Showing posts with label Struggle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Struggle. Show all posts

17 May 2016

15K, Pettiness, and ‘projection?'

Pin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This

The blog’s genre is essentially a sermon from and to myself. I actually didn’t intend to ever really share this. And then I did. Oh well. So I guess the reader should and is a passive, very external observer to a work of semi-autobiographical fiction, as the reader generally should be. Whether or not that reader is outraged or feels the need to project themselves into any part of the blog is then a twisted form of suffusion qua censorship. There really is no invite sent out. No one is saying to read this, to click on it, to do whatever. Unless of course I specifically ask you. If you click on it, that’s your own choice as a (presumed) adult. Of course as an extant person, I do need some sort of affirmation, and at times, I have made this accessible, more than accessible really. The guise of the blog is a business. The crux of the blog is a public journal. That’s fine. It’s a common enough form.

As has been mentioned, what I care not for, at all, is when someone projects themselves onto the blog or uses the blog as some sort of attack. The blog as essay as sermon (as written by Vinson Cunningham) is “argumentative, insistent, not infrequently irritating.” Very natural characteristics not just of essay writing, but of general speech / text acts. Most things I do are in some form “argumentative, insistent, not infrequently irritating” because a faith in empathy is boring. You may not need or want new forms. Perhaps what is more enjoyable to read are hackneyed, formless discussions of buzzwords and the news. That’s fine. But there is no form for me without argumentative and perhaps irritating content. You can say I bitch regularly and incessantly about something, but if you can qualify something as incessant, you are reading it probably too much. Don’t have to. But if you do, the courtesy would be to not project yourself into it. You don’t need to take credit for things like this, or even pretend that you are a part of it.

It is of course difficult to address someone who projects themselves into this writing without actually slandering, well, not if it is true. But, for the sake of, not simplicity, but ‘universality,’ projection, as a buzzword ha (of this blog), will be discussed generally.

The general assumption made on this blog is that the text editor is undergoing some sort of identity crisis. True. Yet, to not undergo some sort of identity crisis is a comfort, another topic of interest, that doesn’t quite interest me. There is no distinct need to mock someone for asking himself about himself, or maybe worst, to pretend that the mere act of mocking isn’t self-reflection. For evidence, Stevens’s “Study of Two Pears.” also, who says i hate white people? i hate the ones who project themselves on me. as, probably, should you

Opusculum paedagogum.
The pears are not viols,
Nudes or bottles.
They resemble nothing else.

To begin, the work as is all this blog is an ‘opusculum paedagogum,’ a pedagogical work of ‘art.’ The act of writing instead of say protesting, or say posting pictures on facebook, peut-etre me qualifie comme conard. Or rather, it indicates distance. To wit, all of this is an exercise in writing, maybe not to usual standards or rules of writing, but nonetheless an exercise in setting words, in whatever form / joined whichever way, to thought.

As the speaker’s object of study is ‘pears’ mine is the chink state. And here, as pears are pears without song, or without emotive ability, so is the conventional, convenient chink—the apish one who parrots and fits a parochial view of all chinks. And offensive as this writing may be, the only thing maybe outrageous is that it is too liberal for people who pretend that they are liberal. The “a chink” described in CCB is some sort of maybe not “art” but we’ll say a text object with some sort of relaxed constraint on his self-determinism. The “a chink” of CCB is a chink in all but name. Many, in real life (to take a step away from the blog), qualify me as a white chink, a banana / abc / whatever word exists for this kind of chink. I like Wally s and jco, i can recite alex rodriguez’s career baseball stats, i think that kanyeezy is god. Essentially some white bo— person who just is and has nothing too distinctive about them. As a chink, doesn’t quite work. This chink is not “viols, / nudes or bottles / [he] resemble[s] nothing else” of his sort. This chink is not the house slave that an engineer or a whatever is. This chink is not the field slave that your Laundromat owner or the exploited scientist is. This “a chink” is some twisted kind of chink that is basically a white man in equal parts as he is chink. The projection here to disassociate him from conventional chinkdom is fitting. To not worship or respect a “chink” but to respect “chinkdom.”  

Take a step back, and the chink is a subject of a study by himself. The chink is divorced from the person. That a person can read without seeing the layers, perhaps this is elitist and snobbish, but needs to be said regardless, is a waste of money, time, and space. If a person can read or create or simply live without tuning in to the impossibility of perfectly reflecting a subject, a person, this person, cannot actually live. They live on a distinct conceptual level divorced from reality. So, they need to project this inability to understand the world onto every thing. As it is.

They are yellow forms
Composed of curves
Bulging toward the base.
They are touched red.

You could say that this applies to many things, pears being the first one coming to mind simply because it is part of the title. The perception is to take this stanza as a universal approximant of a pear or in the case of CCB, a universal approximant of a chink, and to another degree, a universal approximant of what is disparaged. So, how should seeing a pear or a chink based on simple descriptors or “yellow forms,” “curves,” and “red” proceed to rendering? It helps to have a focus. The accepted view of the speaker is that he aims to universalize a pear by reducing it to its bare, maybe, deeper qualifiers. I do the inverse of sorts—to qualify a chink based on the extremes (to the extent of two personas) of what a chink may be, one a white man bootlicking pansy chink—the average, accepted, welcomed chink—and the perturbing, brash, “bitching,” chink—the argumentative, insistent, infrequently irritating and altogether unwelcomed, unaccepted, and unaverage chink. The series of prefixed un- then marks a way for a chink to self-render through the perhaps universal base of “yellow form” beyond what is accepted.

Of course, most notable in this stanza is the act, anonymized, of “[composing].” Someone is “[composing]” and creating this chink or his role so he may perform it. The choice of “a chink” to deviate from the script then cleaves a space between reader, writer, and meaning for the, themselves perturbed, reader to force themselves into the chink in the process becoming a second writer of the chink. The chink no longer only has the writer’s simple orders of being “yellow” with “curves…touched red,” a fairly human and reasonable description of a chink that doesn’t quite make him other, but now the chink has a whole new set of expectations. The curves are not simply curves.

They are not flat surfaces
Having curved outlines.
They are round
Tapering toward the top.

In the way they are modelled
There are bits of blue.
A hard dry leaf hangs
From the stem.

The curves are not simply curves, they are now “curved outlines.” A chink, the pear in honesty has long been forgotten if the reader is to follow the guide to pondering perception. My commentary doubles the projecting reader’s perhaps inappropriate tendency to write themselves into the page. Yet, here to use the metaphor of the pear as a metaphor for the chink, he is tapering towards the top, towards a region where he never will be full, where he loses himself as the image of him tapers outwards in towards the reader.

The speaker now reminds the reader that the chink and pear “are modelled.” They do not present a perfect reflection of the chink as he is or the pear as it is. The image given on the page, in the medium presents a threshold for reliability and relatability.

“A hard dry leaf hangs / from the stem” recalls the final line of the Pound translated original “Liu Ch’e:” “A wet leaf that clings to the threshold.” The superimposed leaf acts as a sheath that divides the reader from truly universalizing the pears. A chink has no leaf on his head. Yet, “the threshold” is the “stem” of a pear, of chink. His / its creation is the root of his problem. The well of sorts is poisoned with the leaf. The “stem” does not drive straight into the pear, instead, there is a “hard dry leaf” that must shield the pear from nature. There is a cover that must hide the chink from the realities of his creator. A chink, as it must be reminded cannot be a chink without the reader, most of you existing. Your very existence is the reason for the creation of a chink. The very essence of this language is the reason for the creation of a chink. And this needs not be negative. The benign creations are perhaps the worst. The leaf is meant to protect, yet here it hides and anonymizes.

The yellow glistens.
It glistens with various yellows,
Citrons, oranges and greens
Flowering over the skin.

When only the initial phase is seen, “the yellow glistens” and “a chink” is left as a spokesperson for yellows. The echoing, but notably anonymizing “yellow glistens / it glistens” slips away the “yellow” as soon as its uttered. It slides from a singular yellow to a spokesperson. The initial unique “yellow” that “glistens” now becomes an “it” that “glistens with various yellows.” It, though referent of “yellow,” no longer means “yellow” as much as I want it to, as much as the artist wants you to think it is. The “yellow” immediately becomes a spokesperson for the various yellow flowers it can refer to, including a green one. A reader will not allow a “yellow” to remain a “yellow” if the “yellow” gains power.

The projecting reader will make “a chink” and outlet for their own inability to “[flower] over the skin.” The projecting reader will never allow “a chink” to simply remain “a chink.” The projecting reader will forget that “a chink,” that the Chinese—they’re just like us! “A chink” isn’t though. A chink shouldn’t have to speak for anyone else, but a chink. The “citrons, oranges and greens” are nothing related to the original “yellow.” They are but offshoots, feeble replicas of a chink. They’re weak fiats of a chink. The specific “a chink” speaks only for a chink. End of debate. To undermine “a chink” and to force him to speak for things he is not, —

The shadows of the pears
Are blobs on the green cloth.
The pears are not seen
As the observer wills.

The reentry of “pears” marks reflexive submission and capitulation of the speaker to preserve his “opusculum paedagogum.” The speaker gives up on his attempt to play a game. A reflexive cue to the reader, a perceived submission, is perhaps needed to make a point. When I address readers, I only do so, for the reader has diminished the text into a shadow. The meaning is undermined. The universality of a single voice. Doesn’t sound right.

“A chink” becomes a “blob” and “a chink” is “not seen / as the [reader] wills.”


When I started the blog, originally called Country Chink, Big City, I wanted to write about my own thoughts, speaking for no one but myself, on chinks through the guise of food. Not so, as it seems. Three months and 15K views later, my beloved Country Chink Broadsides is a twisted long-form, rapid-response draft of my attempts at heavily stylized writing. In the process, I’ve begun to think that I really have nothing better to do. Writing for CCB is now essentially heavily publicized masturbatory self-flagellation. Reacting to CCB is now essentially revelatory indictments of white guilt. Of course, none of this has really had any negative effect on my personal life. Of positive progress, CCB weeded out the white supremacists and I know. It’s also garnered positive reactions from people I’ve never thought would be interested. Yet, it hasn’t affirmed too much for me besides a knowledge that no real direction exists to my writing, resulting in obscure and dense writing, leading to general impenetrability, creating confusion that, maybe, undermines the perceived telos of my blog. The central lesson then I have learned from myself and reader responses and maybe the “thrill” (of sorts) of publishing (even self-publishing on the internet ha.) is that indifference is twisting into sensitivity and sensitivity is bleeding me out.  

30 April 2016


Pin ThisShare on TumblrShare on Google PlusEmail This


poorhomiewei (phw) : a chink
党唯予 (dwy) : a Chinese man
Text editor (TE) : moderator
: reader : reader : reader :

just sitting at a table (probably)  
theater is inferior to imagination, make
it whatever you want it rendered, this is
just of general assistance for the reader

TE:   So why are we here. What do you idiots want to talk about.

phw: i think it’s probably important that we just define some shit first, like why 党唯予 is such a bitch and other things like that. then we can get to maybe some important stuff to completely allow me to take down 党唯予, man fuck that chink. people like him straight up blocking all of us from doing anything

TE:   ok. Maybe it’ll be useful to introduce yourselves first. Then.

dwy: Fine. Let’s do it. I’m 党唯予. I’m a Chinese man. I don’t live in China anymore. Simply put, to, you know, get some decency and characterize the Chinese properly, I think it important to take a stance against the kind of bluster mr. poorhomiewei (as he likes to stylize it) constantly spews. His kind of Chinese is not the kind of Chinese we need. We don’t need his type of wh—

TE:   ok. Calm yourself, big boi. I asked you to introduce yourself, not to attack phw before he’s even had a chance to say anything. Talk when I tell you to talk. Never before. Just so we define some boundaries and make this a bit simpler for every body. Give the reader some sort of framework and boundaries to mark. Also to censor you fucks a bit.

           So, phw, introduce yourself.

phw: i’m poorhomiewei. i’m a chink. i live in a permachina that doesn’t need to fit inside of another country. i’m a fiat border so you all remember and shit. 我也就是大中国的一部分。谁他妈的也管不了我。我老子才不让你们混蛋把我逼进些什么鬼佬的道理。my type of chink doesn’t stand for this bullshit kind of dwy white man fetish and shit.

dwy: Excuse me, are you taking shots at me? TE, censor this guy. He’s not exactly introducing himself, he’s just trying to insult me. Also, what’s with him talking in Chinese or writing it? We’re not in China, phw. It doesn’t matter that you can write Chinese. You’re not impressing anyone. You’re English now.
TE:   I don’t see any reason why he can’t speak in whatever language he wants, dwy. The world you live in isn’t monocultural, as much as you may think.

dwy: Excuse me, but are you taking sides here? I thought you were, one, supposed to be impartial, and two, not an actual person. So, excuse me, if I feel like you’re overstepping your bounds, but there are rules here for how you’re supposed to behave. And these rules don’t exactly let you try and insult me, so why do you have to be so annoying? It’s you and your kind of thinking that antagonizes Chinese people and give us a bad name. I really don’t think you and phw do anything useful for Chinese people. It’s so much more Chinese to be quiet and docile. We’re supposed to be nice. Thinking like we belong in this place that we don’t own or haven’t done anything for directly flouts any sort of order that is central to Confucian and Chinese thought. All you two do is throw out insults at nice Chinese people who just want to make their money and have a stake in being Chinese and live happily in whatever country they’re in. You two just want to make this some sort of black power movement. Why?

TE:   ok. First off, I’m the one writing this, so you can just stop trying to insult me and think more about yourself. Also, I’m the moderator between you and phw. You two are supposed to be arguing in a more direct manner than our usual epistles. That, as has come to my attention, is probably too slow and old-fashionned for the medium we’re choosing to use. Again, I don’t appreciate you complaining straight to the authority. Just calm down, ok.

dwy: Fine. You can choose to jut out, I don’t care. Who are you even supposed to be? You think you’re cool trying to mess with Chinese people happily fitting in? Whatever. I guess I’ll direct these questions to phw, since you’re too afraid to stand up for the real Chinese.

phw: you know what? i think we should try to make this more orderly, since, as is usual to dwy’s kind of “real Chinese,” they love to bitch about people not following rules and people annoying them and people not trying to fit in, but straight up, stop. dwy, before we, assuming TE permits it, enter a sort of round (rather triangle, in this case) table format, i’ll give you a fucking soliloquy you little bitch ass conformatist traitor chink.

does poorhomiewei want to stand up?
dwy will potentially look up and shake
his head as he looks at TE to complain

           already made this pretty clear, but it seems
that YOU require reminding and redress
because you’re too complacent to accept
what i have offered YOU in response to your
constant attacks on any progress we make.

党唯予, here’s three quick reasons why
i need to exist to attack you and “Chinese:”

1.    with complacency, you kill yourself and let
them erase YOU and silence YOU, but YOU
probably want all that and no less
2.    as majority, you will always find yourself in a state
of privilege that i and other chinks just don’t
have, and don’t want either, but it’s what gets YOU
and pu-s— like you to where you are. xxxx tell
me how my ass tastes—shaq to YOU
3.    collective identity just doesn’t work for us;
us in a convenient trope to exploit and FUCK,
it makes it easier for YOU to engird

your maker’s joy to order your thoughts of self;
thoughts of your past, a past YOU have erased
and of YOU and us, we see a world that we left;
know that there never was a world for us,
except the one we left, and leaving, killed.

TE:   ok, phw. I guess that this will be our first topic of discussion. (aside) Actually, hold up, phw, you usually use “a chink” instead of “I” (whatever, emptying the lyric, emptiness of the lyrical “I” blahblahblahblahblah (lol a chink would never say that; we’d said 他妈的气死我了)). Yeah, so, first topic / question: thoughts on leaving China and preserving yourself. Also, dwy, if you feel like it / up to it, you can address phw’s little speech.

dwy: lol. I don’t need to address that overblown clown. As per usual, Meandering, ineffectual, brimming with bluster, but worst of all: boring. No wonder people don’t take you seriously, or respect you. or just, in general like you, mr. “chink.”

TE:   OK, come one. You need to stop it with the name calling.

dwy: Fine. I’ll be earnest, like this emotional little sycophant. Ha.

TE:   Fine, just be you, it’s fine. So, dwy, you take answer first. Again, the question is: thoughts on leaving China and preserving yourself.

dwy: OK, we’re not in China anymore. It seems like people like poorhomiewei (as he calls himself) just loves to think he’s part of China to excuse his own inability, dare I say weakness, to blend in, and to compensate and explain his inability to find friends or get people to like him. China doesn’t exist for him anymore. China never really existed for him. You don’t have the sea anymore, “bruh.”


The crux of the issue is that you had nothing useful to say. You pinned your self identification to a culture you do not belong to (but desperately want to) and have refused to assimilate. If you see the melting pot as slow death, then so be it. Just remember that you will never be able to go back to your mother’s China. They don’t even want you, or accept you. So, you should stop caring, and just fit in. Damn, you already kind of changed your name, why don’t you just fully change your name to an English name? You can only succeed because of the melting pot.

So, maybe you should just buy into it and accept that it’s impossible for you to escape. You live in a conceptual world that probably doesn’t even want you. You don’t produce anything useful for the world. All you make, about this whole returning to China stuff, are annoying and self-indulgent rants that offend everyone else and make you even less popular. You need to find a way to fit into this world, your hated “white world.”

You really just need to accept that you have a problem and you should just try to be like everyone else. You’ll never truly fit in because everyone will see you as a leach on real Chinese people. They’ll always judge you according to the Chinese engineers and the Chinese doctor and the Chinese business men. You know why? Because they provide a service that’s useful for other people. They provide a service that’s material. You don’t. You’re just empty noise, pretend “singing” to find some sort of order in a new world that doesn’t belong to you. So, stop. You’re tiring me out. I don’t have enough breath to argue with you. You probably don’t either. Oh, ha. Is that why you smoke, you nostalgia-fiend? You think it’ll remind you of China? Ha. Your feelings don’t matter when no one cares. Feelings don’t matter. Especially your fake ones.

Also, fuck off with your allusions and shit. You realize that you directly steal from other, WHITE cultures right? You wouldn’t have these works that you love so much without white people. You Chinese people never did anything useful. You pretend Ruan Ji. You should just stop.

TE:   I know I need to be impartial, but that was just a bit harsh. (to reader) I just want to remind you that dwy voluntarily entered this when he directly responded to Poorhomiewei way back with an essay regarding Poorhomiewei’s comments on white people holidays. (back to dwy / phw) ok, so phw, you can respond now. From hereon, we should probably just do this point by point. No one wants to read 600 word soliloquys. No one even wants to read more than 250 words, lol.

phw: k. i’m gonna summarize dwy’s long ass speech so we can all kinda understand him, but i’m sure most readers already side with him. whatever, it’s not a surprise.
           so dwy’s angle is that people don’t like me and i don’t make many friends and that i’m a crazy chink people find funny. again, i don’t think that’s any sort of interesting commentary. that’s just the truth. if YOU don’t already see that, YOU should get glasses for YOUR brain. again, a chink doesn’t even care. a chink has enough things to distract himself in the world to need some wack ass gang of white friends. dwy, that you fixate on me not having friends is a telling thing about what your stance is on conformity. you can choose to conform and blend in and blanch yourself. you can choose to get yourself good language good grammar good skin you can choose to make yourself presentable and nice and friendly and likeable. fine, i really don’t care. i don’t get your whole conformist approach to life. i’d rather be myself than a part of some stan smith-wearing melting pot.

           i never really wanted to blend in. you can call it my “inability” or “weakness,” but it really doesn’t bother me. i call it, indifference. on your comment about the sea, yes i still have the sea. it’s the gap between me and YOU. you don’t own it, i don’t own it. it’s the room we have that ballasts each other. there’s no treasure in the sea, or clear crystal mirroring some sort of sought-for truth, no achievements as your greed wants from you, nothing, but what you see, but again, look again, and look yet again—it’s an empty space, comfortless. the sea is a buffer that you don’t want to cross. i’ll always have it as long as you exist. and even if this now is yours too, i can seek another place, but i’ll know i let you into the sea as well. you at least see my complaints and whether or not YOU choose to treat them or engage is up to YOU.

           then you say that china never existed for me. sure it doesn’t exist for me. it doesn’t really exist for anyone. but it gives me comfort in the idea. china brings me some sort of comfort as you find in your conformity. it gives me comfort in that it anchors me as you and your world comforts you. i don’t know why you need to deny me of that. i don’t know why you want me to cede this comfort. maybe we’re not allowed comfort if it isn’t right.
           you can have your lists of doctors or business men or engineers. that’s not me, that’s not everyone. that success is not mine. when you call that success, when you think that the success of a few counts for the image of all chinks, then you let yourself fit into someone else’s model minority. then you make it so when people hear one chink they assume it speaks for all chinks. you want every chink to stand for all of us. you want to limit and erode the value of individuals you want them to fit into an idea of chinks that most of us don’t fit in. what i do shouldn’t characterize all chinks. what i do shouldn’t speak to anyone. maybe it aligns with your perspective, maybe it doesn’t, but it aligns with my perspective. that’s what makes ‘china.’ it’s that we have different perspectives that combine to create some pastiche.

           i left china. no one inherently belongs to it, but we’re all it. you choose to incorporate yourself. all leaving china makes me feel is a dislocation from it. i want to resolve that by bridging the divide and realigning this dislocation to preserve myself. sure it doesn’t matter so much anymore where you come from. but without china there is no you or me. there is no sequence of events that creates either of us. so now, as i’m dislocated from the creation, all i can do is attempt to reconnect myself to it and create a new branch of ‘china,’ to create a new appraisal of china. and this speaks for no one else but me. there’s no reason to think that one chink can speak for all chinks. i’m just ‘a chink’ as a white person is just ‘a person.’ if people, and of course you, take it as a sort of universal experience, sure, do that, but remember that this only speaks for me and my experience, but as it is read, my experience also belongs to the reader, and all i can do is try and direct them closer to my intentions, whatever they may be. i don’t need YOU to project your self onto me. but if you choose to do it, just remember that i still am and that this is for me, not you.

dwy: Ha. You just really love speaking about ‘you’ and ‘me,’ don’t you? Maybe you just want some intimacy so that ‘you’ and ‘me’ can become an ‘us.’ Maybe you want to speak for more people, but you’re just afraid to. Maybe you want to become a spokesperson of sorts. That’s great. Just don’t try to make me a voice double of you.

phw: see, i’m never sure whether or not YOU respond directly to me or whether YOU just talk to yourself and actually make me a part of YOU. incidentally, here’s a pun. 没有 in 陕北话 is voiced /mijoʊ/, pretty close to “me you,” isn’t it? as we both know that没有 means ‘don’t have,’ we don’t have a combined “ me you,” or an us. we’re different. there will never be an us. again, i don’t want to be a spokesperson. i just want to be a ‘me’ without the expectation that it speaks to YOU. YOU choose to be spoken to by me. i think we should move on, TE.

TE:   Incidentally, I think you’ve both entered into this next question already. It was gonna be a question about any sort of solidarity, but I guess dwy wants a conformity qua unity and phw wants an individualism qua self-determination. We can move on then, I guess. So, for the next question, um, here’s a big one. What do you think of white people? As we’ve seen, and heard from readers, white people continually pose a central problem for phw and are often in support of dwy. They are again an essential point of departure for the text. So, I guess, please give me an appraisal of them in relation to your own conjuring of sorts. Um, I guess we can begin with dwy because I think we’ve fallen, for better or worse, into an attack defense mode of discussion where dwy turns these questions into ways to attack and effectively attempt to erase phw. That’s fine, entertaining at the least. So, go ahead, dwy.

dwy: You know, I really have no thoughts on white people. I love some; I hate some. They’re just fine. There’s nothing wrong about them. They’re just people. Sure, some act weird around me, but that’s because I’m not like them. Man, I don’t feel that comfortable around people who are different, why should I expect them to feel comfortable around me when I come to their place? Anyways, who’s even white anymore? People can just identify as whatever they are, it’s fine. Please don’t call anyone white. Please don’t call anyone anything. Let’s just live in a post-color world, it’s fine. It helps me, probably helps phw too.

phw: i can appreciate that dwy just wants to forget about history, but i can’t accept that. history exists and as much as a chink is reminded that he’s a chink because he has color, whites are reminded that they need to take other colors to fill up their museums and private collections and ballast their emptiness.
           but white people, honestly, TE, after we finish this discussion thread and i finish my comment, lets just not mention them anymore. i don’t think i’ve ever addressed them directly, as much as they love reminding us/you that they feel attacked by the text. that’s fine. it’s how projection works, but i only address them directly, indexical referents, anaphoras included, just about, um, never. any address is indirect. there are no connections except projected ones coming from some sort of culpability. that’s what it is. i’m white in this case (ha) and they try and fill up that emptiness. well, no more after this. there will be no more use of “white” after my comment. even the adjective will be discarded and replaced.

           (to dwy/TE)
           honestly, i’m gonna agree with dwy here. “I love some; I hate some.” that’s about it.

but to dwy’s idea of a post-color world, i disagree. i don’t think it helps me. if we don’t think of people as white, we forget the way the world hierarchized itself. white doesn’t even mean caucasians or westerners or whatever. it just means light-skinned people. those exist everywhere. there are light skinned chinks. there are light skinned indians. there are light skinned arabs. there are light skinned blacks. and everyone worships and lusts after light skin. i’m not light skinned. i understand what it means not to be lightskinned and i wonder if there’s a reason people are white. YOU can’t discard it. by saying stuff like “who’s even white anymore?” YOU can simply brush off history and pretend/forget that history happened. americans got thanksgiving. one thing they should be thankful for is that they are white. there’s no getting around that. be happy that YOU’RE white. you and your current situation the definition of what you are does not exist without your being white (obviously there are other considerations, but the question asks what i think of “white people”). what i think of white people and colored people like dwy trying to make a post-color world and colorblindness and other things like that is that they want to buy into the promise of comfort. that they want to buy into a dream world that lets them be happy and forget about history and “create things.” i don’t think anything can be “created” without acknowledgment, or ontological rooting in history. here, the history being color. everything built has components, but we’ve just privileged text as a hierarchy, but everything stands as a text. everything can be read. that we have a word for color and race means it’s a text. all of this is processed as text. so it’s possible to read color. and when the visual color becomes a text, it’s no different as an action. the color’s you have are written on you. you can’t just forget it and move on. you want to get rid of it? realign the definition. no one should have the right to “identify as whatever they are” it isn’t “fine.” think like that and you deviate from the perspective that’s created like this. so white people exist for us to use as a historical referent. call it racist. because it is. white people are white. anyone who is white can be called white. because white exists in balance white exploiting black. as we align nothing with black, white fills it. white removes the black. so we need peacocks and hemlocks to get back to black, to revert it.
           so it doesn’t help me to live in a post-color world. it helps nobody but whites, because they can just erase the creation of everything else, and since they are in power as it is, they get even more power to recreate a world.

           so my opinion, my only opinion and last opinion here, on whites is that they need to be constantly reminded that they’re white. and if we’re gonna move on and “create” something new, we need to realign this creation of white. i just believe that the best way we can do this is to talk about myself, because that belongs to me. so i obsess over white people being white because that’s the way they were created. there is no escaping being white. you can’t escape a power that’s brought you to where you are. be thankful you’re white and realign yourself.

dwy: I really think you need to learn grammar and lucidity. You also need to get off your high horse. You’re not an outsider. WE KNOW THAT YOU READ. WE KNOW WHAT YOU READ. Don’t pretend like you’re some sort of peasant or broken chink peasant.

phw: damn, bruh, you just called me a chink.

dwy: Yeah, because you are. There’s a reason these slurs exist. It’s to note that people like you disrupt the way respectful people want to live their lives.

phw: fine, i accept that you know i read. i accept that you know what i read. cool.

dwy: YOU’RE A FUCKING INSIDER. YOU ARE WHITE. JUST STOP. If you aren’t, then, you’re stealing from white people. Just stay in your own lane of appropriation of whatever the fuck you call it. Your commentary is boring, wandering, and leads me to believe you’re ignorant. As soon as you mentioned “cultural appropriation,” you exposed your silly agenda and the fact that next week you’ll have a new word of the day. Cultural appropriation needs to exist, you clown. There would be no societal advancements if we remained homogenous and took only what “our” culture claimed as their own and respected everyone else's claim. Put down the asian technology holding, pour out that colombian coffee you're drinking, drop your native tobacco, take off your roman clothes, and now fuck off.

phw: i never said i’m against cultural appropriation. sure i engange in appropriating cultures. people have called me some chink trying to be black. you just called me some chink trying to pretend he’s a chink but orienting himself in white person culture. sure. both these are right. i guess i’ll just quote george packer here (a white man that i can respect):

           (…) no one owns anyone’s culture, and that to believe otherwise is to deprive us of the human fullness and richness we all deserve. To reconcile this insight with an equally compelling American truth—that racial injustice is our inheritance and our responsibility—is the challenge for every artist and critic, black or white.

           i guess no one owns anything. that’s true. i don’t want to exploit anything though. i don’t think people should try to exploit and sensationalize other cultures. on one end of appropriation, you have a white person taking the name of a blood call, a call that in its original context actively creates murders rapes and fear (all created by white segregation and oppression), out of context to sell hip hop as a commodity. this i would call exploitation because the context is broken and an “exotic” name is used to stir up interest and draw crowds, to sound cool for a new crowd. this all comes for capital gain. i guess business would say something along the lines of:
“one person's use of an idea doesn’t devalue it, and instead makes it more valuable: increasing marginal return” sure. this is correct if this is about money, you generate money out of ideas. if you, as a white bar owner thing of ideas as money, that’s fine, but i disagree that value is money.

now on the other side of appropriation or exploitation, i quote wallace stevens in random places. he is a wasp from new england. he is white. i take his work. and i relate it to my own thoughts and i engage with it. sure i exploit it in that i create a new meaning of my own out of his meaning, that we’ll never truly get at, but i think this is fair. appropriation to this extent is fine. you can take something and engage with it, but there’s no reason to wrench something completely out of context and pretend that history doesn’t exist.

i think that’s a neat tie up of our conversation on whites. i don’t think that anyone can be insulted by being reminded of their hierarchy. maybe you want to escape it. maybe you don’t like it. but maybe not acknowledging it’s existence and taking it as an affront is what creates the worst of white people: the direct denial of history and as packer notes “that racial injustice is our inheritance and our responsibility”—american here we’ll say refers to a global idea of art, but packer only refers to american art, again a color wheel is a common hierarchy among all people. there. no more whites in this blog

no whites allowed.

dwy: There’s a reason no one likes you and there’s a reason you offend people. I don’t even want to comment on this wandering drivel.

TE:   Again I think that naturally progressed to cultural appropriation very well. One more topic and I think we can call it a day.

           So, to wrap up, let’s talk about the purpose of thinking / talking about race.

dwy: I think I’ve made my thoughts on this quite clear. I don’t think there’s really a need to incessantly and self-indulgently talk about race. We’re all one race: the human race. Why can’t we just accept that we all share a common culture. It’s not about race. It almost never is. Not all white people are bad. Not all Chinese people are good (as you yourself, phw, show). When you talk about race, you don’t let white people talk. Doesn’t that just silence them and erase their culture? They don’t need to apologize to you. They don’t need to feel guilt. Why do you have to make them feel bad? You just need to calm down. Like we don’t need you and your anger and poor attitude. Maybe you should be poorattitudewei Just be chill, ok? We don’t need your hypersensitivity. All these problems are because you see race. Just become colorblind. Come on. Chill. Just be calm, no one wants your savage shit. Man, I’m out. Bye felicia.

phw: 😂

dwy: ?

phw: now i know you don’t listen lol.

TE: OK, do you have anything to say, phw? Emoji’s say nothing, come on.

phw: yeah hold up.

           i talk about race because it affects me. i’m not gonna try and sound like some intersectional whatever or some whatever theorist. i’m just talking about what i want to. if there’s backlash, cool. i, you know what? fuck this, i’m out too, i don’t even want to talk about any dwy shit. like come on. stuff like “Just be chill, ok? We don’t need your hypersensitivity. All these problems are because you see race. Just become colorblind. Come on. Chill. Just be calm, no one wants your savage shit.”


           then there’s:

“When you talk about race, you don’t let white people talk. Doesn’t that just silence them and erase their culture? They don’t need to apologize to you. They don’t need to feel guilt. Why do you have to make them feel bad? You just need to calm down.”

man it’s disgusting just to copy and paste this shit. no one but blanks benefits from this colorblindness shit. i see race because it’s just a physical feature we notice. i’ve already said that i don’t want to erase history. i don’t think i’m silencing or erasing their culture. i’m just trying to understand their culture. i’m not asking them to apologize to me. never once have i asked them to apologize. all i want is for people to appreciate the historical sense of their being / race and make something new. that’s just a fundamental duty i think we have.

there’s your fucking answer. fuck. we need to talk about race so we appreciate and attune ourselves to the historical sense of creation to the extend that we can create something new and remake ourselves. talking about race is the only way to find some mythical “colorblind” world. talking about it will better perception of the past and make a new present.

TE:   I think that’s a good place to end. We’ve found a thesis. I guess I’ll try to make it intelligible:
           To speak of race attempts to attune the present’s reality with history’s past. The union of the two in such a sharpened awareness will advance race conversations and better allow colored people an opportunity to exist with the all of dominant culture’s freedoms. Eliotic historical sense is the conduit and reason behind speaking of race as the creation of poetry qua understanding makes a “new” reality, a hopeful reality.

…More akin to what goes around comes around.