#alienation within a racist white society and they had something in common for a bit something something

[yiling-daddy]

Yes, that was me! I can definitely expand on my thoughts re: how Madam Yu’s behaviour reads differently to me due to my traditional, Chinese upbringing.

There is a lot of subjectivity as to whether Madam Yu can be read as abusive, and this reading is often influenced by culture—hence you often see completely off-base takes floating around. However, to me, the way that cultural context influences the reading will actually change depending on the relationship, so I will discuss each one separately. Most of the culturally insensitive takes are about her being an abusive or uncaring mother (she’s not), or that she’s a spurned woman (it’s more complicated than that), so you can skip down to the JC, JYL, and CSSR sections for that.

Madam Yu and Wei Wuxian

As a trend, I think western fandom tends to simplify Wei Wuxian’s dynamic with the Jiang family into an entire adopted family. Consequently, Yu Ziyuan gets perceived as this two-dimensional, evil stepmom figure—but I think this doesn’t capture the truth.

There’s a bit more variability among Chinese audiences when they read the Jiang family dynamic, partly due to our deeper familiarity with wuxia tropes, but mostly because there's a mediocre Netflix translation colouring the western interpretation. Though many Chinese fans do view them all as a sort of family unit and read Madam Yu as a stepmother, I do not. To me, Jiang Fengmian and Jiang Yanli view Wei Wuxian as family—but Madam Yu does not. Madam Yu views him as a servant, a disciple of the sect, and an outsider at the dinner table—and it’s not wrong for her to do so. It’s not gracious, but it’s not unfounded. I don’t think Wei Ying ever gives any indication that he views her as a mother, either.

If you agree that they don’t have anything like a mother-son relationship, all these insults/complaints that Yu Ziyuan levels at him—that he’s the “son of a servant”, that Jiang Fengmian is weird for openly favouring Wei Wuxian over his own son, etc.—these start to make sense? Like, it’s shitty to listen to, but none of it is wrong. Suddenly it reads less like pointless insults and more like actual points.

Additionally, if we consider that Wei Wuxian is a disciple of the sect who goes around and raises the ire of the Wen clan, corporal punishment suddenly looks very normal (again, within the culture). Hence, when I watched the donghua and CQL, I hated seeing Wei Wuxian getting whipped, but I didn’t perceive this as abuse—especially because of the political nature of the decision.

But it is definitely still possible to mistreat a disciple.

In CQL, you see Madam Yu throwing an unnecessary amount of vitriol at Wei Ying. In the novel extras, it's revealed that she regularly whipped him but never whipped the other disciples, indicating that it wasn't normal corporal punishment. She also whipped him for absurdly stupid reasons. To me, this signals that she tended to abuse her authority over him. Even if you don’t view her as an abusive mother to Wei Ying, it's fair to read her as an abusive authority figure.

Importantly however, "abuse" is a loaded word suggesting a violation of social norms, and again, the situation is complicated because the social norms of the setting don't match those of the modern world. Madam Yu is not overstepping her bounds as master of Lotus Pier—hence, people do not think very much of this treatment in-universe, including Wei Ying himself.

Madam Yu, Jiang Cheng, and Jiang Yanli

Okay, when I first watched CQL, I cringed when Madam Yu started dragging her family because she sounded like My Actual Chinese Mother. I felt for a second like I had transmigrated into Jiang Cheng’s body and I was experiencing his agony firsthand!

Madam Yu reads very realistically, and I think this is why it gets personal for a lot of Chinese people when this fandom discusses her character. Yes, she belittles and hurts her children for their perceived failures, but many Chinese people can tell you that this is just a common parenting style. And while it might look like bullying to an outsider, this behaviour is usually motivated by love. It is often also motivated by fear that the child’s future will be substandard. This is textually obvious when you consider what exactly Madam Yu yells about:

She snaps at Yanli to stop peeling lotus pods, because she shouldn’t act like a servant. If Yanli keeps behaving so passively, what kind of role is she going to fall into in the future—especially given that she is not a cultivator?

She berates Jiang Cheng for always being inferior to Wei Wuxian no matter what he does. If Jiang Cheng is constantly overshadowed by Wei Wuxian, what will that mean for his future as sect leader? Or his future status and reputation among the sects?

I can do these Chinese Mom Translations because parents in real life will actually say things like this out of concern for their children (insults included), in an attempt to motivate them... and it really does light a fire under our asses. I attribute many of my personal successes to this parenting style. Thus, when I see posts like “Madam Yu didn’t show any sign of caring for others” or "Madam Yu was a purely selfish and arrogant person" or “Madam Yu is an abusive mother and nothing else"—well, I can tell most of these people are not Chinese, or if they are, then they likely did not have a traditional upbringing.

While I don't think these uninformed readings of Madam Yu are necessarily racist, I do think they they are unpleasant for Chinese fans to constantly see. For those of us in the west that had this type of upbringing, we often struggle with trying to frame and process our relationships with our parents. For me, this was partly due to the emotional baggage of my upbringing (Jiang Cheng winning!!!)... but it was also because white society kept telling me that my parents didn't give a shit about me when obviously they did. That’s fucked up to experience. It reeks of cultural imperialism. Thus, when I see Chinese people getting annoyed at these Madam Yu takes, I’m not surprised. This is unfortunately a fictional discussion that very much resembles a real one for us.

Yu Ziyuan, Jiang Fengmian, and Cangse Sanren

A lot of people view Madam Yu as a spurned woman and assume that is her motivation for constantly antagonizing Wei Wuxian and her husband. But because I assume that a lot of her chaotic yelling stems from her concerns as an Actual Chinese Mother, my take is different.

Remember the scene where Madam Yu catches Jiang Fengmian scolding Jiang Cheng just after praising Wei Wuxian? She drags Jiang Cheng up to his father and, in both CQL and the donghua, says something to this effect (paraphrased from memory):

This is your son, the future master of Lotus Pier! Even if you don’t like him because he was born to me, his surname is still Jiang!

And in CQL, she also says this right after berating Jiang Cheng for not measuring up to Wei Wuxian:

But it’s not your fault. Your mother is no match for his mother.

Yu Ziyuan isn’t angry about Cangse Sanren because she’s jealous; she is angry about Cangse Sanren because she thinks Jiang Fengmian’s feelings for her are jeopardizing his competence as a father to Jiang Cheng. Viewed in this light, it also makes sense why Yu Ziyuan is hostile to Wei Wuxian in a way that alienates him from the family—constantly calling him the son of a servant, pointing out the rumours about his parentage, etc. She’s not doing this because she hates Cangse Sanren or Wei Wuxian; she’s doing it because Wei Wuxian’s presence in the family is threatening Jiang Cheng’s future in her eyes.

Bonus: Did Yu Ziyuan love Jiang Fengmian?

Yes! In both the donghua and CQL (I ashamedly admit I don’t clearly remember the novel), I thought their final moments made it quite evident that they cared for each other. They fought together, died together to protect their home, and reached out to one another in their final moments.

But when I rewatched Madam Yu’s scenes in CQL and the donghua, I realized we got other hints that westerners probably missed. I'll focus on CQL:

Right before Jiang Fengmian sets off with Yanli for Lanling, Madam Yu sees them off. She gives Yanli some snacks and then—without making eye contact with Jiang Fengmian—says that she’s also giving them medicine in case someone gets a headache. Jiang Fengmian pauses, because it’s obviously for him.

This is recognizable behaviour for a lot of Chinese people. I can’t tell you how many times my mother got apoplectic at me, and then the only follow-up was her going out of her way to make me my favourite meal. The chaotic yelling you see between Jiang Fengmian and Yu Ziyuan is also pretty typical to many Chinese parents, and again, the follow-up in my household was often one of them going out of their way to do something for the other.

This is just how the culture is in a lot of families. “Sorry” isn’t expressed in words; it's expressed in actions. “I love you” isn’t expressed in words; it’s expressed in actions. In Chinese culture, the dominant love language is acts of service. It's fleeting, but we get glimpses of that kind of love between Yu Ziyuan and Jiang Fengmian. 

#the untamed #cql #wei wuxian #jiang cheng #yu ziyuan #madam yu #jiang yanli #cangse sanren #jiang fengmian #mdzs #mo dao zu shi #damn i guess its madam yu loving hours here #my meta

[fishoutofcamelot]

Zombie symbolism in media? Body snatchers? That sounds extremely interesting 👀👀👀

OOOOOOOOOOH ARE YOU READY FOR ME TO RANT? CUZ I’M GONNA RANT BABY. YALL WANNA SEE HOW HARD I CAN HYPERFIXATE???

I’ll leave my ramblings under the cut.

The Bodysnatchers thing is a bit quicker to explain so I’ll start with that. Basically, Invasion of the Body Snatchers was released in 1956, about a small town where the people are slowly but surely replaced and replicated by emotionless hivemind pod aliens. It was a pretty obvious metaphor for the red scare and America’s fear of the ‘growing threat of communism’ invading their society. A communist could look like anyone and be anyone, after all.

Naturally, the bodysnatcher concept got rebooted a few times - Invasion of the Bodysnatchers (1978), Body Snatchers (1993), and The Invasion (2007), just off the top of my head. You’re all probably very familiar with the core concept: people are slowly being replaced by foreign duplicates. 

But while the monster has remained roughly the same, the theme has not. In earlier renditions, Bodysnatchers symbolized communism. But in later renditions, the narratives shifted to symbolize freedom of expression and individualism - that is, people’s ability to express and think for themselves being taken away. That’s because freedom of thought/individuality is a much more pressing threat on our minds in the current climate. Most people aren’t scared of communists anymore, but we are scared of having our free will taken away from us. 

The best indicator of the era in which a story is created is its villain. Stories written circa 9/11 have villains that are foreign, because foreign terrorism was a big fear in the early 2000s. In the past, villains were black people, because white people were racist (and still are, but more blatantly so in the past). 

Alright, now for the fun part.

ZOMBIES

Although the concept has existed in Haitian voodooism for ages, the first instance of zombies in western fiction was a book called The Magic Island written by William Seabrook in 1929. Basically ol Seabrook took a trip to Haiti and saw all the slaves acting tired and ‘brutish’ and, having learned about the voodoo ‘zombi’, believed the slaves were zombies, and thus put them in his book.

The first zombie story in film was actually an adaptation of Seabrook’s accounts, called White Zombie (1932). It was about a couple who takes a trip to Haiti, only for the woman to be turned into a zombie and enchanted into being a Haitian’s romantic slave. SUPER racist, if you couldn’t tell, but not only does it reflect the state of entertainment of the era - Dracula and Frankenstein had both been released around the same time - but it also reflects American cultural fears. That is, the fear of white people losing their authoritative control over the world. White fright.

Naturally, the box office success of White Zombie inspired a whole bunch of other remakes and spinoffs in the newly minted zombie genre, most of them taking a similar Haitian voodoo approach. Within a decade, zombies had grown from an obscure bit of Haitian lore to a fully integrated part of American pop culture. Movies, songs, books, cocktails, etc. 

But this was also a time for WWII to roll around and, much like the Bodysnatchers, zombie symbolism evolved to fit the times. Now zombies experienced a shift from white fright and ethnic spirituality to something a bit more secular. Now they were a product of foreign science created to perpetuate warmongering schemes. In King of Zombies (1941), a spy uses zombies to try and force a US Admiral to share his secrets. And Steve Sekely’s Revenge of the Zombies (1943) became the first instance of Nazi zombies. 

Then came the atom bomb, and once more zombie symbolism shifted to fears of radiation and communism. The most on-the-nose example of this is Creature With the Atom Brain (1955).

Then came the Vietnam War, and people started fearing an uncontrollable, unconscionable military. In Night of the Living Dead (1968), zombies were caused by radiation from a space probe, combining both nuclear and space-race motifs, as well as a harsh government that would cause you just as much problems as the zombies. One could argue that the zombies in the Living Dead series represent military soldiers, or more likely the military-industrial complex as a whole, which is presented as mindless in its pursuit of violence.

The Living Dead series also introduced a new mainstay to the genre: guns. Military stuff. Fighting. Battle. And that became a major milestone in the evolution of zombie representation in media. This was only exacerbated by the political climate of the time. In the latter half of the 20th century, there were a lot of wars. Vietnam, Korea, Arab Spring, Bay of Pigs, America’s various invasions and attacks on Middle Eastern nations, etc. Naturally the public were concerned by all this fighting, and the nature of zombie fiction very much evolved to match this.

But the late 1900s weren’t just a place of war. They were also a place of increasing economic disparity and inequal wealth distribution. In the 70s and 80s, the wage gap widened astronomically, while consumerism remained steadily on the rise. And so, zombies symbolized something else: late-stage capitalism. Specifically, capitalist consumption - mindless consumption. For example, in Dawn of the Dead (1978), zombies attack a mall, and with it the hedonistic lifestyles of the people taking refuge there. This iteration props up zombies as the consumers, and it is their mindless consumption that causes the fall of the very system they were overindulging in.

Then there was the AIDS scare, and the zombie threat evolved to match something that we can all vibe with here in the time of COVID: contagion. Now the zombie condition was something you could get infected with and turn into. In a video game called Resident Evil (1996), the main antagonist was a pharmaceutical company called the Umbrella Corporation that’s been experimenting with viruses and bio-warfare. In 28 Days Later (2002), viral apes escape a research lab and infect an unsuspecting public.

Nowadays, zombies are a means of expressing our contemporary fears of apocalypse. It’s no secret that the world has been on the brink for a while now, and everyone is waiting with bated breath for the other shoe to drop. Post-apocalypse zombie movies act as simultaneous male power fantasy, expression of contemporary cynicism, an expression of war sentiments, and a product of the zombie’s storied symbolic history. People are no longer able to trust the government, and in many ways people have a hard time trusting each other, and this manifests as an every-man-for-himself survivalist narrative. 

So why have zombies endured for so long, despite changing so much? Why are we so fascinated by them? Well, many say that it’s because zombies are a way for us to express our fears of apocalypse. Communism, radiation, contagion - these are all threats to the country’s wellbeing. Some might even say that zombies represent a threat to conversative America/white nationalism, what with the inclusion of voodooism, foreign entities, and late-stage capitalism being viewed as enemies.

Personally, I might partly agree with the conservative America thing, but I don’t think zombies exist to project our fears onto. That’s just how villains and monsters work in general. In fiction, the conflict’s stakes don’t hit home unless the villain is intimidating. The hero has to fight something scary for us to be invested in their struggles. But the definition of what makes something scary is different for every different generation and social group. Maybe that scary thing is foreign invaders, or illness, or losing a loved one, or a government takeover. As such, the stories of that era mold to fit the fears of that era. It’s why we see so many government conspiracy thrillers right now; it’s because we’re all afraid of the government and what it can do to us.

So if projecting societal fears onto the story’s villain is a commonplace practice, then what makes zombies so special? Why have they lasted so long and so prevalently? I would argue it’s because the concept of a zombie, at its core, plays at a long-standing American ideal: freedom.

Why did people migrate to the New World? Religious freedom. Why did we start the Revolutionary War and become our own country? Freedom from England’s authority. Why was the Civil War a thing? The south wanted freedom from the north - and in a remarkable display of irony, they wanted to use that freedom to oppress black people. Why are we so obsessed with capitalism? Economic freedom.

Look back at each symbolic iteration of the zombie. What’s the common thread? In the 20s/30s, it was about white fright. The fear that black people could rise up against them and take away their perceived ‘freedom’ (which was really just tyrannical authority, but whatever). During WWII, it was about foreign threats coming in and taking over our country. During Vietnam, it became about our military spinning out of control and hecking things up for the rest of us. In the 80s/90s, it was about capitalism turning us into mindless consumers. Then it was about plagues and hiveminds and the collapse of society as a whole, destroying everything we thought we knew and throwing our whole lives into disarray. In just about every symbolic iteration, freedom and power have been major elements under threat.

And even deeper than that, what is a zombie? It’s someone who, for whatever reason, is a mindlessly violent creature that cannot think beyond base animal impulses and a desire to consume flesh. You can no longer think for yourself. Everything that made you who you are is gone.

Becoming a zombie is the ultimate violation of someone’s personal freedom. And that terrifies Americans.

Although an interesting - and concerning - phenomenon is this new wave of wish fulfillment zombie-ism. You know, the gun-toting action movie hero who has the personality of soggy toast and a jaw so chiseled it could decapitate the undead. That violent survivalist notion of living off the grid and being a total badass all the while. It speaks to men who, for whatever reason, feel their masculinity and dominance is under threat. So they project their desires to compensate for their lack of masculine control onto zombie fiction, granting them personal freedom from obligations and expectations (and feminism) to live out their solo macho fantasies by engaging in low- to no-consequence combat. And in doing so, completely disregarding the fact that those same zombies were once people who cruelly had their freedom of self ripped away from them. Gaining their own freedom through the persecution of others (zombies). And if that doesn’t sum up the white conservative experience, I don’t know what does.

So yeah. That’s zombies, y’all.

Thanks for the ask!

#dude #film stuff is one of my main hyperfixations #but to be fair i have a lot of hyperfixations #why do you think this blog exists #ask #fish post

[rochellespen]

Watching Doctor Who Season 37 (Series 11), Episode Three

I had heard that there was going to be an actual pure historical this season and was intrigued. Pure historicals were common back in the black-and-white era of Doctor Who, but were pretty much history (see what I did there?) by the end of Troughton’s first season. Which is a shame as I enjoyed seeing the Doctor and companions deal with history and its complications without the crutch of having an alien crash into the scene.

And for the record, I do consider Black Orchid a pure historical because my definition of pure historical is taking place in the past and having no other sci-fi/fantasy elements other than the Doctor, his companions and the TARDIS. I know other fans have the additional criteria that it has to involve an actual event of note in history, but I’ve often thought that that shortchanges the plot potential of the Doctor dealing with problems that can’t be solved with a wave of a sonic screwdriver or by re-wiring something at just the right moment.

Unfortunately, while Rosa is a welcome trip into the past for our latest TARDIS crew, it’s not a pure historical. At least not to me. I guess I’ll have to keep hoping we will get a pure historical someday in a future episode.

So what do we get with this episode? 

Spoilers ahoy under the cut.....

Episode Thoughts

From the outset, I felt that this was going to be an episode that makes people uncomfortable. I also felt that this is not a bad thing. History is full of things that are important, but also ugly and painful. And sci-fi has traditionally been an outlet to explore those uncomfortable themes.

Thus, it was hard to watch Ryan and Yasmin get mistreated so horribly by the people of the time period, but it’s also the reality of this era of history. The fact that the Doctor and Graham were not immune from distrust and disdain because of their decision to associate with them is a disturbing reminder of how deep this ugliness went.

While it did get a touch heavy-handed at times, I think where the writers really excelled as far as bringing the messages about racism across was in how the companions reacted to what was going on around them. Sure, they’re all excited to meet important historical figures like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., but then they get nasty reminders of what kind of world those people existed in. Their enthusiasm to watch history unfold becomes tempered with the unhappiness and frustration of what people struggled against in the first place. It’s a very realistic reaction to learning how traveling through time can be both exhilarating and heartbreaking. 

I also enjoyed the ongoing theme of how little events could make such a huge impact on history. A thought that leads to an interesting chess game between the Doctor and her nemesis, Krasko as they each have to find ways to move history in the direction they want without drawing attention to themselves. 

My main complaint about the plot it’s that I felt like it didn’t have enough build up to it. I wish that they had either drawn out the mystery of why another time traveler was there or put in more obstacles to the endgame of making sure Rosa Parks fulfills the moment of history she is meant to. As it was, the pacing felt awkward and rushed. Like it had a lot it wanted to say and forgot at times that there needed to be an actual conflict and plot progression to give those important themes something to hold onto. 

This shows in several dangling plot points. A good example is that racist cop who was following them around at one point. Sure, they had one confrontation with him, but were we supposed to believe that he wouldn’t keep trying to find ways to make their lives hard? Why didn’t he show up again? I thought for sure that Krasko would take full advantage of getting the law involved with his plot to alter history. It would have been easy to pull off and yet, he didn’t for some odd reason...

That said, it was nice to see the Doctor deal with an opponent who was forced to operate under the same “no violence” rules that she chooses to adopt. It’s a welcome change from the all-too-common conflict of a villain who relies on brute force to win versus the Doctor’s (usually) pacifist cunning. 

One thing I also thought was particularly effective was the scene on the bus when the Doctor, Ryan, Graham and Yasmin realize that they were going to have to take part in the events that led up to Parks’ protest in order to keep history running as it should. The discomfort they silently expressed along with the wordless exchange between the Doctor and Parks as she’s led off the bus are beautifully pulled off with the right level of emotional subtext.

I sort of wish that they had ended the episode there instead of having that additional bit on the TARDIS. Then again, I think the emotional release of reflecting on the payoff of Parks’ sacrifices is probably a needed moment at the end of such a charged episode.

Character Thoughts

A lot of the characterization for this episode was tied into the plot, especially in regards to Ryan and Yasmin.

I’d like to add though, that we get some lovely scenes between the two of them which highlight the differences in their personality. Ryan is definitely having a harder time dealing with the much more brazen-than-usual racism of this time period and thus, it’s no surprise that he deals with Krasko by dealing out the harsh punishment of sending him to heaven knows where in time. 

Meanwhile, Yasmin tries to remain positive while still acknowledging the frustration she feels. She even manages to find humor over being mistakenly labeled as Mexican over and over again and I applaud the writers for making this both amusing and cringey at the same time. 

I also felt for Graham as he was faced with the difficult position of being aware that he has an unfairly privileged status and has to use it to his advantage while also dealing with his deep-seated disgust for it. The fact that he openly asserts that Ryan is his grandson, despite knowing how that will be received, says plenty about his character. 

The Doctor clearly conveyed her disgust with the situation, but it’s interesting to note the contrast between her and her immediate predecessor. Twelve was vocal with his disappointment with humans and their prejudices and had actually slugged someone who spouted bigoted thoughts toward his companion. Meanwhile, Thirteen is less direct in her disdain even if she is no less disapproving and seems to have the more prominent mindset that people could do better if they chose to. It’s a softer quality to the Doctor’s character that we don’t always get these days and thus, it was nice to see it here.

Also, kudos to the writers and Whittaker for not letting the Doctor’s joke about possibly being Banksy with Graham become tedious. It was the sort of fun Doctor-companion kidding that I’ve missed at times. As was Graham’s “absurd” idea to invent a smartphone and calling himself Steve Jobs. Touches of humor like that were needed in an episode with so much gravitas. 

Being as she was the title character and the central plot point to the episode, I was also happy that Rosa Parks was given some solid characterization. Throughout the episode, she becomes someone you can root for, even if she wasn’t involved with major events within the cause of civil rights. 

I think the one main area of characterization that really fell flat for me was Krasko. Yes, I know it’s super naive of me to think that people in the distant future who know all about the basic mechanics of time travel couldn’t be racist bigots, but I still believe that such simplistic ways of thinking would be out of place in such a technologically advanced society. So it seems odd that someone from the distant future would have a mindset that fits in perfectly with the 1950s US south.

This problem is compounded by the fact that racism seems to be Krasko’s only notable character trait. We know nothing about why he has these views or what led him to be such an evil person in the first place. Other than his being a criminal and from the future, we know zilch else about him. He exists solely to be racist trash and that is taking the easy way out rather than demonstrate the uncomfortable truth that racism persists partially because it isn’t always so straightforward and obvious. 

I do wonder though, if there will be any consequences from Ryan sending Krasko back further into the past. That might actually be an interesting plot thread to pick back up at some point. 

The Last Word

Rosa is a good example of what a historical can do as far as showcasing the Doctor’s and companions’ ingenuity as well as give the audience plenty to think about in regards to how history unfolded and continues to play out. While not perfect, it’s an emotionally satisfying episode with plenty of good moments of characterization from the main cast which makes up for the minor plot problems. 

#Doctor Who #thirteenth doctor #series eleven musings #rosa

[theloobrush]

Racism by degrees

Racism is the unfair treatment of a person by reason only or partially of their skin colour or ethnicity. I know racism exists. From the age of 8 to 13 I was frequently bullied and called a ‘P*ki’, and even a ‘N*gger’ at school because I was just a little bit browner than my peers,  These upsetting experiences were also bizarre to me because I am not from an ethnic minority. The different ethnicity was simply assumed from my skin colour. 

To my mind if we talk about racism, and more especially if we are serious about wanting to fix it, we need to provide evidence in terms of concrete incidences: actions, words, behaviour, rules, policies and laws that need changing. I am very concerned that among social theorists, racism has become ‘abstracted’ and divorced from actual happenings, even economic and social context. Anti-racism has become the servant of ideology, in particular the Cultural Marxism that pervades academia. This ideology wants to generate social conflict between alleged oppressors and oppressed in order to realise utopia via revolution. Signs of this ideology are the presentation of racism as a kind of  vaguely explained taint or miasma, using  fuzzy, ambiguous, nebulous or incoherent concepts such as ‘systemic racism’, ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’. These notions go far beyond pinpointing wrong doing. They all have in common the ascribing to a social group or body  a ‘collective guilt’ seemingly without the need to prove individual guilt in the present or even prove any particular organisational structures or policies are causally having a bad effect.  But if accusations of racism are not attached to actual acts of racism, what we have created is a free floating mirage, floating free from any facts. This worldview is as dangerous as the denial that racism exists.

But if you believe there is something that is meant by ‘systemic’ or ‘institutional’ racism,  then I’m going to help you out by demonstrating what you are (probably) referring to is a type of underlying subjective mindset. Except this is a mindset shared, to some degree, by most human beings. I could call this the ‘pre-racist’ mindset, but this ‘pre-racism’ isn’t inevitably morally bad or invidious. Nor does this pre-racism necessarily lead to actual racism. This pre-racist mindset is as old as the hills and better referred to as Xenophobia. Literally, the ‘fear’ of the outsider. While Xenophobia has come to mean the ‘hate or dislike’ of the outsider  I have no doubt the Greeks were right first time. A natural anxiety may be the reason we have a ‘problem’ with outsiders at all.

So my argument is Racism is rooted in our xenophobic attitudes to others who are not part of our group. In a somewhat different context Scottish historian Neil Oliver pointed out that ‘Human beings have been tribal since the dawn of our species,and before. Chimpanzees are tribal. Gorillas are tribal.’*  It shouldn’t be at all surprising that the presence of newcomers  might at the very least create reactions within the tribe. On the positive side, newcomers also often bring new things of value that change the community for the better. Barely any human progress would have occurred if human tribes had been shut off entirely from outside influences.

I believe there is such a thing as a human social ecology, and communities have a natural equilibrium developed over generations that we identify as ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’. This is an equilibrium that can be destabilized for good or ill (usually both) by any significant change. One such is the  mass movement of one people in a short period (say one or two generations) whether by colonization or by migration to an area populated by an existing indigenous people.  I believe the mass movement of peoples inevitably produce some measure of social - tribal - conflict. The greater the difference in values, the greater the flashpoints. Anyone who cares about social peace must acknowledge that celebrating multiculturalism is backing a huge social experiment with uncertain outcome and where liberal optimism is flying in the face of much historical experience. The issue is not that one culture is ‘superior’ to another - we’d need some independent objective measure to argue otherwise - it is simply that two different cultures of equal objective value and merit, must clash.

I must reiterate. Racism is a bad thing. Why should anyone be treated less well than another person by reason of something that is out of their control like their colour or ethnic heritage? I didn’t want that for myself, so I should not want you to suffer that experience either. We all want to live in a society where each person is equal under the law, equally protected by (and from) the forces of law and order, and all get a fair opportunity for success without artificial barriers, presumptions and prejudice getting in their way. And if this isn’t important to you, remember that we are all members of some minority or other. 

It would be equally unwise to not admit xenophobia, if not actual racism, comes very naturally and starts off in the most subtle, and entirely innocent forms. From birth, and without any particular plan or assumptions, we extend our lives beyond our social circle but gravitate to those of similar interests. There is nobody on earth who is so open they care equally for every human being.  And even if we felt that way, establishing  bonds of trust - the lubricant of social life - with those who are culturally very different to us, is not easy. Familiarity, shared expectations and shared social customs and behaviours, and especially shared language, greatly lessen our social anxiety. 

Racism will occur when very different populations of people are pushed together, especially if the resources we all need are scarce or under pressure. A rapid increase in cultural heterogeneity in a community is not some unalloyed good because the instinctual social bonds that bind us will surely be weakened, at least in the short term. An altruistic, God like love of diversity and difference for its own sake requires a form of sophisticated thinking that competes with our base instincts. Instincts which more often than not are behaviour adaptations that once aided our survival.

Here is my take on the types, or better, degrees of xenophobia. Remember behaviours don’t automatically follow, if they do, they may give rise to both stronger group identity and in-group social bonds as well as the unfair behaviour toward outsiders. I have used pejorative descriptions to show extremes of the the mindset - which is informed more by emotion than reason- are not ‘good’ for social peace. Yes, Xenophobia is natural, but so is death and disease which we try to avoid. These mindsets involve objectively unreasonable and illogical prejudices until we have made the effort to get to know someone from an outsider group. And then, even if 10, 50 or 99% of an outsider group, does seem to fit some preconceived negative stereotype, this does not mean everyone from the outsider group is like that.  We might be missing out on a beautiful, mutually beneficial relationship.

The Base Level. Innocent ‘casual’ Xenophobia.

Unconscious group bias - the apparently universal tendency to prefer those most similar and like ourselves and to be less naturally trusting of outsiders and newcomers. We give people like ourselves the benefit of the doubt; we tend to empathise more. We’d rather ignore outsiders, we prefer to have people like ourselves around us; we are ignorant of the history or culture of the outsider; the outsider’s  manners and behaviour are strange, alien and most especially, unpredictable. The latter unpredictability may feed our anxiety in interactions.

Prick Level Xenophobia

Our bias means we cold shoulder outsiders; we now prefer to have our own group around and we are likely to be conscious of our exclusively. We uncritically accept stereotypes of the other group. We distrust the outsider group to a significant degree. We are highly suspicious of them, but we make no effort to befriend them or learn about them. We are starting to build a negative narrative about the other group or our relationship to them.

Wanker Level Xenophobia

We now believe our group is superior to another, outsider, group.  Our success is explained in terms of our group's alleged unique and innate characteristics which just ‘are’. Attitudes to outsiders can range from the patronizing, mockery and condescension to justifying less favourable treatment in terms of our greater ‘desert’. Usually the sense of superiority includes a judgement of intellectual or moral superiority: our group are good, the best or better; that other group are worse or simply bad. We quickly see only the negative, we ignore the positive in outsiders. Along with our sense of superiority is the desire to preserve that superiority or dominance.

Arsehole Level Xenophobia

Without good evidence we conclude an entire outsider group are a physical threat; we are now stirred to action, our reasoning is increasingly clouded by the emotions of fear and anger.  Or less dramatically, the outsider group may be perceived as an obstacle to our personal prosperity, a barrier to advancement or simply undermining our way of life by replacing their culture with their own. We see them as in collective competition against ‘our’ people for scare resources (housing, jobs, public services), moreover we believe this is ‘unfair’ competition produced by certain benefits or alleged privileges that have been inappropriately bestowed upon them.

Coda

Lots of experiences in our lives soften or harden (reinforce) the xenophobic tendencies that presumably develop sometime during childhood, as we acquire a sense of ourselves and our place in the world.

Sadly, in the summer of 2020 a significant section of the population is drifting toward arsehole levels of xenophobia. And my controversial final comment is this: no race or colour is immune from a proliferation of xenophobic pricks, wankers and arseholes.

Athlete’s Footnotes

*Neil Oliver on TalkRadio. See https://youtu.be/rWLde0uO6u8

[internet-was-a-mistake]

Brendan O’Neil's argument sounds like a “No True Scotman” fallacy to me. All the poeple you disagree with within the left cannot just be swept under the rug. that’s not the way “adults” solve their problems (this guy gave me some boomer vibes with his “disavowal of your own adulthood”). 

Moreover he gave me “all lives matter” vibes when he talked about “hyper-racial consciousness” as if social class and race had nothing in common and both existed in a vacuum. of course leftist are racially-conscious since race and social class are intertwined and almost indistinguishable in our western societies. because of colonial history and systematic racism, people of colour are most likely working- to middle-class people. whereas white people have more social mobility. therefore the racial language. of course, white people can be poor as well but when people say “white men” they don’t necessarily assume that all white men are well-off landlors - at least, I hope so. 

I’m really disapointed by this video because on one hand, Bret Weinstein says something interesting but that I already knew. of course, the left can be weaponised by people who wish anything but equality. but we already know that those people exist since we call them SJWs and they’re used as straw men by the right to discredit everything slightly progressive.on the other hand, Brendan O’Neil just use the most regressive leftists as a scapegoat. At the end of the day, nobody suggests true solutions to “fix” the left, so i guess, i have to do Leftist Jesus’ job. 

1.LET’S EDUCATE OUR PEOPLE 

All the Jordan Petersons and Ben Shapiros out there  aren’t as clever as they make themselves out to be. Only a little bit of fact checking and research are required to debunk their argumentation which generally consist of incomplete information and shophistries. the problem is that the Leftists in front of them haven’t done the necessary research and are gagged by everything those con men say. because, most of the time, the only rebuttal that the leftist in front of them find is “pEoPlE dO wHaT tHeY wAnT”. embarrassing. 

2. CANCEL CULTURE DOES NOT WORK or STOP BEING AS (AND EVEN MORE) REACTIONNARY AS THE SUPPOSED REACTIONNARY PEOPLE YOU’RE CRITICISING 

I’m sick of seeing twitter on fire every time a random tiktoker says or does something insensitive. the world knows that what they're doing is morally questionable but they know it as well. by attacking them everytime they open their mouth we don’t necessarily educate their public (who will always find a way to justify everything their faves do) but just give them a ridiculously big amount of clout they don’t deserve. there are people out there who weaponise drama to keep on being relevant on social medias (i wanted to name them at first but i don’t want to give them free publicity. if you know, you know). i’m tipically the kind of person does not have tiktok but knows everything about Tony Lopez, the Hype House and friends just because of all the drama surrounding them. 

you guys must learn NOT to react to everything insensitive you witness because those are epiphenomena; the pit of the iceberg, to put it simply. racism does not only consist of lynching and racist slurs. sexism does not only consist of slut shaming and hypersexualisation. racism and sexism are social organisations which affect our everyday life and our worldview, so calling out a single racist man on his racism won’t solve the bigger problem. if you want to take actions, you maybe should focus on attention on politics in your country over rants on twitter.

3.HOW TO DEAL WITH THE TROLLS 

have you ever felt intellectuallt drained after a fruitless debates with your conservative relatives or friends? it’s may be due to the fact that you were debating with a “troll”: a person who doesn’t want to win the debate with facts and logic but just want to have the last word by all means. even if that means insulting the opponent, playing dumb or flat out lying. moreover people use dogwhistles (words with vague meanings which pander to a specific audience without provoking opposition. ex: when in the political discourse words such as “muslims” and “immigrants” are just code words for “brown people”, “aliens”).those dog whistle allow people to play dumb and use bad faith arguments even though the world knows what they meant in the first place (ex: when they use the world “muslim” to, in fact, say “alien” but respond to the accusations of bigotry by saying “islam is not a race, muslim people come in all shapes and forms” which is correct). 

to counter those kinds of sophistries i opt for a Socrates-esque method of argumentation. to put it simply, if they play dumb, i’ll play dumber. instead of calling them out on their blatant racism, islamophobia, sexism etc. I just ask them A LOT OF questions (as if I was the most naive person on earth) to the point that they say out loud what they meant in the first place. 

for example, when people fight against black Ariel in the guise of scientifical accuracy ask them if they want to imply that mermaids in general are “scientifically accurate” (spoiler:there aren’t). the black Ariel opponent will, then, come to the conclusion, that scientifical accuracy was not their main concern. at this point, you can ask them in the most innocent way possible, if during all this time race has always been their one and  only concern. and that’s the moment they begin to insult you because they run out of argument. 

at no moment during the deabte you have an active role of accusater (because that’s the moment people take a defensive stance and take things to personnaly); you just lead people into saying what they actually had in mind. 

for now on, I hope your debates with the right will be more fun and less intellectually draining. I also hope you will actually fight for equality instead of weaponising a movement for your own interests. 

be strong my “angry SJWs”. be safe, wear a mask, you know the rest. 

#left #leftism #leftist #socialism #blm #intersectional politics #intersectionality #essay #(kind of)

[jonboudposts]

The Tyranny of Opinion Part 1: I Demand You Debate Me

There are some people you cannot debate with because quite simply, they do not debate.  They just talk.

Such people have a list of issues they want to talk about and have already formed un-movable opinions on. Like being on a bad date, they will try to steer any conversation toward a subject they know about – or think they do – then try to outdo their ‘opponent’ on the subject.  However, when they can’t, the switch comes in quick to either the next subject or sometimes full-on conspiracy theory.

They also like being offensive, at least to a certain type of person.  They imagine pissing off ‘the Libs’ makes them edgy and rebellious (still don’t get the girl though).  It is of top consideration to be offensive to minorities and those least likely to fight back.  Being offensive is the goal; having good reason to be is irrelevant.

One example in my life was someone I used to see through work.  We would discuss various bits about films or games (his interest, not mine) and occasionally serious stuff like emotions.  After this person moved routes, a few months passed before I saw them again.  The next meeting was quite a shock; they had become preoccupied with alt-right talking points and hating the usual tropes (feminism, Islam) and proclaiming the need for violent action to protect ‘our’ (Christian) values.

In our following meetings, this person displayed classic traits – throwing a ‘point’ at me, shouting with faux-anger, interrupting mid-answer, uncomfortably putting up with my response that completely defeated their argument; then ignoring it and jumping to the next claim. Most of these claims were ludicrous; for instance it was claimed that in the Labour Party manifesto of 2015, there was a proposal that gay males would be forcibly paired up with single fertile women in order to produce the future labour force.  Now, in all seriousness; please tell me how to ‘debate’ with that.

My initial response was to speak to some mutual friends of ours and ask if they could explain this behaviour, before suggesting we should perhaps stage an intervention or call Prevent. I have still not decided.

However, some people make a career out of this kind of bullshit and not just Alex Jones.  A well-know name at the moment is Jordan Petersen, a Hackademic who likes to clothe his woman-hate and disgust with a world not interested in praising the mediocre white man constantly with a sheen of pseudo-intellectualism and big concept waffle.  Plus, as many articles written by far more intelligent and academic people tan me will tell you, his theories are bunk; mostly based on intentional misinterpretation of Marx or Derrida, coupled with the resentment only a rich white man can cultivate toward anyone with alternative ideas that are directly threatening to privilege.

He has decided cultural Marxism is why we are all so miserable and those obnoxious and tiresome young men like my example above are just misunderstood and alienated because of post-modernism and feminism.  Sadly, organisations like the BBC and Channel 4 think him worthy of attention too.  As he does not really have an argument but he does have loads of confidence and is able to speak for long periods, this makes him, in the modern interpretation, a good debater.  For the desperate need within the media for something not overtly murderous or obviously racist from the right, he gets taken seriously.  Some may complain I am only making a personal attack – I am, because there is nothing else there.

There is a big difference between free speech and people who just shout for attention.  At the risk of cutting people out of public life, there is no morale imperative to provide a platform to hate mongers and cranks and we know perfectly well this weakens society rather than strengthens it.

Petersen appeals to my friend because he is one of those figureheads who produces easy answers to complex problems, gives them back their hero narrative and tells them there is not need to change, while also backing up the nation that those who fail at the system should be condemned – so their adulation of him amounts to pure self-hatred really.  What they most strongly have in common is their convenient outrage and complete disinterest in answers or alternative opinions.  They just want someone to notice them.

Also, there is no work done here.  There is simply the expressing of opinion without footnotes.  No research, just feeling.  Those hating immigrants or women or trans people rarely quote from analysis and when such analysis is put to them, with all the facts that contradict their negative opinion of immigrants’ or women or trans people, they often just resort to denying the validity of the research with no evidence to back this up (seeing any themes here?).  Evidence is who Dave had in his cab last week or the ‘fact’ that one midwife at the hospital during the birth of their child was rude – and bloody foreign.

This kind of behaviour is simply not worthy of attention or contemplation (it is also dangerous). The lack of willingness to do any work but imagine you can just elbow into the same sphere is deplorable.  Derrida developed deconstruction; Petersen wrote an opinion book called 12 Rules for Life.  I read about both on the internet.

If anyone thinks I am suggesting ‘excluding some people’ from public life, let me ask you this; have you ever really spend time listening (online, TV or in life) to anyone jabbering conspiracy theories or just re-writing history, all for the sake of free speech?  If you have heard such people, how long did you listen?

If you were sitting at dinner and someone started ranting about 9/11 being an inside job, the moon landing not really happening, or no one dying in the Grenfell Tower, would you really just sit there?  Or would you prefer to see this person given a platform at a university?  Should we all engage for the sake of ‘preserving free speech’?

Well, you can if you want to but I have better things to do.  Plus, I do not think this shows any dedication to ideals of freedom; it shows a society falling apart, with no idea which direction to go.  With a lazy media looking for content and damaged people looking for someone to blame, this just creates a toxic public life filled with broken men and self-hating women screaming at the youth and calling it engagement.  In the absence of any new culture or forward momentum, this is the kind of thing that occurs – a faux sense of pride in your emptiness; a conviction life was better before Group A showed up (even though you were not born before Group A showed up); or more simply, old wives tales gone mad.  It really comes down to resentment toward anyone with the guts and tenacity to not put up with the shit deal given to them and to strive to make things better for everyone; rather than stand back while late-period capitalism implodes and hope they do not get any rain down on their house.

Now more than ever in my lifetime, there is an opportunity to change the present; a time characterised by insecurity and fear.  More working class people are beginning to realise they can stand up for themselves through trade unions or co-ops of various types and in the process, learn real working class history while doing the best thing you can with history – using it to construct a better future for yourself and those around you.  Let’s ditch the snake oil salesman and conspiracy theories and put our shoulder into this; then you will have some real power.

(In future articles I will write about hate speech, attention seeking-verses-argument and why taking the piss out of people is legitimate).