Enloe's piece was interesting in her assertion of the U.S. acting as an empire through it's military occupations. I don't know if I would go so far as to say the U.S. is an empire, especially since so many of its military missions are massive failures, but I would argue that western capitalists have created a world order through economic-dominated global politics. Despite my disagreement with her empire argument, I really enjoyed her first-hand accounts of Afghan and Iraqi women who are affected mostly negatively by the U.S.-invasion. It shows just how western ideals can be easily swept away for military agreements.
Puar's piece was honestly pretty confusing to me. I just don't buy his evidence of an argument of homonationalism. I thought Long's evidence actually supported Puar's argument much better. But Puar's arguments about whiteness and how LGBT people of color are ignored and used simultaneously definitely is true. Most people that enlist in the military are minorities from poor communities looking for a way to escape and gain lots of benefits, but they are also putting their lives on the line to defend a nation that often disregards them. The exploitation is disturbing.
Long's article was really unique and well-presented. While Iran probably does execute LGBT youth under false accusations, it is incredible how fear-mongering is used by LGBT activists to villainizeMuslims and prop the War on Terror. From Enloe's article we can see that is incredibly unlikely that US intervention will actually help any LGBT Iraqis or Afghans, yet these activist ignore the hypocrisy of western discrimination by creating a binary of good v. evil with the Middle East. It seems that they'll accept discrimination and the singular obsession with the marriage title just because the state isn't hanging gay people, although I'm sure plenty of private citizens are participating in lynchings.
No comments:
Post a Comment