ahistoric

i hate that fucking “european here just saying if another european says the word race thats the easiest way to tell theyre a racist. we dont think about race here unlike the crazy americans who are obsessed with race” post so much cause like.

europeans literally invented the entire fucking modern concept of race and racism. yall. what the fuck. why are you trying to claim you have nothing to do with this

anonymous asked:

I get that Millennials aren't perfect or absolved of the issues that Boomers have, but shouldn't Boomers tale the brunt of the blame seeing as they are the ones with all the powers in government right now and make up most of the work force? And if there are issues in the Millennial generation, well, who raised us?

Look, I’ve got a long-standing beef with Millennial v. Boomer discourse that I could spend a few hours on, but lemme try to sum it up briefly. 

Many of the modern economic problems that affect many Millennials that are often blamed on Baby Boomers (unemployment/underemployment, soaring costs of education, loan debt, comparative lack of opportunities, poverty, etc. etc.) started well before our generation came of age. Most of these same economic issues fucked up Generation X before us, but because they were a smaller generation, people didn’t hear about it as much. And most of these problems grew directly from right-wing political and economic policies that began in the Reagan presidency in the 1980s, before the Boomers were in political ascendancy. (Yes, there were a few young Boomers in Reagan’s administration, but the leading neocons/neoliberals, using the actual meaning of the term, not the tumblr left’s version of it, who led the move rightward were older.) Boomers, by virtue of their age, enjoyed the unique benefits of the post-War (1945-1980) economy and many managed to escape the worst effects of the Reagan Era cuts, but not all did equally (see below.) And many of them, personally, are total clueless assholes about how unique their experience was. I have Boomer parents born in the early 50s, so like I know.  But one of the biggest problems I have with Millennial/Boomer discourse is that it de-politicizes and de-contextualizes important social/political/economic shifts that were the direct result of Republican policies. It reduces it all to just a generational conflict in which one selfish group of people just didn’t want to share their toys with their kids. And even if you accept the idea that one generation can personally screw over another via political means, the idea that Boomers would target their own children specifically is particularly odd. Though I’ll also point out that the “who raised us” issue is more complex, as the Boomer generation ends in 1964, and quite a lot of people born in the 90s who could still be considered Millennials, have parents born after that. 

As for the idea that Boomers make up the majority of the workforce, actually Millennials are now the largest segment of the workforce, slightly ahead of Gen X, with Boomers well behind. The oldest boomers are 71 now, and the youngest are 53. A lot of the oldest ones have retired and the younger ones are on their way there. X  As for having “all the powers in government” that’s a pretty hard thing to quantify. Trump and many of his key advisers are Boomers, but there are a number of GenX and Millennials too. Which is why I get annoyed at the idea that Millennials are somehow innately more compassionate and kind than older generations, because not really. Millennials overall are more democratic/left leaning than older voters, but Trump still won among white millennials.  Many baby boomers, too, were very liberal in their youth, and became more conservative with age, especially the white ones. It’s a pretty common thing to happen. It’s not as if that fate is going to magically spare our generation, so most of this discourse is not going to age well.

Which brings me to the other issue, that you can legitimately talk about Millennials and Baby Boomers as distinct groups with similar characteristics and experiences. Most of this discourse is highly race and class based but people don’t seem to acknowledge that. It’s focused around the experiences of middle to upper class white boomers and their kids, who presumably don’t have it as easy. And in many cases, this is probably true. Though if you’ve read any financial news in the last few years, they’ve been talking a lot about the huge amount of “wealth transfer” that has started from well-off Boomers to their kids. But for many other Boomers, this wealth never materialized. Plenty of people never had access to it thanks to their race or immigrant status. So the idea that one generation “owns everything” or needs to “take the blame” blurs the fact that within any generation there are huge differences in wealth and access to power.

Basically millennial/boomer discourse is ahistorical, apolitical, and focused on the experiences and expectations of middle class white kids, and that’s why I’m not here for it.

anonymous asked:

All through out lgbt histiry the slogan has literally been "were here, were queer, were not going anywhere" lmao

LMAO “slogan”???? the LGBT community isn’t a fucking company. we aren’t represented by a goddamn single group of people. are you for real??? just because a bunch of gay people a few decades ago said that, I’m supposed to be okay with people calling me qu**r??

The LGBT community doesn’t have a “slogan” because that’s not how fucking identities work. You’re literally saying we’re represented by one group of people. A bunch of LGB people, historically, were shitty to trans people. Does that mean that, by necessity, all LGB people are shitty to trans people? Or that we SHOULD be shitty to trans people?

“Some people who are aligned with us by having the same identities as us” isn’t a good reason to do something that upsets other people who also have that identity.

And by the way, the reason people said that? Because they were wielding a word that had always been used against them to say “No, YOU move.” It’s not the same as being angry at people who don’t like slurs being used in regard to them.

flonde  asked:

On punching Nazis: if you advocate violent suppression of opposing viewpoints you might be a fascist.

On liberals that misunderstand fascism so severely that they ignore every other characteristic of fascism (e.g. hostility to socialism/liberal democracy; perceptions of community/national decline/obsessions with myths of nationalist rebirth & greatness; an emphasis with racial or national “purity;” the scapegoating of “others,” often racist in nature; the fetishization of violence as a political tool to purge or “cleanse” the nation of “corrupting” or “alien” elements; prioritization of military might and national security; seeking to replace the current ruling elite with their own idealized class; the imposition of their brand of “order” on the rest of the population; an obsession with nationalism/ultra-nationalism; wanton disregard for human rights, intellectuals, and the arts; rampant cronyism and corruption coalescing around the ownership or control of government by one person or a tiny group of people) in their ahistorical attempt to paint anti-fascists as fascists using false equivalence: if you believe that fascism is an “opposing view point”  and not a completely discredited, potentially lethal, utterly illegitimate belief system; if you think fascists can be prevented from murdering people with your liberal witty repartée or hugging it out; if you’re completely oblivious to the use of physical force smashing fascism during world war two or beating back the fascists of Daesh in our times; if you sit on your fucking hands and do sweet FA when fascists are openly organizing in your community but rush to condemn those brave enough to stand up to them before they start shooting up mosques or calling bomb threats into Jewish centers or setting immigrant-owned businesses on fire or randomly shooting racialized people or stabbing black men to death in the streets or attempting to beat refugees to death; then you’re just as bad as the fascists are.  

As Joy Kogawa put it, “if there’s just one thing that history teaches us, just one thing, it’s that bystanders and perpetrators are both on the same side.“  

We’re don’t need to hear your tired, old, liberal-ass nonsense, flonde.  Give your head a shake and do something fucking useful for once in your life or GTFO of our way - we have important, life-saving work to do.  

an older lgbtq+ person with real lived experience in the offline lgbtq+ community: this part of the discourse is absolutely wrong, like, factually, there is no way around it, you are straight up lying

teenager who has never participated in any offline lgbtq+ community and learned everything they know about lgbtq+ history from tumblr posts: wow look at this disgusting ahistoric homophobe #homophobia // #yikes #receipts #people to block

The idea that there’s no racism in Europe, other than being stupid and completely detached from reality, is so ahistorical because it was white europeans who invented the concept of race and therefore created racism. Open a book, if you are on this site i bet you know how to read.

A Note to Fellow Heathens and Norse Pagans

Yes, please keep loudly protesting nazis/fascists, yes keep distancing yourselves and your practices and our godx from them and their inhuman shit.

BUT

Please do not forget that the nazis were a powerful force in the revitalization of Norse paganism in Europe. Lots of academics in the 19th century especially (Hyperborean is a common keyword) subscribed to nationalistic and white supremacist ideals, even if they weren’t actively or publicly associated with any group.

Watch your sources, watch your influences. Do not deny they exist.

You see folks saying things like “uh uh nazis/facists are un-American” EXCEPT that’s ahistorical and inaccurate. Don’t forget that Hitler was greatly inspired by the racial genocide of Native Americans and used Andrew Jackson’s atrocities to build his own, just for starters.

So instead of only saying “look we’re not nazis just heathens”, make it clear that you are doing things differently. Talk about inclusive heathenry. Talk about racial diversity, in your UPG and in history of the vikings. Talk about how gorgeously queer the godx are. Even if you’re NOT queer yourself, support and embrace the gender and sexual diversity of the godx, as well as their historical and modern worshippers.

Be loudly open to ALL people. Be actively inclusive. (except to bigots and fascists of course)

Antiblackness among indigenous american ppl was & is not an isolated issue. Natives allllllll over owned slaves. It is not generalizing or demonizing to say “natives owned slaves” or “natives are antiblack”. Its just the truth.

We don’t accept these “not every single white person owned slaves” arguments. We don’t accept “well I would’ve been okay with it if they had specified they didn’t mean all white people”. Sure, not all, but enough for speaking in generalized, blanket terms to not be ahistorical.

Y'all are so very transparent

4

The response Filipovic received in light of this grotesquely ahistorical accusation was swift. Everyone from Corey Robin to local US organisers began chiming in with a blow to her argument more devastating than the last. And among the white socialists were Black, and PoC leftists, of many political affiliations, some of whom began to discuss their frustration with being denied the right to their own historical existence. And of the lucky few that Filipovic decided to respond to a majority of them were white. This is the shtick the rest of us have grown accustomed to. How else are you going to accuse socialists of being white men if you’re made to acknowledge the existence of Black and PoC socialists?

We don’t exist, but for the illustrations of us they use to peddle neoliberal policies, and centrist organising tactics that are about as spineless and cartoonish as their very ideology. Those of us who identify as leftists, who occupy numerous spaces on the margins of society, are made to feel as though we are both imaginated and irrelevant. They’ve chosen to deliberately, and maliciously misrepresent our radicalism for their own benefit.

It isn’t just Filipovic, but others, so many others, who choose to communicate and argue almost entirely with white men for the sake of further isolating us. They understand that our identities threaten the very heart of their assertion. So which is it? Are we invented or are we inconsequential?

~ Roqayah Chamseddine

  • Director: I'm making ahistorical film about a strong independent woman who doesn't take crap and I need you to design her costumes
  • Costume Designer: Oh, cool, heck yeah, what era?
  • Director: I WANT HER TO WEAR A LEATHER CORSET AND LEATHER, LACE UP THIGH HIGH HEELED BOOTS AND SHE HAS TO HAVE A HIGH LOW HEM DRESS THAT'S HIKED UP TO HER THIGHS AND HER BOOBS NEED TO BE HANGING HALF OUT. RUFFLES.
  • Costume Designer: Wait- wh-
  • Director: KEEP HER HAIR DOWN LONG AND UNCOVERED. WE NEED TO CONVEY TO THE AUDIENCE THAT SHE IS SEXY AND INDEPENDENT AND MODERN.
  • Costume DesigneR: but-
  • Director: MAKE IT SEXY.

Please be aware that in certain conservative towns, especially rural areas and the south, ‘queer’ has NEVER stopped being a slur. Please be aware of that and be very careful about accusing people of being ahistorical or influenced by terf tumblr when they say it’s a slur, because there’s also a good likelihood that they grew up with it being used as the worst word against people like them.

i’m 25 now and i hope that no matter how old i am or how educated i become i never talk over young LGBT kids or tell them they’re wrong. i mean shit, i have some pretty strong feelings about things like the split attraction model – i don’t condone things i think can be painful or invasive for kids to publicly divulge, especially in the interest of keeping young lgbt kids safe from predators.

but i’ve tried to relax a lot in my politics, and as i get older i try to remain helpful and willing to listen, even to young inexperienced or uneducated kids.

i see these 30-50 y/old queer studies majors just rolling their eyes at young lgbt kids for “not knowing their history” and shit like that – which is hilarious, because coming from a position where you have been afforded a degree and years of education you would think you of all people would know how important it is to listen to the young & struggling voices in our community, but i guess not.

as adults in our community it’s not just important to carry on our history, but to also not lose sight of how the landscape of our community’s oppression changes for generations younger than us.

being lgbt isn’t rocket science, and talking about your experiences does not require some kind of prerequisite understanding of our history in order to talk about how homophobia/transphobia/biphobia/transmisogyny/lesbophobia hurts us individually. it’s ok for young kids not to want to be called or identify with words or use terminology the way our community did decades ago. things change.

the thing about being marginalized is that being educated or older doesn’t mean you inherently Know More about oppression and the lgbt experience. there are homeless trans kids who didn’t even finish high school whose experiences and insight are just as important as the voices of educated Queer Elders, if not moreso.

i personally never want to seem like i’m beyond being wrong. i don’t want to be a part of a community that talks down to our youth and creates an environment where they feel stifled and not listened to.

the knowledge of our history is VITAL, and making sure the youngest in our community know the struggles, accomplishments, and experiences of those that came before us really is crucial. i will always advocate for this.

but LGBT history is not a tool adults should constantly use as a way to shame or write off young folks and their experiences, their comfort, etc. there’s a difference between “this is ahistorical and you should be aware” and “these STUPID KIDS who think [x] is a slur/transphobic just DONT KNOW!! I CAME OUT BEFORE YOU WERE BORN”

maybe it’s just me, but that sure doesn’t seem like a very helpful or radical attitude to have.

Anyway a good day to remember that “experiences homophobia or transphobia” is a bullshit way to classify someones worthiness of bieng a ~real lgbt~ because

-it ignores bi/pan/poly phobia

-it ignores enbyphobia/exorsexism

-not all non-cis folk identify as trans

-totally erases intersex people

-continues to spread the myth that “the community came together to fight homophobia and transphobia” which is fucking laughably ahistorical at this point

REG tactics always harm more than their intended target

Including Jewish characters in my primarily polytheist fantasy worldbuilding

I am a second gen. polytheist. The fantasy world my story is set in is also polytheistic, but I really want to include a Jewish central character. I’ve considered having the Jewish community be the lone monotheists, but I’m worried that would automatically “other” them. So, instead I was considering having a Jewish-in-all-but-name group of people (they would keep kosher, observe shabbat, and as many other aspects of culture/ religion as possible without referencing real world historical events) who are devoted to one god out of the pantheon. 
Would this be appropriate? If so is there anything I should steer clear of with regards to the god (aside from the obvious like he shouldn’t be god of moneylenders and shitty stereotypes)? 

I strongly dislike “coded Judaism that isn’t supposed to be actually Jewish.” There is some information on this post about why: Religion in Fiction & Fantasy

Besides, at that point you’re not going to be able to say “but they’re not actually Jewish”, so it’s not going to serve any purpose. Just start treating them as your Jewish characters.

Coexisting alongside polytheists is a normal part of our existence. Think of your cast as being a dorm full of girls who are fans of the girls on the softball team, and we’re fans of this one girl who’s a really fast track runner instead. Being othered doesn’t have to mean being treated badly as long as it’s okay to be different, in your worldbuilding–which you are in charge of. You can have your characters react neutrally to the fact that they have religious minorities in their midst, rather than negatively.

By the way, it sounds more realistic to me to have them devoted to their own separate god who’s not part of the majority’s pantheon – the track and field runner in my analogy – rather than fixating on one specific member of the “softball team”, if that makes sense. That sounds more like what happens in the real world, if it doesn’t ruin your plot to make that change. There are definitely polytheist societies that develop worship-fandoms for one specific god out of the bunch, but that’s not what modern-day Judaism feels like to me. And then you won’t have to worry about whether one of your created gods contradicts Jewish theology.

However, as Nik points out below, we possibly had something like that in our history, so it’s complicated. I just feel like you run less of a risk of creating a fictional character out of a deity many gentiles don’t understand if you separate our way of seeing god from the ones you make up.

What not to do? I guess please don’t make whoever we worship “the mean one” – there’s often a Christian perception of the “angry Old-Testament God” in contrast with the comforting New Testament and trying to unravel that is too complicated for me right now but basically: if we weren’t being comforted by our beliefs, they wouldn’t have stuck around through multiple genocides for thousands of years so that view is incredibly reductive.

Honestly, our ideas about the nature of God are so uniquely overdiscussed that I’d feel more comfortable if you didn’t make up too many details about your version unless you’ve hung around in temple listening to “the discourse” :P Can you just sort of handwavey around it and mention that someone is part of a monotheistic sect that does this or that without describing the nature of the worship itself?

-Shira

Shira’s suggestion of having a clear favorite while acknowledging other gods (or at least acknowledging that other people worship other gods and aren’t necessarily wrong for doing so) is pretty well-situated as an analogue of the development of modern Judaism (and hence other Abrahamic, monotheistic religions).

There’s a common, and pretty strong and accepted argument that the Jewish god was previously the national god of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and while all the surrounding nations had their own pantheons, many of which included the god of the Israelites, in Israel and Judah, that god alone was worshipped (common people might have had their own, varying opinions on the existence and worshipability of other local gods).  This was uncommon in the ancient Near East but not unheard of.  The national god of the Assyrians was Ashur, who was also part of the larger Mesopotamian pantheon.

Before this, the Jewish god would have been a favorite god of the Hebrew tribes, very much like the girls who get really excited about the softball team’s pitcher but couldn’t really care that much about the rest of the team.

The historical development of monotheism in Judaism (at least, according to the argument outlined above, which like I said is pretty well-accepted among historians), went something like “one of many gods” -> “favorite god” -> “national god” -> “best god” -> “only god.”  Ahistorical would be plopping a group of monotheists in a world of polytheists with no discussion of how they arrived at that position.

–Nikhil

very loose tunglr lgbt discourse timeline

  • lgbt people are great uwu, that post saying ‘idc if i lose followers but i support gays’, rainbow gifs
  • posts about lgbt history, scolding 14 year olds for not “knowing where they came from”. important posts about the erasure of trans people from our history
  • truscum vs. tucute debates
  • pushback against The Cis LGs, shiri eisner, monosexism discourse
  • cis bi people are inherently less transphobic than cis LGs
  • butch/femme lesbian couples and masc/fem gay couples are heteronormative
  • lgbtiapd2ap+++
  • asexual visibility, the a is not for ally, “gays get pride but aces get awareness”
  • the bi/ace invisibility alliance, comics of giant gay people stepping on small aces
  • hypervisibility isn’t a privilege for gay and trans people
  • actually mogai is a good term bc it includes everyone
  • erasure
  • ahistoric posts
  • arguing over the sexualities of people who died hundreds of years ago
  • racism in gay communities
  • transmisogyny in lesbian communities
  • allosexism discourse
  • gay bars are oversexualized dens of sin
  • bi definition vs. pan definition
  • the mogai heyday
  • everybody is queer also queer isn’t a slur
  • ace spinsters
  • “a single aro het man is more radical than a gay man who’s getting married”
  • pushback against monosexism and allosexism as coherent concepts
  • lots of fighting between bi women and lesbians
  • arguing over whether fictional characters are gay or bi
  • meme appropriation
  • “gay marriage is assimilationist and worsens bi erasure”
  • monosexism gradually faded
  • queer is a slur for the love of god stop calling us that
  • adoption of “wlw” as a popular term to unify bi women and lesbians
  • ace discourse hell part 2, straights aren’t straight, when will the gays stop oppressing cishets and gatekeeping them
  • so many ahistoric posts
  • complete and utter contempt for the AIDS crisis, trivializing the deaths of tens of thousands as “a mean gatekeeping mechanism”
  • calling out ace homophobia is actually aphobia, gay and lesbian aces just have internalized aphobia
  • literally so many ahistoric posts i couldn’t keep count
  • the word homophobia in scare quotes
  • hypervisibility is not a privilege how many times do we have to cover this
  • sga people are actually queer truscum
  • NUS tells lgbt student groups to get rid of their seats for gay men, recommends installing a seat for asexuals
  • ace people were actually bi all along and i know this bc i talked to one (1) older bi person and that’s what they said
  • heterophobia is real
  • “aro het men will never be rewarded by heterosexism as much as The Cis LGs”
  • “sga discourse”: monosexism is back and it’s fucking pissed

I just wanna hug (with permission) each and every fellow aspec that I see saying sad shit like - “the ace community on this hellsite makes me want to stop IDing as ace tbh bc with this whole ‘aces can’t be straight bc straight is heterosexual AND heteroromantic’ y'all make me feel like i’m less gay and less valid in my LGBT identity than if i weren’t ace and that sucks bc it took a long fuckin time for me to deal with not being hetero” - and let them know that we aren’t any “less gay” or pan (like I am) or whatever, we’re just… ALSO aspec. 

The aspec part MATTERS, it counts, it doesn’t just disappear, and aspec erasure is something that we’re currently fighting hard against bc it happens to us SO. DAMN. OFTEN. This is what the exclusionists are trying to reinforce too by turning heteromantic/heterosexual aspecs into 100% hets with full straight privilege. This ERASES ppl’s aspec IDs in order to support exclusionary bullshit, which they base in ahistoric lies and bigotry that places aspec IDs outside of the LGBT+ whilst claiming we’re actually The Straights™ trying to infiltrate and destroy the LGBT+. 

The fact is though that aro/ace specs are NOT straight bc there is no intrinsic “het” attraction connected to these IDs, and to suggest otherwise is entirely heteronormative and toxic as hell. Furthermore, I personally am NOT pansexual; I am panromantic demisexual and anyone that suggests my demisexuality means I’m any less pan can kiss my entire ass. What I am is pan & ace: The End.

I hope that this message helps those of you feeling concerned about this. I totally understand your concerns in the context of this nasty “”””ace discourse””””, but it’s not necessary bc you are 100% valid w/ ALL of your IDs. You honestly do not have to choose and anyone that tries to make you choose is not your friend. *hugs if wanted*

#BoostAceVoices

Here’s the full version of the quote, just so you can see how ridiculously contradictory libertarianism is.

There is no incentive for corporations to “play within the rules” without “deception and fraud” under laissez-faire capitalism. Saying so is ahistorical.

the gay rights movement was created and supported by gay people, gay culture was created by and for gay people, gay history is about gay people, gay bars were created by and for gay people, and no amount of pseudo progressive ahistorical assertions that these things were actually created by non-homosexuals will ever change that. shocking, i know.

History is a complex tapestry stitched together by threads of continuity and discontinuity. Elements of continuity are emphasized when they serve established interests: The nation is eternal, gender is unchanging, hierarchy is natural. Yet, elements of discontinuity are emphasized in the popular memory of social struggle. Once social movements and their leading figures gain enough power to establish their legitimacy, their historical legacies are shorn of their radical tendencies and embalmed in an ahistorical, decontextualizing formaldehyde.
—  Mark Bray, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook