#anglo supremacy

[hussyknee]

[whats-in-a-sentence]

'Finally! The dating site for those wishing to preserve their heritage.'

"Going Dark: The Secret Social Lives of Extremists" - Julia Ebner

[consuetudinari0]

Understanding Anglo-Saxonism in American History

Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism by Reginald Horsman (1981) Introduction Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism by Reginald Horsman is a critical work that examines the roots of the racialist ideology that dominated the United States during its territorial expansion in the 19th century. The author provides a comprehensive…

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"FEARS HE WOULD GO TO JAIL IN QUEBEC," Toronto Star. May 21, 1934. Page 2. --- Orange Speaker Trusts Ontario Still Safe to Preach Protestantism ---- Speaking at the annual church service of the Western District Orange Lodge, in Christ church, Shaw St., on Sunday afternoon, Rev. Bro. C. H. Way, in criticizing the Roman Catholic church, declared: "In Quebec I would perhaps be dragged off to jail for saying so, but I trust that it is still safe to preach Protestantism and to expose the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic church in Ontario and other Protestant provinces.

Mr. Way claimed the right to declare that the Roman Catholic doctrines of "transubstantiation, apostolic succession, prayers to the Virgin, saints and angels, the terrible doctrine of purgatory and many others that could be mentioned are contrary to the word of God."

British people won civil and religious freedom in the revolution of 1688-90, in the relief of Derry and the Battle of the Boyne, he said. Roman Catholicism failed in Britain, as it has since failed in France, Italy, Austria, Spain and Mexico, as well as other countries, claimed Mr. Way.

"Romanism never makes any head-way, except as a result of compromising on the part of Protestants. There has been too much compromise in Canada's public life and it should be stopped," he declared.

All of the thirty Orange lodges in the western district, besides many visitors, were represented in the parade and the church was filled to capacity.

[immaculatasknight]

Writing a happy ending

[apas-95]

When someone from europe or a peripheral capitalist state does the whole 'oh police violence and repression aren't a problem here that's just a USA thing' song and dance, it's obviously bullshit - the oppositional nature between the enforcers of the ruling class and the classes they rule over is fairly fundamental to the existence of any state - but it would be a lot easier to countermand if usamericans weren't so utterly provincial.

The character of the bourgeois police in, for example, Kazakhstan, is genuinely different than that of the US police, and cannot be neatly understood through just seeing it as a variation on the latter. A more broad, theoretical understanding of policing in general applies to both, but an empiricist understanding of a federal security apparatus descended from British-imperial slave patrols just plainly will not transfer to a unitary state's police force made to replace a workers' militia.

This applies to everything, really - the racial and ethnic dynamics of a given place outside the USA are going to be fundamentally and qualitatively different than those of the USA, and the refusal, of usamericans who have learned, empirically, about the nature of anglo settler-colonial white supremacy, to then develop a deeper and broader theoretical understanding of how systems of racial and ethnic oppression are developed - rather than saying 'its crazy that serbs and croats could hate each other when they're both White, shrimp racism lol' and the like - makes it more difficult, not less, to meaningfully oppose it when someone says 'racism isn't a problem in my country, just the USA', especially when the only response given is regarding supposed oppression of racial categories that may well not exist in that context.

This is, incidentally, why the whole 'I don't need theory, I have lived experience' tripe is wholly insufficient for the real world. You do not have enough experience, and you are going to encounter novel scenarios where mindlessly applying learned dynamics by rote will lead to entirely confident wrong answers. It's not good enough. The world is a lot bigger than you.

[log6]

I think it's weird how people on here seem determined to argue about how american black people are better off somehow for living in the imperial core because you are fundamentally making an argument on "privilege" whether you use those words or not and at this point we can acknowledge that is an awful system for analysing anything. Not only that but you're using it to make an insane moralistic judgement on people living in America which is especially insane when it's about black people and on top of THAT is a deeply stupid and genuinely fascistic manner of "third worldism". Yes black americans earn comparatively higher wages and larger assets than most places in the world but literally no one would argue about that, what's weird is the people who insist on bringing that up neglect the other essential part of this discussion which is that even in African nations where the wages are vastly lower, those people still exist as full citizens of their nation-states, where black people in america are forced (FORCED) to live in the midst of anglo white supremacy that both fundamentally requires and deeply despises their very existence. I'm sorry but I don't even understand what you gain from nearly weaponizing the basic facts of economic imperialism against the most systematically exploited people of the imperial core especially if you claim to be a leftist. Black americans have always had and continue to have the most revolutionary potential within the american empire and instead of even pretending to care about international proletarianism you people will degenerate into radlibs just to make pointless and vaguely racist arguments at black people online.

[orangerosebush]

Recently, I did a re-read of the AF series, and I am working through some thoughts I have on the Fowls and what allowed them to maintain power -- especially in the sense of being landed -- in Ireland after arriving during the Norman conquest in the 12th century.

Colfer establishes that Hugo de Folé and Virgil Butler arrived in Ireland during the first Norman crusades in the 12th century (1169).

“The first record of this unusual arrangement [between the Fowls and Butlers] was when Virgil Butler had been contracted as servant, bodyguard, and cook to Lord Hugo de Folé for one of the first great Norman crusades.” From: Artemis Fowl. By Eoin Colfer.

At once, these origins of the Fowls would make them ambiguously part of the Old English, a term from the modern period (post-1600) used to describe the descendants of the first Anglo-Norman conquerors who largely inhabited the Pale (Dublin and surrounding areas) and surrounding towns. Hugo de Folé and Virgil Butler would have likely been Catholic.

However, the origins of Fowl Manor complicate this.

The original Fowl castle had been built by Aodhán Fowl in the fifteenth century overlooking low-lying country on all sides. A tactic borrowed from the Normans. From: The Arctic Incident. By Eoin Colfer

In the 15th (c. 1401-1500) century, Aodhán Fowl acquired land for Fowl Manor in the Pale (Dublin and its surrounding areas); the estate has remained in the Fowls' possession ever since, which is important to note.

The Fowls' historical proximity to the Pale likely was what allowed them to maintain power over the centuries.

Between the 12th and 16th centuries, the Lordship of Ireland (1177-1542) placed swaths of Ireland under the control of Anglo-Norman lords loyal to the King of England.

However, by the 14th century (1300s), English rule of Ireland beyond the Pale (Dublin and its surrounding areas) was weakening. Beyond the Pale, (Catholic) Hiberno-Norman lords' fiefdoms had a degree of independence from the English, often adopting elements of Gaelic language and culture.

This changes around the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation and the Tudor conquest of Ireland. In 1536, Henry VIII of England decided to reconquer Ireland and bring it under crown control. Charles II, Henry VII's son, made the re-established Church of England even more explicitly Protestant.

Between the 16th and 17th centuries (c.1550s-1620s), Irish land was transferred to a new wave of (Protestant) settlers from Great Britain and Scotland to strengthen the Crown's weakening control over Ireland and Anglicize (and thus "civilize") the island; the land transfer was facilitated through the creation of plantations, such as the plantation of Ulster.

The Old English, which would have included descendants of de Folé and Virgil Butler, were supplanted by the New English, the Protestant landowners introduced by the Tudors in a number of ventures at plantations.

It is important to note the historical nuance that:

There was no equivalent in Ireland to the English Test Act of 1672, and there were plenty of precedents for exemptions to the Act of Supremacy. The legal position of Irish Catholics was, in many practical respects, better than that of English Catholics; many fines and penalties fell into abeyance under Charles [II], and the Catholic hierarchy co-operated openly with the Dublin administration. From James's [James VI and I] accession, the Church's position was obviously improved; priests emerged into the public eye and were allowed salaries, though they were not as yet endowed. Protestant superiority remained, in many areas, axiomatic; Catholics continued to occupy a curiously edgy position of formal inferiority combined with tacit toleration. But the ambiguities of their situation reflected the logic of local conditions just as much as the shifts in central policy. [...] But the 'Test clause in the 1704 [Popery] Act, obliging holders of public office to take sacraments according to the usage of the Church of Ireland, gradually excluded Presbyterians from town corporations even in Ulster. Despite the regium donum and the Toleration Act, their equivocal relationship with the civil power remained, and would provide a key theme in the radicalization of the Irish political world after 1780, when the threat of Catholic disaffection apparently receded. [From: Modern Ireland, 1600–1972. By R.F. Foster]

Still, the Popery Act would have had consequences for the historical Fowls and Butlers as Old English families. Beyond the Test clause in the Popery Act, it also limited Catholics' ability to buy/lease land, as well as limited inheritance from a Catholic to be by gavelkind i.e., divided equally, and thus shrinking with each generation, the estate between all sons, rather than according to Primogeniture.

It begs the question of how Fowl Manor remained in the hands of the family, rather than becoming the estate of a member of the New English.

As anti-Catholic sentiment was largely grounded in the political context of loyalty to the Crown (as opposed to the Pope), certain members of the Old English gentry could have (and did!) find ways to join the wave of the Protestant Ascendancy.

"The Anglo-Ireland of the day in fact encompassed sizable middle and lower classes -- a heterogeneity that Foster finds "exemplified by that quintessential Ascendancy institution, Trinity College: defined by Anglicanism but containing sons of peers, of shoemakers, of distillers, of butchers, of surgeons, and of builders" (Foster 1989, 173). And not all the "Anglo-Irish" were, strictly speaking, "Anglo." Early in Bowen's Court, Bowen's historical account of her family's Cork home, we learn that "Bowen" derives from the Welsh "ab Owen" or "ap Owen" (Bowen 1942a, 33). Other Anglo-Irish men and women traced their ancestry to the Old English and to Catholics who converted to Protestantism in order to reap the accompanying social, political and material rewards. Violet Martin (better known as Martin Ross) descended from the Old English Martins of Ross, who had owned land in Galway and had converted to Protestantism in the eighteenth century (McMahon 1968, 123). As Thomas Flanagan concludes, "there were many ways of being Anglo-Irish" (Flanagan 1966, 59). So what, then, defined Anglo-Irishness? In [R.F. ] Foster's view, it was Anglicanism. Anglicanism "defined a social elite, professional as well as landed, whose descent could be Norman, Old English, Cromwellian or even (in a very few cases) ancient Gaelic. Anglicanism conferred exclusivity, in Ireland as in contemporary England; and exclusivity defined the [Protestant] Ascendancy, not ethnic origin" From: An Anarchy in the Mind And in the Heart: Narrating Anglo-Ireland. By Ellen M. Wolff

And what do we find out in the first book of Artemis Fowl?

"Beside [Angeline] was a facsimile of [Artemis'] father, constructed from the morning suit he'd worn on that glorious day in Christchurch Cathedral fourteen years ago." From: Artemis Fowl. By Eoin Colfer

Christchurch Cathedral (in Dublin) is Anglican in denomination!

I just think it is so cool that across a few sentences from Artemis Fowl and The Arctic Incident, it is possible to situate the Fowl family within a semi-realistic history of Ireland.

[transmutationisms]

could you talk more on eds and biopolitics?

sure, so this is broad strokes and it's also worth reiterating that the energy deficit characteristic of EDs can have a lot of different causes besides intentional food restriction—food insecurity is a huge and underrecognised factor here but there are many others. so when i talk about intentional restriction and the desire to be thin / lose weight, i'm not suggesting these are universal characteristics or causes of EDs.

anyway though, in the context of discussing these things, and particularly the relationship between 'diet culture' and EDs, a perennial frustration to me is that i often hear people fall back on the idea that the desire to be thin comes about as a result of the beauty standards perpetuated in mass media, fashion adverts, &c, without any subsequent interrogation of why it is that beauty itself is now so heavily dependent on thinness. after all, plenty of people have pointed out this is not a universal; beauty varies in different times and places, what is described or depicted as beautiful in historical records doesn't necessarily have much overlap with today's hegemonic standards, and so forth.

so when historicising this phenomenon it becomes very clear that the euro/anglo standard of thinness as beauty is, one, part of the ideological apparatus justifying colonialism thru the creation of race and white supremacy. sabrina strings and da'shaun harrison have written on this. two, the thin ideal is also inextricably tied up in medical discourses defining the ideal body as one that is economically productive, with the promise being that if the populace can be transformed into 'healthy',*** useful, hardworking citizens, the state benefits. control of bodyweight is therefore certainly a means of demonstrating one's supposed self-control, moral discipline, &c, but it is also a demand expressed in medical terms: these two discourses merge and overlap, and are both part of the capitalist state's transformation of its citizenry into a biological resource that can be controlled, managed, and exploited to bourgeois ends (profit): hence, biopolitics.

(***the story of how 'health' itself comes to be so dependent on thinness is obviously a critical piece of all this but this post is long as shit already so suffice it to say that this conflation is also not obvious, necessary, universal, &c &c)

medico-political discourses in the 19th century tended to talk about the dangers of both over- and under-weight more than what we hear now; similarly, if you think about something like wilbur atwater's calorie-value charts, these were explicitly intended to guide labourers to the most calorie-dense foods, because to atwater the central danger to be avoided was starvation among the workforce. these days in wealthy countries like the us, you are much more likely to hear about weight management in the context of demands to reduce; this is of course following moves like the WHO declaring an 'obesity epidemic' in 1997, and the rise in the usa of more explicitly nationalist, militaristic weight-loss rhetoric in the post-9/11 era.

however, my position is that these demands for thinness, and the beauty standard that follows and justifies them, are not a departure from earlier 19th- and 20th-century scientific nutrition advice, just an evolution that, for a multitude of reasons (politics, medical professional interests, insurance company practices, &c) has simply come to focus more on the ostensible economic and national threat posed by fatness. the underlying logic bears the biopolitical throughline: the state has, or ought to have, an interest in enforcing the health of its population, and as part of this demands that you the individual surveil and alter your weight according to the scientific guidelines du jour.

this is fertile ground for the development of what, in extreme form, we regard as ED pathology. first, because even the most purely 'health'-motivated individual engaging in the required degree of bodily monitoring and caloric restriction is liable to respond to energy deficit in ways that can become diagnosably distressing. second, because the morals of 'health' are never far from standards of beauty; thinness is sold in overtly profitable ways (the diet and weight-loss industries) and furthermore, our idea of beauty is often a kind of post hoc justification for the thinness already being demanded by state and medical authorities. which is really just to say, beauty is part of the ideological superstructure both resulting from and invoked as a justification for the material conditions of capitalist biopolitics. again this is very broad strokes, but imo it is a much more useful framework to understand EDs than simply presenting them as a result of desiring thinness because it is glorified in The Media, because... reasons (essentially the rené girard model, lol).

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

Tumblr, We Need To Talk

So multiple times now, posts that I have written, completely free of any sense of anger at all, have been interpreted by folks here - not just as angry - but as malicious. It has now happened enough times that we need to address the biases at hand here.

I am three things that are relevant for this discussion: I am Jewish. I am Italian. And I am Scottish.

These are three cultures that feature "loudness" as a positive trait. What do I mean by that?

I mean arguing, debate, discussion at my home growing up was louder than a kindergarten field trip to the zoo. Louder than a metal concert's mosh pit. Louder than the conure room at a bird shelter.

I am a loud, boisterous person. That's just who I am. With those three cultural backgrounds, I can't even help it. On more than one occasion, someone has interpreted my tendency for the dramatic, my eagerness, and my enthusiasm as being "too much". In fact, it is quite a point of trauma for me, the number of times that specific rejection has occurred.

But to me, I wasn't doing anything wrong! I was acting as my family acted, as people from my culture acted, as those around me in other situations acted. In Judaism, arguing is even seen as emotion-free, because interpersonal debate is how we learn and grow. Even the most stringent and austere Jewish groups will feature a loudly arguing table of scholars in the Beit Midrash. Italian dinners are filled with singing and shouting for joy. Being Scottish means yelling at everything and then yelling at it again. This was, and is, my life. It was loud. It was emotional. It was excitement.

Online, tone indicators are even worse, with many people easily being misunderstood in a given situation. Hell, there are probably those of you reading this now who are reading a higher level of emotion and anger into my words than is actually there. That added complication has now lead to multiple occurrences of this misunderstanding.

This isn't limited to the cultures I come from, of course! The anger and excitement and enthusiasm found in Black culture has been weaponized against it for as long as racism has existed (y'all can ask @ladyraekingmaker more about that). In fact, lower class Black Women in the United States were often perceived negatively for being loud and having their private lives carried out in public (because they did not have access to private spaces). Same for different cultural norms in other places, from Persia/Iran to parts of Latin America and more.

Indeed, loudness, anger, and tone are heavily tied to how different cultures are perceived. Calmness, stoicism, and a lack of "emotionalness" is a highlight of WASPy cultures, famously - "white anglo-saxon protestant" if you're not familiar. Being more "low key" and less expressive was considered high class, being less so was low class. And that still continues today - from the snide comments of tumblr anon's and ex friends, to the literal policing of impoverished communites of color for their celebrations and community gatherings.

The perception of emotion and passion as a "bad" thing is 100% tied to white supremacy. Full stop. In fact, policing people for being "angry" at certain things was a great way to shut down discussion of many important issues, that deserved anger - things like racism, sexism, and homophobia. Anger is a good, important, and necessary emotion - and being emotional in general is a way many people use to emphasize their own points and indicate how much they care about a subject. It's necessary, and it's good. Anger, emotion, excitement, these are good things.

It is better for someone to be angry and up front with you, allowing you to learn and grow as a person, than to bullshit you and mollycoddle you into a state of complacency.

So, that means that for many people reading this, you probably never really thought of how your reaction to loud, or emotional, or dramatic, or excitable people was related to upholding social norms. That's okay! It's not a big deal! We are all born with blind spots and things we are ignorant of that we have to understand and tackle. Growing up is something we never stop doing.

But I'm not magically going to stop being excitable, loud, and emotional. And I'm not going to magically stop being myself. While in person, my tone and facial expressions would help others to at least see that I am not mad but excited; here, you're going to have to take me at my word.

If I am angry, you will know it. It will be extremely, painfully obvious. I might even explicitly say it. But the fact remains is that, every time I have gotten (frankly, condescending) anons in my inbox telling me to "calm down", I haven't been angry at all. And that is a cultural bias a lot of you have to examine in yourselves. By policing how people - not just me - on how they talk and express themselves, you are upholding white supremacy. And you need to stop.

I am too much for some people. That's okay! If I am, you are free to go. No one has to follow me. But I am not going to minimize myself just to make some people comfortable, especially when I am doing nothing wrong. And if you continue to insist that I am, you are missing the point of this post.

Stop worshiping the empty alter of stoicism, of emotionlessness, of quietude. It's not how most humans act. And it shouldn't be, because emotions exist for a reason. That reason? Is communication.

And if you're still not convinced, just get invited to a Pesach seder. Good luck with that being anything close to "calm".

~ Meig

[rotzaprachim]

there’s a really interesting linguistics post in me about how a lot of conservatives in the uk and England (& broader anglophone world) uphold a conservative idea of Greek and Roman supremacy as the center of western civilization but don’t give their kids the modern forms of Greek and Roman names in good part because they are associated with minorities and or people or color or immigrants - latine in the U.S., southern European in the uk. Those same Greek and Roman names are ethnicized now as Mexican, Romanian, Greek etc like imagine a white Anglo republican or Tory naming a kid Julio or Cesár or Dionisio or Florian. so they either don’t go for those names - because the modern continuations of Latin and Greek speaking culture are actually alive and well and they don’t Like them - or they have to go totally off the plot and name them Sixtus or something like mogg

[whereserpentswalk]

I keep seeing this same thing over and over again where people try to divide up the "good trans people" and the "bad trans people". Useally by trying to claim that the bad group is some combination of over represented or giving the group a bad name. And like, there's always something very racist about what's considered good and bad, specifically conflating trans people with traits the west considers eastern.

"Good" transmascs are defined by having facial hair and body hair, having traditionally masculine body types, have extremely western interests and ways of dressing, etc. And the "bad" transmascs are stereotyped as being too slender and hairless, and for wanting to look like anime boys or Kpop idols, and for being somehow both sexless and perverted, etc. Like, there's a very clear trend here with these truscumy posts.

Same goes for transfems. Where "bad transfems" are seen as being obsessed with looking like anime girls, being too into computers, being flat chested and childlike, and being horny in a submissive way.

There's a very clear trend where every trait members of the queer community consider negative in other queer people match up with negative stereotypes the west has about eastasian people. It's why you hear "you can't transition into an anime boy" coming from people who in the past we would call truscum, when fandoms like Dr. Who or Hazbin Hotel which also have a lot of transmasc fans and twinkish characters get ignored by them. It's why the standards for what they consider passing are always bodies that look white and dress very western. It's why femboys are seen as gross and perverted, while drag queens are seen as wholesome and marketable, they're both crossdressing performers, but one has Anglo-Australian origins while the other has Japanese origins, which is why you'll never see a library with femboy story hour.

Just like how people who enforce the gender binary may be bioessentialists, but will also claim being male or female is something one can fail at, the same goes for white supremacy; whiteness is seen as something white people can fail at. So even if the "bad trans people" in question are white, what they're being scolded for is ultimately that they're failing at whiteness, and because whiteness is tied to gender roles they're failing at masculinity or femininity.

Every trait trans people say makes other trans people "one of the bad ones" is just an orientalist stereotype. This truscumish behavior that's getting more and more popular isn't happening in a void.

[cto10121]

how is jk rowling closer to dickens than donna tartt?

Rowling, like Dickens, is supremely devoted to social realism, which includes comedy, satire, and commentary. So naturally she also uses his techniques (significant character names, child POV with adult sensibility, etc.) and sometimes even tropes (abused orphan boy, mean relatives, relative and abject poverty, snobbery and classism, etc.). This is most glaringly apparent in the Strike series, to the point where they are more like sociological tomes than mysteries, but Harry Potter also fits the Dickensian mode very comfortably.

The difference is that Dickens was not really a mystery writer, whereas Rowling is, at least in plot. Also, Dickens had a much more visceral experience with poverty and institutional injustice than Rowling; there is a lack of that both-sides centrism in Dickens. He was also more influenced by Shakespearean psychology and tropes than Rowling. Rowling, however, was much more aware of white supremacy than Dickens could ever be—her understanding of class struggle includes colorism (Voldemort and some of the Death Eaters especially are aristocratically coded to the extreme - all those Anglo-Norman names! Revealingly, none of them are POC).

As for Donna Tartt, from the two (very popular) books I’ve read by her, she only uses Dickensian tropes for quasi-mythic and romantic journeys; they are largely empty of their political and social commentary, almost serving as mere literary allusions. Above all, she seems mostly concerned with the power of art, literary or otherwise.

[6thofapril1917]

sarie ethnicity musings (with historical context!!)

It’s hard to overstate just how much Sarie’s Jewishness impacts her as a character, specifically how she views herself in relation to other people. Afrikaans-speaking Jews (Boerejode) lived mainly in rural areas where knowledge of Afrikaans would be needed in daily life (mainly the rural Cape and the Transvaal). However, the biggest waves of Jews immigration came from Lithuania in the 1880s and 1890s, followed by an influx of German Jews in the 1930s. Most of these immigrants (with the exception of people like Sarie’s mom who married into Afrikaans-speaking families) settled in cities like Cape Town, Johannesburg, and Durban, where knowledge of Afrikaans wasn’t needed. So right off the bat, Sarie is alienated from the vast majority of her community by virtue of being Afrikaans-speaking.

But that doesn’t mean she belongs among the Afrikaans-speakers, either! White Afrikaans-speaking (Afrikaner) identity is fundamentally tied to adherence to a deeply-rooted Calvinist tradition (non-white Afrikaans-speakers are generally split between Calvinism and Islam). For a nationalist hardliner, it’s impossible for a Jew (or even a Catholic or an irreligious person) to be considered an Afrikaner, regardless of how White or Afrikaans-speaking they are. And in the 1930s and 1940s, these kinds of hardliners were everywhere.

The intensification of Afrikaner nationalism in this period would culminate in the accession to power of the National Party in 1948, which would go on to enjoy both the near-unanimous support of Afrikaners as well as considerable support (albeit less fervent and at times more tacit) from white English-speakers for the next forty-odd years. Expanding on the structures left behind by English colonial rule, the successive National Party governments would institutionalize the draconian policies of mass disenfranchisement, arbitrary displacement, censorship, economic disempowerment, imprisonment, and segregation — all enforced through brutal violence against non-white populations — that we know as apartheid.

Sarie is born at the tail end of 1921, meaning she comes of age in the mid-to-late 1930s. This is where it’s necessary to elaborate on the role that the Depression played in the upswing of Afrikaner nationalism. Lord Kitchener’s scorched-earth policy in the second half of the 2nd Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) destroyed thousands of Afrikaner farmsteads across the northern Cape, Orange Free State, and Transvaal. Afrikaners had always been an agrarian people; in 1947, less than thirty percent of all Afrikaners worked outside of agriculture. The loss of land forced a majority of mid- and small-scale Afrikaner farmers to either become sharecroppers for English and wealthier Afrikaner landlords, or go into mine or factory work in the cities and towns along the Rand. And as in all societies, these groups were hit hard by the Depression, leaving many Afrikaner workers, poor to begin with, destitute (farmers, especially wool farming families like Sarie's, would also be significantly affected). Suddenly, Afrikaners found themselves living in the same slums, standing in the same job lines, and eating the same food as their Black counterparts — and this is what sparked alarm in the middle-class and wealthy Afrikaner establishment.

Fearing that Afrikaner destitution would erode the myth of white supremacy which legitimized minority rule (or, to take a more Marxist perspective, that the poor Afrikaners would gain class consciousness), Afrikaner nationalists and their English supporters spent untold amounts of time and effort trying to rectify this supposed reversal of the “natural” racial hierarchy. This would culminate in the Carnegie Commission of Investigation on the Poor White Problem in South Africa, a 1932 report by the Carnegie Corporation which recommended racial segregation as a solution to the “problem” Throughout the 1930s, Afrikaner nationalists would appeal to the mythical Voortrekker (pioneer) past to foster increased national affiliation. This would culminate in the 1938 Voortrekker Centenary, which saw Afrikaners reenact the trek from the Cape to the interior taken by their ancestors a century earlier.

Sarie would have felt this increase in nationalism acutely, not just as someone whose religious affiliation excluded her from the mainstream Afrikaner milieu, but as a woman. The ideal Afrikaans woman, the “boeremeisie” (farm girl) or “volksmoeder” (mother of the people), was, in the words of author Lize van Robbreck’s high school principal, “proper, humble, and chaste.” Van Robbreck was the daughter of Catholic Flemish parents, and while she had spoken Afrikaans her whole life and been raised on a steady diet of folk dance and traditional songs, in her Afrikaans high school she realized that her Catholic heritage fundamentally differentiated her from her peers. “I could never be one of them, no matter how hard I tried.” Sarie, as both a Jew and as a woman who is neither proper, humble, nor chaste, already finds herself distinctly isolated from the other girls at her school.

And yet, at the same time, I think that Sarie does, to an extent, resent this exclusion. While she frowns on the racial discrimination and antisemitism inherent in Afrikaner nationalism of this era, and as much as she takes pride in going against the grain (manifesting in an admittedly not-like-other-girls attitude towards her fellow Waasies), a part of her is still desperately searching after the validation from her peers, the validation of inclusion, that she was never going to be able to receive. This, I think, is what fuels her continuous affirmation of her South African — and Afrikaans/Boer — identity amongst her fellow soldiers in the SAS. In the SAS there’s nobody who can call her out, who can deny her Boer identity — even if it’s just by virtue of the fact that they don’t know enough to say otherwise. However, I don’t think that Sarie herself would realize that this is what’s pushing her — to her, she’s just explaining her identity with the same aggression she has always had to use to justify herself. I think that there's a reason that Sarie only ever refers to herself as a Boer or a Boerejood, and never, ever, as an Afrikaner.

I’m probably going to follow this up with a whole other essay just about her gender but I spent all of today flying home and there’s hockey on TV and I’m tired so this is all you’re getting for now. Thanks for reading this absolute fucking thesis of an OC post <3

[eugenedebs1920]

MAGA: Make America Great Again. America first. America for Americans. These are all renditions of a movement that occurred in the early 20th century. A movement coattailed on the temperance movement. An incognito chance to practice discrimination and racism, masked in the guise of nationalism.

Nationalism, or nativism, has long been steeped into American history, its roots going back to the founding colonies. Ironically, and with astounding hypocrisy, this ideology excluded the actual native inhabitants of North America, proclaiming that only those of Anglo Saxon European descent were truly entitled to this land.

The slogan was popularized generally in Woodrow Wilson’s attempts to justify the stance of neutrality during the First World War but was quickly adopted by the second iteration of Klu Klux Klan at the start of the 1920’s. The Klan used prohibition as a vehicle for anti-immigrant, xenophobic and antisemitism activity, targeting taverns which acted as places of refuge, serving the meals of, speaking the languages, and evoking nostalgia for the ethnic community it served.

Although not a campaign tool of the Nazi party in the late 1920’s and 30’s, references of “make Germany great again” are littered throughout speeches made by Adolf Hitler. The phrase, “everything for Germany”, once etched into the knives of SS officers, are echoed in the rising neofascist right wing AfD party in their current “Germany first” campaign that mega billionaire Elon Musk endorsed a few weeks ago.

The isolationist of the America first party believed in a culture of white supremacy, with a hardline stance on immigration and a tendency toward antisemitism. This group was the legitimate face of the KKK. In 1924 U.S. representative, and America first enthusiast, Albert Johnson would introduce the Immigration Act of 1924, a highly exclusionary and xenophobic policy restricting immigration from nearly all Asian countries, and basing naturalization primarily upon ethnicity in the context of “racial homogeny” due to concerns of rapidly changing demographics. This was supported by the KKK and would be the primary immigration law until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The embodiment of the maga perspective is held by Donald Trump. A man who’s documentation of bias and discrimination can be first seen on the public docket in 1973, and again in 1978, when he was found in violation of the Civil Rights Act on fair housing in a set of stings, offering better costs and incentives to white lease seekers than those of color seeking housing in his New York City properties.

The election of Americas First President of African descent brought forward certain aspects of American culture perceived to have been relinquished in the decades prior. Due to the strange and foreign sounding name, in tandem with the pigmentation of Barack Obama’s skin, a request was petitioned that no other president had been questioned about prior. The existence and legitimacy of his birth certificate, and in turn his citizenship all together. It would be known as birtherism.

As a white American, in 2008 it wasn’t a good look to directly express your disdain that a black man was the leader of the nation purely for the bigoted views one possessed, much like the America First movement was in the 1920’s, the TEA Party was spawned as the public face of white supremacy.

The pitch of the TEA party dog whistle wasn’t as incognito as they imagined it was. Racism was vehement in the signage, slogans and language expressed in their dislike, some read, ‘‘A Village in Kenya Is Missing Its Idiot: Deport Obama!’’ and, ‘‘Congress = Slave Owner; Taxpayer = N**gar,’’ also, ‘‘Imam Obama Wants to Ban Pork: Don’t Let Him Steal Your Meat,’’ this accompanied by endless accusations regarding whether or not he was Muslim despite his Christian upbringing and continued participation in the faith.

A big contributor to the race bating was a man who’s poor management skills and rampant corruption would cause six companies he owned to fail and file bankruptcy, staring in a role made for TV, cosplay successful businessman and known slumlord Donald Trump. It was on Good Morning America, in 2011, via telephone that Donald Trump would first question the origins and legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship, an inquiry he had not posed to any previous holder of the presidency in his lifetime.

Fast forward a bit, and that same reality tv personality would come down the guilded stairs in a building that bore his name yet he held no capital in, Trump would announce his bid for president.

Much like his future campaigns, the 2016 run was riddled with gaffs and buffoonery. The once revered GOP was shocked when he would win the primaries and lead the ticket. Tethered to Trump and the immature and unpresidential antics he routinely displayed, Republicans were at odds.

After a bizarre, divisive, controversial and particularly hostile campaign Trump would go on to defeat Hillary Clinton, although losing the popular vote by over 3 million votes.

Trumps quasi overt racist and sexist rhetoric would lead to a nearly 20% increase in hate crimes from the start of his term in 2016, according to a report from November 2020 by the FBI. The report goes on to show that racially motivated homicide reached it highest levels in three decades by the end of 2019.

The amount of hate murders committed by white supremacists ticked ever larger throughout the duration of Trumps term from just 3 in 2016, to 12 in 2017, then 17 in 2018, followed by a staggering 51 in 2019.

To protest the removal of statues dedicated to confederate military figures who fought against their own countrymen as to keep Africans stolen from their country of origin and forced to work as slaves for wealthy plantation owners in the south, Charlottesville Virginia would host the “Unite the Right” gathering on August 11-12 of 2017.

This march would showcase hundreds of white supremest , neo-Nazis, neo-confederates, far right militias, klansmen and the alt-right, walking through the streets of Charlottesville brandishing swastica flags, valknut, and confederate flags, carrying torches and chanting “You will not replace us. Jews will not replace us. You will not replace us.”.

The next day a counter protest of significant proportion halted this display of jubilant hatred. The Virginia governor would declare a state of emergency as the protesters and counter protestors clashed. At roughly 1:45 pm on Aug 12th, self proclaimed white supremest Alex Fields Jr. would intentionally ram his vehicle into a crowd of counter protestors injuring 35 and killing a young woman named Heather Heyer.

When pressed for comment Trump would respond by condemning the "display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". When the death of Heather Heyer again was asked about and what Trump thought of the murder Trump would respond “There were very fine people on both sides”. (As MTG would screech, say her name!)

In the 2020 presidential debates this event would come up. As Chris Wallace attempted to coax a condemnation out of Trump the best he could get was trump saying to the proud boys (a white supremest group) “proud boys, stand back and stand by”. Never condemning the ideology or violence perpetrated that day or generally.

Trump lost the 2020 election. After the loss his rampant malignant narcissism prevented the acceptance of this loss. For months he lied to the American people, claiming that the election had been rigged or stolen. Scheming and creating slates of fake electors to cheat and in turn subvert the American democratic process. When this didn’t work he gathered his supporters to Washington DC.

January 6th, 2021 was a dark day for America. A mob, incited by the lies and propaganda Trump had been spewing, attacked the capital. It would lead to hundreds of injured police officers, with 2 police casualties and one civilian.

Of the groups that defiled our capital that day were none other than the proud boys, and the oath keepers.

Over 1,500 people would be charged for their actions that day. Of those people the man who instigated the entire thing, Donald Trump, would not be one of them.

Four years later, with the help of a compromised Supreme Court, Trump installed judges, a traditionalist attorney general, an influx of money from billionaires and corporations thanks to the Citizens United decision, Joe Biden, and the willful ignorance of the American people, this disgraced, twice impeached, adjudicated rapist, felon, convicted fraudster, seditionist, and insurrectionist, with no shame for his transgressions, would weasel his way back in office.

In his first day as president the second time around he would pardon ALL the criminals that had been charged for their role in the Jan 6th attack. Sending a clear message.

This message is, and will be heard loud and clear by these hate groups. That Trump’s America condones racism. That the white race is the superior race. That if you commit crimes in favor of Donald Trump you will be let off for your actions.

All this occurred after his primary campaign donor, who spent $240 million getting him elected, would end a speech by giving not one, but two separate Nazi solutes, then joke about it on the platform he repurchased, X, on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Donald Trump , on day one of term two would end all federal DEI programs. He would nullify LBJ’s Equal Opportunity Act. He would make a dictatorial decree that trans people are not seen by the government. He would begin an operation of terror for all migrants looking for a better life in America and initiate a campaign of mass deportations.

More and more neo-Nazis and white supremest groups become ever emboldened by the stance their great leader takes. More and more they peer their ugliness from the shadows and into the public sphere.

This is America. This is the country I love. Every day I am ashamed. I didn’t, never have and never would, support that failure of a human. Yet every day I am represented through his deeds. It pains me to the core. I hope it gets better but the first week hasn’t even lapsed yet.

For the sake of Americas future, for our children and their children, in the name of decency and democracy, Never obey in advance. Never surrender your sense of honor or your stance on equality. And resist!

I’m going to end this with some words from scholar, historian and author Timothy Snyder:

Don’t obey in advance. Anticipatory obedience is one of the greatest constraints on the degrees of freedoms.

Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do. – Timothy Snyder

[vampiricvenus]

I won't reblog because the url of the (admittedly idiotic) white person in question was visible and while I'm disgusted and all the user is transfem, so I'm sure she'll get enough angry responses as is.

But, holy shit, can Anglo-Saxon Germanic Celtic-descended Scandinavian-adjacent super Whites from the imperial core stop commenting on how the rest of the world deals with our losses to white supremacy and American and/or European imperialism?

And, especially, stop calling our liberation efforts, more so in the face of fucking genocide, "throwing oneself to the meat grinder", no matter how the hell you all intended that to sound or not.