(seeing) things as they are, part 1/n

As I write, the sky is orange. Streetlights blink on mid afternoon. There is a scientific explanation for why the sky is orange (having to do with the size of ash/smoke particles that filter light). But, when you see the sky just as it is, you know, things are awry. Orange is not normal. Its difficult to focus and concentrate when orange is the normal. Even my iphone cannot deal with this. Snap a picture and color correction lightens the sky.

Lately, my daily rhythm is orange with some blue (I am watching my favorite grand slam match, the U.S. Open and the courts are a rich sky blue). I look out the window regularly to see the orange. Is is less? Is it getting better? I am reading Isabel Wilkerson’s new book, Caste: The origins of our discontents (2020 Random House). She writes in Caste, that in her prior opus, The Warmth of Other Suns, a book about the great migration, the word racism never appears. A book about racism that does not use the word racism.

To see things as they are, what kind of language is necessary and when does language get it the way?

  1. Wilkerson is suggesting “racism” is not the right descriptor…. she is building the case for caste (instead of racism).

  2. The language (in academia, we call this discourse*) of iberalism (and neoliberalism) stumbles about race. Always. Note: the ESPN dialogues with and about Osaka are exemplary of this.

* Forgive me, I simplify this translation. Discourse includes language and much more. They are not exactly the same…. since discursive politics involve language but also points to forms of power and knowledge…