Where Every Scroll is a New Adventure
Classism - Blog Posts
Anti-vaxxer extremist RFK Jr, the US Health Secretary, is now actively trying to collect medical records of folks on the autism spectrum. First, he used dehumanizing and infantilizating language to insist people with autism won't 'pay taxes and live a 'normal life' which we all know is ableist bullshit and is literally a precursor to genocide. This man is a monster.
There are people at my job who won't talk to me because I'm a janitor. And yes, I go with "janitor"--derived from Janus, the Roman God of gates and doorways. There's no shame in the title and I wear it proudly enough.
Maids, cleaners, janitors, and sanitation workers are all the most important people of civilization by far. Even 12 hours without them is VERY noticable and they simply need to be highly compensated for it
can we all agree that being overdressed is a myth made up by boring stuffy people who are too worried about other people’s lives and don’t want you to have fun
the reason fascists keep growing and yall keep losing is because unlike you, the fashies use simple language understandable by like everyone and their mother. maybe stop writing 1000 word long salads that require advanced knowledge of several old man books to understand.
they win because their broadcast is simple as fuck. do you guys really fucking think youre gonna gain support of an average working class Guy whose english isnt that good if you keep telling these people to read theory or whatever?
lol lmao leftists are losers
saw this poster in a bus station and hoo boy /neg
(no alt text because 1. its in polish and its content is talked about in this post anyways and 2. kind of in a rush so be my guest to rb this with alt text if there's a need)
so first things first, i understand calling an ambulance to a homeless person, i sort of understand a helpline for people in such crisis but WHO THOUGHT CALLING COPS IS A GOOD IDEA??? i am not an acab guy but come on!!!
second, "don't give a homeless person money, it will only validate them in their homelessness" WHAT THE FUCK??? that's just classism at its finest i dont even get it
i hate poland sometimes on par with amerimutts
It's hard to study contemporary American cryptids, because they don't have unique names. Instead of fanciful names like "Jersey Devil" or "Sasquatch," most new cryptids don't have distinct names, people just use common words like "woman" or "criminal," even when they're referring to imaginary, non-human beings with supernatural powers.
How people are treating Hobie Brown, and British punks / people as a whole, reeks of classism, privilege and plain ignorance. It's so painfully obvious when somebody who has no clue about punk history, or even the basic idea of poverty in Britain, writes about or speaks about Hobie and his universe.
Let's also discuss the way people immediately assume Hobie is a thief who has no hygiene, and how that's a god damn issue. There is NO mention in the comics or movie of him not washing himself or being a kleptomaniac, not only that, but aren't wicks hard to maintain? It's obvious he doesn't use 3 in 1.
This assumption of Hobie is racism and that much is obvious, but is also rooted in classist beliefs and common stereotypes about punks used to demonise the movement. People also threw around this 'headcanon' in the first movie with Miles, it's a CLEAR pattern.
Don't even get me started on cishet people in this fandom and how heteronormative / homophobic people are in regards to Hobie. 'B-But Hobies universe is the 70's 🥺🥺 he'd hate gay and trans people...👉👈' Do your god damn research?? The punk and LGBTQ+ movements have always been closely intertwined. I have seen a comic panel where Hobie literally kisses Captain Anarchy, but even if that isn't real and was edited, he is still friends with Captain Anarchy, who's a confirmed gay man.
All in all, please, for the love of god, just treat Hobie Brown like you treat Peter Parker. Treat him like the well written character that he is. He's not some racist, classist stereotype you can push your bigoted beliefs onto.
Just wait until I get onto how misogynistic this fandom is toward Spiderbyte and Spidergwen, don't get me started because I will make another post.
The thing blue state leftists don’t seem to understand about red states is that telling minorities to “just leave” is really insidious. That is exactly what the republicans want. They want to make their state so miserable and dangerous and scary for everyone who isn’t a conservative cisgender heterosexual white Christian that those people leave. Leave behind their family, their homes, their friends, their jobs, their community, the places they’ve lived their entire life. With every person who leaves it is one less gay person teaching their children, one less person protesting outside the capitol, one less blue voter trying to stop the place they call home from sliding into fascism.
Many of us cannot afford to ‘just leave’ and many of us don’t want to because contrary to popular belief, North Carolina isn’t an irredeemable shithole with nothing to offer and no sense of community. People do leave red states for their safety but that does not fix the underlying problem, that doesn’t even make the problem better.
not to harp back to a few days ago but the whole "taking phone calls in public/loud music in public/playing music and videos outloud in public is rude etc. (the list could go on)" argument is not only absurd,
(not all public spaces are going to be silent its is unrealistic, outside cannot cater to every single person as everybody has different needs, but this is not me dismissing there are concerns for people who may have sensory 'issues' or may be bothered by loud sounds)
but has ties to racism and classism, especially considering that many nonblack and white people call the police about "noise complaints" on black and brown people and poor people because the music being played at a party is 'too loud' or music from a car is being played 'too loud', which leads to them getting arrested or killed.
It also has links to gentrification, it is known that people who do complain about a community being too loud are clearly not familiar with the cultures in that area and that loud noise being a nuisance is a clear sign you are coming into a culture that isn't yours
anyway i think some of you need to read the article linked because the influx of these types of arguments is concerning.
Leftist infighting almost killed me (Broke Bread)
Leftist who Socially policing flawed (marginalized) people / content creators online up to the point of practically trying to ruin their livelihoods, isn’t Liberation, it’s harassment and just makes you not only expose your internalized classism but a bully who loves to create drama for personal gain.
Controlled Opposition: A Theory
I don't want more just enough. I don't want a luxury lifestyle just a proper decent one where I can afford basic joys like good housing and healthcare and entertainment.
I wish there was more time being spent teaching people from a young age that it is okay not to be rich.
I mean the statement, "It's okay not to be rich," seems really silly. Common sense should tell us that this is obvious. However, consumerism and materialism are on the rise. People scroll through their social media feeds and get depressed because they don't have the means to just randomly decide to take a jet to Paris, France because they "felt like it" like their favorite influencers do. And people seem to lack the capacity to realize that most of that stuff is fake anyway.
Most normal people would like to be a little more well-off for security reasons. I wouldn't mind a little more money solely because it would allow me to worry about fewer things and indulge in things here and there that I don't get to do, but I have no desire to be rich. I just don't see the appeal in it. I do not want more money than I can even hope to spend in a single lifetime. I would just like to be comfortable.
But this idea--that being rich is the absolute best thing and if you do not become rich, you're a failure--is being pushed on young people (and I think it's mostly pushed on young boys and men) and it's slowly turning brains into rot and it's depressing to see.
1. Stripping someone to their underwear, while choking them and assaulting them beforehand, in public, is definitely sexual assault.
I compared it to groping because it's essentially mild sexual assault, but both have the same effect on the victim: lack of consent, sexual humiliation, and exposure, in Snape's case. And in real life, forced exposure is considered sexual assault.
2. No, it was James starting the fights, with Sirius. Snape was only fighting back. The Marauders targeted Snape for their own amusement, and he merely retaliated in self-defense. Should he just take it? This is victim blaming.
3. It's because his whole life he never had power and respect. At home, he was abused and neglected. At Hogwarts, he was bullied, assaulted, and gaslighted by both his abusers, his best friend, and the authorities, who failed to intervene plus Dumbledore, who protected his abusers. No authority ever prevented James and Sirius from attacking Snape. He needed power, he needed to feel respected, because he never was, and it's perfectly normal to crave that. His agency was always taken away. Cults target people like Snape because he's insecure, seeks community, acceptance, and a sense of power, and he's useful at that. He also shared a dorm with Slytherins every day, so it's no wonder he got sucked into their camaraderie in some way. He merely sought agency, since everyone around kept stripping it from him. James essentially contributed to Snape's social alienation, disrespect, ostracization, and indirectly was partly responsible for Snape's radicalization, though not completely.
4. I'm not saying what Snape did was good, nor am I justifying his actions. I'm simply saying that James and Sirius were a pretty big contributor to him getting sucked into the Death Eater circle and that they both abused him, and Snape was the victim in their dynamic.
I'm talking about social power and those who were constantly neglected of it - of course, people want to reclaim their power. James was a socially popular, accepted, wealthy, powerful pureblood who had a stable home, whereas Snape was often ostracized, humiliated, a poor, ugly half-blood in Slytherin where status is everything. He was also neglected and abused by his family at home and abused at Hogwarts, literally everywhere. His pursuit of power was about protection, belonging, and self-worth, which he didn’t get anywhere else. And teenagers need those things.
All of your arguments ignore context, as well as how oppressive systems work and affect the oppressed.
can snape stans for the love of god please shut the fuck up
here are some things i’ve GENUINELY seen snape stan’s say today and i have receipts:
1. that lily only fell in love with james because he gave her a love potion. i…i don’t even know what to say other than that this is obscene.
2. that james’ actions could be compared to what death eaters do. i’m sorry, has james ever killed or tortured anybody purely due to their race/ethnicity? does james think that all minorities deserve to die or be controlled? and do i need to remind people that snape literally WAS an avid blood supremacist and death eater?? jesus fucking christ…
3. like 3000 people saying over and over that james sexually assaulted snape. first of all, comparing pantsing to sexual assault is extremely disrespectful to anybody who’s been s/a’d, myself included. second of all, that only happened in the movies, dipshits. clearly you didn’t read the books if you obsess over that argument.
4. that lily, sirius, remus, james, and peter are all worse people than snape. i’m sorry, did any of them grow up to torment innocent children? did any of them grow up to find pleasure in the pain and suffering and fear of little kids, using their position as a TEACHER to express prejudice? did any of them grow up to use a child’s DEAD DAD’s actions from DECADES AGO to justify cruelty? peter grows up to be awful, but the other four make childhood mistakes that they learn and grow from in adulthood. snape never learns and grows. he just gets worse, and that’s nobody’s fault but his own.
5. that minerva and hagrid are just as bad as snape. first of all, hagrid never discriminated against students for their race or identity and neither does minerva. hagrid and minerva are tough but fair. they don’t enact cruelty. when they see bullies or cruel students get what’s coming to them, then they turn away because they’re witnessing natural consequences. i won’t deny that minerva and hagrid have favorites but they aren’t blatantly cruel to people who aren’t favorites and their only acts of cruelty are ones in which the students ACTUALLY INSTIGATE something worth punishing. snape punishes neville for existing. he punishes hermione for daring to participate in class. and malfoy goes off scott free because he’s a pure blood.
moral of the story, snape stans are delusional. if y’all weren’t so INSANE, then maybe i’d actually like snape. but you are. so i don’t, and i doubt i ever will!
Educated = Hot
The Class Dynamics between James Potter and Severus Snape: A Critical Analysis:
This is a dedication to all those who say that class has nothing to do with the bullying that James exerted on Severus, to those who claim that James couldn't be classist because "he never proactively despised anyone for being poor" or because "he was friends with Remus," to those who say "Snape also attacked him" or suggest it was a "rivalry" and that they were on equal footing, or simply to those who say they are "fictional characters" and that fiction has nothing to do with reality, blah blah blah. This is something I have written with bibliographical references because, once in a while, I can stop being a simp goof and show off my university degree in political science. And yes, I am going to be an authentic pedant because I can, and because many people seem to live in a candy-coated world regarding these issues, and it wouldn't hurt them to get a bit educated. That said, here goes my essay:
When analysing the interactions between James Potter and Severus Snape in the "Harry Potter" universe, it is common to find vehement defences of James, arguing that his bullying was not class-motivated. However, it is crucial to untangle how class dynamics operate structurally and how this influences interpersonal relationships. James Potter, as a member of a wealthy, pure-blood family, represents the dominant class, while Severus Snape, coming from a poor, working-class background, embodies the subordinate classes. In the magical world, pure-blood lineage is associated with inherited privileges similar to aristocracy in the real world, where blood purity is a marker of status and power. Authors like Anderson and Löwe (2006) have explored how heritage and lineage have been determining factors in the distribution of power and privileges throughout history, both in fictional and real contexts. This socioeconomic background plays a crucial role in the power dynamics between characters like James and Severus, highlighting how class structures affect their interactions and perpetuate inequality.
Social class, according to Marxist analysis, is a structural category that determines individuals' positions within society based on their access to the means of production. In "Harry Potter", pure-blood status equates to magical aristocracy, while Muggle-borns, Half-Bloods with muggle parent and those from humble origins, like Snape, represent the working or marginalised classes. James Potter, on the other hand, embodies the privileges of the elite, not only through his wealth but also through his lineage, which grants him a status that influences his interactions with others.
The bullying James exerts over Severus cannot be disconnected from its socioeconomic context. Although James may not have explicitly expressed disdain towards Severus for being poor, the way he exploits his superior position to humiliate and subdue Severus reflects power dynamics based on class. Pierre Bourdieu describes how power structures are reproduced through symbolic violence, where the dominant classes impose their cultural and social legitimacy over the subordinate ones, perpetuating inequality. In the context of 'Harry Potter', this symbolic violence is reflected in how the magical aristocracy imposes its values and norms on those of humble origin. The public humiliations James inflicts on Severus are not just acts of bullying but also manifestations of a structural power that favours the privileged like James. Besides Bourdieu, other theorists such as Michel Foucault could provide complementary perspectives on how power is exercised and perpetuated in institutions, in this case, Hogwarts as a microcosm of magical society.
In James and Severus's case, this symbolic violence manifests in the public humiliations James inflicts on Severus, using his status to ensure there are no significant repercussions. James's position as a popular and privileged student grants him social immunity that Severus, due to his humble origin, cannot counter. This demonstrates how class structures influence the dynamics of school bullying, where resources and social capital determine which behaviours are acceptable and which are not.
The "Harry Potter" fandom often minimises James's actions, portraying him as a mere prankster without malice, while pathologising Severus's response, attributing it to resentment and bitterness. This narrative reinforces the whitewashing of the actions of the rich and popular to the detriment of the poor and marginalised. Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, in their "Dialectic of Enlightenment", explain how the culture industry and hegemonic discourses contribute to naturalising domination relationships, presenting them as inevitable or even fair. Their analysis reveals that modern media perpetuates class dynamics by presenting power structures as natural and immutable. This can be observed in how the dominant narrative in the 'Harry Potter' franchise tends to glorify high-class characters like James while marginalising figures like Severus, whose resistance to the system is viewed with suspicion or disapproval. Contemporary studies, such as Mark Fisher's "Capitalist Realism" (2009), also highlight how media reinforces the current economic and social status quo, making it difficult to imagine alternatives to the existing system.
By justifying James's bullying as mere youthful pranks, the fandom perpetuates a narrative that excuses the abuse of power and classism, ignoring the impact these actions have on individuals like Severus, who are already in a structurally disadvantaged position. This reinforces social hierarchies and strips victims of their agency and dignity.
Severus's portrayal as a bullying victim is intrinsically linked to his social class. His marginalisation is not just a product of his actions or personal choices but a consequence of social structures that privilege figures like James Potter. Antonio Gramsci's theories on cultural hegemony are useful here to understand how the dominant class's ideas are imposed as normative, silencing the oppressed voices and legitimising the violence they suffer. In the 'Harry Potter' narrative, this hegemony manifests through the glorification of the values and behaviours of pure-blood characters like James, while the perspectives of the marginalised, like Severus, are dismissed or vilified. For example, the Marauders, led by James and Sirius, both rich pure-bloods, are portrayed as mischievous heroes despite their aggressive behaviour towards Snape, who is depicted much more negatively even when acting in self-defence. This reflects how cultural hegemony shapes public perception, perpetuating a value system that favours the privileged and marginalises the oppressed. Authors like Stuart Hall have explored how media and popular culture reinforce these hegemonic structures, underscoring the need for critical analysis to dismantle these dominant narratives.
Severus, in this sense, represents those who are constantly repressed by power structures and whose narrative is distorted to fit a worldview that favours the privileged. His resistance and eventual adoption of extreme ideologies can be understood as a response to this marginalisation, a desperate attempt to reclaim agency systematically denied to him.
To fully understand the relationship between James Potter and Severus Snape, it is essential to acknowledge the influence of class structures on their interactions. The narrative that minimises James's bullying and blames Severus perpetuates a simplistic and biased view that ignores the complexities of social inequality and power. By applying a critical analysis based on Marxist theories, we can unravel how classism permeates these relationships. Studies on young adult literature, such as those by Maria Nikolajeva, and the analysis of victimisation frameworks in popular culture by Henry Jenkins provide a theoretical framework that reinforces the need to re-examine fandom's conceptions to avoid perpetuating these structural injustices. These investigations highlight how narratives of power and oppression are often shaped by dominant interests and how this affects the public's perception of marginalised characters like Severus.
The Inconsistencies of Race and Class
NO. 1
Class is primarily an economic measure, of course, based on wealth and income. This is explained more in Karl Marx’s and Max Weber’s ‘The Communist Manifesto, where Marx touches on Capitalism, an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit rather than the state's need to expand throughout Markets. The three main groups in class society are 1) The Aristocracy, 2) the bourgeoisie, which owns most of society’s wealth and production. And 3) the proletariats, or the working-class people. These terms are even more present today than during the Industrial Revolution. The bourgeoisie thrives off alienation and false consciousness, which is the way of thinking that prevents a person from understanding the true nature of their social or economic status.
NO. 2
Patricia Hill-Collins writes in Toward a New Vision, ‘’Each group identifies the type of oppression with which it feels most comfortable as being fundamental and classifies all other types as lesser importance. Oppression is full of such contradictions. Errors in political judgment that we make concerning how we teach our courses, what we tell our children, and which organizations are worthy.’’ (Collins, 1993). Oppression of education and fundamental voting rights happened exclusively to minorities, especially black people. During the ’50s and the ’60s, Brown vs. The Board of Education was one of the most iconic moments in history when the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that the segregation of public schools between blacks and whites was unconstitutional.
NO. 3
Basically, proving that separate is not equal. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, and of course, the Civil Rights Movement that led up to it, was a landmark civil rights and U.S. labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Now, with the Civil Rights Movement passed, it makes it seem that all people have rights, but it’s not true. Minorities alike do not have the same rights, no matter the changed laws and how much we think we’ve changed. White privilege is the societal belief that benefits white people over non-white people. It makes it almost impossible for all minorities to overcome the system. White privilege is the belief that there’s nothing wrong with being a white nationalist and that the removal of our nation’s past physical examples of racism, ex. The erasure of Confederate statues, affirmative action, and other such policies is an attack on white heritage.
NO. 4
Whether they want to admit it or not, the overlap between race and class has a great impact on society, and it intersects in complex ways, and simply focusing on one aspect alone may not lead to comprehensive solutions. Affirmative action was used to bridge the gap between racial and class disparities, and now that it is being threatened and taken away, we must carefully consider the impact that it has had and continues to have on marginalized communities. Carol Anderson, the author of White Rage, talks about the definition of white rage, which is how their anger fuels hatred, and that hatred fuels violence which has caused the deaths of black people, men, and women alike, ever since the first boat brought the slaves. It touches on white privilege and the indifference white people feel for black people, sort of like colorblind racism, a ‘toilet assumption’, the naivety that all people are created equal, when that’s far from the case.
How Climate Change is threatening Culture's Worldwide
NO.1
Mass relocations are a thing that is set to happen thanks to climate change. And as more natural disasters happen that circuits the need for climate change education, more doomsday scenarios appear instead of healthy solutions to help save the planet--with the water rising from melting ice caps, it is destroying island and southern communities, and producing record number droughts in different sides of the planet. Why then does the media frame climate change as something inevitable, and how does that produce apathy, not just in regular people, but in these companies as well?
NO. 2
The research about climate change is all about education; informing the public about counter-options to reduce carbon levels in the air. I know this could benefit one person, if not the whole group, and that is what’s important. So how do we define apathy toward climate change? Well, the definition of apathy first is a lack of feeling or emotion towards something. It is based on a variety of subjects, like race, sex, education, age, food, culture, groups of people, etc. How does apathy relate to other negative concepts like indifference, and how are those emotions dangerous? ‘’How does apathy come to exist? Through ignorance of a toxic and uncoordinated action. Framing is used as an institution and illustrates how it shapes media framing in a toxic event. Even in systems who are supposed to help the average person, are people seen to have a ‘tendency to behave in accordance with what they see as being in their own interests.’’
NO. 3
From “Climate Change and Planned Relocation in Oceania.” Sicherheit Und Frieden (S+F) / Security and Peace, vol. 34, no. 1, 2016, pp. 60–65: ‘‘The sinking islands have become a symbol of the consequences of manmade global warming. The foreshadowing of climate change-related environments and social developments that will affect other parts of the world sooner rather than later. In the current academic and political discourse, migration figures prominently among the social effects of climate change, and climate change-induced migration-conflict nexus, and research and findings have become ever more complex and sophisticated, trying disentangle the ‘long and uncertain casual chains from climate change to social consequences like conflict.’’
NO. 4
In conclusion, the Guna Yala tribe will not be the last island community to relocate because of the rising sea level, thanks to climate change. In fact, billions of people are going to be fleeing, and forced to relocate because of the threatening climate, and the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change understands (UNFCCC). From Climate Change and Planned Relocation: HOW CLIMATE RESETTLEMENT CAN WORK FOR COMMUNITIES. Danish Institute for International Studies, 2017: Entire cultures and societies will have to cope with the ‘‘ability to foster broader resilience-oriented solutions driven by the livelihood needs and strategies of the communities in question. When relocation is found to be necessary, [like in the Guna Yala tribe’s case], it should be approached as an expansion of existing livelihood strategies and mobility patterns, not an end to them.’’
The Birth of Unions through the Black Gaze
NO. 1
During the 1940s, the past three decades beforehand for Black Americans have been life-changing: The Harlem Renaissance in the 20s, the Great Depression in the 30s, and then the inauguration of President FDR, who would eventually lead America into WWII, at the beginning of the 40s. Then came the Great Depression, and with it, economic downfall and loss. It devasted the economy, and millions in the country could not find jobs, nor could they keep it. Black Americans suffered harsher during this time since they couldn’t make ends meet; even those who still had jobs, labored in unskilled and service fields, regardless of their actual skills. And whether from the South or the North, these economic pressures made a significant decline in incomes to a third of what they had been in before the Depression.
NO. 2
‘’Wages had fallen to roughly 60 percent of their pre-Depression level. Declining demand followed the decline in earnings, speeding the downward spiral. The economic crisis affected everyone, black and white, rural and urban, skilled and unskilled. The federal government in 1930 estimated that 17 percent of the white population and 38 percent of the black population could not support themselves without assistance. White men took jobs held by black men, and white women took jobs held by black women, while privileged black folk who were financially stable toward their businesses and homes, lost them.’’ To Ask for an Equal Chance, Greenburg, pg.1-3
NO. 3
The ideas of President F.D.R helped, called New Deal programs increased the number of public jobs. Because these new agencies had nondiscrimination provisions, black workers at all levels of skill had a better chance to obtain these jobs than those in private sectors where racial discrimination remained. And even though black workers still worked in the same menial jobs they found in private employment, many government programs—particularly in northern and western cities—also hired black skilled, clerical, and professional workers, like black social workers, nurses, teachers, office managers, architects, engineers, and administrations, which they all benefited, and had a tremendous impact on black employment. And for the first time, 1932 Section 7A of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) guaranteed workers the right to organize unions, but when the Supreme Court declared it was ‘unconstitutional’, Congress passed the Wagner National Labor Relations Act, which extended 7A’s scope.
NO. 4
Industrial union organizers sought to engage all possible workers in the struggle for union recognition; when racist whites excluded black workers, organizers pointed out that employers hired the latter as strike bearers (scabs). Only by offering union membership to all, regardless of race, could unskilled and industrial unions succeed. Therefore, unions or their leaderships sought to actively recruit African American workers alongside whites. Among these workers? Socialists and Communists. Drawn to this movement, believing that the working class was the victim of an exploitative capitalist system, which the Depression made their arguments even more convincing. Only unity among all workers could overthrow the tyranny of their bosses, the parties insisted, and bring about economic change. They considered racism a tool the wealthy used to divide the workers and dilute their power, which drew in black Americans, welcoming them in through politics and the realities of organizing unskilled workers.
NO. 5
Some unions had already begun organizing around the principles that interracial unions advanced the interests of all workers, something the elite, racists like the Southern Klans and the police were fearful of. Black and white built the United Mineworkers Union, which from its inception in 1890. Since James Ford, a black Communist leader argued that union benefited and helped desperately, and unemployed black Americans, while including them improved the chance for successful organizing, and to better achieve their goals. Ford writes, ‘‘the organization of the people’s immediate needs, better wages, unemployment, and social insurance, better wages, civil and economic, and equal rights, the Communist Party worked on a Popular Front strategy of working with liberal groups when doing so advance its common goals. Therefore, Communists embraced all progressive union activists as coalition partners.’’
NO. 6
Unfortunately, the elite, wealthy, and racists in any work, but especially the police, disliked integration. Police beat, arrested, and even on occasion shot protesters and organizers, often assisted by other angry whites. The Georgia Klan, unhappy at the advancement of black textile workers as a result of a union drive, responded with a violent anti-CIO campaign in 1939, convinced that the communist agitators they were convinced, interpreting the Communists interracial union organizing as a Soviet plot to destroy the United States by undermining traditional race relations and stirring up otherwise ‘contented black Americans to demand equality they did not deserve and even worse—sought to bring down the white race by granting black men readily access to white women. Such rhetoric was used to preserve the economic advantages for white-middle and upper, and middle-class brought anti-union violence to disastrous new heights and bringing an end to what would have been the beginning of economic equity to all.
The Federal Reserve
NO. 1
Today, we’re going to asking some questions all focused on the Federal Reserve. Who created the Federal Reserve? What is its purpose? And how does it continue to control us, poor and middle-class folks, today? The Federal Reserve Act was signed by President Woodrow Wilson on December 23, 1913. Generally speaking, it has five general functions, ‘‘like conducts the nation's monetary policy to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates in the U.S. economy; promotes the stability of the financial system; promotes the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions; fosters payment and settlement system safety and efficiency and promoting consumer protection and community development.
NO. 2
The first myth about the Federal Reserve, is that it is controlled by the federal government, hence the name. But in actuality, it is a private institution whose shareholders are commercial banks, hence the term, ‘bankers bank’. The word ‘federal’ is designed deliberately to create the impression that it is a public entity. Indeed, misrepresentation of its ownership is not merely by implication or impression created by its name. More importantly, it is also officially and explicitly stated on its website: ‘The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not owned by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution” [1]. To unmask this blatant misrepresentation, the late Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s, described the Fed in the following words: ‘Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”
NO. 3
Henry Ford quoted, ‘It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” In simplistic terms, the Federal Reserve basically controls the money supply, and average citizens, like you and me, work for any valuable company, and in order to receive those paychecks, you used where only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash on hand and available for withdrawal. This is called fractional reserve banking, and it is done to theoretically expand the economy by freeing capital for lending. Every single person on this planet is working under the Federal Reserve.
For more information, please watch the documentary ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’, based on Thomas Piketty's best-selling book, on Netflix. They give a widespread selling of how far back the plans to implement the Federal Reserve goes.
Homelessness in America
Homelessness in America is rampantly occurring, and we could all blame it on the recent COVID-19 disease, but we could all agree it is because of poverty. In New York City, and other huge cities all over the world, the gap between extreme wealth and extreme poor have always co-existed. Politicians have wholly ignored such issues, in favor of giving attention to other social issues.
The recent poll, taken in January 2020, ‘‘New York had an estimated 91,271 experiencing homelessness on any given day, as reported by Continuums of Care to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Of that total, 15,151 were family households, 1,251 were Veterans, 3,072 were unaccompanied young adults (aged 18-24), and 7,515 were individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. Public school data reported to the U.S. Department of Education during the 2017-2018 school year shows that an estimated 153,209 public school students experienced homelessness over the course of the year. Of that total, 5,939 students were unsheltered, 44,678 were in shelters, 3,157 were in hotels/motels, and 99,435 were doubled up.’’
The numbers continue to grow because legislation is slow, and most shelters are up to their capacity. Most people who have little to no income cannot survive only on government benefits and as it limits to nothing, homelessness increases. ‘‘There is a general consensus that, while not necessarily preventing homeless, the generosity and comprehensiveness of welfare systems of welfare systems shape the degree to which households will experience homelessness and housing exclusion, as well as the characteristics of those households (Allen et al, 2002.) The basic pattern, developed by Stephens and Fitzpatrick, (2007), is that the more generous and comprehensive a welfare system, the fewer the number households who experience homelessness will be largely single-person households and will have experienced other forms of exclusions, substance misuse, and various disabilities. On the other hand, more miserly and constrained welfare systems will generate a much higher number of households experiencing homelessness due to poverty, and housing affordability, rather than individual-level disabilities.’’
My name is Arielle, I am a social scientist, and I am a New Yorker speaking about homelessness in my state because I feel that, especially now, everyone should speak up and give their voice as a show of solidarity. I will continue to write and post about social issues impacting my community, state, and the world. There are links to help and donate to all these shelters down below.
1) Hoboken Homeless Shelter (hobokenshelter.org)
2) Urban Pathways
3) DonateNYC
4) Siena House - Siena House (weebly.com)
Intersectionality in regards to social science
Modern society in America, as a fact, has adapted the constructed norms of the Victorian Era in England, by which I mean how economic class, race, and sexuality is managed, or for lack of a better term, is misconstrued with eurocentric ideals; Since the creation of the United States, the only way you would be able to receive the privileges society holds was if you were white, straight and economically secure.
Throughout the decade, society has changed drastically when it comes to talks on these particular subjects, but we still have a long way to go in advancing a better community for everyone. Intersectionality, created or introduced in the 1980s, ‘‘as a heuristic term to focus attention on the vexed dynamics of difference and the solidarities of sameness in the context of discrimination and social movement politics. It exposed how single-axis thinking undermines legal thinking, disciplinary knowledge production, and struggles for social justice. Over the intervening decades, intersectionality has proved to be a productive concept that has been deployed in disciplines such as history, sociology, literature, philosophy, and anthropology as well as feminist studies, ethnic studies, queer studies, and legal studies.’’
So intersectionality is quite popular in learning all these studies. Patricia Hill Collins, a sociologist famous for writing the book ‘Black Feminist thought’ and ‘Race, Class, and Gender, writes about the politics of gender and race, and how they shape and influence knowledge. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and Collins theorized that race and gender are part of our ‘social being’. ‘‘Social science argues that to truly understand society and group life one must be removed from the particulars and concerns of the subjects being studied. In this way, subjects are turned into objects of study. Collins’ (2000) alternative epistemology claims that is it only those men and women who experience the consequences of social being who can select ‘topics for investigation and methodologies used’ (p. 258). Black feminist epistemology, then, begins with “connected knowers,” those who know from personal experience—Rather than believing that researchers can be value-free, Collins argues that all knowledge is intrinsically value-laden and should thus be tested by the presence of empathy and compassion. Collins sees this tenet as healing the binary break between the intellect and emotion that Eurocentric knowledge values.’’
The History of Riots
Riots. Small or massive, can induce major anxiety especially if you’re introverted like me. Riots are usually caused by people getting infuriated, by things like politics, economy, or for the end to tyranny and oppression. You see it when people rise up against their government, like the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, and the American Revolution. More recently, the race riots of 1965 were a violent and historical recording of how damaging people can act when things start to change, or where there is simply no change. That is the crux of riots.
‘‘What determines a country’s political institutions, and in particular, the extent to which they are democratic? An important set of explanations has focused on the idea that conflict, or the possibility of conflict, induces leaders to promote institutional change? Tilly (1990), Besley and Persson (2008, 2009), and Dincesco and Prado (2012) argue that conflict, and in particular wars between countries, created the setting for Western European nations to build institutions that would enable the enforcement of contracts and collection of taxes. Conflict also plays an important role in Acemoglu and Robinsons’ (2000, 2001, 2006) theory of democratization; they emphasize how the threat of conflict, in the form of a revolution, induces autocrats to make democratic concessions in an attempt to defuse that threat. In their theory, revolution is more likely in times of economic hardship, so negative economic shocked pen a ‘‘window of opportunity’’ that can lead to a peaceful transition towards democracy.’’
Riots are a backlash against the government, explosive and in you’re face. Riots transform regular people into citizens who want to show off their freedom, by expressing the rights that they have. Rioting certainly doesn’t start out that way. It starts off as protesting against either a corporation, a government, society itself, or a certain person. Unfortunately, anger starts to lead the way within the protest and drives violence as a way to get even more attention. ‘‘The main difficulty in testing whether conflict opens a ‘‘window of opportunity’’ is that riots are rarely exogenous: there might be problems of reverse causality because the expectation of political change might itself lead to riots, and there might be unobservable omitted variables that cause both riots and political change.’’
