#Brianna Rennix

[st-just]

In fact, the story I hear from these families detained at their check-ins is almost always the same: “I did everything I was supposed to do. I checked my mail every day. I went to all my meetings with immigration. I answered all of immigration’s phone calls. I always complied with the law. I don’t understand why my children and I were arrested.” When I would dig further into their history, I would usually find out that the family, at some point, moved to a different address than the one they registered with immigration when they arrived in the United States. They had, of course, dutifully informed ICE of their new address at their check-in, and an ICE officer had written it down on an official-looking form right there in front of them, and the family had believed, quite reasonably, that they had successfully updated their address with “the government.” Little did they know, of course, that “immigration” (a.k.a. ICE) is housed under a completely different department than the immigration court system, which is responsible for mailing their hearing notices. To change their address with the court, there is a completely different piece of paper they have to fill out and mail to several specific locations within five days of relocating. ICE, with whom these families meet every month, doesn’t give a shit whether the families get their hearing notice at the correct address, so they don’t go out of their way to let the families know that there are additional steps they need to take. And so then, of course, the family shows up at their scheduled check-in one day, never having known that they even had a court hearing scheduled, only for immigration to gleefully inform the family that they’ve lost their case and take them into custody. (Other times, the family’s registered address is entirely up-to-date, and the government just fucks up sending the notice in the mail—this happens with some frequency, too.)

Brianna Rennix

#quote #american politics #immigration #brianna rennix

[theoutcastrogue]

More Bloody Tales of Justice: The Story of the Prison

by Brianna Rennix & Lyta Gold

Aurora was making it up, obviously. I told her so. “Not a chance.”

“It’s true,” she said. “They took people and they put them in these rooms, and they said, you can’t ever leave.”

“That’s stupid,” said Nadir. “How could they stop you? My mom says if you’re not happy with any place you’re in, you can always walk away.”

“You can walk away now,” insisted Kat. “You didn’t used to.”

The place didn’t make any sense. It made even less sense as we passed through long hallways crazy with dust, where vines and ferns had shoved the bars apart. How could they keep people here, even when the walls and bars had been upright? How could they keep anybody still in one place, like keeping a frog in a pond and saying “sorry, frog, you’ve got to stay in your pond, because I said so and the other frogs too, we’re all agreed on this one, and nothing can make us change our minds?”

I was thinking about frogs because I knew Jase had brought frogs. They were always in his pockets. Two floors up, a big green bullfrog skipped out of his shirt and disappeared into the ruin of these empty, rain-sick rooms. The wind walked in and out, through the holes in the walls. It sounded a lot like crying.

— Brianna Rennix & Lyta Gold, illustration by Harriet Burbeck | Current Affairs (July 2021)

#rogues in fiction #prison #Brianna Rennix #Lyta Gold

[andandalso]

brianna rennix & nathan j. robinson -- why you hate contemporary architecture

#brianna rennix & nathan j. robinson #why you hate contemporary architecture #quotes

[gammija]

Was reading the wikipedia page on trolley problems to find out whether TMA is or isnt one - I still don't have a clear answer, but i do have this part from 'criticisms', which seems surprisingly apt:

Brianna Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson go even further and assert that the thought experiment is not only useless, but also downright detrimental to human psychology. The authors opine that to make cold calculations about hypothetical situations in which every alternative will result in one or more gruesome deaths is to encourage a type of thinking that is devoid of human empathy and assumes a mandate to decide who lives or dies. They also question the premise of the scenario. "If I am forced against my will into a situation where people will die, and I have no ability to stop it, how is my choice a "moral" choice between meaningfully different options, as opposed to a horror show I've just been thrust into, in which I have no meaningful agency at all?"

#tma #tma s5 #tma spoilers #the magnus archives #magnuspod #actually i think for tma to really be a trolley problem #the consequences of the webs plan would have to be clearcut #as opposed to literally unknowable #hope this gives yall a chuckle as it did me #cause yeah! that about sums it up huh #mag199

[probablyasocialecologist]

The hierarchical orderings of human societies are still so accepted as to seem like natural law. 44 countries are still outright monarchies, but even the Chief Executive of the supposedly democratic United States is endowed with such huge power that most of our political discourse seems to revolve around a single person’s conduct. Workplaces are often strict hierarchies, the justice and propriety of which cannot be questioned by those at the bottom, even though the justifications for the difference in power between Jeff Bezos and Amazon fulfillment center workers are little more persuasive that appeals to the Great Chain of Being.

Hierarchy is common to bad governments, bad workplaces, bad relationships, and bad schools. When we look at societies throughout history and feel disturbed, the reason is usually something to do with hierarchy: some people were priests doing human sacrifices, while other people had to be the sacrifices. In our own country, some people have been slaves, others masters. Some people have been prisoners, others cops. Some are “non-citizens,” without basic rights, others are “citizens” who are Legitimate People. (Yes, the distinction between the citizens and noncitizens should be thought of as a formal caste system, whereby some people are more entitled to rights than others. It is only because we are used to it that we don’t comprehend how appalling it is to divide society into a hierarchy of “non-people” and “people” based solely on where they happened to be born.)

Wherever you find distinctive ranked orders of social status, and some people with vastly more power and liberty than others, you find a situation that should be revolting to anyone who cares about universal justice. (That is, revolting to the sort of person who wants everyone to be served by our social arrangements, rather than having categories of “winners” and “losers.”) A truly just world has to be a democratic and egalitarian one, where hierarchies are minimized.

#hierarchy #inequality #capitalism

[cucamonga-springs]

Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture - Brianna Rennix & Nathan J. Robinson

Let’s be really honest with ourselves: a brief glance at any structure designed in the last 50 years should be enough to persuade anyone that something has gone deeply, terribly wrong with us. Some unseen person or force seems committed to replacing literally every attractive and appealing thing with an ugly and unpleasant thing. The architecture produced by contemporary global capitalism is possibly the most obvious visible evidence that it has some kind of perverse effect on the human soul. Of course, there is no accounting for taste, and there may be some among us who are naturally are deeply disposed to appreciate blobs and blocks. But polling suggests that devotees of contemporary architecture are overwhelmingly in the minority: aside from monuments, few of the public’s favorite structures are from the postwar period. (When the results of the poll were released, architects harrumphed that it didn’t “reflect expert judgment” but merely people’s “emotions,” a distinction that rather proves the entire point.) And when it comes to architecture, as distinct from most other forms of art, it isn’t enough to simply shrug and say that personal preferences differ: where public buildings are concerned, or public spaces which have an existing character and historic resonances for the people who live there, to impose an architect’s eccentric will on the masses, and force them to spend their days in spaces they find ugly and unsettling, is actually oppressive and cruel...

For about 2,000 years, everything human beings built was beautiful, or at least unobjectionable. The 20th century put a stop to this, evidenced by the fact that people often go out of their way to vacation in “historic” (read: beautiful) towns that contain as little postwar architecture as possible. But why? What actually changed? Why does there seem to be such an obvious break between the thousands of years before World War II and the postwar period? And why does this seem to hold true everywhere? ... For many socialists in the 20th century, the abdication of decorative elements and traditional forms seemed to be a natural outgrowth of a revolutionary spirit of simplicity, solidarity, and sacrifice. But the joke was on the socialists, really, because as it turned out, this obsession with minimalism was also uniquely compatible with capitalism’s miserable cult of efficiency. After all, every dollar expended on fanciful balusters or stained glass rose windows needed to produce some sort of return on investment. And since such things can be guaranteed to produce almost no return on investment, they had to go. There was a good reason why, historically, religious architecture has been the most concerned with beauty for beauty’s sake; the more time is spent elegantly decorating a cathedral, the more it serves its intended function of celebrating God’s glory, whereas the more time is spent decorating an office building, the less money will be left over for the developer. ... Architecture’s abandonment of the principle of “aesthetic coherence” is creating serious damage to ancient cityscapes. The belief that “buildings should look like their times” rather than “buildings should look like the buildings in the place where they are being built” leads toward a hodge-podge, with all the benefits that come from a distinct and orderly local style being destroyed by a few buildings that undermine the coherence of the whole. This is partly a function of the free market approach to design and development, which sacrifices the possibility of ever again producing a place on the village or city level that has an impressive stylistic coherence. A revulsion (from both progressives and capitalist individualists alike) at the idea of “forced uniformity” leads to an abandonment of any community aesthetic traditions, with every building fitting equally well in Panama City, Dubai, New York City, or Shanghai. Because decisions over what to build are left to the individual property owner, and rich people often have horrible taste and simply prefer things that are huge and imposing, all possibilities for creating another city with the distinctiveness of a Venice or Bruges are erased forever.

#architecture #capitalism #communism #aesthetic

[disconnecteddots]

Notes on Nathan Robinson's Response to J.K. Rowling  - The Bathroom Debate

Because of my great respect for his other writing, I have taken particular interest in the response of Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs to the recent J.K. Rowling controversy, entitled "J.K. Rowling and the Limits of Imagination". The essay is a polemical attack on her views and character, calling her a transphobic bigot.

I will mostly be using the traditional definitions of "woman" and "man" in this response ("adult human female" etc.), except when denoting otherwise using the adjective "trans".

Here are some of my thoughts, mostly on bathrooms and changing rooms.

The subtitle reads:

The creator of Harry Potter could imagine the most marvelous fictional universe in children’s literature—yet she can’t imagine the inner lives of transgender people or the radical expansion of political possibilities.

This is a very helpful sentence contradicting the idea that Rowling is of poor character. Yes, the ideas trans rights activists (henceforth TRAs) peddle are indeed "radical". It should come as no surprise that people have trouble imagining radical ideas. This is a common feature of radical ideas, regardless of whether they are true! Whether someone can imagine radical ideas is not very indicative of their character.

She tells the usual fear-mongering tales that conservative Republicans tell about the perils of having trans women in the bathroom:

“When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman—and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones—then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”

As my colleague Brianna Rennix has written, this is ridiculous: people who wish to commit sex crimes in bathrooms do not have their gender checked at the door. A person does not have to “pass” as a woman to commit a crime in the ladies’ room, they just have to walk into the ladies’ room.

First off, note the switch from Rowling's "bathrooms and changing rooms" to just "bathrooms... the ladies' room". Changing rooms have mysteriously disappeared in Nathan's response. I have seen this dodge before. Perhaps because it's easier to defend bathrooms, where private stalls prevent voyeurism, than changing rooms, where people may change and shower in the open.

But more importantly, Nathan's retort is easy to dispute. It is very easy to think of impediments that keep men from entering women's spaces. They may be observed, noted as suspicious, and/or confronted inside the space. They may be observed, noted as suspicious, and/or confronted by observers outside the space, such as a waiter in a restaurant seeing a man enter the women's restroom. They may be asked to leave businesses or other establishments. They may suffer social consequences if word is spread of their behavior. They may be ejected by staff or police. With social and physical consequences for trespassing, it would be difficult for a man to use strategies such as repeated entry or lingering in women's spaces, useful for finding opportunities for misconduct. Seriously, what would happen if a man entered a women's changing room with twenty women in it? They'd confront him and chase him out! And all of these possible consequences also creates internal discouragement in the offender: fear. Fear can be overcome by repeated confrontation of the fear - in this case, that would be repeated intrusion into women's spaces. But that's difficult if the intrusions result in consequences.

But with explicit sanctioning of self ID as the only criterion for entry into women's spaces, none of these defensive strategies can work properly. Intruders can overcome their fears through practice. They can enter and linger as often as they like, so long as their behavior wouldn't provoke suspicion if done by a woman. They can't be ejected by staff or police until after they commit an offense, and much voyeurism won't be punishable at all - no one gets kicked out of a changing room for scanning the room. No one gets kicked out of communal showers for showering in them.

There is one remaining defense with self ID: prejudice. If trans women are still observed and noted as suspicious, that decreases the ability for men to intrude and offend. If social consequences are still imposed on trans women for using the women's bathroom, that also serves as a deterrent. But if this prejudice is eliminated in this context as TRAs desire, these defenses will be lost as well.

Does Nathan really think it's a knockdown argument that unless there's a guard at the door, or the door is locked, that that means there is no impediment to going somewhere? Sometimes I leave my front door unlocked at home. But if an intruder were to enter my home, they'd risk running into me, the police being called, etc. That's just a basic fact about life. The threat of social or physical consequences discourages people from certain behaviors even when there's no immediate obstruction to those behaviors.

On to the next quote from Nathan.

More importantly, she does not consider that her own framework for bathrooms, by wanting trans women to use the men’s room, will create the exact abuse situations that she says she is worried about—and every day instead of rarely. We have some data suggesting that forcing trans people to use the wrong bathroom increases their risk of being assaulted, which is what you’d expect. Why is the fear experienced by trans women forced to use a bathroom for the opposite gender not present in her framework? Because J.K. Rowling is transphobic, and trans women’s experiences are seen as less legitimate.

First, TRAs have a really hard time understanding that their Gender Critical opponents don't have a problem with trans people, they have a problem with men - people who fit the traditional anatomic definition of "male" or "man", regardless of how they identify. My guess is that this is because feminists of all stripes have normalized anti-male rhetoric, so to admit that GC feminists are anti-male and not transphobic would be rhetorical surrender. Rowling addresses this specifically in her essay: "Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women," but Nathan ignores what she says. Excluding trans women but accepting trans men in the women's bathroom is best characterized as anti-male, not transphobic. And demanding that trans women not be called "men" or "male" in any context is using definitions as a manipulative tool by making it rhetorically impossible to refer to human sexual dimorphism.

Second, segregating bathrooms and changing rooms are a probabilistic measure towards reducing sexual misconduct and violence. Not all misconduct will be prevented - the goal is just to prevent some of it. Some women commit sexual or violent crimes against other women - we let them in the women's bathroom anyway. Many men don't commit sexual or violent crimes against women - they're excluded regardless, even if they're in a low risk category (e.g., gay). Men are left to fend for themselves against other men in men's bathrooms and changing rooms - even if they're weak, disabled, poor, or of a marginalized racial group. Many trans women could easily pass as men and go unnoticed in the men's room - self ID means we're not just talking about trans women who have undergone sex change operations that intrinsically draw attention. Should our efforts be devoted to reducing intramale violence and harassment in the men's room, or effectively abandoning the segregation system altogether by adopting self ID? How will the effects of self ID change over time as trans acceptance increases, reducing the social barriers to a non-trans male predator pretending to be trans as an abuse tactic? These are completely debatable questions. It is not bigoted to consider excluding some or all trans women, just as it is not bigoted to exclude gay males. Segregation systems by definition separate humans from each other based on some arbitrary criteria, and I have heard no call for generally integrating bathrooms and changing rooms into unisex spaces.

Next quote.

...in her essay she talks about the problems she sees with letting “any man who believes or feels he’s a woman” be considered a woman, which is very straightforward: she thinks many who claim to be women are not in fact women.

More subtle dishonesty from Nathan. Here's the quote he's referencing from Rowling:

When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

That doesn't actually imply Nathan's "very straightforward" interpretation that "she thinks many who claim to be women are not in fact women". It just means what she says, and it is indeed a simple truth. Perhaps there are not many men dishonestly claiming to be trans women now - Rowling actually doesn't comment on that at all in that quote. Nathan just made an opinion up for her so he could trash her. But if transphobia is eliminated from society as both TRAs and Gender Critical people desire, and there is no medical or other gatekeeping preventing males from claiming to be women, then yes, any man may claim to be a woman with zero impediment. We have ample evidence from history that men will go to great lengths to commit crimes against women. So yes, we would expect voyeurism and other abuse rates in women's spaces from opportunistic male intruders to go up. Obviously. If we didn't, why would we bother having separate facilities in the first place?

Nathan’s argument also reeks of what I previously noted: that the TRAs demand that “men” and even “male” be used to refer to gender identity, and not anatomy, is a manipulative tactic to make it impossible to discuss human sexual dimorphism. Nathan writes, “She thinks many who claim to be women are not in fact women.” Trans women are often anatomically male (I’m not going to debate whether medicine can change sex or intersex people here). Being born anatomically male is why they’re trans women and not non-trans women!

I'll take a moment to note that the TRAs no longer consider gender dysphoria a condition for being trans. That is, even persons that are psychologically accepting of their conventional gender, or who could become accepting through non-transition treatments or growth, can be considered trans. So what's stopping an abusive male from saying, "hey, I would just prefer to shower with women - that sounds more pleasant than showering with men?" Nothing!

[st-just]

TERFs’ and right-wingers’ obsession with the (seemingly rare) phenomenon of “detransitioning”—people who once identified as trans reverting to a prior gender identity—as a means of delegitimizing all people’s right to make choices about their own lives is profoundly unfair. The (much more common) existence of divorce is not, in and of itself, an argument that marriage should not exist, or even that particular people should never have been married in the first place. We make decisions, and those decisions change us; sometimes we regret the change, but that does not mean we should be barred from making decisions.

Brianna Rennix

#quote #queer stuff #Brianna Rennix

[milfwizards]

"If I am forced against my will into a situation where people will die, and I have no ability to stop it, how is my choice a "moral" choice between meaningfully different options, as opposed to a horror show I've just been thrust into, in which I have no meaningful agency at all?" – Brianna Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson, apparently

i literally. yes, both the options in the trolley problem are bad. that's literally the point. but two things can both be bad and that doesn't mean there's no meaningful difference between them. on what basis are four unnecessary deaths not meaningful? or, if you prefer, on what basis is it not meaningful to choose to raise your hand to take a life?

#lynn blogs

[anodynemoments]

This is the kind of thing Louis Sullivan designed and yet people think “form follows function” means you can’t do this anymore for reasons that go unexplained. - Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture, by Brianna Rennix & Nathan J. Robinson 

#architecture #spaces #public spaces #interesting #article link #pretty sure i saw this on someone else's tumblr originally #building

[socialjusticeartshare]

US plans family deportations, including girl with broken arm

HOUSTON (AP) — The U.S. government is preparing to deport more than a dozen children and their parents held at a Texas immigration detention center, including a 4-year-old girl with a broken arm requiring surgery, according to lawyers for the families.

Medical records show that doctors at the Dilley, Texas, detention center diagnosed the girl with a fracture and prescribed painkillers, including hydrocodone, due to the ongoing injury. A doctor on Dec. 1 noted a “greenish spot” on the girl’s right elbow and said that “surgery is needed within 6 months to 1 year,” according to medical records reviewed by The Associated Press. 

But U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has denied the surgery, according to Brianna Rennix, an attorney with Proyecto Dilley, which represents families detained at the facility. Rennix said ICE also declined to release the family so the girl can have the surgery in the U.S. while they pursue their immigration case. 

ICE declined to comment Thursday, citing pending litigation. 

About 15 families are slated to be flown to Ecuador, El Salvador, and Guatemala as early as Friday morning, lawyers and advocates said.

“All of them are still holding out hope that we might be able to stop their deportations and more importantly win an appeal of their cases,” said Mackenzie Levy, a paralegal for Proyecto Dilley.

Lawyers from Proyecto Dilley and ICE have been in court for years over the future of families at the Dilley facility, formally known as the South Texas Family Residential Center. Opened during the administration of former President Barack Obama, the 2,400-bed facility has been used to detain parents and children in the U.S. without authorization since 2014. 

ICE has continued to detain dozens of parents and children in its three family detention centers during the coronavirus pandemic, even after a federal judge in June ordered the children released. The judge’s ruling did not extend to parents, and the government and advocates for immigrant children have not agreed on a process to allow children to be released while parents would remain detained. Some argue releasing children to family sponsors while keeping parents detained and facing deportation would be tantamount to family separation, a practice for which the Trump administration has faced enormous criticism. 

The lawyers argue the families facing deportation were never given a fair chance to seek asylum under several policies enacted by President Donald Trump’s administration that courts later stopped. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday lifted an administrative stay and refused to bar the deportations.

The 4-year-old girl and her mother first came to the U.S.-Mexico border last year, fleeing death threats in Ecuador, according to Rennix, their lawyer. They were placed in the so-called “Remain in Mexico” program and told to come back for a later court date. But they returned to Ecuador in the meantime and missed that court date, Rennix said. 

The girl’s arm was intentionally broken by a man who twisted it front of her mother as a threat, Rennix said. They tried to return to the U.S. again this year and crossed the border without authorization in October, then taken to the Dilley facility. 

The Associated Press is not identifying the girl or her mother because they fear being targeted in Ecuador, according to their lawyer. 

ICE has long been accused of mistreating children in custody at Dilley, though the agency has in the past defended the medical care it provides to immigrants. Earlier this year, advocates sued on behalf of a 5-year-old boy who suffered a skull fracture before his family was detained. The boy and his mother were eventually released after a federal appeals court halted their deportation.

A 1-year-old child was detained at Dilley before she died of a hemorrhage, according to the law firm representing her mother, Yazmin Juarez. The attorneys allege Juarez’s daughter, Mariee, contracted a respiratory illness that was misdiagnosed and mistreated at Dilley.

Article Source

#family deportations #girl broken arm #separated families

[serpentinesheldonserpentine]

People who hate Beethoven

aren’t obligated to listen to it from 9-5 every weekday, and people who hate the Transformers series aren’t obligated to watch it every night before bed. 

The physical environment in which we live and work, however, is ubiquitous and inescapable; when it comes to architecture, it is nigh-impossible for people to simply avoid the things they hate and seek out the things they like.

                                                      — Brianna Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson

#architecture #good design is goodwill

[jkottke]

Artemisia Gentileschi's Judith Slaying Holofernes

From the Book of Judith comes the tale of Judith beheading Holofernes.

In the story, Judith, a beautiful widow, is able to enter the tent of Holofernes because of his desire for her. Holofernes was an Assyrian general who was about to destroy Judith's home, the city of Bethulia. Overcome with drink, he passes out and is decapitated by Judith; his head is taken away in a basket.

The story has been a rich vein for artists to explore throughout the centuries. Michelangelo worked it into the Sistine chapel, Botticelli & Rubens painted it, and Italian painter Caravaggio's rendition is probably the most well-known:

In Lyta Gold and Brianna Rennix's entertaining ranking of 10 paintings of Judith beheading Holofernes, they put the Caravaggio at #2, with the top slot going to a painter who worked a generation later, Artemisia Gentileschi:

As it was from a young age in her father's studio, her mastery is readily apparent but some context is helpful to appreciate the painting more fully. Throughout her career, Gentileschi featured women, often from mythology or the Bible, as primary subjects with real agency in her paintings. But the story of Judith and Holofernes likely appealed to her for another reason as well. When she was 17 or 18, Gentileschi was raped by her painting instructor, Agostino Tassi. He was convicted at trial, with Gentileschi having to testify in detail about the assault and submitting to torture to ensure she was telling the truth:

During the trial, she was subjected to sibille, a process in which ropes were tied to her fingers and tightened progressively. The practice was meant to divine whether or not she was telling the truth. After seven months in court, the judged finally ruled in Gentileschi's favor. Tassi was sentenced to five years in prison, but never actually served time.

There appears to be some scholarly disagreement about this, but many believe that Judith Slaying Holofernes, first painted around the time of the trial, was a self portrait, with Gentileschi painting herself as Judith and Tassi as Holofernes. More recently, some critics & historians have tried to draw emphasis away from her assault in the interpretation of this and other paintings, focusing on her growing proficiency and not her victimhood. Whatever her intent at the time, the painting stands as a powerful statement and the young artist was able to continue painting, eventually becoming one of the most famous and sought-after artists in Europe.

By the time Gentileschi made Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting, she'd received perhaps the greatest honor bestowed upon the era's painters: induction into the Accademia del Disegno. She was the first woman to receive the distinction and, according to the 2007 catalogue for the exhibition "Italian Women Artists: From Renaissance to Baroque," it changed the course of her life.

With this badge of honor, Gentileschi could buy paints and supplies without a man's permission, travel by herself, and even sign contracts. In other words, through painting, she had gained freedom. Gentileschi would go on to separate from her husband and live and work independently, primarily in Naples and London, for the rest of her life. All the while, she supported her two daughters, who also went on to become painters.

After her death, Gentileschi's influence waned and her contributions were nearly forgotten. It was only in the 20th century that her work started to be recognized again. If you'd like to see Judith Slaying Holofernes in person, there are two copies of the painting. The earlier one, painted around the time of the trial, is housed at the Museo di Capodimonte in Naples:

A copy painted a decade later (the one shown above, with Judith in yellow) is on display at the Gallerie degli Uffizi in Florence.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Anyone who has come into contact with the U.S. immigration-enforcement apparatus, whether as an immigrant, a friend or family member, or an advocate, knows that this is a system so fundamentally inhumane that no compromise can be made with it. It is a system for the jailing and exiling of humans who dare to try to live in a different place than the one where they were born. If such things were happening to U.S. citizens who migrated within the country—if people who tried to move from poor towns to prosperous cities were rounded up in the night and forced back to the countryside—the entire nation would be outraged. The ugly racist and nationalist dimensions of our present immigration system are not detachable features: They are fundamental to the premise of punishing people for their birthplace.

Brianna Rennix, The Case for Opening Our Borders

#usa #borders #refugees #immigration

[stardustpomegranate]

#immigration #immigrants #workers #concentration camps #capitalism #usa #exploitation #brianna rennix #ice #military coup #brazil #chile #augusto pinochet #honduras #labor unions #immigration system #class war #propaganda #iww #eugene debs #solidarity #jacob morrison