I detest the Green Movement. Human consumption has wreaked a good deal of havoc on this planet and on the humans who inhabit its surface. The Greens seem to think that we can meditate, shop and party our way out the mess.
Well, we can’t. The party is over. It’s a big mess and a bigger hangover.
It will require work, not branding; technology, not mysticism. The technology should already be in use. It isn’t. The work should have started thirty years ago. It didn’t. It hasn’t even started now. I, for one, think we’re fucked.
So it may be surprising that I like The Deadly Nightshades. They’re a group of young designers who use words like sustainability and social responsibility; words that usually send a cold shiver up my spine and my bullshit detector to beeping. The difference is, these maniacs actually mean it.
I watched their video at FAT and I thought: Well, it could use some editing but The Deadly Nightshades are ideologically correct, have the power of the will and the audacity of youth. But youth will pass faster than they think.
I only hope that they develop what the Serbs call inat. This is the quality of “marching to defeat with your eyes wide open.” Sometimes this is the only way to win. But, instead of marching, The Deadly Nightshades are riding their bikes right into a future that looks a lot like a speeding SUV. There are worse things. Like staying on the sidewalk.
My advice to youth is always the same: Before you even start, accept defeat. Is the fight still worthwhile? If you expect to win, you will be destroyed by losing. If you have already lost, you can do nothing except win. Strap some explosives to your chest and charge that SUV.
It’s irrelevant whether a few young designers can save the world. They probably can’t. What’s important is that they’ve seen the problems and they’re not turning away or backing down from them. Instead, they act in accord with their reason and aren’t afraid to kick some ass along the way. That sort of thing may not save the world but it will save their consciences. Regardless of the results, they are right.
The important thing is that they do what’s in front of them. What they can control. They work in fashion so they apply their ethics to fashion. To their work — not their shopping. This is a harder business than most to do that in. If your average butcher, baker, banker and candlestick-maker did the same, we wouldn’t even need a green movement. And the sooner we lack a green movement –any movements– the happier I’ll be.
Pic nicked from here
8 comments
1 ping
rebecca
April 13, 2008 at 1:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I liked the Nightshades until I read one of the member’s letter to the Ryersonian. http://www.ryersonline.ca/articles/2549/1/Letters-to-the-Editor/Page1.html
It wasn’t the fact that I knew that the statement of peaceful protests in Tibet to be incorrect (http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/346579) nor her statement that the cartoon was offensive (because I also thought the cartoon was incorrect) that bothered me, it was because she had this tone of righteousness about her that she instilled this fear in me that if I was to correct her, my comments would be scrutinized and disregarded because it was written by someone who was Chinese. I regard her the same way that I would regard any other Fundamentalist.
Ryan Oakley
April 13, 2008 at 1:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I like you Rebecca but . . .
“it was because she had this tone of righteousness about her that she instilled this fear in me that if I was to correct her, my comments would be scrutinized and disregarded because it was written by someone who was Chinese.”
This happened in your imagination. Unless she actually disregarded your comments because you are Chinese, you can’t blame her for your fear. That’s just in your head.
Even if you were sure that she would do that — which you cannot possibly be — you should have still engaged. We owe people the opportunity to prove us right.
rebecca
April 13, 2008 at 2:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’re right, my view of her is totally based on reading the Globe and Mail forums on any article remotely related to China and seeing the parallels between her writing and that of the people who post.
Also, I thought about why I’m afraid of responding some more and I realized that the other reason why I didn’t want to comment is because the Nightshades seems like some sort of fashion bloggers darlings, and as I want to belong in that crowd, I didn’t want to criticize them for fear of being alienated by the rest of the bloggers. Realizing that made me embarrased of myself.
Meaghan Orlinski
April 13, 2008 at 7:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dear Rebecca,
I will have to agree with Ryan, I don’t even know how I could establish you as Chinese by a comment alone. You brought it up. Secondly, not all Chinese agree with the occupation or the current ruling party, so I don’t think there could be a complete ‘racial-agreement’ of sorts over the issue. Thirdly, if someone ever uses that argument on you- go put on a pair of high heels and shove it up their bigoted ass. That kind of race-related argument has no validity, and should be discredited if ever boughten up.
Secondly, a small quote taken out of context is not a way to judge someone or their friends. That wasn’t my full response, my letter to the Ryersonian was edited. I wasn’t too happy with that either. If you’d like to criticize us a collective, it would be nice if you could meet us first, or talk to us.. or make some sort of contact. We’re not fiction, we’re very real, multi-faceted women.
As for me personally, my views are this: the Ryersonian has a history of being a very poor newspaper. I stopped reading it for the most part due to poor reporting and layout, and one news headline that read: “Is energy drink bad?” I can’t respect a newspaper that can’t get it’s syntax right on a front page.
My full letter called out the Ryersonian for bad reporting, and did not criticize the Chinese government. Secondly, I find it in very poor taste to poke fun at a spiritual leader. What if they portrayed Aga Khan in a joking matter? What kind of reaction do you think that would generate?
When I wrote that comment, it was the beginning of the protest which were fairly peaceful. A person’s right to protest is basic human right. I am not sure how you can argue otherwise. Me being ‘righteous’ or not aside.
And don’t call someone righteous when your are being it yourself.
… Oh, but thank you for calling us darlings. We think we are too.
Ryan Oakley
April 13, 2008 at 9:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ladies, as much as I love to watch women fight — it makes me think of threesomes — I am forced to ask myself: Will this argument on The Grumpy Owl solve anything? Sadly, the answer is no. It’s pointless.
It seems to me that you’re both decent people and that a misunderstanding about one thing has led to a misunderstanding about another and now disaster has struck: You both understand each other.
I may be an optimist but I believe that people can get along in spite of mutual understanding. In this spirit, I would like to offer you two the first ever Grumpy Peace conference.
Toronto is a small town when people share interests. You two are bound to bump into each other. I doubt we’ll see peace on Earth anytime soon but perhaps we can see some right in front of us.
I’ll even mediate the conference under the condition that, if you two can’t get along you have to fight and I get to watch.
It’s a sacrifice, I know, but I’ve always been generous.
rebecca
April 13, 2008 at 9:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Meagan,
If you read my second comment on this, you will find that I agree with you and have very little to do with what you wrote and more to do with my perceptions of what your wrote.
You are absolutely right, I don’t know you. All my impressions of you were based on some pictures on a blog, and a letter coloured by the fact that I had negative experiences with debating with people on a similar topic. I was discussing a similar fear I had about commenting on your letter. if I had respond to your letter, I would had to give my full name in order to be published, thus revealling that I am Chinese.
I apologize for any negative comments about you.
thesubadultyears
April 13, 2008 at 10:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ryan,
Sorry I didn’t see your post. I would be happy to see you again and meet Meaghan.
Meaghan,
I wish to respectfully point out that the article accompanying the cartoon on the same day stated that by March 14, the protests had became violent in Lhasa. As far as I can tell, my earlier comments had no complaints regarding the original peaceful protest by the monks.
http://www.ryersonline.ca/articles/2524/1/Tibet-killing-Olympic-buzz/Page1.html
Ryan Oakley
April 13, 2008 at 6:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ll never understand blogging.
I’ve said some crazy shit over the years and a fight finally breaks out in the comments. Over this? And what’s it even about? I don’t know. Tibet or something? No wonder the Dalai Lama wants to resign. I’m not saying I’m the Dalai Lama or anything. That fellow is a virgin.
Anyway, I’ve met Meaghan a grand total of once and briefly at that. I’m hardly in a position to introduce people. All I’m saying is that, if you two want to meet, I’ll mediate because I think a Camp David type post would be amusing. And it may even set a good example.
So you two can do that or you can get all grudgey and sulky. You can continue with the name calling, the psychological issues and the nonsense. Or, even better, you can settle all of this in the fashion it so richly deserves. Three o’clock in the school parking lot. That’s how nations often settle their differences. Why should you be any different?
Either way, I’m amused. That’s how much of a shit I give.
Managing my own opinions « The Subadult Years
April 13, 2008 at 7:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] Then I did a bad thing: I assumed her confusion was intentional. [...]