Tribalism isn’t about feelings, it’s about the zero-sum outlook

Change can be unpleasant.

Unless you’re down and out. If you’re down and out, then change is probably good news. When you’re down and out, then any change is likely to be progress.

But if you’re neither down nor out, then progress may be unwelcome. You’re on top. You’re in. Why mess with that?

The last 60 years has seen a lot of change. The trajectory of that change has been good news for many people who used to be intractably down and  out. For them, the trajectory of this change is clearly progress. But such progress has been unsettling for many people who used to enjoy an exclusive birthright to being up and in.

What I’m trying to talk about here is privilege, hegemony, implicit hierarchy. And about the lingering resentment and anxiety over every slight erosion of them.

This shows up a lot in pronouns — particularly in the ambiguous use of undifferentiated first-person plural pronouns. “We need to take our country back.” But what do you mean “We,” kemosabe?

Those pronouns are funny things. They seem to be inclusive and comprehensive. On its face, “we” means us — all of us. But we don’t always use “we” in that way. Who is the “we” in “we need to take our country back”? Who is the “our”?

It’s inclusive, but not comprehensive. Or, in other words, it’s tribal — inclusive of those within the tribe, but exclusive of those without it.

The tribal boundaries are implicit and unstated, but they are known. These boundaries are ethnic and religious and sexual, yet they do not necessarily entail any ethnic or religious or sexual animus.

There may be such animus, but it’s not necessary. No actual dislike or contempt needs to be felt. Personal sentiment and emotional antipathy are wholly optional when it comes to defending the interests of the tribe.

This can lead to some confusion and muddy things up. We can end up arguing about racism, misogyny, homophobia or religious hatred with folks who insist, sincerely, that they do not have any such feelings.

And for many people, that’s largely true. They don’t feel such dislike, and some of their best friends are, etc. Because this isn’t about feelings, it’s about tribes. Plenty of people who are driven by the desire to defend the interests of their tribe don’t feel any visceral dislike for those they regard as outsiders — as not “we,” not “us,” not “ours.” Those folks just happen to be on the other team.

And if our team is going to win, they imagine, then their team can’t.

I think that’s the key. That, right there, is the idea that makes personal feelings of dislike or hatred superfluous. Once you accept the framework of a zero-sum struggle between competing tribes then it no longer matters whether or not you feel any such feelings — you’re still bound to regard any advance for them as a loss for us. You’ll still imagine that “we” cannot be up and in unless “they” are kept down and out.

In that zero-sum tribal framework, it doesn’t matter whether or not you dislike the other tribe or view them an inferior. If you think of yourself as part of the straight, white, male, Christian tribe, then you’ll defend the interests of that tribe against anyone who is not straight, white, male and Christian. Whether or not personal sentiments of antipathy are involved, the effect is the same.

It’s very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to separate out the various threads of tribal identity as distinct factors. The tribal anxiety that comes from the idea of a zero-sum world is all of a piece. Antitribalism struggles to be “intersectional,” but tribalism has always been intersectional. Tribalism was intersectional before intersectionality was cool.

Look again at that amorphous and undifferentiated use of the tribal “we.” We need to take back our country. The anxiety there — the sense that we are losing, somehow, due to the advances made by others — cannot easily be separated into discrete elements of ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. The loss that “we” feel for “our” tribe arises from a host of changes that combine to form a single anxiety. The anxiety that perceives the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as a tribal defeat is bound up with the anxiety that festers behind fear of the so-called “War on Christmas.” The tribal anxiety felt over every advance of feminism is intermixed with the anxiety felt over every advance in civil rights for ethnic minorities. The sense of tribal besiegement that perceives a same-sex wedding as some kind of setback is intermingled with the anxiety over the new neighborhood mosque, the ending of prayers at high school football games and “Press 2 para Español.”

This is part of what I was trying to convey with the Venn diagram I posted last night. State-mandated sectarian prayer in public schools is a theocratic idea, yet “school prayer” isn’t primarily a rallying cry for theocrats, but for tribalists. The 1962 decision forbidding mandatory sectarian prayers was perceived as a loss for the tribe, just as the desegregation decisions of the previous decade were. “We” were losing control of “our” schools.

Racial animus may play a role in that tribal anxiety, for some. And I suspect that for many who harbor such feelings of racial animus, “school prayer” is considered a safer, more acceptable-seeming way of expressing their objection to desegregation. But explicit, visceral racial animus is not necessary for such an objection any more than state Sen. Dennis Kruse needed to be a raging anti-Semite to introduce legislation allowing Indiana schools to mandate the recitation of the Christian Lord’s prayer. It doesn’t really matter whether or not Kruse feels any such feelings of bigotry — the effect is the same either way.

 

  • monarchos8@hotmail.com

     “Also, come to think of it.. if I try to mandate that every school child
    says that the United States is one nation under God at the beginning of
    every day, is that an extremist position?”

    – yes, it would be.  But we don’t actually do that.  No child is required to say the pledge.

    I went to school with a child who sat in his chair while we all stood up to say the pledge.  Nobody mocked or demeaned him.  In fact, it became an opportunity for discussion.  That being said, I can appreciate the difficulty of him sitting there those first few days of school.

    There is a bill in the Arizona legislature to require that all students sign such a pledge before they graduate.  This was one of my examples of an “extreme Christian position.”  Which I disagree with.

  • Carstonio

    It’s a mistake to focus so much on intent, especially since no one can truly know someone else’s intent.

    Nativities are explicitly Christian. You might have a point if we were talking about wreaths or trees. We celebrate Christmas in our home as a secular holiday since we’re not religious.

  • EllieMurasaki

    No child is required to say the pledge.

    Have you ever encountered the concepts of ‘bullying’ or ‘peer pressure’? The child who declines to say the Pledge, in full or at all, when the rest of the class says the whole thing in unison, is shortly going to be an ostracized child. Most kids don’t have the nerve for that, and it’s discriminatory behavior, even if not discriminatory policy, for standard practice to be that the nonChristian kids who don’t have the nerve to stand out from the crowd (and no one should be required to be braver than the rest! encouraged, certainly, but not required, and certainly not required by demographic happenstance!) have to make a statement of faith with which they disagree.

  • monarchos8@hotmail.com

    “I was referring to Nativities taking up all but one of the display
    booths. That dominance is the “vindictive, activist approach.” The
    American Atheists tactic appears first and foremost to be a reaction to
    that approach by c0-opting it.”

    – As far as I know, there was no expectation that there would be nativities in all but one display.  There was an expectation that they would have fourteen of the twenty-one displays, but I’m not trying to defend that expectation.  I just don’t believe that expectation was intentionally vindictive.

    “Look at it this way – our culture still subconsciously assumes that it’s
    normal or natural for doctors to be men. What you’re describing is the
    equivalent of a male physician taking it personally in the rare case of a
    patient assuming that the doctor would be a woman. Ridiculous for him
    to want sympathy for a single experience that his female colleagues
    regularly face.”

    – Take that one step further.  Let’s say a few women tried to limit applications to medical school so that only a few men could attend.  Their position is that men have had the privilege for so long that it is women’s turn now.  I would say that is wrong.

    However, my wife tells me that she is much more comfortable with a woman Ob/Gyn — that is also discriminatory, but I can sympathize with it.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    For my immediate family Christmas is mostly a get-together holiday with some gift exchanges. No nativity etc, just a little Christmas tree and we’re set.

  • monarchos8@hotmail.com

     “Wait up… if I put up a sign next to a bunch of public declarations of faith saying  “There are no gods,” you don’t consider that problematic?”

    – I didn’t mean for it to sound like I’m against “problematic”.

    “So, OK, what do you say to the Christian or the Muslim who says “Of
    course it’s problematic! Dave is mocking my faith! He’s not interested
    in a genuine conversation!”?”

    – Some do say that.  I don’t expect everybody to agree.  But I think there should be an attempt at understanding.

    Right now, my perception is that a select minority try to limit and control discussions to their favor. Environmentalists say that “the debate on global warming is settled” — this statement doesn’t encourage discussion or understanding.  It says, “if you haven’t come to that conclusion, that is your problem.” Try to find the transcripts of the Obamacare debate on a national health care system. — You can’t, because it didn’t happen.  The debate was controlled by one person (Max Baucus) who limited all 41 testimonies to people who agreed with him. How did he get away with this?  “Socialism is bad.”

  • monarchos8@hotmail.com

     “people feel obliged to say “‘We’ aren’t extremist, ‘they’ are.”
    The
    thing is, we’re NOT, they ARE, and there’s another ‘they’ that has the
    same label as the first ‘they’ but contains no extremists”

    – No, both positions are the same thing.  In this example, both “we” and ‘they’ are wrong.  I never limited this to “Atheist extremists” — that’s how you interpreted it.  And I’m against using Christianity to hurt people — and I believe it is a large majority of Christians who believe this way.  They just don’t make it on TV or in Congress.

  • monarchos8@hotmail.com

    “It’s a mistake to focus so much on intent, especially since no one can truly know someone else’s intent.”

    – I wasn’t trying to “focus” on intent.  I was pointing to an example what I though was a divisive campaign by a few select individuals to demean Christmas in the name of Atheism.  Whether the displays are “legally right or wrong”, was never my point.  My point was that the number of public an private nativity displays will probably double next year in Santa Monica.  The response to that will be a doubling of Atheist displays which will appear more vindictive.  Then the news reporters will come around asking everyone’s opinion.

    “Nativities are explicitly Christian. You might have a point if we were
    talking about wreaths or trees. We celebrate Christmas in our home as a
    secular holiday since we’re not religious.”

    – Yes, but I’m not defending religious displays. We’re not holding this discussion in a vacuum.  The displays were already there. I’m against turning this into a “we” vs. “them” discussion.  What can I say?  I failed.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Environmentalists say that “the debate on global warming is settled” — this statement doesn’t encourage discussion or understanding. It says, “if you haven’t come to that conclusion, that is your problem.”

    …oh, so you’re a fuckwit and I’ve been wasting my time.

  • monarchos8@hotmail.com

    “Have you ever encountered the concepts of ‘bullying’ or ‘peer pressure’?
    The child who declines to say the Pledge, in full or at all, when the
    rest of the class says the whole thing in unison, is shortly going to be
    an ostracized child.”

    – Yes, of course I have.  Did you just bypass the anecdote from my first grade experience?  I had someone in my class who did not say the pledge.  At the time,  I did not appreciate how difficult it was.  It became a positive, constructive experience, but I did not have any idea of that in first grade.  It must have been paralyzing for him those first few days of school.

  • monarchos8@hotmail.com

     “…oh, so you’re a fuckwit and I’ve been wasting my time.”

    – That’s very Christian of you.

    My point about Global Warming is that it is an extremely complicated issue. Statements like, “the debate is settled” marginalizes any discussion to either ‘for’ or ‘against’.  The assumption is that you can’t be “against” the environmentalist position, but it ignores any possibility that you could be partially for much of the discussion, but against some of the others.

    And, if nothing else, realize that I am against arbitrary limits of the discussion.

    It could just be that Al Gore has a new book out and he was on a tour the other day.  Just watching him speak makes the hair on the back of my neck curl.  It’s not whether I agree or disagree with him, it is his arrogant antagonism.

  • P J Evans

     I wish the heck they’d repeal the law that put ‘under God’ into the pledge, damned cold-war anti-communist holdover that it is.

  • P J Evans

     In case you hadn’t noticed, we’re tired of explaining reality to you. Please shut up or go away.

  • Carstonio

     

    I just don’t believe that expectation was intentionally vindictive.

     The expectation was for preferential treatment for their religion at the expense of others. That amounts to vindictive treatment of the disfavored religions. It doesn’t matter whether the expectation was intentionally vindictive.

      Let’s say a few women tried to limit applications to medical school so that only a few men could attend…

    Please explain why that would be “one step further,” because it has nothing to do with my point about unequal societal expectations of the genders. No one is proposing that male privilege with the female version, so there was no reason for you to even bring up the idea.

  • monarchos8@hotmail.com

     ” The expectation was for preferential treatment for their religion at
    the expense of others. That amounts to vindictive treatment of the
    disfavored religions. It doesn’t matter whether the expectation was
    intentionally vindictive”

    – I am not defending the Christians in Santa Monica.  Nor have I ever.  I think you and I are mostly in agreement.  I understand that I am not saying it very well.  I’m suddenly beginning to think that is some sort of crime.

    “Please explain why that would be “one step further,” because it has
    nothing to do with my point about unequal societal expectations of the
    genders. No one is proposing that male privilege with the female
    version, so there was no reason for you to even bring up the idea.”

    – I agree.  I was extending your analogy.  Some people seem to me to be saying that Christians have had privilege for so long, that now it is Atheist’s turn.

  • monarchos8@hotmail.com

     I get — I’m done.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    > I’ve been doing this for at least 15 years now and I’m still not having any problem managing it.

    That’s neat. I stand happily corrected.

    And yeah, to someone raised in American Judaism, religion without religious holidays is like…. um… something without something else, which is necessarily entailed by it.

  • Carstonio

    No one here is saying that privilege should be switched from Christians to atheists. In my case, I’m saying that privilege shouldn’t exist.

    The Santa Monica incident was one instance of a religious majority experiencing, for a relatively brief period, the treatment that religious minorities experience all the time. Yet all your sympathies appear, to me, to be for the majority. That’s like feeling sorry for a pampered celebrity who has to settle for eating at Bob Evans instead of Four Seasons.

    When I read about the initial, my initial reaction to the complaints from Christians was, “Cry me a river. Now you know what it feels like.” They might have had a point if the city had decided to deliberately exclude Christian displays while allowing displays from other religions. But these folks live in a society that still treats their religion as the default, and the vast majority of the displays in there had been of their religion. The irony is that they are most likely outnumbered by the Christians who share my view that the complaining was self-centered and selfish.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     I see. Thanks for clarifying.

    So, if I wanted to mandate that all children stand up and be led in a group recitation of  “Jesus is Lord,” but I provided an option whereby individual children can choose to stay seated, would that be OK?

  • Carstonio

     Also, how in the name of all that’s good or decent does a scenario about establishing female privilege constitute “extending” an analogy about male privilege? That’s like claiming that left-handers want to do away with right-handed scissors.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    As near as I can determine, the Santa Monica display was not intended
    as a “Christian” display of Christmas (although some, no doubt,
    interpreted it that way.)  None of them placed a nativity as an
    intentional slam to Atheism (I could be wrong, but that is my guess.) However, it is hard for me to interpret the atheist displays as anything but an attempt to demean other religions.

    Fair enough.

    For my own part, I’m more interested in the effects of public policy on the public than I am in attempting to determine the intent of the people who make or apply that policy. In other words: yes, intent matters, but inferred intent can easily be trumped by observed consequences. 

    You’re free to have other priorities, though.

  • Carstonio

    “God” is a sectarian reference in that some Americans believe in a single god and some don’t. Because of that, “under God” doesn’t belong in the Pledge, and neither would “under Zeus” or “under Vishnu” or any number of gods taught by other religions. And neither would the hypothetical “under no god.” It doesn’t matter whether children are required or not to say the pledge – Congress still acted unconstitutionally by making it sectarian.

  • Madhabmatics

    If I was going to put up some biting Muslim sign next to a nativity it would probably be some burn from Ali, something like:

    “The sin which makes you sad and repentant is more liked by Allah than the good deed which turns you arrogant.”

    or

    “People often hate things that they do not understand.”

    or

    “One who comes into power often oppresses.”

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I don’t know. Was I also seriously arguing that everyone who is offended by having their religious beliefs mocked holds religious beliefs deserving of mockery?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Those don’t map.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     So if the christians had won the lottery instead, it would have been fine and dandy if, instead of a nativity, they set up a diorama of atheists being tortured in hell?

  • MariaFromCT

    As a Unitarian Universalist who attended Justice General Assembly in Phoenix in June of 2012, and a very active member (and board member for my own congregation) I urge readers to research for themselves the attitudes and practices of UUs worldwide. We strive to be more inclusive, and monitor -and question- our own motivations and actions constantly. I heartily and sincerely invite everyone to explore the seven principles: there’s something there for everyone.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, I know, I’m UU myself. Shit at getting to services, but UU.

  • Carstonio

    Although I haven’t been religious since elementary school, I briefly attend a UU congregation more than a decade ago. I liked the people and the atmosphere, and it really about fellowship than worship. I eventually left because the group adopted an off-putting tactic for fund-raising, and I got the sense that the leadership was divided over the tactic.

    Most jokes that mock UU portray the denomination as not believing in anything. Regardless of the accuracy of that, the real problem is the assumption that lack of belief is bad.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I thought ‘UUs believe in one god, more or less’ was written by a UU. Is that not among the jokes you’re thinking of, or am I mistaken about its origin?

  • Carstonio

     I mean the ones that treat the lack of dogma as a flaw or that have UUs venerating coffeepots.

  • johnmathis

    I’m really surprised by the comments section, here.  Speaking of tribalism, it’s difficult to imagine a more homogenized group of individuals with a more single-minded goal.  The article is about pronouns, but virtually every comment committed the exact same sin, just reversing the roles:

    “and it’s not necessarily that THEY think of taking it back…,”
    “I think THEY’VE passed the point…,”
    “THEY tend to be armed…,”
    “THESE FOLKS define…,”
    “are THESE PEOPLE really under the impression…,”
    “THESE PEOPLE have convinced themselves…,”
    “THESE PEOPLE view their idea…,”
    “not of THEIR NARROW TRIBE…”

    Am I really the only one who sees this?  It’s almost like the comments section was entirely written by a comic, trying to make a point.  I’ll admit I haven’t read all of the comments.  I just pulled the above references from the first page of comments, as they were easy to grab as I typed.  I once read a statement that I think applies here:

    “And if our team is going to win, they imagine, then their team can’t.”

    Oh yeah.  It was in this article; to which you’re all replying, speaking as a collective “we,” against a collective “they.”  (Or, “these people”).  Who’s on your team?  Who is the other team?  Who is it that is or is not thinking of taking it back?  Who has passed the point?  Who tends to be armed?  Which folks define?  Which people are really under an impression?  Who views their idea?  What are the requirements of the narrow tribe?

    More to the point, what does it take to be a member of THIS narrow tribe?  I’m sure someone will reply to let me know that whatever IT is, I don’t have it.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     In my experience, mostly what it takes is talking about the stuff I think is interesting and how I try to engage with it, rather than about how everybody else engages with their stuff and why they’re doing it wrong.

    That said, I often forget that guideline, and consequently end up spending time in uninteresting discussions about what other people are doing wrong.

  • monarchos8@hotmail.com

    At the risk of angering everyone again,  I’ll try answer.  All of these are very good questions, (ones that I don’t pretend I can answer) just not the ones I was raising.  In the case of Santa Monica, I didn’t mean to imply anything about the constitutionality of the case, the morality of either position, or the “right” or “wrong” of any of the religions involved.

    The question I was raising (apparently, very poorly) was whether or not the Atheists in Santa Monica were helping their own cause or hurting it.

    I have no idea what the Atheist organization’s objectives were.  I would hope that it is something positive like get more people to hear their perspective or to encourage acceptance in the community. 

    I don’t believe this was the productive way to achieve those goals.  That’s how I interpret the title of this blog.  It is not a “zero-sum” game.  Just because somebody “loses” doesn’t mean that somebody else “wins”.  In the case of Santa Monica, I believe that everybody loses.  Maybe I’m wrong, but then it was a poor example.

    I’m truly sorry for angering anyone.  And I’m sorry for getting frustrated that I wasn’t getting my point across very well.  I may still be failing.  I tried.

  • grevyturty

     Actually, the negroes have higher rates of crime and racism. Maybe you didn’t graduate high school??

  • The_L1985

    And why should we take the word of somebody who still uses that word to describe black people in the 21st century?

    Also, clearly you’ve never heard o the self-fulfilling prophecy.  A lot of people will live up (or down) to other people’s expectations of them.  So it’s easy to argue that higher arrest rates among African Americans (which is different from higher crime rates, but I doubt you’d be intelligent enough to understand the difference) could be due entirely to white police officers expecting them to be criminals more often than they expect white people to be criminals, and acting accordingly.

    I’m tempted to tell you some shocking things about mitochondrial DNA, but I doubt anyone with your apparent lack of insight to understand the “Out of Africa” theory, much less believe it.

  • Carstonio

    The question I was raising (apparently, very poorly) was whether or not the Atheists in Santa Monica were helping their own cause or hurting it.

    Please understand that it’s inappropriate for a non-athiest to even ask the question, regardless of the intentions. The premise implies that disadvantaged groups deserve at least some of the blame when they’re mistreated by the advantaged group. It’s like a man asking if a sexually harassed woman is helping or hurting her cause by how she dresses. 

    Besides, neither you nor I can assume the intentions of this particular atheist group. They might oppose religion or they might want tolerance for all religious minorities. 

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    it’s inappropriate for a non-athiest to even ask the question

    Is it appropriate for an atheist to?

  • Carstonio

    Generally yes. When the question comes from outside the group, it’s a tone argument. 

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    OK.

    For my own part, I would say that if a question about, say, queer tactics is useful for me to raise, it doesn’t stop being useful if a straight ally raises it instead. And if a question is harmful to raise, either because it’s a tone argument or some other reason, it’s still harmful when I raise it despite my being queer.

    But I do understand that in-group members get the benefit of the doubt in a way outsiders don’t, and I can see how if I can’t tell directly whether a question is useful or harmful, I might therefore use the in-group status of the questioner as a proxy.

    I would expect something similar to be true of other groups.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Define ‘group membership’. I would consider a straight ally part of the pro-queer group, and a question about the group’s tactics is appropriate from any group member, but a not-ally (straight or otherwise) asking the same question, no.

    And I am seriously not convinced that whatzirface is asking about atheist tactics from a pro-atheist perspective.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    Define ‘group membership’. 

    Precisely the right question.

    When it came to atheism, Carstonio expressed the opinion that a question that is appropriate coming from an atheist can be an unacceptable tone argument coming from a non-atheist.

    So when I generalized the principle to queers (a group in which my own membership status is clearer), I understood the analogous logic to assert that a question that is appropriate coming from a queer person can be an unacceptable tone argument coming from a non-queer person. Which I disagreed with, for the reasons I stated.

    More generally, as you suggest, the important question seems to be which groups we care about membership in. It sounds like you and I agree about how to treat allies… that is, we seem to agree that the relevant groups aren’t “people like me” and “people unlike me,” but rather “my allies” and “my non-allies”.

    But that sounds importantly different to me from what Carstonio said.

    And I agree about monarchos, though I also don’t care about them much. I care more about whether I’d understood Carstonio correctly, because I respect Carstonio’s opinion, so if it turns out we disagree that fundamentally I would like to explore that disagreement.

  • http://www.facebook.com/alice.v.pua Alice Zindagi Pua

    Racial tribalism presents some nasty issues. What I’ve found in America as far as racial tribalism goes is that WASPy folks, long having been on the top, often react intensely when their position is threatened by “the others.” For the most part, we have accepted the perceived “threat” to our position from other races, but the newest “threat” seems to be Asians… which is unfortunate because Asians have topped every other minority in becoming the single most targeted group for racial bullying. I’m not just conjecturing here, 54% of Asian children are the targets of racial bullying:

    http://www.abcsofattraction.com/blog/the-racist-bullying-crisis-why-54-of-asian-american-children-are-targeted-by-bullies/
    That’s not exactly an accomplishment to be proud of.

  • Alison

    You actually make several valid counterpoints, but I think that more likely both systems of discrimination are in place at the same time. I have examples, but I prefer not to post them publicly.

  • Alison

    Tribalism doesn’t just exist in the “dominant culture,” and neither does the exclusion of people outside of the tribe. This type of discrimination and exclusion is also often seen in attempts to move minorities into positions of power, specifically at the exclusion of all white people. Both systems are faulty, and have the same tribalistic mechanisms of exclusion.

  • Alison

    What about the norse?

  • Anonx

    Wait, so if you have a word to apply to a racial group, and they don’t like it, that proves its accuracy?

    “White privilege  is just another way of saying “I found a cool way to say I’m racist against white folks”.

  • EllieMurasaki

    This type of discrimination and exclusion is also often seen in attempts to move minorities into positions of power, specifically at the exclusion of all white people.

    This isn’t actually a thing where both sides do it.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Citations are useless if not actually, y’know, cited.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Um, somebody who isn’t Anonx, wtf did Anonx say?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X