Economic Aspects of "Love"

[American Dream]

http://chaka85.wordpress.com/2012/01/16 ... -struggle/

Spiritual Qualities of Struggle




The ruling class has material power to structure society in its own selfish interests. Their material power over us comes in many forms, one being the cultural hegemony they have over our minds that they execute in our bourgeois public education system, where they teach us to celebrate the ‘brilliance’ of our slave-owning, bourgeois fore fathers who founded ‘democracy’. We are taught that this is the best and only system. There is no exploration of our ancestors and what other societies looked like before Europeans begin to colonize the world and give birth to the global capitalism that rules our world today. That knowledge is there, but it is knowledge that we must seek out and share, and we can! We must reclaim our minds and spirit to nurture visions and dreams of a different way of living. Different, but familiar; a way closer to our origins on this earth before capital and all its destruction and exploitation existed. We must carry these visions in practice challenging our material chains. We will no longer participate in this domination that alienates us from each other and ourselves. That alienates us from the earth and the abundance of nature. Understanding and valuing our own spirit and our collective spirit, and fighting for it in practice are what will change the world. Our spirit is material. It is our beating heart; our restless mind; it is our love frequencies interacting with each other and the environment. It is the inspiration to fight back against a foreign system birthed from spells of greed and hate. We can no longer live in a society structured along such values, and the only solution is to fundamentally restructure society so that we are living and working for the survival of each other, and the planet, and striving for love and balance with all things living. People’s labor would contribute to the reproduction of these values within our communities through the way society is organized. Everyone would have a position within the division of labor, but labor would not be grounded in an exploitative power dynamic, which is what exists under capital. People would not be paid in wages, but with an equal share of resources for their survival. Everyone would collectively contribute to the reproduction of society through their skills and talents. This vision will only manifest through a serious worldwide revolutionary overthrow of the global capitalist system, whose very structures are responsible for all suffering, harm, exploitation and oppression that has been happening in this world for centuries.




When looking for the solutions to a problem it is important to be scientific, and find the root of a problem so that you may get rid of it and the problem will cease. For an example, when you have a tree that is rotting from the root, but you only see the problem from the surface, because the bark looks off. You can continue to cut away the infected parts that show in the bark, but it only changes the appearance of the rotting tree; it doesn’t stop the rotting that is happening at the roots. In order to fix the problem you must go deep into the earth and pull out the roots and the tree in its totality, before it infects the soil and other plant life. You lose the one rotting tree so that you may continue to reproduce the soil and have more healthy trees and plants for the future. This is the approach that we must take with capitalism. There are no solutions to the crisis of capital except to go deep and take out the problem, which is capital itself. Capital is not only responsible for creating a harmful exploitative economic system, but its very structures also impact the social relations between people, and the unhealthy ways we interact with each other.

In chapter 23 on simple reproduction in Karl Marx’s Capital Volume I, in a very logical manner he reveals how the economic system is also a sociological system that influences the social relationships within society. Economics and people are clearly interwoven, which is why we must look at the politics of the economic system we live under. Our political system is a bourgeois government that has been put in place to protect the interests of capital and capitalists. This is why our government will continually support legislation that bails out and/or protects banks and corporations over the people and the earth. We must stop being surprised by this and pushing recall elections and other solutions that lie within the preservation of the current system, because the current system is opposed to us at its roots. We must develop our own revolutionary politics through our shared experience as proletarians (employed and unemployed) to fight back and build a new world. Marx inspired us through his dialectic to fight for these dreams in struggle. Through his very important analysis of capital he gave us clarity on the inner workings of the system, and how exploitative relationships are at the heart of it. He writes,

“In reality, the worker belongs to capital before he has sold himself to the capitalist. His economic bondage is at once mediated through and concealed by, the periodic renewal of the act by which he sells himself; his change of masters and the oscillations in the market price [wages] of his labor.

The capitalist process of production, therefore, seen as a total, connected process, i.e. a process of reproduction, produces not only commodities, not only surplus value [profit], but it also produces and reproduces the capital-relation itself; on the one hand the capitalist, on the other the wage-labourer.” (brackets added by me)

It is difficult to see capital as one connected system, because it divides us all from each other through a hierarchical division of labor that reproduces racial, gender, age, and countless other privileges and oppressions. We are spatially alienated from each other in different schools, workplaces, jails and detention centers. Marx examined every aspect of the system in order to reconnect it as a totality for the working-class to study and understand so that they may fight back stronger with knowledge of their position in the world, and their historic task to transform that position. This is the dialectic. The subject’s relationship to the object, aka a person’s interaction with their objective conditions. Understanding the development of the working-class and ruling class historically, and how capital has been able to enslave the vast majority of the people on this planet in order to reproduce itself is key to understanding how to destroy such a harmful system.

In order to be successful in this task we must come together as a fighting class demonstrating our shared experience through struggle. We must constantly strive to transcend the divisions that the system places on us materially and internally so that we may see ourselves as a collective against the system consciously and practically through revolutionary struggle. We come together once we begin to see our commonalities and shared human experiences. We reject the divisions placed on us by the system, and begin to live for each other. This can be a very spiritual thing, because it is a recognition of our common experience and shared spirituality; an understanding of the life energy that flows through us all. We can come together in order to use this energy in harmony with each other, and not in antagonisms. There are beautiful souls out there already committed to living differently through their spiritual practices, which they may share with others through group meditation, workshops, various retreats and countless other spiritual community resources. Often I find these communities to be more grounded in individual self-care work in community settings. This work is important, because we must heal and take care of ourselves, and self-care comes in many forms depending on the individual. However, this work can become counterproductive when it remains solely in the realm of your personal life; it fails to become revolutionary. We must heal and take care of ourselves so that we may be able to build and sustain a healthy revolutionary movement. Therefore, a real liberating spiritual movement is one connected to a holistic class struggle that inspires and develops people’s consciousness and spirit collectively.




Just as we must be intentional about connecting spiritual movements and communities to revolutionary struggles waged by the workers of the world, we also must be mindful of developing our spiritual practices within our practical work. That involves allowing space for that culture to develop within our movements so that we are simultaneously healing and fighting and healing. We must relate to each other differently and reject the selfish principles of bourgeois individualism. I am a communist and a revolutionary, and that means that I am against capitalism, but I don’t solely express my politics through negation of the current system. I also want to affirm what I am for, which is a communal system based on principles of love and collectivity.

Organizations that are dedicated to this revolutionary project of building a new world should demonstrate that vision within the structures of their organization. It is important to not neglect matters of the mind and heart, because that is what our oppressors do, and that is one way that they keep us mentally and spiritually weak. And when our spirit is weak it can be harder to become inspired to fight back. We want to wage militant powerful struggles that can tear down the walls of capital. We can have this militancy and discipline without reproducing hierarchical social relations within our organizations and movements. Unfortunately we all live under the same system that reproduces domination within our relationships that we internalize and project onto each other. We must relate to each other differently and love and support each other so that we can sustain ourselves through the ebbs and flows of struggle. To commit your life to building struggle takes serious work outside of the work you are already forced into as a proletarian to survive. This is why we must come together with our communist hearts to support each other. Finding the balance between collective spiritual healing and reproductive work and political organizing is key to building a healthy holistic communist revolutionary struggle and world.

[American Dream]

http://wildrosecollective.org/2012/01/2 ... class-war/

Occupy the Class War

Posted on January 22, 2012


It would seem the division is clear. There is the “1%,” and there is the “99%.”

We know what, and a lot of time we even know who this “1%” is, although for some reason no one seems to be talking about it. Instead, we tend to speak to the inverse—the “99%”. It is a created concept really, an imagined unity that says somewhat clearly: “those who have been fucked by the 1%.”

We might do well to call the 1% what they are—the ruling class. Today’s ruling class are capitalists gone wild, heralding capitalism to its logical neo-liberal conclusion. Yes, the 1% has all of the money, they also have all control of the supposedly democratic system which we are all, whether we like it or not, a part.

We might also do well to call the division what it is—a class war.

We say war for a reason. It implies that there is a battle, necessary confrontation. It also implies that one must choose sides. One of the things the 99% as a concept has done is draw the symbolic and newspaper worthy battle-lines. On their side they have pretty much the entire media-stream, a shit-ton of money, various laws, politicians, and bureaucrats to protect them. When that isn’t enough, they have gated communities, private security teams (in some cases whole armies), municipal police forces, and if the shit really hits the fan, the US military to protect them. Despite losing our homes, our rents rising, our longer hours, our unemployment, our minimum wage, our non-existent futures, our depression and anxieties, and our melting planet—we still have our anger, our minds, our bodies, our collectivity.

But let’s take a step back. When we draw lines in the sand, between the ruling class and the “99%,” what else do we imply by lumping so many people together? We know that the 99% is a constructed concept of unity, imagined, seemingly out of thin air, around September 2011 to articulate the fragile alliance between those on the losing side of the escalating global financial crisis.

But in practice this alliance or stated unity seems to only pertain to those who self-identify with, or are involved in, the Occupy movement. It is a mistake to include everyone who is not a millionaire into such a concept—the 99%. In short, with the uncritical proliferation of the 99% as a vague unifier of massive quantities of people—differing in gender, race, class, etc, as well as political affiliations or sensibilities—we need to look closer at the implications of such terminology, but more importantly what it creates in reality.

Concepts can constitute reality and call it into being. They have the power to communicate a basis for felt, but not yet described, experiences when they resonate with our everyday lives. This can be a powerful force—consider the words spoken by Stokely Carmichael in the wake of the shooting of civil rights activist James Meredith in June, 1966: “This is the twenty-seventh time I have been arrested and I ain’t going to jail no more! The only way we gonna stop them white men from whuppin’ us is to take over. What we gonna start sayin’ now is Black Power!” In one breath, years of struggle and articulation of experience—from MLK and SNCC to the term’s more immediate inspiration, the militancy of Malcolm X—are spoken in clear, precise, and slogan-worthy words. Suddenly a growing tendency of black militancy is translated in two simple words, and makes immediate sense regardless of whether or not one had ever heard Malcolm X speak, but felt his message in their every day experience. In that moment “Black Power” created a possibility, a space, for the emergence of a fiery mass consciousness that rejected the white supremacy and racist ideologies that proliferated everywhere. One need not be a scholar of African American history or political science, one didn’t need to have read MLK, Marcus Garvey, or Malcolm X to understand the words, it was self-evident, felt, and entirely clear.

The concept “the 99%” functions similarly, but resonates with quite a different group of people and its antagonisms are much more vague. Millions of people who are in debt, have lost their jobs, houses, and life savings understand the 99% perfectly well with little or no need for an explanation of the inner workings of financial capitalism (e.g. “Wall St.”). Both the symbolic and pragmatic function of the term makes sense—if 1% of people have all the money, 99% of people are getting fucked. Like the abstraction of Wall Street as a stand-in for the immaterial accumulation of capital, as well as the would-be residence of the 1%, the 99% stands in symbolically for all those subject to the whims of Wall St. The vulgarity and violence of the ruling class is articulated in clear, slogan-friendly dialectical terms—1% v. 99%

But on the ground (that is, outside of the spectacular battles of the media) another question becomes pressing: When we say 99%, whom do we mean, exactly? Looking closer reveals rather quickly it doesn’t work especially well to simply lump everyone together, at least, as it has been used so far within Occupy.

Take for example the way the concept of the 99% is often used within the movement to validate fairly specific liberal middle-class politics taken as a priori, which in turn ironically cancels out other politics within the 99% in the name of fear of scaring any potential occupiers, or worse, the elusive “community” or “public” with voices of anger, antagonism, or radical politics.

“Be nice to the police, they are part of the 99%, too.”

“Police need a raise! Police need a raise! Police need a raise!”
[Chanting protestors are hauled off in handcuffs.]

Of course, this generous form of unity contradicts others’ inclusion in the supposedly blanket 99%—people of color, prisoners, undocumented immigrants, queer and transfolk come to mind, as people who face or fear police violence on a daily basis. It is not just about the cops though, and I don’t want to over-emphasize a hatred toward the police that we anarchists can slip into (there are plenty of legitimate critiques of the police, but that isn’t the point I’m trying to make here). The point is that this example of “be nice to the police” is indicative of a larger tendency within the movement of the way that the 99% concept / term is used as propaganda externally, as well as internally to suggest directions for the movement to go and what tactics we should use to get there. It condescendingly and often ignorantly assumes an affinity between white middle-class folks who, perhaps, have lost their moderate to high paying jobs, or students who are crippled by debt, with poor and oppressed peoples who have struggled and fought for generations against a systemic racism and classism. Scroll through the “we are the 99%” tumblr, and you’ll see a hell of a lot more “I played by all of the rules,” implying “why did I get screwed?” than you’ll see “half of my family is in prison,” “my boss frequently steals wages from workers,” or “as an undocumented immigrant I work sub-minimum wage.” There is a sea of difference between “I tried to pull myself up by my bootstraps and the straps broke,” compared to “I never got a pair of fucking shoes!”

We shouldn’t fetishize the “most oppressed” though either. The point is that we need to have a better understanding of the rhetoric we use, and its relationship to real world effects in terms of who participates, but as importantly, how we as ‘Occupiers’ understand ourselves as a unified group, a would-be class, at the very least related group in common struggle. Like the middle-class folks who neglect to recognize how their liberalism and political assumptions can affect particular oppressed peoples as participants in Occupy, a militant and narrow-minded commitment to only the “most oppressed” (often times excluding oneself, flirting with a kind of awkwardly vanguardist role) can similarly result in a failure to recognize certain groups of people (students, for example, as a legitimate part of the working class who are enslaved by debt) and the pervasive and diverse ways in which capitalism has affected various peoples.

I not only think it is possible but that it is essential to begin to understand contemporary class politics as they emerge in all of their messy complexities within a grassroots movement that identifies the ruling class as the enemy. Some Marxist theorists call it ‘class-composition,’ referring to a complicated ever changing structuring of class both as it relates to political affinities and labor realities, but also and equally as important—their potentials in assembling or conjoining in struggle. As I understand it, class-composition works toward a re-conceptualization of class such that the social and the political spheres that were formerly thought to be necessarily distinct can be reconciled. But more importantly, to compose implies to create—that is, to articulate our similarities as well as our differences, without a need to refer to representative politics, and to understand how those affinities between different types of people, as well as singularities specific to the individual, offer potential to struggle on multiple terrains. When we build sincere affinities, which will require much more listening than has happened thus far, that are based on deep understandings of the various ways capitalism and oppression affect and manipulate different people, we more deeply understand how our actions have consequences on others within the supposed 99%, and we better understand how to struggle collectively while maintaining our respective politics, identities, etc. We will also see in the processes of composing our affinities toward one another—understanding and embracing our differences, rejecting our internalized oppressive behavior—a deepening of our bonds and an intensified commitment to each other as well as to our respective struggles. In this sense, quality over quantity might prove important, and might again reveal that not all of the 99% are our friends.

This, it seems to me, is what Occupy is all about in its attempt to pull a thread between so many differing types of people that make up the 99% while also resisting, so far at least, representative politics. But, generally speaking, it seems Occupy has neglected to do any work to articulate the both subtle and great differences as well as fragile alliances, instead conveniently harkening back on the reductive 99% unifier, muddling and canceling out many people. There are ways in which students, for example, can be militant about being exploited as workers, and having a critique of debt, without throwing out a nuanced understanding of our other racial, intellectual, geographic, hetero, gendered or other kinds of privileges. But this requires a re-imagining of what it means to be a part of the oppressed, it requires checking one’s privilege without relinquishing individual agency, and finally it requires a persistent linkage between various groups balanced with an understanding that capitalism distributes violence, economic inequality, and other forms of oppression unevenly and thus not everyone’s experiences (or politics) are the same.

This, in my estimation has been the primary problem with the [lack of] class analysis within Occupy, and of the concept of the 99%. Thus far it has not gotten us closer to understanding our differences in relationship to our shared forms of exploitation, either as workers or the subjects to the violence of financial capitalism. There are several stories of transphobic, racist, classist, patriarchal activities within GAs and various encampments. These stories signal that Occupy has so far struggled to listen, to be self-critical, but most importantly to deepen an understanding of all of the lingering -isms amongst ourselves. It also signals a realistic difficulty of learning again how to speak to one another, how to reject our own internalized systems of oppression, how to relate, how to join one another in the streets and re-learn how to speak, and perhaps most importantly how to listen. But if we are going to insist upon generalized language of inclusivity we must also ask in an honest way: Who gets to be part of such a group? Or better, who isn’t showing up, and why?

_____
_____

In the spirit of this essay I should note that I am definitely not the first to bring up these problems or analyses; I’ve learned from many brilliant people. Below are a few links that have made an impression on me and helped to sharpen my politics; surely there are many other great voices to be heard.

Colorlines continually posts good articles putting race on the table in relationship to Occupy. See their posts here.

W.I.T.C.H. (Women and Trans* Conspiracy from Hell) produced a scathing and productive critique of Occupy coming from a queer / anarchist perspective. It was here that I first read a good critique of “99%.” Can be downloadedhere.

Transgendered artist / activist Micha Cardenas describes her frustration to find that OccupyLA has kept sexual assault that has occurred at camp from public discussion, and thus not adequately dealt with, for fear of ‘damaging the movement.’ Can be read here.

Til Always,
H. Schultze
January 2012

[American Dream]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/15/ ... nd-racism/

FEBRUARY 15, 2012

The Belgian Case
Tintin and Racism

by CHARLES R. LARSON

Friday, February 10, a court in Belgium rejected “an application to ban a colonial-era” children’s book, Tintin in the Congo, by Georges Remi, known as Hergé to his millions of readers (and recent movie viewers) around the world. The children’s cartoon/narrative was originally serialized in 1931-31, revised and reissued by the author/illustrator in 1946, and subsequently published in English in 1991. The current legal case was initiated by Bienvenu Mbutu Mondondo, a Brussels-based Congolese man.

Although the judgment of the court stated, “It is clear that neither the story, nor the fact that [the book] has been put on sale, has a goal to…create an intimidating, hostile, degrading or humiliating environment,” that decision does not exonerate Hergé of racism. No matter what the court has said, Tintin in the Congo reinforces Western racist stereotypes—sadly, for the very audience for which the book was intended: children. Worse, other narratives by the writer/illustrator (including Tintin in America, which depicts Indians in a similarly negative and stereotyped way) project prevalent racist stereotypes.

It is not the story of Tintin in the Congo that is offensive. The book is little more that a typical Tintin adventure sequence with villains and rogues, misadventures, surprises and cliff-hangers. The problem is the background, using Congo as a backdrop for Tintin’s latest escapades. Just as Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899) used Congo as the setting for colonial greed and Kurtz’s madness, Hergé’s illustrations are akin to Conrad’s descriptions, especially the drawings of African characters that have almost no personalities of their own or variety to distinguish them from one another.


Conrad’s narrator, Marlow, describes the Africans as having “faces like grotesque masks,” as animal-like creatures who lap water like animals, with ugly and horrid faces, who howl and leap around, with buttocks wagging “to and fro like tails.” Of one “savage” who has been trained to fire up a boiler, Marlow can’t resist remarking, “To look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat, walking on his hind legs.” It is the animalistic images assigned to Africans that make Conrad—according to Chinua Achebe, his harshest critic—racist. I concur. He didn’t need to have Marlow use such racist terms. And as Achebe has painstakingly documented, it is not excusable simply to respond that Conrad’s treatment of Africans in Heart of Darkness was no different than the treatment by other writers of the time, because there were enlightened artists who did not embrace racist images and stereotypes.

This is where I also fault Hergé in Tintin in the Congo. Tintin is the pure Aryan boy, followed around by his pure white dog, Snowball. Tintin’s African pal, Coco, is drawn so that his head is black as ink, except for his white bug-eyes, his typically gaping mouth with huge, red lips, and his frizzy black hair, though he is spared the flat nose of most of his elders. The African adults are depicted either as stupid clowns or as duplicitous tricksters, draped in leopard skins and gaudy loincloths, and carrying shields and spears. A monkey that appears briefly in the story is accorded as much intelligence as the Africans. The analogy is impossible to miss. Above all, the African characters are ignorant savages easily influenced by Tintin, who, after all, is only a young European boy. Taken all together, the illustrations of Africans are offensive, stereotypical, and racist.

The publishers of the English edition of the story have attempted to downplay the racist overtones of the book by adding a wrap-around attachment to the book which states, “In his portrayal of the Belgian Congo, the young Hergé reflects the colonial attitudes of the time…he depicted the African people according to the bourgeois, paternalist stereotypes of the period….” The fact that the British publisher (Egmont) decided that it was necessary to attach the statement is an admission of culpability. Similarly in 2007, Britain’s Commission for Racial Equality declared the book “hideous racial prejudice,” recommending that it should no longer be sold in British bookstores. The brouhaha was significant enough that some booksellers in the United Kingdom stopped selling the book, although Borders simply decided to relocate Tintin in the Congo to its adult graphic novel section.

The Belgium court’s decision that Tintin in the Congo does not breach the country’s racism laws is only half of the picture. Nor is Bienvenu Mbutu Mondondo’s attempt to have the book banned in Belgium an appropriate goal. Banning Tintin in the Congo would serve no more purpose than would censoring Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn or any number of other classic works that reflect the prejudices of their times. It is worth nothing that late in his life, Twain entered the dialogue about Congo (especially the atrocities), by publishing his own expose of Belgium’s colonial horrors: King Leopold’s Soliloquy (1905). Some critics have regarded the book as Twain’s attempt to respond to the controversies of his own writing career.

Georges Remi (Hergé) died in 1893. The controversies of his books will have to be left for others to explain—not to censor—to use as springboards for discussing (especially with children) the lingering and on-going issues of racism.


Charles R. Larson is Emeritus Professor of Literature at American University, in Washington, D.C.

[American Dream]

PRETTY GIRLS GET LOTS OF STUFF!
by Gwen Sharp

One of our readers sent in a Valentine’s Day card that came in a box of cards her 10-year-old received. The card reinforces the idea that pretty girls are high-maintenance; they’re materialistic and, implicitly, demanding or difficult — which they presumably get away with in exchange for being attractive:

[American Dream]

Love For Sale!

[American Dream]

APPLE REMINDS US THAT LOVE IS MEASURED IN DOLLARS

[American Dream]

VALENTINE’S DAY HETERONORMATIVITY
by Lisa Wade, Feb 14, 2010

Roisin O’R. sent in a great example of the heteronormativity pervasive in Valentine’s Day marketing. These “dark chocolate dippers” are designed to be dipped into hot milk and melted into hot chocolate. Seeing them at a UK health food store, Roisin noticed that they came packaged in boy-girl sets:




She sent a note to the company and asked why they don’t just sell the sticks individually so that the product would be open to gay and lesbian couples (and, for that matter, polyamorous relationships or people who just want to include their kids or grandma). Roisin writes that the company said that:

…they were “following the market” and if I knew of any stores that would want “his n his or hers n hers” to let them know. They missed my point.

Sometimes it’s the little things that make people feel excluded, invisible, unimportant, or unwelcome.

[American Dream]

SARAH HASKINS ON A HETEROSEXUAL GIFT GIVING IMPERATIVE

[American Dream]

MEN ARE “LOVED”; WOMEN ARE “PROPERTY”
by Lisa Wade, Feb 13, 2010

Victoria A. sent along this ad for Cafe Press:




Okay, okay, I know it’s just Cafe Press and anyone can make anything on Cafe Press and, heck, these undies probably come in both variations… but even so!

I mean really! Can we just think a second before we make an ad that includes a pair of men’s underwear that say “Loved by…” and a pair of women’s that say “Property of…”? I mean, can we just NOT do that when women actually are the legal property of men in some places and were at one point in history in many?

It’s not a joke. Women who, by virtue of being owned by someone, could not own property themselves; could not vote or enter into contracts; women whose children were taken away if they separated; who, when raped, deserved no compensation because she belonged to a man who, not incidentally, DID deserve compensation because his property had been tarnished. Can we, like, just not make this ad quite this way? Please?

[American Dream]

VDAY: AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMIND US THAT WE ARE OPPOSITE SEXES
by Lisa Wade, Feb 13, 2010

Marie-Claire has been seeing these movie posters for Valentine’s Day all over Toronto and decided to send them in. She writes:

…Hollywood manages to keep a firm grip on the roles men and women play in society (working vs being worshiped), how they spend their time (being social, doing active/productive thing vs passive consumption and adorning themselves), and how they feel about Valentine’s Day (what day is it? The best day of the year!)

“Cards. Candy. Flowers. Jewelry. Dinner. …What a day.”




“Work. Business lunch. Trainer. Happy Hour. Ballgame. …What day is it again?”

[American Dream]

STEAK AND A BLOW JOB DAY
by Lisa Wade, Mar 1, 2008
Krystle, a junior sociology major at Colorado College, and Alicia T. both sent us this link to the Facebook page for men’s answer to Valentine’s Day, Steak and a Blowjob Day.

Warning! These images are not work safe!






There are at least a couple interesting things about this:

First, it nicely illustrates the feminization of love and the masculinization of sex. Since Valentine’s Day is about love, it’s gendered feminine, and the things thought to be appropriate gifts for Valentine’s Day are both for her and feminine (candy, candles, flowers, romance, etc). The solution? Why a day for men, of course! (Since they get absolutely nothing out of Valentine’s Day.) And what would a day for men include? Steak and blow jobs.

Second, the Day might be used as an example of social networks and how new technologies facilitate a completely different kind of communication. Click here for an analysis of how Steak and a Blow Job Day, with more than 38,000 confirmed guests for this year as of this post, is an example of successful “viral marketing.”

Oh yeah… and the misogyny, always the misogyny:

[American Dream]

VINTAGE VALENTINES PUNNING ON AMERICAN INDIAN STEREOTYPES
by Lisa Wade, Feb 12, 2011

Via Native Appropriations, I found a set of vintage Valentines drawing on stereotypes of American Indians at the Vintage Valentine Museum.

“I’d never squaw’k if you’d be my Valentine” (1950s or ’60s):




“I want to be the CHIEF” (1940s or ’50s):




“I’m a straightshoooter Valentine. May I be your BOW” (1930s):

if


“I’m hunting for you, Valentine” (1941):




“Ugh! Ugh! I’m an INDIAN GIVER. It’s time you should learn it. For I won’t give my love, unless you’ll RETURN it!” (1940s):




“Ugh! Ugh! Give me your heart Valentine!”:




“You heap fine Valentine AND HOW!” (1950s or ’60s):




“I’m sending this ARROW CHEIFLY to say, let me be your “beau” (1930s or ’40s):

[American Dream]

MORE VINTAGE VALENTINE CARDS WITH RACIAL CARICATURES
by Gwen Sharp, Feb 14, 2011

Over the weekend Lisa posted a number of old Valentine’s Day cards featuring Native Americans. They aren’t the only racial group to be caricatured in cards, though. Carrie S. sent in this vintage Valentine, found at Adventures of Accordion Guy in the 21st Century, that presents a stereotyped Asian character (doing laundry even!), complete with mangled English:



And hearts atwirl has two examples with African American characters with grotesquely large mouths:

[American Dream]

"Give Me My Sugar Daddy"

[American Dream]

Deported Dad Begs North Carolina To Give Him Back His Children




More info at: http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/02/ ... ption.html