#civil rights books for children

[travelinglibrariansdesk]

Civil Rights and adventure travel (for kids)

One thing I should say about this blog: if anyone reading it in the future needs to know the suitability of a book for a certain age, you'll have to follow my links to another site - I'm not qualified to judge, and I don't have children of my own, so dig deeper if you want to know if a book I recommend is appropriate for a specific kid or classroom.

My first two books today were clearly returned by someone teaching her children about civil rights. Doreen Rappaport's Freedom River, tells a story about crossing the Ohio River from the slave-owning states of Kentucky or West Virginia to the free state of Ohio. Surprisingly action-packed for a kid's book, the narrative keeps the reader in suspense until the end. The art, however, puts this one over the top. I would call the style "quilting with paper" - but collage pretty well covers it. The colors, patterns and textures create motion and a 3d effect that had me running my fingers over the pages. Absolutely gorgeous work in this one.

A very different style of art, simple, bright and almost cartoonish, supports the story of To Boldly Go: How Nichelle Nichols and Star Trek Helped Advance Civil Rights. The narrative is twofold: a young narrator speaks of the thrill of watching Nichols on screen as a child with her family, and then a 3rd person narrative takes over with a biography of Nichols. I have heard and read Nichols' story before, and I particularly love the part where Martin Luther King, Jr. himself tells her not to quit the show, reminding her of how important it is for people to see her onscreen as an equal member of the crew. I'm glad Angela Dalton thought this story worthy of her efforts. She treats it lightly, not slowing the story down with too much detail, but the impact remains significant.

I really enjoy the way artists can "texture" children's books. Dan-ah Kim's lush The Train Home is like the above-mentioned Freedom River, composed of pen and ink drawing, cut paper and fabric. Again I find myself running my fingers over the page to feel the composition of the art. In the story, Nari looks out of her apartment window, annoyed by the noisiness of her environment, and, as the train rumbles by, she imagines where it might take her, away from city noise. In the forest, she imagines herself in a nest, surrounded by bleeding hearts, butterflies and blue jays. She imagines herself under the sea, living with mermaids and a newspaper-reading, spectacle-wearing octopus. The colors leap off the page as she moves from one potential home to another (what is it about marble lions and libraries?), eventually deciding that she wouldn't be happy without her sister's songs, her grandparents' stories and her parents' laughter. A stunning piece of artwork and a great nudge to children's imagination.

Last but not least is Anna Desnitskaya's On the Edge of the World. It piqued my curiosity because the cover (image, author, title of book) is on both sides of the book - one the reverse of the other. I started with Lucas's side, which tells of his life "on the edge of the world" in Southern Chile, where his father is a marine biologist. Desnitskaya interrupts the narrative with funny pages sketching Lucas's favorite things, illustrated maps and definitions, then returns to the narrative, where Vera begins appearing, as a ghost (outlined), as Lucas wishes he had a friend. He sends a signal in Morse code with his flashlight out into the darkness over the sea...at which point the reader must flip the book upside down and begin to read Vera's story. She lives on the Kamchatka Peninsula in North-Eastern Russia, and she also longs for a friend. It's a very clever and creative way to tell a story - my only complaint is that it's unsatisfying: Lucas and Vera never actually connect - Desnitskaya just leaves it as a possibility. The book has other virtues, however - teaching geography, local flora and fauna, and Morse code. I loved that Lucas climbed a tree to read a new book - and quoted the first lines of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Then, when we read Vera's story, we find that LWW is her favorite book. She, in turn, refers to The Hobbit (Lucas's favorite book) - great teasers for readers inclined to adventure. Even cooler, when I looked it up, I found that this one has been translated from Russian.

I read an article today detailing how one librarian teaches digital literacy; more on this in a future blog, I hope. In the background of a picture of her, I saw delightful "vintage", "travel" posters to Narnia and the Shire and Arrakis. Someday, if I become a children's librarian, I'd love to do something travel-related with this: decorate with such posters, design maps, plan brochures, travel agents... I suppose librarians don't usually do projects with teenagers, but if I could start a reading club, maybe kids would find the enthusiasm for their books enough to do projects - especially if it took place over the summer.

[sassafrasmoonshine]

Let the Children March • Frank Morrison, illustrator • (American, b. 1971) • Author, Monica Clark-Robinson • Clarion Books, publisher • 2018

In 1963 Birmingham, Alabama, thousands of African American children volunteered to march for their rights after hearing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speak. They protested the laws that kept black people separate from white people. Facing fear, hate, and danger, these children used their voices to change the world.

[drsonnet]

African Town

By Charles Waters and Irene Latham

Category: Teen & Young Adult Fiction | Teen & Young Adult Historical Fiction

Chronicling the story of the last Africans brought illegally to America in 1860, African Town is a powerful and stunning novel-in-verse. In 1860, long after the United States outlawed the importation of enslaved laborers, 110 men, women and children from Benin and Nigeria were captured and brought to Mobile, Alabama aboard a ship called Clotilda. Their journey includes the savage Middle Passage and being hidden in the swamplands along the Alabama River before being secretly parceled out to various plantations, where they made desperate attempts to maintain both their culture and also fit into the place of captivity to which they’d been delivered. At the end of the Civil War, the survivors created a community for themselves they called African Town, which still exists to this day. Told in 14 distinct voices, including that of the ship that brought them to the American shores and the founder of African Town, this powerfully affecting historical novel-in-verse recreates a pivotal moment in US and world history, the impacts of which we still feel today.

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

Empower kids with our new 'Little Free Thinkers - Know Your Rights' book! This engaging book for ages 6-12 teaches the importance of their rights and builds a strong foundation of liberty.

Perfect gift for young minds! Grab yours here: https://littlefreethinkers.com/

#LittleFreeThinkers #KnowYourRights

[lotus-flower-writes-history]

The Unofficial Black History Book

Ruby Bridges (1954-Currently Living)

In 1960, a six-year-old African American girl unknowingly desegregated a white elementary school, paving the way for civil rights action in the South.

This is her story.

Ruby Nell Bridges was born on September 8th, 1954, the eldest of five children of Lucille and Abon Bridges, in Tylertown, Mississippi. She grew up on a farm with her parents and grandparents, who were sharecroppers. Her parents relocated to New Orleans when she was two years old in search of better job opportunities.

In 1954, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which ended racial segregation in public schools. Even so, southern states continued to oppose integration. When Ruby was in kindergarten, she was one of many African American students who were chosen to take a test determining whether or not she could attend a white school. 

The test was designed to be particularly difficult so that students would struggle to pass it. Essentially, the plan was that if all of the African American children failed the test, New Orleans schools would be able to remain segregated for a longer period of time. However, Ruby and five other students passed the exam.

The Bridges family lived only five miles from an all-white school, but Ruby attended an all-black segregated school that was several miles away. Her parents were conflicted about sending her to an all-white school. Her father feared for his daughter’s safety, but her mother wanted Ruby to have a better education and better opportunities than her parents were denied.

NAACP officials informed Ruby's parents in 1960 that she had passed the test and would be the only African American child to attend the William Frantz School. Two other students decided not to leave their school at all, and the remaining three were assigned to the all-white McDonough Elementary School.

The school district went so far as to purposefully postpone Ruby's admission until November 14th. Ruby and her mother were escorted to school by four Federal Marshals on November 14th, 1960. They instructed Ruby not to look at the crowd. 

As they approached the school, Ruby was met by a large group of white adults gathered behind barricades, as well as police stationed in front of the school. They hurled objects at Ruby, shouted racial slurs at her, and even expressed death wishes.

Ruby, being young and naïve, initially mistook it for a Mardi Gras parade. “I was really not aware that I was going to a white school; my parents never explained it to me. I stumbled into the crowds of people, and living here in New Orleans and being accustomed to Mardi Gras, the huge celebration that takes place in the city every year, I really thought that’s what it was that day. There was no need for me to be afraid of that.” Ruby states.

Every day, irate protesters, mostly white parents and children, as well as reporters and photographers, gathered outside. The crowd chanted and waved placards while yelling slurs. One sign read: “All I want for Christmas is a clean white school.” And there was a woman holding up a miniature coffin with a black doll inside. It was the only time Ruby was afraid. 

In Ruby's own words, she said:

“That, I would have nightmares about, I would dream that the coffin was flying around my bedroom at night.” 

Ruby spent her first day at school in the principal's office as a result of the chaos caused by angry white parents pulling their children out of school. Dedicated segregationists withdrew their children for good. Ruby had to bring her own lunch to school every day because she was afraid of being poisoned. 

A woman from the crowd would yell out threats about poisoning and lynching Ruby. This was not revealed to her parents until much later. 

All of the white parents eventually withdrew their children from school, and the entire faculty refused to teach Ruby.

The only teacher willing to accept Ruby was Barbara Henry, a white Boston native. For the first year, she was the sole student in the classroom. “We knew we had to be there for each other.” Says Bridges. Ms. Henry was also shunned by the rest of the faculty for agreeing to teach a young black student. 

Ruby ate lunch alone in the classroom because she wasn’t allowed in the cafeteria. She wasn’t allowed to go to recess with the other kids, so she sometimes played with Ms. Henry. The Marshalls even escorted her to the bathroom.

Robert Coles, a white child psychiatrist who had witnessed the events outside the school, volunteered to help Ruby and her family. He would visit the home on a weekly basis to talk to Ruby.

Coles went on to pursue a career studying the effects of school desegregation on children. It was later revealed that one of his relatives had sent Ruby new school clothes that her family could not afford. 

Some families supported Ruby's bravery, and some Northerners sent money to help her family, while others protested throughout the city against them. Her entire family would soon pay the price for their bravery. Her father, Abon, a Korean War veteran, had lost his job as a gas station attendant. Her mother, Lucille, lost her job as a domestic worker, and grocery stores refused to sell food to Lucille to feed her children. Even Ruby’s friends couldn’t come over to play anymore.

The NAACP, which had played an important role in Ruby's case, had advised Ruby's father not to go out and look for work for his own safety. Her sharecropping grandparents, who had lived on their farm for 25 years, were also evicted. And her parents eventually separated. 

“I remember writing to Santa Claus and asking him to give my father’s job back, and that he didn’t have a job because I was going to school. So I guess somehow I did feel some blame for it.”

After an incident in which Ruby was stashing her food in the classroom during lunch because she was tired of eating alone, which resulted in a mouse infestation, Ms. Henry began sitting with Ruby during lunch.

Her eating habits had also changed at home; after Robert informed Ruby's parents about the white heckler outside the school and her threats to poison Ruby, she now only eats packaged food.

Things began to change gradually but steadily over the course of the first year. A small number of white parents allowed their children to return to school. They were initially separated from Ruby. In her own words, “The principal, who was part of the opposition, would take the kids, and she would hide them so that they could never come in contact with me.”  

Ruby was finally allowed to be in a small class with other six-year-old children near the end of the year, thanks to Ms. Henry's persistence. Ruby recalls a little boy saying to her, “My momma said not to play with you because you’re a nigger.”  

“And the minute he said that, it was like everything came together. All the little pieces that I’d been collecting in my mind all fit, and I then understood: The reason why there’s no kids here is because of me, and the color of my skin. That’s why I can’t go to recess. And it’s no Mardi Gras. It all sort of came together: A very rude awakening. I often say today that really was my first introduction to racism.” Bridges says.

She later realized that it was also a perception of the origins of racism. “The way that I was brought up, if my parents had said: ‘Don’t play with them - he’s white, he’s Asian, he’s Hispanic, he’s Indian, he’s whatever - I would not have played with him.” The young boy was merely explaining why he couldn't play with her; he was unaware that he was being racist toward her.

In Ruby’s words, “Which leads me to my point that racism is learned behavior. We pass it on to our kids, and it continues from one generation to the next. That moment proved that to me.”

One day, while being escorted to school, Ruby stopped to face the crowd, which was something she was instructed to do. Ms. Henry later asked her what she said. And Ruby said that she wasn’t talking; she was praying. Ruby would pray for the crowd of people who hated her. She forgot until she was in the midst of the crowd that morning. 

“Please, God, try to forgive those people. Because even if they say those bad things, They don’t know what they’re doing. So you could forgive them, Just like you did those folks a long time ago when they said terrible things about you.” A prayer that she would say before and after school.

By the second year of school, the tension had gradually subsided. There were no protests, and she was in a normal-sized class with mostly white kids, though a few African American kids had joined by then. Eventually, Ms. Henry left William Frantz Elementary, which saddened Ruby. Regardless, they became lifelong friends.

She even adopted Ms. Henry's strong Boston accent and was chastised for it by her new teacher, one of those who had refused to teach her the previous year. 

Every year, an increasing number of black students enrolled at William Frantz. High schools had been desegregated for nearly ten years when Ruby was in her teens, but black and white students still did not mix, and Ruby faced a lot of racial tension throughout high school. 

The South's racist legacy remained strong. Despite being desegregated, her high school was named after a former Confederate general, Francis T. Nicholls. Its sports teams were called the Rebels, and their logo featured a Confederate flag, which black students fought to change. The school was renamed Frederick Douglass High School in the 1990s, and the team is now known as the Bobcats. 

Ruby graduated from high school with no clear career path in mind, but she did know she wanted to leave Louisiana.  

“I was really more focused on how to get out of Louisiana. I knew that there was something more than what I was exposed to right there in my community.”

She applied for jobs as a flight attendant before working as an American Express travel agent for 15 years. During that time, she got to see the world.

In her 30s, she married Malcolm Hall in 1984 and had four sons. She began to feel restless around this time. 

“I was asking myself: ‘What am I doing?’ Am I doing something really meaningful?’ I really wanted to know what my purpose was in life.” She stated. 

In 1993, Ruby’s brother was shot dead on a street in New Orleans, and she took in his four daughters, who also attended William Frantz Elementary. 

In 1995, Robert Coles, Ruby's childhood psychiatrist who was now a Harvard professor, published his children's book, 'The Story of Ruby Bridges,' which reintroduced Ruby to the public eye. 

Ruby's story was never really discussed in New Orleans. She explains in the same way that, for years, people in Dallas didn’t talk about the Kennedy assassination. 

“You have to understand, we didn’t have Black History Month during that time. It wasn’t like I could pick up a textbook and open it up and read about myself.” 

Ruby promoted Coles' book by speaking in schools across the country, and it went on to become a best-seller. In 1998, Disney made a biopic of Ruby Bridges, in which she acted as a consultant. “I think everybody started to realize that me, Ruby Bridges, was actually the same little girl as in the Norman Rockwell painting.” 

The proceeds from the book aided Ruby in establishing her foundation. When she returned her nieces to William Frantz, she noticed a lack of after-school arts programs and decided to start her own. She continued touring schools across the country, telling her story and promoting cultural understanding. 

She recently released a new book, 'This is Your Time,' which tells her story for today's youth. 

After Hurricane Katrina damaged it in New Orleans in 2005, William Frantz was slated for demolition. As a result of Ruby's successful campaign to have the school listed on the National Register of Historic Places, funds were freed up to restore and expand it. In addition, there is a statue of Ruby in the school courtyard. 

Ruby was not aware of Norman Rockwell's 1964 painting of her, 'The Problem We All Live With,' until much later in her life. It is not a faithful recreation of the scene; it is closer to John Steinbeck's eyewitness account in his 1962 book 'Travels with Charley in Search of America,' but, unlike Rockwell's earlier Cherry Americana, it captures the rage and drama: The N-word and “KKK” are scrawled across the wall, along with the splattered tomato behind young Ruby Bridges.

When Barack Obama was elected president, Ruby suggested that the Rockwell painting be hung in the White House to commemorate the event's 40th anniversary. He invited Ruby and her family to its unveiling and even gave her a big hug. 

“It was a very powerful moment,” she says. “As we embraced, I saw people in the room tearing up and realized that it wasn’t just about he and I meeting; it was about those moments in time that came together. And all those sacrifices in between he and I. He then turned to me and said: ‘You know, it’s fair to say that if it had not been for this moment, for you all, I might not be here today.’ That in itself is just a stark reminder of how all of us are standing on someone else’s shoulders. Someone else that opened the door and paved the way. And so we have to understand that we cannot give up a fight, whether we see the fruit of our labor or not. You have a responsibility to open the door to keep this moving forward.” 

Ruby explains that the white population began to leave the area in the middle of the 1960s, partly as a result of the damage caused by Hurricane Betsy in 1965, but also as a result of the district's changing demographics. As a result, William Frantz's student body is now entirely black. 

It is happening right now in New Orleans: "White flight" has effectively resulted in a form of re-segregation in schools across the US, making it one of the city's poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods. 

Ruby now sees this as her next activist battle. 

Ruby Bridges, the six-year-old girl who bravely desegregated William Frantz Elementary, is now a Civil Rights activist who, at the age of 68, is bringing about change through education. 

_

Previous

Maya Angelou

Next

Huey P. Newton

__

My Resources

[ausetkmt]

The New York Times: Viewing the Civil Rights Movement Through Children’s Books.

“Picture the Dream,” on display at the New-York Historical Society, shows that children, far from being mere witnesses to the civil rights movement, have played central roles in it.

In a verdant rural setting, a weathered gray fence separates two girls, one Black, one white. The Black child extends her hand as the white girl, already straddling the fence’s top rail, reaches down. Although they barely grasp each other’s fingers, a viewer can sense their curiosity, their anticipation, their desire to surmount this barrier.

The scene, a watercolor by E.B. Lewis, is among the first works visitors encounter in “Picture the Dream: The Story of the Civil Rights Movement Through Children’s Books,” on view through July 24 at the New-York Historical Society. Created for Jacqueline Woodson’s book “The Other Side,” from 2001, the painting reflects two of this exhibition’s major themes: that progress stems from everyday, individual action as much as from collective effort; and that children, far from being mere witnesses to the civil rights movement, have played central roles in it.

“It was kids themselves who are on the sidewalks and streets, going to jail, getting bitten by dogs, taking the attack of billy clubs,” Andrea Davis Pinkney, the exhibition’s curator, said in an interview at the museum. “And that is happening right now. This minute.”

The show, which traces the civil rights movement from segregation to the present, captures those terrible moments, along with interludes of joy. Organized by the Eric Carle Museum of Picture Book Art in Amherst, Mass., and the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, “Picture the Dream” is the first exhibition to chronicle this history through children’s literature, Pinkney said. When the show debuted at the High Museum in August 2020, she added, some visitors thought George Floyd’s killing and the following protests had inspired it. But while “Picture the Dream” had been planned much earlier, subsequent events, including the racist massacre in Buffalo last month, have only sharpened its relevance.

“A picture book can never heal a tragedy,” Pinkney said, but “it can help us,” she added. Books allow families “to come together — an adult and a child — and say, ‘Let’s talk about this.’”

The potential to provoke such conversations was key to selecting the exhibition’s art, which comes from 60 books, nonfiction and fiction. Pinkney, an editor at Scholastic and an award-winning writer — she frequently collaborates with her husband, the illustrator Brian Pinkney — knew the show would commemorate milestones, including the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott in 1955 and 1956 and the Selma-to-Montgomery marches in 1965. But in addition to honoring events, she wanted to feature a range of mediums and artists, including young illustrators like Vashti Harrison, as well as renowned figures like Faith Ringgold and Jerry Pinkney (her father-in-law).

The artworks, combined with explanatory text, constitute a kind of picture book themselves. Pinkney wrote the words as if she were creating a story, exhorting young museumgoers to get ready to walk: “Look down at your shoes. Are they sturdy?”

Pinkney and her collaborators also divided the show into chapters: “A Backward Path” explores the Jim Crow era; “The Rocks Are the Road” focuses on the movement itself; and “Today’s Journey, Tomorrow’s Promise” celebrates its rewards, while stressing that there is still much to be done. Along with famous faces like Rosa Parks and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., each segment features surprises, not the least of which is seeing the illustrations at full scale.

“The original artwork speaks with a different resonance,” the illustrator Bryan Collier, who has four works in the show, said in a phone interview. Because, he added, “it tells you a little bit more, it expands the idea of what a picture book is.”

The collage-and-watercolor illustration that Collier created for a picture book of Langston Hughes’s poem “I, Too,” depicts a Black Pullman porter in a striking close-up, staring resolutely through the translucent stars and stripes of an American flag. What visitors learn is that African American railway porters circulated news to Black communities around the country.

“When you say, ‘Pullman porter,’ you’re talking about a community organizer and a leader,” Collier said. Such a figure, he added, was “a driving force to tell that poem.”

The exhibition pairs Collier’s illustration with a 1959 copy of “The Negro Travelers’ Green Book” — a guide to places that were safe for Black motorists — as well as a digitized version visitors can read. The historical society supplemented the show with these objects and others, including segregation-era “White” and “Colored” signs and a photograph by Stephen Somerstein of children in a Selma-to-Montgomery march. The photo complements P.J. Loughran’s illustration of a marching crowd for Lynda Blackmon Lowery’s vivid memoir, “Turning 15 on the Road to Freedom: My Story of the 1965 Selma Voting Rights March.”

“I think kids and adults sometimes go to a museum, and they see illustrations or pictures of things, and they think: ‘Well, was this real? Did this really happen?’” Alice Stevenson, the vice president and director of the historical society’s DiMenna Children’s History Museum, said in a phone interview. “And we wanted to be able to give some touch points throughout the exhibition to really ground people in the reality of what these illustrations are representing.” (Visitors can also see historical footage in a short film, “Picture the Dream,” on the Bloomberg Connects app.)

The added objects heighten the impact of searing portrayals like Eric Velasquez’s charcoal drawing of white adults and children heckling Black girls marching, from Angela Johnson’s book “A Sweet Smell of Roses.”

“History itself did not see fit to sugarcoat itself for me,” Velasquez said in a phone conversation. As a Black man, he added, “I portray it the way I remember it.”

The exhibition is unflinching in acknowledging that not all Black children survived the struggle. Philippe Lardy’s image for Marilyn Nelson’s poetry book “A Wreath for Emmett Till” features the face of Till, a 14-year-old murdered by white racists in 1955, encircled by thorns and chains. Tim Ladwig’s illustration from Carole Boston Weatherford’s book “The Beatitudes: From Slavery to Civil Rights” is less stylized. It shows Till’s portrait and his coffin, but uses the raised lid — the boy’s mother insisted on a public viewing — to hide the brutalized body.

In choosing such images, “we were going to lean right into the truth,” said Pinkney, who added that the educational organization Embrace Race had evaluated the accuracy and the tone of the exhibition’s content.

The show’s final section strikes a more optimistic note, with illustrations like Velasquez’s portrayal of Barack Obama at a jubilant campaign rally, from Michelle Cook’s “Our Children Can Soar: A Celebration of Rosa, Barack and the Pioneers of Change.” The historical society, however, has also interspersed three works that children created in 2020 — not for picture books but about Black Lives Matter protests.

“We want kids to be able to respond to the past in their own lives,” Stevenson said.

Perhaps the best call to action is the books themselves, all shelved within a reading nook in the show’s concluding segment. Here, too, an outstretched hand appears, part of a joyful blown-up illustration that Collier painted for Useni Eugene Perkins’s book “Hey Black Child.”

“That’s always the goal — to read books, to embrace them, to love them,” Pinkney said. “And to know that a picture book can be your North Star.”

[jcmarchi]

Q&A: What past environmental success can teach us about solving the climate crisis

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/qa-what-past-environmental-success-can-teach-us-about-solving-the-climate-crisis/

Q&A: What past environmental success can teach us about solving the climate crisis

Susan Solomon, MIT professor of Earth, atmospheric, and planetary sciences (EAPS) and of chemistry, played a critical role in understanding how a class of chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons were creating a hole in the ozone layer. Her research was foundational to the creation of the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement established in the 1980s that phased out products releasing chlorofluorocarbons. Since then, scientists have documented signs that the ozone hole is recovering thanks to these measures.

Having witnessed this historical process first-hand, Solomon, the Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of Environmental Studies, is aware of how people can come together to make successful environmental policy happen. Using her story, as well as other examples of success — including combating smog, getting rid of DDT, and more — Solomon draws parallels from then to now as the climate crisis comes into focus in her new book, “Solvable: How we Healed the Earth and How we can do it Again.”

Solomon took a moment to talk about why she picked the stories in her book, the students who inspired her, and why we need hope and optimism now more than ever.

Q: You have first-hand experience seeing how we’ve altered the Earth, as well as the process of creating international environmental policy. What prompted you to write a book about your experiences?

A: Lots of things, but one of the main ones is the things that I see in teaching. I have taught a class called Science, Politics and Environmental Policy for many years here at MIT. Because my emphasis is always on how we’ve actually fixed problems, students come away from that class feeling hopeful, like they really want to stay engaged with the problem.

It strikes me that students today have grown up in a very contentious and difficult era in which they feel like nothing ever gets done. But stuff does get done, even now. Looking at how we did things so far really helps you to see how we can do things in the future.

Q: In the book, you use five different stories as examples of successful environmental policy, and then end talking about how we can apply these lessons to climate change. Why did you pick these five stories?

A: I picked some of them because I’m closer to those problems in my own professional experience, like ozone depletion and smog. I did other issues partly because I wanted to show that even in the 21st century, we’ve actually got some stuff done — that’s the story of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which is a binding international agreement on some greenhouse gases.

Another chapter is on DDT. One of the reasons I included that is because it had an enormous effect on the birth of the environmental movement in the United States. Plus, that story allows you to see how important the environmental groups can be.

Lead in gasoline and paint is the other one. I find it a very moving story because the idea that we were poisoning millions of children and not even realizing it is so very, very sad. But it’s so uplifting that we did figure out the problem, and it happened partly because of the civil rights movement, that made us aware that the problem was striking minority communities much more than non-minority communities.

Q: What surprised you the most during your research for the book?

A: One of the things that that I didn’t realize and should have, was the outsized role played by one single senator, Ed Muskie of Maine. He made pollution control his big issue and devoted incredible energy to it. He clearly had the passion and wanted to do it for many years, but until other factors helped him, he couldn’t. That’s where I began to understand the role of public opinion and the way in which policy is only possible when public opinion demands change.

Another thing about Muskie was the way in which his engagement with these issues demanded that science be strong. When I read what he put into congressional testimony I realized how highly he valued the science. Science alone is never enough, but it’s always necessary. Over the years, science got a lot stronger, and we developed ways of evaluating what the scientific wisdom across many different studies and many different views actually is. That’s what scientific assessment is all about, and it’s crucial to environmental progress.

Q: Throughout the book you argue that for environmental action to succeed, three things must be met which you call the three Ps: a threat much be personal, perceptible, and practical. Where did this idea come from?

A: My observations. You have to perceive the threat: In the case of the ozone hole, you could perceive it because those false-color images of the ozone loss were so easy to understand, and it was personal because few things are scarier than cancer, and a reduced ozone layer leads to too much sun, increasing skin cancers. Science plays a role in communicating what can be readily understood by the public, and that’s important to them perceiving it as a serious problem.

Nowadays, we certainly perceive the reality of climate change. We also see that it’s personal. People are dying because of heat waves in much larger numbers than they used to; there are horrible problems in the Boston area, for example, with flooding and sea level rise. People perceive the reality of the problem and they feel personally threatened.

The third P is practical: People have to believe that there are practical solutions. It’s interesting to watch how the battle for hearts and minds has shifted. There was a time when the skeptics would just attack the whole idea that the climate was changing. Eventually, they decided ‘we better accept that because people perceive it, so let’s tell them that it’s not caused by human activity.’ But it’s clear enough now that human activity does play a role. So they’ve moved on to attacking that third P, that somehow it’s not practical to have any kind of solutions. This is progress! So what about that third P?

What I tried to do in the book is to point out some of the ways in which the problem has also become eminently practical to deal with in the last 10 years, and will continue to move in that direction. We’re right on the cusp of success, and we just have to keep going. People should not give in to eco despair; that’s the worst thing you could do, because then nothing will happen. If we continue to move at the rate we have, we will certainly get to where we need to be.

Q: That ties in very nicely with my next question. The book is very optimistic; what gives you hope?

A: I’m optimistic because I’ve seen so many examples of where we have succeeded, and because I see so many signs of movement right now that are going to push us in the same direction.

If we had kept conducting business as usual as we had been in the year 2000, we’d be looking at 4 degrees of future warming. Right now, I think we’re looking at 3 degrees. I think we can get to 2 degrees. We have to really work on it, and we have to get going seriously in the next decade, but globally right now over 30 percent of our energy is from renewables. That’s fantastic! Let’s just keep going.

Q: Throughout the book, you show that environmental problems won’t be solved by individual actions alone, but requires policy and technology driving. What individual actions can people take to help push for those bigger changes?

A: A big one is choose to eat more sustainably; choose alternative transportation methods like public transportation or reducing the amount of trips that you make. Older people usually have retirement investments, you can shift them over to a social choice funds and away from index funds that end up funding companies that you might not be interested in. You can use your money to put pressure: Amazon has been under a huge amount of pressure to cut down on their plastic packaging, mainly coming from consumers. They’ve just announced they’re not going to use those plastic pillows anymore. I think you can see lots of ways in which people really do matter, and we can matter more.

Q: What do you hope people take away from the book?

A: Hope for their future and resolve to do the best they can getting engaged with it.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

Didn't want to leave a whole rant in the tags of that post but... the level of "the curtains are just blue"-ism among people who like Percy Jackson is really astounding (even compared to other fandom people).

Like, the books straight up tell you to your face "The Greek gods now live in the USA because the USA is currently the epicenter of Western Civilization, which in this universe is a real metaphysical force of literally divine origin which sets western european cultures (especially whichever *imperialist* western european culture happens to have the most powerful empire at the moment) apart from the rest of the world as the specialest, most cultured, most divinely favored people in the world" like they literally just SAY that

What you call ‘Western civilization.’ Do you think it’s just an abstract concept? No, it’s a living force. A collective consciousness that has burned bright for thousands of years. The gods are part of it. You might even say they are the source of it, or at least, they are tied so tightly to it that they couldn’t possibly fade, not unless all of Western civilization were obliterated. The fire started in Greece. Then, as you well know—or as I hope you know, since you passed my course—the heart of the fire moved to Rome, and so did the gods. Oh, different names, perhaps—Jupiter for Zeus, Venus for Aphrodite, and so on—but the same forces, the same gods.” “And then they died.” “Died? No. Did the West die? The gods simply moved, to Germany, to France, to Spain, for a while. Wherever the flame was brightest, the gods were there. They spent several centuries in England. [...] And yes, Percy, of course they are now in your United States. [...] Like it or not—and believe me, plenty of people weren’t very fond of Rome, either—America is now the heart of the flame. It is the great power of the West. And so Olympus is here.

And if you dare mention anywhere that this whole worldbuilding element *might* have some fashy undertones they all look at you like you have three heads and act like you're looking way too deep into a silly children's book bending over backwards to find anything to feel offended about when like. It's literally right there in the book it isn't even subtext it's literally just text.

[robertreich]

Project 2025: The MAGA Plan to Take Your Freedom 

A second Trump term would be more dangerous than the first — in part because of something called Project 2025, a plan to extend Trump’s grip into every part of your life.

Trump’s gross incompetence in his first term wasn’t all bad. It kept some of his most extreme goals out of reach. That’s why his inner circle, including more than 20 officials from his first term, have written a step-by-step playbook to make a second term brutally efficient.

At nearly a thousand pages, it’s longer than most Stephen King novels, and a lot scarier. The Associated Press wasn’t kidding when they called it “a plan to dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump’s vision,”

Project 2025 is a road map to ban abortion, give greedy corporate oligarchs everything they want, and strip Americans of our most basic freedoms — all without needing any support from Congress.

There’s more to it than I can get into, but here are three things I want you to know.

#1 How would Project 2025 work?

Every nonpartisan government agency would be turned into an arm of the MAGA agenda.

Some of the worst things Trump reportedly tried to do as president — like having the military  shoot protesters or seize voting machines to overturn the election  — were only stopped because sensible leaders in the military or the professional civil service refused to go along with it.

In a second term, there would be no sensible leaders in the military or professional civil service because Trump would fire anyone more loyal to the Constitution than to him.

Trump started the process in October 2020 with an executive order that would have let him fire tens of thousands of civil servants and replace them with MAGA henchmen. I’m talking about traditionally non-political positions, like scientists at scientific agencies and accountants at the IRS.

Trump could not act on the executive order then because he lost the election. If he wins now, he’s pledged to pick up where he left off and go further…

TRUMP: …making every executive branch employee fireable by the President of the United States.

#2 Project 2025 is about controlling Americans’ lives & bodies

Restricting abortion is such a big part of Project 2025 that the word “abortion” appears 198 times in the plan.

Trump largely made good on his campaign promise to ban abortion.

Thanks to Trump’s Supreme Court justices, 1 in 3 American women of childbearing age live in states with abortion bans. Project 2025 would make that even worse, without needing new laws from Congress.

Page 458 of the playbook calls for a MAGA-controlled FDA to reject medical science and reverse approval of the medications used in 63% of all abortions, effectively banning them.

Page 455 plans “abortion surveillance” and the creation of a registry that could put people who cross state lines to get an abortion at risk of prosecution.

Another way around Congress is to enforce arcane laws that are still technically on the books. Page 562 plans for a MAGA-controlled Justice Department to enforce the Comstock Act of 1873, which bans the mailing of “anything designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” This could be used to block the shipment of any medications or medical instruments needed for abortions.

But Project 2025’s control of American families goes even further. It plans for government agencies to define life as beginning at conception — a position at odds with the process used for in vitro fertilization.

Page 451 declares that “Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society,” thereby stigmatizing single parents, same-sex couples, unmarried coparents, and childless couples.

Project 2025 even takes a stand against adoption, declaring on p. 489 that “all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them.”

#3 Project 2025 would turn America into a police state.

Maybe you live in a blue city or state, where you think plans like arresting teachers and librarians over banned books (which is on p. 5) could never happen. Well, guess again.

Trump has said one of the big things he’d do differently in a second term is override mayors and governors to take over local law enforcement.

Page 553 lays out how to do this, and even plans for Trump’s Justice Department to prosecute district attorneys he disagrees with.

Immigration enforcement is to be conducted like a war, with the military deployed within the U.S., and millions of undocumented immigrants rounded up and placed into newly constructed holding camps. This is outlined starting on p. 139.

Members of the Project 2025 team also reportedly told the Washington Post about plans to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy the military against anti-Trump protests.

There is much more to Project 2025. There are more than a hundred pages of anti-environmental policies that would help Trump make good on what he reportedly promised to do for oil executives if they contribute a billion dollars to his reelection. It would make drilling and mining a top national priority while killing clean energy projects, barring the EPA from regulating carbon emissions, and replacing all government climate scientists with climate deniers.

There are even cartoonishly cruel plans like slaughtering wild horses. Yes, that’s really in there on p. 528.

I thought I understood the stakes of this election, but reading this plan… Well, it gave me chills. If Trump gets the chance to put this plan into place, he will. The country it would turn America into would be hard for any of us to recognize.

[daisukitoo]

I am 40% of the way through Gideon the Ninth. There are no plot spoilers below.

What is refreshing about Gideon as a protagonist and POV character is that she is a jock. She fundamentally does not care about all this nerd shit going on, i.e. the entire setting and plot. She misses exposition, background, and other explanations because, as one person who starts explaining how magic works observes, "right, you're not even pretending to pay attention."

Most writers are writers, so this is not a common perspective for a book to hold. Plot-relevant details can be sprinkled freely because Gideon's narrative will see them and not even shrug before moving on.

GIdeon lacks the emotional and mental maturity to be a good person. She is not evil as such, just apparently unaware of the existence of moral implications. When we meet her, her motivation is to get out of this hick town and join the military, because fighting is glorious and cool and this hick town sucks. She likes weapons and fighting and working out and hot chicks. She fantasizes about leading military charges that bring death to new worlds and fuel necromantic rituals because that would mean hot goth babes would see how cool she is and be grateful. She does not dwell on the thought of worlds that apparently have never known death and her plan to look cool leading imperial invasions and killing enough people to fuel necromantic rituals. She does dwell on the thought of that prissy bitch from her high school having to see how cool and hot she is now that she's a war hero who gets medals and hot babes.

You as the reader can be carried along very quickly by this incurious perspective that does not think twice about things. You as the reader may want Gideon to backtrack and dwell on something or explore it further. The weirdness of the setting is more or less swept under the rug by Gideon's not noticing it. 98.5% of the children on a planet gone (died?), but Gideon doesn't devote a second sentence to boring backstory like that. What was that about galactic conquest, in a setting where the main weapons are swords and necromantic magic? How little advancement has there been in technology or magic in 10,000 years, despite a possibly continuous civilization that whole time? Or some references to what sound like dark ages? Damned if Gideon cares or even notices.

The necromancers are dying to talk shop about their powers. Gideon rolls her eyes and wants to talk to that woman about the cool flip she did, because Gideon wants to look cool doing flips during fights and have girls notice how cool she looks. Also her biceps. Gideon cannot pay attention for a full sentence on necromantic magic, but she does have a half-page to dwell on girls noticing how big her biceps are.

[synchodai]

I get this impression that House of the Dragon doesn't get that "named" heirs aren't really the norm in Westeros. If it were that easy for someone to just give everything to their favorite child, Randall Tarly wouldn't have needed to force Sam to go to the Wall and Tywin could have simply chosen Cersei over Tyrion as heir of Casterly Rock.

If we look at the history Westeros borrows from, the concept of "naming" heirs wasn't really a thing in medieval England. Landed gentry didn't have direct say over the order of succession until the Statute of Wills in 1540. Before then, land and subsequent titles could only be inherited through agnatic primogeniture.

Agnatic primogeniture prioritized the living, eldest, trueborn son. Claims can only be passed on patrilineally. This means that a grandaughter can inherit a claim of her grandfather's titles through her father, but a grandson cannot be given the same through his mother. However, if his mother finally does have land and titles under her own name (not under her father's), only then does her son and other children enter the line of succession.

The reason it was like this was because it kept land and titles under one family. Daughters are less preferred because when they are married, they become part of their husband's family — meaning that any titles they receive will be inherited through a new line. This wouldn't be an ideal situation because it gives two families claims to the titles. The more claimants there are, the more unstable the hold the owner has.

In other words, agnatic primogeniture was practiced for stability. Because back in the day, titles weren't just property or land. They came with governorship over a people, so a stable and predictable transfer of titles was necessary to avoid civil conflicts and questions of legitimacy.

A landed lord or lady wasn't given the right to designate heirs for a few reasons:

Most of them were vassals who oversaw the land in the name of someone higher up. It technically isn't even theirs to give away (see: feudal land tenure).

The wishes of a human being are less predictable than having a determined line of succession based on birth order. What if he becomes incapable of declaring an heir either through illness or disability? What if he's captured and a bad actor forces him to name this person heir under threat of violence?

People died unexpectedly all time. This was before germ theory and modern medicine — child mortality was extremely high. With no refrigeration technology, a single poor harvest could mean dying from starvation. Bandits, cutthroats, and raiders were a constant threat. They could not afford to rely on a person choosing a different heir every time the old heir drops dead, because the landed lord/lady could die just as suddenly.

Even 21st century families stab each other in the back over who gets grandma's house — so imagine having an uncertain line of succession in the middle ages over a life-defining lordship and without a modern-day court system to mediate.

Going back to HotD, whenever Targaryens did go against the established line of succession, they could only have done it by consolidating the support of their vassals. Only royalty seemed to have the power to bend agnatic primogeniture, but even then they were beholden to it.

When Jaehaerys I ascended the throne over Aerea, it was mainly because there were those who saw Maegor the Cruel's act of disinheriting Jaehaerys as null and void. This restored Jaehaerys place in the line of succession above Aerea.

And when Rhaenys was passed over for Baelon, Jaehaerys had to convene his lords and offer compelling reasons as to why — her young age, her lack of an heir, her Velaryon last name, etc. It wasn't a given that just because she was a woman that she was ineligible. If he was doing it purely out of misogyny, he still had to legally justify his misogyny in order to strip away her rights.

Even after consolidating support, the book mentions Jaehaerys I and Viserys I's respective hold on the crown was still weakened. Even though their claims were backed by reasons cosigned by a powerful majority, they still had to ensure the security of their rule through other means. There were people who doubted their right to rule, and those people had to be placated with gifts (by Viserys) or intimidated into submission (by Jaehaerys).

So we come to Viserys I who never gave his vassals a reason why Rhaenyra should supercede his three sons other than, "I said so." Had he convened with his lords and maybe made the argument that a first marriage takes precendence over a second one, then maybe he could have set a new precedent and gathered support.

But no, he didn't. He relied on the power of his own words and the lords' personal oaths — oaths that he didn't exactly plan how he would enforce posthumously.

And the Realm did not choose to adopt a different succession law after Jaehaerys's designation of Baelon in 92 AC or the Council of Harrenhal choosing Viserys on 101 AC. If those two events did change anything, it was that now women were exempt from the line of succession for the crown and only the crown. It did not set the precedence that monarchs could freely choose heirs. It did not upend the whole system; it only made a tweak, as most lawful policy-changes do, by carving out at an exception. It was a committee, not a revolution.

Before and after the Dance, no other monarch, lord, or lady "declared" an heir that went against agnatic primogeniture, save for Dornish who have cognatic (equal-gender) primogeniture instead. Ramsay had to get rid of Roose Bolton's living trueborn son AND be legitimized by the crown in order to be recognized as heir (only a crowned monarch can legitimize baseborn children which is another world-building pillar a lot of people miss). Randall basically had to force Sam to abdicate because he wanted his younger brother to inherit instead. And of course, Tywin despite his intense hatred of Tyrion is forced to acknowledge him as his heir.

The rigidity of the line of succession is a major and constant source of conflict in the series, so it baffles me that people really thought that characters could just freely choose their heirs. That's why we have a civil war. It wasn't a misunderstanding. It's the expected consequences of someone carelessly going against a foundational tenent of the society they inhabit.

[spacelazarwolf]

Hey there! I’ve really appreciated your posts and perspective over this past month, I’m having a hard time (as so many Jews are) and your voice helps.

I’m hoping you can help me with reliable resources. A friend of mine condemned the Hamas attacks etc (as they should, to my relief) but is under the impression that Israeli govt is doing genocide to the Palestinians. I’ve no idea how to approach that to verify (or not), I don’t even know where to start looking. Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you.

thanks! this is a really tough question, but i'm going to do my best to break it down. also if anyone's thinking of clowning on this post without reading it, inb4 "omg ur denying genocide!!!!!!" bc this post is literally outlining, in detail, all the ways the israeli government is, by definition, committing genocide.

this is really long, just a heads up.

a big frustration i have with a lot of progressive or leftist spaces is the tendency to throw around words like genocide without being able to define the term or properly apply it to the situation in question. this isn't just a semantics issue. if all you're doing is repeating the buzzwords you've heard on social media, your "activism" is going to be less than useless. it is crucial that if you are going to talk about the current genocide in gaza, you must be able to define exactly what a genocide is and how it applies to what's happening in gaza.

i'm paraphrasing from this article by the united nations. the word "genocide" was coined in 1944 by raphael lemkin in his book "axis rule in occupied europe." it was developed partly in response to the shoah, but also to previous instances of what we would now define as genocide. it was recognized as a crime under international law in 1946, and codified as an independent crime in the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.

the definition of genocide

(from article II of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide):

in the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. killing members of the group; b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

the 10 stages of genocide

a model created by gregory stanton, the founding president of genocide watch

classification - people are divided into "them and us"

symbolization - when combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups.

discrimination - law or cultural power excludes groups from full civil rights: segregation or apartheid laws, denial of voting rights.

dehumanization - one group denies the humanity of the other group. memmbers of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases.

organization - genocide is always organized... special army units or militias are often trained and armed...

polarization - extremists drive the groups apart... leaders are arrested and murdered... laws erode fundamental civil rights and liberties.

preparation - mass killing is planned. victims are identified and sepaarated because of their ethnic or religious identity.

persecution - expropriation, forced displacement, ghettos.

extermination - it is 'extermination' to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human.

denial - the perpatrators... deny that they committed any crimes.

application to the crisis in gaza

to start with the first definition from the united nations:

a. killing members of the group - YES

the death toll in gaza has risen above 8,000 according to the associated press. as far as i know, as of writing this post, there has been no ceasefire so the death toll will continue to rise.

b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group - YES

over 20,000 people in gaza have been injured, and gazans - particularly children - suffer incredibly high rates of ptsd.

c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part - YES

the israeli blockade of gaza has had devastating consequences for gazans. they are running out of food, water, fuel, and medicine, and this is costing additional lives.

d. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group - unclear but leaning toward YES

whether or not it is the explicit goal, the current bombardment of gaza has put the lives of 50,000+ pregnant women in gaza at risk, along with their babies. babies who need incubators are also in danger as generators begin to run out of fuel.

e. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group - as far as i am aware, NO

according to the us embassy in israel, the palestinian authority ministry of social development is the only authorized entity regarding adoption of palestinian children. this doesn't mean it isn't happening, it just means i was not able to find any credible sources.

the 10 stages of genocide

classification - YES there is a long history in israel of othering palestinians, both socially/culturally and legally. former israeli minister of interior and minister of justice ayelet shaked shared a racist quote from netanyahu's former chief of staff explicitly framing palestinians as "the enemy."

symbolization - not yet there are no overt symbols palestinians, even within israel, are required to wear to outwardly identify themselves, but there are identifying features on their ids. in fact, the opposite has been happening, with far right members of the israeli government attempting to pass legislation making it illegal to publicly display palestinian flags.

discrimination - YES there is, again, a long history of discrimination against palestinians within and by the state of israel. it is difficult for palestinians from the west bank or gaza to gain status in israel, israeli work permits are used as a form of control, and often forcibly separate palestinian families.

dehumanization - YES former israeli deputy minister of defense eli ben dahan said of palestinians, "to me they are like animals, they aren't human."

organization - YES israel is currently carrying out an organized and brutal attack on gaza.

polarization - YES from extremist groups like hamas, to the corruption in the likud party in israel, there are very clear signs of extreme polarization. israel's siege against gaza has caused polarization across the entire globe.

preparation - YES gazans in particular are unable to leave gaza without a permit, and now with the blockade from both israel and egypt they are essentially trapped.

persecution - YES gaza in particular could absolutely be likened to a ghetto. as stated above, (in "usual" circumstances) they are unable to leave without a permit, and since hamas took control it is nearly impossible to get an israeli work permit.

extermination - GETTING THERE if the siege continues and gazans are unable to get out of gaza, there will be catastrophic casualties.

denial - YES i often hear that "israel has a right to defend itself" but i cannot possibly find a way to frame the current siege as "self defense."

so in conclusion, israel is - by multiple definitions - committing genocide against gazans. and it's very important to be able to identify specifics, especially if you are planning on having discussions about it. and i've said it in the past, but if you are not directly affected by what's happening - palestinians in particular, but israeli citizens and jews and muslims in the diaspora are also getting hit hard - it is IMPERATIVE that you are able to talk about this with a level head. escalating tensions and pushing away potential allies is only going to make things worse. find common ground, form connections, and then have a productive discussion.

[transmutationisms]

can u elaborate on posture being a lie

As Beth Linker explains in her book “Slouch: Posture Panic in Modern America” (Princeton), a long history of anxiety about the proximity between human and bestial nature has played out in this area of social science. Linker, a historian of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that at the onset of the twentieth century the United States became gripped by what she characterizes as a poor-posture epidemic: a widespread social contagion of slumping that could, it was feared, have deleterious effects not just upon individual health but also upon the body politic. Sitting up straight would help remedy all kinds of failings, physical and moral [...] she sees the “past and present worries concerning posture as part of an enduring concern about so-called ‘diseases of civilization’ ”—grounded in a mythology of human ancestry that posits the hunter-gatherer as an ideal from which we have fallen.

[...]

In America at the turn of the twentieth century, anxieties about posture inevitably collided with anxieties not just about class but also about race. Stooping was associated with poverty and with manual, industrialized labor—the conditions of working-class immigrants from European countries who, in their physical debasement, were positioned well below the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment. Linker argues that, in this environment, “posture served as a marker of social status similar to skin color.” At the same time, populations that had been colonized and enslaved were held up as posture paradigms for the élite to emulate: the American Posture League rewarded successful students with congratulatory pins that featured an image of an extremely upright Lenape man. The head-carrying customs associated with African women were also adopted as training exercises for white girls of privilege, although Linker notes that Bancroft and her peers recommended that young ladies learn to balance not baskets and basins, which signified functionality, but piles of flat, slippery books, markers of their own access to leisure and education. For Black Americans, posture was even more fraught: despite the admiration granted to the posture of African women bearing loads atop their heads, community leaders like Dr. Algernon Jackson, who helped establish the National Negro Health Movement, criticized those Black youth who “too often slump along, stoop-shouldered and walk with a careless, lazy sort of dragging gait.” If slouching among privileged white Americans could indicate an enviable carelessness, it was seen as proof of indolence when adopted by the disadvantaged.

This being America, posture panic was swiftly commercialized, with a range of products marketed to appeal to the eighty per cent of the population whose carriage had been deemed inadequate by posture surveys. The footwear industry drafted orthopedic surgeons to consult on the design of shoes that would lessen foot and back pain without the stigma of corrective footwear: one brand, Trupedic, advertised itself as “a real anatomical shoe without the freak-show look.” The indefatigable Jessie Bancroft trained her sights on children’s clothing, endorsing a company that created a “Right-Posture” jacket, whose trim cut across the upper shoulders gave its schoolboy wearer little choice but to throw his shoulders back like Jordan Baker. Bancroft’s American Posture League endorsed girdles and corsets for women; similar garments were also adopted by men, who, by the early nineteen-fifties, were purchasing abdominal “bracers” by the millions.

It was in this era that what eventually proved to be the most contentious form of posture policing reached its height, when students entering college were required to submit to mandatory posture examinations, including the taking of nude or semi-nude photographs. For decades, incoming students had been evaluated for conditions such as scoliosis by means of a medical exam, which came to incorporate photography to create a visual record. Linker writes that for many male students, particularly those who had military training, undressing for the camera was no biggie. For female students, it was often a more disquieting undertaking. Sylvia Plath, who endured it in 1950, drew upon the experience in “The Bell Jar,” whose protagonist, Esther Greenwood, discovers that undressing for her boyfriend is as uncomfortably exposing as “knowing . . . that a picture of you stark naked, both full view and side view, is going into the college gym files.” The practice of taking posture photographs was gradually abandoned by colleges, thanks in part to the rise of the women’s movement, which gave coeds a new language with which to express their discomfort. It might have been largely forgotten were it not for a 1995 article in the Times Magazine, which raised the alarming possibility that there still existed stashes of nude photographs of famous former students of the Ivy League and the Seven Sisters, such as George H. W. Bush, Bob Woodward, Meryl Streep, and Hillary Clinton. Many of the photographs in question were taken and held not by the institutions themselves but by the mid-century psychologist William Herbert Sheldon. Sheldon was best known for his later discredited theories of somatotypes, whereby he attributed personality characteristics to individuals based on whether their build was ectomorphic, endomorphic, or mesomorphic.

[...]

Today, the descendants of Jessie Bancroft are figures like Esther Gokhale, a Bay Area acupuncturist and the creator of the Gokhale Method, who teaches “primal posture” courses to tech executives and whose recommendations are consonant with other fitness trends, such as barefoot running and “paleo” eating, that romanticize an ancestral past as a remedy for the ills of the present. The compulsory mass surveillance that ended when universities ceased the practice of posture photography has been replaced by voluntary individual surveillance, with the likes of Rafi the giraffe and the Nekoze cat monitoring a user’s vulnerability to “tech neck,” a newly named complaint brought on by excessive use of the kind of devices profitably developed by those paleo-eating, barefoot-running, yoga-practicing executives. Meanwhile, Linker reports, paleoanthropologists quietly working in places other than TikTok have begun to revise the popular idea that our ancient ancestors did not get aches and pains in their backs. Analysis of fossilized spines has revealed degenerative changes suggesting that “the first upright hominids to roam the earth likely experienced back pain, or would have been predisposed to such a condition if they had lived long enough.” Slouching, far from being a disease of civilization, then, seems to be something we’ve been prone to for as long as we have stood on our own two feet.

[queenvhagar]

My perhaps controversial take on the HOTD characters, the GOT characters the writers are trying to mold them into, and the GOT characters they actually most resemble in the books (in my opinion - feel free to disagree).

Disclaimer: these are entirely disconnected series with unique characters, so it's impossible to do what the writers of HOTD seemed to be trying to do in season 1 i.e. mold the characters from Fire and Blood to fit the characters of GOT to try to recreate the success of the early seasons. Given this, I tried to choose one single character analogue from GOT that each HOTD/FB character is most like, but oftentimes the reality is that if any single character from Fire and Blood resembles a Game of Thrones character it is likely that they are a combination of more than one. All of this said, here is who I think the writers are trying to fit certain HOTD characters into vs the character they are actually most like (according to Fire and Blood):

Rhaenyra Targaryen: obviously the show wants her to be the new and improved Daenerys, a protagonist everyone can root for who wants to revolutionize the existing order. In reality, Rhaenyra is most like Cersei: a woman who seeks to use her three bastards to usurp thrones and gain even more power than she already has, all while committing incest with a family member and using her power to punish and silence her enemies. She uses the existing system to raise herself up and keep others below her. She does reach her goal of ultimate power but ultimately she is unable to hold it. In pursuit of holding onto power or gaining more of it, she watches as her children die early deaths. The smallfolk despise her for her methods of ruling. Eventually, she will cause her own downfall and die before her time.

Alicent Hightower: the show wants her to be Cersei, a mean-spirited, jealous woman protecting her problematic children and using her status as queen to put others in their place (they even used Cersei scenes as audition material for the role). In reality, I see Alicent as most like Catelyn - a flawed woman, mother to a king, seeking to further the rights of her son in the hopes of protecting her family from those who would harm them, guided by her own sense of justice, honor, and understanding of the laws of the land (and of course, hyper aware of the bastards in the room). All she wants is her and her children's safety, and she is willing to go to war for it. In the end, however, she watches as every last child is taken from her before she herself dies alone.

Viserys I Targaryen: the show wants us to see him as the ultimate father who loves his child unconditionally and always supports her, and that his view of right and wrong should be what guides the world. In reality, he is most like Robert Baratheon: a weak king unsuitable for rule whose mistakes and complacency lead to civil war after his death. His preoccupation with past events and people, and his role in a former love's demise, leads him to neglect his current wife and their children and make decisions that create long-term issues for his family and the realm.

Criston Cole: as soon as Criston turns away from Rhaenyra, the show wants you to view him as a Meryn Trant type of Kingsguard - a man unconcerned with honor and violently anti-women, more than willing to carry out terrible acts commanded of him. In reality, Criston is like more like Jaime: he seeks to make a name for himself as a knight, guided by his own sense of honor and justice, though he is judged by others as lacking such principles. His devotion to his position on the Kingsguard and his love for the royal family motivates him. Occasionally his self-confidence and delight in goading his enemies can make him appear callous and proud. Although he is not officially the royal children's "father," he has guided and protected them and their mother from early on in the absence of their official father.

Daemon Targaryen: the show wants you to both love and hate Daemon. It seems he should fill many roles that Jaime did - a sword fighter whose swagger and danger mix together, whose dishonorable acts follow him through the world. He acts primarily out of love or his pursuit of it, whether for his brother or his lover and her children. The viewer is supposed to see that deep down he is a good guy, no matter how many characters say that he's not. In reality, I see Daemon as a more capable Viserys III: a man adamant in his family's racial superiority, who believes he and his loved ones should have access to unchecked power because they're better than everyone else. A man who enjoys exercising his power over others and demanding obedience out of fear of his wrath. A man who uses his younger family member to further his own interests without much thought to her own wishes or agency and willing to hurt her if she doesn't act the way he wants her to.

Otto Hightower: the show wants you to view Otto as a new Littlefinger, someone sly about his intentions who uses spies, information, and unsavory methods to take advantage of the ruling family and further his own interests and increase his own power. I see him instead as more similar to Tywin: a Hand of the King seeking to put his family close to the throne in pursuit of legacy and advancing his family's station, a man who arranged for his daughter to marry the king so his blood would sit the Iron Throne and bring his family power for generations, a man acutely aware of the political world and how the game is played and willing to get his hands dirty to play it.

The Strong boys: the show wants you to root for Rhaenyra's perfect, good natured and pure intentioned sons as if they were the Stark boys (mixed with Jon Snow). Raised in a good family, these boys know right from wrong and love each other. Yet some people unfairly think less of them for their birth. In reality, the Strong boys are closest to Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella. Bastards set to inherit positions they have no claim to, they are coddled by their mother and protected from any consequences to their actions. When one attacks another child, their mother demands that the other child's family is punished for their actions (and doesn't even reprimand the child for his role in the conflict). The result is the child has no remorse for the harm done, and the other child's family festers resentment against the child. Some people uncover the truth of their birth and object to their place in the line of succession, and these people are killed for speaking the truth. Eventually, a war is fought to keep them and their mother away from the throne, resulting in all of them being killed.

Aegon II Targaryen: the show wants you to see him as Joffrey 2.0. A man interested in viewing sadistic acts for his own pleasure, who abuses women for his own enjoyment, and who is unfit to rule. In reality I see Aegon as closest to Robb: a first born son reluctant to rule as king once his father dies but who rises to the occasion to try to keep his remaining family safe. A king willing to fight his battles alongside his men, no matter the risk it might pose to him. A king who tries his best to rule but makes mistakes along the way that cost him dearly. In the end, he watches as he loses everything, and he dies young.

[lotus-flower-writes-history]

The Unofficial Black History Book

Maya Angelou (1928-2014)

Trigger Warning - This chapter mentions s*xual assault, (Placed a guideline, just in case)

"You may not control all the events that happen to you, but you can decide not to be reduced by them." - Maya Angelou

This is her story.

Maya Angelou was not just a poet. She was an author, historian, songwriter, dancer, playwright, performer, singer, stage and screen producer, director, and Civil rights activist.

She was born Marguerite Ann Johnson on April 4, 1928, in St. Louis, Missouri. She had a difficult childhood. When her parents divorced when she was a child, she and her older brother Bailey moved to Stamps, Arkansas, to live with their grandmother, Ann Henderson. Her brother gave her the nickname "Maya," which she continued to go by.

Maya experienced firsthand racial prejudice and discrimination while she was living in Arkansas.

When she was seven, she traveled to St. Louis to see her mother and was raped by her mother's boyfriend. He was later jailed and then released.

When she spoke about the assault, her uncles banded together and killed her attacker. Traumatized and believing that her speaking about the assault caused a man's death, she became mute for almost six years and went back to live with her grandmother.

Maya has always been fascinated by the written word since she was a child. Throughout her childhood, she wrote essays and poetry and kept a journal. When she returned to Arkansas, she took an interest in poetry and memorized the works of Edgar Allan Poe and Shakespeare.

Maya moved back in with her mother, who was now living in Oakland, California, during World War II, when she was in her teens. She attended George Washington High School and received a scholarship to the California Labor School to study dance and acting.

She applied to join the Women's Army Corps during the war, but her application was denied because she had attended the California Labor School, which was rumored to have Communist ties. 

Maya was only 15 years old at the time, but she was determined to find work, so she applied for a job as a streetcar conductor. With many men leaving their jobs to fight in the war, women were able to fill their positions.

Maya was initially turned down because she was a woman of color. But that did not deter her, so every day for three weeks, she requested a job application but was denied every time. 

But this didn't stop her.

She eventually wore the company down, and they gave her an application. She stated on her application that she was 19 instead of 15 because she was under the legal working age. She was finally accepted for the job position and was the first African American woman to work as a streetcar conductor in San Francisco.

She was employed for at least one semester but then decided to go back to school. She graduated from Mission High School in 1944 and later gave birth to her son, Clyde Bailey 'Guy' Johnson. (He also became a poet later in his life.)

After graduation, Maya took on a bunch of odd jobs to support herself and her son. In 1949, she married Tosh Angelos, a Greek sailor who was an electrician in the US Navy. She adopted a form of his last name, "Angelou," and kept it despite their divorce in 1952.

Maya was very private about her marriages; she most likely married three times in her life.

Maya Angelou was well-known for her abilities as a singer and dancer, particularly in calypso and cabaret styles. Her performing career began in the 1950s. She was cast in a touring production of "Porgy and Bess" and later in the Off-Broadway production of "Calypso Heat Wave" (1957). She performed professionally in the United States, Europe, and North Africa.

In 1950, African American writers in New York City founded the Harlem Writers Guild to foster and support the publication of black authors.  

Maya Angelou joined The Writers Guild in 1959, became involved in the Civil Rights Movement, and was the Northern Coordinator of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a prominent African American advocacy organization. She even organized and starred in the musical revue 'Cabaret for Freedom' as a benefit for the SCLC.

Maya appeared in an Off-Broadway production of Jean Genet's 'The Blacks' in 1961, alongside James Earl Jones, Lou Gossett Jr., and Cicely Tyson.

Angelou spent the majority of the 1960s living abroad, first in Egypt and then in Ghana. She was working as an editor and as a freelance writer. During her time at the University of Ghana, she worked as a lecturer. While in Ghana, she also joined a community of "Revolutionist Returnees", discovering Pan-Africanism. 

She became close friends with Malcolm X as well. When she returned to the United States in 1964, she assisted Malcolm X in establishing the Organization of Afro-American Unity, which was later disbanded following his death the following year.

Maya and Martin Luther King Jr. were also close friends. When he was assassinated on her birthday, April 4, 1968, she stopped celebrating her birthday for years afterward. Instead, she sent flowers to Coretta Scott King, Martin's widow, for over 30 years until Coretta's death in 2006.

In 1969, Maya Angelou published 'I know why the caged bird sings', a memoir about her early life. Her friend and fellow African-American writer James Baldwin encouraged her to write her autobiography. 

As the first nonfiction bestseller by an African-American woman, her story of personal strength in the face of childhood trauma and racism made literary history.

It was nominated for a National Book Award, and while many schools tried to ban it due to the vivid depiction of sexual abuse, it was credited with assisting other Sexual Abuse survivors in telling their own stories.

'I know why the caged bird sings' made Maya Angelou an international star. It's been translated into many languages, has sold over a million copies worldwide, and continues to be her most popular autobiographical work. She went on to publish six more autobiographies.

Maya published a number of poetry collections, including "Just Give Me a Drink of Water 'fore I Diiie' (1971), which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, as well as several essay collections. She also recorded spoken word albums of her poetry, including 'On the Pulse of the Morning,’ and won a Grammy for Best Spoken Word Album. The poem was originally written for and delivered at Bill Clinton's inauguration in 1993. 

She received another Grammy in 1995 and another in 2002 for her spoken poetry albums.

With the production of 'Georgia, Georgia' in 1972, Maya became the first African-American woman to have her screenplay turned into a film. In 1973, she received a Tony nomination for her supporting role in Jerome Kitty's play, 'Look away.' In 1976, she wrote 'Singin' and swingin' and 'Gettin' Merry Like Christmas," autobiographies about her early career as a singer and actress. And played Kunta Kinte's grandmother in the TV miniseries 'Roots' in 1977.

'The Heart of a Woman,' her memoir about leaving California with her son for New York and participating in the Civil Rights Movement, was published in 1981.

In 1986, she wrote "All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes," a lyrical exploration of her years spent living in Ghana and what it means to be an African-American in Africa. 

In 1994, she wrote "Wouldn't Take Nothing for My Journey Now," a collection of inspirational essays that features Maya's insights about spirituality and living well. 

In 2002, she wrote 'A Song Flew Up to Heaven', an autobiographical work that explores Maya's return from Africa to the States and her struggle to cope with the assassinations of her close friends, Dr. King and Malcolm X. The book even ends when, at the encouragement of James Baldwin, she begins to work on 'I know why the caged bird sings'.

In 2008, she wrote 'Letter to My Daughter'. It was dedicated to the daughter she never had and features essays of her own advice for young women about living a life with meaning.

In 2013, she wrote 'Mom & Me & Mom', a memoir where she discusses her complicated relationship with a mother who abandoned her during childhood.

Maya also published cookbooks. Interested in health, she published. "Hallelujah! The Welcome Table: A Lifetime of Memories with Recipes" (2005). And 'Great food, all day long' (2010).

Maya Angelou was honored by numerous organizations both nationally and internationally for her contributions to literature. Wake Forest University appointed her to the Reynolds Professorship of American Studies in 1981. And in 2000, President Clinton awarded Maya Angelou the National Medal of Arts.

Maya was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama in 2011, the country's highest civilian honor.

In 2012, she was a member of the inaugural class inducted into the Wake Forest University Writers Hall of Fame. She received the National Book Foundation's Literary Community Award the following year. She also gave many commencement speeches and was awarded more than 30 honorary degrees in her lifetime.

On May 28th, 2014, Maya Angelou died at the age of 86 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. In her honor, memorial services were held at Wake Forest University and Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco.

In honor of her legacy, the US Postal Service issued a stamp with her likeness on it in 2015.

President Obama issued a statement about Maya Angelou, calling her "a brilliant writer, a fierce friend, and a truly phenomenal woman. Angelou had the ability to remind us that we are all God's children and that we all have something to offer." He wrote.   

In May 2021, it was announced that Maya Angelou would be one of the first women to be honored with a new series of quarters from the United States Mint.

Maya Angelou was truly a phenomenal woman.

_

Previous

Clara Hale

Next

Ruby Bridges

___

My Resources

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

Taylor Swift is a Female Rage icon? Get a Grip.

I’ve just received word that Taylor Swift is calling her show “Female Rage: The Musical.” Here is my very much pissed off response to that nonsense:  

The phrase, Female Rage has an intimately rich history:  

Some of the first accounts of female rage dates to the Italian renaissance. To be clear, women in those days were not allowed to become painters- the arts were seen as the domain of men. They did not believe that women have rich inner lives capable of delivering the type of artistic innovation with which renaissance men were obsessed.  

However, rebels abounded, through the might of their fucking rage. Several women created some of the most compellingly emotional paintings I’ve ever fucking seen. They did it without permission, without financial support, and often under the threat of punishment. They did it as a protest. In paintings like “Timoclea Killing Her Rapist” by Elisabetta Sirani (1659), and another by Artemisia Gentileschi “Slaying of Holofernes” (1612) as it depicts the bravery of Judith as she slayed a traveling warlord out to rape Judith and enslave her city. The painting often is referred to as a way Artemisia was envisioning herself as slaying her rapist. These paintings were used against these women as proof that they were unfeminine- and far too angry.  Both these women suffered immensely for their audacity to call attention to the violation men perpetrated on them. Female Rage bleeds off these paintings- bleeds right through to the bone-deep acknowledgement of the injustice women faced being barred from the arts and having their humanity violated in such a sick way. Both women were hated- and considered far too angry.

In philosophy, also as early as the 15th century, an example of female rage is a philosophical text, often hailed as one of the first feminists works in the western world, written by Christine de Pizan titled The City of Ladies (1405). She wrote in protest on the state of women- writing that “men who have slandered the opposite sex out of envy have usually know women who were cleverer and more virtuous than they are” (“The City of Ladies”). People mocked her all her life- but she stood fast to her convictions. She was widowed at a young age with children to feed and the men wouldn’t let women have jobs! She wrote this book and sold it so that she could feed her family- and to protest the treatment of women as lesser than men. Her work was called aggressive and unkempt- they said she was far too angry. 

In the 18th century, a young Mary Wollstonecraft wrote, A Vindication of the Right of Women ( 1792) upon learning that the civil rights won in the French Revolution did not extend to women! She wrote in protest of the unjust ways other philosophers (like Rousseau) spoke about the state of women- as if they were lesser. She wrote to advocate for women’s right to education, which they did not yet have the right to! She wrote to advocate for the advancement of women’s ability to have their own property and their own lives! The reception of this text, by the general public, lead to a campaign against Wollstonecraft- calling her “aggressive” and far too angry.  

Moving into modernity, the 1960’s, and into literary examples, Maya Angelou publishes I know why the caged Bird Sings (1969) in which she discusses the fraught youth of a girl unprotected in the world. It beautifully, and heart-wrenchingly, described growing up in the American South during the 1930’s as it subjected her to the intersection of racism and sexism. The story is an autobiographical account of her own childhood, which explains how patriarchal social standards nearly destroyed her life. Upon the reception of her book, men mostly called it “overly emotional” and far too angry. Maya Angelou persisted. She did not back down from the honesty with which she shared her life- the raw, painful truth. With Literature, she regained a voice in the world.  

Interwoven into each of the examples I have pulled out here, is the underlying rage of women who want to be seen as human beings, with souls, dreams and hopes, yet are not seen as full members of society at the behest of men. They take all that rage, building up in their souls, and shift it to create something beautiful: positive change. Each of these cases, I have outlined above, made remarkable strides for the women as a whole- we still feel the impact of their work today. They were so god-damn passionate, so full of righteous anger, it burst out into heart-stopping, culture-shifting art. Feminine rage is therefore grounded in experiences of injustice and abuse- yet marked too by its ability to advocate for women's rights. It cannot be historically transmogrified away from these issues- though Taylor Swift is doing her best to assert female rage as pitifully dull, full of self-deprecation, and sadness over simply being single or losing money. She trivializes the seriousness with which women have pled their cases of real, painful injustice and suffering to the masses time and time again. The examples above deal with subjects of rape, governmental tyranny, and issues of patriarchally inspired social conditioning to accept women as less human than men. It is a deadly serious topic, one in which women have raised their goddamn voices for centuries to decry- and say instead, “I am human, I matter, and men have no right to violate my mind, body, or soul.”  

The depictions of female rage over the last few centuries, crossing through many cultures, is an array of outright anger, fearsome rage, and into utter despair. The one unyielding, solid underpinning, however, is that the texts are depicting the complete agency of the women in question. The one uniting aspect of female rage is that it must be a reaction to injustice; instead of how male depictions of female rage function, (think Ophelia), the women are the agents of their art with female made- female rage. They push forth the meaning through their own will- not as subjects of male desires or abuses, but as their own selves. That is what makes the phrase so empowering. They are showing their souls as a form of protest to the men who treat women like we have no soul to speak of.  

Taylor Swift’s so-called female rage is a farce in comparison. Let’s look at an example: “Mad Woman” (2020). I pull this example, and not something from her TTPD set, because this is one of the earliest examples of her using the phrase female rage to describe her dumb music. (Taylor Swift talking about "mad woman" | folklore : the long pond studio sessions (youtube.com)  

The lyrics from “Mad Woman” read “Every time you call me crazy, I get more crazy/... And when you say I seem angry, I get more angry”  

How exactly is agreeing with someone that you are “crazy” a type of female rage in which she’s protesting the patriarchy. The patriarchy has a long history of calling women “insane” if they do not behave according to the will of men. So, how is her agreeing with the people calling her crazy- at all subversive in the way that artworks, typically associated with concept of female rage, are subversive. What is she protesting? NOTHING.  

Then later, she agrees, again, that she's “angry.” The issue I draw here is that she’s not actually explicating anything within the music itself that she’s angry about- she just keeps saying she's angry over and over, thus the line falls flat. The only thing this anger connects to is the idea of someone calling her angry- which then makes her agree that she is... angry. So, despite it being convoluted, it’s also just not actually making any kind of identifiable point about society or the patriarchy- so again, I beg, what on Earth makes this count as Female Rage?  

In essence, she is doing the opposite of what the examples above showcase. In letting an outside, presumably male, figure tell Taylor Swift what she is feeling, and her explicit acceptance of feeling “crazy” and “angry,” she is ultimately corroborating the patriarchy not protesting it. Her center of agency comes from assignment of feelings outside of herself and her intrinsic agreement with that assignment; whereas female rage is truly contingent on the internal state, required as within our own selves, of female agency. As I stated above, the women making female rage art must have an explicit agency throughout the work. Taylor Swift’s song simply does not measure up to this standard.  

Her finishing remarks corroborates the fact that she's agreeing with this patriarchal standard of a "mad" or crazy woman:

"No one likes a mad woman/ You made her like that"

Again, this line outsources agency through saying "you made her like that" thus removing any possibility of this song being legitimate female rage. There is simply no agency assigned to the woman in the song- nor does the song ever explicitly comment on a social issue or protestation of some grievous injury to women's personhood.

She honestly not even being clever- she's just rhyming the word “crazy” with “crazy.” Then later rhyming “angry” with “angry.” Groundbreaking stuff here.  

Perhaps Taylor Swift is angry, in “Mad Woman,” but it is not the same type of rage established in the philosophical concept of female rage of which art historians, philosophers, and literary critics speak. Instead, it is the rage of a businesswoman that got a bad deal- but it is not Female Rage as scholars would identify it. In “Mad Woman” I fear her anger is shallow, and only centered on material loss- through damaging business deals or bad business partners. She is not, however, discussing what someone like Christine de Pizan was discussing by making a case for the concept that woman also have souls like men do. In her book, she had to argue that women have souls, because men were unconvinced of that. Do you see the difference? I am saying that Swift’s concerns are purely monetary and material, whereas true examples of female rage center on injustice done against their personhood- as affront to human rights. Clearly, both things can make someone mad- but I’d argue the violation of human rights is more serious- thus more deserving of the title “Female Rage.”  

Simply put, Taylor Swift is not talking about anything serious, or specific, enough to launch her into the halls of fame for "Female Rage" art. She's mad, sure, but she's mad the way a CEO gets mad about losing a million dollars. She's not mad about women's position in society- or even just in the music industry.

She does this a lot. The album of “Reputation” was described as female rage. Songs in “Folklore” were described as female rage. Now, she’s using the term to describe TTPD, which is the most self-centered, ego-driven music I’ve heard in a long time.

Comparing the injustice, and complete subjugation, of women’s lives- to being dumped by a man or getting a bad deal- wherein she is still one of the most powerful women of the planet- is not only laughable, but offensive.