Anonymous said: these anons are like, "can i be racist in the rain? can i be racist on a train? can i be racist in a box? can i be racist with a fox?"
How can I be racist if I work with blacks
How can I be racist if one sold me slacks
I’m not racist I’m just like you. I’m best friends with a black or two.
i’m not racist, you see, it’s just a preference
i love eastern culture and its women’s deference
the west lost its way with no room for clemency
If I love Asian women, how’s that white supremacy?
i’m not a racist, i can’t be, you see
my great grandma’s grandma was part cherokee
plus one time i got called “cracker” to my face
don’t we all bleed red? i don’t even see race…
I’m not racist, blacks just need to stop complaining
Living in the past and white people blaming
I work hard, no handouts for every little fraction
If white privilege isn’t fair, then how is affirmative action?
I’m not racist man, I’m just right-wing
Plus reverse-racism is totally a thing
It’s not about power check the definition
Slavery wasn’t an evil thing, just asset acquisition.
How come I can’t say “nigga”, it just means brotha!
And ain’t I a brotha from anotha motha?
I didn’t use the ‘er’- so its a total difference.
You blacks give good white people such hindrance :(
'We can't handle spicy foods' ? Your jokes make me sad
See, if I joked and called you a “nigger”, you’ll be mad
You black people think we are always out here to ruin your day
Look, 'not all white people', …mmkay?
I can say “nigga” ‘cause of freedom of speech
And y’all always forget what MLK preached!
White privilege ain’t real ‘cause my life is hard
If you want to stop racists, don’t play the race card
Blacks can oppress. Shoot, they’ve oppressed me
I was the only white kid and the blacks were so mean
So I called one a nigger, but clicked anon first
yeah racism is real, but like… I’ve had it worst.
- It equates the anger of the oppressed with the oppression they face.
- It blames the oppressed for their oppression.
- It invalidates the anger of the oppressed.
- It demands that the oppressed just sit quietly, be nice to their oppressors and accept the status quo.
If someone were to die at the age of 63 after a lifelong battle with MS or Sickle Cell, we’d all say they were a “fighter” or an “inspiration.” But when someone dies after a lifelong battle with severe mental illness and drug addiction, we say it was a tragedy and tell everyone “don’t be like him, please seek help.” That’s bullshit. Robin Williams sought help his entire life. He saw a psychiatrist. He quit drinking. He went to rehab. He did this for decades. That’s HOW he made it to 63. For some people, 63 is a fucking miracle. I know several people who didn’t make it past 23 and I’d do anything to have 40 more years with them.
One of the more helpful and insightful things I’ve seen about depression/suicide in the last couple of days.
I’m pointing this especially at The Washington Post and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (be wary of anyone whose sole goal is the “prevention” of suicide; they will do dangerous things to suicidal people in the name of preventing it) for their collaboration on this wonderfully bullshit article, and also to the dicks at NAMI who shared said article (not that I expected anything better from NAMI, but still).
I completely agree with the quote. But madvocate, I am wondering what exactly is wrong with the Washington Post article?
This is the way I see it: The Academy posted a touching tribute for someone who died by suicide, and 300,000+ people retweeted it (and many others shared it on other social media). That, to me, is amazing. That is a major organization plus hundreds of thousands of people all treating mental illness and suicide with compassion, meaning that it is hundreds of thousands of people not calling it selfish or cowardly or misguided (etc etc).
And then this article criticizes that outpouring of compassion for being a “formula for potential [suicide] contagion,”, rather than criticizing, say, the 24/7 media outlets that reported specific details of his death on a loop.
I just hate literally every quote they use in the article: “Suicide should never be presented as an option.” Well, it is for a lot of people, and she’s lucky to live a life where she gets to pretend that it’s not. “The focus, she adds, should be on his incredible life.” A life that included mental illness, addiction, and suicide. Those are as much a part of life as the “incredible” parts. They should be talked about too. Which she herself says: “A quarter of the population suffers from mental health issues that could potentially drive suicidal thoughts…This is a very important issue, from a public health standpoint, and one we need to bring to light.” So, naturally, she criticizes people talking about it. Everything she says just reeks of “it’s a permanent solution to a temporary problem.” Ugh.
And I can’t help but think that if we knew from the start that he was in the early stages of Parkinson’s Disease, the article would have been very different, if it existed at all.
I don’t know, I’m going by my gut here. And my gut reaction to the tweet, as a person who’s survived suicide, was a feeling of compassion and acceptance for the pain he went through, and therefore for the pain I’ve gone through. The thing that “triggered” me was walking into the break room at work and finding the TV that’s usually tuned to sports or TV shows tuned to CNN, which was discussing every specific detail of how he died, and then turning around and finding the entire room full of people watching it. And then walking back into the room 8 hours later and finding that CNN was still on and they were still talking about the same specific details. At that point I just went and walked around the store for awhile because I was too afraid to go be alone in my car, because I had that feeling every suicidal person knows of suicide being really really really close to me, like right up in my bones, and I couldn’t be alone or it would consume me completely. So I know some of what that “contagion” feels like firsthand, and thus if a suicidal person told me that the tweet bothered them, I would respect that. But I don’t respect “experts” telling people how to talk about suicide.
The worst part of outfitting our police officers as soldiers has been psychological. Give a man access to drones, tanks, and body armor, and he’ll reasonably think that his job isn’t simply to maintain peace, but to eradicate danger. Instead of protecting and serving, police are searching and destroying.
If officers are soldiers, it follows that the neighborhoods they patrol are battlefields. And if they’re working battlefields, it follows that the population is the enemy. And because of correlations, rooted in historical injustice, between crime and income and income and race, the enemy population will consist largely of people of color, and especially of black men. Throughout the country, police officers are capturing, imprisoning, and killing black males at a ridiculous clip, waging a very literal war on people like Michael Brown.
Last night police in riot gear marched down West Florissant Avenue, ordering people to leave the area and firing tear gas onto the streets. Police even fired tear gas into the backyard of a home where several people held their “hands up” in what’s become a symbol of protest over the shooting of Michael Brown.
Daily RFT caught the melee on video.
The incident occurred after police had already evacuated nearly everybody on West Florissant Avenue. Between tear gas firings, a police officer bellowed “go home” into a loudspeaker. It took about an hour, but nearly everybody within vicinity of the police left the streets.
Yet a group of four male protesters remained defiant on West Florissant, screaming profanities at the police and putting their hands in the air. The police responded with threats of tear gas.
"Turn around and leave or we will deploy gas," shouted a police officer through a loudspeaker. Residents in their backyards pleaded for the men to get out of the street. After a few minutes of prodding, they did so. But the police still decided to advance.
Standing in his backyard along with a few friends and family was 24-year-old Rich West. And after seeing the police deploy tear gas as they marched down the empty street, West and his friends felt like protesting.
"You go home! You go home!" they chanted. As the police come closer, they all put their hands up.
Once again, the police officer with the megaphone ordered the protesters to go home.
"We’re in our yard!" they responded.
At one point West walked to his fence with his hands high up in the air.
"This my property! This my property!" he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face. He moved at the last second.
"This my shit!" West screamed irately after narrowly avoiding the gas canister. Eventually a friend grabbed him and pulled him back to calm him down.
"This is my backyard! This is my shit!" West continued screaming into the camera. He turned to the police: "Y’all go the fuck home!"
"This is our home. This is our residence," West’s brother added. "Why do you think people say ‘fuck the police?’ Because of that shit."
Flora Busby, West’s mother, a soft-spoken woman in her 60s, came into the backyard to see if her sons were alright.
"We in our backyard!" she said. "Why you gotta shoot us?"
Again West shouted at the police. And again they fired another gas canister into the yard — this one nearly hitting his house.
"It’s pure ignorance," West responded after catching his breath. "I pay property taxes here. I should be able to be in my backyard any time."
He said that regular harassment by the Ferguson police department, often in the form of traffic stops, has been occurring ever since he was sixteen years old.
"They ain’t gotta be throwing tear gas in my backyard," added Busby. "This is my property. We were just standing back there, my son was standing back there, and I go to see about him and they threw it."
She continued: “I’m angry about that. They shouldn’t be doing that. And they didn’t need to kill the poor little boy. “
UAV Engines Limited, in Shenstone, Lichfield makes drone engines to be exported to Israel.
A groups of nine activists today shut down a factory, one of two UK subsidiaries of Israeli arms firm Elbit.
UAV Engines Limited, in Shenstone, Lichfield (40 minutes north of Birmingham), makes drone engines. According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, these have been exported to Israel.
At 5am this morning, the group shut the main gates to the factory and scaled the eight-meter wall. The group are now camped on the roof, intending to close the factory for as long as possible, and have enough supplies to last a week, they say.
Speaking from the rooftop over the phone to The Electronic Intifada today, London Palestine Action activist Ewa Jasiewicz said they had successfully shut down the factory: it is completely closed, and the car park empty.
She said they had water, sunblock and locks to ensure the police could not remove them. Their response to anyone asking when they will leave the rooftop is “when is this company leaving” Lichfield, she said.
She was in good spirits and said so far the police were merely “tormenting us with constant chatter.” The group have been locking themselves down when necessary.
Local police have shut down the street outside.
Indigenous Feminism Without Apology
by Andrea Smith
We often hear the mantra in indigenous communities that Native women aren’t feminists. Supposedly, feminism is not needed because Native women were treated with respect prior to colonization. Thus, any Native woman who calls herself a feminist is often condemned as being “white.”
However, when I started interviewing Native women organizers as part of a research project, I was surprised by how many community-based activists were describing themselves as “feminists without apology.” They were arguing that feminism is actually an indigenous concept that has been co-opted by white women.
The fact that Native societies were egalitarian 500 years ago is not stopping women from being hit or abused now. For instance, in my years of anti-violence organizing, I would hear, “We can’t worry about domestic violence; we must worry about survival issues first.” But since Native women are the women most likely to be killed by domestic violence, they are clearly not surviving. So when we talk about survival of our nations, who are we including?
These Native feminists are challenging not only patriarchy within Native communities, but also white supremacy and colonialism within mainstream white feminism. That is, they’re challenging why it is that white women get to define what feminism is.
DECENTERING WHITE FEMINISM
The feminist movement is generally periodized into the so-called first, second and third waves of feminism. In the United States, the first wave is characterized by the suffragette movement; the second wave is characterized by the formation of the National Organization for Women, abortion rights politics, and the fight for the Equal Rights Amendments. Suddenly, during the third wave of feminism, women of colour make an appearance to transform feminism into a multicultural movement.
This periodization situates white middle-class women as the central historical agents to which women of colour attach themselves. However, if we were to recognize the agency of indigenous women in an account of feminist history, we might begin with 1492 when Native women collectively resisted colonization. This would allow us to see that there are multiple feminist histories emerging from multiple communities of colour which intersect at points and diverge in others. This would not negate the contributions made by white feminists, but would de-center them from our historicizing and analysis.
Indigenous feminism thus centers anti-colonial practice within its organizing. This is critical today when you have mainstream feminist groups supporting, for example, the US bombing of Afghanistan with the claim that this bombing will free women from the Taliban (apparently bombing women somehow liberates them).
CHALLENGING THE STATE
Indigenous feminists are also challenging how we conceptualize indigenous sovereignty - it is not an add-on to the heteronormative and patriarchal nationstate. Rather it challenges the nationstate system itself. Charles Colson, prominent Christian Right activist and founder of Prison Fellowship, explains quite clearly the relationship between heteronormativity and the nation-state. In his view, samesex marriage leads directly to terrorism; the attack on the “natural moral order” of the heterosexual family “is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.”
Similarly, the Christian Right World magazine opined that feminism contributed to the Abu Ghraib scandal by promoting women in the military. When women do not know their assigned role in the gender hierarchy, they become disoriented and abuse prisoners.
Implicit in this is analysis the understanding that heteropatriarchy is essential for the building of US empire. Patriarchy is the logic that naturalizes social hierarchy. Just as men are supposed to naturally dominate women on the basis of biology, so too should the social elites of a society naturally rule everyone else through a nation-state form of governance that is constructed through domination, violence, and control.
As Ann Burlein argues in Lift High the Cross, it may be a mistake to argue that the goal of Christian Right politics is to create a theocracy in the US. Rather, Christian Right politics work through the private family (which is coded as white, patriarchal, and middle-class) to create a “Christian America.” She notes that the investment in the private family makes it difficult for people to invest in more public forms of social connection.
For example, more investment in the suburban private family means less funding for urban areas and Native reservations. The resulting social decay is then construed to be caused by deviance from the Christian family ideal rather than political and economic forces. As former head of the Christian Coalition Ralph Reed states: “The only true solution to crime is to restore the family,” and “Family break-up causes poverty.”
Unfortunately, as Navajo feminist scholar Jennifer Denetdale points out, the Native response to a heteronormative white, Christian America has often been an equally heteronormative Native nationalism. In her critique of the Navajo tribal council’s passage of a ban on same-sex marriage, Denetdale argues that Native nations are furthering a Christian Right agenda in the name of “Indian tradition.”
This trend is equally apparent within racial justice struggles in other communities of colour. As Cathy Cohen contends, heteronormative sovereignty or racial justice struggles will effectively maintain rather than challenge colonialism and white supremacy because they are premised on a politics of secondary marginalization. The most elite class will further their aspirations on the backs of those most marginalized within the community.
Through this process of secondary marginalization, the national or racial justice struggle either implicitly or explicitly takes on a nation-state model as the end point of its struggle - a model in which the elites govern the rest through violence and domination, and exclude those who are not members of “the nation.”
Grassroots Native women, along with Native scholars such as Taiaiake Alfred and Craig Womack, are developing other models of nationhood. These articulations counter the frequent accusations that nation-building projects necessarily lead to a narrow identity politics based on ethnic cleansing and intolerance. This requires that a clear distinction be drawn between the project of national liberation, and that of nation-state building.
Progressive activists and scholars, while prepared to make critiques of the US and Canadian governments, are often not prepared to question their legitimacy. A case in point is the strategy of many racial justice organizations in the US or Canada, who have rallied against the increase in hate crimes since 9/11 under the banner, “We’re American [or Canadian] too.”
This allegiance to “America” or “Canada” legitimizes the genocide and colonization of Native peoples upon which these nation-states are founded. By making anti-colonial struggle central to feminist politics, Native women place in question the appropriate form of governance for the world in general. In questioning the nation-state, we can begin to imagine a world that we would actually want to live in. Such a political project is particularly important for colonized peoples seeking national liberation outside the nation-state.
Whereas nation-states are governed through domination and coercion, indigenous sovereignty and nationhood is predicated on interrelatedness and responsibility.
As Sharon Venne explains, “Our spirituality and our responsibilities define our duties. We understand the concept of sovereignty as woven through a fabric that encompasses our spirituality and responsibility. This is a cyclical view of sovereignty, incorporating it into our traditional philosophy and view of our responsibilities. It differs greatly from the concept of Western sovereignty which is based upon absolute power. For us absolute power is in the Creator and the natural order of all living things; not only in human beings… Our sovereignty is related to our connections to the earth and is inherent.”
A Native feminist politics seeks to do more than simply elevate Native women’s status - it seeks to transform the world through indigenous forms of governance that can be beneficial to everyone.
At the 2005 World Liberation Theology Forum held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, indigenous peoples from Bolivia stated that they know another world is possible because they see that world whenever they do their ceremonies. Native ceremonies can be a place where the present, past and future become copresent. This is what Native Hawaiian scholar Manu Meyer calls a racial remembering of the future.
Prior to colonization, Native communities were not structured on the basis of hierarchy, oppression or patriarchy. We will not recreate these communities as they existed prior to colonization. Our understanding that a society without structures of oppression was possible in the past tells us that our current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. If we lived differently before, we can live differently in the future.
Native feminism is not simply an insular or exclusivist “identity politics” as it is often accused of being. Rather, it is framework that understands indigenous women’s struggle as part of a global movement for liberation. As one activist stated: “You can’t win a revolution on your own. And we are about nothing short of a revolution. Anything else is simply not worth our time.”
Andrea Smith is Cherokee and a professor of Native American Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and co-founder of Incite! Women of Color Against Violence and the Boarding School Healing Project.
Actor Danny Glover and others featured in a documentary about a 98-year-old Asian-American activist are protesting the film’s screening at a Tel Aviv film festival.
In a statement released Monday, participants in “American Revolutionary: The Evolution of Grace Lee Boggs,” including Boggs, said:
“We stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine, and support their call for cultural and academic boycott of Israel.
As people featured in the film American Revolutionary: the Evolution of Grace Lee Boggs, we were shocked to find the film slated to be screened at the DocAviv festival in Israel on May 13th and 15th. This was scheduled without our knowledge.
We immediately took action to have the film withdrawn from the festival. The festival organizers and film producers informed us that this was not possible and they would move forward with the screening, over our objections.”
Boggs, a philosopher and writer who has been involved in left-wing American social movements, “has explicitly stated her support of the boycott and believes this screening is in direct contradiction to her legacy and ongoing work as a revolutionary,” the statement continued.
The producers posted the statement on the film’s website, but prefaced it by saying they had been “unaware that playing in the festival would be an issue for the participants of the film. We respect their position and regret the discomfort this has caused for them.”
This movement is unstoppable. Why? Because it is the truth.
Page 1 of 33