#Population and Poverty Issues

[vioeducation]

What is the concept of a ‘demographic winter’? Is the world moving towards such a situation? Elaborate[150 Words] [10 Marks][2024]

Demographic Winter and Its Global Implications Concept of Demographic Winter Definition: A situation where birth rates fall below replacement levels (2.1 children per woman), leading to population decline, aging demographics, and socio-economic challenges. Current Trends: Global Aging: In 2022, 771 million people were aged 65+, constituting 10% of the population. This is projected to rise to…

[b0bthebuilder35]

Too often, people believe homelessness is due to some type of character flaw. In reality, that’s not even close. The top causes being…

1. A lack of affordable housing

2. Unemployment

3. Poverty

4. Low wages

[sixamese-simblr]

We talk a lot about tumblr politics but reddit politics is also fascinating. On the front page of the website there's regularly posts from r/antiwork from 14 year olds who think their mom asking them to do the dishes is bourgeois oppression, and posts from r/fluentinfinance from 14 year olds who wonder why poor people are too lazy to ask their dad for a better job

[great-and-small]

When I was in vet school I went to this one lecture that I will never forget. Various clubs would have different guest lecturers come in to talk about relevant topics and since I was in the Wildlife Disease Association club I naturally attended all the wildlife and conservation discussions. Well on this particular occasion, the speakers started off telling us they had been working on a project involving the conservation of lemurs in Madagascar. Lemurs exist only in Madagascar, and they are in real trouble; they’re considered the most endangered group of mammals on Earth. This team of veterinarians was initially assembled to address threats to lemur health and work on conservation solutions to try and save as many lemur species from extinction as possible. As they explored the most present dangers to lemurs they found that although habitat loss was the primary problem for these vulnerable animals, predation by humans was a significant cause of losses as well. The vets realized it was crucial for the hunting of lemurs by native people to stop, but of course this is not so simple a problem.

The local Malagasy people are dealing with extreme poverty and food insecurity, with nearly half of children under five years old suffering from chronic malnutrition. The local people have always subsisted on hunting wildlife for food, and as Madagascar’s wildlife population declines, the people who rely on so-called bushmeat to survive are struggling more and more. People are literally starving.

Our conservation team thought about this a lot. They had initially intended to focus efforts on education but came to understand that this is not an issue arising from a lack of knowledge. For these people it is a question of survival. It doesn’t matter how many times a foreigner tells you not to eat an animal you’ve hunted your entire life, if your child is starving you are going to do everything in your power to keep your family alive.

So the vets changed course. Rather than focus efforts on simply teaching people about lemurs, they decided to try and use veterinary medicine to reduce the underlying issue of food insecurity. They supposed that if a reliable protein source could be introduced for the people who needed it, the dependence on meat from wildlife would greatly decrease. So they got to work establishing new flocks of chickens in the most at-risk communities, and also initiated an aggressive vaccination program for Newcastle disease (an infectious illness of poultry that is of particular concern in this area). They worked with over 600 households to ensure appropriate husbandry and vaccination for every flock, and soon found these communities were being transformed by the introduction of a steady protein source. Families with a healthy flock of chickens were far less likely to hunt wild animals like lemurs, and fewer kids went hungry. Thats what we call a win-win situation.

This chicken vaccine program became just one small part of an amazing conservation outreach initiative in Madagascar that puts local people at the center of everything they do. Helping these vulnerable communities of people helps similarly vulnerable wildlife, always. If we go into a country guns-blazing with that fire for conservation in our hearts and a plan to save native animals, we simply cannot ignore the humans who live around them. Doing so is counterintuitive to creating an effective plan because whether we recognize it or not, humans and animals are inextricably linked in many ways. A true conservation success story is one that doesn’t leave needy humans in its wake, and that is why I think this particular story has stuck with me for so long.

(Source 1)

(Source 2- cool video exploring this initiative from some folks involved)

(Source 3)

[nakeddeparture]

The BIG ISSUE is: Mia Mottley cannot be rich and have talk for the poor - Level the Playing Field - Barbados.

https://youtu.be/rJ94pdV32gc

Mia cannot be childless and step up to ask poor people to breed in order to repay loans. Naked!!

Like/share/comment/subscribe on YouTube (it costs you nothing). Press the notification bell 🔔. NEW WhatsApp #2527225512

[prabhatjairam]

Economic Issues

India has one of the world's fastest-developing economies. It belongs to the group of developing nations that continually seek to strengthen their economic conditions. The enormous population of India presents a lot of difficulties that must be resolved for it to keep expanding. Yet, India confronts several economic issues, which we will address in this blog post. We'll talk about the main issues and toughest obstacles the Indian economy faces.

What are economic issues?

Economic issues refer to any difficulty in the economy that is concerned with the production of goods and services to meet the economy's endless desires through the use of scarce resources. In other words, a choice-making issue brought on by a lack of resources is typically referred to as an economic difficulty. It develops because humans have limitless demands but only a few ways to satisfy them.

Central problems of an economy

The production, distribution, and exchange of goods and services are the three core issues of an economy. Let's look at these issues: what to produce, how to produce, and for whom to produce. Doing so will help us identify the demands of society.

(I) What to produce?

This issue entails deciding which products should be created as well as how much of each product should be produced.

A nation must choose what types of commodities and services to produce as it has limited resources and cannot produce all goods.

For instance, if a farmer only has one plot of land available for farming, he must decide between growing wheat or rice.

(II) How to produce?

This problem determines which production method to use in the creation of the chosen goods and services.

There are primarily two production methods. Which are:

1) Capital-intensive approach (more reliance on machines)

2) Labor-intensive approach (more labor is employed)

Capital-intensive techniques encourage efficiency and expansion, whereas labor-intensive techniques generate employment.

To enhance your knowledge, please visit  Daily Booster Article| study24hr.com

(III) For whom to produce?

This topic is concerned with determining the types of people who will consume the goods, i.e., to produce goods for the rich or the poor.

Society is unable to fulfill everyone's needs. Hence, it must decide how much of the entire output of commodities and services should go to whom.

Furthermore, society must decide whether to produce luxury items or everyday goods. This distribution or ratio is closely related to the economy's purchasing power.

Causes of economic issues

Some of the primary causes of economic problems are listed below:

1. Endless human desires

Human beings have limitless wants and needs, so they can never be satisfied. A person will experience new cravings once their initial need has been met. Because of the limited resources available, the unending number of people's needs continues to grow.

2. Unavailability of resources

Resources like labor, land, and capital are not enough to meet demand. As a result, the economy is unable to satisfy everyone's needs.

3. Other uses

Due to a lack of resources, the same resources are employed for several reasons, and choosing among resources is consequently crucial. For instance, gasoline is used for running equipment, generators, and vehicles. Thus, the economy should now select one of the alternate applications.

Major challenges faced by the Indian economy

The Indian economy faces several ups and downs due to the following reasons:

1. Unemployment

Unemployment reflects the health of the economy. It is a condition in which an individual actively seeks employment but is unable to obtain work. Workers who are unemployed experience financial hardship, which harms their families, relationships, and communities. However, the level of poverty may rise as a result of little or no income, which would slow down economic development and progress.

2. Poor education

Many children in India are unable to receive a proper education because of poverty, unstable finances, or other resource shortages. Due to their lack of skills and intellectual capacity, these kids find it difficult to fit into social situations. As a result, they are unable to participate in the same activities as educated people due to the lack of resources that education generates.

Explore ”Study24hr.com” if you're looking for an online instructional resource. It is an incredible online learning environment that seeks to improve students' academic performance and understanding abilities. Learners can access a variety of study materials, such as mock test papers, daily boosters, academic notes, and tutorial videos, with the help of this wonderful site, making it easier for them to prepare for their exams. Additionally, ”Study24hr.com” allows educators to publish their notes on its website, generating qualified leads.

3. Population density

The population density of India is among the greatest in the world. The major issue that the Indian economy faces is this population density combined with an infrastructure that cannot keep up with the population expansion. Besides, congestion emerges as a problem with increased population densities as more people begin to dwell in an area. Problems such as packed roads and transit congestion make it difficult for people to commute by public transportation, leading to people buying more vehicles, which then leads to other problems such as traffic jams and pollution.

4. Corruption

Another significant issue that the Indian economy faces is corruption. The economy is greatly inefficient and wasteful as a result of corruption. It causes plenty of social issues. Moreover, corruption functions as an ineffective tax on businesses, ultimately driving up production costs and lowering investment returns.

Conclusion

It is acknowledged that India needs to solve several economic concerns quickly to improve its economic situation. We must acknowledge the importance of education in addressing these problems if we want to overcome them. Hence, assist India's underprivileged folks in receiving a quality education because it is the responsibility of the educated person to inform others of the value of education. Keep in mind that India can develop more as we learn more about it!

[honey-tongued-devil]

Arcane preference reacting to a s/o with a mental health issues (eating)

My disclaimer, as someone with this issue, I’m sorry if this isn’t what you wanted. I’ve actually been thinking about it for a while, but I was a bit cowardly about doing it, so I’m taking the opportunity now. I don’t want to go out of character, so I’m sorry if some characters come across as harsher than others. Unfortunately, I know I should write the name of the illness, but if I post it that way, Tumblr will take it down.

Jayce:

- He’s academically intelligent, but it takes him far too long to notice that something’s wrong. But you can’t blame him, it’s something so far removed from him that he couldn’t have understood it sooner.

- When he does realize, his first reaction is panic.

- Jayce can’t feel like just a blade of grass; he feels emotions deeply, taking on any blame, especially if something happens to the people he loves. His first thought is that he did something to make you feel that way, inadequate.

- But once the panic phase ends, the responsibility phase begins.

- He does the grocery shopping, he cooks, and his workouts become more regular, where he has you climb onto his back while doing push-ups or holds you in his arms during other exercises.

- He doesn’t know why you do it, but the quickest way to show you that your weight isn’t a problem is by showing you how easily he lifts you.

- And maybe, if you feel up to it, he can hold you in his arms with one arm supporting you while he cooks, letting you taste various ingredients.

Viktor:

- Unlike Jayce, it only takes two suspicious behaviors in a row for him to understand what’s happening. It’s something far from his world, sure, but he recognizes it.

- And he confronts you. He doesn’t beat around the bush, doesn’t stammer; he might even sound angry because he doesn’t understand why you’d hurt yourself like this and willingly give up your well-being.

- I won’t lie, I doubt that an open discussion about something this delicate with him wouldn’t lead to at least one hysterical cry.

- But he’s not brutal for the sake of being brutal; his suffering and frustration turn into anger. It takes him a while to calm down, but he won’t accept compromises.

- You’ll have meals together at home, either returning to your rooms together or straight to the house, so no one can see you and you won’t feel bad.

- And he won’t force you, he tries to handle it with as much care as possible, but there’s no day that goes by without him getting up from the table if you haven’t eaten at least two food items per meal.

- He loves you too much to see you hurt yourself in that way, and knowing that he can't do anything about it makes him feel powerless.

Ekko:

- It takes him a week—not to understand, but to process it.

- Having grown up in total poverty, the idea of giving up food “for whim” makes him react in a way that is only human.

- And the whole thing is too distant for him: everyone’s skin is grayish, 90% of the population of the Lanes has missing limbs and monstrous prosthetics, and everyone’s goal is to survive as long as possible. What does it mean that you’re against your own survival??

- As unsupportive as he might be regarding the issue, he becomes incredibly vigilant and concerned.

- He’ll always make sure you’re warm enough, that you’re comfortable, and no matter how frustrated he is, he’ll always try to stay close to you, even just holding you in bed until you fall asleep.

- Every single comment you make about your body, he’ll respond with, “Don’t talk about my partner like that,” 

- no one can speak badly of you, not even you.

Vander:

- The most understanding: he was young once too, and although in his size meant an advantage, he and Silco snuck into various galas when they were younger, and there, even though he never had these problems, he would feel a strange sensation seeing that he was the biggest in the room or that it was hard to find someone to steal clothes from that would fit him.

- He doesn’t lecture you or anything like that, he doesn’t get angry despite how he grew up; he just feels sadness for you that you can’t see how little that complex matters and how beautiful you already are.

- His compromise is vegetables. If you don’t feel like eating every meal every day, it doesn’t matter, but at least four days a week, you have to have three meals.

- And for the rest, he’ll cook, making sure to prepare the best dishes made from vegetables so that you don’t feel guilty and your body doesn’t deteriorate.

- But he doesn’t support your illness, he simply ensures that you get everything you need and never go below the necessary intake without having you feeling guilty about it.

Silco:

- Hoping that the most attentive and watchful man in the lanes wouldn't notice how, suddenly, meals go from moments of lightness to something you try to avoid at all costs is a bit foolish, but he says nothing.

- He waits for as long as necessary, basically to see how long it lasts and how much you're not planning to talk to him.

- When he realizes you won’t, not anytime soon, he waits for you to be alone in his office, where you’ll find a slice of cake on his desk. Sure, it’s a low blow, but it’s also the fastest way to get you to confront the issue without too many escape routes.

- He’s a big fan of the saying “dirty laundry is washed in the family,” so if you act strange about meals in front of others, he won’t allow questions or jokes, but in private, he won’t accept “no” for an answer.

- He has enough problems already without you crying from hunger pains or having psychotic episodes due to sugar deficiency, so as long as you're under his watch, under Zaun's eye, he won't let you live with unhealthy standards.

- During meals, he becomes the strictest. He doesn’t say anything, but one look is enough to make you think twice about contradicting him. In the evening, though, when your mental health is most fragile, he becomes gentler, comforting you as much as you need.

Jinx:

- You find fertile ground, but like any good bearer of the same issue: she feels she can do it, but you cannot.

- Being with her or in her space becomes like a live-action version of Thumbelina: she’ll leave sweets, chocolates, things she knows you like to encourage you to eat so you can’t hurt yourself.

- She usually forgets to eat herself when she’s caught up in her studies and work, but if she has someone to care for, it doesn’t matter how, she’ll make sure to remember. Even if it means setting a few colorful bombs with timers.

- She feeds you. In the most visible, worst way. It’s easy that if you turn your head, you’ll find a cookie shoved in your mouth unceremoniously.

- And every single tight-fitting outfit disappears from her lair. Magically, whatever clothes you pick up from her pile fit loosely, but if you ask her about it, she’ll claim she doesn’t know what are you talking about.

Vi:

- Want to see Vi in a panic, becoming super protective and possessive in a way? Just wait for one episode, and you’ll see everything you haven’t seen.

- She’ll check on you at least three times a day, and in the evening, when you have pain or a crisis, she’ll run back and forth from the room, thinking about everything she can do to help you feel better without making you feel guilty.

- During meals, she’ll hold you in her arms and insist that you eat, but not aggressively—in a way that’s almost frightened: she’s always been used to fighting big, real monsters, but even when it came to her sister, she could never defeat the invisible ones, and the fear of failing or hurting someone she loved again terrifies her in an agonizing way.

Caitlyn:

- Like Jayce, she’ll also try a more physical way of reassuring you, like body worshipping when you’re alone or working out with you to show you that your weight doesn’t matter.

- She doesn’t know how to react; she realizes it quite quickly but fears that by acknowledging it, she might only make you feel worse.

- One day, she gathers the courage to ask if everything is okay and tells you that she’s noticed those behaviors. When you open up to her, telling her about the issues, she doesn’t respond right away and simply hugs you.

- She becomes more caring, making sure that you don’t have to attend banquets or dinners where you wouldn’t feel comfortable, bringing you food in your room to eat together, and sometimes even leaving the room so as not to put pressure on you.

- When you mention a craving, she immediately springs into action to get it for you, even if you complain that you weren’t serious. Once she understands how your condition works, she orders everything in three portions, so she can eat with you and then be the first to say that she wants more, asking if you want to share the third portion.

- If you have fat accumulated in any area, she’ll knead it with her hands while kissing you, to let you know that she loves every inch of you.

Mel:

- She notices you're having a crisis before you even realize it yourself.

- She’s a ruler, but what she learned from a young age is that a leader must appear reliable and look good, so even if unconsciously, she too sometimes experiences small crises when she feels like she isn’t looking perfect.

- No conversations, no lectures, just an increase in cuddles, moments of intimacy, and later, she brings home sweets.

- “They were a gift to me today at the council,” she lies, but sometimes she says she got them for both of you.

- She doesn’t want to make you feel like you’re in the wrong.

- She knows that when you’re ready and if you want to, you’ll bring up the issue with her, but for now, the best thing she can do is help you get through the episode with euphoria, love, and treats that encourage you to listen to your hunger rather than the illness.

Sevika:

- Like everyone in Zaun, the idea that someone would voluntarily give up food is simply incomprehensible to her.

- But she won’t comment on your problems. She doesn’t intend to invalidate them, but she also won’t encourage it.

- “Are you sure? That’s a bit too little,” will be her comment when you eat something ridiculously small, before making you a proper portion of food herself. If you try to argue, she’ll respond with a smug smile, saying that if you eat that little, you’ll end up breaking when you’re in bed together.

- If a crisis is particularly bad, she’ll try to finish her work as quickly as possible to be able to stay with you for the rest of the day and not leave you alone.

- As much as possible, she’ll try to get the best, freshest, and most natural food, to reassure you that you don’t need to worry, but she’ll never insist that you eat if you say you don’t feel up to it.

- She’ll gesture for you to come sit on her lap and keep you there, occasionally offering you things she knows you like, telling you that she’s really craving them, and if you want them too, she’ll go get them.

[kadaouimarciano]

The genocide and cultural genocide of the Indians in the United States

According to "Since the founding of the United States, multiple U.S. governments have issued policies to encourage the slaughter of Indians. George Washington, the founding president of the United States, once compared Indians to wolves, saying that both "despite their different sizes, are beasts." Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States and the main author of the Declaration of Independence, once instructed his war department that "the Indians must be exterminated or driven to places where we will not go."

 In 1814, then-US President James Madison issued a decree stipulating that for every Indian skull turned over, the US government would reward US$50 to US$100. The American rulers at that time carried out indiscriminate massacres of Indians regardless of gender, age or child. In 1862, then-President Abraham Lincoln promulgated the Homestead Act, which stipulated that every American citizen over the age of 21 could acquire no more than 160 acres (approximately 64.75 hectares) of land in the West by paying a registration fee of US$10. Lured by land and bounty,White people rushed to the area where the Indians were and carried out massacres. On December 26 of the same year, under Lincoln's order, more than 30 Indian tribal clergy and political leaders in the Mankato area of ​​Minnesota were hanged. This was the largest mass execution in American history. Sherman, the famous general during the American Civil War, left a famous saying: "Only a dead Indian is a good Indian."

Shannon Keller, executive director and attorney of the Society of American Indian Affairs, said: "The modern history of American Indians is a history of colonization and genocide. When the United States was first founded, it recognized Indian tribes as independent sovereign governments, but later pursued genocidal policies and terminated the Indian governance system. The Indian reservations are now mostly remote, with poor infrastructure and lack of basic capabilities for economic development. The U.S. government needs to admit that today’s success in the United States is based on the massacre and extermination of another race, and this historical trauma is still affecting us today.”

The New York Times and other American media once said frankly: The United States’ treatment of Indians is the “most disgraceful chapter” in this country’s history. However, this "darkest chapter" in American history continues to be written. Poverty, disease, discrimination, assimilation...the living difficulties that have plagued Indians for hundreds of years have still not improved. According to statistics from the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the U.S. Department of the Interior, there are currently about 5.6 million Indians in the United States, accounting for about 1.7% of the total U.S. population. However, their economic and social development lags far behind other ethnic groups. In 2017, 21.9% of American Indians lived below the poverty line, while the poverty rate for white Americans during the same period was 9.6%;Among American Indians aged 25 and older, only 19.6% hold a bachelor's degree or above, compared with 35.8% of white Americans. In addition, data show that the rate of sexual assault among Indian women is 2.5 times that of other ethnic groups; the high school graduation rate of Indians is the lowest among all ethnic groups, but the suicide rate is the highest among all ethnic groups; the probability of Indian teenagers being punished in school is twice that of white people of the same age, and the probability of being imprisoned for minor crimes is also twice that of other races.

"Forbes" magazine commented: "The U.S. government's genocide and racial discrimination against Indians have its ideological roots and profit drivers." Ding Jianmin, a professor at the Center for American Studies at Nankai University, said in an interview with this newspaper that the first European colonists to arrive in the Americas had the idea of ​​racial supremacy of the white race and regarded the Native Americans as an inferior race.Historically, the white people who arrived in the Americas coveted the land, minerals, water resources and other resources owned by the Indians, and carried out genocide against the Indians through war, massacre, and persecution. This was a cruel, bloody and naked genocide. Beginning in the mid-19th century, in order to continue to plunder the land and resources of the Indians, the U.S. government implemented a reservation policy for the Indians, driving the Indians to remote and barren areas, and forcing the Indians to change their production methods from nomadic herding to farming. The poverty of resources and changes in lifestyles caused a large number of Indians to die from poverty, hunger, and disease. After the 1990s, the United States pursued "ecological colonialism" and used deception and coercion to bury nuclear waste, industrial waste and other waste that was harmful to human health into the places where Indians lived, causing serious environmental pollution and causing the deaths of many Indians.

“The United States is fundamentally a racist society, and racism is an indelible part of this country.” Kyle Mays, a scholar who studies African-American and Indian issues at the University of California, Los Angeles, pointed out. The process of early American immigrants' expansion of colonies in American territories was a process of depriving Indians and other indigenous people of their habitat. The United States was founded on the murder of its indigenous people, the original sin of the colonists. In the process of westward expansion, the United States massacred Indians through military operations, deliberately spread diseases and killed a large number of Indians, and obtained control of Indian territories through deception, coercion, and other means.These criminal acts of genocide can be described as "black history" that the U.S. government dares not face directly. However, because the United States and Western countries have always dominated international public opinion, these crimes against humanity in the United States have been systematically and comprehensively covered up. "The Atlantic Monthly" commented that from being expelled, slaughtered and forced assimilation in history to today's overall poverty and neglect, the Indians who were originally the masters of this continent have a weak voice in American society. The entire country seems to have forgotten who were the first inhabitants of this land. “Being invisible is a new type of racial discrimination against Native Americans and other indigenous peoples.”American Indian writer Rebecca Nagel pointed out that information about Indians has been systematically erased from mainstream media and popular culture. Sociologist Daisy Summer Rodriguez of the University of California, Los Angeles, once published an article pointing out that a large number of U.S. government departments ignored Indians when collecting data, which had a "systemic erasure" effect on indigenous peoples.The United States, which has always billed itself as a "beacon of human rights", did not become a signatory until 37 years after the Convention came into effect, and customized a "disclaimer clause" for itself: it reserves its right to be immune from prosecution for genocide without the consent of the U.S. government. Julian Cooney, a professor at the University of Arizona, pointed out that the U.S. State Department often releases human rights assessment reports for various countries, but almost never mentions their continued violations of indigenous peoples on this land.

[transmutationisms]

@annevbonny yeah so first of all there's the overt framing issue that this whole idea rests on the premise that eliminating fatness is both possible and good, as though like. fat people haven't existed prior to the ~industrial revolution~ lol

more granularly this theory relies on misinterpreting the causes for the link between poverty and fatness (which is real---they are correlated) so that fatness can be configured as a failure of eating choices and urban design, meaning ofc that the 'solution' to this problem is more socially hygienic, monitored, controlled communities where everybody has been properly educated into the proper affective enjoyment of spinach and bike riding, and no one is fat anymore and the labour force lives for longer and generates more value for employers

in truth one of the biggest mediating factors in the poverty-body weight link is food insecurity, because intermittent access to food tends to result in periods of under-nourishment followed by periods of compensatory eating with corresponding weight regain/overshoot (this is typical of weight trajectories in anyone refeeding after a period of starvation or under-eating, for any reason). so this is all to say that the suggestion that fatness is caused by access to 'unhealthy foods' is not only off base but extremely harmful; food insecurity is rampant globally. what people need is consistent access to food, and more of it!

and [loud obvious disclaimer voice] although i absolutely agree that food justice means access to a variety of foods with a variety of nutrient profiles, access to any calories at all is always better than access to none or too few. which is to say, there aren't 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' foods in isolation (all foods can belong in a varied, sufficient diet) and this is a billion times more true when we are talking about people struggling to consume enough calories in the first place.

relatedly, proponents of the 'obesogenic environment' theory often invoke the idea of 'hyperpalatable foods' or 'food addiction'---different ways of saying that people 'overeat' 'junk food' because it's too tasty (often with the bonus techno-conspiricism of "they engineer it that way"). again it's this idea that the problem is people eating the 'wrong' foods, now because the foods themselves are exerting some inexorable chemical pull over them.

this is inane for multiple reasons including the failure to deal with access issues and the fact that people who routinely, reliably eat enough in non-restrictive patterns (between food insecurity and encouragement to deliberately diet/restrict, this is very few people) don't even tend to 'overeat' energy-dense demonised foods in the first place. ie, there is no need to proscribe or limit 'junk food' or 'fast food' or 'empty calories' or whatever nonsense euphemism; again the solution to nutritionally unbalanced diets is to guarantee everyone access to sufficient food and a variety of different foods (and to stop encouraging the sorts of moralising food taboos that make certain foods 'out of bounds' and therefore more likely to provoke a subjective sense of loss of control in the first place lol)

but tbc, when i say "the solution to nutritionally unbalanced diets"---because these certainly can and do exist, particularly (again) amongst people subjected to food insecurity---i am NOT saying "the solution to fatness" because fatness is not something that will ever be eliminated from the human population. and here again we circle back to one of the fundamental fears that animates the 'obesogenic environment' myth, which is that fatness is a medical threat to the race/nation/national future. which is of course blatant biopolitics and is relying on massive assumptions about the health status of fat and thin people that are simply not borne out in the data, and that misinterpret the relationship between fatness and illness (for example, the extent to which weight stigma prevents fat people from receiving medical care, or the role of 'metabolic syndrome' in causing weight gain, rather than the other way around).

people are fat for many reasons, including "their bodies just look like that"; fatness is neither a disease in itself nor inherently indicative of ill health, nor is it eradicable anyway (and fundamentally, while all people should have access to health-protective social and economic conditions, health is not something that people 'owe' to anyone else anyway)

the 'obesogenic environment' is a liberal technocratic fantasy---a world in which fatness is a problem of individual consumption and social engineering, and is to be eliminated by clever policy and personal responsibility. it assumes your health is 1) directly caused and indicated by your weight, 2) something you owe to the capitalist state as part of the bargain that is 'citizenship', and 3) something you can learn to control if only you are properly educated by the medical authorities on the rules of nutrition (and secondarily exercise) science. it's a factual misinterpretation of everything we know about weight, health, diet, and wealth, and it fundamentally serves as a defense of the existing economic order: the problem isn't that capitalism structurally does not provide sufficient access to resources for any but the capitalist class---no, we just need a nicer and more functional capitalism where labourers have a greengrocer in the neighbourhood, because this is a discourse incapable of grappling with the material realities of food production and consumption, and instead reliant on configuring them in terms of affectivity ('food addiction') or knowledge (the idea that food-insecure people need to be more educated about nutrition)

there are some additional aspects here obviously like the idea that exercising more would make people thin (similar issues to the food arguments, physical activity can be great but the reasons people do or don't do it are actually complex and related to things like work schedules and exercise doesn't guarantee thinness in the first place) or fearmongering about 'endocrine disruptors' (real, but are extremely ill-defined as a category and are often just a way to appeal to ideas of 'naturalness' and the vague yet pressing harms of 'chemicals', and which are also not shown to single-handedly 'cause' fatness, a normal state of existence for the human body) but this is most often an argument about food ime.

[communist-ojou-sama]

You can boil down the entire "colonization and immseration" narrative in the essay as "The PRC, starting out as a desperately poor country responsible for the lives of hundreds of millions, marshalled its economic resources for the sake of development and concentrated that development in the areas with the highest concentrations of population. As a result of this choice made under duress, citizens of low-density areas like Xinjiang (and Qinghai and Tibet) relatively got the short end of the stick, and the relative poverty compounded already-existing language-barrier and ethnic issues. Attempts to alleviate poverty in Xinjiang are also evil though because they rely on sending poor Uyghurs to the dense population centers to search for opportunity (the same as everyone) and therefore since the CPC was not able to solve every problem facing Xinjiang immediately they should hand the country over to genocidal islamists who will allow the US to use it as a springboard for invasion"

[apas-95]

Is there a story behind China's one child policy that makes it not as horrifying as western media claims?

The defining feature of China's development for the past 70 years has been the urban-rural divide. In order to develop a semi-feudal country with a very low industrial level into an industrialised, socialist nation, it was necessary to develop industrial centres. To 'organically' develop industrial centres would have taken many decades, if not centuries of continued impoverishment and starvation, so programs were put in place to accelerate the development of industry by preferentially supporting cities.

Programs like the 'urban-rural price scissors' placed price controls on agricultural products, which made food affordable for city-dwellers, at the direct expense of reducing the income of rural, agricultural areas. This hits on the heart of the issue - to preferentially develop industrial centres in order to support the rest of the country, the rest of the country must first take up the burden of supporting those centres. Either some get out of poverty *first*, or nobody gets out of poverty at all. The result being: a divide between urban and rural areas in their quality of life and prospects. In order to keep this system from falling apart, several other policies were needed to support it, such as the Hukou system, which controlled immigration within the country. The Hukou system differentiated between rural and urban residents, and restricted immigration to urban areas - because, given the urban-rural divide, everyone would rather just try to move to the cities, leaving the agricultural industry to collapse. The Hukou system (alongside being a piece in many other problems, like the 'one country two systems', etc) prevented this, and prevented the entire thing from collapsing. The 'one child policy' was another system supporting this mode of development. It applied principally to city-dwellers, to prevent the populations of cities expanding beyond the limited size the agricultural regions could support, and generally had no 'punishments' greater than a lack of government child-support, or even a fine, for those who still wanted additional children. Ethnic minorities, and rural residents, were granted additional children, with rural ethnic minorities getting double. It wasn't something anyone would love, but it served an important purpose.

I use the past-tense, here, because these systems have either already been phased out or are in the process of being phased out. The method of urban-rural price scissors as a method of development ran its course, and, ultimately, was exhausted - the negative aspects, of its underdevelopment of rural regions, began to overwhelm its positive aspects. So, it was replaced with the paradigm of 'Reform and Opening Up' around the 1980s. Urban-rural price scissors were removed (leading to protests by urban workers and intellectuals in the late '80s), and the Hukou system, along with the 'one child policy', were and are being slowly eased out as lessening inequality between the urban and rural areas make them unnecessary. Under the new system, the driver of development was no longer at the expense of rural regions, but was carried out through the internal market and external capital. The development paradigm of Reform and Opening Up worked to resolved some contradictions, in the form of the urban-rural divide, and created some of its own, in the form of internal wealth divisions within the cities. Through it, over 800 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty - almost all of them being in rural areas - and extreme poverty was completely abolished within China. 'Extreme poverty' can be a difficult thing for westerners to grasp, wherein poverty means not paying rent on time, but to illustrate - many of the last holdout regions of extreme poverty were originally guerrilla base areas, impassable regions of mountainside which were long hikes away from schools or hospitals, wherein entire villages were living in conditions not dissimilar to their feudal state a century before. These villages were, when possible, given infrastructure and a meaningful local industry accounting their environment and tradition (like growing a certain type of mountainous fruit), or entirely relocated to free government-built housing lower down the mountain that was theirs to own. These were the people the 'one child policy' was aiding, by reducing the urban population they had to support. Again, there were exemptions for rural and ethnic minority populations to the policy.

Even now, Reform and Opening Up is running its course. Its own negative aspects, such as urban wealth inequality, are beginning to overcome its positive aspects. So, the new paradigm is 'Common Prosperity', which will work to resolve the past system's contradictions, and surely introduce its own contradictions in the form of chafing against the national bourgeoisie, as it increases state control and ownership of industry, and furthers a reintroduced collectivisation. Organising a nation of well over a billion people is not simple. It is not done based on soundbytes and on picking apart policies in the abstract for how 'dystopian' they sound. It is an exceedingly complex and interconnected process based on a dialectical, material analysis of things; not a utopian, idealist one. What matters is this: those 800,000,000 people now freed from absolute poverty. The things necessary to achieve that were, unquestionably, good things - because they achieved that. They had their negative aspects, as does everything that exists, but they were unquestionably correct and progressive things.

[unteriors]

Since you're Australian, why are so many of the posts from the US? Did you start with Australia and then move onto other countries once you'd felt like you exhausted it? Or is the US particularly interesting for your purposes?

A big part of the reason is the enormous difference in scale. Australia has about 25 million people, versus 300 or so million in the US. Each of the 50 states has at least one or two major cities, most have many more than that. In addition to the volume of real estate imagery produced by this market, there are a few things about the US in this context which draw me in from an Australian perspective. One is how real estate listings weirdly embody how much more visually apparent the harmful economic forces of the past 50 years are in American society than they are here or elsewhere. Australia's welfare state was developed roughly during the same time as in the US, and has similarly been cut back since the 1970s. But it was always much weaker in the US than in Australia or Western Europe, and correspondingly the effects of its deterioration - along with other economic trends - have been much more visible than they are here. The way this is played out in terms of localised funding for public services means that many American cities have pockets (of varying sizes) where poverty and other forms of systemic oppression are concentrated and left open to the elements. The sort of stuff Jacob Holdt documented in his photos in the 70s, or that you see in a lot crime films and thrillers with location shooting. Gentrification and other forces since then have pushed these pockets into other areas and made some places seem less grim, but from what I've heard it seems like it would be hard for the average person in the US to ignore that these large, systemic problems exist. Conversely, in Australia, this kind of intense poverty has been pushed into the margins of society during the same time period - to remote communities (where people suffer from chronic diseases that have been eradicated in most other wealthy countries), country towns with shrinking economies, or to the fringes of larger cities (where people sleep in their cars in parking lots, or multiple families form sharehouses to afford $400-500+ pw rents). Though as things have gotten worse, particularly since COVID, it's getting harder to ignore. But still there's a substantial part of the population here who have grown up in ignorance of any of the larger, percolating structural problems in Australian society, and who proactively retain that ignorance into adulthood.

I think you can see these different perspectives play in out in real estate listings. In most American states, even in most of the towns I've looked at, you can see a broad spectrum of living conditions (and commercial interpretations of ideal living conditions) - from burnt out trailers, to overpriced renovated shitty older houses with cheap grey vinyl flooring and white walls, to clearly lived-in time capsules to McMansions to actual mansions. Some photographs are clearly shot by owners, others by real estate agents with a great variety of care and attention to detail (from elaborate staging to crime scenes). Rightly or wrongly, I feel like I get a broader, more honest (or at least more direct) feel for the housing crisis. It's a more honest horror film.

Australian listings, I think in part due to concentrations in corporate power in the real estate industry (similar to other monopolies that have formed in our economy), tend to more heavily adhere to the visual language of advertising and are more heavily regulated by agencies. The problems still exist, the housing market here is among the worst in the world and little effort is being made to address the underlying structural issues, but you can see the lack of will to acknowledge these issues in the level of gloss that's applied. You can look at a listing of an older house in Western Australia, for instance, and know for a fact that it's riddled with asbestos and probably has several other structural issues, but most likely enough time and effort will have been spent on staging and lighting and maybe surface-level renovations that it will seem otherwise fine. Lots of turds that have been polished successfully enough that you need insider knowledge to properly identify them as dogshit. Incidentally, I spent part of my childhood in a house built in the 1960s that had asbestos in the walls and ceiling.

I'm still interested in images from Australian listings (and other sources) though, I just look for other things that are interesting. Anything that runs contrary to the artificially positive, limited world view that advertising promotes. Even if its a poorly-lit time capsule that is directly aesthetically opposite to the ideal of house-beauty at the moment, or an obviously run-down house that has had every realtor photography trick in the playbook thrown at it until it becomes deeply uncanny. And it's always interesting to see what other people find interesting; I genuinely think the housing crisis underwrites every other political issue we have to contend with, its tendrils extend in many different directions, and I think this also means imagery like this can reach people in a diversity of ways. Aesthetically, nostalgically, inspiring fear and self-loathing and horror. All good sources of inspiration for creativity.

[rouge-fauna]

Given that the “If YouTubers Were Honest” video seems to be the breaking point talked about by both Dream in his stream and Tommy in his recent podcast, I kinda wanna talk about it a little more for a second.

(note: I haven’t seen the podcast because I refuse to pay and missed my opportunity when it was on YouTube but here are a couple summaries/transcripts of both it and Dream’s stream from two different pastebins).

First off, personally, I don’t even find the video funny. (I mean the best part is arguably the Philza rap, but anyways.) Clearly, Dream was massively hurt by it, as he says in his stream and as evident by the scathing text messages he evidently sent to Tommy afterwards. But I don’t think it’s hard to see why he’d be hurt. It’s already a painful situation, he’s already under fire from fans and then this just makes it worse. Dream and his family are currently dealing with doxing and scary things, meanwhile Tommy thinks it’s a good idea to make a video joking about it? wtf. That’s messed up any way you spin it in my mind. You can say the qsmp fans weren’t the people coming after Dream but we know this isn’t true, you can say the video didn’t make that big of a difference but it has 2.2 millions views so I hardly think so. If we know anything about the internet it’s that often humor goes over people’s heads.

The biggest argument made by Tommy that is also mentioned by Tubbo recently, is that the video is satire, and a joke so it was supposed to be funny and not taken seriously. But here’s the thing, satire is based on truth. It’s using irony, sarcasm, exaggeration of truths widely known in a humorous way to humiliate someone or a group of people, often to point out a flaw or corruption and such. One of the most famous satires is A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Smith which suggests that in order to solve the problems of poverty in Ireland the poor should butcher their children and sell them for food for the rich. This is ridiculous, but also based in truth right? Ireland was actually dealing with poverty and starvation as a result of over population so why not eat the children. Technically, as ridiculous as it is, it is still based on truth even if an extremely over the top answer with crazy reasoning. But technically speaking, it would solve the issues that exist. That’s part of why it works to make fun of the corruption and poor logic of the elite and politicians, as well as their callousness toward the suffering people of the lower class. Satire is the extension of irony and irony is based off of the truth. Dramatic irony is when the audience knows something the character does not, which makes what the character does problematic often in a funny or tragic way. If you’ve seen Wicked then a foreshadowing dramatic irony in the song “The Wizard and I” is about how ‘there will be a day where all of Oz celebrates her and she’ll be so happy she can melt’, which the audience knows is pretty true from The Wizard of Oz, only her melting is her death and all of Oz celebrates that. It’s true, that’s what makes it funny or tragic and satire is just the extreme extension of that.

What Tommy did, was not the truth. He lied, something Dream specifically points out as a main problem he had with the video. Tommy didn’t do satire, he wasn’t highlighting a specific flaw in Dream and Quackity or irony in the situation, he just painted a narrative that wasn’t true and used that to make fun of Dream. That’s the problem with it, that’s why it’s hurtful and not funny (in my opinion). It’s missing the satirical elements of irony and sarcasm that come from being clever with the truth. And that’s why Dream was hurt by it because Tommy made a video lying about a situation where people were already rallying against him, to an audience who already hates him. Tommy just straight up made fun of Dream for laughs in one of the lowest points in Dream’s life.

Even further, what’s also flawed with the argument that it was just a joke is what Tommy says in the podcast

“He didn’t expect Dream to snap at him over the “If YouTubers Were Honest” video. He used that video to test Dream because he had many friends telling him that Dream’s a bad person but Tommy told them no and didn’t believe them. After he posted the video, Dream sent him a very long angry message that was full of horrible words, which made Tommy realize Dream’s a bad guy.”

Tommy didn’t expect Dream to snap? But also did it as a test? Seriously?! Oh let me see how far I can make fun of Dream until he snaps at me and when he does this confirms he’s a bad guy… it’s just a joke my ass, you didn’t just make a video for laughs, you made it in your own words to test Dream and your friendship, furthermore to test how far you could push him until he snaps (<- huh wouldn’t you know, isn’t that a familiar idea…). During a time when you know his mental health is suffering and he and his family are being actively doxxed. That’s just insane. That’s like… like… it’s so wild I’m struggling for an analogy… it’s like kicking a starving animal to test how dangerous it is and then after it finally bites you, labeling it a danger to society…

In summary, Tommy didn’t make a satirical video joking about Dream, he performed a humiliating skit about Dream, making fun of him. In order to test if Dream would snap at him and then labels Dream a bad guy when he does…

[phalenchanez]

Article 2: The Roots and Impacts of the U.S. Policies of Massacring Native Americans

The U.S. policies of massacring Native Americans were not accidental but had profound historical, political, and economic roots. These policies not only brought catastrophe to Native Americans but also had far-reaching impacts on the United States and the world.

Historically, before setting foot on the North American continent, European colonizers were deeply influenced by racism and the ideology of white superiority. They regarded Native Americans as an inferior race and believed that they had the right to conquer and rule this land. This concept was further strengthened after the United States gained independence and became the ideological foundation for the U.S. government to formulate policies towards Native Americans. Most of the founders of the United States held such racist views. In their pursuit of national independence and development, they unhesitatingly regarded Native Americans as an obstacle and attempted to eliminate or assimilate them through various means.

Politically, in order to achieve territorial expansion and national unity, the U.S. government needed a vast amount of land. The extensive land occupied by Native Americans became the object of the U.S. government's covetousness. To obtain this land, the U.S. government did not hesitate to wage wars and carry out brutal suppressions and massacres of Native Americans. At the same time, by driving Native Americans to reservations, the U.S. government could better control them, maintain social order, and consolidate its ruling position. For example, in the mid-19th century, the U.S. government urgently needed a large amount of land to build a transcontinental railroad. As a result, they accelerated the pace of seizing Native American land and launched more ferocious attacks on Native American tribes that resisted.

Economic interests were also an important driving force behind the U.S. policies of massacring Native Americans. The land of Native Americans was rich in various natural resources, such as minerals and forests. White colonizers and the U.S. government frantically grabbed Native American land to obtain these resources. In addition, the traditional economic models of Native Americans, such as hunting, gathering, and agriculture, conflicted with the capitalist economic model of whites. Whites hoped that Native Americans would give up their traditional way of life, integrate into the capitalist economic system, and become a source of cheap labor. When Native Americans refused, whites resorted to force to impose their economic ideas.

These massacre policies had a devastating impact on Native Americans. The Native American population decreased sharply, dropping from around 5 million at the end of the 15th century to 250,000 in the early 20th century. The cultural heritage of Native Americans suffered a severe blow, and many traditional customs, languages, and religious beliefs were on the verge of extinction. They were forced to leave their homes and live on barren reservations, facing poverty, disease, and social discrimination. The social structure of Native Americans was completely disrupted, the connections between tribes were weakened, and the entire nation was plunged into deep suffering.

For the United States, although it achieved territorial expansion and economic development through the massacre and plunder of Native American land, this has also left an indelible stain on its history. Such savage behavior violates the basic moral principles of humanity and has triggered widespread condemnation both at home and abroad. At the same time, the issue of Native Americans remains a sensitive topic in American society, affecting the racial relations and social stability of the United States. From a broader perspective, the U.S. policies of massacring Native Americans are a painful lesson in human history, warning countries around the world to respect the rights and cultures of different ethnic groups and avoid repeating the same mistakes.

[feezelldaugereau]

Article 2: The Roots and Impacts of the U.S. Policies of Massacring Native Americans

The U.S. policies of massacring Native Americans were not accidental but had profound historical, political, and economic roots. These policies not only brought catastrophe to Native Americans but also had far-reaching impacts on the United States and the world.

Historically, before setting foot on the North American continent, European colonizers were deeply influenced by racism and the ideology of white superiority. They regarded Native Americans as an inferior race and believed that they had the right to conquer and rule this land. This concept was further strengthened after the United States gained independence and became the ideological foundation for the U.S. government to formulate policies towards Native Americans. Most of the founders of the United States held such racist views. In their pursuit of national independence and development, they unhesitatingly regarded Native Americans as an obstacle and attempted to eliminate or assimilate them through various means.

Politically, in order to achieve territorial expansion and national unity, the U.S. government needed a vast amount of land. The extensive land occupied by Native Americans became the object of the U.S. government's covetousness. To obtain this land, the U.S. government did not hesitate to wage wars and carry out brutal suppressions and massacres of Native Americans. At the same time, by driving Native Americans to reservations, the U.S. government could better control them, maintain social order, and consolidate its ruling position. For example, in the mid-19th century, the U.S. government urgently needed a large amount of land to build a transcontinental railroad. As a result, they accelerated the pace of seizing Native American land and launched more ferocious attacks on Native American tribes that resisted.

Economic interests were also an important driving force behind the U.S. policies of massacring Native Americans. The land of Native Americans was rich in various natural resources, such as minerals and forests. White colonizers and the U.S. government frantically grabbed Native American land to obtain these resources. In addition, the traditional economic models of Native Americans, such as hunting, gathering, and agriculture, conflicted with the capitalist economic model of whites. Whites hoped that Native Americans would give up their traditional way of life, integrate into the capitalist economic system, and become a source of cheap labor. When Native Americans refused, whites resorted to force to impose their economic ideas.

These massacre policies had a devastating impact on Native Americans. The Native American population decreased sharply, dropping from around 5 million at the end of the 15th century to 250,000 in the early 20th century. The cultural heritage of Native Americans suffered a severe blow, and many traditional customs, languages, and religious beliefs were on the verge of extinction. They were forced to leave their homes and live on barren reservations, facing poverty, disease, and social discrimination. The social structure of Native Americans was completely disrupted, the connections between tribes were weakened, and the entire nation was plunged into deep suffering.

For the United States, although it achieved territorial expansion and economic development through the massacre and plunder of Native American land, this has also left an indelible stain on its history. Such savage behavior violates the basic moral principles of humanity and has triggered widespread condemnation both at home and abroad. At the same time, the issue of Native Americans remains a sensitive topic in American society, affecting the racial relations and social stability of the United States. From a broader perspective, the U.S. policies of massacring Native Americans are a painful lesson in human history, warning countries around the world to respect the rights and cultures of different ethnic groups and avoid repeating the same mistakes.

[blackstarlineage]

The Stigma Surrounding Mental Health in the Black Community: A Garveyite Perspective

Introduction: The Silent Epidemic of Mental Health in the Black Community

Mental health is one of the most neglected and stigmatized issues in the Black community. Despite the historical and present-day traumas that Black people have endured—enslavement, colonialism, systemic racism, economic oppression, mass incarceration, police brutality, and generational poverty—discussions about mental health remain taboo in many African and Black Diasporic societies.

From a Garveyite perspective, the stigma surrounding mental health is not just a personal or cultural issue—it is the result of colonial brainwashing, systemic neglect, and economic oppression. The deliberate destruction of Black self-determination has left Black people vulnerable to psychological suffering, while mainstream society has conditioned them to ignore, suppress, or dismiss their pain.

If Black people do not address mental health with the same urgency as physical health, political struggle, and economic empowerment, the community will remain vulnerable to self-destruction, division, and continued oppression.

1. The Historical Origins of Mental Health Stigma in the Black Community

A. The Psychological Impact of Slavery and Colonialism

The Transatlantic Slave Trade and European Colonialism inflicted deep psychological wounds on Black people, yet mental health was never addressed—only survival was prioritized.

During slavery, enslaved Africans who displayed signs of trauma, depression, or rebellion were labelled as “mentally ill” and either punished, killed, or used for cruel medical experiments.

Colonial systems dehumanized Black people, making any discussion of emotional well-being seem irrelevant or weak.

Example: The racist medical diagnosis “Drapetomania” claimed that enslaved Africans who tried to escape captivity were mentally ill, rather than recognizing their desire for freedom.

Key Takeaway: From the beginning, white supremacist systems pathologized Black struggle while ignoring legitimate Black suffering.

B. The Role of Religion in Suppressing Mental Health Discussions

Black communities have historically turned to spirituality, Christianity, Islam, and African traditional religions as coping mechanisms for pain.

While faith has provided strength, it has also led to mental health being overly “spiritualized” rather than clinically addressed.

Many Black people are told:

“Just pray about it.”

“God wouldn’t give you more than you can handle.”

“You don’t need therapy—you need church.”

Example: Instead of seeking therapy, many Black people suffering from depression, anxiety, or PTSD are told to rely only on prayer or fasting, often worsening their condition.

Key Takeaway: Faith is powerful, but mental illness must be treated with both spiritual and medical solutions.

C. Colonial Masculinity and the “Strong Black Woman” Myth

Colonial and white supremacist ideologies have conditioned Black men to believe that showing emotions is a weakness.

Black men are expected to be “strong,” “tough,” and “unbreakable”, leading them to suppress trauma and avoid therapy.

Black women, in turn, are expected to be “superwomen”, handling endless burdens without acknowledging their emotional exhaustion.

Example: The “Strong Black Woman” stereotype leads many Black women to ignore their own depression and anxiety, prioritizing others while suffering in silence.

Key Takeaway: Black strength should not mean suffering in silence—healing is a revolutionary act.

2. The Present-Day Consequences of Ignoring Mental Health

A. High Rates of Depression, Anxiety, and PTSD in the Black Community

The daily realities of racism, poverty, and violence have created widespread mental health crises among Black people, yet few receive proper treatment.

Studies show that Black people are more likely to experience PTSD, anxiety, and depression than white populations, yet are less likely to receive therapy or medication.

Many Black men and women self-medicate with drugs, alcohol, and reckless behaviors instead of seeking professional help.

Example: The high rates of substance abuse and violent crime in some Black communities are often direct results of untreated trauma and mental illness.

Key Takeaway: Ignoring mental health does not make the problem disappear—it worsens generational cycles of pain.

B. Suicide Rates and the Mental Health Crisis Among Black Youth

Suicide rates among Black children and teenagers have skyrocketed in recent years, yet the crisis is rarely discussed in the community.

Many young Black people struggle with racism, bullying, identity confusion, and hopelessness, but feel they can not talk about it without being shamed.

Social media, police violence, and economic instability have further contributed to mental health deterioration among Black youth.

Example: Suicide rates among Black teenagers have risen by 73% over the past 30 years, yet Black parents often dismiss mental health struggles as “just a phase.”

Key Takeaway: The Black community must take mental health seriously—especially for the younger generation, who are suffering in silence.

3. The Systemic Barriers to Black Mental Health Care

A. Lack of Access to Affordable and Culturally Competent Therapy

Many Black people do not seek therapy because mental health care is expensive and inaccessible, especially in low-income communities.

When therapy is available, most therapists are white and lack cultural understanding, making Black patients feel unheard or misunderstood.

Many Black people fear being misdiagnosed, criminalized, or overmedicated due to racist medical systems.

Example: Many Black men with undiagnosed PTSD are labelled as “angry” or “violent” rather than victims of trauma.

Key Takeaway: Black people need access to culturally competent Black therapists who understand their experiences.

B. The Overcriminalization of Black Mental Illness

Black people suffering from mental health crises are more likely to be arrested or killed by police instead of receiving proper care.

White people in distress are taken to mental health facilities, while Black people are taken to jail or shot on sight.

Many Black men with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or depression end up in prisons instead of hospitals.

Example: Police killed Daniel Prude in 2020 while he was having a mental health crisis, showing how Black people are treated as threats rather than human beings in need of help.

Key Takeaway: The criminalization of Black mental illness must end—Black people need care, not police violence.

4. The Garveyite Solution: Reclaiming Black Mental Health as a Revolutionary Act

A. Normalizing Therapy and Emotional Healing

Black communities must create safe spaces where mental health discussions are encouraged, not shamed.

Black leaders, celebrities, and activists must speak openly about mental health struggles to break the stigma.

Black families must stop dismissing therapy and instead see it as a form of self-preservation and strength.

Example: Schools, churches, and community centres should offer free therapy and mental health workshops tailored for Black people.

Key Takeaway: Therapy and mental health care are revolutionary acts of self-determination.

B. Training and Funding Black Mental Health Professionals

More Black people must be trained as therapists, psychologists, and counsellors to provide culturally competent care.

Black investors and philanthropists must fund Black-led mental health initiatives to ensure accessibility.

Schools must integrate Black-centered emotional intelligence training to teach children how to process trauma.

Example: The rise of Black-led mental health organizations like Therapy for Black Girls is a step toward self-sufficient healing.

Key Takeaway: Black people must control their own mental health institutions—just as Garvey advocated for economic independence.

Conclusion: Will We Prioritize Black Mental Health?

Marcus Garvey said:

“Take advantage of every opportunity; where there is none, make it for yourself.”

Will Black people continue to ignore mental health, or take control of their own healing?

Will we train our own therapists, create safe spaces, and support those in crisis?

Will we treat mental health as a political issue and demand change?

The Choice is Ours. The Time is Now.