H-Net Review [H-LatAm]: Acevedo-Field on Gitlitz, 'Living in Silverado: Secret Jews in the Silver Mining Towns of Colonial Mexico'
Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Begin forwarded message:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-review@...> Date: October 21, 2020 at 8:20:45 AM EDT To: h-review@... Cc: H-Net Staff <revhelp@...> Subject: H-Net Review [H-LatAm]: Acevedo-Field on Gitlitz, 'Living in Silverado: Secret Jews in the Silver Mining Towns of Colonial Mexico' Reply-To: h-review@...
David M. Gitlitz. Living in Silverado: Secret Jews in the Silver Mining Towns of Colonial Mexico. Albuquerque University of New Mexico Press, 2019. xii + 420 pp. $65.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8263-6079-3.
Reviewed by Rafaela Acevedo-Field (Independent Scholar) Published on H-LatAm (October, 2020) Commissioned by Casey M. Lurtz
The monograph _Living in Silverado: Secret Jews in the Silver Mining Towns of Colonial Mexico_ by historian David M. Gitlitz is a carefully crafted narrative of three interconnected crypto-Jewish families who established themselves in the lesser-studied mining towns in colonial Mexico of Ayoteco, Tlalpujahua, Pachuca, and Taxco. These narratives, based on late 1500s Inquisition trials, trace the lives of these family clusters as their respective founding men migrated from Portugal to Spain and finally to colonial Mexico. Once there, they became miners, started families, and participated in secret Jewish religious communities based on friendship, kinship, and business ties. At times, the monograph is also an intimate portrayal of day-to-day mining life in colonial Mexico. Parallel to tracing the trajectory of the families throughout the sixteenth century, this monograph also examines the regional development of mining in the cities where these men eventually made their living.
In the first two chapters Gitlitz provides the background and context of the Portuguese secret Jews and the migration pattern they followed from Portugal to Spain to Mexico City. Once there, they became part of the existing crypto-Jewish community and eventually headed to the towns surrounding Mexico City to try their luck at mining. In chapters 3 to 9 Gitlitz narrates the trajectory of the first family cluster of Gabriel de Fonseca and his wife. Gitlitz then focuses on the trajectories of Fonseca's son and later, his grandson, both named Tomás de Fonseca. In the 1530s and 40s we see Gabriel's family struggling to make ends meet. He and others like him slowly made their fortunes by doing things like selling their comparatively smaller mining product to larger, more successful miners for processing while taking up the buying and selling of commodities such as cochineal and cacao to supplement their income, especially in the early years of their mining activity.
The narrative then follows the history of two more related family clusters in chapters 11 to 14. The second cluster, the Almeida-Fonsecas, is centered on Jorge del Almeida and his close friend and colleague Antonio de Cáceres. The third cluster, headed by Simón Paiba and Beatriz Enríques la Paiba, focuses primarily on their daughter, Justa Mendez, and her husband, Manuel de Lucena, who were a devout Judaizing couple who hosted religious events and proselytized. These histories examine the lives of those men and women with whom they came in contact, which included both family and acquaintances from throughout the _converso_ community, including the very prominent Carvajal family. Chapter 15 is an in-depth treatment of how each family fared during the Inquisition trials that began in 1589 and dragged on to 1605. Chapter 16 offers some conclusions about each family and their varying crypto-Jewish identities.
Although the discussions of each of the three family clusters vary in length, the chapters in the middle of the book follow similar narrative patterns. For each family cluster, the author introduces a patriarch miner and his origins in Portugal and follows his migration at a young age to Sevilla and then to New Spain. Then the reader learns the varying ways each individual became a miner, started a family, and, typically, moved from Mexico City, the initial landing spot in the New World, to a mining town, eventually acquiring an estate and becoming established. Later, each one connected, or sometimes did not, to his respective crypto-Jewish faith and community. Finally, in each case the author explores how the individual and his social circle, including his business acquaintances and families, Judaized (or practiced Judaism). We learn that these practices were contingent on how the individual men and their spouses approached their religion. Although the men's Jewish practices were carried out in the context of male friendships, their wives played a central role in the practice and the creation of a religious community that revolved around the observance of the Sabbath and important holidays, like Yom Kippur, Passover, and the Fast of Esther. All three families owned a home or estate in the mining city, but like most wealthy families in colonial Mexico, they also owned a home in Mexico City. It was there that the families carried on a dynamic crypto-Jewish life in which they tended to interact and come together to observe Jewish holidays. Woven into these narratives are some threads that explore the technical aspects of mining and the development of mining in a given community, such as the cities of Taxco or Pachuca. The only deficiency here is that a map showing the location of these cities in relation to Mexico City and to the more prominent mining cities further north would have provided a better geographical context.
When it comes to organization, three unusual features aid in reading the monograph. First, instead of the usual five to eight chapters, this book has a short introduction and sixteen shorter chapters. This short-chapter format makes for a more engaging, almost episodic read. Second, the physical and visual layout of the book is slightly unusual. The book does not include historiographic commentary within the main text; most of it appears in the endnotes, which is not too unusual. However, every so often in the text a grayed-out textbox appears in a different font in which the author provides definitions, historiographic discussions, or clarifying comments. For instance, the explanation of the significance of cocoa and cochineal (pp. 72-73) in the commercial life of colonial Mexico provides a deeper context for understanding why one of the mining families relied on these commodities to supplement their mining income, especially early on in their trajectory. One of the most significant historiographical discussions in this format concerns the importance of historian Seymour Liebman's work and its impact on the study of conversos in colonial Mexico (p. 104). Third, historical writing on intergenerational and interfamilial converso/crypto-Jewish communities can often lose the reader in the details of individual names and surnames. To avoid this, Gitlitz includes genealogical graphs that prevent confusion about each family member and clarify where each belongs in the family line. Whether these were the author's or the publisher's editorial choices, they each make for a more fluid reading experience.
When it comes to sources and historiographic contribution, Gitlitz relies on Inquisition trials and testimonies from a combination of the Mexican Inquisition collection at the Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Inquisition collection at the Archivo General de la Nación in Mexico City. In the historiography of conversos and crypto-Jews in colonial Mexico, the study of the Carvajal family and their Inquisition trials at the end of the sixteenth century is central. This monograph expands that narrative by de-centering the Carvajal family, even though each family examined here is somehow related to the Carvajal family through friendship or marriage. In terms of studying the history of mining in the sixteenth century, this monograph also de-centers the traditional mining cities most historians have described in detail, such as Zacatecas, San Luis Postosí, Queretaro, and Chihuahua, by focusing on cities closer to the viceregal capital.
Finally, this monograph complicates the narrative of secret Judaism by explicitly recognizing and exploring the fact that not all conversos observed the same form of Judaism, largely because they were not operating in a context where they were close to normative Judaism. Gitlitz points out, for instance, that conversos did not have access to a traditional religious quorum (p. 105), which in practice meant that dietary practices were not necessarily aligned with theological understandings or traditional practices. In this way Gitlitz continues the historiographical discussion taking place across Europe, Africa, and the Americas that has complicated our understanding of religious, cultural, and ethnic identities in the early modern Atlantic world. Some individuals, such as Manuel Lucena and his wife, Catarina Enríquez, were enthusiastic Judaizers, whereas others, such as Jorge de Almeida and his friend Antonio Díaz de Cáceres, rejected their Judaism, but the fact that they married women from the Carvajal family kept them linked to the crypto-Jewish community throughout their lives, both before and after their Inquisition trials. Overall, this book provides a better understanding of the wider crypto-Jewish community in late sixteenth-century Mexico beyond the Carvajal narrative and beyond Mexico City. It also opens up the study of mining cities to which historians have not previously paid as much attention in the historiography.
Citation: Rafaela Acevedo-Field. Review of Gitlitz, David M., _Living in Silverado: Secret Jews in the Silver Mining Towns of Colonial Mexico_. H-LatAm, H-Net Reviews. October, 2020. URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54950
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
|
|
|
H-Net Review [H-Environment]: Ludwig on Horn, 'The Future as Catastrophe: Imagining Disaster in the Modern Age'
Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Begin forwarded message:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-review@...> Date: October 21, 2020 at 10:56:53 AM EDT To: h-review@... Cc: H-Net Staff <revhelp@...> Subject: H-Net Review [H-Environment]: Ludwig on Horn, 'The Future as Catastrophe: Imagining Disaster in the Modern Age' Reply-To: h-review@...
Eva Horn. The Future as Catastrophe: Imagining Disaster in the Modern Age. Translated by Valentine Pakis. New York Columbia University Press, 2018. 296 pp. $105.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-231-18862-3; $35.00 (paper), ISBN 978-0-231-18863-0.
Reviewed by Jason Ludwig (Cornell University) Published on H-Environment (October, 2020) Commissioned by Daniella McCahey
Eva Horn's new book is an insightful meditation on fiction and futurity. Horn analyzes a range of fictional disaster scenarios from works of art, literature, and the sciences to examine how the anticipation of catastrophe has come to shape modernity's orientation toward the future. Through insightful analyses of diverse texts, the book traces the emergence of a modern catastrophic imaginary in nineteenth-century Romanticism and tracks its transformation into present-day collective anxiety about the consequences of atomic weapons, nuclear accidents, and anthropogenic climate change. The book's major strength lies in the diversity of texts analyzed, which underscores the pervasiveness of the catastrophic imagination that Horn seeks to uncover. At the heart of this analysis is her concern with the kinds of fiction that underpin the prediction of future catastrophes. As she writes, "all knowledge of the future contains a degree of _non-knowledge_," to the extent that all predictions of catastrophe place fictitious narrative structures upon phenomena that cannot yet possibly be known in their totality (p. 15).
Horn argues that the modern catastrophic imaginary first emerged in the apocalyptic works of writers and artists associated with Romanticism. The Romantics dismissed the eschatological model of history prevalent in Christian thought, which depicted the apocalypse as the ultimate triumph of divine justice over evil. Instead, they imagined catastrophes that would reveal the inherent fragility and meaninglessness of contemporary social and political institutions, implicit critiques of Enlightenment notions of infinite human progress. Horn produces a novel reading of Lord Byron's poem "Darkness" (1816), arguing that its depiction of humanity in the throes of famine and violence draws on Thomas Malthus's _Essay on the Principle of Population _(1798) as well the poet's own observation of the volcanic winter that struck Europe in 1815 due to the eruption of Mount Tambora. The protagonists of the apocalyptic works of Byron and other Romantics were the "Last Men," the final survivors of numerous imagined catastrophes whose perspectives their authors adopted to reflect on the mechanisms that would bring about an end to human history. Horn shows how Cold War films like _Dr. Strangelove _(1964) and_ Fail-Safe _(1964) revived the "Last Men" trope to shed light on the self-destructive nature of the nuclear arms race.
One of Horn's major arguments is that present anxieties concerning climate change can be distinguished from the catastrophic scenarios imagined during the Romantic era and the Cold War by their "eventlessness." This, she argues, is a result of the complex modes of knowledge-making that shape contemporary understanding of anthropogenic climate change, a topic she delves into in chapter 2. Unlike Cold War think-tanks that sought to predict the damages incurred by specific acts, such as the detonation of a nuclear bomb, knowledge-making about climate change applies computational models toward comprehending the drawn-out processes marking human disruption of planetary ecological processes--a catastrophe without event. This eventlessness, Horn argues, has challenged researchers, artists, and science communicators to develop images and narratives that can convey the ubiquity of disaster brought about by climate change. She analyzes a diverse set of works that do exactly this, from the apocalyptic fiction of Cormac McCarthy and J. G. Ballard to Al Gore's film _An Inconvenient Truth _(2006), all of which present climate as the "medium that contains and preserves humanity," the disruption of which threatens the basis of all existence (p. 88).
Chapter 3 turns to an examination of how catastrophic imaginaries shape regimes of survival. Horn analyzes imagined disaster scenarios that probe the steps necessary to ensuring the preservation of human species. She argues that such imagined disasters index a biopolitics of catastrophe in which the survival of life itself is purchased only through death, and she insightfully contrasts two modes in which this ideology has appeared. She locates the first in "war of the worlds" narratives inspired by the Great-Power conflicts of the twentieth century, in which the survival of a community is assured only through the death of an enemy Other. The second biopolitical imaginary emerged amid neo-Malthusian debates in the postwar period over unchecked population growth and resource scarcity, and is characterized by a "Lifeboat Earth" ethics in which group survival hinges on deliberations over who _within_ the group must live and who must die. Following Giorgio Agamben's work on biopolitics, she argues that such narratives open up a "'zone of undecidability' between the realm of the law and the realm of mere physical necessity" (p. 115). She finds the consequences of such arbitrary choices over who lives and dies best comprehended in the postapocalyptic melancholy of fictional works like Samuel Beckett's _Endgame_ (1957), in which the resultant perishing of communal connections and norms renders the very prospect of survival meaningless.
Horn moves on in chapter 4 to analyze technical safety regimes, arguing that efforts to control the potential catastrophes latent to complex technological systems constitute a ubiquitous fear of technological disaster, the "white noise of modernity" (p. 173). This is the most ambitious and challenging chapter of the book as Horn ties together such thematically and temporally disparate works as the German philosopher Friedrich Theodor Vischer's ideas on the "malice of objects," Charles Perrow's seminal analyses of high-risk technologies, and the _Final Destination _film series (2000-11). While she does not always make the connections between these works fully apparent, Horn's broader point in this chapter is an important one: that imagined accidents in literature and film evince a modern desire for latent catastrophes to manifest themselves so that they might be made available to human understanding and control.
The final chapter draws together many of the threads of the previous ones to argue that knowledge of catastrophic futures can only exist in the form of disaster scenarios, speculative models, postapocalyptic texts, and other kinds of fiction "that look back on the future as something in the past" (p. 174). Horn proceeds to catalog films and literary works in which imaginations of a catastrophic future animate efforts to prevent it and argues that no text better captures this aspect of modernity's fearful relation to the future as Franz Kafka's short story "The Burrow" (1931), whose narrator relentlessly probes the vulnerability of his home and fruitlessly attempts to secure it. She brilliantly examines the story as a parable of the impossibility of achieving perfect security--no matter how much the narrator shores up the defenses of his home, an interminable array of threats reveal themselves. This analysis of what Horn describes as the "paradoxes of prediction" perhaps sits uncomfortably with her conclusion, which makes the case that disaster fictions like "The Burrow" can serve as tools for spurring action aimed at preventing the worst consequences of looming environmental catastrophe. As she herself asks, however, how might we integrate these fictional catastrophes into our own imagining of the future "without succumbing to the epistemic, political, and ethical pitfalls of alarmism or remaining stuck in comfortable interpassivity" (p. 236)?
Regardless of one's answer, Horn's book is a valuable contribution to environmental studies insofar as it urges one to consider such questions. _The Future as Catastrophe_ is theoretically rich and its arguments are bolstered by the sheer breadth of texts with which it engages. Skillfully combining methods from intellectual history, literary criticism, and the environmental humanities, Horn's breathless analysis of a diverse corpus of texts constitutes the book's main strengths, but this may also make it too challenging of a read for undergraduate or introductory courses. The best audience for this stimulating book would be those already well versed in the ever-expanding literatures on risk and disaster.
Citation: Jason Ludwig. Review of Horn, Eva, _The Future as Catastrophe: Imagining Disaster in the Modern Age_. H-Environment, H-Net Reviews. October, 2020. URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54978
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
|
|
|
3433. A Critical Theoretical Assessment of the U.S. Socialist Workers Party: Past and Present
|
|
|
From the transcript of the trial of the Chicago Seven
MR. KUNSTLER: I call your attention, Mayor Daley, to the week of August 28, 1968. Did you attend any sessions of the Democratic National Convention?
MAYOR RICHARD DALEY: I did. MR. KUNSTLER: And were you there during the nominating speeches for the various candidates? DALEY: I was. MR. KUNSTLER: Mayor Daley, on the twenty-eighth of August, 1968, did you say to Senator Ribicoff-- PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FORAN: Oh, your Honor, I object. MR. KUNSTLER [continuing]: --"Fuck you, you Jew son of a bitch, you lousy mother-fucker, go home"?
|
|
|
Sara Nelson: The 21st century John L. Lewis?
"In 1935, John L. Lewis, president of the coal miners union, famously punched right wing president of the Carpenters, Bill Hutchenson, in the jaw, walked out of the AFL, and formed the CIO. along the way, he supported the most radical strike wave of the 20th Century United States – the sit down strikes of 1937. Could Sara Nelson be the 21st century’s answer to John L. Lewis? She is the same one who called for a national general strike during the government shutdown of 2018-19."
--
|
|
|
I Spoke to a Scholar of Conspiracy Theories and I’m Scared for Us
I Spoke to a Scholar of Conspiracy Theories and
I’m Scared for Us
The big lesson of 2020 is that everything keeps getting more
dishonest.
By Farhad Manjoo
Opinion Columnist
NYT, Oct. 21, 2020
Lately, I have been putting an embarrassing amount of thought
into notions like jinxes and knocking on wood. The polls for Joe
Biden look good, but in 2020, any hint of optimism feels
dangerously naïve, and my brain has been working overtime in
search of potential doom.
I have become consumed with an alarming possibility: that
neither the polls nor the actual outcome of the election really
matter, because to a great many Americans, digital communication
has already rendered empirical, observable reality beside the
point.
If I sound jumpy, it’s because I spent a couple of hours
recently chatting with Joan Donovan, the research director of
the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at
Harvard’s Kennedy School. Donovan is a pioneering scholar of
misinformation and media manipulation — the way that activists,
extremists and propagandists surf currents in our fragmented,
poorly moderated media ecosystem to gain attention and influence
society.
Donovan’s research team studies online lies the way crash-scene
investigators study aviation disasters. They meticulously take
apart specific hoaxes, conspiracy theories, viral political
memes, harassment campaigns and other toxic online campaigns in
search of the tactics that made each one explode into the public
conversation.
This week, Donovan’s team published “The Media Manipulation
Casebook,” a searchable online database of their research. It
makes for grim reading — an accounting of the many failures of
journalists, media companies, tech companies, policymakers, law
enforcement officials and the national security establishment to
anticipate and counteract the liars who seek to dupe us. Armed
with these investigations, Donovan hopes we can all do better.
I hope she’s right. But studying her work also got me wondering
whether we’re too late. Many Americans have become so deeply
distrustful of one another that whatever happens on Nov. 3, they
may refuse to accept the outcome. Every day I grow more fearful
that the number of those Americans will be large enough to
imperil our nation’s capacity to function as a cohesive society.
“I’m worried about political violence,” Donovan told me. America
is heavily armed, and from Portland to Kenosha to the Michigan
governor’s mansion, we have seen young men radicalized and
organized online beginning to take the law into their own hands.
Donovan told me she fears that “people who are armed are going
to become dangerous, because they see no other way out.”
Media manipulation is a fairly novel area of research. It was
only when Donald Trump won the White House by hitting it big
with right-wing online subcultures — and after
internet-mobilized authoritarians around the world pulled
similar tricks — that serious scholars began to take notice.
The research has made a difference. In the 2016 election, tech
companies and the mainstream media were often blind to the ways
that right-wing groups, including white supremacists, were using
bots, memes and other tricks of social media to “hack” the
public’s attention, as the researchers Alice Marwick and Rebecca
Lewis documented in 2017.
But the war since has been one of attrition. Propagandists keep
discovering new ways to spread misinformation; researchers like
Donovan and her colleagues keep sussing them out, and, usually
quite late, media and tech companies move to fix the flaws — by
which time the bad guys have moved on to some other way of
spreading untruths.
While the media ecosystem has wised up in some ways: Note how
the story supposedly revealing the contents of Hunter Biden’s
laptop landed with a splat last week, quite different from the
breathlessly irresponsible reporting on the Democrats’ hacked
emails in 2016. But our society remains profoundly susceptible
to mendacity.
Donovan worries about two factors in particular. One is the
social isolation caused by the pandemic. Lots of Americans are
stuck at home, many economically bereft and cut off from friends
and relatives who might temper their passions — a perfect
audience for peddlers of conspiracy theories.
Her other major worry is the conspiracy lollapalooza known as
QAnon. It’s often short-handed the way Savannah Guthrie did at
her town hall takedown of Donald Trump last week — as a nutty
conspiracy theory in which a heroic Trump is prosecuting a
secret war against a satanic pedophile ring of lefty elites.
But that undersells QAnon’s danger. To people who have been
“Q-pilled,” QAnon plays a much deeper role in their lives; it
has elements of a support group, a political party, a lifestyle
brand, a collective delusion, a religion, a cult, a huge
multiplayer game and an extremist network.
Donovan thinks QAnon represents a new, flexible infrastructure
for conspiracy. QAnon has origins in a tinfoil-hat story about a
D.C.-area pizza shop, but over the years it has adapted to
include theories about the “deep state” and the Mueller probe,
Jeffrey Epstein, and a wild variety of misinformation about face
masks, miracle cures, and other hoaxes regarding the
coronavirus. QAnon has been linked to many instances of
violence, and law enforcement and terrorism researchers discuss
it as a growing security threat.
“We now have a densely networked conspiracy theory that is
extendible, adaptable, flexible and resilient to take down,”
Donovan said of QAnon. It’s a very internet story, analogous to
the way Amazon expanded from an online bookstore into a
general-purpose system for selling anything to anyone.
Facebook and YouTube this month launched new
efforts to take down QAnon content, but Q adherents have often
managed to evade deplatforming by softening and readjusting
their messages. Recently, for instance, QAnon has adopted
slogans like “Save the Children” and “Child Lives Matter,” and
it seems to be appealing to anti-vaxxers and wellness moms.
QAnon is also participatory, and, in an uncertain time, it may
seem like a salvation. People “are seeking answers and they’re
finding a very receptive community in QAnon,” Donovan said.
This is a common theme in disinformation research: What makes
digital lies so difficult to combat is not just the technology
used to spread them, but also the nature of the societies
they’re targeting, including their political cultures. Donovan
compares QAnon to the Rev. Charles Coughlin, the priest whose
radio show spread anti-Semitism in the Depression-era United
States. Stopping Coughlin’s hate took a concerted effort,
involving new regulations for radio broadcasters and
condemnation of Coughlin by the Catholic Church.
Stopping QAnon will be harder; Coughlin was one hatemonger with
a big microphone, while QAnon is a complex, decentralized,
deceptive network of hate. But the principle remains: Combating
the deception that has overrun public discourse should be a
primary goal of our society. Otherwise, America ends in lies.
|
|
|
NY Times illustrated essays on Angela Davis and Barbara Kruger
|
|
|
On Slavery and Slave Formations (Patterson, 1979)
https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/2020/10/10/on-slavery-and-slave-formations-patterson-1979/ Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - -
|
|
|
Re: Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”
" . . . can express themselves without fear of retribution. Yes, that includes racists."
That is how every single genocide has begun. Racist libel is not free speech and while liberals support it, Communists should not. Free speech has limits which are not hard to define re, libel, bigotry, blatant, purposeful misinformation designed to incite or cause harm are examples.
|
|
|
Re: Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”
This whole article is about why we shouldn't feel bad about Samuel's murder and that he brought it upon himself for making Muslims feel bad. It is akin to arguments like "it sucks she got raped, but she brought it upon herself for wearing revealing clothes."
Islam has been an imperial force for centuries too. I lived in an Islamic country my entire life until very recently, where being an atheist could get you imprisoned or killed, where women do not have many rights. I did not know freedom until I came to the west. It's amazing to me how eurocentric and ignorant you are. Stop infantilizing and romantizing the Muslim world. They commit just as many evils as the west and are equally as capable as westerners of being held accountable to the standards of universal human rights. If you do not want to appear hypocritical, go write one of these articles when a Christian beheads an atheist in Central Park for mocking Jesus. Oh wait, you can't do that because Christians have already gone through the process of getting desensitized to blasphemy so they don't do that anymore.
I don't care if Charli Hedbo is racist, or whatever. What I do care about is living in a society in which everyone can express themselves without fear of retribution. Yes, that includes racists.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:52 AM RKOB < aktiv@...> wrote:
If you have read the
article by our comrade, you will have seen that we oppose the
killing of this provocateur teacher. But the fact that you
defend him and the racist magazine Charlie Hedbo and
that you say "Who the fuck cares if it offends Muslims?" tells a
lot about you. French imperialism also did not "care if it offends
Muslims" for centuries. This is the ideology helping to build
colonial empires. This approach is part of racism and racial
oppression today. You did choose your camp (holding the banner
"Who the fuck cares if it offends Muslims?") and we choose the
opposite side.
Am 21.10.2020 um 13:57 schrieb Sābrīn
M:
Whoever wrote this, and everyone who approves of
this is a reactionary scumbag. Nice job being islamofascist
apologists. Nobody should be killed for drawing
cartoons, period. All leftists must stand with Samuel and
Charlie Hedbo. Who the fuck cares if it offends Muslims? If this
offends them to the point of beheading people, that signifies
that we need to draw more cartoons of Muhammad and blaspheme
Islam more in order to desensitize them to it. Something tells
me that you wouldn't be fine with evangelical Christians
beheading people for saying mean things about Jesus. You should
be ashamed of yourself.
>As
to the right of free speech and freedom of expression, we
support the right of the free speech
your sentence should have ended there
JE SUIS
SAMUEL.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:14
AM RKOB < aktiv@...> wrote:
--
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
(Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net)
www.rkob.net
aktiv@...
Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314
|
|
|
Reply. Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”
Teachers’ Union, SNES-FSU, Declaration After Islamist Murder in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine.
|
|
Un “martyr de la liberté” – Imam Hassen Chalghoumi, This is taking place today: France to pay respects to beheaded teacher with ceremony at Sorbonne The reactions to the murder …
tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com
|
"
The radical anti-fascist left site, La Horde has published this about the principal figure accused of inciting murder, Abdelhakim Sefrioui. the anti-Semitic circles he is part of, and the above “Cheikh
Yassine” Collective:
À
propos d’Abdelhakim Sefrioui et du collectif Cheikh Yassine
The individual is not unknown to anti-fascists, and the comrades of the REFLEXes site, who had already spoken of the character a few years ago, reminded us of this. In the wake of the creation
of the Cheikh Yassine collective, and therefore of the decision to use support for the Palestinian people for proselytising purposes, Sefrioui also created in 2005 the “Committee on the Genocide in Palestine”, with two unwavering supporters of Holocaust
Denial, Ginette Hess Skandrani and Mondher Sfar, leaders of the association Entre la Plume et l’Enclume.
-- Andrew Coates
|
|
|
Les, Tamara Payne Malcolm X biography 'The Dead Are Arising' - Los Angeles Times
|
|
|
Re: Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”
Look, we have seen this
already before in history. "Der Stürmer" published denegrating
cartoons of Jews. I know that racism is not unique to the Nazis.
But that people claiming to be progressive are still defending
such anti-Muslim chauvinism is really a shame!
For those who want to
make their own picture of the disgusting Charlie Hebdo cartoons
can take a look here:
http://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/racist-charlie-hebdo/
Is it any wonder people think the Left (the Marxist Left in
this case) is soft on this issue. Of course condemn murder (I
mean does ANYONE support it?) but then you "explain" it by
saying its causes by Islamophobia of the majority - which people
read you as saying that its justified - of course you say thats
not what I meant but when someone calls you on it - you denounce
them as racist. Obviously you are pandering the most
conservative elements in Islam - and if they are offended then
who gives a shit. You do apparantly want to accomodate them.
There are millions of Muslims fighting against this kind of
reactionary Islam too. French Imperialism didn't care about
whether it offended those they colonised - but I don't see say
Vietnamese communists - denouncing French school teachers for
teaching colonialism was OK - or thinking that cutting people's
throats is justified. I'll tell you what else offend these
hyper-reactionary Muslims - Marxism and Communism - so if they
attack you next I guess we'll just have to say it was a result
of your godless Marxism - and while we would of course condemn
it - well you know the Soviet Communists did kill millions of
people so you can see how they might have had it coming. Right?
--
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
(Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net)
www.rkob.net
aktiv@...
Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314
|
|
|
Karl Marx’s Debt to People of African Descent - ROAPE
In this blogpost, Biko Agozino argues that Karl Marx
was among the few European theorists of his time who did not try
to conceal his ‘debt’ to Africa but celebrated such knowledge as
foundational. Agozino shows how people of African
descent were central to the theory, practice and writings of
Marx. Marxism is not a
Eurocentric ideology.
https://roape.net/2020/10/21/karl-marxs-debt-to-people-of-african-descent/
|
|
|
A Black Lives Matter Movement in Small-Town Ohio: A Conversation with Shawn Captain - Los Angeles Review of Books
I grew up in Hillsboro. On June 6, 2020, Eleanor
Curtis Cumberland texted me: “I’m at the BLM rally. 400 people
marching!”
There hadn’t been any action like this on the streets
of Hillsboro since Eleanor’s mother, Imogene, carried a sign
that read Must Hillsboro Lag Behind the South? Now 400 people showed up with signs that
read I Can’t Breathe.
The young man who organized the march is Shawn
Captain. His great-grandmother, Maxine Thomas, and her children
— Delbert Thomas, Harold Joe Thomas, Brenda Thomas, and Winifred
Thomas — were out on the streets of Hillsboro in the segregation
protests. He created an organizing group called HARD. Our conversation
coincided with the passing of John Lewis, who left this message
in his parting essay. “Democracy is not
a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to
help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and
world society at peace with itself.”
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/a-black-lives-matter-movement-in-small-town-ohio-a-conversation-with-shawn-captain/
|
|
|
Is there such a thing as far-Right ‘literature’? | Aeon Essays
|
|
|
Re: Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”
Is it any wonder people think the Left (the Marxist Left in this case) is soft on this issue. Of course condemn murder (I mean does ANYONE support it?) but then you "explain" it by saying its causes by Islamophobia of the majority - which people read you as saying that its justified - of course you say thats not what I meant but when someone calls you on it - you denounce them as racist. Obviously you are pandering the most conservative elements in Islam - and if they are offended then who gives a shit. You do apparantly want to accomodate them. There are millions of Muslims fighting against this kind of reactionary Islam too. French Imperialism didn't care about whether it offended those they colonised - but I don't see say Vietnamese communists - denouncing French school teachers for teaching colonialism was OK - or thinking that cutting people's throats is justified. I'll tell you what else offend these hyper-reactionary Muslims - Marxism and Communism - so if they attack you next I guess we'll just have to say it was a result of your godless Marxism - and while we would of course condemn it - well you know the Soviet Communists did kill millions of people so you can see how they might have had it coming. Right?
|
|
|
Chomsky and the Syria revisionists: Regime whitewashing
|
|
|
Re: Chomsky: OPCW cover-up of Syria probe is 'shocking' | The Grayzone
This ongoing saga is dispiriting in the extreme. I
admit I’ve put little time into the details, while I think it is logical to
accept the OPCW report I prefer to look at the overall context than obsess with
the detective work. After all, even if it was shown the OPCW was mistaken and
that Assad didn’t really launch that particular chlorine attack killing around
40 people, it wouldn’t alter the fact that his regime has killed hundreds of
thousands of people, destroyed every city in the country, by using every
conceivable type of “conventional” WMD for a decade.
“But”, one might say, “the point is that the lie
about chemical weapons is whipped up to give the US the excuse to bomb Syria.”
Oh? Of course the 30,000 US strikes on ISIS, Nusra/HTS, Ahrar al-Sham, killing,
according to Airwars, anywhere up to 13,000 civilians, levelling the city of Raqqa,
are not "the US bombing Syria"? Of course this is of no interest to the western “anti”-war
movement; for them, it only becomes dangerous US aggression if they hit some
Assad building for a few minutes a couple of times in 8 years and kill no-one.
But OK, let’s have it your way, only bombing Assad is
bad, as opposed to bombing Syria, which is of no consequence. Fine. So, why
would the US need to concoct stories of chemical attacks? Wouldn’t the US
already have enough political ammunition with years of Assad levelling entire
cities, dropping barrel bombs, cluster bombs, bombing schools, hundreds of
hospitals, markets, firing ballistic missiles at apartment blocks etc? No? Oh,
OK, all this is bad, but the US, for some pacifistic reason, only drew the
red-line against chemical weapons, not all the rest. OK, but in that case, if
it goes to all the trouble to concoct a chemical weapons story just because it is
so desperate to attack Assad but can never find the excuse, then having
concocted the excuse, wouldn’t the US perhaps use the opportunity to actually
do some damage to Assad’s war machine, rather than hit three buildings in 45
minutes?
Let’s look at the context of the allegedly “false flag”
Assad chemical weapons attack on Ghouta in April 2018.
In March 2018, the regime launched its final
campaign to subjugate the long-time rebel-held, working-class East Ghouta
region of outer Damascus, at the cost of some 1700 lives in four-weeks, in one of the most relentless episodes of terror
bombing in the war. Far from using this horror as an excuse to “make war on
Syria” as feverish imaginations believe the US wanted to do forever, throughout
this month-long massacre the silence from the US and other western governments
was deafening. During this month, top US and Russian generals held high-level
discussions twice, where the topic of Ghouta
was apparently not even mentioned. The conversation, which focused on Syria, reportedly
demonstrated “a clear mutual interest to maintain the military lines of
communication.” Defense James Mattis stressed the importance of cooperation
with Russia, but noted that issues such as Ukraine and Crimea suggested the
Kremlin had other ideas. The Kremlin’s role at the very moment in pulverising
Ghouta was not even considered worthy of note.
On March 29, weeks into Assad’s horror bombing of
Ghouta, Trump announced that “We’re knocking the hell out of ISIS, we’re coming out of Syria very soon. Let the other people take care of it now” –
“other people” being the Assad regime. Ghouta? Trump had probably never heard
of it. It is true that the Pentagon pushed back on this rapid withdrawal idea,
but not because they thought the US should do anything about Assad or the
horrors of Ghouta, but rather simply that “we will continue to support the SDF
as they continue to fight against ISIS.”
By early April, Assad had been completely
victorious over almost all of the Ghouta region, but one militia was holding
out in the suburb Douma. This is where Assad’s “alleged” chlorine massacre took
place. The very next day, Douma surrendered, an answer to those who ask “what
did Assad have to gain?”.
Confronted with yet another rude violation of the
US red-line against only chemical weapons, despite Trump’s gift to the
ungrateful Assad of such extreme indifference to the month of slaughter and the
announcement that the US was leaving Syria to Assad since all that mattered was
defeating ISIS, Trump needed to once again launch a “credibility” strike. The casualty-free
strike hit three buildings allegedly associated with
chemical weapons’ research or storage,
with zero impact on Assad’s war machine. It then abruptly stopped. “Mission
accomplished” declared Trump after 45 minutes.
Really, US imperialism, allegedly
determined come what may to “make war on Syria”, to carry out “regime change”
against Assad, concocted a false flag chemical attack in order perform this
mere hiccup? What garbage.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:36 AM Louis Proyect < lnp3@...> wrote:
On 10/20/20 8:33 PM, Dayne Goodwin
wrote:
I
think it's the same old has-been donkey.
If any of you catch me making a fool of myself in
the next 10 years or so, contact Les Schaffer. Also contact my
wife who has been instructed to get me started on jigsaw
puzzles.
|
|
|
Re: Down with the Islamophobia in France: “We Are Not Samuel!”
If you have read the
article by our comrade, you will have seen that we oppose the
killing of this provocateur teacher. But the fact that you
defend him and the racist magazine Charlie Hedbo and
that you say "Who the fuck cares if it offends Muslims?" tells a
lot about you. French imperialism also did not "care if it offends
Muslims" for centuries. This is the ideology helping to build
colonial empires. This approach is part of racism and racial
oppression today. You did choose your camp (holding the banner
"Who the fuck cares if it offends Muslims?") and we choose the
opposite side.
Am 21.10.2020 um 13:57 schrieb Sābrīn
M:
Whoever wrote this, and everyone who approves of
this is a reactionary scumbag. Nice job being islamofascist
apologists. Nobody should be killed for drawing
cartoons, period. All leftists must stand with Samuel and
Charlie Hedbo. Who the fuck cares if it offends Muslims? If this
offends them to the point of beheading people, that signifies
that we need to draw more cartoons of Muhammad and blaspheme
Islam more in order to desensitize them to it. Something tells
me that you wouldn't be fine with evangelical Christians
beheading people for saying mean things about Jesus. You should
be ashamed of yourself.
>As
to the right of free speech and freedom of expression, we
support the right of the free speech
your sentence should have ended there
JE SUIS
SAMUEL.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:14
AM RKOB < aktiv@...> wrote:
--
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
(Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net)
www.rkob.net
aktiv@...
Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314
|
|
|