#assimilationism

[vexwerewolf]

For the next four years, if I see any discourse from assimilationist queers over how we need to make queer art "less provocative" or "more acceptable," I am going to put you in the Dip.

[errorid-mt7lt7k7unfr9ttfua5]

disclaimer: i believe anyone can use whatever labels they want in regards to their Queerness

ok, so, now with that out of the way:

as a Polyamorous person, i Very Strongly Despise the use of the term Ethical Non-Monogamy (ENM), Entirely because--imo--there is a strong implication (if not an explication) that Non-Monogamy is By Default UNethical, and i feel that it is very reminiscient of "im bi but I'm not like *THOSE* bi people" in the sense that, to an extent, both Bi/MSpec people And Polyamorous people have a somewhat negative perception both within and without the Queer Community as essentially being slutty or prone to cheating, and i feel that people who use the term ENM are attempting to distance themselves from those negative stereotypes, which is valid and understandable, but perpetuates Queer Assimilationist Ideals (which i am vocally opposed to in all spaces where i discuss Queer Theory)

[titleknown]

...this may be an obscure sorrow, but I wonder, did anyone else on the spectrum here get fucked up by one's parents assuming they'd "grow out of it" and be able to assimilate into greatness thanks to Temple Grandin and what she said to that effect?

Because, god, as someone who never "grew out of it" and who's disability tripped up his dreams, I feel like a failure at 30 even though intellectually I should know that's bullshit...

[queertheoryreader]

“The Queer population, in addition to others in the 60s and 70s, fought against the State and Capitalism, in large part because they had no material connection to the State. Queers found themselves outside of the nuclear family structure and the light of mainstream acceptance. This is why you see the great flight to San Francisco happen; this is why you see San Francisco become a Mecca of all things Gay. A home was needed and a home was found. This home, ironically, is the most symbolic of the radical change that happened in the Queer population in the last 40-50 years.

The Castro disctrict in San Francisco now stands as the most alienating piece of land to anyone that finds himself or herself not a rich, white, gay male. It is a destination for global tourism and one of the city’s biggest moneymakers. Commodities line the windows of almost every store and you’d be lucky to find a flat here that is under 4,000 dollars. A few years back, the residents of the Castro district refused to have a youth center be built in the neighborhood because it would ‘bring down property value,’ in their own words. The Castro is the perfect symbol of the complete bankruptcy and the co-option of the Queer Rights movement. Tourism and profit stand over the lives and safety of youth who desperately need to escape from their abusive families. This is what happens when the Queers desire to become mainstream. It becomes an issue of ‘who can comfortably assimilate and who can’t.’ And you can see what happens to those who can’t.

My problem with the hype and pressure around DADT [Don’t Ask Don’t Tell] is that it distracts from the very things that Queer Liberation was founded on: Anti-imperialism, anti-racism, equal access to housing and health care, and struggles against patriarchy. It seems almost irrelevant to me whether or not gay soldiers can ‘come out’ in the military when the US military is not only carrying out two genocidal campaigns for US imperialism and corporate profit, but also when the war budget is draining the funds needed for almost every other service we so desperately need in this country. When I see the situation as such, not only does it become apparent to me that the Queer Movement must be anti-war, but also the movement, as is, has been hijacked by a few high-powered assimilationists dragging everyone along through corporate propaganda.”

Jones, Jamal Rashad, “Why I Won’t Be Celebrating the Repeal of DADT: Queer Soldiers are Still Agents of Genocide,” in Against Equality: Queer Revolution, Not Mere Inclusion, ed. Ryan Conrad, 142-143. Chico, California: AK Press, 2014.

[queertheoryreader]

“Gays and lesbians of all ages are obsessing over gay marriage as if it's going to cure AIDS, stop anti-queer/anti-trans violence, provide all uninsured queers with health care, and reform racist immigration policies. Unfortunately, marriage does little more than consolidate even more power in the hands of already privileged gay couples engaged in middle class hetero-mimicry.

Let's be clear: The national gay marriage campaign is NOT a social justice movement. Gay marriage reinforces the for-profit medical industrial complex by tying access to health care to employment and relational status. Gay marriage does not challenge patent laws that keep poor/working class poz folks from accessing life-extending medications. Gay marriage reinforces the nuclear family as the primary support structure for youth even though nuclear families are largely responsible for queer teen homelessness, depression and suicide. Gay marriage does not challenge economic systems set up to champion people over property and profit. Gay marriage reinforces racist immigration laws by only allowing productive, "good", soon-to-be-wed, non-citizens in while ignoring the rights of migrant workers. Gay marriage simply has nothing to do with social justice.”

Conrad, Ryan, “Against Equality, In Maine and Everywhere,” in Against Equality: Queer Revolution, Not Mere Inclusion, ed. Ryan Conrad, 59, Chico, California: AK Press, 2014.

[theobviousparadox]

Review: Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi

Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and YouJason Reynolds and Ibram X. KendiLittle, Brown, Books for Young ReadersPublished March 10, 2020 Amazon | Bookshop | Goodreads About Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You A remix of the National Book Award-winning STAMPED FROM THE BEGINNING for ages 12 and up. A timely, crucial, and empowering exploration of racism–and antiracism–in America. This is NOT a…

Review: Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Bolshevism and Atheism Must Be Combatted in Western Canada,” Kingston Whig-Standard. November 11, 1932. Page 2. ---- Rev. R. G. Katsunoff of the Church of All Nations, Montreal, said that the rapid spread of Bolshevism and Atheism among the non-Anglo-Saxon peoples of Western Canada was alarming and added that the only solution of the menace was the Gospel of Jesus Christ and fellowship. Mr. Katsunoff lectured on “The New Canadian” in Sydenham Street United Church last evening. 

The speaker said that teachers from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are brought to Winnipeg to take a short course for the teaching of Bolshevism and Atheism among the children. "What will Canada be within thirty years if this continues?" asked the speaker. Rev. Katsunoff said that the foreigners in the West are becoming conscious of the power of their franchise and he expressed the fear that if atheism and Bolshevism were allowed to predominate in the West, it would terminate in a sorry state of affairs. Different methods of combating the menace had been suggested such as force, while others contend that the situation would right itself, but the speaker emphasised that unless the non-Anglo-Saxons were assimilated and racial prejudice overcome there would never be a solution. 

Rev Mr. Katsunoff said that there were over 2,000,00 people in Canada of non-Anglo-Saxon birth, while in the western provinces alone one half of the total population was made up of people of foreign birth. He also stated that in Canada there were seventy different national groups and 100 different dialects. The speaker emphasised the fact that the young foreign people were not going to the churches and no great effort was being made to bring them in closer contact with the spiritual things of life.

Racial prejudices among the Europeans seem to be intensified in the country, said the speaker, and he cited several instance where fights had taken place between different nationalities. Mr. Katsunoff said that these people must be brought into unity, to work for the good of their adopted country, and added that the gospel and fellowship were the only ways In which this would be accomplished. The Europeans had a racial superiority complex and it is the duty of the Church and Canadians to annihilate this feeling, he said. 

The speaker spoke of the splendid work that was bring carried on by the missionaries among the non-Anglo-Saxons and said that in many places throughout Canada, congregations had been formed. 

In closing, Mr. Katsunoff said that the Europeans who immigrate to Canada have the same ideals and yearnings as the Canadian people and advocated that the service clubs, churches and people as a whole take a greater Interest in these new Canadians. 

[AL: European immigrants have a race superiority problem, quails the Eastern European Anglican priest worried about the loss of Anglo-Saxon dominance and assimilating of immigrants to ‘Christian’ values. Also, love how old the conspiracy that public lay schools teach Atheism and Bolshevism! Honestly, a western Canada without Christian supremacy sounds better than the alternative...]

[sleepypinkpuppy]

Recently, I saw someone here talking about how anti-assimilationists aren't able to account for interacting with institutions in practical ways(next of kin as a result of same-sex marriage, for example) for the sake of increasing safety and visibility. A lot of what followed was indecisive labeling of anti-assimilationists as "posers" or petulant teens who want to be oppressed on the basis of being queer to absolve themselves of " middle class guilt." I think that there's two issues here, one is that the same attitudes which are being criticized are also on display and the other is that there's a misunderstanding(or ignorance) of the anti-assimilationist position. I'm a baby account and not interested in arguing, I just want to write this more to organize my own thoughts. As well, while I will refer to that post a little, this is more just my general thoughts on similar attitudes I've seen rather than any kind of specific rebuttal. It just got me thinking and I want to have those thoughts organized.

I can tell that part of it is frustration, both on the part of the original poster as well as some of the asks they responded to, about changes to how queer people(a word they show discomfort with but I do not) have approached our own liberation in the last little while. I'm the same age as the original poster and have very different feelings about this, so it's interesting. Basically, I think the frustration comes from someone who didn't interrogate a lot of the talking points used to advance things like same-sex marriage seeing other queer people interrogate those talking points. It feels like something is being taken away, not just in terms of a result but in terms of a struggle. To see your rallying cries picked away at by people you feel should be grateful to you is probably very frustrating. They sympathized with an ask saying they see anti-assimilationists as gatekeepers, and that probably adds another layer; it feels like something you made is being taken away by people who didn't make it.

Of course, this does nothing to understand that anti-assimilationism isn't new, or that there has been dissent within our groups about how we should live in the same world as these institutions and the people they're made for certainly before teens on TikTok you don't like have considered it. And, of course, there's a drawing of lines in separating anti-assimilationists out as posers, too; it's just as much gatekeeping to say that you're faking for pariah clout(an asinine concept) as it is to say assimilationists(whether committed or not) are giving up queerness. There are simply lines there. It isn't gatekeeping to recognize them. Anyway, I think that sort of stubborn clinging to of institutional acceptance is born from associating that acceptance with a self-concept of struggle that isn't necessarily associated, and I think that differences in self-concept association are probably key in revealing the misunderstanding of anti-assimilationism at play here.

To understand our safety as the product of rights and visibility speaks to a fundamentally different set of goals with regard to way of living between an assimilationist and anti-assimilationist perspective. Rights of this kind, for us or for anyone, are always conditional; they can be taken away if they become to threatening at any point(as can be seen with pushes to re-criminalize same-sex marriage, crossdressing, being trans in any capacity, etc.) and they will be. To understand rights and visibility as our safeguards, or as anyone's safeguards, is to understand the hegemons capable of granting such rights as fundamentally in the interests of those they grant rights to. It's to say that the state or culture wielded rightly can incorporate our struggles against it(whether as active opposition or more covert delinquency) in such a way that we benefit.

An assimilationist would look at themselves as the state or culture sees one of its own: as someone with certain obligations and privileges for meeting them. It's an internalization of the citizen concept as the self modified by deprival; you should have the same as every other citizen, but don't. An assimilationist would say this isn't because of anything intrinsic to the way of living promoted by the state, or even to the state itself, but because of the fact that malicious actors have utilized these things for the sake of our detriment. Our increased presence, then, in that way of living and within institutions would allow us to protect ourselves.

It's Isildur standing with the Ring as Elrond and Cirdan push him to destroy it, at least from my perspective. It's a desire to see that which has caused us so much grief, pain, and death turned toward our own well-being. The anti-assimilationist concept begins in a fundamentally different place; it begins in a recognition(whether clear or not) of our own exile from these institutions. Personally, I don't care if that exile is self-imposed; I don't care if someone believes choosing to be queer will gain the clout in an environment where it will increasingly get them hurt or killed. It is exile. If we are to be brought under the yoke of the state, it will be only in the way that we can be weaponized against ourselves(as in LGBA or similar types). For whatever bureaucratic ease it might come with, it is not safety.

There hasn't been a better time to be an assimilationist for many people, and yet violence against us is only becoming worse. The HIV/AIDS crisis meant mass death not simply because Reagan and his administration didn't care, but because our ways of living are fundamentally at odds with the yoke of the state. Genocide doesn't simply happen because the wrong people are in the wrong positions of power, it happens because the engines of those institutions drive them toward death. It even happens when the state's good citizens are in danger; there's a reason why so many dyed-in-the-wool Republicans died of covid. We are shaping up for attempted genocide against us after so many "victories" which have made things "safer" and made us "more visible." Just because it may start with other queer people than your particular letter doesn't mean you will not become a target if/when things become even worse.

Safety comes from us and our accomplices. It doesn't come from the bureaucratic systems we have to wrestle with even for just the slightest scraps, the systems which them tell us to tell ourselves to be grateful for those scraps. Queerness is a threat to the family as an institution, and we should embrace that. It is a threat to the order of men above all, to the order of masculinity and the feminine other, to the order of creating children as little receptacles for the inheritance of the same abysmal yoke of the state their parents bare. That is good! We shouldn't strive to emulate the family, or manliness or womanliness, or parenthood in any way that is against queer thriving! And we shouldn't be punished for rejecting the family, or manliness or womanliness, or parenthood as detriments to our own thriving as individual queer people!