It's Driving Me Nuts: On Pirates, Pirates, and the Forsaken Faithless
Several years back, thanks mostly to Johnny Depp as Keith Richards as Jack Sparrow, and, to a slightly lesser extent, Keith Richards as Johnny Depp as Keith Richards as Jack Sparrow as Captain Teague, the western world fell in love with pirates. If you don't believe me, then you haven't seen anyone in a Halloween costume since 2003. It was as if any traces of centuries-long pirate hatred were undone in two-and-a-half hours of cinematic majesty.
But lately, our feelings about pirates have taken the proverbial one-eighty (back to where they lay mid-18th century). Precipitated by the recent events surrounding the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama, there's definitely an anti-pirate sentiment in the air. Piracy is definitely the new terrorism, which was the new domestic drug crime. And for those keeping track of scaremongering at large, avian flu is the new SARS, which was the the new AIDS for a while (Wes).
Among those feeling the downturn in the economy of pirate political capital: intellectual pirates. Some of founders of the torrent site thePirateBay.org were recently sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to pay over $3 million for facilitating breach of copyright law.
Where do I think they went wrong? As much as I hate to say it, it might have been in the name. Why call yourself 'pirates' when the recording industry is attacking you for being 'pirates'? In all honesty, though, I think this was one of the best attempts at reappropriation since the n-word. They took a good shot at it, but they learned the hard way that they couldn't ride that Disneyland pirate magic forever.
In a similar vein, there has been a recent play by those loveless baby-eaters, the atheists, to redefine their image with a new title. Taking a page from the gay book, those with a purely naturalistic worldview apparently want to be known as "brights". To questions about this proposal, Darwin lookalike Daniel Dennett responds thusly:
Seeing as how atheists rank below homosexuals (and Muslims, and Hispanics, and 'recent immigrants' of all kinds) on the scale of popular distrust, it makes sense that they might want to revamp their image. I see several problems here, but my main issue is with the contention that there was some "highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word 'gay'". I don't know about you, but I feel (and I think the aforementioned Wes' biggest celebrity crush, Hilary Duff, would agree) like that "hijacking" did more to change the word "gay" than elevate anything homosexual. As I recall, the first definition of "gay" I ever learned was "homosexual", which, because I was six years old and subscribed more to the elementary school hive-mind approach than reasonable, critical thought, was definitely something bad (even if I had close to no idea what it was). Sure they hijacked it, but it didn't take too long for that ship to run aground.
And if public opinion of godless heathens doesn't find an upswing sometime soon, I almost feel like "bright" will be the ironic and disparaging adjective of the future. I say "almost" because a prerequisite for this phenomenon would be the brights movement gaining some momentum, which it won't. Partly because of the fact that, even as 'brights', they sure seem to have a problem spotting their own false pretenses.
But lately, our feelings about pirates have taken the proverbial one-eighty (back to where they lay mid-18th century). Precipitated by the recent events surrounding the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama, there's definitely an anti-pirate sentiment in the air. Piracy is definitely the new terrorism, which was the new domestic drug crime. And for those keeping track of scaremongering at large, avian flu is the new SARS, which was the the new AIDS for a while (Wes).
Among those feeling the downturn in the economy of pirate political capital: intellectual pirates. Some of founders of the torrent site thePirateBay.org were recently sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to pay over $3 million for facilitating breach of copyright law.
I can't imagine they'd be mad at me for stealing this picture of their logo. I mean, if there's anyone who could let that slide....
Where do I think they went wrong? As much as I hate to say it, it might have been in the name. Why call yourself 'pirates' when the recording industry is attacking you for being 'pirates'? In all honesty, though, I think this was one of the best attempts at reappropriation since the n-word. They took a good shot at it, but they learned the hard way that they couldn't ride that Disneyland pirate magic forever.
In a similar vein, there has been a recent play by those loveless baby-eaters, the atheists, to redefine their image with a new title. Taking a page from the gay book, those with a purely naturalistic worldview apparently want to be known as "brights". To questions about this proposal, Darwin lookalike Daniel Dennett responds thusly:
"There was also a negative response, largely objecting to the term that had been chosen [not by me]: bright, which seemed to imply that others were dim or stupid. But the term, modeled on the highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word "gay" by homosexuals, does not have to have that implication. Those who are not gays are not necessarily glum; they're straight. Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim."
Seeing as how atheists rank below homosexuals (and Muslims, and Hispanics, and 'recent immigrants' of all kinds) on the scale of popular distrust, it makes sense that they might want to revamp their image. I see several problems here, but my main issue is with the contention that there was some "highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word 'gay'". I don't know about you, but I feel (and I think the aforementioned Wes' biggest celebrity crush, Hilary Duff, would agree) like that "hijacking" did more to change the word "gay" than elevate anything homosexual. As I recall, the first definition of "gay" I ever learned was "homosexual", which, because I was six years old and subscribed more to the elementary school hive-mind approach than reasonable, critical thought, was definitely something bad (even if I had close to no idea what it was). Sure they hijacked it, but it didn't take too long for that ship to run aground.
And if public opinion of godless heathens doesn't find an upswing sometime soon, I almost feel like "bright" will be the ironic and disparaging adjective of the future. I say "almost" because a prerequisite for this phenomenon would be the brights movement gaining some momentum, which it won't. Partly because of the fact that, even as 'brights', they sure seem to have a problem spotting their own false pretenses.
posted by Peter at
8:54 PM
7 Comments:
So, you know how you're always trying to convince me to write a blog? About a month or so ago, I created a blog and was trying to write something. My first actual attempt at a blog post was almost exactly the first part of this post, taking about pirates. (This was before the Alabama, but inspired by a similar pirate situation that occurred prior.) It was literally the exact same post as this, talking about Johnny Depp and music piracy. Exact same post. Exactly.
I can only comment on how unsurprised I actually am. But I do implore you to either continue that post, or start another, and get that blog going. You live in NYC, home of Chinatown Meat Sticks - you have no excuse not to be writing about stuff. If I were you, I'd start with the investigative approach, subject being: your theory about NY having a special fund to pay the craziest of the crazy to walk around and be crazy on the streets.
Also, the end of the post was mostly a discussion that I never remembered to bring up while I was in NY. I'm kind of surprised your previous comment didn't address it, because basically I just want some confirmation that basing this 'brights' movement on the 'gay' movement is, in part (mostly the part where they actually say they're basing it on the 'gay' movement), horribly, horribly misguided.
Yeah, totally. I think I actually read about that while you were here, too. But, totally misguided. "Queer" is headed down that same road. It's the same thing as Michael Phelps and pot. Combining a "good" thing and a "bad" thing almost always makes the "good" thing worse, rather than the "bad" thing better.
first a question for Matt: is michael phelps the 'good' thing or is it the pot?
second, i think that godless freaks choosing a new word is a good thing. replacing a three-syllable word with something short and cheery is great. i am embracing this change, and will begin to incorporate this new phrase into my daily life. thank you for educating me, pete.
Michael Phelps is/was the good thing. He was a national hero that could only be brought down by something as evil as drugs.
The Michael Phelps analogy is a great one - I was definitely waiting for someone out there to remark on how this was a case-in-point about someone (incredibly) successful using marijuana recreationally. But everyone did as they do, projecting their own fears and discontent, and the 'good' was dragged down with the 'bad'.
Also, as an update, I think I need to mention that it's clear that swine flu is the new avian flu (which was the new SARS, etc).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home