HoweverHere

Pronouns: He/Him
Common tags: art, important, animation, video, audio, music, gif, tutorial, diy, hot men, hunk, moc, speedo, shirtless, naked, abs

Why Mixed with White isn't White

thisisnotjapan:

-By Sharon H. Chang

When I wrote my first post for Hyphen, Talking Mixed-Race Identity with Young Children, I was deliberately blunt about race. I wrote about how I don’t tell my multiracial son, who presents as a racial minority, that he’s white — but I do tell him he’s Asian. While the essay resonated with many people, others made comments like this: 

“Your child is as white as he is Asian… Why embrace one label and not the other?”

“Why is he Asian but not white? He has white ancestors as much as Asian ones. So if it’s OK to call him Asian, it’s OK to call him white. Or, if it’s not OK to call him white (because he’s not completely white) then it’s not OK to call him Asian, because he’s not completely Asian either.”

“Your child is neither white nor Asian. I once heard this description: When you have a glass of milk and add chocolate to it, you no longer have just a glass of milk and you no longer just have chocolate because you have created something completely different. A bi-racial or multi-racial child is not either/or.”

In the 1990s, psychologist and mixed-race scholar Maria P.P. Root wrote the famous Bill of Rights for People of Mixed Heritage, stirred by her examination of mixed-race identity, interviews with hundreds of multiracial folk across the U.S., and the struggles multiracial people face in forming and claiming a positive sense of self. “I have the right not to justify my existence to the world,” it reads. “To identify myself differently than strangers expect me to identify. To create a vocabulary about being multiracial or multiethnic.”

Almost two decades later, these proclamations still ring so true. Some people are completely unwilling to honor my family’s choice to identify as mixed-race and Asian because it doesn’t align with their own ideas about how we should identify. The right of a mixed-race person to self-construct and self-define, even today, endures continual policing from people with their own agendas.

If it’s not OK to call him white…then it’s not OK to call him Asian”; “Your child is neither white nor Asian.” These critiques are so often centered on whiteness: a sense of disbelief that I would “deny” it to my son, and the conviction that, if I won’t teach him he is white too — or at least partly white — then he is nothing at all. Even the problematic chocolate milk analogy — which the commenter clearly thought was progressive — begins with a glass of white milk with “color” added. White is seen as normative, and there is a total failure to recognize that racial categories are political

Of course I talk to my son about our white family members who are a part of his life and his identity. But those stories are about growing up in Virginia, or window candles at Christmastime in New England, or his Slovakian great-great-grandmother who came through Ellis Island alone when she was sixteen. Those stories are about our history, not about being “white.” “White” is not an ethnic celebration, a food festival, or a heritage parade. It’s about having unearned power and privilege based on the way you look.

In Dr. Peggy McIntosh’s famous essay on white privilege, she listed a series of unearned privileges white people enjoy. Among them: “I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time”; “I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented”; “I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial”; and “I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the ‘person in charge,’ I will be facing a person of my race.” Are any of these true of my multiracial Asian son? My son, who barely has any children’s books that reflect his racial image, who is constantly scanned and assessed aloud based on “how Asian” he looks, my son who has had many more white teachers than teachers of color? 

Telling my child he’s white also won’t help him understand why children who were less than one-quarter Japanese were interned during World War II; why a stranger would look at him and say there are no “pure races” anymore; why a leading theatre company in our city unabashedly staged a yellowface production of an operetta; why kids on the playground pull back their eyes in a slant and spit out one of those ridiculous anti-Asian chants that just won’t go away. When I tell my son that he is Asian, mixed-race, multiracial, and a person of color, I’m not denying him parts of his ancestral-ethnic heritage. I’m teaching him about the race politics that intrude upon our lives whether we want them to or not. I’m preparing him to exist in a world that obstinately persists in being racially divided. And I’m trying to let him know something about the ways he has and will continue to be judged throughout his life, not because he’s white — but because he’s mixed with color.

(via susiethemoderator)

tashabilities:

deepcotton57821:

jeankd:

salvadorkali:

*colour means nothing* (except the fact that PoC are socially, economically and politically marginalised from the moment they enter society because of their race, colour or ethnicity)  *we’re all human* (although PoC are constantly dehumanised, under-represented and their humanity constantly challenged by systematic racism thoroughly ingrained into our social consciousness) Iggy is disgusting.

AKA, I’m not racist, because I’m fucking a black dude and he lets me call him “my nigga”. 

When will people realize that ‘colorblindness’ isn’t a solution for racism, it’s just another way to erase the experiences of POC?

And when you erase our experiences, you’re practicing white supremacy.

tashabilities:

deepcotton57821:

jeankd:

salvadorkali:

*colour means nothing* (except the fact that PoC are socially, economically and politically marginalised from the moment they enter society because of their race, colour or ethnicity)
*we’re all human* (although PoC are constantly dehumanised, under-represented and their humanity constantly challenged by systematic racism thoroughly ingrained into our social consciousness) Iggy is disgusting.

AKA, I’m not racist, because I’m fucking a black dude and he lets me call him “my nigga”. 

When will people realize that ‘colorblindness’ isn’t a solution for racism, it’s just another way to erase the experiences of POC?

And when you erase our experiences, you’re practicing white supremacy.

(via reverseracism)

thewomanfromitaly:

i am 100% for women responding very rudely and aggressively to disgusting unsolicited messages or dick pics from men on the internet

(via susiethemoderator)

Anonymous asked: what are you critiques on anarcho capitalists?

america-wakiewakie:

image

For real, ancaps are the worst (actually, I put them on par with neo-conservatives and anarcho post-leftists because they overlap a ton when it comes to bigoted views of PoC and the religious). Essentially, ancaps are rightwing libertarians, though there are stark differences between the more anti-State sorts, as much of a contradiction as that already is, and the minimalist sort, those advocating for the smallest government possible (think Tea Party).

The whole suffix anarcho when applied to capitalism is an oxymoron though. It is total appropriation from the words socialist roots. Here is a quick history lesson:

"Sadly, it is necessary to explain what we mean by “libertarian” as this term has been appropriated by the free-market capitalist right. Socialist use of libertarian dates from 1858 when it was first used by communist-anarchist Joseph Dejacque as a synonym for anarchist for his paper “La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social.” This usage became more commonplace in the 1850’s and 1895 saw leading anarchists SeBastein Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France. By the end of the 19th century libertarian was used as an alternative for anarchist internationally. The right-wing appropriation of the term dates from the 1950’s and, in wider society, from the 1970’s. Given that property is at its root, and, significantly, property always trumps liberty in that ideology, anarchists suggest a far more accurate term would be “propertarian.” We will use the term libertarian in its original, correct, usage as an alternative for anti-state socialist."

— Iain McKay in his anthology of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s Property is Theft 

A while back I was asked about labels, and I think they are important to understand when teasing out the differences in the language we use to describe our political beliefs and the archaeology of history that gives those ideologies meaning. Here was the question and answer, I think it will be informative to you:

"I really despise political labels; but you call yourself a libertarian…so, can you show us a country that is governed by libertarian principles?"

— Asked by michaellangford

Labels are merely words that we may use to effectively communicate to other people a part of the value system we hold. The trouble with them is when others debase those labels into caricatures of what they are suppose to mean or take our use of them as the totality of what we are. Americans are frequently guilty of this. You said I call myself a libertarian, but you forgot that I said a libertarian socialist (anarcho-socialist). I have to preface my socialism with either the anti-authoritarian words libertarian or anarcho because of the Cold War propaganda campaigns so effectively waged against socialism as a statist institution, when in fact if you read socialism outside Marx (see Joseph-Pierre Proudhon & Peter Kropotkin), and indeed Marx himself, you know socialism is at its core anti-state and therefore anti-authoritarian. In his essay The Soviet Union versus Socialism (1986) Chomsky summarizes both the United States’ debasing and the USSR’s co-opting of the word: 

"When the world’s two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist — surely any serious Marxist — should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.

As for the world’s second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the ‘socialist’ dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.”

This same tendency is being used today to reinvent the history and substance of the word libertarian, which traditionally has been representative of workers’ self-emancipation. The hijacking of libertarianism by right-wing Tea Party Republicans is a gross Randian perversion of the word. Right-wingers in America claim they want small government yet in reality they are merely calling for a system of neo-feudalism where the state is the arbiter of force for corporate power. For them the state exists to enforce “free trade” and “contract law.” Again, this rewriting of meanings has already been examined in Lance Klafta’s essay Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism (1993 ):

When the Russian Revolution began few people clearly understood the gulf which separated the state socialists from the libertarians. Many dedicated libertarians like Alexander Berkman, rallied to the Bolshevik cause, willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in hopes that seizing state power would only be a transitional stage toward the development of the stateless/classless society.

Many sincere lovers of liberty now flock to the standard of the Libertarian Party, as they did the Bolsheviks, completely ignorant of the history of the last century. As Santayana said: “Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.”

What should be done? It should be obvious that government enforcement of private contracts is not libertarian any more than is taking state power to set people free. Libertarianism is and always will mean socialism - the self-emancipation of working people.

Libertarians must stop courting the Republican right and return to their intellectual roots. By standing outside of the political process we deny the state legitimacy, and like the state torturers in Atlas Shrugged, they will come and beg for libertarians to take over.

Remembering the experience of the Spanish libertarians, and heeding the advice of John Galt, libertarians must refuse state power even when begged. The state can never be a tool of liberation. Only its complete and utter collapse will allow for the emergence of non-statist institutions, libertarian co-ops, communes, and free markets, to flourish and displace the political state once and for all. 

So when you say I am a libertarian it needs to be clear that I am not a Tea Party Republican; and when I tell you I am a socialist so too must it be made clear that I am not an authoritarian. Muddling of our language is what has made people hate labels. 

So, if I answer your question as to what country is governed by libertarian principles, that is the principles of workers’ self-emancipation, then I can say there have been none I can think of and are likely to be none. To use the term country is to interchangeably use the phrasing nation-state. The nation-state is antithetical to the self-emancipation of workers and therefore until these oppressive governments of scale we call liberal democracies collapse, or those despotic authoritarian autocracies and regimes implode, or are dismantled, I can’t say libertarian socialist ideals are represented, much less governing.

Hope that helps. 

unmoveablebeast:

dirtygrandma:

once upon a time, in Japan…. *white characters*

this takes place in Africa… *white characters*

our story starts in the Middle East… *white characters*

Long ago in Europe… *white characters* “for historical accuracy”

(via susiethemoderator)

cross-connect:

The Wonderful Neo Realism of Eduardo Naranjo

He was distinguished in 1991 as “Extremadura Hoy” and the Gold Medal of Extremadura, and in 1995 was awarded the Military Cross for his contribution to the Arts and the Army.
His work is disturbing and complex. The drawing is perfect, transcendent and illusory to contribute a special light and a colorful austere… It is a metaphorical realism, fantasy and imaginative work. TxT

golfdad1992:

Isn’t amazing how people don’t give a shit about misogyny until they can accuse muslims of it in order to justify their islamaphobia?

(via allgirlstothefront)