#not to mention vagrancy laws??

[blueiight]

i dont think the park cruising scene necessarily involves armand even like if its 1946 that means louis and claudia just arrived in paris who knows if armand has even intro'd himself yet. it could just be louis exploring the more sexually liberated city on his own like jonah told him decades ago the whole reason why he went to europe.

yeah i said myself im unsure if its definitive yet that armand would be involved in the post ww2 euro swingers bench bc we dont rly have an understanding yet of how the show tl will handle the latter cour of iwtv exactly? cuz iirc book wise l+c didnt rly have a long time in europe b4 their interactions w santiago, armand+ the other vamps. i imagine why ppl went to this line of thinking is cuz in the only qotd chap ppl know of mand watches dan fuck other people n in the show s1 ep6 shows us louis + daniel meeting in the gay bar w armand as this shadowy figure suddenly emerging in dan’s dreams, cuing the viewer in further that rashid is not an ordinary guy. maybe ppl think the show would est. a precedent for a voyeuristic armand w louis & the five guys on the swinger’s bench? if the five guys do freak on lou fr can i audition?

[lockedcasket]

WHY CAN'T I STAND OUTSIDE

There's been a recent discussion about a 'third place' which has ceased to exist in the United States: a place which is not home or work where any person may visit without the expectation of paying.

A third place has been covered in length of which I will lists some of reads below

But what I want to know is: WHY CAN'T I STAND OUTSIDE

While a third place is a part of the solution, I would like to examine a few ways why I can't stand outside

1. Private Property

I cannot stand outside because I do not own land.

By far the most unavoidable obstacle in my path. You cannot write this post without mentioning it; it is the omnipresent force that makes up our economy and simultaneously works to dissuade it's subjects from revolution. In some states, its value greater than life itself. Texas's notorious Castle Doctrine for example allows one to claim self-defense when defending property which can extend to trespassing under the right circumstances (hint: it doesn't take much)

I cannot stand outside because every step is accounted for by someone: it is either owned, leased, or in escrow by someone or entity who would like me to stand elsewhere. Even land which is not in 'use' is fenced off with trespassing signs littered about.

Heaven forbid someone enjoys land without explicit permission! Gasps

The land reform act of 2003 in Scotland is an example of a measure which can be enacted while under the current rule of private property: it enables the free roam of peoples in Scotland under a reasonable degree with exceptions.

Such a measure enacted in the United States could allow me to stand outside without endangering myself or breaking the law.

2. There aren't any sidewalks

I cannot stand outside because there is nowhere to stand.

There's a fundamental problem with a society when asking why I can't stand outside you realize there isn't any places to stand in the first place.

You'll find that in some towns in the United States, public transport and sidewalks were removed to make room for more parking spaces.

Even the word sidewalk conjures thoughts of a second-class

to be aside the priority: Cars

I digress. Car-centric culture will be addressed another time.

I yearn for walkways stretching from one end of the city to the other; Alive with people walking or bicycling to their destinations. A curated social path for a sense of community within a society can be encapsulated in their walkways (or lack thereof).

Walkable cities built for the communities they serve would allow me to stand outside.

3. Loitering Laws

I cannot stand outside because it is illegal.

Laws which forbid an individual from residing in the last refuge from private enterprise are referred to as loitering laws.

They have their own labels and justification in their respective countries (not entirely a u.s. issue). Some call them loitering, vagrancy, rogue, or vagabond laws but are all used one in the same

a tool to corral and harass the marginalized underclass.

I've linked below to Anti-Racism Daily's write-up on the history of loitering in the US and its roots in the Jim Crow-era 'Black Codes.'

The fact of the matter is loitering laws and its aliases can be seen as an extension of existing trespassing laws to control the movement of specific groups at anytime.

That is of course, unless you're a wealthy landowner. wink

I cannot stand outside because I do not own any land. I cannot find a place to stand because the landlords and lawmakers have ripped out the sidewalks. I cannot stand outside because landlords and lawmakers have made it illegal for me to stand outside.

Links:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/13/the-pros-and-cons-of-gentrification/every-community-deserves-a-third-place

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/09/14/third-places-as-community-builders/

https://the-ard.com/2022/05/31/the-jim-crow-roots-of-loitering-laws/

[christopherau-young]

"Homelessness, Addiction, and Incarceration"

Article written by: Christopher Au-Young

Disclaimer: To protect the privacy of individuals, some names and identifying details mentioned below have been changed.

It's one thing to be living on the streets, but what leads to so many homeless people getting arrested? 

One such individual told me about his experience in and out of jail and what he thinks is the problem. For the most part, the majority of nonviolent offenders at the local County Jail in Florida are here on drug charges. Jacob Mansolo is here on drug and trespassing charges. This is his seventh time in jail; he is also homeless and struggling with addiction.  According to him, most people experiencing homelessness who come here are also arrested for similar offenses. While it might not be uncommon for the homeless population to occupy an empty lot or property, the county looks down upon such behavior. The county has a zero-tolerance policy for vagrancy, and Jacob says it's because homelessness drives down property value. As a result, many people living on the streets of the local county are arrested for allegedly trespassing on private and not-so-private properties. Regarding his current situation, Jacob says it's no one's fault but his own. He's been living on the streets on and off for twenty years since he was seventeen years old. 

He first started using drugs at fourteen years old, and after a while of not knowing, his mother became aware of her son's drug-using habits when she came home one day from work and found Jacob using needles. 

Jacob said he tried to quit over the years but couldn't. His relationship with his mother fell apart after he started stealing things from her, including many of her prized possessions. He said he drove her away, causing her to leave and move out when he was seventeen. On his own at an early age, Jacob admits he never sought out help, opting to steal food from gas stations like "Wawa's," for example, to survive. Like many people in the jail, Jacob is a frequent drug user and has lived a life plagued with problems that stem from his addiction, including the issue of homelessness. The most extended period he went without being homeless was three years. During this time, he was working two jobs and renting a room in a house. His luck changed when the company he was working for changed its policies, resulting in Jacob no longer being able to receive money under the table. Furthermore, he spent his rent money on drugs, forcing him to move out and become homeless again. 

Regarding his relationship with his mother, Jacob says they were on the path to reconciliation, having discussed the possibility of moving back in with her and getting off drugs. Sadly, his mother passed away on July 4, 2022, before he could fully reconnect with her and get his life straight.

When asked about his regrets, he starts by saying how he treated his mother. He doesn't harbor any resentment toward her or blame her for being homeless. Instead, he is remorseful and takes accountability for his actions. Jacob's other attempts to stay off the streets have been unsuccessful, including his first brush with the law in 2017. At the time, he was working and living with his girlfriend; however, things worsened after their relationship became toxic. Recalling her drinking habits, Jacob says she became abusive, leading them into fights, which resulted in him getting arrested for domestic violence. The first time he got arrested was a few years back for domestic abuse; he stayed with her after explaining it was either that or homelessness. 

As far as his current legal situation goes, he's here on meth possession and trespassing. Most people with drug charges are sent to drug court when given the option of probation. According to Jacob, probation is a set-up for failure, knowing that drug addicts are unable or unwilling to stop using drugs. 

Jacob indicates that he'd rather be sentenced to jail now than be sentenced to more time later. One example of these programs is "Westare," a 12-step rehabilitation program offered by the jail that many participants drop out of due to not being ready to stop using drugs. Jacob says that it's common to initially sign up for the program to avoid doing hard time. Despite dire circumstances, Jacob believes homeless people can get back on their feet. Following their release from jail, they can turn to different places for help, with the first being "Safe Harbor," which is located right next door to the jail. The second option is “Tent City,” where they help homeless people find semi-permanent housing. Jacob says it's possible to bounce back from his circumstances, saying that for homeless addicts to improve their situation, they must first want to get help. 

[metalheadsforblacklivesmatter]

The stories of Beenadick Thundersnatch paying reparations for slavery in Barbados especially because his family was heavily compensated for losing their slaves when slavery was abolished in 1834 is fun and all. (Though inaccurate)

But need I remind you slavery was abolished in America in 1865 and American slave owners were also compensated for their slaves being freed?

Not to mention the freed slaves were promised reparations in the form of land, which never came.

And the lack of resources forces recently freed slaves to continue to work the plantations they were on.

Not to mention Neo-Slavery. Which is a mix of "freed" slaves being put into camps which are essentially the same houses that they were kept in as slaves because the union soldiers didn't know what to do with all of these recently freed people that had no education, no money, no way to care for themselves, etc.

And anti-vagrancy laws that allowed them to be arrested and forced back into slavery because the 13th amendment says "unless punishment for a crime".

Black people continued being kept as slaves as late as 1963 in rural areas because no one caught it and the slaves were so uneducated that they couldn't read whatever knews was sent that they were free.

(Legit. Imagine fighting for desegregation completely unwitting to the fact that slavery was still happening.)

And modern day slavery in the US prison system using that 13th amendment loophole I mentioned earlier.

So maybe instead of applauding at attempts to force Beenadick Slaverbatch to pay reparations. Maybe we should work on ending slavery in the states and working on reparations here, yes?

-fae

[tanadrin]

one of the ways in which i am a very bad leftist, i suppose, is that i’m usually pretty agnostic about whether social democracy + robust social safety net or full-blown socialism is better--it feels pretty much like a distinction without a difference, and a program that’s actually politically possible is better than one which is out of reach. but i think the argument that could most convince me that no form of capitalism, no matter how shackled by redistributive policies like wealth taxes or LVT or income tax, is ultimately redeemable looks something like this:

“labor costs are a huge driving force in the economy. when you own capital (land, machines, resources, money) and you want return on that capital, saving money on labor is always going to be a foremost concern, especially in societies with higher standards of living, and thus higher labor costs. the incentive to keep labor costs down will tend to result in support for policies and ideas that have a primary or incidental effect on labor costs but which have serious negative consequences: everything from outsourcing to restrictive immigration policies, to vagrancy laws and (historically racial) caste systems. but even normal business competition will tend to be bad for workers, since labor is a major cost center.”

“the degenerate form of this incentive structure is one of total employer power over labor, i.e., one where you don’t have to pay your laborers at all and they’re not free to choose their job, some form of serfdom or slavery. since this incentive structure is baked in to any economic system where ownership of capital and returns on capital are separate from labor and the conditions of labor (which includes capitalism, feudalism, and all your major axial age empires, and many other economic systems besides), you will always be fighting a rearguard action against capital owners. it’s not even their fault, really: it’s simply what is in their best interests, and it would be unfair to expect them to act in inhuman and irrational ways given the incentives at play. the only way to fix the problem in a way that will prevent future social and economic instability is to avoid those incentives entirely, and restructure the economy so that workers and capital owners are more-or-less synonymous.”

and obviously the persuasiveness of that argument hinges on a lot of details--how you propose to restructure the economy, i.e., gradually, through taxes, incentivizing worker ownership, and targeted buyouts by the government, or through rivers of blood; whether you think this can all be managed in a democratic framework or whether we need a Glorious Leader and gulags to get there; whether you think markets are fine for most goods or whether you favor a planned economy--not to mention whether you buy into fundamental assumptions like “serfdom is bad” and “everybody in society should be able to afford a place to live, medical care, and food to eat.” but that argument also sounds very plausible and neat and tidy and flatters my preconceptions, which is probably the main reason i’m suspicious of it.

[odinsblog]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/01/florida-sb-148-racism-discomfort

So the choopidness of this story! Grinds my gears.... I would love to hear your take, even tho I feel I have the words in my head, I just don't know how to articulate them as eloquently as you can.

Yes, I’ve seen this. Unfortunately, I have no eloquence to add here, but I can add a quote from the article and note that this kind of codifying of white fragility into law is a nationwide commonality that keeps recurring.

On Tuesday, a bill backed by Florida governor Ron DeSantis that would prohibit public schools and private businesses from inflicting “discomfort” on white people during lessons or training about discrimination was approved by the state’s Senate Education Committee, its first hurdle before becoming a law. The bill, SB 148, seemingly grew out of the conservative hysteria over “critical race theory,” which, as a reminder, is an academic concept based on the idea that racism is not about individual people’s prejudices but about institutions and policies. It does not, as GOP lawmakers and their partners in the right-wing media would have us believe, teach that all white people are racist. (As another reminder, teaching CRT is not actually being required in elementary, middle, or high schools, but you wouldn’t know that by watching Fox News, which would have viewers believe that teachers are telling white kindergarteners to turn over their allowance as reparations.) The bill, sponsored by State Senator Manny Diaz Jr., reads, in part, “An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex. An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.”

Anyway, as MSNBC’s Ja’han Jones notes, this whole bill is about “prioritizing white hypersensitivity over truthful teachings” and saying “lessons about America’s racist and sexist past are acceptable only if they don’t offend white people.” And, according to Jones, it’s nothing new!

To me, these new demands for fealty to fragile whiteness sound like a re-up of the Black Codes, laws instituted during and after the Civil War to reinforce white supremacy. In some states, the codes permitted capital punishment against Black people for minor crimes like petty theft, allowed whippings for vagrancy and swearing, and banned Black land ownership. Florida’s particularly harsh codes allowed white people to beat Black workers for “disrespect,” as historian Jerrell H. Shofner wrote in his 1976 essay on the state’s racist laws. Historian Joe M. Richardson wrote that white Floridians passed the codes out of fear that their racist world was crumbling around them.

It seems DeSantis and Florida’s GOP-led legislature are operating with a similar fear. They see the facade of white supremacy—weak as it is—crumbling under the weight of high school lesson plans and workplace trainings. And bills like SB 148 are sad attempts to piece that facade back together.... That’s why—if the white parents complaining about Black authors weren’t enough—it’s clear that the Florida bill is designed to coddle white people, even though it doesn’t mention them specifically.

👉🏿 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/01/florida-sb-148-racism-discomfort

And Florida has a terrifyingly long (and recent) history of this kind of thought policing. Ron DeSantis championed a bill that would make it legal for the Florida university system to poll educators about their political beliefs, before hiring them or giving them tenure.

And here’s an antisemitic, racist law making its way through Tennessee’s school systems:

👉🏿 http://tnholler.com/2022/01/mcminn-county-bans-maus-pulitzer-prize-winning-holocaust-book/

And of course, there’s always Texas:

👉🏿 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/us/texas-history-1836-project.html

Ohh, Texas:

👉🏿 https://qz.com/1273998/for-10-years-students-from-texas-have-been-using-a-history-textbook-that-says-not-all-slaves-were-unhappy/

Um, some more fuckery from Texas:

👉🏿 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bryan-monroe/how-texas-school-board-tr_b_586633.html

White fragility should be called white brittleness, but no matter what you call it, it’s white supremacy and erasure being put into law.

I can only add that conservatives resisting telling the truth about America’s racist history is as old as America itself. But yeah, when you stop looking it as individual occurrences, this is super frightening.

This kind of blatant whitewashing to comfort white people’s delicate feelings is beyond alarming. It’s harmful because it collectively hides the truth, socializes casual racism, and it perniciously and perpetually raises a brand new generation of ignorant white supremacists who are taught from birth that their precious white feelings are more valid than everything and anything else. It’s like having every generation taught that 2+2=5 and then having to try to correct them when they graduate high school and go out into the world. Can you even imagine how exhausting that would be?? Well, that’s basically what America is doing with racism.

And before anyone derails this post, yes, voting out Republicans is a necessary step, but far far from a sufficient step. Deeply ingrained racism is a perennial, endemic problem that goes well beyond political parties and electoral politics.

[gildedmuse]

"Good day, sir. May I please see your finest vagrancy. Oh, it's a gift for our captain."

"You know what? Screw it. See this spikey smilie face? Just paint it on a shirt that only opens up the the navel and we'll call it a day"

- Gift shopping for Law, probably

Though to be fair, I feel like Zoro isn't much of a gift giver.

Point One: No cash

Point Two: No planning ability

Point Three: Great on the swordplay, not so great on communication.

Honestly feel Zoro would just, at some point, start finding Law attractive and deciding, yes, we're dating now, and then utterly fail to inform Law.

Like not purposefully misleading him, obviously, he simply fails to mention it at any time that might be convenient for Law to hear and, you know, react to.

(Which is probably okay; you got to figure that Law gets super possessive and protective of Zoro well before he is at the point where he is willing to ask Zoro-ya out of possibly even admit the obvious crush to himself.)

(So, hey, means that they're kind of accidentally on the same page. Though while reading entirely different books....)

(Well, Law is reading. Zoro just happened to fall asleep while using this open book as a pillow but it just so happened to be opened to the same page as Law's.)

Let's face it, Zoro would probably just enough up getting him alcohol. By which I mean literally like a bottle of sake he grabbed from the kitchen, what? It's just a birthday Torao, what's the big deal?

Or, if he was actually trying - possibly because someone like Nami or Robin made it a point to say that, you know, maybe he should (so that Torao actually realizes....) - Zoro will grumble about it but then, yes, put actually, real thought into it.

And he will throw himself into the task of buying the perfect gift with the full intensity of that kenshi determination.

Though, inevitably, a small series of interwoven bit short shenanigans - maybe caused by his crew, maybe by Zoro's own cluelessness, maybe by some villainous character, definitely at least in part by his inability to find well designated and easy to locate areas - will keep getting in his way, either thwarting his efforts or else ruining the planned gift entirely.

At which point a frustrated, upset, pink cheeked Zoro will walk by Torao shoving a bottle of sake into his hands.

"Here, Torao, for your birthday. Hopefully Law be happy with a bottle of good sake from his boyfriend? (Especially with all the trouble Zoro had trying to get his actual gift grumble grumble)" Walking... Okay more stalking away. It's been a DAY, alright?

"Err, oh, thanks, Zoro-ya...." Staring at the bottle because honestly, Law had not expected any of the Strawhats to-

.... Wait, did he just say boyfriend?

"Zoro-ya! Wait!" Rushing off so fast he drops the bottle of sake all together.

This is a way better gift.

[a-smile-dat-spreads-like-buttah]

A Rough and Tumble Introduction to Newsies and the Way I Write Crutchie (to be added to as I remember things that need adding)

tw: violence, abuse, neglect, abandonment, gender stuff, mention of ableism

Ok, so Newsies takes place in New York City in 1899, and basically it is about the  Newsboy Strike of 1899, which was essentially the beginning of the fight for child labor laws in the US, because the newsies or newsboys are mostly kids under the age of 18 who live on the street and in lodging houses in the surrounding area where they have to rent beds. They can buy 100 newspapers at 50¢ per hundred at the beginning of the story, because the Spanish American War had driven newspapers sales up, but as the war ended and things went back to normal peacetime, the newspaper owners realized that they were losing money or just not making as much money... so they decide that the best way to improve profits is to increase the price for the distribution apparatus of the process... ie, the children who sell newspapers. Now the price is 60¢ per hundred, so they have to work harder and longer to make the same profit for themselves, which is pennies compared to how much the owners are making.

So, the newsies, who are rightfully upset about this, decide to form a union and go on strike.

Crutchie is a fifteen year old newsboy with a bum leg. He uses a crutch to get around. Hence the nickname. He is very stubborn and determined to be independent; some of his pals suggest that the reason he sells so many papers, and he is always quick to shut that down, that it's because he has personality, and a charming "smile that spreads like butter". Even in the darkest moments of the show, he tries his best to be encouraging and positive. 

And I love him. And I started getting into Newsies as I was starting to question my gender, and I was lonely and by myself in college, and a theatre major, and I made Crutchie a girl and we started figuring out our gender together. 

Crutchie's main relationship in the show is with the main character, Jack Kelly, the seventeen year old leader of the newsies who very much dreams of being a cowboy and getting away from New York to Santa Fe. They sleep together on the rooftop of the Newsboy's Lodging House, and talk about being brothers. Jack tells Crutchie about Santa Fe, and promises that one day they'll get away together and become cowboys and that they'll see the stars and do real work and that the clean air will cure Crutchie'e leg. He is very protective of Crutchie, and they talk constantly about how they are family and brothers and I love them, too. 

One of the biggest threats throughout the whole show is a corrupt warden named Snyder who runs this children's prison called the Refuge, based on the very real House of Refuge. The Warden himself is power and money hungry; the more children he arrests, the more money he gets from the government… only that money never goes towards the children. Instead, it goes directly into Snyder's pocket. The prison itself is a hellhole. Any food the kids get is maggot ridden. The guards are cruel, and Snyder doesn't keep them in check because Snyder is just as vile and spiteful as any of them might be. Using whips on children was a punishment that was used on the inmates. Jack Kelly spent several stints in the Refuge for such crimes as vagrancy and possessing stolen food and clothing, which he was trying to get to his friends who were starving and freezing in the Refuge. He eventually was able to escape, but he is very clearly traumatized, and runs from Snyder several times. Snyder has a grudge against Jack for escaping the Refuge. The mere mention of Snyder causes him to freeze up, and when the unthinkable happens during the strike and Crutchie is caught and beaten by Snyder, he yells for Jack several times as he is being arrested, only for Jack to freeze and then turn and run away. Crutchie briefly shows up again in the second act in the song Letter From the Refuge, where the effects of Crutchie's short time in the prison are obvious, as he is covered in dark bruises and scratches, and his shirt sleeve is torn, revealing a deep cut on his arm, but he still tries to seem hopeful for Jack, to encourage Jack and the strike even when he feels beaten himself.

There's also the Delancey brothers (Oscar and Morris), who are essentially thugs for hire. Them and their uncle work at the distribution center, so like where the newsies go to buy their papers. The Delanceys also work as strike busters, busting the trolley worker strike, and then as strike busters against the newsies up, too. They have a certain disdain for the newsies, which includes fighting with and soaking them (beating them up), calling Crutchie ableist slurs, and then eventually beating and catching Crutchie at the strike. They are usually portrayed in the show as being the same age as the Newsies, because their actors also play newsies in certain ensemble heavy scenes. There is often heavy debate about whether they are redeemable, but I tend to see them as being in a similarly rough situation, and especially being young, I think they have the potential to change and grow.

The main female protagonist, Katherine, is also introduced early in act one. Jack Kelly, the smug, cocky person that he is, falls and falls hard for her, especially as she, an aspiring reporter in a man's world. She is sharp witted, stubborn, and determined to be independent, as she should be, and is quite the match for Jack, and eventually, for the main protagonist Jacob Pulitzer, who also just happens to be her dad. By the end of the show, Jack and Katherine are very much in love.

Early on, too, we are introduced to two new newsies, Davey and Les Jacobs. They show up to work because their dad was injured at work and subsequently fired from his job, leaving the boys (and their sister Sarah, who Disney didn't include in the musical because who needs more than one female right *eye roll*) to have to quit school and get work to support their family. Davey is 17, Jack's age, and is very learned and put together. He is also very much a goody two shoes, compared to the others, determined not to lie about headlines to make selling papers easier or get into trouble by starting a strike (which he accidentally suggested to the other newsies), but he turns into quite the union leader and becomes best friends with Jack by the end of the show. His little brother Les is 10… well, almost. And he is adorable and mischievous, and born to be a newsie, according to Jack Kelly himself.

And now, I guess, to explain how I write Crutchie. 

As I have stated, I write Crutchie as a girl or as an afab (assigned female at birth) enby (short for nonbinary). We are strugglin’, lol. 

But anyways, I write her (Charlotte Anne Morris, aka Charlie and Crutchie) as having been born to loving Irish immigrant parents. They were poor, but they got by, until she caught polio as a little kid. She got very, very sick, and her leg twisted and became unusable. Her dad started working extra to try and pay for doctors and medicine to keep his little girl alive and healthy, but one day, he didn’t come home from work, and it eventually came to light that he had died under mysterious circumstances… Was it a work accident? Was it an anti-Irish hate crime? Who was to say… but all the sudden, the little family of three had become a lot smaller. Charlie was still little, only about four, and so didn’t entirely understand things, but grief hit her mom hard, driving her to drink and become resentful of her daughter, and to eventually become abusive, neglectful and even to blame Charlie for what had happened to her dad. Eventually, things got to a point where mom couldn’t take it, and took Charlie on a very long walk in early winter before leaving her on a street corner to freeze to death… This is when I say Jack found her. He’s only a few years older than her, but he couldn't just leave her, so he scooped her up and took her to the lodging house, where he taught her how to be a newsie and helped her learn to walk again with the help of a crutch. Even though she was very young when it was all going on, she is slow to trust mothers, and still believes some of the falsehoods that her mom told her, like that she was the reason her dad died and that it would have been better if she was never born. She has big ol’ abandonment issues, and clings to Jack, who is without a doubt her very best friend in the whole wide world. 

I tend to focus a lot on her time in the Refuge, too. Snyder takes her in, and beats the snot out of her. Throughout the strike, Snyder is working with Pulitzer to quash the strike, but he is also determined to get Jack, and once he realizes how close Jack and Crutchie, he takes out his anger that he caught Crutchie and not Jack on her, while also trying to get any information he can about the strike and about Jack himself from her. It’s terrible, and he doesn’t just hit her, but he twists things in her mind, like continually bringing up that when she yelled out to Jack for help at the strike, that he watched her be beaten and then turned to run away, leaving her to Snyder. She has a lot of insecurity about being a burden to her friends and being in the way, and that they care about her because they pity her, and Snyder manages to weedle into her mind and twist those things against her. She never tells Snyder anything to betray her friends, but she has trouble trusting them after the strike as she works through the problems Snyder introduced to her. She also gets free just in time to see that Jack now has a girlfriend and a new best friend, and feels that she could never compare and is at one point, jealous and resentful of these newcomers, and feels that she has been abandoned again in favor of someone better, and so she ends up having to work through that, too.

[theoutcastrogue]

Rogues, vagabonds, and masterless men in Eastern Europe

[by Bronisław Geremek]

Cracovia (detail) in a 1493 woodcut from Nuremberg Chronicle [x]

In comparing the situation in Eastern and Western Europe we should take into consideration the divergence in the lines of development of the agrarian system in these two different economic zones. At the close of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th, in the countries east of the Elbe, there was a strong tendency to return to vassalage, a tendency which sought to develop the economy of the nobility founded on forced labor, to limit the personal liberty of the peasants. The prohibition of vagabondage has here another social significance.

In the Teutonic state, throughout the first half of the 15th century, there were repeated orders to chase from towns and inns all “masterless” people (loze volk). Begging was forbidden to people who were able to work and even the introduction of forced labor was considered. In Poland, among the statutes adopted by the Piotrków assembly, in 1496, and which refer to the limitation of the peasants’ freedom of movement as well as to the battle against the flight of peasants, we find that of De laicis seu mendicis mandicatum euntibus which enjoins the municipal authorities and country curates to exercise a severe control over the rights of begging, to furnish beggars with a special symbol and to oblige all able-bodied men to perform useful work or to participate in the works of fortification. This law may be compared to the analogous legislation directed against vagrancy in France or in England, but what makes it different is, specifically, the context in which it is found. The law concerning beggars is accompanied in the statutes of  Piotrków by the prohibition of migration for economic reasons from Masovie to Prussia or Silesia, and from village to town. The prohibition primarily concerns, along with the poor peasant class, agricultural journeymen. In the case of migration from farms to towns, the statute specifies that it applies to people not having their own domicile and living on premises rented by the week. In these circumstances, the repression had for its aim the assurance of cheap manpower for the manorial economy.

The same objective is found west of the Elbe, but there it is in a quite different perspective of development. In the West, the low cost of manpower became an important factor in the early accumulation of capital, while in the East it was an element of consolidation of the manorial economy. The essential difference is also seen on the social plane. In Western Europe the repression of vagabondage was aimed at creating a pressure on the labor market, so as to increase the supply of manpower. In Eastern Europe it tended primarily to limit the freedom of movement of the peasants. Men without masters were disturbing, even though they were exploited by the nobility. In 17th-century Russia, they were treated as tramps, and it is among them that fugitive peasants were most often found. But the perspective which is most frequently seen in individual biographies of these vagrant journeymen is their incorporation into the system of feudal dependence, which offered them the possibility of a stable livelihood and the foundation of a family.

In Poland and Russia during the 16th and 17th centuries the fundamental motive for repressive measures against men without masters was related to the norms of social order. Men without masters went against the principles of the system of subjugation and dependence of the peasants, they made up a “dangerous” group which was suspected of thievery and banditry. The voïvode of Rawa, Anzelm Gostomski, explicitly mentioned the first of these dangers: the “vagabonds must be bound as soon as they appear, because they incite the peasants to abandon the village and fall in with low company.” With the generalization of peasant subjugation, men without masters saw themselves given the same status as fugitive peasants. The measures taken against them by the nobility were very characteristic. First, towns were obliged to close their gates before these men without masters, who liked to pass the winter in town, hiring themselves out, on occasion, for a minimal wage or, simply, food. At the same time the measures endeavored to stabilize them by hiring them for a long period, a procedure which ended in making the hired worker a subject and tying the former vagabond to the soil.

The fact is that the economy of the nobility had great need of these periodic workers. In a system where economic expansion was mainly effected by an increase in manpower, it was necessary to have recourse to the employment of every available man, without thinking too much about his origin. This was also true when it was a question of the expansion into virgin land or the extension of mining and other branches of production. Large groups of gulaśćije—extremely large, to judge from the number of plague victims in 1692 in the town of Astrakhan alone—were employed on lands situated at the mouth of the Volga. People came there from all corners of Russia, either legally or having fled from their villages, looking for a freer life and a better existence. One could distinguish three categories among the gulaśćije: men without masters, men having only temporarily left their native villages and fugitive peasants. But there also, most often this type of enfranchisement was only an episode in the life of the people concerned—even if it lasted at times for decades—before their eventual stabilization through engagement in bonds of subjection or servitude.

— Bronislaw Geremek, “Men Without Masters: Marginal Society During the Pre-Industrial Era” in Diogenes 25(98), p.p.28–54. (January 1977)

[all-things-are-nothing-to-me]

The Fetishization of the Working Class

The left is mired in identity politics. While leftists often express their opposition to systems of domination based on class, gender, sexuality and race, they tend to oppose such systems by accepting and reinforcing the very identities created and imposed by such systems of domination. While all such identities are problematic, I believe that none of them is as harmful as the left’s idealized and fetishized identity of “the worker”.

The working class as an identity differs from identities such as identities based on gender and race in the sense that a worker is an actual thing that exists apart from how we define it(as opposed to a “black” person or a “woman”). That being said, the worker only exists as long as he reproduces social relationships that define him as a worker. The moment he stops working he ceases being a worker. But why do I consider embracing the working class identity to be so harmful?

Before we get into that, let’s look back at the creation of the working class and the working class identity. We can trace the birth of the working class back to the dawn of the industrial revolution in England, which needed a disciplined workforce to run the factories that were emerging like mushrooms after the rain. There was, however, one major problem for the owners of these factories: nobody wanted to work in them.

Peasants preferred to work their plots of land, and autonomous artisans wouldn’t dream of submitting themselves to the nightmarish factories. Both saw wage labor for what is is: paid slavery. Unfortunately, the state and the bourgeoisie were determined to turn both peasants and artisans into workers, and they had the tools and the power to accomplish that. Land enclosures robbed peasants of their lands, creating a mass of landless vagrants. Anti-vagrancy laws forced these ex-peasants to chose between being criminalized or reduced to mere cogs in an assembly line. Mass-produced goods out-competed artisans, and the creation of the modern police made sure that the population was proletarianized whether they wanted it or not.

This process sparked a wave of resistance. The most emblematic revolt against the new conditions being imposed was the Luddite uprising, when textile workers and weavers rose in revolt against industrialization and proceeded to destroy as many machines as they could. Eventually, the uprisings were put down and people were forced into becoming workers.

The shared experienced of being forced into becoming workers and of working together under grueling conditions (16 hours work journeys, miserable wages, poor workplace safety, etc) forged a solidarity among the first wave of proletarians, which created the conditions for the birth of the labor movement.

Accepting their new role, workers began to organize and fight for better conditions. Struggles for better wages, working-hours and for the legalization of unions took place, and the tactics of the infant movement began to develop. Working class solidarity grew, and the identity of the worker slowly took hold upon the new class as new ideologies were developed around it. These are the ideologies that eventually gave rise to the modern left.

It is in this context that socialism appeared. As a critique of capitalism emerged from worker struggles and from the thoughts of socialist thinkers, the bourgeoisie was identified as an enemy of the working class. From this perspective, visions of struggle and “liberation” began to emerge. The most well known of these perspectives is that of Karl Marx, which originated marxism. Marx recognized the antagonist nature of the relationship between classes, and sought to create a vision that could lead to a stateless and classless society (which he termed communism). His revolutionary subject was the working class, which Marx believed to be the only inherently revolutionary class under capitalist soiety. The non-workers who were excluded from the system were seen by him as crude “lumpens” with no revolutionary potential.

According to Marx, workers should seize the state through a violent revolution and create a “proletarian” (and socialist)state. With the state in their hands, workers would dismantle capitalism and speed the development of the “productive forces”, which Marx believed are being held back by capitalism. As the socialist society ran it’s course, the state would supposedly become increasingly unnecessary and wither away (although no marxist ever made clear how this process would actually happen).

Bakunin and other anarchists living at that time (correctly) predicted that the takeover of the state would simply create a class of state bureaucrats that would become a new self-serving elite. This critique was essential to the development of anarchist theory and praxis, which views the state as an inherently oppressive institution that cannot be used for liberating purposes.

That being said, both Marx and Bakunin (as well as socialists/anarchists at the time with very few notable exceptions) believed that the productive forces should not only be maintained but also developed. Not only they failed to identify the inherently oppressive nature of industrial technology, they also failed to see that workers can never be liberated as long as they remain workers.

Much time has passed since then, but the left still glorifies and fetishizes industrial society and the working class that keeps it running. Even the vision of the most “radical” elements of the left (contemporary revolutionary socialists and left anarchists)refuses to go further than the idea of a society where the means of production are administered by the working class. But what good is it to get rid of the bourgeoisie if we are still enslaved by work, civilization and industrial technology? Should I be exhilarated at the possibility of managing my own misery instead of seeking to abolish it?

And why should I look upon the working class as “The Revolutionary Class” when the vast majority of the working class would defend industrial society with teeth and nails even though it is the source of their misery? Now, don’t get me wrong. In the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the working class I will always side with the working class. That being said, I cannot envision more than a small fraction of the working class rallied behind a true liberating vision, not when most workers cannot even imagine (and wouldn’t want) a world free from the shackles of industrial civilization.

And how can the “radical left” claim to fight for the liberation of the working class when most workers don’t want to be liberated? If forced to choose between the radical left and their capitalist overlords, most workers will side with the latter (not to mention the increasing number of working class folks who are willing to turn to fascism in response to an increasingly crisis-ridden world). You can always claim that this is simply a matter of educating workers so they can see their own oppression, but it doesn’t change the fact that you cannot speak for those who would never wish to be represented by you. Also, Seeing workers as mere pawns of capitalist propaganda is a patronizing and elitist attitude which denies people their agency as individuals. Yet, such attitude is prevalent among the left.

This is not to deny the social dynamics that are at play shaping people. What we can accomplish as individuals is always limited by our social environment. Yet, if we are nothing more than products of our environment with no individual agency,there isn’t even a point in trying to oppose society.

Either way, it is clear that the left’s ideas about the working class and its revolutionary potential are as irrelevant as their ideas about revolution and “liberation”. The working class can only be liberated to the extent that it is destroyed and transcended. As for me, I will side with members of the working class that are willing to rise up when it suits me, but I won’t let off the hook those that get in my way. As for those who refuse to be molded into workers and are willing to steal back their lives, they can always count on my strength and solidarity.

[infinitysmith1331]

Fieldwork 5: Example of How Is Race Constructed Around The World

1) The Desexualization of Asian Men in Western Media. “Asian American men, however, have never fit this mold. Unlike Asian American women, who have long been fetishized in the West, we have been desexualized ever since the first Chinese communities immigrated to the US. As a way of minimizing the threat posed by Chinese men -- who were often portrayed as stealing white Americans' jobs and women -- Asians were characterized as passive, effeminate and weak."- https://www.cnn.com/style/article/andrew-kung-asian-american-men/index.html When you think of Asian men, what is the first thing that comes to mind? If you are a part of Gen Z, K-Pop might be the first thing to come to mind. If you spend a large amount of time on TikTok, you may think of Femboy. You may think of geeky or even soft, but the word sexy would be the last thing to come to mind. I never noticed how desexualized Asian men are until an Asian TikToker brought it to my attention. Since the early 1900s, Asian men have been portrayed as feminine to boost white men's egos. When the Chinese immigrants settled into America, white males were afraid they would take their jobs, making it harder for Chinese Americans to get railroad, construction, and jobs fields that were dominated by men. Being that they couldn't get a masculine job, Asian men were, forced to work in sweatshops, restaurants, and jobs seen as feminine. During the 1920s to 1950s, Asian men written into movie scripts were only as the antagonist, against the white protagonist. I've seen many articles and TikToks explain how undesirable western media has made Asian males, and I find it extremely disrespectful. I have noticed that the same way Black women are looked at as masculine is the same way Asian men are seen as feminine.

2) Black Codes

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-codes

Although the signing of the passing of the 13th Amendment gave African Americans their freedom, they were anything but free. Immediately after the Civil War ended, southern states began to enforce Black Codes or Black Laws, restrictive laws put in place to limit the freedom of African Americans. In late 1865, the first Black Codes were, enacted in Mississippi and South Carolina. The law of Mississippi required African American's to have written proof of employment every January for the coming year. If they quit before the end of the term, they would be, forced to lose previous salaries and liable to arrest.

3) Jim Crow

https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/jim-crow-laws

By the end of the Reconstruction Era, Black Codes were gone; however, Jim Crow was beginning. Jim Crow laws were a collection of state and local statutes that legalized racial segregation. Coining the term "equal but separate," Jim Crow laws allowed African Americans some human while still limiting their access to jobs, housing, voting, and other constitutional rights. Jim Crow followed the belief that white people are superior to black people in all meaningful areas including intellect, morals, and civilized conduct.

4) Convict Leasing

https://eji.org/news/history-racial-injustice-convict-leasing/

As I mentioned before, the 13th Amendment prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude; however, it exempted those who committed a crime. With the passing of the Black Codes, many African Americans found themselves back in their oppressor's hands. Black Codes subjected black people to criminal prosecution for “offenses” such as loitering, breaking curfew, vagrancy, having weapons, and not carrying proof of employment. Convict leasing allowed people to gain their slaves back in a "legal way" by incarcerating black men, women, and children, and is still seen today in the form of Mass Incarceration.

5) Mass Incarceration

https://www.netflix.com/search?q=13&jbv=80091741

White males have a 1 in 17-lifetime likelihood of imprisonment, while the Bureau of Justice reports that 1 in 3 black males; are expected to go to jail or prison in their lifetime. In 2016, black men accounted for roughly 6.5 percent of the United States population; meanwhile, they made up 40.2 percent of the prison population. The prison industrial complex relies historically on the inheritance of slavery. As I mentioned before, the 13th Amendment abolished both slavery and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime. Similar to Convict Leasing, mass incarceration exploits the 13th Amendment to keep slavery ties to black people.

6) The War on Drugs

https://www.netflix.com/search?q=13&jbv=80091741

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

The War on Drugs was a sutle and "non-racial" way to deal with African American drug abuse as a crime instead of a mental health issue. The Nixion administration has even admitted to the War on Drugs to be a way to throw black people in jail. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum . "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." This made it easier to criminalize black people and arrest them for a small amount of marijuana. Cocaine usage was found more in white communities, and white people were given little to no jail time for being caught with drugs, while black people were given the maximum prison sentence.

[anniekoh]

habitually loaf, loiter and/or idle

The relentless enactment of ordinances expressly designed to criminalize homelessness is infuriating: sleeping in car ordinances that prohibit sleeping in your own car when parked on residential streets, sweep ordinances that mandate the removal of personal belongings from public spaces, “sidewalk” ordinances banning people from sitting or lying down in public spaces.

In a small reprieve, the LA city ordinance “barring people from sleeping in vehicles parked on residential Los Angeles streets quietly expired at the end of June, and LAPD officers have been instructed to no longer issue citations for the offense” (CBS)

Given the ongoing criminalization of the status of being poor, the ways that “loitering” and similar laws have intersected with “quality of life” policing is critical to understand. Debra Livingston’s article “Police Discretion and the Quality of Life in Public Places: Courts, Communities, and the New Policing” from the Columbia Law Review is an excellent overview. 

Livingston writes about how “loitering, disorderly conduct, and vagrancy statutes” had not been systematically challenged until the 1960s when such “broad laws were being used against participants in peaceful sit-ins and civil rights demonstrations in the South” (p 598). 

In the footnotes, she mentions:

Territory of Hawaii v Anduha (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Mar 22, 1931) invalidating statue prohibiting any person from habitually “loaf[ing], loiter[ing] and/or idl[ing] upon any public street or highway or in any public place.”

In an early case, Territory v. Anduha, 31 Haw. 459 (1930), aff'd 48 F.2d 171 (9th Cir.1931), this court considered the constitutionality of a 1929 statute making it illegal to "habitually loaf, loiter and/or idle upon any public street or highway or in any public place." We found the statute unconstitutionally overbroad because it drew "no distinction between conduct that is calculated to harm and that which is essentially innocent." 

From casetext the trial judge said (emphases added):

"For all that appears in the complaint filed against this defendant under this act, the defendant may well have been consistently in the pursuit of health or other innocent activity at all the times mentioned in the complaint. There is nothing in the charge itself nor in the wording of the act under which the charge is brought which would advise this defendant or any defendant at what point an innocent use of public places had become connected with any criminal purpose or activity. There is nothing in the charge or in the attempted definition of an offense in the act which would enable a resident to know the dividing line between innocent idleness and criminal idleness in a public place. This discrimination is delegated to the whim of every police officer who desires to interfere with the personal liberty of a resident within the Territory."

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Jail Farm Becomes Up-To-Date Hospital,” Toronto Star. August 7, 1919. Page 02. --- Soldier Will Receive Electric Treatment There by Police Magistrate’s Orders. --- In the hope that friends that may come forward to his assistance, Thomas Johns, an aged man, who was unable to give any account of himself, was remanded for one week in Police Court to-day. Inspector McKinney stated that Johns was fairly well fixed with money, and the authorities did not wish to send him to the asylum. Johns had to be assisted down the dock stairs.

Alleged Dope Fiend. Peter Thompson, charged with vagrancy, put up a big fight for his liberty, but was sent to the Jail Farm for three months.

Constable Ward stated accused was a ‘dope fiend.’ When arrested he said that although he had no ‘habit’ he took 16 grains a day. Accused also said he had given some money to another man to get dope, but the man had double-crossed him. Ward stated prisoner did not work and associated with thieves. 

Prisoner pleaded to be given a further chance. ‘I have never been in trouble before,’ he said. ‘I am a returned soldier and am taking treatment at Davisville Hospital for my arm.

‘I am trying to give you a chance,’ said Magistrate Cohen. ‘You can get treatment at the farm.’

‘I can’t get electric treatment for my arm there,’ said accused.

‘You can get any treatment you need,’ said the Court, ‘they will see that you get it.’

Promises to be Good. James Galloway, who last week pleaded guilty to assaulting his sixteen-year-old daughter, was fined $10 and costs or 30 days, and was given a week in which to find the money.

On a charge of drunkeness he was remanded for sentence.

Assistant Crown Attorney McFadden stated there had been an investigation. Accused had previously been before the Juvenile Court for neglecting his children. The Juvenile Court recommended that a reputable neighbor look after the sixteen and nine-year-old daughters of accused.

Mr. T. O’Connor for accused said he was not enamored of Juvenile Court methods. He wanted his Worship to disposes of the case.

‘It’s a case of habitual drunkenness,’ said the Crown.

‘I won’t take another drink,’ replied accused, who promised to see that his children were well provided for in the future.

Baby Appears For Dad. There were several big-wigs of the law in Police Court to-day, but they stood no chance against a new kind of counsellor who appeared. John Brown had pleaded guilty to a charge of $80 from the Canadian Express Co.

‘This is his first offence,’ said the Crown. ‘He has made restitution. He does not appear to have counsel, but his wife and baby are here.’

Magistrate Denison: ‘Does the baby appear for him?’ Mr. Corley: ‘Oh, yes, baby has just mentioned his name. I heard it say daddy.’

The wife of accused said she was in ill-health at the time, that was why hubby committed the offence.

‘He shouldn’t put the blame on her,’ said Magistrate Denison.

Mr. Corley: ‘He doesn’t. She takes the blame herself. Never mind, put it on me,’ he continued. ‘It costs a lot to have a baby these days.’

Accused was remanded for sentence.

The Latest Camouflage. Horticulturists and backyard gardeners who every evening go out into the garden and gaze lovingly on their tomatoes, taking careful note each time of the ever-deepening crimson tinge, have had all their efforts overshadowed. By dint of much hard labor with the garden hose they may succeed in producing some real beauties, but never will they achieve such gloriously expensive specimens as those owned by John Zaplacinsit. The price of these small beauties was fixed at $500 a small basket. They were grown in Montreal. Magistrate Denison acted as judge of the fruit when put on exhibition. It happened thusly:

Constables Dunn and Forbes observed Zaplacinsit, accompanied by John Kuntz, laboring along with the horticultural specimens. The long named gentleman carried an ordinary bag, while Kuntz carried a more ordinary looking basket of tomatoes. Upon the approach of the inquisitive officers, Mr. Zaplacinst dropped the bag and bolted. Mr. Kuntz stood his ground. Examination of the basket disclosed the fact that beneath a top layer of tomatoes. reposing a gallon can of alcohol. The bag yielded a further supply.

In the Police Court Zaplacinsit  pleaded guilty to B.O.T.A. and was fined $500 and costs. Kuntz maintained he was carrying the tomatoes to oblige his friend. The charge against him was dismissed.

Youths Plead Guilty Two young men, Harry Hiltz and Robert Whiteley, who were arrested yesterday afternoon in the residence of Mr. R. C. Kilgour, Dale and McKenzie avenues, appeared in the Police Court to-day and faced three charges of housebreaking as follows: Breaking into the residence of W. H. Wright, 40 Rosedale Heights, the residence of W. H. Skirrow, 21 Inglewood Drive, and the residence of R. C. Kilgour. They pleaded guilty to all three charges and were remanded until the 14th for sentence.

To a fourth charge of stealing an automobile, the property of G.T. Richardson, they pleaded not guilty and were remanded until the 14th.

Sent to County Court. The name of Tony Valenti was on the Police Court calendar in connection with the seizure of a truck loadof whiskey on the Toronto-Hamilton highway yesterday afternoon. It was explained that the case was being dealt with by the County authorities.

Dope Fiend Sentenced. John Connors pleaded guilty to having drugs in his possession for other than medical purposes and was sent to the jail farm for three months. He admitted he was in the habit of taking from four to five grains daily. The police produced a bottle of laudenum, a spoon used for burning out the alcohol in the drug, and another small bottle of the dope after it had been refined, all of which were found on accused when arrested.

Raymond Norton faced a similar charge and was remanded until the 11th.

Committed for Trial. On a charge of criminal negligence James Fleming was committed for trial.

According to the Crown, a grey-haired old lady thought last week she had been assaulted by her husband. This week she thought she had [been] assaulted by Harry Solomon, the witness who caused so much amusement at the recent investigation into the affairs of the Ontario License Department. For lack of corroboration the charge was dismissed, just as Mr. Solomon was about to launch into an explanation of the circumstances. ‘If you didn’t assault her, you can go.’ said his Worship, cutting him short. 

[ladymazzy]

It's important to state exactly why proposed laws like this are bad beyond 'it's discrimination'. Racism is endemic in the UK (although most people would rather eat their own faces than admit it), so the possibility of deepening institutionalised racism won't concern them. Not to mention the fact that they will throw the 'but it's the Black youth being murdered!' in our faces

Put simply, the laws do not reduce violent crime.

From the article and with regard to the specific ways in which Black people and travellers are likely to be disproportionately targeted by policing:

'They include enhanced stop and search powers and the criminalisation of “residing on land without consent in a vehicle”.

The Home Office admitted that proposed Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs), which would allow police to stop and search people based on their previous offending history without the “reasonable grounds” currently required, would disproportionately affect black people.'

These proposals are basically just bringing back the old sus laws, which started life explicitly targeting travellers and homeless people in the 19thC, and metastatised in the 20thC, targeting Black people with wildly disproportionate abandon. The Vagrancy Act was repealed in 1981, getting rid of the old sus laws. But then we ended up with Stop and Search (sus laws in all but name...)

These laws have infamously triggered so many riots because of widespread police harassment and abuse. S&S was identified as a major problem in the MacPherson Report, from which the government and police are supposed to have Learned So Much About How Not To Be Racist.

Regarding Stop and Search, it's very much worth pointing out that research consistently casts doubt on the efficacy of S&S as a tactic for preventing violent crime.

The supposed justification that is always cited is that young Black men are murdered at disproportionately high rates. Whilst this is true in, say, London, it's absolutely not true in, say, Glasgow.

Glasgow famously addressed it's knife crime epidemic by treating it as a public health crisis, tackling the issues that push young people towards violence with far greater success than S&S could ever dream of

As for further criminalising traveller culture (bearing in mind that there are already trespass laws; this is just another stick to beat travellers and homeless people with), again, the tories are merely (and dangerously) reinforcing the status quo in a way which panders to little englander types. None of this is about effectively tackling crime

fullfact.org does Stop and Search work

Crime and justice.org; policing the riots

“Don’t say the quiet bit out loud…oh shit oh fuck”

[realcleargoodtimes]

The man in the White House doesn’t believe in racial equality. He is erratic, vain, and conspiratorial. In a speech to celebrate George Washington’s birthday, the president mentioned himself 200 times in 60 minutes. The House of Representatives voted to impeach him, but the president’s powerful son-in-law helped him to escape removal from office.

The year is 1868. The president is Andrew Johnson, the southern Democrat who succeeded Abraham Lincoln. Johnson was installed in the White House following Lincoln’s assassination on Good Friday 1865, only a week after Robert E Lee had surrendered Confederate forces in the American civil war.

In his first months as president, Johnson had appeared to be a disaster for the cause of black civil rights. He pardoned Confederate soldiers, supported white supremacist state governments, and vetoed funding for the Freedmen’s Bureau, which had been established to provide food, healthcare, education, and job security to newly emancipated slaves.

Emboldened by this anti-civil rights president, southern state governments implemented “black codes” which were designed to return African Americans as close to the position of slavery as possible. Vague crimes such as “vagrancy” – effectively, unemployment – were used to arrest African Americans who were not seen as sufficiently industrious or subservient.

While such laws often didn’t mention race explicitly, they were used in practice to

[kaninchenzero]

the concept of loitering, at least in the united states, is heavily white supremacist and specifically anti black and anti indigenous

the text of loitering laws may not mention race but enforcement of them? that's where the racism comes in

don't pretend otherwise

see also: vagrancy

The concept of “loitering” is violent and evil