The one colonists hate the most:
indigenous lives matter.
But we're all indigenous to Earth.
Tell them to give the land back and they lose their shit.
I don't understand what "give the land back" means. Would you mind explaining it?
There are a lot of poor, oppressed people who live on land their ancestors didn't own. In the US, all Black people and most native Americans don't live within 1000 km of where their ancestors lived 600 years ago. So when land is given back, what happens to the people that currently reside there? Do natives become landlords? Is there ethnic cleansing? Or is it only land where people don't reside? Also, many native cultures didn't even have land ownership, so how do you give land back without forcing them into a western mould?
We could just abolish private property rights and accept that no individual or corporation can own land. That would be my preferred solution.
How does that function in practice? Doesn't that just immediately turn into a stupid bullshit version of mad max?
Commons - land maintained by the people in common - are a very common thing in non-capitalist societies. People in medieval England used to tend their animals on common land and get pissed at people who let their animals graze too much, eventually kicking them out by force if they continued to act selfishly.
Basically, acting selfishly is treated as a crime. Breaking into someone's home to sleep there when there is a vacant home available is selfish. Taking all the computers from the public library to earn respect in the next village over is selfish. Meanwhile doing good is appreciated and means others will do good to you in turn, but by default people are considered deserving of all basic necessities.
You might get a Mad Max scenario if you magically get unguarded commons by fiat. But we live in capitalism where the commons are looted into non-existence by default. For an anticapitalist movement to be successful, it has to guard and maintain its own commons against capitalism, compared to which Mad Maxoids are child's play. If we live in a society where private property can be abolished, we live in a society where the commons can be guarded.
How do you enforce it? How do you prevent enforcers from seizing power if they have a monopoly on violence?
That's kind of why I like the casino model. Local tribes put here have been buying their land back bit by bit and the casino goers gladly shovel money at them.
I just wish we could rope corporate entities into it. Imagine if casino losses could be a corporate tax writeoff. C-suites would be stumbling onto the floor with the company cards. The overnight wealth distribution would be staggering.
Gambling is a hugely exploitative industry which predominantly negatively impacts the poorest and most vulnerable. Casinos are also a dying business model.
Casinos are a parasitic and non-value added industry, exploiting lower classes and without any material gain.
I mean, it has been applied as a way to divide, like when Bernie proposed all sorts of policies to help the poor and mainstream media ran with "but what does Bernie do specifically for poor black people?"
That's not to say there aren't such specific concerns, but it wasn't like Hillary was doing any better in that regard. It was solely used as a way to make Bernie look less progressive. So instead we got Trump with the simple and straightforward "make america great again".
Fighting a war on multiple fronts is a great way to stretch your resources thin and muddy the strategy.
Bernie didn't lose by focusing on black people, he lost because the entire DNC apparatus worked against him.
Neither of you are wrong.
That was my point, the DNC and their mainstream media buddies said that he didn't focus enough on issues facing specifically black people. That was one of many attacks they made against him.
I prefer Cthulhu's position.
No lives matter, and that's a fact.
Most people want equality, justice, freedom and peace for all. I choose to believe that, at least.
It's a very difficult thing to just fight the entire state of the world, instead it's a much more achievable (and realistic) thing to fight for what affects your immediate group. I don't see anything wrong with that.
The issue that:
Most people
Are not you, and that a large percentage of the ruling classes do not want:
equality, justice, freedom and peace
Otherwise inequality, injustice, slavery, and war wouldn't exist. So we, the just indigenous liberators for peace have to fight against them lest we live by their oppressions.
I'm dumb, is the point the guy is wrong or that the white woman is wrong?
The point is that people generally have trouble seeing others' struggles they themselves don't face.
I understand the comic is pointing out hypocrisy. But I also see it as illustrating how perspective can shift depending on where one stands, especially if one does not already have a clear understanding of what intersectionality is and can intellectualize it. Both the guy and the woman do not seem to be portrayed as evil people, just misguided.
The black woman still sees the same underlying point, and the white woman now feels "left out". And perhaps she is next. In pops the Muslim woman.
Though this is clearly not the intended result, one must recognize that this is an underlying point of attack, an exploitable weakness. Bitterness can be created to break groups that otherwise have common interests apart, and without the overall coalition there is no power to enact change.
Ultimately, Black feminism is part of a broader feminist goal that is part of a broader humanist goal. We are together, we are aligned.
Yeah I think your last paragraph is vital to this discussion. Black feminism takes nothing from feminism as a whole, while adding quite a bit.
The white woman is being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.
And the guy is wrong.
being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.
I'm still stupid, can you fix the multiple negatives so I can understand
And the guy is wrong.
ok. thank you.
I believe it's essentially the "Black Lives Matter" /"All Lives Matter" situation. Yes, we are striving for equality, but the movements are worded to highlight those who are most affected/disenfranchised by the status quo.
Woman gets it when she's talking about the movement that applies specifically to her disenfranchisement, but not when she's in the "out" group of a rights movement
I believe that is the point of the comic But I disagree that these are comparable.
The all lives matter reaction was created by the far right and is coded in direct opposition of Black lives matter as a movement which they want to destroy.
Feminism, masculism and equalism are each not good or bad but require balance.
The goal of Feminism is to advocate for women rights, freedom, respect and understanding. We need focused feminism because our world is unbalancedly scaled towards men.
The (intended?) goal of Masculism is the same goal as feminism but for men, we need much less of this because the world is unbalanced in male favor but we still need some people focused on it to combat against male sexism and abuse, which is more rare but equally not ok.
The goal of equalism is to support the above to try and bring balance, to be a voice of non traditional gender groups that do not fit the traditional focus, and to opposite radical versions, comon toxic masculinity or J K Rowling style Feminism.
"Why is it called feminism, everyone should be treated equally," is exactly the same as saying, "why is it black lives matter, all lives matter?"
It's misrepresenting their goals by saying that people who fight for one aspect of an issue are saying that no other aspect of the issue matters.
Most people who support feminism believe that everyone should be treated equally, but one gender needs a lot more lifting up to get equality.
It's the same for BLM.
Feminists continue to lobby for priviledges in the west in aspects where they are already clearly ahead. They've stepped firmly into the side exceptionalism and supremacy.
Yes but I don’t think a proper equalist should make such a dumb statement, those are usually misogynists maskerading as equalist.
I consider myself an equalist and i have stated above exactly why i think feminism is important. To be an equalist in this time o history means to support feminism.
Must have taken a wrong turn, came here for comics.
stupid comic for liberal types - please understand that you standing up as an autistic black feminist with one leg and a penchant for grapefruits does not result in significant change for society. yes, you exist, the world is full of wealthy evil, lets do something about that instead of talking about ourselves.
Okay rightie, go have a cry.
This right here. This is when you realize you’re arguing with a idiot and don’t continue.
A call to arms for everyone to unite against the oligarchy.
"Okay rightie"
Ignoring key issues of discrimination of marginalised peoples makes you a rightie, yeah.
Doubly so when you spout AllLivesMatter trash like "we’re all indigenous to Earth" to ignore colonialism.
Ignoring key issues of discrimination of marginalised peoples
This is like saying that someone wanting to end all poverty is ignoring and discriminating against the single poorest person.
Stop acting like these things are zero-sum. It takes no extra effort to speak out against all instances of an injustice, compared to doing so only for certain instances of that injustice.
It takes no extra effort to speak out against all instances of an injustice, compared to doing so only for certain instances of that injustice.
This may be shocking to learn, but different peoples have different issues. A one size fits all approach is not the solution.
You're equivocating, for no reason, being equally sympathetic to an injustice regardless of the demographics of the victim in any given instance, with treating every case as if it's identical.
Those are completely unrelated things.
P.S. You 'may be shocked to learn' that starting a comment like that just makes you sound like a sanctimonious jerk.
Seems you lack the comprehension that deciding not to over-expose a symptom but rather treat the disease is not the same as ignoring. Unity is better than division (a very right-wing concept, right?).
Seems like you also lack humour.
If you want unity stop ignoring peoples issues. Discrimination doesn’t come from any one factor.
And fuck off with “humour” another typical right wing take - “its just a joke bro”.
You're doing nothing but baiting and trolling this whole post. Why don't you take your anger out in a healthy way and go for a jog or something. A worthy block if I ever saw one. Get helpful or get out.
Oh please, defending intersectionality from chuds is not baiting or trolling
Hey, I'm all for ending the divisiveness when everyone else is.
Anarchists are alt-left and should be treated as such. :)
Feminism is concerned with oppression of all people. It is almost like chuds shouldn't comment on things they won't understand.
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
