#also 1900s onwards is modern right | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

calacuspr · 7 months ago

Text

Calacus Monthly Hit & Miss – World Athletics and Sebastian Coe

Every month we look at the best and worst communicators in the sports world from the last few weeks.

WORLD ATHLETICS & SEBASTIAN COE

The Olympic Games is considered to be the pinnacle of sporting achievement for most sports.

The opportunity, every four years, to represent your country and compete against the world’s best underlines the importance of Pierre de Coubertin’s vision for the modern Games.

De Coubertin was committed to Olympic athletes being amateurs, with professionalism considered a risk to sport’s integrity.

There have been reports that athletics and cycling events provided cash prizes as far back as 1900, with Britain’s Edgar Bredin receiving 250 francs for his victory in the 100m.

Conversely, in 1912, Jim Thorpe was stripped of his track and field medals for taking money for expenses when playing baseball.

It would be a further 60 years before the strict rules on amateurism were relaxed, due in no small part to athletes in the Communist Eastern bloc bypassing the rules through their state-controlled ‘employment’ while training for sport full-time.

By the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, when Team USA fielded NBA all stars that swept to gold in the basketball, any hint at amateurism was over.

Athletes could secure lucrative sponsorships and endorsement deals, with national governing bodies providing financial assistance where they could, with 60% of National Olympic Committees giving bonuses to their athletes too.

But unlike other sporting competitions, the Olympic Games remained free of prize money until World Athletics made their surprise announcement in early April.

Starting at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games this summer, gold medallists in 48 athletic events will walk away with US$50,000 in prize money, with the rewards being extended to podium medallists from Los Angeles 2028 onwards.

World Athletics President Sebastian Coe said: “The introduction of prize money for Olympic gold medallists is a pivotal moment for World Athletics and the sport of athletics as a whole, underscoring our commitment to empowering the athletes and recognising the critical role they play in the success of any Olympic Games.

“This is the continuation of a journey we started back in 2015, which sees all the money World Athletics receives from the International Olympic Committee for the Olympic Games go directly back into our sport.

“We started with the Olympic dividend payments to our Member Federations, which saw us distribute an extra US$5m a year on top of existing grants aimed at athletics growth projects, and we are now in a position to also fund gold medal performances for athletes in Paris, with a commitment to reward all three medallists at the LA28 Olympic Games.

“While it is impossible to put a marketable value on winning an Olympic medal, or on the commitment and focus it takes to even represent your country at an Olympic Games, I think it is important we start somewhere and make sure some of the revenues generated by our athletes at the Olympic Games are directly returned to those who make the Games the global spectacle that it is.”

Sport is nothing without its athletes, so rewarding them financially, when some are not attracting huge sponsorships and endorsement deals, could be seen as a positive step.

But when making such a momentous announcement in the history of the Olympic Games, World Athletics made a basic error which they could and should have avoided: they had not discussed or even informed the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or other stakeholders ahead of making their statement.

“The one thing the International Olympic Committee has consistently recognised – and they’re right to – is the primacy of international federations to fashion their own futures,” explained Coe.

“I don’t believe this is remotely at variance with the concept that the International Olympic Committee often talks about, which is recognising the efforts that our competitors make.

“I am hoping the IOC would share in this principle, given their avowed commitment to make sure that revenues raised through the Olympic Movement find their way back onto the front line. I think they make the point that 80 or 90 per cent of that goes back.”

The IOC made a statement of its own, explaining how it spends the $7.6bn it made between 2017 and 2021 in revenues from the Olympic Games.

It has also provided training grants of up to $1500 through an IOC division called Solidarity, awarding over 1800 grants worldwide on an original budget of $32 million ahead of the Tokyo Games.

It said: “The IOC redistributes 90% of all its income, in particular to the National Olympic Committees and International Federations. This means that, every day, the equivalent of $4.2m goes to help athletes and sports organisations at all levels around the world. It is up to each IF and NOC to determine how to best serve their athletes and the global development of their sport.”

That is where some of the problems lie – track and field is one of the highlights of the Olympic Games, but if other sports cannot afford to match the prize money, it could create conflict between the haves and the have nots.

The Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) voiced their concern about the process as well as the context of the announcement.

The stated: “ASOIF was neither informed nor consulted in advance of the announcement, which was made one day after the ASOIF General Assembly and during SportAccord. As a matter of principle, ASOIF respects and defends the autonomy of each and every member federation. However, when a decision of one IF has a direct impact on the collective interests of the Summer Olympic IFs, it is important and fair to discuss the matter at stake with the other federations in advance. This is precisely why ASOIF was created more than 40 years ago, with the mission to unite, promote and support its members, while advocating for their common interests and goals.

“ASOIF has historically taken a close interest in the general issue of athlete compensation, particularly within the context of Olympic Agenda 2020 and vis a vis the professional leagues since 2014.

“During the last days, ASOIF’s membership has expressed several concerns about World Athletics’ announcement. First, for many, this move undermines the values of Olympism and the uniqueness of the Games. One cannot and should not put a price on an Olympic gold medal and, in many cases, Olympic medallists indirectly benefit from commercial endorsements. This disregards the less privileged athletes lower down the final standings.

“Second, not all sports could or should replicate this move, even if they wanted to. Paying prize money in a multi-sport environment goes against the principle of solidarity, reinforces a different set of values across the sports and opens up many questions.

“If the Olympic Games are considered as the pinnacle of each sport, then the prize money should be comparable to, and commensurate with, the prizes given in the respective top competitions of each sport. This is technically and financially unfeasible.

“Furthermore, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is the owner and primary rights holder of the Olympic Games. IFs establish and enforce the competition rules at the Games.

“ASOIF fully agrees that athletes are at the centre of the Olympic Movement, and play a critical role in the success of any Olympic Games. However, it appears that World Athletics’ latest initiative opens rather than solves a number of complex issues.

“ASOIF will raise these concerns with World Athletics and will continue to promote dialogue amongst its members and the IOC. Unity and solidarity among ASOIF’s membership will remain crucial to ensure a healthy future of sports governance and the Olympic Movement at large.”

That was a fairly damning response to the news.

The Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa (ANOCA) released a statement following consultation with athlete representatives.

“Some athlete representatives expressed concerns about the fairness of the proposal, which would result in only gold medallists from one sport being rewarded for their achievements. Concerns were also raised on the issue of clean sport, as by increasing the incentive to win even more, athletes may be at risk of betting, manipulation or pressure to turn to doping," the organisation said.

"Athletes' representatives welcomed the idea of rewarding athletes for their efforts and achievements as elite athletes, but this should not be at the expense of the solidarity model that supports and develops athletes at all levels of sport."

Coe was Chair of the British Olympic Association until 2016, but its current chief executive, Andy Anson, criticised the announcement.

"What wasn't great about the announcement last week is when one sport goes off and does something on their own, doesn't include the sports, doesn't include the IOC, doesn't include the National Olympic Committees," Anson told Sky News.

"They create a problem because now other sports are clearly going to get some scrutiny or even pressure from athletes saying, 'Well what about us? How can this sport do it and not others?'.

"I don't think it's particularly appropriate or helpful for one sport just to announce that. We've got to look at it holistically and make sure that we don't create a two tier system.”

Head of World Rowing, Jean-Christophe Rolland, was concerned about the lack of consultation before World Athletics made their announcement and commented: “I fully respect the WA decision as long it concerns athletes from their sport but at the Olympic Games it is not about your sport but all sports.

"I would appreciate if we had the discussion between us. This decision impacts not only athletes. It has other implications."

There were some supporters when the news broke, though.

Team GB’s most decorated Olympic swimmer. Duncan Scott, is all in favour of payments for Olympic medals.

He said: “I definitely think it would be welcomed within swimming. It's taxing so much on the body in terms of 20-plus hours a week in the pool and so many gym sessions. It can be really tough being a swimmer in GB but Aquatics GB seem like they're wanting to move it in a positive direction."

Coe is a seasoned politician, having become a Lord after a spell as a Member of Parliament in Britain and helping London win the 2012 Olympic Games before his positions in sports administration.

Putting the athletes at the heart of his strategy appears admirable, and he explained that not all elite athletes are thriving, with their finances often “precarious.”

To make such an aggressive move, without collaborating with the IOC and other stakeholders, might appear naïve and foolhardy but equally could be a shot across the bows amid speculation that he wants to become the next IOC President.

Rather than adhering to the status quo, Coe has proved himself to be an alternative, positioning himself firmly against Russian athletes competing at the Olympic Games as neutrals.

And the prize money issue comes ahead of the Friendship Games, to be held in Russia in September, offering $100m in total prize money and run by Umar Kremlev, head of the International Boxing Association which has been excluded from running Olympic boxing due to governance issues.

The first Friendship Games is expected to attract up to 6,000 athletes from more than 70 nations amid the backdrop of its invasion of Ukraine and punishments for state-sponsored doping.

When launched, the IOC issued a powerful communique which it accused of being a “cynical attempt by the Russian Federation to politicize sport,” noting a “disrespect for the athletes and the integrity of sports competitions.

“The commission even sees the risk of athletes being forced by their governments into participating in such a fully politicized sports event, thereby being exploited as part of a political propaganda campaign.”

With such significant prize money available, despite a lack of sports governance recognition, the Friendship Games represent a real threat to the IOC.

Could the World Athletics announcement be the start of more serious discussions to award all Olympic victors a cash prize, even if it costs up to $100m each Games? And would that see off the threat the Friendship Games poses?

Or should competing for glory be reward enough when the value of winning Olympic gold is so immeasurable?

Coe thinks not and said: “This fits very much with a contemporary template that we should do everything we can to recognise the performance and primacy of athletes.

“As a president who was a double Olympic champion, the largest part of my life has been involved with the Olympic movement. The world has changed. I don’t believe this is at variance with any deeply held philosophical commitment to the Olympic movement which, as a sport, we clearly have.

“It is important we start somewhere and make sure some of the revenues generated by our athletes … are directly returned to those who make the Games the global spectacle that it is. And as we grow as a sport I want to increase that pot.

“I have to accept the world has changed. If you had asked me that question 30 or 40 years ago,” whether paying athletes for winning was in line with what Scott called the Olympic ‘ethos, I might have given you a different answer.”

The key learning here is to ensure collaboration and discussion with stakeholders to gain support and understanding.

By blindsiding the IOC, ASOIF and other governing bodies, World Athletics very much set its stall out as a renegade, making a rogue decision regardless of the wider consequences for other sports federations and their athletes.

Coupled with the Friendship Games, the developments threaten the IOC’s authority just ahead of Paris 2024, which will no doubt serve as a reminder of the excellence and inspiration the Olympic Games continue to provide.

#ASOIF #World Athletics Championships #IAAF #Seb Coe #Sebastian Coe #ANOCA #IOC #International Olympic Committee #Thomas Bach #Friendship Games #World Rowing #Pierre de Coubertin #BOA #British Olympic Association #London 2012

0 notes

rein-ette · 3 years ago

Note

Hi! Could you give us some modern day German bros hcs?

Yes. Absolutely. Thank you for asking, this is one of my favourite topics ever.

I know canon says that Gilbert lives in Lud’s basement and mooches off of him, but may I assert that Gilbert actually lives in the basement of his own house, which he bequeathed to Ludwig, while he spent time rotting in Soviet prison. The house, along with a significant (but diminishing) majority of Lud’s savings were all originally Gilbert’s fortune, only gathered after saving every penny of his officers commissions for centuries. Now, this isn’t to say that Ludwig mooches off Gilbert either, because Lud does work his sweet muscular ass off and earns a respectable wage from the federal government. And it’s true that legally, Lud did inherit Gilbert’s property in the West. But Gil still has every right to live in a house he bought, and he only chose to take the basement floor because 1) it seemed kinda mean spirited to make Ludwig move out of the master bedroom after living there for 3 decades, and 2) the “basement” floor is a complete flat in and of itself, so he and Ludwig can both have some measure of privacy.

Warning: way more rambling ahead

As for living fees, I hc that Prussia fulfills a role in government as the state of Brandenburg. Others may disagree that Brandenburg should have its own “national” representative, an idea I’ve toyed with myself, but I’ve settled on the interpretation of history where Prussia is Brandenburg for several reasons. The main one is that while Prussia is a geographical expression referring to the area around Königsberg that is now Russian/Polish, Prussia is also a historical, political, and cultural entity. Berlin has been the seat of Prussian power and the symbol of its culture, ideals, and traditions from the very beginning — what we think of when we say Prussia (the historical state) really began as Brandenburg, who’s ruling family (the Hohenzollerns) subsequently acquired Prussia (the Polish territory) and saw an opportunity to crown themselves King, using the Prussian title as a convenient “excuse” (for various political reasons). In short: the name “Prussia” is misleading — the state of Brandenburg-Prussia has always been more Brandenburg than it’s been Prussian.

I DIGRESS. The point is Prussia also earns part of his wages for himself from the Brandenburg state government. He doesn’t work nearly as much with the gov as the others (Arthur, Francis) do though: mostly 'cause the government can function by itself and doesn't need much advice from Prussia, who's wealth of experience is not readily applicable to like, park-building and such anyways. When Lud becomes overwhelmed Gil also helps out with his paperwork, but -- and this is, I believe, rather idiosyncratic to the German gov -- Gil does not often attend functions in an official capacity. Since the war, the new German government has wanted for obvious reasons to distance itself as much from its past as possible, so having too many people know about Gilbert's real identity, or even having him work to closely with the PM just feels...wrong. Officially Prussia may now simply be the state of Brandenburg, but its clear that's not all he is. He has the Old World air, the kind of presence that reminds humans he is the collision of a thousand lifetimes all at once, a breathing monument to history. And so for the modern German state, which has struggled so desperately to throw off the shadows of its past, to associate closely with the embodiment of Prussia is just not great for everyone involved.

This brings me to another dynamic that I've wanted to explore in a fic for a long time: how terribly young Ludwig is compared to the nations he works with. I mean, Germany only became a thing in 1871, less than 200 years ago. While I hc him to have existed for a couple decades before that, slowly growing under Prussia's care, this man is still younger than either Alfred or Matt. And yet he has to work closely and on equal terms with nations that are more than ten times as old as he is. Of course, former colonies like Al and even younger ones like New Zealand also work on equal terms with older countries like England now, but Ludwig has the added disadvantage of needing to protect a legacy. He may be young, but the cultures he now represents are not. He does not get to start afresh. He does not get to revolt against imperialism and forge his own destiny. And unlike former colonies, the day Ludwig truly stepped out of his brother's shadow and became a nation in his own right was not a day of victory but of defeat. All this weighs heavily on him; essentially, Ludwig carries the same two-thousand burden of history his fellow Europeans do, but without the corresponding two thousand years of experience. And do his colleagues go easy on him? Of course they fucking don't. His colleagues are people like England, France, Denmark, Netherlands...they're fucking menaces is what they are, and they don't baby nobody. You can either make it or you can't, and despite being the age of these nation's children, by the simple virtue of being European Lud is expected to be able to play by "their rules" -- to know the ins and outs of ancient relationships, traditions, and beef from the Middle Ages -- the whole shebang. If America fucks up in a world meeting the Europeans will whisper "Well he's still just a child", if Ludwig fucks up in an EU meeting he has simply fucked up, period. No excuses. This is the world they grew up in, and they expect Ludwig to be able to navigate it too.

Of course, this has it perks as well. It means that unlike former colonies, Ludwig doesn't have to deal with as much constant condescension and patronization. Lud is not their child or their friend's child -- at most he is a younger brother, and by taking on the mantle of Prussia and the other German states Ludwig is automatically an equal. But there were still moments where Ludwig felt out of place. In the first few decades after the war, these mostly occurred in more relaxed, social situations -- parties, informal negotiations, the type of diplomacy that takes place over drinks and behind closed doors. This was the gentleman's club, a place where the lingering sense among old European powers that they are members of the most exclusive and desirable social group in the world was strongest. While various forces such as the EU, globalization, decolonization, and Americanization have eroded this kind of gate-keeping, there remains instances where Ludwig is sharply reminded of his age. Its often the small things -- a glance across the meeting room, an old joke, a shared memory. Maybe Ludwig hears through Gilbert that Francis is more stressed than he seems. Maybe Ned succeeds in persuading Arthur of something in private when Ludwig couldn't. Maybe he visits Austria and is surprised to see Spain is also there. Among any group of old friends there is always a sense of "us" and "them", and while Ludwig may have taken his brother's political place in Europe, socially Prussia is a kind of "us" that Ludwig will never quite achieve.

I hate to end this on such an abrupt note, but I'm afraid if I don't I will never stop talking. Thanks cake for enabling me, and if anyone wants a part two hit me up. I haven't even fucking gotten to PruAusHun yet, or all the other German siblings.

#hws germany #hws prussia #many many others mentioned #my hcs #ask #needcake #ugh i'll just tag a couple #hws netherlands #hws england #hws france #hws austria #hws spain #there thats good enough #also 1900s onwards is modern right #imma assume you meant The Modern Age which is 1800s onwards ok great

45 notes · View notes

audreydoeskaren · 4 years ago

Text

Abridged history of early 20th century Chinese womenswear (part 1: 1890s)

*Disclaimer: I mostly talk out of my bum so don’t ask me for academic sources, I would love to know where they are but I haven’t found any reliable ones. I only share my own observations so please read me for filth if I’m wrong.

*There are almost no public domain images I could use because this topic is too obscure so I have to use random images that work and link the sources.

Context

I think there’s not enough content about Chinese fashion history on Tumblr and the Internet in general so I’d like to share my personal knowledge (which is not a lot, but more than nothing). I only know about Chinese fashion history 15th century onwards, the more recent the more I know, so I’m gonna start with the early 20th century.

The 1890s were a very underrated decade in Chinese fashion history. The republican 1920s and 30s are usually credited as the beginning of modern Chinese fashion, mostly because people only consider cheongsam to be valid modern Chinese clothing, which is a bogus claim as aoqun and aoku were just as popular and actually endured longer than the cheongsam. The process of women’s emancipation and the simplification of women’s fashion had already began by the 1890s (perhaps even earlier to a smaller extent) when the monarchy was still around. By the 1900s women’s clothing in China had already been much simplified and modernized, so the 1890s acted as an important transitional period for Chinese fashion.

In order to understand early 20th century Chinese fashion we have to go back a bit into the past to have some clue about the context. Since the establishment of the Ming Dynasty in the mid 14th century Chinese women wore 袄裙 aoqun, a two piece ensemble consisting of a robe and a skirt. At first the robe had a y shaped “kimono collar” as the style is commonly known in the West, then in the late 16th century the 立领 or standing collar was invented (this was different to standing collars used in the 20th century and nowadays, I might explain this later). When the Manchus conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty in the mid 17th century, Han Chinese men adopted Manchu style clothing but Han Chinese womenswear remained independent and separate from Manchu womenswear until it started taking inspiration from Manchu fashion in terms of decoration in the late 18th/early 19th century. However, Han Chinese women retained the habit of wearing a two piece ensemble as the outermost layer, unlike Manchu women, who wore a single floor length robe.

In the second half of the 19th century, the aoqun had a very generous and roomy cut, with huge sleeves in the robe and many pleats in the skirt. The collar of the robe is very low, only providing enough space for one button, a style in fashion since the early 19th century. The robe is closed with frog closures, a braided/knotted style of button which is also somehow the closures used on European hussar uniforms? I don’t know the connection so if anyone has an idea please enlighten me. The robe closes at the side, usually at the right side, however examples of robes with closures on the left or both sides also existed. Before the 19th century, Han Chinese women’s robe sleeves were usually very long, longer than the actual arm of the wearer, but since the 19th century sleeves adopted a more practical length, which was at the wrist.

The skirt was usually of a style called 马面 mamian, a long horizontal pleated piece of fabric with four flat sections, which women wore by wrapping it around their waists twice and tying the tie strings at the waistband. This skirt became very decorative in the 19th century, full of embroidery, tassels and elaborate trim, sometimes giving the illusion of a separate apron being attached (I’ve seen this weird stereotype that traditional Chinese womenswear has a separate apron at the front this is complete bogus). The robes were likewise heavily decorated, sometimes so full of embroidery that the original fabric could hardly be seen; this was especially true of wedding dresses or other ceremonial outfits.

Source: https://www.chinasage.info/women.htm

In addition, pants were also often worn by Chinese women and 袄裤 aoku, the combination of robe and pants, was socially acceptable.

Another noteworthy custom was bound feet, although I don’t know so much about it. The 19th century was the pinnacle of foot binding and fashionable women had incredibly small feet, dubbed “lotus feet”. Women wore baggy stockings underneath their shoes, tied up with garters below the knees. I’m not as knowledgeable about other undergarments of this period unfortunately...

Source: https://www.hpcbristol.net/visual/ch-s03

Silhouette

In the 1890s, the cut of the aoqun began to become more slender and form fitting as a result of increased westernization. The robe was quite long, usually knee length. The sleeves became slimmer and the collar grew taller, being able to accommodate three or more buttons. Pants seem to be very popular in this period, as I have probably seen more contemporary artworks depicting fashionable women wearing pants than skirts. I speculate this may be due to a rising interest in feminism and women wanting more mobility, but that’s just my opinion. The pants were still straight cut but were less roomy than earlier 19th century models. Women began campaigning against bound feet in this period and many drawings depicted women with natural feet. However, if a woman had her feet bound since childhood it’s difficult for them to return to their natural size, so some women who were born in previous decades would still have very small feet, even if they began to reject it at this time. Plain black flats were popular in this time, I have no clue if the construction is Chinese or Western if someone has any idea please enlighten me.

Source: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/photographs/record-details/d0743ec7-1161-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad (I think this was photographed in Singapore but the fashions were accurate to mainland China of the period as well)

Design details

The 1890s saw the mass disappearing of wide, elaborate trims around the seams, popular throughout the 19th century. Trims became smaller and more toned down, sometimes being of geometric design. Embroidery on the robe and skirt/pants was rare, if it was done it was usually very small and in a diamond pattern, instead of the more freeform patterns of the previous centuries. The fabrics often had woven in, tone on tone decorations, usually tiny floral motifs or geometric shapes. A general air of simplicity and practicality dominated the fashion of this era.

I’ll post part 2 whenever I want.

#historic fashion #qing dynasty #19th century #vintage fashion #chinese fashion #chinese history #aoqun #abridged history of early 20th century chinese womenswear

163 notes · View notes

thedreadvampy · 9 months ago

Text

Oh also I feel like a thing about this post is that it implies this history is broadly known and it's not. It's not mysterious - it's very recent, very concrete and well documented, largely within living memory etc - but it is mystified, partially for the reasons above. It's in the interests of those invested in the success of the Israeli state project to treat the Israel/Palestine conflict as without beginning, cause, or explanation, so conversations about Israel tend to skirt around the whole question of where the Israeli state comes from.

A potted history of Israel, Palestine, and the British Empire below the cut (bar the context setting, all this is going to cover from WWI on; our total span is 110 years or so)

Context: 1880s-1910s (and before):

Palestine: The region of Palestine has at various times been called Peleset (12th century BC), Palaistine (5th century BC), Syria Palaestina (1st century AD), Jund Filastin (7th century) etc. Because of its position as a centre of 3 major world religions, it's always had something of a unique identity.

At this time, Palestine is a region of the Ottoman Empire, and has been since the 16th century. It mostly refers to the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, and also sometimes includes Nablus and Acre. It is a multi-religious and multi-ethnic state - it's ruled by the Islamic Ottoman Caliphate, but has a large Christian and moderate Jewish population, and maintains some of the holiest sites of all 3 religions. The equal rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims and all other Ottoman subjects are assured in law. It moves from a subdivision of Syria back to a region in its own right in the mid 19th century (although still under Ottoman imperial rule) and grows and modernises, with suburban developments, railway links to Damascus and Medina, and massive export infrastructure, with a population of 70,000 by 1900.

From the 1880s onwards, Palestine is one of many places Jews fleeing from pogroms in Russia settle. This isn't a coordinated movement or an ideological one - violent antisemitism means that Jewish communities are fleeing Russia in droves, and there's a surge in Jewish immigration around the world. About 75,000 Jews settle in Palestine, more than tripling the Jewish population of the region.

Britain: We haven't yet hit WWI, and the British Empire is at the heights of its power. The situation is a Bit Weird in Egypt - it's a British protectorate but technically belongs to the Ottoman Empire, and Britain's pretty invested in control of Egypt because it allows them to control the Suez Canal. Britain loves to do colonialism, obviously.

There's another important thing happening in the early 1900s back in Blighty - the ongoing influx of Jewish refugees peaks in the late 1890s, with over 150,000 Russian Jews migrating into Britain (and producing a strong British Jewish culture - thanks particularly for the fish and chips, lads!) Antisemitic backlash ensued, leading to the 1905 Aliens Act, brought in by then Prime Minister Lord Arthur Balfour (remember that name, it will shortly be very relevant). (fun fact: this Act designed to deport Jewish refugees forms the basis of our modern immigration hellhole system! Fun!)

Israel Zionism: Meanwhile in America and Europe there's this fringe Jewish nationalist movement coming up in reaction to rising antisemitism across Europe. Over in Austria, Theodore Herzl, Max Nordau (who were both assimilated non-practising Austro-German Jews who realised in the aftermath of the 1880s and the Dreyfus Affair that they couldn't escape antisemitism through assimilation) and Nathan Birnbaum (who founded the Zionist movement in the 1880s and left it in 1899 over what he saw as a disgust for diaspora Jewish identity) start up the World Zionist Organisation at the First Zionist Congress in 1897.

Building on the minority revivalist Jewish Nationalism movement which begins in reaction to the 1880s pogroms, the WZO proposes that in order to create a Jewish state, they must work with the European imperial powers to get a formal sanction for land to belong to the Jewish people.

There are a lot of criticisms of this movement from European Jewish communities - Orthodox Jews think it's against Jewish principles, the Jewish social democrats and Bundists think it won't resolve the problem of antisemitism and will do more damage to the cause of equal treatment for the Jewish labour class, and prominent Jewish figures like the Rothschilds who Herzl tried to get invested in the idea shoot it down on the basis that it would threaten the already tenuous position of diaspora Jews.

Nonetheless, the WZO start negotiating with the Great Powers to try and get an agreement for land in the Holy Land or Argentina. Negotiations with Germany, Spain and the Ottoman Empire all fall through. Herzl is chatting to the British Colonial Secretary, Chamberlain about maybe could they have Cyprus, Sinai or El Arish? In 1903 Chamberlain offers a chunk of Kenya - but neither the Zionist Congress or the white settlers in Kenya are super on board. The Zionist Organisation says yes. The British colonial state in Kenya says no. But there's positive contact now between the British government and the Zionist Organisation.

WWI, the Arab Revolt and the Balfour Declaration: 1914-1918

Britain: It's a world war! And Britain has control of the Suez Canal, which connects the Pacific and the Atlantic through a direct shipping route and allows it to bring in troops and supplies from its colonies in India, Australia and East Asia!

As we may recall, Britain controls Egypt but the Ottoman Empire owns it. And the Ottoman Empire is on the opposite side of the war from Britain so would like Egypt, and specifically the Suez Canal, back Right The Fuck Now. The Ottoman and German armies attack the Suez, and Britain respond by pushing further into Sinai. Between 1915-1917 they're fighting back and forth, bombing back and forth, killing 600 horses a week by riding hard in a desert, all that War To End All Wars stuff.

Palestine: Across the Arab part of the Ottoman Empire there's been a rising tide of Arab nationalism against the Ottoman imperial rule. In 1913, just before the war broke out, there was the First Arab Congress in Paris. Their desire then was for Arabs to have recognition, linguistic and cultural expression, and representation in the Ottoman government.

The French and British encouraged Arab nationalists to revolt against the Ottomans in 1916, and Britain built an alliance with the rebels in Mecca partially by promising them independent control of Arab lands (from Egypt to Iran) when the Ottoman fell. Unfortunately imperial powers are Fucking Liars and they simultaneously promised a bunch of that land to France. Whatcha gonna do?

Zionism: Three weeks after taking the Levant, before the administrative lines have even been drawn up, the British Government releases a statement called the Balfour Declaration, saying:

So in 1917 Britain, France and the Arab rebels take the Levant, and break it into British (Palestine), French (Lebanon, Beirut, bits of Turkey, and northwest Syria) and Arab (eastern Syria and Jordan).

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status of Jews in any other country"

This is a rare example of imperial government keeping its promises. Sort of. The leader of the Liberals and first practicing Jewish MP, Viscount Herbert Samuel, was a big proponent of Zionism, and started pitching support for Zionism as the way to get the Jewish community on board with the Allies in the war literally as soon as the war kicked off. So with the European end of the war kind of at a stalemate and the Bolshevik revolution kind of ruining Britain's ability to rely on Russia, they offered Palestine.

The conversation leading up to and around the Balfour Declaration happened entirely in Britain, without any consultation with Palestinian representatives, but that's pretty par for the course when it comes to colonialism.

There were a couple of core factors feeding into British support for Zionism. First, Britain had been scared for a long time that it was losing the Holy Land - three biggest Christian influences there being French (Catholics) and Russian (Orthodox), so getting a new faction in place who were sympathetic to and allied with Britain would be a big plus in the old Great Game.

Second, Britain was antisemitic as fuck. This manifests in two ways.

One, when Samuel said 'oh hey you can get the Jews on side if you support Zionism,' a lot of ministers went OOH THE JEWS WHO CONTROL THE WORLD BANK AND THE GLOBAL FLOW OF COMMERCE? YEAH WE'D LIKE THEM ON SIDE because they were. antisemitic as fuck.

Two, folks like now-Foreign Secretary Arthur '1905 Aliens Act' Balfour saw the opportunity to give Jews a place to go that was Not Here, and, quote:

"mitigate the age-long miseries created for Western civilization by the presence in its midst of a Body which it too long regarded as alien or even hostile, but which it was equally unable to expel or absorb." (Balfour writing in 1919)

So Britain became the first government to vocally support Zionism.

(if you're keeping track, by the way, before even laying hands on it, Britain had by 1917 promised Palestine to the Arab rebels, to France, and to the Zionist movement. At no point in any of these discussions did anyone ask the residents of Palestine for an opinion, because That's Not How Colonialism.

Buuuut during the Levant campaign, while working with the Arabs on the basis that they'd give them the Arab peninsula, Britain and France were secretly agreeing how they'd divvy that land up, and the protection and establishment of a Jewish-majority colony in Palestine in opposition to Arab control was part of that discussion as early as March 1916, a year and a half before they took the region.)

France got the Levant; Britain got allies in Palestine; the Arabs got nowt and Germany and the Ottomans couldn't get there first on the whole allying with Zionism thing. Bonus, you might please the Money (Samuel was a banking family and Rothschild was on board by now, so there are actual banning families involved, and then there's the imaginary World Jewry that a lot of the gentile players were trying to court even though they Don't Exist) and you can encourage the Jews to get out of your Nice Christian Country. From the British government's perspective, it's basically your standard imperial politicking with an extra dash of antisemitism.

Establishing the British Mandate for Palestine (1918-1920)

Britain: The League of Nations formalise British control of Palestine and Jordan, and that mandate specifically requires Britain to make good on its promise of a National Home For The Jewish People In Palestine (not Jordan though, that was a whole separate bit)

The explicit circumstances that British PM Lloyd George understands as the condition for that is the establishment of a Jewish majority in Palestine, which can then transition into a Jewish-led Commonwealth state under the auspices of the British Crown.

There is exactly one Arab voice at the table in organising this agreement, and it's the leader of the Arab administration, who is already in a supremely dicy position with France breathing down his neck. Palestinians are not granted a delegation, despite requests. There are two representative from the Zionist Organisation there.

The League of Nations agree that while they must admit that Arab states have some right to self-determination, it can't apply to Palestine because of the commitments Britain already made to the Zionists.

There's a bunch of back and forth about whether the operative parts of the Balfour Declaration are the bit about creating a Jewish Homeland or the bit about not interfering with the equality of all peoples in Palestine. Guess where that lands. In summer of 1920, the military occupation is replaced with a civilian administration, guided by a Jewish Assembly.

Palestine: The Balfour Declaration and following negotiations made it clear that the intention was to promote immigration to and power over Palestine by European Jews, who at this time make up about 10% of the Palestinian population.

From 1918, Palestinians begin a series of pressure groups, protests and congresses built around a shared Arab identity, a desire for independence, an opposition to the promises of the Balfour Declaration and an opposition to the promotion of coordinated Jewish immigration. There are a variety of opinions on British and French rule, but the overarching agreement is one of Arab unionism. The Muslim-Christian Association in Jerusalem try to organise, rejecting the idea of Palestine as a Jewish National Home while reifying the rights of Jews currently living in Palestine, but attempts to protest are shut down by the British military occupation.

At the same time, the Mandate for Palestine is pushed though, making Palestinian independence from Britain contingent on the successful establishment of a Jewish Homeland. Palestinian organizations have tried and failed to get a seat at the table for the Mandate negotiations. Palestinians argue that the Mandate is invalid because it doesn't contain any provision for the people it supposedly serves to gain control of their own state.

In March 1920, shit kicks off between France and Syria. In the midst of that, there's a series of clashes between recent Jewish settlers and Bedouin militias on the border of French territory.

Zionism: Immigration is ramped up, with 40,000 Jewish immigrants coming into Palestine in the 5 years following the war. Unlike previous rounds of European Jewish immigration, these are primarily ideological Zionists not refugees.

In 1918, while the Mandate is still a work in progress, the British administration in Palestine already includes terms of reference allowing a Zionist Commission to advise the British administration on "all matters relating to Jews or which might effect the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people". In its first year, the Commission establishes Hebrew as a national language, establishes control over immigration, and subsidises and oversees the hiring of all Jewish police in Palestine. In 1920, the Arab Mayor of Jerusalem was removed and replaced by a prominent Zionist.

There was constantly rising tension and occasional violence, exacerbated by the conflict between France and Syria. In Easter Week, a week before the elections to the Jewish Assembly, there is a riot in Jerusalem in which there is antisemitic violence against Jewish homes and businesses, and a militia, who has been drilling for some time, is called in by the Zionist Commission, who also demand that all Arab police be disarmed. The majority of the casualties are neither Zionist immigrants nor Arabs but the Jewish community who were already living in Jerusalem before the turn of the century.

In the wake of the rise in violence, more Jewish-specific instruments of state are rapidly set up, as well as the new Assembly - a Zionist labour union, a formal Zionist military, and immigration authorities formed of Zionist union workers, who oversaw a ratio of Jewish to non-Jewish immigrants in 1920 of 20:1. The Palestinian Jewish Assembly is elected; Palestinian Arabs are banned from holding political gatherings.

Mandatory Palestine (1920s)

Britain: Hey there's a new civilian commission ruling Palestine. Who's that running it? Why, it's High Commissioner Viscount Herbert Samuel! You remember, the guy who first proposed giving Palestine to the Zionist cause to win the Jews over?

anyway a month after he arrives he tries to gain control of Jordan and gets slapped down.

Palestine: Weirdly enough, Arabs Do Not Trust Viscount 'we should give away Palestine' Samuel, and the previously fairly pro-British Palestinian nationalists are getting increasingly mardy. The day before Samuels arrives, two Arabs are shot dead at a demonstration in Jaffa. There is a two day general strike to protest the mandate and the killing of Arabs by the British army.

In 1921, rioting in Jaffa ends with 47 Jews and 48 Arabs dead. After an initial explosion of violence, the new Zionist military launched a reprisal attack on Arab homes, in which they were ordered to "destroy everything except small children" and shot civilians in their homes. Samuel called a state of emergency and censored the press. A member of staff for the Mandatory authorities gives rifles from the British armouries to Zionist forces, and the British air force start bombing "Arab raiders". Three Jews, including one policeman, are convicted of the murder of Arab civilians but acquitted on self defence. The British Commission concluded that it was the fault of Arabs and Communists, and started a process of sanctions against tribes believed to be involved.

Muslim-Christian Associations protest the ongoing disparity in sentencing between Arab and Jewish people accused of violence in the ongoing clashes. The Palestinian Arab Congress continues to try to push back on the Mandate with peaceful protest, including boycotts, more general strikes, and political pressure.

In 1922, there are elections for the Legislative Council to run the country. It is intended to be made up of 12 elected and 10 appointed members, as well as Samuel himself. The 10 appointed members are too be the British colonial administration, including two high profile Zionists and the police chief who oversaw Bloody Sunday in Ireland two years earlier; the 12 elected members are meant to be 8 Arabs, 2 Christians and 2 Jews. The Palestinian Arab movement refuses to participate.

The Western Wall, which is a holy place shared by both Jews and Muslims, a part of the Second Temple which also forms part of the al-Aqsa mosque, is a particular bone of contention. For 500+ years, it has been delicately balanced, with laws in place to clarify that both faiths have a right to pray there without interference, but not to make major changes (this is similar to other holy sites in Jerusalem, like the ladder in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre that hasn't been moved for 200 years in case it upsets the balance of power between churches). From 1919, Zionists have made multiple attempts to buy the land under the Wall, and have had multiple multi-way clashes about what they can and can't do there. Things escalate in 1929 with Zionist literature showing the dome of al-Aqsa under a Zionist flag, Muslims calling the cops to remove Jewish worship structures, etc, until 6,000 Jews are demonstrating by al-Aqsa, shouting, "the Wall is ours!' and a couple of days later, 2,000 Muslims attack Jewish fixtures on the Wall.

A few days after the riot in Jerusalem, a Jewish teenager was fatally stabbed in a fight. A Jewish crowd attacked the policeman who came to investigate, attacked and burned neighbouring Palestinian homes, breaking into one teenager's house to stab him repeatedly. In the following weeks, multiple Arabs were pulled from their homes and lynched, while there were several attacks on Jewish communities by Arabs. 133 Jews and 116 Arabs are killed, with 250 Arabs and 140 Jews wounded.

Following the riot, 25 Arabs and 2 Jews are sentenced to death - 3 Arabs are hanged and both Jewish convicts have their sentences commuted.

The British investigation after the riot notes that in this single decade, 3 mass attacks have been made on Jewish communities by Arabs, whereas there has not been a similar incident in the preceding 80 years. They conclude, and are agreed with by all parties, that before 1915, there had been no particular animosity between Jews and Arabs, and that the anger towards Jews was therefore a specific response to the changing circumstances following the invasion of Palestine.

Israel: From when the market opened in 1918, Zionist organisations like the ZO's Colonisation Department have been engaged in a converted effort to buy up land in Palestine, doubling their holdings over the decade so that Jewish organisations owned 5% of all land in Palestine.

Kibbutzing (collective farming) was a major part of the Zionist movement from the start of the project, but in the British Mandate kibbutzes became a lot bigger -instead of a community of 10-50, think 200-500. The British Commission following the 1929 riots concludes that Jewish settlers are buying up enough of Palestine's available productive land to present a genuine threat to the survival of the Arab people.

The Zionist agencies buying up this land on behalf of new Jewish settlers often put constraints on the use of the land, including that it can only be developed and cultivated by Jewish labour, that it is against the terms of the lease to hire non-Jewish hands, and that the lease can only ever be held by Jews.

Violence did not come as a surprise to the prominent figures in the Zionist movement, with both major Zionist party leaders in Palestine (Ben-Gurion and Jabotonsky) agreeing that "the native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists"

The Arab revolt (1930s)

Israel: Despite the recommendations following the 1929 riots that limits be placed on the buying up and conditional leasing of land to Jews only, kibbutzes continue to be developed on land bought up by Zionist agencies under the same terms.

Throughout the 30s, Jewish immigration continues to climb year on year, and by the middle of the decade, the Jewish proportion of the population has gone from 10% at the start of the Mandate to more than 25%.

However it needs to be said that it is the 1930s. Like in the 1880s, there's a good reason why immigration is taking a sharp upwards tick and it's not just about Zionism. Aliyah Bet was a programme of illegal immigration to Palestine for people escaping Nazis. That certainly helped the Zionist project but mostly it's a moral duty to help people escape genocide. It gets really hard to make any broad statements here because it's the Fucking Holocaust and while I think the previous 20 years speak for themselves, the Zionist relationship to immigration and international relations in the 30s and 40s just does have to be read in light of The Fucking Holocaust.

However, what is not a direct response to the Fucking Holocaust is the degree to which Zionist violence becomes proactive. By the end of the 1936-39 war, there are Zionist militia openly committing mass violence against Palestinians with no direct provocation - bombing coffee shops, markets and buses used by Arabs, shooting random Arabs in the street, disgusting explosives as food, and so on.

Palestine: There's a mix of peaceful and militarised reactions to the ongoing imbalance of power, creating a powder keg which eventually blows up into a 4 year revolt. After a riot in which 14 Jews and 2 Arabs are killed, the British administration begins a campaign of collective punishment against the civilian population.

Palestinians engage in a general strike and refuse to pay taxes, and strikers are beaten, tortured, deported and killed. There is a rising surge of guerilla violence, culminating in Palestinian militias taking Nablus and Hebron.

Britain: For the first time, Palestinian anger is directed squarely at Britain as well as at Zionists. And Britain responds, as Britain tends to, with police brutality, indiscriminate killing, opening a Fucking Concentration Camp and performing several massacres.

British and Zionist forces crack down on riots with enormous brutality. Special Forces operate with impunity to raid Arab villages at night and to protect the central oil pipeline. The combined British and Zionist forces flatten villages, blow up over 250 ancient buildings in Jaffa, and commit a number of atrocities against whole communities. Over 50,000 British and 15,000 Zionist soldiers, 25,000 Zionist police and guards, and 1,500 Zionist paramilitary members take part in a campaign of aggressive counterinsurgency which leaves over 5,000 Arabs dead, as well as 300 Jews and 262 Brits. At least 15,000 Arabs are wounded, and much of the Palestinian leadership is either dropped, killed, or in exile. This will set the tone for future conflicts.

Following the conflict, Britain proposed a partition (because that worked So Well in India and Ireland) and when Palestinians rejected that, suggested restricting immigration from Europe, restricting Jewish conditional land purchase, and a plan to replace the Mandate with an independent state in the next decade. Unfortunately it was NINETEEN THIRTY NINE and it was the middle of exactly the worst time to start restricting Jewish emigration from Europe and this made things worse rather than better.

WW2 and the Nakba (1940-45)

Palestine: Italy was attacking Palestine from the start of the war, and again there's that scrabble for the Suez. Some Palestinians saw the Axis as their best hope for getting rid of the British; others volunteered to join the British forces on the North African front.

Britain: in between fighting the Axis, Britain took the time to sink a lot of ships carrying refugees to Palestine. So that's fun! Hey look up Britain's relationship to taking in Holocaust refugees it's uhhhh it's not great!!!!

Israel: Many Zionists, as well as Yemeni, Abssynian and European Jews, joined the Jewish Brigade in the British Army, or other forces.

There's also a huge ongoing push to get people out of Europe despite the new restraints on immigration.

In Palestine, there's a new growing Jewish insurgency against the British Mandate, probably mostly because of how they waited until the middle of a genocide to put restrictions on immigration and even once the extent of the Holocaust was clear, wouldn't budge on it or offer alternatives to get people to safety. There are violent uprisings from Zionist militias against Britain, suppressed by pro-British Zionist factions.

The Nakba and the birth of the Israeli state (1946-1950)

Britain: How the turn tables. Less than a decade after joining the British to suppress Palestinian insurgency, the same Zionist militias formed a resistance movement to get the British out. They did some assassinations and some hotel bombings and ultimately caused a massive rift between America (pro-Zionist) and the British who were now hitting their favourite button, the big red one marked "BONCENTRATION BAMP" (they opened a concentration camp in Cyprus for Zionist insurgents and this is the point I remind you that even though we are talking about Jews in the 1940s the phrase 'concentration camp' was invented to describe that thing Britain invented to do to its colonial subjects when they get uppity and is not synonymous with 'death camp').

America accordingly refused to give aid to Britain to rebuild until they sorted this thing out. They went off to negotiate (as usual, without anyone resident in Palestine at the table). Britain came back saying 'we will immediately accept 100,000 Jewish refugees and consider it essential that we make a clear statement that neither Arab or Jew should dominate Palestine' and America said 'yeah we agree about the Jewish refugees. Not that other bit though.' Britain said 'ok so like if we put 100,000 more Jews into Palestine when the situation is already this tense there absolutely will be another war so can we have some help' and America said 'hmmm naaaaah'

So this is the point where Britain says ok I'm fucking done with this, this mandate is a millstone around my neck, and hands Palestine over to the UN, who agree to partition Palestine, a solution which pleases basically nobody. At midnight on May 15 1948, the British Mandate ends and the State of Israel is born.

Israel: Making up about a third of the population, the Jewish population were too be given 56% of the land, with a population of over 438,000 Arabs.

But the British Mandate don't withdraw until almost a year into a bloody civil war, and while they're prepping to leave, 100-200 people a week are being killed. The Zionist forces violently expel more than a quarter of a million Arabs and declare the state of Israel a reality.

Truman and Stalin immediately recognise it, while the Arab League say the whole thing is invalid and collectively invade. The war goes on for another year, but is lost, and now we have the State of Israel, founded 1948.

Palestine: The partition goes exactly as well as colonial positions tend to go, which is to say about 15,000 dead and 710,000 displaced out of Israeli territory, plus an inclined number internally displaced. 400-600 villages were destroyed, wells were poisoned with typhus, properties destroyed and farms razed.

Initially, many refugees left their homes expecting to return. Others were forced out at gunpoint or by shelling. During the Nakba there were many documented massacres and atrocities. Over 60,000 people were deathmarched out of Lydda for 15 miles at gunpoint. The mass expulsion was accompanied by rapes, mass executions, torture, forced labour and ritual humiliations, intensifying as the war went on and it became increasingly clear that people wouldn't be allowed to return, so they wouldn't leave of their own will.

96% of villages in Jaffa and Beisan and 90% in Tiberias and Safad were fully destroyed - over 70,000 homes all told were flattened. Israel instituted the Prevention of Infiltration Law, which makes it illegal for Palestinians to come back into the country through nations hostile to Israel. Absentee Property laws make property seized from Palestinians who fled or were forced out legally no longer theirs.

I mean fundamentally the thing about Israel/Palestine that makes people uncomfortable is not that "it's complicated" it's that it's extremely fundamentally morally simple, it's just difficult

there is not a morally acceptable solution that will be accepted by the expansionist Israeli government or its allies in Europe and America

the balance of power has remained basically the same since Balfour handed the country over. Israel has the power to displace and kill Palestinians without accountability because it's backed by the majority of major world powers. there's fundamentally no back and forth of power. Palestine and its people were sold from the control of the British to the control of Israel for the political convenience of a bunch of people on different continents. there's no retribution or wrestle for power. Israel has had power over Palestine for decades and Palestine, despite Palestinians occupying the land for millennia, has never had power over Israel.

the fundamentals of the situation are discomforting because Israel is in many ways the last surviving bastion of the type of turn-of-the-century colonialism which the contemporary economy of Britain, America and much of the West is rooted in.

that's why the media and political classes are so invested in the Israeli party line - not because Israel ~controls the media~ or whatever but because the fundamental existence of Israel is the interests of the British ruling class, for example. It is in the interests of the British ruling class that we accept as a basic precept that there are Civilised and Uncivilised nations, and that it is right and good and natural that the Civilised nations should be able to decide the fates of the Uncivilised nations, for their own profit, without brooking any complaint from the Uncivilised Peoples. The structure of Western capitalism requires, as well, that we accept that any number of deaths and any amount of suffering among the Uncivilised Peoples is an acceptable price to pay for the comfort of Civilised Peoples. That's why the media classes are more interested in pearl clutching that somebody slashed up a hack painting of a famously antisemitic and genocidal British lord than in the loss of swathes of priceless and irreplaceable artworks, historical relics and Human Fucking Lives in Gaza.

it isn't complicated. it's just uncomfortable because fundamentally it lays bare the basic reality of colonial capitalism, and generally we in the UK are sort of trying to pretend we're over that whole thing even though we're obviously not, politicians just try to be a bit less obvious about it. so it's discomforting to people to be faced with the rawness of Israel's open colonialism, and so those who can't or don't want to divest from Britain's own ongoing colonial endeavours end up tying themselves in knots trying to justify why it's Fine Actually.

while obviously Israel is a Zionist project so it can no more be decoupled from Judaism than the British empire is decoupled from Christianity, the conflation of Jewishness and Israel is a mostly irrelevant (and harmful) distraction from the underlying Problem With Israel, which is that it's an incredibly 19th century European style of colony in 21st century Asia, and the nature, consistency and ferocity of its colonial project has been pretty unchanged for like 3-4 generations.

but it's a very successful distraction because

a) a lot of people do actually hate Jews a whole bunch so yeah antisemitism is a genuine and legitimate fear, but it doesn't connect to the core issues of genocide, oppression and colonialism (and conflating Israel with Jewishness does play into existing antisemitic ideas of the Jewish perpetual foreigner and perpetual dual loyalty)

b) people want it to be complicated. They don't want it to be simple in a way that would create discomfort for them. We don't want to acknowledge that to free Palestine we'd have to take a hit to our own economies by not selling arms to Israel. We don't want to acknowledge that what's practiced openly in Israel is the same structure of systemic injustice underpinning almost all British and American foreign affairs, but with more of a veil over it. We don't want to challenge the underlying assumption that there are those who should rule and those who should be ruled over. But with the assertion that Israel=Jewishness, and the rewriting of history to say there's an Endless Cycle of Violence on Both Sides, Who Can Say Where It Started Really, you're off the hook! It's Complicated! Who Can Really Say?

(this Who Can Really Say thing is fascinating in itself. It's not like it's ancient history! it's been slightly over a century since the birth of the Israeli project! you can look it up! we have the news articles! we have the correspondence! this is my grandparents' generation not the distant mists of time!)

but yeah like fuck 'Israel controls the media' bullshit. It does not require a Shadowy Jewish Cabal of Puppetmasters to create mass appeasement from the media and ruling class, and if you think that's the best explanation you're fucking gross. The media and political establishment of Europe and the US are not being Controlled By The Wicked Jews. They are colonial projects. Israel is a colonial project. Their interests are aligned. It's not complicated it's So Fucking Simple. Our ruling classes, whether in Tel Aviv, Washington, Westminster or Berlin, are enthusiastically invested in the project of global apartheid. It makes them money. It maintained them power. It is in their interests to preserve the impunity of the occupying state where it shores up the civilised West vs barbarian East paradigm. It is not "too complicated" it's just huge, implacable and miserable to recognise.

#red said

204 notes · View notes

lastsonlost · 4 years ago

Text

All this over the Japanese liking a game they don't like...

Ghost of Tsushima opens with a grand wide shot of samurai, adorned with impressively detailed suits of armor, sitting atop their horses. There we find Jin, the protagonist, ruminating on how he will die for his country. As he traverses Tsushima, our hero fights back the invading Mongolian army to protect his people, and wrestles with the tenets of the Bushido code. Standoffs take advantage of perspective and a wide field of view to frame both the samurai and his opponent in something that, more often than not, feels truly cinematic. The artists behind the game have an equally impeccable reference point for the visuals: the works of legendary filmmaker Akira Kurosawa

“We really wanted to pay respect to the fact that this game is so totally inspired by the work of this master,” director Nate Fox said in a recent interview with IndieWire. At Entertainment Weekly, Fox explained how his team at Sucker Punch Productions suggested that the influence ran broadly, including the playable black-and-white “Kurosawa Mode” and even in picking a title. More specifically, he noted that Seven Samurai, one of Kurosawa’s most well-known works, defined Fox’s “concept of what a samurai is.” All of this work went toward the hope that players would “experience the game in a way as close to the source material as possible.”

But in embracing “Kurosawa” as an eponymous style for samurai adventures, the creatives behind Ghost of Tsushima enter into an arena of identity and cultural understanding that they never grapple with. The conversation surrounding samurai did not begin or end with Kurosawa’s films, as Japan’s current political forces continue to reinterpret history for their own benefit.

Kurosawa earned a reputation for samurai films as he worked steadily from 1943 to 1993. Opinions of the director in Japan are largely mixed; criticism ranges from the discussion of his family background coming from generations of samurai to accusations of pandering to Western audiences. Whether intentional or not, Kurosawa became the face of Japanese film in the critical circles of the 1950s. But he wasn’t just a samurai stylist: Many of the director’s films frame themselves around a central conflict of personal ideology in the face of violence that often goes without answer — and not always through the lives of samurai. In works like Drunken Angel, The Quiet Duel, or his 1944 propaganda film The Most Beautiful, Kurosawa tackles the interpersonal struggles of characters dealing with sickness, alcoholism, and other challenges.

His films endure today, and not just through critical preservation; since breaking through to the West, his visual ideas and themes have become fodder for reinterpretation. You can see this keenly in Western cinema through films like The Magnificent Seven, whose narrative was largely inspired by Seven Samurai. Or even A Fistful of Dollars, a Western epic that cleaved so closely to Kurosawa’s Yojimbo that director Sergio Leone ended up in a lawsuit with Toho Productions over rights issues. George Lucas turned to Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress in preparation for Star Wars; he’d eventually repay Kurosawa by helping to produce his surreal drama Dreams.

Ghost of Tsushima is part of that lineage, packing in action and drama to echo Kurosawa’s legacy. “We will face death and defend our home,” Shimura, the Lord of Tsushima, says within the first few minutes of the game. “Tradition. Courage. Honor. These are what make us.” He rallies his men with this reminder of what comprises the belief of the samurai: They will die for their country, they will die for their people, but doing so will bring them honor. And honor, tradition, and courage, above all else, are what make the samurai.

Except that wasn’t always the belief, it wasn’t what Kurosawa bought whole cloth, and none of the message can be untangled from how center- and alt-right politicians in modern Japan talk about “the code” today.

The “modern” Bushido code — or rather, the interpretation of the Bushido code coined in the 1900s by Inazō Nitobe — was utilized in, and thus deeply ingrained into, Japanese military culture. An easy example of how the code influenced Imperial Japan’s military would be the kamikaze pilots, officially known as the Tokubetsu Kōgekitai. While these extremes (loyalty and honor until death, or capture) aren’t as present in the myth of the samurai that has ingrained itself into modern ultranationalist circles, they manifest in different yet still insidious ways.

In 2019, to celebrate the ushering in of the Reiwa Era, the conservative Liberal Democratic Party commissioned Final Fantasy artist Yoshitaka Amano to depict Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as a samurai. Though described as being center-right, various members of the LDP have engaged in or have been in full support of historical revisionism, including the editing of textbooks to either soften or completely omit the language surrounding war crimes committed by Imperial Japan. Abe himself has been linked to supporting xenophobic curriculums, with his wife donating $9,000 to set up an ultranationalist school that pushed anti-Korean and anti-Chinese rhetoric. The prime minister is also a member of Japan’s ultraconservative Nippon Kaigi, which a U.S. congressional report on Japan-U.S. relations cited as one of several organizations that believe that “Japan should be applauded for liberating much of East Asia from Western colonial powers, that the 1946-1948 Tokyo War Crimes tribunals were illegitimate, and that the killings by Imperial Japanese troops during the 1937 ‘Nanjing massacre’ were exaggerated or fabricated.” The Nippon Kaigi, like Abe, have also pushed for the revision of Japan’s constitution — specifically, Article 9 — to allow Japan to reinstate its standing military.

This has been a major goal for Abe as his time as prime minister comes to a definite close in 2021. And from 2013 onward, the politician has made yearly trips to the Yasukuni shrine to honor the memory of war criminals, a status of which his own grandfather was accused, that died with the ethos of the modern Bushido code. Abe’s exoneration of these ideals has continued to spark reactionary nationalist sentiment, as illustrated with the Nippon Kaigi and their ultranationalist ideology. These traditionalist values have encouraged xenophobic sentiment in Japan, which was seen in the 2020 Tokyo elections with 178,784 votes going to Makoto Sakurai, leader of the Japan First Party, another ultranationalist group. Sakurai has participated in numerous hate speech demonstrations in Tokyo, often targeting Korean diaspora groups.

The preservation of the Bushido code that was highly popularized and utilized by Imperial Japan lives on through promotion by history revisionists, who elevate samurai to a status similar to that of the chivalric knight seen in Western media. They are portrayed as an honor-bound and noble group of people that cared deeply for the peasantry, when that was often not the case.

The samurai as a concept, versus who the samurai actually were, has become so deeply intertwined with Japanese imperialist beliefs that it has become difficult to separate the two. This is where cultural and historical understanding are important when approaching the mythology of the samurai as replicated in the West. Kurosawa’s later body of work — like the color-saturated Ran, which was a Japanese adaptation of King Lear, and Kagemusha, the story of a lower-class criminal impersonating a feudal lord — deeply criticized the samurai and the class system they enforced. While some films were inspired by Western plays, specifically Shakespeare, these works were critical of the samurai and their role in the Sengoku Period. They dismantled the notion of samurai by showing that they were a group of people capable of the same failings as the lower class, and were not bound to arbitrary notions of honor and chivalry.

Unlike Kurosawa’s blockbusters, his late-career critical message didn’t cross over with as much ease. In Western films like 2003’s The Last Samurai, the audience is presented with the picture of a venerable and noble samurai lord who cares only for his people and wants to preserve traditionalist values and ways of living. The portrait was, again, a highly romanticized and incorrect image of who these people were in feudal Japanese society. Other such works inspired by Kurosawa’s samurai in modern pop culture include Adult Swim’s animated production Samurai Jack and reinterpretations of his work like Seven Samurai 20XX developed by Dimps and Polygon Magic, which had also received the Kurosawa Estate’s blessing but resulted in a massive failure. The narratives of the lone ronin and the sharpshooter in American Westerns, for example, almost run in parallel.

Then there’s Ghost of Tsushima. Kurosawa’s work is littered with close-ups focused on capturing the emotionality of every individual actor’s performance, and panoramic shots showcasing sprawling environments or small feudal villages. Fox and his team recreate that. But after playing through the story of Jin, Ghost of Tsushima is as much of an homage to an Akira Kurosawa film as any general black-and-white film could be. The Kurosawa Mode in the game doesn’t necessarily reflect the director’s signatures, as the narrative hook and tropes found in Kurosawa’s work — and through much of the samurai film genre — are equally as important as the framing of specific shots.

“I don’t think a lot of white Western academics have the context to talk about Japanese national identity,” Tori Huynh, a Vietnamese woman and art director in Los Angeles, said about the Western discussion of Kurosawa’s aesthetic. “Their context for Japanese nationalism will be very different from Japanese and other Asian people. My experience with Orientalism in film itself is, that there is a really weird fascination with Japanese suffering and guilt, which is focused on in academic circles … I don’t think there is anything wrong with referencing his aesthetic. But that’s a very different conversation when referencing his ideology.”

Ghost of Tsushima features beautifully framed shots before duels that illustrate the tension between Jin and whomever he’s about to face off against, usually in areas populated by floating lanterns or vibrant and colorful flowers. The shots clearly draw inspiration from Kurosawa films, but these moments are usually preceded by a misunderstanding on Jin’s part — stumbling into a situation he’d otherwise have no business participating in if it weren’t for laid-out side quests to get mythical sword techniques or armor. Issues like this undermine the visual flair; the duels are repeated over and over in tedium as more of a set-piece than something that should have a component of storytelling and add tension to the narrative.

Fox and Sucker Punch’s game lacks a script that can see the samurai as Japanese society’s violent landlords. Instead of examining the samurai’s role, Ghost of Tsushima lionizes their existence as the true protectors of feudal Japan. Jin must protect and reclaim Tsushima from the foreign invaders. He must defend the peasantry from errant bandits taking advantage of the turmoil currently engulfing the island. Even if that means that the samurai in question must discard his sense of honor, or moral righteousness, to stoop to the level of the invading forces he must defeat.

Jin’s honor and the cost of the lives he must protect are in constant battle, until this struggle no longer becomes important to the story, and his tale whittles down to an inevitable and morally murky end. To what lengths will he go to preserve his own honor, as well as that of those around him? Ghost of Tsushima asks these questions without a truly introspective look at what that entails in relation to the very concept of the samurai and their Bushido code. This manifests in flashbacks to Jin’s uncle, Shimura, reprimanding him for taking the coward’s path when doing his first assassination outside of forced stealth segments. Or in story beats where the Khan of the opposing Mongol force informs Shimura that Jin has been stabbing enemies in the back. Even if you could avoid participating in these systems, the narrative is fixated on Jin’s struggle with maintaining his honor while ultimately trying to serve his people.

I do not believe Ghost of Tsushima was designed to empower a nationalist fantasy. At a glance, and through my time playing the game, however, it feels like it was made by outsiders looking into an otherwise complex culture through the flattening lens of an old black-and-white film. The gameplay is slick and the hero moments are grand, but the game lacks the nuance and understanding of what it ultimately tries to reference. As it stands, being a cool pseudo-historical drama is, indeed, what Ghost of Tsushima’s creators seemingly aimed to accomplish. In an interview with Famitsu, Chris Zimmerman of Sucker Punch said that “if Japanese players think the game is cool, or like a historical drama, then that’s a compliment.” And if there is one thing Ghost of Tsushima did succeed in, it was creating a “cool” aesthetic — encompassed by one-on-one showdowns with a lot of cinematic framing.

In an interview with The Verge, Fox said that “our game is inspired by history, but we’re not strictly historically accurate.” That’s keenly felt throughout the story and in its portrayal of the samurai. The imagery and iconography of the samurai carry a burden that Sucker Punch perhaps did not reckon with during the creation of Ghost of Tsushima. While the game doesn’t have to remain true to the events that transpired in Tsushima, the symbol of the samurai propagates a nationalist message by presenting a glossed-over retelling of that same history. Were, at any point, Ghost of Tsushima to wrestle with the internal conflict between the various class systems that existed in Japan at the time, it might have been truer to the films that it draws deep inspiration from. However, Ghost of Tsushima is what it set out to be: a “cool” period piece that doesn’t dwell on the reasonings or intricacies of the existing period pieces it references.

A game that so heavily carries itself on the laurels of one of the most prolific Japanese filmmakers should investigate and reflect on his work in the same way that the audience engages with other pieces of media like film and literature. What is the intent of the creator versus the work’s broader meaning in relation to current events, or the history of the culture that is ultimately serving as a backdrop to yet another open-world romp? And how do these things intertwine and create something that can flirt on an edge of misunderstanding? Ghost of Tsushima is a surface-level reflection of these questions and quandaries, sporting a lens through which to experience Kurosawa, but not to understand his work. It ultimately doesn’t deal with the politics of the country it uses as a backdrop. For the makers of the game, recreating Kurosawa is just black and white.

172 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Did Democrats Or Republicans Founded The Kkk

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-democrats-or-republicans-founded-the-kkk/

Did Democrats Or Republicans Founded The Kkk

The Kkk Was Founded By Democrats But Not The Party

Democrats Founded the KKK.mp4

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by ex-Confederate soldiers Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe in Pulaski, Tennessee. The group was originally a social club but quickly became a violent white supremacist group.

Its first grand wizard was Nathan Bedford Forrest, an ex-Confederate general and prominent slave trader.

Fact check:

Experts agree the KKK attracted many ex-Confederate soldiers and Southerners who opposed Reconstruction, most of whom were Democrats. Forrest even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

The KKK is almost a paramilitary organization thats trying to benefit one party. It syncs up with the Democratic Party, which really was a;racist party openly at the time, Grinspan said. But the KKK isnt the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party isnt the KKK.

Although the KKK did serve the Democratic Partys interests, Grinspan stressed that not all Democrats supported the KKK.

The Anti-Defamation Leagues Center on Extremism senior fellow Mark Pitcavage told the Associated Press that many KKK members were Democrats because the Whig Party had died off and Southerners disliked Republicans after the Civil War. Despite KKK members’ primary political affiliation, Pitcavage said it is wrong to say the Democratic Party started the KKK.

Fact check:Yes, historians do teach that first Black members of Congress were Republicans

The Conservative Coalition Vs The New Deal Coalition

Now that we know the basics, the changes in both parties in the 1900s are perhaps best understood by examining;the Conservative Coalition;and the New Deal Coalition.

The Conservative Coalition was a coalition between the anti-Communist Republicans like Nixon and Reagan and conservative Southern Democrats. It arose to oppose FDRs New Deal progressivism, and it blocked a lot of the progressive legislation the New Deal Coalition tried to pass from the 1930s to the 1960s. The socially conservative solid south;was still its own entity. It sometimes voted;with other Democrats, and sometimes broke off into its own factions. See the 1960 election Kennedy v. Nixon v. Harry F. Byrd. The Coalition tellingly dwindled post 64 Civil Rights and ended in the Clinton era as conservative southerners became Republicans and formed;the modern construct of the Red States and the Blue States.

Meanwhile,;the New Deal coalition explains the progressive coalition of Democrats and Republicans the Conservative coalition opposed. Today the two parties largely resemble these coalitions.

A Summary Of The Solid South Switch

To summarize the above claims before we get to the details:

In 1860 the Democratic Party Platforms were about Small Government and States Rights, and the more aristocratic Republican Platform about Federal Power and Collective;Rights, but by;2016, the opposite is;true .

This is because the conservative south and old Republican Progressives can be said to have switched parties in reaction;to events that occurred from the Gilded Age to the Bush and Clinton years. These changes that are well symbolized by the 1968 election, but not explained by that alone.

To understand what changed, we must become familiar with;people like W. J. Bryan, Teddy, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, Henry A. Wallace, Strom Thurmond, FDR, MLK, and Hoover. We must look at the Red Scare, the Dixiecrat States Rights Parties, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Nixons Southern Strategies, the New Deal Coalition and Conservative Coalition, etc. See;Democrats and Republicans Switched Platforms.

The full story aside, in the early days:

Populist social liberals used to ally with the populist socially conservative solid south .

The social liberal elite like Gouverneur Morris and Alexander Hamilton were in the Federalist party with classical conservative Tory-like figures and factions.

That pairing;of factions is either hopeful or a blight on history, depending on your perspective.

How the South Went Republican: Can Democrats Ever Win There Again? .

Also Check: Is Red The Color Of Republicans

In The Wake Of Trump’s David Duke Controversy Many Republicans Have Tried To Tie The Kkk To Progressivism

Its not news that Donald Trump appeals to white supremacists and his slowness in rebuking former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Dukes support hardly qualifies as surprising at this point. Whats instructive is how right-wing figures react. Earlier this week, political troglodyte Jeffrey Lord attempted to deflect criticism by calling the Klan a leftist terrorist organization perpetuating violence to further the progressive agenda.

That, of course, is entirely wrong. A short lesson in the basics of 20th;century American political history explains why.

White supremacist Southern Democrats were a key part of President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal Coalition. They used their large numbers, unity and seniority to exclude as many black people from as much of the New Deal benefits and protections as possible and to stop the federal government from doing anything about lynching. Then the black freedom movement and white allies insisted on civil rights. In reactionary response, those white southern Democrats left the Democratic Party en masse, as evidenced by Strom Thurmonds Dixiecrat presidential campaign in 1948 and Richard Nixons opposition to school busing and play for segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallaces constituency.

White southern Democrats were explicit about their racism, and its no mystery that they left the party when it yielded to civil rights movement pressure, and as blacks began to make up a larger part of its constituency.

Did The American Political Parties Switch Clarifying The Semantics

People often ask,;did the American political parties switch?, but this question is semantically wrong, and thus we should address it before moving on.

Parties can switch general platforms and ideologies .

Voters can switch parties .

However,;the parties themselves only switch when they hang-up their hat to become a new party;.

Recommended Reading: Why Do Republicans Want To Impeach Obama

You May Like: When Did Political Parties Switch Platforms

Southernization Urbanization And Big Government Vs Small Government

Today the Republican party doesnt have a notable progressive left-wing and the Democratic Party doesnt have a notable socially conservative right-wing.

Instead both parties have establishment and populist wings and the parties are divided by stances on social issues.

In other words, regional interests and the basic political identities of liberal and conservative didnt change as much as factions changed parties as party platforms changed along with America.

The modern split is expressed well by;the left-right paradigm Big Government Progressivism vs. Small Government Social Conservatism, where;socially conservative and pro-business conservative factions banded together against socially liberal and pro business liberal factions, to push back against an increasingly progressive Democratic Party and America .

This tension largely created the modern parties of our two-party system, resulting in two Big Tents;who disagree on the purposes of government;and social issues. This tension is then magnified by the;current influence of media and lobbyists, and can be understood by examining;what I call;the Sixth Party Strategy and by a tactic called Dog Whistle Politics).

The result is that today the Democratic Party is dominated by liberal Democrats and Progressives.

Meanwhile, most of those who would have been the old;socially conservative Democrats now have a R next to their name.

Read Also: Is The Media Biased Against Republicans

Great Depression Shrinks Klan

The Great Depression in the 1930s depleted the Klans membership ranks, and the organization temporarily disbanded in 1944. The civil rights movement of the 1960s saw a surge of local Klan activity across the South, including the bombings, beatings and shootings of Black and white activists. These actions, carried out in secret but apparently the work of local Klansmen, outraged the nation and helped win support for the civil rights cause.;

READ MORE: How Billie Holiday’s ‘Strange Fruit’ Confronted an Ugly Era of Lynchings

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson delivered a speech publicly condemning the Klan and announcing the arrest of four Klansmen in connection with the murder of a white female civil rights worker in Alabama. The cases of Klan-related violence became more isolated in the decades to come, though fragmented groups became aligned with neo-Nazi or other right-wing extremist organizations from the 1970s onward.;

As of 2016, the Anti-Defamation League estimated Klan membership to be around 3,000, while the Southern Poverty Law Center said there were 6,000 members total.

You May Like: Why Are Republicans Wearing Blue Ties

Limited Government States Rights And Anti

Had the populist liberals, who agreed with;limited government but did not agree fully on social issues, not aligned, there would have been a Federalist dominance in early America. The;dominant factions would have been northern know-nothing-like nativists, social progressive Roosevelt-like or Hamilton-like elites, and quasi-loyalist Aristocrats like Adams.

The founders were not pro-slavery. However, slavery;was part of the culture and economy of many nations; the South was one such region.

Abolishing slavery meant crippling the Souths votes and industry. This was the;main argument for slavery by the Solid South historically. It;didnt stop the abolitionists like Hamilton from pushing for the abolition of slavery;as;he pushed for a central bank or federal control . However, it did result in many key compromises from the 1770s to mid-1800s.

A Reconstituted Early 20th Century Kkk Attracts Members From Both Sides

The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party

After Reconstruction, and as the Jim Crow period set in during the 1870s, the Klan became obsolete.;Through violence, intimidation and systematic oppression, the KKK had served its purpose to help whites retake Southern governments.

In 1915, Cornell William J. Simmons restarted the KKK. This second KKK was made up of Republicans and Democrats, although Democrats were more widely involved.

The idea that these things overlap in a Venn diagram, the way they did with the first Klan, just isnt as tight with the second Klan, Grinspan said.

Recommended Reading: Did Donald Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Why It Doesnt Make Sense To Equate Modern Democrats With The Old Southern Democrats

The Democrats, formally the;anti-Federalists,;had an;aversion to aristocracy from the late 1700s to the progressive era.

That truism;led to the southern conservatives of the solid south like;John C. Calhoun and small government liberals like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van Buren allying;in the same party;for most of U.S. history.

However,;that changed;after Civil Rights under LBJ and the rise of Goldwater States Rights Republicans .

Today the solid south, and figures like Jeff Sessions, are in an alliance in the big tent of the Republican Party . This was as much a response to the growing progressiveness of the Democratic Party as anything.

One simple way to confirm this is to look at the factions of;Lincolns time. There were four. They;were:

The Northern liberal Whig/Republicans,

The;Nativist Know-Nothing; allies of the Whig/Republicans,

The Southern Democrats and their Northern allies , and

The;Free Soil;;allies of the Democrats who;took a libertarian like position.

Todays Democrats are more like socially liberal Whig/Republicans , libertarians are like Free Soilers , Trumpians are like Nativist Know-Nothings , and Southern Democrats are like the modern Southern conservative Republicans.

The current parties are thus:

Social Liberals and Neoliberals vs. Social Conservatives and Neoliberal Conservatives AKA Neocons .

Clearly, the country has never been fully polarized, even at its most polarized.

Military Reconstruction And The Birth Of The Kkk

After the Civil War, during Reconstruction, the northern elite Radical Republican Progressives used the military to force the south to reform. At the time the Deep South used things like apprenticeship laws to extend slavery past the end of the War. The KKK took a;stand in defense of the old Southern way of life in a society divided by murder, military occupation, and;mayhem.

To be clear, Military Reconstruction is a term that;describes;the occupation of the South, and the KKK;formed as a response to it.

From that point on the South becomes Redeemed by Southern BourbonsAKA Northern Oligarchs who help the South;replace slave labor with wage labor.

The above might;be viewed less critically;if it wasnt for a notable speed bump:

Before Reconstruction could end naturally, in 1877, the Republican establishment traded the reformation of a few southern states for the Presidency when Tilden beat the Republican Hayes.

At that point, the Gilded Age began.;Gilded Age Republicans Redeemed the South and liked to be seen as putting aside the issue of race to focus on modernization and becoming a superpower.

The Gilded age gave way to the Progressive era. And in those eras, most of the country again minimized;issues of;race to focus on;other minority rights such as womens rights. Then, after that came the World Wars.

Radical Republicans From PBSs Reconstruction: The 2nd Civil War.

Don’t Miss: Who Gives More Democrats Or Republicans

The Rise Of Modern Social Liberalism And Social Conservatism

Later we get a third way with Bill Clintons New Democrats. This third way is an extension;of the;progressive bourbon liberal wing, but mashed-up with the progressive social liberal wing, and Reagan-era;conservatism. These three social liberal ideologies which Clinton embodied can collectively be referred to as an;American liberalism. These factions, which we can today denote as;progressive, neoliberal, and social liberal, can be used to differentiate types of liberals on the political left from the New Deal Coalition and the modern Democratic party of today.

TIP: As noted above in the introduction, there is no one way to understand Americas political ideologies, but each angle we look at things from helps us to better understand;bits of the historic puzzle.

Outside The United States

Aside from the Ku Klux Klan in Canada, there have been various attempts to organize KKK chapters outside the United States.

In Australia in the late 1990s, former One Nation member Peter Coleman established branches throughout the country, and circa 2012 the KKK has attempted to infiltrate other political parties such as Australia First.

Recruitment activity has also been reported in the United Kingdom.

In Germany, a KKK-related group, Ritter des Feurigen Kreuzes , was established in the 1920s. After the Nazis took over Germany, the group disbanded and its members joined the Nazis. Another German KKK-related group, the European White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, has organized and it gained notoriety in 2012 when the German media reported that two police officers who held membership in the organization would be allowed to keep their jobs.

A Ku Klux Klan group was established in Fiji in the early 1870s by white American settlers, although its operations were quickly put to an end by the British who, although not officially yet established as the major authority of Fiji, had played a leading role in establishing a new constitutional monarchy that was being threatened by the activities of the Fijian Klan.

In São Paulo, Brazil, the website of a group called Imperial Klans of Brazil was shut down in 2003, and the group’s leader was arrested.

You May Like: When Did The Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms

The Rise Of America First Nativism: Anti

During the 1830s to 1850s, as tension builds, third parties spring up like the northern nativist Know-Nothings;. This faction;pushed back against immigration in places like NYC and was more likely to be allied with the Whigs than the Democrats.

The conflict between Catholic immigrants and Know-Nothings is;the subject of the movie Gangs of New York.

These Know-Nothings were like a Northern version of the KKK but were notably;more concerned with immigration than slavery.;The soon-to-be KKK and the earlier;Know-Nothings shared an aversion to Catholics, Jews, non-whites, and non-Protestants in general, but much else was different.

The Know-Nothings were accused of being in bed with;Northern abolitionists,;and;their American party really never;caught on in the south due to them being perceived as more elitist and northern.

Thus, although each region breaks into;different groups, one should note that the slavery south is not;the only faction with socially conservative position, and certainly, they arent the only authoritative group. Remember, they are opposing northern elitists who are perpetuating their brand;of economic and political inequality.

Looking To The Classics And Factions For Proof

One good and not-so-divisive way to explain history is to look at the classics, especially those who focus on state-based political factions over political parties.

Classic works of this sort of political history, like V.O. Keys Southern Politics in State and Nation , make it very clear that the Solid South had historically always voted lock-step for the Democratic Party . Of course, the voting map over time, actual recorded history, and so much else tell this story too, but a well respected book like this is a great secondary source!

Today the Solid South is with the Republican Party and today old Socially Progressive Republicans like Teddy arent in the party .

This isnt to say that some of the more progressive Dixies, Bryan followers, and even economically minded Southern;Bourbons arent in the Democratic Party, they obviously are, just look at Carter, Clinton, Gore, and Bernie .

Likewise, the GOP have their constants. The;conservative Federalist pro-business faction, the neocons be they switched Bourbons, Gilded Age post-Reconstruction Republicans, or traditional Federalists, and the Federalist War Hawks are still in the Republican Party, as are the nativists;of the north Know-Nothings.

However, despite what didnt change, a ton did, including the party platforms, key factions, and a large swath of the voter base.

Modern Democrats know this well, they lost the 2016;election and didnt get one state in the Southern Bloc for Hillary .

Read Also: Democrats Have Tried To Impeach Every Republican President Since Eisenhower

A Century Of Jim Crow But Otherwise Lots Of Progress

From 1877 to at least the 1960s, the Solid South KKK-like;Progressively Socially Conservative Democrats remained a formidable faction of the Democratic Party.

This is true even though the party was increasingly dominated by Progressives like William Jennings Bryan. We can see in Wilson that both factions held sway in the party, Wilson was both a progressive liberal and a son of the Confederates.

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow | PBS | ep 1 of 4 Promises Betrayed.

TIP: During the late 1800s and early 1900s Eugenics was a popular theory. In this era, we might find;Margaret Sanger, liberal economists and social scientists, Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Ford, a young Hitler, and the KKK all agreeing on aspects of eugenics. There are many sides;of the eugenics argument, and one must study its history in earnest before making a judgment call. Very;radical right-wing propaganda equated birth control with;genocide, but there was a wide range of beliefs. An espousal of;negative eugenics is part of the dark history of the Democratic party.

2 notes · View notes

drnikolatesla · 5 years ago

Text

Nikola Tesla’s Thoughts On the Soul and Life After Death

Tesla’s reasoning are the thoughts of a practical man of science, who has not only conducted experiments, but deep mental consideration to the question of immortality. Tesla was destined by his parents at an early age to enter the clergy, but the inventive genius, inherited from his mother, took him into the realm of science. Most of his life was spent in deep meditation to the question of the soul and life after death. His conclusions on the subjects will most definitely not run parallel with most others, but are indeed food for thought.

Here are 6 quotes made by Nikola Tesla:

1. When a child is born, its sense organs are brought in contact with the outer world. The waves of sound, heat and light beat against its feeble body, its sensitive nerve fibres quiver, the muscles contract and relax in obedience—a gasp, a breath, and in this act a wonderful little engine, of structure, is hitched to the wheelwork or the universe. Left to itself the engine stops; it has no power to draw energy from Nature’s inexhaustible store.

“The little engine moves and works, changes size and shape, performs more and more varied operations, becomes sensitive to more and more different influences, and now there begins to manifest itself in it a mysterious force. It becomes capable of responding to stimuli of a more subtle nature and of drawing, for its own use, energy from the environment. Gradually the engine has been transformed into a being possessed of intelligence, which perceives, discerns, does like others of its kind.

“The experiences multiply, the knowledge increases, the discernment becomes keener, the human being responding to the faintest influences, is awakened to the consciousness of Nature and its grandeur, and in its breast there is kindled a desire to imitate Nature, to create, to work itself the wonders it perceives.

”But the exercise of this power does not satisfy the mind, which rises to still higher, undefinable perceptions, not of this world, and inspired by them the artist, the inventor and the man of science give expression to the longing of the soul.

(“Shows How Men Of The Future May Become As Gods.” NEW YORK HERALD . December 30, 1900.)

2. “That an aggregation of impressions, thoughts and feelings having no materiality, and vaguely designated as mind, or soul, should be substance susceptible of quantitative determination is altogether too absurd for discussion.

“The change however, which takes place in the human body during its awful transition from life to death is a great subject for scientific investigation which may possibly lead to important results. If the experiments of Massachusetts physicians are to be at all seriously considered, it is only in this respect.

“I could not help being struck by the fact that men of a scientific caliber sufficiently large to undertake measurements requiring the greatest delicacy and skill, should not be correspondingly resourceful in devising the apparatus for the purpose. A scale responding to the weight of one tenth of an ounce is not a fit instrument for weighing the human soul.

“It is not less astonishing that such trained observer should have overlooked a trivial cause responsible for the seeming lightening of the body. I use this term designedly, for accepting the exudations which have been taken into consideration there was no loss of substance in death.

“When the rigor mortis sets in there is an increase of volume for various reasons. Just to give a rough idea I shall assume that the living body, weighing a hundred and sixty pounds, had filled a space of three cubic feet. The air in a sick room may weigh about fourteen ounces per cubic feet. Half an ounce of the air would consequently occupy a space of sixty-two cubic inches, and that would be only one percent of the original volume of three cubic feet. As will readily be seen, a very slight general deformation of the body, scarcely perceptible, is adequate to explain the puzzling observation. The sudden tipping of the scale demonstrates nothing except the coarseness of the instrument. Had the balance been very sensitive, owing to the resistance of the air, the platform would have ascended slowly.“

–Nikola Tesla

(“Scientists Doubt The Human Soul Was Weighed.” New York World, March 17, 1907.)

3. “Since time immemorial the most profound thinkers have tried to lift the veil that hides the beyond. I have read thousands of volumes of literature and thought for years in the hope that I might get some kind of evidence to show that death is not the end. But all in vain. To me the universe is simply a marvelous mechanism, and the most complex forms of human life, as human beings, are nothing else but automatic engines, controlled by external influence. Through incessant observation I have so convinced myself of the truth of this that I cannot perform any act or even conceive a thought without locating at once the external stimulus that prompted it.

“A forceful argument in support of the existence of a creative agent is made of the law, order and harmony perceptible everywhere. But it must not be forgotten that Kant’s reasoning and conclusion in this respect are irrefutable. According to this philosopher, the conception of fitness has been created in the speculative mind of men, which thus admires a miracle wrought by itself.

“Granted a planetary system, it is absolutely inevitable that in the course of eons such organized beings as we are will evolve. The cooling of the hot masses results in a precipitation of water, and under the influence of the sun’s rays heliotropic action takes place and life is started. Through chemical and other agents and continuous adjustment complex mechanisms come into being, and these ultimately develop into structures of marvelous complexity with capacities of response to the faintest stimulae from the environment.

“When we realize this as a fact we begin to grasp the great idea of Buddha–that self is an illusion. Indeed, we are nothing but waves in space and time which when dissolved exist no more.

“There is this to be said, however, that science without hope is not satisfactory, and unless one has some ideals he cannot achieve happiness. The religious is the most lofty ideal, and it seems that the great reformers who, ages ago, laid down rules of conduct were right in their conclusions that a peaceful existence and a continued onward march of man on this globe is essentially dependent on the conception of a God.

“I have read Mr. Burbank’s statement in which he expresses an opinion shared by most natural philosophers, but one must not be too rash in contradicting the conclusions reached by countless men of genius who spent their lives in endeavors to ascertain the destiny of the human race. A single individual, however well informed and capable, may be partially unaware of if not utterly blind to evidences of a certain kind, which might be quite sufficient for others. This is the reason why I am distrustful of my own findings. Possibly Mr. Ford, who I understand is accepting old traditions, may be closer to the truth than such men as Burbank and myself.

“I have searched during many years for some process or means to test the possibility of future existence by scientific experiment, and I have devised one, which, to my great disappointment, has failed. But perhaps some more skillful experimenter might succeed if I suggest to him the course. To put it briefly, it is this:

“Our bodies are composed of molecules of various elements, harmoniously united. Do these molecules retain any after-effect when the body is dissolved? To ascertain this take, say, two molecules of hydrogen from the body of an individual and also one molecule of oxygen. Furthermore, provide another molecule of oxygen taken from some other body. Now place the two molecules of hydrogen so they can combine with the oxygen, and if they prefer that molecule of oxygen with which they were previously united, then reincarnation is proved. For, though it may take ages and ages, ultimately the molecules which constituted that body will get together again, just as in a vast city individuals from a distant land finally meet and establish close contact.”

(“After Death — WHAT?” Lima News, Lima, Ohio, March 14, 1926.)

4. “We are all automatons obeying external influences. We are entirely under the control of agents that beat on our senses from all directions of the outside world. Being merely receivers from the outside, it is a very important question how good the receivers are—some are sensitive and receive accurately. Others are sluggish and their reception is blurred. The individual who is a better machine has so much greater chance of achieving success and happiness. An individual who is an offender of law is a machine in which one or another organ has been deranged, so that the responses are no longer accurate.

“There is no chance in nature, although the modern theory of indeterminacy attempts to show scientifically that events are governed by chance. I positively deny that. The causes and effects, however complex, are intimately linked, and the result of all inferences must be inevitably fixed as by a mathematical formula.

“I also absolutely deny the existence of individuality. It took me not less than twenty years to develop a faculty to trace every thought or act of mine to an external influence. We are just waves in time and space, changing continuously, and the illusion of individuality is produced through the concatenation of the rapidly succeeding phases of existence. What we define as likeness is merely the result of the symmetrical arrangement of molecules which compose our body.”

“How about the soul - the spirit?” he was asked.

“Ah,” he exclaimed, “but there is no soul or spirit. These are merely expressions of the functions of the body. These life functions cease with death and so do soul and spirit.

“What humanity needs is ideals. Idealism is the force that will free us from material fetters.”

(“Tesla Seeks to Send Power to Planets.” New York Times, July 11, 1931.)

5. “One of the most fundamental and also one of the saddest facts in human life is well brought out in a French proverb which, freely translated, means:

‘If Youth had the knowledge and Old Age the strength of doing.’

Our condition of body and mind in old age is merely a certificate of how we have spent our youth. The secret of my own strength and vitality today is that in my youth I led what you might call a virtuous life.

"I have never dissipated. When I was a young man I understood well the significance of that old French proverb, although I doubt that I had even heard it then. But I seemed to have a clear understanding while still young that I must control my passions and appetites if I wanted to make some of my dreams come true.

(“Tremendous New Power Soon To Be Released.” By Carol Bird. Charleston Daily Mail, Charleston, West Virginia, Page 40. September 10, 1933.)

6. “To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without. Owing to the similarity of our construction and the sameness of our environment, we respond in like manner to similar stimuli, and from the concordance of our reactions, understanding is barn. In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call “soul ” or “spirit,” is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the “soul” or the “spirit” ceases likewise.“

(“A Machine to End War.” Liberty Magazine, February 9, 1935.)

–Nikola Tesla

#nikola tesla #quotes #soul #spirit #conciousness #life #death #science #history #philosophy #universe #mechanic theory of life #ahead of his time #ahead of our time

129 notes · View notes

historicheathen · 4 years ago

Text

BLOODY HELL, Murdoch

As you could probably guess, I am a lover of historical dramas, with Murdoch Mysteries being one of my absolute favourites for both its' encapsulating storyline and for being Canadian. When it comes to historical dramas, a lot of times myself along with other historians are known for being very critical in regards to subject matter, costumes, location, even the way characters speak and interact with eachother in these types of shows and films. In my professional opinion, Murdoch Mysteries is probably one of the better series when it comes to both telling a fictional but period (1890s onward) narrative and showing both the progressivism of the early 1900s and the many problems faced in this era.

The show takes place in the bustling metropolis of Toronto Ontario, and as you could have guessed focuses on crimes of murder that occur in the city. Detective William Murdoch works out of station house number 4 and is the Toronto constabulary's best super sleuth. Armed with the assistance of the magnificent coroner Doctor Julia Odgen, his chipper Constable George Crabtree, and his quick tempered Stationmaster Thomas Brackenreid, Murdoch solves any and all mysteries presented to him.

The show is not only entertaining, its' characters are also wonderful representations of both traditional values and changing times. Thomas Brackenreid, a martyr of the old generation often finds himself falling victim to stereotypes of the times such as discriminating against different ethic groups and also refusing to accept new emerging technologies. In contrast, characters such as Doctor Julia Odgen and Constable George Crabtree offer modern ways of thinking. Julia is both a working professional in a male dominated field, obtained an abortion, and is an advocate for birth control and women's rights, all of which of course are seen as taboo for a woman. George Crabtree is often regarded as a simpleton or a day dreamer for his love of modern inventions and trends such as: pizza, hamburgers, Coca-Cola, and of course his insistence on the existence of vampires. George also is critiqued for investing in modern technologies which the rest of the station, including Murdoch finds obsolete. The show also challenges gender and race discrimination by hosting female coroners, one of which being of colour, and another being a homosexual.

Aside from all of the innovation, the show also presents common problems associated with life in the early 1900s. Poverty, lack of hygiene, ethnic and racial segregation and discrimination are all present in the show. The suspects also come from all social classes and are distinguished by their appearance. Lower classes are presented with yellowed teeth and tattered clothes, middle are often cleaner but usually don the same outfit as they may only have two or three, and upper class are presented as being quite bourgeoisie. The difference in language used also indicates social class in the show, with the upper class being more posh and proper and the lower using slang. The show also shows how the police often used racial and ethic discrimination when it came to solving murders and crimes, often assigning blame without full motive. Murdoch of course always steps in and obtains the truth, and attempts to discourage arrests on the basis of ethnicity.

The show however does sometimes become outlandish, Murdoch often finds himself in the company of many historical figures such as Winston Churchill, Henry Ford, Sir Arthur Cohan Doyle, and of course Nikola Tesla. Usually when he works with these individuals, a new innovation is created such as audio recordings. Now of course it is entirely unlikely and even impossible that these people would have ever stepped foot in Toronto let alone desired to work with the police force. However this component of the show also helps push the idea of innovation and progression in both police practices as well as thinking.

Overall, is the show a perfect representation of the Toronto police force in the 1890s- early 1900s? Absolutely not. But no show should be. If it were, the show would have no entertainment value whatsoever. The show is able to both progress as history progresses but also shows how hard life was in the time it is depicting. Its' use of costumes, coloqualisms, and historical context provides a concrete and believable set for a riveting and complex story line.

Murdoch Mysteries will always have a special place in my heart.

Until next time,

The Historic Heathen

#public history #history #dramas #television

5 notes · View notes

periodsofdisaster · 6 years ago

Text

Victorian Blues

Here we go again, my darlings.

Today we take a journey back to...perhaps, the 1890s? I can’t really tell.

This one is a bit of a doozy, to be honest.

We always start with “expectations” before we move on to grim “reality,” so let’s take a look at a few examples of what I think our seller is going for. What we’re working with, I really can’t even articulate how much of a miss it is...you’ll just have to see it. But first, some examples of things they attempted to translate into a modern reproduction.

In the 1890s and the early 1900s, there were occasionally evening gowns with thin shoulder straps, like the reproduction I will soon present. However, like these examples from the Delineator and this rather simple 1898 Jacques Doucet extant example, none of what I can find simply has the narrow straps without also having something decorative that sits off each shoulder. I include the Doucet specifically to show that simple, sparsely-trimmed gowns did exist in this period, and how they were done in a way that still appears luxurious.

One thing the reproduction (which I promise to show you soon,) does get wrong is the back - it has something of a “bustle” to it. I cannot find any examples of a bustled back and narrow straps coexisting. It seems that, if you want a bustled back, you have to go back at least to the tail end of the 1880s, like this one from Worth, dated c. 1888. This is technically an opera gown, and this seems to be the last year you see slightly bustled backs among higher-end, higher-fashion gowns. Notice the straps on this are quite thick, and don’t even really seem to function as straps, mostly for decoration.

So, onward to today’s disaster.

I don’t really know what to say about this, to be honest. It is over $300 on Etsy, pre-made, not made-to-measure. What’s worse, the seller claims it was featured in a historical fashion exhibit, which, to be perfectly honest, makes me want to throw myself on a fainting couch and sob.

It is made of silk. I sigh, heavily. The kind of people who could afford a fully silk ballgown would’ve had *underwear* with more trimming than this. I honestly feel like I’m looking at a mock-up.

There is a right way to do a thin-strapped, sparsely-trimmed 1890s gown.

This, my chickadees, is not it.

A bonus nitpick: what little trimming exists is short, white fringe. This type of extremely thin, light fringe, made of synthetic fabric, was not a thing until well into the 20th century. In fact, as the article linked to below outlines, it didn’t even exist in by the 1920s the way we today think of it. Fringe in the 1890s would’ve been thicker, much heavier, and longer, designed to help fabric drape a certain way. Not short, light, thin, and purely decorative.

If you can call this decorative.

#historical sewing #sewing #sewing fail #fail #1890s #victorian #historical costume #historical costuming

3 notes · View notes

glaring-and-pouncing · 2 years ago

Text

The word transsexual was coined (in german) by Magnus Hirschfeld to describe his patients that received gender confirming surgery in 1923, 13 years after coining transvestite (in german) to describe what we would now call trans people. All of this was the culmination of over a hundred years of prior (pathologized and eugenicist) interest in trans existence by cis society, right along the same path as gay people (for context homosexual was coined in 1869. bisexuality was coined in 1877 but only came to it’s modern usage sometime in the early to mid 1900s. Lesbian is unclear, probably in the mid to late 1800s with use outside of the community appearing in the 1870s. However it didn’t come to mean women who exclusively love women until later, I wasn’t able to find an exact date for that but if I had to guess, sometime between 1890-1930). We all existed prior, make no mistake but even the popular idea of trans people is old at this point. HRT is older than chemotherapy. GRS is older than heart transplants. Trans people were in drag performances before actors were in Hollywood movies. Priestess all over the Hellenic and even Classical world would perform ritual castrations and live as women. certain prostitutes would don women clothing for work and some never took it off. Men are a little harder, the butch/trans wars are thousands of years old but there are Roman records of people who would shave their heads and live as men both in public and private. There were athletes who would compete with the men and insist they were held the same mind as them, a sentiment that was seen over and over again across gender and culture in written accounts for thousands of years. Here are some rapid fire names (won’t repeat the previous poster nor will I repeat the names everyone sees every pride) the Chevaliere D’eon, Harry Allen, (probably) Pauli Murray and Elagabalus, (definitely) Candy Darling and Christine Jorgenson, One Eyed Charley Parkhurst, Dr. Alan Hart, Mary Jones, Lucy Hicks Anderson, Eleanor Rykener (who was arrested for prostitution in 1394), Joseph Lobdell, good ol’ Billy Tipton and countless “female husbands” in the 1800′s and “princesses” and “queens” in the 1700s onwards in proto-ball culture (not all but certainly some). Now it’s time for a Magnus Hirschfeld patient list: Käthe Karl, Selma “Voo Doo” Buergge, Lili Elvenes, Toni Ebel and Charlotte Charlaque (possibly the first recorded t4t couple, if only because they were two of the first Ts), Burthold Burttgereit, and Dora Richter. Magnus gave generic names that he likely heard in passing. These may have been drag artists or may have been trans or perhaps both: Minehaha, Rebbeka, Anita, Cleo, Beryllis, Susanne, Violetta, Aurora, Melitta, Rosaura, Kassandra, Paula, Freida, Erika, Georgette, Thea, Ottile, Dorchen, and Otero for the girls and Fritz, Heinz, Max, Franz, Napoleon, Nero, Caesar, Heliogabal, Caligula, Antonius, Gregor, Carlos, Posa, Mortimer, Goetz, Tasso, Egmont, Armin, Teja, Bluecher, Oferdingen, Karl, Joern, Don Juan, Puck, Hiddigeigei “and especially Hans” for the boys.

A major source I used for then Wiemar stuff: http://www.trickymothernature.com/insideout1.html

Generic names from here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/62772/62772-h/62772-h.htm

Everything other source is either extremely scattered or just stuff I picked up over the years.

I think the biggest danger to the LGBT movement is the idea that it's... new. Because new ideas are easy to reject. You don't have to engage with something if it's a new idea, because it'll probably go away eventually. But LGBT people aren't new, we've been around for decades, centuries, in all cultures on earth. That history just keeps getting hidden and erased, swept under the carpet so people don't have to take it seriously.

Imagine how fewer people would be transphobic if it didn't feel to them like a new, topical idea. If it felt like the old idea that it is, if they were aware that people have been trans and have been transitioning for longer than anyone has been alive to see. They'd have to accept it as simply another part of their world. Not a weird, new idea, but common sense.

Anyway, happy pride.

13K notes · View notes

sciencespies · 4 years ago

Text

How Much Did Grandmothers Influence Human Evolution?

https://sciencespies.com/nature/how-much-did-grandmothers-influence-human-evolution/

How Much Did Grandmothers Influence Human Evolution?

The seeds of an idea were planted as Kristen Hawkes watched older women collecting vegetables.

Hawkes, a professor of anthropology at the University of Utah, has extensively studied the Hadza, a group of hunter-gatherers in Tanzania who eat a lot of wild foods such as berries and tubers. While young children can pick berries themselves, older women in the community are the ones pulling up the bulbous root vegetables, which would be difficult for young kids.

Hawkes found a correlation between how well children grew and their mother’s foraging work, until the mother had another kid. Then, their growth correlated with “grandmother’s work,” she says. “There were the data right in front of us.”

These observations, which Hawkes and collaborators began in the 1980s, have helped fuel the Grandmother Hypothesis, the idea that grandmothers step in to feed young children and perform other motherly duties so that mothers can focus their own energy and resources on having more children at shorter intervals. The result is that a grandmother enables the birth of more descendants, leaving more copies of her genes in subsequent generations. In prehistoric times, the theory goes, grandmothering led to the spread of genes corresponding to slower aging in women relative to their predecessors, which increased expected lifespans in general.

Combining those observations with models of variation in life history in other organisms, from mice to elephants, Hawkes and colleagues have become convinced that human grandmothers have played a central role in the life history of Homo sapiens. They argue that grandmothers are a driving force behind the increased longevity of our species compared to other primates.

Longevity is also highly correlated with brain size across the mammalian kingdom—the bigger the brain, the longer the lifespan—and the best predictor of brain size is the duration of brain development. “If you’re going to make a bigger brain, it takes longer to make it,” explains Barbara Finlay, professor emerita of psychology at Cornell University, who has collaborated with Hawkes.

Through a combination of anthropological fieldwork, mathematical modeling and comparative primatology, Hawkes and collaborators make the case that a prehistoric division of labor—in which grandmothers take on responsibilities for nourishing grandchildren while mothers pop out more babies—has led to the long lives and big brains we have today.

“All of these pieces start to be connected to this puzzle of us, coming back to this life history shift to this increasing longevity, with older females subsidizing the fertility of younger ones,” Hawkes says.

It’s heartwarming to think of grandmothers as evolutionary heroines, especially in the face of an alternative narrative: that postmenopausal women merely represent evolution’s failure to sustain fertility throughout a woman’s entire life. But to skeptics, the Grandmother Hypothesis remains a “just so” story, a tidy narrative that can’t truly be proven or disproven, which is the burden of science. Nonetheless, the Grandmother Hypothesis hints at broader mysteries and controversies about the human lifespan, women’s bodies and to what extent health declines as a result of menopause.

Evolutionary biologists and anthropologists have spent decades trying to figure out why female humans outlive their fertile period when few other animals do. (The Grandmother Hypothesis originated with a 1957 paper by the late ecologist George C. Williams, but more recently Hawkes has carried the torch for grandmothers’ role in evolution.) Chimpanzees, our closest mammalian relatives, and other great apes do not typically live past menopause—and most don’t even experience it. The killer whale and pilot whale are rare examples of mammalian species in which females continue living after they can no longer reproduce. A 2019 study shows that grandmother whales increase the survival of their aquatic grandkids; for example, grandmothers can lead the group to food when there are fewer salmon around.

While everyone agrees grandmothers can provide welcome childcare support and resources for their children raising new babies, one debate about the Grandmother Hypothesis surrounds which is a more relevant metric: how long people lived on average or, instead, how long people could live.

Donna Holmes Parks, associate clinical professor of biology at the University of Idaho, argues that long lifespans among humans is a modern phenomenon. Ancient humans rarely lived beyond 50 years, and prior to the industrial revolution most people tended to die by 35, the age at which fertility starts to decline in both sexes, Parks writes in the book The Arc of Life, which she edited with Grazyna Jasienska and Diana Sherry.

Life expectancy from birth in the U.S. in 1900 was 45; over the course of the 20th century, as modern medicine entered the scene, it climbed to 78 to 80 years old, she writes. But Hawkes and others counter that in previous eras, many more babies and juveniles died young, lowering the average age of death. They point to the difference between life expectancy and life span potential, of which the latter is much longer.

And then a related question arises—how old is menopause? If menopause is a recent phenomenon, then scientists have a harder time arguing that postmenopausal grandmothers have so strongly shaped human evolution.

If menopause is ancient, anthropologists expect to find commonalities in the symptoms that women experience regardless of their ethnicity. Given that all humans descended from a single African ancestor, population variations observed today are associated with evolution in more recent eras, more like 5,000 to 50,000 years ago, according to a 2020 study in BMC Women’s Health. And this new study does find modest differences between ethnic groups in both self-reported menopausal symptoms and associated hormones, arguing that menopause is relatively recent in human history.

But Lynette Sievert, biological anthropologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, is skeptical. She has done fieldwork on menopause in many communities worldwide, from Bangladesh to Mexico to Hawaii. Her work has found that while women in some cultures may say that they do not experience hot flashes, monitoring devices on volunteers in those groups show that actually hot flashes are common—these women just don’t talk about them. Sievert says the universalities of the menopausal experience across the world suggest a shared experience of estrogen decline at midlife. Hot flashes may have ancient roots.

While no one can observe the hot flashes of Homo erectus, Sievert and others say humans and their ancestors have gone through menopause for at least 1 million, even up to 1.8 million years—even before anatomically modern Homo sapiens.

Even if menopause is truly ancient, some detractors of the Grandmother Hypothesis point to the health perils of a woman’s post-fertile years to argue that this stage of life is not adaptive—maintaining that postmenopausal womanhood did not result from the selection of inherited beneficial traits over time. Many of the common health problems of aging can be traced to physiological phenomena that are beneficial in younger people, Parks says. Estrogen is essential for fertility, but in later years the decline in estrogen puts women at risk for osteoporosis, on top of the unpleasant and sometimes serious symptoms of menopause itself. Decreases in estrogen may also contribute to the risk of heart disease and dementia. “If grandmas are so important to their relatives, why isn’t health in general stable from menopause onward?” Parks writes in an e-mail.

Sievert agrees that grandmothers have played important roles in helping their children and grandchildren, but for her, it’s not the answer to why women live beyond their fertile years and past menopause. What set up our species to have post-fertile grandmothers around in the first place is that women are born with all the eggs they will ever have. Other animals like fish, amphibians and most reptiles produce eggs throughout their lives, so their females will never experience menopause or live in a postmenopausal state.

Human females start out with about 1 million eggs, of which about 300,000 remain when puberty begins. But these tiny cells aren’t only for reproduction. In concert with hormones circulating during fertile years, eggs also produce estrogen and serve other functions besides combining with sperm.

Looking across species, scientists have found an intriguing correlation between the number of eggs the typical female produces and the expected length of life, Sievert says. Mammals produce all their eggs at once, in a greater quantity than they could possibly use. The number of eggs quickly declines around birth, but drops more slowly before the onset of fertility. Then, eggs die off even more slowly until fertility ends.

Sievert argues that as the human lifespan potential became longer and longer, the female body did not simultaneously evolve to make enough eggs to keep up. The maximum potential lifespan, therefore, grew to outpace egg production.

And so women got to experience older ages, even after their eggs ran out. For mammals, ovaries stop working by age 50, setting the stage for a post-reproductive life that can include grandmotherly childcare duties. “I don’t think that becoming a grandmother selected for menopause and post-reproductive life,” Sievert says. “But I think that having post-reproductive life opened the space for effectiveness of grandmothers.”

And grandmothers aren’t the only potential helpers. Aunts and other relatives and community members can provide the “stuff and knowledge” that grandmothers are known for disseminating, says Finlay, the emerita psychology professor at Cornell. The more ancient communal, multigenerational living situation contrasts with the stereotypical American nuclear family in which parents and kids live apart from other relatives—although in reality, many variations exist in households today.

Grandfathers can provide food resources to offspring and grandchildren, too—something corroborated in the fieldwork of Hillard Kaplan, who was Hawkes’ graduate student, and colleagues studying the Tsimané, an indigenous group in Bolivian Amazonia that lives off of hunting, foraging and cultivation.

That’s not surprising to Hawkes, as local environmental and social factors shape different groups and the way they face tradeoffs involving resources and childrearing, she says. But she maintains the bulk of evidence—the economics of foraging for foods among groups such as the Hadza, and mathematical models of grandmotherly effects on lifespans—supports grandmothers as the ancient secondary providers for kids, which shaped human longevity.

While this idea remains controversial, the general importance of grandmothers in the lives of many families is not. If you can, call yours today.

#Nature

1 note · View note

go-redgirl · 7 years ago

Text

Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065

Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065

Chapter 1: The Nation’s Immigration Laws, 1920 to Today

Fifty years ago, the U.S. enacted a sweeping immigration law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, which replaced longstanding national origin quotas that favored Northern Europe with a new system allocating more visas to people from other countries around the world and giving increased priority to close relatives of U.S. residents.

Just prior to passage of the 1965 law, residents of only three countries—Ireland, Germany and the United Kingdom—were entitled to nearly 70% of the quota visas available to enter the U.S. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1965).4 Today, immigration to the U.S. is dominated by people born in Asia and Latin America, with immigrants from all of Europe accounting for only 10% of recent arrivals.

The 1965 law undid national origin quotas enacted in the 1920s, which were written into laws that imposed the first numerical limits on immigration. Those laws were the culmination of steadily tightening federal restrictions on immigration that began in the late 1800s with prohibitions or restrictions on certain types of immigrants, such as convicts, in addition to a ban on Chinese migrants and later virtually all Asian migrants.

This chapter explores the history of immigration law in the U.S., focusing on provisions of major legislation from the 20th century onward. Accompanying this chapter is an interactive timeline (below) of U.S. immigration legislation since the 1790s.

New Restrictions in the 1920s

The visa arrangement in place when the 1965 law was passed was a legacy from half a century earlier. At that earlier time, a giant wave of immigration that began in the late 1800s had raised the nation’s population of foreign-born residents to a then-record high of 13.9 million in 1920, making up a near-record 13% of the U.S. population (Gibson and Jung, 2006; Passel and Cohn, 2008).5 The first arrivals in this wave were mainly Northern Europeans, but by the early 1900s most new arrivals came from Italy, Poland and elsewhere in Southern and Eastern Europe (Martin, 2011).

Reacting to the change in immigrant origins, laws enacted in the 1920s sought to return U.S. immigration patterns to those that prevailed decades earlier, when Northern Europeans were the largest group of immigrants. A 1921 law imposed the first overall numerical quota on immigration to the U.S.—about 350,000, reduced to 165,000 in 1924 (Martin, 2011). The 1924 law set annual quotas for each European country based on the foreign-born population from that nation living in the U.S. in 1890.

The 1921 and 1924 laws exempted from the new quota highly skilled immigrants, domestic servants, specialized workers such as actors and wives or unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens, and the 1924 law also created preferences for quota visas for certain family members and agricultural workers (Martin, 2011).

Nationality quotas were imposed only on Europe, not on countries in the Western Hemisphere. There were no quotas for Asia, because immigration from most countries there already was prohibited through other restrictions imposed in 1875 and expanded in later decades.

These laws were passed against a backdrop of growing federal regulation of immigration, which was mainly controlled by states until a series of Supreme Court rulings in the late 1800s declared that it was a federal responsibility. Aside from country limits, federal laws already in place barred immigration by criminals, those deemed “lunatics” or “idiots,” and people unable to support themselves, among others (U.S. Department of Homeland Security). These laws also required that immigrants older than 16 prove they could read English or some other language. The federal immigration bureaucracy, created in 1891, grew in the 1920s with creation of the Border Patrol and an appeals board for people excluded from the country (U.S. Department of Homeland Security).

Immigration slowed sharply after the 1920s. But there were some exceptions to U.S. immigration restrictions. For example, because of labor shortages during World War II, the U.S. and Mexico signed an agreement in 1942 creating the Bracero program to allow Mexican agricultural workers to enter the U.S. temporarily. The program lasted until 1964.

Longstanding bans on immigration from Asia were lifted in the 1940s and 1950s. A prohibition on Chinese immigration enacted in 1882 was repealed in 1943. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act included the first quotas, though small, allowing immigrants from Asian nations, and created a preference system among quota visas that included highly skilled workers for the first time.

President Harry S. Truman, who opposed national origin quotas, appointed a commission to review the nation’s immigration policy after Congress passed the 1952 law over his veto. The commission’s report criticized the national origin quotas for perpetuating racial and national discrimination. The commission recommended that national origin quotas be replaced by higher limits with priority status based on granting asylum, reunifying families and meeting the nation’s labor needs (President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, 1953). Congress did not act on those recommendations, but in 1953 it did approve a commission proposal for separate quotas for refugees (Martin, 2011).

The 1965 Law Brings Major Change

It was not until 1965, when amendments were passed to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, that the old national origins system was abolished.

Instead, the new law emphasized visas for family and employment categories, but exempted spouses, parents and minor children of U.S. citizens from those visa limits. That exemption, and other priority given to family members of U.S. residents, meant that about three-quarters of visas were set aside for relatives of those already in the U.S.—putting the emphasis in U.S. immigration policy on family reunification.

Most remaining visas were for employment purposes, given to people with certain job skills and their family members. The Labor Department was required to certify that an American worker was not available to fill the job of the visa seeker and that U.S. workers would not be harmed if the visa were issued (Martin, 2011).

The 1965 law also included a quota for refugees, who were granted 6% of annual visas, compared with 74% for families; 10% for professionals, scientists and artists; and 10% for workers in short supply in the country (Kritz and Gurak, 2005). Later, the Refugee Act of 1980 separated refugee admissions from the overall quota system, expanded the definition of a refugee and set up comprehensive procedures for handling refugees.

Although the 1920s-era national origins quotas were abolished, the new 1965 law did include total hemisphere and country quotas. Though the hemisphere quotas were dropped in the following decade (Martin, 2011). Importantly, the law imposed the first limits on immigration from Western Hemisphere countries, including Mexico. Those limits, combined with the end of the Bracero program in 1964, are associated with a rise in unauthorized immigration, mostly from Mexico.7

Scholars attribute passage of the 1965 law in part to the era’s civil rights movement, which created a climate for changing laws that allowed racial or ethnic discrimination, as well as to the growing clout of groups whose immigration had been restricted (Martin, 2011). The economy was healthy, allaying concerns that immigrants would compete with U.S.-born workers (Reimers, 1992). Some, however, say that geopolitical factors were more important, especially the image of the U.S. abroad in an era of Cold War competition with Russia (FitzGerald and Cook-Martin, 2015). Labor unions, which had opposed higher immigration levels in the past, supported the 1965 law, though they pushed for changes to tighten employment visas. And political players changed: President Lyndon B. Johnson lobbied hard for the bill, and a new generation of congressional leaders created a friendlier environment for it (Martin, 2011).

Its sponsors praised the law for its fairness but downplayed its potential impact on immigration flows. “This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions,” Johnson said in remarks at the signing ceremony. “It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power.”

Laws Since 1965

In the 1970s and early 1980s, new laws mainly focused on the growing flow of refugees from Southeast Asia. Since then, concerns about unauthorized immigration have guided the nation’s immigration policy agenda. In 1986, Congress addressed the growing issue of unauthorized immigration with the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which offered temporary protection from deportation and legal permanent resident status to millions of people who had lived in the country since the 1980s. Roughly 2.7 million people were given legal status under the law’s general legalization or its special program for farmworkers.

The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the number of visas for legal immigrants coming for family and employment reasons and created a new category of visas for “diversity immigrants.” Among other provisions, it also created a new type of relief from deportation for nationals of countries undergoing armed conflicts, environmental or health disasters, or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions,” known as “temporary protected status,” which has been used mainly by Central American immigrants.

The primary emphasis of more recent immigration legislation has been to reduce government benefits to immigrants, increase border security and provide broader reasoning for excluding immigrants on terrorism grounds (Migration Policy Institute, 2013).

Notable exceptions to that pattern were President Barack Obama’s two recent executive actions on unauthorized immigration—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012 and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) in 2014. DACA allowed young adults, ages 15 to 30, who had been brought illegally to the U.S. as children to apply for deportation relief and a temporary work permit. In 2014, the president eliminated the age limits for DACA eligibility. Under DAPA, some unauthorized immigrants with U.S.-born children were allowed to apply for deportation relief and a work permit. The 2014 actions are on hold because of a legal challenge filed by 26 states (Lopez and Krogstad, 2015).

OPINION: Obama did not have the authorization to sign (DACA) it was never approved by Congress. That's who started this problem in the USA. It's was Obama himself.

Here is what Obama could not do without approval from Congress: He couldn't generally give large groups of immigrants permission to remain permanently in the United States, and he couldn't grant them American citizenship. And he couldn't generally make them eligible for federal or state social benefit programs, such as welfare payments, food stamps or the administration's health care plans.

1 note · View note

thegoodleague · 4 years ago

Text

What is the history of Cannabis

Hashish is exclusive in that it might probably produce each a narcotic and a particularly lengthy and powerful fiber, all from the identical plant. It was these two traits coupled with Hashish' amenability to domestication which led to its very early look in human historical past. What is the history of Cannabis

Throughout the Neolithic interval roughly 10,000 years in the past, early people started growing agriculture as a method of securing meals provide. Provided that Hashish or hemp is a coloniser it's fairly probably that human's first contact with this plant occurred round that point. As a result of hemp is a coloniser it prefers to maneuver into areas of fertile soil that is freed from competitors. Such a surroundings would solely happen in nature throughout a interval of disaster resembling a flood or hearth. However when Neolithic people started clearing land for agriculture, it is rather probably that Hashish started spreading into these open fields initially as a weed and later as an actively cultured plant.

It's usually agreed that domestication of hemp started in Asia. Precisely the place in Asia isn't recognized though the earliest recognized incidence of hemp agriculture occurred in China's Yellow River valley roughly 6,500 years in the past.The Neolithic peoples of this valley, often known as the Yangshao actively grew Hashish and used its fibers to provide nets, ropes and hemp clothes.