reading ~A Civilian Occupation~ brings back into
mind a very simple idea that is unknown if it is a
feasible option or even possible or has already
been attempted- yet one image my brain gets if
considering what little of the settlement dynamic
i relate to (besides, when in college, being asked
if i wanted to work in a kibbutz, which i wonder if
these are actually settlements, themselves).... is if,
if somehow architecture played a part betraying of
place for ulterior motives, it could also play a part
in some reconciliation, such as through using the
buildings/communities for Palestinian populations,
schools and such, versus those now destroyed by
bulldozers and missiles. very simplistic i am sure,
yet the image of what is going on would seem that
should anyone leave their buildings, they may very
likely be seen as 'symbols' that would be destroyed
rather than handed-over as a gesture of peaceful
transition, to a reciprocal commitment to building
a stability. that is, Palestinians would occupy the
hilltops of their lands, and may seek to rebuild or
to redevelop certain areas though keep others. in
reading on list here of how churches and temples
have been built upon one another, over time, it is
possible that such a change may also be possible.
though, not likely if pursued by those who destruct,
such as any whose ego is equated with bulldozing.
yet, the potential would seem to exist for a housing
stock and a community structure to be given over
to other ends than occupation but redefinition of
place. that is, what may be a liability in the region
could be a resource, if it were not destroyed out of
obligation or spite for some final retribution of the
hatred, but as a possibility to start building up new
relations, under some shared conditions. like the
doctors seen in a TV documentary of a hospital of
emergency doctors, where both Palestinians and
Israelis are treated side-by-side, as human beings,
maybe if architects viewed housing as a universal
right, and not just the control of 'space' but rather,
even moreso, of 'place' that is beyond ideological
ownership by any one politic, or politician or some
force which thinks ground can be owned, it shows
an ultimate fallacy of development upon the land,
and for the wrong reasons- selfish, greedy, ____.
that free-floating abstraction of 'terror' could easily
be applied to those who go along developments
of such degree as to reciprocate suicide bombing.
if people are not being represented, their public
needs, through some effective governance, it is a
trend it seems that some private forces will fill up
the vacuum with a private agenda, then sold as
one that is for the benefit of the public at large,
while pursuing a highly-privatized agenda at an
immense cost to people of a particular public set.
Zaha Hadid has just won the Pritzker Prize from
a certain segment of the architectural profession
as it now exists. She is a woman, she is Iraqi too.
It is wondered what she thinks of what is going on
in Iraq, it would be good to hear someone who is
knowledgeable of all the issues to speak up when
they have the world-pulpit of the profession, if it is
not money which drives the discipline but some
transcendent motivation to make the world better
in some kind, quality, or relation. Is it possible that
Ms. Hadid's work may be held in juxtaposition of
the architectural work now which exists in Iraq?
Are these the world's now needing to be bridged?
While on the whole against architectural celebrity
as anything equivalent to recognizing architecture
as a discipline beyond the architect, it would seem
Ms. Hadid could be a unique voice of today's events.
I've not heard much of it, though, what she thinks. A
lot of press talks about celebrity architects as being
intellectual powerhouses. It would be nice to hear
what they think outside of one-way dialogues on
issues directly related to their own competencies.
For instance, what if architects from all over the
world could gather to establish some connections
and even 'trade' of expertise for mutual benefit? Is
there an Iraqi or Palestinian or Arab architectural
league, and could this meet with all the others in
a neutral context, to discuss the aims of the field,
how to address issues such as climate change,
better planning, techniques for efficiencies, to
create shared databases on building types and
construction which could be developed by the
students all over the world, used as a teaching
resource? What about Africa, South America,
Mexico, Russia, Asia, all over the Middle-East...
How might what may be common situations, in
some way, be addressed by architects and by
better planning and open dialogues? Here in
Minneapolis there are plans to basically take
down some of the most beautiful buildings on
the waterfront where the city began, to replace
them with nondescript office space and condos.
It is announced in the paper, but without any
kind of critique of losing significant resources
which make a place unique, it is all short-term
thinking. Whereas, in societies who may have
been around for thousands of years may have
realized a better way to address these concerns
when they come up, rapidly, or are trying to, and
this could help in situations where things happen
so fast that bad decisions are made and history
is lost (grain elevators as critical aesthetic fabric,
which could easily be retrofitted and survive any
development, and would raise property values
for keeping what is unique around yet functional).
There is no planning here- anything goes and
what goes is often of a privatized nature-- there
is little or no public representation-- even by the
very architects and architectural school that is
vaunting the cultural greatness of architecture,
while following orders to just make new stuff.
One of the things that is confusing is how far
this lack of public representation goes/travels,
in common around the world in various ways.
"Occupation" is a keyword, certainly. Yet there
are many ways to occupy, or to say, privatize,
another's place. Ironic is the situation in Iraq,
with obvious recognition that the .US has not
dealt straight yet now is in readying changes,
to 'stop the occupation' though which another
outside force, previously not there before the
war, known as 'terrorists' or possibly 'foreign
insurgents' or 'domestic insurgents' it is not
known how it can be defined in these terms-
only that it does not seem to be those in the
Iraqi public who blew up the United Nations
headquarters there. That is equivalent to the
blowing up of world diplomatic efforts. That
is a rather inarguable position that leaves
absolutely no room for any compromise at all.
That is recognized by all as a terrorist action.
Though, the .US is being called by these very
people 'occupiers' in Iraq as they are now to
reconfigure their relationship, and largely in
ways much better for Iraq than any privatized
plans that may have previously existed or the
efforts to act on those truly corrupt intentions.
The .US and the .UN are back in some kind
of relations, the details of which seem to be
in some (normal, it is guessed) contentions,
about hand-over and issues of sovereignty.
Though there is one thing that doesn't make
sense with regard to the rhetoric of terrorists
blowing up Iraqis in the name of a privatized
view of the world, however severely warped.
These attacks are actually necessitating and
threatening the peaceful transition to the rule
of Iraq by Iraqis, again however problematic
in the near-term. These explosions, massive
killings of citizens and others, seem to need
the 'occupation to continue' as a direct result
of these attacks. How is that good for the Iraqi
public? It is wondered. Who are these attacks,
or better said, what 'place' is this violence to
lead to- an independent Iraqi state? Or is it
to destabilize it into a region for once again,
another host-country for these miscreants to
take over like Afghanistan, and to put under
their control the people by way of violence,
oppression, and private ideological control
of a formerly secular state-- bin Ladenland.
Who is the occupier, then? Here in the .US
there is a private sector where those who
are excessively successful at such tactics
of business and corporate takeovers can
turn into such cultural behemoths as that
legacy of Roy Disney, with an architectural
dimension in Celebration (New Urbanism),
yet also Disneyland, Disneyworld, et cetera.
Yet, this is also, legally recognized as that
of a private agenda, with private profit as a
motive-- again, public representation is not
in the business model. Nor does it seem to
be with those who are killing civilians in
Iraq and elsewhere. These are not 'public'
in the sense of government of a state by a
class of people but rather by some sub-
group which wants to submit the world to
a specific world-view. That is a privatized
agenda, just like capitalism, maybe, yet in
another way it is an action that is equivalent
to "private occupation" of a public sphere of
a people, of a religion, for reasons other than
liberation or freedom or even religious action.
On the whole It is about power, not about truth.
Truth is balanced. It may in some ways be an
absurdity, something that is not concrete as it
can shift and change and may be beyond the
complexity of words, in many ways and times.
It could be said that there is an 'occupation' of
countries by 'groups known as terrorists' who
do not have the larger 'public' good as part of
their private designs upon a place. Therefore,
their fighting may not be 'for the people' but
for a specific group of people, who then would
rule the larger space as a result of victories in
destabilizations of governments. Where this
ceases to be a legitimate and real concern is
not understood by denials such threats exist,
in an era of nuclear weapons and other issues.
Ludditism seems to have come back in vogue.
What is interesting, in terms of the politics of
place (Kemmis) is that while these actions
against the Iraqi's are being perpetrated by
terror groups, so too in Afghanistan they are
at work, after what the large majority of the
world (if the .UN is representable) believes
was a worthwhile effort, yet still in contention
due to resources and lasting ideologies of
oppression and mental occupation, that a
people cannot be more free than those with
the most guns and explosives want them to
be, in the name of religion, in the name of God.
Who is occupying who? And in what ways?
It would seem possible that the terrorists are
the occupiers of states of mind, using fear to
stop freedoms to dream, think, believe in a
better world, a better way, and instead resort
to pure terror to frighten away any changes
or challenges to a strong-arming of ideology
that is itself a major source of the oppression,
occupying people with fears of retributions.
Consider this: Saddam Hussein was neither
good enough for al Qaeda nor vice-versa!
Yet now that he is gone, the power vacuum
is there to attempt another Afghan revolution
in the name of the Iraqis but for another kind
of occupation-- to make it the killing grounds
of an ideological warfare that cannot be won
with bombs but with reasonable and shared
decisions about what is for the common good.
This is the last thing any terrorist wants to do--
that is, to question their basic motives for their
actions or even the inconsistencies of beliefs.
For instance, some kind of video or audiotape
was recently released which called upon the
people of a certain country to act against their
government in the name of religion, and this
religion's leader, that to do so would be to do
the work of God. In so doing, this was a call
to occupy a nation now for the first time in a
long time, in a more peaceful relation with
the world at large, given extreme issues of
destabilization that could have threatened its
very survival. And what did the .UN and the
world community do? Did they unleash the
dogs of war against such a threat-- and did
this country address the situation in such a
way as to poorly represent its own public?
Its own 'place' and standing in the world?
No. If anything by balancing nuclear power
with the truth it gained stature and stability
as a responsible party, and in doing so may
have done what was, in practice, the best
for its people and its religious culture, that
is, it acted as wisely as possible. What did
the al Qaeda do? They called this traitorous
(to who? the public in .PK or those who want
to take over the country through occupation?).
The oddest thing is, how can these hatreds
against balance of place, of planning for a
local population by that population, with a
regard for their welfare, their shared destiny
as a people beyond any one dimension or
division- the shared aspect of public people
or human beings of a certain place, to find
some representation in larger developments
so as to not get lost, and feel helpless inside
of a state, while then to be 'represented in a
revolutionary' manner, to be iconoclasts of
symbols of all things that are against these
very peoples wills (though not accurately so,
nor fair, balanced, or truthful in presentation).
That is, banish the ideological enemy, says
the occupiers of a place of a disenfranchised
populace which, like all countries, shares a
complex transition through present moments,
yet to do so with the very tools brought about
by the 'evil' they want to get rid of, banish from
the land-- television, videotape, radio, music.
As far as remembered, these were banned in
Afghanistan during its 'privatized occupation.'
How does it make any sense for someone to
use a cassette tape developed in a country
one is bombing, to exert ideological power
over a country or people who are said to be
represented by these tacticians yet without
acknowledging that this is basic hypocrisy.
In whatever future occupation of a nuclear
country, in the name of private ideologies,
these people would likely have their host
country nuked by every other on the planet
while at the same time starving them of the
technological developments not a part of
some pure, very constricted world view.
That is not good for anyone, except them,
as it is violence which is desired, not peace.
The occupation is also that of a privatization
of rule, and in its extreme, of a violent and
chaotic force for pure destruction of anything
and everything in the name of God, no less.
One is left to wonder what the Goddess thinks.
And, the only way such 'occupations' are
able to continue is through the lack of any
supported and protected speech which can
challenge the ideologies, without a violent
repercussion fostered by states themselves.
That is, a publicness to place, to space and
its shared inhabitation, not occupation by
any force, whether some private agenda by
a misled world power or a group who may
try to change yet are also limited by abilities
to change in ways that are other than violent,
and dangerous not only internally but also
externally of which all states will be held
responsible for, the greater the threat, the
greater response in kind and degree it is
to be imagined. That is why nuclear states
have a unique responsibility, it would seem,
to account for a certain degree of changes,
to enable dynamics which do not breed a
discontent which is funneled into a small
group to challenge to take over the entire
society for private causes, a problem that
is apparently shared all over the world, but
the opportunities for a balancing of truth
and power- and of zones of interactions-
to cultivate peaceful exchanges and to
uphold the values of a particular place,
while also not threatening those of other
places. The world as a place has as its
potential at the turn of the millennium a
great cross-pollination where 'the map'
is 'the territory'-- not just the terror story.
That is, representation which represent
to infinite degrees the realities involved,
if only the dialogues and hopes stay alive.
What is problematic is so little 'planning'
is being done, and changes are so swift
that it is very much in the rear-view mirror,
what is now happening or might yet. How
to share space, share place, in some way,
differences are one half if that, similarities
are the other, and a question in the middle,
of where these can find something together
without losing what is unique. I got another
e-mail today of a call for a certain religious
denomination to act upon its voice for peace,
and not to let it be subverted for violence.
What some in the world may not know is
that in fostering tolerances of differences,
there has not been a total 'judgment' on a
people because some use it as a front for
a private agenda and attempt to occupy the
world's largest religion for enacting global
war which baited some powerful leaders
into the moves now decried by these same
as an occupation, while they occupy and
use the world's largest religion as their
reason for doing so, while oppressing a
local population, blowing the public and
religious citizens and children up, in the
name of God yet doing so only to destruct
peaceful inhabitation by the public itself.
There is a common enemy. They are those
who are against peace at any and all costs.
Some 'terrorist' actions are for 'occupation'
of a public space by an ideological group.
'Democracy' may deal with 'place' in such
a way to differentiate some spaces as a
publicness and a privateness, each to be
protected through individual and collective
rights in some share constitution of a people.
That is what citizens defend and will die for.
And they are not scared of any terrorists if
knowing everyone is backing them in this,
including the citizenry of their own societies.
Terrorists cannot destroy the hope of change,
of freedom, and of the virtue of a better world
in which to live. If they refuse to change, as
evolution indicates, they will soon die out
and become fossils of an ideological cult
few will pray for-- and if anything, pity them
for not having willed themselves to a good
greater than themselves and violence, itself.
That is far inferior to the cultures they now
attempt to occupy, and whose public voice
has yet to roar against the massive injustice.
Architecture, planning, design, the arts,
culture, writing, poetry, the sciences, the
realms of fashion, technology, cuisine,
language, history, archaeology, media,
business, all of these areas and more are
very well capable of providing foundations
for shared interests and discussions and
results in a public context in which to build
new relations between peoples now at odds
due to historical circumstances. Terrorism is
not a discourse in which peaceful interaction
can occur, only polarization, it now seems.
Place, in such a context, requires definition.
Occupation, also in such a context, requires
the fact that 'terrorists' exploit this in the name
of a religion, while themselves becoming the
occupiers as with Iraq and other regions. It is
this private ownership of space, by purely a
private power, which endangers many today.
It is natural, artificial, and built environments
in which this occurs, all realms of architecture.
One option is pure destruction, the bulldozing
which the terror seems to do so well, another
is the building, which may also be an act of
violence, unless it is build a place for peace.
bc
brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
architecture, education, electromagnetism
http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
mind a very simple idea that is unknown if it is a
feasible option or even possible or has already
been attempted- yet one image my brain gets if
considering what little of the settlement dynamic
i relate to (besides, when in college, being asked
if i wanted to work in a kibbutz, which i wonder if
these are actually settlements, themselves).... is if,
if somehow architecture played a part betraying of
place for ulterior motives, it could also play a part
in some reconciliation, such as through using the
buildings/communities for Palestinian populations,
schools and such, versus those now destroyed by
bulldozers and missiles. very simplistic i am sure,
yet the image of what is going on would seem that
should anyone leave their buildings, they may very
likely be seen as 'symbols' that would be destroyed
rather than handed-over as a gesture of peaceful
transition, to a reciprocal commitment to building
a stability. that is, Palestinians would occupy the
hilltops of their lands, and may seek to rebuild or
to redevelop certain areas though keep others. in
reading on list here of how churches and temples
have been built upon one another, over time, it is
possible that such a change may also be possible.
though, not likely if pursued by those who destruct,
such as any whose ego is equated with bulldozing.
yet, the potential would seem to exist for a housing
stock and a community structure to be given over
to other ends than occupation but redefinition of
place. that is, what may be a liability in the region
could be a resource, if it were not destroyed out of
obligation or spite for some final retribution of the
hatred, but as a possibility to start building up new
relations, under some shared conditions. like the
doctors seen in a TV documentary of a hospital of
emergency doctors, where both Palestinians and
Israelis are treated side-by-side, as human beings,
maybe if architects viewed housing as a universal
right, and not just the control of 'space' but rather,
even moreso, of 'place' that is beyond ideological
ownership by any one politic, or politician or some
force which thinks ground can be owned, it shows
an ultimate fallacy of development upon the land,
and for the wrong reasons- selfish, greedy, ____.
that free-floating abstraction of 'terror' could easily
be applied to those who go along developments
of such degree as to reciprocate suicide bombing.
if people are not being represented, their public
needs, through some effective governance, it is a
trend it seems that some private forces will fill up
the vacuum with a private agenda, then sold as
one that is for the benefit of the public at large,
while pursuing a highly-privatized agenda at an
immense cost to people of a particular public set.
Zaha Hadid has just won the Pritzker Prize from
a certain segment of the architectural profession
as it now exists. She is a woman, she is Iraqi too.
It is wondered what she thinks of what is going on
in Iraq, it would be good to hear someone who is
knowledgeable of all the issues to speak up when
they have the world-pulpit of the profession, if it is
not money which drives the discipline but some
transcendent motivation to make the world better
in some kind, quality, or relation. Is it possible that
Ms. Hadid's work may be held in juxtaposition of
the architectural work now which exists in Iraq?
Are these the world's now needing to be bridged?
While on the whole against architectural celebrity
as anything equivalent to recognizing architecture
as a discipline beyond the architect, it would seem
Ms. Hadid could be a unique voice of today's events.
I've not heard much of it, though, what she thinks. A
lot of press talks about celebrity architects as being
intellectual powerhouses. It would be nice to hear
what they think outside of one-way dialogues on
issues directly related to their own competencies.
For instance, what if architects from all over the
world could gather to establish some connections
and even 'trade' of expertise for mutual benefit? Is
there an Iraqi or Palestinian or Arab architectural
league, and could this meet with all the others in
a neutral context, to discuss the aims of the field,
how to address issues such as climate change,
better planning, techniques for efficiencies, to
create shared databases on building types and
construction which could be developed by the
students all over the world, used as a teaching
resource? What about Africa, South America,
Mexico, Russia, Asia, all over the Middle-East...
How might what may be common situations, in
some way, be addressed by architects and by
better planning and open dialogues? Here in
Minneapolis there are plans to basically take
down some of the most beautiful buildings on
the waterfront where the city began, to replace
them with nondescript office space and condos.
It is announced in the paper, but without any
kind of critique of losing significant resources
which make a place unique, it is all short-term
thinking. Whereas, in societies who may have
been around for thousands of years may have
realized a better way to address these concerns
when they come up, rapidly, or are trying to, and
this could help in situations where things happen
so fast that bad decisions are made and history
is lost (grain elevators as critical aesthetic fabric,
which could easily be retrofitted and survive any
development, and would raise property values
for keeping what is unique around yet functional).
There is no planning here- anything goes and
what goes is often of a privatized nature-- there
is little or no public representation-- even by the
very architects and architectural school that is
vaunting the cultural greatness of architecture,
while following orders to just make new stuff.
One of the things that is confusing is how far
this lack of public representation goes/travels,
in common around the world in various ways.
"Occupation" is a keyword, certainly. Yet there
are many ways to occupy, or to say, privatize,
another's place. Ironic is the situation in Iraq,
with obvious recognition that the .US has not
dealt straight yet now is in readying changes,
to 'stop the occupation' though which another
outside force, previously not there before the
war, known as 'terrorists' or possibly 'foreign
insurgents' or 'domestic insurgents' it is not
known how it can be defined in these terms-
only that it does not seem to be those in the
Iraqi public who blew up the United Nations
headquarters there. That is equivalent to the
blowing up of world diplomatic efforts. That
is a rather inarguable position that leaves
absolutely no room for any compromise at all.
That is recognized by all as a terrorist action.
Though, the .US is being called by these very
people 'occupiers' in Iraq as they are now to
reconfigure their relationship, and largely in
ways much better for Iraq than any privatized
plans that may have previously existed or the
efforts to act on those truly corrupt intentions.
The .US and the .UN are back in some kind
of relations, the details of which seem to be
in some (normal, it is guessed) contentions,
about hand-over and issues of sovereignty.
Though there is one thing that doesn't make
sense with regard to the rhetoric of terrorists
blowing up Iraqis in the name of a privatized
view of the world, however severely warped.
These attacks are actually necessitating and
threatening the peaceful transition to the rule
of Iraq by Iraqis, again however problematic
in the near-term. These explosions, massive
killings of citizens and others, seem to need
the 'occupation to continue' as a direct result
of these attacks. How is that good for the Iraqi
public? It is wondered. Who are these attacks,
or better said, what 'place' is this violence to
lead to- an independent Iraqi state? Or is it
to destabilize it into a region for once again,
another host-country for these miscreants to
take over like Afghanistan, and to put under
their control the people by way of violence,
oppression, and private ideological control
of a formerly secular state-- bin Ladenland.
Who is the occupier, then? Here in the .US
there is a private sector where those who
are excessively successful at such tactics
of business and corporate takeovers can
turn into such cultural behemoths as that
legacy of Roy Disney, with an architectural
dimension in Celebration (New Urbanism),
yet also Disneyland, Disneyworld, et cetera.
Yet, this is also, legally recognized as that
of a private agenda, with private profit as a
motive-- again, public representation is not
in the business model. Nor does it seem to
be with those who are killing civilians in
Iraq and elsewhere. These are not 'public'
in the sense of government of a state by a
class of people but rather by some sub-
group which wants to submit the world to
a specific world-view. That is a privatized
agenda, just like capitalism, maybe, yet in
another way it is an action that is equivalent
to "private occupation" of a public sphere of
a people, of a religion, for reasons other than
liberation or freedom or even religious action.
On the whole It is about power, not about truth.
Truth is balanced. It may in some ways be an
absurdity, something that is not concrete as it
can shift and change and may be beyond the
complexity of words, in many ways and times.
It could be said that there is an 'occupation' of
countries by 'groups known as terrorists' who
do not have the larger 'public' good as part of
their private designs upon a place. Therefore,
their fighting may not be 'for the people' but
for a specific group of people, who then would
rule the larger space as a result of victories in
destabilizations of governments. Where this
ceases to be a legitimate and real concern is
not understood by denials such threats exist,
in an era of nuclear weapons and other issues.
Ludditism seems to have come back in vogue.
What is interesting, in terms of the politics of
place (Kemmis) is that while these actions
against the Iraqi's are being perpetrated by
terror groups, so too in Afghanistan they are
at work, after what the large majority of the
world (if the .UN is representable) believes
was a worthwhile effort, yet still in contention
due to resources and lasting ideologies of
oppression and mental occupation, that a
people cannot be more free than those with
the most guns and explosives want them to
be, in the name of religion, in the name of God.
Who is occupying who? And in what ways?
It would seem possible that the terrorists are
the occupiers of states of mind, using fear to
stop freedoms to dream, think, believe in a
better world, a better way, and instead resort
to pure terror to frighten away any changes
or challenges to a strong-arming of ideology
that is itself a major source of the oppression,
occupying people with fears of retributions.
Consider this: Saddam Hussein was neither
good enough for al Qaeda nor vice-versa!
Yet now that he is gone, the power vacuum
is there to attempt another Afghan revolution
in the name of the Iraqis but for another kind
of occupation-- to make it the killing grounds
of an ideological warfare that cannot be won
with bombs but with reasonable and shared
decisions about what is for the common good.
This is the last thing any terrorist wants to do--
that is, to question their basic motives for their
actions or even the inconsistencies of beliefs.
For instance, some kind of video or audiotape
was recently released which called upon the
people of a certain country to act against their
government in the name of religion, and this
religion's leader, that to do so would be to do
the work of God. In so doing, this was a call
to occupy a nation now for the first time in a
long time, in a more peaceful relation with
the world at large, given extreme issues of
destabilization that could have threatened its
very survival. And what did the .UN and the
world community do? Did they unleash the
dogs of war against such a threat-- and did
this country address the situation in such a
way as to poorly represent its own public?
Its own 'place' and standing in the world?
No. If anything by balancing nuclear power
with the truth it gained stature and stability
as a responsible party, and in doing so may
have done what was, in practice, the best
for its people and its religious culture, that
is, it acted as wisely as possible. What did
the al Qaeda do? They called this traitorous
(to who? the public in .PK or those who want
to take over the country through occupation?).
The oddest thing is, how can these hatreds
against balance of place, of planning for a
local population by that population, with a
regard for their welfare, their shared destiny
as a people beyond any one dimension or
division- the shared aspect of public people
or human beings of a certain place, to find
some representation in larger developments
so as to not get lost, and feel helpless inside
of a state, while then to be 'represented in a
revolutionary' manner, to be iconoclasts of
symbols of all things that are against these
very peoples wills (though not accurately so,
nor fair, balanced, or truthful in presentation).
That is, banish the ideological enemy, says
the occupiers of a place of a disenfranchised
populace which, like all countries, shares a
complex transition through present moments,
yet to do so with the very tools brought about
by the 'evil' they want to get rid of, banish from
the land-- television, videotape, radio, music.
As far as remembered, these were banned in
Afghanistan during its 'privatized occupation.'
How does it make any sense for someone to
use a cassette tape developed in a country
one is bombing, to exert ideological power
over a country or people who are said to be
represented by these tacticians yet without
acknowledging that this is basic hypocrisy.
In whatever future occupation of a nuclear
country, in the name of private ideologies,
these people would likely have their host
country nuked by every other on the planet
while at the same time starving them of the
technological developments not a part of
some pure, very constricted world view.
That is not good for anyone, except them,
as it is violence which is desired, not peace.
The occupation is also that of a privatization
of rule, and in its extreme, of a violent and
chaotic force for pure destruction of anything
and everything in the name of God, no less.
One is left to wonder what the Goddess thinks.
And, the only way such 'occupations' are
able to continue is through the lack of any
supported and protected speech which can
challenge the ideologies, without a violent
repercussion fostered by states themselves.
That is, a publicness to place, to space and
its shared inhabitation, not occupation by
any force, whether some private agenda by
a misled world power or a group who may
try to change yet are also limited by abilities
to change in ways that are other than violent,
and dangerous not only internally but also
externally of which all states will be held
responsible for, the greater the threat, the
greater response in kind and degree it is
to be imagined. That is why nuclear states
have a unique responsibility, it would seem,
to account for a certain degree of changes,
to enable dynamics which do not breed a
discontent which is funneled into a small
group to challenge to take over the entire
society for private causes, a problem that
is apparently shared all over the world, but
the opportunities for a balancing of truth
and power- and of zones of interactions-
to cultivate peaceful exchanges and to
uphold the values of a particular place,
while also not threatening those of other
places. The world as a place has as its
potential at the turn of the millennium a
great cross-pollination where 'the map'
is 'the territory'-- not just the terror story.
That is, representation which represent
to infinite degrees the realities involved,
if only the dialogues and hopes stay alive.
What is problematic is so little 'planning'
is being done, and changes are so swift
that it is very much in the rear-view mirror,
what is now happening or might yet. How
to share space, share place, in some way,
differences are one half if that, similarities
are the other, and a question in the middle,
of where these can find something together
without losing what is unique. I got another
e-mail today of a call for a certain religious
denomination to act upon its voice for peace,
and not to let it be subverted for violence.
What some in the world may not know is
that in fostering tolerances of differences,
there has not been a total 'judgment' on a
people because some use it as a front for
a private agenda and attempt to occupy the
world's largest religion for enacting global
war which baited some powerful leaders
into the moves now decried by these same
as an occupation, while they occupy and
use the world's largest religion as their
reason for doing so, while oppressing a
local population, blowing the public and
religious citizens and children up, in the
name of God yet doing so only to destruct
peaceful inhabitation by the public itself.
There is a common enemy. They are those
who are against peace at any and all costs.
Some 'terrorist' actions are for 'occupation'
of a public space by an ideological group.
'Democracy' may deal with 'place' in such
a way to differentiate some spaces as a
publicness and a privateness, each to be
protected through individual and collective
rights in some share constitution of a people.
That is what citizens defend and will die for.
And they are not scared of any terrorists if
knowing everyone is backing them in this,
including the citizenry of their own societies.
Terrorists cannot destroy the hope of change,
of freedom, and of the virtue of a better world
in which to live. If they refuse to change, as
evolution indicates, they will soon die out
and become fossils of an ideological cult
few will pray for-- and if anything, pity them
for not having willed themselves to a good
greater than themselves and violence, itself.
That is far inferior to the cultures they now
attempt to occupy, and whose public voice
has yet to roar against the massive injustice.
Architecture, planning, design, the arts,
culture, writing, poetry, the sciences, the
realms of fashion, technology, cuisine,
language, history, archaeology, media,
business, all of these areas and more are
very well capable of providing foundations
for shared interests and discussions and
results in a public context in which to build
new relations between peoples now at odds
due to historical circumstances. Terrorism is
not a discourse in which peaceful interaction
can occur, only polarization, it now seems.
Place, in such a context, requires definition.
Occupation, also in such a context, requires
the fact that 'terrorists' exploit this in the name
of a religion, while themselves becoming the
occupiers as with Iraq and other regions. It is
this private ownership of space, by purely a
private power, which endangers many today.
It is natural, artificial, and built environments
in which this occurs, all realms of architecture.
One option is pure destruction, the bulldozing
which the terror seems to do so well, another
is the building, which may also be an act of
violence, unless it is build a place for peace.
bc
brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
architecture, education, electromagnetism
http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html