#disfranchising

[idiosyncraticrednebula]

To find out that all of the people who accused Michael Jackson of being a c***d m****ter and harassed him about him for decades are finally getting exposed for being exactly what they accused him of is oddly satisfying for the fact that this vindicates Michael even more than before, but it's also infuriating for the trauma and pain they severely inflicted upon that innocent man for years and years and how that led to his self-destruction. All of this because they wanted to cover their own predatory behinds.

[sammysam999]

Yeah, we probably should all be worried about this, because the eu parliament didn't push back against stuff like this hard enough before, after the elections they certainly won't change that. If the representatives in the eu council after the next national elections end up reflecting similar growths for the far right and center right we might be fucked even if the european court keeps pushing back.

This is also basically just a continuation of the ongoing discussion concerning chat control.

For those unaware: Officially proposed as law to fight and prevent csam and grooming under the name of Child Sexual Abuse Regulation, however in practice it demands profound undermining of end-to-end encryption, basically opening door to never known mass surveillance. It asks for scanning of every data uploaded, proposing the use of for example client side scanning and to scan for known csam - originally it was supposed to scan also for new material, but the justified fear of false-positives caused the mitigation to scan only for known material and "grooming", after long discussions if "new technologies" couldn't solve the problem of both, the life-destroying issue of false positive and the undermining of end-to-end encryption (spoiler: If a law must hope that speculative technology that doesn't yet exist and might never exist will solve it's problems you know it's a shit law that tries to find the technological sledgehammer to solve problems that are better solved in different ways. And whoever supports such a law should be looked at with suspicion, concerning either their competences or their motivations). The latest compromise proposed that instead of scanning everything it should only scan video and pictures... with users getting asked to agree to this or to just not being able to use those parts of a service. The major countries that blocked the chat control in EU council where by now Germany and France (though France already is showing cracks in its resistance, which is bad). There also is the position of the judicial branch of the EU which clearly positions the law as not reconcilable with current EU laws. For now the law is on hold, mostly because parliament (which agrees with the law) and council (which holds against it) can't come to an agreement and we now had eu parliament elections.

Honestly if you guys are worried about KOSA, you also should be worried about this. It's certain that the pressure to implement further means of mass surveillance is growing and that politicians will try to spin it positively (by linking the measurements to heavy topics like csam, even if most organizations working on prevention see the lack of proportionality, doubt the usefulness and criticize the potential of abuse behind such extrem disfranchisement of civil rights).

[menalez]

the idea that jewish people have no other homes and have only israel to back them serves (& served) antisemites quite a lot. it plays into the idea that hitler was right, german jewish ppl did not belong in germany and were from some other foreign land, that theyre outsiders to germany. this isn't true. german jewish people have every right, the same as any german, to be in their home (germany). it plays into the idea that all jewish people worldwide actually do not have the right to their homelands nor the right to demand a place within their homelands, because their real homeland is israel (historically known as palestine).

when zionism first came to exist as an ideology, it was a fringe ideology that most jewish people opposed for this exact reason: because it hinges on the idea that jewish people do not belong in their home countries, but rather are eternal immigrants or some sort of invaders. from 1882, georg jellinek:

The Jews have sent out their best men to fight for their recognition and equality in the European states and they have marshalled their intellectual resources in numerous writings, on the speaker's platform and in the pulpit for the lofty goal of emancipation. Have they done all this in order to abandon, in this year of 1882, everything they have achieved, to give up all they have fought for and won, to declare that they are aliens, people without a homeland or a fatherland - or, as you put it, vagrants - and, the wanderer's staff in hand, to set out for an uncertain new fatherland? No! That would mean to accept the view of our implacable foes who deny that we have any true patriotic feelings for Europe. In fact, we are not even capable of doing this. We are at home in Europe and regard ourselves as children of the lands in which we were born and raised, whose languages we speak, and whose cultures make up our intellectual substance. We are Germans, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Magyars, Italians and so forth, with every fiber of our being. We have long ceased to be true, thoroughbred Semites, and we have long ago lost the sense of Hebrew nationality.

edwin montagu in 1917, calling the balfour declaration & zionism antisemitic:

I wish to place on record my view that the policy of His Majesty's Government is anti-Semitic in result will prove a rallying ground for Anti-Semites in every country in the world... it seems to be inconceivable that Zionism should be officially recognised by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorized to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the "national home of the Jewish people". I do not know what this involves, but I assume that it means... that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine... I assert that there is not a Jewish nation... It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race... When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens... I claim that the lives that British Jews have led, that the aims that they have had before them, that the part that they have played in our public life and our public institutions, have entitled them to be regarded, not as British Jews, but as Jewish Britons. I would willingly disfranchise every Zionist. I would be almost tempted to proscribe the Zionist organisation as illegal and against the national interest. But I would ask of a British Government sufficient tolerance to refuse a conclusion which makes aliens and foreigners by implication, if not at once by law, of all their Jewish fellow-citizens.... I feel that the Government are asked to be the instrument for carrying out the wishes of a Zionist organisation largely run, as my information goes, at any rate in the past, by men of enemy descent or birth, and by this means have dealt a severe blow to the liberties, position and opportunities of service of their Jewish fellow-countrymen.

balfour himself said in 1919 that zionism is

"a serious endeavor to mitigate the age-long miseries created for Western civilization by the presence in its midst of a Body [Jewish people] which it too long regarded as alien and even hostile, but which it was equally unable to expel or to absorb."

and therefore even the justification for zionism in the west was about the desire to get rid of their jewish populations, and to have a place to expel their jewish populations to.

robert gessner in 1935 even went as far as equating prominent zionists to nazis & hitler:

The Nationalist Socialists on the other hand are the Revisionists, or the Brown Nazis of Palestine. They believe in the Jewish State 100 percent, with their own Jewish army and even, I might add, a Jewish navy on the Dead Sea! The Fuehrer of the Brown Nazis in Palestine is Vladimir Jabotinsky... Today the young, sternfaced legionnaires of Jabotinsky march through the streets and wear shirts, like their nordic brothers in Germany. In Poland I had seen them marching through the streets (side streets in the ghettoes) singing "Poland for Pilsudski, Germany for Hitler. Palestine for Jews-" The Fuehrer of the Brown Shirted Legions of Judaism is in America because "Revisionism is the genuinest proletarian movement in the world in that it is the poorest." In America about one percent of the Jews are Zionists. What fraction of another one percent will donate money to the Jewish Hitler?

rabbi elmer berger in 1943:

I oppose Zionism because I deny that Jews are a nation …since the Dispersion we have not been a nation. We have belonged to every nation in the world. We have mixed our blood with all peoples. Jewish nationalism is a fabrication woven from the thinnest kinds of threads and strengthened only in those eras of human history in which reaction has been dominant and anti-Semitism in full cry.

rabbi elmer berger also outlined in his work “the jewish dilemma” how zionists held quite antisemitic views.

bevin, another british politician, said in 1946:

"There has been agitation in the United States, and particularly in New York, for 100,000 Jews to be put in Palestine. I hope I will not be misunderstood in America if I say that this was proposed by the purest of motives. They did not want too many Jews in New York."

zionism was also specifically a european, right-wing ideology. left-wing european jews did not believe in it and vehemently opposed it.

so basically, historically, zionism was a far-right ideology that was deemed antisemitic and was equatable to nazism to many jewish people, particularly leftist & communist jewish people. jewish people and non-jewish zionists alike viewed zionism as a means of removing jewish people from their countries.

its baffling that today, the argument is that opposing zionism is hating jewish people, because jewish people themselves overwhelmingly opposed zionism and saw it as antisemitic. to this day jewish anti-zionists continue to exist, yet they face extreme hatred for being against zionism, treated as self-hating traitors.

[talonabraxas]

Planetary Logos Talon Abraxas

The Planetary Spirits are the informing spirits of the Stars in general, and of the Planets especially. They rule the destinies of men who are all born under one or other of their constellations; the second and third groups pertaining to other systems have the same functions, and all rule various departments in Nature.

“. . . there can be no Planetary Spirit that was not once material or what you call human. When our great Buddha — the patron of all the adepts, the reformer and the codifier of the occult system, reached first Nirvana on earth, he became a Planetary Spirit; i.e. — his spirit could at one and the same time rove the interstellar spaces in full consciousness, and continue at will on Earth in his original and individual body. For the divine Self had so completely disfranchised itself from matter that it could create at will an inner substitute for itself, and leaving it in the human form for days, weeks, sometimes years, affect in no wise by the change either the vital principle or the physical mind of its body. By the way, that is the highest form of adeptship man can hope for on our planet. But it is as rare as the Buddhas themselves, . . .” (Master K.H., “The Mahatma Letters” p. 43-44)

The Planetary Spirit of The Earth:

[crippled-peeper]

I think a lot of people don't understand that Voter Disfranchisement isn't like, a personal choise that you make.

It's genuinely upsetting that people are yelling at you for not being able to fix a situation you have no way to effect.

Real. For some reason I say “I cannot vote” and all they hear is “I’m voting for Trump/third party” . They are making up a guy to get mad at

[maid-with-sunset-in-her-hair]

Catelyn being sweet and loving towards Ned while taking out her resentment on Jon is a classic case of displacement, an unconscious defense mechanism where the mind shifts aggressive impulses to a less threatening target to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening:

It had taken her a fortnight to marshal her courage, but finally, in bed one night, Catelyn had asked her husband the truth of it, asked him to his face.

That was the only time in all their years that Ned had ever frightened her. "Never ask me about Jon," he said, cold as ice. "He is my blood, and that is all you need to know. And now I will learn where you heard that name, my lady." She had pledged to obey; she told him; and from that day on, the whispering had stopped, and Ashara Dayne's name was never heard in Winterfell again.

Whoever Jon's mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely, for nothing Catelyn said would persuade him to send the boy away. It was the one thing she could never forgive him. She had come to love her husband with all her heart, but she had never found it in her to love Jon. She might have overlooked a dozen bastards for Ned's sake, so long as they were out of sight. Jon was never out of sight, and as he grew, he looked more like Ned than any of the trueborn sons she bore him. Somehow that made it worse. (AGOT Catelyn II)

For Catelyn, Jon is a constant reminder of her disfranchisement in the patriarchal feudal system, her powerlessness, her insignificance. Her husband cheated on her and unilateraly decided his affair baby would live with them, and there’s nothing Catelyn could do. When she tried to bring it up, Ned frightened and forbid her from asking about it. She has to “persuade” him to send Jon away because she has no power or authority of her own. She thinks Ned loved Jon’s mother fiercely, with the implication that he loved her more than he loves Catelyn. She might have overlooked it a dozen times for Ned’s sake, as long as it was out of sight. But it was never out of sight.

[necronatural]

Dungeon Meshi final chapter theory. The thing about Laios' greatest desire is that he is like obsessed with monsters. That's what the whole manga is about. His greatest desires are like

1. Being able to live with and study monsters

2. Being able to be a monster

3. Knowing monsters

He is a boy who grew up feeling intense disfranchisement, unable to understand people, and after a certain point not wanting to understand them, because they have nothing to offer him. Falin was his only exception, and he technically has saved her already, so the intensity of his desire is not as immediate as it was before retrieving her from the dragon. When he got custody of the Winged Lion he basically right away wished for monstrosity, not Falin's deliverence. It is an insatiable hunger within him.

Therefore becoming king of a nation of humans in a world with no monsters would be a more foundational realization of his desires going unanswered. The selfishness in his avoidant behaviour forcing him to become a foundation for the people, because he no longer has his outlet to hide behind. I think this would be a poetic conclusion tbh

[st-just]

My unendorsed but deeply felt instinct is that anyone who campaigns against apartment buildings to preserve 'neighborhood character' or whatever should be disfranchised in the next municipal election (on the first offense)

[workingclasshistory]

On this day, 13 January 1939, Lovett Fort-Whiteman, the first US-born Black member of the Communist Party (CP) died in a gulag in the Soviet Union. He was born in 1889 in Texas, to a father who was previously enslaved, and later moved to the Yucatán Peninsula to work in the hemp industry during the Mexican revolution, where he learned both Spanish and syndicalism – revolutionary unionism. Returning to the US he joined the Socialist Party, as well as the Industrial Workers of the World union, and later the CP, whose prior Black members were all from the Caribbean. Fort-Whiteman became a well-known organiser, travelling around the country giving speeches to working class and church audiences advocating for socialism and arguing against American Federation of Labor unions barring Black members. He also founded the American Negro Labor Congress to fight segregation and lynchings, and build Black union membership. Time magazine described him as "the Reddest of the Blacks", and quoted him as saying that Black workers were "suffering all the abuses of the working class in general, but in addition to that, racial abuses, racial discrimination, political disfranchisement and other racial oppression." He became extremely fond of Russian culture and clothing, married a Russian woman and later moved to the USSR. There he worked in various professions including as a screenwriter and a fish breeding researcher. He became embroiled in various political disputes within the US and Russian CPs, and in 1937 he requested permission to return home, then disappeared. Documents uncovered after the fall of the USSR showed that he had first been exiled to Kazakhstan, and later sentenced to five years hard labour at the Sevostlag gulag in Siberia. One of his fellow detainees claimed that Fort-Whiteman was often unable to fulfil his labour requirements and beaten as a result, became emaciated and lost all of his teeth. His death certificate says that he died of "heart failure". https://www.facebook.com/workingclasshistory/photos/a.296224173896073/2185806254937846/?type=3

[bfpnola]

We are Israel's largest human rights group [B’Tselem] – and we are calling this apartheid by Hagai El-Ad

One cannot live a single day in Israel-Palestine without the sense that this place is constantly being engineered to privilege one people, and one people only: the Jewish people. Yet half of those living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are Palestinian. The chasm between these lived realities fills the air, bleeds, is everywhere on this land.

I am not simply referring to official statements spelling this out – and there are plenty, such as prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion in 2019 that “Israel is not a state of all its citizens”, or the “nation state” basic law enshrining “the development of Jewish settlement as a national value”. What I am trying to get at is a deeper sense of people as desirable or undesirable, and an understanding about my country that I have been gradually exposed to since the day I was born in Haifa. Now, it is a realisation that can no longer be avoided.

Although there is demographic parity between the two peoples living here, life is managed so that only one half enjoy the vast majority of political power, land resources, rights, freedoms and protections. It is quite a feat to maintain such disfranchisement. Even more so, to successfully market it as a democracy (inside the “green line” – the 1949 armistice line), one to which a temporary occupation is attached. In fact, one government rules everyone and everything between the river and the sea, following the same organising principle everywhere under its control, working to advance and perpetuate the supremacy of one group of people – Jews – over another – Palestinians. This is apartheid.

There is not a single square inch in the territory Israel controls where a Palestinian and a Jew are equal. The only first-class people here are Jewish citizens such as myself, and we enjoy this status both inside the 1967 lines and beyond them, in the West Bank. Separated by the different personal statuses allotted to them, and by the many variations of inferiority Israel subjects them to, Palestinians living under Israel’s rule are united by all being unequal.

Unlike South African apartheid, the application of our version of it – apartheid 2.0, if you will – avoids certain kinds of ugliness. You won’t find “whites only” signs on benches. Here, “protecting the Jewish character” of a community – or of the state itself – is one of the thinly veiled euphemisms deployed to try to obscure the truth. Yet the essence is the same. That Israel’s definitions do not depend on skin colour make no material difference: it is the supremacist reality which is the heart of the matter – and which must be defeated.

Until the passage of the nation state law, the key lesson Israel seemed to have learned from how South Africa’s apartheid ended was to avoid too-explicit statements and laws. These can risk bringing about moral judgments – and eventually, heaven forbid, real consequences. Instead, the patient, quiet, and gradual accumulation of discriminatory practices tends to prevent repercussions from the international community, especially if one is willing to provide lip service to its norms and expectations.

This is how Jewish supremacy on both sides of the green line is accomplished and applied.

We demographically engineer the composition of the population by working to increase the number of Jews and limit the number of Palestinians. We allow for Jewish migration – with automatic citizenship – to anywhere Israel controls. For Palestinians, the opposite is true: they cannot acquire personal status anywhere Israel controls – even if their family is from here.

We engineer power through the allocation – or denial – of political rights. All Jewish citizens get to vote (and all Jews can become citizens), but less than a quarter of the Palestinians under Israel’s rule have citizenship and can thus vote. On 23 March, when Israelis go and vote for the fourth time in two years, it will not be a “celebration of democracy” – as elections are often referred to. Rather, it will be yet another day in which disfranchised Palestinians watch as their future is determined by others.

We engineer land control by expropriating huge swaths of Palestinian land, keeping it off-limits for their development – or using it to build Jewish towns, neighbourhoods, and settlements. Inside the green line, we have been doing this since the state was established in 1948. In East Jerusalem and the West Bank, we have been doing this since the occupation began in 1967. The result is that Palestinian communities – anywhere between the river and the sea – face a reality of demolitions, displacement, impoverishment and overcrowding, while the same land resources are allocated for new Jewish development.

And we engineer – or rather, restrict – Palestinians’ movement. The majority, who are neither citizens nor residents, depend on Israeli permits and checkpoints to travel in and between one area and another, as well as to travel internationally. For the two million in the Gaza Strip travel restrictions are the most severe – this is not just a Bantustan, as Israel has made it one of the largest open-air prisons on Earth.

Haifa, my birth city, was a binational reality of demographic parity until 1948. Of some 70,000 Palestinians living in Haifa before the Nakba, less than a 10th were left afterwards. Almost 73 years have passed since then, and now Israel-Palestine is a binational reality of demographic parity. I was born here. I want – I intend – to stay. But I want – I demand – to live in a very different future.

The past is one of traumas and injustices. In the present, yet more injustices are constantly reproduced. The future must be radically different – a rejection of supremacy, built on a commitment to justice and our shared humanity. Calling things by their proper name – apartheid – is not a moment of despair: rather, it is a moment of moral clarity, a step on a long walk inspired by hope. See the reality for what it is, name it without flinching – and help bring about the realisation of a just future.

[ausetkmt]

July 31, 1866 - The New Orleans Massacre

The New Orleans Massacre of 1866 occurred on July 30 when a peaceful demonstration of mostly Black Freedmen was attacked by a mob of white rioters. The violence erupted outside the Mechanics Institute, where a reconvened Louisiana Constitutional Convention was taking place.

According to official reports, 38 people were killed and 146 wounded, with 34 dead and 119 wounded being Black Freedmen.

Unofficial estimates suggest even higher casualties. The perpetrators included ex-Confederates, white supremacists, and members of the New Orleans Police Force.

This tragic event expressed deep-rooted conflicts in Louisiana’s social structure and catalyzed support for the Fourteenth Amendment and the Reconstruction Act, which aimed to change social arrangements in the South

As the United States approaches what are bound to be particularly contentious November midterm elections, profound questions regarding the might and meaning of the vote in American society are seemingly everywhere. Battles over voter ID laws and felon disfranchisement, lawsuits that seek to overturn gerrymandered districts, and allegations of voter fraud and election tampering by foreign powers all demonstrate that arguments about who gets to vote and whether votes are fairly counted are central to the electoral process.

Such struggles are nothing new. Today marks the 152nd anniversary of one of the deadliest attacks on voting rights activists in American history. In New Orleans on July 30, 1866, a white mob, led by police and firemen, massacred delegates and spectators at a state constitutional convention convened to guarantee voting rights to African American men. The attack left over forty African Americans dead, over 150 wounded, and a nation reeling.

In 1864, Union forces had almost entirely liberated Louisiana from Confederate control, and the state’s all-white electorate had drafted and ratified a new state constitution that acknowledged the abolition of slavery. Still, the document sanctioned restrictions on African American civil and political rights, and in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, Louisiana voters, many of whom were Confederate veterans, returned numerous Confederate officials to state and federal offices under the banner of a Democratic Party that openly proclaimed to be in favor of white supremacy. “We hold this to be a Government of white people,” the platform of the state party maintained, “made and to be perpetuated for the exclusive benefit of the white race.” Indeed, the platform announced, “people of African descent cannot be considered as citizens of the United States.” It came as no surprise that the state legislature promptly passed discriminatory laws known as Black Codes that targeted the formerly enslaved, nor that the mayor of New Orleans, former Confederate John T. Monroe, instructed city policemen to single out the formerly enslaved for arrest.

Frustrated by this ongoing racial discrimination and the resumption of Confederate rule, in 1866 leading African American suffrage activists convinced a handful of white former delegates to Louisiana’s 1864 Constitutional Convention to reconvene the convention in New Orleans, and to draft a state constitutional amendment enfranchising African American men. Their plan relied upon a technicality, namely that the motion to adjourn the 1864 Convention had contained a provision authorizing it to reconvene to pass amendments at any later date.

Supporters of universal male suffrage argued that without African American political participation, former Confederates would continue passing racially discriminatory legislation, recreating slavery in all but name. “Liberty is but a word as long as taxation, elections, and the whole political machinery are confined in the hands of an inimical race,” warned Oscar Dunn, a formerly enslaved leader among suffrage activists in the city. Activists also recognized that the vote bore profound symbolic significance. In a world where women could not vote and political participation signified manhood and status, exclusion from the polls was both emasculating and humiliating. African American men demanded “political rights,” argued black Union army veteran and future Louisiana Governor P.B.S. Pinchback, but they also demanded “to become men.”

The vote was no less meaningful to embittered Confederate army veterans, who already felt emasculated by military defeat and saw the prospect of African American enfranchisement as an amplification of that emasculation. State Democratic officials declared the reconvening of the Constitutional Convention illegal. When judicial challenges to the reconvening failed, Mayor Monroe, the police chief, and former Confederate officers secretly resolved to annihilate the convention delegates instead. They covertly enlisted hundreds of Confederate army veterans as emergency police officers, and police and fire stations received orders to prepare for a showdown on July 30, 1866.

On the morning of the convention, a jubilant parade of African American suffrage supporters carried a large American flag and followed a marching band through the streets towards the hall where the convention delegates were assembling. The marchers’ elation shifted towards apprehension as crowds of hostile onlookers began to gather. A fight broke out. Distant pistol fire cracked.

Inside the hall, the chairman called the convention to order. Realizing that they lacked a quorum, the delegates agreed to reconvene in one hour. But as delegates and spectators drifted towards the doorway as the beleaguered parade arrived, the city’s fire bell rang twelve tolls, the traditional code for summoning residents to defend the city against imminent enemy attack. As the bell fell silent, police, firemen, and white civilians surrounded the parade and the hall.

Then they opened fire.

Lucien Jean Pierre Capla, a freeborn storekeeper and Union army veteran, had brought his teenage son Alfred to witness the historic assembly. They watched rioters slaughter marchers kneeling in surrender, and mutilate their bodies. “I saw the people fall like flies,” Capla later recalled. “They shot them, and when they done that, they tramped upon them, and mashed their heads with their boots, and shot them after they were down.” Father seized son and tried to flee, but the mob tore the pair apart. Lucien Capla suffered a fractured skull and a gunshot wound; Alfred received four bullets, three knife wounds, and the obliteration of his right eye. Police threw both in jail, but both survived.

Inside the hall, Dr. A.P. Dostie, a white dentist and leading convention delegate, tried to calm the trapped delegates and spectators. “The flag will protect us!” Dostie cried from the podium. Then a bullet pierced his arm. The rioters entered the hall, firing indiscriminately. Two policemen dragged Dostie to the city’s main thoroughfare, where the mob took turns striking, clubbing, and shooting him.  As Dostie lay dying, police flung his body into a cart, parading him before the cheering crowds.

When federal troops finally arrived hours later, the floor was sticky with blood. Three white delegates and more than forty African American supporters lay dead.  Another 150 lay wounded. Only one white Democrat had been killed, by a policeman’s stray bullet.

Yet the attack backfired. News of the brutality swept the nation and horrified the North, galvanizing northern white support for African American political and civil rights. Republicans swept the 1866 Congressional elections. In 1867, Congress passed the First Reconstruction Act, placing the South under federal military control and calling for new constitutional conventions in which African American men could vote for delegates.  Federal officials removed Mayor Monroe and other former Confederate officials from office. Louisiana’s new legislature dissolved the New Orleans’ police department and replaced it with a racially integrated force.

In November 1867, under the protection of federal troops, an interracial coalition of white, freeborn, and formerly enslaved political operatives convened another state constitutional convention in New Orleans. Delegates included survivors of the 1866 massacre. The assembly wrote one of the most radically advanced constitutions in the nation’s history. The document, which remained in force for just over a decade, guaranteed equal justice before the law, equal political and civil rights for men, and universal access to public transportation and public accommodations. It also mandated the creation of a state funded and racially integrated public education system.

Both perpetrators and victims of the 1866 Massacre recognized that the vote formed the basis of the nation’s political fabric. Yet in fighting to stamp out African American political participation, the 1866 rioters had inadvertently helped usher in a democratic revolution, the likes of which Louisiana would not see again for another century.

[itspyon]

what exactly do you mean, what is happening in reference to yesterday?

creators are defending diffrent and in consequence a lot of the shit q allows on that server ( and outside of it ) is resurfacing. which to me is important because q still has a somewhat okay image in the hispanic community, but i am now seeing people who liked him completely disfranchising from him because of what his fanbase did to diff

[palms-upturned]

Although Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and their colleagues on the paper made important contributions to the cause of working women, they never really accepted the principle of trade unionism. As they had been previously unwilling to concede that Black Liberation might claim momentary priority over their own interests as white women, they did not fully embrace the fundamental principles of unity and class solidarity, without which the labor movement would remain powerless. In the eyes of the suffragists, “woman” was the ultimate test—if the cause of woman could be furthered, it was not wrong for women to function as scabs when male workers in their trade were on strike. Susan B. Anthony was excluded from the 1869 convention of the National Labor Union because she had urged women printers to go to work as scabs. In defending herself at this convention, Anthony proclaimed that “… men have great wrongs in the world between the existence of labor and capital, but these wrongs as compared to the wrongs of women, in whose faces the doors of the trades and vocations are slammed shut, are not as a grain of sand on the sea shore.”

Anthony’s and Stanton’s postures during this episode were astonishingly similar to the suffragists’ anti-Black position within the Equal Rights Association. As Anthony and Stanton attacked Black men when they realized that the ex-slaves might receive the vote before white women, so they lashed out in a parallel fashion against the men of the working class. Stanton insisted that the exclusion from the NLU proved “… what the Revolution has said again and again, that the worst enemies of Woman Suffrage will ever be the laboring classes of men.”

“Woman” was the test, but not every woman seemed to qualify. Black women, of course, were virtually invisible within the protracted campaign for woman suffrage. As for white working-class women, the suffrage leaders were probably impressed at first by “the organizing efforts and militancy of their working-class sisters. But as it turned out, the working women themselves did not enthusiastically embrace the cause of woman suffrage. Although Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton persuaded several female labor leaders to protest the disfranchisement of women, the masses of working women were far too concerned about their immediate problems—wages, hours, working conditions—to fight for a cause that seemed terribly abstract. According to Anthony, “The great distinctive advantage possessed by the workingmen of this republic is that the son of the humblest citizen, black or white, has equal chances with the son of the richest in the land.”

Susan B. Anthony would never have made such a statement if she had familiarized herself with the realities of working-class families. As working women knew all too well, their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who exercised the right to vote continued to be miserably exploited by their wealthy employers. Political equality did not open the door to economic equality.

“Woman Wants Bread, Not the Ballot” was the title of a speech Susan B. Anthony frequently delivered as she sought to recruit more working women into the fight for suffrage. As the title indicates, she was critical of the working women’s tendency to focus on their immediate needs. But they naturally sought tangible solutions to their immediate economic problems. And they were seldom moved by the suffragists’ promise that the vote would permit them to become equal to their men—their exploited, suffering men.

Angela Y. Davis, Women Race & Class

[menalez]

You're only perpetuating the stereotype of muslims being misogynistic monsters by reblogging such videos which are used to further dehumanize and justify their slaughter especially at a time like this. Blaming misogyny or homophobia on religions shows lack of knowledge towards the roots of these oppressions at best. Believe it or not, misogyny won't disappear even if all religions disappeared of the face of earth. Call out misogyny by all means but if you're blaming a particular religion as the reason for this you're only helping in purplewashing. Before you try to say you're a muslim woman who'd suffered under Islam, I too am a muslim from Pakistan, and lived a far less privileged life than you. None of that stopped me from realizing that religion meant nothing to the men of my family or any other men I know when it came to their own lives. It was only a tool that was used to control our lives and women like me had to suffer it because we were further disfranchised by living in a country ravaged by imperialism.

i agree, religion is used as a reinforcer, it is not the root. it’s not religion making them freaks, but religion helps them justify it. i’ve said so repeatedly. you would probably know that if you actually read my opinions on religion!

but please don’t tell me to not discuss men being misogynistic because simply discussing it somehow enables stereotypes. i have every right as a middle eastern & muslim woman to share things about the reality of women of similar backgrounds. the same way you have every right to share pakistani or south asian men’s misogyny. it’s not your place at all to argue that i cant talk about our struggles bc talking about it somehow makes people racist. racists will use anything to justify their racism, blaming women of colour for discussing what men in closer proximity to us put us through for ppl’s racism is honestly pretty awful.

[hellyeahheroes]

With Musk destroying Twitter, Zuckenberg driving Facebook to the ground to pursue a pipe dream and it turning out apparently Bezos has done the same with Amazon, the myth of “genius visionary billionaire” is laid bare for everyone to see as a joke it is. And since billionairies and rest of oligarchy do not want that, because the working class is easier to control if we’re tricked to believe our exploiters have a plan that will benefit us all (almost as effective manipulation as shifting the blame on other disfranchised groups like POC, LGBTQ or Jewish people), we’re about to see a huge surge of billionaire propaganda in capitalist media. Stories that try to once again put a wool over our eyes with how the rich are “true geniuses”, “misunderstood visionaries” and also best at everything.

Hope you like Batman because if you felt he was showed down our throats already, this will be nothing compared to shit we’re about to see.

-Admin

[punksalmon]

there's some australian christian missionaries rn in the school i work at for some unknown reason. my man aren't there disfranchised children to brainwash in your own home country?