I think this image could use a discussion of your own experience of this archive, how you came upon its gaps and exclusions, and how this informs your understanding of toxicity. How did you find this image? Where was it located? Did you ask anyone for help? What do/did the people who work there have to say about your investigation/critique of their space? How does this archive, as a physical/digital space that also has a specific cultural connotation as authoritative source of information feed into the toxicity? Is it this archive in particular that is toxic or "the archive" in general? Or is it the exclusions within the archive that are toxic? Or, rather, are these exclusions merely indicative of the more widely dispersed cultural-toxins of US/Californian/LA society? Or is it some form of combination?
See previous comment about toxic masculinity and petro-cultures.
"It indicates a dynamic of activism in a toxic environment (in the double sense) -- e.g. not being taken seriously, being talked down to. It also points to the different stakeholders involved in the fight againstt Formosa, such as shrimpers depending on their livelihood." - this could be elaborated. I don't really get the 'double sense'. Apologies if I'm not reading it correctly.
Caption is great, perhaps more mention of the communities affected (if appropriate)?
Could you perhaps explain a little more about the case study of war veterans to really bring the ethnography to the forefront?
The caption presents an extensive critique of the image. The ethnographer mobilises the caption effectively: not only does he give us information we might need to contextualise the image, but he presents another set of voices which allow us to critically examine the image.
I would like to learn more about the toxicities of the local area and how the ethnographer conceptualises them. For example, I think this image and caption indicates two kinds of toxicity: the chemical shift in the waterbody caused by industrial effluents, and a toxic dynamic between industry/government/local residents, or even between late capitalism/local residents' sense of place.
I would like to learn more about the importance of ritual in the face of major climate-related events, and the specific ritual that is being performed here. I think this would give more insight into the awareness of climate change and actions performed by different people to combat or cope with change.
The caption highlights interesting aspects about toxicity and its measurement. Some arguments which could be ethnographically fleshed out--the idea of knowledge about the terrain shaping the knowledge about toxicity is a compelling one--could this be an argument about multispecies encounters where human knowledge about toxicity emerges in relation to nonhuman materialities like the height of the root, etc.?
I find the caption generative, meaning that it could be elaborated but that I appreciate that it prompts questions without too much elaboration. I don't think it's necessary to add more.
Reading the caption, I was reminded of a book I recently read, "In the Wake: On Blackness and Being" by Christina Sharpe. I would recommend revising it to think further and perhaps conceptualize the visual practice of annotation and redaction. I am particularly thinking of chapter 4, section Black Annotation and Black Redaction.
In that sense, I would recommend using the caption to think/reflect on the visual intervention itself, not only to address what it reveals about the temporality of toxics but also about visualization as an ethnographic practice.