Tag: nationalisme

Imod nationalisternes misbrug af Gay Pride

Enhedslisten har som parti valgt at deltage i denne weekends Gay Pride i København.

Det er partiets queer-udvalg til dels imod. Læs her hvorfor:

Parallelt med øgede rettigheder i forhold til ægteskab, adoption, insemination, diskrimination på arbejdsmarkedet osv. bliver LGBT-sagen i stigende grad udnyttet i racistiske og nationalistiske dagsordener.

LGBT’ere har de sidste 50 år tilkæmpet sig små stykker af den danske normalitetskage – hvilket uden tvivl gør dagligdagen en del mindre bitter for mange.

Til gengæld bruges LGBT-sagen i stigende grad som skyts i divers imperiale og racistiske projekter. »Befrielse« af kvinder og seksuelle minoriteter legitimerer vestlige angrebskrige i f.eks. Afghanistan, ligesom krav om »homotolerance« og »ligestilling« bruges som argumenter for at underkaste migranter ekstra mistænkeliggørende teknologier, når de ønsker at søge opholdstilladelse i Danmark.

Samtidig er der stort set ingen europæiske lande, der accepterer forfølgelse på baggrund af seksualitet som et argument for asyl – så meget for Vesten som homoparadis!

Accept af LGBT-personer bliver oftere og oftere markedsført som »særlig dansk«, ligesom homofobi og hate crimes ses som fænomener, der stort set ikke eksisterer i den danske hyggestat. Trans- og homofobi fremstilles som noget, der kommer fra »fremmede kulturer« – men det er altså denne danske »hyggestat«, der patologiserer personer, der ikke ønsker at indrette sig efter et rigidt to-kønssystem og som kræver årelange psykolog-forløb og sterilisering, hvis man juridisk ønsker at skifte køn.

JPEG - 15.5 kb

Vi vil ikke reagere med mild ligegyldighed over at blive brugt som skyts i en nationalistisk dagsorden. Vi vil ikke spille taktisk med på islamofobi og fremmedhad for at vinde LGBT-kampe. Når ikke-statsborgere skal tvangsdeporteres fra dansk territorium, vil vi stå forrest i rækken af blokader. Når Israel fremstilles som den homovenlige modvægt til de slemme islamiske fundamentalister, vil vi stille os solidariske med de palæstinensiske og libanesiske LGBT-organisationer, der får frataget vestlig ngo-funding, fordi de tillader sig at kritisere apartheid-tilstande og staten Israels militære overfald i Gaza og Libanon.

Alt dette vil vi gøre, fordi LGBT-rettigheder som del af en nationalistisk og imperial dagsorden er som at pisse i bukserne for at holde varmen.

Læs selv resten på Modkraft.dk.

Skal man finde sig i ‘hån, spot og latterliggørelse’?

En skoleinspektør i 70ernes England mente i hvert fald, at hån, spot og latterliggørelse ikke var britiske værdier, skriver Charlie Brooker i The Guardian:

I was born in the 70s and grew up in a tiny rural village. There was, I think, only one black kid in my primary school. One day, someone pushed him over and called him “blackjack”. The headmaster called an impromptu assembly. It involved the entire school, and took place outdoors. No doubt: this was unusual.

We stood in military rows in the playground. I must have been about six, so I can’t remember the words he used, but the substance stuck. He spoke with eerie, measured anger. He’d fought in the second world war, he told us. Our village had a memorial commemorating friends of his who had died. Many were relatives of ours. These villagers gave their lives fighting a regime that looked down on anyone “different”, that tried to blame others for any problem they could find; a bullying, racist regime called “the Nazis”. Millions of people had died thanks to their bigotry and prejudice. And he told us that anyone who picked on anyone else because they were “different’ wasn’t merely insulting the object of their derision, but insulting the headmaster himself, and his dead friends, and our dead relatives, the ones on the war memorial. And if he heard of anyone – anyone – using racist language again, they’d immediately get the slipper.

At være britisk var, med andre ord, noget med at være høflig, imødekommende og tolerant, og med at være parat til at dø for sin frihed.

Det er en glimrende ideel definition, som man mske også gerne havde set som en slags definition på det at være “dansk” eller “europæisk” – hvor sand eller usand den i øvrigt er eller har været i forhold til den virkelighed, folk faktisk har levet i der som her.

Men ifølge Dansk Folkeparti, British National Party og andre af Europas højrepartier er det slet ikke nogen god definition. At være dansk eller britisk er at være svag, er at være offer, er at have så lidt tiltro til sin egen kultur og identitet, at man er bange for, at majoritetssamfundet skal blive rendt over ende af 5-10% “fremmede”. Det er at være frygtsom og paranoid, og det er at være overbevist om, at selvgode politikere og humanister lige fra Venstre og Konservative og venstre over står i ledtog med den væmmelige “godhedsindustri”, alt imens medierne (MSM, forstås) med Jyllands-Posten, Berlingske Tidende og TV-kanalerne i spidsen lyver om det.

Eller, som Charlie Brooker fortsætter:

According to the BNP, I’m wrong. Being British is actually about feeling aggressed, mistrustful, overlooked, isolated, powerless, and petrified of “losing my identity”. Britishness incorporates a propensity to look around me with jealous eyes, fuming over imaginary sums of money being doled out to child-molesting asylum-seekers by corrupt PC politicians who’ve lost touch with the common man – a common man who, coincidentally, happens to be white.

They’re wrong, obviously. None of these qualities has anything whatsoever to do with being British, but everything to do with ugly nationalist politics. And ugly nationalist politics are popular all over the world. Just like Pringles. Every country has its own tiny enclave of frightened, disenfranchised, misguided souls clinging to their national flag, claiming they’re the REAL patriots, saying everyone’s out to get them. It’s an international weakness. For the BNP to claim to be more British than the other British parties is as nonsensical as your dad suddenly claiming to have invented the beard.

På samme måde er Dansk Folkeparti måske det mindst danske af alle Danmarks politiske partier – for deres egentlige budskab er rent negativt, en fremmedangst, som er aldeles tværnational og som tager  stort set samme form overalt, hvor den dukker op: Paranoid overdrivelse af imaginære eller meget små “trusler”, udbredelse af mistillid, paranoide forestillinger om, at majoritetskulturen er “undertrykt”.

Link: The BNP represents Britain’s workers? They don’t even represent basic British craftsmanship

Sammenhængskraft

Israel har netop fejret sin uafhængighedsdag, og i den anledning funderer Gideon Levy i Ha’aretz over den jødiske stats sammenhængskraft, eller rettere sagt, han fremmaner billedet af et nærmest på alle måder splittet samfund:

One-quarter of the Jewish state’s population is not Jewish, and one-fifth are members of the Arab nation. The language of the Arabs in Israel, their world, culture and viewpoints certainly do not allow them to be part of “the Israeli people.” Excluded, discriminated against, ostracized, alienated, and secluded in their towns and villages, they certainly are not part of the tribal campfire.

The same is true, but to a lesser extent, of the 1 million immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Among them, too, one can see trends of seclusion and sometimes even arrogance, alongside a measured integration by the second generation. They are all “Russians” rather than Israelis, and it’s doubtful whether this will change in the near future. Fact – even the “Mizrahim”, most of whom have lived here for around 50 years, are still a separate tribe. Possibly due to discrimination and other reasons, they have not found a respectable place in the country’s elite/

Don’t mention the exceptions, don’t talk about the two presidents, the two foreign ministers and the two chiefs of staff – the Jews of eastern origin, and in particular those from North Africa, have not made it here. They have not secured a place of equality two generations after arriving. Most of them live on the outskirts of large cities or in outlying development towns, and a there are still a great many more immigrants from North Africa in prison than in the top echelons.

Every Ashkenazi reader should ask himself how many of his friends are Mizrahim, and every Mizrahi Jew, how many of his friends are Ashkenazi. Let each of us examine whether it’s a matter of chance that we have not had a prime minister of Mizrahi origin. And how many members of the economic, defense, scientific, legal, media and cultural elites are Mizrahim?

The ultra-Orthodox Jews live in their own world, more so now than 50 years ago. You will barely see ultra-Orthodox families today in a secular environment. They have less in common with secular Jews than the secular Jews have with members of other peoples. A visit by a secular person to Mea She’arim is like an anthropological tour. The language, newspapers, customs, dress, culture and even the morals are different.

Levys konlusion? Perhaps not yet lost, but still 10 tribes.

Link: The 10 tribes