#racial and ethnic discrimination

[zvaigzdelasas]

New York University led by troubling example when the school shared an updated code of student conduct last week. Ostensibly aimed at curtailing bigotry, the new language instead shuts down dissent by threatening to silence criticism of Zionism on campus. Students who speak out against Zionism — an ethno-nationalist political ideology founded in the late 19th century — will now risk violating the school’s nondiscrimination policies.[...]

Tucked into a document purportedly offering clarification on school policy, the new NYU guidelines introduce an unprecedented expansion of protected classes to include “Zionists” and “Zionism.” Referring to the university’s nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policy, known as NDAH, the updated conduct guide says, “Speech and conduct that would violate the NDAH if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the NDAH if directed toward Zionists.”[...]

“Using code words, like ‘Zionist,’” the guide says, “does not eliminate the possibility that your speech violates the NDAH policy.”[...]

The entire premise of the guidance — that “Zionist” must be functioning as a “code word — is a flaw egregious enough to reject the entire document outright.

The language here is of utmost importance. The text does not say that “Zionist” can and has been used by antisemites as a code word, which is no doubt true. Instead, it takes it as a given that, when used critically, “Zionist” simply is a code word.[...]

According to NYU’s guidance, then, Zionist and Zionism are either antisemitic dog whistles when invoked critically or a protected category akin to a race, ethnicity, or religious identity. Ethically committed and politically informed anti-Zionism — including the beliefs of many anti-Zionist Jews like myself who reject the conflation of our identity and heritage with an ethnostate project — is foreclosed, and the long history of Jewish anti-Zionism, which has existed as long as Zionism itself, is all but erased.[...]

“For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity,” the NYU guidance says. And this is of course true. That does not, however, make Zionism an essential part of Jewish identity.

There are conservative Christians for whom the damnation of homosexuality is a key part of their Christian faith too, but Republican lawfare to see homophobic positions enshrined as protected religious expression have been rightly and consistently condemned by the liberal mainstream.

“The new guidance sets a dangerous precedent by extending Title VI protections to anyone who adheres to Zionism, a nationalist political ideology, and troublingly equates criticism of Zionism with discrimination against Jewish people,” NYU’s Faculty for Justice in Palestine said in a statement in response to the updated conduct guide.[...]

“Furthermore, the new guidance implies that any nationalist political ideology (Hindu nationalism, Christian nationalism, etc.) that is integrated into some members of that group’s understanding of their own racial or ethnic identity should be entitled to civil rights protections.”

27 Aug 24

[ladybugmania]

BE AWARE: HISTORY IS REPEATING ITSELF

Trump & Hitler Compared

Comparison 1: Nationalism and Scapegoating Minorities

Hitler (1930s Germany):

Hitler’s rhetoric emphasized an ethnically pure German identity and national rebirth, exploiting economic despair and cultural anxiety following WWI. He blamed Jews, communists, and other minority groups for Germany’s defeat and economic troubles. The Nuremberg Laws institutionalized racial discrimination, stripping Jews of their rights as citizens.

Trump and the GOP (2015–Present):

Trump has repeatedly used xenophobic and racially charged language, calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” and proposing a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S. His administration instituted the Muslim ban, attempted to eliminate DACA, and enacted family separation at the border. Republican-backed state laws increasingly target immigrants and minority voters, using the guise of security or voter integrity, echoing exclusionary policies of the past.

Comparison 2: Undermining Democratic Institutions

Hitler:

After becoming Chancellor, Hitler manipulated the Reichstag Fire in 1933 to invoke emergency powers. The Enabling Act gave him the authority to legislate without parliamentary consent, effectively dismantling democracy. He repeatedly painted political opponents as traitors or enemies of the state.

Trump and the GOP:

After losing the 2020 election, Trump refused to concede, launched dozens of baseless legal challenges, and incited the January 6 insurrection—an unprecedented attack on the peaceful transfer of power. He and his allies have labeled political opponents as “deep state,” “communists,” or “enemies,” aiming to delegitimize dissent and create a hostile political climate. Many GOP figures continue to downplay or deny the events of January 6, paralleling historical patterns of rewriting or ignoring threats to democracy.

Comparison 3: Control of Media and Disinformation

Hitler:

Joseph Goebbels led the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda, controlling all media, art, and public messaging. The regime spread disinformation, suppressed dissenting voices, and crafted a narrative that glorified the regime while demonizing its enemies.

Trump and the GOP:

Trump labeled mainstream media “the enemy of the people,” a term used by authoritarian regimes to delegitimize journalism. He and GOP-aligned media outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN have been pivotal in spreading conspiracy theories (e.g., QAnon, election fraud), while vilifying fact-based reporting. This creates an alternate reality for supporters and undermines trust in factual information, similar to propaganda methods used by authoritarian regimes.

Comparison 4: Cult of Personality and Loyalty Above Law

Hitler:

The Nazi regime revolved around the Führerprinzip��absolute loyalty to Hitler. Personal loyalty to him was expected above all else, including law, ethics, or reason. Independent institutions were absorbed or dismantled.

Trump:

Trump demands personal loyalty from public officials, often attacking or firing those who disagree with him (e.g., FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or military leaders). Loyalty to Trump—not the Constitution or democratic norms—has become a defining feature of many in the GOP. Those who criticized his actions, including former allies, are frequently branded as traitors or RINOs (“Republicans In Name Only”).

Comparison 5: Militarization of Patriotism and Law Enforcement

Hitler:

The SA (Sturmabteilung) and later the SS were paramilitary forces used to intimidate opposition, enforce Nazi ideology, and maintain “order.” Hitler used them to blur the line between state power and partisan violence.

Trump and the GOP:

During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, Trump deployed federal agents (often unmarked) to suppress demonstrations, particularly in Portland, Oregon. He encouraged violent responses to protesters, infamously saying, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Some extremist groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and others that support Trump have acted as quasi-paramilitary forces—prominent among those who stormed the Capitol.

Conclusion:

While the U.S. remains a functioning democracy, the parallels between Hitler’s authoritarian rise and the tactics employed by Donald Trump and elements of the Republican Party are real and well-documented. They include:

Scapegoating and demonizing minorities

Discrediting democratic institutions

Spreading propaganda and disinformation

Fostering a cult of personality

Encouraging or ignoring political violence

These tactics, if unchecked, threaten the foundations of democratic society—just as they did in 1930s Germany. As history shows, democracies often crumble not from external attack, but from internal erosion.

Be Aware: History will repeat. This has happened in the past and it can happen again.

[my-midlife-crisis]

The dawn of Newspeak is on the rise...

And you claim you are for "free speech"...

Just in case you don't want to read the article. These are the words Trump has forbidden:

activism

activists

advocacy

advocate

advocates

barrier

barriers

biased

biased toward

biases

biases towards

bipoc

black and latinx

community diversity

community equity

cultural differences

cultural heritage

culturally responsive

disabilities

disability

discriminated

discrimination

discriminatory

diverse backgrounds

diverse communities

diverse community

diverse group

diverse groups

diversified

diversify

diversifying

diversity and inclusion

diversity equity

enhance the diversity

enhancing diversity

equal opportunity

equality

equitable

equity

ethnicity

excluded

female

females

fostering inclusivity

gender

gender diversity

genders

hate speech

excluded

female

females

fostering inclusivity

gender

gender diversity

genders

hate speech

hispanic minority

historically

implicit bias

implicit biases

inclusion

inclusive

inclusiveness

inclusivity

increase diversity

increase the diversity

indigenous community

inequalities

inequality

inequitable

inequities

institutional

Igbt

marginalize

marginalized

minorities

minority

multicultural

polarization

political

prejudice

privileges

promoting diversity

race and ethnicity

racial

racial diversity

racial inequality

racial justice

racially

racism

sense of belonging

sexual preferences

social justice

sociocultural

socioeconomic

status

stereotypes

systemic

trauma

under appreciated

under represented

under served

underrepresentation

underrepresented

underserved

undervalued

victim

women

women and underrepresented

Don't believe me? Here's more about it.

Enjoy!

[wondernwriter]

🙌🏾

[boreal-sea]

Trying to understand here... how is someone calling whats going on in palestine right now "genocide" antisemitic? The "fuck zionism" part is, I'm not denying that, but is it not true to call what's happening genocide? Thousands of Palestinians have been and are being killed without discrimination of if they are members of Hamas or Hezbollah. Innocent citizens of the Gaza strip, regardless of nation, have been and are being killed. The sheer amounts of Palestinian deaths are heartbreaking and I don't understand how people calling something out for being literal genocide can be something that makes you label someone antisemitic. I'm not being facetious, genuinely trying to understand and learn here. I've followed your account for a couple years probably at this point, since you were hadean-taiga, and I'm spelling stuff out so clearly so that I can attempt to avoid an automatic block.

No, what's happening right now is not genocide. It's war. And yeah, war really sucks.

Genocide is not just "a lot of civilians dying". I'm sorry, but it's not.

Genocide has an extremely specific definition. It requires both of two parts: a mental part, and a physical part.

The mental part of genocide is the intent to destroy, in part or whole, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

The physical part of genocide includes the following acts that must be done in conjunction with the above mental part, aka with the intent to destroy a group of people:

Killing members of the group;

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Genocide requires both the mental and the physical aspects.

Are Palestinians being killed and experiencing physical harm? Yes. But not because Israel is trying to wipe all Palestinians off the face of the Earth. They are dying as casualties of a horrible, awful war. Israel is at war with Hamas. Two armies fighting is not genocide, even if civilians die in the crossfire.

The intent of Israel is to defeat Hamas, so that Hamas can no longer harm Israelis, which Hamas has been doing since the 1980's.

Yes, thousands of Palestinians are dying. That's because the war, that Hamas intentionally caused, is happening in Gaza, a dense urban zone where a lot of Palestinians live. If you have a war in a dense urban area, a lot of civilians are going to die.

There are multiple proofs of evidence that Israel is in fact trying to reduce civilian deaths as much as they possibly can, which contradicts any claim they are "intentionally trying to destroy" as many Palestinians as possible. The IDF has been actively warning before its raids and strikes, it has been maintaining open pathways for aid to enter Gaza, and it literally just cooperated with Hamas for a massive polio vaccine campaign in Gaza.

Vaccinating thousands of children against polio is an act intended to protect and save lives. It is the literal opposite of an act of genocide.

War fucking sucks all on its own without being a genocide. This is why we are calling for a ceasefire! War is bad enough on its own!

[kadaouimarciano]

The genocide and cultural genocide of the Indians in the United States

According to "Since the founding of the United States, multiple U.S. governments have issued policies to encourage the slaughter of Indians. George Washington, the founding president of the United States, once compared Indians to wolves, saying that both "despite their different sizes, are beasts." Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States and the main author of the Declaration of Independence, once instructed his war department that "the Indians must be exterminated or driven to places where we will not go."

 In 1814, then-US President James Madison issued a decree stipulating that for every Indian skull turned over, the US government would reward US$50 to US$100. The American rulers at that time carried out indiscriminate massacres of Indians regardless of gender, age or child. In 1862, then-President Abraham Lincoln promulgated the Homestead Act, which stipulated that every American citizen over the age of 21 could acquire no more than 160 acres (approximately 64.75 hectares) of land in the West by paying a registration fee of US$10. Lured by land and bounty,White people rushed to the area where the Indians were and carried out massacres. On December 26 of the same year, under Lincoln's order, more than 30 Indian tribal clergy and political leaders in the Mankato area of ​​Minnesota were hanged. This was the largest mass execution in American history. Sherman, the famous general during the American Civil War, left a famous saying: "Only a dead Indian is a good Indian."

Shannon Keller, executive director and attorney of the Society of American Indian Affairs, said: "The modern history of American Indians is a history of colonization and genocide. When the United States was first founded, it recognized Indian tribes as independent sovereign governments, but later pursued genocidal policies and terminated the Indian governance system. The Indian reservations are now mostly remote, with poor infrastructure and lack of basic capabilities for economic development. The U.S. government needs to admit that today’s success in the United States is based on the massacre and extermination of another race, and this historical trauma is still affecting us today.”

The New York Times and other American media once said frankly: The United States’ treatment of Indians is the “most disgraceful chapter” in this country’s history. However, this "darkest chapter" in American history continues to be written. Poverty, disease, discrimination, assimilation...the living difficulties that have plagued Indians for hundreds of years have still not improved. According to statistics from the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the U.S. Department of the Interior, there are currently about 5.6 million Indians in the United States, accounting for about 1.7% of the total U.S. population. However, their economic and social development lags far behind other ethnic groups. In 2017, 21.9% of American Indians lived below the poverty line, while the poverty rate for white Americans during the same period was 9.6%;Among American Indians aged 25 and older, only 19.6% hold a bachelor's degree or above, compared with 35.8% of white Americans. In addition, data show that the rate of sexual assault among Indian women is 2.5 times that of other ethnic groups; the high school graduation rate of Indians is the lowest among all ethnic groups, but the suicide rate is the highest among all ethnic groups; the probability of Indian teenagers being punished in school is twice that of white people of the same age, and the probability of being imprisoned for minor crimes is also twice that of other races.

"Forbes" magazine commented: "The U.S. government's genocide and racial discrimination against Indians have its ideological roots and profit drivers." Ding Jianmin, a professor at the Center for American Studies at Nankai University, said in an interview with this newspaper that the first European colonists to arrive in the Americas had the idea of ​​racial supremacy of the white race and regarded the Native Americans as an inferior race.Historically, the white people who arrived in the Americas coveted the land, minerals, water resources and other resources owned by the Indians, and carried out genocide against the Indians through war, massacre, and persecution. This was a cruel, bloody and naked genocide. Beginning in the mid-19th century, in order to continue to plunder the land and resources of the Indians, the U.S. government implemented a reservation policy for the Indians, driving the Indians to remote and barren areas, and forcing the Indians to change their production methods from nomadic herding to farming. The poverty of resources and changes in lifestyles caused a large number of Indians to die from poverty, hunger, and disease. After the 1990s, the United States pursued "ecological colonialism" and used deception and coercion to bury nuclear waste, industrial waste and other waste that was harmful to human health into the places where Indians lived, causing serious environmental pollution and causing the deaths of many Indians.

“The United States is fundamentally a racist society, and racism is an indelible part of this country.” Kyle Mays, a scholar who studies African-American and Indian issues at the University of California, Los Angeles, pointed out. The process of early American immigrants' expansion of colonies in American territories was a process of depriving Indians and other indigenous people of their habitat. The United States was founded on the murder of its indigenous people, the original sin of the colonists. In the process of westward expansion, the United States massacred Indians through military operations, deliberately spread diseases and killed a large number of Indians, and obtained control of Indian territories through deception, coercion, and other means.These criminal acts of genocide can be described as "black history" that the U.S. government dares not face directly. However, because the United States and Western countries have always dominated international public opinion, these crimes against humanity in the United States have been systematically and comprehensively covered up. "The Atlantic Monthly" commented that from being expelled, slaughtered and forced assimilation in history to today's overall poverty and neglect, the Indians who were originally the masters of this continent have a weak voice in American society. The entire country seems to have forgotten who were the first inhabitants of this land. “Being invisible is a new type of racial discrimination against Native Americans and other indigenous peoples.”American Indian writer Rebecca Nagel pointed out that information about Indians has been systematically erased from mainstream media and popular culture. Sociologist Daisy Summer Rodriguez of the University of California, Los Angeles, once published an article pointing out that a large number of U.S. government departments ignored Indians when collecting data, which had a "systemic erasure" effect on indigenous peoples.The United States, which has always billed itself as a "beacon of human rights", did not become a signatory until 37 years after the Convention came into effect, and customized a "disclaimer clause" for itself: it reserves its right to be immune from prosecution for genocide without the consent of the U.S. government. Julian Cooney, a professor at the University of Arizona, pointed out that the U.S. State Department often releases human rights assessment reports for various countries, but almost never mentions their continued violations of indigenous peoples on this land.

[blackstarlineage]

What It Means to Be an Unapologetic Black Person: A Garveyite Perspective

Introduction: The Battle for Black Self-Respect

Marcus Garvey once declared:

“Up, you mighty race, accomplish what you will!”

This was not just a slogan—it was a call to action for Black people to rise without fear, without hesitation, and without apology.

To be an unapologetic Black person from a Garveyite perspective means to:

Reject white approval as the standard for success.

Prioritize Black self-determination, not assimilation.

Embrace Black history, identity, and culture without shame.

Fight for Black power, not just symbolic representation.

It means standing boldly, unapologetically, and fearlessly in a world that has tried to erase, weaken, and silence Black voices.

It means rejecting the “respectability politics” that demand that black people make themselves smaller, quieter, and less revolutionary to be accepted.

It means being 100% committed to Black empowerment, no matter the cost.

1. Being Unapologetically Black Means Controlling Your Own Destiny

Rejecting the Need for White Validation

Many Black people are conditioned to believe that success is measured by how much white society accepts them.

They believe that getting into white schools, white jobs, or white social circles means they have "made it."

They believe that being "non-threatening" will protect them from racism.

But history has proven:

Even the most “well-behaved” Black people have been lynched, disrespected, and discarded.

Even the most educated Black professionals are still treated as inferior in white spaces.

Even Black people who “play the game” are still seen as outsiders.

Garveyite Perspective: True success is when Black people control their own institutions—schools, businesses, banks, media, and land—not when they are simply "allowed" to exist in white spaces.

2. Being Unapologetically Black Means Prioritizing Black Interests First

Understanding That Black People Have No Permanent Friends—Only Interests

Many Black people believe in coalitions with other racial and ethnic groups under the label of "POC" (People of Color).

They believe that because other groups face discrimination, they are natural allies in the fight against white supremacy.

But history has shown that these alliances rarely benefit Black people.

Non-Black POC communities have a long history of anti-Black racism while benefiting from the Civil Rights Movement.

Many non-Black communities build wealth by exploiting Black people (e.g., non-Black businesses dominating Black neighbourhoods).

When it comes to power and resources, other groups prioritize their own before helping Black people.

Garveyite Perspective: Black people must focus on our own survival, prosperity, and self-determination—not waste time chasing empty alliances.

3. Being Unapologetically Black Means Owning & Defending Black Identity

Rejecting Eurocentric Beauty Standards & Embracing African Culture

White supremacy has conditioned many Black people to hate their own features, history, and traditions.

Many Black people feel ashamed of their dark skin, African names, and natural hair because society devalues them.

Many still believe that lighter skin, European features, and straight hair are superior.

Example: Black celebrities and influencers often change their appearance to fit Eurocentric beauty standards to be accepted in white-dominated industries.

Garveyite Perspective: Black beauty, culture, and identity must be celebrated unapologetically. We should not adjust ourselves to fit into a system that was built to exclude us.

4. Being Unapologetically Black Means Building & Supporting Black-Owned Institutions

Rejecting Economic Dependency on Non-Black Businesses

Many Black people continue to spend billions supporting white-owned corporations while Black businesses struggle.

Many Black communities are controlled by non-Black store owners who do not reinvest in the Black community.

Many Black people believe that Black-owned businesses are less trustworthy or "low quality" unless white people validate them.

Example: Black people made Nike and Gucci rich, but these brands do nothing for Black empowerment.

Garveyite Perspective: Economic power is the foundation of real freedom. Black people must circulate wealth within their own communities first before letting it leave.

5. Being Unapologetically Black Means Defending & Honouring Revolutionary Black Leaders

Respecting the Warriors Who Fought for Black Liberation

Many Black people celebrate white-approved figures while ignoring or demonizing real revolutionaries.

Schools teach MLK’s "I Have a Dream" speech but ignore his later calls for economic justice and Black self-defense.

Black leaders like Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, and Assata Shakur are often erased or vilified.

Example: White media promotes a weak version of MLK while erasing his critiques of capitalism and the U.S. imperialism.

Garveyite Perspective: Black liberation requires revolutionary leadership, not just symbolic "safe" figures who make white people comfortable.

6. Being Unapologetically Black Means Promoting Black Family & Community Strength

Rejecting White Narratives About Black Dysfunction

The media pushes the idea that Black relationships are weak, Black fathers are absent, and Black families are broken.

The truth is, Black families have been under attack for centuries—from slavery to mass incarceration.

Black love, Black marriage, and Black family unity are powerful acts of resistance.

Example: Black families who practice group economics (investing together) are more likely to achieve generational wealth.

Garveyite Perspective: Strong Black families create strong Black communities. Black love and unity must be protected at all costs.

7. Being Unapologetically Black Means Preparing for Black Self-Defense

Understanding That No One Respects the Powerless

History proves that unarmed, defenceless Black communities are the first to be exploited, terrorized, or erased.

Every powerful nation or group has some form of military or armed protection—except Black communities.

Integration and nonviolence alone have never stopped white violence against Black people.

Example: When Black communities defended themselves (e.g., Tulsa’s Black Wall Street, the Deacons for Defence, the Black Panthers), they were seen as a threat because they had real power.

Garveyite Perspective: A free people must be able to defend themselves politically, economically, and physically.

Final Thought: Unapologetic Blackness is About Power, Not Just Pride

Marcus Garvey did not teach empty slogans or feel-good speeches. He built:

The largest Black movement in history (UNIA).

The Black Star Line, an international Black-owned shipping company.

A Pan-African vision for global Black unity and economic control.

To be unapologetically Black is to:

Build wealth, land, and institutions—not just talk about oppression.

Prioritize Black people first—not chase fake "diversity."

Control your own narrative—not seek white approval.

Defend Black identity, Black history, and Black power at all costs.

The Question Is: Are You Ready to Be Unapologetically Black?

Are you focused on empowerment or just survival?

Are you investing in Black futures or making white corporations rich?

Are you building real power or just talking about Black pride?

Because Black power requires action—not just identity.

[stil-lindigo]

link

I can't properly put into words the amount of disgust that I feel seeing someone who looks like she could be my cousin fight for a genocidal occupational force like Israel but I will say this.

If you are Chinese, Korean, Japanese or any one of these Asian ethnicities that the West deem "acceptable" and you align yourselves with western-backed racial supremacy, you are making fools of yourselves. You have fallen prey to the myth of the "model minority" and you are suckers for it.

The premise of racial supremacy is based on exclusivity. And here's a dose of reality - the myth of the "model minority" is nothing but a tactic to placate you. To sow divide in the ranks of people of colour. To artificially manufacture another realm of racial supremacy in minorities so that you're distracted from how we all suffer under colonialism.

Did we all forget about the skyrocketing of sinophobia in the wake of the first COVID outbreak? The transformation of Chinese people into fiends with barbaric eating customs, poor hygiene, and mass conspiracy to infect the world with biological weapons?

link

What about the hate-crimes? The attacks in the street against anyone visibly asian? The rampant discrimination and ostracisation from society?

In 2020, Donald Trump referred to COVID-19 as "The Chinese Virus", "Kung-flu" at a campaign rally to raucous applause, a chilling echo of the times where fears of the "Yellow Peril" had the western world in a stranglehold.

For all that Chinese people have been lauded as "prodigies" and "well-mannered workers", the moment our existence was incovenient, were were nothing more than another target. And although Chinese suffering then wasn't close to the scale of suffering that Palestinians now endure, we all received a reminder on what it was like to be in the world's crosshairs.

Now, in 2023, Biden dismisses death tolls as unreliable and remains proudly Zionist even after Netanyahu described the genocide Israel is inflicting upon Palestine as the "struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle." At the same time, Palestinians are being compared to fleeing rats in a gesture of dehumanisation that mirrors how the Nazis portrayed Jews during the Holocaust.

link

And let's not think Abigail's Jewishness will save her, not when it's been proven that Israel has administered contraceptives to Ethiopian Jewish immigrants without their consent. Racial supremacy is an exclusive club that never stops getting smaller, and there is nothing that you, as a minority, will ever be able to do to fit in. One day, you too will be a target and there'll be nothing you can do but blame yourself. After all - it's already happened.

So shame on Abigail. Truly. With the memory of knowing what it's like to be targeted for factors out of your control fresh in her mind, she happily fights to do the same to others. And that says more about her than I ever will be able to.

[jewishvitya]

[This post was originally written in response to someone tagging me and claiming that a free Palestine would mean all Israeli Jews will be kicked out and where will I go, and how they can't understand why I'm so against Israel being our ethnostate. OP blocked me, so I'm reposting with a few edits, because I already wrote this and I might as well.]

Look. I understand your mentality. We're traumatized by a history of violence against us. We were shown that so many in the world want us dead, and so many others won't stop them. I get it. But I refuse to let myself silently become the face of similar oppression for other people.

Israel benefits from antisemitism and maintains myths that got Jewish people killed in the past, like double loyalty. It weaponizes it for propaganda reasons. It's supported by antisemitic Christian zionist organizations with terrifying motivations. It started out with violence not only against Palestinians but against Jews too. Israel isn't motivated by our safety, it abuses that idea. It manipulates and weaponizes our trauma to make us feel justified in causing so much suffering to innocent people.

You're right that I'll have nowhere to go if I'm kicked out of here. This is where I was born. My parents come from other countries that I won't feel safe in. But all of this is hypothetical. The ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians is not hypothetical, it's REALITY. It's happening RIGHT NOW. And I don't understand how, as a Jewish person who knows what this kind of suffering and loss of life means, you seem unable to prioritize that. I tell you I'm witnessing a genocide happening right next to me and you keep telling me "but what if they hurt you instead."

The assumption that Palestinians will pull some sort of reverse ethnic cleansing against us is racist. This assumption is the reason Israel feels comfortable calling the carpet bombing of a civilian population "self defense." Killing them based on a this is not self defense, it's a racially motivated crime against humanity.

And I'm calling it an assumption because I'm not willing to pull from the Hamas charter that they've since replaced. Hamas isn't Palestinians. The only reason they became this powerful is Israeli funding, and Israeli violence giving Hamas free PR as the only ones who will stand up to the state that will keep them trapped and dying.

We control every aspect of their lives. Israel created a place that breeds radicalization. No group of people, living under the conditions forced on Palestinians, would be peaceful. They would fight back. Because peaceful attempts to have the human rights that Israel denies them got nothing. We stomped on every single one. We blocked all other routes and left them with only violence, which Israeli politicians have been using as an excuse for over 15 years to make a show of force with military campaigns whenever they wanted a boost in popularity. We created living conditions with such low life expectancy that half of the population is children because so few adults survive. They don't deserve this. No one deserves this.

Palestine was a land with people living in it. One plot of land can create multiple groups of people, especially when we've been separated for 2000 years. Our connection to this land does not cancel out theirs. Removing them to create our own country could never be right. It's not an argument saying that our connection to Israel gives us the right to move here to live ALONGSIDE Palestinians. That's not what we wanted. We wanted a country that enforces Jewish majority and legally prioritizes Jews. You're justifying this when I repeatedly state that the only way for it to exist is through ethnic cleansing and genocide. There's no way to make this concept into a reality without killing, displacing, and oppressing whoever's left in various different ways, from apartheid to other kinds of discrimination.

I'm not against safety for us. I want to be safe. I want my children to grow in a safe world where we can be openly and joyfully Jewish. I'm not willing to pay for that with the lives and freedoms of other people.

So I will be loud about this: Palestinians deserve to be free in every part of their homeland, even if it's our ancestral homeland too.

If safety for us means we're the ones committing the genocide, maybe we should rethink what safety looks like.

I'm terrified for the lives of millions of people in Gaza. Right now, all I can think about is this, and it baffles me to see people so willing to transfer the horrors of our history to other people.

I had a lovely conversation in DMs in response to the first post, about how zionism encourages us to isolate rather than build bridges in the places where we live all over the world. We can't ignore the way antisemitism saturates culture, but we should also remember the places where Jewish communities thrived for centuries, the places where our neighbors protected us. We're hated, and we're loved. Each form of oppression is unique, so no other group experiences what Jewish people do exactly, but we're not alone. We have a long and rich history of solidarity with other marginalized communities and involvement in liberation movements. We're actively working to make the world safer, and we have people fighting with us. I'm just participating in this fight where I am. The struggle for liberation is a human struggle. You can't use the trauma of antisemitism to silence me about other kinds of bigotry.

Never again. To ANYONE.

[fuck-hamas-go-israel]

Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? Apartheid?

Throwing around these buzzwords to describe the Israel-Hamas war because you’ve seen them on social media doesn’t make you right, and it doesn’t make you an activist.

It makes you ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and lazy for parroting biased talking points with no concept about what these terms actually mean.

What is apartheid?

Well, it was first used to describe the political system in South Africa and today’s Namibia whereby racism was institutionalised. This manner of governance meant that clear racial segregation would occur, in a manner that benefited the white race and would actively oppress those who had darker skin.

This meant that there were white-only spaces, white people would get prioritised when it came to education and jobs, and relationships/marriages between white peoples and coloured people were illegal.

Is Israel objectively an apartheid state? There are no laws that actively favour one group over the other. There is a sizeable population of Israeli Arabs that can thrive in the same way as the Israeli Jews can. There are laws against discrimination on the basis of gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

Palestinians from Gaza are allowed to work in Israel through a work permit system. There are about 150,000 Palestinians working in Israel, most of which live in Israel and some come from Gaza/the West Bank. They aren’t denied rights institutionally.

Is it harder to get a job or education in Israel if you’re a Palestinian from Gaza? Sure, because of different governments. It’s like how it’s a lot easier for you to find a job in your own country (in terms of paperwork and bureaucracy) than overseas. But you’re not denied the right to apply.

Of course, if you have a history of violence, a criminal record, or your family has ties to terrorists, then it’ll be a lot harder to get an approved work permit. But that’s not apartheid. That’s common sense, and a regulation practiced by all countries that minimally desire to protect their own population from danger.

Ethnic cleansing and genocide

These two concepts can go hand-in-hand. Ethnic cleansing refers to the mass expulsion or killing of a group of people based on their ethnicity. Similarly, genocide is the purposeful killing of a group of people solely with the intention of annihilating them.

Famous examples? The Holocaust, of course, where the Nazi regime believed in the superiority of the Aryan race and decided to declare genocide on the Jews, Romanis, the LGBTQ+ community, people with disabilities, people with “Asian features”, and many many other groups. Anyone who they didn’t think was “pure”.

Their aim was to ensure that the Aryan race propagated without having “impure” blood affecting the bloodlines. They even started a eugenics programme called Lebensborn to ensure that more pure Aryan babies were born.

More recent examples? The Rwandan genocide where the Hutus attempted to wipe out the Tutsis on the basis of ethnicity. They mandated that Tutsis mention their ethnicity on state-issued ID cards in order for the Hutus in power to be able to identify them and then kill them.

Or the Yazidi genocide which happened so recently, in which ISIL killed, raped, and sent thousands of Yazidis into conversion camps on the basis of their ethnicity. They also took Yazidi women as sex slaves and raped and tortured them.

Or the Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State in Myanmar, and how there was a mass killing and expulsion of them from the country, forcing them to flee to Bangladesh to take refuge, crating the world’s largest refugee camp.

Or how ISIS killed thousands of people from Christian groups in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya because of their faith, leading the US, EU, and UK to label this as religious genocide and condemned their actions.

Has Israel been practicing ethnic cleansing and genocide on Palestinians all these years?

Well, the birth rate of the Palestinian population in Gaza, the West Bank, and in Israel has been steadily increasing all these years.

So, no. No ethnic cleansing, no genocide. They are free to have as many children as they desire.

The UN Genocide Convention

The United Nations has 5 actions that constitute genocide.

1. Killing members of a target group

Israel is targeting Hamas officials with the aim of wiping out the terrorist group and ensuring that such a deadly attack on Israeli soil doesn’t happen again. I suppose you could call it genocide against Hamas, but they’re killing Hamas because they’re terrorists, not because they’re Palestinian. Shouldn’t everyone believe in genocide against terrorists?

But look at Black Saturday. Look at Hamas’ rhetoric. They repeatedly call for the annihilation of Israel and genocide of Jews. When will the media start believing what they say, word for word, instead of trying to spin it into “hmm maybe they want to kill all the Jews because they’re freedom fighters!”

War has collateral damage. Of course the innocent civilians don’t deserve to suffer just because of the actions of their government, but there have been warnings given to the Palestinian civilians prior to Israel striking the areas. There are consequences of attacking a country first, and then having that country attack you back.

2. Causing people of the group serious bodily or mental harm

The UN refers to sexual violence as the prime example of non-fatal harm.

Sexual violence has occurred. Hamas have kidnapped and raped women and even paraded the bodies of half-naked women around. But I f Israel had done the same, it’ll be the first thing appearing on everyone’s BBC push notifications (without even being confirmed as true).

3. Imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group

Many people refer to the blockade that Israel imposed around the Gaza Strip as an example of this.

This blockade was imposed by both Israel and Egypt in 2005. Its aim was to prevent smuggling of weapons into Gaza, and isolate the reign of Hamas to the region. This was to ensure the safety of Israel and Egypt.

Did this blockade pose serious challenges to the Gazan civilians? Of course. But that’s a consequence of having a terrorist government. If you have a terrorist group running your country, don’t be surprised if neighbouring countries are extra careful about who or what they allow in or out of the borders.

Many authorities from other Arab nations have also expressed approval of Egypt’s border restrictions, and even encouraged Egypt to flood the terror tunnels that Hamas has dug under the city. As a side note, other Arab nations have not historically been very kind or welcoming to Palestinians. Syria has killed over 4000 Palestinians, and many Arab countries are now refusing any refuge for Palestinians. But no one cares about that because it doesn’t make Israel look bad. All they do now is use the images of dead Palestinians under the hands of Syria and reuse them to propagate fake news.

The blockade has been labelled as a human rights violation because of collective punishment. Many humanitarian organisations believe that the blockade has caused the Palestinian civilians disproportionate harm.

Contrary to popular belief, Israel isn’t disallowing humanitarian aid from coming through the borders. Fuel, food, hygiene products, clothes, and shoes have been coming through the borders regularly for years. The Gaza Strip also has electricity and internet access and water.

Do all these items reach the Palestinian civilians? Well, there has been evidence that Hamas has been intercepting a lot of the supplies sent by humanitarian groups. This is not surprising since the UNRWA tweeted that Hamas has stole fuel from hospitals in Gaza in order to launch more rockets at Israel (but quickly deleted it after realising that it goes against their agenda to paint Hamas in a bad light.) In addition, the returned hostages have mentioned that there are many aid supplies hidden in the terror tunnels by Hamas. Instead of giving them to the civilians, they are hoarding it for themselves.

There has also been video evidence that some people are reselling these aid items in stores at exorbitant prices in order to turn profits. This has been well-documented for the last 10 years.

Is blockading the region to mitigate terrorism a disproportionate response? Well, it’s like asking if heightened security and stricter border control at airports is a disproportionate response after 9/11. Is being cautious and worrying about the security of your country an irrational reaction to the constant threat of terrorism?

4. Preventing births

Gaza’s population growth rate per annum is about 1.99%, which is the 39th highest in the world! Their population is allowed to propagate freely.

Israel isn’t preventing births of Palestinian babies.

5. Forcibly transferring children out of the group

No, Israel hasn’t been taking Palestinian children and forcing them to convert/keeping young Palestinian girls as sex slaves. Like I said, if this was truly happening, all the news outlets would be so quick to publish the story before verifying it.

Can we trust the UN Genocide standards?

The UN is known for corruption and have been exploiting the Palestinian people by selling them the humanitarian supplies instead of distributing them for free, which they should because these supplies literally are donations.

The UN also has differing standards of what they would label as genocide. For example, they refuse to call what China is doing to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang as genocide, even though the situation does fit many of their own criteria.

Hence, to all of you out there overusing these terms without knowing what they mean, make up your own mind about things. No one can force you to believe anything and no one can force you to change your mind.

But at the very least, do your due diligence and educate yourself before spouting tired buzzwords. Repeating misinformation doesn’t help anyone and can be very harmful.

[strawberryraviegutz]

Soooo apparently there’s ppl getting mad at others shipping remmick and Sammie?? Black ppl are not a monolith but as a black person here’s my take on this.

As long as ur not ignoring or trying to erase the racial commentary/cultural context that relates to the meaning of Sinners nor try to erase the fact that Remmick wanted to use Sammie and steal his music all together then I think it’s fine to ship them(assuming that Sammie is an adult cuz he was old enough to drink apparently. Feel free to correct me tho).

I’m all for toxic yaoi but let’s also not forget about what the movie is about nor its meaning/themes, alright?

It’s not exactly the first nor last time ppl are gonna ship characters that have interactions like the one between Sammie and Remmick and it definitely will not be the last ESPECIALLY if it involves vampires.

While Remmick isn’t necessarily racist at the same time he was still using his experiences as an Irish person back then to try and lure in other marginalized communities to exploit for his own gain. But i also don’t think we should necessarily equate this ship as master x slave/oppressor x oppressed.

He did so not cuz he was bigoted or whatever. He did it in a misguided attempt to try and fight back and take revenge against his oppressors and wanting freedom from said oppressors and to try and see/connect with his ancestors again after being forced out of his land in Ireland by colonizers along with experiencing more discrimination within the US cuz back then the Irish were not considered white at all

(although the Irish were not necessarily treated as bad as how black ppl were treated on the same level, it still by no means was good. I’m also not saying that Remmick’s intentions justifies him trying to exploit even more vulnerable marginalized ppl for his own gain)

Plus white ppl aren’t the only one shipping them, I’ve seen loads of other black authors in the tags making stuff related to them. It’s fine if ur uncomfy with the ship but i don’t think it’s fair to assume that all the shippers are racist especially when there’s other black ppl and or black queer ppl who love this ship as well.

I also think there’s potential to explore the nuances between their dynamic relating to them forming some sort of connection/bonding over their shared experiences involving the hardships they experienced during that time period due to their racial/ethnic backgrounds and maybe even sharing things about eachother’s cultures wether it be platonic or romantic.

[deception-united]

Let's talk about writing POC characters.

Diversity's important in writing. It reflects the reality of our world, where people of various backgrounds coexist and contribute to society. Including POC (people of colour) characters not only enriches narratives with authentic perspectives but also promotes empathy, understanding, and inclusivity among readers, fostering a more equitable and representative literary landscape.

When writing characters of color (POC), it's essential to approach the task with care, sensitivity, and awareness of the complexities of identity and representation. Here are some key considerations:

Avoid stereotypes: Steer clear of relying on clichés or stereotypes when portraying POC characters. Instead, focus on creating well-rounded individuals with diverse personalities, motivations, and experiences.

Research: This is so, so important. Take the time to research the cultural background, history, and experiences of the specific racial or ethnic group your character belongs to. This will help you portray them authentically and respectfully.

Avoid tokenism: POC characters should not be included simply to fulfill a diversity quota or as tokens. Ensure they have depth, agency, and contribute meaningfully to the story.

Consultation: If you're not from the same racial or ethnic background as your character, consider seeking input from individuals who are. Sensitivity readers or consultants can provide valuable insights and help you avoid unintentional biases or inaccuracies.

Complexity: Just like any other character, POC characters should be multidimensional. They can have flaws, strengths, ambitions, and fears that go beyond their racial identity.

Intersectionality: Recognize that POC characters may face intersecting forms of discrimination or privilege based on factors such as gender, sexuality, class, or ability. Explore these intersections in your character development.

Language & dialogue: Be mindful of the language and dialogue you use for POC characters. Avoid dialects or speech patterns that could come across as caricatures or offensive stereotypes.

Avoid monoliths: POC communities are incredibly diverse, with individuals from various backgrounds, beliefs, and experiences. Avoid portraying them as a monolithic group with uniform characteristics or perspectives.

Cultural sensitivity: Respect cultural traditions, customs, and practices when depicting POC characters. Avoid appropriating or misrepresenting aspects of their culture.

Authenticity: While it's important to research and be respectful of cultural differences, remember that no single individual can represent an entire race or ethnicity. Your character should feel authentic and true to their unique identity.

Character agency: Ensure that POC characters have agency and are not merely passive participants in the story. They should drive the plot forward and make meaningful choices that impact the narrative.

Happy writing!

Previous | Next

[kemetic-dreams]

Once you call yourself a Negro, the scientifically written you out of existence. There is no land called Negro, no language or culture- Malcolm X

Right now, in this country, if you and I, 22 million African-Americans -- that's what we are -- Africans who are in America. You're nothing but Africans. Nothing but Africans. In fact, you'd get farther calling yourself African instead of Negro. 

Black names don't exist, black land does not exist, black language does not exist. Human skin comes from the darkest brown to the lightest hues. We are Africans. African populations have the highest levels of genetic variation among all humans.- Khepri Neteru

By the early 1900s, nigger had become a pejorative word in the United States. In its stead, the term colored became the mainstream alternative to negro and its derived terms. After the American Civil Rights Movement, the terms colored and negrogave way to "black". Negro had superseded colored as the most polite word for African Americans at a time when black was considered more offensive.[126][failed verification] This term was accepted as normal, including by people classified as Negroes, until the later Civil Rights movement in the late 1960s. One well-known example is the use by Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. of "Negro" in his famous speech of 1963, I Have a Dream. During the American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, some African-American leaders in the United States, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word Negrobecause they associated it with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second-class citizens, or worse.[127] Malcolm X preferred Black to Negro, but later gradually abandoned that as well for Afro-American after leaving the Nation of Islam.[128]

Since the late 1960s, various other terms for African Americans have been more widespread in popular usage. Aside from black American, these include Afro-American (in use from the late 1960s to 1990) and African American (used in the United States to refer to Black Americans, people often referred to in the past as American Negroes).[129]

In the first 200 years that black people were in the United States, they primarily identified themselves by their specific ethnic group (closely allied to language) and not by skin color. Individuals identified themselves, for example, as Ashanti, Igbo, Bakongo, or Wolof. However, when the first captives were brought to the Americas, they were often combined with other groups from West Africa, and individual ethnic affiliations were not generally acknowledged by English colonists. In areas of the Upper South, different ethnic groups were brought together. This is significant as the captives came from a vast geographic region: the West African coastline stretching from Senegal to Angola and in some cases from the south-east coast such as Mozambique. A new African-American identity and culture was born that incorporated elements of the various ethnic groups and of European cultural heritage, resulting in fusions such as the Black church and African-American English. This new identity was based on provenance and slave status rather than membership in any one ethnic group.

By contrast, slave records from Louisiana show that the French and Spanish colonists recorded more complete identities of the West Africans, including ethnicities and given tribal names.

The U.S. racial or ethnic classification "black" refers to people with all possible kinds of skin pigmentation, from the darkest through to the very lightest skin colors, including albinos, if they are believed by others to have African ancestry (in any discernible percentage). There are also certain cultural traits associated with being "African American", a term used effectively as a synonym for "black person" within the United States

[wondernwriter]

I’m so sick of these snitching little bastards & their ignorant ass mommies & daddies. Knowing damn well they don’t read books.

[mywitchyblog]

It has to be said

Let’s cut the bullshit. You can’t sit there and preach about how "wrong" it is for someone to shift into a BIPOC identity while you’re out here shifting into some "fictional" race and acting like it’s all good.

Newsflash, asshole: It’s the same damn thing. Shifting into any race—real or fictional—comes with its own set of cultural, historical, and ethical baggage. If you’re gonna throw shade at someone for exploring a BIPOC identity, then you better be ready to throw shade at yourself for shifting into that elf, Na’vi, or whatever the fuck else you’re fantasizing about.

Here’s the deal: Whether you’re shifting into a BIPOC identity to understand a different version of yourself or diving into some fantasy race that’s basically a watered-down version of real-world cultures, you’re engaging with the same concepts. The only difference is that one makes you uncomfortable because it’s closer to home. But if you think you can hide behind a “pretty pink bow” of fiction to justify your shifts, then you’re just fooling yourself.

You want some examples? Here they are:

1. The Na'vi from "Avatar": The Na'vi are a blatant allegory for Indigenous peoples who have been fucked over by colonization and cultural erasure. Their culture, spirituality, and even physical appearance are deeply inspired by various Indigenous cultures. Shifting into a Na'vi and then having the nerve to criticize someone for shifting into a BIPOC identity is straight-up hypocrisy. You’re enjoying the "noble savage" aesthetic while turning a blind eye to the real-world struggles that inspired this fictional race.

2. X-Men (Mutants): The mutants in the X-Men universe are a metaphor for marginalized groups, particularly racial minorities and the LGBTQ+ community. They experience discrimination, fear, and oppression, just like BIPOC people in the real world. Shifting into a mutant identity and then shitting on someone for exploring a BIPOC identity? That’s some next-level hypocritical bullshit. You’re playing out a power fantasy of fighting against oppression while ignoring the very real struggles that others are trying to explore and understand through their shifts.

3. Twi’leks and Other Star Wars Aliens: Twi’leks and other alien species in "Star Wars" often have exaggerated features that mirror ethnic stereotypes, and their treatment in the narrative often reflects colonial attitudes. Shifting into these aliens while criticizing someone for shifting into a different race is absurd. You’re embodying a fictional race that’s a clear stand-in for real-world marginalized groups while trying to police how others choose to explore their own identities.

4. The Fremen from "Dune": The Fremen are depicted as desert dwellers with a deep connection to their land and a fierce resistance to imperialism, drawing heavily from Middle Eastern and North African cultures. Shifting into this race while bashing someone for shifting into a BIPOC identity is a prime example of enjoying the exoticism of another culture without acknowledging its real-world significance.

2. Elves in Fantasy Literature: Elves are depicted with exaggerated European features—tall, slender, sharp, angular faces—basically the "Aryan" beauty ideal cranked up to eleven. The romanticization of these features, while totally ignoring their roots in racist purity movements, is downright disturbing.If you’re shifting into an elf while slamming someone for shifting into a BIPOC identity, you’re perpetuating a fucked-up double standard. You’re engaging in a fantasy that upholds white-centric beauty while denying someone else the right to explore a version of themselves that aligns with a BIPOC identity.

The real issue isn’t about whether it’s right or wrong to shift into a different race; it’s about the double standard you’re applying. If you think it’s okay to shift into some fantasy race but not a BIPOC identity, then you’re the one with the fucked-up priorities. Shifting is all about exploring different versions of yourself, whether that’s through race, species, or whatever. So, stop being a fucking hypocrite and either accept it all or shut the hell up.

Next time you wanna criticize someone for race shifting, take a look at your own damn shifts. If you’re doing the same thing under the guise of “fantasy,” then you’re just as guilty of the shit you’re trying to call out. Stop acting like one is more acceptable than the other. Either own your shit across the board or get off your high horse.

This kind of hypocrisy shows that you’re more comfortable with the idea of exploring different identities when they’re wrapped in a "pretty pink bow" of fiction, but you balk at the idea of someone exploring the full spectrum of human experience, including the struggles and strengths that come with being BIPOC.

No more excuses. It’s time to face the reality of what you’re doing and start thinking critically about the implications of your shifts. Stop hiding behind the fantasy and start acknowledging the real-world context of the identities you’re exploring.