|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="CompPrivConst" |
|---|
| | | The Entire Provenance of You - Signifiers of Identity
In addition to Eben, this piece owes a significant debt to several thoughtful questions presented in office hours by Mariah Genis, Madiha Choksi, Matt Conroy, and Rohan George. | | | Introduction: The Dying Idea Of A Place Without Papers | |
<
< | In the 20th century, I learned from my family and teachers that totalitarian nations like Nazi Germany and the USSR made people carry papers everywhere to prove who they were. This was wrong, and for us, living in America, not having to do this was a source of our American exceptionalism and our provenance as a custodian of freedom. It was kind of a lie because most people needed to drive every day. It was also kind of a lie because before any German nation-state and the barest idea of Communism were born, papers were here. But that lie contained a valuable idea: A person living in a free society cannot be made to give an account of themselves without reason. In the early 21st century, we had fascist week: Teachers would blow whistles in the halls and in the cafeteria and demand to see an arbitrary blue booklet that was given to us, or we got a bad grade. This was meant to illustrate the badness of a system. This year, at least two of my students have received detention for not having a school-issued agenda booklet on their person. In the Wittgensteinian sense, giving an account of oneself is a language game where we provide reasons for our actions, for our location, for ourselves. The parody has become a reality, but it is a reality oppressive and visible enough to provoke annoyance, resistance, and objection. If the desire of the state for everyone to carry identifying papers can be combined with the already-manifest hegemony that states not carrying a smartphone is impossible, we risk having the current reality obliterate its contradictions and become totalizing and unquestionable. But the joke is on us - we are already mostly there, carrying personally-identifying radio beacons in our pocket which the state listens to. | >
> | In the 20th century, My family and teachers taught me totalitarian nations, Nazi Germany, the USSR, required carrying papers everywhere to prove who one was. This was wrong. For us, in America, not doing this was a source of our American exceptionalism, our provenance as a custodian of freedom. It was a lie because most people needed to drive every day. It was a lie because before any German nation-state and the barest idea of Communism were born, papers were here. But that lie contained a valuable idea: A person in a free society cannot be made to give an account of themselves without reason. In the early 21st century, we had fascist week: Teachers blew whistles in the halls, demanding to see our arbitrary blue booklets or we got a bad grade. This was illustrating the badness of a system. This year, my students received detention for not having a school-issued agenda booklet on their person. The parody has become a reality, but it is a reality oppressive and visible enough to provoke annoyance, resistance, and objection. If the desire of the state for everyone to carry identifying papers can be combined with the already-manifest hegemony that states not carrying a smartphone is impossible, we risk having the current reality obliterate its contradictions and become totalizing and unquestionable. But the joke is on us - we are already mostly there, carrying personally-identifying radio beacons in our pocket which the state listens to. | | | | |
<
< | The matter of the collapse of the previous understanding of giving an account of oneself is the focus of the second part of this essay. But, first, there is a story of people, and one person in particular, who hacked the legal methods of giving an account of oneself in their time to ensure their freedom in America's past. Despite a hostile judicial system and equally powerful forces of hegemony, simple legal tools used in unintended ways were sufficient to save many people from bondage, rape, violence, and all else that comes with being relegated to subhuman status. | >
> | In the Wittgensteinian sense, giving an account of oneself is a language game where we provide reasons for our actions, for our location, for ourselves. The matter of the collapse of the previous understanding of giving an account of oneself is the focus of the second part of this essay. But, first, there is a story of people, and one person in particular, who hacked the legal methods of giving an account of oneself in their time to ensure their freedom in America's past. Despite a hostile judicial system and equally powerful forces of hegemony, simple legal tools used in unintended ways were sufficient to save many people from bondage, rape, violence, and all else that comes with being relegated to subhuman status. | | |
Part One - 1740-1865 | | | Royal Navy Impressment And The American Response | |
<
< | In the 18th century, England's relative manpower shortage in comparison to its continental rivals and its constitutional hostility towards wholesale conscription created the economic incentives for the practice of impressment to develop, with a fascinating array of legal fictions attached. Criminals, drinkers, and those who could give no account of themselves were "volunteered" for naval service, sometimes by armed gangs. Then, merchant ships would be stopped at sea, and the Merchant sailors on the high seas were taken into the navy and replaced with the malcontents, or sometimes trusted Navy men who would desert the merchant ship in the next port and return to their home ship. In the second half of the 18th century, England's colonial ports were particularly targeted for impressment. In 1757, when the Seven Years War among the European great powers was in full swing, a full 800 men were rounded up in New York City, "all manner of tradesmen and negroes." Resistance to impressment was one of the many things that soured the colonial North American population on membership in the British Empire.
Notes
:
:
| >
> | In the 18th century, England's manpower shortage in comparison to its continental rivals and its constitutional hostility towards conscription created economic incentives for impressment, with a fascinating array of legal fictions attached. Criminals, drinkers, and those who could give no account of themselves were "volunteered" for naval service, sometimes by armed gangs. Merchant ships would be stopped at sea, and the Merchant sailors were taken into the navy and replaced with malcontents, or sometimes trusted Navy men who would desert the merchant ship in the next port and return to their home ship. In the second half of the 18th century, England's colonial ports were heavily targeted for impressment. In 1757, when the Seven Years War among the European great powers was in full swing, a full 800 men were rounded up in New York City, "all manner of tradesmen and negroes." Resistance to impressment was one of the many things souring colonial North America on membership in the Empire. | | | | |
<
< | After the Revolution ended and various protests in Great Britain and her colonies led to the gradual phasing out of impressment of people on land, a new legal fiction emerged: American sailors at sea were impressed on the feigned basis of their being British merchant sailors or pirates. In 1796, Congress passed a statute meant to address this problem by providing sailors with certificates: For twenty-five cents, any man with proof of citizenship could receive a certificate giving their name, height, age, and general appearance and stating they were a US citizen. It is difficult to say whether these certificates reduced impressment; At least anecdotally, they were not always respected because the descriptions were too general. Part of the early evolution of tattooing, scarification, and body modification involved making sure sailors were unique enough in appearance to be identifiable should they die at sea or be at risk of impressment - by making oneself more distinctive, the identifying document can work better. But still, it appears impressment declined after the Napoleonic Wars not because of identifying documents or international law concerns, but because Great Britain's naval hegemony was so assured that there was no threat sufficient to justify a hundred-thousand man military navy.
Notes
:
:
| >
> | After the Revolution ended and various protests in Great Britain and her colonies led to the gradual phasing out of impressment of people on land, a new legal fiction emerged: American sailors at sea were impressed on the feigned basis of their being British merchant sailors or pirates. In 1796, Congress passed a statute to address this problem by providing sailors with certificates: For twenty-five cents, any man with proof of citizenship could receive a certificate giving their name, height, age, and general appearance and stating they were a US citizen. It is difficult to say whether these certificates reduced impressment; They were not always respected, sometimes because the descriptions were too general. Early evolution of tattooing, scarification, and body modification involved making sure sailors were unique enough in appearance to be identifiable should they die at sea or be impressed - by making oneself more distinctive, the identifying document can work better. But still, it appears impressment declined after the Napoleonic Wars not because of identifying documents or international law concerns, but because Great Britain's naval hegemony was so assured there was no longer a need for a hundred-thousand man military navy. | | |
Fraying Of The Lie |
|