Anti-Social Justice

Anti-Social Justice MeMe

http://memegenerator.net/Anti-Social-Justice-Aaron/images/new/alltime/page/2

http://memegenerator.net/Privilege-Denying-Dude/images/new/alltime/page/2

Literacy Privilege

Literacy Privilege

http://paintingthegreyarea.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/literacy-privilege/

Fat Phobia and Thin Privilege

Fat Phobia and Thin Privilege

http://jezebel.com/5675725/if-youre-fat+phobic-youre-also-an-ignorant-bigoted-idiot

Sex Workers and Feminism

Sex Workers and Feminism

http://bornwhore.com/2012/12/07/hey-baby-how-much-stop-blaming-sex-workers-for-street-sexual-harassment/

Shit Liberals Say to Radicals

Shit Liberals Say to Radicals

http://shitliberalssaytoradicals.tumblr.com/

Ableism and Autism

Ableist Remarks

http://ableistshit.tumblr.com/page/10

15 Things You Should Never Say To An Autistic Person

http://www.autistichoya.com/2012/02/15-things-you-should-never-say-to.html

Gender

http://www.xyonline.net/

halloween

http://www.muskratmagazine.com/issue3/this-is-not-my-costume/

“

If I look up “carrot” in the dictionary, most people will acknowledge I do not know all there is to know about carrots and if I truly want to understand carrots, I should probably pick up a horticultural text book. We know that legal and medical terms are going to be, at best, simplistically represented and know we need to find a lawyer or a doctor if we want to know more. Anyone deciding to base their argument on, say, a philosophical concept or term using the dictionary is going to be laughed at at best, or automatically lose whatever argument they’re trying to make at least.

Yet the minute we move into a social justice framework, the ultimate authority changes. We don’t need lived experience, we don’t need experts who have examined centuries of social disparities and discrimination, we don’t need societal context. We don’t need sociology or history – no, we have THE DICTIONARY! That ultimate tome of oracular insight, the last word on any debate!

It’s patently ridiculous and you can see that by applying it to any other field of knowledge. But the privileged will continually trot out simplistic, twitter-style dictionary definitions as if they are the last word and the ultimate authority. No-one would drag out the dictionary to debate science with a scientist. But they’re more than willing to trot out a dictionary definition of racism over any sociological analysis. A dictionary is not the ultimate authority - they’re a rough guide for you to discover the simple meaning of words you’ve never heard before – not an ultimate definition of what the word means and all its contexts.

”

—	Sparky at Womanist Musings.

"Having privilege does not inherently make you a bad person. It's important for us to understand how the system gives certain groups more opportunities and less barriers over others. We ought to be conscious of how our privileges or the lack thereof have affected our lives.

For example, I recognize I have right-handed privilege. We shake with our right hands. School desks are set up for right-handed people. Cars are set up for right-handed people. Notebooks are designed for right-handed people. Guns are designed for right-handers. Appliances open to the right. (Great book: “The Right of Right Hand Privilege” by Jones) I cannot avoid the benefits I receive from the institutionalized system for being a right-handed person. You see, it's obvious that having this privilege does not make me a bad person. When left-handed people express their frustrations about the unfairness of the system, it is appropriate for me to wholeheartedly support left-handed people's effort to gain equality. I would not minimize their feelings, deny my right-handed privileges, get defensive, or accuse left-handed people for attacking me.

This applies to white privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege, heterosexual privilege, and so on.

Just understand how oppression of all sorts are a result of the institutionalized system that gives certain groups more access over others. Don’t take it personally, because it’s the system we’re talking about, not you. Just be aware that we are not equals, and be mindful of how you benefit from your privileges. Not so hard, I think."

Comprehensive resource list on racism

http://vasundharaa.tumblr.com/post/31917466176/this-is-a-resource-post-for-all-the-good-white

"i apologize in advance for a long comment - but here are my thoughts:

i also think a big issue is this misguided belief that there are two camps - one pro-asl and one pro-ci.... as if they are incompatible and it denies the reality of many deaf people. when rhi brought up the question of: "are you anti-ci?" it made me think of statements like "deaf schools only teach ASL" or "it's either ASL or speech" and so on. it's always this or that-- never allowing for gray areas, never allowing for individual experiences. i'll say this again- i've never seen a strictly "pro-asl" position. and what's up with this notion that *only* those who use ASL will be depending on the government? yet, those falsehoods are spread over and over again... usually by those who directly profits from oralism. 

just the other day i read an article promoting CI's. it had the usual stuff-- deaf people who sign cost the government thousands of dollars a year. it's always a "choice" - deaf children can hear and speak fluently if their parents choose ci's and private oral schools over ASL. they can be normal (not like those dirty signers). it ended with a deaf high school girl saying something like "if i signed, i don't think i could play sports." (where did she get this idea?)

where does this mindset come from? those type of statements are incredibly offensive and oppressive. again, it denies the reality of so many deaf people... including those in this group. how can one be neutral and support so-called parental choices then go around making dehumanizing statements? this is not supporting choice. this is promoting hate and ignorance.

personally, i think we need to better understand intersectionality and it's implications for social justice. what does it mean for deaf people? what does it mean for deaf children? are opinions from the two "camps" equal? are resources equal? is there a power imbalance. hell, are there even TWO camps? who has the power, money, and influence here? who is controlling information about deaf people, especially when it comes to ASL and the deaf community? why hasn't things changed in 100 years despite generation after generation of deaf people attempting to reclaim our truths? my answer is: audism and ableism. the american dream of "normalcy" at all costs.

i hope we all here can agree that it's not acceptable to discriminate, oppress, demean, and insult a group of people, especially when they are already marginalized in society. if we can agree on this, then it doesn't matter what kind of background you have or whether you consider yourself a member of the deaf community.

research is bullshit when you are talking about the reality of many deaf people. let's not deny ourselves the right to tell our truths. if you were successful with an oral education, i will not deny you the right to talk about that. i also ask that we don't deny the fact that the ideology of oralism has also hurt many many many deaf people. i ask that we listen to those who work with deaf children and their truths. on the same note, if you don't use ASL, let's not deny the fact that it is a cherished part of a culture - one that has "saved" the lives of many. a community that includes most who were raised orally.

i ask everyone here to please not support the spread of falsehoods about my language and my culture. i ask us all to attempt to better understand intersectionality and avoid using absolutes when discussing things like language (ASL) and hearing tools (CI's, hearing aids, etc). it is not about one or the other-- it is about social justice and honoring the human right to language. let's honor all deaf people past, present, and future that have been denied that right because of audism, linguicism, and ableism of varying degrees. 

i will continue to stand up and speak out against those who insist on continuing this attack on ASL/deaf culture."

If ever someone calls you out for an insulting and oppressive remark…
1. Pause and reflect.
2. Do some work to unpack your privilege.
3. Don’t talk about your intentions, because they don’t really matter, and your insistence that you didn’t mean it doesn’t undo the sting. When you make it...

http://resonantbodies.tumblr.com/post/20668612904/how-to-be-a-decent-human-being-lesson-the-umpteenth

Racial Equity Tools

https://secure40.securewebsession.com/racialequity.site.aplus.net/index.htm

Privilege 101

http://tjlp.org/privilege101.pdf

‎"Why aren’t White men subjected to racial profiling? Why aren’t White men closely scrutinized? Does any woman clutch her purse or cross to the other side of the street when approaching a White man? It’s no secret that Fortune 500 companies like Enron and persons holding positions of power that led to the housing debacle were White men. Not to mention the current Barclays investigation. White collar crime perpetrated against hard working employees and innocent consumers should make everyone suspicious of White men. Does this make sense?

I say no. At the root of racial profiling is fear, negative stereotyping and the lack of sufficiently meaningful relationships. Consider this – White men are found in every sector of society and are considered as a group the founders, backbone, and therefore creators of this country. Forty-three presidents, doctors, lawyers, teachers, business leaders, major news casters, athletes, bus drivers, pilots, engineers,entertainers, co-workers, colleagues, friends and next door neighbors. And let’s not forget fictionalized characters: Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, Superman, Spiderman, the Pillsbury Dough Boy and the list goes on. Even Jesus has been adopted and portrayed as a White man. And let us not forget the daily reinforcement via the media. Don Imus is offset by Dan Rather, Anderson Cooper, and many, many more. If the bad guy such as McVeigh is arrested, tried, convicted and executed as the perpetrator of such a horrendous crime, regardless the number of times his image is plastered in the media there are many more depictions of White men that are positive. When we have a plethora of positive images and experiences stored up, so when the perpetrator falls into the category – White Male – like an antibiotic we have enough positive history to counter any fear that may seep into our stream of consciousness. With so many positive roles models, and experiences, an isolated incident here and there does not nullify the overall picture and reputation. Conversely, in our society at large, Black and Brown adolescents and men do not have the same luxury. Nor do women of color."

http://www.canonashepherd.episcopalmaryland.org/?p=244

1976 flick, The Network

Howard Beale: Edward George Ruddy was the Chairman of the Board of the Union Broadcasting Systems, and he died at eleven o'clock this morning of a heart condition, and woe is us! We're in a lot of trouble! 

Howard Beale: [calmly strolling toward the audience] So. A rich little man with white hair died. What has that got to do with the price of rice, right? And *why* is that woe to us? Because you people, and sixty-two million other Americans, are listening to me right now. Because less than three percent of you people read books! Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers! Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube! This tube is the Gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers... This tube is the most awesome God-damned force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls in to the hands of the wrong people, and that's why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died. Because this company is now in the hands of CCA - the Communication Corporation of America. There's a new Chairman of the Board, a man called Frank Hackett, sitting in Mr. Ruddy's office on the twentieth floor. And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome God-damned propoganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this network? 
Howard Beale: [ascending the stage] So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is a God-damned amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that's the only place you're ever going to find any real truth. 

Howard Beale: [laughing to himself] But, man, you're never going to get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you want to hear; we lie like hell. We'll tell you that, uh, Kojak always gets the killer, or that nobody ever gets cancer at Archie Bunker's house, and no matter how much trouble the hero is in, don't worry, just look at your watch; at the end of the hour he's going to win. We'll tell you any shit you want to hear. We deal in *illusions*, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds... We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you! You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even *think* like the tube! This is mass madness, you maniacs! In God's name, you people are the real thing! *WE* are the illusion! So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off! Turn them off right in the middle of the sentence I'm speaking to you now! TURN THEM OFF...

Why Reverse Isms Don't Exist

http://queergiftedblack.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-reverse-isms-dont-exist.html

Why Reverse Racism Doesn’t Exist

http://racism-education.tumblr.com/post/20468906876/why-reverse-racism-doesnt-exist

I need white people to stop...

http://karnythia.tumblr.com/post/25486990496/i-need-white-people-to-stop-pretending-consent-was

A Primer on Intersectionality

http://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/pdf/intersectionality_primer.pdf

Is it OK for White People to Create Content about Indians?

http://www.lastrealindians.com/2012/02/08/is-it-ok-for-white-people-to-create-content-about-indians/

Evolution of Appropriation

http://whitepeoplecollectionagency.tumblr.com/post/26690949749/the-evolution-of-appropriation

How to be a fan of problematic things

http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011/09/how-to-be-a-fan-of-problematic-things/

J’accuse? On women who “collaborate” with the patriarchy

http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2011/09/j’accuse-on-women-who-“collaborate”-with-the-patriarchy/

The Revolution Will Not Be Polite: The Issue of Nice versus Good

Social justice is about destroying systematic marginalisation and privilege. Wishing to live in a more just, more equal world is simply not the same thing as wishing to live in a “nicer” world.

Plenty of oppressive bullshit goes down under the guise of nice. Every day, nice, caring, friendly people try to take our bodily autonomy away from us (women, queers, trans people, nonbinaries, fat people, POC…you name it, they just don’t think we know what’s good for us!)."

http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2012/04/the-revolution-will-not-be-polite-the-issue-of-nice-versus-good/

Rape Culture 101

http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html?m=1

The do’s, don’ts, maybes, and I-don’t-knows of cultural appropriation.

http://apihtawikosisan.com/2012/01/30/the-dos-donts-maybes-i-dont-knows-of-cultural-appropriation/

RACE - The Power of an Illusion

http://newsreel.org/guides/race/whiteadv.htm

Walking While Female: A Story of Sexual Assault in Broad Daylight

http://jezebel.com/5925786/walking-while-female-a-story-of-sexual-assault-in-broad-daylight

Asked and Answered: Reflections on White Anti-Racism, My Work and Certain Recurring Critiques - Tim Wise

http://www.timwise.org/2012/07/asked-and-answered-reflections-on-white-anti-racism-my-work-and-certain-recurring-critiques/

BEING HUMAN by Naima

I wonder if the sun debates dawn
some mornings
not wanting to rise
out of bed
from under the down-feather horizon

If the sky grows tired
of being everywhere at once
adapting to the mood swings of the weather

If the clouds drift off
trying to hold themselves together
make deals with gravity
to loiter a little longer

I wonder if rain is scared
of falling
if it has trouble letting go

If snow flakes get sick
of being perfect all the time
each one trying to be one-of-a-kind

I wonder if stars wish
upon themselves before they die
if they need to teach their young to shine

I wonder if shadows long
to once feel the sun
if they get lost in the shuffle
not knowing where they’re from

I wonder if sunrise and sunset
respect each other
even though they’ve never met

If volcanoes get stressed
If storms have regrets
If compost believes in life after death

I wonder if breath ever thinks
about suicide
I wonder if the wind just wants to sit
still sometimes
and watch the world pass by

If smoke was born knowing how to rise
If rainbows get shy back stage
not sure if their colors match right

I wonder if lightning sets an alarm clock
to know when to crack
If rivers ever stop
and think of turning back

If streams meet the wrong sea
and their whole lives run off-track
I wonder if the snow wants to be black

If the soil thinks she’s too dark
If butterflies want to cover up their marks
If rocks are self-conscious of their weight
If mountains are insecure of their strength

I wonder if waves get discouraged
crawling up the sand
only to be pulled back again
to where they began

I wonder if land feels stepped upon
If sand feels insignificant
If trees need to question their lovers
to know where they stand

If branches waver in the crossroads
unsure of which way to grow
If the leaves understand they’re replaceable
and still dance when the wind blows

I wonder where the moon goes
when she is hiding
I want to find her there
and watch the ocean
spin from a distance
Listen to her
stir in her sleep

effort gives way to existence

http://reinventionoftheprintingpress.tumblr.com/post/2407828740

All About Male Privileges - a List

http://aboutmaleprivilege.tumblr.com/post/26721844679/heterosexual-male-privilege-is-talking-about-how

Are you a white liberal/progressive/radical? Please read this. Thank you.

http://dearmostwhitepeople.tumblr.com/

Fourteen Ways Your Racism is Showing

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/analysis/opinion/fourteen-ways-racism-showing/

White Racism, White Supremacy, White Privilege and the Social Construction of Race

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/analysis/white-racism-white-supremacy-white-privilege-social-construction-race-2/

Five Reasons Non-Indigenous People Should Boycott "Indian" Iconography in Sports

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/lefthook/five-reasons-non-indigenous-people-should-boycott-indian-iconography-sports?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rabble-news+%28rabble.ca+-+News+for+the+rest+of+us%29

Bell Hooks: Talking Race and Racism (bullet points)

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/bell-hooks-talking-race-and-racism/

Top 10 Lines for Rape Apologists

http://lucy-loveless.tumblr.com/post/26982817010/top-10-lines-for-rape-apologists

Tools for Liberation - Anti-Oppression Ally

http://safehousealliance.org/index.cfm?objectid=B62DEEAF-D614-E19E-23473B22486BF288

What It Takes to Be a Good Ally?

http://zinelibrary.info/files/combinedallyshippdf.pdf

"The Lakotas are now a sad, silent, and unprogressive people suffering the fate of all oppressed," Standing Bear said. "Today you see but a shattered specimen, a caricature... of a man that once was. Did a kind, wise, helpful, and benevolent conqueror bring this about? Can a real, true, genuinely superior social order work such havoc?"

-In the Spirit of Crazy Horse

"In early 1900's, the soldiers were replaced by bureaucrats, including educators whose official task was to break down the cultural independence of the people. On pain of imprisonment, the Lakota were forbidden the spiritual renewal of traditional ceremonies; even the ritual purification of the sweat lodge was forbidden. They were not permitted to wear Indian dress or sew beadwork, their children were seized and taken away to government boarding schools at the Pine Ridge Agency, and use of their own language was discouraged. They were, however, invited to celebrate American Independence Day on the Fourth of July, which they used as a secret memorial to Wounded Knee and later adapted to their own giveaway festivals and powwows.

'We felt mocked in our misery,' old Red Cloud said. 'We had no one to speak for us, we had no redress. Our rations were reduced again. You who eat three times a day and see your children well and happy around you cannot understand how starving Indians feel.'"

"In 1890, Big Foot was the leading traditional chief. He set out with his people on a long winter trek across the Badlands, seeking safety with Red Cloud's people on Pine Ridge; two weeks later, Big foot and two hundred or more Minnecojou men, women, and children, were relentlessly hunted down and slaughtered while fleeing for their lives by men who received twenty Congressional Medals of Honor from a grateful government."

-In the Spirit of Crazy Horse

"Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1873 said, 'There is no question of national dignity... involved in the treatment of savages by a civilized power.' He went on to say that the purpose of the reservation was to reduce "the wild beats to the condition of supplicants for charity."

"Colonel George Custer was a champion of the view that the nature of the aborigine was far more "cruel and ferocious" than that of any "wild beast of the desert," and that in no way did the red man deserve to be treated like a human being."

-In the Spirit of Crazy Horse

"The Commissioner of Indian Affairs remarked in 1872, 'The progress on the Northern Pacific Railroad will of itself completely solve the great Sioux problem, and leave the ninety thousand Indians ranging between the two transcontinental lines as incapable of resisting the Government...'

-In the Spirit of Crazy Horse

"What does Mount Rushmore mean to us Indians?" asked John Fire Lame Deer

"It means that these big white faces are telling us, 'First we gave you Indians a treaty that you could keep these Black Hills forever, as long as the sun would shine, in exchange for all of the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana. Then we found the gold and took this last piece of land, because we were stronger, and there were more of us than were of you, and because we had cannons and Gatling guns, while you hadn't progressed far enough to make a steel knife.

And when you didn't want to leave, we wiped you out, and those of you who survived, we put on reservations. And then we took the gold out, a billion bucks, and we aren't through yet.

And because we like the tourist dollars, too, we have made your sacred Black Hills into one vast Disneyland. And after we did all this we carped up this mountain, the dwelling place of your spirits, and put our four gleaming white faces here. We are the conquerors..."

-In the Spirit of Crazy Horse

"Is it the aim of government simply to maintain order, as a referee, between two equally matched fighters? Or is it that government has some special interest in maintaining a certain kind of order, a certain distribution of power and wealth, a distribution in which government officials are not neutral referees but participants? In that case, the disorder they might worry about is the disorder of popular rebellion against those monopolizing the society's wealth. This interpretation makes sense when one looks at the economic interests, the social backgrounds, of the makers of the Constitution."

-A People's History, Howard Zinn

"Wasn't it the nature of representative government, even when most broadly based, to be conservative, to prevent tumultuous change?"

-A People's History, Howard Zinn

"The rich must, in their own interest, either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates.

Beard studied the economic backgrounds and political ideas of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the Constitution. He found that a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most of them were men of wealth, in land, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping, that half of the had money loaned out at interest, and that forty of the fifty-five held government bonds, according to the records of the Treasury Department.

Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds.

Four groups, Beard noted, were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of those groups."

-A People's History, Howard Zinn

War benefits the rich, not poor

"Revolutionary America may have been a middle-class society, happier and more prosperous than any other in its time, but it contained a large and growing number of fairly poor people, and many of them did much of the actual fighting and suffering between 1775 and 1783: A very old story.

The Military conflict itself diminished other issues, made people choose sides in the one contest that was publicly important, forced people onto the side of the Revolution whose interest in Independence was not at all obvious. Ruling elites seem to have learned through the generations - consciously or not - that war makes them more secure against internal trouble.

 The force of military preparation had a way of pushing neutral people into line. In Connecticut, a law was passed requiring military service of all males between sixteen and sixty, omitting certain government officials, ministers, Yale students and faculty, Negroes, Indians, and mulattos. Someone called to duty could provide a substitue or get out of it by paying 5 pounds."

-A People's History, Howard Zinn

"In 1700s, someone wrote to the New York Gazette, 'Is it equitable that 99 should suffer for the extravagance or grandeur of one, especially when it is considered that men frequently owe their wealth to the impoverishment of their neighbors?'"

-A People's History, Howard Zinn

1% vs 99% in 1700s

"The colonies grew fast in the 700s. Through all that growth, the upper class was getting most of the benefits and monopolized political power. The top 1% of the population consisted of 50 rich individuals who had 25% of the wealth. By 1770, the top 1% of property owners owned 44% of the wealth.

In the middle 1700s, colonial New England found that vagabonds and paupers kept increasing. There was a concentration of wealth,  widening of the gap between rich and poor. The colonies, it seems, were societies of contending classes.

The country therefore was not "born free" but born slave and free, servant and master, tenant and landlord, poor and rich."

-A People's History, Howard Zinn

"Was all this bloodshed and deceit- from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the Puritans - a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization? Was Morison right in burying the story of genocide inside a more important story of human progress? Perhaps a persuasive argument can be made - as it was made by Stalin when he killed peasants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima. But how can the judgment be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced because the losses are either unmentioned or mentioned quickly?

The quick disposal might be acceptable ("Unfortunate, yes, but it had to be done.") to the middle and upper class of the conquering and "advanced" countries. But is it acceptable to the poor of Asia, Africa, Latin America, or to the prisoners in Soviet labor camps, or the blacks in urban ghettos, or the Indians on reservations - to the victims of that progress which benefits a privileged minority in the world?

If there are necessary sacrifices to be made for human progress, is it not essential to hold to the principle that those to be sacrificed must make the decision themselves? We can all decide to give up something of ours, but do we have the right to throw into the pire the children of others, or even our own children, for a progress which is not nearly as clear or present as sickness or health, life or death?"

-A People's History, Howard Zinn

An Important Message for Us to Ruminate

"Greetings everyone,

We all got caught up with Duggard infestation and got it cleaned up. The blogging, vlogging, Tweeting, Facebooking, and word of hand spreading around became viral. The action we partook in was not based on a localized community front, but rather a strong national front consisting of deaf people from all across the U.S, which for me is very rare.

To be a Social Justice Activist, we must be continuously aware of our privileges. ALWAYS. For instance, I am a Deaf, Blind, and Queer Woman of Color, yet I still have many privileges that other people do not have within our community. I ask you activist to please be mindful when you ask us, especially culturally conscious Deaf people of color (DPOC), to participate in Deaf causes. People often make the fatal mistake of associating culturally conscious DPOC with other DPOC who only want to only associate themselves with being just Deaf. No one within the Deaf community would like it if d/Deaf people, who do not believe in language rights, to collaborate with hearing people by telling them that we, Deaf people, are making to big of a deal about language oppression. We would be infuriated if people within our community would try to unhinge hundreds of years of constant work for the sake of ASL rights.

The most deliberative, harmful and destructive mistake that you could make is to ask us:

“As a Deaf person of color, this is why you should fight with us because it impacts you in many ways that you could never imagine.”

You just reconfirmed and signed a proclamation that you are way more privileged than we will ever be by saying that.

• Where were you when Deaf children of color, undocumented immigrant children, adopted children (internationally) and Deaf children of refugees were not getting language rights? Where were you when they were being bullied because they lacked ASL competency? When Special Ed specialists assigned ASL tutoring for EVERY inner city (black and latin@) Deaf children?

• Where were you when Deaf Queer youth and adults were constantly bullied and taunted in the Deaf community? We wrote them off as pranks. It is not those whom are LGBTQQI activist job to fight- it is yours as well, if you claim to be a social justice activist.

• Why are we not fighting for the Deaf Blind communities? We only joined when a Deaf Blind leader shakes up something.

• Why we are not holding our rapists and abusers accountable? Complicity equates violations; you knew about it and say it’s not your business as she/he continues to abuse this person or people. You make excuses for those rapist and abusers by saying that they could not have done so: because they are well known, and highly respected Deaf leaders. Having rapist, who hold highly respected positions within our community is indeed, terrifying.

• Why do we allow Rape Culture to be a part of the “Deaf /ASL experience”? Why do we make a mockery of survivors by making rape jokes, gestures in ASL? That should never be allowed- but we do not fight against them. It is not just the Deaf Domestic Violence Agencies’ job but yours too, if you claim to be a social justice activist.

• Where were you when the Deaf community practiced “colorblindness”? The concept of “We all are the same” is what is breaking up the communities within the Deaf community because privileged people continue to say “we are all the same” and not acknowledge DPOC’s injustice which in the same breath marginalizes and minimizes the oppression we face.

• Where were you when Deaf Leaders and Deaf elitists continued to minimize Deaf marginalized people? Something is wrong with this equation:

A= Deaf Person of Color B= Privileged White, Deaf person

a. I don’t mind fighting with you to protest against AGB. Will you fight with me to stop racism in Deaf schools?

b. “Racism in Deaf schools, never heard!” But audism is very big- sure I’ll fight with you!

a. Im not talking about audism. Im talking about racism, oppression based on the color of my skin.

b. We, Deaf people don’t do that, we all are the same- D E A F ! I think you need to reevaluate the issues. I don’t think its racism, but more so the establishment of cliques.

As a Social Justice Activist, I know my job. I know what is required of me, and being non-judgmental is one of them. To watch and listen fervently, to validate, to not minimize other people’s experiences are also very key components that I take responsibility in. Most importantly, I do it for ALL without questioning your cultural identity, language identity, and community identity. The only people/groups I will READILY challenge is the white, body abled, heterosexual man/men (both hearing and Deaf) and white people who claim to be Social Justice activist and ask me to stand with them because they need a person of color (tokenism).

I close in hopes that we have all learned something from the Duggard storm and that we really need to take the time to revisit what it means to be a “Social Justice Activist”. We should be having communities within the community dialogues- redevelop our approach; actively listening and participating.

Actively yours,

Stephanie D. Johnson"

"Paw-Paw,

Thank you for sharing your viewpoint on the U.S. history and the current reality of black people and other cultural minorities. I wholeheartedly disagree with you on most parts, but I respect your right to your own beliefs. I hope you acknowledge that neither of us should occupy a position of subjugation in our dialogue. I recognize that conflicting worldviews and actions exist in a world and a period of life that belongs to both of us equally. However, please do not carry an inherent assumption that only your views are right, and that at the end of the day, I'm going to see it your way.

I am well educated on the history of Civil War, and I am aware of what went on in the North and South in terms of economy and politics. I have read the Emancipation Proclamation myself. I have read stories written by slaves and slave owners. Obviously, I see the history through completely different lens from yours. I am not interested in what the oppressors have to say, or what their reasons for oppressing marginalized groups were. I’m interested in learning from the oppressed groups, and how resilience had helped them survive through those times.

As a white person, I often am blinded by my unearned privileges, just like how right-handed people are often unaware of how school desks are set up for right-handed people, baseball mitts are designed for right-handed people, guns are designed for right-handers to shoot, and appliances open to the right, making it easy for right-handers to open, while left-handed people have a harder time with those things. This is a small example of how we all have different forms of privileges that we often overlook. Those privileges may unintentionally or intentionally make our lives a bit easier.

Because of this, I often make a point to check in with the minority group, be it Black, Latino, Women, Deaf, Homosexual, Blind, or Left-handed people when talking about their history and current issues. When I want to know what misogyny is, I don’t ask a man. When I want to know what racism is, I don’t ask a white person. When I want to know what homophobia is, I don’t ask a heterosexual person. The definitions of oppression are best articulated by the oppressed.

I know I have benefits of being a white person in this society. I’m a racist. Being a racist doesn’t means I hate black people. Racism is not simply a series of random, isolated, overt acts by individuals. It is an institutionalized system of reality that infects every action and thought and requires conscious action to combat and reject. Like most right-handed people, I recognize that I am unaware of AND benefit from my privileges as a right-handed person. Like most white people, I am unable to see things from the oppressed's perspective whilst black people live it, breath it, and see it every day. Most people think being called a "racist" is a personal attack, and some people use this term to attack others. I can understand why white people like myself can get defensive when this happens and say, "No! I'm not a racist! I just don't see it the way you do!" BUT the reason why we don't see it the way people of color do is because we are ALSO victims of the racist system. We DO say, think, and do racist things without realizing it. So when someone points this out to us, I do hope that we, white people, are able to examine our position of power and privilege. I always believe and support the oppressed group, even if I can't see "it".

Here is a checklist of white privilege: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsap.mit.edu%2Fcontent%2Fpdf%2Fwhite_privilege_checklist.pdf

I know you don’t hate people of color, but you do have a patronizing perception of them. “I have black friends, I grew up around black people, my ancestors treated black slaves well” do not, and should not mean anything. You have white friends, you grew up around white people, your ancestors treated white people well too. Why should black people be any different? You did the right thing by treating everyone with equal respect and dignity.

The difference is that the majority of black people continue to experience discrimination, not by you perhaps, but by many other white people who perceive them as dangerous, uneducated, and inferior. I even had this perception myself while growing up due to the media’s negative portrayal of black people, due to many black people living in the poor areas, and due to the amount of black people in jail. Now, I realize that the reason why they are poor is because the system (set up by white people) does not work in their favor, just like the reason why many Deaf people are uneducated, because the system (set up by hearing people) had failed to provide the education that we needed.

Here is a concrete example of how people of color are being discriminated against in our country. In 2009, NYPD stopped 575,000 New Yorkers. Of those stopped, around 490,000 were black or latino. Even though nine times as many people of color were stopped, the NYPD found that of all people stopped, white people were most likely to be carrying illegal drugs and illegal weapons. Black people receive 60% longer sentences for same crimes as white people.

This is just one example among many I’ve been reading from the people of color community. We cannot deny that injustice exists in our country. I’m trying to be more aware and educated on this topic so I will not contribute to the problem by being colorblind and ignorant of what most marginalized groups experience in U.S.

I know some successful black people too, but it does not invalidate that there is a functional racism in the country on a larger scale (this form of discrimination also exists for women, Gay people, Deaf people, and other marginalized groups)

I do not expect you to agree with me, and that is completely okay. However, I do hope you understand the lens I see the world with.

I know your viewpoint, and now you know mine. I know the kind of person you are, and now you know who I am. I am not interested in continuing this dialogue any further if the goal is to change one or the other’s mind. But if the goal is to get us to know each other better, then I’m comfortable with this.

Cheers,

Leala"

"Hi Leala,

Your thinking is so bent that you are not aware of the extremely high number of blacks that commit crime as compared to whites.  As usual you are offended by the truth.  If the TRUTH makes me racist, then so be it. I am racist and proud of it, although none of my black or white friends would call me a racist. Even they are offended by the overt actions by the crimimal blacks. No matter horrendous the offences of blacks against all races you still make excuses for them. What does that make you, a Socialist?  You even twist my innocent and heart felt words and use them against me by calling me "racist."  That is extremely cruel to an old man simply trying to help a wayward granddaughter see just a little truth.  I have come to the conclusion that you do not recognize even simple basic truth. I have heard that Liberalism is not so much a political ideology as it is a mental disorder.  You appear to be trying SOOOOOOOOO to prove that.

I will continue to pray for your eyes to be opened.

In Christ,

Love,

Paw Paw"

"I would not want to associate myself with an overtly racist grandpa who promotes prejudice, hate and superficial lies about other minority groups. Good bye.

Leala"

"Men are not unmindful of the rape problem. To the contrary, their paternalistic laws reserve the harshest penalties for a violation of their property (women). They approach rape as an illegal enroachment by an unlicensed intruder, a stranger come into their midst, the advice they gave (and still try to give) was all of one piece: a set of rules and regulations designed to keep their property penned in, much as a sheepherder might try to keep his flock protected from an outlaw rustler by taking precautions against their straying too far from the fold. By seeing the rapist always as a stranger, never as one of their own, and by viewing the female as a careless creature with an unfortunate tendency to stray, they exhorted, admonished and warned the female to hide herself from male eyes as much as possible.

In short, they told her not to claim the privileges they reserved for themselves. Such advice - well intentioned, solicitous and genuinely concerned - succeeded only in further aggravating the problem, for the message they gave was to live a life of fear, and to it they appended the dire warning that the woman who did not follow the rules must be held responsible for her own violation.

What the rules tell us implicitly and explicitly is:

1) A woman alone probably won't be able to defend herself. Another woman who might possibly come to her aid will of no use whatsoever.

2) Despite the fact that it is men who are the rapists, a woman's ultimate security lies in being accompanied by men at all times.

3) A woman who claims to value her sexual integrity cannot expect the same amount of freedom and independence that men routinely enjoy. Even a small pleasure like taking a spin in an automobile with the windows open is dangerous, reckless behavior.

4) In the exercise of rational caution, a woman should engage in an amazing amount of pretense. She should function on a sustained level of suspicion that approaches a clinical definition of paranoia.

A woman who follows this sort of special cautionary advice and thinks she is acting in society's interest - or even in her own personal interest - is deluding herself rather sadly. This does not diminish the number of potential rapists on the loose, and the ultimate effect of rape upon the woman's mental and emotional health has been accomplished even without the act.

To accept a special burden of self-protection is to reinforce the concept that women must live and move about in fear and can never expect to achieve the personal freedom, independence, and self-assurance of men.

That's what rape is all about, isn't it? A possible deep-down reason why even the best of our concerned, well-meaning men run to stereotypic warnings when they seek to grapple with the problem of rape deterrence is that they prefer to see rape as woman's problem, rather than as a societal problem resulting from a distorted masculine philosophy of aggression."

-Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape

"Once we accept as basic truth that rape is not a crime of irrational, impulsive, uncontrollable lust, but is a deliberate, hostile, violent act of degradation of possession on the part of a would-be conqueror, designed to intimidate and inspire fear, we must look toward those elements in our culture that promote and propagandize these attitudes, which offer men, and in particular, impressionable, adolescent males, who form the potential raping population, the ideology and psychological encouragement to commit their acts of aggression without awareness, for the most part, that they have committed a punishable crime, let alone a moral wrong.

The myth of the heroic rapist that permeates false notions of masculinity, from the successful seduced to the man who "takes what he wants when he wants it," is inculcated in young boys from the time they first become aware that being male means access to certain rites and privileges."

-Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape

"The most bitter irony of rape, I think, has been the historic masculine fear of false accusation, a fear that has found expression in male folklore since the Biblical days, which has formed the crux of the legal defense against a rape charge, aided and abetted by that special set of evidentiary standards (consent, resistance, chastity, corroboration) designed with one collective purpose in mind: to protect the male against a scheming, lying, vindictive woman.

Fear of false accusation is not entirely without merit in any criminal case, as is the problem of misidentification, an honest mistake, but the irony, of course, is that while men successfully convinced each other and us that women cry rape with ease and glee, the reality of rape is that victimized women have always been reluctant to report the crime and seek legal justice - because of the shame of public exposure, because of that complex double standard that makes a female feel culpable, even responsible, for any act of sexual aggression committed against her, because of possible retribution from the assailant (once a woman has been raped, the threat of a return engagement understandably looms large), and because women have been presented with sufficient evidence to come to the realistic conclusion that their accounts are received with a harsh cynicism that forms the first line of male defense.

FBI's Uniform Crime Reports noted that 15% of all rape reports were determined by investigation to be untrue. A 15% figure for false accusations is undeniable high, yet when New Your City instituted a special sex crimes analysis squad and put policewomen (instead of men) in charge of interviewing complainants, the number of false charges dropped dramatically to 2%, a figure that corresponded exactly to the rate of false reports for other violent crimes.

The lesson in the mystery of the vanishing statistic is obvious. Women believe the word of other women. Men do not."

-Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape

"Handing over money at knife point, or dipping into one's wallet to assuage a weaponless but menacing figure on a dark, deserted street, may be financially painful or emotionally distressing, but it hardly compares to the massive insult to one's self-determination that is sustained during a sexual assault.

In a sexual assault, physical harm is much more than a threat; it is a reality because violence is an integral part of the act. Yet, the nature of the crime as it is practiced does bear robbery a close resemblance, because the sexual goal for the rapist resembles the monetary goal of the robber.

Under the rules of law, victims of robbery and assault are not required to prove they resisted, or that they didn't consent, or that the act was accomplished with sufficient force, or sufficient threat of force, to overcome their will, because the law presumes it highly unlikely that a person willingly gives away money, except to a charity or to a favorite cause, and the law presumes that no person willingly submits to a brutal beating and the infliction of bodily harm and permanent damage. But victims of rape and other forms of sexual assault do need to prove these evidentiary requirements - that they resisted, that they didn't consent, that their will was overcome by overwhelming force and fear - because the law has never been able to satisfactorily distinguish an act of mutually desired sexual union from an act of forced, criminal sexual aggression.

The real reason for the law's everlasting confusion as to what constitutes an act of rape and what constitutes an act of mutual intercourse is the underlying cultural assumption that it is the natural masculine role to proceed aggressively toward the stated goal, while the natural feminine role is to "resist" or "submit." And so to protect male interests, the law seeks to gauge the victim's behavior during the offending act in the belief that force or the threat of force is not conclusive in and of itself.

Since terror is a psychological reaction and not an objective standard that can be read on a behavior meter six months later in court, current employed standards of resistance or threat of force have neve been able to accurately gauge a victim's terror. For this reason, feminists have argued that the burden of proof that devolves on a rape victim, that she resisted "within reason," that her eventual compliance was no indication of tacit "consent," is unfair, since such standards are not applied in court to the behavior of victims in other kinds of violent crime.

A jury should be permitted to weigh the word of a victimized complainant at face value, no more or less a right that is granted to other victims under the law."

-Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape