#Partisan conflict | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 11 months

Text

Why are so many Californians homeless?

12% of Americans live in California — but 30% of homeless Americans, and 50% of unsheltered Americans, call California “home.” This is the source of endless schadenfreude from “red state” partisans, and is often waved as proof of the failure of liberal policies. But the real story is both more complicated — and simpler.

UCSF’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative’s “California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness” is the largest, best study of homelessness in California in some 30 years:

https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/our-studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness

Between Oct 2021 and Nov 2022, researchers surveyed a representative sample of 3,198 people, and conducted in-depth interviews with 365 more. They concluded that, contrary to popular folk-stories about “homeless migration” by out-of-staters seeking an easy life on California’s streets, “people experiencing homelessness in California are Californian.” Nine tenths of respondents were already living in California when they lost their housing.

It’s also not true that homeless people move to LA or San Francisco from out of town: three quarters of participants live in the same county they were living in when they lost their homes.

So California’s unsheltered and homeless people are Californians. They’re our neighbors. They are disproportionately racialized — 26% are Black, 12% are First Nations, and 35% are Latino. They are older: their median age is 47. They’ve been homeless for a long, long time: the median duration of homelessness is 22 months, and 36% of respondents were “chronically homeless.”

They are survivors of violence: 72% of them have experienced violent assaults in their lives; 24% have experienced sexual violence (that number goes up to 43% for cis women, and 74% for trans and nonbinary people).

They’re sick. 60% have a chronic illness. More than a third have some health condition that limits their daily living. 22% have a mobility limitation.

They’re also pregnant. A quarter of the participants who were assigned female at birth had been pregnant during their current episode of homelessness.

66% are experiencing mental illness. 48% have serious depression, 51% have anxiety, 37% have trouble concentrating, and 12% experience hallucinations.

Only 9% have received any mental health counseling.

They take drugs — but at fairly low levels. 31% take meth regularly. 11% take opioids. 16% binge drink.

They are in trouble with the law and also at risk of being victims of criminal violence. A third have been to jail at least once during their current homeless episode. 38% have been assaulted while homeless (10% of homeless people surveyed experienced sexual violence).

So how did they end up homeless? It’s depressingly easy.

It starts with getting evicted. For leaseholders in the survey, the median amount of notice they had that they would lose their homes is ten days. For non-leaseholders, the median amount of notice was less than one day.

Homeless people are poor before they become homeless. Many people’s last home was a “non-leaseholder” arrangement — they were people who lost their rented homes and moved in with family or friends. For these people, the median wage in the six months before they lost their homes was $950/month. While 43% of non-leaseholders weren’t paying any rent, the remainder were paying a median rent of $450/month. Non-leaseholders have no legal rights, and often lived in “substandard and overcrowded conditions.”

For leaseholders, the median monthly income before losing their homes was $1400/month — but their median rent was $700/month.

When a leaseholder loses their home, the cause is usually economic — they can’t afford the rent. When a non-leaseholder loses their home, the cause is usually social — a conflict within the home or “not wanting to impose.”

People about to lose their homes turn to family and friends for help, but not for-profit or government agencies devoted to helping people in their situation. 70% of survey respondents believed they could have avoided homeless with a one-time cash payment of $5,000-$10,000. 90% say a Housing Choice Voucher would have kept them from becoming homeless.

20% of people who become homeless say it was because they lost some or all of their income — often because their car broke down or got towed and they could no longer get to work. Once homeless, most survey respondents seek work — but are unable to find it, due to age, lack of transportation, disability and lack of housing.

What can we do about this? 90% of respondents say the biggest barrier to finding a home is housing costs. Half say their bad credit makes it even harder to find a rental, while a third say their criminal records also get in the way. Half also say that all the affordable housing is unsafe, or too far from their communities or care providers.

The authors have a suite of policy recommendations. For starters, we can increase homelessness prevention by giving financial support and legal aid to people facing eviction. These can be offered at “service settings” like domestic violence services, and at “institutional exits” from jail and prison. We can also make it harder to evict people.

We can expand “low barrier” access to mental heath and addiction care. We can offer training and transportation support to people in precarious economic situations, as well as help in navigating the process to get benefits.

We can offer more services to people in unsheltered settings, and embrace a racial equity approach that recognizes the racialized nature of homelessness.

And finally: we can increase the availability of housing vouchers, and the stock of affordable housing.

This last one is long overdue. America treats housing as an asset rather than a human right, creating a world of haves and have-nots. The haves are dedicated to increasing the value of their assets by restricting the supply, and by reducing the protections offered to tenants (the more a landlord can extract from tenants, the more all houses are worth, because every time one goes up for sale the bidding includes landlords who are factoring in their ability to milk flush tenants and evict broke ones):

https://gen.medium.com/the-rents-too-damned-high-520f958d5ec5

In California, the meager supply of low-income housing has been gobbled up by Airbnb, and also by unscrupulous landlords who illegally convert their low-income housing into boutique hotels, with no fear of punishment from toothless, gutless enforcers:

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-la-failed-stop-landlords-turning-low-cost-housing-hotels

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/12/because-its-too-expensive/#rents-too-damned-high

[Image ID: A homeless person's tent under a freeway underpass. From it emerges the bear from the California state flag.]

Image: Wonderlane (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/71401718@N00/34328251571

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

#pluralistic #san francisco #calpoli #california #scholarship #the rent's too damned high #homelessness #la #weaponized shelter #cash transfers #race

548 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 3 months

Text

Recently, Planned Parenthood released a statement on the Oct. 7th attacks and the broader conflict between Israel and Palestine. Their statement condemned Hamas’s attacks on civilians, and specifically condemned sexual assaults committed against Israeli women during the violence. They also noted how thousands of Palestinian women and children had been killed in Israel’s counteroffensive, stated the need for Palestinian women to maintain access to reproductive and maternal healthcare, and condemned both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

The social media reaction to such a balanced and empathetic statement? Furious, unrelenting anger.

The statement was quote-tweeted thousands of times by social media users outraged by the statement. Planned Parenthood was accused of spreading Israeli propaganda, ignoring Palestinian deaths and fabricating rape claims, and enabling genocide. These outraged users aren’t conservatives who always oppose Planned Parenthood—they’re progressives furious that an organization they normally support put out a statement they hated. Now there are calls to end donations and Planned Parenthood staffers are fighting with donors. Their own employees, affiliates and organizers are making public statements against them.

This outcome was predictable to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of social media dynamics. And it raises an obvious question—why release a statement at all?

Metastatic social justice

It’s actually quite common for organizations and activists to get into hot water these days by addressing areas outside their expertise. Trans activists in Vancouver loudly insisted there can be no Trans Liberation without Palestinian Liberation, which caused pushback all over Canada. Two years ago, New York City’s Pride organizations courted controversy by excluding LGBT police officers from the city’s Pride parade in the name of racial justice. There are YIMBY housing organizations taking a stand on abortion rights and climate organizations demanding a Federal Job Guarantee.

There’s a common theme here. Organizations that appear to be single-issue advocacy groups are increasingly commenting and taking stances on issues outside of their narrow focus. Activism is becoming more global in nature—if you are an activist for one cause, you’re expected to speak up about all causes now. It’s not enough to ‘stay in your lane’, you need to be protesting and advocating for all forms of social justice. Pro-choice advocacy is now part of your racial justice non-profit. Jobs packages are in your environmental bills. Your LGBT organization has a stance on ‘Defund The Police’ and your housing group has a stance on Israel/Palestine. Social justice is metastasizing.

This phenomenon has happened on the right as well—see the NRA transitioning from being a somewhat non-partisan group to essentially being an arm of the GOP—but it’s especially striking in the current progressive movement. There’s a real sense in which NYC Pride is no longer an LGBT advocacy organization, but rather an overall progressive social justice organization. That may sound like an exaggeration, but they kicked out a gay organization (the Gay Officers Action League) to accommodate another form of social justice. It’s the internal logic behind a LGBT Pride march excluding LGBT people.

This also explains the online fury at Planned Parenthood. Their statement was thoughtful and balanced, but deviated from the dominant and overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian progressive narrative. Their donors expect them to advocate not just for progressive goals in women’s health, but progressive goals everywhere.

This type of activist mission creep risks stunting the progress on the core issues that social justice advocates care about.

The downsides of missions creep

The urge towards mission creep comes from a reasonable place. If you care so deeply that you spend your free time (or your career!) as an activist for a particular issue, the odds are that you also have strong feelings on many other issues. You’re also likely to live in a bubble of activists and people who think like you, and so your conversations professionally and socially may often center around all sorts of political issues. But as an activist it’s important to remember that most people you’re trying to reach are not like you and don’t think like you.

The typical voter is over 50 and does not have a college degree. They also don’t think about politics all that much. They are far, far away from the mindset of a typical activist. And when they do have political opinions, those opinions are far more varied and haphazard than a committed political partisan would guess. I think a few minutes scrolling the twitter feed of the American Voter Bot is invaluable to understand how voters think. This bot takes real voters and profiles them in brief tweets. While some look as expected—a Democrat who supports gun control, for instance—many look like this:

Most people are a confusing mix of demographic signals, issue positions and partisan identification, and they rarely fit squarely within one political tribe. That’s the danger of turning a single-issue advocacy group into a generalized progressive messaging group—you’ll end up alienating a far wider group of potential allies than you realize.

If Issue Group X declares loud progressive positions not just on Issue X but also on gun control, abortion, Palestine, Medicare For All, trans rights, free trade and school prayer, they won’t attract a large diverse group of people who care about Issue X. They’ll end up attracting a narrow slice of progressive activists who are ideologically pristine enough to agree with them on every issue.

The ultimate result of activist mission creep is that your issue ceases to be something that people across the ideological spectrum can work together on. It becomes coded as a red tribe vs blue tribe issue, gets swallowed by the general culture war, and progress grinds to a halt as partisan warfare starts.

The most likely outcome of Planned Parenthood voicing an opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not that they make any difference at all towards that conflict. It’s that they alienate their own supporters with differing views on Israel/Palestine. They’ve undercut their own ability to make progress on reproductive care and reproductive rights for no gain.

One thing at a time

None of this is to say that individuals shouldn’t care about many issues at once—they obviously should. And general purpose ideological organizations can and should tackle many policy areas. But it’s a poor strategy for single-issue groups to try to become general purpose organizations. There are real benefits to staying in your lane.

One example of a movement that has done a reasonable job at this is the pro-housing YIMBY movement. While there are some instances of YIMBY groups straying from their purpose, for the most part they’ve done a good job staying narrowly focused, and that that focus has allowed them great success.

YIMBYism is a far more ideologically diverse movement than many people realize. There are conservative YIMBYs, neoliberal YIMBYs, Democratic YIMBYs, libertarian YIMBYs, and many left or socialist YIMBYs (although in true socialist tradition, some want to break away from the YIMBY label and create a sub-label PHIMBY). This isn’t just a feel good story about how conservatives and liberals can be friends—this has a real impact on YIMBYs getting things done. It’s part of why you see both Republican and Democratic officials at the local level working towards YIMBY solutions in different cities, and why those solutions can often pass without bitter partisan warfare. It’s why the YIMBY Act in Congress had Republican and Democratic co-sponsors. It’s why YIMBYs are scoring victories in blue states like California and red states like Montana.

This sort of thing matters. YIMBYs are a big tent and they’re getting things done. It’s hard enough to make real change happen on a single policy or a single issue. Whole movements try for years and still sometimes fail. Single-issue groups trying to address every issue at once aren’t going to succeed. The urge towards mission creep is strong, and too many groups are weakening their core strengths to address problems they can’t solve. Single-issue organizations shouldn’t burden themselves with having the answer to every question, with having a stance on every issue, and with having to be all things to all people. It’s ok not to comment. It’s ok to stay in your lane and just work on one problem. It’s ok to try to change the world just one issue at a time.

127 notes · View notes

contemplatingoutlander · 9 days

Text

In August [2020], the Senate Intelligence Committee reported in exhaustive detail how Russia sowed division in the United States and sought to meddle in the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump. Immediately, Republicans and Democrats battled over whether the Trump campaign had engaged in a “criminal conspiracy” with Russia, or “collusion,” or “cooperation,” or established “ties”—or whether, as the White House claimed, Trump was the victim of a massive liberal conspiracy. Years after 2016, Russian election interference continues to reap dividends for Moscow by turning American against American.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is particularly adept at psychological warfare because he has been practicing it for decades. He learned the art of destabilizing his opponents from the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police. Russia now uses the same techniques. However, it not only targets individuals; it torments entire countries. [...] The East German secret police developed a method known as "Zersetzung" or “decomposition” to stamp out rebellion without the use of overt force. The idea was to chip away at a dissident’s sanity so that he would lose the will to resist, or in the words of a Stasi guide, “[provoke] and [enforce] internal conflicts and contradictions within hostile-negative forces that fragment, paralyze, disorganize, and isolate” the opponent. The first step in a campaign was to identify the target’s weak spots—health, family, finances—then strike them over and over. [...] In recent years, Russia has reportedly used the methods of decomposition against individual journalists and diplomats. Putin’s real innovation has been to weaponize "Zersetzung" against countries. [...] Russia seeks to weaken a foreign adversary from the inside, paralyzing its ability to resist. It partners with a range of allies, such as oligarchs and journalists, and uses a diverse toolbox, including propaganda and cyber attacks. Moscow begins by locating the target country’s weakest point, whether it’s an ethnic, religious, or partisan cleavage. Then Russia manufactures a sense of distrust to destroy the social contract. Whereas the Stasi might break into a man’s apartment in the middle of the night and turn on his electric razor—just to freak him out—Moscow uses hackers and trolls to propagate conspiracy theories and cultivate a skepticism of authority.

___________________ For related articles, a NYT reader (who commented on a recent NYT article) provided information about the above Atlantic article and also recommended these articles:

How Putin’s oligarchs funneled millions into GOP campaigns [Dallas Morning News] Russia’s State TV Calls Trump Their ‘Agent’ [The Daily Beast] Russian Operative Said ‘We Made America Great’ After Trump’s Win [Bloomberg] Russia Funded Facebook and Twitter Investments Through Kushner Investors [The Guardian]

#putin #election interference #disinformation #zersetzung #the atlantic #dominic tierney

46 notes · View notes

vernadskova · 4 months

Text

In 1945, the Yugoslav People's Army, having faced and triumphed over numerous formidable wartime challenges, was plagued by an internal problem which appeared impossible to resolve or even fully understand: a virtual epidemic of war neurosis, which affected thousands of partisan soldiers, and which did not show any signs of subsiding after the end of fighting. On the contrary, the end of the war seemed only to exacerbate the spread of the illness. This was a disorder that bore no resemblance to war traumas in the other nations that participated in the conflict: it did not manifest itself in the form of an urge to withdraw from the frontlines, as was the case in the British and US armies, where battle exhaustion, anxiety and demoralisation emerged as the most popular diagnoses by 1944. Rather, Yugoslav war neurotics demonstrated a heightened willingness to fight, as their new disorder consisted of violent and potentially harmful epileptiform seizures which simulated wartime battles and attacks. The seizures could occur at any moment and under any circumstances, usually when there was audience—in the middle of a conversation, at lectures or meetings, while driving or riding a car, in front of superiors, for example.

In some of these later accounts the notion of partisan neurosis acquired positive connotations: it was arguably a disorder of dedicated fighters, who considered their own interests to be identical to those of their army or of the new socialist republic. Partisan neurosis or partisan hysteria could thus become an advertisement for the new kind of society and people's democracy that the Yugoslav authorities were building. Marxist politics eliminated trembling, anxiety and battle exhaustion, and created soldiers who, even when faced with the worst traumas and suffering from shell-shock, kept their devotion to the army's cause, and their willingness to remain on the frontlines. Betlheim argued that it would be an offence to consider the neurotic ‘a person who consciously strives to escape the war efforts and who consciously wants to withdraw to the rear’, because the majority of the patients ‘had been through difficult experiences which they had barely survived. … They often, having invested the last vestiges of their strength, saved themselves from the dangerous situation, and then had their first seizure in a safe territory. In this psycho-dynamic discourse, the local specificity of the disorder resulted from the superiority of the Yugoslav resistance movement in comparison with both the Allied and the enemy armies in the Second World War, and the conditions of Yugoslav soldiers in the First World War.

I wish I could narrow this all down, especially the opposing viewpoints, but I wanted to pin down these salient parts as they fascinated me for long

133 notes · View notes

mapsontheweb · 4 months

Photo

Napoleon's Spanish War

“Atlas histórico de España”, Enrique Martínez Ruiz, Consuelo Maqueda Abreu, Emilio de Diego, Ediciones Istmo, 2016

by cartesdhistoire

For Napoleon, the Iberian Peninsula was a weak link in the southern flank of the continental blockade. In 1807, he sent Junot to occupy Portugal, where smuggling of British products was developing on a large scale. The presence of French garrisons on Spanish territory exacerbated the dynastic crisis which undermined power, torn between King Charles IV, Prime Minister Godoy and Infante Ferdinand. Napoleon deposes the Bourbons, exiled in France and replaced by Joseph Bonaparte. A popular riot broke out in Madrid on May 2, 1808, followed by fierce repression on the 3rd. The country was set ablaze, resistance was organized by politico-military juntas. French troops were defeated at Bailén, in Andalusia, in July 1808. Napoleon had to strip the eastern front to undertake costly reconquest operations.

In the years that followed, Spain became a gigantic battlefield. Spanish resistance is composite; a strong Catholic component gave the conflict the appearance of a crusade, while the politicians were divided between dynastic loyalty to the “legitimate” king, Ferdinand VII, and liberal aspirations which were expressed in the Constitution of Cádiz of 1812. The supporters of “Intruder king”, the “josefinos”, are isolated and only provide a semblance of authority under the cover of powerful military governors, Soult in the south, Suchet in the north. The French and their allies know how to play on the divisions of their adversaries, the liberals wary of the bands of partisans often supervised by priests and fanatically devoted to Ferdinand, whose absolutist tendencies are a mystery to no one.

It was the English expeditionary force commanded by Lord Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, hostile to the people's war, which ultimately decided the balance of power. In June 1813, the French army was crushed in Vitoria and had to evacuate the peninsula.

#maps #cartesdhistoire #igsourced #napoleonic wars #spain

56 notes · View notes

whencyclopedia · 11 days

Photo

War in the Balkans: An Encyclopedic History from the Fall of the Ottoman Empire to the Breakup of Yugoslavia

This comprehensive encyclopedia is edited by the acclaimed historian Richard Hall and covers the general topic of war in the Balkans during the past two centuries. Some 60 leading scholars contributed well-examined snippets on the war in the Balkans culminating in a volume that is an excellent reference for a wide range of curious researchers.

Richard C. Hall's timely encyclopedia can help reporters and scholars investigate beyond a headline. The book features informative and expertly written essays with suggestions for further reading. As a leading scholar of Balkan history, Hall, Professor of History at Georgia Southwestern State University who has written multiple books on this topic, is an ideal editor for a work of such monumental scope ranging from the fall of the Ottoman Empire to the dissolution of Yugoslavia and beyond.

To produce nearly 240 entries covering 200 years requires assembling a team of researchers, which is precisely what this work achieved. Altogether, 62 expert contributors wrote entries spanning five categories: Events, Individuals, Organizations, Places, and Treaties.

The most impressive category of contributions is “Events," with 132 topics compromising 56% of all entries. Each war in the Balkans has many entries, and the encyclopedia dedicates five entries to the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 alone. For these wars, there are separate “Causes” and “Consequences” essays that carefully consider the complex, intertwined factors leading to and resulting from the various Balkan conflicts. The "Events" category contains interesting and rather specific topics not commonly found elsewhere, such as a focus on the “Cold War in the Balkans” and “Ottoman Counterinsurgency Operations in the Balkans and Crete.” The scope of this category is so wide-ranging that it even includes entries covering the roles of Italy and Germany in the Balkans during the two World Wars.

The second category, “Individuals," is smaller, compromising only 24% of the total entries. This section includes an impressive array of people ranging from Ottoman Sultans to modern military leaders and politicians. Nonetheless, with only 56 entries on protagonists of Balkan conflicts, there is a little room for expansion and more coverage, especially with Greek leaders. For instance, figures such as Theodoros Kolokotronis and George Papadopoulos could have been fitting additions to the book's theme. Regardless, most major Balkan individuals are present with each entry on them following the customary high quality.

The remaining three categories — "Organizations," "Places," and "Treaties" — are understandably shorter in length. The category “Organizations” has 32 entries covering 14% of the total contributions. Topics such as the Balkan League, Black Hand, Kosovo Liberation Army, and UNPROFOR were not surprising inclusions. Yet, more concise topics like “Partisans in Albania” or “NATO in the Balkans” were surprising inclusions in a work of this kind. Once more, Greek topics could have been expanded to include groups such as the Philiki Eteria (Society of Friends) or IDEA (Ieros Desmos Ellinon Axiomatikon, or Holy Alliance of Greek Military Officers). The "Places" category could be expanded beyond its current 12 entries by including Cyprus. “Treaties," compromising only 1% of the entries with only 4 topics, could have been a more expansive, general category that included topics like Greater Serbia, Megali Idea, religion, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and drug trafficking among other issues so intertwined with the war in the Balkans.

Richard Hall’s War in the Balkans is a wonderful addition to the ABC-CLIO/Greenwood Reference collection as its high-quality, accessible, and fascinating articles along with numerous illustrations and maps make the book a must-have for scholars and history enthusiasts alike. In today's digital era, this volume might be dismissed in favor of Wikipedia or other online sources. However, the depth of analysis achieved, along with the detailed and concise topics, is not easily found in traditional encyclopedias. This encyclopedia also offers much more than what students have grown accustomed to in the age before the internet. War in the Balkans is one of those books that hardly sits on a shelf for long.

#History #Balkan #BalkanWars #Ottoman

26 notes · View notes

queenofthedisneyverse · 1 month

Text

La Violencia (Research I did for Encanto fic writers so you don't have to)

TW: Assassination and death

Long but necessary post

@yellowcry @miracles-and-butterflies @evostar (if you already knew about it, that's fine, but reblog so others can too.)

To put it simply;

During this time, an estimated 200,000 people lost their lives, with 112,000 of those deaths occurring between 1948 and 1950. Additionally, two million people were forcibly displaced from their homes, primarily to Venezuela.

The root of this conflict lies in the intense partisan rivalries between Colombia’s two traditional political parties: the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. These tensions created a divide between liberals and conservatives, eventually leading to the partial collapse of the state and existing institutional structures. As violence escalated, economic motivations began to outweigh political ones, and armed bands took advantage of the chaos to commit robberies, assaults, and revenge against their neighbors.

More in depth;

La Violencia was a ten-year civil war in Colombia from 1948 to 1958, between the Colombian Conservative Party and the Colombian Liberal Party, fought mainly in the countryside.

Liberal hegemony continued through the 1930s and the World War II era, and Alfonso López Pumarejo was reelected in 1942; however, wartime conditions were not favourable to social change. In the elections of 1946, two Liberal candidates, Gabriel Turbay and Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, stood for election and thus split the Liberal vote. A Conservative, Mariano Ospina Pérez, took office.

Conservatives had been embittered by political sidelining and, since 1930, had suffered violent attacks at the hands of Liberal supporters. With the electoral victory of 1946 they instituted a series of crude reprisals against Liberals. It was the initiation of the period that was dubbed La Violencia. On April 9, 1948, Gaitán, leader of the left wing of the Liberal Party, was assassinated in broad daylight in downtown Bogotá. The resulting riot and property damage (estimated at $570 million throughout the country) came to be called the bogotazo.

La Violencia originated in an intense political feud between Liberals and Conservatives and had little to do with class conflict, foreign ideologies, or other matters outside Colombia. Authoritative sources estimate that more than 200,000 persons lost their lives in the period between 1946 and 1964.

The most spectacular aspect of the violence, however, was the extreme cruelty perpetrated on the victims, which has been a topic of continuing study for Colombians. La Violencia intensified under the regime of Laureano Gómez (1950–53), who attempted to introduce a fascist state. His excesses brought his downfall by military coup—Colombia’s first in the 20th century. Gen. Gustavo Rojas Pinilla assumed the presidency in 1953 and, aided by his daughter, María Eugenia Rojas, began an effort to end La Violencia and to stimulate the economy.

Rojas was a populist leader who supported citizens’ demands for the redress of grievances against the elite. Support for Rojas began to collapse when it appeared that he would not be able to fulfill his promises, when he showed reluctance to give up power, and when the economy faltered as a result of a disastrous fall in coffee prices in 1957. He was driven from office that year by a military junta.

The arrangement for the National Front government—a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals—was made by Alberto Lleras Camargo, representing the Liberals, and Laureano Gómez, leader of the Conservative Party, in the Declaration of Sitges (1957).

The unique agreement provided for alternation of Conservatives and Liberals in the presidency, an equal sharing of ministerial and other government posts, and equal representation on all executive and legislative bodies. The agreement was to remain in force for 16 years—equivalent to four presidential terms, two each for Conservatives and Liberals. The question of what governmental structure would follow the National Front was left unsettled.

It had been contemplated that a Conservative would be the first to occupy the presidency in 1958. When the Conservative Party could not agree on a candidate, however, the National Front selected Lleras, who had previously served in that office for 12 months in 1945–46.

During Lleras’s tenure an agrarian reform law was brought into effect, national economic planning for development began, and Colombia became the showcase of the Alliance for Progress (a U.S. attempt to further economic development in Latin America). But severe economic difficulties caused by low coffee prices, domestic unemployment, and the apparent end of the effectiveness of import substitution were only partially offset by Alliance aid.

The Alliance increased Colombia’s economic dependence on the United States, which, to some Colombians, had serious disadvantages. By 1962 economic growth had come almost to a standstill.

The precarious state of the economy and the degree of social tension were revealed when only about half of those eligible to vote did so in the 1962 presidential elections, which brought Guillermo León Valencia, a Conservative, to the presidency.

During Valencia’s first year in office internal political pressures led to devaluation of the peso (Colombia’s currency), wage increases among unionized workers of some 40 percent, and the most rampant inflation since 1905. Extreme deflationary policies were applied in the next three years, raising the unemployment rates above 10 percent in the major cities and turning even more Colombians against the National Front.

Less than 40 percent of the electorate went to the polls in the 1964 congressional elections.

Marxist guerrilla groups began appearing in Colombia during Valencia’s presidency. The first was the National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional; ELN), which was created by a group of Colombian students who had studied in Cuba.

Founded in 1964, the ELN followed strategies espoused by Che Guevara. Another guerrilla group, which followed two years later, was the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia; FARC), which was more connected to Soviet-influenced communist movements. Much of FARC originated in the “resistance committees” that had appeared in Colombia during La Violencia.

Carlos Lleras Restrepo was the third National Front president (1966–70). He returned the economy to a sound footing, improved government planning for economic development, and pushed through political reforms essential to an orderly end to the Front (which seemed increasingly to constitute a monopoly of power by the Conservative-Liberal oligarchy).

Although the constitutional reform of 1968 stipulated that elections would become competitive again after 1974, the president was still required to give “adequate and equitable” representation to the second largest political party in his cabinet and in the filling of other bureaucratic posts.

Read more here (This article is mostly where I got my info from as well as copilot.ai. I know, AI is bad, but please don't judge me. I was not about to do six hours of research when I have a tool that can help me in seconds.)

What does this have to do with the madrigals?

Well, if you're planning on writing any madrigal (or all) outside of Encanto, La violencia is something you need to take into consideration. It's an important part of Colombia's culture and shouldn't be ignored.

(I just learned about it recently and in turn, need to rewrite some stuff. So I can only imagine that half of the Encanto fandom knows nothing about it)

What cities were safe you ask? I don't think there really was any.

Bogotá: As the capital of Colombia, Bogotá witnessed significant unrest during this period. Political factions clashed, leading to violence and instability.

Cali: Cali, located in the southwestern part of the country, also suffered from La Violencia. It was a hotspot for clashes between Liberal and Conservative supporters.

Medellín: Medellín, another major city, faced its share of violence. The conflict often played out in the streets, affecting civilians and communities.

Barranquilla: This coastal city experienced tensions between rival political groups, resulting in bloodshed and loss of life.

Cartagena: Cartagena, known for its historical significance, was not immune to the violence. The struggle between Liberals and Conservatives left scars on its urban landscape.

Cúcuta: Located near the border with Venezuela, Cúcuta also witnessed violence during La Violencia.

Palmira, Santa Marta, Soledad Atlántico, Armenia, Pereira, Neiva, Valledupar, Bucaramanga, Popayán, Villavicencio, and Soacha were other cities affected by the turmoil.

So, in either city, the madrigals would be exposed to this war if they chose to come out. Now, let's say Encanto is in the very center of Colombia (or at lease close to it) -

(Right where the red dot is)

The closest area is Villavicencio, Puerto Lypez, and Bogota. All three cities that were affected by the war. And I'm not saying Villavicencio is THAT close to Encanto, probably a week trip at best, but still.

Why did I choose the center of Colombia?

Because I don't see it sitting anywhere else. And it's convenient fic wise. But you can do what you want.

Now I'm not saying the Madrigals won't experience fun in the new world. They most certainly will (culture and technology wise), but the war is really unavoidable for them.

That's all for now, but if you have anything to add or for me to correct, reblog or message me.

#Encanto #encanto fanfic #mirabel madrigal #luisa madrigal #isabela madrigal #julieta madrigal #agustin madrigal #alma madrigal #bruno madrigal #antonio madrigal #camilo madrigal #dolores madrigal #pepa madrigal #felix madrigal

45 notes · View notes

eretzyisrael · 1 month

Text

by Dan Perry

The serious international media is most comfortable when it can maintain a comfortable distance from any particular protagonist. Generally, this is wise. It's also good business, because the media is struggling to stay afloat financially and doesn't need the headache of political controversy—as Michael Jordan famously said, Republicans buy sneakers, too. And so, it generally gravitates toward a type of bothsidesism that suggests to readers and viewers that there are no good guys on any given field. Usually, that is sufficiently accurate that it works quite well.

It breaks down when the market of news consumers—or other powerful players—has chosen sides. The media has largely presented Russia's President Vladimir Putin as satanic, and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky as impishly heroic. So, coverage of the Ukraine war has been a tad simplistic and has hardly reflected the Russian case. But this is not, on balance, the worst thing in the world: Putin is odious and Russia's attack on Ukraine was, in the final analysis, a mistake and a crime.

No such luck in the case of the Gaza war. The media has largely stuck to its instincts for impartiality: "Both sides" have their narratives, and both have good and bad. One may be a terrorist group and the other a Western-leaning democracy—but in this era of progressive decolonization narratives, an association with the West will not get you very far with much of the Western media. Ironic.

The Israelis indeed have good and bad. But Israel is a democracy that can dump its useless government and probably will. Israel's mainstream wants to be rid of the conflict with the Palestinians and views the issue largely through the prism of security. Israel has ultranationalists, violent settlers, and religious fanatics, but the bulk of the population inhabit the same Euclidean universe, share the same values, and believe in the same primacy of reason as most news consumers abroad.

None of that can be said of Hamas, and since Hamas is omnipotent in Gaza it should be the center of media scrutiny. It is a violent fundamentalist movement that seeks not just the demise of Israel but also, with its jihadi fellow travelers, of the West. Hamas and its accomplices share none of the values that drive the modern world, from respect for human rights to freedom of speech to the rule of law.

Are so many Westerners, especially Gen Zers, too feeble-minded to get this? Perhaps to a degree. But I say that a major factor is that they are not being informed.

Is it antisemitism on the part of the foreign press corps, as some Israeli partisans will rush to charge? Not much, in my experience. It mostly stems from intellectual laziness typical of our era, a surfeit of cynicism typical of journalists, and a dollop of woke-ish fuzziness.

Some argue that no one appointed journalists to connect the dots for people, and that the wisest approach would be to just "report the facts." The self-righteous just-the-facts school misses something basic. Every nanosecond in the universe throws up an infinity of facts. The choices of which tiny minority among them to pursue and how to present them are already judgement calls.

When the result is the normalization of a monstrosity like Hamas, that is malpractice. Have I been guilty of it myself? All I can say is, like Oscar Schindler in the film, I feel I did not do enough.

#hamas #gaza #media bias #misinformation #journalists #journalism

47 notes · View notes

compacflt · 7 months

Note

Hi, big fan of your fics. I've just found your Tumblr and binged everything Icemav-related. When reading about Icemav's political beliefs, I've gotten curious. Does Bradley share the same political beliefs as Ice (and Mav)? Does being raised by them or them pulling his papers influence how he votes? Or there are other factors in the play (e.g. generations, social media)? How about Jake and the other Daggers? How does this young generation of the Navy perceive politics (elections, gender, etc.)? My apologies for bombarding you with questions. But as a non-American, American politics have always been something we must pay attention to. I've seen many interesting interpretations on Tumblr but it feels more or less wistful than realistic, but I might be wrong (again not an American) so I would love to see your perspective on this. Thank you.

a good politics roundup post before i leave this blog

icemav & their conservatism: here, here, here

ice’s NECESSARY conservatism as commander of the pacific fleet (i.e. officers who are most likely to get promoted to the highest ranks do NOT break the service line when it comes to domestic politics, so by necessity ice would’ve had to keep his mouth shut, he Cannot be both a four-star and a revolutionary, like he just can’t; and being a revolutionary is otherwise antithetical to his character anyway): here, here.

and the original “ice & mav politics post” which is being updated here: here

I’ve gone back and forth on everyones politics over the last year of me being involved with these characters, but let me just tell you where I’ve ended up headcanoning them politically, if ur interested

ice: reagan democrat. “educated moderate” who was more right-leaning pre-9/11. now just a regular ol liberal (did you SEE those gay little round glasses in tgm? no way this guy isn’t a straight-up lib) with absolutely no strong feelings about most domestic politics besides “fascism bad”. Has some foreign policy opinions that areeeee questionable at best, like all members of the military elite (hangman voice: DO NOT ASK ICEMAN ABOUT CHINA. WORST MISTAKE OF MY LIFE). foreign policy neoliberal favoring the dovish side of the spectrum. A force conservator (“let’s save our military assets [read: my boyfriend maverick 🥺] for when we really need them, not for any old conflict. the deterring specter of the American war machine should outweigh the risk of underperforming”). He’s in favor of marriage equality of course, but treats it like a privilege and not a right. would be sad/upset if it got repealed but wouldn’t necessarily fight for it. “well at least my marriage will always be legal in california so i just won’t leave, problem solved.” Normie median Biden voter.

mav: political wildcard tbh. original 1986 mav is DEFINITELY right-leaning (i think i’ve written elsewhere, “he fully believes bill clinton is an affront to god”). i get young republican vibes from him. Full on patriotic (but dispassionate) 1980s reaganite anti-commie neoconservative. but after the 2010s i am very confused tbh. Tom cruise’s political aura is an insanely confusing one. idk. No matter what, Mav has some Hot Takes that a.) can immediately be shot down by ice using Facts and Logic at any time and b.) are not strictly partisan. He’s registered democrat just to support marriage equality (his marriage is his top priority but he doesn’t care about Other gays’ marriages, only his own), doesn’t care about any of the party’s other lines. Votes however ice tells him to. I get real “kind clueless libertarian” vibes from 2022 maverick tbh. Especially with the “isolating himself in a hangar in the middle of the mojave desert.” that has a political connotation to it for sure. bro just does whatever he wants out there

also, ice & mav live in San Diego, which… while in blue/democrat leaning California…is famously a bastion of right-wingers & has a hitler particle level off the charts… (sorry its not my favorite place in the world). That’s why they’re both continually so disgusted by San Francisco (a metonym for effete liberal homosexuality). Theyre from San Diego, hatred of SF & liberal SF politics is kinda par for the course down there.

Bradley: as u will see in the extras i definitely hc Bradley as an activist, but because he’s… in the navy and also like in his 30s… It’s not college campus activism, it’s just “things all of us in the left wing can agree upon” activism. so, like, BLM or pride, etc. He’s an “in this house we believe” yard sign liberal. He is 38 years old. hes a solid millennial so not politically hip with the kids (me)

Bradley & ice/mav disagree on the VISIBILITY of politics. Ice & mav, who did live through the vietnam era draft/near-dissolution of American society in the 60s and 70s, are not in favor of possibly losing their job/honor they have fought and killed for, for the sake of a political statement. And they believe their relationship IS a political statement, whereas Bradley would rather encourage them to treat their relationship like, I don’t know, a relationship that has a right to exist independent of politics!

Jake and the other daggers: idk. i don’t really give a shit about the daggers sorry. They r blank slates 2 me. jake especially is canonically frat-boy sexist in a way that gives me the heebs, much like original 1986 maverick and ice. But the navy tends to be the most left-wing (or thought of as left wing in common thought) service of the military, if that helps. But it is also the most traditional service of the military, and by traditional I mean BRITISH!!!! 🇬🇧💂there’s so much pomp and circumstance and hoity-toitiness that comes from the navy’s origins in the Royal Navy. A lot of sticking to outdated tradition in the very fabric of the navy itself, while the navy’s enlisted demographics shift younger and more left-wing/“revolutionary…” some interesting conflicts there. Like that one sailor who got blasted by multiple congressmen on social media for (with permission!) reading a poem about their queer identity on the USS Gerald ford’s intercom a few months back, if I remember correctly. Hoo boy the Takes that day were wild. Younger Americans tend to be more liberal but YMMV with officers, who are by nature trying to uphold outdated traditions of the navy for the sake of keeping the navy a unified service

i am of course writing carole as a christian republican who has gay friends and a gay kid not by choice but by the Grace of God

#i realize some terminology in this post is so hyperamericanspecific that you may need to Google it #like the in this house we believe yard sign #it’s… like… i can’t even describe it. it’s a kind of well meaning liberal who can sometimes be a little cringe.#and Reagan democrats (which ice is) are a whole political subgroup in and of themselves #maybe not Reagan democrat but like conservadem? but no that’s different too #blue dog democrat? but not sure he’s that conservative #THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS BECOME SUCH A BIG TENT POST TRUMP THERE ARE 50.000 TYPES OF DEMOCRAT YOU CAN BE #san francisco as a metonym for effete liberal homosexuality of course (it’s where im from 😎😎)#it’s a ten hour drive from SF to San diego like they might as well be different countries. san diego secede from the US when 🙏🏽#pete maverick mitchell #tom iceman kazansky #top gun #icemav #top gun maverick #jake hangman seresin #bradley rooster bradshaw #normie median biden voter ice #the navy is liberalizing but veeeeery slowly #most of the conservative pressure ive seen towards the navy is external! policymakers & budget drafters etc #the navy is very liberal BUT that makes it a laughingstock among conservatives!#so a desire from higher-ups to push the Navy more conservative to be taken seriously…is kinda understandable #when being taken seriously means more ships more capability more money etc #instead of GOP culture-war-pilled pennypinchers going ‘hey why are we givin the gay service so much money’#take this post with a grain of salt. i have never been old enough to vote in a federal election.

70 notes · View notes

cursecuelebre · 26 days

Text

Devotional playlist for Lady Athena, again quite random mostly heavy metal so hope this inspires you!

1. Medusa by Anthrax (thrash metal, the title says it all)

2. And Justice for All by Metallica (thrash metal, big attribute is justice of Athena).

3. One by Metallica (Thrash metal, anti war song that basically shows the horror of warfare and how veterans cope and struggle afterwards, it’s a depressing song forewarned).

4. Don’t tread on me by Volbeat (heavy metal, again a slogan during a time of oppression and it was covered by the original being by Metallica. Also snake symbol with Athena).

5. For whom the bell tolls by Metallica (thrash metal, again a war themed song adapted from Ernest Hemingway).

6. Barracuda by Heart (Rock and roll, not much to say but badass female song).

7. Overture 1812, op 49 by Tchaikovsky (classic music, used actual war cannons in that piece)

8. Spider knows his craft in Tales of the magic tree by Pavel Lyubomudrov (classical music, spiders and weaving is the most Athena thing ever)!

9. Orphic Hymn to Athena by Queenie (of course we need the traditional songs for her)

10. Bella Ciao by Manu Pilas (Folk song that was adapted for Anti-facist partisan).

11. All along the watch tower by Jimin Hendrix (Rock and roll and anti war song made during the protest against the Vietnam war).

12. Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Iron Maiden (Heavy metal, the song is adapted from the poem with the same name and the story reminded me of the Odyssey Athena had a huge role in that story).

13. Pink Venom by Blackpink (Kpop, it has a snake themed that’s why)

14. Pretty Savage by Blackpink (Kpop, a good empowerment song for women)

15. The Trooper by Iron Maiden (Heavy metal, song about war and death and riding into battle).

16. Holy wars…the punishment due by Megadeth (Thrash metal, essentially song about anti war and government even in the 80s also the talk about Israel and Palestine conflict was being discussed).

17. Sympathy of Destruction by Megadeth, (Thrash metal about a man can be corrupted by power by turning into a tyrant. Athena is a goddess to protect and destroy tyrants).

#hellenic polytheism #paganism #athena #hellenic pagan #hellenic community #hellenic worship

32 notes · View notes

ladyvelkor · 2 months

Text

Burroughs treats all conditions of existence as results of cosmic conflicts between competing intelligence agencies. In making themselves real, entities (must) also manufacture realities for themselves: realities whose potency often depends upon the stupefaction, subjugation and enslavement of populations, and whose existence is in conflict with other ‘reality programs’. Burroughs’s fiction deliberately renounces the status of plausible representation in order to operate directly upon this plane of magical war. Where realism merely reproduces the currently dominant reality program from inside, never identifying the existence of the program as such, Burroughs seeks to get outside the control codes in order to dismantle and rearrange them. Every act of writing is a sorcerous operation, a partisan action in a war where multitudes of factual events are guided by the powers of illusion. Even representative realism participates – albeit unknowingly – in magical war, collaborating with the dominant control system by implicitly endorsing its claim to be the only possible reality.

Lemurian Time War

CCRU

#CCRU #william s burroughs #hyperstition

24 notes · View notes

just-late-roman-republic-things · 28 days

Text

The Growth of Political Violence in the Late Republic, According to Harriet Flower

On to the period of 133 to 80 BCE in Harriet Flower's Roman Republics! Flower rightly characterizes this period as one of escalating violence and a breakdown in trust in the republican system. However, I only partly agree with her analysis as to why.

The major events she discusses are:

The conflict between Tiberius Gracchus, the tribune Octavius, and Scipio Nasica Serapio. Flower sees all of them as violating republican norms and being in the wrong somehow, and I appreciate her impartiality here.

She sees the deaths of Gaius Gracchus and Saturninus as escalations in both the scale and kind of violence. Serapio acted as an individual on his own initiative; then the Senate as a collective body vs. the followers of Gaius Gracchus; then the violent gang that killed Saturninus apparently evading control by Rome's consul, Marius. In particular, she interprets Marius' withdrawal from politics as a military defeat as much as a political one.

I agree with her view that the Social War could either be classified as a civil war or an external one, and that the destabilization it caused directly fed into the wars of the Marians vs. Sulla. I particularly like her analysis of the tribune Sulpicius' actions, and how by supporting Marius' (irregular) appointment to the Mithridatic command Sulpicius hoped to advance his own legislative program. It connected a few more dots for me.

On the other hand, I think she overstates the impact of the Marian reforms. She characterizes the post-Marius army as mostly landless, partisan veterans who were willing to resort to arms because they couldn't hope for representation in the Centuriate Assembly.

But the property requirement for the army had been trending downward for decades; there was no sudden, drastic change in the army's composition and incentives yet. And as Flower herself notes, Marius had in fact secured pensions for his veterans, so what would they be agitating about?

Thirdly, it isn't actually clear whether such "client armies" were really more loyal to their generals than to the republic. Both Sulla and Caesar had to make appeals to their soldiers justifying themselves as defending the republic and delegitimizing their opponents before they could march on Rome, and several times Roman soldiers actually refused to fight other Roman armies, e.g. Cinna's men refusing to fight Sulla's, and many of Pompey's deserting to Caesar. It's not even clear whether Caesar employed veterans for violence during his first consulship, as all the allegations of it seem to come from later historians.

I'm not happy about Flower's implication, intentional or not, that poor and working-class veterans were more prone to violence and anti-republican behavior than wealthier veterans were, or that they would automatically follow their generals' power-grabs just for the sake of getting paid. I think there's a strain of classism that sometimes makes us overlook the "Roman mob" and soldiers as gullible and mercenary, rather than as having political values and voices of their own.

(My view here is particularly influenced by Erich Gruen's survey of working-class political life and veteran behavior in The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, and Robert Morstein-Marx's Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic and Julius Caesar and the Roman People. Those books are interesting counterpoints for Flower's.)

#jlrrt reads #harriet flower #roman republics #the social war #historiography #classism

21 notes · View notes