Whiteness Is a Fucking Trip

sonofbaldwin:



(The real hero in this scenario: Satwant Singh Kaleka, 62, was the president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, who was shot to death as he tried to tackle the gun-slinging killer.)


When James Holmes went up in that movie theater, shot almost 100 people, and killed 12, the mainstream media narrative was about how intelligent Holmes was and about his acceptance into some prestigious Ph.D. program. The media was looking for some way to excuse his behavior or at least present a justifiable reason for what he did in defense of Whiteness. “What set him off?” was the central question, as though there could be a legitimate, exculpatory reason for his terrorist acts or that, somehow, the victims might have been asking for it (if the victims fit a certain description, that is). The other major narrative that came out of the story were the Heroic Boyfriends of White Women, who jumped in front of bullets to save white womanhood. Another major narrative was about the victims who died, all of whom were white. A lesser narrative, and one the media tried their best to spin another way, was the white dude who jetted on his girlfriend and children, hopped in his vehicle, and fled the scene—leaving them to be saved by Jarell Brooks, a young African-American man.

In the case of the second massacre, Wade Michael Page went into a Sikh temple, likely unable to discern the difference between Sikhs and Muslims (after all, they all weer beards and turbans and that makes them all the same in the Whiteness imagination), a shot the place up. Seven people were killed before he was finally shot down himself. He was an avowed white supremacist (and the media uses the descriptor “white supremacist” as though tit only applies to a small number of backward people rather than the entire American ethos) who played in a white supremacist band, whose lyrics advocated the genocide of black people, gay people, and Jewish people (and there’s STILL no discussion about this racist, homophobic, Antisemitic music in the the media; if it was hip-hop though, the media wouldn’t be able to contain itself). He was tatted UP with White Supremacist symbols and, as of today, the media is still “trying to figure out the motive.” *Rolls eyes mad hard* The Little Rascals could have figured out the motive with just a Sherlock Holmes hat and a magnifying glass. It’s not fucking rocket science, but when it comes to Whiteness, everyone has agreed to play dumb and precious.

Very little has been said about the seven victims; they are, after all, only brown. Instead, the focus now is on the law enforcement officers who swooped in and saved the day. And that’s because in a society infected with Whiteness, even when Whiteness is the cause of wanton death and destruction (which is often the case), it has to remain central and superior and righteous and heroic and pure.

*sound of disgust*

As Toni Morrison once said: Whiteness is “like a profound neurosis that no one examines for what it is.”

Well, shit, I wish they would so that we can save ourselves from it.



(via praxis-makesperfect-deactivated)

The man responsible for the Sikh Temple shooting is a terrorist.

taarrad7in:

 The man responsible for the Colorado shooting is a terrorist


 The man responsible for the massacre at the Norwegian camp is a terrorist


 The man responsible for the death of Shaima Alawadi is a terrorist


Add others*

Reblog if you agree

George Zimmerman is a terrorist

(via fsufeministalumna)

Dear UK,

hummussexual:

I understand that you recently put five Muslim men on trial and convicted three for passing out “homophobic leaflets.” They were tired under a new law that was passed in March of 2010 that intended to curb “hate-speech”, including homophobia, while protecting “Freedom of Speech.”

While I am, in no way, going to give value for or against the issues, I do find it interesting that this law has been applied to this group of men - who were calling for a change in law and not vigilantism - versus the English Defense League (EDL). Not only is the EDL filled with white-supremacists, but it seems that it is allowed to continue its racist, xenophobic, and Islamophobic diatribes publicly, but it looks as though the UK government is paying an estimate £800,000 out of its pocket to protect their planned March (along with the group Unite Against Fascism) in Leicestershire next week. 

At the sentencing, the judge said to the men

“You have been convicted of intending to stir up hatred. It follows that your intention was to do great harm in a peaceful community.”

These words would have carried more weight were they applied equally, and to everyone who “intends to stir up hatred.” From these (in)actions, I guess it’s not hatred when it’s directed towards ‘brown-immigrants’, huh? Only when it’s directed towards (presumably white) gays… 

bradicalmang:

“Prejudices of race and nationality benefit only the master class”

bradicalmang:

“Prejudices of race and nationality benefit only the master class”

(Source: remuslumpen)

dear cracker ass white people who hate immigrants

unknowablewoman:

weexist-weresist:

THERE IS NOTHING

YOU HAVE DONE

TO DESERVE CITIZENSHIP

WALTZING OUT OF YOUR MAMA’S WOMB ONTO AMERICAN SOIL DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE DESERVING OF JACK SHIT

LOOK AT THE PERSON TO YOUR LEFT WHO IS A CITIZEN

THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU BITCH ABOUT THIS PERSON DESERVING MORE ACCESS TO JOBS, OPPORTUNITIES, RESOURCES, AND RIGHTS THAN THE IMMIGRANT WHO HAS BUSTED THEIR ASS FOR DECADES TRYING TO PROVIDE A GOOD LIFE FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND IS NOW BEING DEPORTED

THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME, A PERSON WHO HAS LIVED IN AMERICA SINCE THE AGE OF 2, AND A WHITE US-BORN CHILD

this idea that we owe citizens something first is a result of an imagined community or fictive kinship. but unlike other forms of kinship which exist under certain dynamics of obligation or power (families, communities, etc), the fictive kinship of valuing your fellow citizen over your fellow immigrant or assuming that said citizen is deserving is entrenched in racism and jingoism.

for the life of me i cant understand people who feel compelled to protect their fellow citizens over immigrants. what the fuck did all you bitch ass crackers do to deserve the right to vote? to live free of the fear of deportation? to be told that the land you grew up in is yours? to be able to report rape and domestic assault without fearing your families might get torn apart? to be able to participate in controversial political activities without fear that you might get sent to a foreign land?

citizenship is a ridiculous fictive kinship.

and all you crackers can eat a bowl of dicks.

I LOVE YOU

(via little-sword-deactivated2013040)

"Person of color" = someone discriminated against for their race/ethnicity on a systematic level by the white majority

downlo:

(Inspired by the commentary on this post)

For the purposes of anti-racism struggles, that’s all you need to go by.

Yes, the term, “colored” is not normally associated with Asian people these days, but it was definitely used to label people of Asian descent in this country in the past. We have been and still are the targets of White racism:


Believing the fallacy that people of Asian descent are not authentically or legitimately ‘Colored’ or ‘People of Color’ is wrong because:

1) It ignores the long history of racial discrimination and persecution of Asians in the U.S. (e.g. the Chinese Exclusion Acts, the Japanese-American internment during WWII, explicit campaigns to drive Asians out of the American West, the lynching of Asian Americans. (Which is something that is not commonly known due to the fact that many Asian and Mexican victims of mob violence in the 19th c. were classified as ‘White’ in official records*)

2) It ignores the history of White European imperialism in Asian countries, which intersects with White racism against Asian immigrants in White-majority countries. I assure you that White imperialists certainly did not view Indians, Chinese, or Vietnamese as being anything other than ‘Colored’

Imperial map of Asia, source of map

European man receiving pedicure from South Asian servants

White European man receiving a pedicure from South Asian servants

3) It plays into the White racist divide-and-conquer strategy.

Even a brief look at the history of race/ethnicity in U.S. law alone makes it apparent that a key aspect of White racism has been the classification of non-Whites according to (white-defined) categories.

Those hailing from Asia (as well as the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Latin America) have been legally categorized in a myriad of ways—very occasionally as White, but more often as non-White (e.g. Ozawa v. United States, United States v. Thind). In general, Asians have occupied a strange ethno-racial limbo as ‘Other’ (e.g. the Census prior to 1870). As far as Whites were concerned, Asians might not have been ‘Negros’, but we certainly weren’t White either. Our otherness made us targets for discrimination and violence, and—because our right to citizenship has constantly come under attack—we’ve historically had as little recourse to the protection of the law as African Americans have.

Massacre of the Chinese at Rock Springs, Wyoming

Massacre of the Chinese at White Springs, Wyoming (source)

Yes, Asian people have (somewhat more recently than you think) enjoyed certain perks due to our ethnicity/race compared to Black and AmerIndian people (e.g. ‘the model minority’). But that’s just a more recent aspect of the divide-and-conquer strategy, which the White hegemony has used to pit minorities against each other so as to distract us from the real problems facing our communities.

And yes, some Asian people are complete racist dicks to those who aren’t Asian or White, but that’s internalized White racism. If you’ve been kicked and beaten by your master for years, then suddenly given a few scraps from his table, would you throw them in his face? Or is it more likely that—as beaten down as you are—you’d give in to Stockholm Syndrome and play along? (To be clear: that’s an explanation for Asian racism, not an excuse.)

Even so, incidents of Anti-Asian bias (e.g. Vincent Chin, Wen Ho Lee) and straight-up racist violence occur frequently enough these days that Asians are hyper-aware of the fact that many—including non-whites—don’t view us as Americans, let alone ‘Colored’. We’re simply foreign ‘others’.

So if White is grudgingly treating you OK, while Black and Brown seem to hate and distrust you, then whom do you ally yourself with? More importantly, who benefits from this apparent alliance?

In the American black-white paradigm of race relations, ‘others’ like Asians get shit on no matter which side we’re on. So the Asian internalization of White racism makes a twisted kind of sense as a survival strategy, particularly if your natural allies (other victims of White racism) are treating you like foreigners and even equating you with the oppressor himself. 

My point: Asians’ conflicted, sometimes tense, relations with African Americans and those who have been historically, categorically considered ‘Colored’ is an artifact of White racism. This means that if you exclude Asians from ‘Colored’ solidarity against White racism, you are reproducing a highly successful strategy of White racism.

Let that sink in for a minute.

To conclude: Anti-Asian exclusion from POC solidarity movements is ignorant, wrong, and just plain stupid. Asians’s current role as a prop of White racial supremacy is not our doing, just as our historic role as the foreign ‘Other’ is not our doing. The peculiar place of Asians in race relations today has been the result of the intersection of White racism, xenophobia, and imperialism. It is a mistake to think otherwise.  

TL;DR: Questioning the identity of Asians as “people of color” reinforces White racial supremacy.

(via dailymurf)

Jeff Yang Responds to David Sedaris' Article on Chinese Food

blackamazon:

zuky:

wildunicornherd:

wthellokitty:

[h/t to Racialicious]

And this is what’s truly ugly about your piece, David: For someone who’s spent a lot of your career puncturing middle-class aspiration and self-delusion, your essay is unpleasantly blind to the fact that all of China is just a few generations removed from dire, desperate want, and that many people, like the peasant family you had such a bad experience sharing a meal with, continue to subsist on an annual income that’s a tiny fraction of what a sophisticated awesome American literary superstar like you loses in his sofa. And in a country of 1.3 billion people, even having braised pig’s stomach to occasionally go with your daily rice is a fucking luxury.

Previously.

Fuck David Sedaris and his banal anti-Chinese racism, which would have been unoriginal a century ago in the days when Chinese Exclusion laws were passed on the basis of the exact same racist sentiments.

Chinese food culture has evolved a particular medicinal and gastronomical tradition over the millenia, but I’ll let you in on an even more fundamental reality: you know what people all over the world eat? Whatever they have to in order to survive. People all over the world figure out ways to make what’s available taste good. It’s that simple. Unless you’re a spoiled brat and sheltered close-minded douchehat who can’t stomach human difference.

There are 300 million people in China who subsist on less than a dollar a day, and you want it to look like Tokyo? Again: fuck you. You don’t know shit about this world you live in. Crawl back up your own ass and stay there, shithead.

( waves hanky)

Man, what a douchelord.

Also, chicken feet are tasty, although I like them Malaysian style in black sauce, rather than cold vinegared which is closer to the Cantonese style.

On the West's Moral Panic Over 'Multiculturalism'

downlo:

A good summary of the state of multiculturalism in western politics these days. Despite what some rightwing types would have you belief, multiculturalism is not and never has been hegemonic. It remains an unfulfilled ideal, a whipping boy, a seed of contention:

…“[O]thers” have to be distinguished in the popular mind from other “others.” So when black people attack other black people it is no longer crime but “black-on-black-crime;” if a young Muslim woman in killed over a romantic relationship it is not a murder but an “honor killing.” In a country like England that has been embroiled in virtually continuous terrorist conflict for the last forty years in Northern Ireland, the notion that there are “home-grown” Muslim bombers is supposed to represent not just a new demographic taking up armed struggle but an entirely new phenomenon. Even as the Catholic Church is embroiled in a global crisis over child sexual abuse and the Church of England is splintered in a row over gay priests, Islam and Muslims face particularly vehement demands to denounce homophobia.

The combined effect of these flawed distinctions and sweeping demonization is to unleash a series of moral panics. In 2009 in Switzerland, a national referendum banned the building of minarets in a country that has only four; in 2010, 70 per cent of voters in the state of Oklahoma support the banning of sharia law even though Muslims comprise less than 0.1 per cent of the population; in the Netherlands parliament seriously considered banning the burka–-a garment believed to be worn by fewer than fifty women in the entire country. Disproportionate in scale and distorted in nature, these actions cannot be understood as a viable response to their named targets but rather as emblems of a broader, deeper disruption in national, racial and religious identities. At a time of diminishing national sovereignty, particularly in Europe, such campaigns help the national imagination cohere around a fixed identity even as the ability of the nation-state to actually govern itself wanes. It is a curious and paradoxical fact that as national boundaries in Europe have started to fade, the electoral appeal of nationalism has increased….

But such assaults are by no means the preserve of the far right. Many who consider themselves on the left have given liberal cover to these assaults on religious and racial minorities, ostensibly acting in defense of democracy, Enlightenment values and equal rights—particularly relating to sexual orientation and gender. Their positioning rests on two major acts of sophistry. The first is an elision between Western values and liberal values that ignores the fact that liberal values are not fully entrenched in the West and that other regions of the world also have liberal traditions. Nowhere is this clearer than with gay rights, where whatever gains do exist are recent and highly contested. Thirty American states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and only a handful of states have passed gay marriage through the popular legislative process. Not only is gay equality not a Western value, it’s not even a Californian value. The second is a desire to understand Western “values” in abstraction from Western practice. This surge in extolling Western virtues has coincided with an illegal war that has been underpinned by both authorized and unauthorized torture and a range of other atrocities and a spike in the electoral and political currency of racism and xenophobia.