Class struggle in all its forms.
You are set on target, you can see the point when talking about the Quran, that then it’s ok to speak up, even if the country in which it happened, allows for the burning to happen. But then, when it comes to LGBT, the country’s law must be respected and you can’t talk about it.
No. I am historicizing both LGBT people and Islam. I am saying that queerphobia and Islamaphobia are not the same. They have interactions of course, like all social phenomena does, but they are qualitatively different and have different responses.
The nature of the countries in question also affect the situation at hand.
It is you who thinks that being Queer and being Muslim is like collecting trading cards or are just mere identities rather than historically situated phenomena. This is why I treat them differently - because they are.
How is Turkish citizens expressing discontent on another country's policy in Turkey remotely the same as a British performer entering Malaysia for a concert then VIOLATING the social norms and practices?
It is insane that you are making a false equivalence between these two things.
Over here:
Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.
I explicitly mention that not all issues are to be resolved internally - there are valid avenues for internationalism.
But it seems like there is no point in continuing this conversation because I realise now we operate in totally different frameworks.
You say that Malaysia and Singapore share similar cultures, and I agree.
You say that because of this similarity, Malaysia should share the same "progress" of Singapore.
I say that it can't and it hasn't because they are not the same. They have different material conditions.
But then you come back and say
I’m saying that is Singapore can do it, Malaysia should be able to do it within a comparable period of time.
I don't know how to continue. It seems like we are talking past eachother.
If let’s say you were living in a country where Islam was a minority and burning the Quran was legal, wouldn’t you want to have a conversation started and hope that there was some progress for your situation as well? What would you think if others in that country were to say that Türkiye protesting on your behalf would be comparable to supporting jihadist and that should not be allowed?
The reaction against the unprovoked burning of the Quran is objectively correct because Islam is globally oppressed, through wars of destabilization and occupation in West Asia, through funding of Wahhabist and Salafist groups, through neocolonial control of the Persian Gulf states, through Orientalism and Racism. So when these oppressed countries reject this imposition of Western cultural values - it is only reactionary if you are on the side of the Imperialists.
The "conversation" that happens is just further policing of LGBT communities here in Malaysia - what "progress" is that?
When the government introduces guidelines for performers, which include not talking about sensitive topics as well as behaving appropriately, and it was violated by foreigners, shouldn't the government act? What would it look like if they don't act?
It would delegitimize their rule causing further destabilization, and wreck our economy. What use would that brief conversation on LGBT rights be for people in my country, geopolitically and materially? We don't need the colonizers and the imperialists themselves protesting on "our behalf" because it causes more problems than solutions.
Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.
Also, Singapore's "progress" is encumbered with problems too. Pink Dot SG, the foremost NGO advocating for LGBT rights in Singapore, had large Amerikan corporate sponsors like Facebook, Google and Apple until the government stopped it. We must question why these NGOs can easily associate themselves with Western Capital without an ounce of reflection. There are no easy answers.
Culturally, Malaysia and Singapore are sister countries, in historical times, they were only recently separated (not even 100 years yet). Not comparable with Hong Kong because Malaysia and Singapore where not given to another country that had different cultural values. They both became independent on their own. If Singapore can talk and make progress for the LGBT community, so could Malaysia.
Singapore is different from Malaysia, precisely because they were controlled differently. Singapore was part of the Straits Settlements, same as Penang, Melaka and Dinding. The strait settlements were crown colonies, versus the indirect rule found in the Federated and Unfederated Malay States.
Are we to ignore that the original reason for Singapore's expulsion was because of it's Chinese-majority that would have counterracted the power given to the Malay sultans?
progress for the LGBT community
Again - that word is used. "Progress"? Gender and sexual diversity was more progressive in 1600s Southeast Asia than 1900s Europe. What is "progress"?
Singapore can afford to be much more generous in terms of civil rights because of it's role as a tax haven for ASEAN economies. The material conditions could be anything but different.
Singapore can "progress" on civil rights while supporting imperialism in other SEA states. Until this contradiction is removed, LGBT people can't "progress" nor can they achieve liberation.
Also you seem to think that I believe that it's culturally impossible for Malays to accept LGBT people. That isn't my point. My point is that for acceptance to occur it means 0 meddling from the Global North of Global South affairs.
Until the contradictions within Malaysian society is resolved and managed, LGBT acceptance will never be reality with Imperialism being the primary contradiction.
Malays live in Singapore, same race as the Malays that live in Malaysia different citizenship only.
I agree, up to a certain point, although I would avoid using the word "race" for it's tainted colonial history. Malaysia-Singapore has never moved past their idiotic use of the word "race" precisely because they never fully decolonized.
Also this suggests that there aren't Singaporeans with Malaysian citizenship - which isn't the case. As we both probably know, Singaporean citizens are given til 22 to renounce any foreign citizenship.
I agree with this at face-value but it is one contradiction of many within a postcolonial or Third World country.
If we agree that the primary contradiction is imperialism, than all other contradictions are subsumed under it. They become secondary contradictions affected by the primary.
If we agree that it is Imperialism vs Decolonization, or in other words, the freedom to exploit versus the self-determination of the Third World, then all attempts at rejecting this imperialist-capitalist system is progressive in nature and anything but reactionary.
Reactionary has a very specific meaning in Marxism, and is not just when it goes against Western values. Is it reactionary for countries to assert their own self-determination which will objectively lead to the uplifting of the lives of the people?
Reaction is primarily done by the comprador classes within a (post)colonial society, as it is in their interest to maintain the current or past capitalist status quo. The national bourgeoisie may not necessarily have to be comprador - and that is the view I hold about my current government.
Singapore’s Mufti seems to be more understanding of the situation. Why can’t Malaysia try a more sensible approach?
Sensible to whom? Western observers? Or the people that live here?
Singapore and Malaysia has a shared history for millenia, and already got seperated due to colonization. I agree with that. However, because of that, the situation is a bit more complicated and the material conditions between the 2 countries can't ever be more different.
It's like arguing that Taiwan Province or Hong Kong has LGBT rights so why can't mainland China have it.
The questions we must ask: is there majority will for further LGBT protection and "rights"? Is this event where a White Guy trashes the government and then subsequently leaves for his next tour beneficial for LGBT people on the ground? What are the local and international conditions in which this "outrage" took place?
Why should we be mad at a government in which we already knows is forced to do this, which everyone here knows is homophobic, when this was clearly initiated by those outside the country that can't even respect our normal cultural practices, and then tries to shoehorn a politically sensitive issue like homosexuality?
Is this for the benefit of our people? Or is it a very self-evident case of liberal virtue signalling?
This then just places the members of these marginalized communities at even greater risk, but of course the West doesn’t care about this.
I personally believe that this is intentional - it was never ever about rights. Making lives worst in Third World countries allows continuous migrant flows into the metropole, in addition to the other effects of destabilization you mention.
I thought I replied to this but I didn't
I only included LG in the title because the event only included them, although it was mb that I forgot to include the B.
Later on I did use LGBT but it was for convenience, in an ideal world there would have been alternative terminology for LGBT people.
Gender and sexual minority is one of them but I personally don't like it.
And why I left out transgender people isn't some transphobic plot - it's because transgender people is treated differently in Islamic societies. They are their own special case and I don't necessarily see why we should force the umbrella "LGBT" onto Third World constructs that don't perfectly map onto it.
To those downvoting, take a look at this thread. Then come back here and tell me if you have objections to the analysis.
Thread is copy-pasted down below.
Let me teach you Marxist 101 wrt this whole Matty Healy thing. The force that drives social change is primarily the internal contradictions of a society, which of course reacts to external influences. The primary contradiction internationally is imperialism at the moment. (1/9)
In a postcolonial world, formerly colonised nations are in the process of healing from colonial trauma. A component of decolonisation is the reclamation of one’s own culture as this affirms and empowers the identity of the colonised. (2/9)
But the colonialists themselves were responsible for epistemicide and cultural genocide. They imposed their norms, including the gender binary which is rooted in capitalism, onto our ancestors who had their own differing attitudes toward gender and sexual diversity. (3/9)
Anti-queer attitudes (in the capitalist sense) among Malays is learned. The knowledge of their previous attitude is repressed. This is not to say that their attitudes were perfect but change happens and the Malays would’ve made their own progress on this issue. (4/9)
The West has a track record of continuing the White Man’s burden, screaming human rights as an excuse to criticise our practice and lecture us on what to do. They’ve also weaponised social issues to incite colour revolutions in parts of the Third World. (5/9)
Matty Healy’s act of “protest” against our government is one that will backfire against us. A white Brit kissing a man to challenge the authority of Malaysia is a microattack on our right to decide for ourselves the values we follow. (6/9)
He also presents the act of two men kissing as a Western imposition onto our people. This adds ammo for a people who are ignorant of their ancestors’ nuanced attitude towards this stuff to label the LGBT people as a threat to national sovereignty. (7/9)
This is why what he did was reactionary. It was a reaction and it will incite reactions that inhibit the progress of our revolutionary efforts. It sabotages our attempt to improve the conditions of gender and sexual diverse people in Malaysia. (8/9)
The government will point to this and can use it as an excuse to enact further restrictions on the practice of the local LGBT community. We will have to face the reaction of the government which they see as necessary to maintain the status quo. So, fuck Matty Healy. (9/9)
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The Anglo-Saxon world, with all due respect to the British people, has a very good idea of how to hammer in liberal ideology into the heads of the people. They are exceedingly good at it.
No lies detected whatsoever.
China, ASEAN reaffirm commitment to advance comprehensive strategic partnership
The ASEAN parties thanked China for supporting ASEAN centrality and community building. They appreciated China for taking the lead in expressing willingness to sign the Protocol to the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.
In addition, they looked forward to seeing the ASEAN-China comprehensive strategic partnership advance to a new level and make new achievements.
The meeting adopted a joint statement on the 20th anniversary of China's accession to the TAC and a guideline document for expediting the conclusion of the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.
I wonder if any North Atlantic commentators even knows anything about ASEAN centrality, ZOPFAN, or tanah air diplomacy that guides Nusantara sea policies.
You got me there.
I guess British food is cancelled 😔
It’s such a online circlejerk tbh.
I can appreciate a Full English and a lot of the baked foods are quite good.
Also Fish and Chips is a working class icon and anyone that says otherwise needs mandatory re-education.
Controversial opinion:
British food is good.
I’ll die on this hill
It's even worse. They are saying 800 CE to 1700 CE Vietnam is a settler colony lol, therefore removing the role of Capitalism in spreading settler-colonialism from it's origins in Europe.
Just saw a video titled Settler Colonialism in Vietnam.
What a ridiculous assertion, and the video is what you'd expect.
Youtube testing my patience rn.
To be fair, Vietnam also banned it. Fair in that SEA frequently bans films and books not up to the governments’ supposed standards.
Doesn’t really matter much either way.
The "self-flaggelation" was in reference to the person who called White people orcs, because they were White themself. I was hoping to explain that self-hatred will get no where and falls into the liberal trap and reifies the power structures of Racial Capitalism.
however I do not see how this has to do with discussion at hands.
It is relevant because some people here in lemmygrad in the past stopped posting because they said something similar to "White people are evil" (i don't remember exactly) and got mass downvoted. It is relevant because the Global South (and oppressed people generally) isn't by default morally Good nor are noble savages. We are humans. Many also still have resentment against White People, I am explaining the material basis of this expression.
The oppressed hating the oppressor is a GOOD thing. There's no such thing as "reverse racism" because it is completely ahistorical.
One individual's personal hatred does not discount the global imperialist system. Just as some African nations benefiting from the slave trade did not discount the untold damage that slave trading did to Africa.
What I mean by "insentience that the “white people” should be oppressed" is explained by the sentence just prior to it:
The least of my problems is when the oppressed uses the oppressor’s language to demonstrate the false justifications of the oppressor’s existence.
What would oppression of white people even entail? It doesn't make sense. It's all rhetorics. That's my point. Racism against white people doesn't exist in reality.
It's isn't white bodies piling up in the Mediterrenean sea. That is the material reality. There is no systemic discrimination against White people, and there is no material basis for it. On the contrary, there is a global material basis of exploitation that benefits White-Global North countries.
When I say we should oppress White people, it is the admittance that it isn't actually possible in reality because it isn't the Global South that controls the definition of White, nor has the power to materially effect White countries (as of currently). It is the Global North that is imperializing and neo-colonizing the Global South.
It is the oppressed against the oppressor. There is no equivalence.
That would have run contrary to our political doctrines and our internationalist conscience, both well-proven throughout many years, and increasingly rooted in our ideas.”
To be internationalist is to reject the racist world capitalism system. This is something revolutionaries in my country understood by rejecting Race and forming their own multiethnic proletarian coalition against the comprador classes and the European colonizers with their toxic racial ideology but ultimately failed.
That's how current and past AES nations handle minority ethnicities and nations.
blind hatred based on a characteristic a person cannot change, and was born with, and injustice
Race is not biological. However it does exhibit a peculiar characteristic of exhibiting base and superstructural features, although ultimately being superstructural in the end. It changes definition person to person, area to area, nation-state to nation-state. That is why we must reject this clearly immaterial basis of dividing the global proletariat.
Then, a broader question, can there be hate crime but not racism against white people?
I think the distinction between "hate crime" and systemic racism might be useful, but it discounts the numerous "hate crimes" that forms a natural part of the oppressed peoples experience, like Indigenous people in the Americas or Chinese people in Southeast Asia.
I’m unsure if it really means anything to say that white people ‘should be oppressed’ because as soon as that becomes a possibility, there would be no such thing as whiteness, which requires a hierarchy of which it is at the top.
That is what I am trying to say in my original comment but just with rhetorical flourishes.
Igauan Malam - Insomniacks right now but honourable mention to When The Moon Shines Red by Powerwolf, I listen to it regularly ever since I first found out about it a while back.