Homophobia & the war are not separate issues.

[noamnety]

White Capitalist Patriarchy + Power = Exploitation of everyone else.

It's the same equation, whether we are talking about human rights abuses against the GLBT community, women, Latin@s, blacks, immigrants, Iraqi citizens, or prisoners either in US prisons or Abu Ghraib. Part of exploiting people is dehumanizing them, and internalizing our own superiority, our own "natural" right to have more than what others have.

The war is not a "major" issue, while gay/womens/immigrant etc rights are "minor" issues. It's all the same issue. We dehumanize people so we can live with the idea that they have less than us because they naturally deserve less. That way we can ask ourselves why don't those people accept what they have, heck the gay people in America have it better than gays in Iran. So why are they complaining?

It's that othering that creates this thought process in the first place. They have more than those people. As long as they are the other, we don't need to confront the question Why do they have less than us?

Sometimes I want to throw my head back and howl with frustration that people can't see the connections.

How the hell does a person get outraged over the prison abuse photos, and not understand that homophobia and notions of male supremacy are interwoven together with each other and with warfare? How do people reconcile within themselves the reality that rape has always been a part of warfare, from the real rapes at Haditha to the more symbolic skull fucking - while at the same time they think those talking about women's rights are just the shrill echoes of manhating feminists?

How does that all get compartmentalized in some people's heads like they aren't related at all, like masculinity and the macho swagger isn't connected with attitudes toward waging war?

[yardwork]

1. I agree with you

Anyone who doesn't see your point might do well to read (or reread, as the case may be) The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood.

[uppityperson]

2. Good post. k&r.

Humanity is not very humane a lot of the time.

[libnnc]

3. Excellent. Excellent. Excellent.

Best post of the day.

:toast: :kick: :yourock:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. brilliant. from the other threads on this forum you would think gay people support the war

and wanted it.

i went to every single march against this war (atleast the ones in NYC)

i hate this war.

i also hate being a second class citizen

[Bluebear]

5. B-r-e-a-t-h-t-a-k-i-n-g. nt

[twilight_sailing]

6. Not sold.

[noamnety]

12. Those on the other side get it, even if not all of us do.

"I want a list about sexual preferences, too, and I want a list for every liberal in the House of Representatives. And it's very simple. Do you prefer the missionary style, or do you want the woman on top? And I'll tell you why I ask. Because missionary is active male. Woman on top is passive male, and we're at war, and we need active males. We need alpha males. We don't need a bunch of passive people directing our war effort. We need active males." -- Rush Limbaugh.

United States is "a nation of sissies" and this "limp-wristedness ... is compromising our ability to win the war on terror" - Smerconish, substituting for O'Reilly on The Radio Factor.

Pretty clear message there, equating (straight) male supremacy with war.

[twilight_sailing]

18. Still not sold.

[bettyellen]

19. just a gut feeling, eh?

[twilight_sailing]

20. More than that, my friend.

[blonndee]

21. Any reason you could articulate? n/t

[twilight_sailing]

22. Well, OK, let's look at the OP.

Let's take the first sentence.

"It's the same equation, whether we are talking about human rights abuses against the GLBT community, women, Latin@s, blacks, immigrants, Iraqi citizens, or prisoners either in US prisons or Abu Ghraib."


All abuses are equal. Do you agree with that?

[blonndee]

23. If I'm not mistaken, the OP is about what enables and feeds this, not whose abuses are worse.

Read what follows: "Part of exploiting people is dehumanizing them, and internalizing our own superiority, our own "natural" right to have more than what others have."

[twilight_sailing]

24. Whatever. My question stands.

[blonndee]

25. Okay, I see. You don't have a reason you can articulate and obviously

don't understand and don't care to understand the OP.

[twilight_sailing]

26. Personal attacks will not win the day.

Run away from the question if you must. I understand.

[blonndee]

28. LOL. A personal attack is pointing out that you don't understand the OP?

And I'm the one who first asked a question that you have yet to answer. Your question is completely irrelevant to the OP and is in fact demonstrable evidence that you either didn't read the OP thoroughly or didn't understand it in the first place.

But you just keep on with those valuable contributions!! :rofl:

[twilight_sailing]

30. You lost, Ace.

You dodged the question.

[blonndee]

33. LOL. It's not mine to judge which abuse is worse. Can you answer the question I asked in my 1ST post

to you? If you want to talk about dodging. But please keep talking. :rofl:

[meow mix]

71. LOL. blondee you owned him. he's just hurt

LOL

[Morgana LaFey]

72. No, YOU lost, deuce.

The question you insist on being answered doesn't make sense. It's not based on anything the OP said. Period, end of discussion. If you want to go ahead and keep insisting that SOMEOne (anyone?) answer your question, you'll only get an answer from someone who understands the OP as poorly as you do.

Well, OK, let's look at the OP.

Let's take the first sentence.

"It's the same equation, whether we are talking about human rights abuses against the GLBT community, women, Latin@s, blacks, immigrants, Iraqi citizens, or prisoners either in US prisons or Abu Ghraib."


All abuses are equal. Do you agree with that?


You, of course, left the full context unexcerpted, but in context, it's clear (as has already been pointed out to you) that the CAUSE of all abuse and oppression is the same, not that the abuse or oppression itself is the same.

[bettyellen]

27. i thought it was the same equation because the abusers are identical.. not the abuses

who said the abuses could ever be equal- within each community, there is a spectrum of abuse that occurs.
The oppressor is the common denominator, the result is for him to stay on top
do you deny that?

[twilight_sailing]

29. "who said the abuses could ever be equal"?

That would be the OP.

"It's the same equation..."

[blonndee]

31. . . .

:rofl: THAT's the part of the OP you read! Now it all makes sense.

[twilight_sailing]

32. You lose again. Sorry.

[blonndee]

35. Wow, what cogent and well-supported arguments you make!!!

:silly:

[Pithlet]

Don't understand. Grunt. Snort.

:silly:

[Pithlet]

34. No, it's not. n/t

[twilight_sailing]

36. yada, yada, yada

[Pithlet]

37. Not getting you.

[twilight_sailing]

38. I've got 15 minutes.

Answer my question.

[bettyellen]

39. the equation is the opressor exploits the "other" , it's actually very clear in the OP

it's not a math problem.
this nitpicking aside, you have nothing to say about the content or ideas presented?

[twilight_sailing]

40. 13 minutes. Answer my question.

[blonndee]

41. Here's my question again, my first post to you:

Any reason you could articulate?

[twilight_sailing]

42. Already anwered by quoting 1st sentence of OP

You lose.

[blonndee]

43. Any reason you could articulate?

[twilight_sailing]

45. 2nd verse, same as the first.

Herman's Hermits.

[blonndee]

46. 3rd time: Any reason you could articulate? n/t

[bettyellen]

47. i already said that no one claimed (not me or the OP) that all abuses are equal

repeating it doesn't make it so,
and you have actually not commented on the content or meaning of the thread... will you ever?

[twilight_sailing]

48. Look at the OP

The OP makes the equalization argument, not me. First sentence.

It's right there.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blonndee]

53. My god, the EQUATION IS: White Capitalist Patriarchy + Power = Exploitation of everyone else.

Right there in the OP!!! How hard is that to understand??? :eyes:

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

56. But you didn't prove anything. The only thing you said about the OP was this:

Let's take the first sentence.

"It's the same equation, whether we are talking about human rights abuses against the GLBT community, women, Latin@s, blacks, immigrants, Iraqi citizens, or prisoners either in US prisons or Abu Ghraib."


All abuses are equal. Do you agree with that?

Instead of actually discussing the OP, you answered a question with another question, but didn't state your opinion, nor a defense of your "Not sold" opinion. So how did you prove anything?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

57. Is Not is hardly a case

If you're going to claim the OP is saying what you claim it is, multiple sentences are probably required.

[Dora]

51. What a bag of nothing.

Your posts are annoying and intentionally obtuse, contributing nothing of merit to this thread.

[twilight_sailing]

54. I have to go but

I will debate you any time.

Put your money up.

[Dora]

58. Bye, then. Be safe.

It's not about money, it's about love.

[twilight_sailing]

69. It's about truth.

[bettyellen]

52. no, he's saying the same formula applies- he is not quantifying anything- where do you see

him equating different abuses exactly? it's not there.
so you're hung up on your misreading of this one line (which everyone else understood) and haven;t read or thought any further?
i'm not buying that.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

60. "the same equation" does not mean "all abuses are equal"

[uppityperson]

59. No, all abuses are not equal. No, OP is not saying that. Next?

Do you agree with that?

[noamnety]

61. I haven't said all abuses are equal.

I don't even know what "equal" would mean, in the context of human rights abuses.

If you want to go back to the equation as a statement of logic, 2x+2x=y. You can double each side of the equation: 4x+4x=2y. Same equation, but y doesn't have to equal 2y.

We could squabble over semantics and logical proofs, but that doesn't particularly interest me, nor do I think a prolongued discussion on that is particularly helpful in gaining a deeper understanding of where human rights abuses come from, and what their relationship to war is.

For me, it's a more productive conversation to break this down into smaller steps, if you aren't getting the big picture.

So. Do you see a connection between misogyny and homophobia? That would be a good place to start, because homophobia and misogyny are both symptoms of the same problem - male superiority. That's why I absolutely don't understand anyone fighting for women's rights not fighting every bit as hard for gay rights - because they are both symptoms of the same disease.

Anything not "male" - defined as hypermasculine and screwing women - is exalted in our (political/corporate/military-industrial) culture, and the way we insult men is by relating to them as if they are women. That's the psychology behind using phrases like "sissy" or behind a drill sgt. telling recruits to stop acting like a bunch of girls. I can guarantee you, no drill sgt. ever told a platoon of female recruits to quit acting like a bunch of boys. It's why we might call a woman a bitch. (Less than a man) And if we don't think a man is acting hypermasculine enough, we will call him out for acting like a little bitch (like a girl, right?)

So that is lesson 1 here, understanding the relationship between someone having contempt for women, and having contempt for gays.

[IronLionZion]

7. lwfern, that was absolutely brilliant

I can't say that's what I was thinking, but it's definitely what I needed to hear and probably should be thinking. Thanks for saying it.

solidarity! :patriot:

[ThomCat]

8. Agreed. And Recommend.

Well written.

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. One-way destructive power arrangement taking the form of...

control, exploitation and oppression.

Everything is connected!

Privacy rights, civil liberties, racial justice, equal protection under the law, war....it's all related. Masculine power encapsulated in the proper skin tone.

--from what will be declared a shrill bitter woman by some quarters ;)

[myrna minx]

10. K&R. n/t

:applause:

[Cerridwen]

11. Well said!

:applause:

[bonito]

13. Excellent post

And people are exploited to fear differences in each other as a catalyst for crimes against all humanity (themselves) Education = the answer.

[JCMach1]

14. Not all capitalists are white... and Corporations are just as guilty

and certainly a few women voted for the IWR (including some notable Democrats)... And I would suspect a few were even Gay (Washington tends to have a big closet)...

It's about how those who do have power enslave us all...

Power+Money = Slavery for the rest of US

It has to be that way or THEY have no money or power.



Everything else is just a tool of class warfare on the rest of us... i.e. anything they can use to divide us.

Men from women
Black from white
Straight from gay

The OP's ideas are essentially right, but the equation is wrong... It doesn't quite work that way.

[noamnety]

15. Some valid points

Although I think gender is a primary factor, as is race - not something that is dismissable as merely dividing us, because the equation is always men on top, so to speak. Claiming it's an equal pitting of men against women is like the Disney version of Pocahontas, where the problem was portrayed as one of equal misunderstandings - the whites didn't understand the Native Americans, and the Native Americans didn't understand the whites - completely ignoring that there was a very one sided genocide going on.

Same with straight and gay, and white and black - they aren't just pitted against each other. One (as a class, exceptions notwithstanding) holds the power, the other doesn't.

As for women or gays who voted for the IWR, I don't think that disproves my point. Those are people in positions that profit from and support the white capitalist patriarchy, even if they themselves don't fully meet all the criteria of it.

Where I strongly agree with you is on the idea that the differences are exploited deliberately. Heck, if all the women, blacks, gays, immigrants, and so forth saw our problems as one cohesive problem, not a bunch of special interest items, we'd have a revolution. If we weren't able to do that "othering" thing so very well, the corporations wouldn't be able to exploit individual groups for labor or for resources so darned effectively.

[Karenina]

16. K&R!!!

:yourock:

[bettyellen]

17. human rights activists in northern ireland agree that govt and corporate interests fan the flames to

keep the poor divided against themselves. as long as their youth is embroiled in the violence, they don;t have time to look at the big picture.

[Morgana LaFey]

73. They're called "Tokens"

As for women or gays who voted for the IWR, I don't think that disproves my point. Those are people in positions that profit from and support the white capitalist patriarchy, even if they themselves don't fully meet all the criteria of it.

They're extremely useful to the Patriarchy because the Patriarchy can point to them and say, "See? Anyone can make it -- there's no sexism or homophobia or racism going on here in our institution (political party, corporation, whatever). ANYone who just applies themselves can do just as well. It's all only up to the individual."

The Patriarchy uses them to deny the very existence of discrimination, as incredible propagadists for the Patriarchy's agenda, and to help keep other members of the oppressed group "in line" and NOT thinking that group effort is more important than individual effort in erasing the racism, sexism, homophobia in our society. But there's a heavy price that tokens have to pay, and it typically involves being a staunch defender of the party line (no matter what), denying huge parts of their own inner selves (the part that know the truth), being objectified in their role (they're not so much real as TOKENS).

Who was the black Congressman who quit a few years ago because he was so disgusted with the GOP attitude about blacks?? Former football hero. From OK???? (not sure). HE was a token, and he got fed up with it and reclaimed his soul.

[lukasahero]

44. Bravo!

Well said.


:applause:

[GumboYaYa]

49. My initial reaction was to question the validity of this post given

the fact that people who are themselves oppressed are often homophobic or exhibit some other prejudice. After thinking about it some, I think you are right. As they say all shit rolls down hill. In a patriarchal capitalist society, if you can't get one up on the man above you do it to the man below you.

It makes sense.

[Az]

55. I agree that they are tied to one another but its not entirely a capitalism issue

There has been a struggle going on in this nation for a very very long time. The battle ebbs and flows back and forth. Progress typically wins out over time but there are points at which the opposition rises up to halt it. This is a battle between moral authority and moral relatavism.

Ever since the signing of the Magna Carta there has been a division in our society. Prior to the Magna Carta moral authority came from doctrine. The Church. The King (supported by the church). The bible. But the Magna Carta set down the notion that people have rights which no one else can take away. Not King, not Church, and not any other doctrine. This precipitated the Humanist Revolution. Science and industry exploded as intellectual freedom took hold.

The founding fathers of the United States built upon that freedom. Built in as the very first thing in the very first ammendment was a clear separation between Church and State. It was clearly spelled out that the government could not establish an official religion or restrict others of their beliefs.

But just because society was benefitting from the advantages of secularism and the ability to determine what was moral for themself (moral relativism) did not mean that the advocates of moral authority had vanished. Progress does not occur at all levels of society simultaneously. It takes time for new ideas to filter through and become part of the social landscape. And if doctrine or traditional values oppose these new ideas there can be roadblocks and all manner of resistance. It becomes a battle to see if progress can infiltrate enough of the society to overwhelm such positions.

Add to this the fact you can have an accumulation of issues that offend some group's sensibilities. This is why from time to time the pendullum of society swings back and forth. When the outrage of conservative groups to the advances of progress reach a certain point they react and stamp their feet and demand a return to good ole fashion values.

For the last 20 years or so a deliberative group of politicians have enticed certain religious groups that were facing extreme marginalization due to social progress. This political group(the NeoCons of course) believed that society was being dismantled by so called progress. To their way of thinking progress was a blind charge into the darkness. No one could say whether so called advances would result in positive results or social collapse. To their way of thinking the system worked best when it was fixed in place and unwaivering. To them it did not matter what it was the people were fixed to as long as it was static.

It is for these reasons that the NeoCons sought out the fundamentalists. For a very long time they had stayed clear of politics because they saw it as a place of compromise and contamination. Neither of which they wished to be part of. But the politicians brought issues before them that raised their ire. This added to the pressure they felt due to being marginalized by social progress and scietific advancements was enough to bring them to the political floor.

Much of how the NeoCons whip their followers into a frenzy is by pushing a notion of a glorious America fullfilling a divine destiny. Part of their ideal involved having everyone whipped into a nationalistic frenzy. In this state of mind it becomes easy to manipulate the people into any particular position by using the safety of the nation as a pretense. This is the impetus that brought us to the war.

The first war with Iraq was a creation of the NeoCons. They trumped up a conflict with Kuwait and used political sleight of hand to goad Suddam into attack Kuwait. The entire point of this exercise was to demonstrate how mighty America was. It was a sales pitch.

But because Bush I was not on board with the full NeoCon agenda he pulled up short. They are still pissed at him to this day. They did not get the full sales brochure they wanted. Congress laughed them off the floor when they proposed building up the military to project our glory onto the rest of the world.

And then Bill Clinton happened.

After a smear campaign like none ever seen they finally got the puppet in office they had always wanted. A charismatic idiot with ties to the religious right who believed he was destined for greatness. And it didn't hurt that he was a likely sociopath.

Now back in power the NeoCons with George as their front began trying to figure out what went wrong with the first war. They realized it was because the people did not feel threatened by Iraq. They came to the conclusion that they needed something to strike fear into the people. And then 9/11 happened. Fear. Fear feeds directly into the mindset of the NeoCons. It is fear that initiated the philosophy and it is fear that became its greatest tool.

They went to their base who were already convinced that society was railed against them and they poured even more fear into them. Now it was not only fear of gays and secular humanists. Now there were Muslims. Do not kid yourself. This has always been a war about oil and Islam. Both. It is power the NeoCons seak and in the middle east there are numerous paths to power.

[Morgana LaFey]

74. Virtually none of what you said has any relevance to the OP

None.

Near as I can tell, the premise of your entire little essay is this: This is a battle between moral authority and moral relatavism.

You have SO missed the point of the OP that it's beyond my ability (okay, willingness) to outline it for you. I'd only suggest you go back and re-read. Slowly and deliberately.

[Az]

76. Um yeah

I was suggesting that there was more going on than the OP suggested. The OP has some valid points. But there is more connection going on that was mentioned in the post.

[noamnety]

77. Funny you should mention the Founding Fathers

since they were the ones in our country that set all this into law. Not that it wasn't already happening, but they legislated that Rich White Male Landowners (those with Capital) were the only people in our country considered fully Human, so it feels right that they should make an appearance in this thread.

Those who doubt the race/war connection should look at how our nation was "discovered" by Columbus, how our capital was created (exploitation - and not of rich white male landowners), how we came into being through dehumanization of the "other" - and how even our popular culture continues to contribute to that.

[BoneDaddy]

62. So where does Darfur or any other abuse in the world

that is not "white" come into play. This white power as the ultimate and source of all evil, exucusing abuse by anyone else is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. They can be separate

Look at Tony Blair. A good PM for homosexual equality - equalised the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex, abolished the discriminatory 'Clause 28' about public services of the last Tory government, introduced civil partnerships, and laws outlawing discrimination by businesses on the grounds of sexuality. But he's still up to his arms in blood in Iraq, the same as Bush.

And as for linking masculinity to the waging of war - remember Margaret Thatcher.

[DemBones DemBones]

64. As others have pointed out, it's not always capitalism, it's not always whites,

and it's not always men who do the exploiting. Everything is connected, but it is useful to separate out issues in order to focus on them.

If we don't end this endless war, things won't improve for anybody. That's why people rate the war as The Major Issue, not because they're unconcerned about other issues. Acknowledging it as the major issue doesn't mean we have to ignore other issues, by any stretch of the imagination. And, of course, people are free to choose their own personal most important issue.

But not only is the war bleeding the Treasury dry and piling up debts that future generations will be paying off, they're doing a run up to attacking or invading Iran. We have nukes, Israel has nukes, Iran may have nukes, Al Qaeda may have nukes, probably of the so-called suitcase/dirty bomb type.

If we have a nuclear war, survival will be everyone's first concern. In such dangerous times, I think we all should pay a considerable bit of attention to what's going on with the war, assuming we can get the media to stop talking about Anna Nicole Smith. If the war goes nuclear, I fear we'll have martial law and we'll no longer have the luxury of GD arguments about who's most discriminated against.

[MedleyMisty]

65. K & R!

First time I've used that subject line. :)

I totally agree with the OP. And yes, it's true that not every single white male is an oppressor or that every single oppressor is a white male, but I don't see how that invalidates the argument.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. I'm afraid I don't think this makes any sense.

It's a list of slogans, not actually backed up by the first thought.

Consider the first equation: "White Capitalist Patriarchy + Power = Exploitation of everyone else". Is the author suggesting that the communist societies were less exploitative? Or, indeed, not far worse? Are they suggesting that predominantly "white" societies behave worse than others?

Homophobia and notions of male supremacy are certainly connected to some extent, although the connection is almost certainly looser and far more subtle than this author thinks. But neither has very much to do with the war in Iraq, except in a very loose sense indeed. There are some very loose, very subtle links there in terms of thought patterns, but the OP makes no real attempt to illuminate these.

Oh, and one other tangentially-related thought: I was born in Britain in 1983. Don't try and tell me that women don't fight unneccessary wars.

[Kolesar]

92. Your post and Yurbud/83 are good analysis

I am confident enough in my masculinity to award you a valentine heart because you could use another, but I am already tapped out and not going back to contribute.

[brentspeak]

70. Why did you go out of your way to use the word "white"?

The person who just made the outrageous homophobic remarks the other day was an extremely rich black guy.

[noamnety]

75. Because I'm talking about classes of people, not individuals

And in watching the dynamics of how race and gender play out, there are some very strong parallels that are impossible to ignore.

So rich white straight men hold the most power - even though Oprah's a black woman and is very rich.

Anyone who is interpreting my comments to mean "all of the minority/oppressed/disadvantaged groups get along with each other and support each other" has missed my point, in a major way. I would say the opposite is true, and it's true in part because those who have all the power/status work to keep it that way. That's been mentioned several times in this thread. Each time it's been mentioned, I've been nodding my head in agreement.

Anyone who thinks minorities are immune from the impact of the dominant culture is dreaming. What tends to happen is that when there's an outside group that's perceived as a threat, the moderately weaker class will band with the strongest against the weakest. There's a documentary about that, if anyone thinks of the name before I can track it down, please post it. I haven't seen it yet, it was just recently recommended to me. It's about some town where it's all white people, and then blacks I think it is move in. So the white people hate the black people. But then some other group moves in, one with a language barrier, and all of a sudden the blacks are with the whites - they hate the intrusion into what has now become their (collective "their") town by outsiders.

Anyway. I saw some replies here along the lines of "white people can't be oppressing black people, look at Darfur!" as if that proves or disproves anything.

The majority of the world isn't white. But look at the patterns. Look at history. How many societies comprised of People of Color enslaved white people? How many societies comprised of white people enslaved People of Color? How common is it that white children are systemically used as child labor for corporations owned and managed by People of Color?

White oppression of People of Color isn't disproved by two Black nations going to war anymore than systemic violence against women and gays isn't disproved by two straight men having a fist fight.

[me b zola]

78. k&r

:applause:

[josewelder]

79. SENSACIONALIST

The title of the thread is purely sensacionalist. Meant to raise hairs. If you really belive in your cause you should find a better way to expres your opinion. In my opinion you are just trying to stir the pot with such a foolish headline. And if one reads through the thread it becomes apparent that that was your only intention. Grow up.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

80. What the hell is sensacionalist?

Do you mean sensationalist?

:rofl:

[intheflow]

81. Sing it, Sister!

Great post, lwfern. It is all connected. It's one of the challenges we have in hurricane recovery. We're forced to separate all the issues--housing, human/civil rights, ecology, cultural preservation, and economic redevelopment--into separate categories. On one hand this makes them manageable, but on the other hand it's a false manageability because emphasis on one issue leads to the neglect of the next. War, GLBT rights, hurricane recovery... they are all just different facets of the same societal illness. We need to start seeing the totality of the world and our species through integrated, interconnected, multi-layered lenses.

[OneBlueSky]

82. Amen . . . n/t

[yurbud]

83. I would put a slightly different spin on this: a lot of these guys are sadistic closet cases

Their little games they played in Skull & Bones were tinged with sadism to make it okay and "manly." I have no doubt that Bush and some of the others get a chubby when they see the pics of what went on at Abu Ghraib. It is mostly for the sake of humiliating people and making them and everyone they know afraid to exist, but it is also these righties projecting a part of themselves they can't deal with and trying to beat it into submission.

[meganmonkey]

84. Excellent post, lwfern

I think the reason many have a hard time seeing this equation is (at least in part) that attacking issues one at a time, as separate problems with distinct solutions, the fight is less intimidating, and smaller victories can be satisfying.

By recognizing the interconnectedness of it all, whether in the sort of psychological context you lay out here, or in an economic context of war profiteers and campaign financing and class struggles, or any other broad framework, one must recognize the serious depth of change needed to get anywhere, and that is a scary prospect. I think a lot of people have trouble making that leap.

But in focusing on smaller victories to the exclusion of the bigger picture, I am afraid we won't get very far. I understand people's desire to do things one step at a time, but are we so far gone it is too late for that? I'm really beginning to think so.

I hope this makes some sense, I haven't had much coffee yet this morning. I have to go get ready to attend a protest to defund the occupations now.

Solidarity!!

[Tace]

85. Here's A Link

http://www.worldnewstrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1188&Itemid=10105

[noamnety]

86. Perfect choice of photos!

(thank you)

[The Count]

87. Handy card to keep track of all your hatreds:

[noamnety]

89. funny card.

We need to add gender and race to it, though. :)

And on the flip side, we need the great white rescuer missionary coming to straighten out all the problems in those darker-skinned countries, since they can't do it without our superior wisdom (and firepower). And while we are over there, we will rescue all their women from their human rights abuses (after we're done raping them or buying them as prostitutes).

[Bill McBlueState]

88. got a question for you

In another post in this thread, you say

The majority of the world isn't white. But look at the patterns. Look at history. How many societies comprised of People of Color enslaved white people? How many societies comprised of white people enslaved People of Color? How common is it that white children are systemically used as child labor for corporations owned and managed by People of Color?

I agree, these patterns exist. Europeans and their decendants hold most of the power in the world and do most of the exploiting.

My question is, is there something inherent about whiteness that makes this the case? If there's not, isn't it more useful to talk about the factors that actually do lead some people (who do happen to generally be white) to exploit other people?

We could talk about capitalism, we could talk about patriarchy, we could talk about the Christian religion, we could talk about technological growth unchecked by ethical considerations. A particularly dangerous mix of all these factors made Europe the dominant force in the world a few hundred years ago, and the rest of the world continues to suffer the consequences of that power. But the fact that Europeans have a particular shade of skin doesn't seem to be much of a factor here. So I'm having trouble understanding why whiteness gets mixed in with capitalism and patriarcy in your equation.

[noamnety]

90. Because white folks teach their offspring that nonwhite = subhuman

It's completely cultural, it's not "inherent" - not built into the skin color itself. As a cultural phenomenon, it needs to be addressed, not ignored.

Mickey Mouse Monopoly does a good job of showing how we train our children - even liberals do it - to view white patriarchy as the norm. Women are less than, nonwhites are less than whitemales. We pound that message into our kids over and over and over before they are old enough to have any analytical skills to combat that. It becomes part of what they just "know" - the same as religious training, in that way. It's no accident that most people share the same religion as their parents. They get exposed to it so much that it becomes their base understanding of the universe.

So we sit our children down in front of Disney videos, and let them watch those a few hundred or thousand times. Where are the black people at, though? There are characters portrayed (by voice quality and speech patterns) as black, but they aren't people. They have the crows in Dumbo - "Jim Crow." In Africa, in the remake of Tarzan, there aren't any black people (in Africa!). There are some jive-talking animals who sing about how they wish they could be like the humans. We send gender messages to our kids through films like Beauty and the Beast. (If the man is abusive to you, if he locks you up and threatens to let you starve, you just need to be gentle and kind and most of all understanding, so you can see the inner beauty in him.)

Then we get older and watch actual hollywood films. "Out of 1000 films that have Arab & Muslim characters (from yrs 1896 to 2000) 12 were positive depictions, 52 were even handed and the rest of the 90O and so were negative." http://www.jsalloum.org/films.html

Cornell University has a great powerpoint presentation online about race and the media:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/Courses/dsoc375/studentproj/DSOC375%20Projects/Race%20and%20TV-shofinal.ppt
------------------------------------------------
"In the top movies of 1996:

Black female movie characters shown using vulgar profanity: 89%.
White female movie characters shown using vulgar profanity: 17%.

Black female movie characters shown being physically violent: 56%.
White female movie characters shown being physically violent: 11%.

Black female movie characters shown being restrained: 55%.
White female movie characters shown being restrained: 6%. "

"Research has shown that White college students hold stereotypical views of Blacks. Most common stereotypes of Blacks reported included: lazy, ignorant, happy-go-lucky, musical, and superstitious."

""The “missionary character” is, more often than not, portrayed as well-meaning, altruistic, and White. This person is deeply concerned about those around whom are less fortunate; these individuals tend to be persons of color. These representations are problematic and do not reflect the reality of social class stratification within the United States.

While these images may reflect society’s class structure, it is not a complete picture. Minorities in these types of programs are portrayed as victims of learned helplessness. They often reside in vermin-infested housing projects, where crack-heads, liquor stores, teen mothers, and drive-by shootings are part of the everyday landscape.

In shows such as “Dangerous Minds,” viewers are shown how a White woman is the only one who is able to reach out to inner-city teenagers. Presumably, before she entered their lives, they were not self-motivated, nor did they have parents and other social networks in place to motivate them. This is where the problem lies in such portrayals: society is taught that Blacks and other minorities lack the drive to succeed and are merely waiting for hand-outs, when this is not the reality of the situation."
-------------------------------------------------

How it got started like that, I don't know. Maybe the whiteness is mixed up in Capitalism because the white folks started mixing globalization with their own economies, rather than living locally? But however it started, it's there, and I don't see the point in pretending it's not. It's not good enough to say "well, that's not a natural state of things, so we don't need to talk about it." It's that sense of white supremacy combined with our economic power that makes us think on some level that America ought to be the policeman for the rest of the world, that America ought to have nukes - or at least enough military strength to deter a world catastrophe, but those other countries, we need to attack them if they even think about having nukes, because they don't have an inherent right to firepower, not like we have.

[Kolesar]

91. We did not attack Iraq in order to kick people in the knees & leave them to suffocate in a cell.

You have a weak thesis and your development does not adequately support it, sorry.

More likely reasons for this and other Gulf/oil-state wars are:

An issue to split the Democratic Party and win elections
Place the US-backed Shah Reza Pahlavi into Iran
Replace Hugo Chavez with a US friendly government
Take control of Iraq's oil before French & Russian companies become the partners
For the sake of the RW Likud Party in Israel who seem as incompetent at geopolitics as bush*

[noamnety]

93. Those may be reasons the administration/PNAC had

Those would be the capitalist ones, mainly.

But there's not a single one of them that was used to sell the war to the American public, eh?

*thumps on chest*
*makes manly sounds*
*vows to avenge 9/11*
*mumbles vaguely about women's rights in the middle east*

[Kolesar]

94. "Framing the issue in authoritarian/strong-leader terms" is a George Lakoff analysis

Thank you for your thoughtful and well reasoned answer.

Lakoff is the author of Moral Politics and Don't Think of an Elephant.

I will contend that what you are saying is an extension of my reason #1--Split the Democratic Party. More correctly, it would be "split the left-leaning independents". Lakoff's theory is that when messages are framed in authoritarian/strong-father language, the gops can succeed with it. A counter would be that Democrats have a maternal/cooperative image like "let's all get together and do something about schools, etc.". Or, how about: "Let's try diplomacy to deal with the other country".

So, I am coming around to your way of thinking. The bushies* have certainly succeeded in occupying the attention of the political stories in the media through their over-the-top aggression, keeping America in fear and a state of vigilance. Heck, having the Iraq War continue still works for them because it keeps a violent world view in the spotlight.