I’m so disappointed in American Girl. So disappointed. They’ve been doing this Girl of the Year thing for a few years now and the list of diversity is as follows:
• Jewish girl (she was the first one! Yay!)
• Puerto Rican girl from the Bronx who loved to dance (um…we can do better)
• An Indian “friend” for one of the Girls, who had no story and no personality besides “Becky #12’s friend”.
Like…the new girl of the year is a blonde, blue eyed ballerina. They literally went as white as they could possibly go this time. And they’re gonna run ads and push the books for this useless Becky for a whole year.
Fuck you, American Girl.
Can’t even get a Black doll outside of slavery, but every Girl of the Year is gonna be white.
Got one doll representing past and present Native Americans, but every Girl of the Year is gonna be white.
The one Hispanic doll is technically Mexican, but every Girl of the Year is gonna be white.
Can’t have an Asian historical doll in her own right, but every Girl of the Year is gonna be white.
You can fuck right off, American Girl.
This is about Voodoo in New Orleans, and the main character is supposed to be descended from Marie Levau. Why the fuck is she white?
How. Fucking. Dare. You.
How dare you erase the existence of black Jews to justify your shitheaded racism?
How dare you use our oppression as a prop to beat other oppressed groups with?
How dare you use us to promote the same white supremacist bullshit that was used to oppress us in the first place?
And while you’re at it, go fuck yourself.
This doesn’t even scan right!
“I.Q. tests designed by privileged German Americans…”
What, the same overarching intellectual society within which Ashkenazi Jews lived? Because obviously they’re equating ‘Jew’ with ‘Ashkenazi’ here. And those ‘privileged German Americans’ were sometimes… wait for it… JEWS.
Just… the logical fallacy here is appalling. Beyond its normal level.
Then there’s also the part of who those invoked Ashkenazi Jews *are*. They are self-selected. SELF. SELECTED. Ashkenazi Jews were not captured, brought over as slaves, or slaughtered IN AMERICA. They came by choice! And not only choice. Not only was passage not forced, it had to be won. What does that tend to entail? Money. What does *that* tend to entail? Inherited resources and/or high intelligence (according to the environment within which one will be working) and/or marketable skills. European Jewry in the U.S. has *always* been predominantly composed of people who *already had* the means and/or potential to flourish in American society.
A few years ago, an acquaintance with limited life contact with Jews—a recent immigrant from Yemen—asked me why all Jews were rich. There are two components to my answer: 1) Not all Jews are rich, but that’s the popular image put out in the U.S. at least—of the comfortably upper-middle class Ashkenazi intellectual; 2) that popular image *does* represent a certain large group of Jews, the primarily Eastern European Ashkenazim that came to the U.S. pre-WWII… and those people who came over had the means to do so, the knowledge that they could market their skills and intellect in this country, and/or the smarts/awareness necessary to realize that if they didn’t get the fuck out of Europe they were doomed.
The people who weren’t cynical and aware enough to understand Hitler’s rise for what it was? And/or didn’t have the resources to do anything about it? They died. En masse.
So not only is the subgroup the comic invokes self-selected, they are, in essence, a sort of elite in terms of integrating into U.S. society, and came from the ideal intellectual background to ace those IQ tests.
As for the assumption that IQ tests should hold merit… when Ashkenazim started acing those tests in the U.S. and qualifying over White Christians in large numbers, the test scores were dismissed as fundamentally flawed and quotas were put in place to allow elite schools to remain nearly Jew-free. People will manipulate any standard they devise to get the results they want.
The Confederacy would use similar techniques to the North, but one technique that the South utilized significantly more was an appeal to fear. This is exemplified most clearly in Southern propaganda featuring miscegenation – “the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, cohabitation, sexual relations, and procreation”. The following image from Edward Williams Clay is titled “The Amalgamation Waltz” and it depicts a ballroom dance where African-American men dance with Caucasian women, while their would-be Caucasian male escorts watch from the balcony. This image insinuates that the abolition of slavery and the amalgamation of freed slaves would result in, what would be considered horrible, miscegenation. Thus, The Amalgamation Waltz cartoon clearly draws on it’s audience’s sense of fear.
"In some ways it was easier for my generation. Racism was blatant and obvious. The “Whites Only” signs let us know clearly, what we were up against. Not much has changed, but the system of lies and tricknology is much more sophisticated. Today young people have to be highly informed and acutely analytical, or they will be swept up into a whirlpool of lies and deception."
Taken from her book “Assata: In Her Own Words” (page 31)
After seeing, for the billionth time, someone say that they do not accept the “New” definition of racism, I started to wonder about those that define our words. How and why a word is defined at all.
I found something pretty interesting. (Well, if you’re a nerd like me!) According to Merriam-Webster, words that show up in the dictionary are simply the most commonly used words. Things that at one time were considered slang, may eventually be included as an “Official” word. Which is why, words like “LOL” have made it into the dictionary. (Yes, it’s really there.) It isn’t just a passing fad of a word but words that have staying power. The words are mainly chosen by how many different references can be found where the word itself is used. How it works in our vernacular and how (or if) it can be defined succinctly.
This is very important when considering those who “Reject” the “New” definition of racism. I put the word “New” in quotations because the definition that I and many others consider to be the most accurate definition, is not new at all. I actually saw someone reference it, as they put it, “The term was invented by a white woman in the 1990’s.” Can you imagine? The idea of systematic racism being something only thought of in the 1990’s? Yes, I suppose a racist who has made the conscious decision to be racist in the first place, would take some comfort in such an outlandish and quite frankly, idiotic thought. It’s a shame there were so many books written on the very subject of systematic racism long before the 1990’s. Woops! Oh and as for the specific term, it was actually credited to Stokely Carmichael in the 1960’s but why would a racist credit anything to a Black man?
So what does all this have to do with racism and the dictionary? Well, I’ll give you a few selections from Merriam-Webster on the subject of words.
“Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it’s used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them.”
- This is important because of the date it was added to the book itself. When a word is used has a great deal to do with how it is used. To deny this is to deny the very idea of change itself.
“Change and variation are as natural in language as they are in other areas of human life and Merriam-Webster reference works must reflect that fact.”
- This is important because contrary to what racists will tell you, the version they “Reject” is also in the dictionary. Yes, it took a few years but it’s there.
As you can see, the original definition wasn’t removed. It was simply expanded on. Oh hey, did you also notice that there was a span of time for it’s origin? That’s because it took a while for the entire definition to be entered. The 1990’s though, amirite?
As for time, this is where things get even more interesting. The above graphic is from Dictionary.com. It is a consensus of multiple printed dictionaries. Though the definitions are technically correct, you can find varying definitions depending on the book you use. For example, the oxford dictionary only has the first definition. It’s printed version however states that the word originated from the word “Racialism” which was said to first show up in English in 1907.
The Cambridge dictionary has a very similar definition to the Oxford definition but interestingly enough, gives examples that specifically talk about “Institutionalized racism.” As well as the definition of Institutionalized racism. Why do the differing definitions matter? Along with the differing definitions come dates. Although not all online dictionaries offer them, most printed editions do. The word has, somehow, been “Defined” anywhere from 1865 to 1938.
No matter the date you find, the timing of the definition means something. The definition is what it meant, then. The definitions are of their time. When it was updated, it grew and changed with the time. What was once considered acceptable, surprise, isn’t any more. At the very least, it has a definition that is it’s theoretical equivalent.
This is what is so telling about the “Deniers” of the definition. They prefer the original because it allows them to also “Enjoy” the victimization. For them, it is in fact, something to “Enjoy.” Which further proves the very huge difference between the two definitions. Those that stick to the original definition can (and do) equate racism to a bad day. Where as those of us who believe the updated definition is the most accurate, equate racism to a negative impact on our entire lives based solely on the color of our skin.
For the racist, demanding that people stick to the original version and the original version only means that the systematic oppression faced due to race doesn’t really exist. In addition, it allows them to view someone looking at them the wrong way as “Racism” while at the same time dismissing the idea that someone’s entire life is affected by racism.
This is why racists love the simple definition that racism is hate based on race. After all, a system can’t actively “Hate” now can it?
"These same friends are also all good people who have told me how they are outraged by racism, hurt by it, bewildered. And sometimes that’s what makes it so frustrating: how difficult it is to talk about race even with them, people I know are on my side, because the conversation inevitably becomes one about how they’re not racist, how they’re not even, when it comes down to it, white. The bulk of these conversations end with me reassuring them that I know they mean well, and then insisting as gently as I know how that if I have to be yellow, if blacks have to be blacks, and so on, then they have to be white. The truth is that they don’t realize that it is the particular privilege of the white to say they don’t “feel” white, that they’re not bound to “white” culture. And that casual dismissal, that simple, blind, unwitting privilege, always makes me angry. I understand my anger might be misplaced, unfair, ungenerous. At its deepest level, it’s probably born of envy. It’s so easy for them to casually disavow their race, as if it were a matter of personal choice. If only it were so easy for the rest of us."
"In a colorblind society, White people, who are unlikely to experience disadvantages due to race, can effectively ignore racism in American life, justify the current social order, and feel more comfortable with their relatively privileged standing in society (Fryberg, 2010).
Most minorities, however, who regularly encounter difficulties due to race, experience colorblind ideologies quite differently. Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives."
-Monica Williams, Ph.D for Psychology Today, “Colorblind Ideology is a Form of Racism (via ellesugars)