https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foO4oCADv8k 

I feel like maybe I should write a paper trying to explain afro-pessimism and situate my own thoughts into that? the posting on marriott is still relevant, but this might not be the most practical use of my time (this being trying to write a paper within afro-pessimism when i'm still trying to figure out how to explain afro-pessimism/an ontological approach to blackness to those around me. so, maybe I can still use marriott as a supplement to that explanation. I imagine centering the paper in fanon's black skin white masks, then using wilderson to show the more current work being done with fanonian ontology. 

---

questions i wanna ask:

what is afro-pessimism?

" I think that it is easy for us to agree that, in modernism, people are not equipped with the mental and emotional repertoire to deal with such vast scale events... this call for action has none of the traits of their older revolutionary dreams."

"To be a subject is not to act autonomously in front of an
objective background, but to share agency with other subjects that have also lost their autonomy."

"The concatenation of causes and consequences—and that’s what the real material world is made up of—does not trigger any dramatic effect, because, precisely—and that’s the beauty of it... no suspense to expect, no sudden transformation, no metamorphosis, no ambiguity. Time flows from past to present."

1. "Instead of always pointing out the danger of 'anthropomophizing' natural entities, we should be just as wart of avoiding the oddity of 'phusimorphizing' them, that is, of givig them the shape of objects defined only by their causal antecedents"(Latour 10).

2."For all agnets, acting means having their existence, their subsistence, come from the future to the present; they act as long as they run the risk of bridging the gap of existence- or else they disappear altogether"(12).

3."The point of living in the epoch of the Anthropocene is that all agents share the same shape-changing destiny, a destiny that cannot be followed, documented, told and represented by using any of the older traits associated with subjectivity or objectivity" (15).

1. The Earth is not just a planet hanging in space, but rather an actor, with agency and emotions. Latour sees it appropriate to personify the Earth, referring to it as "Gaia", and argues that it is being moved by our actions. Latour seeks to refine our ideas about subjects and objects, and frames the Earth as subject in what he calls our geostory. "We all agree that, far from being a Galilean body stripped of any other movements than those of billiard balls, the Earth has now taken back all the characteristics of a full- edged actor. Indeed, as Di- pesh Chakrabarty has proposed, it has become once again an agent of history " (3)

1."Today, in a sort of counter-Copernican revolution, it is science that is forcing our eyes to turn toward the Earth considered, once again, as a cesspool of conflict, decay, war, pollution, and corruption."(p.4)

2.Morphism, "is a property of the world itself and not only a feature of the language about the world."(p.12) "Storytelling is not just a property of human language, but one of the many consequences of being thrown in a world that is, by itself, fully articulated and active."(p.13).

3."The point of living in the epoch of the Anthropocene is that all agents share the same shape-changing destiny, a destiny that cannot be followed, documented, told, and represented by using any of the older traits associated with subjectivity or ovjectivity."(p.15)

One idea that Latour proposes is “how can we simultaneously be part of such a long history, have such an important influence, and yet be so late in realizing what has happened and so utterly impotent in our attempts to fix it”(1). He emphasizes how unware of how rapidly our environment is changing and how puzzled people are at trying to come up with solutions.

 Another idea is how people live in denial. “[Scientists will be] condemned to remain silent by all those who are in denial about the behavior of the Earth”(2). Furthermore he discusses how so “many people are now ridiculing the discovery of the new- also very old- agitated and sensitive Earth, to the point of being in denial about this large body of science”(3).

First, I believe the 3 main points he argues is

- humans ability to dismiss their responsibility to their declining world around them because of the vast changes that would need to be made. "I think that it is easy for us to agree that, in modernism, people are not equipped with the mental and emotional repertoire to del with such a vast scale of events" (1).

- How objectivitiy is unreal in its role for climate change

- Historic narratives and storytelling of the environment bid for a large underplaying of the severity of the issue or "casuality."

How to respond to news about CO2?

      challenges= our presence modified old fact, drama accomplished

      modernism (responsibility, long history, impotent)

scientists entangled historical drama

      distant place, objective facts

facts, news, stories, alarms mixed up

economics to ecology?

earth as agent, enmeshed living organisms

subjects, shared agency/lost autonomy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx9fAEJeI0E