What do you think?
Rate this book
Upping the Anti. . . A Journal of Theory and Action
UPPING THE ANTI ...A JOURNAL OF THEORY AND ACTION is a leading journal of radical ideas published in Canada. This issue, ISSUE 7, October 2008, 207 pages, includes interviews with Clayton Thomas-Muller, Kara Gillies, Chris Harris; roundtables on labor solidarity for Palestine and on migrant labor; Neal Balan reviews Slavoj Zizek; Kole Kilibarda; Kimiko Inouye.
Mass Market Paperback
First published May 1, 2009
11 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 15, 2022
So, I am going through this backlog slowly. There were three pieces that I liked in here and a review of McChesney's new book at the time.
The first piece was about AIDS Activism and emotion. I have worked at an AIDS adjacent organization twenty some years and it was interesting to hear another person's history. The differences and similarity between the number of stories that I have heard over the years is like a few more brushstrokes. It makes the painting more interesting as it builds up the picture that I have in my head.
The second was an interview with Helen Hudson. There was something that really resonated with me. When asked about particular examples that are useful and replicable for developing anti-o politics, there was a nuanced answer that spoke. I will paraphrase with risk of getting it wrong. The idea is that sometimes with oppressors, anger and flames work to sever ties. There is an important task of reaching out and nurturing bridges with allies by having a framework or skeleton of friendship before a crisis happens. The caveat is that it won't work if you begin that process in conflict and after emotions have flared.
I wonder how Hudson would respond in the current climate? I will probably seek some of Hudson's work to see if there is any development of that line of thinking. I often find myself at odds with folks who are more interested in writing off a person and I wonder if there is a way of building bridges that get us somewhere else. Maybe I just feel that any other way seems hopeless to me.
The third piece was by Shiri Pasternak on the Algonquins of Barrier Lake and their agreements with the different level of governments. It stoked my suspicion that in some ways some of the current hashtags act as a divisive wedge between different actors in the aboriginal community. It also underlined that the Algonquins, whom are close to signing the first modern treaty with the Canadians, are a lot more cohesive than some other movements but still get misrepresented as folks that want land taken back. It is more complex than that. The Algonquins who have not ceded the land want a partnership where they have meaningful input and control. This piece reminded me that governments will still try to circumvent, largely due to commercial interests, the governing and messaging around these agreements. In some ways, it must be difficult trying to negotiate with a bureaucracy which changes often and has different policy directives based on the current party in power.
I can't imagine being a family that has tried to wrangle anything from our country over decades. I am skeptical and suspicious of most messages coming out mass and social media around what the aboriginals want...
Anyway, I digress. It was good to read something that I can agree with and feel a bit better and at odds with both left and right while at the same time have some of my own beliefs challenged. I mean, how else do you learn? In this space, there seems to be a little more room for discussion than the mainstream and polemic discourses.
The first piece was about AIDS Activism and emotion. I have worked at an AIDS adjacent organization twenty some years and it was interesting to hear another person's history. The differences and similarity between the number of stories that I have heard over the years is like a few more brushstrokes. It makes the painting more interesting as it builds up the picture that I have in my head.
The second was an interview with Helen Hudson. There was something that really resonated with me. When asked about particular examples that are useful and replicable for developing anti-o politics, there was a nuanced answer that spoke. I will paraphrase with risk of getting it wrong. The idea is that sometimes with oppressors, anger and flames work to sever ties. There is an important task of reaching out and nurturing bridges with allies by having a framework or skeleton of friendship before a crisis happens. The caveat is that it won't work if you begin that process in conflict and after emotions have flared.
I wonder how Hudson would respond in the current climate? I will probably seek some of Hudson's work to see if there is any development of that line of thinking. I often find myself at odds with folks who are more interested in writing off a person and I wonder if there is a way of building bridges that get us somewhere else. Maybe I just feel that any other way seems hopeless to me.
The third piece was by Shiri Pasternak on the Algonquins of Barrier Lake and their agreements with the different level of governments. It stoked my suspicion that in some ways some of the current hashtags act as a divisive wedge between different actors in the aboriginal community. It also underlined that the Algonquins, whom are close to signing the first modern treaty with the Canadians, are a lot more cohesive than some other movements but still get misrepresented as folks that want land taken back. It is more complex than that. The Algonquins who have not ceded the land want a partnership where they have meaningful input and control. This piece reminded me that governments will still try to circumvent, largely due to commercial interests, the governing and messaging around these agreements. In some ways, it must be difficult trying to negotiate with a bureaucracy which changes often and has different policy directives based on the current party in power.
I can't imagine being a family that has tried to wrangle anything from our country over decades. I am skeptical and suspicious of most messages coming out mass and social media around what the aboriginals want...
Anyway, I digress. It was good to read something that I can agree with and feel a bit better and at odds with both left and right while at the same time have some of my own beliefs challenged. I mean, how else do you learn? In this space, there seems to be a little more room for discussion than the mainstream and polemic discourses.
June 29, 2009
contains Suzy Subways' roundtable of former members of SLAM (student liberation action movement) and Dan Berger's roundtable of revolutionary study circles
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews