#National Institutes of Health in United States of America

[anarchywoofwoof]

the funny thing is that i don't think younger people - and i mean those under the age of 40 - really have a grasp on how many of today's issues can be tied back to a disastrous reagan policy:

war on drugs: reagan's aggressive escalation of the war on drugs was a catastrophic policy, primarily targeting minority communities and fueling mass incarceration. the crusade against drugs was more about controlling the Black, Latino and Native communities than addressing the actual problems of drug abuse, leading to a legacy of broken families and systemic racism within the criminal justice system.

deregulation and economic policies: reaganomics was an absolute disaster for the working class. reagan's policies of aggressive tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and slashing social programs were nothing less than class warfare, deepening income inequality and entrenching corporate greed. these types of policies were a clear message that reagan's america was only for the wealthy elite and a loud "fuck you" to working americans.

environmental policies: despite his reputation being whitewashed thanks to the recovery of the ozone layer, reagan's environmental record was an unmitigated disaster. his administration gutted critical environmental protections and institutions like the EPA, turning a blind eye to pollution and corporate exploitation of natural resources. this blatant disregard for the planet was a clear sign of prioritizing short-term corporate profits over the future of the environment.

AIDS crisis: reagan's gross neglect of the aids crisis was nothing short of criminal and this doesn't even begin to touch on his wife's involvement. his administration's indifference to the plight of the lgbtq+ community during this devastating epidemic revealed a deep-seated bigotry and a complete failure of moral leadership.

mental health: reagan's dismantling of mental health institutions under the guise of 'reform' led directly to a surge in homelessness and a lack of support for those with mental health issues. his policies were cruel and inhumane and showed a personality-defining callous disregard for the most vulnerable in society.

labor and unions: reagan's attack on labor unions, exemplified by his handling of the patco strike, was a blatant assault on workers' rights. his actions emboldened corporations to suppress union activities, leading to a significant erosion of workers' power and rights in the workplace. he was colloquially known as "Ronnie the Union Buster Reagan"

foreign policy and military interventions: reagan's foreign policy, particularly in latin america, was imperialist and ruthless. his administration's support for dictatorships and right-wing death squads under the guise of fighting "communism" showed a complete disregard for human rights and self-determination of other nations.

public health: yes, reagan's agricultural policies actually facilitated the rise of high fructose corn syrup, once again prioritizing corporate profits over public health. this shift in the food industry has had lasting negative impacts on health, contributing to the obesity epidemic and other health issues.

privatization: reagan's push for privatization was a systematic dismantling of public services, transferring wealth and power to private corporations and further eroding the public's access to essential services.

education policies: his approach to education was more of an attack on public education than anything else, gutting funding and promoting policies that undermined equal access to quality education. this was, again, part of a broader agenda to maintain a status quo where the privileged remain in power.

this is just what i could come up with in a relatively short time and i did not even live under this man's presidency. the level at which ronald reagan has broken the united states truly can't be overstated.

#twitter #fuck ronald reagan #fuck conservatives

[deadpresidents]

Today is a good day to remember Salvador Allende, the democratically-elected President of Chile, who died in September 1973. Allende most likely shot himself in the La Moneda Presidential Palace in Santiago when he could no longer fight off the forces of General Augusto Pinochet as they executed a violent coup heavily supported by the United States and Henry Kissinger. Pinochet then ruled Chile as an American-supported "anti-communist" military dictator for nearly two decades in which tens of thousands of Chileans were killed, jailed, or simply disappeared.

Allende, a socialist, was popularly elected as Chile's President with promises to strengthen democracy in Latin America and institute significant economic, education, and health reforms in order to dramatically improve the social welfare of the Chilean people. Some American leaders, like Henry Kissinger, saw him as a potential threat -- a South American version of Fidel Castro -- and the CIA begin laying the groundwork for eventual regime change.

The biggest problem with Allende, in Kissinger's mind, was the very fact that he was freely and democratically elected. In a memo to President Nixon that is still somewhat shocking to read, Kissinger wrote that "Allende was elected legally...He has legitimacy in the eyes of Chileans and most of the world; there is nothing we can do to deny him that legitimacy or claim he does not have it." Kissinger then reminds Nixon that "We are strongly on record in support of self-determination and respect for free election; you are firmly on record for non-intervention in the internal affairs of this hemisphere and of accepting nations 'as they are.'" Then he spends several pages outlining ways in which to undermine, delegitimize, and potentially eliminate "the Problem." After all, as Kissinger wrote shortly before Allende was elected, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

#History #Salvador Allende #Chile #Latin America #South America #Allende #Augusto Pinochet #Henry Kissinger #Richard Nixon #President Nixon #Nixon Administration #Foreign Policy #CIA #Regime Change #Coups #Kissinger #Death of Henry Kissinger #Politics

[reasonsforhope]

Mexico’s Supreme Court threw out all federal criminal penalties for abortion Wednesday [September 6], ruling that national laws prohibiting the procedure are unconstitutional and violate women’s rights in a sweeping decision that extended Latin American’s trend of widening abortion access.

The high court ordered that abortion be removed from the federal penal code. The ruling will require the federal public health service and all federal health institutions to offer abortion to anyone who requests it.

“No woman or pregnant person, nor any health worker, will be able to be punished for abortion,” the Information Group for Chosen Reproduction, known by its Spanish initials GIRE, said in a statement.

Some 20 Mexican states, however, still criminalize abortion. While judges in those states will have to abide by the court’s decision, further legal work will be required to remove all penalties.

Celebration of the ruling soon spilled out onto social media.

“Today is a day of victory and justice for Mexican women!” Mexico’s National Institute for Women wrote in a message on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. The government organization called the decision a “big step” toward gender equality...

The Details

The court said on X that “the legal system that criminalized abortion” in Mexican federal law was unconstitutional because it “violates the human rights of women and people with the ability to gestate.” ...

-via AP News, September 6, 2023. Article continues below.

The decision came two years after the court ruled that abortion was not a crime in one northern state. That ruling set off a slow state-by-state process of decriminalizing it.

Last week, the central state of Aguascalientes became the 12th state to drop criminal penalties.

Abortion-rights activists will have to continue seeking legalization state by state, though Wednesday’s decision should make that easier. State legislatures can also act on their own to erase abortion penalties.

For now, the ruling does not mean that every Mexican women will be able to access the procedure immediately, explained Fernanda Díaz de León, sub-director and legal expert for women’s rights group IPAS.

What it does do — in theory — is obligate federal agencies to provide the care to patients. That’s likely to have a cascade of effects...

Lifting Abortion Restrictions Across Latin America

Across Latin America, countries have made moves to lift abortion restrictions in recent years, a trend often referred to as a “green wave,” in reference to the green bandanas carried by women protesting for abortion rights in the region.

The changes in Latin America stand in sharp contrast to increasing restrictions on abortion in parts of the United States. Some American women were already seeking help from Mexican abortion rights activists to obtain pills used to end pregnancies.

Mexico City was the first Mexican jurisdiction to decriminalize abortion 15 years ago.

After decades of work by activists across the region, the trend picked up speed in Argentina, which in 2020 legalized the procedure. In 2022, Colombia, a highly conservative country, did the same.

-via AP News, September 6, 2023. Headings added.

#abortion #mexico #latin america #supreme court #argentina #colombia #green wave #pro choice #right to choose #women's rights #abortion access #feminism #good news #hope #hope posting #healthcare #healthcare access

[fatphobiabusters]

Scientific articles and official health websites talk about lactose intolerance the same way they talk about fatness.

This is how the National Institutes of Health describes it: "Lactose intolerance is a clinical syndrome that manifests with characteristic signs and symptoms upon consuming food substances containing lactose, a disaccharide." "Lactose intolerance is a common disease; however, it is rare in children younger than 5. It is most often seen in adolescents and young adults."

It's a syndrome. A disease. A medical problem with symptoms and signs.

And then...

"On average, 65% of the world's population is lactose intolerant. The prevalence of lactose intolerance is variable among different ethnicities. It is most common in African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians and least prevalent in people of European descent."

Wait wait wait, hold up. It's in 65% of the world population??? 65% of all humans are lactose intolerant??? 65% of the world is diseased and has such a serious health condition?

Then you start learning more about it outside of these medical articles and organizations. You learn that other animals can't digest lactose past infancy either. Not even cats, even though we all believe they love milk. Animals, including humans, have a special enzyme as infants that allows babies to drink breastmilk. And after a child stops drinking that milk, the enzyme goes away, leaving the child unable to digest milk anymore.

In the 300,000 years that humans have existed, drinking milk past infancy did not start happening until about 10,000 years ago. It wasn't until ancient populations in Europe who were pastoralists, and thus raised cows as livestock, forced their bodies to drink milk and caused it to slowly became a genetic mutation that spread throughout different human populations over thousands of years.

You realize that the ability to drink lactose is not the norm. It's not the default body at all. The ability to digest lactose is a human adaptation that only some humans have, like missing wisdom teeth, blue eyes, and red hair. Lactose intolerance isn't abnormal. It's what human bodies were designed to do in the first place! No wonder it's "rare in children younger than 5." That's when babies still have the ability to drink breastmilk!

And what does such a serious disease as lactose intolerance require?

Not consuming dairy.

That's it.

This "disease" requires avoiding lactose and taking a pill to help you digest it if you need to in a given situation. And if you don't? The awful consequence of this disease is DEATH—oh, wait, that was a typo. I meant diarrhea. Dairy products like butter and some cheese have very low levels of lactose compared to straight up milk and can sometimes even be eaten without any pills for lactose intolerance at all.

So then why do health organizations and scientific articles consider this a "disease" when it's just genetic diversity? Well, you were already given the answer.

The people most able to digest lactose? White people. Europe. America. Canada. Australia. Groups so often considered the default. The quotes I gave are from the American government itself, as described by the organization's website: "Founded in 1887, the National Institutes of Health today is one of the world's foremost medical research centers, and the Federal focal point for medical research in the United States. The NIH, comprising 27 separate Institutes and Centers, is one of eight health agencies of the Public Health Service which, in turn, is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

It's also important to recognize that the US government extremely subsidizes dairy. There are underground caves of billions of pounds of cheese surplus that the government has stockpiled. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on keeping the dairy industry afloat, no pun intended, to the point that everything from those "Got milk?" advertisements to milk in school-provided lunches to Taco Bell's double steak quesadillas were funded by federal tax dollars put into some cheesy goodness propaganda. Federal tax dollars were even used after the 2010 recession to bail out Domino's and keep the cheese uh-flowing.

So in a country where most people can digest lactose, most of the people who can't do so have bodies that are not viewed as the default already, and the government is extremely invested in getting people to eat dairy products, it becomes clear why that country—that government—believes lactose intolerance to be a disease.

Then when you consider:

how fat people are not viewed as the default body either and face immense oppression

how the facts of fatness being incredibly genetic and intentional weight loss not being sustainable in the slightest are kept under the radar from the public

how weight is not actually equal to health when you take all context into account beyond stereotypes and studies with horrendous methodology

how the BMI was created by a statistician (who was never a doctor in the first place and whose work was later used to support eugenics) during the 1800s in order to figure out which body was the average, not the healthiest, in select populations of white European men in the 19th century (and thus which body was the "default," the "norm," superior)

how the population measuring tool that is the BMI, never meant or designed to be used on an individual scale, was not commonly used as a measurement of "health" until insurance companies wanted a way to fabricate reasons for charging people more money

how the weight loss industry makes hundreds of billions of dollars every year off of pretending fatness is inherently bad and selling a "cure" that doesn't work while blaming consumer error to keep people buying said "cure"

and how creating a weight-based social hierarchy benefits the people on top who have power over the rest

...you start to understand why fatness is medicalized.

It's even a common talking point of people and companies obsessed with dieting that humans have evolved to hold onto fat and refuse to lose it in case of potential starvation. In fact, facing starvation even changes your body to want to hold onto body fat even more than it did previously, which includes when you diet since dieting is just self-inflicted starvation. When you face starvation, your descendants are more likely to have genetics that prefer fatness too. And there's evidence of fatness in human populations going back tens of thousands of years despite diet culture wanting people to believe fatness is a new trend due to people's "lifestyle choices." The Venus of Willendorf, an ancient figurine of a fat woman, is estimated to have been created around 30,000 years ago, and there are numerous other Venus figurines of fat women from that era too.

It's human diversity, but people who aren't fat and who pedal diet culture can make so much money and obtain such powerful positions by pretending fatness is abnormal, inhuman, and wrong. Why give up an easy money-making punching bag or admit that your body is not the only "correct" human body when you have no reason not to and so many incentives for keeping the status quo?

As a side note, one of the best examples of diet culture is how you can find countless news articles about whether milk is "good" or "bad" for you despite humans having consumed milk for the past 10,000 years. I think by year one thousand we would have learned if milk was "bad" for us, but the headline "Milk still okay" doesn't get a news website any clicks.

-Mod Worthy

#This posted prematurely while I was working on it agh #fatphobia #medical fatphobia #BMI #history #Mod Worthy

[homonationalist]

At present, it is standard among practically all communities to fête the family as a bastion of relative safety from state persecution and market coercion, and as a space for nurturing subordinated cultural practices, languages, and traditions. But this is not enough of a reason to spare the family. Frustratedly, Hazel Carby stressed the fact (for the benefit of her white sisters) that many racially, economically, and patriarchally oppressed people cleave proudly and fervently to the family. She was right; nevertheless, as Kathi Weeks puts it: “the model of the nuclear family that has served subordinated groups as a fence against the state, society and capital is the very same white, settler, bourgeois, heterosexual, and patriarchal institution that was imposed by the state, society, and capital on the formerly enslaved, indigenous peoples, and waves of immigrants, all of whom continue to be at once in need of its meagre protections and marginalized by its legacies and prescriptions” (emphasis mine). The family is a shield that human beings have taken up, quite rightly, to survive a war. If we cannot countenance ever putting down that shield, perhaps we have forgotten that the war does not have to go on forever.

This is why Paul Gilroy remarked in his 1993 essay “It’s A Family Affair,” “even the best of this discourse of the familialization of politics is still a problem.” Gilroy is grappling with the reality that, in the United Kingdom as in the United States, the state’s constant disrespect of the Black home and transgression of Black households’ boundaries, as well as its disproportionate removal of Black children into the foster-care industry, understandably inspires an urgent anti-racist politics of “familialization” in defense of Black families. Both the British and American netherworlds of supposedly “broken” homes (milieus that are then exoticized, and seen as efflorescing creatively against all odds), have posed an obstinate threat to the legitimacy of the family regime simply by existing, Gilroy suggests. The paradox is that the “broken” remnant sustains the bourgeois regime insofar as it supplies the culture, inspiration, and oftentimes the surrogate care labor that allows the white household to imagine itself as whole. As a dialectician, “I want to have it both ways,” writes Gilroy, closing out his essay. “I want to be able to valorize what we can recover, but also to cite the disastrous consequences that follow when the family supplies the only symbols of political agency we can find in the culture and the only object upon which that agency can be seen to operate. Let us remind ourselves that there are other possibilities.

There are other possibilities! Traces of the desire for them can be found in Toni Cade (later Toni Cade Bambara)’s anthology The Black Woman, published in America in 1970, not long after the publication of the US labor secretariat’s “Moynihan report,” The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. The open season on the Black Matriarch was in full swing. And certainly not all of the anthology’s feminists, in their valiant effort to beat back societal anti-maternal sentiment (matrophobia) and the hatred of Black women specifically (more recently known as “misogynoir”), make the additional step of criticizing familism within their Black communities. But one or two contributors do flatly reject the notion that the family could ever be a part of Black (collective human) liberation. Kay Lindsey, in her piece “The Black Woman as a Woman,” lays out her analysis that: “If all white institutions with the exception of the family were destroyed, the state could also rise again, but Black rather than white.” In other words: the only way to ensure the destruction of the patriarchal state is for the institution of the family to be destroyed. “And I mean destroyed,” echoes the feminist women’s health center representative Pat Parker in 1980, in a speech she delivered at ¡Basta! Women’s Conference on Imperialism and Third World War in Oakland, California. Parker speaks in the name of The Black Women’s Revolutionary Council, among other organizations, and her wide- ranging statement (which addresses imperialism, the Klan, and movement- building) purposively ends with the family: “As long as women are bound by the nuclear family structure we cannot effectively move toward revolution. And if women don’t move, it will not happen.” The left, along with women especially of the upper and middle classes, “must give up ... undying loyalty to the nuclear family,” Parker charges. It is “the basic unit of capitalism and in order for us to move to revolution it has to be destroyed.”

Forty years later, the British writer Lola Olufemi is among those reminding us that there are other possibilities: “abolishing the family...” she tweets, “that’s light work. You’re crying over whether or not Engels said it when it’s been focal to black studies/black feminism for decades.” For Olufemi as for Parker and Lindsey, abolishing marriage, private property, white supremacy, and capitalism are projects that cannot be disentangled from one another. She is no lone voice, either. Annie Olaloku-Teriba, a British scholar of “Blackness” in theory and history, is another contemporary exponent of the rich Black family-abolitionist tradition Olufemi names. In 2021, Olaloku-Teriba surprised and unsettled some of her followers by publishing a thread animated by a commitment to the overthrow of “familial relations” as a key goal of her antipatriarchal socialism. These posts point to the striking absence of the child from contemporary theorizations of patriarchal domesticity, and criticize radicals’ reluctance to call mothers who “violently discipline [Black] boys into masculinity” patriarchal. “The adult/child relation is as central to patriarchy as ‘man’/‘woman,’” Olaloku-Teriba affirms: “The domination of the boy by the woman is a very routine and potent expression of patriarchal power.” These observations reopen horizons. What would it mean for Black caregivers (of all genders) not to fear the absence of family in the lives of Black children? What would it mean not to need the Black family?

Sophie Lewis in “Abolish Which Family?” from Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation, 2022.

#sophie lewis #abolish the family #🌟 #reading

[beguines]

In the early 1990s—at the peak of a 20-year growth in the US crime rate—the federal government announced the launch of a "violence initiative." Headed by the US Public Health Service and backed by senior psychiatrists such as Fredrick Goodwin (then chief scientist at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)), this project drew on biological theories of crime which dated back to the nineteenth century Lombrosian concept of the "born criminal". It was proposed that a mass-screening programme of inner-city children would be undertaken across America to determine those biologically or genetically predisposed towards anti-social and violent behaviour. As a vaccine against criminality, once the "conduct-disordered" children had been identified they could then be administrated psychotropic drugs. Breggin and Breggin's detailed discussion of the violence initiative rightly demonstrates the racist ideology behind the supposed objectivity of this biomedical project; a focus on inner-city youth is blatantly a focus on minority and black communities. At the time, Goodwin allegedly made remarks at the National Advisory Mental Health Council comparing "inner-city youth to monkeys who live in a jungle, and who just want to kill each other, have sex, and reproduce".

Psychiatry's involvement in such projects is perhaps less shocking when considering their long support for racial theories of the mind. In 1850, physician Samuel Cartwright reported in The New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal his discovery of two new mental disorders affecting slaves in the Deep South: the first, drapetomania, was a disease causing slaves to run away from their owners, while the second, dysaesthesia aethiopis, resulted in the slaves becoming lazy, showing a lack of respect for the rights of property and breaking work tools. The prescribed cure for both disorders was "whipping, hard labor, and, in extreme cases, amputation of the toes". This psychiatric naturalisation of slavery as normal, inevitable, and even healthy for the black slave has been referred to by Burstow as a blatant example of "social control medicalized." Yet as Greenberg reminds us, for the burgeoning community of mad doctors, the discovery of such mental conditions held out the promise of contributing to contemporary society through the establishment of new "scientific" ideas in the area.

The commonalities between slavery-era diagnostic constructions and psychiatry's recent focus on inner-city youth are what Breggin and Breggin describe as "the psychiatric labeling of resistive or rebellious activity in order to justify medical control." This process of enforcing the status quo through the biomedical pathologisation of the political has allowed the psychiatric profession to enhance their respectability, capital, and power in capitalist society. Though treated with suspicion by some colleagues in the north of the United States, Cartwright's ideas were widely supported by fellow physicians, local politicians, and slave owners in the south. Whereas the classifications were abruptly consigned to history by the civil war only a few years later, drapetomania, along with Kraepelin's biological theories on praecox (later relabelled as schizophrenia), were highly influential on medical researchers in the early twentieth century who contended that African Americans were "biologically unfit" for freedom.

Bruce M.Z. Cohen, Psychiatric Hegemony: A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness

#bruce m.z. cohen #psychiatric hegemony #psychiatric abuse #racism /

[ausetkmt]

Donald Trump's Hate Has No Place in Black America. Let's Remind Him in November.

We are seven months out from the most consequential election in our nation’s history, and Black voters know what’s up: A recent survey conducted by Black pollster Cornell Belcher’s firm asked 800 Black voters in battleground states to identify the single greatest threat to the Black community.

Their answer? A second Donald Trump presidency.

We should not be surprised by this finding. Trump is prepared to enact – and in many cases, reenact – policies that will do great harm to the Black community and to communities of color. He is expected to authorize mass deportations, wage war on the federal civil service (of which Black employees comprise 18 percent), cut taxes for the rich at the expense of the middle class, fight to make healthcare more expensive and less accessible and support an abortion ban that will only worsen the maternal mortality crisis.

While we have focused a lot on what Trump would do during a second term with the stroke of his pen, we cannot forget about the damage he inflicted on our community as president without even lifting a finger. Over his four years in office, Trump normalized a culture of racism and xenophobia that trickled down from the highest levels of our government to everyday interactions in-person and online. The former president’s social media posts and speeches were laced with a mix of dog whistles and outright hate speech.

How could we ever forget his claim that the attendees of a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. were “very fine people?” Or when he ordered members of the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” after being asked to condemn the white nationalist militia group? Or when he suggested that four Democratic members of Congress – all women of color – should “go back…[to the] places from which they came” in a tweet that a Republican congressman even described as racist?

Coming from the mouth of the President of the United States, this kind of rhetoric signaled that hate did indeed have a place in his America and gave top cover to those who realized they no longer had to keep their racism under wraps.

Consequently, racial violence skyrocketed during Trump’s presidency. In fact, this trend started before he even took office. The Washington Post found that counties that hosted a Trump rally in 2016 experienced a 226 percent increase in hate crimes in the months that followed. From 2016 to 2017, hate crimes across the country increased by 17 percent. From 2018 to 2019, deadly hate crimes more than doubled. And in 2020, more hate crimes were reported than in any year since 2001. Perhaps unsurprisingly, alleged civil rights violations went under-investigated under Trump’s DOJ. During its first two years, the Trump DOJ opened 60 percent fewer civil rights cases than did the Obama DOJ and 50 percent fewer than the Bush DOJ.

For those who think that the extent of the harm inflicted by Trump’s racism can be fully captured in those statistics, think again. In a multitude of ways, the Black community continues to suffer from the flames of hatred that Trump fanned while he was president. For example, racism is exacerbating the Black mental health crisis: Black youth experienced a 144 percent increase in suicide rates from 2007 to 2020, with both institutional and interpersonal racism identified as strong risk factors driving this trend.

While Trump was president for only a portion of that period, he was active in spreading racism – including promoting the Barack Obama birtherism lie – for almost the entirety of it.

Speaking of Obama, the election of our nation’s first Black president helps us understand why the election of Trump – which once seemed unthinkable – was actually an inevitable reaction to Black progress. Study after study has pointed to racial resentment as a significant driver of the support Trump received from his voters. His base wanted trickle-down racism, and trickle-down racism is what they got.

Fast forward to today, and like any other proverbial old dog, Trump is clearly stuck on his old tricks. On the campaign trail this time around, he has already evoked Hitler, saying that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of our country, and suggesting that Black voters appreciate him because he is being “discriminated against” in the legal system. Naturally, Republicans have made him their nominee for the third time. But while he might speak for their party, we do not have to let him speak for our country. Not again.

In 2016, Trump promised his supporters the ability to hate openly with impunity, and he most certainly delivered. Now, he’s ready to do it all over again. And while it might be tempting to give into fear and cynicism, we should take hope in recognizing that thanks to our community showing up for Joe Biden in 2020, we helped elect a president who is committed to aggressively prosecuting hate crimes, who has appointed judges with a respect for civil rights, and who recognizes that “hate never goes away, it only hides.”

Donald Trump has never hidden his hate. This fall, let’s show him once again that it has no place in our America.

#Donald Trump's Hate Has No Place in Black America. Let's Remind Him in November. #trump #white supremacy #white hate #white lies #american hate #homegrown racism #race #race in america

[intersexcat-tboy]

Examining Miscalculations and Intersex Definitions Regarding Sax's .018% Claim

The debate surrounding the definition of intersex and their characteristics has been a topic of debate within various professional fields, advocacy organizations, and studies for decades. Amidst this discourse includes a response from Dr. Leonard Sax, who claims to provide a "clinician's standpoint" despite lacking specialized expertise in these conditions, having only served as a primary care physician.

However, his arguments stand in stark contrast to those of Fausto-Sterling, a world-renowned professor of biology and gender studies. Furthermore, they diverge significantly from the consensus among major health associations, medical organizations, intersex rights groups, and human rights organizations.

Leading/Major Health Associations

The definition of intersex is resoundingly clear among leading health associations. The World Health Organization recognizes that intersex individuals are those "born with natural variations in biological or physiological characteristics, including sexual anatomy, reproductive organs, and/or chromosomal patterns that do not fit traditional definitions of male or female." Similarly, the National Institute of Health acknowledges individuals who are "born with, or who develop naturally in puberty, biological sex characteristics that are not typically male or female." The National Health Services emphasizes that intersex "involves genes, hormones, and reproductive organs, including genitals, and a person's physical sex development can differ internally, externally, or both."

Major/Leading Medical Associations

Major medical associations provide crucial insights into the understanding of intersex variations. The The American Medical Association adopts a broader definition, recognizing those with "a congenital condition with inconsistent chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomic sex development." Likewise, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (PDF - which trains and accredits physicians in Australia and New Zealand) recognizes the significance of "congenital variations in a person's physical, hormonal, or genetic characteristics that do not match strict medical definitions of female or male sex." Additionally, the Center for Disease Control highlights the concept of "variations in physical sex characteristics, including anatomy, hormones, chromosomes, or other traits, that differ from expectations generally associated with male and female bodies." The International Symposium on Disorders of Sex Development notes there to be over 40 conditions

Leading Intersex Rights organizations

Intersex rights organizations, including Intersex Human Rights of Australia and Brújula Intersexual in Mexico, explicitly disagree with Dr. Leonard Sax's narrow definition of intersex individuals. They align themselves with more inclusive perspectives. For instance, Intersex Society of North America (working with) InterACT still use Fausto-Sterling's estimates over a decade later. Intersex Campaign for Equality in the United States also uses Sterling's estimates, believing the figures may even be higher than 2%. Intersex Asia and Intersex Russia both use estimates ranging from 0.5%-1.7%, Russia even including PCOS by name (which would be higher than 1.7%). InterAction from Germany's Intersex Rights suggests a range of 1-2 individuals per 100 births, highlighting how the medical community tries to "keep the frequency as extremely low as possible". Stop Intersex Mutilations from France posits there are over 40 variations and also suggests the prevalence might surpass 1.7%. Additionally, OII Europe presents prevalence estimates of 1:200 and 1.7% in their materials.

These organizations stress that intersex variations encompass a wide spectrum of biological and physiological characteristics beyond chromosomal ambiguity, challenging Sax's limited viewpoint.

Major human rights organizations

unequivocally support intersex individuals. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasizes that intersex individuals are "born with a wide range of natural variations in their sex characteristics that don't fit the typical definition of male or female." Amnesty International notes that intersex encompasses "a wide umbrella of natural variations" (1.7%) and human rights abuses faced by intersex individuals. Human Rights Watch and the Human Rights Campaign underline the broader definition of intersex, acknowledging variations in genitalia, chromosomes, gonads, internal sex organs, hormone production, hormone response, and secondary sex traits, noting 1.7% as a prevalence rate. These human rights organizations underscore the importance of acknowledging intersex variations to ensure the protection of human rights.

Other Medical Orgs

Additional medical organizations like the Société Internationale d'Urologie (PDF) (an international professional organization dedicated to the field of urology), and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (uses 1.7%, says sex is not based on chromosones) adopt definitions that align with broader medical perspectives, they recognize the complexities of intersex conditions and advocate for understanding beyond binary definitions. Furthermore, the Endocrine Society acknowledges CAH to be part of a continuum of disorders, acknowledging the variations in severity.

Examining oversights: Discrepancies in Calculations

What's interesting is that even within Sax's own criteria, defining intersex as when 'the chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female,' there's an evident inclusion of conditions like 'sex reversals' and ambiguous genitalia. However, Sax overlooks contributors such as mixed gonadal dysgenesis (MGD), as well as Swyer Syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome, despite the former being the second leading cause of ambiguous genitalia.

Let's do the math

CAH (.0077) + CAIS (.0076) = .0153

+ ovotestes (.0012) + Idiopathic (.0009) = .0174

+ PAIS (.00076) = .01816

Fausto-Sterling includes de la Chapelle syndrome and MGD, although not as separate statistics. MGD is amalgamated with Turner's statistics, and de la Chapelle syndrome is grouped with other sex chromosome variations. However, Sax completely disregards these conditions when he discards several categories from his estimates, effectively throwing out qualifying numbers and ignoring their potential impact on the overall prevalence of intersex conditions.

While newer studies suggest a prevalence of .004 for MGD, we also have to consider that neither study includes Swyer Syndrome (+.00125), and PAIS is now recognized as at least as common as CAIS, with the latter being less likely to cause ambiguous genitalia at birth, and more likely to be identified in childhood.

The leading causes of ambiguous genitalia are CAH (.0077), PAIS (.00076), MGD (.005) and ovotestes (.0012), which places us just below (.01466) the ambiguous genitalia observed at birth from Mothers And Babies Reports from Australia, if we account for 15% (0.0006) of de la Chapelle births having ambiguous genitalia, it brings ambiguous genitalia at birth to a total of .015% found before.

If he includes CAH, PAIS (since CAIS is often not identified until childhood), ovotestes and idiopathic causes under his definition of intersex, it leaves us with .005% of births with ambiguous genitalia without a possible causing condition. This gap can easily be explained by his exclusion of MGD and de la Chapelle syndrome.

If we count only CAIS (.0076) and CAH (.0077), and the newer study estimate of de la Chapelle (.004), it already surpasses Sax's estimate at .0193.

With the addition of ovotestes (.0012) and idiopathic (.0009) we get .0214. With older estimates of PAIS (.00086), .022%; with newer ones (.0076), .029%. Adding in Sawyer syndrome brings us to .03, which is over two thirds an increase of Sax's original estimate.

There is overwhelming support for a more comprehensive understanding of intersex variations that emphasizes the importance of respecting a wide range of biological and physiological characteristics beyond mere genital and chromosomal definitions. This approach is essential in safeguarding human rights and ensuring equitable treatment for all individuals

TLDR;;

The collective stance of experts and organizations, spanning from health associations to human rights advocates, sharply contrasts with the limited definition created by Sax. He claims to know other clinicians' thoughts, without any evidence to back it up. As stated previously, he also lacks education and clinical experience on intersex individuals, he is a family doctor.

#intersex studies #actually intersex #intersex activism #intersex awareness #intersex discussion #intersex issues #intersex erasure #intersex theory #intersex things #intersex #purrspectives #intersex advocacy #queer activism #queer stuff #queer tag #intersex tag

[reasoningdaily]

What systemic racism has done to health care in america

What systemic racism has done to health care in america - Reality Ausetkmt 04/13/2023

Today, the discussion about biases in health care is becoming a flashpoint for resolution. Many minority communities in America do not have adequate health care. There are often very few resources extended into these communities, mostly due to financial bias against them. This is why we label it systemic racism.

Systemic racism is a complex and multifaceted issue that has a profound impact on the health care system in the United States. It manifests itself in a variety of ways, including:

Lack of access to health insurance: People of color are more likely to be uninsured or underinsured than white people. This is due to a number of factors, including lower incomes, higher rates of unemployment, and discrimination by insurance companies.

Inadequate access to quality care: Even when people of color have health insurance, they are more likely to experience delays in getting care, receive lower-quality care, and be hospitalized for preventable conditions. This is due to a number of factors, including racial bias among health care providers, lack of cultural competency among providers, and the concentration of minority populations in underserved communities.

Health disparities: People of color experience a disproportionate burden of chronic diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes. They are also more likely to die prematurely from these diseases.

The impact of systemic racism on health care is significant and far-reaching. It contributes to health disparities, reduces the quality of care, and increases the cost of health care for people of color.

There are a number of things that can be done to address systemic racism in the health care system. These include:

Expanding access to health insurance: This would ensure that everyone has the ability to get the care they need, regardless of their income or employment status.

Investing in underserved communities: This would improve the quality of care available in communities where people of color are disproportionately concentrated.

Addressing racial bias among health care providers: This would help to ensure that all patients receive the same quality of care, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

Promoting cultural competency among health care providers: This would help providers to better understand the needs of patients from different cultural backgrounds.

Addressing systemic racism in the health care system is essential to ensuring that everyone has access to quality, affordable care. It is also a matter of social justice. Everyone deserves the opportunity to live a healthy life, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

In addition to the above, there are a number of other things that can be done to address systemic racism in the health care system. These include:

Raising awareness of the issue: Many people are unaware of the extent to which systemic racism affects the health care system. By raising awareness of the issue, we can help to build support for change.

Holding health care providers and institutions accountable: When health care providers or institutions engage in discriminatory practices, they should be held accountable. This can help to send a message that discrimination will not be tolerated.

Supporting organizations that are working to address systemic racism: There are a number of organizations that are working to address systemic racism in the health care system. By supporting these organizations, we can help to make a difference.

Systemic racism is a complex and challenging issue, but it is one that we must address if we want to create a more just and equitable health care system. By working together, we can make a difference.

here are a few national organizations working to address systemic bias in health care in America:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): The ACLU is a non-profit organization that works to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The ACLU's Health Justice Project works to ensure that all people have access to quality, affordable health care, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or immigration status.

National Medical Association (NMA): The NMA is the nation's oldest and largest organization of African American physicians and medical students. The NMA's mission is to promote the health and well-being of African Americans and all people through advocacy, education, and service. The NMA's Health Equity Task Force works to address systemic racism in the health care system.

National Hispanic Medical Association (NHMA): The NHMA is the nation's largest and oldest organization representing Hispanic physicians and medical students. The NHMA's mission is to improve the health and well-being of Hispanic Americans through advocacy, education, and service. The NHMA's Health Equity Task Force works to address systemic racism in the health care system.

National Urban League (NUL): The NUL is a civil rights organization that works to empower African Americans to achieve economic parity, social justice, and full citizenship. The NUL's Health Policy Institute works to ensure that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care.

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (JCPES): The JCPES is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that conducts research on issues affecting African Americans and other minority groups. The JCPES's Health Policy Institute works to improve the health and well-being of African Americans and other minority groups.

#what systemic racism has done to health care in america #systemic racism #biases #health care biases #Reality Ausetkmt

[mariacallous]

Moments before the kickoff of the 118th United States Congress in January, incoming GOP leaders ripped down Nancy Pelosi’s post-insurrection magnetometers, which had stopped at least one Republican, Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, from entering the House floor with a handgun. The first meeting of the House Natural Resources Committee, held on February 1, devolved into partisan vitriol as Republicans reversed an explicit ban on members bringing firearms into their hearings. Soon, AR-15 pins started popping up on rank-and-file lapels. Then, two weeks later, a bill was introduced to make the mass-shooter-approved AR-15 the “national gun of the United States.”

This may be Joe Biden’s Washington, but the US Capitol appears to be, once again, under the firm grip of the gun lobby. With repeated threats of federal government defaults and shutdowns consuming Washington throughout 2023, little attention has been paid to specific agency-by-agency spending proposals, including a House Republican proposal to zero out funding for gun violence research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That effort, part of a House appropriations bill, was postponed after Congress passed a short-term extension to fund the federal government into early next year. But that doesn't mean it won't return then, with powerful Republican lawmakers painting the CDC's research as overtly partisan.

“I think it may have a political component, and that's my concern,” Representative Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican, tells WIRED. He’s known as a cardinal on Capitol Hill because he chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, which is tasked with producing the nation’s largest domestic funding measure, including control of the CDC’s budget, each year.

The powerful appropriator isn’t thoroughly versed in the gun violence research his subcommittee is trying to defund, but Aderholt is skeptical anyway. “If it were just honest, innocent research, then I wouldn’t have a problem,” Aderholt says. “But I have some concerns with the way that it’s being handled under this administration.”

Thing is, no one really knows what story the CDC research will tell. It’s only been around for three years after nearly a quarter-century of congressional prohibition under the 1996 Dickey Amendment, which essentially barred the CDC from examining the roots of the uniquely American scourge of gun violence.

“This is about public health,” Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the labor committee, tells WIRED. “We haven’t had it for 20 years. Think about all the research that was done about seatbelts and prevention. So I think about what’s happening with the uptick in gun violence, which is unbelievable … we need to do the research to help us be able to prevent that.”

In 2018, lawmakers upended the Dickey Amendment, explicitly clarifying that the will of Congress is for the CDC to research the contemporary weaponization of America. But federal dollars—which, contrary to GOP concerns, are still strictly forbidden from being used to promote gun control—didn’t start flowing to researchers until 2021. Democrats have pushed for $50 million annually to research America’s second-leading cause of death for people 18 years old or younger. (The first is motor vehicle accidents, which Congress devoted $109.7 million to research in the 2022 fiscal year.) But for the past three years, they’ve only been able to squeeze $25 million a year—split between the CDC and National Institutes of Health—out of Republican senators.

With more than 39,000 gun-related deaths so far in 2023, according to the Gun Violence Archive, America’s on pace to endure another record-setting amount of carnage by year’s end, which you wouldn’t know from the giddily gun-friendly mood on the House side of the Capitol. “I think the Republicans are just nuts on this, you know, the extremes,” Mike Thompson, a Democratic representative from California, tells WIRED. Nuts or not, Republicans control the House.

Even through the tears stemming from America’s recent uptick in gun violence—including homicides, suicides, and mass shootings—the past three years have been an exciting time for researchers in this space, because when the federal government leads, university research follows. The two-plus decades drought has rippled through academia.

“People weren't going into this field because you couldn't make a career in it,” Andrew Morral, who runs RAND Corporation’s Gun Policy in America Initiative, tells WIRED. “It’s the kind of thing where it takes a fair amount of research before you start getting believable findings. I mean, you can have a study or two that show something, but in social science, it's very hard for one or two studies to persuade anyone.”

Morral is also director of the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, which is philanthropically endowed with $21 million earmarked for firearm violence prevention research. A few years back, he led a conference with “30 to 100 people.” At the start of the month, when they held their annual meeting in Chicago, there were 750 attendees, including some 300 presenters whose studies ranged from how “guns provide access to sources of life meaning” for some Floridians to whether there’s any correlation between heat waves and shootings.

“A lot of new questions are being asked and new ways of looking at things—this just wasn't possible five years ago,” Morral says. “There [are] people coming into the field now, and that's what the money is doing. It's making it possible to get this field launched. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit here, but it's going to take a lot of research to start getting persuasive findings and it's starting to happen.”

In the wake of horrific mass shootings at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and a grocery store in a predominantly Black neighborhood of Buffalo, New York, last year, before the GOP recaptured the House, Congress passed the sweeping Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), aimed at improving the nation’s background check system, stymieing gun traffickers, protecting domestic violence survivors, and enhancing mental health services in local communities and schools from coast to coast.

The measure includes billions for mental health, $250 million for community violence intervention programs, and $300 million for violence prevention in the nation’s schools. It also recognizes the federal deficiency in school safety research by creating a Federal School Safety Clearinghouse, envisioned as a repository for the best “evidence-based” research for keeping violence off American school grounds.

That best-practices clearinghouse for schools was a GOP-sponsored provision that made it into the BSCA, but, as WIRED reported last summer, studying gun violence wasn’t a part of negotiations on the measure aimed at curbing gun violence. This latest effort by House Republicans to effectively bar the CDC from researching gun violence has social scientists worried about the real-life consequences of turning off the federal funding tap again. The two Senate Republicans who negotiated the BSCA aren’t worried.

“People misuse research every day,” Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, tells WIRED. The other Republican who had a seat at the head table for last summer’s gun negotiations is one of minority leader Mitch McConnell’s top lieutenants, John Cornyn of Texas—a leading contender for replacing the ailing GOP leader in the Senate—who shrugs off CDC gun violence research. “I don't think there's any shortage of research in that area,” Cornyn tells WIRED. But he bifurcates gun violence research from gun violence prevention. “We haven't been able to figure out how to solve all the crimes. Basically, we've tried to deter them, we've tried to investigate and prosecute them, but we haven't been able to figure out how to prevent them. So that's the basic problem, I think.”

Democrats agree. They also say the reason for that “basic problem” is clear: The CDC—through the chilling effect the federal prohibition had on academia over 24 years—has failed to foster a robust research environment to accompany America’s robust gun culture. But Democrats aren’t looking to pass reforms this Congress. Sure, they want to. But the House is barely performing at its normal rate of functional-dysfunctionality these days (just ask newly-former House speaker Kevin McCarthy). Senate Democrats are willing to have a gun violence prevention debate, but as of now, many say there’s no reason to try and debate House Republicans.

“They're not writing bills that are designed to pass the Senate in order to get signed by the president. They're literally throwing red meat to the fringe on every conceivable issue. That's just not serious,” Senator Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat who was at the center of last summer’s gun reform negotiations, tells WIRED. “At some point, they're going to have to figure out how to pass a bill with us, but they haven't reached that space yet.”

[ebookporn]

Here is the letter:

Dear Textbook Publishers:

We are deeply troubled by the news of some textbook publishers yielding to the unreasonable demands of certain government representatives calling for the censorship of school educational materials, specifically textbooks. We write to you out of concern that those who are charged with supporting the education of this country’s students, such as yourselves, may be tempted to water down critical information to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

We urge any company who has not yet given in to this pressure to hold the line for our democracy. Our country’s future is at stake. You hold enormous influence in shaping how our great nation’s history is told, and the consequences of your actions will reverberate for generations to come. Honestly grappling with our legacy has long been a cornerstone of American patriotism.

If we are to continue striving for a more perfect union, then we must carry out our duty of ensuring future generations understand our full history as well as the contributions of all its people. That includes learning from our mistakes. These lessons are vital to preparing our youth to fully engage in a free and fair democracy.

Sanitizing our educational texts for the mercurial comfort of a few today ultimately limits the next generation’s ability to make informed decisions for themselves. Moreover, the negative impact that censorship and book-banning has on this nation’s students – many already marginalized and underrepresented in society – cannot be overstated during a time when we are facing an unprecedented youth mental health crisis. Each and every single student in the United States of America has the right to exist, to be seen, and to be represented. It is an important priority of our administrations to ensure that any educational materials censored to appeal to political pressure do not negatively impact our educational goals and values in our states.

As such, please know that we will be working closely with all of our school districts to ensure they are fully informed of which texts include comprehensive and accurate educational information – and which have been inappropriately censored – when they consider procurement of instructional materials for the nearly nine million students our states serve.

The letter was sent to the following publishers: Cengage Learning, Goodheart-Willcox, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw Hill Education, Pearson, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, Savvas Learning Co., Scholastic and Teachers Curriculum Institute.

#censorship #banned books #education #librarians #teachers #book publishing #textbooks

[collapsedsquid]

Maier’s book offers a new solution to this enigma. In his view, all the classical categories used to describe the twentieth-century state miss its central feature: its orientation around the notion of a project, which could weld business interests, the general population, and state bureaucrats under a single, long-term time horizon. What united Roosevelt’s America, Stalin’s Russia, Attlee’s Britain, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, and Nkrumah’s Ghana, then, was not a diffuse totalitarianism or developmental ideology. Rather, it was their status as project states, which all “had a transformative agenda . . . based on authoritarian and even totalitarian as well as liberal and democratic coalitions seeking to reform sclerotic institutions or societies that seemed unacceptably unequal.” Project states thereby tended to “see society as a plasmic whole, sometimes in terms of elites and masses, knowable and controllable through statistical science, biological and legal interventions.” The specimen did not come without ancestors, of course—in Maier’s view, Napoleonic France and the wartime organization of the U.S. federal government in 1861 already exhibited embryonic signs of a later project state—yet “as a continuing and nonexceptional form of polity,” the new creature only “came into its own in the twentieth century.” Maier’s category thereby demarcates and unifies. The notion of a “project state” allows us to understand what Mao, Hitler, De Gaulle, Attlee, and Nkrumah had in common. Yet it also clearly separates the twentieth-century state from its pre-1914 antecedents. Although Maier’s state never fully abolished capital, it did have a productively agonistic relationship with it: it was able to both discipline and repel those that controlled investment and to direct or claim those resources for itself. It was a state made for and by warfare, yet not exclusively so. To the disgust of neoliberals and New Leftists, it had an eternally uneasy relationship with the public-private divide, both on the social and on the economic front, encouraging higher birth rates while compiling calorific tables. Above all, it was pitted against the nineteenth-century nightwatchman state, both as a reality and as a metaphor; public authority was to turn itself from a mere facilitator of economic commerce into an active choreographer of social movements. As Maier notes, the hustle and bustle of the traffic jam was replaced by the “ordered direction of the Riefenstahlian march”; under its baldaquin, masses would gather for coordination and instruction, in a rage for order that ran across the whole interwar period. Maier’s concept does not rule out internal differ­entiation, of course: “creating the fascist man who would live as a lion and not as a jackal was a different project than raising out of poverty ‘one third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished,’” and Stalin was surprised to see Churchill switch office with Attlee when negotiating the postwar order. Still, all its forms took an energetic, even invasive interest in the populations that fell under their control: the project state built the National Health Service, transported prisoners to Kolyma, incinerated Dresden and Nagasaki, birthed cybernetics and nuclear power, reduced infant mortality, and cartelized the coal industries. Here was an entity “addicted to transformative agendas,” with a lifespan as short as it was eventful: born somewhere between 1914 and 1929, gone between 1973 and 1991. By the close of the 1980s, Maier admits, the project state had given up on its project and was no longer capable of controlling the forces of private capital. It slowly gave up the role of sculpting society, instead leaving the field open to self-experimentation and the emerging entrepreneurs of the self. In the historian’s view, its “audacity repelled many at the time and certainly social historians in the century since, but the ambitions constituted a major historical force and deserve empathetic understanding.”

[popolitiko]

What Are Indigenous Populations? By Kendra Cherry, MSEd * January 04, 2021 Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book." Fact checked by Adah Chung

Table of Contents

What Are Indigenous Populations?

Identifying Indigenous Groups

Why It’s Important

Indigenous Rights and Issues

How to Learn More

Indigenous people make up an estimated 5% of the world's population.1 While they have different backgrounds, cultures, and traditions, they often have a shared history of being uprooted and forced from their ancestral lands.

Along with this, many face marginalization and discrimination in various forms including being prevented or denied the ability to live their traditions, express their cultures, and even speak their language.

In order to understand many of the unique issues that Indigenous populations face, it is essential to gain a better understanding and awareness of Indigenous peoples, their history, and their cultures.

What Are Indigenous Populations?

According to the World Health Organization, Indigenous populations identify as part of a distinct group or are descended from people who originate in areas that were their traditional lands that existed prior to the establishment of modern-day borders.2

Indigenous populations, often also referred to as Indigenous peoples, are distinct cultural and social groups that share ancestral connections to lands where they live or peoples from an area where they have been displaced. Indigenous people are the original inhabitants of a geographical area or country before people from other countries or cultures arrived.

After arrival, these new inhabitants eventually gained dominance of the area, often through settlement, occupation, or conquest.3

In North America, Indigenous people were often forcibly removed from their ancestral lands or assimilated into the mainstream culture. Examples of this include the forcible resettlement of Indigenous people onto reservations in the United States, and the use of residential schools to assimilate Indigenous children in Canada. 

Some Indigenous populations found in different areas of the world include:

Native Americans of the United States

First Nations and Métis of Canada

Sammi of Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark

Maori of New Zealand

Kurds of Western Asia

Maasai of East Africa

Indigenous populations often share social identities, cultural traditions, political institutions, and economic practices that are distinct from those of the now dominant culture of the region.

Identifying Indigenous Groups

When learning about Indigenous populations, it is important to...

#Indigenous Populations #Indigenous People #Indigenous cultures

[todaysdocument]

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity . . . “ On 6/23/1972, Title IX was signed.

Series: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789 - 2013

Record Group 11: General Records of the United States Government, 1778 - 2006

Transcription: 

Ninety-second Congress of the United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the eighteenth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-two

An Act

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the General Education Provisions Act (creating a National Foundation for Postsecondary Education and a National Institute of Education), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress, and related Acts, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Education Amendments of 1972".

General Provisions 

SEC. 2 (a)  As used in this Act-

         (1) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare: and 

         (2) the term "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Education;

unless the context requires another meaning.

  (b)  Unless otherwise specified, the redesignation of a section, subsection, or other designation by any amendment in this Act shall include the redesignation of any reference to such section, subsection, or other designation in any Act or regulation, however styled. 

 (c)  (1) Unless otherwise specified, each provision of this Act and each amendment made by this Act shall be effective after June 30, 1972, and with respect to appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and succeeding fiscal years.

 (2)  Unless otherwise specified, in any case where an amendment made by this Act is to become effective after a date set herein, it shall be effective with the beginning of the day which immediately follows the date after which such amendment is effective.

 (3)  In any case where the effective date for an amendment made by this Act is expressly stated to be effective after June 30, 1971, such amendment shall be deemed to have been enacted on July 1, 1971.

TITLE I - HIGHER EDUCATION 

PART A - COMMUNITY SERVICE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

SEC. 101.  (a) Section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out all that follows "authorized to be appropriated" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "$10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $40,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975.".

     (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective after June 30, 1971.

SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS RELATING TO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROBLEMS 

SEC. 102. (a) (1)  Sections 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, and 111 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and all references thereto, are redesignated as sections 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, and 112, respectively.  Title I of such Act is amended by inserting after section 105 the following new section:

[page 2]

S. 659-138

APPLICATION OF PROVISO OF SECTION 407 (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 providing in substance that no court or official of the United States shall be empowered to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing power of the court to insure compliance with constitutional standards shall apply to all public school pupils and every public school system, public school and public school board, as defined by title IV, under all circumstances and conditions and at all times in every State, district, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States regardless of whether the residence of such public. school or public school board is situated in the northern, eastern, western, or southern part of the United States.

[centered] TITLE IX -- PROHIBITION OF SEX DISCRIMINATION [/centered]

[centered] SEX DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED [/centered]

Sec. 901.  (a)  No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that:

(1)  in regard to admissions to educational institutions, this section shall apply only to institutions of vocational education, professional education, and graduate higher education, and to public institutions of undergraduate higher education;

(2)  in regard to admissions to educational institutions, this section shall not apply (A)  for one year from the date of enactment of this Act, nor for six years after such date in the case of an educational institution which has begun the process of changing from being an institution which admits only students of one sex to being an institution which admits students of both sexes, but only if it is carrying out a plan for such a change which is approved by the Commissioner of Education or (B)  for seven years from the date an educational institution begins the process of changing from being an institution which admits only students of only one sex to being an institution which admits only students of both sexes, but only if it carrying out a plan for such a change which is approved by the Commissioner of Education, whichever is the later;

(3)  this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization;

(4)  this section shall not apply to an educational institution whose primary purpose is the training of individuals for the military services of the United States, or the merchant marine; and 

(5)  in regard to admissions this section shall not apply to any public institution of undergraduate higher education which is an institution that traditionally and continually from its establishment has had a policy of admitting only students of one sex.

(b)  Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section shall be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of an

[page 3]

[centered] S. 659 -- 139 [/centered]

imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of that sex participating in or receiving the benefits of any federally supported program or activity, in comparison with the total number of percentage of persons of that sex in any community, State, section, or other area:  Provided.  That this subsection shall not be construed to prevent the consideration in any hearing or proceeding under this title of statistical evidence tending to show that such an imbalance exists with respect to the participation in, or receipt of the benefits of, any such program or activity by the members of one sex.

(c)  For purposes of this title an educational institution means any public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school, or any institution vocational, professional, or higher education, except that in the case of an educational institution composed of more than one school, college, or department which are administratively separate units, such term means each such school, college, or department.

[centered] FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT [/centered]

SEC. 902.  Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any education program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 901 with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.  No such rule, regulation, or order shall become effective unless and until approved by the President.  Compliance with any requirement adopted pursuant to this section may be effected (1)  by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance under such program or activity to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure to comply with such requirement, but such termination or refusal shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other recipient as to whom such a finding has been made, and shall be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found, or (2)  by any other means authorized by law:  Provided, however, That no such action shall be taken until the department or agency concerned has advised the appropriate person or persons of the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.  In the case of any action terminating, or refusing to grant or continue, assistance because of failure to comply with a requirement imposed pursuant to this section, the head of the Federal department or agency shall file with the committees of the House and Senate having legislative jurisdiction over the program or activity involved a full written report of the circumstances and the grounds for such action.  No such action shall become effective until thirty days have elapsed after the filing of such report.

[centered] JUDICIAL REVIEW [/centered]

SEC. 903.  Any department or agency action taken pursuant to section 1002 shall be subject to such judicial review as may otherwise be provided by law for similar action taken by such department or agency on other grounds.  In the case of action, not otherwise subject to judicial review, terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance upon a finding of failure to comply with any requirement imposed pursuant to section 902, any person aggrieved (including any State or political subdivision thereof and any agency of either) may obtain judicial review of such action in accordance

#archivesgov #June 23 #1972 #1970s #Title IX #Title Nine #women's history #education

[dertaglichedan]

In a significant blow to patient autonomy, informed consent has been quietly revoked just 77 years after it was codified in the Nuremberg Code.

On the 21st of December 2023, as we were frantically preparing for the festive season, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final ruling to amend a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act. This allowed

…an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than a minimal risk to the human subject…

This ruling went into effect on January 22nd, 2024, which means it’s already standard practice across America.

So, what is the 21st Century Cures Act? It is a controversial Law enacted by the 114th United States Congress in January 2016 with strong support from the pharmaceutical industry. The Act was designed to

…accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st-century cures, and for other purposes [?]…[emphasis added]

Some of the provisions within this Act make for uncomfortable reading. For example, the Act supported:

High-risk, high-reward research [Sec. 2036].

Novel clinical trial designs [Sec. 3021]

Encouraging vaccine innovation [Sec. 3093].

This Act granted the National Institutes of Health (NIH) legal protection to pursue high-risk, novel vaccine research. A strong case could be made that these provisions capture all the necessary architecture required for much of the evil that transpired over the past four years.

[xlntwtch2]

ap news 11/12/23 from this article...

Trump would ... strip tens of thousands of career employees of their civil service protections. That way, they could be fired as he seeks to “totally obliterate the deep state.”

... he would ...undertake the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. He would target people who are legally living in the United States but harbor “jihadist sympathies” and revoke the student visas of those who espouse anti-American and antisemitic views.

... U.S.-Mexico border, Trump says he will move thousands of troops currently stationed overseas and shift federal agents, including those at the Drug Enforcement Administration and FBI, to immigration enforcement. ...more border wall.

His aim: bar “dangerous lunatics, haters, bigots, and maniacs,” as well as those who “empathize with radical Islamic terrorists and extremists.”

...he has said he would end birthright citizenship..

...he will institute ... system of tariffs of perhaps 10% on most foreign goods. .... proposed a four-year plan to phase out Chinese imports of essential goods, including electronics, steel and pharmaceuticals. he will force Chinese owners to sell any holdings “that jeopardize America’s national security.”...

...claims .. before he is inaugurated, he will have settled the war between Russia and Ukraine. That includes, he says, ending the “endless flow of American treasure to Ukraine” and asking European allies to reimburse the U.S. for the cost of rebuilding stockpiles.

...he will stand with Israel in its war with Hamas and support Israel’s efforts to “destroy” the militant group. He says he will continue to “fundamentally reevaluate” NATO’s purpose and mission.

..he will ask Congress to pass a bill establishing that “only two genders,” as determined at birth, are recognized by the United States.

...he will declare that hospitals and health care providers that offer transitional hormones or surgery no longer meet federal health and safety standards and will be blocked from receiving federal funds..

Under the mantra “DRILL, BABY, DRILL,” ... he would ramp up oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers.

...he will exit the Paris Climate Accords, end wind subsidies and eliminate regulations imposed and proposed by the Biden administration..

...pledged to terminate the Department of Education, ....he would cut funding for any school that has a vaccine or mask mandate ... promote prayer in public schools....“the nuclear family” including “the roles of mothers and fathers”...allow trained teachers to carry concealed weapons. ... federal funding so schools can hire veterans, retired police officers, and other trained gun owners as armed school guards.

...force the homeless off city streets... wants to bring back large mental institutions to reinstitutionalize those who are “severely mentally ill” or “dangerously deranged.”

...use federal government’s funding and prosecution authorities to strong-arm local governments.... use controversial policing measures such as stop-and-frisk ...police should be empowered to shoot suspected shoplifters in the act.

...called for the death penalty for drug smugglers and those who traffic women and children. ..also pledged a federal takeover of the nation’s capital, calling Washington a “dirty, crime-ridden death trap” unbefitting of the country.

#the Trump plans #ap news 11/12/23