#abolitionists: we get the job done

[antebellumite]

Some people have the idea that crucifixion consists in the punishment of an innocent man. The essence of crucifixion is that men are killing a criminal, that men have got to kill him, and yet that the act of crucifying him is the salvation of the world. John Brown broke the law, he killed human beings. Those people who defended slavery had to execute John Brown, although they knew that in killing him they were committing the greater crime. It is out of that human paradox that there comes any crucifixion.

--- WEB DuBois

[antebellumite]

THIS ENTIRE BLOG GUYS

"jail isnt real," i assure myself as i close my eyes and raid a federal armory with my abolitionist militias

[black-rabbit-razumikhin]

Raz Reads Les Mis (II)

Fantine - The Fall

We have met Jean Valjean

And we learn so much about him and I have so many thoughts, I'll do my best to keep this chronological

Of course, when Valjean is first introduced, we don't know it is him. There is a brooding man with an angry countenance who is wandering around looking for shelter for the night

He's been walking for 12 leagues (someone tell me what a 'league' is) and he's tired and hungry and has only been drinking water from fountains

But, because of his yellow passport - and the fact that somehow he is detestable enough a prisoner that everyone knows him - he can't find shelter

Not at any inn, tavern or dog kennel (guilty for laughing at the dog kennel scene)

Eventually some old woman points him to a warm house that she is sure will take him

It's our old friend bishop Charlie!

And he feeds Valjean off the best silver in the house and gives him a room just off the bishop's own

So obviously Valjean takes advantage of this and steals the bishop's silver plates when he's asleep and runs away

But Valjean gets caught (because he chose escaping but escaping did not choose him) and taken back to bishop Charlie

And what does our kind and lovely bishop Charlie do? "Bro, you forgot the silver candle holders I gave you too"

And he makes Valjean promise to be good

Valjean steals money from a child with a marmot and that's his breaking point

All horror is put behind him and he endeavors to be better than his past

What is his past you may ask?

I know this is all explained during the events but I like the logic of my timeline

Valjean is named after his dad, Jean Valjean, and let me tell you his childhood backstory confused me for a moment after reading that

But he grows up poor and he's a bit withdrawn, but he's kind enough - he pays for milk his nephews and nieces steal on a regular basis

But when Valjean gets hungry and steals bread, that's a crime worth five years in prison

Five years! For bread! That he didn't even get to eat! Dude I'd be pissed and full of vengeance at the system too

So he goes to prison and keeps trying to escape, and fails, and is now stuck there for 19 years

Hugo lets us know that Valjean is the strongest prisoner of all. Also he can climb horizontal walls like Spider-Man (or Dracula) which - Valjean, you have to be the absolute worse at escaping if nature gave you everything and you're still getting caught

Finally though after 19 years he gets out and rages against The System

Me too dude, I genuinely don't blame you

I do question the stealing silver plates from the one man to show you kindess

I do also question you stealing money from a child with a marmot

But his soul gets a whole cleansing thing when he realizes what he's done and bishop Charlie's words come back to him in a flood of remorse

Bishop Charlie really did look at this angry, sullen, vengeful criminal and go "I can fix him"

I have so many unanswered questions. I have no idea if I'm pro-Valjean or not. Hugo also does a really good job showing both sides of his predicament, how he is both "the man and the beast" and it's a battle for him to see which one wins, and how the prison system has exacerbated the problem it proclaims to fix. I don't think Hugo is a prison abolitionist, because at the end of the day he does blame how Valjean reacts and not the structure itself, but seeing some level of critical dissection of the whole thing was unexpected, but not unwelcome.

[centrally-unplanned]

I think George Washington is a good ask here because there's a variety of different perspectives to evaluate him from, as well as insights into how each is considered to matter. Like, did he make the British colonies in North America more or less likely to become independent? Did he make the new state more or less secure? Was it a good or bad thing that the 13 colonies became independent? How good of a job do you think he did at whatever goals he personally had in mind? What did he have in mind, anyway - just rent-seeking for Virginian aristocrats or some more idealistic definition of "good" that bears resemblance to something we'd appreciate?

George Washington is a very interesting figure, because he is a classic "consensus leader" in some ways, but in an era where "consensus" is in fact very hard to come across and takes unique talent to be forged. I think we can bucket him: As a military leader he is only "fine": not bad, don't get me wrong, but he has no core tactical innovations or operational finesse on display. He certainly does deserve credit for his "wait them out" approach, and its true that he received political pressure from groups like the Continental Congress that he resisted. But this is a classic VOR moment: of course the distant, political actors demanded infeasible military action that the on-the-ground, faced-with-the-consequences-of-defeat guy would resist. That is a classic dynamic. Other generals in the war faced similar demands and similarly resisted. Again, he was an able commander, just nothing amazing.

I don't view him as being overly crucial in the core "state making" moments for the US in forming the constitution and all that- essentially the dynamics of the war of independence, the strength of their state rivals, and how the colonial economy functioned made a unified state the natural course. So here its not controversial to claim his VOR is pretty low.

However, I give him very high VOR for his presidency in the core process of interpreting that constitutional foundation through the lends of a strong federalized government with legalist, cohesive norms. He is not an innovator (people like Hamilton are doing that work) but he really was the One Guy In The Room who could bring the crazy factions together and stake his prestige on necessary tax reforms, financial reform, and crushing rebellion. VOR here matters - someone would have done something in the face of these, but the alt timeline is that states gain more and more autonomy. I think few people but Washington could have set the the federal government up as well as he.

So overall I would give him... lets go with A-, he plays a similar role as Lee Kuan Yew, if via very different tactics.

Demerits though for his lack of future planning on things like political parties & strong electoral politics. In that category he is pretty much VOR-less, he did what the default man would do and failed to exert any agency over it.

As for his own goals, he is very idealistic, and was actually, truly concerned with the idea of a strong, independent republic - he was born rich, he could afford to do that of course. And vis a vis slavery the strength of the union and the federal government was the only way it would be ended in the south on the timeline it was. The process of abolition in the south was very much a product of northern abolitionists forcing change onto resisting foreign polities. Colonizing them, if you will, with their own culture & systems. So he was a net good for this cause, even if it was not at all his own personal agenda.

[coochiequeens]

Trans people are oppressed yet riot when a woman tries to protect minors from irreversible treatments and surgeries. 🤦🏻‍♀️

Trans activists violently attempted to siege Mexico City’s Congress on Tuesday after an initiative was introduced to ban minors from accessing “gender affirming” surgery. 

The initiative was first introduced by América Rangel, a representative from the conservative National Action Party (PAN), on February 9, and sought to both prohibit the interventions as well as punish medical providers who do not comply with the law.

Rangel is alleged to have been the target of the activist aggression, posting that she believed the activists were specifically attempting to get to her.

In disturbing footage circulated on Twitter from both inside and outside of the House of Congress, a hoard of screaming trans activists were seen smashing their way into the historic building by beating and breaking the glass window panels open. The building was further insulated by decorative cage-style doors which had been locked shut, but the activists managed to dislodge several of the bars and create a pathway for them to enter. 

Victoria Sámano, a trans-identified male who had been directing the protest, was the first to jump through the entry, pushing his way through the security guards trying to defend the building and getting into a physical altercation with some of them. Other activists quickly followed Sámano’s lead, and began forcing their way through the passage they had created in the bars.

Once inside the building, more damage was done as the activists painted graffiti on the walls and destroyed windows. Activists got as close to their target as the doors of the Congressional hall, but were blocked by security personnel.

The protest was ultimately quelled by riot police, who responded to the scene and used fire extinguishing gas to disperse the activists. 

Sámano took to Twitter and uploaded a video of himself complaining that the guards had fought back, and suggesting that the activists had simply been peacefully demonstrating for their rights when they were brutally attacked without reason.

“We were only demanding our rights and they started beating us, they hit me in the legs. Here are the marks of how they beat me for this city. [Representatives] are more important than trans people,” he says in the video.

According to some Mexican news outlets, the parliamentary coordinator for Morena, the left-wing governing party, has assured protestors that their deputies do not plan to file a criminal complaint for the damages caused to the building. 

But, dissatisfied with the response from the Congress, América Rangel has filed her own report with the Prosecutor General’s Office of Mexico yesterday.

In a video uploaded to Twitter, Rangel said she had filed a criminal complaint against the demonstrators who sieged the Congress.

“I have just filed criminal complaints against the people who assaulted the Congress of Mexico City and tried to attack me,” Rangel said in her video. “Specifically, [I] have precisely identified three people, of whom we have already given all the evidence to the Prosecutor’s Office. We also request that the investigation be carried out to find the others. We hope that the authority does its job and does not cover up if there are people from Morena behind all this. There can be nothing and no one above the law.”

Trans activists in Mexico are known for being particularly aggressive and staging aggressive or hostile demonstrations against those they disagree with.

In July of 2022, a transgender politician violently disrupted a government conference aimed at tackling human trafficking after becoming offended at the implications abolitionist policies would have on trans “sex workers.”

Maria Clemente, a trans-identified male politician elected to Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies last year, called the suggestion that the sex trade be abolished for the protection of women and children “hate speech.” To a critic, Clemente said: “I am a woman, and I am a whore!  It’s my job and and how my family eats! I love it!”

Clemente was later exposed for having allegedly lied about being in the sex trade after his ex-husband issued a scathing rebuttal of his public persona in a public letter he posted in an effort to demand Clemente finalize their divorce. 

Months later, trans activists at the National Autonomous University of Mexico staged a “coup” of one of the women’s washrooms on the campus in apparent retaliation for a lesbian pride mural having been painted nearby.

The activists claimed the mural made them feel “unsafe” and demanded another gender neutral washroom be established near the Samuel Ramos Library. Less than 24 hours later, the activists took over the largest women’s restroom in the building, littering the walls with threatening vandalism directed at women who are critical of gender ideology. 

[kellyvela]

I am seeing how they affirm that GrrM said "slavery can only end with fire and blood" is that true?

No. That's a classic from targies. They love to use this quote from GRRM's vampire novel 'Fevre Dream' to justify their fave's campaign in Slaver's Bay:

“You know I never held much with slavery, even if I never done much against it neither. I would of, but those damned abolitionists were such Bible-thumpers. Only I been thinkin’, and it seems to me maybe they was right after all.You can’t just go . . . usin’ another kind of people, like they wasn’t people at all. Know what I mean? Got to end, sooner or later. Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see? Maybe that’s what them abolitionists been sayin’ all along. You try to be reasonable, that’s only right, but if it don’t work, you got to be ready. Some things is just wrong. They got to be ended.”

Toby was looking at him queerly, still absent-mindedly wiping his hands across the front of his apron, back and forth, back and forth. “Cap’n,” he said softly, “you is talkin’ abolition. This here is slave country, Cap’n. You could git kilt fo’ sech talk.”

“Maybe I could, Toby, but right is right, that’s what I say.”

“You done good by ol’ Toby, Cap’n Marsh, givin’ me my freedom and all so’s I could cook fo’ you. That you did.”

—Fevre Dream

Abner Marsh, the Captain of the steamboat Fevre Dream, was a white man that: "never held much with slavery, even if he never done much against it neither." And Toby Lanyard, Marsh's cook, was basically still a slave: “You done good by ol’ Toby, Cap’n Marsh, givin’ me my freedom and all so’s I could cook fo’ you. That you did.”

Let's read more about good old Toby Lanyard:

The cook was a free colored man named Toby Lanyard, who had been with Marsh fourteen years, ever since Marsh tasted his cooking down in Natchez, bought him, and gave him his freedom.

(...) "Jest Toby, Cap'n," came the soft whispered reply.

Marsh's fear suddenly melted away and seemed silly. Toby Lanyard was the gentlest old soul ever set foot on a steamboat, and one of the meekest as well, Marsh called out, "Comin'," and lit a lamp by his bedside before going to open the door.

(...) "You knowed me a long time, Cap'n, you knows I wouldn't lie to you."

"Course I do," said Marsh.

"I wouldn't run off neither. You done give me my freedom and all, jest fer cookin' fer you.

(...) The events of the summer of 1857 became even more dreamlike as, one by one, those who had shared some of Marsh's experiences began to drift out of his life. Old Toby Lanyard had gone east a month after they had returned to St. Louis. Being returned to slavery once had been enough for him, now he wanted to get as far from the slave states as possible. Marsh got a brief letter from him early in 1858, saying that he'd gotten a job cooking in a Boston hotel. After that he never heard from Toby again.

—Fevre Dream

As you can see, Toby is always reminding us that Marsh gave him his freedom so Toby can cook for him . . . .

Toby reminds me a lot of little Missandei. Sweet souls.

And why was Abner Marsh talking that way about the end of slavery with Toby? Well, because he knew how the vampires treated human beings, no matter their skin color. He knew how the vampires treated human beings as slaves. Vampires called humans "The cattle." For Vampires, humans were prey.

That's why we read Abner Marsh, a white man that: "never held much with slavery, even if he never done much against it neither," then saying that "You can’t just go . . . usin’ another kind of people, like they wasn’t people at all."

Very telling, right?

But even Abner Marsh knew that fire and blood must be the last measure: Got to end, sooner or later. Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see? Maybe that’s what them abolitionists been sayin’ all along. You try to be reasonable, that’s only right, but if it don’t work, you got to be ready. Some things is just wrong. They got to be ended.”

I hope this helps.

Thanks for your message :)

[stackslip]

Apart from him losing his job at Jump SQ, what would be the appropriate course of action for Watsuki? You’ve said you’re a prison abolitionist so I know you don’t want him in prison but he did get off with a 1.9k dollar fine and I want him to be punished a lot more.

at the very fucking least he should not have a job in an industry that gives him the kind of money to buy so much csam and widespread admiration and acclaim, especially towards a teenage audience. as right now we do not live in a society where children's liberation and prison abolishment have been accomplished, the least he could do right now if he grew a conscience would 1) not be in any industry or position of power where he could gain the kind of audience or admiration he has. 2) pay reparations towards survivors of csam and sexual abuse exploitation. these would be the bare minimum for what he has done imo

[weirdestbooks]

A Civil Disagreement Chapter 6

A Terrorist or A Martyr? (Wattpad | Ao3)

Table of Contents | Prev | Next

October 17, 1859

Why did it always seem to be her? Why did so many major slave revolts seem to take place in her state?

And this one seemed more severe than the others. The insurrectionists, the raiders, had taken control of a federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry last night. Unfortunately, word had only arrived after the armory had fallen, which meant that the raiders had time to bunker down and take hostages. 

It was shaping up to be a proper disaster.

The townspeople had been doing their best to chase off the raiders, but they failed. Fighting was still going on when Virginia arrived with the local militia. The militia and Virginia were quick to seal off any escape routes the raiders could use and were now besieging them, hoping to break in and attack them.

Thankfully, they had some success, as they were able to capture and kill several of the raiders, many of them during escape attempts. And luckily, they have managed to come out of this with significantly fewer deaths, with only one casualty, as opposed to the raiders' five. 

But still, there was a lot of work remaining to be done, starting with getting the raiders out of the armory. They needed to assault it, and the US Rifle Works had also been taken over, making their job harder. 

Luckily, a civilian force was planning on doing just that, and Virginia would be joining them. She wanted to be a part in ending this revolt. She needed to be. Virginia pretended like she didn’t hear the whispers. The doubts people circled about her place in her government due to her gender. The people who stopped Virginia from fighting because they thought they knew best.

Virginia hated it. She hated it so much. Father always defended DC from that kind of verbal assault, but never her. What did precious little District of Columbia have that Virgina didn’t?

Virginia blinked, swallowing down the emotions. They would do her no good here. Regardless of what they thought, regardless of what they said, she would prove them wrong.

It was 2:00 pm, and Virginia was going to take back that damned Rifle Works. 

Then they would all see! They had to see. 

She was the Commonwealth of Virginia. She was a lady, but she was also a soldier and a politician, and everything they said she couldn’t be. After all, if men can do it, it’s not that hard. Virginia went to tie back her hair before picking up her gun.

“Are you sure you should be doing this, Virginia? I mean, you ar—”

“I am the Commonwealth of Virginia. I cannot be killed by humans. You have no need to worry about me. I am older than you, and your father, and your grandfather. I can handle myself far better than you can.” Virginia said voice clipped and harsh. The human backed away.

“Alright, if you’re sure then,” he said, sounding hesitant.

“I am. Now, how about you prepare for the assault instead of wasting both of our time? We have traitors to catch and hostages to save.” Virginia said. The man quickly scurried away.

Yes, Father wouldn’t save her from the taunts. But she could handle herself. She didn’t need him to protect her like he protects the sweet, innocent District of Columbia. 

“The assault will begin soon.” Someone announced. Virginia smiled, checking to make sure that her gun was fully loaded. 

It was time to show the revolters what a girl like her could do. 

The crowd and Virginia began moving forward, storming towards the building they planned to take. She had her gun raised, ready to shoot any raiders that she saw. Virginia heard a gunshot go off and looked to see that one of the men had killed a slave that was with the group, maybe one that belonged to the two gentlemen who had been captured.

Served that n—r right for betraying his master and his country and siding with a bunch of abolitionist traitors. Wonder how many more of those n—rs they would have to kill. 

“The mayor’s been shot!” Someone yelled. Virginia froze. Mayor Beckham had been shot? What was he even doing here? Enraged, Virginia swung her gun to face the first traitor she saw and fired. The traitor fell and hopefully was dead.

“Ungrateful and traitorous abolitionists.” Virginia hissed out. She would make them all pay for this and make them face the death penalty for this crime.

Her state was not a place for traitors, nor was it a place for terrorists to try and play “hero” because they thought that slavery was wrong, that it was inhumane, or some nonsense. The slaves liked being enslaved. God made them that way.

Why wouldn’t any of those damned abolitionists see it that way? Why were they so set on going against the word of God, so set on trying to rip Virginia’s family apart by trying to convince her siblings and Father that the natural order of things was wrong?

It was all so stupid, and it always led us back to this, to violence. If only someone could make those abolitionists understand. 

If only……

At least the militia prepared to take back the armory and the hostages. Then this awful battle would be over, and hopefully with no more civilian or militia casualties. 

But still, how much violence will be caused by the abolitionists in the future? How much further would they go? 

When will they see that things are how they were always meant to be?

God made slaves, and he made them to like being enslaved. It was their destiny, just like it was Virginia’s destiny, the destiny of all white people to own them. 

Anyone who said otherwise was just wrong, uneducated, and just plain stupid. It’s a wonder the abolitionists had support in the first place. Who would support a bunch of terrorists, or at the very least, terrorists in the making?

Hopefully, more could be done to stop them before any more major violence breaks out. 

Although hope can only get you so far.

———————————————

March 7, 1860

“Ana! I have news for you! Come here!”  Alabama called over to his sister. Louisiana smiled over at him before finishing up her conversation with DC and walking over to him.

“What is it, Bama?” she asked. Alabama smiled, wrapped an arm around her shoulder, and guided her out of the room, dropping his voice to a whisper.

“Didja hear about the bet made between one of my people and yours?” he asked her. Louisiana shook her head.

“Non, I haven’t. What’s this about Bama?” She asked suspicion in her voice. Alabama smiled.

“Well, one of my people thinks he can smuggle some new slaves in from Dahomey, and he made a bet with someone from New Orleans. The ship left yesterday.” Alabama told her. Louisiana’s eyes widened.

“That’s a risky move.” She said. Alabama shrugged.

“Please, we both know that Pa can’t stop every ship and search them. Besides, you know how York is involved with some slave smuggling? Or he was, at least. The point is that he says it’s not that hard if you know what you’re doing.” Alabama explained. 

“Ah, right, I forgot York used to be involved with that. You sure he won't tell Dee about what your people are doing?” Louisiana asked.

“Not unless he wants to get in trouble for his own smuggling involvement. Besides, I didn’t tell him who, so York doesn’t know much anyway.” Alabama explained. Louisiana nodded.

“Smart move, little brother. But…why tell me about this?” She asked. Alabama smirked.

“Well, Ana, do you want to make a bet?”

[twinkubus]

i read the feminist and the sex offender: confronting sexual harm, ending state violence (judith levine, erica r. meiners) and it was basically

showing how carceral solutions to sexual abuse don't work / sometimes are even worse than just doing nothing (and hit harder on marginalized people of course)

describing the work of diff non-governmental groups that deal with the issues in various ways (carceral feminists that lobby for increased policing, prison abolitionists (generally), anti-registry groups)

problematizing those groups (carceral feminism obviously bad. prison abolitionists good but often don't work with sex crimes, in some cases explicitly will not, anti registry groups have MRAs and anti-feminists in them. they also gave an example of a community based restorative justice group that did individual-based public callout/shaming, kind of "vigilante style" which, better than prison, but still not the ideal method of handling) -guiding principles/ideas for imagining a feminist, abolitionist, intersectional, community-based, etc. approach to dealing w sex crimes

i guess i can see the theoretical "on the fence about abolition" person reading this and getting upset that they don't have a SPECIFIC idea mapped out and thinking that it's 'not an answer' to 'well what about rapists?' but also they would have very poor reading comprehension (but we already knew that), and they ignore all of the statistics of the first bullet point which is that the sex offender registry 1) makes no difference on rates of repeated crimes 2) catches a lot of innocents in its net (for example a minor getting charged with cp for sending explicit pictures to another minor) and 3) significantly hinders the capacity for anyone on it to reintegrate into any community, have a place to live, a job, etc, plus has a ton of easy ways to get that person back into prison even if they have done nothing wrong (for example a homeless person failing to give the required notice to their probation officer that they are "moving"--from one street corner to another)

and idk, i think prison is sufficiently proven to be Bad Enough that you don't need to require abolitionists to draft out a fully formed plan to replace it the moment you ask...it also just seems kind of like, distracting from the actual point of the conversation & ignoring that finding alternatives is going to be a collaborative effort! and you can learn from existing groups w/o following their process 100% and/or assuming they're beyond critique.

also. like. sorry ive been seeing this on the terrible alternative twitter app (bsky) where ppl are smugly like "abolitionists haven't thought of THIS!!" i guarantee you they have. i would respect your argument sliiightly more if you were just like "i think prison is good sometimes." obviously that's fucked, but at least you are being intellectually honest that way

[razrgrl]

Cici's summer job

The plan was to work for another museum in town (a neat old mansion north of town), but they seem to have lost their executive director rather suddenly and now no one answers the phones.

We dropped by to see if the face-to-face method would work better. Cici walked around until she found a little group of people surrounding a nervous young woman on her phone. Everyone seemed to be looking to her for direction so Cici asked if the museum was open and if she could talk to whoever is currently in charge. The girl said she had no answer for either question. She was a volunteer docent and was supposed to be showing this group of people around the mansion... but she couldn't get in and couldn't get anyone on the phone to let her in.

Cici decided that maybe this wasn't going to be a great summer volunteer opportunity.

Sitting around the house watching YouTube all summer was going to make her crazy so we brainstormed some other options.

There are only two museums in town (honestly not bad for a small town). There are other museums around but they are some distance away and she still isn't driving. I couldn't take that much time out of my work day to chauffeur her around.

"What about the auction house?" I asked.

Over the winter, we went to the bi-weekly auctions at a local auction house -- largely as a form of (relatively) cheap entertainment. The people running it are really nice and they got to know us quickly.

We are new faces in a small town and Cici (with her fabulous vintage fashion style) makes an impression.

Anyway... Cici contacted the guy saying that she wanted to research and catalogue his stuff as a volunteer because she loves to research stuff... and he got really excited. He got so excited that he called his wife and she got really excited.

So we set up a meeting. I got to tag along because, as I noted before, I am still the chauffeur.

This guy, Brian, has a ton of energy and, as you can imagine as an auctioneer, he can TALK.

Brian, his wife, and his four dogs showed us around the store room. They showed us the back store room. He showed us the back, back store room. Everything is piled to the ceiling with boxes and furniture and... well... stuff.

He suggested that Cici start out by researching old books. He has a lot of them, sitting unloved in piles and corners and under tables. I got the sense that he and his wife were less interested (personally) in books then some of the other things that passed through the auctions.

Besides, they were already pretty busy getting ready for some upcoming auctions.

He gave Cici a box to just try it out.

Cici was done in a day -- and found a rare book that was worth some money. It was an unexpected find -- a yearbook of New York state legislators from the early 19th century that just happened to contain a photo of a famous abolitionist.

This abolitionist (who briefly served in the state legislature) was a man who had almost no pictures taken of him and this is what makes the book valuable.

Without research, no one would have known. And this book is in really good condition.

...And that was just the beginning.

Brian is now really, really excited about this whole idea (and is working out ways he can pay her). "Do you want to run your own online auction?" he asked. "For the books?"

Cici said, "yeah" because... well... why not?

We went to return the box books and turn over the spreadsheet she created.

We came home with five more boxes of books. This is my dining room.

It's a lot of work. Cici has to look at the old books -- most of them from the first half of the 1800s -- and figure out if they have any value. Then she has to write descriptions, code them for the auction, and take photos... but it is keeping her busy and it is interesting work. She is learning a lot about books and (because she can’t help it) a lot about the woman who originally owned the books. Brian is going to give her a percentage of the profit from the auction.

If you can't tell, I'm really excited for her. She's having a ball with the research. The photography she could do without... but she loves the hunt.

I'll post a link here when the auction goes up.

She is occasional dropping photos of her ongoing work on her Instagram stories if you want to drop in.

[antebellumite]

In the rhetoric they used to condemn the institution of slavery and its willing apologists, abolitionists displayed their more derisive, loathsome understandings of disability. Slavery, they argued, was a dreadful, disabling institution that kept enslaved people mute, blind, crippled, idiotic, and dependent on the paternalistic charity of slaveholders. It robbed enslaved people "of themselves . .. their very hands and feet, all their muscles, and limbs, and senses, their bodies and minds. " By unjustly stealing the fruits of their labor, it denied bondpeople a key avenue to independence and forced them into a dependent position equated with women and people with disabilities. To accomplish this, it was necessary for slavery to "shut out all light from the mind of the slave and surround him with a thick, impenetrable darkness, in the midst of which he must live and die; and from which his eye can never open. " As Frederick Douglass elaborated, "to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one . .. to darken his moral and mental vision and . .. annihilate the power of reason." In comparing the experiences of enslaved people to the plight of the Irish, Douglass also emphasized that "there comes no voice from the slave"-in other words, unlike the oppressed Irish, American slaves were entirely mute. Presaging a disturbing claim more familiar by the end of the nineteenth century the sentiment that death was preferable to disability one abolitionist decried the horror of slavery's disabling aspects by rhetorically asking " would you not rather prefer to be met by a highwayman and shot dead... than have your life worn out on a slave plantation?"

Sometimes aboltionists reversed this logic to emphasize that, in spite of slavery's disabling nature, enslaved people were far from disabled. This strategy honed in on an essential weakness in proslavery thoughed. The inherently contradictory claims that blackness signifed innate the sity, abnormality, inferiority, and dependeney. Yet somehow black deople were still the best candidates for lives of endless toil. To counter this, abolitionists sometimes depicted enslaved blacks as independent, competent, able-bodied, and sound minded even as they endured crippling oppression. In literature like Harriet Beecher Stowe's best-selling novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852), characters like Uncle Tom and Aunt Chloe were exceptionally industrious, effective, and efficient. Trustworthy, ever steady Uncle Tom, for instance, skillfully and single handedly managed Arthur Shelby's entire plantation while his wife, Chloe, expertly handled her family, home, and kitchen." These depictions recast enslaved people as able, sound, rational, disciplined, and industrious in spite of their oppression.

--- The Mark of Slavery: Disability, Race, and Gender in Antebellum America

[greenwaterskeeter]

Realism in Abolition: from an Interview with Mariame Kaba on the Beyond Prisons podcast

 (transcript and audio at link)

Kim: Thank you. I’d like to switch gears now and talk a little bit about something else that I know we always get asked as abolitionists. People always want to know, “What about people that have caused serious harm to others?” I’d love to hear your thoughts about how you respond to this question.

Mariame: First, I understand, why people ask the question because society has done a really good job inculcating a bunch of fear in people. I don’t know if people know who’s actually in prison and who’s not, so there’s just a lot of misinformation. “Law and Order” really has done a real job on people, a real kind of brainwashing job about who gets incarcerated, who those folks are, what that means. There’s also a huge conflation I think that people have around connecting crime and connecting incarceration, and so those things have connections to each other when even the most conservative criminologists and theorists and researchers have found that “crime” and incarceration, the correlation between them is very faint and not as statistically significant as people think.

So, I understand that. I guess for me, if people think about sexual assault or murder, that usually happens between people who know each other really well. It’s very rare that you have actual “serial rapists” in the world that are portrayed on TV. That’s not what most sexual assault actually is. Most sexual assault is actually not reported, most people who engage in it are not actually in prison. This idea that if you don’t have prison that’s going to flood the universe with all these sexual predators is completely not borne out by the actual empirical facts that we have going on right now. And it’s a great moment to think about that when more and more people are being either outed as sexual harassers and assaulters in the media through these revelations, ever since the Weinstein article in the [New York] Times. Can you imagine incarcerating all those men? They’re mostly men, as sexual predators. What would the system need to look like for that to be the solution to a problem that is actually about systemic, structural inequities in power?

I just think people have this idea that the 5% of the people who are actually in prison for murder and rape are everybody who’s in prison. And so, the ending of prisons doesn’t actually do the thing that you’re thinking  in your head would happen. In fact, the prison itself is such a perpetrator of sexual violence that if you are somebody who cares about ending sexual violence, you have to end the prison, too. These things are not separate from each other. If you are somebody who’s concerned with murder, the prison is a murderer. You have to end that, too. It’s its own form of violence.

That’s really a way of thinking about that. Prisons don’t stop murder because we have murder, you know? So, you have to ask yourself the question about, “What are you trying to do?” and if it’s to increase actual safety, “What would lead to that? What would actually get us safe?”

We know that strong relationships with each other that are based on healthy accountability is the way to go, so, the question is how do we get to that? My interest has been in trying to figure that part of the equation out and I don’t feel in any way defensive when people kind of point the finger at the abolitionist and say, [mock yelling] “Well what are we going to do about all the…?” and it’s usually like that, it’s not ever like a calm-

Brian: [laughing] Right.

Mariame: …[mock yelling] “But what about all the rapists and murderers?” I always say to people, “Ask yourself what’s happening to you right now. Why are you so agitated?” You know what I mean? “What’s going on?” Because the prison and the police are so in your head and your heart, you’re feeling personally affronted, because you think, these institutions matter to you quite a bit and the question is, “Why do they matter so much to you? Are they doing what they say they’re doing? Are they keeping the world safe?” I’m just asking you to think about that, to answer that question yourself. If you feel like these institutions are working well and doing exactly what it is that you’d hope they do, then you shouldn’t be mad at people who are trying to... then you’re fine, you’re just living in the world that exists. But if you’re somebody that thinks these things are actually damaging and you think them “working” is actually working to further oppress and cause more violence, then you’re interested in something else and then, you and I can have this conversation about that. We can talk.

I also want to say that abolition is a collective project, it isn’t an individual project. Even though we individually are doing abolitionist acts on a daily basis whether we know it or not, it is a collective project, which means that one person is not responsible for coming up with “the solution.”

Kim: Absolutely.

Mariame: We have to come up with a solution based on our cultures and our communities and it’s again, based on our needs, our desires, our wants. So, me standing up there and making a big speech to you about abolition as a lofty… means zero. What does that mean in your life, in your world, in your context, in your community, with your people? How are you practicing abolition and how are you getting your ultimate goal if your ultimate goal is more safety?

So, when people say, “What about the rapists and the murderers?” I really want to say, “Well what about them?” because they’re pretty much already not in prison.

Kim: Exactly.

Mariame: We’re already living, if you want to call that abolition, we’re already living that kind of abolition, so that’s why abolition for me is not mainly about the destruction or dismantling of the prison and the police and surveillance, though that’s critically important, it’s creating the conditions necessary so that those things don’t need to exist. That’s a very different project and that’s a very different angle. That’s something that allows for a freedom to do a whole bunch of things that aren’t even only and mainly about trying to end prisons or policing or surveillance. That’s about making sure people have living wages, that’s about making sure people have actual housing, making sure people have good educations, making sure people have environmental health and not environmental racism, making sure we don’t all die on the planet. All these things are abolitionist projects.

That’s the thing that most people that aren’t abolitionists in terms of, people who’ve studied, who have practiced, who’ve organized under an abolitionist set of framework and ideology… I think most people think about it in an analytic exercise. But for me, it’s always been actual practice. I’m an organizer and an educator first and that’s where I learned about abolition, through practice. And yes, I’ve read a lot and I’ve read people that I’ve come to become friends with and respect, but that’s not the gist of how I came to that. I came through action and looking for something that would change the circumstances that I was encountering that were super frustrating to me when I was working with survivors of violence.

So yeah, I think that’s what I would say about, What about the sociopath? And the dangerous people and all this other kind of thing and, this is completely unrealistic. Oh really, is the current system realistic? Like really? I don’t understand that. To me, of course it’s realistic, like it’s the most realistic thing there is. Your cynicism is unrealistic.

[kellyvela]

I have read a post saying that Grrm is supporting Dany crusade which can be seen in his work Fevre Dream. Something about Dany ending slavery through Fire and Blood is necessary because peacefully it can't be ended.

Ohhh that's a classic from targies. They love to use this quote from Fevre Dream to justify their fave's campaign in Slaver's Bay:

“You know I never held much with slavery, even if I never done much against it neither. I would of, but those damned abolitionists were such Bible-thumpers. Only I been thinkin’, and it seems to me maybe they was right after all. You can’t just go . . . usin’ another kind of people, like they wasn’t people at all. Know what I mean? Got to end, sooner or later. Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see? Maybe that’s what them abolitionists been sayin’ all along. You try to be reasonable, that’s only right, but if it don’t work, you got to be ready. Some things is just wrong. They got to be ended.”

Toby was looking at him queerly, still absent-mindedly wiping his hands across the front of his apron, back and forth, back and forth. “Cap’n,” he said softly, “you is talkin’ abolition. This here is slave country, Cap’n. You could git kilt fo’ sech talk.”

“Maybe I could, Toby, but right is right, that’s what I say.”

“You done good by ol’ Toby, Cap’n Marsh, givin’ me my freedom and all so’s I could cook fo’ you. That you did.”

—Fevre Dream

Abner Marsh, the Captain of the steamboat Fevre Dream, was a white man that: "never held much with slavery, even if he never done much against it neither." And Toby Lanyard, Marsh's cook, was basically still a slave: “You done good by ol’ Toby, Cap’n Marsh, givin’ me my freedom and all so’s I could cook fo’ you. That you did.”

Let's read more about good old Toby Lanyard:

The cook was a free colored man named Toby Lanyard, who had been with Marsh fourteen years, ever since Marsh tasted his cooking down in Natchez, bought him, and gave him his freedom.

(...) "Jest Toby, Cap'n," came the soft whispered reply.

Marsh's fear suddenly melted away and seemed silly. Toby Lanyard was the gentlest old soul ever set foot on a steamboat, and one of the meekest as well, Marsh called out, "Comin'," and lit a lamp by his bedside before going to open the door.

(...) "You knowed me a long time, Cap'n, you knows I wouldn't lie to you."

"Course I do," said Marsh.

"I wouldn't run off neither. You done give me my freedom and all, jest fer cookin' fer you.

(...) The events of the summer of 1857 became even more dreamlike as, one by one, those who had shared some of Marsh's experiences began to drift out of his life. Old Toby Lanyard had gone east a month after they had returned to St. Louis. Being returned to slavery once had been enough for him, now he wanted to get as far from the slave states as possible. Marsh got a brief letter from him early in 1858, saying that he'd gotten a job cooking in a Boston hotel. After that he never heard from Toby again.

—Fevre Dream

As you can see, Toby is always reminding us that Marsh gave him his freedom so Toby can cook for him . . . .

Toby reminds me a lot of little Missandei. Sweet souls.

And why was Abner Marsh talking that way about the end of slavery with Toby? Well, because he knew how the vampires treated human beings, no matter their skin color. He knew how the vampires treated human beings as slaves. Vampires called humans "The cattle." For Vampires, humans were prey.

That's why we read Abner Marsh, a white man that: "never held much with slavery, even if he never done much against it neither," then saying that "You can’t just go . . . usin’ another kind of people, like they wasn’t people at all."

Very telling, right?

But even Abner Marsh knew that fire and blood must be the last measure: Got to end, sooner or later. Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see? Maybe that’s what them abolitionists been sayin’ all along. You try to be reasonable, that’s only right, but if it don’t work, you got to be ready. Some things is just wrong. They got to be ended.”

I hope this helps.

Thanks for your message :)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

At its heart, the culture war is an attack on our fundamental liberal values. It is a regressive movement that seeks to divide us and destabilize the foundations of our society.

Still not convinced? Let's try a thought experiment. Just try to imagine yourself 15 years ago. Try to put yourself into the mindset of the person you were in 2007.

Imagine back then that someone had suggested to you that in 15 years time, police would be routinely investigating citizens in the UK for non-crime. Thousands of people a year in fact.

Or that a senior member of the government would be arguing in favor of laws to criminalize professional comedians for jokes.

Or that free speech would be dismissed in the press as a right-wing talking point and that people describing themselves as “liberals” would be calling for censorship.

Or that activists would be demanding that statues of Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi and even slavery abolitionists like Thomas Henry Huxley should be torn down. And that those in authority would be taking them seriously.

Or that major corporations would be paying a fortune for visiting speakers to berate their staff for their “white privilege” and telling them they should “try to be less white.”

Or that some of the world's leading experts on race relations would be claiming that Martin Luther King's “I Have A Dream” speech was actually racist, and that in promoting a dream of color-blindness, King was actually upholding white supremacy.

Or that one of the most prestigious schools in London would be segregating its pupils by skin color for after-school activities.

Or that a school district in Canada would be burning thousands of books because the contents are offensive to modern sensibilities and that they would refer to this as a “flame purification ceremony.”

Or that a film aimed at young people on the BBC would be telling children that there are over a hundred genders and teachers throughout the country will be doing the same.

Or that politicians would stumble and stutter when asked “what is a woman” and be unable to answer the question.

Or that “woman” would become a dirty word and that companies charities media outlets and even some factions of the NHS would be favoring phrases like “menstruators,” “bleeders” and “people with a cervix.”

Or that a man would be nominated for “Woman of the Year.”

Or that male rapists would be identifying as female and be moved to women's prisons where they would go on to commit further sexual assaults.

Or that healthy teenage girls would be encouraged by health professionals to get double mastectomies and that young effeminate boys will be told that they are actually probably girls and that they should be put on medication to halt puberty.

Or that the head of Stonewall, the charity that has done so much for gay rights, would be referring to lesbians who don't want to include men in their dating pool as sexual racists, and comparing them to anti-semites.

Or that reputable medical journals would be denying biological reality, claiming that sex isn't binary at all but it's a spectrum.

Or that women would be fired from their jobs and subject to threats of death and rape online for saying that biological sex is real.

If 15 years ago you'd have been told that this was what the future would look like, would you have believed any of it? You would have laughed. You would have said none of those things can possibly happen in a free and liberal and sane society.

And they all did. Here we are.

And it won't stop here. Think about how quickly all of this has happened. If only 15 years ago, nobody would have believed that any of this stuff could possibly happen, then where does that take us in another 15 years?

Because all these people who are saying that the culture war doesn't matter, that we need to focus on real issues - i wonder whether they'll be saying the same thing in 2037 when all of this nonsense has escalated a hundred-fold.

Those who say that the culture war is a distraction, or that these are just fringe concerns, are effectively saying that free speech doesn't matter, that women's rights don't matter, that gay rights don't matter.

They're effectively saying that it's fine if some women are sexually assaulted because of the dismantling of women's spaces.

That it's fine to teach children an ideology whose logical endpoint is segregation by skin color.

That it's fine to have gay kids medicalized.

That it's fine for people to be arrested for the words they choose to say.

That it's fine for academics and the media to lie to us, so long as it's for our own good.

And that all of this is just the price we pay for progress.

They also claim that the culture war is just the old failing to adapt to the values of the young. But this is not true. A recent report by the More In Common Initiative estimates that the kind of people who are supporting these radical shifts in our society represent a mere 13 of the population.

in other words, they are a minority in all generations.

In fact some of the most vehement pushback against this ideology is coming from Generation Z, those born between 1997 and 2012. And some of the most vocal social justice activists are well into middle age.

The problem is that activists and their cheerleaders have mistaken change for progress.

But eroding the values of a liberal democracy, trashing the rights of women and gay people, undermining free speech teaching children to see each other first and foremost in terms of their skin color that's not progress.

It's just change. And we need to understand the difference.

So, yes, we should address the cost of living crisis, global conflicts, all those other key issues.

But we need to take on the culture warriors too, because they're not on the fringes anymore. They occupy powerful positions in all of our major institutions. They are dominant. They have the momentum and they are making drastic changes to our society that will eventually spell the death of social liberalism.

So you can say this is a distraction all you like. But if you ignore the culture warriors they won't disappear. They'll win

And if you think things are crazy now, imagine the future they've got in store for us.

==

[antebellumite]

well i mean i guess you guys tried?

[bioethicists]

so, full disclosure, i wasn't going to respond to the threads on this post because others were doing a good job of articulating my points for me + some of the responses are so clearly not worth responding to (like... i explicitly said that i do not care about your individual relationship with your individual psychiatrist? nowhere in this post did i say we should all start studying pharmacology?). however, it did get me thinking a lot about the utility of terms like "psych abolition" + specifically the way in which ppl leap from "get rid of psychiatry" to "lose all expertise + support". i understand why terms like abolition or anti are off-putting to people + i frequently have to interrogate my reasons for using them. i forget sometimes that people see psychiatry as 'the total sum of human knowledge about emotional suffering' + therefore think that i am arguing that we need to abandon the concept of specialization or expertise.

i want to clarify (for myself + others) the differences between reform + abolition, as well as the claim that abolition is "the opposite of what i mean".

i am assuming you are familiar with the concept of police + prison abolition. i am assuming you are also familiar with the fact that police + prison abolition are not synonymous with "leave a void behind". in the united states, the police do perform an array of important tasks which few people would argue should just not occur. they direct traffic, respond to crisis situations, assist first responders, investigate the cause of serious harms, to name some. very, very few police abolitionists would argue that nothing should be done in response to murder or traffic accidents or crisis.

instead, they argue that the institution of policing, while it sometimes serves positive ends, is founded on + for harm. police abolition is opposed to the ideological frameworks (e.g criminality, order, discipline) + political projects (e.g incarceration + arrest) of policing. in other words, it is fundamentally opposed to its core ideas + goals. it argues that policing is defined by its core ideas + goals; it does not exist without them (but instead becomes something else). this is supported via a careful evaluation of the origins + applications of policing in the united states. abolition means abolishing policing (aka an institution with those ideas + goals) in the interest of creating new structures which may or may not fulfill the same functions.

i am not evoking psychiatry as 'the total sum of human knowledge about emotional suffering'. psychiatry is the current preferred term for this knowledge in the western world but we have been accumulating knowledge about the causes + healing of emotional suffering before psychiatry + we will continue to do so after it ceases to exist. i'm baffled by your argument that psych abolition has no room for any knowledge obtained through psychiatry when we have retained the knowledge we gained of emotional suffering from hundreds of different iterations of frameworks. not only do i have no interest in abolishing all knowledge about emotional suffering, it would be impossible. i have no power + no means to acquire the power to banish or forbid any knowledge or even to make meaningful change to psychiatry as an institution. this post is meant to remind people that not only do i not want to 'take away their meds, i literally do not have the power to, but their psychiatrist does! because psychiatry is not just a tool for obtaining medication or a knowledge that helped create that medication, it is also a hierarchical system of power.

psychiatric abolition argues that psychiatry is founded on oppressive, harmful frameworks (e.g pathology, denial of agency, normality) + serves unjust, oppressive goals (forced institutionalization, restoration + maintenance of the 'normal', individualization). this post in the madness + liberation forum sums up the framework i have- i think it would be quite strange to call this psychiatry, because i am actively rejecting core tenets of the field (for example, i reject the concept of psychiatric diagnosis as ontology, the idea of healing as a restoration to normality, the idea that someone can 'lack insight', the idea that the experiences of ppl diagnosed with psychotic disorders are false or that someone can be 'not themselves', forced or coerced institutionalization of any kind-- i don't need you to agree with me on these points, just to understand that they are not compatible with psychiatry as an institution). i am not, however, rejecting the idea that people experience severe emotional suffering + can experience relief from that suffering through specific substances. i hope that i have at least explained how that concept is not a concept that belongs solely to 'psychiatry'.

psychiatrists do not provide access to medications. they selectively restrict access to medications. regardless of your personal relationship with your individual psychiatrist, the broader power structures in place are that psychiatrists are a barrier you must cross (again + again + again) to receive psychiatric medications. some people are shoved across this barrier against their will; some people are forbidden to ever cross it. but if you begin to understand this as a system of restricting access rather than providing access, you will understand that abolishing psychiatry would not destroy your access to medication, but instead make it easier.

before accusing me of trying to "take away your access to meds" through my activism or opinions, ask yourself this: who in your life, right now, has the power to restrict your access to psychiatric medication? why? what expectations do you have to meet in order to continue to access these medications? who enforces them? can you think of anything you might do or say that would cause you to lose access to these medications? have you ever had to pretend to be feeling or doing something differently in order to retain access to medications? have you ever had your medications arbitrarily changed against your will due to insurance, financial, or behavioral issues? have you ever had to 'prove' yourself in order to obtain specific medications (perhaps stimulants or opioids?)? has a provider ever threatened to take away your prescriptions in response to something you said or did? have you been told or do you believe that you need your access restricted because you "can't be trusted" or "lack insight"?

if want to find the people trying to limit your access to medication, i suggest starting with the provider name on your pill bottles.