3 ms·

> I can't help but think there's an underlying prejudice in the way he and others think countries should develop, where as they get richer they should be more l

> I can't help but think there's an underlying prejudice in the way he and others think countries should develop, where as they get richer they should be more like rich countries he's used to (ironically enough, the problem for many seems to be that Singapore _isn't_ the same as the other developed nations they're used to). Gibson didn't look hard enough; there was definitely counterculture in Singapore at the time he wrote the story. A bit lazy on his part, but he's not a trained journalist. And there still is one now, although much less so than in the 90s. The vibe I got from my time there is that most Singaporeans who are counterculture-inclined just leave for larger countries, in the same way a bohemian-inclined Swiss person might move to, say, New York or Berlin. The larger problem Singapore has is that there's very little space for the arts in general, let alone counterculture.

8bitsrule 4y ago
I've personally noticed that multiple US cities have (conveniently?) removed 'room for the arts'/counterculture slowly and almost imperceptibly since the 1980s. Easily-affordable housing (for creatives and low-income students) and storefronts (for their works, performances, and socializing) have been (carelessly? carefully?) shoved aside for more gentrified concerns. Individualized 'cafes' have been 'Starbucked'. The 'unifying conformancy' is never matched by unified rights or incomes. Non-journalist Gibson smelled the 'trend' early. It is also visible in videos which wander 'developed' world city streets. Space for inscrutable (nothing to say) welded sculptures/'child-like' murals always seems to be found. And space for 'approved' historic cultures. But not for an underground press, nor for non-violent protest, nor for authentic graffiti. Not nearly as total, then, but somewhat like North Korea, the land of identical choices. Edit: "Through the policing of all these scales, moral geographies contribute to the construction of desired "Singaporean" identities." ( Singapore Lily on "Music and moral geographies: Constructions of "nation" and identity in Singapore" [https://www.jstor.org/stable/41148026 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41148026])

8bitsrule 4y ago

I've personally noticed that multiple US cities have (conveniently?) removed 'room for the arts'/counterculture slowly and almost imperceptibly since the 1980s. Easily-affordable housing (for creatives and low-income students) and storefronts (for their works, performances, and socializing) have been (carelessly? carefully?) shoved aside for more gentrified concerns. Individualized 'cafes' have been 'Starbucked'. The 'unifying conformancy' is never matched by unified rights or incomes. Non-journalist Gibson smelled the 'trend' early. It is also visible in videos which wander 'developed' world city streets. Space for inscrutable (nothing to say) welded sculptures/'child-like' murals always seems to be found. And space for 'approved' historic cultures. But not for an underground press, nor for non-violent protest, nor for authentic graffiti. Not nearly as total, then, but somewhat like North Korea, the land of identical choices. Edit: "Through the policing of all these scales, moral geographies contribute to the construction of desired "Singaporean" identities." ( Singapore Lily on "Music and moral geographies: Constructions of "nation" and identity in Singapore" [https://www.jstor.org/stable/41148026 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41148026])