#and yeah yeah my background is christianity and christianity is a major religion affecting western culture so

[anarchonist]

I think a big problem in our culture is equating intent and effect, and this works both when predicting the effect and when determining the cause. It is important to remember that just as having good intentions does not excuse the harm one causes, so does someone having caused harm not always mean they intended to cause harm all along.

We are able to know our own thoughts, so when we cause harm we may easily downplay it because "that's not what I intended", as if that would make the harm go away. And when we judge others who cause harm, we similarly try to work backwards from the assumption that harm requires intent - and since we see the harm but not the intent, we assign intent somewhere where it may not even exist.

None of this is to excuse people who cause harm, but maybe to clarify that what we call evil is not some nefarious satanic mindset of ill intent, but rather a stubborn unwillingness to critically examine whether you might be causing harm even if you don't actively intend to, and even whether or not you truly care.

And the more power you have, the easier it is to distance yourself from the harm you cause and keep causing it.

[moons-of-firdaws]

...No. Cultural Christinaity is about your proximity to Christian hemogny. Which does not exist in Iraq or India, where Christianity is a persecuted and oppressed group, and where the dominant culture is Muslim or Hindu, respectively.

I live in a majority-muslim country but I'm not Muslim. I still know what the five pillars of Islam are, what a prophet is (in Islam), what the Islamic Arabic name is for Jonah or Jesus and many other figures (which differs from their Christian Arabic names — Yasu vs Isa; Youna vs Yunis). I still know what the major (and even minor) Muslim holidays are and how they're traditionally celebrated. I was taught the Quran and Hadith in school. I'm aware of Sharia law, and how it's influenced our country's laws in matters of marriage, inheritance and divorce (amongst other things; such as how many witnesses are needed in court). That's cultural Islam, which has influenced me as a result of living in a culturally Muslim society even when Islam isn't my religion or culture.

Cultural Christinaity, or cultural [religion] isn't so much about your personal culture and background as an individual as much as it is about that of society, and your proximity to it — so, say, Christian hemogny, and how you participate in it and prepetuate it to the marginalization of minority religions.

That's what it's about, not your specific background. Iraqi or Indian Christians do not have proximity to Christian hemogny nor prepetuate it by virtue of not living in a culturally Christian society.

Also, Iraqi and Indian Christians are affected by western cultural Christinaity in that they get sent missionaries to convert them to western denominations of Christianity because theirs aren't seen as "valid enough." You know, the whole history in Iraq of how the Church of the East had a split that caused the Chaldean Catholic Church? The subsequent split that caused in Assyrian communities, especially when Church denominations were manipulated to be your ethnicity legally? And Chaldeans were, at a time, bared from identifying with the Assyrian people? Because under law these were two seperate ethnicities and peoplehoods? Even when they speak the same language and have the same history and share the same culture? Yeah.

I think what makes a lot of us culturally Christian is less the society as a whole that surrounds us as our family background. Someone from a Christian family who was not religious themselves and grew up in Iraq or India or another place where Christianity is not the dominant religion by any means could still be a cultural Christian. Especially if their family background has been Christian for many generations.

--

[juliusschmidt]

Someone sent me this ask: I'm getting a bit overwhelmed with all these things happening in the US. Tumblr and other social media are saying that what trump is doing is extremely wrong and unconstitutional, but one of my Republican cousins posted a video with Bill Clinton proposing a ban on illegal immigrants and on the lines what Trump was saying in his campaign. idk I've seen how people are reacting to trump, I'd say they have different approaches to same things. But i'm not so sure anymore. this sucks

Oh goodness. That's a lot.

I don't know about 'unconstitutional,' but I'm certainly of the belief that a lot of what Trump is doing is 'extremely wrong.' (In fact, I think part of what's frightening to people like myself is that a good deal of it isn't clearly unconstitutional.) However, you're right to notice that things are more complicated than social media portrays them to be. 

This got super long. Topics covered: immigration policy, my opinion on these immigration questions, a note about citing politicians��� opinions, reactions to Trump and Trump supporters 

ETA: It’s been pointed out to me that a huge part of the immigration conversation revolves around whether or not people are ‘illegal’ or ‘undocumented’, so I’ve added a bit about that.

Immigration Policy

Immigration is a hugely polarizing issue in the US and I’m no expert, but I’ll try to paint the picture with broad strokes. 

People who oppose it are (openly) concerned about ‘cultural fragmentation’ (the idea that the English language, Christianity, and western dress are all essential to American Culture and worth defending to the point of imposing these norms onto newcomers), immigrants taking their jobs or their children’s jobs in a climate with relatively high unemployment, undocumented immigrants receiving benefits (schools, roads, healthcare, food stamps) without having their incomes monitored to see whether or not they should be paying taxes into the system that pays out for these benefits, and the arrival of terrorists and gangs/cartels from the middle east and global south.  

People who approve of it say that immigration is an essential part of our so-called American culture (that before we are English-speaking or Christian, we are a nation of immigrants), that we live in a globalized world where trade and ideas are passing between borders and in which we need to allow for people to also pass between borders to facilitate commerce and science, that immigrants are good for the American economy bringing necessary labor and skills and innovations and ideas that boost the quality of life for all Americans, that we have a moral duty to open our borders to as many people fleeing violence or oppression or extreme economic hardship as we can reasonably fit. 

Most Americans fall somewhere in between these two stances. 

Neither position is essentially Democratic or Republican. Even though, currently, Democrats are for the most part pro-immigration and this sitting Republican president is ‘protectionist’ (xenophobic?), a lot of (wealthy) Republicans (like George W. Bush) have traditionally been pro-immigration and a lot of (labor) Democrats have traditionally opposed more open borders. 

A lot of the conversation revolves around whether people are in the country legally or not, the preferred term for the latter being ‘undocumented.’ The question of how to deal with people who are not on the books in the US has, indeed, long been the biggest topic of debate. 

Trump’s conversation and actions have affected both documented and undocumented immigrants. 

So let’s separate out two related, but different hot topics. 

1) Trump said a lot on the campaign about a building wall and about ‘illegal immigrants.’ He signed two executive orders dealing with this last Wednesday. (Summary here.) These comments and these orders are mostly directed at immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America and primarily undocumented immigrants. Democratic presidents like BIll Clinton (and even Barack Obama) supported similar measures (partly to appease their labor base who saw immigrants from south of the border as a direct threat to their jobs). People on the left didn’t like this, but it didn’t strike people’s hearts the same way the more recent immigration related executive order has. T

2) The more recent executive order has to do with immigrants and refugees from seven majority Muslim countries.  (Summary here). Here is a comprehensive argument for why it’s unconstitutional. This affects many people with green cards and proper visas, well-documented immigrants. (It should be noted that because of this, the courts have put a stay on the ban, stopping it temporarily, until they can take it up and decide on its constitutionality formally.) 

Also, there’s been a huge outcry from people who would otherwise support this order because it took effect so quickly and so clumsily. The people who had to enforce the order didn’t know exactly how they were meant to do it. 

My Opinion on these Immigration Questions 

Obviously, borders exist for a reason. Very simply: different nations have different governments with different laws and taxation systems and different citizen rights and benefits/resources (roads, policing, schools, health care, military protection). We need to monitor immigration to manage which laws and which benefits apply to whom and at what time (especially, imo, so that the people who hold all the $$$ like Bill Gates and *cough* Donald Trump don't move about in such a way that they are paying taxes to no nation and reaping the benefits of all the nations) (oh. fucking. wait.) (ANYWAY!). (Which, by the way, did you know that eight people hold as much wealth as the poorest 50% of people in the world?)  

Additionally, immigrants and their demographics (where they come from, how much wealth they bring with them, and how educated they are) impact the local US economy (usually for the better, but not always and not for everyone). I believe that immigration policy (and trade policy) needs to be attentive to the American workers who are so often left behind, not by penalizing immigrants, but by helping out these out-of-work laborers, perhaps with tax benefits, extended unemployment benefits, and/or fully-subsidized new industry training programs. 

But all that is background noise. Here’s the heart of the matter for me: immigrants, especially impoverished immigrants, and especially especially impoverished immigrants on the ethnic and cultural margins (who don’t speak the language, who don’t practice the same religion, whose physical appearance differs) are vulnerable people. And we have a moral duty as human beings to protect and free vulnerable peoples and to uplift their stories so that history does not repeat itself. 

When a vulnerable person says, this policy hurts me and my family, we have to listen for the truth in that. And quite frankly, Trump’s most recent executive order re: immigrants has caused so much pain that it’s hard to miss it. Families have been ripped apart. People were literally being detained without legal access in airports around the world. People fleeing violence in their home countries, who have spent months and often years being vetted for entry, are now being turned away. 

(Also, as a person of the Judeo-Christian faith, I believe I have a Biblically-based ethical imperative to fight for refugees and accept and protect immigrants. But that’s a whole different essay.) 

Note about Citing Politicians’ Opinions 

My feelings about Bill Clinton’s policies are lukewarm so I’m not inclined to bite on that video. He was a moderate in his time and I’m a progress now, at a moment when the progressive movement has (for the better, imo) moved even farther to left (I believe and hope through dialogue with and leadership of vulnerable and marginalized people). Bill Clinton also wanted to be ‘tough on crime,’ using approaches to criminal legislation, policing, and sentencing that have been proven to harm communities, not help them. He also drafted trade policies that protected CEO’s profits not workers’ well-beings. 

It’s important for both progressives and conservatives to be careful not to agree with something just because it’s supported by someone we like. We need to make sure that our policies- no mater who supports them- are lining up with our values (mine being justice, compassion, and freedom for all). 

Reactions to Trump and Trump Supporters 

I’m of the unpopular opinion (unpopular in my progressive corner of the internet, at least) that we need to respect all human beings, even the most vile and oppressive ones. That does not mean condoning or allowing their abusive attitudes and behaviors. In fact, out of respect for their souls, we sure as shit should be confronting them. 

I’m also of the unpopular opinion that not all conservatives or even all Trump supporters are equal. Not all of them white supremacist nazis. Some of them are, yeah. But not all. 

People I love voted for Trump and guess what? I haven’t stopped loving them. 

A lot of the people I know and love that supported Trump have been frustrated by the political system for years, feeling like the professional class, which dominates the media, disrespects their culture and their work. A lot of them volunteer with their churches’ homeless shelters and soup kitchens and a lot of them care deeply for the vulnerable in their communities.

The creation of conservative media silos and the gaslighting of those stuck in them has effectively changed their perspective on reality. 

And it fucking sucks and makes me really angry at them, but it doesn’t change the fact that my dear family friend, who went on a loud pro-Trump rant in the middle of the hospital while his wife was having brain surgery, also gave me my first job and drove eight hours (roundtrip) in a day to cry like a baby at my wedding. It doesn’t change the fact that my Aunt Mary, who’s had a Trumbip sign proudly in her front yard since this time last year, babysat me five and sometimes six days a week until I went to kindergarten, showed me how to make mundane errands into an adventure, and taught me to laugh at myself. 

Continuing to be in relationship with these people means confronting them about some things and it means letting some things go. I do recognize that I  can continue to be in relationship because there’s nothing about my publicly known identity of which they disapprove. 

But what it comes down to for me is this: I’m not going to let the right take those meaningful, life-affirming relationships from me, too. I’m just not.  

So, in conclusion, yeah, it sucks. :(

[olderthannetfic]

I'm a Chinese, nationally and racially. Racial projection seems to be a common practice in western fandom, doesn't it? I find it a bit... weird to witness the drama ignited upon shipping individuals with different races, or the tendency to separate characters into different "colors" even though the world setting doesn't divide races like that. Such practice isn't a thing here. Mind explaining a bit on this phenomenon?

--

Sure, I can try. But of course, fish aren’t very good at explaining the water they swim in.

Americans aren’t good at detecting our own Americanness, and a lot of what you’re seeing is very much culturally American rather than Western in general. (In much of Europe, “race” is a concept used by racists, or so I’m told, unlike in the US where it’s seen more neutrally.) Majority group members (i.e. me, a white girl) aren’t usually the savviest about minority issues, but I’ll give it a shot.

The big picture is that most US race stuff boils down to our attempts to justify and maintain slavery and that dynamic being applied, awkwardly, to everyone else too, even years after we abolished slavery.

There’s a concept called the “one drop rule” where a person is “black” if they have even one drop of black blood.

We used to outlaw “interracial” marriage until quite recently. (That meant marriage between black people and white people with Asians and Hispanic people and others wedged in awkwardly.) Here’s the Wikipedia article on this, which contains the following map showing when we legalized interracial marriage. The red states are 1967.

That’s within living memory for a ton of people! Yellow is 1948 to 1967. This is just not very long ago at all. (Hell, we only fully banned slavery in 1865, which is also just not that long ago when it comes to human culture.)

Why did we have this bananas-crazy set of laws and this idiotic notion that one remote ancestor defines who you are? It boils down to slavery requiring a constant reaffirming that black people are all the same (and subhuman) while white people are all this completely separate category. The minute you start intermarrying, all of that breaks down. This was particularly important in our history because our system of slavery involved the kids of slaves being slaves and nobody really buying their way out. Globally, historically, there are other systems of slavery where there was more mobility or where enslaved people were debtors with a similar background to owners, and thus the people in power were less threatened by ambiguity in identity.

Post-slavery, this shit hung around because it was in the interests of the people in power to maintain a similar status quo where black people are fundamentally Other.

A lot of our obsession with who counts as what is simply a legacy of our racist past that produced our racist present.

--

The other big factor in American concepts of identity is that we see ourselves as a nation of immigrants (ignoring our indigenous peoples, as usual). A lot of people’s families arrived here relatively recently, and we often don’t have good records of exactly where they were from, even aside from enslaved people who obviously wouldn’t have those records. Plenty of people still identify with a general nationality (”Italian-American” and such), but the nuance the family might once have had (specific region of Italy, specific hometown) is often lost. Yeah, I know every place has immigrants, and lots of people don’t have good records, but the US is one of those countries where families have on average moved around a lot more and a lot more recently than some, and it affects our concepts of identity. I think some of the willingness to buy into the idea of “races” rather than “ethnicities” has to do with this flattening of identity.

New immigrant groups were often seen as Other and lesser, but over time, the ones who could manage it got added to our concept of “whiteness”, which gave them access to those same social and economic privileges.

Skin color is a big part of this. In a system that is founded on there being two categories, white owners and black slaves, skin color is obviously going to be about that rather than being more of a class marker like it is in a lot of the world.

But it’s not all about skin color since we have plenty of Europeans with somewhat darker skin who are seen as generically white here, while very pale Asians are not. I’m not super familiar with all of the history of anti-Asian racism in the US, but I think this persistent Otherness probably boils down to Western powers trying to justify colonial activities in Asia plus a bunch of religious bullshit about predominantly Christian nations vs. ones that are predominantly Buddhist or some other religion.

In fact, a lot of racist archetypes in English can be traced back to England’s earliest colonial efforts in Ireland. Justifying colonizing Those People because they’re subhuman and/or ignorant and in need of paternalistic rulers or religious conversion is at the bottom of a lot of racist notions. Ironic that we now see Irish people as clearly “white”.

--

There are a lot of racist porn tropes and racist cultural baggage here around the idea of black people being animalistic. Racist white people think black men want to rape/steal white women from white men. Black women get seen as hypersexual and aggressive. If this sounds like white people projecting in order to justify murder and rape... well, it is.

Similar tropes get applied to a lot of groups, often including Hispanic and Middle Eastern people, though East Asians come in more for creepy fantasies about endlessly submissive and promiscuous women. This nonsense already existed, but it was certainly not helped by WWII servicemen from here and their experiences in Asia. Again, it’s a projection to justify shitty behavior as what the party with less power was “asking for”.

In porn and even romance novels, this tends to turn up as a white character the audience is supposed to identify with paired with an exotic, mysterious Other or an animalistic sexy rapist Other.

A lot of fandoms are based on US media, so all of our racist bullshit does apply to the casting and writing of those, whether or not the fic is by Americans or replicating our racist porn tropes.

(Obviously, things get pretty hilarious and infuriating once Americans get into c-dramas and try to apply the exact same ideas unchanged to mainstream media about the majority group made by a huge and powerful country.)

--

Politically, within the US, white people have had most of the power most of the time. We also make up a big chunk of the population. (This is starting to change in some areas, which has assholes scared shitless.) This means that other groups tend to band together to accomplish shared political goals. They’re minorities here, so they get lumped together.

A lot of Americans become used to seeing the world in terms of “white people” who are powerful oppressors and “people of color” who are oppressed minorities. They’re trying to be progressive and help people with less power, and that’s good, but it obviously becomes awkward when it’s over-applied to looking at, say, China.

--

Now... fandom...

I find that fandom, in general, has a bad habit of holding things to double standards: queer things must be Good Representation™ even when they’re not being produced for that purpose. Same for ethnic minorities or any other minority. US-influenced parts of fandom (which includes a lot of English-speaking fandom) tend to not be very good at accepting that things are just fantasy. This has gotten worse in recent years.

As fandom has gotten more mainstream here, general media criticism about better representation (both in terms of number of characters and in terms of how they’re portrayed) has turned into fanfic criticism (not enough fics about ship X, too many about ship Y, problematic tropes that should not be applied to ship X, etc.). I find this extremely misguided considering the smaller reach of fandom but, more importantly, the lack of barriers to entry. If you think my AO3 fic sucks, you can make an account and post other fic that will be just as findable. You don’t need money or industry connections or to pass any particular hurdle to get your work out there too.

People also (understandably) tend to be hypersensitive to anything that looks like a racist porn trope. My feeling is that many of these are general porn tropes and people are reaching. There are specific tropes where black guys are given a huge dick as part of showing that they’re animalistic and hypersexual, but big dicks are really common in porn in general. The latter doesn’t automatically mean you’re doing the former unless there are other elements present. A/B/O or dubcon doesn’t mean it’s this racist trope either, not unless certain cliched elements are present. OTOH, it’s not hard for a/b/o tropes to feel close to “animalistic guy is rapey”, so I can see why it often bothers people.

A huge, huge, huge proportion of wank is “all rape fantasies are bad” crap too, which muddies the waters. I think a lot of people use “it’s racist” as an easy way to force others to agree with their incorrect claims that dubcon, noncon, a/b/o, etc. are fundamentally bad. Many fans, especially white fans, feel like they don’t know enough to refute claims of racism, so they cave to such arguments even when they’re transparently disingenuous.

--

Not everyone here thinks this way. I know plenty of people offline, particularly a lot of nonwhite people, who think fandom discourse is idiotic and that the people “protecting” people or characters of color are far more racist than the people writing “bad” fic or shipping the wrong thing.

But in general, I’d say that the stuff above is why a lot of us see the world as white people in power vs. everyone else as oppressed victims, interracial relationships as fraught, and porn about them as suspect. Basically, it’s people trying to be more progressive and aware but sometimes causing more harm than good when those attempts go awry.