Hey, can you give me a quick explainer on barbaric? Is it the word itself that's bad? Is it specifically calling China barbaric that's bad?
Basically, what is the context behind why 'barbaric' is quite racist here? I'm super willing to believe it, but I'd like to understand it. The place I know this word from is the Ancient Greeks being racist against non-Greeks, which, well, seems pretty harmless. So I'm assuming there's more recent context which I don't know and would like to learn.
In a nutshell, people in colonialist countries calling those in colonies barbaric is classic colonial racism. Also calls back to ideas of "asiatic hordes" which were (and are) prevalent in western countries.
Europe claimed they were the civilized peoples and everyone else were portrayed as barbarian peoples in need of having civilization brought to them. This was the pretense for much of colonialism, civilized society (the white west) vs the barbarian world in need of exploration, expansion and civilization being brought to them.
China just doubled down on classifying homosexuality as a mental illness. Perhaps "barbaric" was a strong term, but if a country's policy is that I'm a "diseased" person, they can fuck right off.
That doesn't mean anything. Meanwhile, I can still categorize the US penal system as barbaric, and we all understand what I mean. I don't know why Uganda/n*word even grants comparison.
That's true, but it wasn't meant as a direct equivalent. It was meant to point out that racism is not an acceptable response to bad policy, by example of a policy and a slur that are both much worse.
Whichever way you cut it calling anyone non-white barbarians is going to be about as successful as a lead balloon around here. Some understanding of the history of this word and its use in arguing that the Europe was "civilized" and everything else was barbarian in need of civilizing by the great white man would really help.
Allowing a textbook to say it is still bad, but yes, it's obviously not the same thing.
This entire discussion, though, is getting away from the racism of calling China "barbaric". We clearly cannot accept that kind of thing in criticisms of China.
To be fair and balanced, idk about gay people, but trans people in China are technically classified as mentally ill. You need to get a disability card if you want hormones.
Out of curiosity, would this feel more correct if there weren't the social stigma around mental illness? I understand calling the state of being trans as an illness to cure is wrong, but if we classified gender dysphoria as a mental illness to be cured, by means of gender affirmation, would that be fine? I'm just asking out of a want to understand the situation better, get an idea of what exactly is wrong here.
I mean... it's fair to criticise China for not blocking that textbook, but they're framing the actual content of the article dishonestly, and it doesn't justify the racism (unjustifiable, of course).
I've been thinking about it for a while, is it our duty to be performatively upset at every injustice in countries you support? How upset should we be? I'd appreciate if the discourse was about Chinese LGBT+ organizations we could support and show solidarity with, but getting mad at headlines doesn't actually improve gay rights anywhere
It's not that we shouldn't ignore the flaws of AES countries, it's important to learn from socialist projects but idk i feel like it would be more productive to focus on LGBT rights at home or something (totally willing to take criticism but I feel as if the feminine Chinese boys debate doesn't seem constructive, it feels gross to type this out but I can't think of a better way to word it and I'm curious of peoples opinions)
Removed by mod
:what-the-hell:
Who upbeared this? Come on, people.
Hey, can you give me a quick explainer on barbaric? Is it the word itself that's bad? Is it specifically calling China barbaric that's bad?
Basically, what is the context behind why 'barbaric' is quite racist here? I'm super willing to believe it, but I'd like to understand it. The place I know this word from is the Ancient Greeks being racist against non-Greeks, which, well, seems pretty harmless. So I'm assuming there's more recent context which I don't know and would like to learn.
Thanks so much!
In a nutshell, people in colonialist countries calling those in colonies barbaric is classic colonial racism. Also calls back to ideas of "asiatic hordes" which were (and are) prevalent in western countries.
No problem.
Thanks! I'm sure I'll see examples of this everywhere now, because that's how life works. I appreciate the explainer!
Glad to help!
:doomer: Yeah, I really feel that.
Love that a thread about silly discourse turns out to have a productive struggle session that ends in actual self-crit.
This is why I love this site lol :rat-salute:
Europe claimed they were the civilized peoples and everyone else were portrayed as barbarian peoples in need of having civilization brought to them. This was the pretense for much of colonialism, civilized society (the white west) vs the barbarian world in need of exploration, expansion and civilization being brought to them.
Idk if barbaric is a good term to use for a nonwhite country...
Who keeps putting the Gauls and Vandals in charge of social policy?!
I was helping some people get hormones, and we were going through Teutonburg forest, and then our guide left, and then....I lost three trans eagles.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I mean, yeah, it's disinterested, and even often reactionary. But calling it barbaric is distilled essence of :lmayo: . Just incredibly racist, jesus.
China just doubled down on classifying homosexuality as a mental illness. Perhaps "barbaric" was a strong term, but if a country's policy is that I'm a "diseased" person, they can fuck right off.
Actually, it was a racist term.
K, I'll be sure to just use "cruel" when talking about non-white nations.
Do some serious self-crit. You wouldn't call the Ugandan government the n-word for having reactionary policies.
That doesn't mean anything. Meanwhile, I can still categorize the US penal system as barbaric, and we all understand what I mean. I don't know why Uganda/n*word even grants comparison.
Calling historical victims of colonialism barbaric is racist. Calling historical perpetrators of colonialism barbaric is fine.
Your defense here is "I wouldn't be racist if I were calling white Americans barbaric".
True. I'm simply saying in no context is it okay to call something n-word.
That's true, but it wasn't meant as a direct equivalent. It was meant to point out that racism is not an acceptable response to bad policy, by example of a policy and a slur that are both much worse.
Whichever way you cut it calling anyone non-white barbarians is going to be about as successful as a lead balloon around here. Some understanding of the history of this word and its use in arguing that the Europe was "civilized" and everything else was barbarian in need of civilizing by the great white man would really help.
deleted by creator
Homosexuality can be called a mental disorder, Chinese court rules; LGBT community disappointed
deleted by creator
Allowing a textbook to say it is still bad, but yes, it's obviously not the same thing.
This entire discussion, though, is getting away from the racism of calling China "barbaric". We clearly cannot accept that kind of thing in criticisms of China.
To be fair and balanced, idk about gay people, but trans people in China are technically classified as mentally ill. You need to get a disability card if you want hormones.
Yeah, I'm aware of that, and it's obviously wrong and should be criticized. Hopefully they change the laws surrounding it.
However, there remains no justification for calling China "barbaric" - not that I think you're justifying it.
I agree
:solidarity:
Out of curiosity, would this feel more correct if there weren't the social stigma around mental illness? I understand calling the state of being trans as an illness to cure is wrong, but if we classified gender dysphoria as a mental illness to be cured, by means of gender affirmation, would that be fine? I'm just asking out of a want to understand the situation better, get an idea of what exactly is wrong here.
Thank u for carrying water for imperialists
I mean... it's fair to criticise China for not blocking that textbook, but they're framing the actual content of the article dishonestly, and it doesn't justify the racism (unjustifiable, of course).
:cringe:
I've been thinking about it for a while, is it our duty to be performatively upset at every injustice in countries you support? How upset should we be? I'd appreciate if the discourse was about Chinese LGBT+ organizations we could support and show solidarity with, but getting mad at headlines doesn't actually improve gay rights anywhere
It's not that we shouldn't ignore the flaws of AES countries, it's important to learn from socialist projects but idk i feel like it would be more productive to focus on LGBT rights at home or something (totally willing to take criticism but I feel as if the feminine Chinese boys debate doesn't seem constructive, it feels gross to type this out but I can't think of a better way to word it and I'm curious of peoples opinions)
You can be mad at more than one thing at a time, but obviously focusing on your own country is what you should be putting the most effort towards.
yeah, we all already agree it's not good but China isn't exterminating femboys, so it's not really our biggest issue.
:xi-reactionary-spotted:
"being upset" about something does literally nothing lmao
The whole idea of critical support in an online context is absurd. Nobody on here is supporting shit, whether critically or not.
deleted by creator
Right, "critical support" means sending a group money and weapons or whatever while yelling at them and trying to change their opinions on stuff.
It doesn't mean "being a fan of them online, but without being blind to their failings." That's not anything.