Rolling Race 2021

looks like we have some of the victims' names:

The dead: Delaina Ashley Yaun, Paul Andre Michels, Xiaojie Yan, Daoyou Feng. Four remain unnamed. (from @TheCut)

— Esmé Weijun Wang • 汪蔚君 (@esmewang) March 17, 2021

Sometimes it seems like all the squares. ;___;

I shouldn't be surprised, but the way this update is being reported is extremely appalling.

yes

My partner is Chinese, the amount of racism that's been thrown his way (and my way, weirdly) during our ten years together is fucking ghastly.

ALSO:

I just listened to a podcast on sex work fro the Red Nation podcast this morning, talking about how a lot of native women were forced into sex work wherever countries were colonised..
Comes from like 3 weeks ago so doesn't mention current events
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0YsoRuEpT5m9gsJrQmWMtP?si=2Ixb9QLHRy6If5C-aPSQ_g

will be available on other platforms if spotify doesn't float your boat.

― Stevolende, Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:09 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

I know people who have quit Red Nation over this podcast. af3irm is an anti-trans organization, plain and simple, that acts with the carceral state to criminalize marginalized sex workers instead of advocating for them. fuck that.

yeah. (and my mistake, both are from the org.) turn here instead, for starters

https://indigenoussexsovereignty.tumblr.com/post/112162474275/centering-the-voices-of-people-who-trade-or-sell

https://indigenoussexsovereignty.tumblr.com/resources

I think I was doing several things at the same time this morning.
Crap, sorry shouldn't be sharing things like taht but did think the comments on how prevalent the forcing into prostitution thing was was pretty nasty.

JUst working through several episodes of that podcast after having been at a Land back webinar last week. Seems like a good podcast.Has there been debate about what they should and shouldn't be coverijng going on.

There's been some amount of drama within leftist communities of various stripes around Red Nation, but I'm not too aware of a lot of it except around this particular podcast episode.

perhaps this is just to repeat what was already said in this thread yesterday, but i want to register my frustration that the (white) journalistic consensus that seems to be emerging about this crime is that there is no racist motive, or that it is not yet clear there is a racist motive. basically because the white cop, who was later found to have posted racist anti-Chinese images on Facebook, described a racist, misogynist motive and then just CALLED it not racist, and apparently, no one who reported on it in the mainstream media exercised their own judgment about whether that motive, as described by the killer, was racist?

I just watched a coupl eo fepisodes of teh Black Lives Matter A global Reckoining series from Vice last week. The one from Denmark has the story of the killing of a half caste Danish youth by a couple of his acquaintances one fo whom had white supremacy tattoos in English all over parts of him.
There was a Danish magistrate who declared that there was no racist motive. Which has me wondering what does count as racist in the mind of so called liberals. Like it seems to be taken as given that any decent thinking person cannot be racist cos that's what other people do and there's a marginalisation and stigma about the idea of racism. Like its encapsulated and can only be done by the gauche, so whatver dodgy thoughts one has about an artificial categorisation of people well that can't be racist can it? Which until it is unlearnt will always be a stumbling block in combating racism. Owning one's prejudices so one can actually try to get to a point where one recognises what the distortion is.

it's just what does not count as racist to white people who avoid understanding racism

People writing in the mainstream media, who are overwhelmingly white, operate the same way as most white people— they will do anything to uphold white privilege and supremacy, and if that means not calling something racist that was clearly racist, then so be it.

One of the problems with such reporting is that it's seen as "not objective" to call something racist unless the racist person themselves says that there was a racist motive, or the police say there was a racist motive. There's little to no acknowledgement of the fundamental systems of racism and white supremacy that structure US society, and instead someone needs to be a sieg-heiling freakshow in order to be declared a racist by many in the media. It's pathetic.

I do not endorse or condone police brutality and, had the arresting officers beat the shit out of this dude and put him into a coma while arresting him, I would have shaken my head and said "oh, that is shameful" in an extremely insincere tone of voice

not even sieg heiling freakshows are racist, they're "racist" or "accused of racism" or some tortured euphemism.

everything about this is terrible & infuriating & so fucking transparent (i would have thought)

I just read Angela Saini, Kehinde Andres david Olusoga and a few others and wonder why everybody else can't be as woke the cretinous bitches and fucktards and all those progressive epithets i can aim at people.

what the fuck

JUst have been very disillusioned by some people who were supposed to be seting out to teach people about privilege among other things locally who don't seem to have any awareness of their own and theor own ignorance.
So been something that keeps reappearing as I read authors that are pretty enlightening.
I useed to want to seriously avoid ideologies after having been shown the limitations and hypocrisies by people I'd been exposed to and find I'm still in a paradigm. Is it human nature to be an a-hole or is it remotely possible to reclaim your wings, like.

what are you trying to do

rheorical question. fuck it

Oh I see, I mentally added an extra "as" into that first sentence and thought you were directing "cretinous bitches and fucktards" at the authors you'd just read rather than people at large

drink a lot. get pissed off at people who are not living up to things they are supposed to be trying to represent.
Avoid making mistakes about podcasts.
Reccommend a few good authors;.
Read a few more.
Realise how screwed up things are going o be until there is such a thing as a level playing field and realise also that the idea is not going to be easy to put in place while there are vested interests elsewhere.
Try to get over having been brought up in a situation where things like taht matter and how deeply it has effected me.

I'm just stuck having been taught by a person who is supposed to have been representing Augusto Boal who also seems to be stuck with teh idea of white superiority.
Ho hum

yeah, trying to be ironic like. I think those are great writers. I just bought some TA Nehisi Coates since I hadn't read him yet. Will read some Tony Morrison soon. Should have read both by now

sorry i didn't know how to read your posts. still not sure but ok

Something taht ahs been bugging me for the last couple of years was this white liberal exponent of Theatre for change who seemed not to have unlearnt her own prejudices. Which is a really weird starting point for supposedly trying to forment change.
Well one of several things. BUt does seem to epitomise the negative stereotype of the white liberal. Seemed to think that no coloure d person could think for themselves without her which is the white saviour complex written large. & doesn't seem to be utterly isolated.

Seems like no matter where you go you will find there is some level of prejudice. I guess it is something taht does need you to be aware of and see if you can live with people who are not going to be unblemished and if it is something you can workl/live with and how you overcome it or help it to change . Or if taht's not possible how yu break away from it or walk away from it. But does seem to be very pervasive.

sorry i didn't know how to read your posts. still not sure but ok

borad description

Good thread about the white/mainstream journalistic consensus here:

okay so barbaro begins The Daily saying, six of the victims were Asian women, which "has stirred fear and outrage among asian Americans, who see it as the latest burst of racist violence against them, even as the shooter himself offered a more complicated motive”

— Matteo Wong (@matteo_wong) March 18, 2021

just came here to post that. ugh. i will never, ever give any money to NYT.

does 'a more compicated motive' tend to translate as rotten excuse

from that thread, "where are all your anti racist reading lists from the summer" is soooo otm jesus christ

What makes this extra aggravating is the media's white supremacist aversion to the word racist means they were already euphemism-ing this into incoherence in the first place. So now this disgusting "debate" is over whether the killings were "racially motivated," already a muddying of the obvious.

lol at the idea that "i sexually fetishize Asian women so i must destroy them" is complicated! clichéd is what it motherfucking is.

Americans have been doing that since the Korean War, at least!

I AM SO MAD

yesterday i was sad. today i am mad.

that also indicates they think racism is "simple" which like wow

ITS LIKE THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY MEAN BY THE WORD RACISM AT ALL

i don't need you to be "good" or "care about Asian people," fancy white journalists, i just need you not to be complete fucking morons

or to stfu

they know what they're doing

sure, all of the people he killed were Asians, he boasted about killing all Asians, he didn't kill anybody that wasn't Asian, but it's not racist because he got an inappropriate erection once and worried he was going to Hell.

like the backflips they're all doing to suggest this wasn't terrorism/hate crime, like....this couldn't have been more racist if it came in a box that said RACIST

yes i guess perhaps they do, but i think that's more structural. i think individual journalists imagine they're being "fair and balanced" and "waiting for the facts," which is crazymaking.

xp

literally every crime committed has some "complication" that might make people feel differently about it if they knew more, but like, you can explain that in a way that is not SO STUPID. why is it so hard for apparently every white journalist to understand and convey to people that even the killer's explanation is hateful and racist. it's not a "BUT he says *this* was the motive"!

many xposts, i guess

yeah generally, we can trust a shooter's manifesto to tell us what their mental state was when they did something, but it's pretty much 'death of the author' when it comes to examining whether said act was racially-motivated, gender-oriented, etc.

the key word in the phrase "plausible deniability" is "plausible", but....you do you, NYT

white journalists in 1977: we should interview Berkowitz's dog before drawing any conclusions here

that doesn't really make sense but I am also enraged by this

they are defending him because they think his actions are good or nbd

yeah they're going "oh, i can see why he was so mad! wow, that sucks for him" and it shows

i think it's more like they think it's some random act of violence that they'd rather attribute to causes they understand, so they can feel smart honestly

i have had conversations with white people who thought they were smart who dismissed racism as a reality, primarily, it seemed to me, because it was something they couldn't be smart about. (plenty of white people can be smart about racism, but those ones seem okay with acknowledging it as real.)

NYT may have an institutional interest in downplaying racism; that seems slightly different