"Motherfuckers will read a book that’s 1/3rd elvish, but put two sentences in spanish and they (white people) think we’re taking over"
Junot diaz on “do you think you alienate readers when you use spanish in your books?” (via iamincoherent)
One of the BEST ad campaigns about representation I have seen.
Everyone has a backbone. Use yours.
In 2008, Mr. Obama took the linguistic flexibility of his predecessors to new heights. Take, for example, his style-shifting during a visit to Ben’s Chili Bowl, a well-known Washington eatery, days before his inauguration in 2009. In a scene captured on YouTube, Mr. Obama declined to accept the change from a black cashier with the statement “Nah, we straight.” These three short, seemingly simple, words exhibited distinct linguistic features associated with African-American ways of speaking.
First was the rendering of “no” as “nah.” The vowel sound in “no” is like the one in “note,” while the vowel sound in “nah” is like the one in “not” (not to be confused with the way some whites say “nah” as in “gnat,” or the way some Southerners say “naw” like the vowel sound in “gnaw”).
Second was Mr. Obama’s use of “straight” in the sense of “O.K.,” “fine,” “all right.” Observers have noted Mr. Obama’s use of black slang in relation to hip-hop culture, his use of words like “flow” (the mapping of rhymes onto a beat) or “tight” (cool, hip). In his memoir “Dreams From My Father,” Mr. Obama also used words and phrases that are not as widely known outside the black community, like “trifling” (lazy and inadequate) and “high-yella” (a reference to light-skinned blacks).
Third was Mr. Obama’s omission of the word “are.” The removal of forms of “to be” — what linguists call copula absence — is one of the most important and frequently studied features of black English."
NO! STOP THIS!
“Homophobia” is a useful, PRECISE word and it is DISTINCT from “heterosexism.” Heterosexism is to homophobia as sexism is to misogyny. Deeply related but not quite interchangable. Homophobia and misogyny are similar in that they have a connotation of visceral hatred and aversion, disgust and repulsion. Sexism is $15 for a woman to get a haircut a man could get for $10. Misogyny is the rape and abuse of women as rampant mainstream entertainment. Heterosexism is the assumption that every teen girl will want a boyfriend. Homophobia is not wanting a lesbian teaching your kid’s class in school.
The word homophobia IS NOT ABLEIST. “Phobia” is derived from the Greek word for fear or AVERSION and is used in some psychiatric terms (agoraphobia for instance) but THAT IS NOT ALL IT IS USED FOR and it is NOT exclusively a psychiatric term! For instance, one of the well known symptoms of rabies is hydrophobia—which is not a fear of water, psychiatrically, but a phyiscal AVERSION to drinking caused by the inflammation induced by the disease.
Homophobia has NEVER meant “fear of gays” in the sense that arachnaphobia is a fear of spiders. It is using the root -phobia in the sense of AVERSION, as in the deep physical disgust many homophobes (especially men) express and which leads to widespread social injustices and discrimination against gays and lesbians.
PLEASE STOP perpetuating the myth that “homophobia” is an offensive word, or that “heterosexism” is a more “PC” alternative with the same meaning. It is a hideous, harmful diversion.
When someone says “check your privilege” the correct response is not
- I have freedom of speech
- You’re just stating your opinion
- Stop harassing me
- I’m not sexist/racist but…
- Stop being such a bitch
- Everything you say is just opinion anyway
- well you’re just wrong
- omg bitch
The correct response is:
- Thank you for pointing that out
- I will work on that
- Can you point me in the direction of some articles or resources?
- I’ve not thought of it that way before
- I will be more conscious from now on
"Nothing better exemplifies this distinction than the structure of derogatory language. Derogatory terms do not mean; they assault. Their intention is not to communicate but to harm. Thus they are not discursive signs or linguistic statements but modes of aggression. They express a structure of power and domination, a hierarchy that contextualizes them and gives them their force. As gestures of assault they reflect their users status as a member of the dominant group. The derogatory term does more than speak; it silences. That ability to silence derives from the fact that, in turning its hegemonic position to account, it turns the racialized other into a language for whiteness itself. Those situated lower on the hierarchy have no viable means of defending themselves. This, in effect, renders the derogation unanswerable in its own terms. The derogatory term obtrudes with a small daily violence whose form is gratuitous, without motivation in the situation in which it is used, and whose content is to render that situation dominated by white supremacy. If it sits at the heart of the language of racism it is because it is banal and everyday even while symbolizing racism’s utmost violence, the verbal form of its genocidal trajectory. Those who use derogatory terms repeatedly are putting themselves in a continual state of aggression; turning their objective complicity with a structured relation of white supremacist dominance into an active investment or affirmation. Such modes of assault demonstrate a specific obsession with those denigrated that characterizes the socius of white supremacy, its demands for allegiance, its conditions of membership, its residence in viciousness."
i.e. why calling a white person “cracker” is nowhere near comparable to calling a black person “nigger.”
Your Daily Spanish Lesson
- Harto/a (adjective) = Fed up, full, a lot, tired.
- ¡Estoy harta de la política americana! = I am fed up with American politics!
Just a pattern I noticed...
- PoC: *gets attacked by racists*
- White sj warrior: "OH THIS MAKES ME SO FUCKING ANGRY I CAN'T" glee.gif
- PoC: *talks about racism they encounter in about all spaces they enter into every single day*
- White sj warrior: "OH THIS MAKES ME SO FUCKING ANGRY I CAN'T" glee.gif
- PoC: *says the phrase "white sociopathy" or "white narcissism" to describe a system of white supremacy where PoC are completely disregarded as human beings and where white people act entitled to treating PoC as objects for their own gain*
- White sj warrior: "WTF THAT'S ABLEISM! I can do this one! No more glee.gif! I am going to tell you how ABLEIST you are!"
- PoC: "Um...some of us also have mental disabilities and also know ableism is a thing, and yes, 'sociopathy' and 'narcissism' are appropriate terms to describe white supremacy-"
- White sj warrior: "YOU ARE OPPRESSING PEOPLE! HDU! I don't feel sorry for you at all if you don't consider (white) people's feelings! Think about all the (white) sociopaths you are attacking here!"
- PoC: "OH THIS MAKES ME SO FUCKING ANGRY..."
- White sj warrior: "DON'T ESCAPE RESPONSIBILITY HERE!"
OK, FOR THE LAST TIME PEOPLE:
OUTSIDE MAYBE THE REALM OF INTER-RACIAL ADOPTION, YOU CANNOT BE TRANSETHNIC OR TRANSRACIAL.
I DON’T CARE HOW MUCH ANIME YOU WATCH, OR HOW YOU ALWAYS USE CHOPSTICKS, OR HOW YOU FEEL SOME WEIRD, “DEEP CONNECTION” TO “ASIAN CULTURE” OR WHATEVER.
You are appropriating racial identities in a way that is stereotyping and offensive. You are essentially saying that race is a fluid identity. It is not. Racial identity is what you are born as. End. Of. Story.
Which leads me to another thing I keep seeing on my dash:
Just because your people used to not be considered white does not make you oppressed, nor does it prove anything about the oppression of white people.
I understand that Irish people were treated like shit in America’s history, but bringing that shit up in an argument about white privilege IS ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY AND OFFENSIVE. You are marginalizing the current experience of PEOPLE OF COLOR.
“White,” by the way, is not a race. It’s a non-race. It’s what you are when society considers you the default. If “White” were an immutable race, then guess what? Filipinos would be white. So would Middle Easterners. Know why? They were considered “white” in the past. While simultaneously being a “race.” What’s changed? Societal perception and treatment. What hasn’t changed? Their ethnic background.
So….stop. Just stop. I don’t give a fuck about how hard you think it is, because all these POCs be making you feel excluded from a discussion about personal racial oppression. I don’t care about how guilty you feel, because we’re accusing you of having privilege. Racial oppression is NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE EQUATED by BEING WHITE.
That is all.
Derail of the Day-“It only has power if you give it power!”
When someone uses a slur and a person from the marginalized group that the slur disparages calls that shit out, there are is a common reaction that piss me the fuck off and is downright abusive in how it twists why the call out is happening and how it should go down.
- “Well, it’s up to you get offended or not”
- “It only has power if you give it power”.
- “You can’t let every little thing bother you!”
Posing it like that makes the marginalized person accountable for the slur, and just them. It’s up to the MP to fix their perspective, to “choose” whether or not the slur will “hurt” them! It is used to undermine by positing the MP is simply weak, overly-sensitive, or, my favorite bullshit derailing, “playing PC police”. It takes away their right to call out the person using the slur and hold that person accountable. It shifts focus and takes away all culpability from the person responsible for its abusive usage and the supremacist culture responsible for giving it power by abusing the MP in the first place.
The problem isn’t whether or not the MP found it offensive, and that they just simply shouldn’t. It’s that the slur is shitty because it has a history of harm and abuse towards the MP since it was used to harm and abuse them by the dominant group, a history the MP has lived experience with. The MP can’t simply “choose” to ignore history and to ignore the context that gives the term power. Neither should the person using the slur.
- “If you have confidence in yourself it won’t hurt you.” (the sicker, more bigoted variation of that is “*slur* only hurts you if you’re a *slur*!”)
- “You should have pride in yourself!” (*insert ridiculous quotes about having pride and how if you have that nothing could take you down here*)
Posing it like that makes it a question of how confident, happy, or prideful the marginalized person is with their identity. The problem will be easily solved if they’re totally at peace with themselves (as if it’s a question of that in the first place)! It undermines the MP once again by saying they must lack confidence in their identity, otherwise why would they be bothered?!! (people with confidence and pride can ignore history and OK with slurs, apparently).
It once again ignores history, context, and lived experiences. It polices the MP’s identity and the power they have to determine what words they are OK with being used to address them or what slurs they’re not OK with. Again, instead of the point being “You can’t use that word, it has a history of harm and it is harmful/derogatory/offensive”, it is derailed in favor of some petty “O u must not have pride in yrself qurrl don’t be down you should be ok with who u r” bullshit.
Part of it is totally intentional derail, another part of it comes from a subconscious fear of wanting to call out the dominant culture or the very conscious belief that there just isn’t a point, it’s too big, you’re bound to get hurt by it, so you might as well take your lumps. Those are are relative points. The harm is still there, and we shouldn’t in our daily lives be OK with engaging in problematic language and supremacist culture, nor should we be derailed in this fashion when we call it out.
spanish ain’t for everyone, apparently.
is the language of love
but only if you’re pretty.
If your skin is light
and your hair is straight
and you have just a tinge of
you can be loved
but if you are browner
than a paper bag
and it will never look like
just a good tan
or possibly your hair is curled
and your nose or brows are a little
then you are one of those
with their dirty
and that you should
and go back to your “own country”
which is also an
but by all means
pretty people, speak spanish
that’s what they say.
"Cuteness is a way of aestheticizing powerlessness. It hinges on a sentimental attitude toward the diminutive and/or weak, which is why cute objects (formally simple or noncomplex, and deeply associated with the infantile, the feminine, and the unthreatening) get even cuter when perceived as injured or disabled. So there’s a sadistic side to this tender emotion, as some people have noted."
[W]hile right-wing commentators have often accused African-Americans and other minorities of exploiting their “victimhood,” the Right has learned over many decades the political power that comes from framing issues as “hey, we’re the victims here.” And, often the Right’s exaggerated “victimhood” has been accompanied by violence toward the supposed “victimizers.”
For instance, in the South of the 1950s and 1960s, white segregationists portrayed themselves as the victims of “outside agitators” and a “liberal Northern press” intent on destroying the South’s “traditional way of life,” i.e. white supremacy. Thus, many white racists saw the murder of civil rights workers as a legitimate act of self-defense, the protection of “states’ rights.”
This chip-on-the-shoulder “victimhood” has remained an element of American right-wing politics ever since. Whenever truly discriminated-against groups, such as blacks and women, have demanded their rights, the Right has cast the reforms as attacks on American traditions.
In recent years when gays have sought basic civil rights, their struggle has been spun as an aggressive “gay agenda” assaulting Christian values. That was the ugly climate in 1978 when a conservative San Francisco city official, Dan White, assassinated Harvey Milk, California’s first openly gay elected public official, and his political ally, Mayor George Moscone.
More recently as gays have sought the right to marry, they are accused of trying to destroy the institution of marriage. A “Defense of Marriage Act” is deemed necessary to protect heterosexual couples. You see, even though the gays are the ones actually facing discrimination, they are portrayed as the “victimizers” and heterosexual couples are the “victims.”
In many other cases, the Right has found “victimhood” a powerful political motivator. For instance, the Right rallied white male college students around their “persecution” from “political correctness,” which often involved a college administration punishing boorish conduct like shouting racial slurs at blacks and yelling sexual insults at women and gays."