be working towards what I'd like to be -- someone who is known to produce reasonably interesting, solid research, and is a really good teacher.

The thing is, smack in the middle of my interview on Saturday, I realised that that wasn't what I'd like to be -- it's what I yearn to be. At the moment, being a medievalist is like a reward for doing a lot of grunt work. As I sat and talked to the nice people at Dream Job, where the load is 3-2, there is automatic access to R1 libraries at no extra charge, where the students are capable of reading Anglo-Saxon, and faculty collaborate, I realised that Dream Job was a place where I could actually be the kind of medievalist I want to be -- or at least, it would be a hell of a lot easier. At the moment I'm rather on tenterhooks. I'm pretty sure I bollixed up the interview. They opened with, "We have 2 hours of questions and have half an hour," and despite bringing in 3 pages of notes and questions of my own, I think I came off as someone who alternated between deer-in-the-headlights and someone who might have been too assertive (or even bossy?) for a person applying for a junior position. I just don't think I managed to come off as competent and special enough. I really hope to hell I'm wrong.

And if I'm not? That's OK. Because interviewing reminded me that I have a list of things that are important to me. They remind me of the path I stepped on when Phlebas offered to let me give a paper on his panel, and I started meeting more and more of you lot IRL, and LDW and I got together, and he convinced me I was capable of being a lion cub, at least. After the book contract came through (as much as it has), I ended up being so focused on that, and the collapse of some of the more important parts of my life, and the hell of the last semester and the stress of a tonne of committee work, more new preps, and advising, that I kind of forgot that I do have a research agenda, I do have an image of the kind of medievalist I want to be. It's a lot like the medievalist I am, but an even better teacher in my specialty and more productive. How I'm going to get it done at SLAC is an interesting question, but I expect it can be done -- I just don't want it to kill me. So Provost, if you're reading this, I hope you've got some good ideas :-) I'll tell you what I told Dream Job -- I'm damned good at what I do. I am a good colleague and dammit, I'm managing to keep writing even though I seldom teach my field, let alone my research. I shoulder at least my share of service. And dammit, I do like the fact that we seem to be turning a corner and I could be in on some really fantastic changes. If, by chance, I didn't screw things up and end up heading to a campus interview, and don't screw that up, I'd still have lots of thinking to do. SLAC isn't a place I want to run from, after all. If it were, there were lots of jobs I could have applied for; instead, I limited myself to a very special one. But either way, I'm going to have a lot of work to do to be the kind of medievalist I yearn to be.

Public Service announcement -- environment

Defenders of Wildlife Petition

If you're interested in this sort of thing ...

Protect the Endangered Species Act
Target: President-Elect Barack Obama
Sponsored by: Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund

For more than 30 years, the Endangered Species Act has protected wildlife at the brink of extinction. From our national symbol, the bald eagle, to grizzlies, wolves and California condors, our nation's wildlife continue to survive in the wild thanks to these protections.

But the Bush administration is making a last ditch effort to undermine the Endangered Species Act. Currently, federal agencies are required to consult with expert scientists at US Fish and Wildlife or National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure proposed actions will not jeopardize threatened or endangered wildlife. Now the Bush administration wants to remove this fundamental check and balance, putting wildlife in harm's way.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren to be good stewards of the environment and leave behind a legacy of protecting endangered species and the special places they call home. Please sign our petition urging President-Elect Obama to stop the Bush administration's last ditch efforts to undermine the Endangered Species Act.

Sign Here

Prince Caspian (2008)

Again, in lieu of the identities post and a post on AHA ...

Prince Caspian (2008)

I did not like this movie. It was very disappointing. Prince Caspian is one of the better Narnia books, I think -- or it least, it's one of my favourites. The book has interesting characters, and opens up all kinds of questions about Narnia for people who like to pick at such things. The book has moments of real tension, and moments of wonder. The movie? Not so much.

From the beginning, it's clear that there will be little loyalty to the book. Peter is cast as the kind of boy who gets into fights for no apparent reason. He's still a boy, not someone who has grown up and ruled Narnia as High King. Susan is treated similarly -- the unnecessary scene where Susan blows a geeky student from another school off seems silly in all kinds of ways. Fortunately, Edmund and Lucy remain relatively unscathed, at least; Caspian does not. One of the best things about the Caspian in the book is that he is close to pure of heart. We know from the beginning that Caspian will eventually be king, because he loves Narnia and he acts like a Narnian. But he's too young, and helpless. The film Caspian is not too bright, seems petulant, and cares much more about himself -- and revenge -- than Narnia. Part of this is that the makers of the film have decided to accentuate the details of Miraz's usurpation. Lewis tells us about the regicide (and fratricide, for that matter), but as though to reinforce what a thorough bad guy Miraz is. Caspian is at first driven more for survival, and then later by his need to save Narnia. Being king isn't a goal, but a burden, or perhaps a means to a more important goal.

The meetings between Miraz and his council are additions, but in some ways, they are sensible. The allow the audience to see that there is conflict among the Telmarine nobles and, should the series continue, help to lay the ground for the search for the 12 lords in Voyage of the Dawn Treader. On the other hand, they distract from the overall flow of the story, as well as from the message. One of the things I never really liked about Prince Caspian was the Christian message, which in part is that one should keep believing in a benevolent God even when he seems to have abandoned us, in part is that even the meekest of us should stand against friends and family for our faith, just as the early martyrs did (although Lewis doesn't really obviously consign anyone to a martyr's fate). Since the film was presented by Walden Media, I was surprised by the change. I was also surprised at how disappointed I was. Christian message or not, Lucy's Aslan sightings are an important part of the story, if only because they increase the tension, expose the physical and social changes wrought by time and the Telmarines, and give us a chance to learn more about both Edmund and Trumpkin. It might have been much better had the section been left out altogether, rather than limiting it to one vague sighting and a nonsensical chiding by the lion much later. It also means that much of the film is taken up with events that never happen in the book, 'action' inserted to make up for the fact that the trip back from Cair Paravel takes up 2/3 of the book, more or less.

Meanwhile, back in Aslan's Howe, which was much bigger than I ever imagined it, Caspian has assembled an amazingly large contingent of Narnians, some of whom should not have been there -- critters who sided with the White Witch in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I'm a bit shaky on the continuity of the film (I can't quite remember when the Pevensies show up), but the fact that the Caspian who was at least nominally in charge of the Narnians when the Pevensies arrive at the Howe was much more grown up, and really didn't seem to need the older kings and queens. It's also unclear why they all decide to launch a night attack on the castle. In the scheme of the film, I suppose it makes sense. Peter is a hothead, and seems to be trying to prove himself against Caspian. Caspian is initially motivated by a desire to rescue Dr. Cornelius (what sensible king or commander would go to such risks?? and besides, in the book, he'd already escaped!) and also, possibly, by wishes to impress Susan; finally, he is motivated by revenge. The sequence ends in a horrible defeat for the Narnians, in ways that should have removed any confidence they have in Peter and Caspian. It only gets worse when they return to the Howe, where Nikabrik, the Hag, and the Werewolf convince (sort of) Caspian to conjure the White Witch.

There are many things wrong with this scene. First and foremost, the witch is actually conjered,and tries to convince Caspian and Peter both to release her fully. She plays to a their hopelessness and to their egos. I suppose it shows that they have no faith that Aslan will come, but eh, it really doesn't work. Part of this is that Edmund saves the day by shattering the ice wall that entraps the witch, looks at Peter, and says, "I know. You had it sorted." Any intimation that Peter and Caspian were being tempted by evil or some such thing is gone in that moment -- again, it's all about Peter the hothead, who will take the easy way.

This makes the last part of the film more jarring. All of a sudden, we have Peter the Magnificent, High King, and warrior able to fight against the bigger, more seasoned, and nastier Miraz. Where did he come from? He's certainly more responsible and adult than Caspian, who leaves the scene of an impending battle to rescue Susan from some of Miraz's soldiers. This is a Susan who, up to this point, seems to need very little in the way of rescuing. For the girl who supposedly had no place in battle, she's pretty scary with a bow -- and yet, she needs Caspian to rescue her from the last man of one of Miraz's patrols. Go figure.

Lucy is by this time pretty much an afterthought. She makes her way to Aslan -- we never know how she figures out where to find him, though. And not much happens on that end until he lets the ents know it's all right to be pissed off, and Birnam Wood walks spirits of the trees and the waters loose. Of course, this doesn't happen till there has been much more fighting, first a single combat between Miraz and Peter, then between the forces of Narnia (which include female centaurs, which seems a bit wrong) and the orc Telmarine armies. The fight between Peter and Miraz is interesting. For all that Peter has been shown as anything but a king -- let alone High King, this scene is believable, as is the scene where Edmund delivers Peter's challenge. Again, it's interesting that not only is Edmund much more like the Edmund of the book, but he is simply just more interesting. Not only does he seem more like the Edmund in the book, who at one point is described by one of Miraz's lords as a dangerous knight, but he seems to be the only character who lived through the events in the previous film (and book). To be fair, Edmund is the character who went through the most, but it surprised me that he seemed so strong and steadfast in this film. Given the portrayals of Peter and Caspian, though, perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise.

The film ends predictably, given what we've seen to that point. There is an entirely gratuitous and ridiculous goodbye kiss between Susan and Caspian, and then it's back to wartime England for the Pevensies, and Narnia in the hands of some long-haired Telmarine.

Caspian is also a long-haired Telmarine with an accent. All the Telmarines have accents. Who knew that they were swarthy Mediterranean types? Not me. When I read the books, it never occurred to me that the Telmarines were anything but English. Yes, they were supposedly the descendants of brigands and pirates, but it never occurred to me that they weren't English since, well, there are lots of English pirates, and I think I was pretty much thinking of the whole 'shipwrecked till they found a door in a cave' thing as a reference to the folks on Pitcairn Island. But mostly, I just didn't get why they were swarthy and had accents vaguely Iberian. I am really uncomfortable with the 'dark and oily foreigners with thick accents' portrayal, and it grated on me throughout the film.

Terry Pratchett Nation

*ahem* (Sir) Terry Pratchett, Nation (2008)

In lieu of a post I'm working on on identities, in response to something at In the Middle, I'm posting something that is more thoughts than actual review. I don't know that there are many spoilers, but be warned, just in case.

I got this from X for Christmas, and obviously I started reading it pretty much as soon as I could. Nation is possibly the most thoughtful Terry Pratchett book I've read. What this means, I suppose, is that I think it's his most thoughtful book, full stop, since I've read all his books.

It's not a Discworld book, in case you didn't already know that. I've seen it labeled as YA, too, but if that's true, then it's yet another case of a YA book that is far more grown-up than most novels meant for grown-ups. It's also not as funny as most of his books or, if it is, it's a much gentler sort of humour. I've read short reviews that say it's about imperialism, but I don't know that it is. I mean, there is a British Empire, more or less. And there are Remarks made about Empires, and they are not always complimentary. But to say it's a critique of imperialism or, as I saw implied (IIRC) on Visual Bookshelf, a critique of US imperialism, is doing the book an injustice. There's no doubt that there is some of that. Over and over again, we see examples of how there is no equity in the world, and how smaller, less technologically developed nations are often subject to the whims of larger nations. But somehow, in Nation the message is not so much that the larger nations, or empires, have gained their strength by exploiting the smaller ones. We have to think about these things, but they are only part of the story.

The greater part of the story is about dealing with loss, and life, where life is just what happens when you're getting on with the more important things that have to be got through. Mau just gets through. And so, in her way, does Daphne. Pratchett often writes characters who are hurt, or damaged, but almost every character who winds up on Mau's island is actively suffering, and visibly damaged (although there are some characters who are just plain damaged in an icky kind of way). The ghosts are always present, and the people just get on the best they can, most of them by just shutting down the parts that can't deal with the pain. Mau loses everything and everyone he ever knew; Daphne's entire life is framed by the death of her mother and baby brother. But everything they do in fighting back the pain of their own losses helps to heal the losses of the other people who wash up on the island, and the ghosts who live there. It really is a story of fighting back against the darkness. And in the end, there is no clichéed reward, only sacrifice and duty.

It sounds grim, put that way. But really, it's one of the kindest and most hopeful books I've read in a long time. Mau and Daphne, and all of the (nice) people who come to the Island find what they are looking for because they make it for themselves. Mau refuses to accept a world where bad things happen, if he can keep them from happening, and the others follow him. What is especially lovely about the book is that it's never mawkish, and it's never trite. Even when good things happen because of the quirky twists of fate, or coincidence, or freaks of nature that can only happen in a Pratchett world, even when it is that exactly one in a million chance, it is always down to the people in the end. And Pratchett's people are people we know, or at least people we want to know, and want to be like.

ETA: As I dropped off to sleep, it occurred to me that there's a lot of Dunkirk and the Blitz in this book. That is, Mau is sort of like the ordinary guy that is part of the popular mythical memory of Dunkirk (did Michael Portillo do one of his 'Things We Forgot to Remember' shows on Dunkirk?). Daphne is the evacuee in a strange place, and the royal who stayed, all wrapped up on one, sort of. Or at least that's what my evening pint or so told me.