I’ve had this idea on the shelf for a while now but I thought I’d bring it out to see the light of day. I wrote most of this back in 2010. Specifically note the “Green” ideal of bioregionalism and how it contradicts the liberal desire to bridge the gaps between cultures and people. So now with some edits -
******************************************************************************************************************
It has been a long standing requirement in one of my teacher’s art classes that you must attend and write up a short one page essay on two art exhibitions. I’ve both loved and hated this requirement, I love it because I get my butt kicked out the door and to some cool shows in unique venues.
the part I hate about this requirement is trying to find parking downtown…..
Anyway, for my requirement the other semester I went to the opening of a show by Ryan Pierce called “Fear of Dogs and Water”
From a technical stand point he is very good; the images he creates of a post oil-apocalypse world are very intriguing. the world that he creates brings my imagination to life: struggles for life, the commentary on human greed and materialism are enough to make me very excited for his work, however he had to go and ruin my fun with the rest of his world view.
With the show there was a pamphlet detailing his commentary behind the show, in it he paints ideas that do more to make my mind run wild and make me want to create than his art. However I find certain elements about his philosophy to be wrong.
Pierce starts out by forming “an equilateral triangle” of thought.
At one point of this triangle is the body of Jerzy Kosinski with his suicide note and his book the Painted Bird.
One line is the souther border of the United States, one that he paints as a kind of Cerberus, the eyes of the electronic surveillance ever watching with one head, the teeth of the border patrol ever seizing upon those who wander into their range finders, the claws of the groups like the Minutemen constantly reaching for more and more illegals.
The next point in this triangle is the future that Pierce imagines without oil. the grid has shut down, most modern technology is useless, and the suburbanites are having to tear up the pavement to make way for farms. Religion is more intense and the weather more unforgiving.
It is in this uncertain world where the bright and shining future that has been promised to us since the 1950′s is gone where Pierce makes his artistic home and my mind runs wild with stories and ideas in this place and the creeping fear that he might be right.
Pierce connects the horrors experienced by the main character in the Painted Bird to those that are experienced by illegals crossing over into Mexico.
To Pierce those enforcing the border are similar to Nazis citing a story of a sheriff deputy that strapped the body of a dead illegal immigrant to the hood of his car, “like a deer.”
Despite this he contradicts himself some what, he is very sympathetic to the plight of the Mexicans crossing the border, championing their cause, yet at the same time he says that health care is cheaper and better south of the border. Really? Then why come here?
Like far too many Liberals he needs the next great humanitarian crisis to subsist upon, otherwise he lacks purpose. the immigrants need protection from the harsh laws of the mean old US need saving from cruel people who only want to do what comes naturally to your normal human being, remove trespassers. Never mind that there are other reasons why these people are coming here like their countries’ economy is being ripped apart by a government in bed with massive business interests, never mind that they are breaking the law here in the US, they are just poor help less people.
Then he announces that he feels that our border with Mexico is arbitrary and that he feels that borders scar the land and damage ecosystems, especially when they are closed.
I’d argue that there have always been arbitrary borders, and they have often been closed, just not so well enforced because they did not need to be. I feel that the time he is harkening back to was when traders were the only ones who traveled. If the common man traveled then the whole village or tribe moved. Pierce is caught in a quagmire of wishing for a time where there was no firm government beyond the tribal leader and seeking to establish borders with defined, set States. Furthermore I would also argue that more closed borders are a response to the new found mobility of the general populace. When borders were more “open” there was not the possibility of having entire cities just up and leave. At any other time in history such a thing would have been very difficult. But what about those displace by violence? Well the numbers that have been moving between countries is unprecedented, when borders were more “porous” it was just a few hundred that might move from a nearby valley because of an attack, the scale of possible immigration and emigration has changed. Furthermore the economic and cultural differences were not so vast, you have to move a valley or two over? Well you probably know the people in it and have traded with them. Not the big changes from moving between modern Mexico to the US.
Pierce then says that he would have no problem with borders if they were more “permeable”, citing Jonathan W. Moses’ book International Migration: Globalizations’s Last Frontier (the name alone is enough to make my blood boil, globalization a good thing? No.)
In it Moses favors unrestricted immigration and emigration, saying that it would be cheaper not to militarize our borders and that illegal immigrants do not drain the welfare system.
Moses continues to hypothesize that a “border-less” world would make politicians more responsive to their people.
First of all if we did not militarize our borders we would be assuming that everyone in the world likes us and that we would never go to war with another State. I think we all know that is a bad idea and would only happen in that far off and unobtainable liberal paradise. I’m not for attacking other countries for no reason but that does not mean we should let our borders remain unchecked.
Second, illegals do drain the welfare system that dose a piss poor job of screening out those who are not citizens. If we can’t keep $251 million in fraudulent Medicare claims from being paid to people milking the system how are we to stop the Liberals’ new “pet people” from getting money out of the welfare system? I could go off on why the welfare state should not exist, but another time.
Third, favoring illegals like Moses suggest is against all human nature, thus his entire argument stands against all concepts of protecting friends and family first, we are tribal animals and that will never change, no matter how “moral” it may be.
Forth, I would argue the opposite, politicians would just horde up all of what resources they can grab and hold them from those that don’t agree with them. Causing the reverse of what Moses would argue.
Pierce does have one redeeming philosophical point, he is a proponent of bioregionalism (in his own special way), a concept that fits well with my desire for a very culturally homogeneous State that is as small and self sufficient as possible. the more you don’t have to rely on others for your goods the better off you will be if some thing bad happens, oh like when the US economy starts going down hill fast.
However he admits that this idea could “possibly” foster regionalism, again contradicting himself. Of course it will foster regionalism, people don’t like to mix. the evidence is there, census data from 00′ shows that the large metropolitan cities like New York are HEAVILY segregated, and voluntarily at that.
Pierce wants to carve up the world and keep it one big happy family.
Sorry Pierce you can’t have you cake and eat it too.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2952037.International_Migration
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jerzy_Kosinski
http://ryanpierce.net/news.html
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bioregionalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_fraud