I read this article about fifty times and still have a tough time understanding it. Nevermind that I had a one year old screaming in my earts the first few times...even after I found some silence I was still confused at times. Hahaha
One of the quotes I found interesting was:
" The connection between history and necessity is cynically humorous when one looks back over the trail of political and cultural debris of revolution and near revolution ruins" (783).
I had never really though of that so it was interesting to learn and the CAE's examples (French, Russian and Cuban revolutions) made the point clear.
The article also discussed "The Persian War" in which Herodoctus describes the Scythians, "a feared people...who maintaineda horticultural nomadic society" (784). It also described how their homeland on the Northern Black Sea was "inhospitible both climatically and geographically, but resisted colonization less for these natural reasons than because there was no economic or military means by which to colonize or subjugate it" (784). I didn't know about the Scythians so that was another thing I learned.
The third thing I learned was about 'bunkers', "privitized public spaces which serve various particularized functions such as political continuity (government offices or national monuments), or areas for consumption frenzy (malls)" (788).
I also had my nine month old niece screaming in the background, so I know what you mean. Actually, I can empathize with you on both fronts. It was another tedious read. However, I like looking at what people post about the article, like yours, because I see things that I didn’t notice while reading the material. In fact, I only used one the examples you used, as an example on my paper. I do briefly remember the article mention of the political Russian revolution, but not the other two examples that you provided. The bunkers section had me a little confused, I understood the comparison as far as political structures and whatnot. However, they also talked about internal bunks, which threw me through a loop.
ReplyDeleteI also totally agree with everything you are saying about this article. It was indeed very difficult to read, and I had a tough time relating it to new media. The only thing I could articulate from the article, and I might be crazy, is an attempt by the author to use historic examples as commentary about social media. For example, “Should the Scythians not like the terms of engagement, they always had the option of remaining invisible and preventing the enemy from constructing a theater of operations.” Pp784. Is this not a direct reference to the invisible feature available on Facebook where people can organize campaigns and boycotts all while not being seen by others? I might be off my rocker, but I think the author uses examples like this to articulate a thought about the power of social media.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad so many other people found this article confusing. I seriously thought I was missing something because this really did not feel like a new media article. Personally it was more of a history lesson than anything. I learned about the Scythians and the Persians' strategies but that was about all i understood clearly. The parts that I felt related to media were lost in translation but from reading others blogs and doing a little background checking I think bunkers are referencing the online paradise we all seem to belong to i.e. Facebook. I also understood that a person who occupies a part of land no matter how long they have occupied it, the land does not belong to them. The same thing goes for online communities and blogs. Just because its our Facebook account doesn't mean we can set the privacy setting to be exactly how we want. Sooner or later we will all lose our virtual land.
ReplyDelete