@bai-xue-lives “dogwhistles” lmaoo. I don’t do dogwhistles, that’s why yall so mad.
Did @bai-xue-lives srsly use a word that denotes racist signaling and use it against a Black woman talking about racism
They sure did! And they erased the fact that I say what I mean to make ME look like I’m using alt-right tactics lol
It wasn’t a dog whistle, it was a bullhorn and they hated it for that reason. Racist speakers use dog whistles because they can’t come out and say outright what they mean, and their audiences are complicit in the charade. Speaker and audience both want some hazy distance from the repugnant reality of what they’re advocating. They’re not in favor of murdering civil rights volunteers, they just believe in states’ rights! They don’t think Black people are drains on the system, they’re just against welfare queens! They don’t think Black and brown people are underachieving dolts who fake their own oppression, they just don’t want affirmative action! And so on and so forth ad infinitum.
Pointing out that Nazis/the alt right and fandom racism are on the same continuum of racist thought is the exact opposite of a dog whistle, it’s smashing the whistle and pushing people’s faces right into the ugliness they were distancing themselves from. You want fandom dog whistles? Ask why Kylo Ren assaulting Rey is a romantic bridal carry but Finn taking Rey’s hand to save her literal life is sexual harassment. Ask why Kylo Ren is called a victim and the male lead while Finn is called a murderer and a bit character. Ask why BS is considered a romantic hero while Finn is treated as harmless comic relief. Ask why shippers keep and keep and KEEP saying BS is the first person to care about Rey. Ask why fans sigh about ultra-powerful ForceBabies and say Disney would be crazy to pass on those moneymaker Reylo kids, because Finnrey babies wouldn’t earn money I guess, or it doesn’t occur to them to even consider her marrying a guy she loves enough to lie down and die with? I wonder why 🤔
Fandom racism is an entire collection of dog whistles and calling them out for what they are is absolutely unforgivable in fandom’s eyes. It always has been.
A North Korean book on the history of Old Joson? On a scale of 1 to Worker’s Paradise how cringy is this going to be?
A lot of dodginess going on here, as expected. There’s the fact that the whole framework of history seems to have been shoehorned into historical materialism, in fact I’m pretty sure North Korean scholars can’t make historical output that strays from that dogma.
There’s also the equation of the Chinese hanja character hwan (桓, strong) with the Korean root hwan (환, bright), which I hadn’t come across before and is interesting. The extrapolation doesn’t follow the best linguistic practice of comparing records and usages to come to the conclusion, though. This makes me wary because I’ve seen far too many outlandish linguistic claims made without basis, though at least the claim here is more modest. I still dislike the way this comparison just jumped to the conclusion without showing the work, though. Not to say anyone has to reinvent the wheel every time they make a point, maybe that work has already been done by historical linguists in North Korea (and here in the South for all I know), but in that case I would expect a citation and, preferably, at least a recap of the main sources and steps taken to reach that conclusion.
The equation of hwan (桓) with dan (檀, birch) seems to have support from the records so at least it seems more trustworthy, but again, there are not enough indications of which records use them interchangeably, or citations to indicate where that comparison has been made. I would have preferred direct quotes in the text, too. This level of work simply would not pass muster for any serious scholarly publication here.
Another potentially interesting claim, made unserious and unreliable by lack of sources and process: The claim that the Chinese name for proto-Koreanic peoples (or one group of them, it’s been in flux), maek (貊, Northern People), comes from baek (百, hundred) which in turn derives from the Korean root bak (박, bright). Maybe it’s not a wildly out-there claim, but I’m not believing it until I see it confirmed with much better and transparent work.
Also did they just push the founding of Old Joson forward by almost THREE THOUSAND YEARS, from 2333 BC to 5011 BC, give or take 267 years they say, by dating what are claimed to be the founder’s remains? And can carbon dating (or whatever they were using) be that exact? It’s one of those findings that would be groundbreaking if it weren’t for the million warning signs that instantly pop up, starting with my being about 95% sure that this is a cheap ploy for prestige with a specifically political agenda behind it to prop up the regime. Like HOW do you know this is the actual founder of Old Joson, are there textual or other indications of the identity, does the grave match the styles found in the archeological findings of that era? Did this dig even happen? Even if it did, there’s no way I trust the claims at all without independent verification–not easy when it comes from North Korea where there is zero academic freedom or transparency of information.
Still reading on because it’s going on to points that are important to my own work, leading into tribal names, but obviously I can’t fully rely on this work. It’s worth a read as a side reference, but with giant asterisks and question marks all around.
Operation
Condor was a covert, multinational “black operations” program organized
by six Latin American states (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile,
Paraguay, and Uruguay, later joined by Ecuador and Peru), with
logistical, financial, and intelligence support from Washington.
In the
Cold War climate of the 1960s and ’70s, when U.S. leaders and Latin
American militaries regarded popular movements and political dissidents
as “internal enemies,” any methods were considered legitimate in the
“war against subversion.” In fact, many of these new social movements
were indigenous nationalist, leftist, socialist, or radically democratic
forces fighting to represent the voiceless and the marginalized.
As
leftist and nationalist leaders won elections throughout Latin America
in the 1960s and early 1970s, and new revolutionary and progressive
movements gained strength, U.S. security strategists feared a
communist-inspired threat to U.S. economic and political interests in
the hemisphere. Local elites similarly feared that their traditional
political dominance and wealth were at risk. Washington poured enormous
resources into the inter-American security system, of which Condor was a
top-secret part, to mobilize and unify the militaries in order to
prevent leftist leaders from taking power and to control and destroy
leftist and popular movements in Latin America. Anticommunism and
“preventing another Cuba” were the national security priorities of the
U.S. in Latin America.
The reigning
national security doctrine incorporated counterinsurgency strategies and
concepts such as “hunter-killer” programs and secret, “unconventional”
techniques such as subversion, sabotage, and terrorism to defeat foes.
Much of counterinsurgency doctrine is classified, but scholars have
documented many of its key components. Michael McClintock, for example,
analyzed a classified U.S. Army Special Forces manual of December 1960
Counter-Insurgency Operations, one of the earliest to mention
explicitly, in its section “Terror Operations,” the use of
counterinsurgent terror as a legitimate tactic. He cites other secret
U.S. army special operations handbooks from the 1960s that endorsed
“counterterror,” including assassination and abduction, in certain
situations. One March 1961 article in Military Review stated, “Political
warfare, in short, is warfare…[that] embraces diverse forms of
coercion and violence including strikes and riots, economic sanctions,
subsidies for guerrilla or proxy warfare and, when necessary, kidnapping
or assassination of enemy elites.” In short, “disappearance” was a key
element of counterinsurgency doctrine.
The formal connection between personality and body type in
academic research goes back to 1940, when the psychologist William
Sheldon established the somatotypes, which are three generalized body
shapes that he theorized could be linked biogenetically to personality:
ectomorphs, mesomorphs, and endomorphs. Ectomorphs are people who are
tall and thin, and Sheldon expected them to be shy and anxious.
Mesomorphs are muscular and broad, and they’re expected to be
domineering and competitive. Endomorphs are soft and round, and they’re
assumed to be lazy and affection-seeking.
Since 1940,
the somatotypes’ links to personality have been broadly debunked on a
scientific level, with everything from Sheldon’s study methods to his
assumptions about personality being called into question. And for good
reason: Somatotypes were a direct result of the academic popularity of
anthropometry and eugenics before World War II.
So fatphobic stereotypes trace back to discredited bad science and eugenics! How (not) surprising.
I wish more people acknowledged how historically it was mostly non cis/straight people of color,working class people ,sex workers etc who were more likely to use the label “queer” to describe themselves bc they often did not had the privilege to have access to words and resources to explore and describe their gender and orientations and how they intersected/differentiated from their race/culture .
Most of the lgbtqa circles were dominated mostly by white cis upper/upper-middle class lgbtqa people many of whom were still quite racist,classist and anti sex workers and used to shun those people from accessing their meetings,rallies,resources etc and thus the non cis/straight people of color,working class people,sex workers etc used “queer” to identify themselves as non cis/straight but someone who wasnt specific about their identity.
Trying to paint “queer” as inherently a bad and useless word is not only ahistorical but also erases the existence of those people and their experiences
I mean sure Nazis spouted socialist buzzwords for political reasons while undermining actual socialist tenets, but who cares when you can buy into and repeat propaganda that they spread to peel off leftist support (link)?
They were fascists who deliberately called themselves “national socialists” to seem more appealing to working-classes, even while their “solutions” involved scapegoating the same kind of people that Christians have always scapegoated.
Pretty funny considering how much hatred fascists had for actual socialists and communists; even funnier when you remember the commies were the ones who eventually laid waste to the Germans.
The leftists who could be convinced by antisemitic rhetoric (thinly veiled in anti-capitalist buzzwords) to support the Nazis were probably always there and just needed the push. It’s not so much Nazis being socialists as socialists harboring a fuckton of potential Nazis, which is still true today. Hello British Labour Party and other trashfires!
Hitler was right in his fear of Communists I guess 😂 (Though it was really Russia that beat the Germans back, not Stalin.) I read a book about Berlin near the end of the war and how desperate Nazi officials were to surrender to the West before the USSR got to them. The Allies were all hemming and hawing uhhh maybe idk while Stalin’s forces single-mindedly marched toward Berlin spitting blood and hate. It would have been funny if the consequences weren’t so tragic.
They’re trying to erase the existence of the rape victims of Japanese soldiers in World War II because they think the reminder of their crimes might make Japan a little bit cross
Duterte, the absolute coward, is more worried about women criticizing him than actually honoring the women this country needs to remember
Please don’t let these women be silenced.
I stand in solidarity with the Filipinas who suffered as our grandmothers did. You are our grandmothers, too.
L.J.'s Obsessions 