#13th Amendment

[existennialmemes]

Nothing in the US is going to get better until we abolish slavery for real. Ubiquitously, with no exceptions. Protecting the rights of prisoners actively protects every person in the country.

If the laws allow for any class of people to be stripped of their rights, then any person could be stripped of their rights. And the State has an active incentive to criminalize its critics (like Briana Boston, who was arrested for terrorism despite never having committed a crime.)

As long as criminality is an excuse to strip anyone of their rights, none of us are safe.

[sentientsky]

just a friendly reminder that, just because slavery was formally "abolished" in the so-called united states* in 1865, enslavement itself is still ongoing in the form of incarceration, which disproportionately affects Black and Indigenous people

(*i say "so-called" because the US is a settler-colonial construction founded on greed, extraction, and white supremacy) recommended readings/resources:

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander

"How the 13th Amendment Kept Slavery Alive: Perspectives From the Prison Where Slavery Never Ended" by Daniele Selby

"So You're Thinking About Becoming an Abolitionist" by Mariame Kaba

"The Case for Prison Abolition: Ruth Wilson Gilmore on COVID-19, Racial Capitalism & Decarceration" from Democracy Now! [VIDEO]

[whenweallvote]

Many of us are taught that slavery came to an end with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, but for enslaved people in Texas, freedom didn’t come until June 19, 1865.

Swipe to learn about the history of Juneteenth, and why it’s a celebration of freedom, culture, and progress.

[nikidanger]

Just going to leave this here...

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Scientific American endorses Harris

TONIGHT (October 23) at 7PM, I'll be in DECATUR, GEORGIA, presenting my novel THE BEZZLE at EAGLE EYE BOOKS.

If Trump's norm-breaking is a threat to democracy (and it is), what should Democrats do? Will breaking norms to defeat norms only accelerate the collapse of norms, or do we fight fire with fire, breaking norms to resist the slide into tyranny?

Writing for The American Prospect, Rick Perlstein writes how "every time the forces of democracy broke a reactionary deadlock, they did it by breaking some norm that stood in the way":

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-10-23-science-is-political/

Take the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the Reconstruction period that followed it. As Jefferson Cowie discusses, the 13th only passed because the slave states were excluded from its ratification, and even then, it barely squeaked over the line. The Congress that passed reconstruction laws that "radically reconstructed [slave states] via military subjugation" first ejected all the representatives of those states:

https://newrepublic.com/article/182383/defend-liberalism-lets-fight-democracy-first

The New Deal only exists because FDR was on the verge of packing the Supreme Court, and, under this threat, SCOTUS stopped ruling against FDR's plans:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/20/judicial-equilibria/#pack-the-court

The passage of progressive laws – "the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid" – are all thanks to JFK's gambit of packing the House Rules Committee, ending the obstructionist GOP members' use of the committee to kill anything that would protect or expand America's already fragile social safety net.

As Perlstein writes, "A willingness to judiciously break norms in a civic emergency can be a sign of a healthy and valorous democratic resistance."

And yet…the Democratic establishment remains violently allergic to norm-breaking. Perlstein recalls the 2018 book How Democracies Die, much beloved of party elites and Obama himself, which argued that norms are the bedrock of democracy, and so the pro-democratic forces undermine their own causes when they fight reactionary norm-breaking with their own.

The tactic of bringing a norm to a gun-fight has been a disaster for democracy. Trump wasn't the first norm-shattering Republican – think of GWB and his pals stealing the 2000 election, or Mitch McConnell stealing a Supreme Court seat for Gorsuch – but Trump's assault on norms is constant, brazen and unapologetic. Progressives need to do more than weep on the sidelines and demand that Republicans play fair.

The Democratic establishment's response is to toe every line, seeking to attract "moderate conservatives" who love institutions more than they love tax giveaways to billionaires. This is a very small constituency, nowhere near big enough to deliver the legislative majorities, let alone the White House. As Perlstein says, Obama very publicly rejected calls to be "too liberal" and tiptoed around anti-racist policy, in a bid to prevent a "racist backlash" (Obama discussed race in public less than any other president since the 1950s). This was a hopeless, ridiculous own-goal: Perlstein points out that even before Obama was inaugurated, there were more than 100 Facebook groups calling for his impeachment. The racist backlash was inevitable had nothing to do with Obama's policies. The racist backlash was driven by Obama's race.

Luckily, some institutions are getting over their discomfort with norm-breaking and standing up for democracy. Scientific American the 179 year-old bedrock of American scientific publication, has endorsed Harris for President, only the second such endorsement in its long history:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vote-for-kamala-harris-to-support-science-health-and-the-environment/

Predictably, this has provoked howls of outrage from Republicans and a debate within the scientific community. Science is supposed to be apolitical, right?

Wrong. The conservative viewpoint, grounded in discomfort with ambiguity ("there are only two genders," etc) is antithetical to the scientific viewpoint. Remember the early stages of the covid pandemic, when science's understanding of the virus changed from moment to moment? Major, urgent recommendations (not masking, disinfecting groceries) were swiftly overturned. This is how science is supposed to work: a hypothesis can only be grounded in the evidence you have in hand, and as new evidence comes in that changes the picture, you should also change your mind.

Conservatives hated this. They claimed that scientists were "flip-flopping" and therefore "didn't know anything." Many concluded that the whole covid thing was a stitch-up, a bid to control us by keeping us off-balance with ever-changing advice and therefore afraid and vulnerable. This never ended: just look at all the weirdos in the comments of this video of my talk at last summer's Def Con who are absolutely freaking out about the fact that I wore a mask in an enclosed space with 5,000 people from all over the world in it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EmstuO0Em8

This intolerance for following the evidence is a fixture in conservative science denialism. How many times have you heard your racist Facebook uncle grouse about how "scientists used to say the world was getting colder, now they say it's getting hotter, what the hell do they know?"

Perlstein points to other examples of this. For example, in the 1980s, conservatives insisted that the answer to the AIDS crisis was to "just stop having 'illicit sex,'" a prescription that was grounded in a denial of AIDS science, because scientists used to say that it was a gay disease, then they said you could get it from IV drug use, or tainted blood, or from straight sex. How could you trust scientists when they can't even make up their minds?

https://www.newspapers.com/image/379364219/?terms=babies&match=1

There certainly are conservative scientists. But the right has a "fundamentally therapeutic discourse…conservatism never fails, it is only failed." That puts science and conservativism in a very awkward dance with one another.

Sometimes, science wins. Continuing in his history of the AIDS crisis, Perlstein talks about the transformation of Reagan's Surgeon General, C Everett Koop. Koop was an arch-conservative's arch-conservative. He was a hard-right evangelical who had "once suggested homosexuals were sedulously recruiting boys into their cult to help them take over America once they came of voting age." He'd also called abortion "the slide to Auschwitz" – which was weird, because he'd also opined that the "Jews had it coming for refusing to accept Jesus Christ."

You'd expect Koop to have continued the Reagan administration's de facto AIDS policy ("queers deserve to die"), but that's not what happened. After considering the evidence, Koop mailed a leaflet to every home in the USA advocating for condom use.

Koop was already getting started. His harm-reduction advocacy made him a national hero, so Reagan couldn't fire him. A Reagan advisor named Gary Bauer teamed up with Dinesh D'Souza on a mission to get Koop back on track. They got him a new assignment: investigate the supposed psychological harms of abortion, which should be a slam-dunk for old Doc Auschwitz. Instead, Koop published official findings – from the Reagan White House – that there was no evidence for these harms, and which advised women with an AIDS diagnosis to consider abortion.

So sometimes, science can triumph over conservativism. But it's far more common for conservativism to trump science. The most common form of this is "eisegesis," where someone looks at a "pile of data in order to find confirmation in it of what they already 'know' to be true." Think of those anti-mask weirdos who cling to three studies that "prove" masks don't work. Or the climate deniers who have 350 studies "proving" climate change isn't real. Eisegesis proves ivermectin works, that vaccinations are linked to autism, and that water fluoridation is a Communist plot. So long as you confine yourself to considering evidence that confirms your beliefs, you can prove anything.

Respecting norms is a good rule of thumb, but it's a lousy rule. The politicization of science starts with the right's intolerance for ambiguity – not Scientific American's Harris endorsement.

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/22/eisegesis/#norm-breaking

[theconcealedweapon]

If you defend prison labor now, you would have defended chattel slavery in the past.

[kemetic-dreams]

"Self Made Millionaire" Was one of the first African American inventors admitted into the National inventors Hall of Fame. Percy Julian specialized in making drugs and medications from plants. As a young college student bound for DePauw, Percy Julian watched his family standing on the stations platform. His Grandfather, a former slave freed by the 13th Amendment, waved a hand missing two fingers, cut off as punishment for learning to write

[lurkiestvoid]

Fuck it out of the tags:

I could pick at the wording in the article but it's not important, actually.

What's important is that people ARE starting to realize the Literal Legal Slavery Exception does, actually, literally mean Legal Slavery.

The article says this dude has tried before and it didn't get off the ground. He's hopeful it'll do better this time. He's trying to at least get it to a ballot vote, and he needs it to at least get through committee(s) first.

Good news! And, even better news, We The People are the best at making noise about a thing.

Kentuckians: please call and/or email and/or @ ALL your reps. You can just search 'find my reps' and see all of them for your zip code, local AND state AND federal, and find all of their public contact information. Please please use it. Frequently. I don't care if you copy and paste your messages from last week's round just please set aside 20 mins a week to pester your reps about this one issue. And others! But at least this one, to start the habit!!

If we just try, maybe Kentucky can be something other than one of the very last to ever do the right thing, for a change.

Thank you for your time 💜

[subaquatic-skyscraper]

Overstaying your visa while you await approval for your next visa is how you get your next visa. It’s a normal experience in the process of the legal immigration system in the United States.

Nearly everyone I know from another country has overstayed their visa regardless of which country they came from, the color of their skin, their criminal record, their education level, what their job is.

White House press secretary stated that it is of the opinion of this administration that anyone who overstays a visa is a criminal.

Currently overstaying a visa and entering the country outside of the legal system are not crimes but civil violations. Doing either of these things does not make one a criminal. Trump made it clear yesterday he intends to criminalize such behavior, and states are already proposing laws to give “illegal immigrants” life in prison to keep the prison to slave labor pipeline churning.

[padawan-historian]

On August 8, 1863, Tennessee ratified the 13th Amendment, abolishing the domestic slave trade of Black + indigenous folks in the state. 159 years later in 2022, Tennessee folks voted to abolish all forms of slavery in the state, including the "Slavery Clause" that allows for incarcerated slavery to persist in both state-sanctioned + private for-profit prisons.To this day, the United States continues to build wealth off the exploited labor of impoverished, (dis)abled, undocumented + racially marginalized people who are incarcerated.

Each community and country that participated in the Transatlantic Slave Trade has its own emancipation day (or year).

And yet, as of 2023, Colorado, Alabama, Oregon, Vermont, Tennessee + Nevada (2024) are the only U.S. states who have made steps to abolish slavery in all its forms. That's not even touching how slavery, both state-sanctioned and illegal bondage, continues to bleed into our everyday places from child labor + forced s*x work to penal plantations and chocolate factories (looking at you at hershey chocolate)

In this second wave of Jim & Jane Crow flooding our world, we must arm ourselves with the tools to disrupt systems, distribute resources + deepen our collective action + good trouble ~

If you wanna explore the full Emancipation post + readings, come join us in the garden community over on Patreon where we upRoot our miseducation through history lessons, community conversations + book talks + decolonizing our everyday practic, our classrooms + our communities.

Reclaim your emancipation + immerse yourself in the ancestral, antiracist liberation! 🖤✊🏾✨️

[paulpingminho]

[kny111]

Do World Powers Engage in Subtle Systemic Slavery or Overt Systemic Slavery? It doesn’t Matter. Slavery is Slavery & It Will Never Be Needed Especially Not As A System.

The United States along with other world powers and those that serve them have created this ‘using us, yet against us’ system. We need to change this. The fire James Baldwin spoke of, the very merited rage those enslaved have against this system, is well overdue.

Those who serve a government that knowingly allow for enslavement still and lie to people about it being abolished when their own amendment backs daily institutional and systemic enslavement when it allows “slavery is abolished except in punishment or crime“. This does nothing to remove slavery as a systemic feature from this governing system and you are implicit.

                                                                                                by - K, Blog Admin

What happens when we as a community repurpose the instruments of science and evidence gathering and focus on the 13th amendment? This piece of document literally allows for enslavement. What has been created in its wake? Here’s the thing, when colonial imperial powers in Europe said okay when issues occur we’re gonna call them ‘crime’  they meant it as a word to account for social norms being breached and a sort of “holler if you hear me“ approach to solving those issues was laid out institutionally which included neighborhood watch people that could process this. They later became police. Between that time and the present 2023, legislature and policy reshaped crime and policing, as well as the defending of issues through military, crime became systemically synonymous with prisons/cages/slavery to solve those issues. From the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and its bolstering of these pro enslavement laws to this past historical investment in this strange notion of punishing others so physically, violently to the benefit of a system, a legalized market of slavery was formed and continues to persist with similar legislative and political play on words as they did with the 13th amendment’s clause: The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

When you specifically write into law and action that amendments create and actualize the means to the system we use, what are you enacting when you pronounce through this same mechanism that “no slavery shall exist within the united states or any place subject to its jurisdiction - EXCEPT as punishment for crime“? We need to, as a people really inspect this slowly and carefully because science has yet to produce any evidence that says punishment at that level and method is required to solve these issues so where is this evidence that says that type of punishment is even needed for the people to “fall in line”?

Secondly, isn’t it evident that processing issues as merely ‘crime’ is factually bringing us more structural issues than not because not every issue can be generalized to crime and often times the word crime itself just doesn’t do nearly enough to account for the disabled community and many other far reaching issues.

These aren’t assumptions, these are educated deductions based on statistical data provided by the errors of the running system. Again, it has yet to produce reputable convincing evidence that establishes prisons, crime, and cops/ slave patrol systems they synergized with as effective means to solve the issues we as a society constantly face. And with this same lack of adhering to scientific facts are we supposed to feel comforted by these slave industry agents, legislators and policy makers that allow for that amendment to exist as is because they know it buys them that much time to not worry of their implicitness in enslavement of others? I implore everyone watch the documentary by Ava DuVernay 13th available for free on youtube from NetFlix due to its educational merit. This documentary is like a course 101 on understanding just how much of an issue enslavement systems are and how synonymous prisons and cops are to slave markets and patrols. It gets right to the problem of slavery, what scriptures did they use to embed it into our social mainframe? did it exist back then? Yes, Is it gone? No, it let’s us know it’s still active and strategies by white supremacists and slavers then benefit their lineages and communities now.

They have a lot of control over the systems that try to govern us. Reconfiguring, inspecting and enacting amendments at this level will be required for us to do something meaningful against this oppressive system and its unsustainable, inefficient amalgamation with slavery markets as a resource system.

Reparations for those harmed by these systems as well as systemic decolonization strategies will be commonly needed. We need documentaries like this and similar subject media to help the public understand the necessary steps to abolish prisons and repurposing the military that serve them away from the rich’s interest and focus on the people. Since all defending this slavery system are implicit. 13th by Ava DuVernay is available now on YouTube for free via NetFlix along with other educational documentaries

[eternalistic]

Many of the companies buying directly from prisons are violating their own policies against the use of such labor. But it’s completely legal, dating back largely to the need for labor to help rebuild the South’s shattered economy after the Civil War. Enshrined in the Constitution by the 13th Amendment, slavery and involuntary servitude are banned – except as punishment for a crime.

[thoughtportal]