#this is a p. homogenous country still

[hajima-7]

dont wanna be a cunt on someone else's post but

if u make the entire office smell like any strong food smell, i am throwing u into the fridge

the amount of times we had ppl reheat sarma or get horrid deep fried stuff (oil smell ew) or BOIL FKING EGGS like..

do that shit at home , its a shared space have some fking common decency lmfao

i need to sit here for 8h and somehow u make the whole damn building smell like fking eggs .. JAIL.

#cmdr's log #and most coworkers were white #this is a p. homogenous country still #and we eat a lot of cabbage and it STINKS #argue with ur mom.

[wrotelovelytears]

😜P Power😜

Personal... You freaks🧐

Saying this now, unless I specifically GENDER something assume it is automatically gender (and sex) neutral. Gender, sex, and expression are not, and never have been the same.

🤩I think Pluto in Pisces will show both an exasperation and increase focus on mental + spiritual health. Besides the spiritual and metaphysical properties of Pisces, it's also the sign of the unconscious and the fears that we have. Last Pluto in Pisces we saw a lot more asylums built, increased paranoia, and cases of mass hysteria. There was a vast increase in social stigmas related to certain spiritual beliefs and straight up massacres in some areas of the world. Pluto is still a planet of extremes and whatever it gives a boon in socially/ spiritually, it also grants a struggle with on a physical level.

🤩I have no idea if it's because my Pluto is conjunct my Venus, but 10th house Venus definitely have issues with women in authority. It's been a constant theme in my life were women in positions of authority have abused their power and some have even try to sabotage my own endeavors (work wise, socially, even school wise).

🤩Another Pluto/Venus note is that men will have the opposite reaction. They tend to want to give more, be kinder, or over all be more protective over you. It might be that because Venus is a feminine planet and Pluto is the planet of extremes, Women (regardless if they are more masculine or feminine) tend to struggle hiding their feelings towards the native more, while men (regardless... Again), tend to be more expressive around the native and find comfort in that.

🤩The degree of your Saturn shows the personal energies, places and thoughts you may struggle more with.

😍You would look to the sign that's correlated to the degree and the themes it holds for the energy/place/thoughts that bring discomfort.

😍19°-> Since this degree is linked to Libra, one might find that beauty and relationships are a big focal point in their life. They struggle a lot with there perception of: what is beautiful? What is a healthy relationship? Why certain people just don't like them? Might find discomfort in countries (and people from) France, Fiji, Nigeria and Japan.

🤩Since Saturn is exalted in Libra and Japan is ruled by it... it makes sense that looks, rules, and even history is very important to Japan. The whole (mostly) homogenous country is known for geishas (beauty and rules) AND it's part in WW2 or colonization {mostly in the Asian Pacific region} (history).

🤩I now believe Saturn is less about restrictions and more about discomforts. Restrictions straight up not allowing certain things to happen or belong. Discomfort is more our personal view on how something doesn't bring immediate comfort/joy.

🤩Yet another Saturn note, with discomfort brings discipline. To get pass discomfort you must have the discipline to sit with it. You can't ignore it because similar situations will constantly come up. And vice versa with discipline bringing discomfort.

🤩Neptune-Venus placements might find people are really comfortable touching them. Even strangers who have never met them. It could be that these natives don't come off aggressive so people don't see the need to respect their boundaries.

🤩I'm starting to be more convinced of Virgo being a high fame indicator (remember fame isn't always good, nor does it mean celebratory status). Virgo rules over daily activities and work, it just makes sense those who work/ do more in their daily life tend to get recognized more.

😍Also many famous people that are highly loved/known (and still alive) have a ton of Virgo/6th house placements. This also goes for Virgo degrees.

😍Long story short.. Leo is fame that gets recognized more after death, Taurus is fame during and after life, Capricorn is fame before life and a while after it, and Virgo is living fame.

🤩Earth signs and their ability to attract attention is down played a lot. Despite how relaxed they are compared to other signs, they still have a strong presence. And yes it is related to their physical (money, looks, items etc)

🤗Not a complete Astro observation but more of a spiritual one. (You can ignore it if you want)

The ego is not bad nor needs to be destroyed. 🤗The ego is what makes ones personality; the likes, the dislikes, behaviors and fears. To destroy that is to destroy what makes a person an individual. I know it's a popular belief that the ego needs to be changed, and not sorry to say I don't agree. I believe it needs to have things added and taken away at different stages of life. If you destroy it, are you truly the same person?

🤗In astrology the Sun represents the ego. And the Sun is you at your core, your default mode and being (in this lifetime). When we speak on ego deaths it's not you destroying your individual essence, it's you removing the parts that no longer work for you. Ego deaths aren't true deaths if you think about it, it's more of a reawakening to other aspects of your being.

The ego exists to protect, not harm. You are only harmed by it when you don't want to let go of the parts that no longer protect you.

We are all born with the skills and ability to learn more as we age, it is when others tell use certain things aren't useful that we surpress and disengage from them. We are all born with egos and that is what makes us distinct from each other.

🤩I said this in a reply to a question and I'll say it here as well. Venus is the outward feminine expression of a person. Lilith is the inner feminine expression. What I mean by that is Venus is the social and personally accepted displays of femininity (regardless of gender). It's the things people are okay with seeing. Lilith is not the "dark" per say but less socially (and even personally) aspects of femininity. They both exist in all people and both get treated differently by all people.

🤩You might actually see that Venus doms and Lilith doms tend to hang around each other a lot.

🤩That being said they might not always like each other and be envious of how the other is.

(Venus is more accepted in society but jealous of how Lilith doesn't feel the need to have to fit in. Lilith is more expressive of themselves but jealous of how Venus just seems to fit)

🤩Saturn is the outward masculine expression. Chiron is the inner. I know someone is like "Um AchTuallY", and let me explain. Saturn is where we tend to fall in line with what (Western/Westernize) society sees as the masculine role. Saturn nutures but not overindulges. Saturn provides but doesn't overextend. Chiron does the same thing but more gentlely. Chiron nutures all, from what they know. Chiron provides for all, without taking from personal reserves.

🤩Like Venus and Lilith doms, Saturn and Chiron doms might find themselves in the same circles a lot. And of course the jealousy is all the same.

🤩Saturn is naturally given the role of the provider but is jealous of how Chiron wasn't forced and chose to be one. Chiron is naturally a nurturer and stepping stone in life but is jealous of how Saturn gets to stick around to see what the nutured grow.

(If you learned something new or would just like to support me you can leave a wittle tip via the tip button or one of the links in my masterlist. Kofi: nymphdreams🧸)

#astro tumblr #astroblr #astrology #astro notes #astrology observations #astro observations #astrology tumblr #nymph writes astrology #saturn #pluto #plantery rulers #venus #lilith #chiron #ego death #ego #spiritblr #degree theory #fame degrees #fame astrology

[melodyice3]

Pharmacokinetics as well as Security associated with an Intravitreal Humanized Anti-VEGF-A Monoclonal Antibody (PRO-169), the Biosimilar Applicant to Bortezomib

This method permits an all-inclusive neuroanatomical assessment along with other crustacean as well as hexapod taxa. Results: The particular principal buildings with the brain are the deutocerebral olfactory neuropils, which can be connected through the olfactory globular areas to the protocerebral hemiellipsoid physiques. The actual olfactory globular areas kind a new attribute chiasm in the center of your brain. Within Speleonectes tulumensis, each brain hemisphere consists of with regards to One-hundred-twenty serotonin immunoreactive nerves, which are allocated inside unique mobile or portable groups providing good, a lot branching neurites to be able to 16 neuropilar domain names. Your olfactory neuropil consists a lot more than 3 hundred circular olfactory glomeruli organized within sublobes. Ten serotonin immunoreactive neurons homogeneously innervate the actual olfactory glomeruli. Inside the protocerebrum, this immunoreactivity unveiled a number of constructions, which usually, determined by their particular place and #Link# on the web connectivity resemble a central intricate composed of a main body, a protocerebral connection, W-, X-, Y-, Z-tracts, and also side to side addition lobes. Conclusions: The brain regarding Remipedia shows many plesiomorphic functions said to other Mandibulata, including deutocerebral olfactory neuropils which has a glomerular corporation, innervations through serotonin immunoreactive interneurons, as well as connections in order to protocerebral neuropils. Also, we presented sensitive evidence with regard to W-, X-, Y-, Z-tracts within the remipedian main sophisticated like in mental performance associated with Malacostraca, as well as Hexapoda. Additionally, Remipedia display several synapomorphies with Malacostraca promoting a sis party connection involving each taxa. These homologies add a chiasm in the olfactory globular system, which links the particular olfactory neuropils with all the horizontal protocerebrum and the existence of hemiellipsoid physiques. Though #Link# a growing number of molecular deliberate or not unites Remipedia and Cephalocarida, the neuroanatomical evaluation won't present assist regarding this type of cousin group romantic relationship.Function: Present health-related modify initiatives possess pointed out the potential influence of insurance plan reputation upon individual final results. The impact associated with major payer standing (PPS) inside child fluid warmers surgical patient population is still not known. The purpose of these studies ended up being analyze risk-adjusted organizations between PPS and postoperative fatality rate, deaths, and also reference utilization within kid surgical individuals inside United States. Methods: Any heavy full of 153,333 kid surgical patients have been looked at with all the country wide Kid's In-patient Databases (2004 and 2006): appendectomy, intussusception, decortication, pyloromyotomy, hereditary diaphragmatic hernia restoration, as well as colonic resection for Hirschsprung's illness. Sufferers were stratified as outlined by PPS: Medicare health insurance (n=180), State medicaid programs (n=51,862), uninsured (n=12,539), and private insurance plan (n=88,753). Multivariable hierarchical regression acting was implemented to guage risk-adjusted associations among PPS as well as results. Results: Total typical affected individual age had been 12 many years, procedures have been #Link# mainly non-elective (92.4%), along with appendectomies landed the greatest percentage of instances (Seventy eight.3%). Following adjusting regarding individual, hospital, along with operation-related elements, PPS was separately linked to in-hospital loss of life (p<2.

#Bortezomib #Dasatinib #Pentose phosphate pathway

[thewatsonbeekeepers]

I realise that what’s been going on in Ireland is trending at the moment with the police murder of George Nkencho, and though I normally use tumblr as a ‘destress’ I think it’s really important to explain the situation in Ireland to everyone. Cn: racial violence and murder, paedophilia mention For context, I’m white Irish, but I hope this post can be useful to us/uk centric tumblr.

The African Advocacy Network Ireland called George Nkencho’s killing by police an execution (x) and as an Irish person, it’s difficult to see otherwise. Irish police (gardaí) are almost all unarmed. We call them the garda síochána - literally, the guardians of the peace. I can’t remember the last time I heard of the gardaí killing anyone. When I go abroad to the UK or the rest of Western Europe, I am always incredibly freaked out by the armed police everywhere - and that’s not even as bad as America. So in Ireland, having the armed section of the police go after a mentally ill black man is really not normal. It is already suggesting an act of violence that our police normally are not allowed to commit.

It’s worth noting that whilst our police are not armed, they are still as complicit in state violence as in any other country - ACAB still applies in Ireland on a huge level. Police are complicit in deporting immigrants, in the mistreatment of those arrested, in the mistreatment of sex workers etc., and that should not be ignored. Our police also have a horrendous track record on corruption - our previous government nearly fell because a whistleblower on corruption in the police force was reported by the police as a paedophile and had his life destroyed. (x) The gardaí have a horrendous track record of closing ranks when an accusation is levelled and of doing anything they can to protect their own, and unfortunately Ireland is so small that institutions historically are capable of carrying out huge, cosy corruption. The gardaí are absolutely at the centre of this and this needs to be drawn attention to.

Ireland is more than 92% white, and only 1.3% black. (x) I don’t know a single non-white person in this country who does not feel constantly aware of their difference and constantly excluded. Again, being a small country does not help with this - the smallness of the country exacerbates how difficult it is to exist as a person of colour in Irish society, because everywhere you go there is a very homogenous, white, Catholic, Irish culture. I don’t want to say more on this because I don’t personally have experience of being black in Ireland, but I hope this contributes to your understanding of how clearly racially motivated Nkencho’s shooting was. The coincidence of the armed police (of which there are very few) going after a black man (who are statistically a huge minority) is really too much for me to buy given how endemic racism is in our country.

I also want fellow Irish people, if you’re reading this, to put pressure on the press. The Irish Times, one of the country’s main news sources, is very clearly coming out in favour of the gardaí here, and it’s not unfeasible to see the country’s elites (the same who fucked us over earlier this year in golfgate x) work with the government to smooth this over. Our government and their allies are a boy’s club, as golfgate proved. If you’re Irish and you’re able to, please go and protest - I can’t because I’m immunocompromised, but I will be writing to the government and to the Irish Times etc. - those of you who are not Irish, protesting embassies (safely) and writing to the press and to Irish government officials would be hugely helpful - please pretend to be Irish when you do this, otherwise they will ignore you. Please do not use template emails when writing to the government as our government filters them out!

Petition: https://www.change.org/p/department-of-justice-justice-for-the-unlawful-killing-of-george-nkencho-justiceforgeorge?recruited_by_id=95429be0-4b41-11eb-a239-2bc7a8cae2dd [please don’t donate to change.org!]

These are Irish organisations that really need your donations! I haven’t explained the other horrific racist apparatuses of the state because this isn’t the post for it, but Ireland has been condemned by the UN for the way it breaches human rights of asylum seekers, so these are all vital (x).

Irish Refugee Council, who support people seeking protection in Ireland

Doras, an independent NGO working to protect the rights of migrants in Ireland

Immigrant Council of Ireland, an independent law centre working to provide assistance to people from a migrant background and protect their rights

Migrants and Ethnic-minorities for Reproductive Justice (MERJ Ireland), an organisation of migrant women of colour actively campaigning for reproductive justice and for all and contributing to feminist discourse in Ireland

Movement of Asylum Seekers in Ireland, a platform for asylum seekers to seek justice, freedom and dignity for all asylum seeker

Email the Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, here: [email protected]

Thank you for reading - I realise this is a long post. Please do dm me if you want any more info/resources - always happy to help.

#long post #blm #black lives matter #george nkencho #rest in power #say his name #cn racism #cn racial violence #cn paedophilia mention #acab #ireland #racism

[tyrannuspitch]

been reading abt this one genetic study and it is rlly interesting but also bc using modern genetics to infer stuff abt history is something i'm Aware you have to be Cautious of it does kind of result in me having Knowledge that i don't feel entirely comfortable thinking of as Knowledge. which is a v weird state of mind. esp when some of the original phrasing was already really cautiously vague.

(cut to ramble abt boring things i am in no way qualified to teach)

like okay time to ramble: i found it bc as part of a long slowburn identity crisis i got rlly frustrated with what little i know of history & not having a clue where to place myself in it - like, england has had so many different waves of migration and changes of regime, and also aristocracy-focused history isn't always good at even distinguishing between those, and if we don't even know which of those groups we're descended from... do we know anything??? (eg: fucking druids wld be talking abt The Old Ways and i'd be sitting here like. okay even if you weren't glorified wiccans, are they "the Old Ways"? are they??? is that our history or someone else's entirely? like, literally, i don't have any particular interest in doing this, but if i theoretically WERE to try and return to the religion of my prechristian ancestors, should i reconstruct druidry or heathenry or smthn else entirely?)

SO i basically wanted to ask how much, if at all, are the modern english descended from the various groups who have lived here. Who The Fuck Actually Are We

and i did basically get a cautious answer! (after finding better scicomm than the fucking guardian, which didn't even take enough care to clearly separate "english and cornish" from "british". fuck the guardian.) the actual conclusions we can pretty safely draw re: this question are:

1. the modern english have a v high level of similarity with other peoples of the uk (the study said "british isles" but roi was not counted), much of which appears to be v ancient dna, which means the genetic evidence directly contradicts the old theory that the anglo-saxons completely displaced/wiped out the britons of england. which is nice. love when my ancestors do not commit genocide on my other ancestors

2. the genetic "clusters" in england and cornwall showed a significant minority of dna (less as you travel north) theorised to be anglo-saxon - "between 10% and 40%". which, like i was saying, is both Information and Non Information. "congratulations participants, you're helping our understanding of history evolve bc you're def partly descended from the ancient britons but you also appear to have some anglo-saxon ancestry!" "oh cool. how much?" "oh you know... some". i know it doesn't matter in the real world but sjfkflshlk damn historic population geneticists u live like this? (they weren't even saying "25% +/- 15%". didn't even give us an average. just like. somewhere in this range lol)

(okay actually i am in Explaining Mode so here goes. afaict part of the problem is they're not even sure which common ancestry to be counting. only clusters in england/cornwall have any northern german common ancestry, but everyone in the uk has danish common ancestry - BUT the danish dna is significantly higher than average in groups w n.german dna. so the problem is: what's ancient, what's anglo-saxon, could any of it be viking? we just don't know.)

(they might have been able to tell by dating it but idk if they tried. and also some of their other dating was coming out Wonky - eg iirc the n.german dna is mostly dated to abt 300 years after anglo-saxon migration ended. so what's going on? did the two communities just take a v long time to integrate, or is something afoot?)

(also, of course - england is pretty genetically homogenous but there is still Some variety by region in this genetic component so making a sweeping statement abt "the english" is hard.)

3. there is a Mystery ComponentTM that makes up a larger segment than the alleged anglo-saxon dna, is found in england, scotland and northern ireland BUT not wales (so it's not just Basic British Ingredients), and matches northern france? i think they're guessing prehistoric migration for that. idk if they dated it. Hmmmm. ~Mystery DNA~

4. methodological info if you're concerned: they used participants from rural areas whose grandparents had all been born in the 50mile radius from them, so region-specific info should be p trustworthy, and the sample size was over 2000. they also found their "clusters" algorithmically and then plotted them back onto the map, so there shouldn't be confirmation bias there.)

(if i *were* to complain, looking at their map... scotland and wales have some gaps in them. some significant gaps.)

5. smthn we might genuinely be concerned abt in the analysis of these results - are we taking the results from places we know to have a historical migration as more meaningful than those we don't? looking at the results shows me every single cluster has a small but significant portion of common ancestry with modern belgium, maybe 1/12. (i'm looking at blurry pie charts, that's my best guess lol.) no analysis i've read has mentioned it.

on the other hand - idk anything abt the history of belgium but i wld not be at all surprised if their genetics were basically somewhere between germany and france, and we've already discussed both those places.

plus, possibly more relevantly - they DID scan for similarities with various other countries in europe and didn't find them. eg, no signficant/detectable common ancestry with the finnish. so if it's showing up at all, let alone as 10% or more, it's more than just random noise.

so it's knowledge but it's not knowledge but it's /more/ knowledge than not knowledge? yeah. i'm having a great time

6. assorted fun(?) facts for those who made it this far:

-the most unique place genetically they found was orkney (note: there were no participants from shetland), who showed ~25% norwegian ancestry, followed by wales, who as we remember have no Mystery DNA.

-the differences between cornwall and devon were minor, but they were definitely there and they followed modern county line p much perfectly!

-there were two different clusters in northern ireland and the west of scotland, but they DIDN'T break down into ireland vs scotland. it looked more like it might be a highland/lowland gael/gall thing. i don't know if they checked if the n.irish respondents were catholic or protestant but uhh probably better not to all things considered

-no matter how minutely you break down genetic differences, there is a large group covering much of england that is basically homogenous. you can tell genetically which island in orkney someone's from, but you can't tell the difference between people from north yorkshire and people from kent.

okay this has been a poorly explained ramble if you'd like to read the damn thing yourself it's this: https://peopleofthebritishisles.web.ox.ac.uk/population-genetics

nb that is their website for laypeople, i've looked at a few different interpetations of this but i haven't looked at the actual paper (yet? dk if i can be bothered going deeper. we'll see)

[alatismeni-theitsa]

Thanks for bringing the racebending to my attention. I never considered that it was harmful towards the origin culture. I considered that it was kind of strong to claim that sort of race thing in a way, but maybe that comes from the more.. christianity? view of where there isnt a direct way that God looks, except any way the person perceives. That's probably what I thought, too, until just now reading your answer to someone else. So.. it's not okay? 1/?

I honestly want to understand as my perspective on this now changes. It makes total sense why it would be entitled of someone to do such a thing, and how it's inconsiderate of the actual origin culture that the deities come from now that I'm thinking about it in this way. So again thank you for bringing this up and answering that other anon. I have some things to revise in my head on this, as I honor Apollo and Hermes, I want to make sure that I get accurate and do my research.

I really enjoy being able to read your experiences and I think it's important as, someone outside the culture, gets to experience and understand more to be as accurate and non... whats the word... inappropriate with representing such a thing, I guess I can say. If that makes sense.__________________________________________________________

Thank you for sending a message and for listening to the opinion of Greek people. (I am not the only one with that opinion, many of my 500 followers also share the same ideas.) Anyways prepare yourself for a looooooong analysis! So, get under comfy blankets and take your tea/coffee next to you!

To begin with, there are Greeks that don’t mind but those are usually Greeks who have close contact with the American way of thinking through social media. Or some that don’t care because the approach our mythology in a kinda superficial way? I am not saying this to offend any Greeks who don’t mind the racebending. Every Greek has the right to have a relationship with their culture according to their own standards. Those people who think racebending is ok are usually no less patriots than the ones who do. However, those who don’t mind the race bending are extremely rare to find. 

If I go to my 50 y/o aunt and announce to her that foreigners depict Demeter as Black she is gonna lose her mind. I have also asked the opinion of Greeks who are not into social media or groups where Greek mythology is discussed by foreigners. When they were informed of the racebending the first thing they said was “but... why??” and they couldn’t fathom how this could help anyone. The second thing they say is “But the Gods are white!” explaining that our ancestor have depicted them as Caucasian for centuries and we, as Greeks, know no other depiction of them.

I assure you, it has nothing to do with white superiority - which is a myth anyways. Greeks can be perfectly racist to people who are pastry white :P If you racebended the gods into any other race, we would still have a problem. It’s all a matter of respecting iconography and tradition. It would be ignorant of even us Greeks to change the depiction of the gods when our ancestors were very clear in their art about their race. It was also clear in antiquity that the gods had bodies. I am in another computer and I cannot access my files, but I had a file for a philosopher who tried to argue against the public opinion that the gods didn’t have bodies. But the majority of ancient Greeks believed that the gods had a physical presence.

Also, race matters for Greeks as it does for most of other cultures. You expect Nigerian deities to look like the average Nigerian, yes? Because they were created by a homogenous Black population. You think the same for Indian and Chinese deities, yes? It makes sense for deities and public figures from a certain culture to look like the people of that culture. I think it’s common sense. Turning an old Nigerian deity into a Chinese, would’t represent the Nigerian people any more. For similar reasons, we don’t want our important heritage figures changed. (In case a warrior was described as Black African in our ancient texts, then of course we wouldn’t have a problem with keeping that figure Black).

You are correct when saying that the race bending comes from a Christian point of view. I think many hellenic polytheists/pagans/wiccans haven't managed to escape the Christian logic. In Christianity we have accepted for many centuries that saints and important figures would be viewed with different races, so people can come closer to them. For example, there is a Chinese, Native American, Mexican (different tribes), Black Jesus etc. Most of the times they are also dressed in the traditional regalia of the respective culture. It's a thing for the last 200 years at least. 

Even Greeks depicted Jesus kinda white (he has an olive skin complexionand brown hair, which is closer to the Greek standards). And this happened since the Byzantine Empire. We even call the Virgin Mary "Mother of all Greeks" (apparently Mary has a particular interest in our nation xD) We have made her into a Greek mum. But we kinda have the freedom to do this because Christianity is an international religion which is alive for the last 2.000 years, so these changes come organically.

On the contrary, almost nobody has worshipped the Greek gods since 500 AC. The religion was been dead for almost 2.000 years, until Western classicists made it a popular. Now people who have no actual contact with the Greek culture start worshiping those gods. Don’t get me wrong, I believe any foreigner can worship the Greek gods! The thing is that most of the foreign worshippers don’t see the Greek gods as part of the culture that created them, because of the Americanization of the gods in the media and the complete stripping of the Greek elements from them.

But gods are still part of the Greeks’ heritage. Many ancient traditions and myths have kept from the ancient years, we have the names of gods and the gods are still used as symbols here. Our culture hasn’t died, as many westerners (perhaps subconciously) believe. It is alive and evolving, despite foreigners usually ignoring us. So, the ideas about our ancient religion have been involving with us, becoming part of our national identity in a unique way. 

After 2.000 years of the religion’s “death”, foreigners become enamored with Greece again. But not our Greece. They become enamored with a part of our culture that hasn’t existed in millenia. They study the culture only till the Roman years and then they skip 2.000 years of evolving cultural identity and go straight to the 21st century western (west Europe/America) ideals and societies.

You can only imagine how it seems to us Greeks, when foreigners suddenly remember us again and, on top of that, they don’t become part of our culture but they insist that a part of our culture (in its ancient form) becomes tailored to their own standards. And now foreigners ingore our own point of view, because, as they have done the last 2.000 years, they keep on ignoring us :P (I mean they as a people, greatly generalizing here). Please see that post for how disconnected a Greek feels about the modern Greek religion, and the analysis that comes with it. (Link)

Similarly, imagine if suddenly the Nigerian culture became a trend in Greece and now some Greeks become interesting in the old (almost dead to Nigeria) worship of Orishas. And now they want to depict the Orishas as White, because they, themselves are white and maybe white deities reflect better the racial situation in Greece. Wouldn’t that be disrespectful, though? Not only because the Black becomes White, but because we would take an inactive worship from the Nigerians and add our own politics to it.

Our situation is also kind of special because for the last centuries every country that has become interested in our culture has abused it. They have stolen antiquities from us and northwestern Europe but also in the US have no problem having those stolen artifacts and displaying them. There is a tradition of foreigners claiming to “love” Greece but they are really in love with our ancient aesthetic and they don’t give a shit about the Greeks who preserve the culture and even die to protect their antiquities. 

So we are used to this kind of treatment and it hurts extra when it’s happening again. But we are also desensitized. For some reason a person can be dressed as a Greek deity for Halloween and we won’t bat an eye. At the same time, I see people from other cultures defending the importance of their figures, when foreigners dress up as them for fun. 

I don’t understand how we consider this disrespectful for any other culture but if it’s the Greek we don’t care. Why could this be? Perhaps because many Greeks have come to see their own culture as public property. Perhaps because it is what the prominent international media tells us and maybe because we are used to selling our culture for profit (we are a tourist country) and we only see it as merchandise. 

Let me add I am not only fascinated by my own cultures but also cultures around the world. It makes no sense to me that people want Gods of color and their only solution is to make the Greek gods Black. Have we forgotten the numerous rich cultures of Asia and Africa?? There are a ton of deities there who, if you want to draw Afrocentric art for example, will be great inspiration! It reminds me of a publishing house which put POC in the covers of western classic books (thus kinda turning the white main characters into POC only in the cover) while not promoting books from POC or books featuring POC. I think it’s counterproductive.

I think that’s all I have to say for now! Feel free to ask more questions if I haven’t covered you! And if you have more thoughts you can drop them in my ask box.

Also, one question for you before you leave. You mentioned “I considered that it was kind of strong to claim that sort of race thing in a way”. Can you explain to me why? I would like to understand better people who think this way. Then maybe I could explain more effectively to them that their race bending practice isn’t as helpful as they think it is.

P.S. Even saying “races” of people exist is considered deeply racist in Greece (and Europe). I mention that as potential food of thought. For us there are only hues of skin colors, not races, so our social politics are different. 

#this is probably the longest post i have ever written #Greek Mythology #greek myth #greek gods #ancient greece #hades #Persephone #hera #zeus #athena #Aphrodite #ares #apollo #hestia #pagan #wicca #wiccan #poseidon #hecate #witch #hermes #demeter

[disillusioned41]

It is widely agreed that President Donald Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic—his conscious and non-stop lies, his blundering incompetence, and his open disdain for science—has helped lead the U.S. to where it is today: Record-shattering Covid-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths and an economy in shambles.

But placing the blame for the disastrous current state of affairs entirely at the feet of Trump risks letting off the hook a more fundamental culprit, namely the conservative anti-government ideology and "free market"-worship at the core of much of the administration's response to the deadly pandemic.

"Conservative leaders refused to marshal the resources of government to actually combat the spread of the disease. Instead, in keeping with their ideology, they wanted to leave it to individuals and the 'free market.'" —Michael Linden, Groundwork Collaborative

That's the argument advanced in a recent essay for Talking Points Memo by Michael Linden and Sammi Aibinder of the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive policy shop.

Unsatisfied with explanations of the current crisis that posit Trump as the principal cause—a position which suggests that simply removing Trump, as U.S. voters decided to do last month, is the solution—Linden and Aibinder write that "though Donald Trump lost reelection, the ideology and belief system underpinning so many of the debacles of his presidency prevails, and was always doomed to fail the country in the face of a disaster like this one."

"At base, conservative ideology itself was just as responsible for the failure to appropriately and effectively respond to this crisis as Trump's personal failings were," the two argue. "And that ideology will still be present—rife, in fact—in our government long after Trump is gone."

While acknowledging that conservatism is "not homogenous," Linden and Aibinder argue that at the heart of the reactionary ideology is the view that "government itself tends to cause more problems than it solves, and that free markets—unencumbered by government intervention—are always best positioned to allocate resources and improve society."

Adherence to those two positions, according to Linden and Aibinder, is incompatible with an effective response to a pandemic that necessitates coordinated state action to control the spread of the virus, which has now killed more than 273,000 people in the U.S.—the highest Covid-19 death toll in the world.

In contrast with countries like New Zealand and South Korea, where decisive government action helped prevent Covid-19 from running rampant, Linden and Aibinder noted that the U.S. response was plagued by "the conservative belief that government is more often the problem than the solution," which "made it practically inevitable that Republicans would render their own government ineffective."

"Instead of coordinating a national strategy to address the acute shortage of personal protective equipment and vital medical supplies across the country, this administration encouraged state leaders to essentially compete with one another to save their own people," write Linden and Aibinder. "When pressed by state leaders to help solve the PPE shortage, senior White House adviser Jared Kushner replied, 'The free market will solve it.' When asked about the federal government's role in assuring schools are able to resume in-person instruction safely, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos contended that was not her department's job."

The devastating consequences of conservative ideology are also evident in the nation's response, or lack thereof, to the economic crisis that the coronavirus pandemic spawned.

Since Congress in March passed the $2.2 trillion CARES Act—a measure whose most successful elements, such as the federal boost to unemployment insurance and direct cash payments, drew loud GOP backlash—Republican lawmakers have actively opposed efforts to provide any additional stimulus even as the economy remains in deep recession, a predictable and totally preventable outcome of inaction.

As Linden and Aibinder write:

By May, the S&P 500 had recovered 30 percent of its losses, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared that additional measures were no longer urgent, despite the fact that the unemployment rate was still almost 15 percent and the economy was still over 20 million jobs in the hole. Months passed, and the stock market continued to recover, while the broader economic recovery stalled. Emergency aid lapsed, job gains have slowed, hunger and precariousness has risen. But so long as the stock market continues to thrive, it is unlikely that conservatives will be moved to address these underlying problems.

Capital primacy not only leads conservatives to disregard real economic challenges, it also leaves them with very few tools to use when they do decide to act. Conservatives tend to rely on tax cuts — especially for the wealthy and corporations—as their primary economic policy lever, and disdain public investments, as well as more direct aid or targeted aid to anyone who is not a "job creator."

Ultimately, Linden and Aibinder argue that while "there is no doubt that as president, Donald Trump stamped his own personal brand of ineptitude on this crisis," the coronavirus pandemic "was the test that conservatism was built to fail."

"A public health crisis that demands a coordinated, powerful public response, leveraging all the power and reach of the federal government, meets an ideology that cannot accept a robust role for the public sector and believes the free market will solve all," the two write. "An incredibly unequal economic crisis driven by a collapse in customers, in which the wealthy are mostly doing fine while everyday people teeter on the brink of generational ruin, meets an ideology that cares only for the prospects of those at the top and sees tax cuts as the only useful economic answer."

In the wake of his victory last month, President-elect Joe Biden promised a more coordinated federal response to the coronavirus crisis and appointed economic advisers who appear willing to buck the conservative deficit dogma embraced—often selectively and hypocritically—by Republicans and Biden's former boss, Barack Obama.

But if Democrats fail to retake control of the Senate by winning the pair of Georgia runoffs set for January 5, Biden's vow to tackle the twin public health and economic crises with bold action could be dramatically hindered by McConnell, who appears hellbent on ensuring that the economic meltdown continues no matter the cost to the increasingly hungry and desperate population.

"So long as the stock market continues to thrive," write Linden and Aibinder, "it is unlikely that conservatives will be moved to address these underlying problems."

#Common Dreams #us politics #covid-19 #pandemic #coronovarius #conservationism #gop #the market

[thevividgreenmoss]

Though Fisher recognises that capitalism has reached an ever greater height of interfering in our everyday lives, taking with it all possibilities of resistance, when he refers to Bill Gates and George Soros as ‘liberal communists’, or when he writes, after detailing the inhumanity and facelessness of call centres, that ‘market Stalinist bureaucracy is far more Kafkaesque than one in which there is a central authority’, (Capitalist Realism, p. 64) you almost wait for the penny to drop. As a writer critiquing the totality of capitalism and looking for viable alternatives, these conceptions of communism should concern us. After all, to quote Fisher himself, ‘postmodernism’s supposed gestures of demystification do not evince sophistication so much as a certain naivety.’ (Capitalist Realism, p. 47)

Capitalist realism falls ‘under the rubric of postmodernism’, as a more specific stage of capitalism that has intensified the reach of its totality to determine our interiority and consciousness – whether this is strict adherence to what is realistic or the inability to articulate the possibility of anything new itself. For Fisher, capitalist realism expresses the new global hegemony of capitalism after the dissolution of the USSR – after what he called ‘Really Existing Socialism’ ostensibly collapsed, and ‘a generation has passed since the collage of the Berlin Wall’. No alternatives to capitalism can be entertained anymore, and here Fisher quotes Alain Badiou: ‘to justify their conservatism, the partisans of the established order cannot really call it ideal or wonderful. So instead, they have decided to say that all the rest is awful.’ (Capitalist Realism, p. 5) But what separates postmodernity from capitalist realism, for Fisher, is that postmodernity must forever exorcise modernism; it must forever undo its crude dichotomies, presenting itself as a democratisation of culture as it leaves the categories of high and low behind. Capitalist realism, in contrast, for Fisher, has left the vestige of modernism and its antagonisms behind and, contrary to postmodernism, even ‘takes the vanquishing of modernism for granted: modernism is now something that can practically return, but only as a frozen aesthetic style, never an ideal for living.’ (Capitalist Realism, p. 8)

But, already, Fisher has internalised this logic of postmodernism. When was modernism last an ‘ideal for living’?  Even by 1945, with Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited, modernism itself recognises the ends of its ideals amid World History, amid total war and violence. And hasn’t postmodernity always shown itself as victorious over the defeat of modernism and its strict, formal categories? The division of high and low culture in modernism is dissolved as postmodernism makes a caricature of each of them, a caricature that supposes its victory is one of democratisation where high art consumed by the wealthy can now be broadened to welcome those who had been excluded from its loftiness. But this is a false democratisation; as a failed promise to resolve art’s contradictions in modernism, with the culture industry’s ‘purposeful integration of its consumers from above … [h]igh art is deprived of its seriousness because its effects are programmed; low art is put in chains and deprived of the unruly resistance inherent in it when social control was not yet total.’ (Theodor W. Adorno, Culture Industry, p. 20) J.M. Bernstein crucially recognises that ‘postmodernism is … a contingent procedure for continuing the project of modernism, the project of negation, by other means’; (p. 26) postmodernism removes the content of this negativity that is so determinate in modernism, that negates what exists in an attempt to overcome it, and takes it for granted to such an extent that its presupposition of overcoming crude dichotomies and rendering them antiquated becomes the very content of postmodernism. And so it’s no surprise when we read David Harvey puzzling that postmodernism totally and uncritically accepts ‘ephemerality, fragmentation, discontinuity, and the chaotic that formed the one-half of Baudelaire’s conception of modernity.’ (David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity, p. 44)

Capitalist realism then is not a concept distinct from postmodernism and postmodernity, or even one that succeeds it, but one that succumbs to it; Fisher correctly derides Francis Fukuyama for his thesis that world-history culminated in the capitalism of the ‘90s, and though Fisher points out that this is now accepted and assumed in our cultural consciousness, his own thinking is unable to overcome this new stage in the totality of capitalism. Modernism becomes monolithic, without the contradictions and antagonisms that developed it and moved it forward, and entirely without content – content that is far more self-aware than its postmodern critics grant it, whether it’s the brazen negativity of Dadaism, the democratisation that was at the heart of Bauhaus, or the mournfulness of Brideshead Revisited. Fisher praises Foucault and his attempts ‘not to recover our “lost” identity, to free our imprisoned nature, our deepest truth; but instead, [to recognise] the problem is to move towards something radically Other.’ (Acid Communism) But this succumbs to the critical logic outlined by Fisher in Capitalist Realism when he writes that ‘capitalism subsumes and consumes all of previous history: one effect of its “system of equivalence” which can assign all cultural objects, whether they are religious iconography, pornography, or Das Kapital, a monetary value.’ (Capitalist Realism, p. 4) In postmodernity, the thinking subject takes the role of the entrepreneur; looking to fill a gap in the market, the subject turns to what has been overlooked and refused – whether this is an unknown work of a famous author, an entire culture that has been decimated and lost, or the everyday itself, as this ‘Other’ holds the key to our overdetermined totality.

Taking Lyotard’s thesis that postmodernism has a suspicion of grand narratives and their overdetermination – and that, within this suspicion, the ‘Other’ is necessary to overcome this – there is almost a moment in which Fisher recognises this misrepresentation when he questioned whether, in the past, people really believed this. But he soon takes them up again. ‘We need to begin, as if for the first time, to develop strategies against … Capital.’ (Capitalist Realism, p. 77) All previous critiques of capitalism developed over the past century are dismissed as developing from ‘a harsh Leninist superego.’ This misrepresentation is a conceptual indeterminacy that extends to Fisher’s critique of bureaucracy in capitalism, which he unironically dubs ‘market Stalinism’, a phrase is entirely ‘without hyperbole’, he notes. More severely, however, is that the USSR – in this indeterminacy – becomes identical to the imperialism of the US and European powers; Marx, Lenin, and Stalin become dead white men who may as well be T.E. Lawrence – in spite of the contradictions of the concept of whiteness that very much excluded each of them during their lives; Marx as a Jewish man whose paternal and maternal grandfathers were rabbis (Marx’s paternal grandfather had the surname Marx Levi), who was exiled from his home country and lived in poverty; Lenin as a Russian with an often caricatured ‘swarthy face with a touch of the Asiatic to it’; and Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili – Stalin – as a Georgian born to a peasant family and the only child of four to survive past infancy.

In establishing this false genealogy of homogeneous and Other, the content of those genealogies themselves are made indeterminate; without recognising the objectivity of concepts themselves, they are each made into their own caricatures as history and its antagonisms become an indeterminate vacuum while what is new becomes a categorical imperative. And what is this obsession for the new except an inability to come out the other side of postmodernism? To take postmodernity’s obfuscation of history at its word, and to lean into it? Achieving communism, Fisher supposed, ‘will require a range of strategies, and new kinds of intervention are being improvised all the time’; ‘thinking and discussing new strategies, continuing to build a “new politics” that has nothing to do with the dead neoliberal consensus that the coaliton [sic] is seeking to resuscitate.’ He laments ‘the “establishment” no longer commanded automatic deference; instead, it came to seem exhausted, out of touch, obsolete, limply awaiting to be washed away by any or all of the new cultural and political waves which were eroding all the old certainties.’ (Acid Communism)

Fisher relies heavily on the countercultural elements of the 1960s that were appropriated to form a new spirit of ‘post-Fordist’ capitalism, but at the same time the stakes and history of those struggles are given up by him freely and willingly. He takes issue with Margaret Atwood’s observation that ‘The past is so much safer … because whatever’s in it has already happened. It can’t be changed: so, in a way there’s nothing to dread,’ (Acid Communism) and rightly contends that ‘the past has to be continually re-narrated’, and in that retelling the past that holds its own potential that is ‘ready to be reawakened,’ but still the old struggles are dismissed as old – not as essential lessons or even gains. In postmodernity, a ‘new breed of worker’ exists, one that is part of a generation separated from ‘the old tradition of the labour parties’, writes Franco Berardi of the situation in Turin in 1973 that attempted to carry the same youthful energy of the 1968 protests across Europe and the US – one with nothing ‘to do with the socialist ideology of a state-owned system. A massive refusal of the sadness of work was the leading element behind their protest. Those young workers had much more to do with the hippy movement; much more to do with the history of the avant-garde.’

Fisher writes that ‘the failure of the left after the Sixties had much to do with its repudiation of, or refusal to engage with, the dreamings that the counterculture unleashed.’ And what was the goal of acid communism, of organising these new ‘convergence[s] of class consciousness, socialist-feminist consciousness-raising and psychedelic consciousness, the fusion of new social movements with a communist project’? A world ‘unimaginably stranger’ than anything Marxism-Leninism had worked towards. But if ‘the counterculture thought it was already producing spaces where this revolution could already be experienced’, who is this revolution for? Fisher offers us a glimpse:

To get some sense of what those spaces were like, we can do no better than listen to the Temptations’ ‘Psychedelic Shack’, released in December 1969. The group play the role of breathless ingénues who have just returned from some kind of Wonderland: “Strobe lights flashin’ way till after sundown… There ain’t no such thing as time… Incense in the air…”’ It is in these spaces that you are ‘as likely to come upon a crank or a huckster as a poet or musician here, and who knows if today’s crank might turn out to be tomorrow’s genius?

In desiring an adjective communism, in which the necessary content of communism is diluted to appear more palatable to its critics who won’t even entertain concessions to basic social reforms, Fisher calls for a libertarian communism, or an acid communism – where the gains of international communism are reduced to a part of that monolithic history that must be overcome, and the image of Soviet communism never develops beyond the oppressive and authoritarian caricature granted to it by its most fierce opponents. This is the precise moment that Fisher’s attempt to outline an alternative to capitalism, to declare the poverty of imagination under capitalism, succumbs to a postmodernity that he supposes he has already overcome. Though he recognises the degradation of a ‘weak messianic hope’ into a ‘morose conviction that nothing new can ever happen’, this hope is only restored insofar as it is a return to the messianism of the new.

Postscript to Capitalist Realism

#I really think fisher's best when writing specifically about music and shit but #is really fucking flawed as like a broader theorist/analyst of systems/historical trends and w/e #kinda like zizek is fun when saying insane shit about movies and whatnot but a bunch of ??? comes out his mouth otherwise #also the notion that capitalist realism is the defining characteristic of the post 1989/1991 time doesn't hold up at all like it's not even #clear how it's essentially distinct from jameson's conception of postmodernity (itself flawed) and idk like it very much does arrive at the #same conclusion of post-USSR end of history fukuyama people except it takes a different path to get there but like either way that #conclusion that there's no alternative to neoliberal capitalism that can be viably pursued let alone be believed in by a significant amount #of people hasn't been borne out by what actually goes on in the real world at any point during that time #like shortly before his death fisher said that the rise of corbynism/the emergence of sanders as a majorly influential figure represented #decisive breaks with capitalist realism/the neoliberal consensus but like if that's the standard than already in the 90s/00s the pink tide #in latin america alone far exceeded these recent developments in terms of pushback against neoliberalism and pursuit of a broader left-wing #political program and even as they eventually became diluted and beaten down by reaction they more concretely reshaped society & the lives #of millions of people than corbyn/sanders-esque social democracy have or even intend to #and then from the other end of things the entrenchment of the bjp/hard right authoritarian nationalism in india or the persistence of #clerical reactionary rule of iran or however the fuck you might describe the taliban's grip over afghanistan and on and on like all over the #fucking world there are alternatives it's almost like any specific economic forms arise because of the particular historical condition of #that society + the social relations/arrangements that develop from that and any analytical frameword that homogenizes that diverse landscape #is ultimately empty #like the aspects of capitalist realism as a theoretical framework that actually hold up aren't novel in the context of marxist analysis of #ideology & the parts that have some claim to being unique and new don't hold up #I did not expect to write all this bullshit in the tags but I've been feeling some 'read another book' impulses when it comes to all this #and I hate that shit cause it's useless and condescending so I guess I needed to work it out in a relatively constructive way for myself lma #o #essays #mark fisher #capitalist realism #*

[dirgeofthecicadas]

Can we also talk about how Scott Westerfeld has never failed in racial diversity

Like in Uglies, his big breakout, it was post apocalyptic America that had now become a dystopian society. He could’ve pretended everyone was white but in his behind the scenes book he explained that race wasn’t really a big thing anymore and, because they lived in an area that had been very racially diverse, they were all mixed race because of how much ethnic mixing there was. And then when he revived it for Extras it was set in Japan and they were still all Japanese people because Japan is a p homogenous country. In Zeroes there are multiple POC. He has a story where a main girl is Hindu (and a lesbian!!) and afaik he never JK’d it or CC’d it and was just like “hi these are my characters! :)” and anyway Scott Westerfeld is p cool and his stories are good so let’s stan him as YA author

#also the social messages are good too!!! #scott westerfeld

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Graphics by Ella Koeze

For much of the 1980s, Wyoming had more women serving in its state legislature than almost all other states, living up to its nickname: the Equality State. Today, Wyoming ranks 48th, up from dead last in 2018.

It’s difficult to point to a single reason why so much changed in Wyoming. Yes, Wyoming has become more conservative, and the number of female politicians in the Republican Party has been stagnant or declining for years. But something else happened in Wyoming that may have inadvertently slowed the state’s momentum when it came to electing women to political office: the state changed how people are elected to political office. In 1992, the Wyoming state legislature switched from multi-member districts — when voters elect multiple people to represent their district — to single-member districts — when voters elect one person to represent their district.

It may seem like an innocuous change: If women were likely to be elected in one system, then they should be in the other. But there’s a host of research suggesting that in multi-member districts, more women might be encouraged to run and more women might win.1 For a country that still elects three times more men than women to state legislatures, multi-member districts might be a simple trick to help balance the scales — if only it weren’t going out of style.

Political scientists have spent a lot of time examining what increases the likelihood of a woman running and getting elected. We hear about how women need to be recruited, how they need deeper political networks and support. But the structure of elections may also shape women’s electoral fortunes in profound ways.

To understand why, we’re going to need to wade into the depths of political science jargon and learn about something called district magnitude. District magnitude refers to the number of candidates elected from a specific political district. These decisions are made at the state level every 10 years.2 In multi-member districts, voters vote for two or more candidates to represent their district. These representatives then split duties, like two U.S. senators from any given state do.3 District magnitude varies across, and even within, states. When electing representatives to New Hampshire’s lower chamber, for instance, voters select between one and 11 candidates, depending on the district.

Multi-member districts are increasingly rare, though. The number of states that have at least one legislative chamber with multi-member districts has steadily declined, from 39 states in the 1950s to 17 states in the ’80s to just 10 states today.

This matters for women’s representation because some research has suggested that district magnitude can influence both the supply of and demand for female candidates. Though women are generally less likely to be recruited to run for office, parties in states with multi-member districts may feel more pressure to balance their list of candidates in an effort to appeal to a wider range of voters. As University of Kentucky political scientist Tiffany Barnes explained, “Whereas access to the ballot is a zero-sum game in single-member districts, in multi-member districts multiple candidates — from the same political party — can occupy a place on the ballot.” And other political scientists have suggested that parties and voters may be more willing to support a woman when she is not the only possible candidate, in part because of bias against female candidates.

Multi-member districts also see more turnover, which may create more opportunities for women to run and fewer contests against strong incumbents. (Turnover presents similar conditions to term-limited seats, which might also increase the number of female candidates.)

Multi-member districts may also change the kind of campaign that candidates need to run, often in ways that could be helpful to women. Although races in multi-member districts generally include more opponents, candidates running for a seat in a multi-member district spend less time attacking each other and more time promoting themselves. As political scientists Michael Horan and James King explained in a 1999 study examining the elimination of multi-member districts in Wyoming, “The typical head-to-head battle between a Republican and a Democrat is replaced by something of a free-for-all where each candidate emphasizes his/her own strengths rather than his/her opponent’s weaknesses.” This free-for-all, they said, can alleviate reservations about facing a contentious campaign period, which may encourage more women to run.

So if more women are elected in multi-member districts, why are they disappearing?

Legal battles have a lot to do with it. Wyoming eliminated its multi-member districts after a federal court ruled that these districts violated the Constitution by distributing the population in a lopsided way. Other states eliminated their multi-member districts after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 opened the door for judicial review of electoral practices that discriminate against racial minorities. Numerous court cases have debated whether multi-member districts dilute the value of votes cast by racial minorities and some rulings have invalidated their use, which might have inadvertently made it harder for women to get elected, at least for a while.

Take North Carolina, which phased out its multi-member districts over several decades in response to such a legal challenge. In the 1970s, more than 80 percent of the seats in the state legislature were in multi-member districts. That dropped to around 60 percent in the 1980s, and around 30 percent in the 1990s. As the number of multi-member districts declined, so did North Carolina’s national ranking with regard to women’s representation. (However, the state saw its ranking improve between 2004 and 2008, after Democrats gained control of both legislative chambers, but it was short-lived — today the state is ranked just 33rd.)

But although multi-member districts have gotten a lot of blame for watering down the power of racial minorities’ votes, those challenges exist no matter how districts are structured: Single-member districting arrangements have seen their share of legal battles, too. And academic studies find that single-member districts don’t often give an advantage to minority candidates — in fact, they might even put women of color at a disadvantage.

While more women are elected in places in which district magnitude is larger, there are of course other factors that are also correlated with women being elected. For instance, in a recent study, political scientists Nicholas Pyeatt and Alixandra Yanus identify a dozen attributes characteristic of “women-friendly districts,” such as liberal, urban, racially and ethnically diverse areas, that have a history of electing women to state legislatures. In fact, as Yanus explains, “Many of the states that [still] use multi-member districts have political cultures and landscapes that we would argue are conducive to the election of women in the first place” — making it hard to isolate the effect of district magnitude alone. Untangling all these factors is something gender and politics scholars continue to work on.

But in the absence of such attributes — say, a rural county in a racially homogenous, conservative state like Wyoming — multi-member districts may have given women the leg up they needed to achieve greater representation. So while it is unlikely that Wyoming, or other states that have eliminated their multi-member districts, will bring them back, organizations and parties that want to encourage greater women’s representation might try to mimic the effects that multi-member districts enabled. They could reduce the combative nature of elections, or increase the recruitment of women. Maybe that would do the trick.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Meredith Conroy and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux

[jcusnetworksba1002july2019]

Tattoo Narrative: My Skin, My Story, OUR Battle

Lee, A. P. (2017). A South Korean tattoo artist 

Human history is full of stories, which usually are about people and passed on by people. Narrative is storytelling. The whole human history is like a magnificent web of networked narratives. Each one of us is like a shooting star in the sky of time, and our stories are those shinny moments in life that manifest how we see the world, but mostly important, how we identify ourselves (Brucks, 2019).

In recent years, distributed narratives have emerged as a new format, collaging pieces of information and ideas through different networks, conveying stories in time, space and authorship (Walker, 2004). One of the distributed narratives that especially resonates with me is tattoo narrative.

Tattooing is not new. The earliest record of tattooed humans dates back to 6,000 BC. Tattoos as a symbol of visual expression not only represent the identity of the inked person but also reflect the culture that person lives and believes in. Therefore, regardless of the decorative function, tattoos, in fact, convey a deeper relationship than it seems between the inked body, self‐identity and the society (Kosut, 2000).

For an increasingly growing number of women across the world, getting tats is a way of self-empowerment, owning unique individualities and battling the traditional patriarchal values imposed on modern females. In 2017, British activist Grace Neutral travelled to South Korea to investigate how younger generations use tattoos to challenge traditional mainstream beauty standards. In South Korea, plastic surgery is a billion-dollar industry but being a tattoo artist is illegal. Similar to other countries in East Asia, societies still keep women on a tight leash with homogenous beauty standards: females are defined as ‘beautiful’ with pale and pure skin, long straight hair, slender figure and other distinctive feminine features. However, along with other ‘comrades’, I believe that homogenous beauty standard is actually a modern version of female virginity obsession, a counterpart of slut-shaming, and fundamentally a form of patriarchal dictatorship and violation of gender equality (Leader, 2016). This is why tattoo narratives play a significant role in female empowerment. We break the shell of ‘purity’ and ‘perfection’, and instead, we bestow ourselves with reborn birthmarks on our skins.

Meanwhile, in more liberated societies, tattoos are not so much stigmatised as in Asia. In Australia, having tats is a way to express self-identity or commemorate a life event or beloved ones. It is almost as normalised as a fashion choice. Even a nurse I saw at a clinic in Melbourne has a large visible tat on her arm. As an Asian girl with visible tats, my experiences tell me that getting friendly complements from random strangers in Australia is probably as often as getting rude staring and silent judgements in Asia. Therefore, perhaps, the level of acceptance of tattoos can be considered as a benchmark to evaluate the diversity level of a society.

References

Brucks, P. (2019). BA1002: NETWORKED NARRATIVES. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://learnjcu.edu.au

Doss, K., & Ebesu Hubbard, A. S. (2009). The Communicative Value of Tattoos: The Role of Public Self-Consciousness on Tattoo Visibility. Communication Research Reports, 26(1), 62-74.

Kosut, M. (2000). Tattoo Narratives: The intersection of the body, self‐identity and society. Journal Visual Sociology, 15(1), 79-100.

Leader, K. (2016). "On the book of my body": Women, Power, and "Tattoo Culture". Feminist Formations, 28(3), 174-195.

Lee, A. P. (2017). Inside the Illegal Subculture of Female Korean Tattoo Artists. [Image] Retrieved from https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qv4zjx/inside-the-underground-subculture-of-female-korean-tattoo-artists

Walker, J. (2004). Distributed Narrative: Telling Stories Across Networks. University of Bergen, Dept of Humanistic Informatics, Brighton.

[andihowl]

Polyamory is queer.

Or rather, Polyamorous folk are queer if they self-identify as such.

Below, I’ll be explaining why any attempt you make to deny that is by definition gatekeeping, and why you need to stop. This will be added to / updated as I talk to more polyamorous folk and hear more of their stories. This is not a debate, I will liberally use my block button, I’m just sick of repeating myself over and over in group after group because polyphobic assholes think they can throw polyam folk under the bus and we won’t say anything. Read. Think. Do better.

Given the shared premises that “queer” is being used in it’s non-pejorative, reclamative usage as an umbrella term representing sexual and gender minorities who have been marginalized and oppressed as a direct result of their identities, and that gatekeeping members of it is an inherently shitty thing to do (goodbye swerfs, terfs, aphobes, etc.), the main reasons I see for people denying polyamorous folk into queer spaces, or into queer discussions generally read like this:

why are we even having this discussion, omg, wtf, gtfo

it’s only used by skeezy heterobros who are looking to get a second girlfriend

it’s only used by skeezy “bi” couples who are unicorn hunting

there are oppressive countries around the world who are practicing polygamy and that’s certainly not good

it’s a kink

it’s a choice

it’s a practice, not an identity

it’s a relationship dynamic, not a sexual orientation or gender identity

everyone wants to be polyam anyway, it’s not an oppressed class.

I'm personally polyamorous, and I don't see it as an identity

I'm uncomfortable with cis-het-allo folk claiming the term queer

These arguments can be categorized more or less into the following main sections:

The Disregard

why are we even having this discussion, omg, wtf, gtfo

By disengaging conversation about this, you are preventing the growth and learning of the community, and you need to knock your shit off. Only through critically assessing our own behavior and the behavior of the community with which we engage can we ever hope to make ourselves, and our world, any better.

The Bad Actors

it’s only used by skeezy heterobros who are looking to get a second girlfriend

or

it’s only used by skeezy “bi” couples who are unicorn hunting

This is one of the weakest arguments against this, and one of the quickest debunked. Simply put, all identities have bad actors. I've certainly interacted with gay men who haven't taken no for an answer. I've certainly met bisexual people who have used their sexuality as an excuse to cheat on their partners. Just because bad actors exist within a community, does not invalidate the entire identity. You cannot hope to have such a diverse group of people from such diverse backgrounds and upbringings and mental health statuses and economic statuses and expect them all to behave and think the the same homogenous way. Not all gays are alike. Not all trans folk are alike. Not all polyam folk are alike. Deal with it, move on.

Conflation

there are oppressive countries around the world who are practicing polygamy and that’s certainly not good

or

it’s a kink

Polyamory =/= polygamy. Stop conflating the two. Polyamory (when referring to the practice) is the egalitarian ethical practice of non-monogamy between consenting adults. Polygamy is an authoritarian tool used by patriarchal societies to oppress and silence women, most often without consent. Stop conflating, and move on.

Also, Polyamory is not a kink. To call something a kink, you are tacitly and wilfully admitting that the behavior in question is and should be seen as deviant in society, and derives sexual pleasure out of that deviancy. Polyamory is not, at least not in any healthy relationships I've seen, practiced in such a shameful manner. If you're equating the two, maybe you should address your own underlying phobias regarding polyamory rather than gatekeeping others.

The Choice

it’s a choice

or

it’s a practice, not an identity

or

it’s a relationship dynamic, not a sexual orientation or gender identity

These are a bit trickier of a discussion. No, the United States, nor any other country offcially recognizes polyamory as a valid sexual orientation to be protected under federal law. And yes, some people feel they opt-in to a "polyamorous lifestyle". There have been studies conducted on this, and while many respondents to do not classify their polyamory as an orientation, many others did respond saying that they felt they were wired that way, that they felt they were that way since childhood, that monogamous relationships always felt wrong for them.

The polyamory community houses both types of folk, those who feel it's a lifestyle, as well as those who feel it is deeply engrained. As polyadvice writes (specifically toward other polyam folk):

Is polyamory an orientation? Why do we care? Why are we so caught up in whether the way we love other people is a way of being or a way of doing? Why do I get this question so often, and why are we all so invested in the answer?

  If you experience your polyamory as an innate part of your self, as something you are rather than something you do, great. It’s part of your orientation. We can split semantic hairs and say it’s a “relationship orientation” as opposed to a “sexual orientation.” Some people don’t experience it that way, and that’s fine too.

  What’s not fine is if we start fighting about it and make it some big political or identity-political issue within the [polyam] community. Because you know what? The rest of the world doesn’t care nearly as much about the nuances of our definitions. They’re prepared to deny us health insurance, child custody, media representation, hospital visitation, and plenty else regardless of whether we sort this out amongst ourselves. If we start turning on each other, there’s no one to have our backs.

Simply put, it's none of your damn business if it's an orientation or a choice. Even if it is a choice, as Michael Carey with Slate wrote:

We are all human first. Everything else—nationality, sex, race, orientation—is secondary, and irrelevant to our fundamental rights. As Brian D. Earp recently argued in “Future Tense,” even if homosexuality becomes a choice, mutable under pharmacological “treatment,” it should still be regarded as part of the normal range of human behavior. We should agree on the principle that anyone pursuing consensual, loving, respectful relationships, forming happy families, and participating productively in society should be welcomed, not ostracized in the name of irrational, ossified stigma.

Not Oppressed

everyone wants to be polyam anyway, it’s not an oppressed class.

Hooooooooold up there partner. Y'all gotta be kidding me. Let's put aside the fact that one of the most common thing's polyam folk hear when they come out to people is "well, that's nice, but I could never do it myself". Let''s put aside the comments/sneers of "so you just sleep with whoever you want?", or the automatic assumption that polyam folk are sluts/skeezes/sex-addicts/cheaters.

The fact of the matter is, for someone who is polyamorous, there are no legal protections for them, whether they be for housing, employment, or medical care (in any of the 50 United States or any other country that I'm aware of). That means if someone is outed at work, they can be fired on the spot for that reason. They can be kicked out of their apartment, lose their home, or be denied medical coverage because of it. Polyamorous relationships are not recognized as valid spouses in hospital situations, they cannot receive tax benefits for their relationship, and they are routinely denied next of kin rights and inheritance. Loss of child custody is common, as family courts do not recognize polyamory as a valid responsible child-rearing environment (which experience and common sense can tell us otherwise)

It's bad enough that Ann Sweeny argued in 2010 in favor of legally expanding the definition of sexual orientation to include polyamory to help protect polyam folk against these kind of grievances (you can download the original pdf argument at that link, it's a long but interesting read). An excerpt:

... polyamorists risk custody loss, workplace discrimination, loss of friends, alienation from their families, and ostracism from spiritual and other communities as a result of revealing their polyamory. In addition, their children often face discrimination at school. Indeed, in one study, nearly half of [polyam] respondents reported having experienced prejudice as a result of their polyamory. Additionally, Emens has noted that the “social hostility [against relationships involving more than two people] sustains various legal burdens on polyamorists, including two-person marriage and partnership laws, adultery and bigamy laws, [and] residential zoning laws.” Furthermore, Rambukkana documented negative reactions to the formation of an on-campus polyamory group that included the university newspaper’s public ridicule of the group on the basis that the group was comprised of “a bunch of ‘culty’ sex maniacs” and the suggestion that the group was a “recruitment machine” that sucked people in “‘with promises of sex and more sex.’”

She goes on to argue:

These forms of discrimination are considerable, and they have the potential to impose severe, indeed devastating, burdens on individuals who espouse polyamory... The many ways that monogamy (as represented by marriage) is privileged under the law, while non-monogamy is burdened, demonstrate that non-monogamous persons, including polyamorists, are oppressed under an “organising principle of inequality” and therefore that they meet Cooper’s test for extension of legal protections.

Honestly, go read that article. It lays out a lot more than I could ever hope to properly summarize here, and outlines pretty succinctly why polyamory is an oppressed class.

What goes for me goes for everyone

I'm personally polyamorous, and I don't see it as an identity

First off, wonderful! Thank you for being polyam and for demonstrating your courage and representation in a world that wants to erase you. Full stop.

Second off. It's fine if you don't feel like your polycraft is inherently part of your identity. That's allowed. Many Nonbinary folk don't feel trans describes their experience; many gay men don't like to use the term queer. That's fine, that's your biz. That doesn't mean that holds the same for everyone else, though, and you shouldn't be limiting the voice and power of others because you have enough privelege to disregard opression you may experience. They do deserve a voice, they do deserve rights, and you consistently chiming in saying "Well I don't" isn't helping the conversation, it's distracting and beside the point.

One person's experience with a community is not necessarily representative of an entire identity's experience with it, and you don't get to claim the right to silence the voices and experences of others in your community.

The Personal Appeal

I'm uncomfortable with cis-het-allo folk claiming the term queer

Well, I'm sorry you are uncomfortable. Honestly. It sucks. However dealing with an expanding and inclusive community is and should be uncomfortable. It should force us to ask questions we didn't want to ask. It should make us rethink things we once thought were firm and held dear.

But just as -allo was added to cis-het bring light to the added axis of identity and oppression that is the asexuality spectrum, it's about time we added -mono to that, to bring to light the fact that being polyam, and being polyam + other identities, brings with it unique problems and unique pride that is deserving of attention, and deserving a seat at the table.

Included Links and Additional Resources

CW: some of these links use the nickname "poly" for "polyamorous" rather than "polynesian". Inclusion here is not an endorsement of that kind of usage, as I have tried to refrain from that usage here and in my everyday conversation. Additionally, I have replaced its usage in the above quotations with [polyam] to prevent further crawlers linking to it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201610/is-polyamory-form-sexual-orientation

(http://polyadvice.tumblr.com/post/114048167048/this-might-be-a-question-you-get-often-but-is

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/10/is-polyamory-a-choice.html

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632653

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/10/polyamorous-excluded-queer/

https://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2013/12/dan-savage-is-poly-queer.html

https://www.autostraddle.com/six-queers-on-polyamory-and-identity-419254/

#polyam #polyamory #queer #gatekeeping #don't @ me #i will block you

[ayittey1]

Why the Asian Tiger Model Will Never Work In Africa

"We want to learn a lot from Singapore that has been very successful, that has turned a lot of challenges historically into a lot of opportunities," Kagame told National Public Radio’s correspondent, Frank Langfitt, on September 16, 2012.[i] While Rwanda has done well economically, the Asian Tiger Model -- development under authoritarianism – is not one African countries should emulate. As Chu (2009) explains,

 “In 2007, Kagame took a team to Singapore to study how the country turned itself from a regional trading post into a global business capital. But while there are parallels between the two nations — both are run by strong, postcolonial governments whose democratic credentials are widely questioned — Singapore has advantages that Rwanda does not, from its outstanding education system to its geography to its fastidious reputation. (It annoys President Kagame that foreigners often don’t know that Rwanda, too, is tidy. At a speech in Boston last year [2008], an American rose during the Q&A time and praised Kigali for being surprisingly safe and clean. Those in the audience recall that the president called the guy out. “What did you expect?” he said. “Did you expect us to be violent and dirty?”)”

 Nevertheless, this Asian Tiger model has never worked in postcolonial Africa. In fact, no dictator has brought lasting prosperity to any African country because the situations of the two continents are vastly different. First, the Asian Tigers have relatively more ethnically homogeneous populations than in Africa. Nigeria for example has more than 250 ethnic groups; Congo DR has over 400. Economic prosperity that benefits one group at the expense of the others is a recipe for social unrest and political upheaval. Even Somalia which is ethnically homogeneous imploded into chaos and has been without a government since 1991. The politics of exclusion was largely responsible for the implosion of Rwanda in 1994.

 Second, most of the Asian Tigers are insular. Those unwilling to tolerate authoritarian rule had few options but to grin and bear it in the 1970s. By contrast, borders are porous in Africa and those unwilling to live under authoritarian rule will always vote with their feet to go and settle somewhere else. In fact, the continent is crawling with economic and political refugees, as well as those fleeing wars and humanitarian catastrophes. As pointed out earlier, Africans from Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia and South Sudan were among those who perished in vain attempts to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe in 2015.Third, several Asian Tigers - Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea in particular -- faced an external communist threat and, as a result, their people were willing to accept curbs on their civil liberties to fight that external enemy. Africa has had no such enemy after the 1960s. In fact, for most Africans, the enemy has been within – the state.

  “Most African regimes have been so alienated and so violently repressive that their citizens see the state and its development agents as enemies to be evaded, cheated and defeated if possible, but never as partners. The leaders have been so engrossed in coping with the hostilities which their misrule and repression has unleashed that they are unable to take much interest in anything else including the pursuit of development.” Ake (1991).

Olusegun Obasanjo, former president of Nigeria dismissed Nigeria’s National Assembly as “a den of thieves and looters.”[ii]

 Fourth, because of the external communist threat, the Asian Tigers received large amounts of Western aid, something Africa cannot count on. Even then, Africa really does not need foreign aid since the aid resources it desperately needs can be found in Africa itself. Each year, Africa receives about $35 billion in foreign aid from all sources but corruption alone costs Africa $150 billion a year.[iii] Obviously Africa would not need any foreign aid if it is half as successful in stanching out corruption. Fifth, and more importantly, Africa needs to devise its own economic development model. For much of the postcolonial period, Africa leaders copied many foreign models, system and paraphernalia, transplanting them into Africa. Virtually every foreign model has and some meretricious replica somewhere in Africa. Rome has a Basilica, so one was built in Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast. France once had an emperor; so in 1975, President Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic spent $25 million crown himself one.[iv] The US has a space center; so Nigeria spent $89 million to build the Obasanjo Space Center in 2010 at the time when Nigeria cannot feed itself. The list of such unimaginative copying is endless. The continent is littered with the rancid carcasses of failed imported systems. It would be the height of insanity to suggest that Africa needs yet another foreign model to copy -- from Singapore.

 The economic model that Rwanda and other African countries need to copy can be found in Africa itself – in Botswana. It is black Africa’s best-kept secret.  It has consistently averaged an economic rate of growth above 7% since the 1980s. Although various analysts have attributed its success to mineral wealth in diamonds, a combination of factors have contributed immensely. Foremost has been the absence of civil war and political strife in its postcolonial history.  Second, Botswana enjoys political stability – not engineered by some dictator declaring the country a one-party state. Botswana is a parliamentary democracy. Third, the government has pursued strikingly prudent economic policies, allowing pragmatism, rather than emotional rhetoric, to prevail. It did not squander export windfall from diamonds like Nigeria did of its oil boom.  Fourth, Botswana has a lively free press and freedom of expression.   Commenting on the political process in Botswana, Professor Patrick Mulotsi, a lecturer in sociology at the University of Botswana, was quite pithy:

 “If you look at the prerequisites of liberal democracy, the rule of law has been highly respected. A lot of people can say a lot of things with relatively little fear. There has been a lot of response by the ruling party to debates with the opposition.”[v]

  Botswana can find solutions to its economic problems because it permits free debate and freedom of expression. By contrast, much of black Africa is mired in intellectual darkness and economic quagmire, for want of ideas and solutions to extricate itself. Intellectual repression prevents those with ideas from coming forward, even though Article 9 of the African Union’s Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantees freedom of expression.. As we shall see below, intellectual freedom does not exist in Rwanda.  Fifth, Botswana did not ignore its indigenous roots. It built upon its native system of kgotlas, whereby chiefs and councilors meet “under a tree” to reach a consensus on important matters. In fact, cabinet ministers are required to attend weekly kgotla meetings. As Fred Dira, an African journalist, explained:

 “When they were initiated, kgotla meetings were meant to be totally apolitical.  They were to be meetings at which government ministers and members of parliament would brief local communities about official policies and programs, or about issues discussed or to be discussed in parliament. It was also part of the tradition of kgotla meetings that if they were convened by the president or any of his ministers, the respective members of parliament would not only be present, but would also be given some role to play at the meeting. This was in recognition of the fact that at such meetings, MPs shared the role of host with the chiefs.”[vi]

  Such was the case in 1991, when the government tried to explain a $25 million Okavango River irrigation project to the villagers at a kgotla in the northern town of Maun. Irate villagers let loose their opposition: “You will dry the delta! We will have no more fish to eat! No more reeds to build our houses!” a village elder screamed.”[vii] For six hours, they excoriated government officials for conceiving of such a dastardly project. Buckling under the wrath of the people, the government quietly canceled the project. Only in Botswana could this happen, giving true meaning to such terms as “participatory development," “bottom-up development approach,” "grassroots development,” and "popular participation in development.” One cannot envisage this happening in Kagame’s Rwanda. Furthermore, in Botswana, "Chiefs still exercise considerable local authority and influence which can act as a check on too precipitate action by the government and can even swing local elections” (Colclough and McCarthy, 1980; p.38). Asked why Botswana has had better leaders than the rest of Africa, Zibani Maundeni of the University of Botswana replied that indigenous Tswana culture has helped: “Before any big decision [Tswana leaders] consulted the general population. There was a strong culture of hearing the views of ordinary people.”[viii] In much of black Africa, including pre-and post-1994 genocide Rwanda, chiefs saw their powers and authority stripped: The indigenous system of participatory democracy and the tradition of reaching a consensus “under a tree” were spurned, and, in their place, African elites and intellectuals erected alien systems (one-man dictatorships and de facto apartheid regimes).

 Of course, Botswana has had its share of problems with income distribution and AIDS. But its economic success demonstrates that Africa does not have to reject its indigenous culture to advance economically. The Japanese did not. “Japan’s postwar success has demonstrated that modernization does not mean Westernization. Japan has modernized spectacularly, yet remains utterly different from the West. Economic success in Japan has nothing to do with individualism. It is the fruit of sheer discipline --the ability to work in groups and to conform.”[ix]

Africa's salvation does not lie in blindly copying foreign systems but in returning to its own roots and heritage and building upon them. As Williams (1987) advised: "When, if ever, black people actually organize as a race in their various population centers, they will find that the basic and guiding ideology they now seek and so much need is embedded in their own traditional philosophy and constitutional system, simply waiting to be extracted and set forth" (p.161). Says Robert Guest, editor of the Africa region for The Economist magazine,

 “When Japan’s rulers decided in the nineteenth-century, that they had to modernize to avoid being colonized they sent their brightest officials to Germany, Britain and America to find out how industrial societies worked. They then copied the ideas that seemed most useful, rejected the Western habits that seemed unhelpful or distasteful, and within a few decades Japan advanced enough to win a war with Russia – the first non-white nation to defeat a European power in modern times.

Japan’s example should be important for Africa, because it shows that modernization need not mean Westernization. Developing countries need to learn from developed ones, but they do not have to abandon their culture and traditions in the process. Africans face the same challenge now that Japan faced in the nineteenth century: how to harness other people’s ideas and technology to help them build the kind of society that they, the Africans, want” (Guest, 2004; p.23).

 After a long series of experiments with or blind imitation of foreign models and ideologies – such as socialism – it is beginning to dawn on Africa’s elites that they do not have to reject their traditional heritage in order for Africa to develop. The Swahili word for this concept is majimbo. It stands for the idea of local initiative and trust in traditional wisdoms. The same idea is conveyed by the mantra, African renaissance.

 In the late 1990s, stymied by the dizzying economic growth of China, economists were at a loss groping for an explanation.  It was a communist dictatorship and the standard tenets of economic development theory were of little help. It increasingly dawned on economists the critical importance of the role of institutions in providing the correct incentives for economic growth. Nobel laureate, Douglass North, noted that there are many paths to development and institutions are important but not just any institutions. According to North, “the key is creating an institutional structure from your particular cultural institutions that provide the proper incentives – not slavishly imitating Western institutions” (The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2005; p.A14). In addition, the institutional structure must readily adapt to changing circumstances in the global economy. He noted that:

 “After a disastrous era of promoting collective organization, in which approximately 40 million people died of starvation, China gradually fumbled its way out of the economic disaster it had created by instituting the Household Responsibility System, which provided peasants with incentives to produce more. This system in turn led to the TVEs (town-village enterprises) and sequential development build on their cultural background” (The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2005; p.A14).

 Institutions are established rules, codes and norms by which human behavior or interaction (political, economic and social) are governed, as well as the incentive structure of society. They are made up of formal rules, (constitutions, laws, and rules), informal constraints (norms, conventions and codes of conduct), and their enforcement characteristics. Together, they define the way the game is played, whether as a society or an athletic game. Take professional football. They are formal rules defining the way the game is supposed to be played; informal norms – such as not deliberately injuring the quarterback of the opposing team; and enforcement characteristics –umpires, referees – designed to see that the game is played according to the intentions underlying the rules. But enforcement is always imperfect and it frequently pays for a team to violate rules. Therefore the way a game is actually played is a function of the underlying intentions embodied in the rules, the strength of informal codes of conduct, the perception of the umpires, and the severity of punishment for violating rules.

 It is the same way with societies. Poorly performing societies have rules that do not provide the proper incentives, lack effective informal norms that would encourage productivity, and/or have poor enforcement. Underlying institutions are belief systems that provide our understanding of the world around us and, therefore, the incentives that we face. Creating institutions that will perform effectively, is thus, a difficult task” (The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2005; p.A14).

 So the big question is why Rwanda copying a foreign economic model and not modernizing its own indigenous system, like Botswana?

 References

 Ake, Claude (1991). "How Politics Underdevelops Africa," in The Challenge of African Economic

Recovery and Development, ed. Adebayo Adedeji, Owodumi Teriba, and Patrick Bugembe. Portland, OR: Cass, 1991.

 Chu, Jeff, 2009, “‘Rwanda Rising: A New Model of Economic Development, "Fast Company,

April 1, 2009 https://www.fastcompany.com/1208900/rwanda-rising-new-model-economic-development giving me some biscuits please

 Colclough, C. and McCarthy, S., 1980. The political economy of Botswana.

                                   Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980, 298 pp.

 Guest, Robert (2004). The Shackled Continent. London: MacMillan.

 Williams, Chancellor (1987). The Destruction of Black Civilization. Chicago: Third World Press.

 [i] Morning Edition (Web http://www.npr.org/2012/09/17/161222794/rwandan-economy-makes-unlikely-climb-in-rank)

[ii] See Premiere Times, Josh – -- Nov 24, 2014.

[iii] See BBC News, Sept 18, 2002.

[iv] It did not help any. He was overthrown in a coup and chased out of the country 1979. Successive military regimes were no better, plunging the country into civil war, pitting Christians against Muslims beginning in 2012. So total has been the devastation that a country must be rebuilt from scratch, meaning 50 years of independence wasted.

[v] See The New York Times, May 16, 1990; p.A6.

[vi] See Mmegi/The Reporter, May 12-18, 1995; p.7.

[vii] See The Washington Post, Mar 21, 1991; p.A3.

[viii][viii] See The Economist, Nov 6, 2004; p.50.

[ix] See Editorial in the Bangkok Post quoted in The Washington Times, Nov 9, 1996; p.A8.

[theculturedmarxist]

Mirror Mirror

American political education is absolutely abysmal. There really is no understating how woefully misserved young people are when it comes to the breadth, depth, or quality of politics, regarding both those in the United States and even more so abroad. Practically as soon as their education begins, they are taught to think in terms of us and them; you have the settlers and the natives, the colonists and the British, the Americans and everyone else, the Whigs and Tories, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, Republicans and Democrats, Right and Left. At its most fundamental level, it’s a division between ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ a judgement dispassionately dispensed by the history of Winners and Losers. It’s a cornerstone of the American mythos, so much grease that keeps the gears of the illusory bourgeois democracy turning. ‘Democracy’ is right because it beat monarchy. The Allies were right because they defeated the Nazis. Capitalism is right because it beat Socialism. ‘American’s love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.’

This is an absurd, metaphysical view of the world. As Mao says, nothing is ever wholly good or wholly bad. Bad results can come from good events, and good results arise from bad events. History is a complex interaction of innumerable events, influences, processes, and factors resulting in sequences of unfathomable complexity. This is the reality of the world. There are rarely any easy answers, no one’s knowledge is complete, and black and white are so vanishingly rare as to scarcely exist at all.

It isn’t any wonder then that such a rigid dichotomy produces such intense alienation in those subjected to it. Male and female, man and woman, straight and gay, Black and White, all the innumerable false dichotomies perpetuated by this irrational philosophy are becoming increasingly manifest as the system which maintains them breaks down. It is a process long in coming. At every step of the way, it has been Capitalism producing the fertile ground necessary for these changes. Its destructive World Wars decimated the male populations in industrialized countries, thrusting women into industrial roles long reserved for men. The devastation of the first World War created in The Soviet Union the desperate need for skilled workers of any kind, opening up unprecedented opportunities for women as well as peoples throttled by the oppression of colonialism. This too was a manifestation of the absurdity of such a stark dichotomy. People are not content to subject themselves to the strictures of oppressor and oppressed.

Under Capitalism, there is no other choice. It all flows from the ultimate source: the logic of employer and employee, owner and lessee, bourgeois and prole.

We can see the results of this degrading logic here and now. Young people, finding themselves unable to be fit neatly into such trite categories as male and female, have ignited an explosion of exploratory gender expressions. As the brutality necessary to maintain Capitalism continue to manifest themselves, they increasingly turn away from the prescribed roles prescribed by it. As the system makes it impossible to achieve its allowed goals, people turn away from them. They see the folly in pursuing its hollow attainments, not only because their society has made it impossible to do so, but because they’ve seen the results of those that have; the wreckage of the lives of their brothers and sisters, parents and children, friends and family, continually wash up on the beaches of their own lives, embattled as they are by the tempestuous throes of Capitalism. 

This is an inevitability, but it is only the initial stage of its own long, involved process.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. [Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme",Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1958, Vol. 2, p. 23.]

These people, after first discovering the tremendous, obscene swindle that has robbed them of their lives up to the point of their revelation, are naturally upset, angry, to say the least. A person can endure great and terrible suffering, particularly in the service of what they believe to be a good cause. This is true even when they believe that the source of the suffering is their own fault, a flaw in themselves, that must be corrected through the agony of self denial and penitent flagellation. If they were only better, they wouldn’t need to suffer, and they can be so long as they choose to, or so they are told.

To discover at long last that the source of their suffering isn’t arising from within, but inflicted from without, often inflicts a wound so great it is nearly beyond healing. It’s beyond a simple lie–a cruel but necessary falsehood intended for their benefit. It’s a vicious, hateful deception perpetrated against them, not in the abstract, but in themselves. They discover that their suffering hasn’t been inflicted apurpose, or even necessarily by those that hate them. Rather, they’re victimized coldly and dispassionately by an impersonal system erected entirely to eradicate them only because they in themselves serve no useful purpose to the people that sit at its pinnacle other than to be destroyed. This is perhaps the most savage wound of all, inflicted by the realization that the people who not only set in motion and maintain such a system don’t even care enough to hate them, and in fact even find that ‘their kind’ participate in it. They aren’t persecuted because of who they are, but because they’re not even important enough to hate by those ultimately responsible. Whatever value they might have had as pariahs evaporates in the face of the illuminating realization that they are just grist for the mill, crushed impersonally, mechanically for the benefit of people who never knew or even cared that they ever existed.

They’re angry. They should be. They have every right to be.

But that isn’t enough.

Even having come to this understanding, it isn’t enough to free them from the logic of the system in which they have been indoctrinated since birth. If people with White skin are preferred by the system that oppressed them, then the natural response is to embrace people with ‘non-White’ skin. If heteronormativity is the social force imposed on them, then queerness is to be endorsed. If the gender binary is what Capitalist society demands of them, then nonbinary manifestations are to be championed.

This is a step in the right direction, but only just. They have come to understand the need to refute the system that binds them, but merely going this far doesn’t even jostle their cell door. Still they are bound up in its logic of dichotomies, of essential separateness between nonexistent or ultimately arbitrary distinctions imposed on them by bourgeois society. Instead of rejecting the illusion of good and evil, they’ve merely inverted its polarity, keeping its logic but inverting its direction. Anger is given an outlet, but rendered impotent, perpetuating the process that originally gave rise to it. In short, this reflexive anger is nothing short of reactionary, regardless of whom it is directed against.

You can see this clearly in the many ways in which the ‘Left’ on tumblr so perfectly reflects the ‘Right.’ They think and act in the same Hitlerite racial logic. They both behave in the same absurd tribal way: for the Right, it’s taking refuge in the illusion of racial or national identity. Many on the Left do this too, thinking the way to combat the racism of the Capitalist system is by turning it back on itself, aided with the flimsy, self-serving liberal logic like ‘racism is power plus privilege’ or ‘you can’t be racist against white people.’ They see fascists calling for the extermination of shitskins and mudslimes, and retaliate by calling for the genocide of cumskins and crackers. They demand and rejoice when ‘white characters’ are played by ‘people of color’ and react with the same idiotic reflexive tribalism as their white ‘opponents’ when they demand the same in return. They fail to see how their demands for ‘representation’ by this or that bourgeois lackey of whatever variety, in whatever vapid bourgeois fairy tale, is being used as a tool to further divide them from the other sections of the proletariat in a race to be financially exploited, all for the sake of demanding disposable entertainment ‘of their own’ to consume.

It isn’t difficult to see the absurdity in the Rightist fantasy of the ‘nation.’ Spin a globe and point, and whatever state you land on will be full of numerous peoples of varying superficial, religious, and cultural similarities and dissimilarities. Even a relatively small country like England, for example, is not homogeneous. Through its long history it has seen migrations of Celts and Latins, Saxons and Angles, Norse and Normans, and it tells in place names, dialects, physical characteristics—which of these is ‘English?’ Which could possibly be ‘more English’ than any other? ‘The English Nation’ don’t exist. No nation did or does or will. They’re a con, a PR campaign to convince the working class that their interests and the interests of the bourgeoisie align, connected through the primordial blood-ties of ‘the nation.’ Its purpose is to create the fiction that hardship and success are both shared measure for measure between the classes, that despite the misery it took to produce it, all share equally in the ‘achievements’ of the ‘nation-state.’ Sure, the Kaiser spends his days idle in sprawling palaces while millions upon millions of Germans are turned into hamburger on the fields of France and Russia, but he really, truly cares.

The Queer ‘nation’ isn’t any different. It’s contradictions are just as apparent. It strives at once to be both universally inclusive yet internally divisive. The Queer ‘nation’ is divided into innumerable discrete ‘ethnicities,’ all at once expected to be united in voice and action but materially, necessarily separate. Each jealously harbors every last shred of historical or contemporary resentment in a farcical pantomime of the national conflicts of old. Any preference or prejudice by the bourgeoisie toward one or the other is brandished as an implement to demand that their ‘liberation’ takes precedence. Endless arguments burn away as they argue around arbitrary definitions about who is what gender, what words to use (or not to use) and how, who is gay enough or too straight to be included. Instead of seeking to be liberated from the identities formed in opposition to yet necessarily within Capitalism, they too seek constantly to be recognized, represented, integrated within the bourgeois society that they ostensibly are revolting against.

Marx in his critique of Bauer’s On the Jewish Question examines what necessary facts are required in order to achieve universal human emancipation. Bauer asserts that for Jews to be emancipated as humans they first have to give up their Judaism, and similarly mankind give up it’s religiosity to achieve the emancipation of humanity. Rather Marx asserts the opposite, that merely abandoning Jewish religiosity won’t bring them any closer to emancipation as people. Instead, those conditions which make Jewishness possible have to be made impossible, as in, the social conditions to which Judaism has developed in order to manage have to be obviated.

This is the same concept which underscores the necessity of the revolutionary proletariat. It’s what makes Communism a truly revolutionary ideology. It doesn’t seek merely to replace one class with another. True, Marx does speak of replacing the ‘dictatorship of the bourgeoisie’ with the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ but this isn’t the end of Communism, to merely invert the currently prevailing power structure.

And does modern history not speak to the truth of this? As we come into the 21st century, through much of the developed world Christianity has waned as an institution. The world is no longer so uncertain. To treat sickness means no longer to entreat God in His house, but to see a medical professional in a hospital. Material abundance has made the specter of famine a thing of the past.

We see further evidence of this in the likes of The New Deal. It didn’t emancipate the worker, but only extended to a certain section of workers privileges over the others. Nor was the Soviet Union able to abolish class society, and so degraded ultimately into Capitalism. Even for the accomplishments of the Civil Rights movement in the middle of the 20th century, have those accomplishments lasted? The political Jim Crow might have vanished, but isn’t it just replaced with a financial one? In every case, the contradictions were not reconciled, only mitigated, and only temporarily. That is not to fault them for not accomplishing more, but recognizing that their goals were only partially fulfilled, and undone by the contradictions they let linger.

Consequently, the emancipation of any ‘identity’ or ‘class’ becomes a possibility when and only when it seeks to obviate the conditions which necessitate its existence. ‘Homosexuals’ will only be emancipated when ‘heterosexuality ‘ becomes an impossibility. ‘Blacks’ will only be emancipated only when ‘Whites’ becomes an impossibility. ‘Transgenders’ will only be emancipated when ‘cisgenders’ becomes an impossibility. The proletariat will be emancipated only when the bourgeois becomes an impossibility. Founding movements existing only in opposition to these things, fighting for ‘gay rights’ instead of abolishing the privileges which subjugate gays in the first place, is not only reactionary, but self defeating.

The fundamental conditions from which all of these arise is the class society created and perpetuated by Capitalism. The only way to free the peoples trapped within it is to dispose with the conditions which created and presupposed them in the first place.

#class politics #class warfare #bruno bauer #karl marx #marxism #communism #socialism #capitalism #homosexuality #hetersexuality #transgender #cisgender #civil rights #social justice #soviet union #the new deal

[joebonesart]

***STORY TIME*** I feel a need to talk about the positive aspects of japanese people today! A contrast from my racial topic before. 1. Its a very safe country. The most unsafe cities tend to be big ones like tokyo, but even then. They are seriously no threat compared to American towns. 2. Japanese people are really impressed when you use japanese in any way. They kind of appreciate it. For example I left a cup at the gym recently so I came in and said " I forgot my cup here yesterday" ( きのうはここにカプをわすれてた。)Then when I signed my name in katakana the clerk said じょうず です ( very good)。They think it's interesting to see your interest in the language. 3. Japanese people (especially university and high school kids)love western culture (some might argue to a fault). They're kind of embracing it quickly, and its interesting to see the contrast between the young and older generation. McDonalds are seen as cool spots here in Matsumoto (which is absolutely ironic when I think of Mickey D's in America lol). I here american pop music all the time, at my gym I here specifically alot of hip hop (sometimes even 90s r&b it's crazy haha) 4. Overall japan is a homogeneous society trying to connect with the outer world. They're still trying to find there footing, but they're actively working at it. I think that's why the 2020 Olympics is so important. It will give a chance for Japan to show the world what they offer beyond societal stereotypes. To a great year in Japan! (Enjoy the good luck charm painting!) #watercolorgallery #watercolour #watercolor #waterblog #art #artwork #artist #painting #japan #matsumoto #nagano #tall #black #atx #foreigner #gaijin #blog #story #drawing #draw #yen #5 #lucky #five #goodluck #charm #drip #melt #teacher #ink https://www.instagram.com/p/BseXU1PlZbm/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=tmqg87k1avdn

#watercolorgallery #watercolour #watercolor #waterblog #art #artwork #artist #painting #japan #matsumoto #nagano #tall #black #atx #foreigner #gaijin #blog #story #drawing #draw #yen #5 #lucky #five #goodluck #charm #drip #melt #teacher #ink

[margaretbeagle]

How we’ve built and evolved our habit of giving back at Buffer

In 2020, it was more important to us than ever to support small businesses and non-profit organizations.

There are so many organizations offering essential services to their communities, and we have felt so lucky to be able to support them while continuing to support our own customers. We always want to give back each year — the amount might change, depending on our profit, but we’ll always give back. It’s a habit worth building and continuing.

We’d love to highlight the organizations we supported in 2020 and the important work they’re doing, and how we came to support them.

An evolution of giving back and choosing flagship causes

Back in 2017, we committed to donating 20% of our profit each year to charitable organizations and, each year, we’ve chosen those non-profits in different ways.

The first year in 2017, we invited our team to nominate any organization they wanted and chose seven that got the most votes. It was a very open-ended prompt! In 2018, we focused our search a little bit, still taking in any team nominations but ultimately choosing one organization to represent each of our six company values.

In 2019, we put a stake in the ground and decided to focus our giving efforts on a core Buffer stakeholder — the environment. We worked to calculate our carbon footprint and found projects to fund that would prevent, remove or reduce carbon emissions of the same amount. Then, we asked our team to tell us their favorite organizations that produce clean energy, remove carbon from the atmosphere, support sustainable energy sources, or otherwise contribute toward the health of our planet, and ended up choosing five of them to support.

As we entered 2020, climate action was still a core cause we felt committed to supporting, but it became obvious that there was another area where there was significant work to be done. Combatting racial injustice and actively pursuing anti-racism became a priority for our company, and we worked to establish several programs to support BIPOC activists, as well as Black- or POC-owned or -led organizations engaged in anti-racism work.

When we started looking into our 2020 charitable donation, we decided we wanted to make a significant contribution to organizations tackling one of these two core causes — climate action and anti-racism — and that had a strong alignment with our vision: a world with more small businesses that do good while doing well.

The selection process

As we’ve always done, we invited our team to tell us about organizations that inspired them. Here’s what we shared about each cause and why it was important to Buffer’s vision:

“Without a habitable planet and the stability that provides, no small businesses will be able to thrive, including Buffer. Simultaneously, the climate challenge also creates tremendous opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship, hence more startups and small businesses! It feels crucial to do our part in building a sustainable and healthy environment where small businesses can have long-term success.”

“Systemic racism is not only injustice, but it is also bad for business. Research ‘estimates that aggregate economic output would have been $16 trillion higher since 2000 if racial gaps had been closed.’ When it comes to a world with more small businesses, we'll also want to see more diversity in those businesses. By making our contribution to a more equitable and just future, we can create a world where more people from underrepresented groups can start small businesses and have the means to support small businesses within their communities.”

From these prompts, we collected team nominations and we learned about some amazing organizations. After a team-wide vote, we settled on four organizations to each receive $12,152.25 USD — an equal split of $48,609 USD, which was 20% of our profit share from 2020.

Our 2020 charities and the work they’re doing

We chose two organizations to represent our focus on anti-racism and two that represent climate action. We’re proud to support these organizations that are truly working toward a more equitable and sustainable world. Read on for more information about their work!

GiveDirectly When we zoom out to the global level, there is huge inequality between people born and living in developed versus developing countries. The differences in wealth and access to opportunities remain massive. Currently, there is strong evidence that giving unconditional cash grants to people living in poverty is one of the most effective ways to drive positive change in their lives.

GiveDirectly gives cash grants that enable folks to invest in the projects, businesses, and items that are most impactful for them, instead of relying on organizations to choose for them. From their website: "We believe people living in poverty deserve the dignity to choose for themselves how best to improve their lives — cash enables that choice.”

We are excited about supporting GiveDirectly as a way to catalyze more small businesses — especially by folks from underrepresented groups — starting up all over the world.

digitalundivided There is no doubt that the U.S. tech and startup scenes have long been homogenous in many ways — with race and gender in particular. We get really excited when we hear about organizations that are supporting underrepresented groups and lifting them up to get the same shot as other founders, and digitalundivided is doing just that.

At digitalundivided, they run training programs, pre-accelerator programs, and a fellowship to help Black and Latinx women founders get the resources and mentorship they need to develop their businesses. On top of that, we were excited to see that they conduct research about Black and Latinx women founders in the U.S and that they use their research as a catalyst for change and action. From their website: “At digitalundivided, we use original, proprietary research to develop a data-driven ecosystem that expands the current body of knowledge about entrepreneurship in emerging communities.”

Their mission is all about doing good while doing well — supporting Black and Latinx women in their entrepreneurship journeys, all while catalyzing economic growth in their communities.

Cool Earth Trees are a powerhouse for our planet, constantly pulling carbon out of the atmosphere — so deforestation is a huge contributor to the climate crisis. Cool Earth works directly with rainforest communities to halt deforestation. They do this by meeting and learning from rainforest communities around the world, many of whom are indigenous communities that have intimate relationships and immense wisdom about their local forests.

Cool Earth partners with these communities to develop solutions that are unique to each location. In many situations, they support the local communities to develop sustainable incomes so they can be self-sustaining without causing harm to the rainforests. From their website: “Cool Earth supports local and indigenous knowledge to develop innovative ways to address threats to the forest while making communities stronger and more resilient.”

Cool Earth takes a tangible climate action while empowering and supporting indigenous communities, and it’s an approach we are honored to support. VertueLab Cleantech is a growing industry of companies working to support the environment through clean energy, the sustainable use of resources, carbon sequestration, and more. VertueLab works to tackle the climate crisis by providing funding and entrepreneurial support to early-stage cleantech startups whose products can deliver a measurable impact on reducing greenhouse gases. They also intentionally prioritize the growth of diversity, equity, and inclusion across cleantech industries.

In other words, VertueLab is directly nurturing small businesses that strive to make a difference in the climate space, and that shape a more sustainable and equitable world. From their website: “[Our mission is] to unleash innovation and entrepreneurship that will solve environmental challenges and catalyze shared economic prosperity.”

VertueLab actively fights against the climate crisis with a very similar vision to ours — to see a world with more startups that are doing great work for the planet and doing well in the process.

Additional donations to anti-racism organizations

In mid-2020, separately from our annual profit share donations, we also committed to donating $100,000 USD to organizations for and by Black people working to dismantle racism. After consulting with our Black teammates to determine the organizations they wanted to see the money go toward, we donated to three wonderful organizations:

The Marsha P. Johnson Institute, which protects and defends the human rights of Black transgender people.

The Marshall Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization that seeks to create and sustain a sense of national urgency about the U.S. criminal justice system.

Brave Space Alliance, a Black-led, trans-led LGBTQ center designed to create and provide affirming services for the LGBTQ community of Chicago.

We encourage you to read more about these organizations and the daily impactful work they do to support Black communities.

Learnings for next year

We’re a team that loves to give, though our approach up until now has been to “figure things out as we go.” That’s worked for us thus far, but now that we’ve established several charitable initiatives, we’re excited to think through a more holistic approach to charitable giving.

Having our two flagship causes is a great help with this, as is our annual choice to donate 20% of our profit. We’re committed to continuing our anti-racism programs, internally and externally, and working to be as carbon neutral as possible.

We’re honored to support these organizations and hope you’ll look into their work as well. We list even more anti-racist organizations worth supporting over here. There’s much more work to be done!

Photo by Scott Webb on Unsplash

How we’ve built and evolved our habit of giving back at Buffer published first on https://improfitninja.weebly.com/