Representation Metaphor

The need for LGBTQ people to be visible has been a long time coming – once, we were the guilty secret that ruined families’ reputations, and our natures were punishable by the death penalty across the Western world. Thank goodness those times are over in the West, and may that remain the case into the indefinite future – as well as spread over time to become the case in the rest of the world. And the indelibly racist nature of early Hollywood is also a matter of historical record – so forcing diversity there has also been a necessity.

But are we the most affirmed people? On the contrary – as LGBTQ people, we’re still hated by the majority of the world’s religious, and still subject to the death penalty in countries like Uganda. We’ve been only minimally affirmed through forced diversity, with affirmation and acceptance slowly increasing from there over time as we become recognised as a normal part of the spectrum of humanity. It’s taken that time, a mountain of unequivocal scientific data, and exposure to show the world that we’re not depraved people living in sin, out to corrupt or abuse their children (the Catholics especially love that lie, though it’s general to most of the Abrahamic faiths). POC have been more affirmed and normalised through forced diversity than we have – and good for them.

You’ve a very clear point, though, in regards to CRT’s claim that it’s impossible to be racist to “white” people. The mere claim that you can’t be racist towards a perceived race is indeed the very definition of racism, and that fact is so obvious you’d wonder how anyone could fail to see it. The answer to that lies in the ideology behind CRT, which is Marxism. And Marxism loves to change definitions, so that it can set the stage for creating the impressions in peoples’ minds that it wants.

Marxist ideologies are built on the idea of the ideology’s proponents being victims, and those opposing their ideas and stance therefore being aggressors and bullies. So, from the perspective of a Marxist theory, it’s always the Marxist that’s the underdog and those opposing the Marxist are always the persecutor and enemy. And since those who hold the power created the language, and since they are the enemy, their way of using words will simply not do.

So the Marxist changes the definitions to suit their ideas. The definition of racism, for instance, is shifted from “Persecution on the basis of race” to “Power + Privilege = Racism” – a catchy slogan that allows them to call anything they perceive as coming from the alleged enemy in charge “racism”, regardless of whether it actually fits the true definition of that term or not. Under that catch-all, speaking against Islam is racism – which in truth it isn’t, as Islam is a religion rather than a race.

This is tantamount to playing chess against a pigeon. The pigeon isn’t playing the game at all; it’s merely knocking over the pieces, defecating all over the board and loudly cooing its victory. The pigeon doesn’t understand the language of chess – only the language of dominance through aggression. Likewise, the Marxist doesn’t understand the language of diplomacy, or the subtlety of reality – they see only themselves as victim and everyone who disagrees with them as the enemy, and they’re going to smash that enemy into submission and agreement one way or another. Rules be damned; politeness be damned; basic human decency be damned.

And so in CRT, the white man is the enemy, because the POC is the victim, and the white man must therefore be degraded, blamed and punished. It doesn’t matter how many of those same white people fought for the freedom of POC throughout their periods of persecution and slavery, nor how many white men shared in those same sufferings at other times in history – all white men are responsible for the victimisation of POC just by default of being white.

In postcolonial theory, the colonised are the victim, and the colonisers (or in the wake of their death, their descendants as colonisers-by-default) are the enemy. Regardless of course of whether that colonising force vastly improved their living conditions, or provided them with superior technologies, or helped them depart from an acceptance of such terrible practices as slavery or cannibalism.

In critical feminist theory, men are the enemy – regardless of the fact that the majority of men are perfectly decent human beings, or that a lack of men would very quickly result in a lack of women through the simple exigencies of biology.

In gender theory, trans-people are the victims and cis-people are the enemy. Never mind that the use of the ‘cis’ term in this fashion is invented by the movement and has literally no meaning in that context, or that it constitutes an organic chemistry in-joke (any triglyceride that isn’t a trans-fat is known in organic chemistry terms as a cis-fat). Or indeed that the non-reproductive nature of a post-op trans-person demonstrates that they constitute a dead-end branch in human biology, rather than a healthy representation of it.

And on it goes.

This attitude of personal victimisation and necessary counterattack allows the Marxist to pick a social group they dislike in line with their pet ideology, and to victimise that group with a clear conscience – because that group is “the enemy”. Because Marxism by its very nature needs both an enemy to attack, and to destroy that enemy. Hence the vicious attacks against “white” people in general, and through the doctrine of intersectionality, of “white” ‘cis’ heterosexual males of English descent in particular. They’re the enemy because they’re not the Marxist – and even when they join the Marxist, they’re seen through the light of the enemy turncoat and treated with suspicion and hostility from within.

And thus, the alleged victim that is the proponent of a Marxist ideology reveals themselves in fact to be the bully. The one claiming to want peace and justice instead brings war and persecution against their hated demographic.

If you want to understand why CRT and subsequent Marxist political theories have not healed the rifts in the US populace after more than 50 years of being spouted there – there’s your answer. It’s because they’re not ideologies of peace and reconciliation – they’re ideologies of victimisation, bullying and social division. And it doesn’t matter who they call the enemy. The mere fact that they need an enemy at all shows that they can never result in peace or justice – not for any society, nor for any sub-group thereof.

5 thoughts on “Representation Metaphor”

spiritplumber says:

March 29, 2024 at 7:52 pm

Alternatively: Nobody has done a drawing of you. The teacher notices too, and asks if someone wants to draw you. Nobody does. Eventually the teacher draws you, it’s the only drawing you get. It’s, you know, nice, but since it was done by an adult it looks markedly different than everyone else’s, and you’ll never forget that nobody wanted to draw you.

PointerCount says:

March 30, 2024 at 9:03 am

Huh. So, people think no one likes LGBTQ or BiPOC, and therefore don’t want to “draw their picture” (as a metaphor for inclusion in media, society, et al)? Are we on the same planet? They’ve been shoehorning diversity into everything, whether it makes sense or not.

You couldn’t BE more affirmed in this country than to be of either the LGBTQ or BiPOC or both! In fact, they’re the popular kids in this scenario, and the lonely kid no one wanted to draw, no one liked was a reflection of how society feels it can treat certain demographics with impunity.

White people, for instance. People actually think you CANNOT be racist toward them… that’s just flat out wrong. Just SAYING that no matter what you say or do to White people, it isn’t racist… is racist. Or Muslims: for some reason, anti-Muslim sentiment is all right, but God forbid you criticize Israel..
That’s antisemitism! Even if your critique is a valid concern.

1. Amhairghen Faithliaig says:
  
  October 29, 2024 at 5:06 pm
  
  The need for LGBTQ people to be visible has been a long time coming – once, we were the guilty secret that ruined families’ reputations, and our natures were punishable by the death penalty across the Western world. Thank goodness those times are over in the West, and may that remain the case into the indefinite future – as well as spread over time to become the case in the rest of the world. And the indelibly racist nature of early Hollywood is also a matter of historical record – so forcing diversity there has also been a necessity.
  
  But are we the most affirmed people? On the contrary – as LGBTQ people, we’re still hated by the majority of the world’s religious, and still subject to the death penalty in countries like Uganda. We’ve been only minimally affirmed through forced diversity, with affirmation and acceptance slowly increasing from there over time as we become recognised as a normal part of the spectrum of humanity. It’s taken that time, a mountain of unequivocal scientific data, and exposure to show the world that we’re not depraved people living in sin, out to corrupt or abuse their children (the Catholics especially love that lie, though it’s general to most of the Abrahamic faiths). POC have been more affirmed and normalised through forced diversity than we have – and good for them.
  
  You’ve a very clear point, though, in regards to CRT’s claim that it’s impossible to be racist to “white” people. The mere claim that you can’t be racist towards a perceived race is indeed the very definition of racism, and that fact is so obvious you’d wonder how anyone could fail to see it. The answer to that lies in the ideology behind CRT, which is Marxism. And Marxism loves to change definitions, so that it can set the stage for creating the impressions in peoples’ minds that it wants.
  
  Marxist ideologies are built on the idea of the ideology’s proponents being victims, and those opposing their ideas and stance therefore being aggressors and bullies. So, from the perspective of a Marxist theory, it’s always the Marxist that’s the underdog and those opposing the Marxist are always the persecutor and enemy. And since those who hold the power created the language, and since they are the enemy, their way of using words will simply not do.
  
  So the Marxist changes the definitions to suit their ideas. The definition of racism, for instance, is shifted from “Persecution on the basis of race” to “Power + Privilege = Racism” – a catchy slogan that allows them to call anything they perceive as coming from the alleged enemy in charge “racism”, regardless of whether it actually fits the true definition of that term or not. Under that catch-all, speaking against Islam is racism – which in truth it isn’t, as Islam is a religion rather than a race.
  
  This is tantamount to playing chess against a pigeon. The pigeon isn’t playing the game at all; it’s merely knocking over the pieces, defecating all over the board and loudly cooing its victory. The pigeon doesn’t understand the language of chess – only the language of dominance through aggression. Likewise, the Marxist doesn’t understand the language of diplomacy, or the subtlety of reality – they see only themselves as victim and everyone who disagrees with them as the enemy, and they’re going to smash that enemy into submission and agreement one way or another. Rules be damned; politeness be damned; basic human decency be damned.
  
  And so in CRT, the white man is the enemy, because the POC is the victim, and the white man must therefore be degraded, blamed and punished. It doesn’t matter how many of those same white people fought for the freedom of POC throughout their periods of persecution and slavery, nor how many white men shared in those same sufferings at other times in history – all white men are responsible for the victimisation of POC just by default of being white.
  
  In postcolonial theory, the colonised are the victim, and the colonisers (or in the wake of their death, their descendants as colonisers-by-default) are the enemy. Regardless of course of whether that colonising force vastly improved their living conditions, or provided them with superior technologies, or helped them depart from an acceptance of such terrible practices as slavery or cannibalism.
  
  In critical feminist theory, men are the enemy – regardless of the fact that the majority of men are perfectly decent human beings, or that a lack of men would very quickly result in a lack of women through the simple exigencies of biology.
  
  In gender theory, trans-people are the victims and cis-people are the enemy. Never mind that the use of the ‘cis’ term in this fashion is invented by the movement and has literally no meaning in that context, or that it constitutes an organic chemistry in-joke (any triglyceride that isn’t a trans-fat is known in organic chemistry terms as a cis-fat). Or indeed that the non-reproductive nature of a post-op trans-person demonstrates that they constitute a dead-end branch in human biology, rather than a healthy representation of it.
  
  And on it goes.
  
  This attitude of personal victimisation and necessary counterattack allows the Marxist to pick a social group they dislike in line with their pet ideology, and to victimise that group with a clear conscience – because that group is “the enemy”. Because Marxism by its very nature needs both an enemy to attack, and to destroy that enemy. Hence the vicious attacks against “white” people in general, and through the doctrine of intersectionality, of “white” ‘cis’ heterosexual males of English descent in particular. They’re the enemy because they’re not the Marxist – and even when they join the Marxist, they’re seen through the light of the enemy turncoat and treated with suspicion and hostility from within.
  
  And thus, the alleged victim that is the proponent of a Marxist ideology reveals themselves in fact to be the bully. The one claiming to want peace and justice instead brings war and persecution against their hated demographic.
  
  If you want to understand why CRT and subsequent Marxist political theories have not healed the rifts in the US populace after more than 50 years of being spouted there – there’s your answer. It’s because they’re not ideologies of peace and reconciliation – they’re ideologies of victimisation, bullying and social division. And it doesn’t matter who they call the enemy. The mere fact that they need an enemy at all shows that they can never result in peace or justice – not for any society, nor for any sub-group thereof.
  
Peter T Jackson says:

April 1, 2024 at 6:27 am

Everyone is enthusiastic? Then that story does not include me. I wouldn’t be.
No one draws a picture of me? I would be OK with that,
I am not LGBTQ or a PoC, but I am an introvert. I think we get even less representation in main steam media, but I at least don’t much mind that.

1. Frank says:
  
  October 29, 2024 at 9:48 am
  
  Thank you.

Media Chomp

Representation Metaphor

Related

5 thoughts on “Representation Metaphor”

Leave a CommentCancel reply

Recent Posts

Categories

Share this:

Related

5 thoughts on “Representation Metaphor”

Leave a CommentCancel reply

Recent Posts

Categories