#anti-race protests

[miawashere]

increase of police brutality

i realized with the death of Jaahnavi Kandula, there has been an increase of police brutality for years. and after researching, police brutality has been increasing- especially with the spark of the BLM movement. In 2021 alone, 1,145 people were reported killed by officers, according to the Guardian. after the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, it asks the question on whether or not police are more racist to people of color. it’s so sad that because of one’s skin color, you’ll be discriminated by people you’ve never even met before who’s sole job is to protect you.

[idkimnotreal]

anti-racist reaction is so strongly and utterly universal in brazil (in response to attacks against vini jr in spain) that i reckon racism is going to be eradicated in 50 years or so just like smallpox (it’s a virus of the mind, so to speak). it’s incredible. there’s no one in brazil, not in its whitest regions, where whites number up to 80% of the population, that will say in public that an anti-racist protest is reverse racism (they might claim it’s a waste of time, but not that the initiative is misled. eradicating an opinion in public, making it shameful, is the first step to eradicating it completely) or the sort. just amazing.

[zvaigzdelasas]

New York University led by troubling example when the school shared an updated code of student conduct last week. Ostensibly aimed at curtailing bigotry, the new language instead shuts down dissent by threatening to silence criticism of Zionism on campus. Students who speak out against Zionism — an ethno-nationalist political ideology founded in the late 19th century — will now risk violating the school’s nondiscrimination policies.[...]

Tucked into a document purportedly offering clarification on school policy, the new NYU guidelines introduce an unprecedented expansion of protected classes to include “Zionists” and “Zionism.” Referring to the university’s nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policy, known as NDAH, the updated conduct guide says, “Speech and conduct that would violate the NDAH if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the NDAH if directed toward Zionists.”[...]

“Using code words, like ‘Zionist,’” the guide says, “does not eliminate the possibility that your speech violates the NDAH policy.”[...]

The entire premise of the guidance — that “Zionist” must be functioning as a “code word — is a flaw egregious enough to reject the entire document outright.

The language here is of utmost importance. The text does not say that “Zionist” can and has been used by antisemites as a code word, which is no doubt true. Instead, it takes it as a given that, when used critically, “Zionist” simply is a code word.[...]

According to NYU’s guidance, then, Zionist and Zionism are either antisemitic dog whistles when invoked critically or a protected category akin to a race, ethnicity, or religious identity. Ethically committed and politically informed anti-Zionism — including the beliefs of many anti-Zionist Jews like myself who reject the conflation of our identity and heritage with an ethnostate project — is foreclosed, and the long history of Jewish anti-Zionism, which has existed as long as Zionism itself, is all but erased.[...]

“For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity,” the NYU guidance says. And this is of course true. That does not, however, make Zionism an essential part of Jewish identity.

There are conservative Christians for whom the damnation of homosexuality is a key part of their Christian faith too, but Republican lawfare to see homophobic positions enshrined as protected religious expression have been rightly and consistently condemned by the liberal mainstream.

“The new guidance sets a dangerous precedent by extending Title VI protections to anyone who adheres to Zionism, a nationalist political ideology, and troublingly equates criticism of Zionism with discrimination against Jewish people,” NYU’s Faculty for Justice in Palestine said in a statement in response to the updated conduct guide.[...]

“Furthermore, the new guidance implies that any nationalist political ideology (Hindu nationalism, Christian nationalism, etc.) that is integrated into some members of that group’s understanding of their own racial or ethnic identity should be entitled to civil rights protections.”

27 Aug 24

[winged-void]

Like I said: whoever the dems prop up will be aggressively and proudly pro genocide. Don't forget this just because it isn't biden. The democratic party line is pro genocide.

[never-was-has-been]

Don't Look Away

"I am 85 years old.

I have experienced the American Dream because I was born a white, American male; I was privileged.

Women did not have that privilege, African-Americans did not have that privilege, people of color did not have that privilege,

Native Americans did not have that privilege, non heterosexuals did not have that privilege--it was reserved for white, American males who presented as heterosexual.

In the 1960's and 1970's a sense of optimism filled the air in America, a genuine feeling that the American Dream could be made available to all people regardless of sex, color, creed, race, national origin or sexual orientation.

It was a tumultuous time, the civil rights movement, assassinations, the Watergate scandal, the Vietnam War protest movement; nevertheless, there truly was the feeling of a promise of a better tomorrow.

Because we were so optimistic, we let down our guard; we took our freedoms for granted, a big mistake; freedom is a fragile gift that must be closely guarded.

I can't pinpoint the exact time when the change began, I think it was when Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980.

A popular actor, a gentle-speaking likeable man, a convert to "conservative" values, a perfect puppet for the elitists, white supremacists and authoritarians who have been ever-present in our society since its very beginnings.

"Trickle-down" economics seeped in, anti-trust regulations were relaxed, “Free Markets” was the slogan of the day, human beings were reduced to chits on a profit board, consumerism took hold as the gap between the richest and the poorest widened into an insurmountable divide during the ensuing decades.

Money became the weapon of the rich and powerful white supremacists and Fascists who now seek to overthrow our tattered republic. Donald Trump is their latest puppet.

We are in a very dark place--BUT WE ARE STILL A LIVING, BREATHING REPUBLIC.

On November 5th, American citizens will be voting to decide whether our nation will remain a living, breathing Republic or will go the way of Russia, China, India, Hungary and all the other regimes that oppress their people under the heel of totalitarianism.

THE CHOICE IS OURS; EVERY VOTE IS CRITICAL; THE SUM TOTAL OF OUR VOTES WILL ECHO THE VOICE OF FREEDOM.

Donald Trump has a fixed base of mindless supporters that will not grow significantly.

If freedom-loving voters go to the polls, we can have a decisive victory and we can then begin the long and challenging task of restoring the promise of a better tomorrow, not just for American citizens, but FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS.

I am an old man; I will not live to see my AMERICAN-DREAM-FOR-ALL come true.

I have devoted my life to. this cause.

Please allow me to celebrate the beginning of a better tomorrow for America and the world.

IT CAN HAPPEN ON NOVEMBER 5TH!

Be well... ~Alan "DontLookAway" Dornan~ "

[pumpumdemsugah]

Remember that white person that had a melt down when different Black women told her it's inappropriate to use " say her name" for a white person, as it's an awareness movement that came about because when a Black woman was shot to death no one came to her protest and the deaths of Black women and girls often do not generate immediate outrage or action UNLIKE the immediate vigils and protest that were made in honour of the white trans teen that was murdered in the UK so of course something about racialised misogyny makes sense on a white person and if you disagree the fascists win and the Black women and girls Say Her Name was about are somehow less dead than this trans teenager so shut up it's " solidarity" because whites said so

All this lecturing but doesn't seem to know anything about Black Americans, especially Black American women beyond how useful they are, for a hottake.

This was the reaction:

Would you be surprised that the same white person didn't like when another Black woman pointed out that framing the lynching of Black Americans as anti-rape instead of white supremacist violence reinforces the ideas lynch mobs used to kill Black people

If you try to reblog my commentary, even without adding tags, an anon told me you'll be blocked

Here's a Black American woman that has read about prison abolition talking about Black Femicide and her concerns about prison abolition especially given the history of how rape impacts Black American women

The self righteous meltdown about say her name, was walked back but it's obvious she didn't actually mean it. When online white people call something " infighting" and race is involved it often means some Black person disagreed with them and the implications of what they were saying and instead of being normal they call you "aggressive", which is famously something Black women are never called when we don't sycophantically agree. They don't see their behaviour as identity politics, whiteness is never identity politics, it's natural and neutral.

Black women are tools to these white "leftist" and you're not meant to disagree because they always know more even when they don't. It's crazy how easily these people will bring up Black people especially women into discussions that aren't about us but if you ever disagree, then fascist win

This is the standard behaviour of whites that always have Black women in their mouths. They don't believe in solidarity but usefulness.

[caffeineandsociety]

The more I think about it the more I suspect that a lot of the reason people are resistant to the concept of transandrophobia is that to accept it would make it harder to avoid reckoning with the way we treat men of color, and hell, POC in general.

I know part of it is just...a long-running misunderstanding of intersectionality as "the intersection of various axes of oppression, in which Privileged Identities are irrelevant or even take away from it" rather than "the intersection of all aspects of a person's identity to form a whole that may look very different from someone else who shares a singular trait, or unexpectedly similar to someone who doesn't", and thus reading the concept as "ACKSHUALLY it's WOMEN who oppress MEN and so WE'RE the ones with TWO Oppression Points, not those stupid and shallow and overprivileged trans women!"

But I cannot help but suspect that a lot of people really fucking don't WANT to break away from that misinterpretation because it would mean having to reckon SPECIFICALLY with how that misinterpretation has hurt POC. How it reinforces all the ideas that lead to the brutalization of MOC. How some "anti-racist" people on this site would absolutely have sided against Emmett Till had they lived in that time with the same mindset - that it's not a coincidence that the decline of Black tumblr became so sharp around the George Floyd protests. How they only care about how Black and brown women are masculinized and transvestigated so far as they can hold them up as "collateral damage" evidence of why we should leave white trans people alone.

And honestly, I HOPE that as this exclusionism wave dies down, it doesn't just come with the recognition of the risks that white transmascs face, or white transmascs claiming the increased risks of police brutality as their own struggle first and foremost; I want it to be a fucking leg-up to acknowledging the way gender intersects with MULTIPLE other factors INCLUDING RACE.

I know that "popping the bubble" - grappling with the fact that the way you've misunderstood something has hurt people - is painful. I get it. But you have to fucking do it because the alternative is "keep hurting other people."

[mariacallous]

Glad people are finally finding out that these Pro Palestine protestors are ratfuckers-by-design at best (and Republicans at worst) and that's why they support Trump:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/dnc-palestinian-gaza-protests/679524/

One month ago, an NBC News headline reported:

Protesters made a tiny footprint at the RNC in Milwaukee. Other than a modest daytime march on Monday afternoon, the first day of the Republican National Convention, there were virtually no protests over the event’s four days and nights.

Obviously, the story from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago is already proving different.

This is part of a pattern. Gather any large number of Democrats together, in almost any city or state, whether at rallies, fundraisers, or presidential appearances, and pro-Palestinian protesters will try to wreck the event. These actions have been building to threats of outright violence. Pro-Trump and Republican events, meanwhile, are almost always left in peace.

Of the two big parties, the Democrats are more emotionally sympathetic to Palestinian suffering. The Biden administration is working to negotiate the cease-fire that the pro-Palestinian camp claims to want. The administration has provided hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza. President Joe Biden’s terms for ending the fighting in Gaza envision a rapid movement to full Palestinian statehood.

By contrast, former President Donald Trump uses Palestinian as an insult. His administration moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. In 2016, Trump campaigned on a complete shutdown of travel by Muslims into the United States; Trump now speaks of deporting campus anti-Israel protesters. He has pledged to block Gaza refugees from entering the United States.

Trump wants to tell the story that he and his party will enforce public order. He alleges that Democrats cannot or will not protect Americans against chaos spread by extremist elements. The pro-Palestinian movement works every day to create images that support Trump’s argument. As a visibly annoyed Vice President Kamala Harris asked protesters in Detroit earlier this month: Do they want to elect Donald Trump?

Not all pro-Palestinian demonstrators are thinking about the election. Many seem driven by moral outrage or ideological passion. But for those who are thinking strategically, the answer is obvious: Yes, they want to elect Trump. Of course they want to elect Trump. Electing Trump is their best—and maybe only—hope.

To understand why, cast your mind back a quarter century.

In the election of 2000, Vice President Al Gore faced Texas Governor George W. Bush. Gore probably would have won in a straight two-way contest. But that same year, the progressive advocate Ralph Nader entered the race as a third-party challenger—and he pulled just enough of the vote to tip the Electoral College and the presidency toward Bush.

Nader later professed regret for running as a third-party candidate. But at the time, Nader understood exactly what he was doing. Defeating Gore and electing Bush was the intended and declared purpose of Nader’s candidacy. Nader detailed his logic in many speeches, including this one to the summer-2000 convention of the NAACP:

If you ever wondered why the right wing and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party has so much more power over that party than the progressive wing, it’s because the right wing and the corporate wing have somewhere to go: It’s called the Republican Party. And so they’re catered to and they’re regaled—like the Democratic Leadership Council, they’re catered to and they’re regaled. But if you look at the progressive wing … they have nowhere to go. And you know when you’re told that you have nowhere to go, you get taken for granted. And when you get taken for granted, you get taken.

To paraphrase his argument even more bluntly: If progressives caused the Democrats to lose the presidency in the election of 2000, then Democrats would take progressives more seriously in all the elections that followed.

Nader’s logic was not altogether wrong. In many ways, the post-2000 Democratic Party has shifted well to the left of where the party was in the 1980s and ’90s. But catering to the party’s left has cost Democrats winnable races, and with them, key priorities: The Iraq War and 20 years of inaction on climate change head the list of progressive disappointments since the 2000 election, and the list extends from there. Whether or not the shift was worth the price, Nader was neither ignorant nor deceived. He identified his goal and willingly accepted the risks for himself and his movement.

So it is now with the pro-Palestinian demonstrators of 2024.

They start with a fundamental political problem: Their cause is not popular. Solid majorities of Americans accept Israel’s war in Gaza as valid and fiercely condemn the Hamas terrorist attacks as unacceptable. The exact margin varies from poll to poll depending on how the question is asked, but when presented with a binary choice between Israel and the Palestinians, Americans prefer Israel by a factor of at least two to one.

The brute fact of those numbers makes it very difficult for pro-Palestinian activists to win elections. In this cycle, despite all the emotion stirred by the Gaza war, two of Israel’s fiercest critics in Congress lost their primaries to pro-Israel challengers.

From the point of view of any practical politician: If a cause is so unpopular that it cannot help its friends, why listen to its advocates?

The only answer to that question, again from the practical point of view, is the message of the protesters in Chicago: Maybe we can’t help you if you do listen to us, but we can hurt you if you don’t!

Think of it another way. Since the bloody attack by Hamas on October 7 and the Israeli response, pro-Palestinian protesters have marched and agitated all over the United States. They have occupied college campuses. They have impeded access to Jewish schools, businesses, and places of worship. They have posted impassioned words and images on social media.

Yet all of their militant action has barely budged U.S. policy. Arms, intelligence, and economic assistance continue to flow from the United States to Israel. U.S. military forces cooperate with Israel against Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen. Although the U.S. has imposed restraint on some Israeli operations, Israel has mostly been allowed to fight its own war in its own way.

These were President Biden’s decisions, not Vice President Harris’s. But she was the second-highest-ranking member of the administration. If Biden’s deputy inherits Biden’s office, the message is clear: His administration’s record of support for Israel carried no meaningful political price. All of those street demonstrations and campus occupations will have amounted to so much empty noise. All of those articles arguing that Gaza explained Biden’s troubles with young voters would be exposed as ideological wishcasting.

If Harris wins, the pro-Palestinian movement will have lost.

If Harris loses, however, pro-Palestinian protesters can claim that they were responsible for her defeat. That claim might not be true—in fact it probably would not be true—but try disproving it. The pro-Palestinian movement would have at least some basis to argue: You lost because you alienated us.

If Harris wins, she may want to do something about the pro-Palestinian cause—for humanitarian reasons, for reasons of diplomacy and geopolitics, for reasons of Democratic-constituency management in particular congressional districts. But she won’t have to do it. She’ll know that the protesters tried to beat her, and they failed.

If Harris loses, however, future Democratic candidates will tread more carefully on Israeli-Palestinian terrain. Even if they privately doubt that the party’s position on Gaza explains anything truly important, they will be worried by advisers and donors who will believe it or who will want to believe it.

But what about Trump? Why aren’t the pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Chicago more fearful of Trump’s possible return to the presidency?

Although the pro-Palestine cause attracts support from progressives, it is not exactly a progressive cause. Americans associate progressivism with secularism, feminism, and gay-rights advocacy, among other causes. The Palestinian national movement, especially now that Hamas has effectively replaced the Palestine Liberation Organization as leader of “the resistance,” has become markedly religious, patriarchal, and socially reactionary. But it is also a movement fiercely opposed to American global hegemony—and that is its “anti-imperialist” appeal to Western progressives.

If you oppose American global hegemony, Trump is your candidate (as a long list of anti-American dictators have already figured out). Trump fiercely opposes the alliances and trade agreements that magnify American power and make the U.S. the center of a huge network of democratic, market-oriented countries. Trump’s “America First” bluster is actually a pathway to American isolation and weakness that will further remove American power from the world.

If you wish America ill, of course you wish Trump well. The far left and far right of U.S. politics may disagree on much, but they agree on that.

The protesters in the streets of Chicago are not acting aimlessly or randomly. The people on the receiving end of their protests would benefit from equal clarity. The protesters want chaos and even violence in order to defeat Harris and elect Trump. They are not ill-informed or excessively idealistic or sadly misled. They are not overzealous allies. They are purposeful adversaries.

The Chicago-convention delegates should recognize that truth, and act accordingly.

[antifainternational]

Elgin reportback!

Neo-Nazi Highland Division outnumbered & driven out of Elgin

On Saturday 17th June antifascists, trade unionists, anarchists and socialists gathered from across Scotland to demonstrate against an anti-immigrant rally being held in Elgin by Hitler fanboy Alek Yerbury and his neo-Nazi Highland Division.

A vigil for refugees was organised on the Plainstones by Moray TUC on one side of the church, where people started to gather from around 11am, while a handful of fascists began to gather around the other side. A self-described libertarian wandered around the vigil with his young children while filming, generally being an arse, and trying to get antifascists to debate him. Despite the clear advantage in numbers, Moray TUC were reluctant to go around the church to confront the fascists, aiming instead to focus on their own peaceful vigil – fortunately they were unable to maintain control over the situation.

Just before noon, a 17 year old punk boy upheld a glorious antifascist tradition by punching Alek Yerbury and was cautioned by police. Shortly after this, antifascists spontaneously began to pour around the side of the church, quickly surrounding Yerbury and the 7 Highland Division Nazis and forcing the police to form a protective circle around them.

Susan Slater of Moray TUC made a weak attempt to stop people chanting “fascist scum off our streets” and stick to “positive slogans” – there’s always one liberal telling people how to protest. This request was promptly ignored. Susan Slater later told a Northern Scot journalist she was disappointed that the Nazis were confronted directly – maybe Moray TUC needs new reps or to up its commitment to antifascism!

For two hours Highland Division were drowned out by between 200 and 300 antifascists, trade unionists and locals. There were chants of “fascist scum off our streets”, “say it loud, say it clear, refugees are welcome here”, “when refugees are under attack what do we do? Stand up, fight back!” as well as such hit songs as “you can shove your Nazi flag up your arse” and “the master race? You’re havin a laugh,” with a special shout-out to comrade vuvuzela. Several times Alek Yerbury tried to start speaking, only to be drowned out with a wall of noise and forced to give up.

Eventually the Nazis had enough and the police line fell back to try and offer them an escape route, which was met by antifascists immediately surging forwards and pushing the tightly protected Nazis into an alleyway while victoriously chanting “who’s streets? Our streets!”

Some antifascists then broke off and ran down a parallel street to cut the Nazis off at the other side, sandwiching them in. After some half hearted threats to charge the antifascists blocking the other side of the alleyway with participating in an illegal moving protest, the police let the Nazis out of a side entrance. Yerbury and Highland Division were then pursued all the way back to their minibus, with police forming a defensive line across the entrance to the car park.

Other than the boy who was cautioned there were 0 arrests, the fascists were outnumbered at least 20 to 1, and they were driven out of Elgin in one of the most humiliating defeats anyone could expect.

We’ll never let Nazis have a platform in Scotland, nae pasaran!

~ Antifascist Action Dundee

[johnbrand]

The Commander's Office

With @mrrharper

“Don’t move.”

All four guns were pointed directly at the meek lieutenant. He had been trying to escape for days, sensing something was wrong on the base. But he found no means to leave, nothing that would not end up with him sitting in the commander’s office.

“This is 27, reporting a deviant in the southwest quadrant of the base,” the second on the left spoke into his transceiver, his weapon still pointed at the miscreant.

“Confirm location and officers,” a gravelly voice responded back.

“Located near the far end of the barracks, sir.” The officer’s voice was deep and dull, lacking any of the energy it once held less than 24 hours earlier. “Flanked by 18, 23, and 4.”

The lieutenant fought back his tears of fear, trying not to admit that it was already too late. The commander of the base had been dissatisfied with the newest batch of recruits. Deeply dissatisfied. He had openly remarked that their group of 30 had been one of the military’s “biggest disasters since Pearl Harbor.” This remark had been based on what the commander believed was a lack of discipline, patriotism, conservative ideology, and breeder instincts. What he termed "made men men."

“What are your orders, sir? How would you like us to dispose of the nuisance?” the third officer, 23, asked.

“I like that my officers show some initiative,” the voice chuckled through the other end. “The deviant can be delivered directly to my office. All of you can escort him.”

“Are you sure, sir?” 4, the farthest right, confirmed. “There are still two more loose on the base.” Before all this, 4 had protested the commander’s scalding, anti-progressive sentiments, even promising to deliver a quote to his politician boyfriend.

“Is that an inquiry about my plan, officer?"

4 immediately straightened at the questioning of his obedience, "Sir! No, sir! The plan's not up for debate, sir."

“You’re here to obey orders,” the commander reminded. “Not question them.”

“Sir, yes sir!” they all chanted back.

After the commander had made his viewpoints on the new recruits clear, he had begun work on assuring that each of the soldiers met his requirements. One by one, they were privately called into a meeting with the commander. There seemed to be no order, no pattern to his selection. And no one knew what went on during that session. However, once the recruit left the room, they left their identity behind as well.

“The deviant will be in your office in a ten minutes, sir.” 18’s rigidity was the most frightening of all to the shivering lieutenant, who was being picked up off the ground while his hands were cuffed behind him. The lieutenant could remember when they were in bed together on one of their first nights at the base, their bodies held tight by the cot not meant for two individuals. 

Before, 18 had been soft, sensitive, and adorned a sleek runner’s build. Now he embodied a corn-fed American bull, with the gruffness and traditional mindset to accompany it. 18 even had a name before all this, but the lieutenant could not place it in his head. They had all had names when they had entered the base, but those too were left behind in the commander’s office. Instead, their new identities were given to them by the order in which they had transitioned.

“P…p…please,” the lieutenant sputtered, but he was immediately silenced by a forceful hit to his back by the butt of a gun.

“Quiet, faggot!” one of them barked. All of their voices had the same pitch in lower register, the same unremarkable quality, that the lieutenant could not discern who spoke to him. “It is our duty to defend the law and spread order throughout as the commander orders.”

It was like they were speaking in code, a direct program that had been installed into them.

“The commander encourages us to expand upon our American traditions,” another recited. The group had now entered the main building on the base. The lieutenant could feel his heartbeat racing a bit more with every step.“Our cooperation leads to a better, stronger military.”

He did not want to be brainwashed by right-wing propaganda. He did not want to become another huge, masculine machine spreading American values. He did not want to become a mindless, breeding soldier.

But the door quietly locked behind him. The lieutenant turned to face his commander. His eyes were wide with alarm and dread and horror.

“Take a seat, soldier. This won’t take long.”

[traincoded]

Sports and Politics reading list

(all can be found for free/libgen links)

The ‘Ungrateful Athlete’: Anti-Black, Anti-Labor Currents in Sports Media: Podcast episode from Citations Needed about the coverage of sportspersons in the United States. Interviews professor Amira Rose Davis.

Revolt of the Black Athlete, by Harry Edwards. Remember that fist raised in protest by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics? Sociologist and activist Harry Edwards was the architect of the Olympic Project for Human Rights, which led to the Black Power Salute and called for an Olympics boycott.

Loving Sports When They Don't Love You Back: Dilemmas of the Modern Fan by Jessica Luther and Kavitha Davidson is a set of essays about what complicates sports fandom in modern sports by two journalists.

Beyond a Boundary by CLR James is a history and memoir of cricket in the West Indies and colonial legacies. James is a Trinidadian Marxist best known for writing The Black Jacobins.

Soccer in the Sun and Shadow by Eduardo Galeanos is a rebellious history of football through an anti imperialist lens. Galeanos is better known for his book Open Veins of Latin American.

Anyone but England: Cricket, Race and Class by Mike Marquesse: A Jewish American takes a look at cricket’s storied history when it comes to race and class, with particular focus on apartheid South Africa.

Marxism, Cultural Studies and Sports is a collection of essays in the Routledge Critical Studies in Sports series. Of interest is Chapter 7 on black Marxism and the politics of sport. Chapter 8 overviews theories of sporting celebrity, class and black feminism in context of the Williams sisters.

A Woman's Game: The Rise, Fall, and Rise Again of Women's Football by Suzy Wrack is a history of english women's football. If you've heard that women's football was banned by the FA in reaction to its encroaching on the popularity of the men's game, this is a good place to start abt that history to the present day.

[reasonandempathy]

The weird radical/revolutionary politic larpers on this site are so allergic to political pragmatism I swear lmao. I am definitely left of the Democratic Party and I am certainly voting for Joe Biden in November. Not because I like him (I don’t). He is absolutely horrific on Gaza and that’s only the top (and priority considering there is a genocide going on there) of a list of complaints I have about him. I even voted uncommitted in my state’s presidential primary (the Pennsylvania one; I had to write it in) to protest. However, I’m still thinking pragmatically. Trump has said things that make me credibly think he will be worse on Gaza (insane that being worse on Gaza than Biden is possible but it is unfortunately), and that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Project 2025, the potential for him to appoint more deeply conservative justices, more of his aggressively screwing over poor and middle class people with his tax policies. And does anyone else remember the spike in hate crimes after the race was called for him in 2016? Before he was even inaugurated? Whether people vote or not in November we will still have to deal with one of these two men in office come January unless all of the internet ancom larpers overthrow the government by then (doubt), so I’d rather deal with the one who will be marginally less bad and who didn’t try to overthrow the government. Can’t have your revolution if nobody’s alive cause you kept pushing off politically participating because there was no perfect option. 👍

Political pragmatist anon, sorry for ranting in your askbox but I feel like I lose brain cells watching these people talk. The other day I saw someone say Biden is bad because Roe v. Wade fell under his administration… even though the reason for that was Trump appointed justices. 💀 (2/2)

Fucking insane. Sincerely.

It's a completely, flatly binary choice for anyone with a brain stem and sincerity. It's distilled into the two below images:

Where all major third party candidates are even on the ballot

How many electoral votes the largest of those (green party, a.k.a. Jill Stein) would win if they won every single state they're on the ballot for.

They are literally, legally, incapable of winning the election. They are not on enough state ballots to win and Jill Stein would need to somehow win California and Texas to even "win" all the states they're on the ballot for. Which, again, would still not be enough to win the presidency and throw it to the currently existing Republican House of Representatives. Which would put Trump in office.

It's that straightforward. That simple. That BLARINGLY obvious to literally everyone except these people.

On the one hand you have:

Significant and continuous support for Israel and it's genocide

Record levels of pardons for low-level drug offenses

the gearing up of the strongest anti-trust regime since the early 20th century

the most aggressive NLRB I've seen in my lifetime, with massive wins and institutional changes to help workers

Including getting Rail strike workers a week of sick-leave that gets paid out at the end of the year, which is better than NYC and LA sick leave laws

Millions of people (not enough) getting student debt forgiveness

Some trillion dollars (not enough)of investment in renewable resources and infrastructure

Proposed taxes on unrealized capital gains (a.k.a. how billionaires never have any money but can still buy Kentucky, Iowa, and Twitter)

Effectively an end to overdraft fees

The explicit support of leftist world leaders like Lula de Silva. Who he has explicitly worked with to expand worker rights in South America.

Has capped (some, not enough, only a tiny amount really but it's something) some drug prices, including Insulin.

Reduced disability discrimination in medical treatment

Billions in additional national pre-k funding

Ending federal use of private prisons

Pushing bills to raise Social Security tax thresholds higher to help secure the General Fund

Increasing SSI benefits

and more

vs

Said Israel should just nuke Gaza and "get it over with"

Personally takes pride in and credit for getting Roe v Wade overturned

Is arguing in court that the President should be allowed to assassinate political rivals

Muslim Ban Bullshit, insistently

Actively damages our global standing and diplomatic efforts just by getting obsessed with having a Big Button

Implemented massive tax cuts on ich people, tax hikes on middle class and poor people, and actively wants to do it again

"Only wants to be a dictator for a little bit, guys, what's the big deal"

Is loudly publicly arguing that the US shouldn't honor its military alliances after-the-fact

Tore up an effective and substantial anti-nuclear-proliferation treaty with Iran

Had a DoEd that actively just refused to process student debt forgiveness applications that have been the law of the land for decades now

Has a long record of actively curtailing and weakening the NLRB and labor movement, including allowing managers to retaliate against workers, weakened workplace accommodation requirements for disabled people, and more

Rubber stamped a number of massive mergers building larger, more powerful top companies and increasing monopolistic practices

Fucking COVID Bullshit and hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths

Openly supporting fascists and wannabe-bootlicks ("Very fine people" being only the beginning of it

It's really not fucking close.

[majorbaby]

The reason Klinger's dress-wearing has aged well is because while the showrunners knew many people in the audience would see a man-in-a-dress gag, they intended for his wardrobe to be a form of protest. This is not unlike Hawkeye's theatrics or Henry and Trapper's loose morals, which are also subject to the perception of audiences old and cough cough current.

Klinger's not embarrassed to wear dresses any more than Hawkeye, Trapper and Henry are embarrassed when Margaret catches them screening a porno in the CO's office. At the time the show was trying very hard to tell us that the most embarrassing thing a man can do be duped by the violent myths of patriarchy, nationalism and hatred.

There are still things to critique about how it was done. There probably were way more people in the 70s laughing at a man in a dress when they saw Klinger than there were people perceiving him as a genderqueer icon. The laugh track playing when he enters the frame is indication enough to me that the show was leaning into that - although they also campaigned for the laugh track to be dropped entirely and here's an example of how including it really changes the tone of the show.

(Aside: The actual affront to the Klinger character for which I see no upside is when the jokes become about his race, class and intelligence - a lot of this happens after the laugh track is dropped and he's not wearing dresses anymore)

I also think it's important to give credit where credit is due, and honestly the state of primetime television then and now means that Klinger just being there is worth something on its own. And in my opinion I think it's great that there's canonical similarities between Hawkeye's anti-establishment values and Klinger's. I don't fault people for latching onto Hawkeye in that regard because he is the protagonist, but in 2023 I can point out that Klinger lacks the race, class, career and narrative protections that Hawkeye enjoys - while saying much of the same things that Hawkeye does.

If you see him as a rebel with a cause today, I think it's important to know that he has always, canonically been a rebel with a cause, even with regards to gender expression.

The army brutally enforces conformity to gender roles, we see Margaret struggle with this repeatedly. Margaret likes feminine things and wants to feel pretty, but she's gotta be in uniform because the army is important to her, and she's shown to suffer for it. Klinger meanwhile doesn't give two shits about the army and so he's free to wear whatever he wants. That's intentional messaging. It didn't purely "age well" - it was good shit in its original form and context. There were good people with good intentions who wrote him like that.

[tanadrin]

It sounds like you likely side against the protesters in New Caledonia who were apparently protesting about France giving people who moved there recently the right to vote in local elections. (i.e. the native minority doesn't want the colonizers to have the right to vote)

I probably would! If you live somewhere, and pay taxes there, and use the public services and utilities there, you should have full political rights. That policy seems like an overcorrection for historical injustice--e.g., the French not granting Muslims voting rights in North Africa.

And there are other awkward questions you could pose for my open-borders-and-free-citizenship stance--like the fact that the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was driven in part by immigrants of American background who felt excluded from representation (but who in turn wanted to exclude Asian immigrants from representation), or how small countries that suddenly find themselves in an advantageous economic position often find their demographics rapidly changing (Qatar, Hawaii in the early 20th century).

But the alternative--the whole hog of blood-and-soil nationalism, with a bit of anti-colonial lipstick--seems pretty bad to me. People move around. Places change. Cultures change. We can and should do everything in our power to ensure those changes and that movement is the result of, like, free individual choice, and not war or violent seizure of land or systems of brutal economic exploitation. And sometimes despite those changes, the things people love about their traditional cultures can persist--especially now, in a world that pays much more attention to the rights of (for example) minority language speakers than it used to.

But the desire for the world to remain culturally, linguistically, and economically static is basically reactionary. I mean really, it's the aesthetic heart of reaction. It's also an absurdity. Even perfectly isolated societies can change in dramatic ways. And, of course, very often "tradition" is a cudgel simply wielded in the service of entrenching a different kind of elite power: I am no more supportive of the Hawaiian monarchy, one born of bloody conquest by an imperialistic dynasty, than I am of the British; the British one just happened to be more historically successful, but the underlying principles are the same. Cf. also the way land tenure works in American Samoa, a system that is billed as keeping land in native hands--which it does, by institutionalizing the colonial system of blood quantum and being explicitly racist, and simply serving to prop up a different set of elites (in this case, traditional tribal elites rather than colonial ones).

I think the only way you can really escape the trap of reaction and nationalism is to refuse to play the game in the first place--to put the primacy of your bond to your fellow human beings, regardless of culture or race or origin, and thus inherent political equality (and solidarity) above other considerations. Tribalism, pillarization, byzantine ethnicity-based power-sharing arrangements, special rules for land tenure or voting rights--all these have a nasty way of turning into new forms of exploitation, of someone figuring out how to do the economic and political arbitrage at someone else's expense. The central insight of 1789 was correct here: the only solution is the universal equality of all human beings. The trick is to carry that insight through to its logical conclusion.

[transmutationisms]

i think you do a really impressive job balancing comprehensive/concise while referencing a lot of complex frameworks(contexts? schools of thought? lol idk what to call that. big brain ideas) but if you have any readings specifically on the institution of psychiatry topic that you would recommend/think are relevant, I'd be interested. it's absolutely not a conversation that's being had enough and I want to be able to articulate myself around it

yes i have readings >:)

first of all, the anti-psychiatry bibliography and resource guide is a great place to start getting oriented in this literature. it's split by sub-topic, and there are paragraphs interspersed throughout that give summaries of major thinkers' positions and short intros to key texts.

it's from 1979, though, so here are some recs from the last 4 decades:

overview critiques

mind fixers: psychiatry's troubled search for the biology of mental illness, by anne harrington

psychiatric hegemony: a marxist theory of mental illness, by bruce m z cohen

desperate remedies: psychiatry's turbulent quest to cure mental illness, by andrew scull

psychiatry and its discontents, by andrew scull

madness is civilization: when the diagnosis was social, 1948–1980, by michael e staub

contesting psychiatry: social movements in mental health, by nick crossley

the dsm & pharmacy

dsm: a history of psychiatry's bible, by allan v horwitz

the dsm-5 in perspective: philosophical reflections on the psychiatric babel, by steeves demazeux & patrick singy

pharmageddon, by david healy

pillaged: psychiatric medications and suicide risk, by ronald w maris

the making of dsm-iii: a diagnostic manual's conquest of american psychiatry, by hannah s decker

the myth of the chemical cure: a critique of psychiatric drug treatment, by joanna moncrieff

the book of woe: the dsm and the unmaking of psychiatry, by gary greenberg

prozac on the couch: prescribing gender in the era of wonder drugs, by jonathan metzl

the creation of psychopharmacology, by david healy

the bitterest pills: the troubling story of antipsychotic drugs, by joanna moncrieff

psychiatry & race

the protest psychosis: how schizophrenia became a black disease, by jonathan metzl

administrations of lunacy: racism and the haunting of american psychiatry at the milledgeville asylum, by mab segrest

the peculiar institution and the making of modern psychiatry, 1840–1880, by wendy gonaver

what's wrong with the poor? psychiatry, race, and the war on poverty, by mical raz

national and cross-national contexts

mad by the millions: mental disorders and the early years of the world health organization, by harry yi-jui wu

psychiatry and empire, by sloan mahone & megan vaughan

ʿaṣfūriyyeh: a history of madness, modernity, and war in the middle east, by joelle m abi-rached

surfacing up: psychiatry and social order in colonial zimbabwe, 1908–1968, by lynette jackson

the british anti-psychiatrists: from institutional psychiatry to the counter-culture, 1960–1971, by oisín wall

crime, madness, and politics in modern france: the medical concept of national decline, by robert a nye

reasoning against madness: psychiatry and the state in rio de janeiro, 1830–1944, by manuella meyer

colonial madness: psychiatry in french north africa, by richard keller

madhouse: psychiatry and politics in cuban history, by jennifer lynn lambe

depression in japan: psychiatric cures for a society in distress, by junko kitanaka

inheriting madness: professionalization and psychiatric knowledge in 19th century france, by ian r dowbiggin

mad in america: bad science, bad medicine, and the enduring mistreatment of the mentally ill, by robert whitaker

[snowbunnywatching]

How would Danish highschools and unis change after the influx of Black students? How would policies and attitudes and curricula evolve to be respectful of the new arrivals' culture? What expectations would a Danish girl face, from her friends, parents, and authorities? What would the average Danish girl's social life be like?

How would life look like in the Africanized Denmark I described here?

Education Curricula would evolve to be more respectful of Black culture, as you say.

For example, history classes would take on a more comparative perspective. Instead of just studying Danish history, students would learn that while their ancestors were burying their kings in mounds of dirt, Egyptians were building the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Physical education would also change. The focus would shift from seeing physical activity as a component of well-being to seeing it as a requirement for sexual attractiveness.

Danish gymn classes of today are big on communal activities, teaching students how to be part of a team without the competitive focus of American phys ed. The purpose of the exercises aren't to "get in shape" as much as to give students the sensation of using their bodies, resulting in little more than a pair of healthy blushing cheeks.

This would all change in Africanized Denmark. Now the focus would be on being the most attractive version of yourself that you can be.

For the guys, this would consist of muscle-building exercises, like weight-lifting and push-ups. Mostly for the Black men, of course, with white guys being encouraged to take on the role of spotter.

The atmosphere would be very masculine, and (Black) students would be allowed to decorate the locker room with their favorite pin-ups.

For the girls, gym class would start with an individual weighing in front of the entire class. Weight losses would be commended, and girls would be warned not to become "chubby".

This would be followed by strenuous exercises designed to make your tummy tighter and your butt bigger. The only cheeks blushing would be those on your backside as you went through your twerking exercises.

Critical Race Theory would also play a central role in the curriculum. Students would be encouraged to explore the historical roots and contemporary manifestations of racism. This would include exploring and apologizing for subconcious racism among the Danish students themselves. I've written more about this here.

Expectations faced by Danish girls Danish girls in particular would be expected to extend their hospitality to the new arrivals.

Posting pro-BLM material on your social media profile would be expected and considered the bare minimum. Likewise attending anti-racist rallies. As our dark-skinned guests are greeted at the border, Danish teens would be marching and chanting in protest of police brutality against Blacks.

There would also be an expectation of dating the new arrivals. As a single Danish girl you would be expected to be on at least one dating or hookup app, advertising your desire to welcome a Black man into your bed.

This pressure would especially be felt by those girls blessed with a big booty. A bona fide PAWG in a relationship with a Danish guy would be accused of "wasting" her body on a white guy when a Black man would enjoy it so much more.