First winner of Indian heritage and aspiring doctor says she will rise above attacks on social media:
Associated Press in Atlantic City
The Guardian, Monday 16 September 2013 posted:
Winner Nina Davuluri said: 'I'm thankful there are children watching at home who can finally relate to a new Miss America.' Photograph: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images
The Miss America pageant has crowned its first winner from an Indian background – an aspiring doctor who plans to use the $50,000 (£31,000) prize money to fund her studies – sparking a flood of racist criticism on social media.
"I'm so happy this organisation has embraced diversity," 24-year-old Nina Davuluri said in her first press conference, moments after winning the crown in Atlantic City. "I'm thankful there are children watching at home who can finally relate to a new Miss America."
But within minutes of winning the title, Davuluri, whose talent routine was a Bollywood fusion dance, was the target of racist social media comments.
If you're #Miss America you should have to be American," said one on Twitter.
"WHEN WILL A WHITE WOMAN WIN #MISSAMERICA? Ever??!!" asked another.
Davuluri, however, brushed aside the negative comments.
"I have to rise above that," she said. "I always viewed myself as first and foremost American."
Her grandmother told the Associated Press that she cried when she saw the news on television.
"I am very, very, happy for the girl. It was her dream and it was fulfilled," 89-year-old V Koteshwaramma said by phone from her home in the city of Vijaywada, in southern India.
In the run-up to the pageant, much attention was given to Miss Kansas, Theresa Vail, an army sergeant believed to have been the first contestant ever to openly display tattoos. She has the Serenity Prayer on her rib cage, and a smaller military insignia on the back of one shoulder.
Vail won a nationwide "America's choice" vote to advance as a semi-finalist, but failed to make it into the top 10.
In a Twitter message on Sunday before the finals began, Vail wrote: "Win or not tonight, I have accomplished what I set out to do. I have empowered women. I have opened eyes."
The pageant pitted 53 contestants – one from each state, plus Washington DC, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands – in swimming wear, evening gown, talent and interview competitions.
The victim:
Luckily true American's fight back:
Tom weighs in under pseudonym "Colin Miller"
9/11: literally four days ago, sheeple!
Literally 50%, guys
i only recognized imppers posting with the last submission:
language is hard
Well they just picked a Muslim for Miss America. That must've made Obama happy. Maybe he had a vote
ilmdge posted:Elizabeth @EJRBuckeye
Well they just picked a Muslim for Miss America. That must've made Obama happy. Maybe he had a vote
"Miss America, Footlong buffalo chick on whole wheat. Please and thank you."
Maybe he just got mixed up with what twitter is?
TG posted:personally im excited that women of color can finally place themselves on the block to have their aesthetic qualities studied and judged like prize livestock and actually win. progress!
so are you saying that, perhaps, the answer is, indeed, somewhere in the middle?
libelous_slander posted:TG posted:personally im excited that women of color can finally place themselves on the block to have their aesthetic qualities studied and judged like prize livestock and actually win. progress!
so are you saying that, perhaps, the answer is, indeed, somewhere in the middle?
lol no i dont even know how that would apply here. to me its like celebrating gays in the military. oppressed groups should be opposing the corrupt dominant culture, not trying to make inroads into it in the name of equality
TG posted:libelous_slander posted:TG posted:personally im excited that women of color can finally place themselves on the block to have their aesthetic qualities studied and judged like prize livestock and actually win. progress!
so are you saying that, perhaps, the answer is, indeed, somewhere in the middle?
lol no i dont even know how that would apply here. to me its like celebrating gays in the military. oppressed groups should be opposing the corrupt dominant culture, not trying to make inroads into it in the name of equality
i think that's a bit disingenuous to apply to miss america, since pageantry and the united states military are not considered equal forces in the geopolitical landscape. i find the beauty pageant to be disagreeable myself, but given a direct choice, i would prefer they select someone with admirable traits, rather than just "who hottest." If you view this a step on a progressive slide, you can have "non white non blond wins beauty pageant" as an early step with the end goal being "eliminating pageant." Outside of the pageantry angle, it is nice to see media honor a person with redeemable qualities. Also, i think the reactions this has caused is important in the causes of equality and progressivism.
I don't think a violent revolutionary struggle against the American Beauty Pageant is as feasible as other, in personal opinion, more important areas.
libelous_slander posted:I don't think a violent revolutionary struggle against the American Beauty Pageant is as feasible as other, in personal opinion, more important areas.
I disagree. Take out Miss Kansas first and the rest of the contestants will fold like a cheap suit
libelous_slander posted:i think that's a bit disingenuous to apply to miss america, since pageantry and the united states military are not considered equal forces in the geopolitical landscape. i find the beauty pageant to be disagreeable myself, but given a direct choice, i would prefer they select someone with admirable traits, rather than just "who hottest." If you view this a step on a progressive slide, you can have "non white non blond wins beauty pageant" as an early step with the end goal being "eliminating pageant." Outside of the pageantry angle, it is nice to see media honor a person with redeemable qualities. Also, i think the reactions this has caused is important in the causes of equality and progressivism.
I don't think a violent revolutionary struggle against the American Beauty Pageant is as feasible as other, in personal opinion, more important areas.
i dont think your silver lining incrementalism means anything. news like this implies that the pageant is an institution worthy of existence that is actually serving a progressive agenda, not a disgusting concept that we as a society should be ashamed of. its not eroding the pageant's influence; if anything its more nefarious by implying that it can be a force for positive change while ignoring its main function of objectification
would it be better if they reversed the decision? I don't see the positive in the other direction, and also don't see an indication that the pageant regime is going to topple soon, though it is something i would definitely support.
TG posted:i dont care what the decision itself was. basically, the only headline that id find appropriate is "americans disgusted by continued existence of beauty pageant, call for its cessation." instead its "pageant embraces liberal multicultural agenda, reactionaries spew racist filth." the conversation is nowhere near where it needs to be so i just cant find myself caring about either the horribly ignorant reactions or the mild reformative measures taken by the judges
that is much more clear, i understand your reaction to the pageant itself. As for the ignorant reactions, do you find that this is a problem that would resolve itself with the elimination of such cultural routines as pageants, or do you not feel the implications are as serious when viewed in the context of global marxism?
tpaine posted:then enjoy your probation.
please don't put me in kitty jail! 
lib slander please stop posting every dumb piece of gawker garbage that comes across your facebook feed
babyfinland posted:oh my god are we actually discussing this bullshit
lib slander please stop posting every dumb piece of gawker garbage that comes across your facebook feed
ok
these issues, like miley cyrus twerking or this miss america stuff is part of the political struggle that is not only allowed, but is created as ideology.
the evidence is clear. a reformist struggle (even one far more radical than getting diversity in Miss America) has never in history led to a proletarian revolution and is usually used to pacify revolutionary forces before persecuting them and then taking away the reforms. subverting the proletarian struggle to "realistic" goals or "objective" improvements in people's lives (despite being first world chauvinism) is a very mild form of the PKI joining the Sukarno government before being slaughtered.
babyfinland posted:oh my god are we actually discussing this bullshit
lib slander please stop posting every dumb piece of gawker garbage that comes across your facebook feed
is this from gawker? oh, i guess it probably is since it's a deluge of garbage from twitter. i don't know why anyone would read that site when there exists marxist.com
it's also not strictly true that such battles cannot evolve into broader revolutionary struggle. the point of overdetermination is that these secondary struggles always help define the currents in which radicals work. for example, lenin responded to the real actual demands of peasant organizations by adopting their platform, even though it was a reformist program rather than collectivization. the reason was that giving peasants land, while petty-bourgeois, was exactly what they wanted and was critical to getting them on side for the more important and leading part of the revolution, which was the urban working class. there are hundreds of examples like this.
it's not even true that parliamentary struggle is useless. stalin made this clear in the 1930s and 1940s, when popular fronts won elections across europe. the combination with the red army's advance allowed these popular fronts to win elections in eastern europe. these were not simple military coups as some people portray them, they demonstrated real popular support for electoral fronts which then dismantled the parliamentary system from within. being against reformism means accepting that the bourgeois state must be smashed, but the record of people's democracy shows that parliamentary elections can begin the process of seizure of power.
getfiscal posted:fighting a thousand and one battles in reformist struggles can demonstrate to the people that the communist viewpoint is relevant to things they care about and isn't just some apocalyptic messianic vision that solves one big problem. it also demonstrates that gains can be made by organization even in the absence of total victory, which allows people to grow in confidence over their ability to effect change.
it's also not strictly true that such battles cannot evolve into broader revolutionary struggle. the point of overdetermination is that these secondary struggles always help define the currents in which radicals work. for example, lenin responded to the real actual demands of peasant organizations by adopting their platform, even though it was a reformist program rather than collectivization. the reason was that giving peasants land, while petty-bourgeois, was exactly what they wanted and was critical to getting them on side for the more important and leading part of the revolution, which was the urban working class. there are hundreds of examples like this.
it's not even true that parliamentary struggle is useless. stalin made this clear in the 1930s and 1940s, when popular fronts won elections across europe. the combination with the red army's advance allowed these popular fronts to win elections in eastern europe. these were not simple military coups as some people portray them, they demonstrated real popular support for electoral fronts which then dismantled the parliamentary system from within. being against reformism means accepting that the bourgeois state must be smashed, but the record of people's democracy shows that parliamentary elections can begin the process of seizure of power.
read your lenin and mao friend. transitional demands are not "reformist struggles", they are direct reforms that are not possible under capitalism. even in extreme cases where fighting against fascism means popular fronts, communists always need to be in control and pushing demands towards communism.
even temporary measures of relief (which as you point out are the actual site of politics) like the BPP survival program are not reform because they exist in political gaps where the bourgeois cannot act.
In theory it's extremely important to differentiate small reforms which are meant to link up into a socialist revolution and a socialist revolutionary movement which is determined in the day to day struggles of politics. In practice it's pretty difficult, even Stalin got it wrong sometimes. Not that it's relevant here, it's an important discussion but what are considered "left" politics in America like gay marriage and slut walks have no possible linkage to revolutionary struggle.
ilmdge posted:gay marriage may not be linked to revolutionary struggle but it's good.
we live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty, 1 billion people live in slums, a quarter of people have no electricity, a third of all private financial wealth is now owned by world’s richest 91,000 people – just 0.001% of the world’s population, etc.
here make yourself depressed:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
anything less than revolutionary struggle is unacceptable, anyone who cares at all for pointless issues like gay marriage either doesn't actually care about human suffering or lives in denial of the cost their first world life, where people even have the choice to marry for love and not labour, comes at.
it's actually kautskyist, not leninist, to think that capitalism is a single outcome that can't be fought over without necessarily transcending it. for example, kautsky thought there wasn't much point fighting for reforms because you'd always lose them and the point was to wait for a cataclysmic seizure of power. lenin countered that there were various articulations of capitalism and that some were obviously better for workers.
babyhueypnewton posted:ilmdge posted:gay marriage may not be linked to revolutionary struggle but it's good.
we live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty, 1 billion people live in slums, a quarter of people have no electricity, a third of all private financial wealth is now owned by world’s richest 91,000 people – just 0.001% of the world’s population, etc.
here make yourself depressed:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
anything less than revolutionary struggle is unacceptable, anyone who cares at all for pointless issues like gay marriage either doesn't actually care about human suffering or lives in denial of the cost their first world life, where people even have the choice to marry for love and not labour, comes at.
gay marriage though is something that's far more attainable and that we actually basically have achieved in the US now (it's mostly just a matter of time at this point, im not actively paying attention anymore). but doing that and giving 30,000,000 people the dignity of being able to partake equally in one of the most basic parts of human life is good and it happening and me voting for it didn't stop me from posting about communism on the rhizzone or doing any other marxist fingerpainting i might do.
babyhueypnewton posted:ilmdge posted:gay marriage may not be linked to revolutionary struggle but it's good.
we live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty, 1 billion people live in slums, a quarter of people have no electricity, a third of all private financial wealth is now owned by world’s richest 91,000 people – just 0.001% of the world’s population, etc.
here make yourself depressed:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
anything less than revolutionary struggle is unacceptable, anyone who cares at all for pointless issues like gay marriage either doesn't actually care about human suffering or lives in denial of the cost their first world life, where people even have the choice to marry for love and not labour, comes at.
what does "revolutionary struggle" mean in this context? since you are talking to, i guess presumably, the labor aristocrats within the first world
getfiscal posted:transitional demands is actually a concept used mostly by trotskyists, most marxist-leninists believe there are minimum/democratic demands and maximum/communist demands. democratic demands include things like "build more social housing".
it's actually kautskyist, not leninist, to think that capitalism is a single outcome that can't be fought over without necessarily transcending it. for example, kautsky thought there wasn't much point fighting for reforms because you'd always lose them and the point was to wait for a cataclysmic seizure of power. lenin countered that there were various articulations of capitalism and that some were obviously better for workers.
you're erasing class again. 'democracy' does not mean the same thing for the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. the main problem with the orthodox trotskyism you're describing is its first world chauvinism, applying orthodox Leninism to a non-revolutionary situation.
there's a fundamental difference between education and welfare in an impoverished indian village or a strategically important area during the long march than doing these same things in New York schools or Israeli Kibbutzim. You seem to have forgotten what over-determination is, proletarian struggle actually determines the revolutionary character of something in the last instance. the policy is not what's important, the BPP selling the little red book can be revolutionary while the RCP selling their paper can be reactionary because the material conditions, the level of class consciousness, and the ideological coherence of the vanguard is what matters.
AmericanNazbro posted:babyhueypnewton posted:ilmdge posted:gay marriage may not be linked to revolutionary struggle but it's good.
we live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty, 1 billion people live in slums, a quarter of people have no electricity, a third of all private financial wealth is now owned by world’s richest 91,000 people – just 0.001% of the world’s population, etc.
here make yourself depressed:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
anything less than revolutionary struggle is unacceptable, anyone who cares at all for pointless issues like gay marriage either doesn't actually care about human suffering or lives in denial of the cost their first world life, where people even have the choice to marry for love and not labour, comes at.
what does "revolutionary struggle" mean in this context? since you are talking to, i guess presumably, the labor aristocrats within the first world
the main task in the first world is anti-imperialism. if I believed gay rights contributed to that I would care, but since at least in the mainstream they have a history of supporting imperialism. caring about gay rights as a good in itself is absurd, the amount of suffering in the world is beyond comprehension. at best one can be indifferent, but it seems dumb to think miley cyrus twerking is part of the society of the spectacle but not rachel maddow taking a courageous stand on MSNBC.
of course I don't think morality is especially important in the socialist struggle, but only because my caring about suffering in the third world doesn't matter to them either. functionally all anti-imperialism in the 1st world is the same, which is why I think the PSL and ANSWER are the only ones with a clue (even if they arrived at the right solution by accident).
libelous_slander posted:babyfinland posted:oh my god are we actually discussing this bullshit
lib slander please stop posting every dumb piece of gawker garbage that comes across your facebook feedok
good girl