Aussette: Taking no prisoners since 2014

Thursday, May 22, 2014

White Privilege 101: Why Black People Don't Read Comic Books

I want to make a quick series about American comic books, and why I think minorities are subtly repelled by them. This will focus on the "Big Two" comic book companies. As many if not most American comic books are inspired by their superhero narratives in some way. First we'll start with Marvel, and most specifically, their X-men series.

Yeah, I get that Xavier and Magneto were inspired by Malcolm X and Dr. King. Xavier wanting to integrate in human society peacefully, whereas Magneto wanted to fight back if not outright vanquish his "oppressors." But although the goals are somewhat similar, the context surrounding Magneto and Xavier's struggle creates an oppositional narrative to the civil rights movement. Regardless of the actual intentions of the writers, X-men's narrative focuses on White feelings of reverse racism, and the "reverse persecution" of able bodied people.

X-men is about people who (with some exceptions) have able bodied overprivileges. Most are more than capable of abusing their physical advantages against the rest of human society--- whom are more disabled by comparison. Xavier calling mutant hostility "racism" not only marks his obliviousness of what racism actually is, but mischaracterizes the able bodied privilege that incentives mutant suppression. And that's ironic, considering he's disabled himself.

Racism is a belief system that certain races are superior to another, arousing the persecution of races deemed "inferior". Similar to Whites in the 1960s, the X-men face resistance because of their perceived superiority; people fear they'll abuse their powers and super human capabilities. Racism on the other hand oppresses people because of a perceived inferiority status. That is the fundamental difference. And so, it really does grind my gears when the writers who don't know what they're talking about, use mutants as an occasional jab at the minority struggle; painting Blacks as hypocrites for "persecuting" mutants. OR when fans interpret the mutants as doing a "good job" of the latter.

OH MY GOD YOU SURE TOLD HIM, KITTY!!!1! You civil rights activist, you!

Is it me or is "mutie" v.s. "nigger" meant to be analogous to the "Nigger" v.s. "Cracker" debate? I wanted someone to slap Kitty Pryde upon seeing that image. Yeah, so let me get this straight. Herein, the writers are taking the rape, lynching, and brutality behind the word "nigger".....

.....And trying to make it comparable to the word "cracker"; a word that was used by oppressed groups to scorn the brutality and/or privilege of their oppressors.

Cracker has significantly less loaded history, and is not comparable to "Nigger". Is Cracker truly comparable to being bound on a ship, getting peed, vomited, and crapped on by yourself and other people? And being raped on top of that? No. It isn't. And "mutie" damn sure isn't. X-men really has no business treading waters it doesn't fully understand.

Now, I don't necessarily hate X-men. I wouldn't say I'm hooked, but I don't hate it. I do cringe when writers bring up "racism", or when people actually praise X-men's interpretation of the struggle of Blacks in this country. I don't particularly mind when the writers focus on privileged people trying to figure out how to use their powers to help a comparatively disabled society. Or, when they make jerk characters like Deadpool, who may be bastards, but don't brood over "reverse racist" persecution to justify their behavior.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Anti Feminism Debate

As of right now there's a Gaia Online debate discussion involving feminism's exploitation of groups that are not white, middle class, capitalist women. I try to contribute to this discussion at least a couple times a day, and I'll probably have my next response ready later this morning. You can watch the debate unfold here. Or well....participate and share your thoughts! That's always fun!

Thursday, May 1, 2014

How feminism appropriates the efforts of minority women

"In many discussions, conventional feminism is not so much an analysis of patriarchy as it is an emphasis on equality of the sexes and a sense of camaraderie between women. This broad and vague definition allows it to operate as a big tent ideology that absorbs any and every idea and person dealing with women and gender. Even when women like my mother object to its norms and say 'I am not a feminist', they are still viewed as “feminist” because their work relates to women in some way."

~RobtheIdealist, full article can be found here

Since the 90s or so, there's been this rhetoric that "everybody can be their own feminist". We've seen all sorts of feminist denominations come out of the woodwork: Sex positive feminism, sex negative feminism, Marxist feminism, etc. Because the feminist movement does not have any (overtly) definitive principles, it can appropriate and claim the efforts of people who see no solidarity with their movement, simply because those efforts benefit women.

And on that subject, many people DON'T (or at least shouldn't) see solidarity with feminism, because they are alienated from its (subtle) de facto principles--- definitions we can determine by who is excluded from its mainstream policy and activist goals. For example, some Marxists want to be called "Marxist feminists", because they believe the abolition of private property benefits women since it would in theory, eliminate socioeconomic inequality, and dependence on men.

But the rest of the feminist community will never actually integrate Marxism into the mainstream movement, and will never actually exercise "camaraderie" by promoting any kind of socialist/communist political policies. "Marxist" feminists are a merely a subgroup of people that feminism exploits for the sake of appearances, solidarity, and the ability to take advantage of the sheer number of anti capitalists whilst still aiming to make policy that benefits capitalism.

Another example is how feminism excludes the concerns of women of color. Since slavery Black women have been typecast into pejorative sterotypes such as the mammy, the belligerent sapphire, and the sexually promiscuous Jezebel. One of Black women's biggest obstacles is being acknowledged as "real women". That doesn't mean that by "real women" we mean Black women want to assimilate with the infantile gender roles forced upon White women. However, it means that we don't want to be seen as hyper masculine without emotional vulnerabilities.

Feminism however, is going in the opposite direction. It WANTS to assimilate with capitalist (white) men, and sees the appreciation of the feminine gender identity as a "traditional gender role" that acts as a hindrance to its ultimate goal. This is how you know the movement is for white women. Because WHO is the main group of people in America that would actually seek to assimilate with men because they don't know what it's like to be COMPLETELY robbed of their feminine gender identity? White women.

Regardless of the empty rhetoric that "everyone can be their own feminist", in truth, feminism generally has a central movement that its social events, and political policies support. For example, its policies are almost exclusively sex positive and capitalist (ex: working to end wage disparity instead of abolishing people's dependence on wages).

And so, the problem with black feminism (and that includes womanism) is that it still follows the same pro male assimilation principles feminism does. Principles that do not benefit a group of people that are already especially burdened with being considered "less" female than everybody else. Feminism, "Black" feminism, womanism.....it's the same belief system under different denominations with cosmetic differences.

Monday, April 28, 2014

To the Clippers Detractors: Being Brave is a Privilege

After the girlfriend of Clippers team owner Donald Sterling released an audio of racist remarks to TMZ, the Clippers are getting a lot of backlash (especially from the Black community), accused of being cowards for not forfeiting their game in protest. I was at my limit when I saw yet another article complaining about the cowardice of the team. Other websites have taken a reactionary slant to their frustration, pointing to the civil rights movement as the model example of how Black people need to come together to make a difference.

But this article in particular didn't just bash the Clippers, oh no. It whined about the entire Black community being cowards. Now, I'm not going to review the article itself, although I'll say I wasn't impressed by it. Besides, it's not the article I want to share, it's the comments. Unexpectedly, someone finally put the feelings that I couldn't articulate into words. The reason I've been annoyed so much by this "conscious" community backlash.

Many, if not most Black people KNOW why African Americans don't just "quit" their jobs to fight racism in the workforce. The conscious (Black Power) community simply feigns obtuseness on the issue. They are frustrated that the rest of the Black community can't afford to be as disconnected from reality as they are. Firstly, black people were in economic turmoil before there ever was a "Great recession". Many are economically worse off than those living in the civil rights era, and middle class jobs that Black people depended on have been outsourced (Detroit, anyone?). With work not as plentiful, African Americans often can't afford to take the same risks their predecessors did to combat racism on the job: much more is at stake because they lack the same amount of employment options. Secondly, the goal of combating injustice in the workforce is for better working conditions under your employer. Not to just quit so your boss can find someone who he can get away with treating like crap in replacement of you, while you're out on the street for being "brave". What exactly does that accomplish?

Thirdly, I doubt it'd be easy for the Clippers to just quit without getting blacklisted by other racist team owners that haven't yet been caught. Nor do I think it's practical for them to just get up and get any old kind of job without it being MEGA awkward because they are already sort of famous. Seriously, imagine trying to do your average 9/5 job with people (and stalkers) gawking and asking you for autographs and meaningless questions while you're trying to work. Quitting your job is a privilege, especially if you're famous. Privacy is a privilege.

And speaking of privilege, let's consider the privileges the civil rights movement had that don't exist today. The civil rights movement naively relied on capitalism to defeat the oppressive side effects of capitalism. It relied on well financed institutions like the NAACP to champion the rights of a few Black people. Eventually that was bound to fail, evident by the NAACP's recent endeavor to forgive Sterling so that his money can continue being spent on Black youth projects.This is partly why the civil rights movement lost its steam, and why it is difficult for new African American movements to gain momentum, even with the internet.

It takes money and promotion to stand out and get recruits. And, the people who control the money are the same ones who are at the root of Black oppression. So before people go hailing the civil rights movement as "the" shining example of civil disobedience, understand that civil rights philanthropists didn't use their money to silence the very organizations that they donated to--- at least, not to overt extent that they do now.