it’s sad that all they have to do is show our faces in order to strike fear into other people. that we don’t even have to try and look menacing for someone to find us scary looking and worth being shot or hunted down like an animal. we could be the most loving fathers, brightest teachers/students, and they’ll still figure out a way to make it seem as though we had every bit coming to us for existing while black.
People say “phase” like impermanence means insignificance. Show me a permanent state of the self.
Arundhati Roy on NGOs:
"Their real contribution is that they defuse political anger and dole out as aid or benevolence what people ought to have by right. They alter the public psyche. They turn people into dependent victims and blunt the edges of political resistance. NGOs form a sort of buffer between the government and public. Between Empire and its subjects. They have become the arbitrators, the interpreters, the facilitators. In the long run, NGOs are accountable to their funders, not to the people they work among."
Read her full statement here: http://bit.ly/1pKBcIf
MURRYSVILLE, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - A 16-year-old student wielding two knives went on a stabbing rampage in the hallways of a Pittsburgh-area high school on Wednesday, wounding 22 people before he was
I live a 30 minute drive from here and this is an utter and complete tragedy. My heart goes out to all of the victims and their families and I am hoping that they all recover fully from this terrifying act.
I am wondering, though, about the elephant in the room: white male violence.
With each tragedy and incident of mass violence perpetrated at the hands of white men, these discussions come up, although white progressives usually subsume them under discussions about gun control (which is also necessary, but let us not forget that white men also have disproportionate gun ownership in this country over other racial and gender groups). The Newton massacre was yet another reminder of this, and now again, today:
White boy walks into school (or other public institution), and goes on a rampage wounding or killing dozens in the process.
Why is this not surprising anymore? Well the facts:
Check out this timeline of mass shootings in the U.S. to see for yourself.
Many of us POC and black folks in particular wax long about this, but what if the statistics were reversed and 70% of mass killings in the U.S. were being committed by black men rather than white men? How would that not spark a national conversation about black male violence and also be used to pathologize black men as (even more) criminal and violent?
But at the same time, it’s so clear that the ways in which whiteness and maleness operates is by conferring invisibility on the subject. It allows us to give these boys and men the benefit of the doubt, when we would never do the same for a POC. It allows us to be willfully obtuse about the need for us to address male violence across all racial lines (due to patriarchy) and specifically white male violence and their internalized desire to control their environments and surroundings, leading to these incidents of mass violence (due to white supremacist patriarchy).
We would think that in a country where violence and genocide perpetrated by white men has been with us since 1492, that this wouldn’t be a conversation that we could somehow “miss.” You would think that with incident after incident of mass violence, that we would try to address the larger systems of domination (white supremacist capitalist patriarchy) which these boys and men have internalized, rather than deflecting immediately into an ableist discussion of their mental health. Addressing these systems of domination is an act of love and empathy for all people, them included, to create a society of love, compassion and mutual respect, where mass acts of violence like this are a thing of the past.
But, no, this is America. What do you expect?
Again my heart goes out to the victims and their families and I wish you all a speedy recovery in this difficult time.
Also addressing a related issue that always goes unquestioned in the wake of these tragedies is why it is only these acts of violence in upper-middle class neighborhoods that are marked as tragedies, when dispossessed communities of color are visited daily by the violence of the state and a racist capitalist misogynist anti-queer society.
As my African American Studies professor noted, the media and these communities always say “Why us? This isn’t supposed to happen here”, with the obvious implication that such violence should only happen “there”.
A photograph from the 1870’s showing tens of thousands of bison skulls. They were mass slaughtered by the U.S. Army to make room for cattle and force Native American tribes into starvation.
Mass slaughter of buffalo and bison took place in Canadian territory as well, and was part of a deliberate campaign to break Indigenous resistance to (further) settler incursions onto Native land and the railroad. The removal of the buffalo also meant that when it came time to sign treaties, the Canadian government could more or less set any terms it saw fit and Indigenous leaders basically had to comply with them or their people would freeze and starve (that’s if gov officials even bothered to translate the actual terms of the treaty at all).
The “disappearance” of the buffalo is narrativized as part of a larger myth surrounding the “disappearing Indian” whose absence clears the land for the incoming white pioneers to take their place. The murder, destruction, slaughter of bison and buffalo was a tactic essential to the genocidal colonial project.
So many reasons, so little brain.
If we flip through the notes on that post we’ll find people appropriating Anne Frank’s murder as an example of homophobia (or God forbid, biphobia) and not anti-Semitism. And I’m not denying that there were many people murdered in the Holocaust for reasons besides being Jewish, but Anne Frank and her family aren’t one of those cases. (And I’ve tended to feel that people who focus on those other murders do so less because they want to bring attention to the full depth of Nazi hatred and evil and more because in their heart of hearts they can’t empathize with the genocide of the Jews.) If Anne Frank would have grown up to put a name to herself as bisexual or lesbian or heterosexual, that would be one thing; the point is she didn’t get to do that because she was forced to spend her early teens hiding behind a wall before ultimately being murdered because she was Jewish.
Then there’s the problem of her diary’s text itself (which unfortunately I do not have with me but I kind of memorized big parts of both versions so go with me here.) Her father ‘cleaned’ the entire text; not only did he take out the parts where Anne expressed same-sex interests, he also heavily censored her writing about her relationship with Peter. Otto Frank worked to emphasize a budding romance between Anne and Peter in the manuscript he had published. In the full text, Anne is a lot more ambivalent about the whole thing and even writes about how she is feeling pressured, by general social expectations and her own particular circumstances to feel and act a certain way towards Peter. And Peter’s actually really intimidating in the full text; he’s whiny and a bit spoiled, but he uses his power of masculinity against Anne to manipulate her and her family. Seriously, I have as much of a problem of people trying to cast Anne and Peter as a couple as I do with anything else in this situation: why the fuck do people want to romanticize years of overcrowding, no privacy, and terror?
And while Anne’s feeling about Peter are contradictory at best, her feelings about the girl friends she left behind are not. She longs for them and misses them. I’m not going to try to make an argument that Anne Frank was a lesbian, that’s not fair either, but if we’re going to look for textual evidence in her writing then it’s pretty clear she didn’t view men and women in the same way.
I guess the final point I would want to make here is that by casting Anne as bisexual and insisting that her diary shows bisexuality is that it ignores what is actually a very big part of most adolescent’s girls lives: the appreciation for, and love of, other girls and women, both their bodies and their selves, before we are taught to hate feminity. While this can be a part of forming a lesbian identity, most women go through this, even those who are heterosexual. While I do want to fight to bring lesbian representation in to the writing for and about young women, we also have to remember that love between women isn’t always a sexual thing and that by insisting on doing that we’re not only erasing lesbians but female existence as a whole. It’s not okay to sexualize every aspect of women’s live, especially the lives of young women; Anne Frank was a teenager and a very young girl.
Okay, I guess one more point: the people in the notes of that post who are saying things like ‘HOT’ are disgusting and need to be hit upside the head, hard and repeatedly.
Look, you said here you’re not bisexual or Jewish and as a Bisexual Jewish person, I kind of take issue with how you’re talking about this.
You can look at my blog to see why I think how people are acting about this is fucked up on several levels, but some of the stuff you’re saying is wrong and fucked up too.
I agree that people emphasizing her bisexuality over her Jewishness (and especialyl the “hot” comments) need to stop, but for one thing, you act like people saying Anne Frank is bisexual is ‘sexualizing” her and the holocaust which is NOT true. To talk about someone’s sexual orientation is NOT sexualizing them. I had a sexual orientation as a child, that does not mean, if someone talked about that, that it would be”sexualizing” me. I’m surprised that you, a lesbian would say that, but I kind of wonder if you’d say if people were saying she was a lesbian and not bi.
Also your comment about people emphasizing other (non-Jewish) murders ignores the erasure of Romani people which my people (jews) have profited from, ok? Like we have profited from and participated in the erasure of the genocide of Romani people during the Holocaust. It is true people will act like the focus wasn’t Jews, which it was, and becomes clear when you look at the Nazi rhetoric, but actually a larger percent of the Romani population was killed, the population was smaller than the Jews, but still—this fact is ignored. And the continued anti-romani sentiments throughout Europe are ignored.
The fact you’re not Jewish bothers me a lot because you’re sure speaking with a LOT of authority on this and it makes me very uncomfortable the way you are writing in this ask answers and elsewhere, you don’t acknowledge here that you are not Jewish and instead talk as if you can speak for us, when I would argue there’s problems with how you’re representing this issue. I also think it’s nonsense to act like Anne Frank’s feelings and relationships can be written off as some neutered feminine love. Teenage girls can be sexual anyway, Anne Frank is expressing her sexuality. While we don’t know how Anne Frank would have labeled herself, plenty of people talk about figures in history who were likely gay, few do about people who were likely bi. Also your line about her feelings for guys being different as if that’s a point against her being bi kind of shows you don’t know much about the bi experience because MANY bi people feel differently toward different genders that doesn’t make them any less bi.
I also fail to see how presuming Anne Frank bi “romanticizes” her relationship with an abusive man (which, BY THE WAY, would not disprove her biness), especially since many bi women experience assault and rape at the hands of their male partners. That’s so much messed up shit you say about bi people in this ask answer.
So since you are NEITHER bi nor Jewish I wonder why you presume to speak for us and erase us. It is incredibly troubling to me. Your voice should take a second wheel to ours. You can call out people, but it would be nice if you reblogged what Jews had to say, especially bi Jewish women - plenty of us have been posting on this topic, you don’t need to speak for us.
One more bi Jewish woman seconding that.
Also, I have to say:
While I basically I agree with some of the OP’s critique, I find it suspicious that it received so much popularity (far more than that of the original post!). I also find it highly suspicious that these sort of critiques are only raised when someone is called “bisexual” but not when they’re called “lesbian” or “gay”. I have reason to believe that both these things are driven by biphobia and the covert desire to eliminate bisexual existence*.
In fact, I have never seen anyone, ever in my life (online and IRL) saying “please let’s not call this person gay because they didn’t use the term and that would be reductive”. Never.
So, while the OP’s critique makes several good points, I also reserve the right to call bullshit.
* If my having said this bothers you, note that I say “desire” and not “intention”, and check yourself.
i reblog this every single time
this is my favorite post on this whole website
Fun fact: most (genetic) men see fewer shades of red than (genetic) women do because the gene that allows for the color perception of red exists only on the X chromosome, so women have twice the red-perception powers. The theory is, because women were typically gatherers, they needed to be able to tell the difference between poisonous berries and non-poisonous ones based on their color. (source)
So, to a man, something may appear to be simply red. But to a woman, it could be ruby, brick, rust, maroon, crimson… or blood orange.
Fun fact: so called “genetic” differences between the sexes are often exaggerated in scientific studies because scientist approach such studies with the assumption of sex as a binary, and this societal framework that they’ve unquestioningly accepted primes them to find binary differences.
For more information read anything by Anne Fausto Sterling and learn about the intersex community.
|The US Government:||We're not going to make it federally mandatory for people to get paid a wage they can actually live off of|
|The US Government:||If people want to make a living, they'll just have to work 16+ hours a day|
|The US Government:||And if their kids end up disenfranchised because of a lack of parental involvement, well that's not our problem|
|The US Government:||In fact, what is our problem is creating a system that will funnel these disenfranchised youth into our prison system so they can work for corporations (that promise us money) for damn near free|
|The US Government:||If they don't want to fall victim to this system, then they can seek higher education|
|The US Government:||Except such an education will be inaccessible to most disenfranchised people and skewed in favor of the financially stable and white people|
|The US Government:||And we're not going to make intervention programs like sex education and conflict resolution federally mandatory, because that's the parent's job|
|The US Government:||The parent who is working 16 hours a day|
Lets have a dystopian future movie where none of the actors are white
Not a single one
There’s just no white people and not a single character questions it
Watch how quickly people notice and get pissed off