are you fucking kidding me
this is exactly why no one likes you white people
over 12,000 followers smh
You white people? you sound just as ignorant as the attention seeking bigot who made the twitter post. “Those who anger you will conquer you”
oh my fucking god
FALL OF THE FACE OF THE GOODAMN EARTH!
Some people can’t take their own advice…
You’re not a bad person because you’re white.
You’re a bad person because you’re white and you…
make black jokes.
call people ghetto.
find the Onion “funny”.
ask if my hair is real.
don’t believe in power dynamics.
think queer probs = racial minority probs.
think it’s OK to joke on black women.
don’t believe I should be offended at your jokes.
refuse to change.
There is nobody more patriotic than Black people. We are the people that die in your wars, build your cities, and raise your children and bleed in your all of your wars and reap none of the benefits. There is nobody that served America more than us, until one day we found out that this is the land of our oppressor, this is not our homeland. Know what the, the problem with white people is? You don’t respect anybody’s humanity except for your own. You don’t respect anybody’s pain, except for your own. You expect Jewish people to hate Hitler and hate the Nazis, but you can’t understand why we should hate you. You can’t understand that because you’re not human. And you’re cruel. And you’re selfish. And if you had any love and compassion in your heart, you would know how much you deserve to be hated. If you had any love in your heart. You white people are merciless. And you hate to look at anybody as a human being. How dare you ask us: “have you loved America?”!? We have loved you for forever. And you have always hated us. We have loved you consistently for 400 hundred years. We prayed to that white Jesus. And we saluted your flags. And we died in your militaries. And you beat us like dogs. How dare you ask us, “Have we loved you?”!? When in the hell have you loved anybody but yourself? Your whole life you thought that you’ve been compassionate and caring, but meanwhile, you know what you are? Just another white girl standing on stolen ground, reaping the benefits of bloody fathers. Even though you think you’re so liberal and so kind. All you are is another child benefiting off the murder of your father. That is who you really are. And you should face it. And you should fall on your knees and beg repentance, for your evil, cruel, corrupt selfish life. That you’ve lived here on the bones of the North American Indian, on the bones of the slaves, on the bones of the Puerto Ricans, on the bones of the Mexicans, on the bones of all the poor people. That your father murdered so that you could go to college. And so that you could get drunk and high, and have a good time. Your father had to murder for that privilege. You understand that, don’t you? Your father had to kill. Your grandfather had to steal. So that you could live like Pamela Anderson in America.
So, you got some people to behave. You didn’t change the laws, got no influences, but hey, you want me to say “not all White people are like that”? I’m sorry, but racial profiling still exist and White people tend to get away with murder at times… but you stand up for something.
What you want? A cookie? Am I being nice? No… just real. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but it doesn’t change anything.
BTW, my ask box is open. No need to tell her what you can tell me.
I was trying to be nice!
Sorry, but if I reply to every post with “Not all men act like this”, I deserve to be told to shut up.
But I am not saying that’s how you should answer… just saying that’s how I will answer if that’s the lead off question.
This is going to surprise many of you but I, personally, don’t believe nationalism is a terrible thing. Here’s the problem, many who claim to be nationalists, don’t seem to see any difference between nationalism and supremacy. There is. A huge difference.
We all have a pretty good idea of what supremacy is. It largely depends on not only believing that you are better than another group but actively attacking said group. Whether verbally or physically, the attacking is a huge part of supremacy. Nationalism on the other hand, true nationalism is actually “your group” specific.
Let’s take Tumblr blogs as an example. A white supremacist has posts about Black people being violent criminals, about “ill*gal ali*ns” needing to leave their country and about how much better things would be if all the brown people disappeared. They often have some sort of Hitler related topic on their page. (Side note, I am still amazed at how many Hitler pictures and quotes I have come across on this site.) They have more false information about the groups they hate than you can imagine. A white nationalist, a TRUE white nationalist, would have posts about what white people should/can do to better themselves. White history. White people doing great things in the news. A TRUE white nationalist wouldn’t have anything on their blog about another race because a nationalist simply doesn’t care about other races. A white nationalist also wouldn’t reblog someone saying something like “I hate white people” because if the person saying this is not white, they wouldn’t give two shits what this person thought of them or their race.
No, “Not caring” about other races isn’t a great thing. However, it also isn’t destructive to the other races. “Not caring” about another race doesn’t mean that you would walk past them when they were bleeding on the ground when you could have helped them. It means that after you’ve helped them, the only part of the story you’ll ever tell is how you, a white person, helped someone who needed it. Even when you move this from the internet, nationalism wouldn’t be much of a problem. Let’s say there was a white nationalist store owner. If it were an option, she wouldn’t make her store a “white only” store but a supremacist would. A nationalist wouldn’t care if other races shopped at their store because they would see it as people who are putting money into white community. Why would they care where that money came from? A supremacist on the other hand, would feel some sort of power in saying, “Your kind isn’t allowed.” There is a very big difference.
Here, on this site, there is this odd thinking that if you call yourself a white nationalist, it somehow makes you better than a supremacist. It’s very strange. I have seen so many supremacist blogs. Blogs that quite literally center around putting down other races and then I see post after post of that person being called a racist and/or white supremacist and their reply is always, “I’m not a supremacist, I’m a nationalist.” It makes me want to ask them what they think the difference is. I feel like, somewhere along the way, someone tried to explain this to them and the only thing they heard was “Nationalism isn’t as bad as supremacy” and ran with it.
The things is, I can’t put this all on white people. Many Black “Nationalists” have their own ignorant issues. While many white nationalist can’t tell the difference between nationalism and supremacy. Many Black nationalist cant tell the difference between nationalism and self loathing.
While incorrectly labeled white nationalists are spending their day lying about and attacking other races, incorrectly labeled Black nationalist are making lists of the “Correct” way to be Black. A Black nationalist should be working to uplift Black people, period. What I find from false nationalists is that they will have ready made lists of what it means to “Really” be Black. Black people don’t talk like this, walk like this, wear clothes like this, listen to music like this, they aren’t anything but straight and if you say otherwise, you are part of the demise. This is not nationalism. This is someone who read a couple of like minded books and thought that Black was a specific and definite thing.
Nationalism, true nationalism, wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world from any group because it is the omission of other races, not the attack of them. It also wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world because it’s purpose is to take pride in the specific group not separate the “Good” ones from the “Bad” ones.
But then…I’m talking about true nationalism. Not, supremacy or self loathing.
With all that said, I couldn’t be a nationalist myself because I think a key component of ending racism is putting correct information and imagery out about different races. A nationalist wouldn’t give a damn what other groups thought of them. Nor would they care what the information or imagery of other races was correct.
Despite the Boston bombers having little to do with Chechnya, the media were quick to demonise an entire ethnicity.
In 1901, a 28-year-old American named Leon Czolgosz assassinated US President William McKinley. Czolgosz was born in America, but he was of Polish descent. After McKinley died, the American media blamed Polish immigrants. They were outsiders, foreigners, with a suspicious religion - Catholicism - and strange last names.
At a time when Eastern European immigrants were treated as inferior, Polish-Americans feared they would be punished as a group for the terrible actions of an individual. “We feel the pain which this sad occurrence caused, not only in America, but throughout the whole world. All people are mourning, and it is caused by a maniac who is of our nationality,” a Polish-American newspaper wrote in an anguished editorial.
It is a sentiment reminiscent of what Muslims and Chechens are writing - or Instagramming - today, after the revelation that Dzokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, are of Chechen descent. At this time, there is no evidence linking the Tsarnaev brothers to a broader movement in Chechnya, a war-torn federal republic in southern Russia. Neither of the brothers has ever lived there. The oldest, Tamerlan, was born in Russia and moved to the US when he was sixteen. The youngest, Dzokhar, was born in Kyrgyzstan, moved to the US when he was nine, and became a US citizen in 2012.
Despite the Tsarnaevs’ American upbringing, the media has presented their lives through a Chechen lens. Political strife in the North Caucasus, ignored by the press for years, has become the default rationale for a domestic crime.
“Did Boston carnage have its roots in Stalin’s ruthless displacement of Muslims from Chechnya decades ago?” asked The Daily News , a question echoed by the National Post , the Washington Post , and other publications that refuse to see the Tsarnaevs as anything but walking symbols of age-old conflicts. Blame Stalin, the pundits cry, echoing the argument made every time something bad happens in the former Soviet Union. Blame Stalin, because we can pronounce that name.Second Boston Marathon suspect captured alive
In one sense, this sentiment is not new. American Muslims have long had to deal with ignorance and prejudice in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. “ Please don’t be Muslims or Arabs ”, goes the refrain, as unnecessary demands for a public apology from Muslims emerge. This week made it clear that it is Muslims who are owed the apology. After wild speculation from CNN about a “dark-skinned suspect”, on Thursday the New York Post published a cover photo falsely suggesting a Moroccan-American high school track star, Salah Barhoun , was one of the bombers. ”Jogging while Arab” has become the new “ driving while black ”.
Later that Thursday, the FBI released photos of two young men wearing baseball caps - men who so resembled all-American frat boys that people joked they would be the target of “ racial bro-filing ”. The men were Caucasian, so the speculation turned away from foreign terror and toward the excuses routinely made for white men who kill: mental illness, anti-government grudges, frustrations at home. The men were white and Caucasian - until the next day, when they became the wrong kind of Caucasian, and suddenly they were not so “white” after all.
Crucifying the wrong Caucasian
Muslims face prejudice, but Muslims from the Caucasus face a particular kind of prejudice - the kind born of ignorance so great it perversely imbues everything with significance. “There is never interpretation, understanding and knowledge when there is no interest,” Edward Said wrote in Covering Islam , and until this week, there was so little interest in and knowledge of the Caucasus that the ambassador of the Czech Republic felt compelled to issue a press release stating that the Czech Republic is not the same as Chechnya.
Knowing nothing of the Tsarnaevs’ motives, and little about Chechens, the American media tore into Wikipedia and came back with stereotypes. The Tsarnaevs were stripped of their 21st century American life and became symbols of a distant land, forever frozen in time. Journalist Eliza Shapiro proclaimed that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was “named after a brutal warlord”, despite the fact that Tamerlan, or Timur, is an ordinary first name in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Her claim is equivalent to saying a child named Nicholas must be named in honour of ruthless Russian tsar Nicholas I - an irony apparently lost on New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who made a similar denouncement on Twitter (to his credit, Kristof quickly retracted the comment).
Other journalists found literary allusions, or rather, illusions. “They were playing the nihilists Arkady and Bazarov in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons ,” explained scholar Juan Cole, citing an 1862 Russian novel to explain the motives of a criminal whose Twitter account was full of American rap lyrics. One does not recall such use of literary devices to ascertain the motives of less exotic perpetrators, but who knows? Perhaps some ambitious analyst is plumbing the works of Faulkner to shed light on that Mississippi Elvis impersonator who tried to send ricin to Obama.
Still others turned to social media as a gateway to the Chechen soul. Journalist Julia Ioffe - after explaining the Tsarnaevs through Tolstoy, Pushkin, and, of course, Stalin - cites the younger Tsarnaev’s use of the Russian website VKontakte as proof of his inability to assimilate, then ranks the significance of his personal photos.
“The most revealing image of Dzhokhar is not the one of him hugging an African-American friend at his high school graduation, but the one of him sitting at a kitchen table with his arm around a guy his age who appears to be of Central Asian descent,” she writes . “In front of them is a dish plov , a Central Asian dish of rice and meat, and a bottle of Ranch dressing.” Again, it is difficult to imagine a journalist writing with such breathtaking arrogance - why is the Central Asian friend more “revealing” than the African-American one? What, exactly, are they “revealing”? - about the inner life of someone from a more familiar place.Family in Dagestan defends Boston suspects
One way to test whether you are reading a reasonable analysis of the Tsarnaev case - and yes, they exist - is to replace the word “Chechen” with another ethnicity. “I could always spot the Chechens in Vienna,” writes journalist Oliver Bulloughs in the New York Times . “They were darker-haired than the Austrians; they dressed more snappily, like 1950s gangsters; they never had anything to do.” Now substitute the word “Jews” for “Chechens”. Minority-hunting in Vienna never ends well .
Demonising an ethnicity
It is easy to criticise the media, and after this disastrous week , there is much to criticise. But the consequences of the casual racism launched at Chechens - and by association, all other Muslims from the former Soviet Union, who are rarely distinguished from one another by the public - are serious. By emphasising the Tsarnaevs’ ethnicity over their individual choices, and portraying that ethnicity as barbaric and violent , the media creates a false image of a people destined by their names and their “ culture of terror ” to kill. There are no people in Chechnya, only symbols. There are no Chechen-Americans, only threats.
Ethnicity is often used to justify violent behaviour. But no ethnicity is inherently violent. Even if the Tsarnaevs aligned themselves with violent Chechen movements - and as of now, there is no evidence they did - treating Chechen ethnicity as the cause of the Boston violence is irresponsible.
One hundred years ago, the violent act of one Polish-American caused a country to treat all Polish-Americans with suspicion. Now, the Poles have become “white” - which is to say they are largely safe from the accusations of treason and murderous intent that ethnic groups deemed non-white routinely face. When a Polish-American commits a crime, his ethnicity does not go on trial with him.
But this change is not a triumph for America. It is a tragedy that it happened to Poles then, and a greater tragedy that we have not learned our lesson and it happens still - to Hispanics, to Arabs, to Chechens, to any immigrant who comes here seeking refuge and finds prejudice instead.
“I respect this country, I love this country,” the suspects’ uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, said in an emotional condemnation of his nephews. “This country which gives chance to everyone else to be treated as a human being.”
Chechens and other Muslim immigrants from the former Soviet Union are human beings. They are not walking symbols of violent conflict. Do not look to a foreign country to explain a domestic crime. Look to the two men who did it - and judge them by what they have done, not from where their ancestors came.
Sarah Kendzior is an anthropologist who recently received her PhD from Washington University in St Louis.
“Well when I say black people steal, I don’t mean like all of you. I just mean black people.”
When I say white people are racial supremacists that must work at normalcy/non-jackassery everyday, I don’t mean all of you. I just mean white people.