Skip to main content

Gloria Lucas, Part 1 of 4: A Chicana Girl Among Women

Written by Jeremy Watkins-Quesada
As I write this piece I am one part relieved to be blogging again; relieved to be pitting my abilities against an opponent outside the elite class of intellectuals and academics via what is now a conference paper. Yet, at the same time, this drop in level infuses bits of anxiety and frustration in me, as it is not apparent to those who've a right to know who's leading them. Many, too many, Xicana and Latinx  Chicana and Latina females--girls and women alike--are being led into personal disaster if they don't become woke  aware of who is attempting to lead them and where or in which direction they are in fact being led. Let's consider the following anecdote.
In his book 'Is God a Delusion?', Philosopher Erik Reitan (a former member of my master's thesis committee) offers an anecdote in which an unnamed colleague of his (I think I know whom, lol) walks into his office with what appears to be a student essay in their hands. The topic of the short essay (if I recall correctly) is an exposition or explanation of Aquinas's philosophy of religion. The colleague hands Reitan the essay and asks him to read it before assessing the unnamed student's performance via a letter grade. Reitan agrees to this arrangement. As a quick aside, let me say that (i) Reitan is a liberal Christian, and, as for me, (ii) I am a non-religious progressive, and (iii) My thesis was not on religion, but rather it was on collective responsibility.  I put all of that out there to dispel any ideas that would stand to presume I am somehow espousing religious or conservative ideologies. Everyone Not everyone who disagrees with some ideologies espoused by some on the left is a conservative or fundamentalist or a "Nazi" of some kind. In fact, one could argue it is analogically speaking the other way around. But I digress. 
Anyway, as the story goes, Reitan completed his read of the brief exposition by subsequently adjudicating a letter grade for what appeared (according to his account) to be written by an undergraduate. Consequently, and if I recall correctly, Reitan's verdict was grade the effort something like a 'D+'. You may be asking: Why?

Reitan recounts the overall explanation of Aquinas's ideas by the paper's author as being of poor quality to the extent that they were characterized by the misinformation of a less than erudite student of philosophy. That is, the (up to this point) nameless author in question lacked a greater understanding or knowledge of what Aquinas had to say concerning a particular subject, say, the existence of some object or event we'll call X. As all of us stateside have learned during the foregone year and some months, misinformation can be damaging, namely when it is being used to promote an ideology, a line of belief that has yet to fulfill its obligation to the onus of proof. The act of spreading misinformed or underdeveloped beliefs, namely when communicating these opinions as facts, is a deceitful if not entirely dangerous thing to do. Some examples come to mind, e.g., manifest destiny and pizzagate
Recall, whereas the second noted example almost got innocent people killed, the first example got many upon many killed as well as well...you know the rest...click the link if not. Now, you may be asking: What the actual hell, Jeremy! Why turn a discussion about a poorly written essay authored by a poorly informed student into something analogous, if not equal, to the awful events noted above? Who but the professors in question will ever read the misinformed opining of this individual, right? Wrong. The poor explanation from Aquinas's belief about X was not actually an essay at all, let alone one written by an 18 year-old college freshman. Rather, it was an excerpt written by Richard Dawkins in his best-selling book 'The God Delusion'. Roughly, the God Delusion is a book aimed at attacking religion and belief in God. I, myself, have read both books. What is more, I have also read a few other books as well as countless scholarly articles on the subject. All things considered, I say the onus of proof lies on BOTH those who like Reitan hold a belief in God or Gods and those like Dawkins whose non-belief renders them atheists. To be clear, what I am saying is that the question we've all been asked from time to time 'Do you believe in God?' is not the simple question many, too many, seem to believe it is. Then again, many other 'seemingly' simple questions really aren't. Putting the God question aside for another post, I want to raise a similar situation I am having with one Gloria Lucas and her Nalgona Positivity Pride (NPP). 
This week I am going to take to task one of Lucas's contribution to Sovereign Bodies, which I and the rest of us here at La Resistencia hold as being very problematic, that is, insofar as it is full of misinformation. Unfortunately, Ms. Lucas has been given opportunities to permeate or spread her misinformation on popular platforms and even in at least one college classroom. By the end of this series, we will reach out to the platform givers in question and ask them why. Why would they entrust such great responsibility in the hands of someone who--as we'll show--is not ready to lead insofar as she merely a purveyor of 'fake epistemology' or fake knowledge. We also aim to reach out to Lucas herself, though she has already blocked our Tumblr account based on similar efforts to open up discourse. Recall, an earlier post (when we thought we had time to begin this series initially) in which we discussed some similarities she and her body positivity cohorts bare to POTUS 45. All things considered, look out for my reading and subsequent grading of Lucas's Historical Trauma, Racism and Eating Disorders in the U.S. Spoiler alert, there are no connections made between these things yet, and it seems to me she has not even read the scholarly articles she cites therein. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gloria Lucas, Part 3 of 4 : A Chicana Girl Leading Women to Colonize the Collective Body of Her People

****This part of the series was accepted for workshopping and presentation at the Public Philosophy Writing Workshop at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which took place between May 18-19th****
For part 3, I'm to redirect our focus a bit from Lucas and her Nalgona Positivity [Pride] by addressing concerns about the body positivity movement in general. Imagine I drive a pickup truck, say, a 1998 Chevy, which requires the action of consuming more fossil fuels than most other types of vehicles. Now, assume I'm a member of a Late-model Chevy Truck Club, whose slogan reads: “Loving my truck means unapologetically filling it with as many fossil fuels as I want.” Clearly, mass consumption of fossil fuels is bad for the environment. However, assume my conscious intent is NOT to pollute the environment, but merely to have fun with my beloved truck. Yet also assume that I'm aware of the negative effects that mass consumption of fossil fuels has on the environmentPerh…

Gloria Lucas Part 2 of 4: A Chicana Girl Attempting to Lead Women

By Jeremy Watkins-Quesada
Recall 'Part 1" of this series in which I offered an anecdote about the spreading of misinformation. The misinformation or 'fake knowledge' in question arose from none other than a world-class, world-renowned expert in evolutionary biology and ethology. Nonetheless, according to Philosopher Erik Reitan, also recall, Dawkins is not an expert in Philosophy, much less the Philosophy of Religion (PoR). This raises the most salient point for our discussion here, for it is not necessarily the case that Reitan's adjudication is the lone basis for doubting Dawkins's philosophic expertise. You see, although Dawkins is a well-trained and likewise skilled evolutionary biologist, he lacks the same kind formal education in Philosophy (in general) and PoR (in particular). Yet, there Dawkins was speaking through his untrained or underdeveloped philosophic skill set as though he were some kind of expert, thereby permeating or spreading through his rea…

The Border Landed On Us

What factors led to the invasion of Mexican territory by American settlers? How did Manifest Destiny justify this assault? There are many varieties of this question. However, I think this version best captures what is necessary for a comprehensive answer like what I am to give here. However, I think this question warrants its due before a related question catches steam or whatever. We need to talk about this now! The answers to the particular questions highlighted above are as follow: Q1: What factors led to the invasion of Mexican territory by American settlers? A: Racism from what I am coining ‘racial narcissism’ and treason according to the U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 3. Q2: How did Manifest Destiny or MD justify this assault? A: Depends on what the question intends to ask. If what is intended is 'how did the means to pursue Mexican Territory justify its seizure, then the answer could suggest an air of collective (racial) narcissism; a metaphysical conception underpinning …