#for them to be co-opted by white people who believe racism exists and that the whole of blm/equality movements are racist to them

[andromedasummer]

can one of you f1 girlies become a journalist and interview the drivers who refused to take a knee because they wanted to fight racism in a different way/disagreed with how blm went about seeking justice and ask them, now that nearly 3 years have passed since the may protests, what steps they've taken to educate themselves on racism? what actions they've taken to improve things for people of colour within formula one/motorsports as a whole? or how they've gone about promoting racial equity in their own country?

[unofficialadamtaurus]

I have an idea for an Adam “fix” if we want him to actually be a villain. I’d personally split him into two characters or give his role as someone who actually cares about Faunus rights and goes to extreme lengths to an existing character like Sienna (and have her not die). I’d make sure there were multiple groups in-universe fighting for Faunus rights and Adam’s be just one branch of one group. I’d have Adam claim he was branded but always refuse to ever take off his mask. The big reveal would be that he’s not a Faunus at all. The horns are fake. There is no brand. He was co-opting Faunus struggles as an excuse to be violent and sew discord in society. Blake could then go through a lot of development after that, believing Sienna’s ways are wrong because she thinks Sienna is like Adam based on methodology, they could clash, but Blake would eventually learn that Sienna is right and Blake could become an effective and meaningful Faunus rights activist. This would allow the abusive ex storyline to coexist with an actually meaningful Faunus rights plot. What do you think? (I also like AUs where Adam is a tragic anti-hero and former mentor to Blake, axing the abusive ex stuff)

This is going to sound very aggressive but I could not think of a more diplomatic way to phrase this without it losing emphasis: I have never recoiled more viscerally from an Adam rewrite idea than this one.

I hate the idea of making Adam a human posing as a Faunus, and I do not use the word hate lightly here. At a surface level, that change to his character rips out everything I like about him besides aesthetics—and it even impinges on those by removing the scar and making the horns fake.

He is already a villain in canon. You don't need to make him an impostor or rip out the parts of his character that could force people to grapple with uncomfortable implications about the cycles of violence and oppression to do it. Hell, you can take away several layers of terrible things he's done (physical/emotional abuse, maiming Yang, etc.) and he'd still be a villain.

If you want to make him utterly hateable then this is the best way I've seen to do it. There is absolutely nothing sympathetic about the character concept you've pitched here and to slap Adam's name on that concept - the name of a character who is canonically branded, a minority, and oppressed - leaves a distinctly sour taste on my tongue.

It's one thing to adjust a story to better address the nuances of the issues brought up and then cast aside in canon. It's another to remove those issues entirely. It is quite another to shear away any and all nuance canon hinted at in favor of an easily despised villain whose defeat says nothing about the White Fang or racism in RWBY's world.

How is it meaningful to make Adam an impostor and leave Sienna unchanged? How is it meaningful to remove any direct evidence of the SDC's abuses? How is it meaningful to make Blake look like an absolute moron for not noticing that her partner is not what he claims for years?

Maybe, maybe you could make this kind of Adam work for your particular use case. Maybe, maybe there's a story worth telling in this idea. But please, keep it far away from me. I want no part of it.

I'll apologize here for going on a bit of a rant about this. However, you have suggested tearing out the guts and ticking gears of my favorite character and replacing those integral pieces with radioactive sludge. It drastically alters the kinds of stories you can tell with him, like taking a tennis racket with a couple loose strings, cutting out the strings instead of tightening them, and then trying to play badminton with the husk.

To address the bit at the start of your ask, Adam already feels like he's an archetype that's split among other characters. Blake, Ilia, and Sienna are all degrees of him to an extent (Sienna being identical in all aspects except being willing to partner with humans to take down the academies as I discussed in that one comparison post). Introducing yet another faunus rights extremist just to shove Adam all the way off the deep end into absurdity isn't going to do the story or character bloat any favors.

Still, I agree that more WF factions, if not characters, would've helped. Even things as simple as throwaway lines about public stances taken by other WF branches, other aid organizations encountered in the bowels of Mistral while Qrow was searching for huntsmen or in Argus helping displaced faunus, could've done wonders.

[a-room-of-my-own]

yes, I understand the reason Black people initially used the term but “reverse racism” does not exist. it was co-opted into a misogynistic insult yes but it’s not racist. I do agree many terms Black activists use were appropriated and the ideas of intersectionality lost all meaning. I may have misunderstood your response but it sounds like you are saying white people face racism. the Karen term was used to insult white women but it is misogyny and often used by white men, it seems to deflect any criticism of their racism and privilege onto “whiny” white women to prevent them from speaking and having class consciousness with other women of color.

It's racist. Abusing someone because of their origins or of their real or assumed affiliation to a particular ethnic group, nation or race constitutes racism, at least that's how my country's penal code defines it, and I agree with the definition.

The 'Karen' meme doesn't target all middle-aged, middle class women. If it did it would 'only' be misogynistic. The 'white' part makes it impossible to point misogyny out, because people are too busy proving they're not racists who believe in reverse racism. Which is honestly quite clever.

Again it's something that was perfectly fine as a private joke, but that got into the mainstream, appropriated and turned into something that it wasn't in the beginning.

[fictitiousfactoids]

Right-wingers only want to oppose, control, and spread as much misery as possible.

Here's an incomplete "list of evidence" against right wingers. Please let me know what I missed.

First, ALL right-wingers are bigots. Their current target is trans people.

Then, they lie about being "pro-life." They want people to be forced to have kids. Even if all the data shows that illegal abortion is unsafe and more lives will be at risk from botched illegal abortions. And it's horrible to bring a child into the world if they weren't wanted in the first place or if they can't be financially or emotionally supported.

- They don't support Universal Healthcare.

- They're against welfare.

- they're against a bill that addresses the baby formula shortage

- they're against longer parental leave (for both parents)

- they want to block the LGBTQ community from being able to adopt

They say get a job. But people need three jobs and still can't pay rent.

- They're against raising the minimum wage. They say get a better job. But people usually need more education to get a better job.

- They're against higher education.

- They're against helping with exorbitant predatory student loans. They ask who will pay for it, but they are against taxing billionaires and diverting war funds. Their leaders give billionaires and corporations tax breaks that have historically not produced the results (trickle down economics) they always claim will happen. The class divide is growing larger.

- they don't want to forgive student, but they forgive billion dollar loans to corporations

And they don't care about poor people or POC.

- They act like systemic racism doesn't exist, yet always bring up the 13/50 statistic but don't give a reasonable explanation for why that stat exists.

They support politicians that proclaim they're Christian nationalists (Marjory Taylor Green). And all white nationalists are right wingers.

They think American culture is solely white people and think they are being replaced

. - They're against minority immigrants. They say the immigrants should come here legally, but asylum seeking is legal. And republican politicians have tried to make the general immigration process more difficult.

They talk about the economy, but it's shown that immigrants help an economy.

And there are kids with the immigrants, but the right doesn't care about them.

They only want to give opposition.

They don't care about people addicted to drugs. One solution would be to decriminalize certain drugs and offer safe places for people to get them. But the right is against any solutions.

They make fun of people addicted to drugs.

- They co-opt leftist phrases like "my body, my choice" only when they're opposing efforts to help the WHOLE of society against a highly contagious and deadly global pandemic. But they oppose "my body, my choice" when it's for abortion or drugs.

- They co-opt "believe the science" when speaking against trans people, and they say science says there are only two genders. And they say the left doesn't follow facts or logic. But when you show them that science says there are more than two biological genders AND that trans people actually exist, they ignore everything you say or double down on their anti-trans talking points.

- They actively hate trans kids. They are making laws making it illegal to help trans kids

- They're against any possible solutions to lessen climate change.

- They're against wind turbines, against electric cars, against solar power.

- They deliberately buy trucks with extra thick, black exhaust.

- They want MORE oil and coal.

- They're against ALL government regulation. Even the regulations that protect the environment, workers, consumers, and kids.

But, they support government overreach when banning books, women's healthcare, or LGBTQ rights

- They claim they want to protect children from predators. But they ignore that trump was named in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. They ignore Roy Moore. They ignore Matt Gaetz. They ignore Ted Nugent. They ignore the Tennessee Republican, John Rose who groomed a 16 year old girl, married her, and now has children with her.

- NINE of the top ten states with the most child marriage are red states.

Educating kids with proper sex education has been shown to teach kids to know if they're being taken advantage of and gives them the language to speak out about it. It also decreases teen pregnancies, which would cut down on the need for abortions. But the right doesn't care. They don't want proper sex education talked about at all.

They say they're for free speech and say the left is against it. But GOP politicians are using the government to punish Disney and ban books and threaten teachers from talking about history and respecting kid's gender, and forcing them to say the pledge of allegiance (in Massachusetts.) And they think people should be imprisoned or fined for burning the flag.

They claim we should keep confederate statues and flags up because we'll forget history without them, but they are against teaching about slavery. They call it CRT but don't know what that is. They just want a blanket ban on teaching history because they say it makes their kids feel bad. But they'll always repeat "facts don't care about your feelings" - but that doesn't apply to the right; the right only wants to obstruct, needlessly complicate things, and cause misery.

They worship the second amendment especially when there are mass shootings. They think school shootings are ways for the government to take away their guns. But the only president that has said anything about taking guns without due process was trump.

They say it's not a gun problem but a mental health issue, but they don't care about people with mental health issues. Not only are they bigoted towards trans people, but they're also ableist. They say trans people are crazy and have mental health issues, but they actively denigrate them and say they won't support their mental issues. Thus exhibiting that they don't care about mental health issues; they actively promote the abuse of people with mental issues

They act like they're against cancel culture, but are fine with republican politicians using the government to punish companies and people. trump would constantly speak out against Kaepernick and say he should be fired. Kaepernick was using his first amendment rights to protest excessive police brutality against people of color, but the right deliberately doesn't listen and says he's "disrespecting" the flag. And they offer no solution; only opposition. Then when nothing gets fixed, people get together and do larger protests. The right still doesn't listen and only offers complaints and opposition. And then doubles down and says "blue lives matter."

But then they're against the fbi when the agency goes after trump or other Republicans.

We say "defund the police." And they cry and claim you can't get RID of the police. But we say "defund the police doesn't mean to take away the police; it means to use funds in more beneficial areas to help the community in general, and to not militarize the police." They cover their ears and still complain that defund the police means to remove the police completely. They don't care about the community or using public funding more effectively and efficiently; they just want to complain and oppose

But they don't care about cops either, because when trump cultists stormed the capitol, a cop shot one of them, THEN they're against cops. They're only FOR cops when people want reform and are critical of the system.

They talk about fair elections and voter fraud, but Republicans use gerrymandering and shut down voting locations in poor areas. They disenfranchise people of color. And the majority of people caught for fraud are Republicans

Right wingers 3 responses are 1. Laugh react 2. "You watch too much CNN" 3. "Not all right wingers are bigots"

When asked to refute anything I've stated, and they won't answer.

[writingwithcolor]

Jurassic period alien interacting with key cultures and historical figures in Middle East & Asia throughout history

@ketchupmaster400​ said:

Hello, so my question is for a character I’ve been working on for quite a while but wasn’t sure about a few things. So basically at the beginning of the universe there was this for less being made up of dark matter and dark energy. Long story short it ends up on earth during the Jurassic Period. It has the ability to adapt and assimilate into other life animals except it’s hair is always black and it’s skin is always white and it’s eyes are always red. It lives like this going from animal to animal until it finally becomes human and gains true sentience and self awareness. As a human it lives within the Middle East and Asia wondering around trying to figure out its purpose and meaning. So what I initially wanted to do with it was have small interactions with the dark matter human and other native humans that kinda helped push humanity into the direction it is now. For example, Mehndhi came about when the dark matter human was drawing on their skin because it felt insecure about having such white skin compared to other people. And ancient Indians saw it and thought it was cool so they adopted it and developed it into Mehndi. Minor and small interactions though early history leading to grander events. Like they would be protecting Jerusalem and it’s people agains the Crusaders later on. I also had the idea of the the dark matter human later on interacting with the prophets Jesus Christ and Muhammad. With Jesus they couldn’t understand why he would sacrifice himself even though the people weren’t deserving. And then Jesus taught them that you have to put other before yourself and protecting people is life’s greatest reward. And then with the prophet Muhammad, I had the idea that their interaction was a simple conversation that mirrors the one he had with the angel Jibril, that lead to the principles of Islam. Now with these ideas I understand the great importance of how not to convey Islam and I’ve been doing reasearch, but I am white and I can understand how that may look trying to write about a different religion than my own. So I guess ultimate my question is, is this ok to do? Is it ok to have an alien creature interact with religious people and historical events as important as they were? Like I said I would try to be as accurate and as respectable as possible but I know that Islam can be a touchy subject and the last thing I would want is to disrespect anyone. The main reason I wanted the dark matter being in the Middle East was because I wanted to do something different because so much has been done with European and American stuff I wanted to explore the eastern side of the world because it’s very beau and very rich with so many cultures that I want to try and represent. I’m sorry for the long post but I wanted you guys to fully understand what my idea was. Thank you for your time and hope you stay safe.

Disclaimer:

The consensus from the moderators was that the proposed character and story is disrespectful from multiple cultural perspectives. However, we can’t ignore the reality that this is a commonly deployed trope in many popular science fiction/ thriller narratives. Stories that seek to take religious descriptions of events at face value from an areligious perspective particularly favor this approach. Thus, we have two responses:

Where we explain why we don’t believe this should be attempted.

Where we accept the possibility of our advice being ignored.

1) No - Why You Shouldn’t Do This:

Hi! I’ll give you the short answer first, and then the extended one.

Short answer: no, this is not okay.

Extended answer. I’ll divide it into three parts.

1) Prophet Muhammad as a character:

Almost every aspect of Islam, particularly Allah (and the Qur’an), the Prophet(s) and the companions at the time of Muhammad ﷺ, are strictly kept within the boundaries of real life/reality. I’ll assume this comes from a good place, and I can understand that from one side, but seriously, just avoid it. It is extremely disrespectful and something that is not even up to debate for Muslims to do, let alone for non-Muslims. Using Prophet Muhammad as a character will only bring you problems. There is no issue with mentioning the Prophet during his lifetime when talking about his attributes, personality, sayings or teachings, but in no way, we introduce fictional aspects in a domain that Muslims worked, and still work, hard to keep free from any doubtful event or incident. Let’s call it a closed period: we don’t add anything that was not actually there.

Reiterating then, don’t do this. There is a good reason why Muslims don’t have any pictures of Prophet Muhammad. We know nothing besides what history conveyed from him. 

After this being said, there is another factor you missed – Jesus is also an important figure in Islam and his story from the Islamic perspective differs (a lot) from that of the Christian perspective. And given what you said in your ask, you would be taking the Christian narrative of Jesus. If it was okay to use Prophet Muhammad as a character (reminder: it’s not) and you have had your dark matter human interacting with the biblical Jesus, it will result in a complete mess; you would be conflating two religions.

2) Crusaders and Jerusalem:

You said this dark matter human will be defending Jerusalem against the Crusaders. At first, there is really no problem with this. However, ask yourself: is this interaction a result of your character meeting with both Jesus and Prophet Muhammed? If yes, please refer to the previous point. If not, or even if you just want to maintain this part of the story, your dark matter human can interact with the important historical figures of the time. For example, if you want a Muslim in your story, you can use Salah-Ad-Din Al-Ayoubi (Saladin in the latinized version) that took back Jerusalem during the Third Crusade. Particularly, this crusade has plenty of potential characters. 

Also, featuring Muslim characters post Prophet Muhammad and his companions’ time, is completely fine, just do a thorough research.

 3) Middle Eastern/South Asian settings and Orientalism:

The last point I want to remark is with the setting you chose for your story. Many times, when we explore the SWANA or South Asian regions it’s done through an orientalist lens. Nobody is really safe from falling into orientalism, not even the people from those regions. My suggestion is educating yourself in what orientalism is and how it’s still prevalent in today’s narrative. Research orientalism in entertainment, history... and every other area you can think of. Edward Said coined this term for the first time in history, so he is a good start. There are multiple articles online that touch this subject too. For further information, I defer to middle eastern mods. 

- Asmaa

Racism and Pseudo-Archaeology:

A gigantic, unequivocal and absolute no to all of it, lmao. 

I will stick to the bit about the proposed origin of mehendi in your WIP, it’s the arc I feel I’m qualified to speak on, Asmaa has pretty much touched upon the religious and orientalism complications. 

Let me throw out one more word: pseudoarchaeology. That is, taking the cultural/spiritual/historical legacies of ancient civilizations, primarily when it involves people of colour, and crediting said legacies to be the handiwork of not just your average Outsider/White Saviour but aliens. I’ll need you to think carefully about this: why is it that in so much of media and literature pertaining to the so-called “conspiracy theories” dealing with any kind of extraterrestrial life, it’s always Non-Western civilizations like the Aztec, the ancient Egyptians, the Harappans etc who are targeted? Why is it that the achievements of the non West are so unbelievable that it’s more feasible to construct an idea of non-human, magical beings from another planet who just conveniently swooped in to build our monuments and teach us how to dress and what to believe in? If the answer makes you uncomfortable, it’s because it should: denying the Non-West agency of their own feats is not an innocent exercise in sci-fi worldbuilding, it comes loaded with implications of racial superiority and condescension towards the intellect and prowess of Non-European cultures. 

Now, turning to specifics:

Contrary to what Sarah J. Maas might believe- mehendi designs are neither mundane, purely aesthetic tattoos nor can they be co-opted by random Western fantasy characters. While henna has existed as an art form in various cultures, I’m limiting my answer to the Indian context, (specifying since you mention ancient India). Mehendi is considered one of the tenets of the Solah Shringar- sixteen ceremonial adornments for Hindu brides, one for each phase of the moon, as sanctioned by the Vedic texts. The shade of the mehendi is a signifier for the strength of the matrimonial bond: the darker the former, the stronger the latter. Each of the adornments carries significant cosmological/religious symbolism for Hindus. To put it bluntly, when you claim this to be an invention of the aliens, you are basically taking a very sacred cultural and artistic motif of our religion and going “Well actually….extraterrestrials taught them all this.”

In terms of Ayurveda (Traditional holistic South Asian medicine)  , mehendi was used for its medicinal properties. It works as a cooling agent on the skin and helps to alleviate stress, particularly for the bride-to-be. Not really nice to think that aliens lent us the secrets of Ayurvedic science (pseudoarchaeology all over again). 

I’m just not feeling this arc at all. The closest possible alternative I could see to this is the ancient Indian characters incorporating some specific stylistic motifs in their mehendi in acknowledgement to this entity, in the same vein of characters incorporating motifs of tribute into their armour or house insignia, but even so, I’m not sure how well that would play out. If you do go ahead with this idea, I cannot affirm that it will not receive backlash.

-Mimi

These articles might help:

 Pseudoarchaeology and the Racism Behind Ancient Aliens

A History of Indian Henna (this studies mehendi origins mostly with reference to Mughal history)

Solah Shringar

2) Not Yes, But If Ignoring the Above:

I will be the dissenting voice of “Not No, But Here Are The Big Caveats.” Given that there is no way to make the story you want to tell palatable to certain interpretations of Islam and Christianity, here is my advice if the above arguments did not sufficiently deter you.

1. Admiration ≠ Research: It is not enough to just admire cultures for their richness and beauty. You need to actually do the research and learn about them to determine if the story you want to tell is a good fit for the values and principles these cultures prioritize. You need to understand the significance of historical figures and events to understand the issues with attributing the genesis of certain cultural accomplishments to an otherworldly influence. 1.

2. Give Less Offense When Possible and Think Empathetically: You should try to imagine the mindsets of those you will offend and think about to what degree you can soften or ameliorate certain aspects of your plot, the creature’s characteristics, and the creature’s interactions with historical figures to make your narrative more compatible. There is no point pretending that much of areligious science fiction is incompatible with monotheist, particularly non-henotheistic, religious interpretations as well as the cultural items and rituals derived from those religious interpretations. One can’t take “There is no god, just a lonely alien” and make that compatible with “There is god, and only in this particular circumstance.” Thus:

As stated above by Asmaa and Mimi, there is no escaping the reality the story you propose is offensive to some. Expect their outcry to be directed towards you. Can you tolerate that?

Think about how you would feel if someone made a story where key components of your interpretation of reality are singled out as false. How does this make you feel? Are you comfortable doing that to others?

3. Is Pseudoarchaeology Appropriate Here?: Mimi makes a good point about the racial biases of pseudoarchaeology. Pseudoarchaeology is a particular weakness of Western-centric atheist sci-fi. Your proposed story is the equivalent of a vaguely non-descript Maya/Aztec/Egyptian pyramid or Hindu/ Buddhist-esque statue being the source for a Resident Evil bio weapon/ Predator nest/ Assassin’s Creed Isu relic.

Is this how you wish to draw attention to these cultures you admire? While there is no denying their ubiquity in pop-culture, such plots trivialize broad swathes of non-white history and diminish the accomplishments of associated ethnic groups. The series listed above all lean heavily into these tropes either because the authors couldn’t bother to figure out something more creative or because they are intentionally telling a story the audience isn’t supposed to take seriously.*

More importantly, I detect a lot of sincerity in your ask, so I imagine such trivialization runs counter to your expressed desire to depict Eastern cultures in a positive and accurate manner.

4. Freedom to Write ≠ Freedom from Consequence: Once again, as a reminder, it’s not our job to reassure you as to whether or not what you are proposing is ok. Asmaa and Mimi have put a lot of effort into explaining who you will offend and why.  We are here to provide context, but the person who bears the ultimate responsibility for how you choose to shape this narrative, particularly if you share this story with a wide audience, is you. Speaking as one writer to another, I personally do not have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I think it is important to be face reality head-on.

- Marika.

* This is likely why the AC series always includes that disclaimer stating the games are a product of a multicultural, inter-religious team and why they undermine Western cultures and Western religious interpretations as often (if not moreso) than those for their non-Western counterparts.

Note: Most WWC asks see ~ 5 hours of work from moderators before they go live. Even then, this ask took an unusually long amount of time in terms of research, emotional labor and discussion. If you found this ask (and others) useful, please consider tipping the moderators (link here), Asmaa (coming eventually) and Mimi (here). I also like money - Marika.

[96thdayofrage]

What is Critical Race Theory?

Basically, Critical Race Theory is a way of using race as a lens through which one can critically examine social structures. While initially used to study law, like most critical theory, it emerged as a lens through which one could understand and change politics, economics and society as a whole. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic’s book, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, describes the movement as: “a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.”

Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the founding members of the movement, says Critical Race Theory is more than just a collective group. She calls it: “a practice—a way of seeing how the fiction of race has been transformed into concrete racial inequities.”

It’s much more complex than that, which is why there’s an entire book about it.

Can you put it in layman’s terms?

Sure.

Former economics professor (he prefers the term “wypipologist”) Michael Harriot, who used Critical Race Theory to teach “Race as an Economic Construct,” explained it this way:

Race is just some shit white people made up.

Nearly all biologists, geneticists and social scientists agree that there is no biological, genetic or scientific foundation for race. But, just because we recognize the lack of a scientific basis for race doesn’t mean that it is not real. Most societies are organized around agreed-upon principles and values that smart people call “social constructs.” It’s why Queen Elizabeth gets to live in a castle and why gold is more valuable than iron pyrite. Constitutions, laws, political parties, and even the value of currency are all real and they’re shit people made up.

To effectively understand anything we have to understand its history and what necessitated its existence. Becoming a lawyer requires learning about legal theory and “Constitutional Law.” A complete understanding of economics include the laws of supply and demand, why certain metals are considered “precious,” or why paper money has value. But we can’t do that without critically interrogating who made these constructs and who benefitted from them.

One can’t understand the political, economic and social structure of America without understanding the Constitution. And it is impossible to understand the Constitution without acknowledging that it was devised by 39 white men, 25 of whom were slave owners. Therefore, any reasonable understanding of America begins with the critical examination of the impact of race and slavery on the political, economic and social structure of this country.

That’s what Critical Race Theory does.

How does CRT do that?

It begins with the acknowledgment that the American society’s foundational structure serves the needs of the dominant society. Because this structure benefits the members of the dominant society, they are resistant to eradicating or changing it, and this resistance makes this structural inequality.

Critical Race Theory also insists that a neutral, “color-blind” policy is not the way to eliminate America’s racial caste system. And, unlike many other social theories, CRT is an activist movement, which means it doesn’t just seek to understand racial hierarchies, it also seeks to eliminate them.

How would CRT eliminate that? By blaming white people?

This is the crazy part. It’s not about blaming anyone.

Instead of the idiotic concept of colorblindness, CRT says that a comprehensive understanding of any aspect of American society requires an appreciation of the complex and intricate consequences of systemic inequality. And, according to CRT, this approach should inform policy decisions, legislation and every other element in society.

Take something as simple as college admission, for instance. People who “don’t see color” insist that we should only use neutral, merit-based metrics such as SAT scores and grades. However, Critical Race Theory acknowledges that SAT scores are influenced by socioeconomic status, access to resources and school quality. It suggests that colleges can’t accurately judge a student’s ability to succeed unless they consider the effects of the racial wealth gap, redlining, and race-based school inequality. Without this kind of holistic approach, admissions assessments will always favor white people.

CRT doesn’t just say this is racist, it explains why these kinds of race-neutral assessments are bad at assessing things.

What’s wrong with that?

Remember all that stuff I said the “material needs of the dominant society?” Well, “dominant society” means “white people.” And when I talked about “racial hierarchies,” that meant “racism.” So, according to Critical Race Theory, not only is racism an ordinary social construct that benefits white people, but it is so ordinary that white people can easily pretend it doesn’t exist. Furthermore, white people who refuse to acknowledge and dismantle this unremarkable, racist status quo are complicit in racism because, again, they are the beneficiaries of racism.

But, because white people believe racism means screaming the n-word or burning crosses on lawns, the idea that someone can be racist by doing absolutely nothing is very triggering. Let’s use our previous example of the college admissions system.

White people’s kids are more likely to get into college using a racist admissions system. But the system has been around so long that it has become ordinary. So ordinary, in fact, that we actually think SAT scores mean shit. And white people uphold the racist college admissions system—not because they don’t want Black kids to go to college—because they don’t want to change admission policies that benefit white kids.

Is that why they hate Critical Race Theory?

Nah. They don’t know what it is.

Whenever words “white people” or “racism” are even whispered, Caucasian Americans lose their ability to hear anything else. If America is indeed the greatest country in the world, then any criticism of their beloved nation is considered a personal attack—especially if the criticism comes from someone who is not white.

They are fine with moving toward a “more perfect union” or the charge to “make America great again.” But an entire field of Black scholarship based on the idea that their sweet land of liberty is inherently racist is too much for them to handle.

However, if someone is complicit in upholding a racist policy—for whatever reason—then they are complicit in racism. And if an entire country’s resistance to change—for whatever reason —creates more racism, then “racist” is the only way to accurately describe that society.

If they don’t know what it is, then how can they criticize it?

Have you met white people?

When has not knowing stuff ever stopped them from criticizing anything? They still think Colin Kaepernick was protesting the anthem, the military and the flag. They believe Black Lives Matter means white lives don’t. There aren’t any relevant criticisms other than they don’t like the word “racism” and “white people” anywhere near each other.

People like Ron DeSantis and Tom Cotton call it “cultural Marxism,” which is a historical dog whistle thrown at the civil rights movement, the Black Power movement and even the anti-lynching movement after World War I. They also criticize CRT’s basic use of personal narratives, insisting that a real academic analysis can’t be based on individually subjective stories.

Why wouldn’t that be a valid criticism?

Well, aren’t most social constructs centered in narrative structures? In law school, they refer to these individual stories as “legal precedent.” In psychology, examining a personal story is called “psychoanalysis.” In history, they call it...well, history. Narratives are the basis for every religious, political or social institution.

I wish there was a better example of an institution or document built around a singular narrative. It would change the entire constitution of this argument—but sadly, I can’t do it.

Jesus Christ, I wish I could think of one! That would be biblical!

Why do they say Critical Race Theory is not what Martin Luther King Jr. would have wanted?

You mean the Martin Luther King Jr. who conservatives also called divisive, race-baiting, anti-American and Marxist? The one whose work CRT is partially built upon? The King whose words the founders of Critical Race Theory warned would be “co-opted by rampant, in-your-face conservatism?” The MLK whose “content of their character” white people love to quote?

Martin Luther King Jr. literally encapsulated CRT by saying:

In their relations with Negroes, white people discovered that they had rejected the very center of their own ethical professions. They could not face the triumph of their lesser instincts and simultaneously have peace within. And so, to gain it, they rationalized—insisting that the unfortunate Negro, being less than human, deserved and even enjoyed second class status.

They argued that his inferior social, economic and political position was good for him. He was incapable of advancing beyond a fixed position and would therefore be happier if encouraged not to attempt the impossible. He is subjugated by a superior people with an advanced way of life. The “master race” will be able to civilize him to a limited degree, if only he will be true to his inferior nature and stay in his place.

White men soon came to forget that the Southern social culture and all its institutions had been organized to perpetuate this rationalization. They observed a caste system and quickly were conditioned to believe that its social results, which they had created, actually reflected the Negro’s innate and true nature.

That guy?

I have no idea.

Will white people ever accept Critical Race Theory?

Yes, one day I hope that Critical Race Theory will be totally disproven.

Wait...why?

Well, history cannot be erased. Truth can never become fiction. But there is a way for white people to disprove this notion.

Derrick Bell, who is considered to be the father of Critical Race Theory, notes that the people who benefit from racism have little incentive to eradicate it. Or, as Martin Luther King Jr. said: “We must also realize that privileged groups never give up their privileges voluntarily.”

So, if white people stopped being racist, then the whole thing falls apart!

From your lips to God’s ears.

[epicrapbattlesofherstory]

The recent (past couple of years) influx of """""leftists""""" on Twitch and Twitter who claim to be "American Socialist," "Patriotic Communist" or any other inane derivation thereof are, I think, attempting to define their politics along (mostly white and mostly imaginary lol) American working class lines; THAT IS NOT TO SAY that they are taking into account the interests of the (white, imaginary) working class, but rather they are incorporating the beliefs of the (white, imaginary) working class. They are doing this, I think, because they imagine Marxism to be defined, reactively, by the character of the working class and also, dialectically, in opposition to the (imagined) character of the bourgeois class. This is why they chastise "other leftists" for being "pro-idpol/vaccine mandate/wokeness/buzzword etc."

Problem 1: There is of course no monolithic working class, not even among its white portions (which are dwindling, revealing overt appeals to the white working class, instead of say the black or Hispanic working class, to be exactly as racist as they seem lol). Not every working class person opposes whatever these goons imagine "wokeness" or "crt" to be

Problem 2: The beliefs to which they correspond the "working class" are almost always petit-bourgeois signifiers. Sure there are a lot of people who buy into them, but the ones whinging about "cancel culture" and "the woke mob" on Fox News aren't exactly proletarianized. Those people do claim to represent workers, however, and PatSocs I guess are just fucking stupid enough to believe them prima facie, just being presented with obvious manufactured symbols and thinking they're "dialectical materialists" for buying into it.

Problem 3: Let's say that, yes, a significant a non-negotiable number of working class people are patriotic or even nationalist. So? That same number, probably even a great deal more, believe or at least tacitly support capitalist ideals. If you really claim to align your politics with the character of the "Real Working Class," then why are you a fucking communist? Clearly in order to be a true Marxist in America you should abandon every notion of Marxism, idiot. Literally why would someone start the analysis at a superficial anti-capitalism and then leave every other part of their politics to be defined by racism, patriotism and reactionary "anti-elitism" unless they were cool with those things lol

Deleuze and Guattari lay it out best in Anti-Oedipus when they explain that a true revolutionary class war will not be fought, a priori, between the working class and the capitalists, but rather, quite simply, between the opponents of capital and the defenders of capital, the opponents of racism and the defenders. Communism is not a reaction to Capital, not a thing based on lack nor emerging in dialectical opposition to anything, but rather it must be its own positive existence, its own wellspring, its own Universe, a BwO in order to not be co-opted, railroaded and commandeered

[mirrormirrormag]

why i don't like democracy

Since its inception, democracy has been branded as one of America’s many hallmarks. As long as democracy and freedom has been associated with America, everyone else has been led to believe that America is the leader of the free world. 

But even as Thomas Jefferson declared independence from the tyranny of Britain, he still justified the ownership of human beings as slaves. And even as the founding fathers drafted the constitution that would protect our unalienable rights and liberties, they still justified the exploitation of black bodies in order to serve the interests of White America. 

These foundational documents provided the blueprint for America and its interests over time, and since the country’s founding, America has pillaged, colonized, looted, exploited, ravaged, stolen, imperialized, controlled, capitalized, and subjugated the rest of the world all in the name of “democracy.”

Not to mention, the denial of humanity to the very people that built this country’s wealth that continues to this very day.

America co-opted the concept of democracy and created an excuse to oppress the world under the guise of goodwill and progressiveness, which is why I hate democracy. American democracy, to be specific.

Along the journey towards global domination, our government intentionally corrupted the world’s ideals of what democracy should be in order to preserve their image of goodness and utopia. We allow America to wage unnecessary and useless wars to preserve “democracy” and “freedom.” 

But what is democracy? To America, democracy is defined by capitalism where the means for production are unregulated and unchecked, but that is inherently undemocratic because capitalism has only allowed for the corruption and greed of rich people to control the lives of others. At its core, democracy is the form of government that is run by the people for all people, and when we allow some people to have more power than others, the foundational ideologies of democracy are nullified. 

American democracy, or capitalism, has been the basis for the myriad of undemocratic things that America has done. Yet, to the rest of the world, it’s entirely justified and patriotic. Ever since World War 2, when America really started to pillage and loot on a global scale, so much propaganda was used to vilify any other means for democracy like socialism and communism and glorify the democracy that America was the vanguard of. It allowed the military to interfere in any foreign conflict that they deemed “undemocratic” while not allowing room for growth in our ignorant mindset of what democracy is. 

To this day, “third-world countries” which is another concept created by Western countries to perpetuate the white savior complex by asserting that countries that were robbed of their country’s resources by the West are poor and helpless, continue to buy into the myth of American democracy. Rather than creating a new standard of freedom and liberty in the world, countries that were destroyed by America continually attempt to build a government in the image of America. 

Even the distinctions between the West versus the East, and the narrative that countries in the West are the definition of progress and freedom, while the East is oppressive is laughable because America and Europe created the blueprint for systemic racism and misogyny that brands the East.

To deny the existence of these systemic issues in our countries is doing a disservice to the aspirations for democracy. The coronavirus exposed all of the systemic issues at the root of our country’s operation at an important time in history where White people were very quick to claim that we are living in a post-racial society. The first step to actually living in a democratic society is to acknowledge the wrongdoings of our predecessors. 

"America never intended to be a country for all people: the founding fathers were all rich, white men who wanted their property to be free and liberated, as opposed to the people who lived alongside them."

The establishment of oppressive systems such as the police, the prison system, and the military were intentionally created to deny Black Americans basic rights supposedly guaranteed in the 1st Amendment, which clearly shows that this country was never created to accommodate the livelihood of Black Americans while posturing as vanguards of democracy.

Through the course of history, there has never been a moment where Americans have not been protesting for one thing or another, and ironically, America now uses that as justification of being a country led by the people (when in reality it’s not) but in the moment, the government did everything it could in order to suppress the voices of protestors through the use of state sponsored violence like the police and maintain the safety of property and capital. America continually ignored the voices asking for change because it would upend the standards of power and class in America, which is what the government truly wants to preserve. 

The current protests are a huge example of this because just as White America was becoming oblivious to the violence that Black Americans routinely experienced, the video of George Floyd being murdered exposed the realities of America and the systematic efforts to perpetuate systemic racism. 

The American government tries harder to preserve oppression against Black people than it does listening to them and abolishing the structures that exist solely to create a new iteration of slavery.

I could call America a hypocrite for claiming democracy as their own while sponsoring all sorts of violence and oppression against people, but America never intended to be a country for all people: the founding fathers were all rich, white men who wanted their property to be free and liberated, as opposed to the people who lived alongside them.

As long as we allow America to limit our ideas of what’s possible in the realm of democracy and government to a superficial level, we will never be free. 

[aces-to-apples]

I know exactly who you’re vaguing and honestly thank you SO much. On the server they live on they’ve gaslit the one in charge into doing exactly what they say or else they’ll call that person racist too. Every time someone tries to stand up for themselves and the mods let them the bullies will play the victim card and publicly shame and harrague the mods for “not protecting” them and when the mods finally bow and apologize they get lovebombed by the bullies like “dawww it’s okay you’re a Good White Person who’s Learning! You jumped high enough we accept you!” and it’s manipulative as fuck and has therefore given them free reign to be bullies with no consequence. Thank you for speaking out, even indirectly

Oh believe me I know exactly the abusive fuckshit they and all their other little bully friends were pulling in that server, which is precisely why it has the reputation of racism, ableism, antisemitism, abuse apologia, and harassment that it does. Even after most of them left to form their hateful little echo chamber, that fuckin' mod is still being bullied and abused into taking the shit of all their little friends who stuck around and slid into the power vacuum. Although to be clear that fuckin mod participated in so much shit that I only have minimal sympathy for them: nobody deserves to be abused, and at the same time, that mod pulled the same racism, ableism, bullying, etc. that the ringleaders did.

Quite frankly, if you build an entire (for lack of a better word) community on being hateful little shitheads about other fans who make content that you personally dislike, there's really no way you can be surprised when the worst of the lot turn on and abuse you and the rest of the community.

I mean, really, those fuckfaces left that first server in the first place because the mod, one time, tried to enforce one rule and suddenly the were being faced with a single consequence. And the thing that sparked the whole explosion? Someone pointing out that maybe, just maybe, the server's reputation for being toxic and negative was at least a little bit earned. Maybe they shouldn't screenshot and quote entire pieces of fanworks and spent hours and hours mocking, belittling, tearing it apart, and inciting bullying and harassment of the creators by accusing them of various -isms that--you know, I was gonna say "only exist in their minds," but for at least that one specific user in question, I don't think it does. I think they know exactly what they're doing, know exactly how to prey on ignorant fans who want to do better, and use progressive language and abusive tactics in order to control them and point them at creators that they personally don't like.

Those servers are toxic, those people are abusive and manipulative, and every time I see another round of them tearing each other apart, I sit back with a smile and say "burn, baby, burn."

Those fuckers are terrifying to anyone that they can get their hateful little claws into, so I don't blame you in the slightest. They're a mob of bullies and abusers insidiously co-opting social justice language in order to attack other fans. They give fandom a bad name, they give fans a bad name, and those of them that are people of color and still pulling this fuckshit aren't just setting the bar low, they're digging down past the planet's crust.

I'd make a crack about hoping they're proud of themselves, but I know for a fact that they are. Because they're accomplishing exactly what they've set out to do: fulfilling their power fantasy of being the high school bullies they always wanted to be.

Fuck 'em.

[firelord-frowny]

I’ve talked a little bit about how at least one ~negative aspect~ of white supremacy/racism that impacts white people is that it can be SO DIFFICULT to avoid being Accidentally Racist over something that really shouldn’t have been that deep, and WOULDN’T have been that deep if not for the pervasiveness of white supremacy in america, and this bit about the lil country band Lady Antebellum and the controversy surrounding their name illustrates that pretty well, I think:

The band members have always said that the band's name was chosen arbitrarily, complaining about the difficulty of choosing a name. Inspired by the "country" style nostalgia of a photo shoot at a mansion from the Antebellum South, they said, "one of us said the word and we all kind of stopped and said, man, that could be a name"[40] and "Man that's a beautiful Antebellum house, and that's cool, maybe there's a haunted ghost or something in there like Lady Antebellum."[41] Haywood concluded, "[We] had a lady in the group, obviously, and threw Lady in the front of it for no reason. I wish we had a great resounding story to remember for the name, but it stuck ever since."[40] The name was always controversial, with a critic in Ms. Magazine writing in 2011 that the band's name "seems to me an example of the way we still — nearly 150 years after the end of the Civil War, nearly 50 years after the Civil Rights Act; and in a supposedly post-racial country led by a biracial president — glorify a culture that was based on the violent oppression of people of color".[41][42]

On June 11, 2020, joining widespread commercial response to the George Floyd protests,[41] the band announced it would abbreviate its name to its existing nickname "Lady A"[43] in an attempt to blunt the name's racist connotations.[1] The band members stated on social media that, never having previously sought the dictionary definition of the word "antebellum", they now consulted their "closest black friends and colleagues" so that their "eyes opened wide to the injustices, inequality and biases black women and men have always faced and continue to face every day. Now, blind spots we didn't even know existed have been revealed."[44] Fan response was mixed, with many decrying virtue signaling or even disparaging the protests.[41]American Songwriter said, "Given that the world knows what that A stands for, to many this change does little more than add extra insult to this ongoing injury."[45]

The next day, it was widely reported that the name "Lady A" had already been in use for more than 20 years by Seattle-based African American activist and blues, soul, funk, and gospel singer Anita White. The band again admitted ignorance of any prior use, which White called "pure privilege". Interviewed by Rolling Stone, White described the band's token acknowledgement of racism while blithely appropriating an African American artist's name: "They're using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that, for them, is just a moment in time. If it mattered, it would have mattered to them before. It shouldn't have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it. It's an opportunity for them to pretend they're not racist". A veteran music industry lawyer observed that such name clashes are uncommon due to the existence of the Internet.[46][47] The band members contacted White the next week to apologize for having inadvertently co-opted and dominated her name,[48] saying that the Black Lives Matter movement had inspired them to a collaborative attitude. They nonetheless required retaining the same name, though she believed dual-naming is inherently impossible.[49]She said "We talked about attempting to co-exist but didn't discuss what that would look like"[48] because the band members would not directly respond to that explicit question three times during the conversation or in two contract drafts. She soon submitted a counteroffer that either the band would be renamed, or that her act would be renamed for a $5 million fee plus a $5 million donation to be split between Seattle charities, a nationwide legal defense fund for independent artists, and Black Lives Matter.[49]

On July 8, 2020, the band filed a lawsuit against White, asking a Nashville court to affirm its longstanding trademark of the name. The press release read: "Today we are sad to share that our sincere hope to join together with Anita White in unity and common purpose has ended. She and her team have demanded a $10 million payment, so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A, a trademark we have held for many years."[50]

On September 15, 2020, White filed a counter-suit asserting her claim to the Lady A trademark and rejecting the notion that both artists could operate in the same industry under the same brand identity. She is seeking damages for lost sales and a weakened brand, along with royalties from any income the band receives under the Lady A moniker.[51][52]

Like????????? this REALLY didn’t need to be a thing. 

And one thing I think black folks and other poc need to chill out with is dismissing any white person’s attempt at Being Better in how they move through a white supremacist world in a way that seeks to undo or at least not exacerbate white supremacy. I can TOTALLY believe that, in their white ignorant bliss, this band really did choose their name without realizing for a moment that it might leave a fucked up taste in some people’s mouths. Honestly like... antebellum IS a cool sounding word lmfao and if it wasn’t so heavily associated with slavery-era america, i’d wanna name something antebellum, too! 

And like, yes, it’s true that it ~shouldn’t have taken george floyd’s death~ for anyone at all to suddenly decide that they want to go a little bit out of their way to denounce or at least not seem to promote racism in some small way. But it did. And it does. And every fucking time there’s a gross act of violence and injustice acted out on a person of color in front of the world, there’s always going to be a brand new white person out there who Sees The Light for the very first time. That doesn’t mean their new perspective isn’t genuine, and it doesn’t mean it happened All Of A Sudden. If anything, it was something they’d been thinking about for a long time, but didn’t know how to address it, or what to say, or who to say it to, or how to talk about it in their own community. OBVIOUSLY that problem is WAY LESS BAD than, ya know, actually experiencing racism, but it’s still a real thing that some white folks go through, and being mad about it isn’t going to make it NOT a real thing. it shouldn’t have taken george floyd’s death. it shouldn’t have taken trayvon martin’s death. it shouldn’t have taken the instatement of one of the most vile human beings to ever assault the face of the earth for This Person or That Person to finally want to make a positive and public change, BUT IT DID. It always does. That, unfortunately, is How It Works. 

And so, this band adjusts it’s name in an effort to not seem hostile. OBVIOUSLY it’s not a grand show of solidarity. OBVIOUSLY it’s not meant to convince anyone that they’re Super Amazing White People Who Will Stop At Nothing For Racial Equality. It was literally just a small, simple gesture. They’re just modifying their image, because they were no longer comfortable with knowing how that word makes a lot of people feel. Bc like... let’s be real: probably a solid ZERO of their fanbase would have given a shit if they’d just left the name as it was. Nobody who’s going to a Lady Antebellum concert was pouting about the name. And if anything, they prolly stood a better chance of LOSING fans for ~being politically correct~ than gaining fans for changing their name to something less annoying. 

And it JUST SO HAPPENS that the slight lil adjustment they made to their name steps on the toes of an existing artist, and it JUST SO HAPPENS that this artist is black, and is also an ACTIVIST in social and racial justice. 

Oops. 

And so, obviously people don’t interpret it as an honest mistake. Instead, it’s a result of white privilege. And I mean like??? ok, maybe it is. But I ALSO had never heard of Anita White until I read this fucking wiki page lmfao. So like... my ignorance isn’t due to no white privilege on my part. Maybe it’s a consequence of a white supremacist culture that wouldn’t glorify her and celebrate her and put her name everywhere... but that’s a different thing from privilege. 

So now not only are the bands efforts to adjust to a world that’s becoming more aware of racial injustice being dismissed as disingenuous or too-little-too-late, but now they’re ALSO being accused of Using Their White Privilege to trample all over an artist they’d never heard of. 

i DO think that after finding out the name was already taken, and after talking with her about it and determining that she wasn’t interested in sharing - as is her right - they should have just said “ok, sorry, thanks for talking with us about it” and picked something different. i think it’s kinda ridiculous that they think they should sue her and i think she’s HELLA right for suing their asses right back, and I hope she gets her damn money. 

But I’m also cognizant of how emotionally/psychologically upsetting it can feel to have to just Change Your Name after so many years of living with it. It makes sense that despite their desire to adapt and choose a new name that doesn’t make people cringe, they still want to try to hold on to the feeling that THEY associated with their own name. “Lady A” seemed like a happy medium: They can remain Who They Are while also showing that Who They Are is someone who’s not trying to glorify a disgusting era of history. But if “Lady A” isn’t an option... what’s left? What else could they call themselves that wouldn’t feel like a totally new, alien identity?? 

So, I understand how, on an emotional level, they want to fight to keep it. 

But uh. They really need to just Be Sad about it and let it go. Just consider it one of the small, upsetting sacrifices that white folks may sometimes have to make as we ALL struggle and stumble through this fuckin long-ass road of Making The World Less Terrible For People Of Color, and move on. 

But yeah, like. 

It’s fucking ridiculous that this was even an issue, and it was only an issue because of racism!!!!! If white supremacists didn’t manufacture a culture that oppresses people of color and glorifies the pre-civil-war era SPECIFICALLY for the good ol slavery, then perhaps people could wax poetic about the artistic and environmental aesthetic of that era without it being assumed that they Must Be Racist. Bc like??? idk if yall know this lmfao but i LOVE????? colonial american music. like, the kind of stuff with that Ashokan Farewell vibe. I think it sounds beautiful. And i really fuckin love the black spiritual music that was developed in that time. and i think so much of the architecture and fashion was so???? Nice. Just pleasant! But I can’t even get myself to fully enjoy it because of all the fuckin connotations that have been stuck to it. 

A band should be able to name theirself a name without it being such a goddamn fucking cultural crisis. 

But they can’t! And it is! 

Thanks, White Supremacy! 

[ilovejevsjeans]

WHY HAMILTON, VETTEL AND RICCIARDO HAVE EARNED A CRUCIAL WIN

Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel and Daniel Ricciardo have 146 Formula 1 victories between them. They can take a share in another at the British Grand Prix, and the race hasn’t even started yet. But that’s kind of the point.

It’ll be around 17 minutes before the formation lap begins at Silverstone when those three drivers, and others like Romain Grosjean, can take satisfaction in a job well done. That’s when, thanks to F1 and the FIA, a prominent display “in recognition of the importance of equality and equal opportunity for all” will be part of the live TV images before the race for around half a minute.

“As long as we are all there together and get a moment which doesn’t feel forced or rushed, I think that’s most important,” Ricciardo had said on Thursday.

“In Budapest, it was a bit of a mess for the timing so they’ve addressed it now and I think we’ll continue to do as we’ve done just with a little bit more ease and not such rush and chaos.”

It would be disingenuous to claim getting F1’s pre-race anti-racism stand back in a prominent position is the greatest victory of the weekend, and in isolation it might not seem like a win at all.

But F1 was heading down a tricky path in a fractured state and this could be a significant milestone in that journey. And as FIA race director Michael Masi wrote at the end of a detailed set of notes: “I hope the above is clear and provides some clarity and reassurance to the drivers.”

Hamilton, Vettel and Ricciardo have spoken – and acted – with passion and respect on the subject of racism. Others have too, including the next generation of drivers like Lando Norris, but this trio in particular has been at the forefront of consistently explaining why it is important and why it must be continued.

“We cannot ignore what’s happening outside of our racing bubble,” says Vettel.

“And I think the fight against racism around the world that has taken off again in the last couple of weeks and months, I think it is completely justified.

“It is an ongoing process and needs all of us – and that’s not just us racing, I think that would be ignorant – all human beings around the planet to stand up and to try and go against racism, inequality, injustice in any form.

“It is right to try and set the right signs to inspire people because in the end I believe that education is probably the only way out of it.

“It is insanity to think that in 2020 with all the knowledge that we have of the past, and all the lessons we’ve learned that there is still something that does exist that should be out of the question.

“But it’s not, so therefore we need to stand up when we have the chance publicly to send a message – or more so even when the camera’s off and we are living our everyday life and setting the right example, and trying to behave in a way that is right.”

That’s what the official anti-racism ‘ceremony’, held at the season-opening Austrian Grand Prix, was all about – a very strong message to a very large audience. But it was made less formal at the next two races and turned into a bit of a rush. It seemed to slip off the agenda and it emerged that other drivers were happy to let that happen.

It’s one thing that all 20 drivers haven’t knelt so far. But as has so often been iterated, that doesn’t matter so long as the 20 are united for the cause.

If some drivers wanted to just drop it and move on, that shatters the illusion of unity. That all 20 seem set to persevere suggests it was more about not understanding the importance of the issue rather than being against it.

To some it will still look odd to see the majority of drivers kneeling and others doing something else. But we’re making baby steps with this issue, which is how Hamilton sees it – progress.

“I spent time speaking to Jean Todt, spent time speaking to Chase Carey and Ross Brawn and had really great conversations with them to understand what they’re planning and what they want to do moving forward, and to make sure they know that we’re on the same team here,” Hamilton says.

“Things like giving us that little bit of extra time at the beginning before the race, so that we can really show how united we are as a sport – because other sports have done a better job at consistently doing that.

“They’ve been really open-minded and I do think that it needs to continue through the year.

“I believe, at the moment, that’s what we’re going to continue to do. I think there’s been some pushback, from some teams maybe.

“But again, it’s a work in progress to get us all together. And I think it’s going in the right direction.”

Different people have different positions on this subject. Not in the sense that anyone morally decent thinks racism isn’t bad, or shouldn’t be ended. But it’s a fact that not everybody is on the same page with how prominent this issue needs to be or what part F1 can play in making a difference.

That’s what has caused division among the drivers and projects an image that the ‘unity’ everybody speaks of might not actually be there.

“After the first race it was then discussed between us drivers, what do we do moving forward,” says Ricciardo.

“Some were in the mindset of ‘OK, well I’ve done it, so why do we need to keep doing it? I showed the support and that’s it’.

“But I think that’s just a bit of education, and I’m not gonna sit here and say I know more than everyone else about the topic because I don’t – but I feel that it was then time to open up the conversation and say well, these are the reasons why doing it once is not really doing enough.”

It’d be great to see all 20 take the knee before the start but that won’t happen and it probably won’t happen all season long. But whatever those drivers choose to do instead, they should be willing to do in front of the cameras for the remainder of 2020.

“It’s not like if someone passes and you wear a black armband, that makes sense, you acknowledge it on that moment and it’s not like you have to do it for the next year or something,” says Ricciardo.

“But this is a cause that is ongoing, and it’s still very fresh for a lot of people, a lot of parts of the world and I think we need to continue honing in on it, and making people aware of it.

“That’s why just doing it once is not enough. If you just do it once, how much do you really mean it?

“I think you have to continue showing your support and your willingness to do something and make a change.”

At this point the knee issue is a distraction from scrutinising whether F1 is really unified on this matter and serious about it. What’s been put in place for the British GP suggests that is the case, as it was in Austria.

The rest is an issue for the drivers to discuss amongst themselves.

Given taking the knee originated as a statement from NFL player Colin Kaepernick against police brutality and racial profiling in the United States, is it a political statement? Or has it transcended its origins and become a gesture of solidarity? Is it really a very sensitive and divisive gesture in some cultures, as has been protested?

And what of the ongoing co-opting of the Black Lives Matter message, originally and ostensibly a simple, powerful statement demanding people recognise the needless killing of black Americans?

As Hamilton has discovered, the association that message now has with controversial political organisations has split supporters of the same cause into factions.

“I’m clearly for more inclusion and ending racism – this whole messaging and movement in my mind is great, and I think it’s only good that we’re putting awareness on this and spreading the word,” says Haas driver Kevin Magnussen. “And I want to participate in that for sure.

“But I don’t want to become political and it’s difficult for me to know how my actions are being perceived by others. I really just don’t want to go into politics and I don’t want to be seen to support groups or organisations that I can’t stand with.”

His team-mate Grosjean says: “Kevin mentioned really a good point that some of the guys have been afraid of being linked to any political movement.

“I don’t think it’s happening but maybe I’m wrong. I’m not linked to any of the political movement.”

This is a delicate issue but if it wasn’t then F1 wouldn’t need to be getting involved. It wouldn’t be a worldwide problem that manifests itself in all sorts of ways – even creating issues that F1 doesn’t go anywhere near, as plenty of people who criticise the anti-racism movement like to point out by asking ‘why isn’t F1 shining a light on X?’.

The solution to inconsistent messaging can’t be that Hamilton abandons wearing a ‘Black Lives Matter’ T-shirt while others wear one that says ‘End Racism’.

For one thing, apparently the other message is on the back of Hamilton’s anyway. But if the drivers are free to make the gesture they choose there is something insidious about forcing the only black driver in F1 to adapt a message important to black culture to avoid causing a problem.

After all, the whole point of this is not to suggest that white hood wearing neo-Nazis are walking around with nooses in every city across the world, assembling lynch mobs.

It’s to raise awareness of the deep-rooted biases that manifest themselves as systemic racism and troubles that are much, much harder to address and fix – which is why something so absurd as racism still exists today.

“I really don’t understand racism,” says Grosjean. “I really don’t understand that it can exist in that way.

“I never experienced it, and talking to Lewis was very interesting and it’s things that you can’t really even imagine.

“I don’t think it should divide us, if anything it should pull us together and help us with our image to stop that because it shouldn’t happen.”

This is at the heart of the importance of what Grosjean (in his role at the GPDA), F1 and the FIA have done, starting with the British GP. The request of arguably the three most powerful driver voices on the topic has been taken on board and acted on.

All 20 drivers will group together for a cause and doing so prominently will help eliminate the underlying feeling that some don’t want to be there.

In the smallest possible way it will be a test of their commitment to this issue and perhaps by exposing them to it more regularly, much like those watching on television, anyone who does have doubts about why it needs to be continued in this fashion will try to understand it instead of trying to end the process.

“The more of an impact we can have as Formula 1, as drivers, the better it is for all of us and the bigger the impact we’re going to have on the future and people growing up,” says Norris.

There’s a bigger part for F1 to play in this fight, with activities of greater substance being set up in the background.

For now, it’s important for all participants to show they are on the same side. And in that sense, what we witness before the British GP should be considered a win. (X)

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

TLDR: Republicans believe themselves to be infallible and cannot be convinced otherwise

Republicans think America is perfect and always has been, while simultaneously believing that America is DOOMED and ON THE EDGE OF COLLAPSE at all times and want to bring us back to the Before Times™ when men were men and women were household appliances and minorities were someone else’s problem.  If you bring up a genuine critique of American culture or history they throw a pissbaby shit fit and start spewing nationalist platitudes, “America: Like It or Leave It!”  All their complaints stem from their perceived self-importance being eroded; they don’t like to realize that other people with differing opinions exist and should have their voices heard.  If a “brown” or a “black” or a “red” or a “yellow” is allowed to speak, that just means there’s one less space for a “white.”  All their complaints come from a slippery slope argument that if we don’t model our society after their specific cherrypicked interpretation of The Bible then we will degenerate into amoral savagery.

They say being gay is an abomination and allowing it will damn our children to hell; what they really think is that it’s gross and they don’t want to see things they think are gross.  There’s literally no good argument against marriage equality besides “I don’t personally like it.”  America is not a theocracy, so the belief system of Christianity should not be construed as the law of the land.  This stems from their belief that the Bible is infallible, “because the Bible says so.”  They don’t know and don’t want to know about the history behind it, nor the very contentious political landscapes at the times the books were written, nor the personal biases of the very human authors.  If the Bible is a literal textbook, then why?  What makes it so special?  By whose authority were its contents collated and designated THE Good Book?  If the Bible is literal, why not the works of Homer, or the Epic of Gilgamesh?  Just because the Bible says the Bible is right doesn’t make it so.  For the record, I am a Christian, and I think the Bible is just an old book.  I’m a Christian in that I follow the teachings of Christ, which can be summed up as “DON’T BE AN ASSHOLE.”  I live by that, and All the ChrINOs (Christians in Name Only) need to learn it.  Jesus would be ashamed of what he saw today.

They say that abortion is baby murder, on par with ritual human sacrifice and Satan worship. They don’t understand biology, they have a Sunday School understanding of philosophy, and live in a world so black and white that they can’t even imagine a reason someone would have an abortion besides that they’re a terrible person; a woman who would have an abortion is unfit to be a mother in their eyes because they see abortion as equivalent to smothering a baby with a pillow because you don’t want to take care of it anymore.  “He or she is alive, he or she has a heart beat!”  Well, at this point is is just a blob of tissue, not a living person; a heart beat alone does not make something alive or dead.  Your life comes from your brain, not your heart.  If someone is alive the moment their heart starts, then they must be dead the moment is stops, so CPR is necromancy.  A person isn’t considered dead until their brain is dead, so if they wanted to argue that life begins at brain activity they would have a stronger argument, though still weak because brain activity is not personhood either.  Patients in permanent vegetative states on life support may have some brain activity, but they are effectively dead.  There is no way a judge, appointed by senators elected by the people of the United States, can prove that not only do souls exist but that they are created the second a sperm fertilizes an egg.  If “souls” exist, they aren’t so much created as built up over time as we gain new experienced and our brains develop.  What we are is electricity in a ball of meat jelly in our skulls, and that comes to being at a point after which abortions are already banned.  Conservatives also just want to control women; Roe v. Wade isn’t explicitly about the right to an abortion, it is about the right to body autonomy.  Do women have the right to control their own bodies, or do they defer that right to their fathers and husbands?  Are women people or property?  Can a man make decisions on a woman’s behalf?  “You must forgive my daughter; as a simple minded woman she’s fallen into a stupor of female hysteria.  We’ll have the family doctor bring out the smelling salts and leaches.”

They say that certain vices are crimes against God, but only when some people do it.  Divorce is a sin because marriage is sacred, except when a conservative does it, then it’s totally justified because of such and such explanation.  Tattoos are the mark of the beast, worn by degenerates and lesbians, except when a conservative does it, then it’s just art and harmless self expression.  Marijuana is a gateway drug and we need to lock away its addicts and throw away the key, unless a conservative does it, then it’s just recreational, no big deal, we don’t want to ruin the [white] boy’s future because of it.  A black person who does cocaine is a criminal, a white person who does cocaine is a public figure (you’d be surprised how many actors and politicians regularly use coke; they have to have high energy 24/7 in case there are any cameras, so they need uppers to keep themselves presentable).  This all springs from the fundamental conservative philosophy of “it’s okay when WE do it, but not when YOU do it.”  That’s the long and short of it.  The in-group is allowed to do things, but the out-group isn’t.  It’s the Us vs Them mentality taken to the logical extreme; WE are people, THEY are monsters.  WE are allowed to have faults, THEY have to stay in line and follow all the rules.  OUR lives matter, THEIR lives are lesser.  When you strip away the showy bits and get down to the core of their beliefs, everything stems from their desire to hurt anyone who isn’t them.  They want power, they want to be special, they want the Good Guys™ to always prevail over the Bad Guys™, and they want to be the ones to decide who is good and who is bad.  Their opinions are the only ones that matter, everyone else is wrong because they’re not them.  Now, it’s not like you could solve every problem by opening up your mind to new opinions; there are some issues that are indeed black and white with objectively right and wrong answers, but they live in a world where they are incapable of being wrong.  They see personal growth as a betrayal of the self, that admitting a fault is terrible, that apologizing and learning from a mistake is traitorous.  No, they have to double down on every single one of their beliefs to re-instill it in their minds.  They can never doubt themselves, because God will punish them forever if they ever have doubt.  They can’t ask questions or look at things from other perspectives because that would be an admission that their perspectives are fallible.  They are afraid of changing their minds so much that they refuse to even listen when someone explains their opinions because they don’t want to have their minds co-opted by Satan’s LIES!  If they hear something convincing, it’s all over, their entire world collapses, everything they believe is a lie, they lose, they go to hell forever, The End.

That is the dichotomy under which Republicans live their lives.  Nothing matters but what they believe.  They don’t believe what they believe for logical reasons, so no amount of logic will ever make them not believe it.  They’re making up their own rules to win.  You’re playing Rock-Paper-Scissors and they throw Nuclear Bomb, which defeats all three, so you lose.  You say that’s not fair, they say tough.  You throw Nuclear Bomb, and they say they have a bomb proof shield, so the bomb doesn’t hurt them but kills you, so you lose.  You can’t even beat them at their own game because they’ve been playing it longer, and they cry foul when you stoop to their level, suddenly saying that you need to be the bigger person, walking right up to the line of admitting that what they do is wrong but not quite getting there, simply reverting to the complaint that you shouldn’t be allowed to do it.  “I can, but YOU can’t.”  That’s why it infuriates me when nobody ever calls out a Republican for their hypocrisy.  They do something, a Democrat does that exact same thing, they cry foul, but nobody ever says “well, you didn’t have a problem when you did it,” they just try to excuse their own actions rather than demand justification for theirs.  Democrats are always on the defensive, they always look like they’re losing even when they’re winning, so the Republicans can use that to build their base and rally together for the occasional victory (Democrats won 7 of the last 8 presidential elections; the last Republican to legitimately win the presidency was George H.W. Bush in 1988).

I don’t know how you’d even begin to fight someone who is this far down the rabbit hole of self denial.

Democrats self-reflect, Republicans self-deflect.

Democrats are progressive, Republicans are regressive.

Now I’m sure there are no Republicans reading this, but if there are they’ll make themselves known and “totally refute” everything I’ve said with some paper thin argument that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, but they don’t care because it stands up to them.  They only need to show one example of a Democrat failing to write off the entire party; they only need to show one black Republicans to deny the existence of racism; one gay Republican denies homophobia; one women denies sexism.  They are the party of tokenism.

They will point out the mote of dust in your eye and ignore the plank in their own.

Debate me, I have nothing better to do with my time, I’m a dirty libtard cuckflake soyboy beta with a case full of participation trophies and handouts paid for by other people’s tax dollars (funny, they think handouts are for degenerates, except when they get them.  Inheritance?  Privilege?  Never heard of them!)

[fandomshatewomen]

(1/3) The whole "reylo is the only feminist star wars ship" thing reminds me a lot of the "actually stucky is feminist and steggy is a straight man's ship" posts that the stucky shippers were pushing post endgame. I know there's a lot of racism tied up with the reylos and finn and john that didn't exist between the stucky shippers and peggy and hayley (although there was some internalized misogyny for sure), and that stucky shippers did have homophobia to contend with (although it's hardly true

(2/3) that every queer mcu fan shipped stucky), so I don’t want to make a false equivalence, but the “this ship between two men/white people is the only feminist option and we’re the real defenders of this woman/black character that we’ve spent years ignoring, and the queer women/people of color who claim to be their fans are the real misogynists and homophobes/racists” is really familiar. It’s clear that co-opting feminism to make their preferred ship into the Only Right Option when people

(3/3) don’t get the ending they wanted is becoming a Thing that needs to stop, but I’m not really sure how to address it. Those fandoms also have the “if everything isn’t about this white male side character all time, it’s bad writing” problem in common, and that feels related as well.

Ok so this is a very complicated topic and I’ll preface itby saying two things first I’m not actually familiar with the argument that “Reylois the only feminist star wars ship” because thankfully my dash is filled withsensible people that don’t inundate me with faux feminist opinions that try torebrand an abusive ship into a feminist ship. Second racism actually plays a partin the stucky shippers too and I’ll demonstrate why in a bit.

For those of you reading this I will pretend this is the first time you’ve ever encountered the assertion that Reylo is abusive statement.  I’ll try to do this quickly but here goes.  Kylo starts off by literally torturing her and telling her he can take whatever he wants.  Invading not only her mind but initially hedoesn’t know she has the force. So its not a battle of equals we saw how easilyhe took what he wanted from Poe Dameron.  She does eventually get into his head but this is just the first encounter.  Then snoke bridges their minds together Kylo is constantly entering Rey’s mind telling her she’s nothing she comes from nothing he needs him to realize her full potential.  Mind you Kylo had years ofjedi training he probably knows someone bridged their minds together onpurpose. Rey is horrified this is the man who killed a good man his own fatherin cold blood and put her new friend in a coma. But Kylo keeps at her tellingher its inevitable that they’ll be together. (Some extra bits of fandom herethe Reylos are not shy with their fanon that Kylo/Ben was neglected as a childby his parents, which is completely a fabrication. They also say he’s beenbrainwashed which while confirmed by TROS that Palpatine was impersonating his Grandfather Darth Vader/Anakin this does not answer the why of the matter that if Finn, who was stolen from his parents, could fight the brainwashing why not Kylo? Another bit of contention I absolutely hated how they wrote Luke in TLJ and while I accepted it doesn’t explain why Kylo killed all the padawanlearners that didn’t join him.) TL:DR of this section: going back to Kylo’s abusive behavior, calling Rey nothing, invading her mind, insisting that she leave her new friends that care for her and support her to be with him is classic abusive behavior. Don’t believe me check out Lundy Buncroft.

Moving on how is stucky vs steggy racist?  Its quite simple really, in the fact that if anyone was written to be romantic interest for steve besides Peggy it was Samnot Tony, Natasha or Bucky. There’s a great meta post I’m not sure is on thisblog but it should be on mcufhpoc if you care to dig about how Sam was writtenas a love interest framed by the story in the winter soldier to perfectly setSteve up to be bisexual.  Now I have nothing against Bucky but Steve spent most of his time violently at odds with Bucky in the winter soldier and civil war. Not exactly what you would want from a ship. Why do you think so much Stucky fanfic is about preserum Steve/Bucky?  Gross implications about ableism aside it was for years the only way you could justify the ship.  The only other optionin canon was Sharon but frankly the writers of the mcu seemed to hate herreducing her role substantially from what was originally planned. There was allsorts of cries incest (when literally this is the same fandom that ships Thorkiabout two brothers who were raised as brothers except one of them happens to beadopted.  Like they can’t even get the definition of incest right Steve was dating Peggy not Peggy and Sharon.) Also he didn’t know they were related until years after he met Sharon. I’m only including this Sharon bit because it demonstrates so nicely the kind of internalized misogyny in display in this fandom. According to Stucky fans no woman is worthyof Steve only the white dude he grew up with and fought several times and btw they make the most sense when Steve is being cared for preserum/sarcasm. Which brings me to the other big Steve ship Stony. That’s a huge ship and they can barely stand each other in canon. 

TL;DR of this section its obvious from the numbers that Stucky and Stony are the only ships that matter the fandom only really wants is white dudeslash.

Btw its not actually feminist for so many straight women to ship dudes.  Gay men have been begging for straight women to listen to them about this for years. 

Last implicit question: What phenomenon is actually at work here if it doesn’t fit feminism because Reylo is abusive and Stucky just shows off the tip of the iceberg of internalized misogyny? 

Answer: Its white supremacy.

Which goes back to your statement of “Those fandoms also have the "if everything isn't about this white male side character all time, it's bad writing" problem in common, and that feels related as well.”

These fandoms and all fandoms really can only fathom fandom as yet another way of obsessing over white men. 

mod m

[a4bl]

Asians 4 Black Lives: Structural Racism is the Pandemic, Interdependence and Solidarity is the Cure

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven a new surge in violence against Asian communities across the world. Several high-profile instances of anti-Asian racist violence—spurred on by casually racist remarks at every level of government, business, and popular culture—have created a terrorizing climate for many. In San Francisco Chinatown for example, overt xenophobia, combined with the economic impact of shelter-in-place orders, has left immigrants, elders, limited English-speaking people, and poor folks feeling like targets. In San Francisco, where a staggeringly disproportionate 50% of the COVID-19 mortalities are from the Asian and Pacific Islander community, the pandemic has ushered in multiple violences. This has been further exacerbated by pre-existing crises: gentrification, displacement, homelessness, police terror, inequities in education, a drastic uptick in deportations, antagonism against trans and queer people, poverty, and exploitation. 

Nationally, Black people are dying from COVID-19 at rates twice as high as other groups, an outcome of deeply embedded structural racism in healthcare, housing, labor, and other policies. Communities are weakened from decades of housing discrimination and redlining, forced denser housing, targeted criminalization and incarceration, larger numbers of pre-existing health conditions, and less access to affordable healthy food. Black communities are more likely to live in places with air pollution, rely on public transit, and be essential workers, so exposure rates increase. When Black people fall ill with COVID-19, racism in the healthcare system means lack of access to quality care, testing kits, or funds for treatment. In some cases, like for Zoe Mungin, they are simply not believed and turned away from treatment, until it is too late. 

We must recognize that the scapegoating of Asians as the harbingers of disease and the state violence against Black people (via systemic policing and state response to the pandemic) are two sides of the same coin. This system of oppression is what indicates whether we live or die. This moment makes it even clearer that we must radicalize our communities for cross-racial solidarity. 

Asians and Anti-Blackness in the US

Asians in the US are not a monolith. Some of us are first-generation immigrants who came here to work under selective immigration policies that privileged our education and technical skills. Some of us are here through involuntary migrations—fleeing economic and military wars waged in our homelands by the US and other imperial powers. Some of our Asian families have been in the US for generations. Some of us were adopted from Asian countries by non-Asian families. Some of us are mixed-race and of Black and Asian descent. We cannot ignore the varied experiences and distinctions between how our people got to this land, our familial and community histories in the US, and the way in which mainstream American perceptions and portrayals impact us differently. What we do have in common is that we’re incentivized by capitalism and racism, particularly anti-Blackness, to hold up the dual evils of white supremacy and American imperialism.

In order to fight back, we need to be more informed. That means understanding how we’ve been asked to buy into this system and to uphold ideas, policies, and practices that ultimately go against our interests. That also means being active and vocal supporters of Black liberation, and taking responsibility to end our anti-Blackness. We must acknowledge that anti-Blackness is at the core of all racism and that non-Black Asians have benefited—conditionally—from a system of anti-Blackness politically, economically, and socially. See our statement on recent police killings of Black people for more on this. It also means understanding how the history of racial capitalism has impacted all our communities and continues to impact us.

A Shared History of White Supremacy and Imperialism

Today the current administration is seeding a second Cold War with China to protect its financial interests globally and in the Asian Pacific. Stateside, we see results of this expressed as public figures repeatedly call COVID-19 a “Chinese virus” or a “Kung Flu,” directly resulting in vigilante attacks on people of Chinese descent, or people perceived to be of Chinese descent. In the summer, we’re seeing an uptick in COVID-19 cases as states push for “re-opening,” in part so that the state doesn't have to pay the brunt of unemployment benefits. This puts frontline workers (who are disproportionately from communities of color) at further risk—a decision not made off science but because of the drive for profit. In 2014-15, the Ebola outbreak also became a racialized pandemic, sparking widespread fear of African countries and a globalized anti-Blackness by Western countries.

We’ve seen this before: racist rhetoric, scapegoating, and, eventually, military tactics that target and intimidate communities of color to reinforce US capitalist priorities domestically and imperialism abroad. During World War II, fear of military threat by the Japanese government and fear of the economic influence of people of Japanese descent in the US led to the racist mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. Despite this despicable history, racist pundits have recently claimed the incarceration of Japanese Americans actually sets legal precedent for the targeting of other communities of color in the post 9-11 era. US government officials used Southwest Asian, North African, Muslim and South Asian communities as scapegoats during the “War on Terror” which put a huge target on their backs for vigilante violence, created massive surveillance and state-sanctioned harassment programs, and provided a cover for starting endless wars in the Gulf and West Asia for geopolitical dominance. During the rhetoric leading up to the various iterations of Trump’s travel bans we saw xenophobic language like “shithole countries” targeting both Muslim and African countries. We know that within the system of immigration surveillance and detention, Black immigrants are disproportionately targeted and deported. 

We also know that the modern US police force was created in the antebellum period as patrols to hunt down people escaping slavery. Their present-day incarnation has been further solidified through continued targeting of Black communities as well as cracking down on unions and workers fighting for fairer wages and decent working conditions. Similarly, prisons are the contemporary progenies of slave plantations. These systems are undergirded by a dominant white supremacist narrative that insinuates Black people are inherently criminal and Black communities and families are irreparably broken. These narratives—built on more than 500  years of slavery, Indigenous genocide, and the theft of Native land—protect white owning-class privilege and power while resulting in death, disempowerment, and suffering, which disproportionately impact Black and Indigenous communities. These dominant systems, and the narratives that support them, have a firm grip on every aspect of contemporary US life. Understanding these critical connections is required political education for all—a more strategic resistance enables growth and strength across multiple communities of struggle. Without this, our communities are more vulnerable to counterproductive responses.

Moving Away from Counterproductive Responses

Unfortunately, in response to the rise in anti-Asian violence during COVID-19, we’ve seen vigilante groups form, bent on taking matters into their own hands. These responses reinforce the violent systems and narratives we want to dismantle. One such group that we’ve learned about in San Francisco Chinatown is composed of some ex-military. They have claimed they would perform citizens’ arrests, and have surveilled people they deem “suspicious,”  and called the cops on them. Based on historic biases of the police and military, the folks targeted by this vigilante group have been Black, poor, unhoused, disabled, or a combination of the above. As we’ve seen for decades, police kill Black people at rates six times that of white people. This group has even co-opted language from the movement for Black lives in order to seem more sympathetic. Utilizing policing tactics like “patrols” and engaging in military-style surveillance and harassment of Black and poor people is an escalation and expansion of violence—not successful harm-prevention. 

In this moment of the pandemic and uprisings, there is an opportunity to pivot to the future our communities want and need. Rather than attempting to solve the issues we’re facing by using tactics that replicate harm, we ask ourselves and each other: What new systems of support and care can we build and grow so that the world can be better? Asians cannot afford to hold on to the meager protections given to us by white supremacy; we can no longer be conscripted to fight the battles of white supremacy and American imperialism on its behalf while simultaneously being harmed by these systems. We need to recognize that our liberation is tied to our interdependence and solidarity. 

Our Liberation is Intertwined

Hyejin Shim, queer Korean and prison abolitionist, poses an essential question: “What are the legacies we’ve inherited, which ones will we choose to protect?” In her piece questioning the limits of Asian American allyship, Hyejin reminds us that as Asian Americans, we have a rich, deep legacy of “Asian American prison abolitionists, anti-war activists, racial justice organizers, disability justice freedom fighters, queer/trans feminists & anti fascists, immigrant rights organizers, housing justice organizers, rape and domestic violence survivor advocates, labor organizers, artists and cultural workers, movement lawyers, and so many more, from both the past & present.” In all of these movements, Asian Americans have struggled alongside their Black siblings, with an understanding that our liberations are intertwined.

Again, Black and Asian solidarity in the face of systemic oppression is not new and we should continue to draw lessons from our vibrant shared history to inform our current and future work organizing for a more just society.

Early 1900s: Black US troops desert to join Pilipino independence fighters.

1969: Black, Asian, and Latinx students at San Francisco State University successfully lead a strike to create the first-ever Ethnic Studies program.

1970s: The Black Panther Party supports Pilipino residents of the International Hotel in their fight against eviction.

2006: After Hurricane Katrina, Black and Vietnamese communities in New Orleans protest the use of their community as a makeshift dump site.

2020: Black and Asian communities in New York lead a movement to Cancel Rent, focused on immigrant, undocumented, and homeless communities.

(For more on the above examples, check out these zines by Bianca Mabute-Louie!)

Grounding in Interdependence and Solidarity

In addition to deepening our understanding of our shared histories, we should deepen our interpersonal relationships—our trust. We should continue to build out the mechanisms through which we tangibly support each other. As Stacey Park Milbern—a dearly beloved queer mixed race Korean comrade and disability justice movement leader who recently passed away—taught us: “We live and love interdependently. We know no person is an island, we need one another to live.”

This month, hundreds of thousands of people flooded the streets, decrying the police murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and so many more. The people are mobilizing to uplift calls from Black organizers to defund the police while imagining and implementing alternatives to policing that actually promote community health and wellbeing. It’s a beautiful sight to behold and we must not forget that this incredible and rapid mass mobilization is a direct result of the tireless and intentional work of organizers who move in between these flashpoint moments: people who do the unsung work of cultivating and deepening interpersonal relationships over decades, holding difficult and educational conversations, supporting members through personal challenges, and creating venues for community to celebrate victories and accomplishments.

Deep, intentional relationship building is central to laying the foundations that make change possible; at the same time, it is not just a means to an end. Trust and interdependence are ends in themselves. As Asians 4 Black Lives, we aim to live out the world we are fighting for, and our deep comradeship and friendship is core to how and why we show up. For example, we have taken up the practice of beginning each of our regular meetings with personal check-ins: Do you have any needs that our community can help you with? Do you have any resources or bandwidth you can offer to community? We are often wrestling with the complexity of what it means to be people of Asian diaspora living in the United States and in joint struggle with our Black, Indigenous, and other comrades of color. This extends our questioning into deeper political territory: What, if any, is our role as US-based Asians in addressing anti-Blackness in Asian communities abroad? What does it mean to be called #Asians4BlackLives when that phrase is being used as a rallying cry for so many who express their solidarity in ways we may not be aligned with? Our work raises important questions that help us sharpen our analysis and build stronger ties with each other and the communities we are accountable to.

Whatever the world throws at us, be it interpersonal violence, a novel coronavirus, climate change, or vigilante racism, we know that communities are most resilient when basic needs are met. As others have noted, wealthy, predominantly white communities have much lower rates of policing and longer life expectancies than lower income communities of color. This isn’t because rich people or white people are less predisposed to do harm, or because they are physically or biologically predetermined to be healthier, but rather that these communities are allocated more resources and support structures. These communities are given more chances to address violence without being criminalized, but this often empowers people with privilege to continue causing harm without facing consequences. Instead of this model, we strive for a world where everyone’s needs are met and new systems help us address real issues of health and harm without relying on the carceral state.

 The good news is we’re seeing more and more Asian communities move towards redistributing resources of time, money, and energy in this moment. Asian volunteers are phonebanking and getting donations pledged to Black groups—directly. Asians are encouraging each other to speak to their families and communities. Asians are supporting the campaigns and creative direct action efforts of Black-led groups to win the defunding and abolition of police and prisons. Asians are setting up strong alternatives to relying on these systems for safety. It is a powerful moment of mobilization.

As COVID-19 shifts social relations in unprecedented ways and oppressive forces leverage the pandemic to stir up fear and anti-Asian racism for their own benefit, we must resist the temptation to put up walls and isolate ourselves. It’s essential that we be resilient and creative in the ways we stay close. Let us continue to deepen our trust and ground ourselves in our rich legacies of solidarity. Let us leverage our collectivizing strength as we fight for a world that centers humanity, dignity, and the space to thrive.

[timeclonemike]

The War of The Words

A dog whistle, originally, was a literal physical whistle that produced sound frequencies outside of the normal range of human hearing, but still audible to dogs. In the present day, it has become shorthand for a code or hidden message, an otherwise insignificant word or phrase that is considered significant to certain audiences.

The whole point of a dog whistle is that it is supposed to be a secret code, hidden in plain sight. The idea is that it allows people to communicate specific ideas that they would not otherwise be able to speak of openly, while still using public means of address and communication. If those words and phrases are ONLY ever used by racists, misogynists, homophobes, or radfems (to name a few) then they wouldn’t be effective codes at all for the same reason that Nazis can’t use the swastika as a secret sign to identify each other: EVERYBODY knows what that symbol means, and what kind of people wear it.

The fact that the term dog whistle has come into common use to describe these “secret” messages means that they aren’t actually secret at all. The instant that somebody uses them in a tweet or a blog post or a press release, somebody will point out the dog whistle for those who aren’t already aware of it. This means that the types of people who are inclined to use dog whistles have to keep finding new ones if they want to retain the advantage of communicating their biases in plain sight, or at least that’s the theory.

In practice, there are other factors at work. First and foremost, the most common response to identifying a dog whistle is to isolate it from the rest of the language. Like a body detects infection and surrounds the pathogen with antibodies, the internet is filled with people pointing out how specific combinations of words or symbols have been co-opted by people who believe in white supremacy or Jewish conspiracies. This basically burns a linguistic bridge; it denies the enemy the ability to use the phrase covertly, but it also denies everyone else the use of that terminology as well. To be fair, there is plenty of historical precedent for this - the original owners of the Swastika are not in any hurry to take it back - but it also cedes linguistic territory to the opposition.

More importantly, this reaction can be weaponized; by specifically adopting a turn of phrase or affectation already in common use within a specific subculture, fandom, or community, racists and white supremacists can invoke a sort of auto-immune disease where otherwise well meaning people make baseless accusations that all the fans of X are bigots, creating whole new social divisions or amplifying existing ones. The most recent example I can think of at time of writing was when somebody pointed out that the Triforce symbol from the Zelda video game series was being co-opted in this way; the thing is, the Triforce symbol was arguably too well established and too well known for this to work, but a lesser known symbol could be stolen with relative ease, as was the case with Pepe the Frog.

This whole strategy is also a keystone of their recruitment process, where those who are not aware of the extra meanings behind some sort of saying or lyric or meme spread and repeat it, and suddenly get attacked from all angles for being a racist or sexist or Nazi apologist. When the whole world is suddenly against you, it is very easy to be swayed by the one group that is still accepting of you, especially when that group set you up to be isolated to begin with. Cancel and purity culture are arguably the best thing to happen to white nationalism in the last twenty years.

Taken all together, it looks like white nationalism (and similar ideologies) are waging a guerilla war against language itself, and they seem to be winning because the opposition continuously retreats and abandons (linguistic) territory to be captured. But the thing about guerilla warfare is that it is adopted by organizations that do not have the resources to fight a much larger and more established opponent head on. Remember, if they could speak their minds openly without fear of social, legal, or economic consequences, they wouldn’t need to use dog whistles and codes and euphemisms in the first place. The huge amount of protesting against police brutality and systemic entrenched racism over the past few weeks have proven that the racists and bigots are themselves a minority... a minority that has managed to get a foot in the door of institutional power, admittedly, but still a minority.

While this is largely speculation, it may be that linguistic territory is being traded for social territory in the form of pressure to oust obvious bigots from positions of power and influence. And because the nature of social media means that dog whistles have an extremely short half-life, it is potentially possible to reclaim that linguistic territory later. The problem is keeping up with a strategy that is deliberately built around muddying the waters between friend and foe by making language itself a minefield.

[berniesrevolution]

JACOBIN MAGAZINE

If you go by most of what you see in the media, you would think politics is governed by some strange version of Newtonian physics. “Both sides” are perennially to blame, and if there’s ever dangerous excesses on one end of the political spectrum, then they must of course be evened out by the existence of equally dangerous excesses on the other end.

It’s why, after George Soros was mailed a bomb, Chuck Schumer felt the need to announce that “despicable acts of violence and harassment are being carried out by radicals across the political spectrum.” And why the New York Times, after more explosives were sent to individuals hated by the Trump-loving Right, decidedthe explosives were adding “to [a] climate of overheated partisan rancor.”

Yet we’re now at a moment when it’s indisputable that only one of these “sides” has actually become a vehicle for dangerous, violent extremism.

I’m speaking about the quickly fading line between the far Right and “mainstream” conservatism. This isn’t really a new phenomenon. The dividing line between US conservatism and fringe bigots of various kinds has always been pretty flimsy; the old, “respectable” conservatism represented by William F. Buckley and pined for by today’s centrist pundits was also a deeply racist one. It’s not a mystery why the Klan endorsed Ronald Reagan for president twice.

But just consider some of the events of the past few weeks. The “theory” that the bombs sent by Trump superfan Cesar Sayoc were a “false flag” orchestrated by the Left quickly moved from far right internet message boards to being broadcast by “mainstream” conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Lou Dobbs, Michael Savage, various Fox News guests, and even a Republican lawmaker, Matt Gaetz. Gaetz, along with “mainstream” conservatives like Newt Gingrich, also floated the idea that the thousands of Central American migrants traveling to Mexico and the US-Mexican border were being funded by some mysterious agent of chaos. One of these conservatives was pundit and prolific conspiracy theorist Erick Erickson, who for some reason was invited this past Sunday onto Meet the Press where he play-acted as a sober moderate and lectured conservatives to drop the crazy talk.

It called to mind the recent episode in which conservative legal thinker Ed Whelan invented an alternative“explanation” for Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged assault of Christine Blasey Ford that involved a Kavanaugh doppelgänger, defaming an innocent man in the process. It also calls to mind that, even now, a majority of Republicans believe Obama was born in Kenya.

This is far from the only recent instance of crossover between the far and “mainstream” Right. British far-right figure Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (a.k.a. “Tommy Robinson”) was invited by Republican congressman Paul Gosar to speak to the Conservative Opportunity Society, a group of right-wing House Republicans founded by Steve King. This is only a few months after Gosar traveled to London and spoke in support of Yaxley-Lennon at a protest peopled with other far-right figures, where he called Muslim men a “scourge.” The Arizona GOP said nothing.

Speaking of Steve King — the Republican congressman who, whoopsie daisy, just happens to somehow constantly retweet, meet with, and sound exactly like neo-Nazis — his “mainstream” colleagues seem to have a hard time condemning him. Here’s a parade of local GOP officials defending King and whitewashing his various racist comments (“he’s a godly, upright man”; “I think that he says what he means”;“maybe it’s crude, maybe a little mean, but it gets the point across”). One GOP county chair, when asked if King’s statement that “we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies” was racist, responded: “I think it’s a reality.” (The head of the Republican Congressional fundraising arm did finally criticize King on Tuesday.)

King has helpfully made clear an obvious truth that would be considered too “partisan” if uttered by anyone in the media. Referring to the Freedom Party of Austria, a far-right party of actual Nazis, King said: “If they were in America pushing the platform that they push, they would be Republicans.” And he’s not wrong: this November features a gaggle of real-life, no-kidding neo-Nazis and white supremacists running as GOP nominees.

Meanwhile, the Proud Boys, a ridiculous but nonetheless violent fascist gang led by Vice founder Gavin McInnes, have been welcomed into the Republican Party fold, with McInnes invited by the Metropolitan Republican Club of New York City — traditionally a hub for the GOP’s establishment elite — to give a lecture. The talk involved McInnes re-enacting the 1960 assassination of Japanese Socialist Party leader Inejiro Asanuma, complete with caricatured Asian eyes, and concluding, “Never let evil take root,” a line reportedly met with hooting and cheering by the Republican audience. The Proud Boys also acted as “security” for Joe Gibson, a far-right activist who was briefly a Republican Senate candidate from Washington, and a recent protest by the gang was organized by a local GOP official in Florida.

We can also see this shift in Fox News, the most popular and powerful media arm of the conservative movement. Fox has long been a bastion of racist dog-whistling, as Megyn Kelly’s tenure at the network can attest, but it’s recently opted to swap the dog whistle for a bullhorn. Tucker Carlson runs shows about the dangers of Roma immigration and supposed anti-white discrimination in South Africa, while Laura Ingraham told viewers that “massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people” through both illegal and legal immigration, and that “the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore” in parts of the country. Earlier this week, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade suggested that the migrants headed toward the US are carrying unnamed “diseases,” which Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale accurately called “a staple of racist and anti-semitic incitement for hundreds of years.”

But the fact that Fox has never been far from these more alarmingly explicit appeals to racism is key, because the same goes for “mainstream” conservatism. As the Left has been at pains to point out for the past three years, other than on trade and some aspects of foreign policy, there is very little real substantive difference between Trump and “mainstream” conservatives, which is why Republicans, including his fiercest“opponents”, vote almost exactly in line with Trump’s policy positions most of the time. It’s also why Trump’s approval ratings are sky-high among Republicans and why “mainstream” conservatives have walked back their previous disapproval of Trump and now declare they’re “thrilled” with him. As one pollster has said, the “Never-Trump” Republicans that tend to appear on TV and in op-ed pages don’t really exist in real life.

Take a look at the recent midterms, which have seen the entire GOP heavily stoking racism in advance of voting day. The Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC, affiliated with House speaker Paul Ryan and the GOP leadership, has been running some breathtakingly racist ads. But the GOP’s “moderate” elements have been flirting with extremism for a while now.

Hatred of refugees, which motivated the latest far-right terrorist attack, was stoked by the “mainstream” Right in 2015, when 31 governors (all but one of them Republican) refused to resettle any Syrian refugees in their states. Hapless “moderate” Jeb Bush suggested letting in only the Christian ones. The following year, Ted Cruz, then another “moderate” alternative to Donald Trump, ran a campaign ad that was essentially Willie Horton for immigrant communities.

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the annual confluence of “mainstream” conservatism’s brightest lights, has for many years been a cesspool of far-right talking points, ideas, and figures. Figures like Pamela Geller and Frank Gaffney were fixtures for years (Gaffney, a conspiratorial, anti-Muslim hate-monger, was also an adviser to Ted Cruz in 2016, and other GOP hopefuls that year lined up to be associated with him). Geert Wilders, the far-right Dutch politician, turned up once at CPAC to a forty-second standing ovation. This was the same year Wilders had been invited to the Capitol by Jon Kyl, the extremely conservative Republican former congressman who was considered a “pragmatic” choice to fill John McCain’s seat in Arizona.

(Continue Reading)