But something more interesting is this Bohemian Grove thing he's a part of. I'm pretty sure someone at Carleton was talking with me about this last year, how absurd and awful it is. But since I didn't remember for sure, I checked the thing out on Wikipedia.
The Bohemian Club's all-male membership includes artists, particularly musicians, as well as many prominent business leaders, government officials (including many former U.S. presidents), senior media executives, and people of power.Alrighty then. Looking at that NNDB site, I see Colin Powell, Alan Greenspan, Henry Morgan (co-founder of Morgan Stanley), Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and George Bush Senior and Junior, among others. Looks like a lot of white men. Looks like a lot of white, rich men from upper-class backgrounds. Looks like a lot of straight, able-bodied white, rich men. Probably cisgender, too, but how would one know? A lot of Bush supporters. I guess that makes sense.
Also, this is just wonderful:
The Grove is particularly famous for a Manhattan Project planning meeting that took place there in September 1942, which subsequently led to the atomic bomb.Hurray! The world would have been much worse off without that planning meeting. So, really, it is just so very fortunate that this exclusive club exists for rich white men who really don't have a safe space anywhere else!
Anyway, I wonder if Carleton's prestige has anything to do with this club. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe Carleton isn't as prestigious as I think it is. I leave you, once again, with little concrete. Hopefully, though, something to think about!
Yay grove awareness!
ReplyDeleteI knew this was the angle you'd take on the whole thing ;)
Kind of funny: most of the conpiracy/grove awareness folk (a VERY right-wing movement that I have a lot of problems with) accuse the grove memebers of NOT being straight with no real evidence. You had the opposite reflex. Interesting how one's reflex is always to cast the grove memebers as different as oneself as possible. Wonder why that is ;)
It seems that every end of the spectrum has problems with the grove group...funny that no one in the media ever talks about it...
but yeah...funny how there's a decent connection between organization prestige and trustee grove-membership
Keep questing! There's more out there I promise ;)
They very well could be queer. The information I have on them I got by clicking their individual profiles on the NNDB site. Thanks for the thoughts!
ReplyDeleteAre you implying that this one trustees' membership with one of the many organizations he's a part of has any real bearing on Carleton or how it is run? Also, while you (and me, for that matter) may disagree with his political affiliation, why do you immediately call him awful? Have you met him? Do you know him? Have you ever discussed his involvement with Carleton with him? There are plenty of opportunities to meet with the trustees. Have you taken these?
ReplyDeleteMany of my thoughts extrapolate from your post says overtly because I'm not certain you wrote or even intended some of the things I am going to write about. Not so much a linear progression as much as a few gathered reflections. But it was a springboard for reaction, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteA. Of course the Bohemian Grove is exclusive -- its most notable members represent the Old (Primarily White, Rich, Straight, Politically Conservative, Able-Bodied ... etc.) Boys' Club. And, as this group perpetuates the power of the Old Boys Club and therefore the institutionalized privilege that the OBC enjoys and abuses, I think you and I would both agree that it is not the healthiest or most productive use of power to better our society. Yes, I can see why you call it "awful."
However, I'm not entirely clear on why you think that every club must necessarily be a safe space. As you said, many if not all of the members of the Grove don't need one; logistically speaking, I'm pretty sure that the Bushes and Henry Morgan can arrange to meet without fear of being harassed. Is a social club/fraternal order/secret society that promotes OBC privilege necessarily a safe space? I'm troubled that you seem to think that any congregation of privileged people -- which will happen, sooner or later -- is automatically "awful" and "absurd." I was not aware that gathering is reserved only for some. As for Armacost himself, we honestly don't know his level of involvement in the Grove -- is he there for political/financial gain, is he there to network, or what? Yes, his participation at any degree plays into and reinforces a stratified and unfair power structure. Yes, we can criticize that. No, I do not think his membership in a privileged organization must automatically spell doom for Carleton.
B. I don't know a thing about Armacost, other than what you mentioned in your post, so I cannot comment on his stewardship of Carleton. But I'm really not sure what you are accusing him of doing to Carleton either -- it sounds like you are angry that a privileged person, with political views different from your own, is involved in Carleton's Board of Trustees.
C. I think it's prejudicial, and frankly hypocritical, to accuse a person of seeming pretty awful (to paraphrase your words) because of a family member's occupation. It's idealistic to hope that we should all be judged by our own character and our own actions, and not our inescapable backgrounds; but hey, isn't that something we're striving for? I'm glad you are aware of your bias but maybe you should think about challenging your own assumptions.
D. I'm not even going to touch on the atomic issue you raised, other than to say that I think that your statement needs to be unpacked a lot more before I will accept it as part of an argument that Armacost is ... doing his life wrong, or whatever you seem to be indicting him of! (It wasn't exactly clear in your post!)
To Brian and Other Person: you're doing a lot of reading into my words. I didn't say any of the things you've accused me of saying, and I didn't intend for you to receive them that way.
ReplyDeleteI was not intending to make accusations of Armacost at all. I was researching what he did/does. I found the Bohemian Grove thing. I researched what they did/do. It's a progression of thought. It's funny because not only are you putting words into my mouth, but you're also putting emotions in my heart. I wasn't angry when I wrote this, but having emotions projected onto me does make me angry.
So perhaps it would be good to separate what I said about Armacost from what I said about Bohemian Grove. Armacost, first paragraph. Bohemian Grove, two, three, and four. Last paragraph, honestly wondering about power structures.
Also, the safe space thing was meant to be sarcastic and ironic.
So I would encourage you (and anyone else reading!) to read my words literally. I do not intend to point fingers. What I am indicting him of isn't "exactly clear" because I'm not intending to indict him of anything! Which is why I end the post saying that it is something to think about. People are capable of making decisions on their own and I enjoy respecting that.
Oh God, the Grove.
ReplyDeleteHere's some info on the BG, from the perspective of a (paleoconservative) conspiracy theorist a friend directed me to years ago: www.infowars.com/bg1.html.
And, le Hi.
(Also, there's a way offensive Richard Nixon interview on that site.)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry for having projected emotion onto you, and I am sorry that I misread your post as having the intention of accusing Armacost of being a sinister force in Carleton's leadership. I will do my best to, as you said, read your words literally, and revise the aim of my original comment.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say any of the things you've accused me of saying, and I didn't intend for you to receive them that way.
What I got from your post was:
- I do think you judge Armacost of at least coming off as a pretty awful person, not only because of his actions but also because of his background. ("He seems pretty awful." "brother to the former president of Bank of America".)
- The Bohemian Grove is an awful organization. ("I'm pretty sure someone at Carleton was talking with me about this last year, how absurd and awful it is.")
- It is an awful organization because it exists to further the privilege of straight, able-bodied, white, rich male Bush supporters. ("Looks like a lot of white, rich men from upper-class backgrounds. Looks like a lot of straight, able-bodied white, rich men. Probably cisgender, too, but how would one know? A lot of Bush supporters." "So really, it is just so very fortunate that this exclusive club exists for rich men who really don't have a safe space anywhere else!")
- Carleton's prestige may, or may not, have something to do with the Bohemian Grove. ("I wonder if Carleton's prestige has anything to do with this club. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe Carleton isn't as prestigious as I think it is.") Carleton's prestige, if it is prestigious, might then be supported by white male [etc.] privilege, privilege that institutionally hurts many.
Also, the safe space thing was meant to be sarcastic and ironic.
Tone doesn't always convey well on the Internet. Looking back on that paragraph, I can see that it's highly sarcastic. But IMO, just because something is sarcastic in tone does not mean that I cannot comment on its meaning. I'm not actually looking to argue with your point about the safe space thing, but I think it just might be worth noting that not every reader will interpret your words the way you want them to be read.
For the sake of trying to have a productive dialogue I will drop the nuclear power thing since I know it's a minor point in this conversation.
Since you invited your readers to think about Armacost and his association with the Bohemian Grove, I did think about things your post had to say. I think your post does accuse him of at least coming off like an awful person. And I think that one piece of your argument for his being an awful person is problematic.
When you say that "not only are you putting words into my mouth, but you're also putting emotions in my heart," I understand that you are angry and I'm sorry that I provoked that. Frankly, when you flatly deny or ignore much of what I have to say, I get a angry too.
Okay, that's a much more fair (in my opinion) reading of my post. And I don't deny, I do think Armacost's involvement heavy involvement in the US Government and ties to Bohemian Grove make him a candidate for awful. And I don't think he is awful because of his background but because of his actions. He has clearly done nothing but use his privilege to gain him the status he has, and by supporting neo-cons he has perpetuated a state in which the marginalized and oppressed are exactly that: marginalized and oppressed.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's anything problematic with calling someone out on their privilege. I don't think it's problematic to call someone an awful person for actively using their privilege to continue to oppress others.
And I'm sorry if I made you angry by seemingly denying or ignoring what you had to say. I did not intend to ignore or deny. And you're totally right about interpretation of words.
I do think you're right about one thing, though. Perhaps Armacost is not awful. Perhaps it would be better to say that he perpetuates awful acts.
I'm curious as to what you think rich white people should do with their time. People like Armacost and even (dare I say?) Dick Cheney, may belong to exclusive clubs, but do other things that do perpetuate a better life for people, giving to charity, etc. Not everyone, realistically, has the time or energy or wherewithal to devote their lives to the betterment of the underpriveleged. While i recognize that this is a sad fact about our society, I object to the idea that acting on one's privilege makes that person bad. I consider myself privileged. I am "taking advantage" of it by being able to go to a very expensive college without having to worry about its cost. In the future, I will not have to struggle nearly as hard as the vast majority of people in the world to survive when I leave Carleton. However, I realize that this is not an ENTITELMENT--I am very grateful for my privilege. I, thankfully, was born into a situation that gave me the resources to get these fabulous resources without having to work for them, (in comparison with most others) but I don't sit around all day feeling sorry for myself about it. I would see it as wasteful of my privilege not to have done so. And I do believe very strongly that there is a great unbalance of wealth in this country, and I believe very strongly that that is wrong. However, just becasue I am one of those lucky few, and because I take advantage of that fact, does not make me a bad person. To conclude, I want to stress again, that we can consider ourselves privileged without seeing it as a right or entitlement.
ReplyDelete--Jimmy
I hope the above didn't sound accusatory. I am genuinely interested in your opinions, Laura, because they appear to be very different from my own
ReplyDelete