#today on the white europeans try to claim to be oppressed by other white europeans circus show | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

supercantaloupe · 4 years

Note

hey i love ur tuc critiques about the show’s issue w antisemitism and think you really explain the issue so well. of course feel free to not answer this, but i noticed in one of ur latest posts you mentioned how in nyc the “large jewish population that is also perceived as largely or entirely lightskinned/white-passing.” are jewish people poc or is it possible to be both white and jewish? i’ve googled it and read through some responses, but there are so many different responses and i was just curious on your thoughts. again please feel free to not answer for any reason, hope you have a good day!!

hi anon! i’m happy to expand on this for you, and i want to start by thanking you for both your curiousity and respect in asking. secondly, i want to preface my response by stressing that i am just one person who is neither an anthropologist nor a spokesperson representing a homogenous opinion of all jewish people in america; every person is going to have their own perspective and answer to this issue, and i can only give you my own.

that being said, this is a somewhat complicated issue. i won’t be able to give you a simple yes or no answer as to whether jews can or can’t be white. some jews can certainly be light-skinned/white-passing and even benefit from white privilege in western society. but it’s also just as true that jews can be light-skinned/white-passing and still face oppression by nature of being jewish. and none of this is ever to say that dark-skinned jews do not exist -- on the contrary, there are thousands of dark-skinned jews both worldwide and across america -- whose unique perspectives as dark-skinned jews enriches the whole jewish community as well as facing more and unique social oppression by nature of their being dark-skinnned.

the jewish people, as an ethnic group, are originally native to the levantine region of the middle east. however, the jewish people also have a long history of being expelled from our native land and living in diasporic communities (this history goes back thousands of years, even hundreds of years before the advent of christianity). so there exist today communities of jews all over the world who indeed look very, very different from each other: there were/are vibrant jewish communities throughout the middle east, subsaharan africa, in india, in china, etc. the point here being that there are jews of all skin colors and languages and cultures, but we’re all still equally and validly jewish.

i think what confuses the issue are the natures of both judaism as an ethnoreligion (not just a religion) and the general mode of discourse on race in western culture. especially in america, we tend to discuss issues of race as being quite literally black and white, with a subtle yet pervading perception of people being nonwhite if they have any drop of blood in their lineage from ancestors of color. i think this attitude is pretty directly inherited from the overtly racist beliefs of white european and euroamerican colonialists from the 17th-19th centuries, and still pervades in insidious forms to this day.

so the answer to “are jews poc/can jews be white?” especially in america is a muddy one. if not the majority of jews actually in america, then certainly the perceived majority of jews/jewish culture in america is that of light-skinned jews of european ancestry (especially ashkenazim, who are jews from or descended from the diasporic communities in northern and eastern europe). within progressive jewish circles there is indeed a recognition of and concern about this “ashkenormativity,” as i’ve seen it termed -- the dominance of ashkenazim and their version of jewish culture in american culture has the tendency to obscure the voices and experiences of jews of other backgrounds in media and in conversation. but what is important to recognize about european jews is that not all european jews have the same ethnic features (including light skin). beyond that, it’s important to recognize as well the fact that, historically and especially in europe, jews have been targeted for severe persecution for being explicitly non-white -- even when their skin is as light as european goyim (non-jews).

thus the reduction of racism/anti-ethnic prejudice to a black-and-white issue as it is often done in america does not neatly fit conversation about jewish identity. in europe, from which america originally inherited a lot of its racism and thought about racial discourse, racism/anti-ethnic prejudice is not wholly determined by factors as simply and visible as skin color. and there is a frustration among many progressive american jews over this tendency to boil down racial discrimination into black-and-white terms, because whichever side of the binary we fall into on a case-by-case basis usually ends up being to our detriment. for example, white supremacists in america certainly would not consider us (even the most light-skinned/white-passing among us) to be white, and antisemitic violence is dishearteningly frequent. on the other hand, the perception of american jewry is so predominantly “white” that, especially from liberals, the reality of our oppression is not “real enough” to warrant attention and addressing in activism, despite the fact that instances of antisemitic violence are constistently very high on yearly lists of hate crimes committed both locally and nationwide. and all of this is attempting to analyze judaism in the terms of ideas and attitudes about race from the relatively recent past (let’s say the last few centuries) -- when judaism is an ethnoreligion that by far predates the modern concept of “race.”

so my answer to the question of “can jews be white/are jews people of color” is...i don’t know. certainly the experience of a dark-skinned jew is different from that of a light-skinned jew, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise or to claim that a dark-skinned jew is not a person of color simply because they’re also jewish, and “jews are white.” but what of light-skinned jews? are we effectively white because of the inherent privilege in western society of having light skin, or are we always something else by nature of our judaism? if we are white, how profound an impact does that have on our lives and the prejudice we face in society? what of converts, who may indeed be considered “fully” white until the moment of their conversion, are they still white or no longer once they join the tribe? what of ethnic jews, who are born of jewish descent but disconnected from/raised outside the culture?

tl;dr: none of these questions have concise answers, yet they’re all raised by the simple, even innocuous question you pose, anon. my own personal answer to you would be...i don’t know for sure. it’s a question i’m certainly willing to elaborate on (as i have tried to do in this post), but, truthfully, a discussion with intent to settle on an answer is not one i am comfortable having with goyim; to try to settle on a solid answer to the question of “are jews white or poc” is, i believe, an intracommunity issue to be answered by jews and for jews, because ultimately, the very concept of “white vs. poc” in regards to ethnic identity simply does not fit an ethnoreligion so old and diverse as ours. and to some extent, debating the question can in fact misdirect even well-intentioned activists away from the reality that jews, no matter our skin color, face oppression in western society, and are in need of solidarity and support from both within and outside our community in order to survive and thrive.

#sasha reviews #sasha answers #anon #judaism #antisemitism #i hope this helps! i know it doesnt really answer the question but sometimes a discussion is more useful anyway than a yes or a no #i feel weird tagging this as unsleeping city even if that's what started this whole conversation since this post is not really about that #but i guess i will anyway for the sake of people in the tag who might also be interested in this follow up to my previous posts #the unsleeping city #for the record i'm ashkenazi. for the jews of the audience i feel like that's worth mentioning

24 notes · View notes

the-final-straw-blog · 3 years

Text

Palestine and Challenging Settler Colonial Imaginaries

This week on the show, we’re airing a portion of our 2018 interview with filmmaker and activist Yousef Natsha about his film about his hometown, Hebron, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. We invite you to check out our full interview with him from March 25, 2018, linked in our show notes and we’re choosing to air this right now because of the flare up in violent evictions, home destruction and the assassination of around 100 Palestinian residents of Gaza by the “Israeli Defense Forces”. Podcast image by Yousef Natsha. [00:10:24]

Then, we’ll be sharing a panel from the 2021 UNC Queer Studies Conference called “No Blank Slates: A Discussion of Utopia, Queer Identity, and Settler Colonialism” featuring occasional Final Straw host, Scott Bransen alongside E. Ornelas and Kai Rajala. This audio first aired on Queercorps, on CKUT radio in Montreal. If you’d like to engage in this project, reach out to [email protected] [00:24:05]

Also, Sean Swain on aparthied [00:01:48]

No Blank Slates: A Discussion of Utopia, Queer Identity, and Settler Colonialism

Presenter(s)

Scott Branson, E Ornelas, Kai Rajala

Abstract

Under the neoliberal regime of multiculturalism, the settler colonial project has relied on the assimilation of certain subaltern communities into its project for the effective dispossession and control of indigenous lands. This discussion will present ideas from a book project we are collaborating on in order to invite conversation around the intersection and tension around ideas of liberation and forms of appropriation and oppression. Our main challenge for radical queers is to rethink the kinds of futures we try to include ourselves in, and how our liberatory work can subtly replay exclusion and erasure. How do neoliberal utopian gay politics perpetuate settler colonial erasure and genocide? How do politics that seek inclusion and representation--in other words assimilation--disavow the work by indigenous self-determination movements, which are also poised on the frontlines of planetary self-defense? The workshop will be divided up into short presentations by each writer, followed by a structured discussion facilitated by the presenters.

Description:

The utopian project that underwrote the Canadian/American settler colonial states that still exist today was eventually transmuted into a neoliberal utopian sense of identity. The entire concept of space and self that we inherit is imbued with utopian longing for a time and place that we can fully be ourselves. This kind of rhetoric is largely at play in mainstream identity-based movements, like gay rights. But this longing often works in favor of the regime of violence and dominance perpetrated by the modern nation state. We can see how the attempt at inclusive representation of queer cultures leads to assimilation and appropriation. What gets included in regimes of representation ends up mimicking the norms of straight/cisgender heteronormativity, in terms of class aspirations, behaviors, and family structures. This therefore contributes to systematic erasure of Black and Brown queer folks, who are still the most targeted “identities” for state violence and its civilian deputies. With images of diversity that appeal to bourgeois urban gays, businesses and governments can pinkwash their violence.

A radical queer politics that relies on unquestioned utopian and dystopian visions risks aligning itself with a settler colonial imaginary of terra nullius or “blank slate” space. On the one hand, dystopian and apocalyptic visions perpetuate the unquestioned assumption that a societal collapse is impending, as if the continual degradation of human and more-than-human communities has not already arrived. Particularly dangerous in this assumption is the kind of crisis rhetoric that fosters opportunities for settler colonial sentiments of insecurity and, in the face of this insecurity, assertions of belonging and sovereignty in land and lifeways. Furthermore, visions of radical utopias as-yet-to-be-realized (or, as-yet-to-be-colonized) discount the ongoing presence of Indigenous alternatives to the current settler colonial dystopian reality, and instead preserves a view of geographic and social space as blank and ready to be “improved” with a “new” model.

Here we have a problem of erasure of the oppressions and resistances that have been ongoing in different iterations, in favor of the blank space of the utopian frontier. We argue against these linear progression narratives of societal and environmental collapse which promise to bring about a future idealized world of rainbow-diverse identities. Instead, we propose ways for radical politics, particularly those espoused by non-Indigenous people, to disavow such settler colonial mindsets. There are a few ways to offer a glimpse into the lived realities—what we might still call utopian moments—that make up the non-alienated, revolutionary life: queer and indigenous histories of resistance, rituals and moment of community care and mutual aid, and science fiction revisions of the world. We argue that this other world does in fact exist—has existed and has not stopped existing—if only in the interstices or true moments of communing and inhabiting the land alongside friends and family.

This is not an argument in favor of utopia, but one that seeks to bypass the utopian/dystopian divide. The world we inhabit is clearly dystopian for most, and utopian for some, and in many estimations, constantly on the verge of ending. The disaster scenarios, repeating the puritanical eschatology that helped settle the colonies in America, perpetuates the history of erasure of ways of life that aren’t in fact gunning for that disaster. We still argue that the purpose of dreaming, of envisioning alternatives, is to make action possible today, through recognition of the power we do already hold. Our discussion will interrogate the settler-utopian impulses that get hidden within apparently liberatory movements, such as radical queers and strands of environmentalism, as well as the way these identities and politics are represented in narratives of liberation that rely on the same logic they claim to oppose.

Bios

E Ornelas (no pronouns or they/them) is a Feminist Studies PhD candidate in the Department of Gender, Women, & Sexuality Studies. As the descendant of a survivor of the Sherman Institute, a Native boarding school in Riverside, California—and therefore robbed of cultural, linguistic, and tribal identity—E’s research interests focus on the continued survivance and futurity of BIPOC communities, particularly through the use of literature. E's dissertation illuminates community-based, abolitionist-informed, alternative models of redress for gendered, racialized, and colonial violence by analyzing Black and Indigenous speculative fiction. When not on campus, E can be found reading feminist sci-fi, making music, baking vegan sweets, and walking their dog. [00:45:06]

Kai Rajala (pronounced RYE-ah-la) is a queer, nonbinary, white-settler of Finnish and mixed European descent. They are a writer, and an anarchist anti-academic working and living on the unceded territories of the Kanien'kehá:ka peoples on the island colonially referred to as Montréal, and known otherwise as Tiohtià:ke. They are currently pursuing studies as an independent researcher and are interested in sites outside of the university where knowledge production occurs. You can find Kai on twitter at @anarcho_thembo or on instagram at @they4pay. [00:57:28]

Scott Branson is queer trans Jewish anarchist who teaches, writes, translates, and does other things in Western so-called North Carolina. Their translation of Jacques Lesage De la Haye’s The Abolition of Prison is coming out with AK Press this summer. Their translation of Guy Hocquenghem’s second book, Gay Liberation After May 68, is due out next year with Duke University Press. They edited a volume of abolitionist queer writings based on two iterations of the UNC Asheville queer studies conference, due out with PM Press next year. They are currently working on a book on daily anarchism for Pluto Press and researching a book on the institutionalization of queerness in the academy. They also make books of poems and artwork. You can find Scott on Instagram @scottbransonblurredwords or check out sjbranson.com for more of their work or on twitter at @sjbranson1. [00:30:41]

. ... . ..

Featured tracks:

Dabkeh Melody by Mecky from The Combination Soundtrack

Born Here by DAM from The Rough Guide To Arabic Revolution [00:20:21]

Check out this episode!

#anarchist #podcast #interview #feminist #antifa #anticapitalist

3 notes · View notes

anamericangirl · 4 years

Text

Okay, @beachflowerr you brought up a lot of things and it’s too hard for me to do this all in replies on the post, but I think they deserve a response.

I’m not “pulling you into any philosophy” that you didn’t say. The very concept of the privilege that you say I have is skin color, is it not? You told me I was putting myself in a picture I was not a part of and if I was not black, this did not affect me. Those were your words. That means I have the wrong skin color to be affected by this and to be a part of the picture and doesn’t the “privilege” you say I have affect the way I see and understand things? Isn’t this what people call white privilege? And doesn’t the very name imply that I have inherent privileges based on my race and that it has an effect on what I can and can’t understand? That is telling me I have the wrong skin color to understand certain things. That is all based on what you said. I’m not putting words in your mouth or pulling you into any philosophy that you yourself did not project.

And sorry but the fact that you’re white doesn’t mean anything here. I don’t care what color skin you have you can discriminate against anyone. Even other white people. And just to be clear, I never claimed you were discriminating against me because I don’t think you were. But saying “I'm also white so I'm not discriminating against you” doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t matter what color you are.

But yes, please, let’s continue on American history.

Thanks for the links but I am familiar with the slave trade. However, slavery goes back way before the 15th century. Slavery was literally going on all over the world and had been a thing for hundreds of years before America even existed and it certainly was not unique to African-Americans. Perhaps you are not aware of this but the very root of the word “slave” is slav, which is a reference to the slavic people who were the primary slaves during the Middle Ages and they were white people.

Also, you are not correct that people from Africa were stolen by Europeans. The Africans who were slaves in America were actually enslaved by other Africans and then sold to the European slave trade. Another interesting fact for you is that most of the slaves in this slave trade did not even go to America, they went to South America. So it’s weird that America is the only racist country because of slavery even though less than 10% of the slaves came here and one ever shames Brazil for racism because of slavery.

But yeah, let’s focus on America because that’s where this issue is. So you might not know this, but not only black people were slaves in America. There where white slaves as well as black slave owners. In fact, at the height of slavery in this country 28% of free black people owned slaves while 1.4% of white people did, yet for some reason only the black slaves matter and only the white slave owners. People in this country like to ignore the fact that there where white slaves and black slave owners (a higher percentage even than white slave owners) for some reason. :)

Slavery did last here for a while but it officially ended in 1865 and that was a long time ago. People like to pretend that all the problems in this country are because of slavery and we, as white people, still have to pay for this evil even though there is still slavery going on in Africa today. Slavery was a bad thing and it happened. But it’s over now. No one alive today in this country was a slave or owned any slaves and it’s not responsible for what we see happening today.

And let’s be glad those three amendments were added. I don’t get why it matters to you that it was three amendments and not one. Does it surprise you that completely shifting your culture and changing public perception of something that has been seen as normal and has been engrained in your culture for 100+ years doesn’t happen overnight? Is it a negative thing to you that, as a country, we worked and made changes until all people, regardless of skin color, were seen and treated as equals even if it took more than one amendment to get the job done? That seems like a positive thing to me.

I realize in our country that black people have had a harder time gaining equality, but you are looking at this as a black v. white issue and that is not at all what it was. It was a democrat v. republican issue. If you look back through history at all these racist policies that we have had, every single one, from slavery to segregation, can be traced back to the democrats. Republicans fought since their formation for the freedom and equality of black people. One of the main reasons the republican party was formed was opposition to slavery. So it’s really not fair of you to just act like white people were oppressors and black people were oppressed. That’s a really shallow representation of what the actual issues were.

You’re also misrepresenting redlining here. You’re acting like because a lot of black communities were subject to redlining because of their condition the reason is because they were black communities. And that’s not accurate. You’re just making an assumption.

And yeah, I’ve heard of micro aggressions and I think it’s one of the dumbest ideas that has ever been presented. Micro aggressions aren’t real. African-Americans don’t commit more crimes because of micro aggressions, they commit more crimes because they choose to. You are literally trying to remove all personal responsibility here. But for whatever reason you want to think they commit more crimes, that accounts for the higher incarceration rate so it’s not alarming at all and it’s not racism. It’s expected that those that commit more crimes are more likely to be in jail.

I agree, people can make subconscious race based judgments, but to just assume this accounts for all racial disparities is quite naive. There can be a lot of other reasons for these disparities, jumping right to racism is pretty extreme. Most people, whatever you would like to believe, aren’t racist and aren’t making subconscious race based judgments. Besides, most subconscious race based judgements would have to be rather small and it wouldn’t have a really profound effect on anything. To be infecting the entire criminal justice system, they would have to be pretty conscious judgements. I think there’s a lot you don’t understand about the justice system and that’s ok. But it’s not okay to just call it racist because you don’t understand it and because you, personally, can’t think of any other reasons disparities exist. I looked at that page you linked from the NAACP but you should know that website has a pretty strong political bias and I don’t consider them credible. But it didn’t say African Americans get higher sentences for the same crimes. But even if it did, there are a lot of different factors that are considered at a sentencing so assuming that the difference is just racism is ignorant.

And I'm sorry, but your transition to police brutality is incredibly weak and makes absolutely no sense. Numerical inequality does not prove racism so you thinking it proves racial injustice and inequality just means you don’t really understand what racism is.

You are also, it seems, oblivious to how white people can be treated by police. Police brutality is not unique to black people. A lot of white people have been victims of police brutality. They just don’t make headlines and don’t get protests because no one cares. More white people are shot by the police every single year than black people. Here are some for you to look at since you, apparently, think it doesn’t happen.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2019/07/31/you-re-gonna-kill-me-dallas-police-body-cam-footage-reveals-the-final-minutes-of-tony-timpa-s-life/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

There’s a couple to get you started. I know why the protests and riots are happening, but I disagree with what they are saying and I don’t think the reason they are protesting is valid or is something that is happening today. I think all the protesters, like you, are either misinformed or uniformed. There is absolutely no evidence that this killing was racial in nature. You and everyone else who buys into that idea are just saying that because George Floyd was black and Derek Chauvin was white. That’s it. That’s all you’ve got. You guys are the ones focused on race and you literally can’t see anything else. So everything is about race to you.

I’m perfectly aware of the history. In fact, based on the way you went through it, I think I know more about the history than you do. I also, unlike you, am aware of the changes that our country has gone through and people can’t blame the history of slavery for everything bad that happens to black people.

You don’t seem like you know this so let me explain something to you: literally every race on the planet has, at one time or another, been treated very poorly by other races. Every single demographic has been through oppression of some sort. Why can every race get over their oppression to the point where it doesn’t have this lifelong mitigating effect on all future generations except for black people? Why is their bad history the most important? What you are doing is ignoring all of history except for the parts you want to acknowledge because they fit your narrative.

I have America in my username not because I’m unaware of the history we have, but because I am aware of it. We have a big history. We have a lot of bad things in our history as well as a lot of really great things. I’m very proud of this country. I'm proud that the people in our history saw slavery for the evil that it was and stopped it. I’m proud that the people in our history saw segregation for the evil that it was and stopped it. I’m proud that the people in our history fought until black people were recognized as fully equal human beings in every single aspect under the law. Though you mentioned things that happened in history, you have failed to explain why this instance of police brutality is racist and how the history makes everyone racist today.

White privilege is not a thing. And with your little explanation of white privilege you have proved that you were, in fact, telling me I have the wrong skin color to be able to understand certain things :) I appreciate you being concerned about my ignorance, but I would suggest you be more concerned about yours :) your idea of white privilege doesn’t make any sense. A white person is not the least likely to be ostracized or oppressed. You just made that up :) I get what people say white privilege, but I don’t accept that it exists and you have failed to prove that it does. You’ve made one of the weaker cases against it that I’ve seen. White people aren’t oppressed in America and black people aren’t oppressed in America. No one is oppressed in America. And there is no white privilege and there is no evidence that this was racism. I stand by what I originally said because you didn’t make a single valid point against any of it. I suggest you become more familiar with all aspects of our history, not just the parts that fit what you want to be true. To be honest, even the parts you are aware of you don’t really know that much about.

Stop letting people make you feel like your skin color matters. It doesn’t. Your skin color doesn’t give you special privileges and you are capable of understanding this issue. Just like everyone else, you can see facts. Don’t believe people who tell you that your skin color means there are just some things you can’t understand. It’s racist for people to say or think that. The very concept of white privilege is inherently racist so don’t buy into that crap.

#racism #white privilege #george floyd

12 notes · View notes

blackwoolncrown · 4 years

Note

i have a question about giving the land back/native relations, as a black person from the diaspora. what is my responsibility as someone who’s ancestors were not colonizers, but brought here against their will? i am NOT trying to be snarky or have a “gotcha!” moment - i am genuinely wanting to know how i can do my part, but knowing that my ancestors were victims of colonization as well. i know that i probably wont ever be able to afford land to give back, or even live in anything but an (1/2)

anything but an apartment, so the likelihood of me ever owning land & being able to communicate with the native ppl who’s land it is is pretty slim. that being said, if you (or your followers) have any suggestions for how people who are also victims of colonization & institutionalized oppression can do their part in giving the land back. thank you!! (2/2)

No, I get you, this is a fair question that I’ve asked myself, and here’s my answer:

First off-

1. Giving the land back and attaining racial justice for black people are not mutually exclusive goals.

2. Us being victims of colonization is not a point against helping to give the land back- it puts us on equal standing with native people as they are victims of colonization too. Furthermore, our ancestors being used in a crime doesn’t make me any more likely to want to see that crime upheld.

3. Indigenous people and African Americans are not two separate groups. They are if nothing else our global cousins and neighbors on turtle island but furthermore many of us (myself included) are blood-relations however distant and unaccounted for.

So there’s no real dichotomy between helping ‘them’ and helping ‘us’.

White people stole us from our land to help decimate theirs. This is not something I want to continue. We will never have anything close to a functional society in America as long as the First Nations’ Peoples are being actively displaced and the environment damaged. Colonizers stole us here and left us ‘surviving’ at best, trapped within their capitalist system. The most our communities can often strive for is getting rich, which can help our immediate problems but will never soothe our spirit nor ensure a better future for our people-to-be.

Lastly, while it’s definitely on white ppl’s shoulders to undo the crimes of their ancestors that doesn’t mean the rest of us just sit back and wait on them bc god knows we’ll be waiting forever. They must be pushed, taught, and so on and in the meantime as many of us as possible should actively join hands with indigenous people-- BIPOC together is a larger group than just Indigenous or Black ppl, and we have a common goal. We absolutely should band together and work to take colonizer’s land out from under them and give it back. If you can’t personally, that’s understandable! But for any of us who end up with enough money ourselves or through a community pool to buy land, we must absolutely do what we can to choose to transfer it back to Indigenous care instead of claiming it and thinking ‘well I got mine’. Not knocking anyone who does this but that’s not completed work IMO. Just Transition fully requires undoing the initial wrong that was done- colonization by fucked up europeans.

As to how to do this, our plans are to contact the Seminole Tribe of FL when our group manages to get funds together on some land here, if it’s land we end up with and not just an urban location. We will be converting our LLC into a 501c so there’s some legal stuff to discuss; similarly, get in touch with whichever tribe(s) land you happen to be on and simply ask them about this- afaik in many cases what matters is if the land will be ceded over to their ownership- in other places people have bought land that was on sale or come into it via a will and while they live on it they have handed over its use and ownership to the local tribe who still lets them live where they were eventually living.

Also, many tribes are taking donations for land, so even if you can’t afford to buy land back from colonizers to hand back to them, you can just like....give them money. Barring that, many times they are actively involved in land/water protection and the protestation of further violences by colonizers today and it is usually possible to assist them in some way.

All that aside here are some useful links that give more detail on Land Back:

http://4rsyouth.ca/land-back-what-do-we-mean/

The Whose Land map to tell you what tribe(s) to contact.

Land Reparations & Indigenous Solidarity Toolkit

#land back #Anonymous #indigenous

15 notes · View notes

nightcoremoon · 4 years

Text

I don't like the song amazing grace or what it stands for in the context of african post-slavery cultural genocide juxtaposed with white western european colonialist christian values.

so like, african cultural heritage is what it is, right? it's heavily important to world history and obviously every ethnic group is valuable in its own way because humans are worthy of respect and stuff. that's a given.

so when slavery happened and the africans were stripped of their individuality and heritage and nationality and basically underwent mass cultural AND ethnic genocide. that fuckin sucks because a) slavery is bad and b) genocide is bad and c) being denied your birthplace and stuff is bad. I can't simplify this any further.

so what happened in history? many african slaves found solace in christianity and the bible because it gave them hope and distracted them from the hellish existence that is slavery. that continued throughout the generations past abolition through the civil rights movements and continues today. black christianity derived from slavery is the root of 90% of music we listen to today; it's heavily influential on today's cultural climate and the contributions of the black american cannot be denied. even now a significant portion of christianity in america is heavily attributed to african descended black people.

there's just one thing about that that really bothers me:

american christianity is heavily rooted in white western imperial european colonialism. oh no.

there are so many black christians with no idea where their ancestors lived or what cultural heritage they're derive from. they were robbed of their history. while white europeans have the privilege of being able to know so many things about their great great great etc grandparents. in this context white americans count because we're here because of european invasions. we can trace our lineage back for generations. so many of us know that we're 17% Italian or 17% Irish or 17% French or 17% Swedish n shit like that. most black americans don't know if their parents are part Kenyan or Ethiopian or Congo or Sudanese or whatever. that's why they refer themselves as black because all they have to go by is the color of their skin, because the people who owned their great great grandma sure as fuck didn't write down what country their slave came from because they didn't care because they treated black people as property because life was a godawful hellhole back then for most people. they don't get to know what country they're from like most white people do.

so when they turn to not only christianity but a specific form of christianity, protestant sects, it's like another step of cultural genocide. by embracing a religion created by white people to control minorities and women, regardless of how much they change it to make it their own, it's still rooted in the same bloody soil. they turn further from their own roots in the many different varying mythologies i can't talk much about because society values the mythology of nonblack people so much more: Greek, Norse, Egyptian (well the Egyptians were black but society loves to ignore that fact and whitewash them), Shinto, etc.

now I'm not saying that all black christians are directly responsible for participating in their own cultural genocide. that's an asinine claim. there are plenty of black jews, black muslims, black atheists, black pagans, black greek/norse/egyptian/shinto/etc followers, and surely there are lots of modern black euroamericans who still keep in touch with their cultural roots. the religious decisions of every individual are their own through mental autonomy and the ownership of their own consciousnesses.

what I AM saying is that christianity is a lot more insidious and evil than it appears to be on the surface. it was used as a defense of owning slaves- "africans deserve to be slaves because they're sons of ham, descended from the son of noah god cursed because the bible". it was used to protest abolition. it was used to uphold segregation. it was used to protest black votes. it's used to defend cops who kill unarmed men. it is, always has been, and always will be used as a weapon by white people against black existence. and the fact that throughout all of that, the exact same failed system of belief [speaking from a historical perspective of course because white christianity in the 16th century and beyond is massively poisoned by the bloated and corrupt papacy further than what it already was during the medieval and dark ages] was embraced so readily by the people that it oppressed...

it's just really concerning to me.

& it's not even a black thing. the prevalence of catholicism in mexican and other latin american culture is the same way. east asia is ripe with larger cultural superpowers eating the smaller ones and pretending they don't exist, just like china with taiwan, except not in a religious way. the holy roman empire did the same thing. and don't even get me started on the armenian genocide committed by the ottoman empire. and the fucking holocaust: hitler was christian. people say he wasn't a good christian since a good christian wouldn't try to kill the jews, the romani, the black, but are you sure about that? looking at all of history are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that white western imperialist european christian colonialism wouldn't try to murder everyone who didn't conform? naziism is on the rise again and it's masquerading as christianity. the president is a nazi and a christian.

no, this has nothing to do specifically with african and black populations and everything to do with christianity. except through "amazing grace" and its prevalence in that community.

also the man who wrote it manned slave ships. he was conscripted into it, became a slave in sierra leone for a while, and eventually became an abolitionist, but still :/ imagine if rommel the kraut of africa wrote a song and a hundred years later it became a celebrated jewish hymn. that would be incredibly fucked up and wrong.

but whatever, maybe I'm looking too far into this, maybe there's no illuminati boogeyman trying to erase black and jewish culture from world history, maybe it's all just a big goddamn coincidence that the victims of colonialism embraced the religion that the imperials used. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe just maybe it's a fucking fluke.

anyway black people can like the song if they want. they can be christians.

I just hate the song and won't be a christian. you do you and I'll do me and we'll all get along happily.

1 note · View note

wheelygoodteddys · 5 years

Text

I don't want to do this!:

I absolutely hate writing about religious discrimination!

Frankly, I wish that I wasn't putting fingers to keyboard about any discrimination.

I also desperately don't want the focus to be on discrimination against everything Islamic and Muslim.

However, sadly, it's the most venomous hated that I have ever encountered, second only to racism against the black human beings of our world.

All my life I must have lived under a rock, maybe I live under a rock now, yet the vileness and outright lies that come out of those obsessed with hating all Islam and Muslims, plus anyone who stands up and says this is wrong, is obscene.

I am disgusted in the way these people respond.

I have had differing opinions with both Muslim men are women yet been addressed with respect and politeness. They are peaceful and not intimidating in any way.

Speak to a person who is anti Muslim, they refuse to listen to anything that may contradict what they want to believe, they will call you a liar and slander you. They intimidate and bully, call you names, question your mental stability, stalk your FB and target your children. The insults and illogical reasoning is unbelievable.

I am horrified that there are people like this in the world!

More horrifying still is for once I can see the appeal in hating the West.

Imagine a young Muslim man, born here, and rather then allowing him to explain what his religion means to him, to try and teach people, that hate everything about him, that he deserves to be not discriminated against, he gets told what his religion is, he is called a murder, a terrorist, a paedophile, a Mysoginist, etc. His sister is spoken to about her husband beating her, being oppressed, asked if she still has her clitorus, threatened with physical abuse, has her hijab torn off, threatened with rape, told she is a bad mother because she sells her baby girls to be raped by old men.

And no matter what they say to try and explain their actual beliefs the abuse flows. And this is from their own countrymen.

Mate, I would want them all gone too! Be honest, who wouldn't!?

Yet if they report abuse or complain about their treatment they are accused of wanting to change things. "They come here and try to change everything", is the cry from the haters!

1) There is NO law that insists that ALL women wear a Burqa in Saudi Arabia: Hijab is only compulsory for Muslim women. Anything else is a choice for those in a practicing Muslim family.

2) Women are not allowed to get an education in Saudi Arabia: I urge you to look up any TV broadcast from local Saudi Arabia telecasts. Women, in hijab, reading the news. This suggests an education. However, both men and women are encouraged to gain knowledge in Islam.

3) WTF does Saudi Arabia have to do with every other Muslim world wide, especially in Australia?

4) FGM (female genital mutilation) is an Islamic practice: Far from it! The Islamic religion urges that both men and women enjoy sex and that a man sexually pleases his wife. FGM is a tribal practice. However, MGM (male genital mutilation) has and still is widely practiced in Australia.

5) There is NO "no go" zones in Australia!: This urban myth was started by a female, Canadian Islamphobe. It was said to be proved when the police removed her from Lakemba for disturbing the peace. The police weren't working for the Muslims to enforce their "no go" zones! How ridiculous. Others tell totally unbelievable stories about women walking there and being spat on for not wearing hijab. Firstly, not all Muslimah wear hijab, even in Lakemba. Also there are numerous non-Muslims that go to these fabled areas to eat, visit, shop, do business, etc. This rumor is absolutely ludicrous!

6) Muslim women are oppressed, even here in Australia!: It is naive that there is no abusive people in any religion or walk of life, however, Muslimah are not oppressed as perf the usual course. Quiet the opposite! Historically, and as it is today, Muslimah have the freedom to do and be whatever they want, just like Muslim men. There is no distinction between what male and females can do. In fact, men are encouraged to wash their own clothes, cook and do housework. Also the Qur'an makes it very clear that the mother is the head of the household.

7) It is always claimed that Muslims want to change things: Yet, the question, "what have they actually changed?", goes unanswered. Muslims are required to live by the laws of the land, and as such, really don't want to change anything but the way they are treated. Especially how the women are treated. Our hero Islamphobes always target women and children because Muslimah are more recognizable.

8) Why are these people so threatened by the hijab or niqab?: For fuck sake it's a piece of material! It's not what's on a woman's head that oppresses her. However, who are those that want to oppress Muslimah? Muslim men or the Islamphobe? I say without hesitation, the Islamphobe! They don't ask a Muslim women how she feels, they don't ask what she may want to wear. They rarely comprehend the meaning of the hijab to a woman but rather try to twist it into some sexually perverse. They proclaim that Muslim women shouldn't wear a head covering. As Australia is a free country, with a freedom of religion and freedom of lawful individually, the real oppression and discrimination, is telling Muslim women what to wear.

9) Telling Muslim women what they are: The idea that, to Islamphobes, Muslim women are stupid and therefore, don't know that they are oppressed, would have to be the most Mysoginist slap in the face ever! All I can say is, "at least Muslim men know a woman's worth is awesome".

10) Muslim men marry girl babies of 5 to 6 years old and Muslim mothers allow it: Firstly, American is the place booming in child brides at the moment. With some states having no minimum age for marriage and also no divorce for women. Compared to Malaysian Clerics, years ago, raising the age of concent to 18. Also contrary to European/western/Christian culture, women have been granted divorce since the 700s in Islam.

11) Women wear the Burqa in Australia: This is actually one of those urban myths, started by Pauline Hanson. To see a Burqa in Australia would be very unusual. Most Australian Muslimah are from cultures that don't don the Burqa. The Burqa is an Afghan tradition and is very rare in Australia. Then why fight "ban the Burqa"? In one word, principle! It is against a woman's basic rights to tell her how much she can or can't wear, within the laws of public decency. There is also a security argument, as a Burqa is rarely worn that argument is rather moot.

12) Muslim men have lots of wives and children and just live on welfare: This is so silly that it's laughable. Once again, it is rare for Muslim men to have more than one wife these days as it is financially impractical. Also most Muslim men prefer one wife. In Australia, on average, the Muslim family consists of 2 children. With all this being said, usually Muslim men and women are educated and professional people. If not they strive to own businesses. The stupid welfare claims are unfounded and actually go against most Muslim traditions and cultures that have a hard work ethic.

13) They come here are get more welfare than Australians with no waiting period: This information can be researched on government websites. There is a waiting time for new Australians, Muslim or otherwise, which often means charitable families that sponsor them and take them in during this time. When they do receive any benefit, before getting on their feet, it is no more or less than anyone else.

14) They receive a thousand dollar iPhone and designer clothes as soon as they arrive: Is this one even worth answering? I just shake my head in disbelief!

15) Muslims have been Australians for generations: It amazes me how many people actually believe that no Muslim is Australian born. The history of the Islamic people in Australia predates white colonization. Islamic men from Indonesia travelled down and through Australia. There was intermarriage with the Indigenous peoples and even revertion to Islam by some. A more constant move to Australia, by those of the Islamic faith, started in the 1800's.

16) All Muslims are the same because they read from the same book: this is like saying that all Christian denominations are the same because they read from the same book. Most know that this is not the case.

There are many different varieties of Muslim. Yes they have the Qur'an yet addition books vary between the sects.

There are 72 different sects, numerous sects within the main sects, different traditions, different cultures, different regions, different regions, different countries and different families.

As for the Qur'an: there is the subject context, further context, overall context, historical context and spiritual context. Then all the different ways it is interpreted. Also interpretation can be manipulated and cherry picked to suit an agenda or bias. This can be said of the Bible also.

Where interpretation is important is in the understanding of Arabic. To translate a language as complex as Arabic into simple English leaves the meaning truly lacking.

For example: Islam is a very sexually moral religion. Men and women are not meant to sexulise each other, There is no unsupervised dating and dressing is modest. However, it is commonly thought the men will receive a bus load of virgins to have an orgy with in paradise. However, "virgin" more correctly translates to "pure". This is a "spiritual" context and "heavenly beings/angels is probably a better translation into English.

17) Muslims want to kill all Jews and Muslims. The Qur'an tells them to kill all Christians: Unfortunately people are so off the mark on this one. Islam actually says that Muslims cannot destroy a place of worship nor hurt religious "ministers". The Qur'an refers to Christians and Jews as the "people of the book". In fact, the only other women a Muslim man is permitted to marry is either a Christian or a Jew. The wives of these two religions are also not expect to revert as they are seen as sisters to Islam. Christian and Jewish men and women are thought of as brothers and sisters to Muslims.

There is a long list of urban myth, propaganda, rumors and out right lies that are used as ammunition against Islam and Muslims.

The arrogance of the Islamphobe is to tell a Muslim what their faith is! With no other religion would a person, outside that faith, verse another in their religion.

132 notes · View notes

omnipotent-selflove · 4 years

Text

Those who are outraged by New Zealander's standing in solidarity with Black Lives Matters are hugely overlooking the systemic issues that are experienced in our own country.

Over the past few days I have learned how blessed I was to grow up in Kaitaia. We were so very lucky that we had great teachers who included New Zealand history into our curriculum even though it was not a compulsory component. They meticulously covered the New Zealand Wars, Te TIriti O Waitangi, taught about Tino Rangatiratanga. I didn't know when I left school that others did not recieve this same level of education.

It is sad to watch the divide within our community when it comes to matters of race relations. They claim that really we are creating the divide by taking a stand, but fail to see how we have been divided already because so many have had the education system fail them by not providing the facts about our history. Allowing the age old rhetorics that we so often hear to fester into a future generation of hatred. 'Colinisation was the best thing to happen to New Zealand' or the trope that trading blankets and muskets in exchange for land ownership, with people who did not even have a word to accurately describe sole ownership, was a fair trade. We only have to look at any NZ Herald comment section to see this vitriol in all it's glory.

Our country was built on the blood shed and subjugation of Maori people. This is irrefutable. The same applies to all countries borne of colonisation. We face the same systemic issues today. If you can't see it, you're not looking hard enough. If you can't hear it, unblock your ears.

The New Zealand Police was built from the Armed Constabulary. Colonial troops whose sole purpose was acquisition of land from 'rebel forces' and the brutal subjugation of anyone in support of them. We can see this very well documented in our history during the invasion of the Uruweras to punish the Tuhoe for their support of Te Kooti Rikirangi. Any opposition was met with brutal force, which is echoed in the treatment of Maori by the police today. If you can't see how history is repeating itself you need to hit the books, because our collective ignorance allows the senseless murder of people of colour to continue throughout the ages.

If you are Maori you are more than 11 times more likely to have pepper spray used on you by the police, 9 times more likely to be tazed and 6 times more likely to have the police pull a gun on you than Pakeha. If we were to use a probability estimate based on the our 2018 census data: 16.5% Maori as opposed to the 70.4% NZ/European these outcomes would be statistically improbable, yet people will still claim that there is no racial disparity within our justice system. We cannot simply continue to put out heads in the sand and then feign ignorance to the glaringly obvious reason that people retaliate to police brutality. You don't have to agree with rioting or looting, but you do have to at the very least acknowledge that this reaction isn't as obscene as the media is trying to portray. If it were your son, brother, father - you'd want to set fire to everything this establishment upholds too. It's only a matter of time before racial tensions amplify within our own country and you can be sure that if the armed trial result in our police force being armed permanantly that we will see more and more of these atrocities here in New Zealand. It will be our Maori children being maced while walking past others protesting, not African American children. Will you be able to turn a blind eye then? We are not different from the US in this matter. This problem is not just theirs, it's ours. This is our reality too.

If you are white and you're angry that it is being demanded of you to ackowledge how you directly benefit from the oppression of minority groups you need to sit with that discomfort and understand that what is being asked of you will never compare to the suffering that has been experienced by these groups.. Your discomfort at the realisation that white supremacy has provided you with oppourunities above and beyond those of many of your peers will never be more uncomfortable that watching your people being discriminated against, racially profiled, targeted and being brutalised by the police, subject to unfair punishments or being murdered for the colour of their skin. Accepting this does not mean that you are self loathing, you're not being asked to hate yourself. You're not being called to self-flaggelate. You're being asked to help dismantle the deeply rooted hatred within our society. It starts with you and I.

It is not too much to ask.

If you feel that you can't do that right now please look back on our past. See that we have already stood here. When the history books are written do you want to be the one complaining about protestors ruining your rugby match during the Springbok Tour or will you be standing at the front line, fighting for justice, on the right side of history?

I know where I stand. Do you?

#me #anti-racist

2 notes · View notes

diallokenyatta · 4 years

Note

Bro Diallo, why are our people so susceptible to bullshit? I mean I get it, it aint like the euros aint. In fact they invent most of the bullshit. But our people have taken the brunt of it, so I would expect us to have immunity by now. A lot believe that Native Americans were black, that Olmecs were black, that they are Aborigines, that slavery never happened! or that we are some lost Jewish Tribe or that Dr. Sebi was an actual doctor! What's it gonna take to be free of all this nonsense?

Black people are actually less susceptible to bullshit; some cursory research will demonstrate that Whites & other Oppressive populations and cultures engage in far more fantasy & collective delusion than Oppressed populations. Read White scholars like Dr. Michael Parenti, Chris Hedges, Neil Postman, Derrick Jensen, and dozens of others who have extensively written on the depth of White Delusions, Cultural Myths, and outright lies that are needed to sustain the White Masses materially and psychologically. Whites believe they are the bringers of Democracy and the rest of the world is terrorizing them, Whites believe they are the most moral people, while the rest of the world are savages, Whites believe they are the riches, and the rest of the world must beg them for resources. There isn’t one founding idea or identity among White Cultures that isn’t 99% myth and lies. Also, all of the BS Blacks believe about being Native Americans, Jews, & Herbal Gurus; Whites do too, but for every Black con there are literally dozens if not hundreds of White cons. Just look at the Mormons & their Native American myths, the Mormons are much more powerful and influential in the US among Whites than Black Hebrews or Black Natives are in the Hood, there was a Mormon POTUS candidate! You think the Black masses would allow a Black Hebrew or Black Native Nut to gain that much political power in our community?

I do understand, as a Black person who dwells mostly among Black people how we can come to believe that Blacks fall for the most Bullshit and Whites are more Ressonalbe, but that conclusion will quickly breakdown if you begin to engage with Whites and see how many falsehoods they take as the absolute truth.

The actual problem isn’t that we are “so susceptible to bullshit,” but our overall vulnerability under Oppression. If a Black man or woman lives according to falsehoods and delusion it can quickly lead to death, imprisonment, homelessness, or deep self-rejection and self-hatred. Whereas a delusional White man or woman can be elected President of the US, or come to run the US educational system. The myths that become prominent in a society are generally there to prop up the Status Quo, and only a proper exposure of those myths and contradictions can lead to overthrowing or significant reform of the Status Quo; that’s why Whites targeted the Folklore, Myths, and Culture of all of the people they attempted to colonize, not just their land and armies. We pay a higher cost for embracing or following bullshit than WYTs, that’s the bottom line. Black Skin & the African Phenotype is the standard for humanity, most of humanity has skin pigment & features that reflect their genetic forefathers who evolved in Africa, but they are not Africans because when humans evolved and dispersed there was not Africa, or Asia, or Europe, or America; there were not cultures, nations, ethnicities, etc; those came long after our dispersal. Whites worked hard and killed harder to make themselves the Standards, so we think anything that isn’t White is “others” when Whites are the “other” and Black is the human standards that all other hues come from. So we can acknowledge that there are many populations of Black people all over the world without trying to call them Africans, or pretending that we descended from them. We are Africans, we are members of the African Diaspora.

Native Americans were Black but not Africans...except the Natives that settled in the far North more have more Asian phenotype than what’s considered African. There are Black Native-Americans today, but we got Black or African Native-Americans the same way we got Afro-Brazilians, African-Americans, Afro-Caribbean; though the Trans-Atlantic Slavery. Native Americans bought, enslaved, and traded our ancestors. They raped our Ancestors. Enslaved Africans carried the cargo across the Trail of Tears, and the Native Americans erased us from that history. So, you can celebrate your Native Blood all you like but you got it the same we we go European blood though rape and enslavement.

We have many pseudo-scholars who spread the myth that all dark-skinned people were African people. So they find paintings of Native Americans, Aboriginals, Asians, and even Europeans with dark or Black skin and claim they are Africas. The truth is ALL Africans are Black, but not ALL Blacks are Africans...but we can stand in solidarity with non-African Blacks without pretending that we are those people or we are from those people. The diversity and distinctiveness of Humanity didn’t have to be a contentious or competitive issue...but Global White Domination has brought us here, and we can’t defeat GWD by trying to construct our own Dominante or Regressive myths to replace White Lies and Myths. We have to be Rational in our approach to Struggle, Scientific in our implementation of Revolution, and Historical in our approach to identity and heritage. Most of these other Myths about the Black Hebrews and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade being God’s punishment and prophecy, or Dr. Sebi’s anti-mucus BS can all be unraveled with research, and for we who know the facts to share them with love and patience among our people. They only way for us to be free of this nonsense to decolonize academia, decolonize our culture, and decolonize our lands. The only way to have total decolonization is to enact Pan-African Revolution. The only way to enact Pan-African Revolution is for we are already conscious to put our ideologies into practical action, to construct and execute rational agendas, to demonstrate to the masses of our people the viability of our ideology and our practices, protocols, and agendas. If we build it, they will come, it’s that simple. So, we have to enact our teachings as aggressively or more aggressively as we work to teach those who don’t know, we must do both simultaneously. Finally, I don’t harbor hostility to any other victims of Slavery, Colonization, and Genocide, all nations and cultures did uncharacteristic things under the Maafa; if the past is acknowledged and atoned for, and they fight ongoing Racism within their communities and nations, I’ll hold solidarity with other Oppressed people...without having to pretend that I”m those people or those people are me.

#BroDiallo www.diallokenyatta.com www.patreon.com/diallokenyatta www.africanworldorder.com

3 notes · View notes

squeerpia · 5 years

Text

Okay, it was not here but today I got real mad on instagram over a topic that really drives me nuts. Trigger warnings are in the tags so please stay safe. The topic is how it is instrumentalized the destransition by transmedicalists and the dynamics that they follow. As a source, I'm going to be referring to the April 2019 conference of the European Professional Association of Transgender Health if you want to check.

If you have talked to transmeds you might have heard this argument: if we don't medicalize trans identities/require a gender dysphoria diagnosis people will start confusing and transition without being trans causing massive detransitioning.

My first trigger when I hear this comes from the conclusion of "massive detransitioning?". It sounds to me really similar to the anti abortist discourse, that keeps saying that legal abortion is going to lead into massive abortion. And in both cases the answer is the same: no. Many countries have achived legal abortion without any consequences of "massive abortions" and nowadays the detransition cases known are less than 1% of the transitioned trans population. Even if you remain skeptical, it's pure logic. Abortion is means lots and pronloged pain, loss of blood and the trauma that it can provoke, making it legal just makes it safer reducing risk of infection, complication and death. Surgery that comes with transition can get real expensive and if achived for free, waiting lists aren't less than a year. One of the lowest waiting lists for free top surgery are 1000 days, almost 3 years requiring being 18 years old by the time you get in the list. And when we get to more difficult surgeries like genital reconstructions, it is not only expensive and/or a real long process. It is painful, post-operatory is a prolonged process of understanding your body, shaping it daily with real painful therapies and you don't even have the certainty that it is going to end up well, as it can end up real bad and not satisfactory at all. Actually, THAT is one real big reason why people detransition. Even hormones can have big side effects and complications. With this I'm not saying "don't abort because it is hurtfult" or "don't transition because it is difficult". I'm saying we deserve secure contraception and transition to decide over our body and that there is a lot of journey amd fight amd what we should do is claim for more resources to reduce pain and investigation to reduce complications.

My second trigger comes with the actual argument, do trans people really detransition because they find out they are not trans? Well, maybe someone does, but statistics show other things. Most trans people detransition because family, friends and their community pressure them to do it, because they cannot find a job, straight up transphobia that marginalize trans people, make us fear we'll loose our loved ones; abuse, pressure and harassment that make us stop transitioning to stop living transphobia. It is just...not true.

Third trigger comes with the logic, that can be easily changed. If we medicalise/require gender dysphoria to transition, people might feel pressured to go further or even start to get validated and that might lead to detransitioning. It is still not true, but it is the same logic that instrumentalises the very low detransition rates to make an argument that lacks of truth and shows no actual care for the wellbeing of actual trans people as they don't care about the reasons of their detransitioning, they just make it up and ignore that there are people suffering out there.

But those are not the biggest triggers. They use false information to make arguments that remind of anti abortist propaganda dehumanizing detransitioned trans people but, my biggest issue is the similarity with another reactionary group that dehumanizes people's suffering in order to fit them in their transphobic arguments: TERFs.

As a disclaimer, Transmeds CAN be compared to TERFs, but I do think that they don't cause the same harm (I obviously think TERFs are way more harmful and trasphobic than transmeds).

TERFs usually instrumentalise female genital mutilation in order to show how their oppression is due to their essentialist and pseudobiologicist concept of sex and not a social construction. However, this arguments are instrumentalisation of those girls and woman that suffer the pain, torture and death during this practice. They ignore the fact that it happens in a certain context, the reasons that certain cultures systematicly mutilate their genitals, that most white women in western society are not in danger of genital mutilation and therefore their argument of a unique and universal woman subject is not only false but shaped with colonialistic bases, showing no care over the suffering of those women and instrumentalizing them to spread their transphobic messages.

It is the same strategy, taking statistics, cases and phenomenas that fit their arguments, spreading misinformation, instrumentalizing their pain. They are becoming their own enemy (their enemy flr transmeds that are actually trans, because there are cis people who are transmeds. Sounds weird but it actually make more sense and is more consistent with history that cis people try to clasify us as mentally ill than ourselves).

Even if you remain with your discourse, please, stop simplifying and most important instrumentalizing detransition, I'm fed up of seeing everyone ignore the very real problems that make trans people detransition, the fear, the abandonment, the marginalisation, the lack of resources and investigation, the harassment, the abuse, the pressure, the threats, the exclusion of workplace...just to see trans people believe that discourse or cis people talk about what they know nothing about and will never know.

Seriously, stop.

1 note · View note

diamondorloj · 5 years

Note

You are so smart and well educated, especially regarding Israel and Jewish history, so I hope you don't mind if I ask you to help me, an uneducated (and to be honest mostly ignorant towards politics because of personal issues) person, to graps what the fuss is about all the political statements during ESC this year? I'm really confused and used google but I understand like maybe half of what's going on. Sorry to bother you.

Hey, thank you for coming to me. First off, I have studied and learned a lot abut the topics, but they’re very complex and full of details beyond my grasp. I’ll try to make this short, but your ask was a little broad and calls for a couple of explanations.

First off, there are rules against political statements and activism in every Eurovision song contest. For example, the only flags allowed in the arenas are the flags of UN states and of the EU, as well as unpolitical flags like the rainbow or the trans flag. In 2016, there was a conflict because the Armenian delegation held up a flag of Bergkarabach, which is debatable territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Now, here’s the EBU statement: “In the live broadcast of the Eurovision Song Contest Grand Final, Hatari, the Icelandic act, briefly displayed small Palestinian banners whilst sat in the Green Room. The Eurovision Song Contest is a non-political event and this directly contradicts the contest’s rules. The banners were quickly removed and the consequences of this action will be discussed by the Reference Group (the contest’s executive board) after the contest.”

Determining a course of action on legal grounds based on the flag rule is going to be a little difficult because as of 29th November 2012, Palestine was granted the status of an observer state in the UN. However, showing the Palestine flag in Israel, on an Israelian stage, is considered political activism (and just generally…bad).

To briefly touch on the history of the Palestinian and Israelian conflict is almost impossible. The area of today’s Israel and Palestine used to belong to the Osmanian Empire, which shattered in 1922 officially and for a huge number of reasons. Great Britain took over mandate control for the area they then called Palestine, until it was possible to establish its own state. This was a common idea of the time for colonies that were supposed to be supported on their way to independency. Jews had fled to this area for centuries, but especially so during the 19th century because of rising antisemitism in Europe. While it wasn’t exactly pleasant to live as dimmi, people of the books and second-class citizens, it was relatively safe and peaceful, and Arab people happily sold their land to Jewish immigrants.

The idea of safety for the Jewish people led to the idea of a Jewish state, which is zionism. However, there were many options discussed as to where this Jewish state should be installed – among them were Uganda and Argentina. In the end, it probably was a mixture of many factors, like the Jewish connection to the land of Israel and Jerusalem, the fact that many Jewish people had bought land in Palestine for a relatively good price and that a lot of Jewish communities already lived there. Great Britain agreed to install a Jewish state, however they also installed the Great Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, and he incited violence and pogroms against the Jewish people. He vehemently opposed the existence of any Jewish state and also collaborated with the Nazis, organised a Muslim garnison in the SS, and is responsible for many people dying in the Holocaust because he prevented them from fleeing to Palestine.

So, after the Holocaust, the calls for a Jewish state for the Jewish people got louder because it had been made abundantly clear that no other state would guarantee their safety and survival. The UN was very newly installed and kinda improvised a new solution for the territorial conflict: There should be both a Jewish state, called Israel, and an Arab state, called Palestine. Jerusalem should stay under UN control. It was a hasty, imperfect plan, however the Jews accepted while the Arabs declined and the Arab nations surrounding Israel declared war on the same day Israel was founded. Against all odds, Israel won the wars and exists to this day. During the war, there were many refugees on both sides. Israel advertised for Arab people to stay and granted them full citizen rights. The Arab states called for Arabs to leave the places of war and conflict and were promised they could return to their homes when the war was over aka Israel destroyed. Well, guess what. Many refugees of these days and their decendants fled to Syria, Jordan, Egypt but were not taken in and instead were used against Israel. To this day, there are refugee camps in Jordan which does not grant any of their decendents who were born there city rights. Jewish people were dispelled from their homes and found a new home in Israel.

So, Israel as a state is the only guarantee in the world for safety and survival for the Jewish people. If you know any Jewish people in Europe, you will often hear their discussions and plans of going to Israel. The state exists, and it will continue to exist and thrive. To debate its right to an existence is politically pointless because it was granted by the UN and other leading political organisations, and antisemitic because it’s a direct call against the safety of Jews everywhere. Palestine wasn’t a state in the beginning at first and to this day has a special political status. In the 1940-1960s, a lot of Palestinians didn’t even want to be called Palestinians and the leading politicians in fact called for Palestine to be reunited with Syria, calling them Syrians. In 2005, Israel granted Gaza’s wishes and completely unrooted all Jewish life in the Gaza strip, making it free of living Jews for the first time in millenias. Unsurprisingly, peace did not follow.

Phew. I left out about a thousand details around here, so please use these points as a starting point for your research and take it with a grain of salt.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine to this day exists because Palestine does not acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and uses acts of terrorism and war against the state. Beginning of May, Gaza fired way over 600 rockets on Israel, aiming at schools and civilian buildings, killing 4 and injuring over 300 people. Their leading political organisation, Hamas, calls for the complete destruction of Israel and their people. They also refer to Israel as an oppressing state and an occupation of their territory.

One of the organisations that also believes Israel to be an occupator is the BDS organisation, which is a Boycott against Israel. It claims to be peaceful and harmless, but aims to completely isolate Israel in every way, culturally, economically, politically, from the rest of the world. They also want Palestinian refugees in Gaza and Westbank to have a right to return to Israel. However, given that Israel has a population of about 15 million people, and 20% of them are not Jewish, integrating about 8 million people of non-jewish Arabs into Israel would make Jews a minority in Israel and effectively end the existence of the only Jewish state in the world. (also good luck boycotting Israeli technology like the world's most efficient field hospital, the USB stick, and just about every smartphone works with Israeli technology.)

BDS called for a boycott of the ESC in Israel, Roger Waters himself foamed at the mouth when Madonna was announced to perform in Tel Aviv. One band that is at least close to the BDS is Hatari, the Icelandic group. They announced their intentions to use their performance to criticise Israel for the way they treat Palestinians.There was debate in Israel apparently whether they should be allowed to come to Tel Aviv, in the end they were allowed. They returned the favour by showing the flag of their biggest aggressor and threat to safety.

Funnily enough, homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment and death in Gaza. So I can’t help but wonder how well their support was received in Palestine… It’s a typically European knee-jerk reaction. They want to show solidarity with what they think is the underdog in that conflict, and they’re cowardly showing their protest in a democractic, safe country.

Madonna’s performance is problematic because she agreed to do a non-political act and proceeded to slap the flags on their dancers at the very last second, betraying the trust and rules of the hosts. Her act shows a big, scary man dressed like a soldier in a black uniform as Israel and a tiny woman in a white dress as Palestine, and in the beginning she talks about supposedly hidden crimes that ‘we all know of’ wink-wonk. It’s a tired provocatin and villainification of Israel imo. The reactions all over social media show that it was not actually perceived as a message of peace and love, but as a message of pro-Palestinian interests, painting them the victims and only the victims of the conflict.

There was probably more going on with political statements in the ESC, but you referred to Jewish history and Israel, so I hope your questions are covered with this response!

#marina replies #long post #i don't wanna tag this bc it will attract antisemites to my blog

15 notes · View notes

madamlaydebug · 6 years

Photo

IN THIS WAR AGAINST YOUR MIND, YOU EITHER WAKE UP AND LIBERATE YOURSELF, OR REMAIN MENTALLY ENSLAVED AND BE SLOWLY ERADICATED: I will not be silent in the face of ignorance, especially when that ignorance hinders our true Black liberation. If after 400 year of white oppression, your best plan for obtaining Black liberation is to cling tighter to your Bible or try to overcome the Willie Lynch syndrome then you’re ignorant of your own ignorance, and you’re a part of the problem that hinders true Black liberation. Furthermore If you’re walking around with a computer in your pocket — with access to unlimited information —believing in urban myths and biblical fairytales that were forced upon slaves then your ignorance is now a choice! What truly confront us is the monopoly that white oppressive forces have over our minds. Their monopoly over media images and societal narratives that shapes our beliefs and controls our behaviors is their greatest weapon used against us. As long as Black people continue to believe that our condition is connected to the Willie Lynch slave syndrome or a biblical fairytale we will never liberate ourselves. We must gain a true and accurate analysis of our condition in order to over come it. Because when our understanding of our condition is flawed then all solutions based upon the misunderstanding will also be flawed. In order to liberate ourselves we must learn the truth of what has been done to us. HERE IS WHY OUR CONDITION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WILLIE LYNCH SLAVE SYNDROME (MYTH): Black people are not suffering from a 400 year old self hatred programing created by a fictitious slaveowner name Willie Lynch — whom in spite of having no formal training in psychology whatsoever somehow miraculously developed a full proof plan to control the minds of countless millions of Black people for 400 years. This is such a childish and ridiculously cartoonish premise. Those who believes that the Willie Lynch myth is true have no understanding whatsoever of the mechanism required for brainwashing generations of people. They have no concept of how controlling the minds of large populations actually works. The Willie Lynch premise would in fact be the least effective method used for controlling large populations of people for an extended period of time. The Willie Lynch premise totally contradicts all leading studies of how controlling the mind of large population actually works. Brainwashing of large populations requires a system that is being constantly reapplied to remain effective. If not its effectiveness would weaken with each new generation. It wouldn’t get stronger as we’ve been witnessing. Case and Point: During the 1960’s African Americans were wearing Afros and calling each other Brothers and Sisters. We were also declaring that Black is beautiful. Today many of us are now calling ourselves N#ggers and b#tches, wearing blonde weaves and bleaching our skins. Given that the condition of self hatred has worsen this is clearly evidence of a system that is being constantly reapplied upon our minds and that has been strengthened. Furthermore, these same symptoms and condition also exist amongst many Africans living in Africa, the U.K, and Canada - that are NOT descendants of enslaved Africans therefore also proving that the problem is absolutely not the results of a slave syndrome. Furthermore the Willie Lynch myth was written by Dr. Kwabena Ashanti, an African American who lives in Durham, NC. He confirms that Willie Lynch never existed. The reason why the symptoms described in the letter appears so accurate and consistent with the behaviors that we’ve witnessed amongst many of our people is because it was not actually written in the 1700’s. This is also why when experts examined the letter they found 21st century words that were inconsistent with the 1700 date of which the letter was allegedly written. Dr. Ashanti wrote those noted behaviors based upon behaviors he actually observed among many Black people during the late 1970’s. ( behaviors that are actually the results of years of white social engineering of Black minds) That’s why the willie lynch letter appears so accurate. It’s however not a true story. THE BIBLE WILL NEVER LIBERATE US!! HERE IS THE TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTIANITY: The early white Christians weren’t trying to save African soul’s when they converted them into Christians. This is irrefutably true, because they literally believed that Africans had no souls, and that heaven was for whites only. In fact the early white Christians believed that the mere thought of an African actually entering the kingdom of heaven was as blasphemously ridiculous as a dog doing so. This is a fact! When we critically think and logically look at the fact as they were, we can say with great certainty that the white enslavers conversion of Africans into Christians had absolutely nothing to do with saving African souls. There was another reason why the early white Christians put their time, and energy into teaching Christianity to a people they otherwise treated so brutally. The true self serving reason was to indoctrinate the belief of a white God into the subconscious minds of Africans. This creates a profound admiration towards whiteness within the subconscious mind’s of the Africans that then subconsciously transfers on to white people. This condition made the Africans more subservient towards their white people. Therefore Christianity made Africans much easier to colonize and into better slaves for white people. The effects of that brain washing scheme implemented hundreds of years ago, has been left uncorrected and un-removed for generations. The Christian religion has been one of the most effective tools used for imprisoning the minds of Black people. Through it million of Black people have been brainwashed to believe that all of the wrongs that whites have done to them throughout history, have been washed cleaned by the blood of a fictional white Jesus. Black people were also forced to become Christians, and then its doctrine was use to compel them to forgive whites for all the brutalities afflicted upon them by whites Christians. However, white societies never actually apologized, paid reparations, nor even repented for their evil deeds committed against Black people they merely insisted that Black people, as good Christians, forgive them as their Bible’s doctrine dictates. They fooled us now we continue to fool ourselves. Many Black Christians attempts to defend the Bible claiming that it was actually written by Black people and merely misused by whites during the enslavement and colonization of our ancestors. This is untrue. The Bible was written by immoral Romans ( Europeans) in 325 A.D. When Black people claim that modern Christianity was first practiced in Ethiopia long before Emperor Constantine created it in 325 AD this is a falsehood. Christianity didn't become the official religion of Ethiopia until 341 AD. That was sixteen years after the Romans created the false religion. Christianity is not the belief system practiced in Africa before 325 AD. The Roman Emperor Constantine tore apart the doctrine of the original African spiritual system to create modern Christianity. The Romans destroyed 18 books of the original doctrine in order to create the modern Christian religion. Many of the African followers of the true and original spiritual system were totally against the newly created Christian religion, some were killed by the Romans for doing so. Praying to God through a subordinate ( middle man) messiah was not within the original doctrine. Ask yourselves, why does the all knowing God need a middle man to speak to him in your behalf? Doesn't he know you better than anyone else does? The African spiritual system taught every individual to seek their own direct inner connection to the Most High. [Not through religion] A personal oneness that is established between the inner mind and that which we now know as God. It is an experience that no two individuals may verbalize the same. Some may say that it speaks from above, some may say it comes from within. Some may also say that it comes through the mind, while others says through the heart. It doesn't matter because in our true belief system they are all correct. It is their own individual oneness with the Most High! The original spiritual system was not at all like modern Christianity. It's original doctrine didn't believe in the trinity nor of the messiah story. The Jesus messiah story was created by the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Council of Bishops in 325 A.D. ( Research the Nicean Creed and the creating of Jesus) The original African spiritual system taught the teachings of a African man that was born in a cave in Ethiopia of a traditional birth - not a messiah born of an immaculate conception. It was also during the Nicene Conference that his story was changed into a Messiah and his original birthplace, of being born in a cave in Ethiopia, was changed to Bethlehem. They merged his story with Egyptian folklores to create the Jesus messiah myth. The Roman's creating of Jesus messiah myth was actually an ingenious scam. Its ideology, that to enter the kingdom of heaven you had go through Jesus, gave the church immense power. Because it meant that anyone that wanted to go to heaven had to do so through the church -- given that the church controls the Jesus image and narratives. It literally meant that they held and control the key to heaven. That's ultimate power on earth. If you believe that what plagues many Black people is caused by a slave syndrome or is connected to a biblical prophecy then you are one of the ignorant ones. Black liberation will only happen when we stop clinging to biblical fairytales and urban myths and instead start learning about the true psychological warfare campaigns that white societies deploys against us so unrelentingly. THE TRUTH OF OUR CONDITION AND PLIGHT: Black people are the unknowing targets are the most elaborate deployed psychological warfare campaign in world history. It’s how white societies protect themselves from unified Black retribution. To learn how this system works you have to first learn how societies actually function. Societies do not actually function based upon facts nor truth, they function instead based upon the prevailing narratives that are repetitively fed into the society. Those that controls all societal narratives also controls societal perceptions. And those that controls societal perceptions always falsely exalt themselves above others. And they always criminalize, vilify, and dehumanize those that they’ve brutally mistreated to falsely validate their past and present mistreatment of them. This is the reality presently faced by Black people living under white dominance. All societal narratives about Black people are created exclusively by the white society, and then are imposed upon Black populations. These narratives are rarely ever accurate; they’re usually false negative distorted interpretations of Black populations that serves the hidden nefarious racist agendas of the white oppressive society. “ To hold a people in oppression you have to convince them first that they are supposed to be oppressed. “ - Dr. John Henrik Clarke YOUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY IS AN ELABORATE WHITE DECEPTION: We Black people are being totally deceived about our collective state by a racist white society. Here is a fact that they keep from you. In spite of cultural traumas wrought by the injustice of white racism and slavery, it is actually Black people that are responsible for most of the inventions that have revolutionized the world. Case, Point, and Verifiable Proof: Do you know that without Black people there would not exist skyscrapers. This is because Black people invented the elevator, the air conditioning, and central heating. Alexander Miles invented the Elevator, Fredrick Jones invented the air conditioner, and Alice Parker, a Black woman, invented the heating furnace in 1919 which provided central heating. Without Black people there wouldn’t be any cars, because Black people invented the motor, the spark plug, and the earliest car called the horseless carriage. J. Gregory invented the motor, Edmond Berger invented the spark plug. A Black inventor and carriage company entrepreneur named Charles Richard Patterson is a builder/designer of the earliest automobile. Patterson and his sons invented a car they nick named it the horseless carriage. C.R. Patterson and Sons were forced out of business by Henry Ford. In 1939, the company closed its big wooden doors. These are all facts that white historians have concealed. There is more: If you enjoy using the internet thank Philip Emeagwali, a Nigerian computer scientist, is regarded by many as being the father of the Internet. He invented the super computer in 1987. It was his formula that used 65,000 separate computer processors to perform 3.1 billion calculations per second in 1989. That feat led to computer scientists comprehending the capabilities of supercomputers and the practical applications of creating a system that allowed multiple computers to communicate. Philip Emeagwali also invented the accurate weather forecasting system in 1990. He also used his mathematical and computer expertise to develop methods for extracting more petroleum from oil fields. If you enjoy sending emails thank a African American name Emmit McHenry. McHenry created a complex computer code whereby ordinary people can now surf the web or have e-mails without studying computer science. He created what we know today simply as .com. If you enjoy your digital cellphone thank an African American name Jesse Eugene Russell. He is an inventor and electrical engineer that invented digital cellular technology. He pioneered the field of digital cellular communication in the 1980s through the use of high power linear amplification and low bit rate voice encoding technologies and received a patent in 1992 (US patent #5,084,869) for digital cellular base station design. Jesse Russell holds several patents and is a key person to the invention of the modern cell phone. If you enjoy using your PC monitor thank an African American named Dr. Mark Dean. Dean is the Inventor/Computer scientist and engineer responsible for developing a number of landmark technologies, including the modern color PC monitor, the Industry Standard in 1981. In 1999, Dean also led a team of programmers to develop one of the stepping stones of modern day computer technology— the first gigahertz chip. The CMOS microprocessor chip is remarkable because it processed a billion calculations and large amounts of data in a second. Dean hold 20 individual patents. Dr. Thomas O. Mensah is a Ghanaian born chemical engineer and inventor. Is the inventor of fiber optics and nanotechnology. He was awarded 7 USA and worldwide patents in fiber optics. In all, he has some 14 patents. Dr. Patricia Bath, an African American scientist invented, and patented in 1988 the cataract laserphaco probe that help save the eye sight of millions. Millions of people around the world unknowingly owes their eyes sight to this Black woman. Mark Hannah developed the 3D graphics technology that now used in many major Hollywood movies Shirley Ann Jackson made several telecommunications breakthroughs which led to the touch-tone phone, caller I.D. and call waiting. Marie Van Brittan Brown invented the home surveillance security system. Henry Sampson invented the non digital cellular phone in 1983. Here is one that will surprise many of you. Although we’re taught the false narrative within our schools that it was Thomas Edison that brought light to the dark world, it was actually an African American inventor named Lewis Latimer that actually achieved this. Edison’s lightbulb wasn’t efficient enough to be used within homes nor businesses. It burned too hot, wasn’t bright enough, and didn’t last long at all. The life spans of Edison’s Lightbulbs were very short. They often lasted only a few minutes. It was actually Lewis Latimer’s lightbulb that was set up within homes, businesses and cities around the world. Latimer invented a brighter, longer lasting bulb. Latimer devised a way of encasing the filament within an cardboard envelope which prevented the carbon from breaking and thereby provided a brighter, much longer lasting life bulb, and hence made the bulbs less expensive and more efficient. This enabled electric lighting to be installed within homes and throughout streets. Latimer was dispatched to install the first electric plants in Philadelphia, New York City and Montreal and oversaw the installation of lighting in railroad stations, government building and major thoroughfares in Canada, New England and London. Therefore the lightbulb within our homes and business are the results of Latimer instead of Edison. It was also Lewis Latimer that drew out the patent plans for Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone in 1876. [ Research it!] These facts have been kept out of all white texts books. So our society therefore functions based upon the false narrative that honors Thomas Edison, because he was white, and ignores the true man that is responsible for lighting up the world, Lewis Latimore, because he was Black. There is more: Gerald A Lawson invented the first home video game system with inter changeable cartridges. Percy L. Julian invented the process of synthesis which led to the birth control pill and improvement in cortisone production. There is more: G.T. Sampson invented the clothes drier in 1892. George R. Carruthers invented the ultra violent camera spectrograph In1885, two Black inventors, L S. Burridge and N.R. Marsham, invented the typewriter J. Gregory invented the motor Six African Americans scientists were essential in the making of the first atomic bomb. One was J. Ernest Wilkins, one of the world’s leading mathematicians who earned his PhD at the age of seventeen. Alexander Miles invented the Elevator and safety devices for elevator. Patent no 371,207 Alice Parker, a Black woman, is credited with inventing the heating furnace in 1919 which provided central heating. Garret A. Morgan invented the automatic traffic signal and the gas mask. Edmond Berger invented the spark plug. J.B. Winters invented the fire escape ladder. John L. Love invented the Pencil sharpener 23- 11-189 Patent # 594114. Fredrick Jones invented the air conditioner. John A. Johnson invented the wrench John Standard invented the refrigerator Lewis Howard Latimer invented the electric lamp and the filament for the light bulbs. The small Pox Inoculation method was brought from Africa by African named Onesimus Phillip Downing invented the letter drop mail box 10-27-1892 John Burr invented the Lawn mower Marjorie Joyner holds the patent for the permanent hair wave machine. Lloyd Hall created the chemical compound that preserves meat S.H. Love invented improvements to military guns 22-4-1919 S.H. Love invented improvements to the vending machine 1-21-1933 W.A. Lovette invented the advanced printing press Thomas J. Martin invented the fire extinguisher 3-261872 W.D. Davis invented the riding saddle 10-6-1895 The white society has manipulated most of you to believe that most inventions that have revolutionized the world were invented by white men. Moreover that therefore - thru these inventions- most Black people have benefited from the genius of white men. However, in reality most inventions that have revolutionized the world were invented by Black people, and more white people have in fact benefited globally from the genius of Black minds. There is more: Do you know that the first successful open heart surgery on this planet was performed by a Black surgeon within a Black owned Hospital? Dr. Daniel Hale Williams (1856-1931) founded Provident Hospital and Training School for Nurses (the first black-owned hospital in America) in 1891. And he performed the first successful open heart surgery in 1893. Following the surgery white surgeons from around the country and the world came to learn from Dr Williams. Many white surgeon had attempted the surgery early but their patients died. In 1940, Dr. Charles Drew, another African American doctor achieved yet another medical pioneering break through. He invented blood plasma. And, just like Dr. Williams had experienced much earlier, white doctors traveled from around the world to learn from Dr. Drew. Dr. Drew was asked by white government officials to established blood banks the world. Those Black people that do not critically think and question the validity of all information from white sources are the ones that become self hating and mentally enslaved. It’s an elaborate psychological warfare campaign. If you think this disclosure is some ridiculous conspiracy theory then you don’t know history nor of how societies truly function. Throughout western history empires that maintain their power, have done so by perpetually manipulating the oppressed. Therefore the oppressed perception of themselves and their reality are never true. It is always a false negative image of themselves that have been shrewdly ingrained into their minds by their oppressors --without the oppressed even knowing it. White social scientist describes this nefarious hidden societal practice as merely instilling a value system into the subordinate population that makes them adhere to dominance and existing infrastructure of the ruling society. It is a psychological warfare system that is literally design makes the oppressed group accept their own subordinate status within the society. There is more: THE MYTH OF WHITE SUPERIORITY IS AN ELABORATE WHITE DECEPTION. Case and Point: Do you know that African Babies Advance Earlier and Faster Than European Babies? In the Developmental Psychology of the Black Child, Dr. Amos Wilson analyzes studies conducted by white social scientists that revealed significant differences in how quickly Black babies develop compared to European babies. The study found that at only 9 hours old African babies were able to prevent their heads from falling backwards. It took European babies roughly six weeks to accomplish this. By the time African babies were 11 months old, they were able to climb the steps alone while European babies typically didn’t accomplish this until they were 15 months old. The study focused specifically on African babies, but Wilson explains that the same trends were also found to be true in Black children of other nationalities. Studies have also found that Whites are also More Prone to Life Time Mental Disorders than Blacks: Four recent studies funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Consortium on Psychiatric Epidemiology Studies (CPES) reported that whites have the highest rate of lifetime mental disorders. These four reports are also a direct contrast of the perpetuated myth of white superiority. A Cornell University led study also found that Whites are both genetically weaker and less diverse than Blacks: The Cornell study, published in the journal Nature, also found by analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 White Americans and 15 African-Americans, that whites had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African Americans. That fact was reinforced by a larger-scale study, also published in Nature, led by scientists from the Universities of Michigan and Virginia who analyzed genetic samples of 485 individuals scattered around the globe whose DNA is recorded in a French databank. The researchers also found that Blacks are genetically stronger and had the greatest amount of genetic diversity. White people are far more prone to various genetic defects, malfunctions and disorders. White people also have thinner skins that ages more rapidly than the skin of black people. Their skin begins to wrinkles and muscles begins to decrease at a much faster rate than we blacks do. The bone density of white people are also less dense than those of black people. Do you know that the real reason white people perform laboratory experiments on white lab rats is because those white lab rats share the same genetic code as they share? They share two common factors. Those white rats are deliberately inbred to mimic the genealogy of so-called “Caucasians.” White people perform experiments on white inbred rats to see how experiments potentially go over in the human Caucasoid population. If they want to know how something will impact the normal population, the benchmark used is a normally colored rat. In the human world, if they want to know how something will impact the normal human population, their benchmark is a black human being. Black humans contain the fully dominant developed genes and genealogy is the benchmark for normalcy. Ever notice why white people have far more tolerance for milk? (they're the most lactose tolerant because they need it the most) Since white people reflect sunlight with white skin, they do not synthesize vitamin D like normal people, and this automatically decreases calcium levels in the blood. This is why white people-particularly white women--are at greatest risk for osteoporosis. Their bodies always need calcium because it is always robbed from their bodies. To compensate, they have to have calcium depleted from their bones, leaving their bones porous and weak and leaving whites susceptible to osteoporosis. Normal people, after reaching a certain age, no longer need milk and should be waned off of it. In the wild, when was the last time you saw a full grown animal still suckling its mother? Caucasians need supplements to help them make up for the Vitamin D deficiency. This is why most people who are lactose intolerant are black people. White people are not only the most lactose tolerant, but most needy. In the supermarket, notice how many products have calcium added in them from orange juice and other fruit juices to breakfast cereal? All that extra calcium fortification is to aid whites in their inability to maintain healthy vitamin D levels in their bodies because of the genetic defect. This is the governments way of “leveling the playing field” if you will. Brown Eyes vs Blue Eyes: Blue eyes are more prone to macular degeneration than brown. The brown in the eye is a melanin compound that allows you to absorb sunlight better and is beneficial in other ways as well. Blue eyes are the most sensitive to lights and dark brown eyes are least. Melanin shields from sunburn and lowers chance of melanoma. Black is not only beautiful, it’s healthy. The myth of white racial superiority is also totally debunked at its genetic core: The genetic characteristic of Black people are defined as the dominant gene while the genetic characteristic of whites are defined of the recessive gene. By definition in the study of genetic science the Dominant genes are defined as superior to the Recessive genes. This is a scientific fact of the science of genetics. A fact that whites deliberately hide because it scientifically refutes the perpetuated myth of their racial superiority. Clearly the bodies of whites are not genetically superior. These types of studies and results are being intentionally withheld from major media circulation in order to perpetuate the myth of white superiority. White superiority is a myth created by white controllers of misinformation. The truth is the exact opposite. THERE IS MORE: THIS SYSTEM IS ALSO BEING USED TO KEEP BLACK PEOPLE DIVIDED AND SELF HATING. The white media's unrelenting negative depictions of Black people-- that amplifies the negative to the point that it distort reality-- is much more than just bias media reporting. It is actually a Black Racially Demoralizing Divide and Conquer psychological warfare system. Black people are the unknowing targets of the most elaborate Demoralizing Divide n Conquer psychological warfare campaign in world history. It’s how white societies protects themselves from Black retribution. Demoralizing Divide and Conquer is the method of maintaining control over an oppressed population by creating feelings of self loathing amongst them and encouraging dissent between them. The implementation of this warfare tactic against Black people is secretly deemed necessary because while white societies, through their military strength, can invade, rob, and enslave Black people, they cannot win the loyalty of Black people, or sustain peace with Black people for long unless systems are put in place to keep Black people loyal, or to suppress dissent from among Black people. This divide and conquer tactic meets these objective. It is a well proven tactic that has been used for centuries by oppressors for controlling and subduing their oppressed populations. Because when the oppressed are made self loathing and divided this makes them much more easier to control and subdue. This system is deplored like a massive media marketing campaign that constantly subjects Black people to seeing only the fraudulent worst within themselves. Within this system fraudulent black racially demoralizing propaganda is pumped unrelentingly into the unsuspecting minds of Black populations--without being challenged or counterbalanced by an equal amount Black positive racially affirming information. Its weapon is the message that it carries. It conveys the subliminal message that Black people are there own worst enemy and therefore needs whites to govern over their lives. Moreover, that Black people should admire, respect, and trust only Whites. This system is extremely effective because when Black people are repetitively presented these noted narratives from trusted white media sources it can be very difficult to resist it's implied programming. Especially when the propaganda is being told daily and so unrelentingly. With time, being unable to refute the constant negative information about themselves, many Black people eventually comes to accept them. They unconsciously influences how many within the Black population perceives themselves, creating division and self hatred among themselves. Most importantly this system turns the collective aggressions of Black people away from the white society and turns them inward towards themselves. All long-term oppressions requires that the minds of the oppressed by constantly manipulated and that their collective aggressions be turned against themselves and away from the oppressive society; if not retribution and rebellion from the oppressed becomes inevitable. This brainwashing system is so effective that there are Black people that will insist that their negative assessment of their entire race is absolutely accurate. However, those Black people that presently makes negative generalization about their entire race cannot actually validate these statements based upon their own personal experiences. Those that insist that they can are not critically thinking or they’re delusional. Because it is not humanly possible to assess the collective state of millions of people based upon anyone’s individual experiences. These negative perceptions about our entire race were actually deliberately indoctrinated into the minds of many Black people by deceptive white sources. When you’re told a lie enough time it becomes a part of your reality. You begin to only see those things that appears to confirm the lie. White oppressive forces thoroughly studied this mental phenomenon and weaponized it against Black people. This psychological warfare program works so well in fact that it not only makes Black people more compliant with white dominance over their lives, it in fact makes many even prefer it.It is at the root of both the feeling of self hatred now afflicting so many Black people and is at the heart of internalized feelings of superiority that many whites possess. “The oppressed will always believe the (fraudulent) worse about themselves.” — Franz Fanon "If you do not understand White Supremacy (Racism)-what it is, and how it works-everything else will only confuse you". Neely Fuller Jr. Your entire perception of reality is a white deception. The more truth you learn, the more you’ll understand why they hate us so much. Their profound hatred toward us started many centuries ago as a profound envy toward us. Franklin Jones - The Black Matrix Learn more at www.theblackpeoplematrix.com

31 notes · View notes

schraubd · 6 years

Text

(How) Do White Jews Uphold White Supremacy? (Part II)

In my post this morning, I explained how -- given the understanding of "White supremacy" and "upholding" that Tamika Mallory was using -- it is perfectly coherent to state, as Mallory did, that White Jews may "uphold White supremacy" even while we are (as Mallory also acknowledged) targeted by White supremacy. I argued that -- putting aside Mallory's own checkered history on the subject -- much of the present controversy was terminological in nature and that while such a semantic debate isn't unimportant, it is a far cry from the sort of overheated rhetoric whereby Mallory was accusing Jews of being tantamount to Klansmen. In America, pale-skinned Jews of proximate European descent receive many (not all) of the day-to-day advantages of Whiteness. Insofar as White supremacy is understood more as a social condition than a social movement -- the state of affairs whereby White persons are systematically advantaged, not the cluster of individuals and organizations consciously and overtly ideologically committed to promoting the explicit ideal that Whites are superior -- it is fair to say (and almost unquestionably true) that White Jews who look like me are net beneficiaries of that system, and may well act in ways that (implicitly or explicitly) reenact or perpetuate that advantageous state of affairs. This doesn't mean we don't also face antisemitism (any more than White women don't also face misogyny), and it is also wholly compatible with hating and being hated by groups like the Klan. And if you think the above paragraphs are reasonable, but blanch at labeling them "White supremacy", then the debate you're having is -- again -- primarily one of semantics, not substance. That said, if the purpose of the first post was to work through how it is fair to think of White Jews "as Whites" (and thereby implicated in White supremacy), at the end of that post I suggested that there was a more layered and complicated discussion to be had about the relationship between Jews and Whiteness, one that can help explain why so many Jews react so fiercely against the label "White" and which puts important limits on the utility of "White Jews" as a concept. This is a conversation that is short-circuited when people act as if White Jews are not White in any capacity -- a position which, as applied to American Jews with my skin tone, seems wholly at odds with reality. But it is also a conversation that can only occur if it is acknowledged that Whiteness is "of a different color" as applied to Jews -- that the characteristics of Whiteness, including what Jews can "do" with Whiteness, are different than how we might understand Whiteness simpliciter. Start with the question of why many Jews who by all appearances look White seem to so fiercely reject the association. One explanation for this behavior is that it is a rather uninteresting permutation on the practice of many White people to deny the privileges they receive through Whiteness. The retreat to ethnic identity ("I'm not White, I'm Irish") or deracinated individualism ("I'm just a person") are ways to occlude the reality of how Whiteness continues to operate in America. And so, it might be thought, when Jews say "we're not White, we're Jewish", they're simply pulling their own version of that maneuver. Those who are familiar with Whiteness, are familiar with this move, and have long since learned not to take it very seriously. Now sometimes, something like this account might suffice as the explanation for Jews who resist being labeled White -- particularly in cases where there is the most uncompromising insistence that White Jews are completely unassociated with Whiteness in America, that we gain nothing from America's racial bargain. But often, there's more to it than that. As someone who once rode the "I'm not White, I'm Jewish" train (and who tries to remember the I before I changed my mind), I know there's more at work here. One problem with Jews-as-White, which has been raised quite a bit in response to Mallory or anyone else who tries to associate Jews with Whiteness in America, is that Jews have often been oppressed precisely because we haven't been viewed as White. White supremacist violence is an obvious case, the Nazi Holocaust is its apex. Given this history, there is something hurtful and insulting to cavalierly declare that Jews are simply "White". Anyone should understand why statements to the effect of "the Holocaust was White-on-White crime" or "we only care about the Holocaust because the victims were White" provoke an apoplectic reaction in the Jewish community. It is a disgusting erasure, and one that is teed up when Jewish Whiteness is assumed as an uncomplicated truth. It shouldn't surprise, then, that many Jews rebel against being labeled "White" as a means of carving out and preserving space for full recognition of the realities of this persecution. As much as I say a American Jew like me today is functionally White in my day-to-day interactions, that hasn't always been true, it isn't always guaranteed to be true, and it isn't even wholly true right now. To the extent that insisting on Jewish Whiteness denies or diminishes the reality of very real and very live instances of antisemitism, it needs complication. Another problem with Jews-as-White, less discussed but I think potentially more important, is that Jews are sometimes perceived as excessively White. Particularly in the Nation of Islam brand of antisemitism that Mallory has been associated with, Jews are often cast as embodying or exemplifying Whiteness -- the "iciest of the ice people", in Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s summation. Bootstrapping onto antisemitic tropes of Jewish hyperpower and control, Jews become a convenient and accessible stand-in for Whiteness at its worst -- its most domineering, its most overprivileged, and its most bloodthirsty (this is a problem I explore in detail in my "White Jews: An Intersectional Approach" article). Hence, calls to focus on Jewish Whiteness are sometimes heard as (and sometimes function as) calls to cast a very specific spotlight on Jews as the worst offenders of Whiteness (and look how they try to slither out of responsibility for it!), or as the focal point for an assault on Whiteness and White privilege. What is cast as a general critique of "White supremacy" ends up being a specific, concentrated attack on Jews as its supposedly paradigmatic constituency. Hence, if one reason Jews try to downplay their Whiteness is that the concept of White Jews denies circumstances and scenarios where even pale-skinned Jews are not viewed as White, another reason is that concept of White Jews accentuates tropes and understandings whereby Jews are viewed as the most extreme, blinding iteration of White -- generally via exaggerated notions of Jewish hyperpower and privilege. These can and do very easily slip into their own forms of antisemitism, and so it shouldn't surprise that many Jews view the entire discourse quite warily. These are some reasons why Jews have, I think, an earned skepticism towards Whiteness discourse directed at them, even as I continue to maintain that the concept of Whiteness is fairly and coherently applied to the life trajectory of Jews like me. But I suggested at the outset that I was making a more ambitious claim: not just that we need to be careful when speaking of Jewish Whiteness (lest we stumble into antisemitic tropes of Jewish hyperpower, or erase historical or contemporaneous cases where Jews really aren't being viewed as White), but that Whiteness is different in kind even for those Jews who are (in the American context) raced-as-White. To drill down on this point, let's return to Mallory's original statement. One way of parsing her words -- and how I think many people think of the relationship between Jews and Whiteness -- is something like the following:

White Jews in America are White in all respects save the important fact that White supremacists want to murder them.

I don't mean for that to sound flip -- being the target of violent hatred by a domestic terrorist movement is no small thing! Rather, what characterizes this view is that the Whiteness of White Jews is identical to the Whiteness of any other White person in America save for a discrete and well-demarcated carve-out. Hence, whatever discourse is validly spoken of "Whites", generally, also applies to "White Jews", specifically (save, again, for the highly specific case of "being targeted for murder by White supremacists"). With very limited exceptions, there's nothing about how we talk about Whiteness that isn't applicable or needs alteration in the specifically White Jewish case. But I think this view is wrong. Jews, even as White, are differently situated than other Whites, such that it doesn't always make sense to simply cross-apply a Whiteness frame even onto White Jews. For example, one way it is often said that White people (particularly White women) "uphold White supremacy" is that the majority (or at least a plurality) voted for Donald Trump. To all the White women marching in their pink hats and calling themselves the "resistance", this fact has created a rather compelling demand that they "tend to [their] own garden." As a class, White women are not particularly progressive and not particularly reliable even in the really easy, straightforward case of "don't vote for a naked bigot and unqualified buffoon like Donald Trump." Yet it should be very obvious why it's troublesome to extend this logic to Jews. Jews voted overwhelmingly against Trump in 2016 (and again against Republicans in 2018) -- 70% voting for Clinton overall (and, given typical gender breakdowns in voting behavior, Jewish women almost certainly went against Trump by even wider margins). With the exception of African-American voters, Jews are and have remained one of the most consistently progressive voting blocs in American politics -- voting Democratic at rates equal to or better than women, Latinos, and Asian-Americans. I'm not saying that a Hillary Clinton voter can't be racist, of course. But if voting against Trump is one obligation (perhaps the bare minimum obligation) that any decent person must meet in order to not "uphold White supremacy", then it is fair to say Jews have by and large done our job discharging at least that one duty. That part of our garden looks pretty healthy, all told. So it is fair for White Jews to bristle a little bit when they're lumped in with a broader White demographic which has backed Trump. At least as far as voting behavior, "White Jewish" identity has not, by and large, obstructed White Jews from standing against the avatars of White supremacy. And speaking of tilling your own garden, one common feature of Whiteness discourse is the assertion that White people have a particular obligation to challenge and dismantle racist practices by other Whites. This obligation inheres in part because Whites, as beneficiaries of these practices, have special duties to disgorge any ill-gotten gains, but also because in White supremacist system Whites often are accorded greater power, influence, and credibility enabling them to more effectively disrupt White supremacist practices. Claims or arguments that are made and ignored when raised by people of color are often able to gain consideration when raised by Whites (for example, if you read the arguments in my last post and thought "finally, someone making sense" -- without recognizing that my analysis wasn't really that different from how many Jews of Color had responded to Mallory (see, e.g.) -- (a) thanks for the compliment, and (b) welcome to the problem! So it could be said that White Jews, as Whites, have heightened obligations to publicly challenge and confront White racism, because (for better or worse) we're viewed as "insiders" with greater credibility and pull than non-Whites when making those challenges. But is that actually true of White Jews? I'm skeptical. And, perhaps oddly, my skepticism has been most clearly crystallized through observing the Twitter experience of Sophie Ellman-Golan. Among the many social justice campaigns and priorities of the indefatigable Ellman-Golan, one in particular she often promotes is that need to #ConfrontWhiteWomanhood. It is, as one might expect, a campaign centered around the need for White women to take stock of the ways in which their practices reify White supremacy and other oppressive institutions. And pretty much every time Ellman-Golan tweets under the hashtag #ConfrontWhiteWomahood, she's immediately hit with a torrent of antisemitic abuse of the form "who you calling White, Jew?" It seems (and not just from Ellman-Golan's case) that White Jews who try to confront other White people about racism "from the inside" ... pretty quickly cease to be viewed as insiders. We are in fact presented as the epitome of outside agitators, rabble-rousers, and elitist corrupters. The White Jew who confronts White racism becomes a lot less White, and a lot more Jewish, very quickly. To be sure, I'm not saying its impossible to brush aside an "insider" anti-racism critique made by a White Christian American. But it sure is easier to do it if you can unleash a whole flotilla of "Soros-funded coastal elitist cosmopolitan cultural Marxist corrupting the youth committing White genocide and what about Israel!" antisemitic tropes at the drop of a hat. As it a result, Jews seem particularly poorly situated to engage in these sort of confrontations. Not just because we're at heightened risk of explicitly violent retaliation (though there is that), but because our White-insider status doesn't extend that far: Jews who challenge Whites, aren't recognized as White. Consequently, if White Jews are not or are not successfully "confronting Whiteness", it might not be because we're indifferent to the project or half-assing it. It might be because even White Jews don't have full access to certain features of Whiteness; we are not White in the same way that other Whites are. And while I don't have direct evidence to support this, my strong suspicion is that if and when White identity becomes a more explicitly marked and salient feature of American discourse (whether via progressive efforts to remove it from an unmarked default and "confront" it, or by reactionary programs to reinvigorate avowed White identity politics), the perception of Jewish Whiteness will become considerably more tenuous. In sum: clearly it is the case that White Jews in America are White in important respects -- including benefiting from many elements of White privilege and at least sometimes acting to maintain and buttress that advantaged status. At the same time, the frame of Whiteness is not one that can be plopped down on the heads of even White Jews uncritically or without alteration. For one, Whiteness discourse often genuinely does erase important facets of Jewish experience where we aren't deemed White. For two, Whiteness discourse, as applied to Jews, can act as an accelerant for antisemitic tropes insofar as Jews are cast not just as White but as hyper-White -- the epitome or apex of Whiteness via privilege, power, and domination. Finally, White Jews simply do not experience Whiteness in the same way as do other Whites. If race is, in Sara Ahmed's words, "a question of what is within reach, what is available to perceive and to do ‘things’ with", then Jews simply are able to "do" less with Whiteness. We don't have the same capacities to "challenge from the inside", our position as White is too precarious -- and the allure of antisemitic dismissal too powerful -- to allow it. What's necessary, then, is an analysis of White Jews as a specific case, one that isn't fully known even to those who are well-versed in the contours of "Whiteness" generally. A proper situating of Jews into Whiteness will not deny obvious realities about the racial positioning of Jews who look like me in America. But neither will it easily slide into the default modes of understanding of Whiteness, or assume that Jews like me are "simply" White save for a few piercing but ultimately idiosyncratic exceptions emanating from White supremacists. The fact is, a lot of people like to talk about Jews without really knowing about Jews. And they're often buttressed by interpretive frames -- Whiteness very much included -- which purport to fill in those epistemic gaps for "free", without needing any specific knowledge about Jews. But knowing Whiteness doesn't mean you know Jews -- even White Jews. And consequently, if the hostile response by many Jews to being labeled "White" rings familiar to many experts on Whiteness, that familiarity is likely a deception. It seduces us into thinking that we already know what needs to be known about White Jews -- that we can draw on the same explanations, that we can identify the same behaviors, and that we can demand the same duties, without putting in any additional specific work. The virtue of Mallory's statement is that it recognizes both that Jews can back and benefit from White supremacy and also be targeted and hurt by it -- an assertion that, in broad strokes at least, is clearly correct. Zoom in and there is a lot more work that needs to be done: first and foremost, the work of recognizing that there is a lot of work left to be done -- groundwork, foundational work where it accepted that most of us do not yet know what we need to know about the contours of antisemitism and Jewish experience. If you enjoyed these two posts, you might find interesting my essay "White Jews: An Intersectional Approach", forthcoming in the Association for Jewish Studies (AJS) Review. via The Debate Link http://bit.ly/2TbfocI

#anti-semitism #Jews #white supremacy #Whites

165 notes · View notes