edits in bold throughout post
- I am aware that the gateway pundit [first article] is ridiculously right wing, but some people aren’t as aware, and I wanted to clear things up more easily for them.
- You can follow updates on this post in my tagged/darren+wilson
- Washington Post released an article talking about the injury, with no real proofIf you’ve been keeping up with what the media is saying about Darren Wilson, you may have read this article that claims he suffered a blowout fracture: a fracture of one or more bones surrounding the eye. Here is a screencap from the article of a CT scan.In the original version of this post, I assumed this to be Darren Wilson’s CT scan, as the author wanted the average reader to believe. I was not the only one to do so. "To be fair, Hoft never explicitly says that the CT Scan in his post was that of the officer; however, he clearly invites the reader to draw that impression. Further, there is no convincing reason to scrub the reference to the University of Iowa other than to hide the fact that this is very obviously not a CT Scan of Officer Wilson.”
When the article later stated that “police sources” said 12 witnesses had taken Wilson’s side, I was incredible skeptical, obviously.
[I also want to mention that this article is using pictures of the convenience store where the owner’s lawyer blatantly stated that Mike Brown did not steal anything.]
side note on whole altercation: Dorian Johnson confirms theft of cigars, Still Not Reason To Shoot Unarmed Teen Six To Eight Times
This article lists the side effects of an orbital blowout fracture. It also posts a video taken by Piaget Crenshaw, a woman who lives on the street where Mike Brown was killed. The video shows Darren Wilson standing around Mike’s body soon after his murder, showing no signs of pain; and you see the officer he’s reporting to acting like Wilson hasn’t been injured at all. That isn’t very likely for someone who would have visible signs of trauma.
The second article also shows “Darren’s” CT scan, and one that looks exactly like it, but: in the corner it says UNIV OF IOWA ETC-TC. Just to check up on this, I looked up the words “university of iowa blowout fracture” and set Google to where it would show posts from before this year, guess what. On uiowa.edu, this CT scan was on a page made in 2008. [It’s about all kinds of eye trauma.]Below is a screencap with the url in it so you can see what I’m talking about, if you don’t want to scroll through a page with graphic injuries.
[This simply tells you that Hoft, author of article one, wanted the average reader to see this CT scan as proof of Brown attacking Wilson, therefore justifying his murder.]
(“There’s no more racism in America! We have a black President!”)
Now listen to me. If an article does not post credible sources (“two local St. Louis sources” does not count at all) or only goes off what the police is saying: double, triple, quadruple check it before you share the information, just to cause less hysteria for everyone trying to stay updated on these horrific events.
Globalization is not a natural, evolutionary, or inevitable phenomenon, as is often argued. Globalization is a political process that has been forced on the weak by the powerful. Globalization in not the cross-cultural interaction of diverse societies. It is the imposition of a particular culture on all others. Nor is globalization the search for ecological balance on a planetary scale. It is the predation of one class, one race, and often one gender of a single specie on all others. ‘Global’ in the dominant discourse is the political space in which the dominant local seeks control, freeing itself from local, regional, and global sources of accountability arising from the imperatives of ecological sustainability and social justice. ‘Global’ in this sense does not represent the universal human interest; it represents a particular local and parochial interest and culture that has been globalized through its reach and control, irresponsibility, and lack of reciprocity.
Globalization has come in three waves. The first wave was the colonization of the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia by European powers over the course of 1, 500 years. The second wave was the imposition of the West’s idea of ‘development’ on non-Western cultures in the postcolonial era of the past five decades. The third wave of globalization was unleashed approximately five years ago as the era of ‘free trade,’ which for some commentators implies an end to history, but for us in the Third World is a repeat of history through recolonization. Each wave of globalization has served Western interests, and each wave has created deeper colonization of other cultures and of the planet’s life.”
But what about how tons of Japanese people say that it's completely okay to wear kimonos? Like I don't wear one but they always say they like it?
uhmmm im not japanese so you asking the wrong person lmao
to the anon:
this has been discussed before: Homogeneous countries like Korea and Japan are not exposed to the racial politics/dynamics of the US: they do not share a shred of the experiences diasporic Asians face in the US along the lines of being marginalized, stereotyped in the media, etc;
and so, saying: “but Japanese people from JAPAN say it’s okay!!” is a completely invalid, and quite ignorant, excuse, not to mention in most cases this kind of thing is said to invalidate many Asian-American’s ethnicity purely out of racist inconvenience, and later, they will strip the “American” from them.
And in fact, many Koreans have stepped up (yes, Koreans in Korea) to say that they do not appreciate (hate) random foreigners finding them on facebook and asking about KPOP: they think it’s disrespectful that foreigners think just because they like KPOP Koreans should be happy, when in reality, they hate that to foreigners, Korean culture has been reduced to KPOP (so no, you’re not making many Koreans happy by saying “but I love KPOP! You should be happy I pay attention to you!!) You can see students talking about this in Wilkine Brutus’ vlogs.
Aug 21 2014
It is difficult to generalize about a large group of people. There were, for example, over 700,000 Korean Americans in the United States in 1990, and over 7.2 million people of Asian descent. Cleavages of class, gender, and generation, not to mention disparate national origins and languages, elude facile generalizations. There are no clear-cut characteristics or essential features: some are fourth- or even fifth-generation immigrants, others have immigrated recently or are war refugees; some are Buddhist, others are Christian; some speak only English, others speak any number of literally hundreds of languages. Take educational achievement: in 1980, 51.9 percent of Asian Indians held college degrees, while the comparable figure was 2.9 percent for the Hmong from Southeast Asia. At the same time that the poverty rate among Laotians was 67.2 percent, it was only 4.2 percent for Japanese Americans. Although Korean Americans’ median family income was slightly above the U.S. average, so was their proportion of persons below the poverty level. Inequality and poverty remain serious problems for Asian Americans. Although Japanese Americans rank the highest among all ethnic groups in terms of per capita income, many Asian Americans face problems in finding jobs and fail to earn wages commensurate with their educational level.
More mundanely, little unity exists among Asian Americans. Conflict and even animosity plague different groups—oldtimers and new immigrants, Japanese Americans and Korean Americans, rich Korean Americans and poor Korean Americans, and so on. These latent conflicts manifested themselves during and after the L.A. riots; some Asian Americans blamed Korean Americans for what took place. Roy Yokoyama, a retired Japanese American grocer, said: “I did business with nothing but blacks and I never had no problem. You think, gee, these Koreans must be doing something wrong.” Past and present conflicts refute the presumed solidarity among Asian Americans. Intra-Asian American difficulties are not new. Historically, for instance, the relationship between Japanese Americans and Korean Americans reflected the Japanese colonization of Korea from 1910 to 1945. When the war broke out between Japan and the United States in 1941: “Koreans in America were excited. ‘Korea for Victory with America,’ they shouted. The Korean National Herald-Pacific Weekly declared the ‘fact’ that ‘every Korean born’ was ‘an enemy born for Japan.’ The unity of Asian Americans is often based solely on the racist characterization that Asian Americans “look alike.” The widespread conflation of all Asian Americans is well captured by Susan Moffat (1992, p. A20): “At the same place where Reginald O. Denny was attacked, Takao Hirata, a Japanese-American born behind barbed wire in a World War II internment camp, was nearly killed by a mob shouting anti-Korean epithets. Other Asians across the city were attacked or threatened in the same manner” (see also Alan-Williams 1994).
The model minority portrait thus obfuscates the racism and discrimination that persist against Asian Americans in general and Korean Americans in particular. The Korean American poet Chungmi Kim writes: “To say that I’ve suffered from the discrimination in this society because of my yellow skin and my flat nose is simplistic but true. To say that I’ve suffered from a sense of alienation because of the discrimination is painful, but true” (1992, p. 28). Ironically, the very perception of successful Asian Americans may breed resentment, ranging from European American students who complain of nerdy Asian American students to African Americans resentful of successful Asian Americans (Takagi 1992, pp. 60-61; Wellman 1993, pp. 235-236).
Finally, as Dan Kwong suggests, the model minority thesis exists not simply to praise Asian Americans but to chide lazy and rebellious minorities. At times the invidious comparison is direct and straightforward. Lawrence Harrison observes: “The Chinese, the Japanese, and the Koreans who have migrated to the United States have injected a dose of the work ethic, excellence, and merit at a time when those values appear particularly beleaguered in the broader society. In contrast, the Mexicans who migrate to the United States bring with them a regressive culture that is disconcertingly persistent” (1992, p. 223). Harrison also argues that the “black ghetto problem is now principally a cultural one” and that the solution is to acculturate to the mainstream culture (p. 211). In this line of reasoning, because cultural values determine the success of different ethnic groups, it is necessary to change the cultural values of unsuccessful ethnic groups. His analysis of the success of Asian Americans thus entails an explicit contrast with failed groups. Lurking behind the positive portrait of the model minority is its negation, the urban underclass.”