Bayard Rustin, “From Montgomery to Stonewall” (via so-treu)
I’m not in the business of persuading my enemies with moral reason, I’m in the business of defeating them so that what they think is irrelevant.
When you discuss the wage gap, here are a few things to keep in mind:
- Only white women make $0.77 to a man’s dollar.
- Black women make about $0.68 to a man’s dollar.
- Latina women make about $0.58 to a man’s dollar.
There have to be large-scale institutional changes, we need a real democratization of the society. I mean, if we continue to have domination of the economic and political system by corporations, why should they behave any differently? It’s not that the people in the corporations are bad people, it’s that the institutional necessity of the system is to maintain corporate domination and profit-making. I mean, if the Chairman of General Motors suddenly decided to start producing the best quality cars at the cheapest prices, he wouldn’t be Chairman any longer-there’d be a shift on the stock market and they’d throw him out in five minutes.
And that generalizes to the system as a whole.
There is absolutely no reason why the people who own the economy would want it to be set up in a way that undermines or weakens their control, any more than there’s a reason why they would want there to be a political system in which the population genuinely participates-why would they? They’d be crazy. Just like they’d be crazy if they opened up the media to dissident opinion-what possible purpose would here be in that? Or if they let the universities teach honest history, let’s say.
It would be absurd.
Now, that doesn’t mean that there’s nothing we can do. Even within the current structure of power, there’s plenty of latitude for pressure and changes and reforms. I mean, any institution is going to have to respond to public pressure-because their interest is to keep the population more or less passive and quiescent, and if the population is not passive and quiescent, then they have to respond to that. But really dealing with the problems at their core ultimately will require getting to the source of power and dissolving it-otherwise you may be able to fix things up around the edges, but you won’t really change anything fundamentally. So the alternative just has to be putting control over these decisions into popular hands-there simply is no other way besides dissolving and diffusing power democratically, I think.
So I understand that not everything in the tv adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire will be true to the books. But why is it so easy to waste precious airtime to flesh out a character that was only called “the red-headed whore” with no other significance to the storyline than her reputation for beauty, yet so difficult to actually include characters integral to the series? (Tyrion found both Chataya and Alayaya to be beautiful as well.)
Oh, I know. It’s because we can’t have powerful WoC on television for the world to see. Chataya owned and ran her own upscale brothel, had the nobles of King’s Landing as regular customers, and along with her daughter Alayaya, became instrumental in Tyrion’s visits to Shae. So someone please tell me why these two parts have been whitewashed? If the parts needded to be condensed, why couldn’t the one woman have still been a PoC? If their roles were too minor to matter, explain Roslin’s elevation from “red-headed whore.” And since Hollywood likes to go with the “no PoC auditioned” excuse, explain this lovely woman who made it onto the show as a background character and could easily have played either of the Summer Isles women.
It honestly saddens me when this is done. It’s the Hunger Games all over again, but not many ASoIaF fans seem to notice or care. Not only were Hunger Games fans angry when Cinna’s description was left open to interpretation and filled by Lenny Kravitz, they were upset that Rue, who is clearly described of having dark skin and hair was filled by Amandla Stenberg. So why isn’t there the same angry backlash when roles meant for PoC are given to white actors and actresses? It’s because they’re thought of as belonging to white actors to begin with and PoC should be happy with any parts they see fit to give to us. Like olive-skinned Katniss being played by Jeniffer Lawrence, people were quick to come to the defense of the casting directors. In the same vein, these people shot down the fans who despaired that their hopes of having an identifiable character had been dashed by the Caucasian-restricted casting call. These may be fictional worlds, but the choices made in reality reflect the gross abuse of white privelege. It needs to stop.
This is why. Anyone who thought that active linguicides were a thing of the past need only visit Saebmie where we see our bilingual signs vandalised by scum on a regular basis.
Anyone who finds the time to vandalise a bilingual street sign because it’s bilingual is a wanker.
Published on April 28th, 2012 Written by: Kevin Mathews
Monsanto, the genetically modified food giant, has recently purchased Beeologics, a leading bee research firm. Borrowing a move from the tobacco companies’ playbook, Monsanto appears to have decided that if you do not like the scientific reports coming out about you, then you should just buy the labs.
Beginning in 2007, Beeologics has researched two critical bee issues: colony collapse disorder and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus. In late September of last year, Monsanto acquired Beeologics for an undisclosed amount. In making this purchase, Monsanto now has control of research that has previously pointed at its pesticides for contributing to – if not outright causing – a sharp decline in bee populations. Multiple studies in recent years have linked pesticides and high fructose corn syrup with colony collapse disorder.
Portential outcome manipulations
With Monsanto’s vested interest in bee research’s conclusions, there is reason to believe that the true causes of and solutions for these bee epidemics may be manipulated if not lost entirely. Indeed, it seems likely that now some new study released by Beeologics will find that GMOs are not the problem after all.
Prior to the acquisition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture looked to Beeologics as its top resource for bee research. In effect, Monsanto has now positioned itself even better with the USDA. For that reasons, health experts and entomologists alike are upset that Beeologics would be willing to self itself to Monsanto in the first place. Alas, sometimes it is more about the money than the honey.
(TRIGGER WARNINGS for: rape, rape culture/apologism, institutionalized abuse, mentions of violent racism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia and misogyny. Time for some real talk, folks. Getting serious.)
+Because I’m a survivor of sexual assault(s), wherein my sexuality was used to degrade, shame, and traumatize me, and after which - still to this day, in fact - my sexual history and status as a sexual woman has been used to trivialize that trauma, deny me accountability and justice for what was done, and justify even further violence against me.
+Because I’m mentally ill, and women with mental illnesses have been non-consensually sexualized, deemed “hypersexual” and “sex addicts” as a means of justifying institutionalized abuse (often sexual abuse) against them, etc, since pretty much the advent of psychology.
+Because the bodies of people of colour, particularly women of colour, are also consistently non-consensually sexualized, and that DIRECTLY contributes to higher rates of sexual violence against women of colour.
+Because I’ve done sex work, and I’m fucking sick of the cultural/social understanding that people who do sex work have no right to ever not be sexual objects, that our bodies are unrapeable, not even bodies at all really but commodities.
+Because I’m queer, and queer people have been demonized as sexual deviants, who are incapable of ever curbing or controlling our (inherently abusive) sexual natures without excessive therapy and “training”, and that’s been used to keep queer people out of work, housing, etc - something that goes double for trans folks, by the way, and if you don’t believe me just look at all the cis people freeeeeeaaaaking the fuck out about trans women simply USING THE WASHROOM with cis women, and how that’s always, always “justified” with shit like “but what if one of those trans women is secretly a sexual predator preying on innocent cis women?!”, and all the violence that that logic has resulted in.
+Because I’m poor and from a poor/working-class background, and am intimately familiar with the stereotype of poor/working-class people as being “classless” and “tacky”, WHICH MEANS inherently sexual (this is why when I was in junior high, the boys at my school would throw pennies at me and the other “welly” - you know, welfare - girls, chanting “penny whore, penny whore” as we walked by).
+Because dividing people into binary categories of “sexual” and “non-sexual” is a STAPLE of enforcing dynamics of marginalization and privilege - where MARGINALIZED PEOPLE are seen as inherently sexual, and therefore dirty, untrustworthy, incapable of real feeling, and most of all unrapeable, while PRIVILEGED PEOPLE are seen as non-sexual, and therefore pure, innocent, intelligent and compassionate, and most of all worthy of protection and empathy.
+And therefore when I see people repeatedly referring to anyone who does not identify as asexual or demisexual as “a sexual” or “sexuals”, and talking about “sexual privilege” and “sexual supremacy”, what I see is someone erasing centuries of MULTIPLE, intersecting oppressions - throwing whole classes of people under the bus, and I hesitate to use that phrase because it is so violent, but that’s what this denial is: it’s a violent denial, violent in that it erases and obfuscates so much real violence, and that erasure is a big part of what enables that violence in society already. It’s harming people, directly, specifically, in order to further discourse about an idea and identity that is still fairly new and still finding it’s place, and that does not bode well for me at all.
I…really? “Sexual supremacy?” They’re REALLY saying this?!
- Tom Morello: One of the more provocative statements of yours that I have read is that if the standards of the Nuremberg Trials were applied, then every post World War II American president would have been hanged as a war criminal. Take us briefly through the war crimes committed by each president.
- Noam Chomsky: I've done that in print a couple of times. Well, with Truman you could start with, shortly after he entered office there was the bombing of Hiroshima, which maybe one could give an argument for -- well, I don't think so -- but it is almost impossible to give an argument for the bombing of Nagasaki. That was mostly just trying out a new weapon to see if it would work. Then there was an utterly gratuitous bombing, a one thousand plane raid at the end of the war -- right in fact after Japan surrendered -- called the "finale," the grand finale. Then comes, for example, the support for the brutal counter-insurgency campaign in Greece, which killed about 150,000 people to basically restore Nazi collaborators and demolish the resistance. And then we could go on from there.
- Eisenhower. The Eisenhower administration, the Truman and Eisenhower administration, the bombings -- whatever you think about the Korean War, and there is a pretty complicated story when you really look at it, but nevertheless the bombings in North Korea in 1951 and 1952 was just an outright war crime. You can read in the Air Force history about how in the Eisenhower years they had nothing left to bomb, everything was flat, so they just bomb dams, which they exalt how wonderful it was to see the water flooding down and killing people and wiping out the crops and so on. Well people were hanged for that, for less than that. They were hanged for opening dikes in Nuremberg. And then again we can proceed with what happened in Guatemala and elsewhere where it was a terrible crime in the Eisenhower years.
- Kennedy is not even worth discussing. The invasion in South Vietnam -- Kennedy attacked South Vietnam, outright. In 1961-1962 he sent Air Force to start bombing villages, authorized napalm. Also laid the basis for the huge wave of repression that spread over Latin America with the installation of Neo-Nazi gangsters that were always supported directly by the United States. That went on and in fact picked up under Johnson.
- In the Nixon years, for example, the bombing of inner Cambodia in 1973 was a monstrous crime. It was just massacring peasants in inner Cambodia. It isn't much reported here because nobody paid attention, but it was quite a part in helping create the basis for the Khmer Rouge. Well, the CIA estimate is that 600,000 people were killed in the course of those US actions, either directed or actually carried out by the United States.
- In the Carter years there were major crimes, for example the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which happened to start under Ford and led to the nearest thing to genocide since the holocaust, maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the population has been slaughtered. That was using 90% US arms. In the Carter years, when the Indonesians were actually running out of arms in their attack on this country, Carter actually increased the flow of arms in 1978, which was the worst peak of the slaughter. Carter was backing Somoza and his national guard, openly and with direct military and diplomatic support at a time when they had killed about 40,000 people in the terror of the last days of their regime. Again, that's a sample.
- Going on to the Reagan years, its not even a question. In fact the US was condemned by the World Court during the Reagan years for its "unlawful use of force," meaning aggression in Nicaragua. In Central America alone, maybe 200,000 people or so were slaughtered in a very brutal fashion by US run programs. In southern Africa about 1.5 million people were killed and over $60 billion of damage were done according to the UN commission which reviewed it later from 1980 to 1988. That's from South African atrocities that the US was directly supporting. Then, again we could go on. Well Bush, we've already talked about him, but the invasion of Panama for example was simply outright aggression. It was condemned internationally -- the US was able to veto the security counsel condemnations, that doesn't change the fact that they were there.
- When we move on to the Clinton years, one of his first acts within a few months was to send missiles to bomb Baghdad. Well, he didn't kill a huge amount of people, only I think 8 or so. But there was absolutely no pretext, there wasn't even a pretext. I mean it was to show what a tough guy he is. In fact the pretext was so ludicrous, it's embarrassing to repeat it. The pretext was that this was self defense against armed attack, because two months earlier there had been a failed attempt by someone who might or might not have been Iraqi, no one knew at the time, to kill Bush or something like that. I mean, it's just ridiculous. About half of military aid and training to Latin America under Clinton was going to Columbia, which has absolutely the worst human rights record in the hemisphere, killing thousands of people in a horrifying fashion. These are all crimes. I don't think it's hard to set up a bill of indictment if somebody wants to.
more it becomes necessary to devise techniques of “manufacture of consent,” in the words of Walter Lippmann over 60 years ago, or “engineering of consent,” the phrase preferred by Edward Bernays, one of the founding fathers of the American Public Relations industry.” —Noam Chomsky (via noam-chomsky)
happy workers-somehow we’ve got to work it all out.” —Noam Chomsky - Understanding Power (via noam-chomsky)