#considering their oppression a tribal affiliation

[ebonydirectory1]

The Importance of Black Hairdressers: A Brief Journey Through History

Introduction

Hair has always played a significant role in human history and culture. It is a canvas for self-expression, identity, and a symbol of personal style. Among various hair textures and types, Black hair is unique and diverse. To understand the significance of Black hairdressers today, it's essential to delve into the rich history of Black hair, and consider many factors.

Black Hair: A Diverse Tapestry

Black hair is incredibly diverse, with a wide range of textures, lengths, and styles. The diversity of Black hair is a reflection of the African diaspora, encompassing various ethnic backgrounds and cultural traditions. It includes tightly coiled Afros, luxurious braids, intricate cornrows, and an array of protective styles that have been passed down through generations. The historical importance of Black hair is deeply rooted in African culture. In many African societies, hair was more than just a fashion statement; it held spiritual, social, and cultural significance. For instance, certain hairstyles symbolized age, marital status, or tribal affiliation. Haircare rituals, such as using natural oils and herbs, were passed down through generations, promoting healthy hair and scalp.

Slavery and Black Hair

The history of Black hair cannot be discussed without acknowledging the traumatic impact of slavery. Slavery disrupted the rich traditions and customs associated with Black haircare in Africa, as it did many other aspects of African culture. Enslaved people were often stripped of their cultural identities, including their hairstyles. During the era of slavery, enslaved Africans faced significant challenges in maintaining their hair as they had in their homeland. The harsh conditions of forced labor, limited access to resources, and the oppressive control of slaveholders made it difficult to practice traditional haircare methods. Consequently, many enslaved individuals resorted to practical, low-maintenance styles, such as headwraps or shaved heads, to cope with their circumstances. Yet, even in the face of adversity, the resilience of Black culture prevailed. Enslaved people found ways to express their identity through their hair. They created intricate cornrows and braids that served as maps, allowing them to communicate through a complex system of patterns, a form of resistance and survival.

Post-Emancipation Era: The Rise of Black Haircare

The end of slavery brought about a period of profound change in the Black community, including a resurgence of interest in traditional African hairstyles. Black men and women began to embrace their natural hair textures, celebrating their heritage and rejecting Eurocentric beauty standards that had been imposed upon them.

Madam C.J. Walker - The Importance Of Black Hairdressers - Ebonydirectory.com In the early 20th century, Madam C.J. Walker, a Black entrepreneur, revolutionized the Black haircare industry by developing a line of haircare products specifically designed for Black hair. Her success not only marked the beginning of a thriving Black haircare industry but also empowered Black women to pursue economic independence and entrepreneurship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnkO1wgPmOk Self Made | The Enduring Legacy of Madam C.J. Walker | Netflix The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s also played a pivotal role in the reclamation of Black identity through hair. The Afro became a symbol of pride, rebellion, and cultural awareness. It signified the rejection of Eurocentric beauty ideals and the embracing of natural Black hair.

Black Hairdressers: Guardians of Tradition and Innovation

Black hairdressers have always held a unique position in the Black community. They are not just stylists; they are keepers of tradition and culture. Black hair salons serve as spaces of community, education, and empowerment. One of the key roles of Black hairdressers is to help clients reconnect with their cultural roots. They provide services such as braiding, loc maintenance, and natural haircare that celebrate the beauty of Black hair. Moreover, they educate clients about the importance of proper haircare and the historical significance of different hairstyles. Black hairdressers also play a crucial role in innovation. They adapt traditional styles to contemporary preferences and experiment with new techniques and products. They are at the forefront of creating unique and trendsetting looks that inspire individuals of all backgrounds.

The Empowerment of Black Hairdressers

The rise of Black hairdressers and beauty professionals has not only revitalized the Black haircare industry but has also contributed to economic empowerment within the Black community. Black-owned salons and beauty supply stores provide jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities for Black individuals, helping to close the racial wealth gap. Furthermore, Black hairdressers often serve as mentors and role models for aspiring hairstylists. They inspire future generations to enter the beauty industry, fostering a sense of pride and unity within the community.

Inclusivity and Representation

The importance of Black hairdressers extends beyond the Black community. In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the need for inclusivity and diversity in the beauty industry. Representation matters, and having Black hairdressers in mainstream beauty spaces is essential. Black hairdressers are skilled in working with a wide range of hair textures, which allows them to cater to a more diverse clientele. They bring unique perspectives and experiences to the beauty industry, contributing to a more inclusive and equitable landscape. A recent incident involving a Black woman and an Asian shopkeeper brought to light the importance of supporting Black-owned haircare products and providers. This incident serves as a poignant reminder of the need for inclusivity, cultural sensitivity, and empowerment within the beauty industry. Additionally, the altercation highlighted the long-standing issue of Black people not supporting Black owned haircare and beauty supply stores. Such incidents emphasize the vital role of Black-owned haircare products and providers in addressing this issue. Black-owned brands have emerged as champions of representation, offering a diverse range of products designed specifically for the unique needs of Black hair. These brands prioritize quality, inclusivity, and cultural awareness, ensuring that customers receive the best care and products tailored to their hair type. Supporting Black-owned haircare brands is not only an act of solidarity but also a means of promoting economic empowerment within the Black community. Many Black entrepreneurs have successfully established their own haircare businesses, creating jobs and contributing to their communities' financial well-being. By purchasing products from Black-owned brands, consumers can directly support these businesses, helping them thrive and expand. Additionally, Black-owned hair salons and providers play a crucial role in empowering individuals to embrace their natural hair textures and cultural heritage. These professionals possess a deep understanding of the intricacies of Black hair, offering a wide range of services from protective styles to haircare education. Their expertise is invaluable in fostering a sense of pride and self-acceptance among Black individuals. Moreover, the incident underscores the importance of cultural sensitivity and education within the beauty industry. It is crucial for all shopkeepers, regardless of their background, to educate themselves about the diverse haircare needs of their customers. Inclusivity should be a guiding principle, ensuring that every customer feels valued and respected. The incident involving the Asian shopkeeper and the Black woman also serves as a poignant reminder of the need for Black people to support Black-owned haircare products and providers. These businesses and professionals are essential in addressing the historical disparities in the beauty industry, promoting economic empowerment, and fostering a more inclusive and culturally sensitive environment. By choosing to support Black-owned brands and salons, consumers can contribute to positive change and celebrate the beauty and diversity of Black hair. Together, we can create a more inclusive and equitable world for all.

Conclusion

The significance of Black hairdressers cannot be overstated. They are not only skilled professionals but also cultural ambassadors and advocates for Black beauty, identity, and history. Through their work, Black hairdressers celebrate the diversity and resilience of Black hair while contributing to economic empowerment and representation within the beauty industry. As we continue to embrace diversity and inclusivity, it is crucial to recognize and support the vital role that Black hairdressers play in shaping the present and future of the beauty industry. Their passion, talent, and commitment to preserving cultural traditions make them indispensable figures in the world of beauty and beyond. Sources: - McKinsey - Black representation in the beauty industry - Vogue Business - How Black-owned haircare brands scale up - The Good Face Project - 5 Black-Owned Hair Care Brands With Clean Products - NPR - Crown Act inspires the creation of a directory of Black-owned hair care business - NielsenIQ - Attracting Black beauty consumers in 2022 - SoulTanicals - Save the Black Hair Care Industry - The Voice Newspaper - We need more Black-owned hair shops - SCORE.org - Starting a Black Beauty Business - Superdrug - Black-Owned Haircare Brands You Need to Know About Read the full article

#BlackCommunity #blackhair #blackhaircare #blackhairdressers #blackhistory #blackpound #slaveryandblackhair

[the-random-walk-blog]

The Failure of US Foreign Policy Forever-Wars & Illusions of Victory

January 3rd 2020 will be remembered as the day that a tectonic shift in the dynamics of US and Middle Eastern politics occurred, forever changing the worlds view on American foreign policy, its moral standing on the world stage, as well as its intentions in the region and worldwide.

Since WWII, the self-adopted American role in world politics has been that of the global policeman, the bringer of “democracy”, and the “liberator” of what Washington deem to be oppressive regimes. The popular assumption within the walls Congress and the White House is, that the rest of the world needs what America has – a democratic political process, ideally in such a way that US commercial interests are met by the outcome, although these interests are often hidden behind a veil of the insistence on democracy and its benefit for the people of the target nation. The fatal flaw in this logic lies therein that an inherent lack of understanding of local culture, religion and social conventions has blinded US lawmakers from the underlying issues of the regions where such intervention and oftentimes blatant calls from regime change have been attempted.

This theme is a permanent feature of US foreign policy in every conflict that the US has become embroiled in, be it Korea and Vietnam, or Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and the perpetual obsession with destabilizing Iran. The source of all of these questionable policy decisions by Washington can be traced back to a simple notion – the American hubris of assuming that what America does and how it operates is the ideal model to be implemented in the rest of the world, regardless of fundamental religious and cultural differences in its target-nations. Whilst America enjoys a long and very colourful history of political intervention, the main ones that shall be focused on are the Middle Eastern conflicts, simply as these are the most obvious policy errors that the US have become engulfed in, whilst it must be said that the tentacles of the American foreign policy extend far beyond this region.

Whenever a stable and operating system is threatened or toppled, the inevitable result is the filling of that void with some form of chaos whilst society recalibrates its political and social compass, adjusting to the changing landscape of the country in question. Undoubtedly sometimes this can also bring about positive developments, although finding examples of this has proven to be more difficult than one would expect at first glance.

The notion of the American brand of democracy being the superior brand of this political ideology should be fundamentally questioned after exploring the US political process in closer detail, with the elections being decided by the electoral college (which is not necessarily representative of the true will of the people), whilst political decisions of a sitting president are largely dictated by who holds the majority in the Senate and House of Representatives. Could it perhaps even be considered undemocratic of a Republican dominated Senate to veto the majority of the president’s decisions, despite the fact that the majority of the population has voted to entrust this individual with the ruling power for the term of his or her time in office?

Different brands of democracy must surely be explored, as one size clearly does not fit all.

Libya

Whilst Colonel Ghaddafi certainly is a controversial figure, it must be said that Libya enjoyed long periods of economic and social stability under his rule, turning Libya into the most wealthy country in Africa largely due to the abundance of crude oil and natural gas. Whilst there is evidence to support cases of human rights abuses perpetrated under Ghaddafi’s leadership, when compared to the current situation that the world is witnessing there, the question must be asked which of these two outcomes was the lesser evil? Are the vast majority of Libyans better off now than they were prior to regime change?

The US-led interventionist campaign, which led to the overthrow of Ghaddafi and his government, left behind a gaping power void and social chaos, as the newly brought “freedom” that the US preached, led to widespread lawlessness, violence and tens of thousands of civilian deaths in the name of liberating this nation from their previous established and functioning government.

We must ask ourselves the fundamental question – if the US version of democracy is indeed the superior form of government as it is consistently preached to us, then why is the state of Libya in complete turmoil since so-called “democracy” was brought to its shores?

One reason for this is surely cultural, with tribal allegiances being of much greater importance in the Middle East than in Europe or the US, which is a fact that many outside actors do not understand. The transition of Libya from a state of relative stability and prosperity, the result that democracy has brought surely cannot be seen as the optimal outcome. Economic considerations must also be made when looking at the form of government that is prevalent in different nations.

Libya’s economy is fairly one dimensional, with the vast majority of the countries revenues being generated from the production and subsequent sale of crude oil and natural gas. In many countries where economics conditions are not based on a large number of factors, but come from a small number of income sources, dominant leaders tend to be in control. Is this because these individuals are power hungry and selfish figures, or because countries with less complex but extremely lucrative exports would not function properly if a “democratic” system was introduced?

Would Libya have reached the economic prosperity that it at one point had if the Senate or House of Representatives was permanently counteracting the decisions of the leadership? When comparing the developments since the US intervention in Libya, it is challenging to not arrive at the conclusion that the country as an economy, and the citizens of Libya were in fact better off under the rule of a strong, autocratic leader such a Ghadaffi, who had sufficient power to ensure that the delicate social fabric and one-dimensional economic inputs led to a favorable outcome for the majority of citizens in Libya.

On this train of thought, it is possible to venture down the path of saying that the way Ghadaffi ruled, was in fact by some definition a democratic style, as his decisions resulted in a favorable outcome for the vast majority of the citizens of Libya.

Libya pre and post US invasion:

Afghanistan

The US campaign in Afghanistan began in 2001 and has not ended until this day. The narrative for invading Afghanistan was that the Al-Qaeda members responsible for the attack on September 11 had been trained and harboured by the Taliban. The fact that the majority of the perpetrators in the attack were actually from Saudi Arabia (whilst none were Iranian, Iraqi or Afghan) was largely ignored by the Bush administration, mainly due to the relationship between Saudi and the US in defense contracts as well as their strategic partnership aimed at exerting US influence over the Shiia majority population of the neighboring nations such as Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

To get an understanding of the duration of the Afghan military campaign, many of the US troops currently in Afghanistan, would only just have been born at the time that the invasion initially took place.

18 years of war after the initial landing of troops in Afghanistan, the US has slowly come to the concerning conclusion that this is a war that was in no way won by Washington, as the Taliban reemerge as the preeminent political party. The US campaign has cost the taxpayer over $1 trillion, as well as countless casualties on both sides, and has yielded no result whatsoever, except the killing of Osama bin Laden (although this occurred in Pakistan). For all intents and purposes, the political fabric of Afghanistan now is very similar as it was in 2001 prior to the invasion.

Syria

Syria’s secular, internationally recognized government under Assad refused to allow an oil and gas pipeline, from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to traverse its territory upwards towards the European market. For its defiance, Syria paid a heavy price, as the Obama administration began deploying money, weapons and arms to a jihadist concoction made up of Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and Daesh invaders, in the hope that this would destabilize Syria to the point of surrender, and turn it into a defacto Saudi & US subservient state.

The brutal battles that were to ensue are well documented, with the rise of Daesh and extremist factions enslaving the local population and bringing tyranny to the entire region, as well as being directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians. The primary resistance to the Daesh insurgency came from Iran and neighbouring Iraq (through its army and affiliated armed groups), with the support of Hezbollah-aligned groups that united in the battle against this extremist savagery.

With the US attempt to bring “democracy” to Syria, what they produced was the most ruthless and inhumane terrorist group in living memory. The sheer existence of groups such as Daesh and Al-Nusra were only possible through the direct and indirect support of Washington and Israel, as the regional instability gave both of those nations the power they so dearly crave in the Middle East, with their presence being justified under the guise of protecting the local population.

Although Daesh pushed forward all the way to Baghdad, the resolve and commitment of the local Iraqis and their supporters succeeded in overpowering the Daesh terrorists through enormous personal sacrifices, as armed Shiia groups pushed Daesh out of Iraq, followed by Syria. Assad remains in power, whilst the US slowly withdraw from this battleground. The massacres of Aleppo, Mosul, Kobane and countless other cities that were in the hands of Daesh should serve as a reminder of the consequences of destabilizing a functioning government, no matter if you agree with their philosophy or not.

Syria pre and post US invasion:

Iraq

The removal of Saddam Hussein from the leadership of Iraq marks another tragic chapter in Middle Eastern and US political history. From what is now clear, the invasion of Iraq was based on entirely fabricated evidence regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction, as a means of furthering US commercial and political interests in the region, as Iraq was viewed as a threat to US influence in the region. As one of the countries with the largest populations, an abundance of natural resources such as crude oil and natural gas, coupled with a large army that was built up during Saddams rule, Iraq became a natural target for US intervention.

The unwillingness of Saddam to cave to US demands further added an incentive for the US to provoke a confrontation, as history has shown that this is generally the outcome when a country refuses to comply with American demands, no matter how illogical some of these sometimes are.

A general environment in the US of Muslim-phobia coupled with an enormous anti Middle Eastern marketing push by the US administrations, assisted in convincing the majority of Congress of the very ill-informed decision to proceed with military action against Iraq, despite the fact that Saddam had never actually threatened the US with an attack. The landing of American troops on the shores of Iraq marked the beginning of a long period of chaos, as US forces swept through the country, removed Saddam from power and implemented their caretaker government whilst they figured out what to do with this situation that they had created.

Under Saddam there were strict rules in Iraq as to what information was shown on television, what opinions were tolerated and how people were to behave, none of which sounds particularly appealing, but also lead to a certain sense of order. The American invasion brought what the US pitched as “freedom” to the Iraqi people. Freedom from a leader who was undoubtedly oppressive, but this new-found freedom also seemed to include the assumption that no rules applied any longer, and a general state of lawlessness ensued. Rules were no longer abided by, weapons were freely available to the population, and the country was plunged into a state of disarray yet again.

The purported weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration claimed were the basis for the invasion were never found, even with over 100’000 US soldiers being present in Iraq during this time. The fact that the reason for invading Iraq in the first place turned out to be a complete lie has been largely dismissed by the Presidents that have been in power since Bush, and no accountability for the untold destruction that has been caused by the US is in sight. The notion that when the US intervene it is called “bringing democracy”, whilst when other nations behave the same way it is deemed to be terrorism.

Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Some would say the above definition and what the US forces have done in Iraq enjoy a certain amount of overlap.

Baghdad -2000

Baghdad - 2004

Mosul

Iran

The Islamic Republic of Iran has for a long period of time now held the prize as the country that the US despises the most in the entire region. The reason for this is quite simple, in that it is mainly based on the Iranians standing their ground, and not giving in to American demands, whilst pushing back against hostile and destabilizing behavior of Israel in the Middle East.

Iran is simply too big, and has too much internal social cohesion for the US to be able to overthrow the government. As the Iranian Foreign Minister so eloquently phrased it, “beautiful military equipment doesn’t rule the world, people rule the world. The US needs to wake up to the reality that the people of this region are enraged, that the people of this region want the United States out”

The hostile environment between the US and Iran can largely be attributed to the influence of the Israelis, as the fire of anti-Iran sentiment is consistently stoked by Netanyahu’s rhetoric, always preaching the impending destruction of Israel at the hands of Iran. The reality is a little different – Iran will defend itself if attacked, but has a very long history of not actually attacking anyone. A point that is generally ignored by western media, is the role that Iran and particularly General Qassem Soleimani played in the defeat of Daesh, and driving back the terrorists until their entire dismantling, virtually ending their rule of terror in the region.

Without Iran and General Soleimani, the entire region would currently be in an even more extreme state of chaos, and assuming that most of Iraq and Syria would now be Daesh territory is not a stretch by any means. The extreme sacrifices of the Iraqi’s and Iranians fighting against Daesh receives too little recognition, as can be seen by the IRGC and General Soleimani being labelled “terrorists” by the United States, when the reality is that the bulk of the fighting against Daesh, the real terrorists, was done by these individuals. The result of opposing the US hegemony was tragically displayed in the first week of January 2020 in Baghdad, as General Soleimani was assassinated by an unprovoked US airstrike whilst on an official invitation of the Iraqi government, in the midst of peace negotiations between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

What reason would the US possibly have for assassinating the man that is largely regarded as a hero in his region, defeated Daesh, and is trying to promote regional stability and peace through an improvement of relations with Saudi? And is it realistic that 7 million people in Tehran turn up to the funeral of someone they consider a terrorist?

Perhaps the reason is that the US does not want stability in this region, and that the chaos is what they seek in pursuit of a very warped and misinformed political agenda. No US president in recent history has visited Iran. How can so much hatred be harboured for a country that the President has never seen with his own eyes, and has not threatened the United States or perpetrated any terrorist attacks?

Iran is the kryptonite that America never expected it would be. The people of Iran are united in their loyalty both to their people and country, and refuse to be bullied by the American war machine.

Funeral of General Soleimani, Tehran

Endgame

No other country in the world has anything remotely like the B-2 bombers that flew bombing runs over Libya from a base in Missouri.

Nor does anyone else have a fleet of 500 aerial refueling tankers that can keep the B-2 and other warplanes airborne for many hours.

Nor does anyone have the amphibious ready groups, the overhead reconnaissance assets, or the inventory of smart munitions employed by the US military. Even the V-22 Osprey "tilt- rotor" aircraft used to rescue a downed American pilot is unique - no other country has tried to build one, much less field a sizable force of them.

The world has never seen a military force like the one America operates today.

But is it all affordable for a country that is seeing its share of global wealth steadily decline, a country that doesn't want to raise taxes despite a $1.5 trillion deficit?

Is an army of such incredible capability really necessary when you say your form of government is the superior model, or does the US form of government only work because of the sheer fire power of the army, so that anyone who doesn’t agree has to watch their cities being pulverized by the most complex and powerful weaponry in the world?

The US have spent $7 trillion fighting wars in the Middle East, and thousands of US soldiers have lost their lives, for a purpose that does not seem worthy of sacrificing a human life for, namely political and economic influence in a region that does not welcome an outside presence like the US.

Is the United States a safer place because of the intervention in the Middle East, when you consider that none of the countries that have been invaded have ever threatened the United States with an attack?

The fact is, the only terrorist attack that has happened on US soil, was perpetrated by citizens of Saudi Arabia, a country which has not been invaded, and is by far the largest buyer of US weaponry, whilst the rest of the region burns.

Perhaps the time has come for the US to turn their focus on their own domestic issues, and allow the rest of the world to discover its own form of democracy, with each country selecting the version of this concept that works the best for themselves.

“No man is good enough to govern another man, without the others consent”

Abraham Lincoln

[telebisou]

I don't hate NYC or anything like that

but

it does intrigue me that new yorkers think that it's obvious that it's a good city?

it's a system of warrens inside an obsolete machine at its heart; on its skin there's a hideous weeping rash of Giuliani's imperialism & capitalism that no one seems to have the good taste to be ashamed of?

the NYC that was great died, with the last vestiges of its tortured beauty, after being finally, fatally wounded

if you love it so much, free the land and stop trying to force your hallucinations of grandeur over all that giant, tacky, luridly commercial enclosure.

#they are better than you #when NYers dis Jersey I can't help but think #I think NYers suffer from the same delusion as USA in general #considering their oppression a tribal affiliation

[deadtower]

honestly i feel like a lot of sentiment towards our people hinges on goyim viewing us as, like ... relics. like, a tribe that isn’t around anymore. like, goyische concern regarding jews is pretty much entirely focused on using our dead (non-holocaust included) as your political/debate prop.

because, like, obviously the whole “compare everything to the holocaust” thing, which goydje seem to think happened, like, centuries ago, by the way they talk about it, and not less than 80 years ago, like, holocaust survivors are alive today.

but also like. for instance. people having no trouble saying that einstein wasn’t white, bc he was a jewish immigrant. no one questions that. even though he’s from germany and everyone today would look at a german-jewish person and be like “yeah they’re white”, goyim are like making posts about einstein the Nonwhite Immigrant Who Definitely Faced Racism. which is true, he’s all those things, but like ... goyim then go on and say that ashkenazi jews with the same exact heritage are 100% Completely White People With A Different Religion and that we don’t face any kind of discrimination at all and are just whiny

like for some reason jewishness is a race when it’s regarding people in the past but a religion regarding people in the present ? makes no sense to me but anyway

and then like they’ll talk about things like how the prince of egypt got everything really biblically accurate (despite the fact the ‘bible’ is our book originally lmao) and how they love that the israelites were given dark skin. and then they’ll look at jews in the present and parrot khazar theory like “you guys were always white, you’re just white colonizers from europe” or w/e the Hot Take is nowadays

and like g-d forbid you mention sephardi or mizrahi or beta israel/ethopian/ugandan jews, because goyim don’t even realize that they exist, apparently, with their ‘all jews are white’ rhetoric

there’s plenty more examples but goyische treatment of us seems to revolve around the belief that we’re an ancient or at the very least a historic people with no real-world presence today which ... is alarming considering There’s A Very Specific Reason That We’re Not More Populous Today, but that aside, it’s just like ... y’all do know we’re the same people, right ? that we’re descended from these holocaust survivors and these israelites and these nonwhite hunted-down exiled immigrants that in turn are descended from the middle eastern tribe we all as jews share ancestry with ? like ... we’re the same tribe. the same people. if y’all are gonna make entire-ass posts on how Einstein Was A Nonwhite Immigrant and Did Super Badass Stuff In Spite Of It but then turn around and tell jews we’re just white people with a different religion who want to be oppressed and that our jewishness isn’t an ethnicity/tribal affiliation it’s just ... like ... ok lol

#ok to reblog / #it's kinda long but if you wanna reblog it that's fine #it's just something ive been thinking about a lot #i didnt bother really going through and trimming it it's kind of just a thinkpiece #but like im sure my fellow jews will agree that like ... the only jewish people goyim care about are the dead ones #bc they cant talk back lmfao

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

I didn’t put this in the main post about the Kerulos Center and Billy the Elephant, because it wasn’t topical, but I need to comment on it here. The Kerulos Center one of the most gross animal “advocacy” groups I have ever seen. Not only is it based on a scientific field the founder herself created and is the only expert in, but the entire organization continues to exploit the ‘indigenous tribes are animals’ trope (y’know, the one with a long history of racism and genocide) in order to promote their agenda.

Their philosophy is, I’m sorry to quote:

“Kerulos is dedicated to the belief that the worlds’ Tribal People and their close kin, non-human animals, possess inherent rights to co-exist on this earth in total freedom as co-dependent and inseparable equals without fear of violence inflicted from humans. We are explicitly trans-species, the understanding that humans and other animals have common capacities to think, feel, dream, aspire, and experience consciousness. This open recognition sparks re-discovery of essential identity, a way of living aligned with nature, and seeing through external form to a relational space of common communication and meaning making. We call this nature-based consciousness, ways of living that benefit all animals as illustrated in the story of the Star Thrower.”

There’s also a whole chunk of an interview the founder did (which I’m not willing to link) where she takes the work of a Native scholar and uses it to support her theory that the collective  epi-genetic trauma suffered by native peoples due to the oppression of western society is equivalent to the experience of domesticated animals. (As if that isn’t gross enough, it’s worth noting that sentiment is way too close to how the Nazis used domestication having caused wolves to “degenerate” into dogs as justification for their eugenics programs).  

Considering it’s this acknowledgment of the “animalic nature” of non-western tribal communities that appears to underlay the Kerulos Center’s entire philosophy about animal care and drive all their research and outreach,  it’s worth examining any scientific literature or advocacy efforts that come out of this group and their affiliates very, very closely. 

#racism #I don't know what to tag this #if you go look through their site I apologize in advance it's awful

[nakoonang]

Mawālī: How Freed Slaves and Non-Arabs Contributed to Islamic Scholarship

(just my notes)

by Dr Emad Hamdeh

North of Yemen, the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century did not have any states or formal government. Individuals had only their families and tribes to rely on for protection. Society at the time did not have police or courts. Rather, there was the tribal social structure. In order to enjoy security one had to be affiliated with a tribe. Although they are not identical, one can compare the function of tribes in Arabia to that of gangs in the modern world. People had absolute and blind loyalty to their tribe because they depended on it for their survival. That is why we find the famous statement of the Arabs “Support your brother whether he is oppressed or the oppressor.” When the Abbasid family took over the caliphate, they soon eliminated all remaining policies that distinguished between Arabs and mawālī, and they were no longer considered an inferior class of society.

They achieved social, educational, and economic equality with Arabs in several ways. First, the scholarly class spoke against the idea that Arabs are superior to non-Arabs. Additionally, children of enslaved mothers resolved their liminal positions by re-defining themselves as completely Arab in a similar way that children of immigrants will eventually identify as American rather than as from their country of origin.17 The mawālī needed to demonstrate that they were true Muslims who were loyal to the empire and Islamic scholarship. They used their mastery of Arabic language and scholarship to obtain political and religious positions. As the Abbasid period went on, Arab and non-Arab stopped mattering as ethnic or tribal distinctions. Islamic culture became the shared identity of all, with Arabic becoming the mother tongue of millions and the language of royal courts and scholarship alike.

when we look at the great Sunnī hadith collections. All of the compilers of the six famous hadith books were non-Arab and almost half of the narrators in these canonical hadith compilations were mawālī.

Ultimately, it was the mawālī who stepped up and played a leading role in the formation of Islamic sciences.24 After the period of the Companions, the Qur’an required tafsīr, hadith needed to be compiled, dictionaries needed to be written, and new circumstances presented themselves that needed new fiqh rulings. The mawālī had an indisputable impact on Islamic scholarly tradition. They contributed to fiqh, hadith, tafsīr, theology, and Arabic grammar. Islamic scholarship remains indebted to the contribution of non-Arabs and slaves. It was primarily Islam’s call to equality that created an environment where everyone was able to contribute to knowledge, regardless of race or social status.

[newstfionline]

Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”

By Patrick Cockburn, Counterpunch, July 20, 2018

“The people want an end to the parties,” chanted protesters, adapting a famous slogan of the Arab Spring, as they stormed the governor’s office and the international airport in the Shia holy city of Najaf.

Part of the wave of demonstrations sweeping across central and southern Iraq, they demanded jobs, electricity, water and an end to the mass theft of Iraq’s oil wealth by the political parties.

Beginning on 8 July, the protests are the biggest and most prolonged in a country where anti-government action has usually taken the form of armed insurgency.

The demonstrations are taking place in the heartlands of the Shia majority, reflecting their outrage at living on top of some of the world’s largest oilfields, but seeing their families barely survive in squalor and poverty.

The protests began in Basra, Iraq’s third largest city which is at the centre of 70 per cent of its oil production. A hand-written placard held up by one demonstrator neatly expresses popular frustration. It read:

“2,500,000 barrels daily Price of each barrel = $70 2,500,000 x $70 = zero !! Sorry Pythagoras, we are in Basra”

The protests quickly spread to eight other provinces, including Najaf, Kerbala, Nasariya and Amara.

In several places, the offices of the Dawa Party, to which the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi belongs, were burned or attacked, along with those of parties whom people blame for looting oil revenues worth hundreds of billions of dollars in the 15 years since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

As the situation deteriorated, Mr Abadi flew to Basra on 13 July, promising to make $3bn available to improve services and provide more jobs. After he left, his hotel was invaded by protesters.

The credibility of almost all Iraqi politicians is at a low ebb, the acute feeling of disillusionment illustrated by the low 44.5 per cent turnout in the parliamentary election on 12 May that produced no outright winner.

The poll was unexpectedly topped by the Sairoun movement of the populist nationalist cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who has encouraged his followers to start protests against government corruption and lack of services since 2015.

The Sadrists, who emphasised their socially and economically progressive programme by allying themselves with the Iraqi Communist Party in the election, are playing a role in the current protests.

The demonstrations are also backed by the prestigious Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. At ground level, political activists and tribal leaders have set up a joint committee called “the Coordination Board for Peaceful Protests and Demonstrations in Basra”, its purpose being to produce a list of demands, unite the protest movement, and keep their actions non-violent.

“The ends don’t justify the means,” says the committee in a statement. “Let us, being oppressed, not lead to the oppression of others.”

A list of 17 demands is headed by one asking for a government timetable for supplying water and electricity, both of which are short at a time of year when the temperature sometime exceeds 50C, making it one of the hottest places on earth.

Local people claim that the last time that the port city of Basra, once called the Venice of the Gulf, had an adequate supply of drinking water was in 1982. Iran had been supplying some extra electricity, but has cut this back because of its own needs and failure of Iraq to pay on time.

The second demand of the protesters is for jobs. Lack of jobs is a source of continuing complaint all over Iraq. Much of its oil income already goes on paying 4.5 million state employees, but between 400,000 and 420,000 young people enter the workforce every year with little prospects of employment.

Anger towards the entire political class is intense because it is seen as a kleptocratic group which syphoned off money in return for contracts that existed only on paper and produced no new power plants, bridges or roads.

Political parties are at the centre of this corruption because they choose ministries, according to their share of the vote in elections or their sectarian affiliation, which they then treat as cash cows and sources of patronage and contracts.

Plundering like this and handing out of jobs to unqualified people means that many government institutions have become incapable of performing any useful function.

Radical reform is difficult because the whole system is saturated by corruption and incompetence. Technocrats without party backing who are parachuted into ministries become isolated and ineffective.

The defeat of Isis in 2017 with the recapture of Mosul means that Iraqis are no longer absorbed in keeping their families safe so they have they have more time to consider “corruption”--a word they use not just to mean bribery but the parasitic nature of the government system as a whole.

There is a general mood of cynicism and dissatisfaction with the way things are run.

“Bad government, bad roads, bad weather, bad people,” exclaimed one Iraqi friend driving on an ill-maintained road.

Corrupt motives are ascribed to everything that happens: a series of unexplained fires in Baghdad in June were being ascribed to government employees stealing from state depots and then concealing their crime by setting fire to the building and destroying it.

Given that the Iraqi security forces are primarily recruited from the areas in which the protests are taking place, the government will need to be careful about the degree of repression it can use safely.

The armed forces have been placed on high alert. Three regiments of the elite Counter-Terrorism Service, which led the attack on Mosul and is highly regarded and well disciplined, has been ordered south to cope with protests and away from places where there is still residual activity by Isis.

Iraq’s corrupt and dysfunctional governing system may be too set in its profitable ways to be reformed, but, if the ruling elite wants to survive, it must give ordinary Iraqis a larger share of the oil revenue cake.

#Iraq #Iraqi protests #Basra

[andrewuttaro]

30 Years on: What is America?

I am not of the belief patriotism is a disappearing attribute in this country. I think those who say such a thing tend to struggle with the difference between patriotism and nationalism. I digress, I already wrote that article. I’ll let you do your own research on that. To the degree patriotism is in flux at the moment regardless of anyone’s relative love for America I think it’s because we are at something of a national crossroads.

We’re collectively looking critically at our own history again for the first time in a long time. In the aftermath of a global pandemic the craving for normalcy belies an unsettling question about what that normalcy actually is and if its worth going back to: What is America? No really, what is the lived vision of America in 2021 CE? To the extent you read overzealous nuts on social media drooling over the prospect of Civil War or national partition there is in fact some hard soul searching about the what of America that has potential to lead to real political sectarianism.

I’ll check my privilege at the door and say yes: I, as a straight, white male, has never had a lot to lose in any past incarnation of the American identity. Part of the struggle here is a truly inclusive answer to Who is America? I write this under the assumption literally anyone can be American, and we should build systems that reflect that. Nonetheless, we do have to look to the past for fear of repeating it.

What is America? Well it’s a country for one: more than two hundred years old with a congressional democratic republic form of government. It’s had 46 Presidents and counting. It is composed of 50 States for now. America was founded on a couple core principles it defined around “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Anyone who seriously studies American History will tell you the promises of America’s founding documents were not all fulfilled in the beginning. America’s domestic history is defined by Civil Rights movements, reactions against said movements and a Civil War largely about who would receive the full promise of what America is. Indeed Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President who led America through that Civil conflict, spoke of this nation as the “American Experiment” that would not perish from the earth as long as the Union won. The Gettysburg Address Lincoln delivered about this vision of America was delivered on a battlefield where that nation was invaded by what can properly be called a different imagining of what the U.S. should be. Those invaders were former countryman, looking to make a different formulation of the experiment. America is an experiment, a work in progress, a project.

Nation-States as projects is not a new concept. Even before the United States of America’s War of Independence new nation-states were being founded across the world out of the milieu of Enlightenment Philosophy meeting political realities. In many places the nation-state was a more democratic, self-determining incarnation of what kingdoms and empires had been for millennia prior: the collective force of a like-minded ethnic, tribal, or familial group or otherwise aligned interested parties. The innovation of the American experiment, among other things, was perhaps that it was a nation-state for everyone seeking liberty and personal autonomy. Even though the founders envisioned the enfranchisement of a very specific kind of citizen, this American nation-state had potential from the beginning to be something that had never been attempted before.

Fast forward 128 years on from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The U.S. has not only survived its Civil War, but it has also exploded onto the global stage after two world wars catapulted it to an international superpower. Still believing itself to be the project of liberty and self-determination America had stood opposed to a distinctly oppressive superpower in the Soviet Union and won. In the process the American experiment had been exported anywhere the Soviets couldn’t stop it and now the whole world was familiar with its tenets if not copying its institutions. A Cold War that held all of humanity in suspense at the precipice of nuclear annihilation has yielded to a new reality where America found itself the dominant political force in the world unopposed. 1991, thirty years ago now, was a rare inflection point in history where suddenly massive forces of power were upended at once and there was no clear guiding philosophy for the global political order going forward… except the United States of America. What would America be now? The Post-Cold War reality was ours to lose.

Canada, America’s most intimate international partner and closest neighbor, similarly finds itself at a philosophical turning point. The Canadian author and commentator Will Ferguson points to three core guiding themes, however misled they were, for the Canadian project upon its modern founding in 1867: 1. Keep the Americans out, 2. Keep the French in, 3. Somehow make the indigenous disappear. In Canada’s 150-year history these three ideas color its every decision and define its character. All of these founding directives are now either reversed because they were outright morally wrong (See number 3) or have been killed by a thousand cuts. The nation-state to America’s north is also set to reexamine what it’s all about. In that reexamination of national identity there is great opportunity and great danger. As if an international support group, Canada’s stereotypical niceness reaches out to tell us, we’re not alone in this self-discovery process.

The answer to the Post-Cold War world for the American Experiment in 1991 was doubling down on Americana and exporting our cultural and economic mores around the world. Though this process had already begun in earnest after World War Two, now the whole world was its oyster. From aggressive, no-prisoners capitalism to unapologetic, imperial democracy, you can now find few places on the planet that are not familiar with some facet of the United States’ self-perception. America globalized who it was and not everyone liked it. Indeed many Americans began to increasingly look in the mirror this cultural hegemony provided with a critical eye. Then September 11th happened.

After the terrorist attacks on 9/11 the United States cast its enemies in an axis of evil dualism in the War on Terror that provided an endless horizon of conflict for a military apparatus unseen in human history. The polar opposite, the truly evil enemy the Fall of the Soviet Union deprived America of, would now be replaced with a complex networks of dictators and non-state entities who recorded death threats in caves. While America doesn’t exist today like a traditional empire, its reach is unparalleled, and it can strike almost anywhere on earth in a matter of minutes. With no sufficient counterbalance it would seem its military industrial complex doesn’t know what to do with itself. That menacing, widespread inhuman enemy doesn’t actually exist much in the real world if it even did during the many proxy conflicts of the Cold War decades.

Domestically the thirty years of the Post-Cold War American Experiment has seen the two branches of our government that were supposed to be lesser to the legislative, balloon in importance. In a nation where every philosophical difference is magnified into a culture war the ultimate arbiter of those borderline violent disputes is a Court system that is supposed to be an afterthought and a Presidency that has become outright imperial in spite of the founders explicit anti-monarchical sentiments. When Supreme Court justices die or retire it really seems to be on par with a Pope’s death for political partisans stateside. All good and evil in the land of liberty seems to run through a council of black-robed appointees. All 5 Presidents of Post-Cold War America were cast as lightning rods for their bases and chastised by their opposition with every scandal that would stick (to varying degrees of success). The fourth of such Presidents, Donald Trump, openly rejected the idea of America as a pluralistic nation-state with any international responsibility at all to the contrary of the image that defines Post-Cold War America, in favor of a Pre-World War II image of an isolationist, explicitly white Christian nation. Yes, the current identity crisis played out in sharp contrast in the 2016 election cycle. Many Americans consider that election the perfect storm of two intractably terrible major party choices.

Perhaps we need to face the fact we did it to ourselves. We elect no-compromise fighters whenever we vote only to be shocked when Congress turns into a toxic mess that gets nothing done. It’s always easy to criticize a one-term President but the re-evaluation of what the American experiment will be is not limited to those of a more right-wing conservative bent. The left wing in this country increasingly discusses myriad reforms to everything from our election and representation systems to our healthcare and welfare systems. No matter what your future vision of America is you probably agree, perhaps for vastly different reasons than your neighbor, that America is not the somehow uniquely exceptional nation-state it’s insisted it is, not anymore at least. The Post-Cold War era saw the concept of “American Exceptionalism” become a punchline for Americans of both and every political affiliation. For numerous reasons America’s international and domestic vitality has diminished.

The current President, historically more of a traditionally moderate, establishment democrat, has even engaged in this revisionism aggressively seeking to revive Americans faith in their very form of government with stimulus, infrastructure and voting reform in the most evenly split congress in decades. More progressive types of the left-wing beckon in every election cycle now just as the former President refuses to go away, trying to weaponize the grievance of his increasingly right-wing base in the reimagining of the American experiment he set forth as a more authoritarian leader. We have to make an honest, good faith accounting of this effort toward a new definition of ourselves if any shared consensus as a nation will ever be possible again. There is of course great danger in redefining the purpose of a national project.

However America redefines herself going forward, finding these new definitions is not an optional project. With the U.S. shaken down from its international pedestal by trade war, an ascendant China, and a stubbornly plutocratic Russia, even America’s closest allies are reconsidering how they will persist with an unstable American self-image still able to exert its hard power anywhere on earth. As some Americans pursue a more equitable society at home for historical outgroups still struggling with society’s aged mores, those efforts have been met with open racism and a kind of selfish nationalism that has not been seen this ferociously in three generations. Unless a new lasting, inclusive, American self-image is agreed upon we may be at only the beginning of a long period of internal strife and discord. Increasing numbers of ideologs of both left wing and right-wing persuasions fantasize about cutting off whole sections of the nation whom they rarely agree with. American Statehouses are dominated by right-wing majorities more often than not who have actually initiated voter suppression efforts which positions America in a dangerous place for the next close enough national election. This is not to mention the way gerrymandering steals the power of congressional representation from the very people it was supposed to empower. This whole discussion doesn’t even touch on the increasing threat of environmental catastrophe rarely addressed in the halls of power.

The current American Identity Crisis leaves many issues unaddressed as a matter of fact. An opioid epidemic that is erasing broad swaths of the population, a wealth gap unseen since the gilded age, a skyrocketing suicide rate, a gun violence epidemic, natural resource exhaustion unrelated to climate change, police violence, the fourth rebirth of white supremacist organizations, DC and Puerto Rico Statehood, the Student Debt Crisis, an increasingly intractable housing market putting home ownership out of reach for many young Americans, and numerous other problems sit on the backburner without any signs of meaningful progress. On some level it seems we’ve all given up the project of governing for earning the most points in culture wars that now express themselves on as big a scale as a national election and all the way down to dinner tables and date nights.

What is American? How might we be optimistic about such a rapidly changing country on this Independence Day thirty years on from the end of the Cold War? Among people my age it would seem pessimism if not an outright nihilism about these sorts of things is the common response where activism seems to only make minor gains. Among the general population still rebounding from the COVID19 pandemic it would seem a certain empathy fatigue has set in. Where meaningful answers to these big, generational national identity questions are being formulated it is yet to be seen if a new American consensus can be found.

Perhaps our friend Canada would tell us: these days the most patriotic thing you can do is push for your country to do better. Reckoning with the past and present treatment of minorities and atrocities abroad is not optional if we are to have an honest, effective, united future. For now, if nothing else can move us to truly feel proud of our nation, then maybe this independence day we can recognize our internal interdependence on each other, however different we maybe. If anything the most patriotic way we can be this holiday and every day going forward as Americans is honest and patient about who we were, what we are and what we could possibly be if we commit ourselves to progress once again.

#Independence #4thofjuly #America #Soviet Union #Cold War #Canada #united states

[gravitascivics]

PENDING BALKINIZATION?

An issue this blog will visit at some future point is whether people due to their nature hold a bias for their group.  That could be their race, their nationality or ethnicity, their locality, their age, their religion, even their gender.  And if that sense of belonging exists, to what extent does it exist?  How much does it trump other motivations, such as personal interests?  

Professional team sports count on people having a strong enough sense of loyalty to one’s locality to sell expensive tickets to witness their encounters with the representatives of other localities or to buy paraphernalia they can wear or otherwise exhibit.   All that is fine as long as it is considered a source of harmless fun.  

Yes, at times it has led to fisticuffs or strains within families, but for the most part, it is just a way to pass what would otherwise be boring interludes within one’s life.  This writer, in his past and when he lived in a more urbanized area, partook in such expenditures – he shared season tickets in baseball, basketball, and even football.  Plus, at times, he drove long hours to attend football games at his alma mater.  These days, though, all that has been abandoned and he follows only golf, a non-locality-based fandom.

         Yes, aging takes one through exotic turns.  But through all that, he agrees with the late Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.  That historian writes:

Most Americans, it is true, continue to see themselves primarily as individuals and only secondarily and trivially as adherents of a group.  Nor is harm done when ethnic groups display pride in their historic past or in their contributions to the American present. But the division of society into fixed ethnicities nourishes a culture of victimization and a contagion of inflammable sensitivities.  And when a vocal and visible minority pledges primary allegiance to their groups, whether ethnic, sexual, religious, or, rare cases (communist, fascist), political, it presents a threat to the brittle bonds of national  identity that holds this diverse and fractious society together.[1]

One can almost hear the reaction to citing this concern.  The problem does not lie with individuals of one group being able to exert themselves in dominating others but of attempting to protect themselves – in terms of political power and/or economic standing – against those with power.  For example, the “Black Lives Matter” reaction to case police abuse goes beyond mere racial pride or promotion.  

To the extent they are legitimate protests of unjust treatment by government personnel, these need not be acts that undermine an otherwise unified nation.  Instead, they can be viewed as expressions of what minimally this nation needs to sustain to allow such a diverse nation to survive.  Therefore, as with most of reality, this topic is somewhat nuanced.

In that light, what Schlesinger has to say can be useful in finding a workable solution to what this blog is currently addressing; that is polarization.  Not only is this topic subject to nuanced realities, but it also plunges one into ironies that defy simple ideations or policy resolves over related problems. The main irony is that a pathological adherence to group identity undermines the very individual motivation that spurs it into existence and maintenance.

While the motivation emanates from one’s natural proclivities, its manifestation undermines that individuality.  As Schlesinger points out, one loses him/herself, one’s identity, into the identity of a group.  In turn, the ideas, perceived interests, and other aims and goals of the group become inviolable and beyond questioning.  To the extent this is true, it adds to those forces sustaining the nation’s current malady of polarization.  

Again, ironically, how these problematic allegiances develop, even those that reflect racial/ethnic divides, has participants of such dueling to fall in line with one or the other of the grand national groupings – the progressive one or the conservative one.  Unfortunately, the current political landscape has Black Lives Matter “team up” on the progressive side and the white supremist group on the conservative side.  This is a shaky arrangement, but the realities of the current politics fall in line with such a division and they add to the general polarization.

And one is invited to guess over such developments: is the nation the midst of a social collapse?  Has this descending digression taken on a life of its own?  “The contemporary sanctification of the group puts the old idea of a coherent society at stake.  Multicultural zealots reject as hegemonic the notion of a shared commitment to common ideals.”[2]

As that historian points out, what has sustained this nation – a nation without a common ethnic origin – has been an allegiance to ideals.  And those ideals include a commitment to democracy and human rights.  The nation’s constitution – admittedly needing some interpretation – spells out what that means.  It speaks of union and even striving to be perfect in that union. Yet, in an age of natural rights, this basic sense comes into question – go figure.

And that historian points out another historical factor.  To be allegiant to the prevailing culture, by the historical setting in which it exists, does call for one to acknowledge the society’s Anglo-Saxon colorization.  The term “colorization” includes the notion that it has by natural evolutionary developments shifted to incorporate the influences of the various immigrant groups that have affected what Americans are culturally today.

Does the acknowledgment preclude the existence of a Little Italy or a Little Havana?  A China or German town?  Of course not.  These communities exist as transition spaces – both in terms of physical location and time. Their ongoing existence even creates tourist destinations.  Why? Because it’s a cheaper way to get exposed to another culture while still being able to speak English and be under the legal and political structures of the US.  Win-win!  And concerns over these communities underestimate the attraction of the overall American culture.

This writer can personally attest to this latter factor.  He can remember that in the fifties, living in a Latino home and wanting to be American and for all the efforts of multiculturalists, this attraction still exists.  What youngsters under that situation learn is that there is a way of being at home and a way of being beyond home and the neighborhood.  Most of these concerns turn out to be aesthetic in nature.

This gets solidified as the young person attains higher levels of education.  For the few that insist on holding on to the immigrant culture, fine.  The system can accommodate these exceptions, it has broad shoulder as long as the basic sense and administration of rights – individually and those of groups – are respected.

This blogger of late was entertained by watching a film from 1939 – the same year that produced Gone with the Wind.[3]  That other film, produced in a federated influenced society, portrays the values of that other construct.  The film, Let Freedom Ring,[4] is a story about the railroad extending into the West and its agents engaging in exploitive practices.  

While the film is a venue for Nelson Eddy (without Jeanette MacDonald[5]) to exhibit his “pipes,” it does illustrate how moneyed interests rode roughshod over disadvantaged groups including small farmers, immigrant workers (from various nationalities such as Italians and Germans), and modest townspeople.

There is one scene, toward the end in which all of these oppressed groups congregate – a social event – and become convinced that their group interests are aligned; and that commonly, they needed to unite to check the power of the railroads.  This mirrors the basic strategy E. E. Schattschneider in his book, The Semi-Sovereign People,[6] reports.

The main relevant message Schattschneider offers is that the disadvantaged need to unite to challenge and possibly win over the power machinations of the advantaged.  Divisions based on artificial factors – artificial in terms of what is at stake – such as ethnicity, race, religion, and other non-affectual factors interfere with this type of leaguing.  They lead to dysfunctional alliances or dysfunctional affiliations. Of course, at times it is one of these attributes that is at stake, as with the Black Lives Matter movement.

This posting leaves the reader with a prophetic insight Schlesinger shares:

The republic embodies ideals that transcend ethnic, religious, and political lines. … But the experiment can continue to succeed only so long as Americans continue to believe in the goal.  If the republic now turns away from Washington’s old goal of “one people,” what is its future? – disintegration of the national community, apartheid, Balkinization, tribalization?[7]

The current state of polarization seems to verify this historian’s concern and to how it challenges the nation.  And, as such, it is a concern civics teachers should be addressing in their classrooms.

[1] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America:  Reflections on a Multicultural Society (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1992), 112-113.

[2] Ibid., 117.

[3] Victor Fleming (director), Gone with the Wind (Selznick International Pictures, 1939).

[4] Jack Conway (director), Let Freedom Ring (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayor, 1939).

[5] For the younger readers, Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald were a duo who appeared in many popular films and were noted for their singing prowess.

[6] E. E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People:  A Realist’s View of Democracy in America (New York, NY:  Hole, Rinehart and Winston, 1960).

[7] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America, 118.

#Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. #E. E. Schattschneider #Let Freedom Ring #multiculturalism #Black Lives Matter #tribalization #civics education #social studies

[kalitimes-blog]

Long -timed evil historic norm buried in Ethio-Somali Regional State

  Author(Abdirashid Muse Abdi) Somali is a society of major ethnic groups do dwell on the north-eastern horn of African continent. They are linguistically, ethnically and religiously one of the largest peoples inhabiting the Horn of Africa across four recognized states: the Republic of Somalia, south-east Ethiopia, Djibouti and north-east Kenya.

Somalis are usually categorized as a "Cushitic" since it has been considered ethnically homogeneous , the better known pastoral nomadic section of society was perceived as representatives And they are restricted their norms and beliefs that they are known to apartheid each other as clans and tribes which is the footsteps of their ancestors according to all Somali tribes wherever they do dwell. Though, they(Somalis)all discriminate one same clan among them called Gaboye by discriminating in a same way the outcaste groups are collectively referred to as “Midgan” or “Madhiban,” the former term being much more disrespectful and insulting than the latter one. However, there are actually many more Somali outcaste groups. Each is connected as clients, former slaves or servants to a noble clan group. The Midgan constitute the largest Somali outcaste family, and its sub clans include the Madhiban, Mohamed Gargaarte, Muuse-Dariye, Tumaal, Yibir, Hawle, and hidden others. Each outcaste clan has its own dialect. When the noble tribes’ patrons and rulers engage in conflict, their outcaste Midgans clients are forced to fight for them. However they are neither protected nor defended, nor given any share of the resources. Even the most heroic and accomplished Midgan outcaste fighter cannot dream of socializing as an equal or marrying into the noble clan that he is attached to. When convenient, the Midgan outcaste clients are counted numerically as part of the noble clan they come under. When the Midgan outcaste oppressed groups try to organize, (as all the noble clans do), they are threatened, abused, and physically attacked. Due to the power and arms of the noble clans, most Midgan outcaste Somali people have been forced to keep silent. Any attempt to protest inequality or gain redress meets brutal reprisals. The Midgan outcaste groups control no land of their own; they are also not usually allowed to live in villages to drink or get water from the “pure” wells or to use the plates, cups or utensils of the noble clan’s people. Their status can be compared to the Dalits of India or “untouchables” of South Asia. Yet, they do not even have the constitutional guarantees that (reserved places) of Indian Dalits have, at least in theory. Only under the last government of Somalia General President Mohamed Siad Barre did Midgans have some rights in their own country. But, when he was deposed, they suffered reprisals from his noble clan rivals who accused them of supporting him. The Midgan-Madhiban is the largest of several Somali minority outcaste clans. Thus they are collectively designated as Midgan-Madhiban. Somali society is divided into patrilineal kinship-based clans and sub-clans. All Somalis can trace their ancestry to a clan or sub clan. The three main large clans (Darood, Hawiye and Isaak), traditionally control large areas of lands, many resources and exercise great political power. Certain smaller clans have respectable status but fewer resources and less political leverage due to their smaller populations. Often those small, respected clans must affiliate with and relate to nearby clans as clients and for incase of conflicts. Midgan-Madhiban, Tumal and other outcaste groups are still facing restrictions, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, abuse and attacks everywhere in the world. Not only this treatment is a continuation of their historic exploitation but it is also because they are known for impure and downplayed who is the lower level status among Somali community. It is deeply rooted historic perspectives that is long-timed norm, in spite of being very hard to bring an end the hidden feelings and beliefs that bear in community’s mind, now Ethio-Somali regional state initiated good beginning to come an end. Though, it is not held international meeting discussed about this long-termed issue in order to take mutual understandings and break this long -termed attitudes now Ethiopian-Somali regional state president Mr. Abdi Mohamud Omer took an unforgettable brave decision to come an end for this long-timed norm that has no roots to Somali ritual beliefs and faiths. ESRS president Mr. Abdi Mohamud Omar intentionally concentrated how to break this deeply rooted evil norm by initiating annual meeting forum held in raaso woreda of afdher zone that the whole different parts of the community such as community elders, religious leaders, politicians, scholars, young generations, women, etc came to gather. In fact, it was highly conducted grass root panel discussions took for days and months so the president addressed highly admirable historic speech by narrating the origin of this long lasted evil norms and how they are ignored their rights and badly treated by using these misinterpreting abusive words, we mentioned below whereas the original meanings of those abusive words of out coasted group mid-gan means “Shoot your bullet gun by one” which construes “saving bullets” and since the daily life of mid-gans were based on hunting and also they were poor comparing to other Somali tribes life style. However, the origin of mid-gan word the president said in panel discussions, “is from the old hunting system plus poverty meaning shoot your bullet gun by one and that indicates  a kind of saving bullets pointing every single bullet shouldn't miss its target and also shows that their skills of hitting the target.’’ In addition, Tumaal is one of the outcaste Somali groups under gaboye which “the word Tumaal stands blacksmith in Somali language- a person who makes and repairs things in iron by hand. Tun means repair and Maal means finance or invest, “as president Abdi stated. By giving the exact and original meaning President Abdi M. Omar also expressed Ma-dhibaan the stable ones which means easy going or trouble free people those do not disturb any one. The different meetings and panel discussions held at regional level were also discussed and agreed that every action resulting despising towards these out coasted groups should be erased totally in the region however its powerful historic evil norms lasted long and however it is not forgettable that the psychological construction impacts of this outcaste groups yet, their self deception is insidious and stealthy and it is well recognized that we discriminated them how they are professionally and technically better than others. This is why somalis started making misinterpreted abusive words but likely pointing their technical profession is dirty and unique for them. Eventually, Gaboye have traditionally held a client relationship with a patron group working and technically fit as smiths, barbers and leather workers, as well as midwives. Gabooye women and men perform infibulations and circumcision respectively. Other Gaboye are tailors, singers, and butchers. Getting know this inherits that these people are more civilized than other Somali tribes due to what they are discriminated since Somali elite elders misinterpreted without any reason except their arrogance and tribalism ideology because all other tribes or clans haven't technically professional people, they are dependent on these out casted groups and this is the footsteps of elite elders. Though, there has been an effort by some Somali civic and cultural leaders to discourage use of this term yet this has run up against deeply-entrenched prejudice. unfortunately Somalia government faced political chaos and human made catastrophic that resulted absolute devastation both human and property, Now Ethiopian-Somali regional state successfully buried this evil historic norm after long panel discussions mutually recognized that the Raaso meeting would be the first historic meeting that was underlined and come to an end this long -lasted evil norm and this score is enclosed in Ethiopia Somali regional state, especially the young visionary president Mr. Abdi Mohamud Omer who firstly brought this admirable conception of ending discrimination Finally, president Abdi settled new strategic that can bring for long term solution to the whole Somali community by making well and widely  arranged intermixed marriage ceremony from both tribes outcaste and noble tribes which the state and entrepreneurs cooperated each other full filling and accomplishing this memorable marriage ceremony of 29 intermixed marriage couples which was successfully held wide wedding ceremony participated by all regional officials and the different parts of the Somali society and then rewarded modern building G+1 houses each, two hundred thousand birr allocated to entice and beautify their homes and five hundred thousand birr to establish new businesses. THANKS MR. PRESIDENT FOR YOUR VISIONARY AND ADMIRABLE SIGHT YOU PUTT IT AWAY THE GARBAGE LONG EXISTED BLEIF AMONG THE SOMALIS. IT’S REALLY HISTORICAL EVENT THAT IS BENIFITABLE TO THE NEXT GENERATIONS. ************

Abdirashid Muse Abdi   Read the full article

[balochdiplomacy-blog]

📑The Baloch Conlict with Iran and Pakistan: Aspects of a National Liberation Struggle

On August 15, 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s nod to Pakistan’s festering insurgency revived nascent activism on Balochistan. This included rejuvenated campaigns on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, human rights violations/resource exploitation, the Kulbhushan Jadhav case, and a larger self-determination movement. The prime minister’s response to Nawaz Sharif’s Burhan Wani reference at the United Nations has since jump-started activism even in Washington D.C. and Geneva. Recently, the World Baloch Organization also managed to irk the Pakistani High Commission in England through its Free Balochistan advertisements on London cabs. With respect to Kashmir, mainstream media has always curtailed, but not fully censored, dissenting opinions via bellicose nationalism. However, alternative avenues still exist to further these voices, (both insideand outside the Valley) such as literature and independent filmmaking. ✔Naseer Dashti 📖The Baloch Conlict with Iran and Pakistan: Aspects of a National Liberation Struggle Independently published, 2017 At the same time, one question arises from the whataboutery and genuine comparisons surrounding these two conflicts. How many Indians understand Balochistan outside the contours of the India-Pakistan rivalry? In light of Pakistani inaction on Hafiz Saeed and the Swiss government’s rejection of Brahamdagh Bugti’s application for political asylum, there is a call for India to grant the latter sanctuary. Hence, Naseer Dashti’s independently published The Baloch Conlict with Iran and Pakistan: Aspects of a National Liberation Struggle, is timely. Until now, literature on Balochistan has constantly been viewed through the prisms of imperial cartography, historical ethnography, precursory nationalism, the Pakistani state, or journalistic memoir. In his first book, Dashti touched on the province’s dubious merger with Pakistan. Preceding this accession is a lengthy oppression-ridden history that included a sovereign nation-state referred to as the Khanate of Kalat. That is until Britain trifurcated the Khanate into portions held by present-day Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Rarely do South Asia policy enthusiasts get acquainted with a radically distinct outlook from an ethnic Baloch. After all, subsequent to Nawab Akbar Bugti’s murder in 2006, the author left Pakistan for the UK to escape persecution. Though according to past establishment leaders like Senator Mushahid Hussain, Bugti was not pro-independence. Outside the Pakistani High Commission in the Knightsbridge area of London. Credit: Daneesh Majid The dissident author also gives long-overdue attention to the more under-reported Baloch persecution in Iran. Fair-weather Indian ‘supporters’ and the general public are unaware of this important facet. In 1973, the Iranian Shah did not take kindly to eastern Balcohistan movements spearheaded by early nationalist figures Ataullah Mengal, Ghous Baksh Bizenjo, and Khair Baksh Marri. In his book, Dashti endorses the secessionist line. But he does so while remaining cognisant of broader geopolitical realities that hold implications for external support towards the Baloch cause. Such pragmatism is usually absent among others who extol separatist narratives. After elaborating on Iran, Dashti devotes the lion’s share of the book to a much-neglected era. This epoch succeeded the short-lived independence of the Baloch nation-state that possessed its own bicameral tribal parliament. Bhakt keyboard warriors and armchair activists alike project solidarity through hashtags that project human rights violations and/or commemorate any prominent ideologue’s martyrdom. But can those far from ground realities truly have an informed opinion on that often-ignored and disregarded period? Luckily the follow-up to The Baloch and Balochistan comprehensively narrates the peaks and troughs of a 70-year long resistance that initially emerged under a confederation of leftist parties, the National Awami Party. During the early years, the elite chieftains of the Bugti, Marri, Mengal, and Bizenjo tribes emerged as the faces of the struggle. Dashti relies on extensive research when recapping the nationalists’ post-accession trajectory that saw strides and schisms. CC BY 2.0 He then smoothly transitions into more recent stages of the resistance after the first four insurgencies. Readers are introduced to other key stakeholders like militant groups (although all but one of political parties deny affiliation with them), student organisations, and the exiled Europe-based leadership. Dashti does not just delve into these groups’ ideological leanings, he divulges fascinating details about their socio-economic and tribal demographics as well. Naseer Dashti. Credit: Youtube The wealth of information regarding contemporary history that preceded the 21st century era can get a bit overwhelming for those new to the Balochistan issue. Nevertheless, the book’s all encompassing content maintains a flow by headings and sub-headings within chapters. Most intriguing are the final parts of this account. Dashti applies relevant clauses and articles of international treaties and human rights covenants to make a case for a UN supervised referendum. This makes for provocative reading since debate around the UN’s role in South Asian conflicts has been Kashmir centric. Despite championing a liberation movement on a political and militant level, the last chapter is a testament to Dashti’s acumen in considering both internal and external obstacles to the cause. A recurring theme within the former is a lack of unity among nationalist forces in eastern Balochistan. ✔As for external support, his realistic assessment of India’s and the United States’ current and future involvement can be summed up in 🌐six words. ▶(C)overt assistance alongside strategic policy paralysis. The present-day discourse on the Baloch question is shrouded in censorship. Consequently, the only recourse to disseminate this excessively silenced narrative was an independent US-based publishing company. Therefore, the unfortunate lack of buzz around this book and minor grammatical lapses can be overlooked. Plus, perspectives regarding Pakistan Administered Kashmir or and Balochistanthat slightly deviate from those of the establishment are not simply discouraged in Pakistan. They are crushed. And if civil society members give a platform to crushed voices, a certain fate awaits them. This is exactly why Dashti’s book deserves to be read.

[britishdeepstate]

The First Step in the Design of the Middle East: Sykes-Picot Agreement

The First Step in the Design of the Middle East: Sykes-Picot Agreement

Seventeen days after the Kut Al Amara humiliation of Britain, while WWI was still raging on, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed secretly between Britain, France and Russia, on May 16, 1916, to determine how the Middle Eastern territories of the Ottoman Empire should be shared between Britain and France. The deal was exposed to the public when Russia withdrew from WWI and the agreement in question, as a result of the Russian Revolution in 1917. In other words, with the onset of the communist revolution that the British deep state had been working to start for years through provocations, spying and social engineering, Russia, one of the biggest powers to claim rights on the Ottoman lands, was left out.

According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Eastern Mediterranean, the coastline of modern Syria and Lebanon, Adana, Antep, Urfa, Diyarbakır and Mosul provinces, would be given to France. Britain would take the Haifa and Aqqa ports in the Eastern Mediterranean along with Baghdad, Bara and South Mesopotamia. An international administration would be set up in Palestine because it was a holy site. A major part of modern Iraq and Syria would also be handed over to British and French mandates.

However, this sharing scheme with France didn’t sit well with Britain, due to its aspiration of becoming the sole power in the region. Leaving Mosul to France and losing out on Palestine wasn’t in line with the interests of the British deep state. Since the early 1900s, the British had been sending technical teams to Mosul and were keenly aware of the rich oil reserves of the region. Furthermore, they were convinced that if the British took Mosul, the region could be an important leverage against a potential Islamic Union. The British deep state also considered it important to take Palestine under its control to secure the route to India.

Having already captured the Arabian Peninsula in 1915, however, the most important goal of Britain at the time was building a Britain-dependent Arab state on the lands of Iraq and Palestine by supporting Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who they had already provoked to rebel against the Ottomans. There was already a secret deal between Sharif Hussein and McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt. Strangely enough, the British were also secretly talking to Hussein’s rival, Suud, the Emir of Wahhabis. As the British deep state was pursuing its agenda with multiple back up plans, France saw that it was being slowly left out of the game. This is why it pressured Britain to accept the Sykes-Picot Agreement: so that the lands could be shared equally.

However, in the past, when Britain took Cyprus and Egypt, it didn’t need France’s permission and the French even didn’t think of asking for a share in those territories. So much so that even though the French opened the Suez Canal in 1869, the British took the canal under its control when it took Egypt in 1882 and the French response was nothing more than subdued resentment.

Things changed when the British were heavily defeated at Gallipoli and Kut Al Amara. Britain was now facing a bolder France, one that was protesting, reacting and pressuring. Britain didn’t want to defy France at Sykes-Picot, as it wouldn’t be good to have French as an enemy, especially after the loss of considerable prestige and power.

For this reason, it humored France, since Britain needed France on its side, albeit temporarily. This is how the Sykes-Picot Agreement was drawn up on the basis of an equal sharing principle. A more British-oriented sharing of the former Ottoman lands could be postponed until later. Although Sykes-Picot was never officially implemented, as it was a secret agreement that somehow became exposed, it was still largely used as a basis in the partition process of the Ottoman lands. The part of the secret agreement that involved Anatolian territories could never be implemented because Mustafa Kemal had started the Independence War in Anatolia. Even today, the British deep state wants to compensate for what it gave up on during those days, and by using the communist terror group PKK and coup plots, is seeking to achieve its century-old goals.

With the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British deep state was throwing away its previous promises to rebel Sharif Hussein. In the new sharing plan, no land was given to Sharif Hussein. Hussein, thus, is an important example of how the British deep state fools the hypocrites it locates in the Islamic world with crafty but empty promises and disposes of them after it is done with them.

It didn’t take long for the British to compensate themselves for what they had lost with Sykes-Picot Agreement. On November 15, 1918, British invaded Mosul by using the 7th article of the Armistice of Mudros as a pretense. Its so-called justification included the usual excuses like ‘ensuring the safety of the Christians in the region’ and that ‘British POWs were mistreated’. During the San Remo Conference in Italy on April 24-25, 1920, the British managed to persuade the French with ‘its usual tactics’ and obtained the French rights in Mosul and Palestine in exchange for Syria.

The basics of the modern borders in the region were determined by Sykes-Picot Agreement. However, after 1919, they were slightly revised with various agreements (such as the ones made in Paris and San Remo). The leading figure in the determination of the borders was once again the British deep state, and the region was divided into small parts in line with the future plans of the dajjal system.

This is how the British deep state tore apart Muslim communities that had for centuries lived together on those lands in peace. The process that started with Sykes-Picot and sped up after the Balfour Declaration introduced artificial borders that completely ignored the political and cultural sensitivities in the region. As a result, mandate states like Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Kingdom of Hejaz were set up.

The British deep state always knew that the Islamic world would be an immense power, would enjoy unrivalled influence and become a deterrent force if it united as one. Therefore, throughout its history, the British deep state considered such a prospect as the biggest threat to its existence. It used nationalism, sectarian divides, and tribalism for sedition and carefully created a volatile atmosphere of conflicts, clashes, wars and pain that continues today.

Over time the countries of the region, almost half-colonies, became scenes of constant oppression, persecution and poverty under the rule of British-controlled dictators. Nevertheless, the British deep state and its affiliates continued to exploit the richness and diverse natural resources of those countries.

To sum it up, the road to the Greater Middle East Project which was first mentioned in the early 21st century as a plan to divide the Islamic world into even smaller pieces before eventually destroying it, and which amounts to handing over the region unconditionally to the British deep state, started with Sykes-Picot Agreement.

The First Step in the Design of the Middle East: Sykes-Picot Agreement BritishDeepState.net

[juliosmith-blog1]

GED 210 Introduction to Cultural Anthropology Unit 3 Examination

 Follow Below Link to Download Tutorial

https://homeworklance.com/downloads/ged-210-introduction-to-cultural-anthropology-unit-3-examination/

 For More Information Visit Our Website (   https://homeworklance.com/ )

 Email us At: [email protected]  or [email protected]

   The most important belief underlying the practice of     having a widow marry one of her brothers-in-law is that:

her family should not have to return the bride price

the rights of the deceased husband must be preserved

all men should have more than one wife

widows should never have to live alone

  The most common form of polyandry is ________, in which     brothers share a wife.

risk taking

sibling polyandry

fraternal polyandry

levirate

  When a married couple goes to live in the house of the     brother of the husband’s mother, the post-marital residence pattern is     referred to as:

avunculocal

matrilocal

patrilocal

fratrilocal

  In most tribal societies, rules of descent, marriage,     and residence are:

flexible and often subject to lengthy discussion and     negotiations

strictly enforced and rarely changed

known only to village elders, who are consulted     whenever a decision must be made

unconscious, and therefore defined mostly by outsiders     (such as ethnographers)

  In general, divorces are most common among societies     that are:

patrilineal and patrilocal

matrilineal and matrilocal

organized into bilateral descent groups

polyandrous and avunculocal

  Deborah Gewertz, who has re-examined Mead’s     interpretations of the Tchambuli (Chambri), arrived at the conclusion     that:

Chambri women are among the most aggressive in all     human societies

Mead’s interpretations failed to take specific     historical circumstances into account

Chambri men were submissive due to frequent defeats in     warfare

cultural values do not influence gender roles

   The Kula, described by Malinowski in Argonauts of the     Pacific, refers to:

a type of outrigger canoe used for long-distance travel     by island chiefs

a ceremonial dance performed by the indigenous     Hawaiians

a ritual in which red shell necklaces were traded for     white armbands

a sacred beverage whose use was restricted to Tahitian     chiefs

  The Kula is an example of what type of exchange?

redistribution

balanced reciprocity

hypergamy

market exchange

  The term “barter” is used to refer to:

the agreement on a certain price for a specified     product

a system of unbalanced reciprocity in which goods of     unequal value are exchanged

the direct exchange of one commodity for another

the redistribution of goods in a marketplace

  The potlatch feasts of the northwest coast societies     are usually interpreted as a form of:

long-distance barter

resource conservation

ritualized warfare

redistributional exchange

  Which of the following might be interpreted as a modern     example of the potlatch?

A local politician gives away hundreds of frozen     turkeys at a campaign rally.

A special interest group pays the salary and expenses     of a lobbyist.

A former president makes speeches in favor of his     party’s new candidate.

Delegates at a national convention trade buttons and     other campaign memorabilia

  A major difference between redistributional and     reciprocal economies is that:

reciprocal economies are more common in societies with     inequalities in social status

redistributional economies tend to make certain     individuals wealthier than others

reciprocal economies always involve the exchange of a     recognized form of currency

only redistributional economies involve transfers of     goods among related villagers

  From a cross-cultural study, Jack Goody learned that     bridewealth occurs more frequently in horticultural societies, whereas the     dowry system is most frequently found in agricultural states. He further     hypothesized that one function of the dowry system was to:

consolidate property in the hands of elite groups, thus     increasing their wealth and status

spread wealth out over a larger area so that everyone     in the society had about the same level of affluence

counteract the practice of bridewealth, non-adaptive in     an agricultural state, because it allowed certain families to accumulate     too much wealth by selling their daughters to the highest bidder

create an egalitarian society

  Since wealth and status determine the type of marriage     patterns found in agricultural states, the primary form of marriage for     all but the elite was:

polygyny

polyandry

polygamy

monogamy

  Monogamy is the primary form of marriage in most     agricultural states. The probable reason this pattern is so prevalent is:

most agricultural states have laws against polygamous     marriages of any kind becausethey disrupt the normal flow of the     agricultural cycle

in agricultural societies, where land is a scarce     commodity, peasants cannot afford the luxury of polygyny

polygyny is impossible because there are fewer women     than men in agricultural states

most peasants can only afford to accumulate enough     wealth for one dowry

  Divorce was rare in agricultural states because of a     number of factors. Which of the following is not one of the factors     discussed in the text?

Both the corporate character of the extended family and     the necessity for cooperative labor among family members usually lead to     normative constraints against divorce.

Marriage was the most important way that land was     transferred, and marriages were the basis of alliances between families     and kin groups.

In some societies, marriage became a sacred institution     and there were laws againstdivorce.

Divorce was not allowed in many, if not all,     agricultural states because of the emotional disruption it caused to the     family members, often making them unfit for agricultural labor.

  In many agricultural states, women were restricted to     domestic activities while men were permitted to engage in public (outside)     endeavors. Women were often not allowed to own property, engage in     politics, or pursue educational goals. These restrictions were reflected     in a number of cultural practices such as:

purdah and foot binding

caste system

idiographic mediation

dowry and bridewealth

  Social inequality is exemplified in the __________ of     Indi These social units are endogamous groupings into which a person is     born and dies.

purdah system

shogun scheme

caste system

slavery system

  Capitalist societies share three basic ideals. Which of     the following is NOT one of these ideals?

The elements of production are privately owned

Companies are free to maximize profits and accumulate     wealth.

Land and resources should be owned and controlled by     the state government, while production and services are in the hands of     free enterprise.

Free competition and consumer independence are basic to     all economic activities.

  Anthropologists have found that kinship in industrial     states:

often becomes solidified and molded into large descent     groups called oligoclans

becomes much more important and clearly defined than in     preindustrial societies

becomes less important as new structures and     organizations replace and begin to perform many of the functions     associated with kinship in preindustrial societies

tends to remain about the same as is found in chiefdom     societies

  With industrialization, the functions of the family     changed, and one of the major transformations was the:

increase in the frequency of polyandrous marriages,     especially those involving brothers

decrease in the mobility of members of the family since     they were all tied to industrial production

increase in matrilocal residence and a reduction in     patrilocal residence

diminishing importance of the extended family and the     emergence of the nuclear family

  As nuclear families replace extended families in     industrial societies, older people no longer reside with their adult     children. The role of the elderly in retaining and disseminating     information has diminished in industrial societies. The elderly have lost     much of their economic power. Sociologist Donald O. Cowgill has     hypothesized that:

The status and role of the elderly in the future will     increase because the birthrate has dropped to an all-time low.

There will be an elderly revolution, termed the     “silver-haired rebellion,” which will place much of the lost power and     status back into the hands of the older segment of society.

As the rate of technological change accelerates, knowledge     quickly becomes obsolete, and this decreases the status and role of the     elderly (they are no longer the storage houses of technological knowledge;     libraries and databanks have taken over this role).

In the future, there will be a major reorganization of     kinship and the family, which will restore power to the elderly.

  Chiefdoms and agricultural states are classified as     __________ because they provide little opportunity for social mobility.     Industrial states, on the other hand, are considered ___________ because     social status can be achieved through individual effort.

oppressive; free

hierarchical; egalitarian

closed societies; open societies

caste cultures; kindred cultures

  The House of Lords in Great Britain differs from the     House of Commons because membership in the House of Lords is:

based on intellect

inherited through families

limited to those individuals who have already served in     the house of commons

based on religious affiliation and achieved status

  The primary mode of social mobility in Japanese society     is:

education

luck

inheritance

what is called burakumin and eta

#GED 210 Introduction to Cultural Anthropology Unit 3 Examination

[multiracialmedia-blog]

Hold Up! Who Called the Mixed Identity Police?

Hold Up! Who called the Mixed Identity Police?

As if People of Color (POC) in the U.S. don’t have enough to worry about trying to avoid and survive rampant police brutality, we Multiracial folks often face another type of policing: that of our identities. And it can come from all directions—from strangers on the street to people with whom we share DNA.

While Identity Policing is far less threatening and terrifying than the risk of physical harm, arrest or death at the hands of actual cops, it is still deeply problematic and it needs to stop.

What Does it Mean to Identity Police?

WHAT: Identity Policing is the act of questioning, challenging, assuming, presuming, denying, decrying, debating and/or berating any other human’s racial/ethnic/national or related identity. It commonly takes the form of people saying:

You can’t be…

You must be…

You have to be…

You don’t look like…

But you look more like you’re…

Are you sure you’re not…

I don’t believe you…

No, let me TELL you what you are…

(Feel free to add your own…)_________________________________________________________

Who Identity Polices us?

Strangers

Teachers

Students

Bosses

Colleagues

Clients

Customers

Friends

Lovers

Partners

Spouses

Parents

Other Relatives

Those who are Ethnically Ambiguous Looking tend to be Identity Policed more often (particularly by strangers or new acquaintances) and more rigorously than others. For some of us, it is a constant in life. Speaking for myself, I understand why some people stare and wonder and assume, and I don’t usually mind when they ask. I prefer that to when they prejudge and create a whole story about who they think I am that has nothing to do with reality.

Who Calls the Identify Police and Why Does Identity Policing Happen?

Humans are an inherently tribal species. Unfortunately, that too often involves various forms of domination, oppression, exploitation, etc. But generally, categorizing other people is something that some of us do naturally and others learn to do, usually at an early age. We do it with gender, with race/ethnicity/nationality/religion and other identity markers relevant to our tribe(s) and environments. I have been guilty of Identity Policing people in the past, though now that I’m aware of it, I try harder to avoid it. But it’s easy to see why it’s so commonplace.

Think about gender. A few years ago, before we were introduced to the concept of gender non-conforming identity options beyond the traditional Male/Female binary. When we saw an androgynous person, we sometimes stared at them in an attempt to shove them into our mental binary where only two options existed, wondering “are they this or are they that?” Our society is gradually expanding those options and now we have new language and the beginnings of wider and more diverse categories with which to consider people, including “gender non-conforming” to replace androgynous.

When it comes to race and ethnicity, people tend to do the same thing. And while it’s not fair to other groups of people, the dominant racial binary in the USA remains Black and White at the core, with Native American on the side, and other groups such as Asian/Pacific Islander and Latinx rounding out the most common categories.

Those are the designations that most folks have in their minds when considering someone whose appearance (and perhaps mannerisms) doesn’t give immediate clues as to how they should be considered or labeled.

The identity policing starts when they ask some variation of “What are you?” They might volunteer their guess or assumption even before we answer; sometimes even in the initial question. “Are you _____?” “You’re________, right?”

When we tell them what we are, they often jump into being the Identity Police, claiming expertise over our truths and our lives. We’re not the only ones who experience this, but it’s common to many of us, especially those whose looks automatically prompt the questions. We can be Identity Policed by many different groups—those with whom we share ancestry as well as others.

Multiracial people recognize that our mere presence causes some people to feel uncomfortable. It’s not always personal and it doesn’t necessarily mean that the uncomfortable person is racist. Our existence often challenges the Black vs. White foundation upon which this nation was built. Even with the rapid rise in interracial coupling and the fact that Mixed kids are the second largest group being born in the U.S. today, swirling (particularly Black/White) is still considered juicy forbidden fruit—edgy, taboo and vaguely dangerous. Add other groups and racial/ethnic combos to the mix, and Multi folks function as natural disrupters of the status quo simply because we are here.

There’s also a power dynamic to Identity Policing. When someone questions or challenges your truth, they have appointed themselves your superior, and assumed that they are qualified to judge you. You can feel the dynamic when it’s happening to you—that push-pull of someone vying for the alpha position in your interaction.

That’s what bothers me most about people who Identity Police—those presuming superiority over who we are and how we choose to move through the world. History shows us why they feel this way: as if we are a problem to be solved; a looming disaster needing to be contained and constrained in those narrow categories that have no room for the glorious variations that we represent. In a society built and run upon the premise of closely-controlled racial and ethnic identity, we threaten the status quo. And this isn’t limited to any particular group—all kinds of folks want to control us rather than understand us and the gorgeously complex and messy truths that we represent.

Now, for the first time in U.S. history, we Multiracial people are staking our claim as a stand-alone category. This is a natural result of the presidency of the very Biracial President Barack Obama, finally getting a semblance of a Census category, and news that Mixed babies are the second-largest group born today. Add to this the ability that social media has given us to congregate and speak up against the popular stereotypes and Identity Policing, and you can see the complex dynamics at play.

But even as Multiracial folks are beginning to come together, some of us still Identity Police each other. I’ve seen it on social media, including some Mixed Facebook groups. At times, it takes the form of criticizing folks whose cultural affiliations might not be the same as ours. Some folks whose mixes include Black are very vocal against those who are (or aren’t) Black-identified. I’ve seen groups of Mixed folks drawing lines and referring to the more Black-identified people as “One Droppers.”

This kind of divisiveness disturbs me even more than when we’re Identity Policed by others. If being Multiracial means nothing else, it is an expression of human diversity worthy of our support and celebration. How can expect others to respect us if we don’t respect ourselves? The last thing we need to do is appoint ourselves judges of how other Mixed people choose to self-identify and culturally affiliate. We can show the world what embracing diversity looks like—and give them a glimpse of the beauty of life beyond the blinders of the common binary. We represent the spectrum of possibility. Let’s not limit ourselves or each other in our quest to be recognized for our entire realities.

What can we do about Identity Policing?

Call it out. Challenge people (taking into account the appropriateness of the situation) and ask that they respect the truth of your identity as you choose to describe and define it.

Reject it. Let folks know that you and you alone are in charge of your identity, your category and your descriptors. They don’t have to like them, agree with them or approve of them. They just need to stop trying to dominate you with their opinion.

Make it a teachable moment. If you have the time and stamina, and determine that this person is worth the investment, you might want to do the deep dive and discuss the various aspects of why you are in charge of your identity and they’re not. Warning: No matter how great a job you do at this and despite your best intentions—and sometimes theirs—don’t expect them to suddenly “get it” and magically agree with you. As they say in Disney movies, “it could happen.” But don’t bank on it. If you choose this option, manage your own expectations so you don��t drown in frustration.

Ignore it. Yes, you read that correctly. I’ve had to learn to pick my battles. We are living in perilous political times on top of the everyday racism and other isms that we navigate every day. You do NOT need to explain or defend who you are, your ancestry, your life choices, or any aspects of your identity. Even. To. Those. Closest. To. You. And if they push, feel free to disengage.

We can’t fight all forms of isms and inequality at one time. But this is one area where we can and must push for change. We can benefit by coming together to challenge and fight Identity Policing in all its forms. We can claim agency over who we are and how we demand to be considered—as fully human and deserving of respect at all times.

Then and only then can those who Identity Police be arrested and put on lockdown, where it deserves to be.

Hold Up! Who Called the Mixed Identity Police? if you want to check out other voices of the Multiracial Community click here Multiracial Media

#Complexion Chronicles #Identity police #identity policing

[patriotnewsblogger-blog]

Trump Assumes Command of the American Church

New Post has been published on http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/trump-assumes-command-of-the-american-church/

Trump Assumes Command of the American Church

As Donald Trump demonstrated in his first address to Congress, no matter how loathsome a ruler may be, he can bring an assembly of politicians to its feet and disarm some critics simply by invoking the quasi-secular faith—Americanism—and eulogizing the latest uniformed war-state employee to sacrifice his life for it. Trump has indeed shown he can fill the job expected of any president: supreme head of what Andrew Bacevich calls the Church of America the Redeemer.

Horace’s declaration “Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori“—“It is sweet and proper to die for one’s country”—is just what poet Wilfred Owen called it: “The old Lie.” Screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky extended Owen’s point when he had his protagonist in The Americanization of Emily tell a war widow, “We perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices.” How many times must people fall for this ploy before they realize they have been cruelly scammed? (The American Church is sustained by a coalition of profiteers and true believers or what economist Bruce Yandle generically dubbed “bootleggers and Baptists.”)

If we are ever to abolish America’s bloody and costly permanent war state we will have to rethink the quasi-secular faith which holds that dying—and killing—for one’s country is the greatest honor and virtue to which one one can aspire. It is time we learned that killing and dying for an ideology—even so-called liberal democracy— is as bad as doing so for a religion, even so-called radical Islam. (The distinction between ideology and religion is more apparent than real).

In his speech to Congress, Trump milked the moment for all it was worth when talking about a Navy SEAL who died in a bungled special-ops raid in Yemen in late January. (Did you know the U.S. government conducts ground operations there?) It was the first such operation Trump approved, although it was planned during the Obama administration and Trump has shifted responsibility to the generals.

“We are blessed to be joined tonight by Carryn Owens, the widow of a U.S. Navy Special Operator Senior Chief William ‘Ryan’ Owens,” Trump said before Congress. “Ryan died as he lived: a warrior, and a hero—battling against terrorism and securing our nation…. Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity. Thank you. For as the Bible teaches us, ‘There is no greater act of love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.’ Ryan laid down his life for his friends, for his country, and for our freedom. And we will never forget Ryan.”

Everyone stood and applauded for over two minutes, Trump making no effort to bring the ovation to an end. “Ryan is looking down right now,” he said. “You know that. And he is very happy because I think he just broke a record.”

That’s great. Carryn Owens lost her husband, his three children lost their father, but they’ll know that he died for the nation-state and that members of Congress stood for a record length of time.

Trump also said: “I just spoke to our great general [and Defense Secretary James] Mattis, just now, who reconfirmed that—and I quote—’Ryan was a part of a highly successful raid that generated large amounts of vital intelligence that will lead to many more victories in the future against our enemies.'”

Of course Trump left some things out of the account. The raid killed at least 25 noncombatants, including children — among them an American citizen: the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, the militant Muslim cleric and American citizen executed without due process in Yemen by an Obama drone nearly six years ago. Nora al-Awlaki’s teenage brother, Abdulrahman, also an American citizen, was similarly killed in an Obama drone strike in Yemen.

Moreover, the special-ops raid in January failed in its mission to capture or kill leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). As NBC reported: contrary to Trump’s claim, “last month’s deadly commando raid in Yemen, which cost the lives of a U.S. Navy SEAL and a number of children, has so far yielded no significant intelligence, U.S. officials told NBC News.” (A follow-up report found the same. CNN reports otherwise, and it’s certainly possible the raid netted intel. But we must also consider that military officials have a motive to lie: to reinforce the faith that Owens did not die in vain.)

The purpose of the raid has been clouded by conflicting statements. NBC says that initially “Pentagon officials called it a ‘site exploitation mission’ designed to gather intelligence” but later did not dispute Sen. John McCain’s description of the mission as intended to eliminate or catch militants. Adding to the confusion is the Pentagon’s description of one of the victims, Sheikh Abdel-Raouf al-Dhahab, as an AQAP leader. NBC says “the Yemeni government disagrees.”

The Washington Post reported that “Yemeni and tribal officials described a chaotic scene that followed [the raid], saying that tribal leaders, even those without an affiliation with AQAP, took up arms out of loyalty to Dhahab and a desire to protect their village. ‘Any person who has dignity and honor would not stand by and watch his neighbors and relatives and tribesmen being attacked and do nothing,’ said Saleh Hussein al-Aameri, a tribal leader who was close enough to hear the gunfire.” (Emphasis added.)

Apparently you don’t have to be a “radical Islamic terrorist” to resent foreign troops storming your village at night.

“Almost everything that could go wrong did,” The New York Times reported. “The death of Chief Petty Officer William Owens came after a chain of mishaps and misjudgments that plunged the elite commandos into a ferocious 50-minute firefight that also left three others wounded and a $75 million aircraft deliberately destroyed.” Nevertheless, “the Pentagon is drafting such plans to accelerate activities against the Qaeda branch in Yemen.”

According to the quasi-secular faith, reckless disregard for human life doesn’t matter. All that matters is that a man gave his life carrying out orders issued by the high priests of the American Church in the name of National Security. It is heresy even to wonder if the death was in vain, if the noncombatant deaths constitute war crimes, or if the operation bore any relation to the actual security of the American people. Woe betide anyone who suggests (as some military people have) that such raids create militants and fill the ranks of people who want revenge against Americans for what they allow their government to do.

As expected, the Trump administration deflected criticism by invoking Owens’s martyrdom. Trump press secretary Sean Spicer said that anyone “who undermines the success of that raid owes an apology and [does] a disservice to the life of Chief Owens.”

Inconveniently, it was Owens’s father who admonished Trump not “to hide behind my son’s death to prevent an investigation” of the ill-conceived operation. The elder Owens refused to meet the president when the chief petty officer’s remains came to Dover Air Force Base. “My conscience wouldn’t let me talk to him,” the elder Owens, a veteran, said.

That Trump would exploit a grieving widow and invoke the national quasi-secular faith for his own advantage is hardly surprising. Presidents always do this. What’s remarkable is that even some of Trump’s critics were taken in. For example, Van Jones, who portrays himself as an edgy left radical, gushed over Trump’s shameful use of Owens’s death. Trump “became president of the United States in that moment, period,” Jones said on CNN. “That was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics.”

Hardly. But it shows that a quasi-secular faith can be as powerful as any religious faith.

Contrary to the national faith, the “war on terror” is neither defensive and nor effective: there was no AQAP before the U.S. military invaded Afghanistan and Iraq roughly 15 years ago, and it has been bombing Yemen for years. (Bizarrely, it also helps AQAP by enabling Saudi Arabia’s war against AQAP’s enemy, the Houthis.) The 9/11 attacks, which provide the official excuse for the permanent war state, were acts of revenge — albeit immorally directed largely at noncombatants—after decades of oppressive and lethal U.S. actions against Arab Muslims. The already small terrorist threat to Americans could be further reduced by adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy.

But any suggestion that the American Church does wrong is systematically marginalized and kept from the public by the mainstream media’s defenders of the official faith. As long as that’s the case, innocents in other lands will continue to be murdered and Americans like Ryan Owens will continue to die in vain.

This piece originally appeared at The Libertarian Institute.

Powered by WPeMatico

http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/trump-assumes-command-of-the-american-church/ %cats%