#the whole there's no racism in between humans based on race but there is anti immigration sentiment and anti non human discrimination

[samaspic31]

Exactly. has star wars always tried to be radically progressive ? sure, yeah, the ot compared the alliance to vietnamese anti american imperialism resistance, the prequels depicted victims of religious persecution and genocide as sympathetic at the height of demonisation of islam and violence in the middle east. Has it always suceed? does it give characters played by actors of all ethnicities the same care ? does it avoid falling into racist tropes? fuck no. And it’s undebatable it historically has centered white characters. So yeah the dudebros are wrong to say star wars’ thesis is either politically neutral or milquetoast liberal “both sides have flaws”, but that doesn’t make star wars good at being radical and exempt of examination of how itself perpetuated racism in many instances. both can coexist.

"in star wars, the villains are old white men for a reason" and the heroes are almost always young white people. So.

[azuremallone]

Azure's Corner

My, it's been awhile...

Well, welcome around kids. It's time to listen to me complain about something. It's not really a complaint but an observation that dawned on me just now.

Speaking of the Woke anti-white stance that liberals take, haven't you noticed that while they promote racial hatred of skin colors (White, Asian, White-looking people in general of any culture or phenotype), they always portray mixed marriages?

Let's look at the fact that describing someone based on their skin color isn't racist. Hating someone for their skin color is bigotry. Racism doesn't exist because races do not exist. You have phenotypes because everyone is of one race on this planet: Human. Well, excluding the various aliens that live here amongst you and the ancient Silurian who evolved from Velociraptors, but that's something else entirely. Those are Species.

In woke culture, the focus is on the past: How things were back in the 1600s. Yes, really. They have the notion that...

Then, they point to all sorts of historical references between then and the 1960s. They go on to state that nothing changed. They point to institutionalized racism, which doesn't exist. They completely ignore the outcomes of those historical events and the changes that took place as a result.

And they continue to drumbeat that White people are the devil. Pure evil. Always this and always that. That reverse racism doesn't exist while exclaiming that anyone who isn't the darkest shade of black is White and somehow part of this cabal of hidden knowledge, raised from childhood to be some kind of sleeper racist. What's funnier, is that they ALWAYS have some white person partnered with a black person. That white person is the one proclaiming how vile they are and yet supportive of their black partner.

If that isn't tokenization, I don't know what is.

I mean, look at the background and count the number of white people in this image:

Malcom X was very clear on the matter:

He was not a proponent of doing to White people what Black people were having done to them. Recapturing heritage and identity was meant as looking to a culture in America, remembering where one came from, and the identity spoken of is of a place in society. Not meant to segregate, it was meant to unify.

"I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being, first and foremost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole." - Malcolm X

Dr. Martin Luthor King Jr. was also very clear on the matter:

Recentering on the topic here, if the hatred of whites is so profound, then why are so many people involved in the support of anti-white wokeness, white? Furthermore, if the hatred is of white colors then why is the argument always that Asians "might as well be white" and yet they support biracial marriages, where children will have skin that is clearly going to be lighter in color?

I'm a big proponent of mixed marriages! If everyone fucked each other, there'd be more love and less hate in the world! There'd be people of all different kinds and promote evolution as each phenotype's genetics enhance each other. There'd be less focus on "racial identity" and more on self. Even interspecies relationships are prized! Get some alien and Saurian DNA into that family line!

Enough with the focus on hatred and promoting it as justice. Hatred is not justice. Violence is not justice. Anger is not love.

The reality is that tolerance is the key. Understanding and educating is paramount. Looking around outside is healthy.

I'm not going to say that there isn't bigotry. There is. There is hatred. You cannot fight hate with hate. It only leads to violence.

Even as an Alien myself, because the form I chose to take amongst your Humans is of a petite mixed Asian-European, I experience more "racial" bigotry now than I did twenty or even a hundred years ago. Could I shapeshift into someone else? Sure. Why should I?

I chose my form, not because of any "benefits" to having light skin and an Asianic appearance mixed with some Eurotrash sex appeal, but because it is a representation of myself in my mind. It's easier to hold a form if it's representation is of who you are inside. That's the key to shapeshifting. Don't try to be something you're not, because the effort involved in maintaining every nuance is energy expensive.

Could I look like Joe Biden or Jessica Alba? Absolutely. Would it be perfect? Not completely, because I'm not either of them. It would take keeping a perfect image of them in my mind at all times to match them and I could only hold it for as long as I can hold that image in my mind. But relaxed, just being me, I can return to this form I selected at any time, every time.

And that's probably the takeaway here. You are you. Be who you are, not your skin color or what you claim as your identity. It doesn't matter if you're blue, green, black, white, have red or purple eyes, antennae, and it doesn't matter whether you're male or female, gay, straight, bi, or whatever... You're you. Love whomever you want. Love someone even if they hate you.

No one else cares what you call yourself or identify as except you. You can't force anyone to accept you, but you can completely not be a dick about it.

So go out, mingle. Get to know other people. Disagree with them. Agree with them. Whatever, but be civil and better than the ignorant. Self-educate yourself. Experience the world for how it really is by going outside.

You'll find that what the media is pushing is not what is really out there in the world. There is no such thing as institutionalized anything. There's no bajillion genders. There's just people who are all looking for the same thing: Love and peace.

And for those people who are looking for hate and violence:

You're the problem.

[wizardwisenmore]

Hey, being a woman is NOT a purely social construct. You should hunt down whoever told you that lie and congratulate them for being an idiot.

Listen... I've been around this track a few times now. I know how this argument goes and I know how it ends and neither of us will wind up happy. But if you really wanna hear my thoughts, well, there's the read more.

Ultimately, what you need to know is any and all anti-transition rhetoric is based upon the same ideology that informs eugenics which stems from capitalism and racism, both of which are about obtaining means to control.

What do I mean by this? Eugenics and terf rhetoric are pseudo-sciences informed by the desired outcome rather than the collected data. Scientists (if you can really call them that) such as Samuel Morton had preconceived notions of race and thus spent accumulating "proof" such as the measurement of skulls to reinforce their racist point of views and position within society. With these so-called studies, they were able to strip less wealthy/fortunate individuals who didn't fit the ideal from rights and other civil liberties such as common respect. Similar types of "studies" that relate to this are the same as terfs being able to "tell" when someone is trans because of supposed more "masculine" or "feminine" features which are purely based upon western European "beauty" standards. This lead to the loss of genuine body autonomy for those individuals under the scrutiny of this rhetoric.

Body autonomy is an especially broad-reaching conversation but as these arguments tend tofocus on reproductive rights, let's look at that. The base idea of a woman (which from word roots does actually translate to "female person" but words change and develop so, "female" back then doesn't necessarily mean what it does today but that's a whole other convo) as an individual who can give birth stems from the time of serfdoms, feudal lords, etc. when keeping track of the bloodline was very important. So, those who controlled people who could essentially make new people were able to obtain greater power by more or less having control of the population itself. They controlled who could and who could not have children together.

We've made great strides in liberating that choice and made it so that those who were grouped together because of a biological asset have more control over it (though it's threatened now). Creating a more even playing field means that the line between one group and another has been increasingly blurred. Evolutionarily speaking, this is highly advantageous and stems from the development of higher thinking that spurs things such as math and philosophy and removes the class of people who were more or less mostly culturally intended to produce children when necessary.

This leaves the current classes of today which are high, middle, low, and no-income individuals within each class the ideal situation is that all individuals are of equal opportunity. However, having these economically reinforced classes doesn't actually permit equal opportunity. Capitalism, which is the root cause of this, reinforces these classes because a divided populace means a more marketable and therefore profitable population. Within capitalism, humans are very much a resource and so just as it was in the middle ages, being able to control those who can produce new people is a key to increased profits.

With how widespread commerce and trade are today, being able to cast a wider net is important when being able to sell goods. People aren't uniform though so it's difficult to be able to predict what people will buy beyond basic needs like food and water, but even those resources aren't safe from demographics. Demographics as you may know is the grouping of people into generalized categories like adult and child, men or women, yknow like the sections at target. Having more uniform demographics makes it easier to sell goods so having a "woman" demographic that's streamlined across certain biological needs, food, fashion, etc. creates an easier group to cater to. Thus, many companies fund those who reinforce this demographic, and many others like it.

However, people as a whole aren't streamlined and neither are they their biology. If you can grasp the concept that it's wrong to judge someone by the color of their skin then it shouldn't be too hard to acknowledge that it's unfair to judge someone by their genitalia. Which are abstract ideas that have affected culture for centuries now. So, "women are those who produce children" has been a very cultural interpretation of biology that has become obsolete. The only way to create true equality is by allowing full body autonomy and separating the idea of womanhood from biology. Defining women on the basis of biology restricts the definition itself because that ultimately reduces women to biological function rather than literally anything else like fashion, art, language, the list goes on.

Even biologically, humans have no true dichotomy. All the sex chromosomes do is produce one hormone or another be that estrogen or testosterone which creates physiological changes that present as the phenotype of the chromosomes. All humans have receptors for both hormones, that's why HRT works and if that's the true biological basis of what you consider man or woman, then we've already covered that. If you are considering the reproductive aspect then that draws issues within the means of fertility.

Even before modern transition methods, there have been those who have been able to live comfortably as a gender that differs from the one traditionally assigned to their sex at birth. And before you come in here with the "archaeologists will still be able to tell by your bones", as one who has studied archaeology I can tell you that those methods are spotty at best. What tells more about who the person was and how they operated in their society and culture is what is found buried with them such as clothes and religious artifacts.

So judging people upon a phenotype is deeply unfair. The true key to equality is being able to separate human identity from our biology. Who we are is not a reflection of what we are.

[futurebird]

Has racism always existed?

(or "racism is non-abelian")

Conservatives like to stress the fact that America didn’t invent slavery. While it is true that slavery has existed throughout human history, all over the world. In most cases, people became slaves due to losing a war, as punishment, through debt. What made a slave was extrinsic. Even if enslaved for all your life, there was at least the notion that you *could have been* something else... under other circumstances. So, America didn’t invent slavery, but the kind of slavery practiced in the New World was unique in contrast to other instances of slavery in human history. 

The pseudoscience of “Racism” teaches that all of humanity can be divided into discrete categories of people; that black people are the category intrinsically suited to slavery. Hence, all children of black people are slaves, even if the father is white. This is the fundamental concept behind chattel slavery. Racism was a new way of implementing ethnic prejudice (ethnic prejudice, like slavery, has always existed in human history) Racism provided a justification for using generation after generation of people as low-cost labor. Racism built fortunes. The New World would have been worthless without billions of man-hours of stolen labor from enslaved people, some of whom were my ancestors.

This is why saying "racism goes both ways" is nonsense.

This is why saying that racism has "always existed between groups of people in human history" is incorrect. While "Ethnic prejudice/bigotry" can go in any direction,  the theory of racism was specifically about the inferiority of black people in an ordering of all people that places white people at the top. There was no such thing as "race" as we know it today before the theory of racism. This is not to say that people didn't have prejudices or stereotypes about groups. Racism is particular theory of  "science" and religion. 

Attempts to treat racism as a synonym for "ethnic prejudice" erase this history and make ongoing impacts of racism less visible— and thus harder to fight.

To make chattel slavery possible required a whole host of new myths and theories. Slavers needed to believe that all black people are unable to govern ourselves, that we only may live productively under constant application of violent punishment to prevent our inherent criminal and disorganized nature from ruining society.  This idea persists to this day in theories about black people being inherently criminal, less intelligent, oversexed and lazy.

It's not hard to find statistics that describe differences between the lives of people based on race. From lifespan, to income, education, to contact with the criminal justice system, black people fall behind. If you believe this is due to some intrinsic quality of black people or some intrinsic quality of culture created and propagated by black people calling these differences unjust is absurd. Efforts to address these inequalities are, then, giving black people more than we deserve.

Statements like “everyone is a little racist” can be very comforting to some. It’s fascinating to me how stridently some people will defend these statements. Why not just say “everyone has prejudices” or “everyone has some bigoted views” or “everyone has internalized some ethnic prejudices”  All of these later phrases are true, and convey the same ideas intended by “everyone is a little racist” the only difference?  Only by saying “everyone is a little racist” do we also get to generalize the idea of racism. Racism is simply another form of ethnic prejudice. Just as we might say slavery in the US is just another form of slavery and there has always been slavery. 

It would be like saying “everyone is a little anti- Semitic” to mean “everyone has some prejudices about religion.” But anti- semitism is a particular kind of religious, ethnic and, yes, sometimes racial bigotry. It has a specific history. 

The same thing is true of racism!

Race is, of course, totally "made up" -- arbitrary, fairly new in human history. Race is not only "made up" it is structured to place black people at the bottom and white people at the top of an imaginary hierarchy. Notions like the one drop rule, white purity, are embedded in our ideas about race to this day. Even though, we, those people denied a nationality/ethnic identity, have built culture within the boundaries of race. (for Black American culture the effort has been almost compensatory it its richness) An old "comedy song" from Will Heelan and Fred Helf was Every Race Has a Flag But the C**n (1900) this song struck a nerve with black artists of the time-- its ignorance distilled the unique issue with being black in "multi-ethnic" America. There is no identity for a Black person descendent from slaves outside of the (oppressive) framework of race. The only real option is to redefine that framework from the inside out. Every black person who is beautiful, intelligent, remarkable, compassionate, shocking, creative... every kind of human achievement that occurs within the framework of blackness destabilizes that old pseudoscience of racism and recreates a black identity. This is an incomplete project. Watering down the meaning of the word racism only makes it more difficult. 

[unwilting]

However, if instead of remaining at the phenomenal level of property forms and market relations Capital is approached in terms of its delineation of the time-determination that grounds capitalism, the relation between racism and the logic of capital appears in a different light. Central to this is chapter 10 of Volume One ofCapital on ‘The Working Day.’ Here we find Marx’s famous declaration, ‘Labour in a white skin cannot emancipate itself where it is branded in a black skin.’ The statement has been heralded by many Marxists as a sign of Marx’s sensitivity to anti-Black racism while being downplayed by critics of Marxism as a rhetorical flourish that is undermined by his privileging the industrial proletariat as the ‘universal’ class that leads everyone else to liberation. What tends to be overlooked by many on either side of the debate is that the chapter on the Working Day was not composed until 1866, shortly before the publication of Volume One; no version of it appears in the earlier drafts of Capital. This indicates that the impact of the U.S. Civil War, climaxed by Blacks fleeing the plantations in what Du Bois called nothing less than a ‘mass general strike’, finally led Marx to devote a chapter of his greatest theoretical work to the question ‘when does my working day begin and when does it end?’

Marx himself argued that ‘so long as the determination of value by working time is itself left “undetermined”, as it is with Ricardo, it does not make people shaky. But as soon as it is brought exactly into connection with the working day and its variations, a very unpleasant new light dawns upon them’. Marx explicitly states in chapter 10 that the freedom struggles of former Black slaves is such a new stage in the fight for freedom that it inspired white workers to take up the fight for an eight-hour workday, as witnessed by the formation of the General Congress of Labour in August 1866 in Baltimore. It wasn’t the struggles of the industrial proletariat that paved the way for the emancipation of Black slaves; on the contrary, it was the self-activity of former Black slaves that breathed new life into a previously dormant class struggle. This had Marx’s ear, and it led him to incorporate issues of race and racism into his critique of capital on a level that is not found in his earlier work. He calls attention to, “Time for education, for intellectual development, for the fulfillment of social functions, for social intercourse, for the free play of the vital forces of his body and his mind […] in its blind and measureless drive [capital] usurps the time for growth, development and healthy maintenance of the body…. Capital asks no questions about the length of life of labor power. What interests it is purely and simply the maximum of labor power that it can set into motion in a working day. It attains this objective by shortening the life of labor power, in the same way as a greedy farmer snatches more produce from the soil by robbing it of its fertility’…”

A page later he writes, “It is accordingly a maxim of slave management, in slave-importing countries, that the most effective economy is that which takes out of the human chattel in the shortest space of time the utmost exertion it is capable of putting forth. It is in then tropical culture, where annual profits often equal the whole capital of plantations, that Negro life is most recklessly sacrificed. It is the agriculture of the West Indies, which has been for centuries prolific of fabulous wealth, that has engulfed millions of the African race.” Marx here poses race-based slavery in the Americas as internal to the dynamics of capital accumulation, which hinges on extracting the greatest amount of surplus value in the fewest hours of time. And he is indeed referring to surplusvalue – not simply a surplusproduct of use-values, since he invokes ‘annual profits’ based on ‘the capital of plantations.’ Moreover, Marx infers that the American system of race-based slavey is not an archaic hangover of a precapitalist past that impedes the development of a ‘higher’ and ‘more efficient’ mode of production, since he calls it ‘the most effective economy’ when it comes to maximising profits. If this is often overlooked, it is because it is easy to conflate Marx’s discussion of precapitalist slave modes of production – in which labour power is not commodified and production is aimed at augmenting use-values instead of exchange value – with the form assumed by slavery in the Americas, which was integral to the accumulation of capital based on a global division of labor.

“In the second type of colonies – plantations – where commercial speculations figure from the start and production is intended for the world market, the capitalist mode of production exists, although only in a formal sense, since the slavery of Negroes precludes free wage-labour, which is the basis of capitalist production. But the business in which slaves are used is conducted by capitalists. The method of production which they introduce has not arisen out of slavery but is grafted on to it. In this case the same person is capitalist and landowner. And the elemental existence of the land confronting capital and labour does not offer any resistance to capital investment, hence none to the competition between capitals.’” — Johnson rightly asks, ‘If slavery was not capitalist how do we explain its commercial character’. Clearly, if American slavery was not capitalist we could not account for its commercial character. But Marx never denied that capitalism existed prior to industrial capitalism, even though the latter was the focus of his critique. The ‘excrescence of money changers and cotton factors in southern cities who yearly handled millions and millions of pounds of foreign exchange’ and ‘the thriving slave markets at the centre of their cities where prices tracked those that were being paid for cotton thousands of miles away’, which Johnson says demonstrates the commercial character of U.S. slavery, did not signify for Marx (unlike Fox-Genovese) that U.S. slavery was exogenous to capitalism. To be sure, there is no capital without wage labour, and no wage labour without capital; a society exclusively defined by slave labour is not and cannot be capitalist. However, nothing prevents slave labour, especially in its most racialised forms, from augmenting capital in a society whose ‘general creative basis’ is wage labour. Roman slavery could neither create nor augment capital because the conditions of generalised wage labour did not exist. American slavery could and did augment capital since it operated in the context of a capitalist world market in which wage labour generally prevailed as its ‘creative basis’. The same goes for racialised forms of violent social control that followed the end of chattel slavery.

What ‘makes labor abstract’ is adhering to socially necessary time: labor becomes ‘homogenous’ insofar as it conforms to a universal time determination, as represented by the ticking of the factory clock. And it is precisely this which accentuates differences between workers: some adhere to the average, others do not; the latter are sooner or later dispensed with and/or deprived of the benefits that others possess, since in capital’s view any hour of labor performed in excess of the social average (which is communicated to the agents of social production through the laws of competition) creates no value. There are many reasons why some enterprises conform to the dictates of socially necessary labor time better than others: it could be the quantity and quality of labor-saving devices, the skill or education of the workers, the level of social cohesion among workers that enables them to resist overwork and speed-up, etc. Although an array of contingencies determines whether or not enterprises follow the law of value, they are compelled to follow this singular law. Race and gender play a critical role in this. If making use of socially-inscribed differences can pump out greater output in less relative units of time, so much the better from capital’s standpoint. The utilisation and reproduction of difference poses no barrier to the homogenising power of abstract labor, so long as they meet the requirements of value production. It is one reason that the majority of factory workers in the world today are young women – gender discrimination tends to lower wage rates while expending the bodies and lives of young women boosts profit rates. It is also why capital sees to it that Blacks are the last hired and first fired – racial discrimination acts as a disciplinary agent in forcing greater output from the most marginalised while enabling many white workers to feel relatively privileged even as they come under increasing pressure from capital’s time constraints. Capital relies no less on the reproduction of national and ethnic difference – as in employing immigrant workers speaking over a dozen different languages in a single enterprise (as in many meatpacking plants in the U.S.) in order to make it harder for them to come together to fight for better conditions. There is nothing in Marx’s concept of abstract labor that suggests that all concrete laboring activities become the same or that social differentiations become washed away. On the contrary, abstract labor in Marx’s theory as well as in life is productive of difference. In this sense, Roediger is correct in writing, ‘we have too often forgotten [John R.] Common’s suggestion that the hurrying and pushing could be chronically infected by playing races against each other.’ We need only add that this ‘hurrying and pushing’ is part and parcel of the disciplinary power of socially necessary labor time, which serves as the inner core of Marx’s theory of value and surplus value.

The clock is set according to the dictates of value production – the drive to conform to the socially necessary labour time that it takes to produce a commodity on the world market. No matter who you are, worker or capitalist, the law of value confronts you as a person apart, as an ‘alien spirit’. As a result, the effort to achieve reconciliation with the political community breaks down – as does the quest for recognition in the earlier section on self-consciousness in the Phenomenology of Spirit. This is because capitalism is governed by an abstract form of domination, abstract universal labour time, which can hear no apology. There can be no recognition between an individual and an impersonal time determination that employs them. The moreabstract becomes capital’s dominance, as all aspects of work and everyday life are compelled to conform to socially necessary labour time, the harder it is to achieve even the pretense of formal recognition. In a word, the logic of capital ultimately undermines its contractual form of appearance.

…while the proletariat remains the universal class, insofar as no other class is capable of resolving the contradictions of civil society, it is not the universalsubject.

[yaspup9000]

So Yeah.. Um.. I’ve finally making a review? of This Show. I’m sorry for the hold up with this.. I’ve just been through a lot of stuff lately, but now, yeah I still feel a lil crappy but imma push through. Idk if this is even a review i just wanna talk about this show. Anyways, Lets Talk about Alfred J Kwak!

So, for some backround, Alfred J Kwak was an animated tv series that’s actually counts as an Anime funny enough. the reason being that This was a colabration between Dutch and Japan, so yeah, it counts as an anime. Also I think it was based off of a theater show last time i’ve remembered.  Is there anything speical about this show? Well, Yeah, it is actually. This 1980′s show is well, pretty openly left leaning when it comes to its messages. Ie Anti Fascist, Capitalist, has an “interracial couple” (imma get to the race thing later i promise) and a canon trans charater who plays a lot in alot of episodes. Okay so, Before I share all my opinions and thoughts about the show along with my first impressions of the show versus my impressions after watching this show, I’mma just gonna briefly talk about some of the plot and such. (dont worry, I wont really spoil this show for you folks but i will be skimming through some episodes and just talking about a small handful.) So, The lore of the story is that there’s a kind hearted Duck named Alfred, and he tends to sometimes daydream about stuff a lot. Long with his many travels, there’s his Adoptive father Named Henk the mole and Some of Alfred’s friends, such as Oilie the stork,Winnie, and some others. The show itself has some episodes where there could be slice of life to being about anti war. The show can be a bit all over the place and even nuts in some cases but still can be enjoyable and wholesome!

Now funny enough, I know that in some 80′s and 90′s media, there has always been some form of left leaning messaging, Ie, War is bad, dont judge others, something something Pick any episode from captian planet. But with Alfred J Kwak, it doesn’t really sugar coats anything when it comes to being anti Capitalist and Anti Fascist, Heck The Vilain of the show was Literaly HITLER!! Oh yea there’s also some thing about immagration too.  Some of my First Impressions of the show is that, Alfred and Winnie travel to places while fighting nazis and stuff but instead It’s Just about Henk and Alfred, which isnt a bad thing, however i did felt a little disappointed. Also I thought That Dolf was gonna be more of a Looming Threat for Alfred and his friends, since he’s well, Freaking Hitler and all, I thought Dolf would put everything in his power to get rid of Winnie and her little brother or something. Idk, I was actually thinking there would be some more conflict or something. Another thing, I do have a bit of an issue when doing the whole animal racism thing. Even tho I am glad that they’re not using species as a replacement of race (cause Oh boy, It personally rubs me off the wrong way and might does more harm than good) Although, I still believe, that the show could of made a lot more sense if the world the show takes place in is a world where ducks are just the “humans” of the world where theres all kinds of Duck folk and stuff. Cause honestly I think it would feel a little less jarring when it comes to bringing in the issues of race. Cause idk, why they the people of waterland, would feel “uncomfy” over ducks who are black, I mean, yeah sure it could be xenaphobia instead of racism but still, It feels a little bit jarring and hyporical that they would be okay with other random animals and bizare creatures but get weirded out by Black Ducks.

  (Again I guess it could be a Xenaphobia thing idk) Also, I felt a little bummed out that we dont really see much of Winnie nor see her play much important roles in the show. idk man, I felt a little disappointed but hey, At least Winnie is cute tho! I really wished We would see more of her.

Also Another thing that Kinda confused me is one of Alfred’s friends. Like okay in the episode, Alfred’s first birthday, we get to see Hannes and Wannas were once friends with Alfred, but then later in the next episode with the whole time skip i think? Hannes and Wannes end up being Friends Dolf and made fun of him cause he has a father as a mole. Which made me go, BRUH, DUDE, YOU WERE VIBIN AND CHILLIN WITH ALFRED AND HENK IN THE LAST EPISODE!? WHAT ARE YOU TALKIN ABOUT!? Idk why they heck they stopped being his friend just to be friends with this Random school yard bully kid. Maybe its ether from peer pressure or they just wants to be friends with him now cause.. idk man.. Your guess its good as mine. Also in the later episodes, one of them just disappeared out of thin air while the other Which was, I think Wannes ended up becoming a rich racist with family members who lives in the stolen land of Black ducks now. So yeah.. That happened.  Some Other things to ramble about is Oilie, and honestly, I really like him and find him pretty intreasting when it comes to rep. okay so, Depending on which dub from different languges, Oilie is ether confirmed to be a lesbian or a trans guy. He’s not like just some background charater, he actually plays apart in a few episodes even won for ruler of Waterland. Oilie as a charater is really sweet and wholesome along with still being Alfred’s friend even in adulthood. And he seems like a loving husband and father! Honestly yeah, I Personally think Alfred J Kwak was a good show! i feel like you guys should most def give it a watch. I felt like there were some stuff I’ve missed and im sorry that this was a jumbled mess of a post I hope everyone was able to understand my thoughts somewhat. I might prob make a sequal post of this in cause any Alfred J Kwak fan comes to me and have us talk out stuff.  but for how hope you guys enjoy your day

[candycanesuckers]

A Collective Post Helping Defend and Define Stormfront:

There is a harmful narrative that has formed around a (feminist) character that appeared in the newest season of “The Boys” -- her name is Stormfront. Said narrative is the falsified idea that she is a Nazi. This was started mainly by Anti-Feminists in retaliation to the fact that the character is rather vocal about social injustice. Below are definitive rebuttals to the toxic propaganda spread by these people and the others who blindly took in it.

Defining Stormfront’s Past:

The reason why the slander on Stormfront is as active and believed as it is is because it’s based on the comic (in which Stormfront was a male, and yes, was indeed a Nazi), which then influenced the past of the TV-rendition of the character. In the show, Stormfront use to be apart of Nazi Germany before (assumedly) migrating to America and donning the alias of “Liberty” in the 50s, in which she carried out violently racist attacks behind the scenes.

Something worth noting is that Stormfront is the first ever Superhero created by Vought (the man who created the company was her husband; whether she was injected with V -- the serum to give people these super abilities -- when she was a child or well within her maturity is currently unknown). Because she’s the first ever superhero, she has a unique ability that other superheroes (from our current knowledge) lack; immortality. 

Due to her immortality, Stormfront outlived her peers. She watched as the culture around her changed. She eventually had a daughter, which she then lived past, and she too lived past her husband. This means that she lived past the time where Nazi’s were to some degree a social norm, and lived through the period(s) where people actively fight back against Nazi’ism, racism, and other forms of prejudice. She was thrust into new cultures, and in turn, molded her beliefs into something new over the years she had lived through. She no longer had the leader, she no longer had the support, she no longer had the option to use her voice. And because of that, she learned that her beliefs were outdated.

It could be argued that the point to Stormfront’s character is to reflect the social evolution of America -- from how racism was mainstream to now progressivism being rewarded.

The Accusation That Stormfront Said a Slur Towards Kenji and she Killed an Apartment Complex of Black People Simply Because They’re Black:

In episode three, for those who don’t know, there was a super-terrorist (the title given to super-humans who use their abilities to aid in their terrorism), and The Seven were sent out to capture and put the terrorist down. Basically: they were doing their jobs as heroes. During the attempted capture of the terrorist, Stormfront was ultimately the one to get him.

While she was chasing him, they entered an apartment complex; while on the chase, she most likely would have noted that the terrorist isn’t actually doing any active action of terrorism -- he was just running. While she knew, and The Seven knew, that he was a terrorist, the public would probably see it as a superhero harming an innocent. Of course since he was an active threat, she was fast thinking. While chasing him, she stroke down some casualties and destroyed a portion of the apartment complex building that way there would be visible evidence that the terrorist would’ve been a threat to the lives of the public. And it worked. While what she did was arguably corrupt, that’s not the point here; the show makes a point to say all the heroes are corrupt. 

In her fight with the terrorist, she does say something that features unfavorable language -- she called the terrorist a “yellow bastard” -- and while it’s displeasant, it is not a slur. Yellow is a color, and he was rather pigmented. It’s a distasteful descriptor. And she was right in calling him a bastard. He was a terrorist.

The Accusation that Stormfront Didn’t Like A-Train Because he’s Black:

We can assume that Stormfront has a strong sense of morality due to her past connections to Nazi Germany -- while she no longer holds those beliefs, it would suggest that she places importance on morals due to strong “moral” senses of the Nazi party. With her now being in the modern world, her sense of morality probably evolved into applying to more current issues.

In the show, Stormfront is shown to believe in the superiority of Supes (will touch on that even more later). Due to this, is is likely that she would look down on those who have super-abilities but does stuff that would harm them or otherwise negatively impact the performance of their heroics. In season two, it was shown that A-Train -- whose whole shtick was his extreme speed -- could no longer run to such extremes before triggering a possible heart failure. This would clearly motivate Stormfront to look down on A-Train and see him as a waste -- because he is effectively wasting away his own life.

Her saying “some people have quality, other’s don’t” is a clear reference to the fact that his quality of self-control and self-worth is low. He’s an addict, and has let his addiction ruin his life and multiple lives of the people around him.

The Accusation that Stormfront Thinks Black People are Trying to get rid of White People; An In-Depth Dissection on the Conversation Between Stormfront and Homelander in Which she Explains her Past:

The scene opens with her, Stormfront, finding Homelander alone and solemn overlooking the city. He’s being callous and dismissive towards her, and even says a sly comment in which could be taken as a potential murder threat, which obviously effects her and her future plans (since it’s rather clear that she’s merely using him for her own personal agenda). Because of his cold behavior towards her, she decides to bare her all to him.

“I will never lie to you again. I will tell you everything . . . Starting with this,” She begins. Stormfront hesitantly walks to a large brown box, the stoic look on Homelander’s face never leaving as he pointedly watches her every move. She opens the crate, and in it are numerous aged items belonging to her, including her Liberty attire and a collection of black and white photos.

Out of her collection of items, she picks up the photos due to them being an outline of her history and an easy open door to the unique ability she has (since she’s either immortal or has an extended life quantity).

She shows the first image to Homelander, an image that shows her next to a much older woman (who has previously been assumed by the viewer to be her mother or grandmother). “My daughter,” she begins, “Chloe. She died of Alzheimer's a few years ago.”

Before this scene, her unique relation to aging was unknown to Homelander; the only people who knew were Starlight and The Boys. Understandably shocked, Homelander asks Stormfront just how old is she.

“I was born in 1919, in Berlin.”

There’s beats of silence between them. The information that she just revealed settles, to both Homelander and the viewer, and then she flips to the second photo.

It’s of her, dressed in a beautiful, white blazer dress, standing next to three extremely influential figures from history (further highlighting her extreme age). As she flips to the next photo, she says, “And . . . The most important man in the room . . . “ Homelander looks down, and finishes the unsaid sentence: “Frederick Vought.”

The next portion of the conversation is one of the most important, both in-context of the actual conversation but also in terms of the audience finally understanding Stormfront as a person; it gives us an insight to her mentality, it further explores her history with Vought and the relationship she has with the company, while also showing us what seems to be her intentions with Homelander. “He gave me the first successful V injection. He taught me everything. And then we fell in love, and he gave me a daughter. He made me, and his genius made you.”

This one excerpt shows us an important aspect on Stormfront and her mentality: she glorifies and idealizes Vought. The glorification she has of Frederick Vought consumes her, evident through the passion she has while she speaks on how V made her into who she is. The glorification she has for Frederick then streamlines into the next aspect of what she talks about, which is the superiority that comes from being chosen to be a superhero (which she isn’t exactly unjust in; a separate post to discuss, maybe? Although I feel as if it’s pretty obvious how people with super-human abilities that routinely save the world are clearly above just normal civilians).

Emotions are clear on Homelander’s face as he hears all the new information released by Stormfront: he’s shocked, and really just at a loss for words. He turns away from her, almost in a way dismissing the rest of the photos she has as he tries to process everything. She holds the photos to her side, now untouched for the rest of the conversation, and continues to speak: “Frederick didn’t care about all the fans or stardom or any of that shallow bullshit. We are in a war for the culture. The other races are grinding us down and taking what is rightfully ours, but we can fight back. With an army of supermen, millions strong.”

This four-sentence paragraph is the strongest example we currently have from the show that showcases the sense of superiority Stormfront has due to her super-human abilities. This specific excerpt is commonly used as a dog whistle by Stormfront anti’s to push the narrative that she is a Nazi or at the very least a white supremacist, however with the context of her relation to Vought and the fact that she highlights it being an army of supermen, it’s made explicitly clear that the “war for the culture” is a culture where supes are naturally seen as higher than non-supes and don’t have to fear the possibility of public backlash due to “othering” that’s caused by a public that may be scared of people who are different than them -- which may be why Stormfront finds it so important to build an online following who truly knows her as a person, while still being aware that she ultimately has a platform and is in a position of power.

It could be argued that her current arc and characterization of glorification and superiority is meant to be an allegory for Nazi’ism, however, I will say in my own personal opinion that it’s incredibly weak to claim. Nazi allegories need to have someone explicitly shown to be wrong in their beliefs and ideals; Stormfront though, is justified -- or at the very least has solid ground to stand on. I mean, God, it’s shown that mothers and fathers were offering up their newborns to be injected with compound V. That should speak for itself.

Lastly, after Stormfront bore her history and ideals to Homelander, she says one last thing to Homelander, one last confession full of passion and desperation: “So I love you with all of my heart. How could I not? Everyone I have ever loved is in the ground. And then I found you. We found each other. And now neither of us has to be alone ever again.”

I believe this to imply that her sense of superiority is a front that she puts up and her desire to create a culture of supe’s is to create a new race of people that are similar to her in sense of life-span, that way she no longer has to keep losing those she loves and live a life where pain is a constant. I truly do think all of this is an act of longing for a life of less pain 💔

So in conclusion: her idea of a “war on our culture” is the idea of non-supes against those who are. It’s an entirely separate thing from Nazi beliefs and / or ideals.

Discussing Stormfront’s Feminism and Why it Should be Both Admired and Wide-Spread Within our Culture:

Stormfront is a traditional feminist; she doesn’t believe that women are superior to men, but rather that we’re all on equal footing and it’s our own personality and accomplishments that make us. Quoted from episode two, “Why does it matter whether heroes have a dick or vag? I mean, shouldn’t we all just be competent at our jobs? I don’t think girls do anything better, I think chicks and dicks are in it together.” She’s able to point out the systematic advantages men have and the unfair treatment of women by the media, but she’s still able to recognize that it’s an issue of the system that forms our culture rather than an issue of men themselves. She never takes out her issues on random men, but rather at the men in positions of power who fuel this sexist attitude (and the women who stand next to these men, allowing it).

She knows her worth, both as a person and as a woman. Throughout the six she has shown up in so far, Stormfront has been outspoken whenever she has seen someone reducing women to nothing but vapid sex appeal for the male gaze – such as her call-out in episode two towards the man in charge of story-boarding the commercial. She recognizes her worth and is able to voice the issues she has with the sexist disregard for the female characters.

Unlike a lot of people, she knows when to restrict herself. This is a problem with our culture at large – we reward loud, rude behavior (primarily within men) despite the fact that they’re being unnecessarily cruel towards what is a rather harmless individual (ex: Gordon Ramsay). During the scene where Stormfront is with Starlight doing press for the announcement of her being apart of The Seven, she points out the double standard and false idea of “girl power” being pushed. Despite it being a topic she would be passionate about, Stormfront is able to keep her points restricted purely to the topic at hand that she wants to discuss. Other people would be vicious and violently insult the interviewer, and they would be rewarded for it by getting clout on Twitter with strangers gushing about how she “dragged” someone, but Stormfront addressed the interviewer appropriately – she knew he was just a man doing his job.

Another example is the end of episode three. While it is “terrible” that she called the Asian a “yellow bastard” (although it’s not like she called him a Chink or BTS or whatever), she only did so because she believed that she was alone with him. If there was another individual with them, she would have restricted herself from offensive language. In a culture full of fake feminists that spew offensive language openly, I believe she is setting a standard of what the difference between personal behavior and outwards behavior that would have an impact on the world around her is. No one is effected by her saying “yellow bastard” the way she did, since she was alone. She is aware of her platform (since the introduction of her is with her on Instagram live) and knows what she can and cannot feature on her platform.

In conclusion: Stormfront is a good, self-aware, admirable feminist. Be like Stormfront.

The Accusation That People Involved on the Show Have Called her A Nazi:

It’s true. In interviews, multiple people have referred to Stormfront as a Nazi -- however, an important piece of context that these people who are spreading these quotes always seem to miss out, is the fact that every time they have discussed Stormfront being a Nazi, it’s in relation to her past. They never say that her Nazi beliefs are something carried on from Liberty to Stormfront (they refer to her as Stormfront since it’s simply easier to, though). 

Even with that though, sometimes the intent of an author (or producer, or actor, etc.) does not translate to the actual finished product. What we see has more weight than what we’re told; we’ve been told that she’s a “Nazi white supremacist” but what we’ve seen is a deeply flawed character with a troubling past who’s actively working on making herself a better person. The producers, writers -- whatever -- have not translated their intent properly, so, therefore, it is invalid. Their interpretation of the character is wrong.This is something that happens a lot -- where the author means one thing but the product says another. A good example is JK Rowling; she intended to have Snape die with his sins absolved and being a martyr, but all he ended up being was an abusive creep with a vendetta against some child. Do you get it?

The Accusation That Stormfront Caused A Shooting:

So let’s just be clear: Stormfront clearly condemned the actions by the terrorist who shot the convenience clerk; she clearly doesn’t stand by that behavior nor support it. Using it as fuel for your little Stormfront hate-boner is weird and unfounded.

The Accusation That Nothing Shows Stormfront Had Changed as A Person From When she was Liberty:

A lot of people claim that Stormfront has showed no change from in comparison to her present-self to how she acted in the flashbacks, “proving” that she is still a Nazi. However, there are multiple examples that show she has actively became a better person; there are some major elemental changes to her as a person throughout time -- we know this by comparing what we know of her currently to what she used to be.

Firstly: She explicitly says that she “changed with the times,” which is a clear indication that she’s taken purposeful strides to change her values (since racism is no longer something we deem acceptable).

Secondly: While she had the mantle of liberty, she purposefully went out looking for minorities to brutalize them. While we don’t know if she ever said explicit slurs (such as the N-word or the C-word), she did make it apparent that her attack was on the basis of their ethnicity. However, in modern times, her attacks are purely motivated to fuel the reputation of Vought / because she was told to (and with one exception, which was to manipulate Homelander); this is: when she killed Kimiko’s brother, which was because he was deemed a super terrorist, and when she killed the apartment complex, which was to add to the narrative that he was a terrorist, and the exception is when she pushed Homelander into killing the white man (which was to make Homelander believe that the justice system is unjust . . . Which she is right in, to be fair).

Thirdly: Her study in creating a race of literal super-humans was diverse; it included people of all ethnicities and skin tones.

Fourthly: Stormfront herself shows, although not in a direct way, that she has actively changed. In episode five, Starlight confronts her on her past. Stormfront says, “going against your own people,” and clarifies it even further once Starlight assumes she means ‘white people’ with, “Starlight, superheroes. Don’t be racist.” While she was being condescending in what she said, the weight behind it still remains.

The Accusation That Stormfront Admitted to Being A Nazi by Saying People Love What She Says but Hates the Word Nazi:

In the finale, Stormfront’s past was exposed to the public. Because of how sensitive that information is, she got rightfully mad at whoever it was that leaked it. With the fact that Starlight had already tried to antagonize her before, Stormfront knew it was her. She found Starlight, and the two proceeded to fight. 

However, before the fight, Stormfront said that before her past was revealed, people liked what she was saying. They listened to her. They just simply don’t like the word Nazi. She said it in the sense that “Nazi” is a word used to discredit someone, regardless if their views would make them a Nazi or not. You see it a lot now, politically, the opposing side (on both ends) call each other Nazis simply because they don’t have aligning political views. And because Nazi is such a strong word, calling someone one of them would have an impact on their public reception regardless. Stormfront isn’t a Nazi anymore, but people were still calling her one regardless, so the public reception to her changed. Nazi is a strong word. Stormfront was right -- people did like what she was saying, they were listening to her every word, up until she was slandered as a Nazi.

The Accusation that Stormfront Said A Racist Remark About Edgar:

In the finale, Stormfront and Homelander are privately discussing who they believe could be behind a recent terrorist attack that quite clearly was perpetuated by a Supe. Homelander suggested that it was planned by a man called Edgar, and Stormfront said “it’s possible, he is smart. For his kind.” A lot of people have slandered Stormfront further by saying “for his kind” was in reference to his ethnicity. However, with the audience already knowing her superiority complex around Supes, we can understand the remark was in terms of him not having any abilities (that we know of).

The Accusation That Stormfront Believes in The “Great Replacement” Theory:

In the finale, it’s found that Homelander’s son -- Ryan -- is having issues connecting with his powers and triggering them. Homelander says that he found it easy to use his powers by imagining an enemy, a person he hates. However, Ryan tries to do that too but finds that he really just doesn’t hate anyone.

Stormfront, being quick-thinking, delicately says that people are against them because of their skin color, “it’s called white genocide.” While it was tasteless and questionable for her to tell a child, she believed that Ryan needed a clear enemy in his mind and she was simply suppling him with a vague idea that would trigger his abilities for at least one time. No where does she actually say she believes in the outlandish theory; she was simply saying it because she believed it would help Ryan overcome an obstacle he was facing. 

The Accusation That Stormfront is Named After A White-Nationalist Site:

There’s a lot of discourse over her name; a lot of people think a name is a valid reason to call someone a Nazi. I don’t believe I need to point out why that is insane, but I will explain the reasoning behind Stormfront’s name:

Stormfronts powers are based in electricity. They are bolts of electricity that come from the palm of her hand, and can light things of fire, burn people, throw them around, etc. They resemble lightening from a storm, hence her being called Stormfront.

[eretzyisrael]

Our Enemies Deploy the Cognitive Bomb

The first thing you need to know about the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report that was released on 27 April accusing Israel of “apartheid” is that the accusation has nothing to do with apartheid as most people understand it, the racially-based system of oppression that was in place in South Africa before roughly 1991.

HRW is accusing Israel of “crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution,” which are defined by a treaty called the “International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,” based on a UN General Assembly resolution passed in 1973, and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

It should be noted that neither Israel nor the USA are parties to either treaty. The 1973 convention was signed by 109 countries, which do not include Israel, the USA, Canada, Australia, or any of the developed countries of Western Europe.

Here is the definition of the crime of apartheid as understood by HRW:

An intent to maintain domination by one racial group over another.

A context of systematic oppression by the dominant group over the marginalized group.

Inhumane acts.

The “inhumane acts” referred to by the definition include such things as murder, torture, “arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment,” forced labor, “deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part,” all on the basis of race or ethnicity. While Palestinians often claim such mistreatment, their claims – often amplified and lent authority (the “halo effect”) by HRW and similar NGOs – are overwhelmingly false, exaggerated, or lacking in context (e.g., the claim is commonly made that a Palestinian was “executed” when he was shot in the act of stabbing a Jew or running one down with a car).

HRW also adds that

The reference to a racial group is understood today to address not only treatment on the basis of genetic traits but also treatment on the basis of descent and national or ethnic origin, as defined in the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Human Rights Watch applies this broader understanding of race.

In other words, apartheid doesn’t have to involve “race.” Any alleged discrimination against a national group can be considered apartheid. And given that “Palestinians” have diverse origins, including Egypt, Syria, Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and even the same Canaanite tribes as the forbears of the Jewish people, they don’t even fit this broader definition.

When I hear “apartheid” I think of white, black, and colored beaches and restrooms, laws against interracial marriage or even sexual relationships, laws establishing segregated housing, employment, and public transportation, denial of the right to vote or hold office, and so forth. I think of official classification of people by color. It is not an exaggeration to say that such a system, brutally imposed by force (as it was in South Africa), is a crime against humanity.

And that, of course, is why HRW, an organization that has changed over the years from a legitimate human rights watchdog into part of the well-oiled (and thickly greased with dollars and euros) machine for the delegitimization and demonization of Israel, wishes to accuse the Jewish state of apartheid, a crime that today evokes revulsion throughout the world – and which, following the precedent set by the treatment of the Republic of South Africa, justifies the boycotting, sanctioning, and total expulsion from the international order of Israel.

As the Kohelet Forum notes in its response to the report, no country other than South Africa has ever been deemed an “apartheid state” by a majority of the international community, including China, Sudan, and others that have engaged in massive systematic oppression of minorities.

None of the characteristics of South African apartheid can reasonably be applied to Israel. Everyone who knows anything about apartheid South Africa and Israel knows that. There is simply no resemblance, and HRW’s abstraction of the crime of apartheid and application of the word to Israel is dishonest and is part of the cognitive war that is being waged against her as a prelude to her hoped for physical destruction.

But never mind. Israel is being accused of seriously mistreating Palestinian Arabs, both its Arab citizens and the residents of the Palestinian Authority and Gaza, simply because they are Palestinians. If that is true, it is certainly reprehensible. So we should consider if the report even succeeds in making that case.

The report is 213 pages long, so it is impossible for me to critique it in detail in a short blog. But here are some things that I noticed in the first few pages (see the Kohelet response to HRW for more):

The report says that

From 1967 until the present, [Israel] has militarily ruled over Palestinians in the OPT, excluding East Jerusalem. By contrast, it has since its founding governed all Jewish Israelis, including settlers in the OPT since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, under its more rights-respecting civil law.

This is untrue. There is no military government in Gaza – there is zero Israeli presence there at all – and areas A and B of Judea and Samaria are ruled by the PA. There is a military administration of Area C, the territory that is under full Israeli control according to the Oslo Accords, but that administration governs both Israeli communities and Palestinian ones. There is no “separate law” for the two populations.

In general, the report ignores the existence of the PA and the Hamas government of Gaza. It’s true that Israel controls the borders and airspace between the river and the sea (with the exception of the border between Gaza and Egypt). But it does not control the daily lives of all of the residents of those areas as the report asserts.

HRW criticizes Israel for not allowing free movement of Palestinian Arabs from the territories into pre-1967 Israel, and for not allowing those Arabs outside of Israel recognized by the UN as “Palestinian refugees” to enter the territories or pre-1967 Israel. It dismisses Israeli explanations that this is a consequence of the amply-demonstrated Palestinian propensity to commit murderous terrorist acts against Israelis, saying “[e]ven when security forms part of the motivation, it no more justifies apartheid and persecution than it would excessive force or torture.” Tell it to those thousands of Israelis who have lost friends and family members to Palestinian terrorists.

There is almost no mention of Palestinian terrorism throughout the full report, even though most restrictions placed on Palestinian movement, such as the Judea/Samaria security barrier, were instituted after the murderous Second Intifada, in which more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered by terrorists. The selective blockade of Gaza is criticized without reference to the thousands of rockets that have been fired into Israeli towns, or the numerous tunnels intended to infiltrate terrorists into Israel. There is no mention of the 2015-2018 “stabbing intifada” which took the lives of dozens of Israelis.

The report claims that within pre-1967 Israel, “Palestinian [sic] citizens [have] a status inferior to Jewish citizens by law” as a result of the Nation-State Law, which in fact does not restrict them in any way, and which is similar to constitutional provisions in other ethnic nation-states, including the proposed constitution for the State of Palestine. It also invents or misrepresents other laws, including those concerning citizenship and residence.

The report will probably be a prime exhibit in the upcoming “Durban IV” conference on racism which will be held this September at the UN in New York, on the 20th anniversary of the first Durban conference, which devolved into an “anti-Israel hate-fest.”

Accusations of apartheid and persecution are tremendously powerful, especially in the US in today’s climate of racial antagonisms. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually a national/political one, and not a racial one (although antisemitism plays an important role). It has little in common with pre-1991 South Africa or the racial problems of the USA. It is also a small part of a much larger project by a group of nations, international institutions, NGOs, and others to eliminate the Jewish state. These antagonists are motivated by geopolitics, religion, ideology, antisemitism, or all of these. By focusing only on the Palestinians, the HRW report has the effect of hiding this broader context.

Israel’s domestic political paralysis, which has been ongoing for at least two years, makes it hard enough to respond to the military challenges it faces from its enemies. But it is impossible for an essentially leaderless nation to properly fight a cognitive war. Fixing this has to be Israel’s top priority today.

Abu Yehuda

[bookandcover]

The Home Place, subtitled “Memoirs of a Colored Man’s Love Affair with Nature,” takes an unique look at the experiences of working in environmental science, birding, farming, and otherwise existing in eco-spaces as a person of color. This book was my sister’s selection for our family’s ongoing Anti-Racism Book Club. As a graduate student in earth and environmental science, she thinks and talks a lot about race and gender within her field, mentors younger female students in the field, and teaches undergraduates. Like her, I expected this book to lean into the challenges of representation in the field and to comment on the (under-discussed) positive relationship between people of color and the natural world. And while these broader topics were discussed, this was, first and foremost, a deeply personal memoir. J. Drew Lanham starts his story where his life started, explaining his personal and familial connection with the land—The Home Place, a specific farmstead in Edgefield County, South Carolina, where he was born and grew up. This personal connection and narrative is essential—Lanham’s love for nature is shaped in his formative years by the close connection his family has with the land they live on and farm. His later academic connections to the land—from his graduate research to his volunteer work collecting bird identification data to his writing and communication about scientific topics—all these stem from that childhood passion that runs deeper than interest or fascination: J. Drew Lanham understands the land on an instinctual level. He sees himself as a natural being, in tune with the deer, wild turkeys, and monarch butterflies, with the possums, foxes, and eastern red cedars.

The structure of the book (moving roughly chronologically through Lanham’s birth, upbringing, growth, and independent life) is shaped by its foundational idea: Lanham’s conviction that he is a product of the land that raised him, as are his family members, his siblings, his parents, his grand-parents, and his ancestors before them. Therefore, looking at and observing The Home Place naturally leads to the work of observing his own family and how he came to be who he is in the world. The Home Place is exactly this, both physical landscape and the people that exist in harmony with it. Over and over again, in both small and large ways, Lanham reinforces this central thesis—from the chapter on the spring that fed and sustained the Home Place, which was maintained by his father and could not continue after Daddy’s death, to the chapter on digging into his family’s history (figuratively and literary) as he traces the Lanhams’ connections to the land. J. Drew Lanham acknowledges that this central thesis is not necessarily obvious nor free from controversy. Many Black Americans’ experiences with the land exist within the legacy of slavery and stories of immense suffering on land that never belonged to them. But, for Lanham and for other Black Americans who grew up close to the land, surviving off it and also existing with it could develop a new narrative around Black identity and the natural landscape.

When I think of subsistence farming, I often think of the many challenges and set backs of the hardscrabble life. And while Lanham is not shy about sharing that his parents occasionally “argued about whether to buy hay for cows or groceries for us,” his book as a whole focuses on the feeling of abundance and of spiritual wealth he experienced growing up living off the land. He emphasizes that land itself is a source of wealth, in all its forms, and that fostering a close relationship with the land is a way forward that he perceives for Black Americans. He says “But the land, in spite of its history, still holds hope for making good on the promise we thought it could, especially if we reconnect to it. The reparations lie not in what someone will give us, but in what we already own. The landscape can grow crops for us as well as it does for others.” I thought this was a very interesting perspective that strives to redefine the Black/natural world narrative. This was one of several moments in the book where I really felt that Lanham was writing for a Black audience specifically. He does have a perspective that puts the impetus on each person to choose their relationship with the land, to be a responsible steward of the natural world, to educate themselves, to lean into their connections with the land and trust it.

I was somewhat startled by this as it felt that Lanham prioritized talking about what Black people can do to achieve the “Normal Rockwell painting life” his family led when a huge part of systemic poverty and racism (from my perspective) could not be Black people themselves. Many systems—education and pay rates, land ownership and inheritance, access to banking loans and credit—are broken and rely on all of us to engage with fixing them. No matter how strong you are, you cannot climb alone from beneath a bolder that is pining you down, a boulder you inherit, a boulder you have to carry every single day and in every situation simply because of the color of your skin in America. Perhaps Lanham intends, intentionally, to focus on what Black people can do, in spite of these broken systems, as acts of empowerment and self-determinism? I was surprised how individualistic this book felt at times, with very little focus on how systems of oppression could be dismantled. For example, his primary suggestion for how birding while black can become safer is to normalize this experience by invading the natural sciences with more and more people of color. “Get more people of color ‘out there,’” he writes. In sharing this recommendation for progress, he doesn’t acknowledge very directly how dangerous this act is or how difficult his recommendations are to follow for each person who must be a pioneer in the field. Of course he understands the risks and challenges, as he’s been the “odd bird” so many times in his own life, but perhaps he could have spoken as well to the ways others in leadership positions (regardless of race) could provide support for young people entering the natural sciences (from mentorships and training, to financial scholarships, to diversity workshops and conversations that increase awareness and inclusivity within the field). Saying this, I feel strange criticizing his way of talking about these topics, even if the criticism is simply asking for more (more beyond an individual’s responsibilities, more beyond Black people making changes by stepping in and fighting for their spaces), as Lanham’s approach leans on his lived experiences as a Black man, which I cannot relate to in several ways.

I can, however, relate to his experiences growing up with a close relationship to the land. Unlike my sister, my experiences rambling through the Maine woods, raising sheep and chickens, and hiking, swimming, and spending nearly every moment of my youthful summers out of doors, did not translate into a career in environmental science. However this doesn’t mean that I don’t think of my relationship with nature as close nor my personal and emotional experiences with nature as deeply spiritual and transformative. As a writer, as a teacher, I draw all the time on my understanding of nature and my love for it in order to connect with other human beings, to bring the beauty of ecosystems to life for them, to find common ground (an apt metaphor). I noted the sections of The Home Place where Lanham talked about his graduate research and discussed how sometimes the monotony of the work cut into his love for the natural and his appreciation of all the experiences that brought him here. This was a very relatable moment—for anyone who chooses a career based on passion, that passion needs to withstand the least glamorous moments of that job. At its most slow, most boring, and most frustrating, do you still love this thing? Do you still see its worth even when you hate it? For me, the natural world can be relegated to a place of spiritual purity, simply experienced and enjoyed, because I don’t study it. Yet, Lanham reconciles scientific study and simple appreciation nicely, describing how his passion grows with his concrete and scientific understanding, and how the spiritual and scientific dimensions of his experiences with nature both shape his love and commitment.

I loved that Lanham described how his foray into writing brought a new third dimension to his personal relationship with nature—looking back in order to capture in words, he was able to trace the significance of The Home Place—and the act of literary examination changed him: he cried tears of release as he shared his story with his writing workshop, the first time he truly mourned the loss of his father after thirty years. In one of my favorite lines in the book, Lanham says of his experience first sharing his work with his peers in a writing workshop: “They’d unwittingly given me permission to be someone I’d never been.” For him, this was someone emotional, someone who sheds tears in moments of deeply-felt sorrow and transcendent joy. That joy, often, comes when facing the natural world as it is, and so he applies his pen to responding to nature. His descriptions of the natural world are interwoven beautifully throughout the book and are, so clearly, the creations of a close observer. I related so deeply to these moments, and felt transported, as I read: “Now, as back then, fall is the time when nature speaks most clearly to me…Breathing is suddenly easier and the soaking sweat evaporates. You want to inhale deeply enough to take in every molecule wafting on the wind. The tired smallness of September’s deep green fades then flames into October’s vermilion sumacs and scarlet maples, lemon-yellow poplars and golden hickories.” This is both accessible and accurate writing. J. Drew Lanham knows his science, but he describes the world visually, as he perceives it, not as he measures it.

For me, these writing moments were more effective than the structure of the chapters, which started to feel a bit formulaic as the book progressed. Lanham frequently uses the natural world as metaphors and many of these metaphor are born of quite astute and surprising observations—the ecology of a church’s location growing the mindset of the congregation and the Tuskegee Airmen as a metaphor for flight that takes Black people beyond the contexts others expect for them (the Wild West is another space examined along similar lines of thinking). But Lanham tends to set his big metaphors up in the same way: beginning a chapter with the central concept (in its most analytical, literal, or universal iteration), following this up with personal anecdotes, and ending the chapter (like its own short, contained essay) with deeper reflection on how this metaphor operates. This chapter structure, although predictable, didn’t lose the joy of any one of these observations. Lanham writes some truly profound individual sentences. And believe him. His depth is genuine.

I would be remiss in writing about my response to this book if I didn’t briefly address the chapter “Jawbone,” which troubled me deeply. For all of Lanham’s gentleness and nuanced appreciation of each living thing, he is still a hunter, and he describes a particular hunt—and the deer’s jawbone that he saves from this hunt—in this chapter. His interest in hunting is tied to a larger interest in land conservation and ecosystem management, as he explains it, and it seems that he tries to contrast his approach to hunting with those who hunt for trophies, or for the wrong reasons. But, the outcome is still the same. And he uses many of the tools—scents, blinds, and mating calls—that other hunters use to outwit their prey. He also tries to contrast his hunting with that of others’ by focusing on the deer’s jawbone he has collected. Rather than the trophy of a large set of antlers, he prizes the jawbone with evidence of the animal’s long lifespan and role in the ecosystem. The way he feels about this jawbone, however (elated, awed that this animal died at his hand and not someone else’s), seems to me not very different than the way trophy hunters feel about their prizes. Sure, he consumes the meat from the deer he kills, but it seems that hunting is not necessarily for his and his family’s survival, nor significant as an affordable food source available to them. I think I was most troubled by the concept of control and how that comes through in this chapter. It seems like hunting, for Lanham, seems to be rewarding in a kind of patriarchal, stewardship way in which the reward—while paired with thoughtful choices about which animals to kill and how to use the meat—is not sorrowful necessity, but some kind of pride (in the hunt, in the win, in the triumph). This chapter was all the more jarring following up on the youthful chapter where Lanham kills a sparrow with a bb gun and truly mourns the preciousness of a life lost. And while I also frown upon willful ignorance or dismissal of the source of one’s meat (or willful ignorance about the human and environmental impact from one’s vegetarian diet, as well!) I do think that the act of killing changes you as a person. Although I do not agree with Lanham on the topic of hunting, this is one section of the book, and human are complex, living contradictions. No one needs to hold perspectives and behave in ways that are perfectly consistent; no one ever does.

This book was a powerful testimony to how much we can—and, Lanham argues, we should—rely on nature. This book contains the particularity of the Black experience and seems to speak directly to a Black audience, as mentioned. But it also contains much that is universally applicable to our lives in the 21st Century, as we humans grow increasingly removed from nature and from the lifecycles of ecosystems and understanding how we are, inescapably, part of those. I love how Lanham observes at the very beginning of the book that, “to be wild is to be colorful, and in the claims of colorfulness there’s an embracing and a self-acceptance.” Through this book, he celebrates his specific identity and his experience as a person of color, but he also taps into our shared humanity when he illuminates the rewards of living a wild life. He thoughtfully reveals himself through describing his ecosystem, and, in this, invites us to see ourselves in the same way, with our own ecosystems, Home Places, and reasons to live a natural life.

[kingbennyboyyy]

benny’s RWBY rewrite: the white fang

so this is something that’s been on my mind for a while, and i’ve been trying to formulate my thoughts about it. the white fang in RWBY, as it stands now, is a really poorly thought-out approximation of the black panther party, an actual organization that fought for the equal rights and the equal treatment of black people in the united states. the black panther party’s actions have been long pathologized by white society and academia at large, and have been falsely contrasted with the ideals and teachings of MLK. the false dichotomy of violent and non-violent action is reductive at best, and blatantly racist at worst. while there is a whole fuckton to be said about the real-life consequences of these discourses, i’d like to focus on their impact on the writing of RWBY. i’d also like to talk about how i’d change how the white fang looks in order to make things a little less uncomfortable.

content warning for real and fictional racism, antiblackness, violence against marginalized people, and discussions of white supremacy under the cut.

so, the white fang. the RWBY wiki describes the group as “ a Faunus organization in Remnant. Founded following the Faunus Rights Revolution, the White Fang was initially a peaceful activist organization created to improve relations between Humans and Faunus and improve the civil rights of the latter.” more concisely, i would describe the white fang as a faunus rights activist group, whose modes of operation have changed over time. within the story, after the peaceful leader ghira stepped down, the faction as a whole took a notable nose-dive into violence. but why did this happen? why was the white fang written like this?

first of all, all of the following talk comes from the subjective opinion of one black genderqueer writer. i am not the voice of the entirety of my community, and i can bet that there are people who disagree with me. i’m just here to say my piece.

that said, i think that the white fang’s writing grossly misunderstands what oppression looks like to marginalized people. the RWBY writing team obviously wanted to handle racism in some kind of way- they wrote racism into the story. however, it’s incredibly clear that most of the writers don’t really understand how deeply racism runs in given societies. the oppression of the faunus is clearly mirroring the oppression of black people in the united states, and yet there’s little to this oppression other than surface-level discrimitation. ghira’s direction of the white fang doesn’t seem to understand that personal prejudice is a very small aspect of the continued oppression of the faunus. alarmingly, it’s only when “radicals” such as sienna khan and adam taurus take control that actual, structural avenues of racism are acknowledged. this has several issues.

- whether the RWBY writers intended this or not, attributing the acknowledgement of actual systemic issues to violent radicals is inherently a really bad call. the dismantling and destruction of racist structures is the baseline of most avenues of anti-racist thought, but by only assigning these beliefs to people like adam “kill all humans” taurus, you’re telling the audience that only people like adam “i’m gonna kill all my ex’s loved ones b/c she hurt my feelings” taurus think that these things are a reality. make no mistake, institutional racism and structural violence against marginalized people is a thing. by giving these ideas to violent actors, you’re sending a really shitty message. 

- another thing to note is the role of fear in the white fang’s activity. blake is quoted as saying that under adam taurus, people only pretend to respect the faunus because they’re afraid of the white fang. this is also bad. there is an actual line of racist thought that thinks that people who just want equality are a bunch of thugs using intimidation tactics to get special treatment, and by affirming this in-canon, you’re giving credence to these beliefs. in addition, adam’s literal desire to put humans in cages and make them go extinct is also an actual white supremacist talking point. actual fucking white supremacists go on about how the white race is going extinct as a means to manipulate otherwise well-meaning people into committing acts of violence against marginalized people. but RWBY says, “no, the white fang actually wants humans to be wiped off the face of the earth.” i shouldn’t have to tell you how buck fucking wild this is. 

- there’s also the role of violence in activism. the black panther party has long been attributed with senseless and anger-fueled violence against white people, but this assessment of the party is completely false. in truth, the arming of black panthers was a direct response to overpolicing and police violence against black people. the black panther party advocated self-defense, and acted as its own protective force for black americans. they had guns so that they could protect themselves from the cops, who were assaulting and killing them in absurd numbers. if the RWBY writers wanted to draw parallels between the white fang and the black panther party, they could have very easily done so by actually doing their research.

the question becomes, is it at all possible to have members of the white fang as actual villains within the RWBY universe? i’d say that it is possible, but it has to be done very carefully. there’s several things that have to be kept in mind here, and the entire understanding of faunus oppression has be to restructured in order for this to work. i’ll outline what i would change below:

- firstly, there needs to be more evidence of faunus marginalization past the surface level. this could be evident in a phethora of ways, anywhere from the trend of faunus hiding their animal traits being more common (an important thing to note is how accessible passing as a human is to the faunus), to beacon actually having much more bias than humans are aware of. blake highlighting these biases would be extremely helpful in establishing how deeply anti-faunus sentiments run. the only racists being cartoon bullies and shady billionaires rings too closely to the sentiments that white people have about racism. this is also a comparatively minor gripe, but the whole “becoming the monster people think they are” mask thing is just so... dumb. there are legitimate reasons for faunus to hide their identities during protests, and pathologizing this is just such a shitty thing to do.

- next, the white fang as a whole cannot be a terrorist organization in actuality. people can believe that the white fang are a bunch of terrorists, sure, but this can’t be the truth. for example, it would make perfect sense for weiss to think such things. her being the heiress to the schnee dust company, being fed stories about scary faunus with weapons trying to hurt her and her family would make sense. but the stereotypes humans have about faunus activism can’t be true. in addition, there should at the very least be more than one faunus activist party. the fact that there’s only one in the entire continent of remnant is so fucking stupid. you don’t think that some group of people would be dissatisfied and go and do something else?

- adam and sienna cannot be the leaders of the entire white fang. i’m sorry, but it’s just way too fucking easy for racists to say “oh, the entire thing’s just an excuse for (insert minority here) to ransack property and hurt people!” ilia could have been promoted after ghira stepped down. it would be interesting to see how she uses her ability to pass as human to actually make some changes for the people of menagerie, and the power structures that led to its creation. sienna has the potential to be someone disillusioned by strictly pacifist ideals of ghira, but she can act more in accordance to the actual black panther party, advocating for self-defense and knowing one’s rights. the arming and training of faunus, as frightening as it may be to the humans in power, cannot and should not be depicted at the beginnings of terrorism. there’s potential for actual discussion of the effectiveness of pacifism and respectability politics in activism, but all of that was overshadowed by the gross villification and oversimplification of the white fang.

- finally, adam. i think that adam is able to remain mostly the same, with a few adjustments to the environment around him (along with the previously discussed changes). i don’t think that adam should be the only person whose violent oppression is readily visible. the trope of the oppressed person going “mad with vengeance” is just adding fuel to the fire of the belief that those who speak out against their oppression should be put down. as satisfying an arc blake and yang beating the shit out of blake’s abusive ex was, it did just kind of feel like two people being like “yeah! violence wrong! pacifism good!” the unification of faunus SDC workers shouldn’t be attributed to adam. the advocacy for faunus to be able to defend themselves shouldn’t be attributed to adam. adam needs to be labled extremely clearly as an outlier, and even then this is risky. i think that adam’s group should be miniscule in comparison to the other sects of the white fang, and i think it would be interesting for his dealings with roman and company to be based on the distribution of android soldiers. adam shouldn’t come from a good place. yes, he suffered atrociously at the hands of his oppressors, but as a character and as an element of the story, he should be uniquely evil. for the few actual people in his group, he should rule through fear and violence, and defectors should be common. his brand of violence should be unique: rather than actually aiming to make changes to help the faunus, he should be solely focused on revenge. blake’s leaving him makes more sense in this way: rather than her leaving because of the inherent evil of violence, she should leave him because of his twisting the good intentions of the white fang into a self-serving cruelty. this all has to be contrasted against the well-intentioned actions of the actual white fang. the terrorist logo that appears universally on white fang regalia should either be solely adam’s, or his group should have a different name entirely.

so there. there’s my thoughts on the white fang and the stuff that the RWBY writers were trying to do. what should be taken away from this discussion is this: it is possible to write racism into a fantasy story without it being an absolute garbage fire, but it takes work. it takes understanding racism, the fact that it’s not just cruel people, but people complicit in the structures that uphold it. it takes being mindful of actual racist talking points, and making sure that your work doesn’t play into them. finally, if you’re going to make a main antagonist a member of the fucking civil rights movement, please for the love of god make it abundantly clear that they aren’t the villain because they want equal rights.

i’ve read so many stories where this defanged, platitude-ridden form of activism is treated as the only valid form of activism. in reality, it’s the form that people in power are most comfortable with. people approve of the idealized version of MLK because his activism was one that made white people feel good. the MLK we read about in schools is an illusory one. the real man kept a gun on him because he knew that as much as white media would have you believe that people liked him, he knew that people still wanted him dead. 

[qqueenofhades]

I was hoping you would be able to help me form a response when my family says they're sick of hearing of systemic racism and white privilege because THEY have had to work for everything and believe nothing got handed to them (true in the way they're thinking, but you know what I mean).

Welp. First, I applaud you for taking the initiative to engage in difficult conversations with your family, since the only way embedded racist ideas are going to get confronted in white society is if racist white people hear it from their friends and family. They are going to cheerily ignore protestors, academics, newsreaders, popular culture, and certainly politicians who say anything to the contrary, but it’s harder to ignore and brush aside when it’s coming from people who are directly within your own family group. They can still then ignore it, but at least you’re trying to do something that is not at all fun but which is deeply necessary, and good for you.

First, there are a few things for you to consider. Is this a case where they actually don’t know the difference, but are willing to learn, or is this essentially sealioning (where they act like they don’t know the difference, but they absolutely do, and put the emotional labor on you to extensively define and explain and educate while never intending to change their stances on anything). If it’s the former, then there is some point in engaging in dialogue with them. If it’s the latter, it’s a giant emotional trap that you are within your rights not to engage with until they signal that they’re willing to engage productively. You don’t have to educate someone who is categorically unwilling to be educated (especially when it’s often deliberate ignorance). As people like to say, Google is free, and it’s their responsibility to take the first steps to change. You can continue to talk with them, but yes, that is contingent on them actually standing a chance of listening to you and not just you wearing yourself out on something that they don’t want to actually hear (because it threatens them and makes them feel Personally Wrong, and white people don’t like that).

There have been various books written on why it’s so hard to talk to white people about racism, which you may be interested in checking out, not least the book "Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race” by Renni Eddo-Lodge. Ibram X. Kendi has also written “How to Be An Antiracist,” one of the bestselling books of this summer, either of which would be useful either in shaping your own arguments or (if they’re receptive) giving to your family. Once again, this is contingent on them signalling that they’re actually willing to listen, and not just to make you do pointless emotional labor. These books are probably available from your public library (though there’s probably a waitlist) or in other easily available formats.

Next, it’s a basic tenet of an anti-racist education that white people have never had to do this kind of reckoning, and thus get whiny, defensive, guilt-tripping, and “it’s not about ME I’m a GOOD PERSON” when it comes up. This also rests on the damaging and deeply intertwined effects of racism and classism, which has to be understood if you’re going to talk about it. One of the greatest tricks that racist capitalism ever pulled is convincing poor white people that they had more in common with their filthy rich white masters (people whose way of life will never in a thousand years be anything like each other’s) simply because they shared the inherent racial “purity” of being white. There have been political studies written on how poor/undereducated/working class white people have become such a reliably Republican constituency, because they have been successfully manipulated to believe that the white overlords are their “people” and they will constantly vote against their own economic, social, and cultural interests in favor of enriching amoral white demagogues who beat the populist xenophobic drum. Then they blame black and brown people for society’s ills and for the reason that they stay poor, rather than the rampaging oligarchs awarding themselves massive tax breaks and billion-dollar bailouts and refusing to extend unemployment benefits in case people “make too much money” from not working, just to name the most recent example. They are so poisoned on populist politics and white supremacy, which assures them that they’re better than anyone else by virtue of being white, that they actively attack politicians and policy platforms and other social welfare initiatives that would materially improve their own lives as “un-American.” This is maddening and sometimes baffling, but it’s how it works. Whiteness trumps all, currently literally thanks to the Orange Fuhrer. Problems in life are the fault of the Other.

This isn’t to say that poor white people are “dumb” and just unable to realize it, because they’re caught in a system that has done this literally from the start of America. In the early 17th century, indentured laborers and slaves in the American colonies were in fact more likely to be white. (The word “slave” comes from “Slav,” since that was the predominant ethnicity of slaves in medieval Europe; i.e. white eastern Europeans.) But even despite the fact that they were unpaid laborers, they were still white and thus recognized as human by their white masters, and thus when slave ships began arriving, it was easier for everybody to simply outright demonize and dehumanize the black African slaves. The poor white indentured servants got to feel better than the black slaves simply for the fact of their whiteness. Their lives obviously sucked, but their whiteness was in fact a mitigating factor in the suckiness that it involved once it was easier to use “animalistic” black people. And we wonder why America can’t ever confront its racist history properly. As Kendi calls it in his other book, it is stamped from the beginning.

As it has been put before, white people can and often do have difficult lives, because late-stage capitalism devours its workers no matter what color they are, but their whiteness isn’t a factor in why their lives are difficult. They will never encounter racial prejudice, race-based hate crime, discrimination for housing, education, employment, bank loans, daily microaggressions and identity erasure, constantly racist tropes in the media, politicians fingering them as everything wrong with America/the world, casual prejudices or assumptions even from close friends, assumed criminality based just on their race -- etc etc. The list goes on and on. Just because you have a hardscrabble economic background does not mean that your life has been made harder by your race -- because if you’re white, it hasn’t. (And as noted, poor white people have consistently voted for megalomaniac white men who don’t give a shit about them but promise them that everything is fine or should be better for them because of their whiteness, and then blame minorities for being the source of their problems.)

I honestly wonder if racism would still be such a problem in America if we had a remotely more equitable economic system, because when you’re well off and have your basic needs consistently met and don’t need to worry that you’re one paycheck away from disaster, it’s harder to constantly be paranoid that your differently colored neighbors are stealing everything from you and the cause of all society’s ills. The historian Patrick Hyder Patterson wrote a very interesting book on material culture in Yugoslavia in the 20th century, where he basically argued that despite the spectacular collapse of the federation into the Yugoslavian wars of the 90s, things didn’t really go to hell until after the economy crashed following Josip Broz Tito’s death in 1980. While there were obviously ethnic fault lines and conflicts between Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Albanians, etc, when there wasn’t any money and any jobs and everyone thought everyone else was to blame, THAT is when the whole thing blew up into a genocidal civil war clusterfuck. Food for thought.

This is why people talk about economic justice and racial justice as going hand in hand. When there is a scarcity of resources and no social safety net, people are obviously more inclined to look for scapegoats and to blame someone for taking their entitlement (while still somehow refusing to blame the billionaires and corporate oligarch who are ACTUALLY stealing from them). They indeed actively resist any attempts to make their own lives better as being “socialist” or “un-American” and take pride in the fact that there’s absolutely jacksquat nothing (until of course, something like the coronavirus pandemic hits and it’s revealed just how many of us were always one missed paycheck away from disaster). Then when they need government assistance (while disdaining the government as tyrannical the rest of the time, unless it’s Trump’s actively tyrannical lot, but hey, we don’t have time to unpack all that) it’s still shameful and something they shouldn’t be using, instead of their basic entitlement to a decent life.

This country is poisoned on a lot of toxic beliefs, but this is one of the deepest-running one, and which will always get in the way of poor white people dealing with racism: their lives suck, but they have ALWAYS been told that despite that, they’re still better just for being white, which is their consolation prize for supporting white populists who actively rob them, and they haven’t even always consciously registered that. They just feel that if they’re “fine,” even if they’re not fine, then black people are just malcontents and criminals who can’t hack it. In 2016, there was a lot of ink spilled over how poor white people felt a sense of economic grievance and being left behind, which was why they voted for Trump, but... Trump was never going to do a damn thing about that??? He doesn’t actually do anything for his supporters except feed them his jingoistic Orange Nazi stump speeches. They voted for Trump to feel vindicated, not to actually improve their lives, and it’s damn clear by now that not only has he NOT improved their lives, he has no desire to do so. He just wants them to cheer for him and feed his ego, not fix any problems.

Basically, racism and capitalism and the American political system intersect in multiple deeply toxic ways to do precisely what you’re talking about; producing poor white people who feel that they shouldn’t be included in the reckoning with racism because if THEY worked hard and they don’t live in a mansion, somehow racism is fake and black people should just shut up and get a job etc etc. This is because poor white people have been systematically conditioned to support white supremacy at the direct expense of their own economic and social interests; it’s terrible, but that’s how it functions. They will never in a million years have anything in common with the (white) ruling class, but they still instinctively identify with them rather than people in their own deprived economic class who are different races or colors or religions. That is how white supremacy has supported the hyper-inequality of the industrial age, and vice verse, and it is one of capitalism’s best functions for survival, so it’s in the interests of the overlords to maintain it. Stop the workers from recognizing pan-racial solidarity based on economic grievance, and compete with each other and blame each other rather than the overarching system, easy!

Anyway. Once again, this is long. But in short, the attitudes your family are exemplifying are a direct result of both racism and classism as they have been deliberately cultivated in the American social and political system, and the interlocking causes and symptoms of both have to be recognized (and acknowledged) before they can get to dealing with that. I don’t know how that will go, and I don’t have an easy shortcut. But I’m glad you’re trying. Good luck.

[spacebaubles]

CW: Transphobia/Homophobia/racism/sexism and all that horrible shit.

Here is your reminder for 2020: Think critically about the media you consume.

Last year, the dumpster fire that it was saw the coming out of JK Rowling as a TERF with her proclamation of support for Maya Forstater. I know you are probably sick of hearing about it but I give zero fucks about that. Scroll down like every other human adult does.

The reason why I am talking about this again is that for me it highlighted two things: how little research people undertake, and exactly how few people are scrutinising the information they have been provided.

For those of you who don't know: Maya Forstater was working for a think tank who worked on tackling poverty and inequality in the UK. Her work contract was not renewed by this organisation as her conduct online and within the workplace went against the workplace code of conduct. She refused to work with trans clients, she deliberately misgendered and harassed trans colleagues, and abused and harassed trans people on Twitter. In light of her behaviour, the organisation decided not to renew her contract.

Maya Forstater didn't really like this very much and tried to take her employer to court (to an employment tribunal). She argued that her exclusionary views on transgender people was akin to holding a religious belief and therefore said beliefs should be protected under the Equality Act - the UK's version of an anti-discrimination act which legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and the broader community.

Under the Equality Act 2010 it is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of: age, gender reassignment, being married or in a civil partnership, being pregnant or on maternity leave, disability, race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation.

The act defines discrimination as:

-- Direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others.

-- Indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage.

-- Harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them.

-- Victimisation - treating someone unfairly because they’ve complained about discrimination or harassment.

These points above are the ones I want to focus on. The courts rightfully told Maya Forstater that her case was a crock of shit which prompted a Twitter campaign "IStandWithMaya" for people to show solidarity with her cause The UK press had painted a picture of a woman unfairly dismissed due to her views, and her want to "protect women". People not so much lapped it up but deep-throated the fuck out of it.

Now let's do a thought experiment for science. Let's replace the word "trans person" with "lesbian". Outside of fringe groups of people, it is socially less acceptable to discriminate against lesbians such as myself. People actually get angry when told of the discrimination that lesbians face.

Imagine I had to work with Maya Forstater. Imagine she refused to work with me. She called me "unnatural" and "sick" and a predator. She made me feel scared to come to work and physically unsafe being in her presence. She also harassed other lesbians online and had a following of people who supported her in doing so. Imagine when our imaginary workplace refused to renew her contract to protect my safety and the safety of our clients, she took our workplace to court.

In court, she argued that her anti-lesbian beliefs were the same as holding a religious belief and as such, under the Equality Act as you cannot discriminate against anyone for the religion they practice - her workplace should not have been unable to refuse to renew her contract.

What Maya Forstater wants is not the freedom to hold her beliefs without discrimination (i.e., In the same way as you cannot refuse employment to someone simply because they are Christian, or Jewish or Muslim), but the freedom to engage in actions based on those beliefs. The freedom to engage in harmful actions without consequences towards a class of people who are protected under the Equality Act. There is a difference between holding a belief and acting on that belief. You can have a belief. You can believe homophobic, sexist, anti-Semitic, racist or transphobic things. Discrimination occurs when you actively engage in harmful acts based on those beliefs towards the people those beliefs are about.

And that's what Maya Forstater wants. She wants legal protection to engage in emotionally and psychologically harmful acts by harassing her colleagues in real life and online, and refusing to help clients in need. And people supported that without even realising what they were supporting because they didn't critically analyse the situation. If she had won that court case, it would have been a massive blow to LGBTI civil rights.

Not only have people supported this without really looking at the situation, but they have also swallowed right-wing rhetoric used against cisgender women and other LGBTI people because it supports their bigotry against trans people.

An often-used example of this is the habit of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists to attempt to devalue trans women by defining "Real Woman" as a person who has a uterus or the ability to get pregnant. Reducing cisgender women to specific body parts is a tactic used by right-wing conservatives to take away our rights. Particularly reproductive rights. Using the same tactics as a means to oppress trans/genderqueer/non-binary people harms the LGBTI community as a whole as well as straight cisgender women.

It amazes me the sheer number of women who will gleefully use the same tactics used against them as a means to justify their bigotry without even a hint of irony. They don't just hate trans people; they also don't give a fuck about your fellow ciswomen. TERFs getting into bed with right-wing conservatives isn't new. Bigots using right-wing talking points isn't new. It's been going on forever. TERFs are not your allies. They don't care about the LGBTI community. They don't care about protecting anyone.

But people passively (and sometimes actively) are okay with this because simple slogans and sensationalised falsehoods are easy to swallow than taking the time to really look at what is happening. Right-wing media has successfully painted LGBTI rights as a zero-sum game and spread the idea that for one group to gain rights, another group must lose them.

This is crap. Don't fall for it.

Stay critical and support your local queers. We're pretty fucking fabulous.

P.S: Just a note: You can still love and cherish Harry Potter while still understanding that Rowling's views don't reflect the universe she built. Don't stop loving HP because of an author. She might have created the universe, but it belongs to the fans now.

The full ruling is here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/06/Forstater-v-CGD-Judgement-2019.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj_-aD08-HmAhW2ILcAHWZzA-sQFjACegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2rfgLLGCwUemgI6Gq959Y1

More links:

https://www.leftvoice.org/life-after-stonewall-the-struggle-against-terfs-and-the-far-right

https://www.out.com/politics/2019/4/03/republicans-are-using-transphobia-sabotage-equality-act

https://www.thedailybeast.com/radical-feminists-and-conservative-christians-team-up-against-transgender-people

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/right-wing-media-and-think-tanks-are-aligning-fake-feminists-who-dehumanize-trans

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.html

https://www.politicalresearch.org/2016/08/11/the-christian-rights-love-affair-with-anti-trans-feminists

https://www.transadvocate.com/is-sadism-popular-with-terfs-a-chat-with-an-ex-gendercrit_n_18568.htm

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/12/19/21029874/jk-rowling-transgender-tweet-terf

https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4090-i-m-not-transphobic-but-a-feminist-case-against-the-feminist-case-against-trans-inclusivity

https://jezebel.com/the-unholy-alliance-of-trans-exclusionary-radical-femin-1834120309

[thebeauregardbros]

I feel really stupid that I just had this realization now.

I’ve always been told growing up that I’ll never be accepted by society, that I’ll ultimately be a burden on society and an inconvenience to the flow of it’s existence and to other people. I always felt that I would rather not be seen by anybody than to cause anyone distress on accident just by doing something “not good enough”. The stress of always having to do “my best” (aka: “good enough that nobody could ever complain about it or hate me for it”) makes me produce barely anything at all, because my standard of “best”(”good enough for neurotypical people”) will always be fleeting and uncontrollable. I am so rarely in good enough form to exist for everyone else. It’s funny how I only just now realized how stupid it would be to hold that standard for literally anyone else, no matter how mentally healthy they were or how neurotypical they are. Some people might be “better” at being loved by society as a whole, but is being loved by a fundamentally corrupt and broken system really even worthwhile? Is being liked by the majority really worth it if the majority is wrong? We know for a fact that humanity used to not wash their hands and has majorly lower lifespans, and we moved on from that for the better, but at some point people thought never washing your hands was okay.

I’ve been thinking about how hatred towards people with genetically passed down neurological disorders is a form of scientific racism. I also feel like hatred towards queer people could also be a form of racism if there is physical evidence of differences between homosexual and heterosexual individuals - which there is, in form of weird stuff like finger lengths, estrogen and testosterone levels and other weird subtle chemical studies and the like. If you really get down to it, dark skin can be “cured” by taking the melanin out. It’s a chemical. It’s a minor difference. But black people are still human, we’re all part of the human race, and gay people are normal, but autistic people are still a “disease” to be “cured”? (I want to clarify I am NOT saying autistic white people have it worse than neurotypical black people, I only mean to point out the discrepancy on what qualifies as "scientific racism" as a concept)

Every time I think about how autistic people end up being an actual “burden on society”, it tends to be more often than not that we just get upset and distraught over concepts society has built and insist on maintaining that just doesn’t make sense. We KNOW that there’s no reason why we have daylight savings, we KNOW that basing our entire society’s sleep schedule based on incredibly outdated guidelines for good ecological farming is now invalid when the majority of us in 1st world countries are office workers now, we KNOW that memorization is an ineffective way of teaching our children, we KNOW that forcing children to go to school at 8AM instead of 10AM is not good for their brains, we KNOW that at this point school days last as long as they do as a glorified babysitting service for parents who go to work during the day, we KNOW that people are absolutely capable of doing things online or through email instead of in-person or on the telephone but they refuse to for stupid reasons, we KNOW that shaking hands and making eye contact is actually not that fucking important, and we KNOW that we have the choice to wear comfortable clothes, but as a society these things are just unacceptable because “that’s how they’ve always been” and society as a whole is just not ready to change. It’s not okay that a majority of people just accept things as they are when things are not good for us as a whole.

This is also what the whole “abolish the police” concept that’s been a popular topic this year is all about. We’ve come to a point in natural societal evolution that it would be honestly better to abolish certain major systems that have been proven to be inefficient and corrupt and remake them from the ground up in hopes they would work for the better rather than to continue hanging on to the hope that things can change a comfortably small amount for the better. We know that changing things in only a small way barely helps and ultimately just aids the feeling of letting things change ultimately and overall the same.

I am terrified of talking about these things even when I know I might actually be right because I don’t want someone coming on to ask box who doesn’t want to hear it to bully me, taking something I said out of context to create a callout post telling everyone to avoid me, or otherwise just proving the anti-autism and anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda I’ve heard my entire life right - that I shouldn’t exist. Do you have any idea how hard it is to have the idea completely hammered into your entire being that you shouldn’t exist in this world? That human society isn’t for you. That you shouldn’t even be human, because you basically aren’t if you don’t think like the majority. Because you’re different and never will be the same. You’ll never fit in. You’ll never be welcomed. Living as a ticking time bomb to the day you inevitably say something that's misinterpreted because you said it in a weird way - or god forbid, you express any thought out loud that you haven't researched thoroughly beforehand, and get physically or psychologically beaten to a pump for it.

But then I think about the few times I’ve stepped out of my fear-driven comfort zone and said something truly from my heart, and found nothing but support and admiration from strangers. Something I still often felt was just a fluke or undeserved. Complete imposter syndrome because everything I thought I knew was the opposite of what was actually happening. I was actually being helpful to others. I was actually... worthwhile of society.

I think about the few people who’ve told me that they believe in the concept that maybe, just maybe, the theory that autistic people are part of the natural evolution of humans is actually fundamental to our continued existence, that maybe I am needed in this society to improve it for the better, that maybe my discomfort with a broken system is actually helpful. Maybe me calling attention to all these things will actually open up the eyes to others. Maybe people being different is a good thing. Maybe we can only grow if we see the points of view of people we don’t automatically understand.

And isn’t that obvious?

[gschneider21ahsgov]

Political Party Action

Republican: The republicans stance is more on ensuring order between law enforcement and the American People rather than racial justice as a whole. However they agree that law officials should be held responsible for their actions and when they break the laws themselves they should have Immediate  dismissal and when appropriate prosecution for department officials who have violated their oath to office. They believe the President should take time to strengthen relationships between citizens and law enforcement rather than creating a divide. I believe that the only way for the American people to begin to trust law enforcement lots of reform must be made.

Democrat: The Democrats recognize there is a big issue with our justice system right now. They understand that, “Our system has criminalized poverty, over policed and underserved Black and Latino communities, and cut public services.” They recognize police brutality and want to fix this issue. The Criminal Justice system needs reform. They recognize the hardships minorities must endure in this country such as, “Black parents must have “the talk” with their children, to try to protect them from the very police officers who are supposed to be sworn to protect and serve them.”  Their plan is to start with the schools and communities. By getting rid of the school-to-prison pipeline and eliminating law enforcement in schools. Democrats beloved's schools need  funding to hire, “ guidance counselors, social workers, nurses, or school psychologists.” “Democrats will establish strict national standards governing the use of force, including banning the use of chokeholds and carotid holds and permitting deadly force only when necessary and a last resort to prevent an imminent threat to life And we will ban racial and religious profiling in law enforcement.” I agree with everything the democrats have to saw about racial justice. it is clear that it is happening and they are admitting to it and have plans in place to end the racial discrimination in the justice system.

Libertarian: Libertarians Believe that the government should never be allowed to violate our rights. they want to repeal laws that create crimes without victims like the medicinal or recreational use of drugs. They believe that everyone has the the rights the due process, a speedy trial, and innocence until proven guilty. They are against intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains. On the topic of discrimination, Libertarians believe that, “Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation” I agree with their stance on justice. All Americans should have equal rights and it is wrong to violate these rights based on race. 

Green: The Green Party is committed to, “Complete reparations to the African American community of this nation for the past four hundred plus years of genocide, slavery, land-loss, destruction of original identity and the stark disparities which haunt the present evidenced in unemployment statistics, substandard and inadequate education.” They understand that big steps must be taken to end the abuse that minorities are dealing with. This includes ending criminalization in Black and Brown communities. they realize that we need to eradicate poverty and invest in health care in order to fix these issues. They want to ban all Confederate flags and signs of white supremacy. For Law enforcement they want to end the racial profiling and stop harassing a violence against minorities with, “ No other justification than race or ethnic background.” They support measures to end racism and police brutality against people of color. The Green Party is mostly for fixing the mistakes the country made in the past. I agree with their stance on fixing relationships between the justice system and the minorities of this country. I agree that actions must be taken to end racial profiling in the police force.

Peace and Freedom: The Peace and Freedom party recognizes the rise in racial discrimination. They recognize that, “Minority families are disproportionately victimized by cutbacks in health care, education, child care, welfare, food stamps and jobs.” This party demands that racial discrimination is ended and that we must enforce anti discrimination measures in hiring and promotion. They believe that police and prison officials must be held accountable and adequately punished when they brutalize and murder minorities. They understand that the actions by law enforcement cannot go unprosecuted. They believe that we must take action to ensure that all people are equal in the eyes of the government and American people. I agree with the Peached and Freedom party as well. Police must be held accountable and we need to take action and create plans to ensure that the rights of all citizens are not violated.

Which party position do you identify with the most? Is that surprising? 

I identify most with the Democratic parties position. This is not surprising to me because I have researched their views on Racial justice before.

Would you vote for their presidential candidate?

I would vote for their presidential candidate.

Presidential debate assessment: Was your civic action issue a topic during the debate? If so, summarize the position taken by each candidate during the debate; the effectiveness of their argument; whether you agree or disagree 

Racial Justice was brought up during the debate.

Joe Biden: Recognizes the discrimination against black Americans and the loss of justice in the case of Breonna Taylor. Biden recognized that police reform is needed but is not for defunding the police. He also recognized the protests and supports all peaceful protesting. He does not agree with any of the violence seen. Biden’s points supported the dead of the Democrats on the issues of racial justice.

I agree with Biden on many things. I do not like the violence at protests but majority of the protests are extremely peaceful. I think that we need a lot of police reform and better training for the police for situations with minorities and mental health crisis.

Donald Trump: Claims all the protests are violent .ended racial sensitivity training says it is racist.says racial sensitivity training are sick and bad ideas and are radical.He refused to condemn white supremacy and instead attacked the left. His claims were contradicted the points the republicans made. Instead of trying to strengthen bonds between law enforcement and American citizens Trump further divided them by refusing to acknowledge police brutality and the failures of the justice system.

I do not agree with any of Donals Trumps points. He failed to acknowledge the police brutality as well as refusing to condemn white supremacy groups. It terrified me to hear that he ended racial sensitivity trainings because I believe that those training are extremely important.

[cwu21ahsgov]

Political Party Action

Blog Post #3: Political Party Action

Party Statements:

Republican Party:

Statement of position in regards to racial justice

As stated in the “A Rebirth of Constitutional Government '' section, the Republican Party states that “It is the solemn compact built upon principles of the declaration that our God-given individual rights and ensures all Americans stand equal… We denounce bigotry, raceism, anti-semitism, ethinic predjudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore we oppose discrimination… and support statutes to end discrimination.”

I generally agree with their statement. I believe that everyone should be given their own rights and that it shouldn’t matter where you come from our how you look; All that matters is that you are human.

Democratic Party:

Statement of position in regards to racial justice

“Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity of disability” - The Democratic Party

In other words, the general position of the democratic party in regards to racial justice is that we must fight for the equal/civil rights of everyone no matter race, gender, etc.

I would have to agree with this statement. I believe that the only way to move our country further is by making sure that we work as a full democracy; meaning that everyone has the equal rights to contribute as a citizen of the country.

Libertarian Party:

Statement of position in regards to racial justice

“Libertarians believe that the equal rights of all people matter all the time. No exceptions.”

Libertarians hold the general belief/value that all people have the right to live in whatever way they choose to as long it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others. In addition to the fair treatment of other citizens, libertarians also emphasize that it’s important that the government follows the rules they put out as well.

I generally agree with this statement because it supports my belief that all people must be treated equally even if they hold different values. You as an individual can have your own opinions but you must also recognize that you are not the only person in this country that matters.

Green Party:

Statement of position in regards to racial justice

“One of our key values is respect for diversity… We support affirmative action to remedy discrimination, to protect constitutional rights, and to provide equal opportunity under the law.”

The Green Party states that the foundation to any democracy is the guarantee of rights to every member of the society. There must be a mutual respect despite differences in opinions  due to the connection we hold as humans in our responsibilities to help progress our world. They also display a huge emphasis on their support for diversity and how accepting, supporting, and fighting for diversity is the basis for fixing discrimination.

 I agree with this statement. As I said before, I think it is hugely important to recognize that as a democracy, all people must be treated in such a way that allows for equality.

Peace and Freedom Party:

Statement of position in regards to racial justice

“We stand for a world free from all forms of oppression”

The Peace and Freedom Party  believes that as a capitalist country, we use all of our differences whether they be race, sex, language, etc. to help raise our economy. Therefore, there is a demand for equal treatment of all people by employers, businesses, and the government. They recognize that there is a rise in racial discrimination and demand for an end to to it as well as actions to enforce non-discrimination.

I agree with their statements. I think one of the best things about living in the United States as a democracy is that we are filled with many diverse people that allow for growth due to the connection between every culture. As the Peace and Freedom Party have stated, we as a country progress through the help of many different kinds of people. For our country to continue to progress, we must accept everyone for who they are.

Reflection:

Which party position do you identify with the most? Is that surprising?

Although I agreed with all statements from the different parties, I would have to identify the most with the democratic party. I feel that they had a good description of my personal belief that in a democracy, we must hold the respect for eachother, and recognize that not all people hold the same views. People’s appearance, sexuality, etc. don’t matter because we are all humans in the end. I don’t think this is surprising at all.

Would you vote for their presidential candidate?

Yes.

Presidential Debate Assessment:

Was your civic action issue a topic during the debate? If so, summarize the position taken by each candidate during the debate; the effectiveness of their argument; whether you agree or disagree with their position. 

Topic: Race and Violence

In terms of racial justice, the debate discussed a present day issue of violence when it comes to different races such as police brutality. This topic is more so the idea of what discrimination has done today rather the unfair justice of races.

Biden Position:

Biden states in the debate that he recognizes that there is insensitivity to race and that while police brutality is bad, there is a difference between good and bad cops (AKA not all cops are bad)

I agree with Biden’s point of view. I like how he was able to recognize that there is a problem when it comes to racism and that we need to fix it. I also agree with his point on cops. While there is a general image as of today on how cops are injustice, it does not mean we rope every cop into that category (That’s just another form of judgement isn’t it?)

Trump Position:

Trump has positioned himself as the law and order candidate and has blamed the rise of violence to democratic ideology. He holds a strong stance against the BLM movement and says that it is just causing more violence.

I disagree with Trump's point of view. I feel that he is only seeing one side of things and not looking at the whole picture. While there have been some violent protests, most of these protests have been peaceful in order to fight for their rights. I feel that it is wrong to accuse violence as the direct effect of democratic views because he is judging based on his own opinion rather than facts and evidence.

I feel that for both parties, their argument was not fully effective. In general, the presidential debate was hard to follow due to the amount of interruptions and the lack of structure.

Explain if their debate message contradicted or supported their party platform on your issue. 

I think that Biden’s message supported the Democratic Party platform. He reemphasized the ideal that we should not be judging people by their appearance and that we as people should treat people equally and respectfully.

I think that Trump contradicted his party platform in some ways. This was harder to conclude because he focused more on the violent aspect of the question without talking about the problems of racism. While this is true, the points he did make about racial justice did not support the Republican statement that they denounce any prejudice towards anyone (which can include a group of people).

[velvet-helvetica]

Thoughts on Chapter 26

Re: my fanfic Good Blue Hunting

As much as I enjoy writing fanfic for fun, fanfic doesn’t exist in a bubble. This chapter evolved in response to current events and Black Lives Matter, and reflects shifts in my own understanding of how to be a better ally in the fight against racism. In the Fallout 4 universe, the struggles that free synths and ghouls experience are stand-ins for present-day racism and bigotry. 

This chapter largely follows canon dialogue when Blue first encounters the Railroad. In that scene, Desdemona questions Blue while Glory, Deacon, and Drummer Boy look on. Blue’s dialogue also borrows a bit from the Star Trek: TNG episode “The Measure of a Man” (the one where Data’s rights as a person are challenged).

But upon a second read, when Desdemona questions whether Blue would save synths, Glory’s silence became conspicuous. (I didn’t realize this before, but most of the Railroad leadership is human, except for Glory who’s a synth Railroad heavy.)

In-game, this unintentionally creates a dynamic of human leadership speaking for the only synth in the room. The fact that Desdemona is white and Glory is Black and a synth (intersectionality! although melamine-based discrimination supposedly doesn’t exist in the Fallout-verse) adds some meta-racial tension to this dynamic. I don’t intend to stir up controversy over the game—game mechanics will always create limitations in the dialogue. But that doesn’t mean fanfic can’t try to address this!

It became clear that Glory needed to have a stronger voice and presence in this initial meeting. This manifested in the exchange between Glory and Blue where she literally demands to be seen, instead of being talked about in the abstract. I left in some friction points to hint at the human-synth dynamic (Dez worrying about what Glory will say, for instance).

Some other themes became more fleshed out in this chapter:

Shifting from personal to collective empathy & action: I think most people naturally want to help their friends before helping a stranger. But to be actively anti-racist means shifting from personal empathy to collective empathy and action, to actively work to uplift the most marginalized in our society.

Blue already recognizes Nick Valentine as a person, so she is halfway there (if Blue didn’t accept Nick’s personhood, then there would be the whole debate about whether synths are people). Glory challenges Blue to push further, to recognize synths collectively as people who should be valued. Blue reflects on the past (which I headcanon as her work as a lawyer for marginalized communities) and makes a connection with her personal experience with pre-War racial inequality.

Acceptance vs. tolerance: We need acceptance to achieve true social equality. But in Fallout 4, achieving the lower bar of tolerance for synths may even be a stretch. In the Fallout-verse, there is a deep-seated fear of synths, largely because of how the Institute abuses them against people. My guess is that widespread acceptance of synths will take a long time, perhaps multiple generations. 

My headcanon is that Blue wants to push for greater acceptance of free synths. But Blue has her work cut out for her because of widespread mistrust. I confess to some hand waving about how exactly she will advocate for synths.

What you write has consequences, Piper: Up to this point in my fic, nobody’s really challenged Piper’s writing in Publick Occurrences. In all honesty, the way Piper wrote her article about Mayor McDonough is problematic because of the panic it created over synths. Blue likes Piper too much to say anything, and Piper’s a bit stubborn in standing by her words, but it made sense for the Railroad to call her out on it.

...

Even as someone who’s experienced racism IRL, my own understanding of race and how to confront systemic racism continues to evolve. I hope this chapter is truthful to some of the dialogue happening today about being better allies. But I don’t claim to know everything, and I’m always open to learning more and doing better. Any feedback in this spirit is always welcome.