#Department of History

[xtruss]

La Colonisation: French History of Death, Torture and Indescribable Violence in the Pearl of Its Evil Empire! Many Issues Arising From France’s Colonial Crimes in Algeria Have Still Not Been Resolved

— April 10, 2024 | RT

© RT/RT

Every year, Algeria remembers the colonial crimes committed by France against the Algerian people. The North African country commemorates several such dates throughout the year: February 13 – the day of the first nuclear test, July 5 – Independence Day, November 1 – Revolution Day, which marked the beginning of the eight-year independence war of 1954-1962, and December 11 – the day on which mass demonstrations started in 1960, and were brutally suppressed by French troops.

Algeria’s colonial period lasted for over 130 years, but the nation didn’t give up on its dream of breaking free from colonial oppression. Algeria’s sovereignty was finally recognized in 1962. But independence was won with a great deal of blood. According to official Algerian data, about 1.5 million local residents died in the war with France (1954-1962), about one sixth of the country’s population at the time.

Addressing the people on the occasion of Independence Day in 2021, Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune recalled that the French colonialists were responsible for the most cruel violence, murder, and destruction in Algeria. Historians estimate that from 1830 to 1962 the colonialists caused the deaths of over five million people, including those who died as a result of contamination from nuclear tests.

In the 1954-1962 war against the National Liberation Front (Le Front de libération nationale, FLN), the French used civilians as hostages and human shields. Historians have documented numerous cases when French colonialists exterminated entire villages. They resorted to electric shock torture, used wells as prisons, threw prisoners from helicopters, and buried people alive in mass graves which the victims were forced to dig for themselves. The European invaders used the most sophisticated and cruel methods of torture.

French Foreign Legion, Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria, 20th century. French postcard. © Art Media/Print Collector/Getty Images

The Musée de l’Homme in Paris still houses 18,000 skulls acquired from dependent territories, of which only 500 have been identified, according to French media. Most of these skulls are not publicly exhibited. The skulls of several dozen Algerian resistance fighters have also been kept in the museum since the 19th century.

France’s colonial crimes affected not only people, but also Algeria’s cultural and historical heritage. During the occupation period from 1830 to 1962, the French transported hundreds of thousands of documents to Paris, including those related to the Ottoman period (1518-1830). Since gaining independence, Algeria has appealed to France to return the archive. But each time when this issue comes up, France says that according to its laws, the documents are considered classified and their disclosure is a threat to national security.

French Ontervention

The French invasion of Algeria in 1830 marked the beginning of the European country’s extensive colonization of Asian and African territories. The occupation process stretched on for several decades, as the local population put up an active resistance.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Algeria remained under the nominal rule of the Ottoman Empire, to which it regularly made tribute payments. However, the country retained much of its independence when it came to external political and commercial contacts. During France’s Italian and Egyptian campaigns (1793-1798) Algeria supplied Paris with wheat on credit. In the following decades, however, France refused to pay the debt, which resulted in major disagreements between the two countries.

In 1827, during one such dispute, Algeria’s Ottoman governor, Hussein Pasha, lost his temper and slapped the French ambassador Pierre Deval with a fly swatter (or a fan, according to other accounts). The King of France, Charles X, used this incident as an excuse to invade Algeria, believing that given the internal instability France was going through, an external military campaign could help rally society around the throne.

In the summer of 1830, a 37,000-strong expeditionary force from Paris arrived near Algiers and soon entered the city. Hussein Pasha capitulated. This victory did not help Charles X, who eventually abdicated, but the French remained in Algeria for the next 132 years.

Abd al-Qadir

Having occupied several Mediterranean ports, the Europeans decided to move inland, but at that point the local Arabs and Berbers, who had previously fought against the Ottoman Empire, put up strong resistance.

The anti-French movement was led by Abd al-Qadir, the son of the leader of the Qadiriyya, a local Sufi order. In November 1832, he was proclaimed as the emir of the Arab tribes in the west of the country, and united the local population in the fight against the French occupation. Abd al-Qadir was adept at managing territories and conducting guerrilla warfare, and fought against the invaders for 15 years. He became a legendary figure, and his fame spread throughout the Muslim world and Europe.

Abd al-Qadir was very popular among Algerians, since he was considered a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (i.e. a Sharif) and a true ruler of the faithful. However, resorting to pogroms and the mass extermination of the local population, the French deprived him of the support of many military leaders and turned the course of the war in their favor.

The Algerians paid a heavy price for the resistance – hundreds of thousands died as a result of it. From 1847 to 1852, Abd al-Qadir remained in a French prison, after which he was released and went to live in exile in Damascus, where he died in 1883.

Algérie Française: No Rights For Locals

In the following decades, Algeria was actively colonized, and the colonial territory expanded south. By 1847, there were about 110,000 European settlers in Algeria, and by 1870 this number had doubled.

In 1848, Algeria was declared a territory of France and was designated as its overseas department, with a European Governor-General in charge. The locals became subjects (but not citizens) of France. After the Ottomans were ousted from Algeria and the Abd al-Qadir movement was suppressed, the French had to deal with several other major uprisings in the 19th century, the last of which occurred in 1871-1872.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the French had conquered lands stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Sahara. In the 1920s, over 800,000 French settlers resided in Algeria. Three provinces – Oran, Algiers, and Constantine – became French departments. They elected representatives to the French Chamber of Deputies, but only European settlers who backed the interests of Paris could take part in these elections. Algerians did not have the right to vote.

Economic Benefits

Economically speaking, the period between 1885-1930 is considered the golden age of French Algeria (and of the entire French Maghreb region). The country’s most important ports and cities were rebuilt and modernized and the agricultural sector was actively developed. Muslims had relative autonomy and retained their religious and cultural institutions.

The demographic boom, facilitated by European achievements in the fields of health and medicine, led to a threefold increase in the population, which reached nine million by the mid-20th century. Out of these, about a million were French colonists who seized about 40% of the cultivated land, which meant the most fertile land in the country belonged to them.

In other areas of life, there was also inequality between the locals and the colonizers. Local workers were paid less, and about 75% of Algerians remained illiterate. Despite these issues, however, peace lasted in the country for many decades.

Paris derived great economic benefits from its new territories. Algeria occupied a central place among France’s eastern possessions and its location was strategically important since the most convenient routes which connected France with its colonies in West and Central Africa passed through Algeria.

In May 27, 1956 file photo, French troops seal off Algiers' notorious casbah, 400-year-old teeming Arab quarter. © AP Photo, File

The largest and bloodiest massacre committed by France in a single day occurred on May 8, 1945, when hundreds of thousands of Algerians took to the streets to celebrate the end of World War II. When people started shouting slogans demanding independence, the colonial forces opened fire on the peaceful protesters. At least 45,000 unarmed demonstrators were killed that day.

Protests broke out in France as well, and were also brutally suppressed. October 17, 1961, went down in history as the day of the “Massacre on the Seine”, or the “Paris pogrom”. On that day, about 60,000 Algerians took to the streets of Paris, demanding an end to the colonization of their country. The French authorities again used firearms against peaceful protesters, many of whom were thrown into the River Seine. The death toll amounted to 1,500, while 800 people went missing, and thousands were detained.

The working people of Paris demanding an end to the war in Algeria. 1962. Reproduction of a photo from the newspaper L'Humanite. © RIA Novosti / Sputnik

However, this did not stop the national liberation movement in Algeria. In November 1954, an alliance of several political organizations formed the National Liberation Front (le Front de Libération Nationale), which headed the armed struggle for independence. Many underground guerrilla groups also sprang up that supported the sovereignty of Algeria. At the end of 1954, they all went into attack, and this marked the beginning of the Algerian War of Independence, which lasted until March 1962.

Paris sent additional military units to Algeria to fight the rebels. An estimated 500,000 to 1.5 million local residents and over 15,000 European servicemen died as a result of the hostilities, which lasted more than seven years.

French soldiers looking at dead bodies during "Operation Bigeard" in March 1956, when an armed outbreak in Souk-Ahras, South of Constantine region, Algeria. © Reporters Associes/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

France won the war on a tactical level, but suffered a political and reputational defeat – its actions drew sharp criticism from its own citizens and the world community.

After negotiations and the signing of the Évian Accords, Algerians held a referendum and almost unanimously voted for independence, which was officially proclaimed on July 5, 1962.

Demining

After the war, it was necessary to clear the territory of mines. Since Algeria did not have qualified sappers, it requested assistance from European countries (Italy, Sweden, and Germany), but they refused to help. Private companies could not solve the problem either.

It was then that the USSR agreed to help Algeria, free of charge. On July 27, 1963, an agreement was signed between the Soviet leadership and Algeria. Soviet specialists removed about 1.5 million mines in Algeria from 1962 to 1965.

Nuclear Tests

A group of dummies set up on the French nuclear weapons testing range near Reggane, Algeria, before France’s third atomic bomb test, 27th December 1960. © Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images

One of the greatest crimes against humanity was the testing of nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction, which was carried out by France from 1960 to 1966 in the Sahara Desert in Algeria.

The first nuclear explosion happened on February 13, 1960, near the town of Zaouit Reggani in southwestern Algeria and was codenamed “Gerboise Bleue”. This experiment launched the process that turned Algeria into France’s nuclear test site. The power of the nuclear bomb was estimated at 60-70 kilotons, which is about four times greater than the bomb dropped by the US on Hiroshima during WWII.

A total of 17 nuclear tests were conducted in Algeria, which led to the death of 42,000 Algerians. Many people became disabled, and the negative impact on the environment and the health of local residents is felt to this day. Algerian authorities are demanding that France hand over maps which show where the radioactive waste from these experiments was disposed of. But to this day, France hasn’t complied.

France Is Still There

France suffered a severe blow when it lost its largest African colony, from which it derived great economic benefit. To this day, many problems between the two countries have not been fully resolved, and echoes of imperialism are still evident in their relations.

Algeria wants France to officially admit its guilt, and take responsibility for the past events. However, in the past 60 years, Paris has never offered an official apology to Algeria, although some of its leaders made certain apologetic statements. Moreover, Algerian leaders often raise the issue of approving a bill which would criminalize the colonial policy of Paris.

After gaining independence, Algeria faced contradictory emotions – it wanted to put an end to its former dependence on France, but the well-established trade ties, the lack of experienced national government officials, and the military presence stipulated by the Evian Accords ensured the presence of France in Algeria. Moreover, Paris provided the necessary financial assistance and supplied Algeria with essential goods.

Things changed when Algerian authorities decided to nationalize industrial and energy enterprises in the late 1960s. France’s intervention in the Western Sahara conflict, in which it supported Morocco, and a stop in purchases of Algerian oil, which led to a trade imbalance in the late 1970s, further strained relations between the two countries. However, despite a decline in political relations, economic ties with France– especially those related to the energy sector – have remained strong throughout the history of independent Algeria.

Four Key Issues

In December 2018, Algerian Minister of War Veterans Tayeb Zitouni stated that there are four key issues (the so-called “memory file”) related to the era of imperialism: the archive of documents from the colonial and Ottoman periods, the skulls of resistance fighters which are stored in the Paris Museum, the file of people who went missing during the war of independence, and compensation for the victims of nuclear tests. Zitouni said that addressing these issues is key to ensuring normal relations between France and Algeria.

In 2020, French President Emmanuel Macron agreed to hand over the remains of 24 Algerian resistance leaders who were killed and then beheaded by French colonial troops prior to the November 1954 revolution. All of them were buried at El Alia cemetery in Algiers. Negotiations continue on the return of other skulls, the number of which is not specified.

In late 2021, new tensions sprang up between France and Algeria. In his days as a presidential candidate, Emmanuel Macron recognized the colonization of Algeria as a crime against humanity. Macron said this on February 16, 2017, during a trip to Algeria. Nevertheless, by the end of his first presidential term, the countries were on the verge of a new diplomatic crisis – Macron still had not made an official apology for the “mistakes” of the past.

On October 3, 2021, Algeria decided to “immediately recall” its ambassador to France. The reaction was a response to an interview by Macron, published in Le Monde, in which he stated that since gaining independence in 1962, Algeria has lived off “income from history” which is diligently guarded by the military and political authorities, and questioned the existence of the Algerian nation prior to French colonialism. The former colony was insulted by these words.

Monument in Kherrata. © Wikipedia

Soon, Algerian authorities took even stricter measures. The next day, Algeria banned French military planes from its airspace. This order is still in force. In 2023, the authorities declined France’s request to open Algerian airspace for French military aircraft heading to Niger, where a military coup had taken place – an event that seriously undermined France’s influence in the region.

In an attempt to improve relations with Algeria, Macron paid a visit to the country in August 2022 and signed a new partnership agreement with President Abdelmajid Tebboune, on cooperation in various fields. However, relations between the countries remain tense. Tebboune was supposed to respond with a similar visit on May 3, 2023, but it has been postponed. The reasons are the same – Algeria is still waiting for France to take action on a number of issues, which are all related to historical memory.

— By Tamara Ryzhenkova, Orientalist, Senior Lecturer at the Department of History of the Middle East, St. Petersburg State University, Expert for the Telegram Channel ‘Arab Africa’

[mossadegh]

As soon as the Shah returned to Iran after the successful U.S.-backed coup, he summoned Amb. Loy Henderson, who was in on the plot, for a secret rendezvous at the palace. Henderson’s cabled report is the only known record of this historic conversation…

The Mossadegh Project

• U.S. State Department Documents on Iran | 1951-1980

[chickenleafs-world]

Cannot stress enough how sad I am that Boothill was made so pasty, because he’s so interesting in every aspect of his story and it would be better if some of those bits were more visible. They made his story to deliberately parallel America’s history with Native Americans, and he’s a cowboy which is a job that had mainly black and indigenous people in its heyday. It feels hollow to make the point of his story that colonialism and racism are bad, only to fall in line with those structures to whitewash him. Sure, it’s physically possible for Native Americans to pass that well (one of my closest native friends is pasty with blond hair and blue eyes) but it’s not typical, and we don’t have enough dark skinned rep in general. It comes off as lazy more than exploring the life of a mixed/passing character.

And I know it’s to be expected with Hoyo’s continued disregard for poc, but it doesn’t make it less frustrating every time they write a character to be poc then just. Don’t make the poc. HSR hasn’t added another dark skinned playable character since release and already has issues with roma representation, HI3 has… everything with Carole, and Genshin went through a whole saga of mostly pale people in the Middle East/Africa equivalent.

Please Hoyo I am begging you to for once let your bottom line be risked for poc rep the same way you’ve tried to with queer rep. If you can sneak lesbians and femboys in after being used as an example of what not to do by government censors, you can make Boothill at least a little tan. Being a Chinese company doesn’t suddenly let you off on the bear minimum. It feels like they wanna have their cake and eat it by using other cultures and histories without acknowledging the people who’s cultures and histories they are.

This isn’t coming from a hater. This is coming from a disappointed Hoyo player who has slowly come across all the ways Hoyo has fucked up in this department and who is getting tired of it. I want them to do better (even if I know they probably won’t) before I (and many other players) can no longer justify supporting them as players.

[difeisheng]

A Jianghu Mystery of the Middle Xi: The Tomb of Li Xiangyi

By Qiling, University of □□ (2024)

Left: A photograph of the inscribed text at Li Xiangyi's tomb, reading, "The grave of the Sigu Sect's departed Sect Leader, Li Xiangyi". Right: Artist's sketch renditions from eye-level frontal and aerial side views, recreating how the tomb may have appeared during the Xi dynasty.

Among the numerous important archaeological finds from the Xi Dynasty, the tomb of Li Xiangyi is not the most well-known, nor has it yielded any artifacts of particular intrigue, yet it has raised questions about certain points in history since its discovery. The tomb constitutes a small site, near a mountainous overlook which should have received little common traffic at the time of construction. Its structure is in line with some other aristocratic burials of the Middle Xi period: aboveground, with a chamber at the center of a raised rectangular dais several meters wide, large enough to bear only a single individual. A stone marker, which has survived in legible condition until today, declares it the tomb of Li Xiangyi, leader of the Sigu jianghu sect.

Records about Li Xiangyi are found at other archaeological sites contemporary with this tomb, and so his name is not an obscure one. The Sigu Sect complex has already undergone excavation for nearly two decades, with evidence that Li Xiangyi spent several years there as its first sect leader and founder. His tomb is within two hours' walking distance of the Sigu site, though isolated in its location, compared to the Sigu Sect's grand mountain entrance. (The complex itself was inhabited well after his death; bamboo slips cite Qiao Wanmian as the Sigu Sect's next major leader some years after, who oversaw it for several more decades into the later Xi). In addition, the Baichuan-Pudu site, closer to the eastern coast and historically the headquarters for the Baichuan Court, is affiliated with Li Xiangyi. Its origins apparently lay in an offshoot of the Sigu Sect, which grew into its own independent legal organization after his death.

Legends surrounding Li Xiangyi's life have been well-documented, both at Sigu and Baichuan-Pudu, but also in books and transcriptions of oral stories at sites around the country. These are dated to both the Middle and Late Xi periods, as well as a few scattered mentions in writings from the following dynasty. As a jianghu sect leader and swordsman, Li Xiangyi's reputation truly preceded him. Some tales speak of his early accomplishments, ridding towns of villainous tyrants and defeating criminals. Others talk about the founding of the Sigu Sect when Li Xiangyi was seventeen, and his subsequent missions leading his fellow swordsmen to protect the borders of the country. Not all of these narratives can be verified with surviving historical proof, and given Li Xiangyi's status in the shifting canon of folklore, the percentage that are hyperbole or fiction is likely significant. However, one that should be true, and is the most frequently told story throughout these sources, is that of Li Xiangyi's death.

All texts place Li Xiangyi as having died relatively young, with some providing a specified age, generally around twenty. He perished in a duel with Di Feisheng, leader of the Jinyuan Alliance, a rival jianghu organization and presumed threat to the Sigu Sect. As the sources say, the Jinyuan Alliance killed Li Xiangyi's sect brother, Shan Gudao, and in retaliation he used the Sigu Sect to launch a war against the Jinyuan Alliance. His final battle was the last in this war, dying in the East Sea on Di Feisheng's ship. The Jinyuan Alliance in return was badly defeated by the Sigu Sect; excavations at its first compound in the last five years have shown evidence of siege, with fire having destroyed large parts of the buildings. Afterward, the Sigu Sect disbanded without Li Xiangyi, with only the Baichuan Court continuing to function, before being resurrected one decade later.

Given this knowledge we have about Li Xiangyi, the matter of his burial should be straightforward. He had a tremendous impact on the jianghu in the few short years that he stood at its peak. He died heroically, if tragically, to obtain justice for a brother. He was honoured with a tomb, standing guard over the sect he dedicated his youth to. Why, then, is said tomb regarded as somewhat of a mystery?

This tomb was first stumbled upon during extended surveys of the Sigu site territory, with excavation taking place within the last two years. Parts of the stone chamber and foundation of the dais have withstood time, as have most things left inside. The tomb bears no signs of looting. However, there are some details which, alongside discoveries from other archaeological sites, contribute to a shadow of uncertainty on the existing narrative of Li Xiangyi's life.

Firstly, is that the austerity of the tomb does not line up with what we know of Li Xiangyi. Although overall sufficient enough for someone of his great reputation, the tomb is rather plainly embellished. There are an unexpectedly small number of burial objects inside, with those present being neither rare nor expensive. For all his contributions to the jianghu, less money and resources were poured into remembrance of Li Xiangyi than seems proper for his time.

Secondly, and far more significantly, is that the tomb holds no human remains. Whether the fact of Li Xiangyi having no recovered body to bury was made public is unknown; if it was, we do not have record of it. Certainly those who arranged for the tomb to be built and sealed would have carried this with them the rest of their lives, but no one else may be accounted for. Granted, it is not impossible for a disappeared body to have been common knowledge or presumption, as Li Xiangyi was killed at sea with no guarantee of being found. Yet this, combined with the ordinary appearance of the tomb, causes the entire site to appear... a nominal thing. Constructed to maintain acknowledgement of Li Xiangyi's absence, though his death was only marked by words, rather than a physical state.

He was given a tomb, but was Li Xiangyi truly dead before it was built?

In terms of the aforementioned other archaeological site findings, there is one that potentially implicates Li Xiangyi's death at an interesting political junction, within the context of the dynasty. The Xi Dynasty was unstable and relatively short-lived, established after taking back the Central Plains and adjacent territories from the southern conquering state of Nanyin. It endured for just under two centuries, the first of which was fraught with pockets of conflict, with many jianghu skirmishes such as that between the Sigu Sect and the Jinyuan Alliance. The greatest threat to the Xi Dynasty (until its fall) came one hundred years after its founding. Recovered archival records from the Xi capital excavation report that remaining Nanyin loyalists attempted a coup, supported by jianghu organizations, including a restored Jinyuan Alliance (although whether Di Feisheng was still its leader at this time is unclear). This attack was ultimately unsuccessful, but important to note is that the leader of this renewed Nanyin force is described as being Shan Gudao, Li Xiangyi's former sect brother.

Although Li Xiangyi brought the Sigu Sect into a war upon news of Shan Gudao's death, that demise seems to have been faked, with Shan Gudao disappearing underground only to reappear as part of a later rebellion. Could Li Xiangyi have been aware of this? Was his reaction to Shan Gudao's apparent death genuine? Or part of a coordinated plan, using him as a reason to destroy the Jinyuan Alliance, to eradicate any future resistance? Did Li Xiangyi, too, fake his death alongside Shan Gudao, in service of a shared cause? Were remnants of the Sigu Sect instructed to build an empty tomb, cementing Li Xiangyi as a dead hero so he could work in the shadows of the jianghu instead?

This is merely speculation, contradicted by the fact that if Li Xiangyi had indeed done as such, unlike Shan Gudao, after his duel with Di Feisheng he has no reappearance in any surviving records or at any archaeological site. As well, Li Xiangyi should have had no motivation for committing to such a scheme, with even loyalty to Shan Gudao a stretch for putting all the lives of the Sigu Sect on the line. That being said, history has a way of surprising the present, and this theory may not be entirely ruled out. At any rate, Shan Gudao's survival is a baffling accompaniment to Li Xiangyi's (lack of a) burial, one which will hopefully receive clarifying answers in future archaeological developments.

Perhaps the strangest piece of the puzzle concerning the end of Li Xiangyi's life, however, is Di Feisheng. After the Jinyuan Alliance was scattered by the Sigu Sect, stories regarding Li Xiangyi declared him dead and disappeared. Yet not unlike Shan Gudao, he became known in the jianghu once more about ten years later, witnessing the Nanyin's attempted coup and living long after. His tomb remained untouched, and was excavated eight years ago as part of the greater Tianji Mountain site project. The location of Di Feisheng's tomb is surprising, not only because it directly links him to the powerful and wealthy He clan of Tianji Manor, but also because he was buried next to their sole young master during the Xi Dynasty, Fang Duobing.

The son of financial minister Fang Zeshi and engineering master He Xiaohui, Fang Duobing became a notable youxia travelling the jianghu in the emperor's name, assigned in the wake of the attempted Nanyin coup. According to palace records, he was also betrothed to Princess Zhaoling, although the marriage agreement was eventually formally dissolved. What is otherwise known of Fang Duobing was his admiration of Li Xiangyi, having styled himself as a follower and disciple of him during his youth. As well, one eye-catching artifact among Fang Duobing's burial goods was a preserved wooden replica of a blade, with Li Xiangyi's name carved near the hilt. Likely a children's toy, prized and kept safe throughout Fang Duobing's life.

The exact nature of the relationship between Di Feisheng and Fang Duobing is not entirely certain, but it must have been a very close one, for Di Feisheng to have the privilege of burial on the Tianji estate. This topic justifies future study for our understanding of the Tianji He clan, already known in prior generations for its socially subversive relationships, but pertinent to Li Xiangyi is that the man whose most infamous act was to kill him, was laid to rest beside one who revered him. Why was there such a bond between these two figures, if the stories of Li Xiangyi's death have any truth to them? Did Li Xiangyi really die by Di Feisheng's blade? Did Li Xiangyi's empty tomb, plausibly signifying Di Feisheng's innocence, alter his relationship with Fang Duobing? Or indeed, did Li Xiangyi, the man himself, have a part to play in this?

No traces of him from this time remain in the archaeological record, true. But this should not be taken to mean without doubt that he was not alive then at all.

The discovery of Li Xiangyi's tomb has been an exciting development for studying this era of the Xi Dynasty, but it has also outlined doubt in areas of one man's life that were previously taken as likely facts. Li Xiangyi's tomb is scarcely fitting for his name as a founding sect leader, built more for the sake of its existence than anything else, and there was no body sealed inside to begin with. In addition, Shan Gudao— someone dear to Li Xiangyi— established a precedent of faking his death. Di Feisheng, known across the jianghu for killing the man, held a close bond with someone later in life who had personally looked up to Li Xiangyi, and so he may not have been fully responsible for Li Xiangyi's death to begin with.

What truly happened to Li Xiangyi, resulting in a tomb such as this? The past holds the answer, knowing things that we do not. Hopefully the future of archaeology will continue leading to new discoveries, and allow us to more completely understand the legend that was Li Xiangyi.

[mariacallous]

“Don’t mention the word ‘liberalism,’ ” the talk-show host says to the guy who’s written a book on it. “Liberalism,” he explains, might mean Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to his suspicious audience, alienating more people than it invites. Talk instead about “liberal democracy,” a more expansive term that includes John McCain and Ronald Reagan. When you cross the border to Canada, you are allowed to say “liberalism” but are asked never to praise “liberals,” since that means implicitly endorsing the ruling Trudeau government and the long-dominant Liberal Party. In England, you are warned off both words, since “liberals” suggests the membership of a quaintly failed political party and “liberalism” its dated program. In France, of course, the vagaries of language have made “liberalism” mean free-market fervor, doomed from the start in that country, while what we call liberalism is more hygienically referred to as “republicanism.” Say that.

Liberalism is, truly, the love that dare not speak its name. Liberal thinkers hardly improve matters, since the first thing they will say is that the thing called “liberalism” is not actually a thing. This discouraging reflection is, to be sure, usually followed by an explanation: liberalism is a practice, a set of institutions, a tradition, a temperament, even. A clear contrast can be made with its ideological competitors: both Marxism and Catholicism, for instance, have more or less explicable rules—call them, nonpejoratively, dogmas. You can’t really be a Marxist without believing that a revolution against the existing capitalist order would be a good thing, and that parliamentary government is something of a bourgeois trick played on the working class. You can’t really be a Catholic without believing that a crisis point in cosmic history came two millennia ago in the Middle East, when a dissident rabbi was crucified and mysteriously revived. You can push either of these beliefs to the edge of metaphor—maybe the rabbi was only believed to be resurrected, and the inner experience of that epiphany is what counts; maybe the revolution will take place peacefully within a parliament and without Molotov cocktails—but you can’t really discard them. Liberalism, on the other hand, can include both faith in free markets and skepticism of free markets, an embrace of social democracy and a rejection of its statism. Its greatest figure, the nineteenth-century British philosopher and parliamentarian John Stuart Mill, was a socialist but also the author of “On Liberty,” which is (to the leftist imagination, at least) a suspiciously libertarian manifesto.

Whatever liberalism is, we’re regularly assured that it’s dying—in need of those shock paddles they regularly take out in TV medical dramas. (“C’mon! Breathe, damn it! Breathe! ”) As on television, this is not guaranteed to work. (“We’ve lost him, Holly. Damn it, we’ve lost him.”) Later this year, a certain demagogue who hates all these terms—liberals, liberalism, liberal democracy—might be lifted to power again. So what is to be done? New books on the liberal crisis tend to divide into three kinds: the professional, the professorial, and the polemical—books by those with practical experience; books by academics, outlining, sometimes in dreamily abstract form, a reformed liberal democracy; and then a few wishing the whole damn thing over, and well rid of it.

The professional books tend to come from people whose lives have been spent as pundits and as advisers to politicians. Robert Kagan, a Brookings fellow and a former State Department maven who has made the brave journey from neoconservatism to resolute anti-Trumpism, has a new book on the subject, “Rebellion: How Antiliberalism Is Tearing America Apart—Again” (Knopf). Kagan’s is a particular type of book—I have written one myself—that makes the case for liberalism mostly to other liberals, by trying to remind readers of what they have and what they stand to lose. For Kagan, that “again” in the title is the crucial word; instead of seeing Trumpism as a new danger, he recapitulates the long history of anti-liberalism in the U.S., characterizing the current crisis as an especially foul wave rising from otherwise predictable currents. Since the founding of the secular-liberal Republic—secular at least in declining to pick one faith over another as official, liberal at least in its faith in individualism—anti-liberal elements have been at war with it. Kagan details, mordantly, the anti-liberalism that emerged during and after the Civil War, a strain that, just as much as today’s version, insisted on a “Christian commonwealth” founded essentially on wounded white working-class pride.

The relevance of such books may be manifest, but their contemplative depth is, of necessity, limited. Not to worry. Two welcomely ambitious and professorial books are joining them: “Liberalism as a Way of Life” (Princeton), by Alexandre Lefebvre, who teaches politics and philosophy at the University of Sydney, and “Free and Equal: A Manifesto for a Just Society” (Knopf), by Daniel Chandler, an economist and a philosopher at the London School of Economics.

The two take slightly different tacks. Chandler emphasizes programs of reform, and toys with the many bells and whistles on the liberal busy box: he’s inclined to try more random advancements, like elevating ordinary people into temporary power, on an Athenian model that’s now restricted to jury service. But, on the whole, his is a sanely conventional vision of a state reformed in the direction of ever greater fairness and equity, one able to curb the excesses of capitalism and to accommodate the demands of diversity.

The program that Chandler recommends to save liberalism essentially represents the politics of the leftier edge of the British Labour Party—which historically has been unpopular with the very people he wants to appeal to, gaining power only after exhaustion with Tory governments. In the classic Fabian manner, though, Chandler tends to breeze past some formidable practical problems. While advocating for more aggressive government intervention in the market, he admits equably that there may be problems with state ownership of industry and infrastructure. Yet the problem with state ownership is not a theoretical one: Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister because of the widely felt failures of state ownership in the nineteen-seventies. The overreaction to those failures may have been destructive, but it was certainly democratic, and Tony Blair’s much criticized temporizing began in this recognition. Chandler is essentially arguing for an updated version of the social-democratic status quo—no bad place to be but not exactly a new place, either.

Lefebvre, on the other hand, wants to write about liberalism chiefly as a cultural phenomenon—as the water we swim in without knowing that it’s wet—and his book is packed, in the tradition of William James, with racy anecdotes and pop-culture references. He finds more truths about contemporary liberals in the earnest figures of the comedy series “Parks and Recreation” than in the words of any professional pundit. A lot of this is fun, and none of it is frivolous.

Yet, given that we may be months away from the greatest crisis the liberal state has known since the Civil War, both books seem curiously calm. Lefebvre suggests that liberalism may be passing away, but he doesn’t seem especially perturbed by the prospect, and at his book’s climax he recommends a permanent stance of “reflective equilibrium” as an antidote to all anxiety, a stance that seems not unlike Richard Rorty’s idea of irony—cultivating an ability both to hold to a position and to recognize its provisionality. “Reflective equilibrium trains us to see weakness and difference in ourselves,” Lefebvre writes, and to see “how singular each of us is in that any equilibrium we reach will be specific to us as individuals and our constellation of considered judgments.” However excellent as a spiritual exercise, a posture of reflective equilibrium seems scarcely more likely to get us through 2024 than smoking weed all day, though that, too, can certainly be calming in a crisis.

Both professors, significantly, are passionate evangelists for the great American philosopher John Rawls, and both books use Rawls as their fount of wisdom about the ideal liberal arrangement. Indeed, the dust-jacket sell line of Chandler’s book is a distillation of Rawls: “Imagine: You are designing a society, but you don’t know who you’ll be within it—rich or poor, man or woman, gay or straight. What would you want that society to look like?” Lefebvre’s “reflective equilibrium” is borrowed from Rawls, too. Rawls’s classic “A Theory of Justice” (1971) was a theory about fairness, which revolved around the “liberty principle” (you’re entitled to the basic liberties you’d get from a scheme in which everyone got those same liberties) and the “difference principle” (any inequalities must benefit the worst off). The emphasis on “justice as fairness” presses both professors to stress equality; it’s not “A Theory of Liberty,” after all. “Free and equal” is not the same as “free and fair,” and the difference is where most of the arguing happens among people committed to a liberal society.

Indeed, readers may feel that the work of reconciling Rawls’s very abstract consideration of ideal justice and community with actual experience is more daunting than these books, written by professional philosophers who swim in this water, make it out to be. A confidence that our problems can be managed with the right adjustments to the right model helps explain why the tone of both books—richly erudite and thoughtful—is, for all their implication of crisis, so contemplative and even-humored. No doubt it is a good idea to tell people to keep cool in a fire, but that does not make the fire cooler.

Rawls devised one of the most powerful of all thought experiments: the idea of the “veil of ignorance,” behind which we must imagine the society we would want to live in without knowing which role in that society’s hierarchy we would occupy. Simple as it is, it has ever-arresting force, making it clear that, behind this veil, rational and self-interested people would never design a society like that of, say, the slave states of the American South, given that, dropped into it at random, they could very well be enslaved. It also suggests that Norway might be a fairly just place, because a person would almost certainly land in a comfortable and secure middle-class life, however boringly Norwegian.

Still, thought experiments may not translate well to the real world. Einstein’s similarly epoch-altering account of what it would be like to travel on a beam of light, and how it would affect the hands on one’s watch, is profound for what it reveals about the nature of time. Yet it isn’t much of a guide to setting the timer on the coffeemaker in the kitchen so that the pot will fill in time for breakfast. Actual politics is much more like setting the timer on the coffeemaker than like riding on a beam of light. Breakfast is part of the cosmos, but studying the cosmos won’t cook breakfast. It’s telling that in neither of these Rawlsian books is there any real study of the life and the working method of an actual, functioning liberal politician. No F.D.R. or Clement Attlee, Pierre Mendès France or François Mitterrand (a socialist who was such a master of coalition politics that he effectively killed off the French Communist Party). Not to mention Tony Blair or Joe Biden or Barack Obama. Biden’s name appears once in Chandler’s index; Obama’s, though he gets a passing mention, not at all.

The reason is that theirs are not ideal stories about the unimpeded pursuit of freedom and fairness but necessarily contingent tales of adjustments and amendments—compromised stories, in every sense. Both philosophers would, I think, accept this truth in principle, yet neither is drawn to it from the heart. Still, this is how the good work of governing gets done, by those who accept the weight of the world as they act to lighten it. Obama’s history—including the feints back and forth on national health insurance, which ended, amid all the compromises, with the closest thing America has had to a just health-care system—is uninspiring to the idealizing mind. But these compromises were not a result of neglecting to analyze the idea of justice adequately; they were the result of the pluralism of an open society marked by disagreement on fundamental values. The troubles of current American politics do not arise from a failure on the part of people in Ohio to have read Rawls; they are the consequence of the truth that, even if everybody in Ohio read Rawls, not everybody would agree with him.

Ideals can shape the real world. In some ultimate sense, Biden, like F.D.R. before him, has tried to build the sort of society we might design from behind the veil of ignorance—but, also like F.D.R., he has had to do so empirically, and often through tactics overloaded with contradictions. If your thought experiment is premised on a group of free and equal planners, it may not tell you what you need to know about a society marred by entrenched hierarchies. Ask Biden if he wants a free and fair society and he would say that he does. But Thatcher would have said so, too, and just as passionately. Oscillation of power and points of view within that common framework are what makes liberal democracies liberal. It has less to do with the ideally just plan than with the guarantee of the right to talk back to the planner. That is the great breakthrough in human affairs, as much as the far older search for social justice. Plato’s rulers wanted social justice, of a kind; what they didn’t want was back talk.

Both philosophers also seem to accept, at least by implication, the familiar idea that there is a natural tension between two aspects of the liberal project. One is the desire for social justice, the other the practice of individual freedom. Wanting to speak our minds is very different from wanting to feed our neighbors. An egalitarian society might seem inherently limited in liberty, while one that emphasizes individual rights might seem limited in its capacity for social fairness.

Yet the evidence suggests the opposite. Show me a society in which people are able to curse the king and I will show you a society more broadly equal than the one next door, if only because the ability to curse the king will make the king more likely to spread the royal wealth, for fear of the cursing. The rights of sexual minorities are uniquely protected in Western liberal democracies, but this gain in social equality is the result of a history of protected expression that allowed gay experience to be articulated and “normalized,” in high and popular culture. We want to live on common streets, not in fortified castles. It isn’t a paradox that John Stuart Mill and his partner, Harriet Taylor, threw themselves into both “On Liberty,” a testament to individual freedom, and “The Subjection of Women,” a program for social justice and mass emancipation through group action. The habit of seeking happiness for one through the fulfillment of many others was part of the habit of their liberalism. Mill wanted to be happy, and he couldn’t be if Taylor wasn’t.

Liberals are at a disadvantage when it comes to authoritarians, because liberals are committed to procedures and institutions, and persist in that commitment even when those things falter and let them down. The asymmetry between the Trumpite assault on the judiciary and Biden’s reluctance even to consider enlarging the Supreme Court is typical. Trumpites can and will say anything on earth about judges; liberals are far more reticent, since they don’t want to undermine the institutions that give reality to their ideals.

Where Kagan, Lefebvre, and Chandler are all more or less sympathetic to the liberal “project,” the British political philosopher John Gray deplores it, and his recent book, “The New Leviathans: Thoughts After Liberalism” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux), is one long complaint. Gray is one of those leftists so repelled by the follies of the progressive party of the moment—to borrow a phrase of Orwell’s about Jonathan Swift—that, in a familiar horseshoe pattern, he has become hard to distinguish from a reactionary. He insists that liberalism is a product of Christianity (being in thrall to the notion of the world’s perfectibility) and that it has culminated in what he calls “hyper-liberalism,” which would emancipate individuals from history and historically shaped identities. Gray hates all things “woke”—a word that he seems to know secondhand from news reports about American universities. If “woke” points to anything except the rage of those who use it, however, it is a discourse directed against liberalism—Ibram X. Kendi is no ally of Bayard Rustin, nor Judith Butler of John Stuart Mill. So it is hard to see it as an expression of the same trends, any more than Trump is a product of Burke’s conservative philosophy, despite strenuous efforts on the progressive side to make it seem so.

Gray’s views are learned, and his targets are many and often deserved: he has sharp things to say about how certain left liberals have reclaimed the Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt and his thesis that politics is a battle to the death between friends and foes. In the end, Gray turns to Dostoyevsky’s warning that (as Gray reads him) “the logic of limitless freedom is unlimited despotism.” Hyper-liberals, Gray tells us, think that we can compete with the authority of God, and what they leave behind is wild disorder and crazed egotism.

As for Dostoyevsky’s positive doctrines—authoritarian and mystical in nature—Gray waves them away as being “of no interest.” But they are of interest, exactly because they raise the central pragmatic issue: If you believe all this about liberal modernity, what do you propose to do about it? Given that the announced alternatives are obviously worse or just crazy (as is the idea of a Christian commonwealth, something that could be achieved only by a degree of social coercion that makes the worst of “woke” culture look benign), perhaps the evil might better be ameliorated than abolished.

Between authority and anarchy lies argument. The trick is not to have unified societies that “share values”—those societies have never existed or have existed only at the edge of a headsman’s axe—but to have societies that can get along nonviolently without shared values, aside from the shared value of trying to settle disputes nonviolently. Certainly, Americans were far more polarized in the nineteen-sixties than they are today—many favored permanent apartheid (“Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”)—and what happened was not that values changed on their own but that a form of rights-based liberalism of protest and free speech convinced just enough people that the old order wouldn’t work and that it wasn’t worth fighting for a clearly lost cause.

What’s curious about anti-liberal critics such as Gray is their evident belief that, after the institutions and the practices on which their working lives and welfare depend are destroyed, the features of the liberal state they like will somehow survive. After liberalism is over, the neat bits will be easily reassembled, and the nasty bits will be gone. Gray can revile what he perceives to be a ruling élite and call to burn it all down, and nothing impedes the dissemination of his views. Without the institutions and the practices that he despises, fear would prevent oppositional books from being published. Try publishing an anti-Communist book in China or a critique of theocracy in Iran. Liberal institutions are the reason that he is allowed to publish his views and to have the career that he and all the other authors here rightly have. Liberal values and practices allow their most fervent critics a livelihood and a life—which they believe will somehow magically be reconstituted “after liberalism.” They won’t be.

The vociferous critics of liberalism are like passengers on the Titanic who root for the iceberg. After all, an iceberg is thrilling, and anyway the White Star Line has classes, and the music the band plays is second-rate, and why is the food French instead of honestly English? “Just as I told you, the age of the steamship is over!” they cry as the water slips over their shoes. They imagine that another boat will miraculously appear—where all will be in first class, the food will be authentic, and the band will perform only Mozart or Motown, depending on your wishes. Meanwhile, the ship goes down. At least the band will be playing “Nearer, My God, to Thee,” which they will take as some vindication. The rest of us may drown.

One turns back to Helena Rosenblatt’s 2018 book, “The Lost History of Liberalism,” which makes the case that liberalism is not a recent ideology but an age-old series of intuitions about existence. When the book appeared, it may have seemed unduly overgeneralized—depicting liberalism as a humane generosity that flared up at moments and then died down again. But, as the world picture darkens, her dark picture illuminates. There surely are a set of identifiable values that connect men and women of different times along a single golden thread: an aversion to fanaticism, a will toward the coexistence of different kinds and creeds, a readiness for reform, a belief in the public criticism of power without penalty, and perhaps, above all, a knowledge that institutions of civic peace are much harder to build than to destroy, being immeasurably more fragile than their complacent inheritors imagine. These values will persist no matter how evil the moment may become, and by whatever name we choose to whisper in the dark.

[girlactionfigure]

THURSDAY HERO: Carl Lutz

Carl Lutz was a Swiss diplomat in Hungary who saved tens of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust by providing them with transit visas and creating safe houses throughout Budapest.

Carl was born in 1895, in Walzenhausen, Switzerland, to a devout Methodist family. When he was 14 his mother died of tuberculosis. The next year he left school and started working at a textile mill. Carl yearned to explore the wide world outside his sleepy mountain town, and at age 18 he moved to the United States, settling in Granite City, Illinois. For five years he worked and saved money for college, then in 1918 enrolled in Central Wesleyan College in Missouri.

In the summer of 1920, Carl took a summer job in Washington DC working at the Swiss Embassy. He loved the international environment and the rewarding work. Carl’s gracious personality and keen intelligence made him well suited for diplomacy. He enrolled in George Washington University, graduating in 1924 with a BA in law and history. Two years later, Carl moved to Philadelphia, and then St. Louis, to serve as Swiss Consul in those cities. Around this time he married Gertrud Fankhauser, a Swiss human-rights activist,

Carl was sent to Jaffa in 1935, where he was Swiss Vice-Consul. In 1936, he and Gertrud watched an unarmed Jew being lynched by a mob of Arabs. They were horrified and helpless to do anything. The tragic incident haunted Carl and perhaps contributed to his later stunning heroism in Europe.

The Swiss government recalled Carl from the Middle East in 1942 and sent him to their embassy in Budapest, Hungary. He represented not only Switzerland, but also countries that had broken ties with Hungary after it allied with Nazi Germany. As soon as Carl arrived in Budapest, he began working with the Jewish Agency for Israel to provide Hungarian Jewish children with transit visas, enabling them to emigrate to Palestine, then under British Mandate.

In 1944, the Nazis occupied Budapest and immediately started rounding up Jews and sending them to death camps. It was late in the war, and the Nazi war machine had gotten chillingly efficient at murdering Jews. During a two month period, 440,000 Jews were deported to Auschwitz. Carl Lutz kicked into high gear to save lives. As a diplomat, part of his job was to cultivate relationships with Hungarian officials, as well as German Nazi leaders in Budapest. He used these connections to negotiate a special deal – he could issue protective letters to 8000 Jews, enabling them to move to Palestine.

Carl used clever tricks to increase the amount of Jews he could save. He enabled each letter to cover an entire Jewish family of any size, rather than just one person. Taking the ruse further, he issued tens of thousands of protective letters, making sure each had a number between 1 and 8000, so that busy officials wouldn’t realize that more than 8000 letters had been issued. “The Germans are very correct people. They admire discipline and order. So when Nazi commandants saw these letters, they accepted them,” said Eric Saul, founder of “Visas for Life,” a project that honors diplomats who saved Jews during the Holocaust.

As thousands of Jews were being shoved onto cattle cars and taken to their death, Carl was desperate to save as many as he could. With the integral help of his wife Gertrud, he set up 76 “safe houses” all over Budapest, designating them as under the control of the Swiss government, and therefore beyond the reach of Hungarian or German authorities. One of them was the Glass House, a former glassware manufacturing facility previously owned by Arthur Weiss, a Hungarian Jew. In the summer of 1944, Weiss’ business was forcefully taken from him and he disappeared, leaving the large building empty. Carl rented the space to open the newly created Swiss Embassy’s Emigration Department for Representing Foreign Interest. Over the next few months, over 3000 Jews found refuge in the Glass House.

During this time, the Nazis overthrew the Hungarian ruler and installed the fascist Arrow Cross Party as the new government. The Arrow Cross was viciously anti-Semitic, and after taking power they started massacring Jews in the streets. One day, Carl was strolling by the Danube River when an Arrow Cross officer shot a Jewish woman right in front of him. Bleeding, the woman fell into the river – and Carl, in his suit and tie, jumped in after her. He rescued her from the water, and demanded to speak to the Hungarian officer who’d ordered the shooting. Projecting confidence and authority, he proclaimed that the wounded Jewish woman was a citizen of Switzerland and was protected by international law. As the Nazis stood mouths agape, Carl quickly helped the woman into his car and took her to safety.

In November 1944, the Arrow Cross gathered 70,000 Jews from transit camps and hiding places and forced them on a death march to concentration camps in Austria and Germany. Carl and Gertrud followed along in their car next to the exhausted marchers and used every opportunity to surreptitiously pull people out of line and provide them with protective documents. Carl later described the scene, “For these people it was the last glimmer of hope, for us, this was the worst form of spiritual torture. We saw the people being lashed with dog-whips and lying in the slime and mud with bloody faces��. Whenever possible I would drive alongside these people on their way to the concentration camps to try and show them that there was still hope.”

After Hungary was liberated in early 1945, Carl and Gertrud returned to Switzerland. Without a shared humanitarian mission, the marriage fell apart and they divorced in 1946. Three years later, Carl married Magda Csanyi, a Jewish woman he had saved, and adopted her daughter Agnes.

Carl was not honored for his heroism for many years. On the contrary, when he got back to Switzerland he was criticized for exceeding his authority by saving Jews; the government didn’t want their neutrality called into question. In 1958, the Swiss understanding of World War II started to change, and Carl Lutz was “rehabilitated” and honored as the great man he was. The riverside promenade where he saved the wounded Jewish woman from drowning is now the Carl Lutz Rakpart. A street in Haifa, Israel was named after him, and in 1965, Carl became the first Swiss national to be honored as “Righteous Among the Nations” by Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem. There are other memorials to him in Washington DC, Israel, Switzerland, and Budapest, where the Glass House is now a small museum. Carl died in 1975 in Bern, Switzerland.

For saving the lives of over 62,000 (!) Jews, we honor Swiss diplomat Carl Lutz as this week’s Thursday Hero.

[elderscrollsconceptart]

I love elder scrolls but I'm sad about how orientalist it can be

I didn't specialize in it, but The College and department I went to specialized in South East Asian studies. So for a long time I've been acutely aware of the obvious artistic and creative influences on various TES societies, art styles, motifs, etc.

Orientalism has a bizarre mix of pandering assumptive stereotypes, romanticism, and at its worst, pure racism. Orientalism originated via dangerous and racist western attitudes of past centuries which were used to simplify and insultingly coddle and ostracize non-western cultures while also allowing westerners to access said cultures via a smug sense of superiority and curiosity.

There are a lot of East Asian, South Asian, North African, Middle Eastern influences in the various societies and cultures of TES.

I cannot speak for how people of those backgrounds may feel about how the various artistic styles and inspirations have influenced the art and lore of TES.

All I can say is there is a lot of IRL cultural influence in TES. Creating a vast fantasy world and *not* taking IRL cultural inspiration is hard. IMO it's practically unavoidable unless you want to get REAL WEIRD with the lore and art in the way Michael Kirkbride does (he can create genuinely alien cultures).

I am of the personal opinion that cultural artistic inspiration is fine as long as it is done with *deep* respect, care, and dignity towards the civilization it is taking inspiration from.

I personally feel TES does more than enough to go beyond simple cultural artistic inspirations and creates something that is both very familiar and also entirely new.

For example, let's look at how Argonian art and culture is depicted in TES.

Besides the Kukri knives which are of South Asian origin, were largely looking at a fictitious culture that has extreme aesthetic similarities to indigenous cultures of Central and South America.

I myself am descended from such people IRL.

I have direct family connections to specific tribes in Northern and central Mexico. Am I bothered seeing a fictional series taking direct artistic inspiration from the ancient cultures of my ancestors? And that our culture is applied to a bunch of weird lizard people no less?

Yes, it does bother me a little. However, when I think about it I also realize there is nothing ignoble about the Argonian people or how they are represented in game or art. I mean look at them. What is there to be ashamed of when you look at them, talk to them, *see* the Argonians and how they live?

The Argonians are quite frankly, super fucking cool badasses. They have a complicated, dark, heroic, and fascinating history. Just like my ancestors. Why would I shy away from seeing the culture of my ancestors inspiring a proud fictional civilization?

There's nothing to be ashamed of when I see my culture represented or taken inspiration from as long as it is not being used in a demeaning or insulting manner.

I don't feel Bethesda is acting with racist or ill intentions when they take artistic inspirations from real cultures. I want to give them credit. A lot of very intelligent and learned people work for Bethesda. Many of their creatives come from all over the world and from many different cultural backgrounds.

For example! Many of the artists who worked on the western inspired civilizations of Cyrodiil and Skyrim were of East Asian, South Asian, and African descent. They took it upon themselves to learn the artistic cultural stylings they wanted to take inspiration from and to represent them in an authentic but still creative and unique way. This is what any good fantasy series should be able to do.

They know the world is huge and every culture is endlessly diverse. There should be no shame in depicting or taking inspiration from a culture or their artistic style as long as such inspiration and depiction is done diligently, honestly, and with respect.

I feel that the art and artists of TES have faced up to this challenge and expectation and have (largely) met it. There are some examples that do make me roll my eyes, but even these are largely just cases of lazy artistic expression or generic inspiration.

All in all, artists and creatives absolutely can and should do more to ensure their inspirations from non-western cultures are done with tact and respect. I personally feel the creative behind TES have been meeting expectations in this regard and have done a fair job of taking inspiration without being insulting.

[absolutebl]

Hello! In the latest EP of I Feel You Linger in the Air, Yai addresses Jom as Por Jom. Jom seems surprised but I have no understanding of what Por means so it's significance is lost on me. Perhaps you can help shed some light? Also, how was Yai addressing Jom before?

Por/phor honorific in Thai - I Feel You Linger in the Air

I'm glad you asked it so I don't have to.

I have not encountered it before in BL.

Any of the the Thai language spies still out there wanna weigh in?

I did some poking around - but I could be way off base. Still this what I discovered:

Por is a paternal honorific, luang por is used for respected monks.

So I am assuming this use is relatively old fashioned (the reason we don't hear it often in our normal BL) and either one step more intimate or, more likely, one step more respectful than no honorific. Possibly scholarly?

I'm thinking all this has to do with Jom's demonstration of education. Yai has figured out that one of the reasons Jom doesn't belong and cannot fit in with the servants is that he is more educated than a peasant, which adds up to him being originally from a high status and wealthy family, especially speaking English and having travelled (he has a non-Chang Mai accent).

There is very little Thai middle class at the beginning of the 1920s since trade is being dominated/dictated by the West, or Chinese merchant operations, and Siam is a monarchy. So for a nationalize Thai citizen it's either military, landed gentry with trade operations (like Yai), military, or... none of the above. This changes, especially in the south, throughout this decade (as it did in other parts of the world). So there is a rising bourgeoisie going on in the background but it's not that obvious in Chang Mai at this time.

What this means to Yai is that Jom's family either got wiped out or politically entirely disenfranchised possibly as part of the 1912 attempted coups (or even WWI)? This would be mystifying for Yai because Jom doesn't act like he comes from a military family at all. So his background and status is very confusing for Yai, but Yai does know one thing...

Jom is NOT lower class by the standards of Yai's temporal worldview and existence.

For a young man to be educated and yet entirely alone is very dangerous and suspicious. Also, let's be clear, Jom doesn't look or act like a laborer. He red flags "cultured" all over the place.

Yai is paternalistic and caring towards Jom out the gate because Yai has a big ol'crush but also because he recognizes "his own" is trying to survive while isolated and scared. Yai wants to rescue Jom.

Some Historical Context for I Feel You Linger In The Air

I love history and so here's some quick info that any Thai watcher would likely know, but you might not... ready?

Remember:

Burma (Myanmar) to the west is occupied by the British.

The French hold Vietnam to the east.

Everyone is bickering over what would become Cambodia & Laos.

China occasionally gets involved from the North (also, lots of immigrants from China at this time accounting for a large percentage of the merchant/middle class)

Eventually, Japan would invade during WWII.

In part, The Kingdom of Siam was kept a "neutral" party because none of the surrounding colonial powers wanted to risk offending any of the other players in the area.

Siam re-negotiated sovereignty in 1920 (from USA) and 1925 (France & Britain). But during the time of this show (mid to late 1920s) it was back to it's customary type-rope balancing act of extreme diplomacy with the allied western colonial powers that surrounded it. Recognizing that Thailand was never colonized, it's boarders were constantly nibbled at and it was "ambassador-occupied" off and on by Westerners whose military backing and exploitive business concerns simply outmatched the monarchy, especially in the technology department (as well as by reputation on the global stage at the time).

In other words, the farang in this show (James & Robert) are bound to be both the baddies and the power players of the narrative.

The king of Siam at the time (Vajiravudh AKA Rama VI) was initially somewhat popular but also regarded as overly extravagant since Siam was hit by a major postwar recession in 1919. It should be noted that King Vajiravudh had no son because he was most likely gay (which at the time did not much concern Siamese popular opinion, EXCEPT THAT it undermined the stability of the monarchy).

He "died suddenly" in 1925 (age 44) with the monarchy weakened and succession handed off to his younger brother.

In 1932 a small circle of the rising bourgeoisie (all of whom had studied in Europe, mostly Paris), supported by some military, seized power from the monarchy in a practically nonviolent Siamese Revolution installing a constitutional monarchy.

Siam would then go through: dictatorship, WWII, Japanese invasion, Allied occupation, democratic elections, military junta, the Indochina wars, communist insurgency, more democracy and popularization movements, multiple coups, more junta, more monarchy, eventually leading us to the somewhat chaotic insanity of Thai politics we have today. (Which is, frankly, a mix of monarchy, junta, democracy, egocentric popularism, and bribery.)

(source)

[herejusttosufferalong]

(Re: About Joe Alwyn, Similarities with Nic, and Acquaintance with Luke Thompson)

Response to your shock about Ratty Healy : Hahaha as a swiftie myself I SIDE-EYED tay so hard when she had her rebound with him, like gurl he's nasty and disgusting with all of his past troubling behaviors no matter how sweet he might appear to you.

If you wanna know a glimpse of JoeTay relationship, it was officially started in September 2016 and ended in early April 2023.

They first met at Gigi's bday party (April 29th 2016, References: High Infidelity-Midnights, Gorgeous-Reputation, Dress-Reputation), then met gala (May 1st). She previously and was still dating Calvin Harris- long story short he was a D, she wanted to leave him. I didn't know what prevented things to go further between her and Joe but in met gala she also met Tom Hiddleston and danced together. They had a brief getaway car moment or rebound (Getaway car-Reputation), officially known to public from June to September.

Then Joe and Tay started their relationship on September 28th (Ref: September - Cover by TSwift).

2016-2017 was the hell of year for Tay because of the whole Kanye Kim drama and lies. The whole world turned their back on her and she was at the lowest point of her life. She disappeared for a year then came back with a new album Reputation released in 2017.

Albums that give us many insights about her life and love story with Joe are : Reputation 2017, Lover 2019, Folklore 2020, Evermore 2020, Midnights 2022, The Tortured Poets Department: The Anthology 2024.

He had part of writing and producing some songs with Tay in Folklore, Evermore, and Midnights in the pseudonym of William Bowery.

In TTPD, songs about Joe are So long London, I Can Do It With a Broken Heart, loml, The Black Dog, How Did it End, and Peter.

I'm sad when people have to refer Joe only as Taylor Swift's Ex. He's a talented, low profile, and private actor. He's rarely active in SM. (Alwyn keeps his personal life private, which he described as a "knee-jerk response to the culture we live in". GQ labelled Alwyn a "notoriously low-key actor".)

Alongside with Paul Mescal, he is one the male leads of Sally Rooney Novel Adaptations. Paul in Normal People and Joe in Conversation with Friends. (I really would like Nic to have a project with him. Maybe another Sally Rooney adaptation would be great😭 *manifesting*)

Some of his projects are The Favourite (2018), Boy Erased (2018), Mary Queen of Scots (2018), Harriet (2019), The Last Letter from Your Lover (2021), Stars at Noon (2022), Catherine Called Birdy (2022), Conversation with Friends (2022), Kind of Kindness (2024), TBA projects: The Brutalist and Hamlet.

He is also friends with Lukey T. He ever talked about him in interview.

Similar with Nic, he is very vocal about activist/social movements and always stood on the right side of history. Nic came from her background as an Irish people and her late Dad with his humanity and military works to keep peace in middle east. Joe family also has deep connection to activism, particularly in Palestine, his late great uncle is a peace activist and patron of the Palestinian solidarity campaign. And both are private about their personal lives. But Joe is really silent and not chronically online as Nic.

I just love when Nic has so many connections and fully booked. She deserves it. And I would like the same things to happen to Luke too. They both deserve the best to not put their talent in waste. I wish my parents all the best.

DAMN ANON

Are you on his payroll????

No but seriously thank you for sharing 💜

I know nothing about the guy but I have seen multiple movies listed above with him in it

Will have to rewatch and check out some of his other work 🥃

[determinate-negation]

do u know what news sites are good and which are bad regarding israel and palestine? ive heard cnn was bad for this and al jazeera good but im not really sure what the best way is to tell which news sites are best

cnn is bad in general, theyre imperialist media thats frequently dishonest and biased especially in their foreign reporting and generally affirm whatever the us state departments position is. same with new york times, washington post, wall street journal, the new yorker, and most mainstream american media tbh. they have a vested interest in justifying imperialism and violent american foreign policy, including the us’s alliance with israel. michael parentis book inventing reality: the politics of news media is a good book about the structure of the american media and their history of backing every single us foreign intervention since the 1950s, lying about socialists and revolutionary movements, and selectively presenting information to support warmongering and downplay u.s. and u.s. ally crimes. ive read and written a lot about this, mostly about us foreign policy and not as much about israel, but ill add more info about us media in general to this post if youre interested in just how fucked up american media is. these are the institutions that lie and misrepresent information about china and north korea, that lied about saddam and gaddafi and 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction and vietnam and cuba and nicaragua and so on. no media is neutral but its better to know that and pick a side than assume that they have no ideological program

al jeezera is pretty good. im not sure how much theyre posting rn about palestine but fairness and accuracy in reporting is a source i like for media analysis in general. redstream and breakthrough news are anti imperialist news that are good. electronic intifada, 972 mag, jewish currents, mondoweiss, and the intercept are also all generally good reporting on palestine. i also follow the instagram account eye.on.palestine which is a lot of reposts of videos from palestinians and not a news site but i think its important to see how bad the situation is :/ i also follow quds news network which is palestinian news and seems generally reliable

also adding middle east monitor, middle east eye, and the intercept

[sotwk]

Hobbits and the Greenwood Elves

Happy Hobbit Day! In honor of Bilbo and Frodo’s birthdays, please enjoy these headcanons regarding the history and friendship between the Hobbits of the Shire (Bilbo’s people) and the Silvan Elves of Greenwood (Thranduil’s people). 

Requested by my dear @laneynoir a while back--thank you for your patience!

Disclaimer: Please note that a good portion of the info below are SotWK AU headcanons only, inspired by official Tolkien canon.

Hobbits and the Greenwood Elves

Early Hobbits in Rhovanion

The Silvan Elves of Greenwood (Thranduil’s people) encountered the early “breeds” of Hobbit centuries before they came to the attention of the peoples who dwelt west of the mountains. 

All three Hobbit breeds (Fallohides, Harfoots, Stoors) resided in the lands surrounding the Woodland Realm as early as the start of Thranduil’s reign, but for many years they kept to themselves and avoided contact with other races. 

The Fallohides, from whom the Brandybucks, Tooks, and Bolgers descended, initially dwelt in the southern eves of Greenwood and first made friends with the Northmen in their area. Hearing tales from the Men regarding the benevolence of the Elvenking and his family, the Fallowhides accepted the outreach of Thranduil and his people, and eventually formed friendships with them. 

The Stoors, who lived a little further away in the Vales of Anduin, quickly followed suit. They even established low-level trade with the Silvan Elves, exchanging their catches from the Anduin for products from the Greenwood. 

The Harfoots were shyer of the Elves and lived closer to the foot of the Misty Mountains, and therefore did not have as close relations with the Silvans as the other two clans.

Two Greenwood Princes were more familiar with the Fallohides and Stoors than the rest of their family: Princes Turhir and Gelir, since the western lands under their guardianship were closest to the dwellings of the hobbits. 

Prince Gelir had a special fondness for Hobbits, delighting most especially in their simple yet lively customs and culture. He continued to value friendship with them long after he departed from the Elvenking’s realm. 

Dol Guldur Drives the Hobbits Away

As time passed into the Third Age, the Shadow that grew upon Dol Guldur was felt by the Hobbits as well as the Elves, and soon began to pose serious threats to their lives.

Thranduil and his sons did everything they could to protect both the Hobbits and the Northmen from the worst of Dol Guldur’s creatures. But the Hobbits in particular were incapable of withstanding the Necromancer’s strange and dark evils, and their attempts to evade the Shadow’s reach by moving northward failed. 

While the Harfoots were quick to retreat across the mountain to Eriador, the Fallohides and Stoors lingered in the east for a century longer, less willing to abandon the home they loved near the Elves. 

However, as the dangers continued to grow, Thranduil and his warriors could no longer guarantee the safety of the Hobbits on top of protecting their own people. 

Despite their friendship, the Hobbits refused the Elves' invitation to reside amongst them in the forest. They planned instead to migrate further north toward the Grey Mountains. 

Elvenqueen Maereth counseled the Fallohides and Stoors to head westward instead and “rejoin” the Harfoots in Eriador, with a vague foresight of the foundation of the Shire and its importance to the future of Middle-earth.

Only after the Fallohides and Stoors had safely crossed into Eriador did Thranduil pull back the last of his defenders north of the Emyn Duir, essentially abandoning the southwestern region of the Greenwood. 

Connection with Smeagol 

Around TA 1350, the Stoors residing in the Angle fled from the growing threat of Angmar upon Eriador, and some of them returned to Rhovanion to reside in the Vales of Anduin once more. From this community of Stoors, Smeagol descended. 

Although Thranduil received word of the reemergence of Hobbits in the Vales, he could not spare any resources to oversee their protection. 

However, Prince Gelir continued to send out his own patrols into the Anduin to check on the Stoors once every year, during the summer season. 

In TA 2463, when the One Ring was found by Deagol and taken by Smeagol, the Mirkwood Elves were too preoccupied with the resurgence of Dol Guldur to notice the evil that had transpired. 

Five hundred years later, when Gandalf brought the captive Gollum to Mirkwood for guarding, the Silvan Elves recognized the wretched creature as a Stoor, a race they remembered with fondness as friends. This stirred their pity towards Gollum and led them to treat him more gently. 

The Long and Fell Winters 

The care of Thranduil and his family for Hobbits continued from a distance well into the Third Age, even as death began to claim the lives of the princes.

In TA 2759, the Long Winter occurred in Eriador and a terrible famine followed in the Shire. Gelir, the only Thranduilion left who continued to travel across the west, learned of the plight of the Hobbits and beseeched his parents to send aid. 

In response, the King and Queen sent Gelir, Itarildë (their daughter-in-law), and Anariel (their granddaughter) to ride out with provisions, provide healing, and abate the effects of the famine. This was done so discreetly (they did not reveal their identities as Elves, much less royalty), the deed went unrecorded in Shire history. 

This outreach was replicated once more during the Fell Winter of TA 2911 to 2912, when Thranduil permitted Itarildë and Anariel to join Gandalf in helping the Shire Hobbits. 

Bilbo was already alive and 22 years old on this occasion. He had the memory of encountering the two extraordinarily beautiful women in the Shire, whom he suspected, but could not confirm, were Elves. 

Bilbo and Thranduil’s Friendship 

Bilbo never truly “met” an elf before first meeting Elrond in Rivendell. However, his ancestors’ ancient friendship with the Greenwood Elves still resided in his heart. Even during his misadventures with Thorin’s Company in Mirkwood, Bilbo never really felt fearful of the Elvenking or his people, even though he could not explain to himself why. 

Bilbo’s instinct to trust Thranduil and stand by him during the Battle of the Five Armies echoed the sentiments of his ancestors, who once also loved the Elvenking and trusted him to protect them. 

Bilbo and Thranduil’s initial interactions with each other felt like the reunion of “old friends”, which led to their feelings of kinship and the long bond that remained between them for years after. 

Even with everything that he was dealing with in his own kingdom, Thranduil managed to discreetly visit Bilbo at least once in the Shire, during which the Elvenking was introduced to the recently born Frodo Baggins (too young to have any memory of this encounter). 

Regarding Legolas and the Hobbits of the Fellowship 

It is a common joke in the fandom that Legolas is scarcely mentioned as directly interacting with Frodo or the other hobbits, and almost never in the films. The SotWK AU does not accept this distant behavior from the Prince of Mirkwood, but does offer an explanation for Legolas’s mental state during the Quest of the Ring. 

I plan on eventually writing a separate post discussing Legolas’s mental health (which logically took a hit after everything his family and kingdom had suffered), but being around Hobbits, and in such close quarters, was a bittersweet experience for him. 

Because his brother Gelir had a special closeness and bond with Hobbits, just seeing Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry reminded Legolas of him. Gelir, though still alive as far as they knew, was estranged from the family at the time of the Quest of the Ring, and he and Legolas had parted on ill terms.

Observing the Hobbits in their shenanigans also caused Legolas to remember all his brothers, and the joyful times they shared when their family was complete. 

Distancing himself a little from the Hobbits (but not treating them coldly or badly in any way), was simply Legolas’s method of coping with his complicated emotions.

In the SotWK AU, Legolas most certainly demonstrated a great deal of care and affection for the four Hobbits in his own ways.

For more Thranduil/Mirkwood headcanons: SotWK HC Masterlist

Elves HC Tag List: @a-world-of-whimsy-5 @achromaticerebus @aduialel @asianbutnotjapanese @auttumnsayshi @blueberryrock @conversacomsmaug @elan-ho-detto-elan-15 @entishramblings @freshalmondpandadonut @friendofthefellowshipsnerdblog @glassgulls @heilith @heranintomyknife23times @ladyweaslette @laneynoir @lathalea @lemonivall @LiliDurin @quickslvxrr @ratsys @scyllas-revenge @stormchaser819 @talkdifferently6 @tamryniel @tamurilofrivendell

Other useful links:

Introduction to SotWK

Fanfiction Masterlist

Fanfiction Request Guidelines

[beardedmrbean]

A college professor of “peace” accused of teaching support for Hamas has been suspended from his tenured post at an ultra-liberal school after allegations he once ran a sex-for-grades scheme came to light.

Iranian citizen Mohammad Jafer Mahallati — who has called for the elimination of Israel and backed the murderous fatwa against Salman Rushdie — was discreetly put on indefinite administrative leave by Oberlin College, Ohio, and scrubbed from its website last month after the administration learned he had previously been accused of sexual harassment.

The college is currently being investigated by the federal Department of Education after a complaint that it abused the civil rights of Jewish students by allegedly letting Mahallati speak in favor of Hamas and give credit for writing anti-Israel screeds.

The move by Oberlin to suspend Mahallati, 71, comes amid mounting fury at colleges’ failure to grapple with antisemitism in the wake of the October 7 massacre of 1,200 Israelis by terrorist group Hamas.

The presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania faced demands to resign from a billionaire donor Wednesday and criticism from the White House after telling Congress it “depends on the context” as to whether students could demand the genocide of Jews.

Mahallati’s suspension came after court papers surfaced from the 1990s which revealed that when he was an adjunct professor at Columbia University, he had been accused of giving a graduate student 11 years his junior good grades in return for sex.

The papers, given to The Post by Middle East Forum, showed that Columbia and Mahallati had both been sued by the woman, whom The Post is not naming, accusing him of working to damage her reputation and academic future after she reported his alleged sexual abuse to school authorities.

Mahallati had denied the claims in 1997 but did not respond to a request for comment from The Post. Columbia denied the allegations at the time.

The woman, then 32 and a Palestinian Christian, met Mahallati, a 43-year-old married father of a young son, when she began to minor in Middle East Studies in September1995, she alleged in court papers.

She alleged that under the pretense of interviewing her as a potential research assistant, Mahallati invited the student to his home, “made repeated sexual advances” and promised good grades in exchange for sexual encounters, which allegedly took place at his office as well as his Manhattan apartment for 15 months.

Mahallati allegedly told the woman that he would withhold her grade if she did not keep silent. She alleged that when she went to Columbia’s administration in April 1997 he accused her of handing the same paper in twice, which would have been fraudulent.

When she sued, court records show that he tried to claim diplomatic immunity with a Dec. 1, 1997, letter from Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations appointing him “‘Special Advisor in Political Affairs’ with full diplomatic and political privileges.”

He had been Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations between 1987 and 1989 and Columbia submitted a letter from the State Department to prove he was not immune from being sued for what he was accused of doing after 1989. The case was settled in 1998.

Andrea Simakis, a spokeswoman for Oberlin, told The Post he was placed on leave on Nov. 28 and declined to comment further. It is unclear exactly when the college learned of the 1990s claims against Mahallati.

“We take all allegations of sexual harassment and abuse extremely seriously,” said Simakis. “We would not hire a faculty member who we knew to have a history of sexual harassment of a student, colleague or staff member.”

At Oberlin, Mahallati became the subject of a federal probe this fall when the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights revealed that it was investigating a complaint that he taught students “support for Hamas and terrorism” as part of a larger probe into anti-Semitism on Oberlin’s campus.

The probe, which was opened on September 29, was prompted by a complaint filed in 2019 by Oberlin College graduate Melissa Landa. Landa, who graduated from Oberlin in 1986, is president of the Oberlin Chapter of Alums for Campus Fairness, a non-profit that works to end antisemitism.

She sent the department a dossier of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel incidents between 2014 and 2017, including that Mahallati told his classes in 2016 that “Israel is a colonialist state” and “an apartheid state.”

Oberlin said in November that it “abhors antisemitism” and said of Mahallati: “Professor Mahallati has stated that he believes in the right of all people to exist in peace and endorses a two-state solution that would allow the people of Israel and Palestine to peacefully coexist.”

Separately, a group of Iranian anti-regime activists, some of whom have had family members targeted by the Islamic Republic, had also complained about Mahallait, accusing him of being part of a cover-up of a mass murder of 5,000 political prisoners in 1988 when he was Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations.

It said in a statement: “This action comes as a result of tireless advocacy and stark revelations about Mahallati’s involvement in covering up human rights abuses and his antisemitic rhetoric.”

In addition to Columbia and Oberlin, Mahallati has also taught at Georgetown and Princeton.

[mossadegh]

In June 1964, the Shah of Iran and Farah made an unofficial trip to the USA. The CIA found the monarch “sensitive, often moody”, confronting “a rising middle class [that] has agitated restlessly for greater political power and accelerated economic and social change…” ••• “Since the overthrow of the Mossadeq regime in 1953 he has operated largely as a dictator, with a thin facade of parliamentary democratic procedures.”

The Mossadegh Project

[eretzyisrael]

by Hugh Fitzgerald

For some reason, the international media is entirely uninterested in reporting about how some Israeli Muslims — Arabs and Druze — have rallied to help defend their country against Hamas. Bassam Tawil has more on this subject here: “‘Like…wtf’: Israel’s Arab Citizens Feel Lucky,” by Bassam Tawil, Gatestone Institute, January 25, 2024:

IDF Sergeant First Class (reserve) Ahmed Abu Latif, 26, a husband and father to a one-year-old baby, was killed on January 22 during the fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Abu Latif, a Muslim citizen of Israel, embodied the spirit of unity and patriotism in Israel in the aftermath of Hamas’s October 7 massacre of Israelis. He also represented a shining example of coexistence and unwavering love for Israel. In a message on Facebook at the beginning of the war, Abu Latif, who was working as a security guard at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, wrote:

Two days after the massacre, Israeli Arab blogger Nuseir Yassin, popularly known as “Nas Daily,” posted the following on X (formerly Twitter):

The atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7 — among the victims were also some Israeli Arabs — have pushed some Israeli Arabs who previously self-identified as “Palestinian-Israelis” to instead identify more closely with the Jewish state, declaring themselves to be “Israeli Arabs” or, as in the case of this popular blogger, Nuseir Yassin, shedding the modifier altogether, and now call themselves “Israelis.”

The Hamas atrocities did not drive a wedge between Jewish and Arab Israelis, as Yahya Sinwar may have hoped. Instead, the events of October 7 led to greater identification by Israeli Arabs and Druze with the Jewish state. Three-quarters of Israeli Arabs reported having “good relations” with Jews; almost as many — 70% — identify with the Jewish state, and far from wishing for its disappearance, recognize how lucky they are to be citizens of the only decently run government in the Middle East.

In Israel, Arab soldiers, both Muslim and Druze, have been fighting against the Hamas terrorists; some have been killed in Gaza, defending the Jewish state. Others were killed in Israel by Hamas on October 7; some Arabs, especially Bedouin, were taken hostage on that day. Druze have a long history of joining the IDF; the highest-ranking IDF officer who has been killed in this war was a Druze, Lt. Col. Salman Habaka. Another Druze casualty was Major Jamal Abbas, whose father and grandfather had both served in the IDF. Another Druze who answered the call on October 7 was a woman, Nisreen Yousef, who immediately volunteered to interrogate captured Hamas terrorists to discover where others were hiding; she passed on the information to the IDF, that promptly located and captured them.

The stories of these Muslims who volunteered to defend the Jewish state, and some who died in that struggle, should be more widely known. They undermine all the stories about Israel as an “apartheid state,” where Muslims are supposedly oppressed. These Arab and Druze volunteers for the IDF know otherwise; they are fighting for what they know is “their” country.

The stories about the Israeli Arabs whose rise to the summit of their professions also fatally vitiate the claims that Israel is an “apartheid” state. These stories need to be told. There is Samer Haj Yehia, the Chairman of Israel’s largest bank, Bank Leumi. And Judge Khaled Kabub, who in 2022 became the first Muslim, though not the first Arab, Justice on Israel’s Supreme Court. Jewish and Arab physicians work side by side in Israeli hospitals. Arab and Druze women have risen high in the medical profession and in academia. Prof. Mouna Maroun, Vice President and Dean of Research at University of Haifa and the former Head of the Sagol Department of Neurobiology, is the first Arab woman to hold a senior faculty position in natural sciences. Another is Prof. Mona Khoury-Kassabri, who in 2021 been elected Vice President of Strategy and Diversity at the university. It was the first time that a member of the Arab community was appointed to a senior position of vice president. “I am deeply honored to be the first Arab to serve as a Hebrew University Vice President,” Khoury-Kassabri said. 43% of Israelis who have just become doctors are now Arabs and Druze, a staggering statistic, given that Arabs and Druze are only 20% of the population. Compare that fact with the way Palestinians in most Arab states are prohibited from practicing certain professions, including engineering, law, and medicine.

Perhaps someone in the media will devout a program, full of human interest, to the Arab and Druze in Israel, some of whom have given their lives for the Jewish state. Others were victims of Hamas terrorists on October 7. And the program should explain the fact — never mentioned in the mainstream media — that 70% of Israeli Arabs now say they identify with the Jewish state as their country too, a place where they receive equal treatment before the law and where it is possible for Arabs to rise high in Israeli society — in law, banking, and especially, medicine. That might startle some of those mindlessly chanting about “apartheid” Israel, if not to change their chant, at least to keep quiet.

[stephenjaymorrisblog]

Pigs off Campus!

(College Revolt is Back in Style.)

Stephen Jay Morris

4/23/2024

©Scientific Morality

                Here is a nifty little analogy:  suppose your dad gave money to your uncle to buy a gun so that he could shoot his ex-wife? Would your dad be guilty of murder?  Kind of.  He would be an accessory to murder. Suppose your country gave weapons to another country to commit genocide? Would it be guilty of genocide? Sort of, as they would be an accessory to a war crime. So, is it justifiable for Americans to protest Israel’s genocide against Palestinians? Hell, yeah! Not only is it justified, but it is also warranted.

            Now I am going to play a game of comparative history. The Chuds have been whining and bitching about how college professors are brainwashing their precious White children with leftist propaganda. Back in 1968, most universities were run by Right wing, WASP men in suits and ties. College professors were either moderates or conservative. Only the Arts departments were managed by liberals and Beatniks. Baby Boomers were never brainwashed by college professors. They were autodidactic and hungry for the truth. Some joined the “Ban the Bomb” movement and later, the Civil Rights movement.

            The urgency of the war at hand got ahold of Boomers. Many Vietnamese women and children along with American soldiers were dying by the hundreds, as was reported on the nightly news. A minority of Boomers felt helpless and wanted to stop the killing. So, they resorted to protests and strikes on university campuses. These acts were coordinated by two major student groups: the Black Student Union and Students for a Democratic Society, other wise known as SDS. I joined SDS in 1969. The only communication avenues we had at the time were printed fliers, underground newspapers, and FM rock stations. Oh, and let’s not forget the telephone. The FBI loved tapping them. If we’d had the technology Zoomers have today, we would have stopped the Vietnam War in 1967.

            In 1968, the anti-war movement went international, from Europe to Africa to South America. Most of the world was opposed to the Vietnam War.

So, is this latest movement against Likud Party’s genocide on the Palestinian people a new Anti-War movement? As sure as the Earth is round! Now all this of this carping about Anti-Semitism is no different than when the New Left was accused of being Anti-American. Neither is true! There is a Jewish sect called, “Keturei Karta,” who believe that there can be no Israel until the Messiah comes. Many Jews do not accept Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Now, let me ask you. Is this orthodox sect antisemitic or just comprised of your average self-hating Jews? Shit no dumbass!

            In 1968, we waved Vietcong flags and were accused of being communists. It was all done in the name of solidarity. Now the Palestinian flag is waved. Nothing has changed. We did have contingencies of Tankies, and other types of communist groups, who marched with us and chanted slogans that didn’t reflect the true sentiment of the movement’s coalition. Here are a couple I remember: “America must die! Let the red flag fly!”  and “Get a clue! Fuck the red, white, and blue!” There were other silly ones I’ve long since forgotten.

            Now you have Islamic nationalist groups doing the same thing. The Chants of “Death to America” come from small, Muslim, theocratic groups who are not affiliated with the Anti-authoritarian Left. Due to rumors and erroneous propaganda, the Left, as a rule, do not support Islam. Why? Well, because many of them does not support organized religion! Second, Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, are sexist religions.

            It was the Battle of Seatle, in 1999, that gave me hope. Then came the occupation movement of 2011, and now, this anti-war movement of 2024. If they can pull this off, the movement’s young people can stop this so-called war in the Middle East. As for the young people in Israel, will they rise up and stop Likud Party? That remains to be seen.

[the-gone-ton]

The dead malls of York

Continuing on the theme from my last post about York Galleria, I'm going to talk more about the four now-closed malls in York that came before the Galleria.

The York Mall

The York Mall opened in 1968, developed by the famous Kravco Company of Philadelphia. It was a fairly large mall for its era (about 700,000 Square feet of retail space, I believe). It was primarily a single-level mall, though in this rare interior photo you can see stairs leading up to a small 2nd level that included a community room and some offices. The opening anchors were JCPenney, Montgomery Ward, and Maryland-based Hochschild-Kohn (seen in the above picture). The mall also featured a Trans-Lux Theater and a flagship location of McCrory's variety store. In fact, the McCrory's distribution center was located directly next door to the York Mall, and a concrete ramp led straight from the distribution center's parking lot right up to the back of McCrory's store around the rear side of the mall. The ramp still exists today as a relic of this bit of McCrory's history. The layout of the mall had Penney's at one end and Wards at the other, with Hochschild-Kohn right in the middle. You'd have to walk through the Kohn's department store to get from one end of the mall to the other.

Hochschild-Kohn's declined in the 70s, closing their York Mall store in 1975. York's own local department store, The Bon-Ton, opened in this spot that same year. The York Mall remained the largest mall in town for 21 years until George Zamias built the 2-story York Galleria practically next door in 1989. Both The Bon-Ton and JCPenney left the York Mall for the York Galleria when it opened, but it wasn't a total loss because The Bon-Ton kept their store open as a new discount concept called "Bon-Ton Express" on the ground floor and put their corporate offices on what had been the 2nd floor of the department store. Still, the new competition from the Galleria badly hurt the York Mall and forced it to go more downscale. Looking to replace JCPenney, the York Mall signed a lease with Arkansas-based discount store Walmart in 1990 - it was the first Walmart in the state of Pennsylvania and was then the largest in the country at 130,000 square feet. Walmart also built a new Sam's Club right next to Montgomery Ward. At the time, the destructive tendencies of Walmart were not as widely-known.

The York Mall still did alright for a few more years with its new configuration. But stores in the mall noticed a drop in business after The Bon-Ton Express closed in May of 1992. Bon-Ton executives attributed the closure to Walmart, whose cash registers only faced their parking lot entrance (in other words, you could enter Walmart from the mall, but you have to leave out towards your car). Burlington replaced Bon-Ton Express in 1993, but it didn't do much to help sales at the small shops. Around the turn of the century, the demise of Montgomery Ward and McCrory's left gaping vacancies in the north end of the mall while an expansion of Walmart into a 240,000 square foot supercenter swallowed up the entire south end of the mall. It didn't take long after that for the remainder of the mall to be demolished.

North Mall

The North Mall - "the first completely carpeted, enclosed shopping center in the East!" - opened in 1969, as the 2nd enclosed shopping mall in York, PA. It was a smaller mall that was sort of split level; the upper level was fully enclosed and anchored by The Bon-Ton and a G.C. Murphy's variety store. At the end opposite of Bon-Ton, an artistic ramp took you down to a lower level that turned into an open air strip mall. This section was anchored by a J.M. Fields discount store, which included a Pantry Pride discount grocery store inside. The whole mall was owned by Food Fair Properties, which shared the same parent company (Food Fair) as Pantry Pride and J.M. Fields.

Food Fair became a pretty large company in the 60s and early 70s, having expanded its subsidiaries Pantry Pride and J.M. Fields nationally. But the business then began to suffer, leading to bankruptcy and the closure of all J.M. Fields stores in 1978. The Pantry Pride at North Mall closed as well. The anchor building that had housed Fields and Pantry Pride was large and difficult to find a replacement tenant for. It housed women's apparel store Marianne's for a few years in the late 70s/early 80s.

1981 brought the opening of West Manchester Mall, a project of famous developer Crown American Corporation. Compared to the nearby North Mall, West Manchester was much newer and larger. The North Mall had never updated, and was still very much a fully-carpeted, flower-patterned product of 1969. The Bon-Ton closed at North Mall to open a new store at West Manchester when it opened. The Bon-Ton was quickly replaced by the 4th location of discount department store Mailman's. Ironically, Mailman's had a collaboration with The Bon-Ton wherein Bon-Ton would supply their own apparel merchandise at Mailman's stores, so Bon-Ton never totally left the North Mall after all. At that point, the North Mall felt pressured to go downscale, so the mall became known as the "North Mall Factory Outlet Center". Burlington opened in the former J.M. Fields location in 1983, and the mall kept afloat for a while. In 1984, G.C. Murphy's closed their store, apparently in violation of a 20 year lease they had signed which did not expire until 1989 (this prompted a lawsuit from the mall). In 1988, the collaboration between Mailman's and Bon-Ton ended, so the North Mall Mailman's lost its whole apparel department. By the end of that same year, Mailman's closed after failing to reach a lease deal with North Mall management. This was the last staw for North Mall, which by 1990 was slated for redevelopment into "Manchester Crossroads," a strip mall. It was the first mall in York to be de-malled.

Delco Plaza Mall

The Delco Plaza Mall was a small, discount-oriented mall opened in 1974 in west York, not far from the North Mall. It featured Hills and Grant City (both discount department stores) as anchors as well as a United Artists movie theater in the mall and a Pathmark grocery store in the parking lot. The UA theater was the first 3-screen cinema in York and drove a lot of traffic into the mall. The name of this mall has always confused me because "Delco" is common shorthand for Delaware County, PA, a county which York is very much not located in. The first issue for Delco Plaza was the bankruptcy of W.T. Grant Co., the parent company of Grant City. This resulted in what was then the largest retail bankruptcy liquidation in American history when all of the Grant's stores closed in 1976. Many former Grant Cities, including the one at Delco Plaza, were snatched up by Kmart for new stores.

In 1981, the West Manchester Mall opened, hurting smaller, older malls like Delco Plaza. At some indeterminate time after this, the UA cinema in the mall was downgraded to a cheaper, second-run theater, which had an adverse effect on mall traffic. The Pathmark also closed, and slowly the stores inside the mall began to go under as well. Though the addition of some new tenants like a post office branch and liquor store helped keep the mall open, it was not enough to save it. Hills, struggling in face of competition from Walmart in particular, was bought out by Ames discount department stores in 1999. Ames, in turn, went out of business in 2002. Kmart closed shortly thereafter. The mostly vacant mall faced demolition in 2005.

West Manchester Mall

The West Manchester Mall was developed by Crown American, one of the nation's largest privately-owned real estate developers, in 1981. It was located in west York, nearby the much smaller North Mall and Delco Plaza Mall. It was a modern, single-level mall, about the same size as the York Mall on the other side of town. It featured The Bon-Ton, Hess's department store of Allentown (which at the time was a subsidiary of Crown American itself), and Gee Bee discount store of Johnstown as its anchors. West Manchester had little drama in its early years as it enjoyed dominance in west York while being far enough from the York Mall on the east side of town to maintain a delicate balance. That balance was only really upset in 1989 by the opening of George Zamias' York Galleria. The Galleria was much larger than any other mall in York, and drew a lot of business away from the York Mall in particular.

In 1992, Gee Bee, which had just survived a bankruptcy filing, was bought by rival discount store Value City. Then, in 1993, Hess's department store was circling the drain after recklessly opening too many locations too far from its home base. It closed at West Manchester, and Crown American signed a lease with Walmart to fill the space. Crown also expanded the mall in 1995, adding a new wing leading to a new Hecht's department store of Maryland. A few years later, they renovated the mall again and added a 13 screen Regal Cinemas to occipy vacant store space and keep the West Manchester Mall competitive. But the decision to bring in Walmart turned out to be a long-term curse for the mall itself, as Walmart chose to expand into a supercenter in the early 2000s. Just as it did at the York Mall, the West Manchester Walmart took over what used to be a whole wing of the mall when it expanded. Hecht's became Macy's in 2005, and Value City went out of business in 2008, to be replaced by Kohl's. A big nail in the coffin came when in 2011 The Bon-Ton announced that their store at West Manchester was "not performing as well as it should" and would close at the end of their lease the following January. At this point, Regal was mostly the only thing keeping people coming into the mall. The mall was sold in 2012 to new owners who pledged a nearly $50 million renovation to transform it into the West Manchester Town Center, an open-air retail center. With this closure, the York Galleria became the only surviving mall out of five in York, PA.