Everybody, especially on the left, is a giant racist sexist who gleefully makes fun of other cultures while being terrified of them at the same time.
Everybody, especially on the left, is always othering somebody else and justifying US military intervention.
Everybody, especially on the left, makes equivalent errors in judgment, because unapologetically using blackface and/or referring to yourself as someone’s “better” is totally the same as using a patriarchally oppressive burqa to show the logical conclusion of a body-hater’s arguments.
There is no other interpretation for what they say and do — and if they disagree, it is only because of their deep racism and sexism and othering tendencies. They must be verbally abused as a result.
Either that, or there’s just a little loss of perspective out there.
No marc I haven’t because you’re the one saying I’m asking about the ones here or at lindsey;s .
I am asking AT ALL. You assume that the people talking to you DON’T feel a kind of way. I’m saying you confuse cordiality with respectful when in now way have you REAllY examined whether it is.
The people at Lindseys Counnt even though as they are people I don’t like referring to them that way.
Even if they don’t feel disrespected does that mean that I lose teh right to be treated as a cognizant person
I am not MAKING SHIT UP. I am asking a question.
I dis not say that you disagreeing with me is racism and if you can point where I have I’m open. That is in fact making shit up.
What am I saying is racism? Whats my actual problem?
What is my actual issues? What’s Bint’s
While you claim to be respectful. As I have only NOW started participating in this convo I would like examples of me misconstruing.
When I ask what your problem is you avoid it and say I’m making stray arguments and harming you but the fact that youre harming is secondary?
And once again you mis entire paragraphs about it not being about the picture, itnot being about the interpretations of teh picture, but amount use of voices selectively, use of thoughts, and use of traffic while condemning peopel whose words you don really use in the holistic way they are intended.
When I say I feel disrespected you don’t show any concern for that but tell me youve been cordial as if my expressing disrespect is some fantasy in my mind ?
As if a fmeinist imperialism is made up in my head taht I don;’t have any backing behind this besides a desire to attack you ?
That my hesitationa nd greivances don’t come from anywhere liek oh my own experiences with colonizing feminists, or teh use of cordiality as a weapon ,or any other myriad of things taht if I was given any courtesy and if any of the myriad of peopel you jsut dedicated a post to mocking were?
I don’t link blogs that discuss race as much as you’d like me to because, to be blunt, I don’t feel I have anything to add. I write what I know. It doesn’t mean I don’t care or whatever, but my blogging is about me writing what I write about well, and for various reasons, race just isn’t up there. I went to all sorts of blogs, POC and not, and talked about this. So at this point, I’m basically up a creek on concerns. I’m not going to change what I write about.
Disagreement is not disregarding. However, if the two continue to be conflated, I will end up disregarding because that is a bad faith argument in the flesh. Arguments dismissing the relevance of WOC who don’t write about what you want them to are getting very close, in my estimation, to being a bad faith argument, particularly from someone who just criticized the bully pulpit and telling people what is or is not proper leftism.
Sorry, Marc. I should probably just quit feeding it and drop out. For a brief moment, I thought it was going to be an interesting discussion despite R.’s trolling, but it’s gone off the rails. It’s not going to be resolved. I’m not going to insult anyone’s intelligence by pretending to agree to something I don’t, so there’s nothing left to discuss.
Which is not what i did and at this point youre being specifically dense to choose a way to make me say taht I have said yes or not them writing about what i want tehm to write about. I TALKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE FACT THAT WHILE I RESPECT AND HAVE DEFENDED HER THE FACT THAT SAMHITA HER PRRESENCE DOESNT MAKE A BLOG A WOC BLOG>
THATS NOT A DISMISSAL . IT was a me trying openly to dialogue iwth you but since this is all bout you fuck it,
BUt what you did is a bullshit fucking swerve and its tiring.
And at this point since presenting you with open faith argiments results in Marc bowing out after basically ignoring my poiints and you admiting that you have no use for blogs where your own voice isnt in use . SO you use their words only when you can make yourself heard and when asked tostand in actual responsibility for them TO THE PEOPEL YOU HAVE BEEN USING you jsut wave your hands as if youre not an adult .
This isnt you misunderstanding its [purposeful selfihs egoism . I leave you to it
Marc, who exactly are the POC who agreed with your interpretation? I’ll admit I haven’t seen every single thread on every blog that has been talking about this, so I might have missed something or even forgotten something on one of the threads I did read, so can you think of a couple of names that stand out?
I know you said you are out, but I think I should explain that to us this is never a dead horse. It’s really important to at least try to get the people we think are on our side to see our point of view. If we thought you were a KKK style racist we wouldn’t be wasting our time on you.
It’s also why we keep coming back to the fact that use of the burqa in this way is playing into right wing memes about muslims. That is the only way the joke works, because if you know full information, then this joke doesn’t work in a photo with Clinton.
Amanda, I think you misunderstood Bint because she knows that both Samhita and Celina are WOC and said that earlier in the thread. It’s more like BA said, some blogs are thought of as white even when they have POC contributors, like Pandagon. I think that Pam will not post more controversial race/gay issue threads on Pandagon but will instead post them over at Pam’s House Blend. It’s a sort of self censorship that POC do when they are addressing a white mainstream audience. So it’s more the readers than the writers when POC refer to a blog as white.
This post and the comments on it really serve to support my decision (and that of many other people of color) to no longer bother to discuss race or racism with white so-called progressives. I think clearly that its time for white people to start educating other white people, if only because people of color will not really be heard.
squeeze me. may i just say? CHOMSKY.
“WOMEN decide what’s sexist. Men DO NOT.
PEOPLE OF COLOUR decide what’s racist. Whites DO NOT.
When a woman tells you your actions are sexist, you apologise and DON’T FUCKING DO THEM AGAIN.
When a POC tells you your actions are racist, you apologise and DON’T FUCKING DO THEM AGAIN.”
Marc, POC claimed this victory not you. You misread RM. I don’t know which POC’s argument you agreed with and I don’t remember you bringing it up here.
Marc wrote:
“What I don’t understand is your assertion, without any proof at all, that any other meanings and interpretations of the image are false or in bad faith.”
Again, for what is now the zillionth time, I have always acknowledged the validity of other interpretations. I just see the one I defend as more reasonable as the default. I am not falsifying or dismissing anything. How many times do I have to say it?
Probably about as long as the rest of us have to listen to people telling Amanda she shouldn’t apologize or people like you saying we can’t tell the difference between the racist image or a burqa and the racism of lynching.
I’m sorry if I haven’t read every argument you’ve made, but let’s take this most recent one:
I just see the one I defend as more reasonable as the default.
I’m hearing you say that the most reasonable default is to not believe racism is behind the image. Those of us who disagree with you have already stated that we don’t believe racism was the intent, so now the issue is what is the “default” when a racist image appears before us. Should we, as observers, believe that the racist image is a mistake or a misunderstanding?
I think the reasonable answer to that question is: what is the context? Are we currently in a situation where racism is the exception rather than the norm? Are we existing in a blogosphere in which racist images are few and far between?
A honest answer to that question would be, of course, no. As white people, we need to realize that the issue is alive and important right this minute. What do we do then? Do we expect our friends of color to know and assume that we are not racist? Or is this a time in which we need to be extremely mindful of our power and privilege?
For many of us, the latter is the more appropriate behavior. It isn’t a matter of what we deserve based on our histories and our political viewpoint. It is about what women of color are experiencing right now.
This doesn’t mean that we blindly follow women of color, as some have alleged. It means that we do some work, learn some more, and return again to the struggle that we share with women of color.
We don’t do this out of sympathy or charity. Because tthe images and symbols that are used against people of color will be used against all of us who are not in positions of power one day soon. People of color are the first to experience these setbacks, but once they prove effective, people in power will use the same tactics against ALL of us. We all can benefit by learning from the experience of those who see the effects of power first, if we choose to do so.
I don’t doubt for a minute that the same tactics will be used against the rest of us one of these days. What is the harm in being prepared? What is the harm in listening to our sisters and brothers of color?
[...] Posted by brownfemipower on 15 Oct 2006 at 10:46 pm | Tagged as: radical woc feminism I just read this comment made by amanda over at punkass blog Donna, if it helps, I know that Marc and Lindsay aren’t doing what a lot of people in my thread did, which was dismiss the concern out of hand. I think they take it very seriously and are engaging people on the issue, but they too have very real concerns. The very real concern they’ve both voiced explicitly and implicitly is that a particular group of women of color—the women who have explicitly sought help in their struggle against the Taliban’s oppression—is getting brushed aside [...]
ooh. Am I one of the “three white women?” Or am I one of the “sockpuppets,” now?
because I gotta tell you, if I have someone’s hand up my ass, you’d better believe it’s consensual.
which, by the way, Amanda, as long as we’re throwing in everything but the kitchen sink and completely shooting past the original point anyway: I did not consent to your use of me for that last shitstorm on your blog, either. As in: *used,* as opposed to *engaged.*
There is a common thread here: well, two.
1) POC really tired of being alternately ignored, patronized, and treated as screens for mainstream white folks’ projections
2) people from various walks of life not particularly enjoying being used as straw-filled trampolines for your own posts, Amanda. And yeah: what BL said wrt Random Bird. Again.
You don’t like being misrepresented? misread? Misunderstood, seemingly -willfully?- Put in the hot seat and fired at from all sides? How about that. -Other people don’t like it either.-
So how about, you know, knocking it the fuck off? How about -reading- what other people have to say and just taking five minutes to maybe, you know, -absorb- before running off with it? is that really -so- taxing?
and for FUCK’S SAKE, people:
-how much- of this energy spent on “I AM NOT A RACIST!! I’M NOT I’M NOT I’M NOT!!” could’ve gone toward, like, -reading- something or someone you didn’t already know? Is your ego -really- -that fragile?- Because, you know, if that’s your idea of “progressive,” I don’t think we’re gonna get real far, tbh.
You know what the devil’s greatest trick -really- is? Denial. Unconsciousness. -Willful- unconsciousness.
LALALALALA CAN’T HEAR…
yeah. okay.
Amanda:
RAWA, Let Us Struggle Against War and Fundamentalism and for Peace and Democracy!
RAWA, 28th April, Mourning for People – Joy for Fundamentalists!
RAWA, Five Years Later, Afghanistan Still in Flames
I don’t link blogs that discuss race as much as you’d like me to because, to be blunt, I don’t feel I have anything to add. I write what I know. It doesn’t mean I don’t care or whatever, but my blogging is about me writing what I write about well, and for various reasons, race just isn’t up there. I went to all sorts of blogs, POC and not, and talked about this. So at this point, I’m basically up a creek on concerns. I’m not going to change what I write about.
That’s not a defense against insensitivity; that’s the foundation of insensitivity. You don’t have anything to add because you don’t hang out at these blogs. You have some control over what you know, remember?
Amanda, you said:
“I don’t link blogs that discuss race as much as you’d like me to because, to be blunt, I don’t feel I have anything to add. I write what I know. It doesn’t mean I don’t care or whatever, but my blogging is about me writing what I write about well, and for various reasons, race just isn’t up there. I went to all sorts of blogs, POC and not, and talked about this. So at this point, I’m basically up a creek on concerns. I’m not going to change what I write about.”
Well, that goes actually right to the core of the critique of white liberal/mainstream feminism made by WOC and other feminists. It’s not about writing ‘about race’ or not that is the problem. The problem is that gender oppression CANNOT be understood, and even less opposed, without taking into account how it is entangled with other systems of oppression (race, class, heteronormativity, colonialism, etc.). And even if you don’t ‘write about race’ explicitly, race is present in your analysis: in the unackowledged assumptions that you can talk about gender without talking about race. And this (unacknowledged) assumption is very much informed by other assumptions, which is that only people of color are affected by ‘race’, that ‘whiteness’ is not worth of analyzing and criticizing, that ideas about ‘whiteness’ do not enter into your understanding of ‘gender’, etc.
And as Piny said, not knowing much about something is not an excuse. There are a lot of people in this world who don’t have much resources and access to information and education. But I doubt you are one of them. So, it is up to you to do the work of informing and educating yourself. That is, if you really *do* care.
Fascinating insight. To write about one thing is not to write about another. Too bad people can’t start blogs of their own to write about what they want to write about.
Fascinating insight. To write about one thing is not to write about another. Too bad people can’t start blogs of their own to write about what they want to write about.
It would be banal, if it weren’t a reply to someone who doesn’t seem to see avoidance as a problem.
Say a liberal/progressive guy with a political blog wrote about everything but women’s reproductive rights, and then defended himself with, “Well, fuck, I’m just completely ignorant. I write what I know, and what I don’t know is how the laws of this country affect women.” I would respond to that with, “Well, yeah, you are ignorant–no objection there. Thing is, you’ve gotta work on that.” Same basic principle.
FDL –
Kos? Kos? ‘Zat u?
[...] Wow. The b.s. keeps piling high over there at Punkass. I’m getting a distinct whiff of the pungent odor right here in LimpDick (and I don’t know what that makes Texas if Florida is the limpdick of the nation. The balls? Kinda concave, eh?). [...]
How any1 of you can can get up on a moral high-horse is beyond me. The ideas that you express ( not all but the majority) are nothing but tasteless propaganda aimed to subdue the voice of others whose opinion you dont agree with. Maybe it was intended as a joke, maybe what i am saying right now is, but amanda’s early comment in relation to roxanne’s pulp fiction reference was ignorant, a virtue that i feel sums up this page. I realise the paradox of my statement, as ultimately everyone is ignorant to a certain extent, with mine pertaining to my ambivalence to the opinions expressed herein. However, argument is sometimes a necessary aspect of discussion. Therefore, the intrinsic ambivalence of individuals actually leads to their individuality respective to thought. Discussion, and thus argument, is a necessary part of growth, without which a true measure of ones thoughts can never be grasped.
Punkass says that expressing ones opinions can be construed as verbal abuse, i say to that, who gives a fuck. Expressing ones opinions is an inherent right for humanity. Punkass also talks about egotistical, and maybe what i am saying may sound egotistical, maybe it is egotistical. My ego is not large enuf to assume that i have no ego, and this paradox is the crux of many arguments and views, expressed by many people. Not all important, some very trivial infact.Maybe im rambling on and your thinking, what the fuck is this guy talking about, and i must admit i am thinking the same thing. perhaps what i am trying to get as is the most trivial of trivial, or perhaps it is simplistic yet profound, but i believe that every1 who has a brain should use it to the best of their ability. This is in essence the thought that i am trying to convey, every1 has an opinion, every1 has a bias, and every1 has the right to express that opinion to a constructive end. Too oft it is in striving for a goal that people try to perfect the means instead of trying to perfect the ends. Ultimately, the journey is not important, it is a means to an end. Money, this is a means that many people confuse with an end. Without money, there would be much more prosperity within the world, and certainly much less suffering. yet, at the moment in the most desperate of places, money is the only thing that will bring relief. It is a double edged sword that is much duller on the side of those who have it. “The only class of people who think more about money than the wealthy, is the poor”. Now, i have no idea where i am going with this, perhaps this is just an excuse to exercise for my brain. I guess, it all, everything and anything, comes down to perception. Perception is the key to reality, to existance. I dont pretend to know any profound truths, despite my ravings, but i would like to share this with you who are stil reading this ranting, which is that we should all take a page out of john lennons book, and imagine the world, in peace. “All it takes for the triumph of evil, is for good men to not do anything”
Getting back to reality and peoples perceptions of it, i realise that my words are fruitless for people who are in need, whose lives are not as easy as ours, but i believe strongly, and as einstein once said, “reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”. If you can take anything at all from what i have said, indeed if there is anything to take from what i have said, is that reality is merely an illusion based solely on your perception of reality. To change your perspective, and thus change your reality, is a divine gift that all should exercise, as so often the case is, people do not. Just think about the question, what is reality?, i know i will. I hope i have not offended anyone too much, as in despite of my earler talking, i do not revel in argument, but wish for peace and harmony. I also hope i have not bored you to the brink of your own existance, and i hope you can realise that your reality, and thus every1 elses reality, as there is no doubt that we are all inextricably linked, is a consequence of your perception. These are my opinions expressed, and if you dont like them then faif enough, you are entitled to your opinion as i am to mine. Peace to the world.