Reclaiming Our Lives

reclaimingthelatinatag:

Emma Tenayuca was a Mexican American activist and educator. Born December 21, 1916 in San Antonio, Texas, Tenayuca was a key figure in Texan labor and civil rights activism during the 1930’s, where she organized protests over the beatings of Mexican migrants by United States Border Patrol agents and labor strikes to end unfair wages. As a union activist, she also founded two international ladies’ garment workers unions and was involved in both the Worker’s Alliance of America and Woman’s League for Peace and Freedom. 
Throughout her fight for labor and civil rights, Tenayuca was arrested many times under charges of “disturbing the peace”, even though her participation during protests was strictly peaceful. She was also targeted for being a member of the Communist Party, which resulted in her being “blacklisted” and forced to move out of the San Antonio area 1939. After leaving her hometown she went on to attend San Francisco State College where she majored in Education. Years later Tenayuca returned to San Antonio and earned a master’s in Education from Our Lady of the Lake University, leading her to eventually go on to teach in the Harlandale School District until her retirement in 1982.
Shortly after her retirement Emma Tenayuca was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and passed away on July 23, 1999.

reclaimingthelatinatag:

Emma Tenayuca was a Mexican American activist and educator. Born December 21, 1916 in San Antonio, Texas, Tenayuca was a key figure in Texan labor and civil rights activism during the 1930’s, where she organized protests over the beatings of Mexican migrants by United States Border Patrol agents and labor strikes to end unfair wages. As a union activist, she also founded two international ladies’ garment workers unions and was involved in both the Worker’s Alliance of America and Woman’s League for Peace and Freedom. 

Throughout her fight for labor and civil rights, Tenayuca was arrested many times under charges of “disturbing the peace”, even though her participation during protests was strictly peaceful. She was also targeted for being a member of the Communist Party, which resulted in her being “blacklisted” and forced to move out of the San Antonio area 1939. After leaving her hometown she went on to attend San Francisco State College where she majored in Education. Years later Tenayuca returned to San Antonio and earned a master’s in Education from Our Lady of the Lake University, leading her to eventually go on to teach in the Harlandale School District until her retirement in 1982.

Shortly after her retirement Emma Tenayuca was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and passed away on July 23, 1999.

(via political-linguaphile)

america-wakiewakie:

Those Kids Crossing the Border From Mexico Wouldn’t Be There If Obama Hadn’t Supported a Coup the Media Doesn’t Talk About | Common Dreams
If you’re reading this, you probably follow the news. So you’ve probably heard of the latest iteration of the “crisis at the border”: tens of thousands of children, many of them unaccompanied by an adult, crossing the desert from Mexico into the United States, where they surrender to the Border Patrol in hope of being allowed to remain here permanently. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention and hearing system has been overwhelmed by the surge of children and, in some cases, their parents. The Obama Administration has asked Congress to approve new funding to speed up processing and deportations of these illegal immigrants.
Even if you’ve followed this story closely, you probably haven’t heard the depressing backstory — the reason so many Central Americans are sending their children on adangerous thousand-mile journey up the spine of Mexico, where they ride atop freight trains, endure shakedowns by corrupt police and face rapists, bandits and other predators. (For a sense of what it’s like, check out the excellent 2004 film “Maria Full of Grace.”)
NPR and other mainstream news outlets are parroting the White House, which blamesunscrupulous “coyotes” (human smugglers) for “lying to parents, telling them that if they put their kids in the hands of traffickers and get to the United States that they will be able to stay.” True: the coyotes are saying that in order to gin up business. Also true: U.S. law has changed, and many of these kids have a strong legal case for asylum. Unfortunately, U.S. officials are ignoring the law.
The sad truth is that this “crisis at the border” is yet another example of “blowback.”
Blowback is an unintended negative consequence of U.S. political, military and/or economic intervention overseas — when something we did in the past comes back to bite us in the ass.9/11 is the classic example; arming and funding radical Islamists in the Middle East and South Asia who were less grateful for our help than angry at the U.S.’ simultaneous backing for oppressive governments (The House of Saud, Saddam, Assad, etc.) in the region.
More recent cases include U.S. support for Islamist insurgents in Libya and Syria, which destabilized both countries and led to the murders of U.S. consular officials in Benghazi, and the rise of ISIS, the guerilla army that imperils the U.S.-backed Maliki regime in Baghdad, respectively.
Confusing the issue for casual American news consumers is that the current border crisis doesn’t involve the usual Mexicans traveling north in search of work. Instead, we’re talking about people from Central American nations devastated by a century of American colonialism and imperialism, much of that intervention surprisingly recent. Central American refugees are merely transiting through Mexico.
"The unaccompanied children crossing the border into the United States are leaving behind mainly three Central American countries, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The first two are among the world’s most violent and all three have deep poverty, according to a Pew Research report based on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) information,” reports NBC News. “El Salvador ranked second in terms of homicides in Latin America in 2011, and it is still high on the list. Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are among the poorest nations in Latin America. Thirty percent of Hondurans, 17 percent of Salvadorans and 26 percent of Guatemalans live on less than $2 a day.”
The fact that Honduras is the biggest source of the exodus jumped out at me. That’s because, in 2009, the United States government — under President Obama — tacitly supported a military coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. “Washington has a very close relationship with the Honduran military, which goes back decades,” The Guardian noted at the time. “During the 1980s, the US used bases in Honduras to train and arm the Contras, Nicaraguan paramilitaries who became known for their atrocities in their war against the Sandinista government in neighbouring Nicaragua.”
Honduras wasn’t paradise under President Manuel Zelaya. Since the coup, however, the country has entered a downward death spiral of drug-related bloodshed and political revenge killings that crashed the economy, brought an end to law, order and civil society, and now has some analysts calling it a “failed state” along the lines of Somalia and Afghanistan during the 1990s.
"Zelaya’s overthrow created a vacuum in security in which military and police were now focused more on political protest, and also led to a freeze in international aid that markedly worsened socio-economic conditions," Mark Ungar, professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York, told The International Business Times. “The 2009 coup, asserts [Tulane] professor Aaron Schneider, gave the Honduran military more political and economic leverage, at the same time as the state and political elites lost their legitimacy, resources and the capacity to govern large parts of the country.”
El Salvador and Guatemala, also narcostates devastated by decades of U.S. support for oppressive, corrupt right-wing dictatorships, are suffering similar conditions.
(Photo Credit: AP | Supporters of ousted Honduras’ President Manuel Zelaya clash with soldiers near the presidential residency Tegucigalpa, Monday, June 29. 2009. Police fired tear gas to hold back thousands of Hondurans outside the occupied presidential residency as world leaders appealed to Honduras to reverse a coup that ousted the president.)

america-wakiewakie:

Those Kids Crossing the Border From Mexico Wouldn’t Be There If Obama Hadn’t Supported a Coup the Media Doesn’t Talk About | Common Dreams

If you’re reading this, you probably follow the news. So you’ve probably heard of the latest iteration of the “crisis at the border”: tens of thousands of children, many of them unaccompanied by an adult, crossing the desert from Mexico into the United States, where they surrender to the Border Patrol in hope of being allowed to remain here permanently. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention and hearing system has been overwhelmed by the surge of children and, in some cases, their parents. The Obama Administration has asked Congress to approve new funding to speed up processing and deportations of these illegal immigrants.

Even if you’ve followed this story closely, you probably haven’t heard the depressing backstory — the reason so many Central Americans are sending their children on adangerous thousand-mile journey up the spine of Mexico, where they ride atop freight trains, endure shakedowns by corrupt police and face rapists, bandits and other predators. (For a sense of what it’s like, check out the excellent 2004 film “Maria Full of Grace.”)

NPR and other mainstream news outlets are parroting the White House, which blamesunscrupulous “coyotes” (human smugglers) for “lying to parents, telling them that if they put their kids in the hands of traffickers and get to the United States that they will be able to stay.” True: the coyotes are saying that in order to gin up business. Also true: U.S. law has changed, and many of these kids have a strong legal case for asylum. Unfortunately, U.S. officials are ignoring the law.

The sad truth is that this “crisis at the border” is yet another example of “blowback.”

Blowback is an unintended negative consequence of U.S. political, military and/or economic intervention overseas — when something we did in the past comes back to bite us in the ass.9/11 is the classic example; arming and funding radical Islamists in the Middle East and South Asia who were less grateful for our help than angry at the U.S.’ simultaneous backing for oppressive governments (The House of Saud, Saddam, Assad, etc.) in the region.

More recent cases include U.S. support for Islamist insurgents in Libya and Syria, which destabilized both countries and led to the murders of U.S. consular officials in Benghazi, and the rise of ISIS, the guerilla army that imperils the U.S.-backed Maliki regime in Baghdad, respectively.

Confusing the issue for casual American news consumers is that the current border crisis doesn’t involve the usual Mexicans traveling north in search of work. Instead, we’re talking about people from Central American nations devastated by a century of American colonialism and imperialism, much of that intervention surprisingly recent. Central American refugees are merely transiting through Mexico.

"The unaccompanied children crossing the border into the United States are leaving behind mainly three Central American countries, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The first two are among the world’s most violent and all three have deep poverty, according to a Pew Research report based on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) information,” reports NBC News. “El Salvador ranked second in terms of homicides in Latin America in 2011, and it is still high on the list. Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are among the poorest nations in Latin America. Thirty percent of Hondurans, 17 percent of Salvadorans and 26 percent of Guatemalans live on less than $2 a day.”

The fact that Honduras is the biggest source of the exodus jumped out at me. That’s because, in 2009, the United States government — under President Obama — tacitly supported a military coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Honduras. “Washington has a very close relationship with the Honduran military, which goes back decades,” The Guardian noted at the time. “During the 1980s, the US used bases in Honduras to train and arm the Contras, Nicaraguan paramilitaries who became known for their atrocities in their war against the Sandinista government in neighbouring Nicaragua.”

Honduras wasn’t paradise under President Manuel Zelaya. Since the coup, however, the country has entered a downward death spiral of drug-related bloodshed and political revenge killings that crashed the economy, brought an end to law, order and civil society, and now has some analysts calling it a “failed state” along the lines of Somalia and Afghanistan during the 1990s.

"Zelaya’s overthrow created a vacuum in security in which military and police were now focused more on political protest, and also led to a freeze in international aid that markedly worsened socio-economic conditions," Mark Ungar, professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York, told The International Business Times. “The 2009 coup, asserts [Tulane] professor Aaron Schneider, gave the Honduran military more political and economic leverage, at the same time as the state and political elites lost their legitimacy, resources and the capacity to govern large parts of the country.”

El Salvador and Guatemala, also narcostates devastated by decades of U.S. support for oppressive, corrupt right-wing dictatorships, are suffering similar conditions.

(Photo Credit: AP | Supporters of ousted Honduras’ President Manuel Zelaya clash with soldiers near the presidential residency Tegucigalpa, Monday, June 29. 2009. Police fired tear gas to hold back thousands of Hondurans outside the occupied presidential residency as world leaders appealed to Honduras to reverse a coup that ousted the president.)

(via political-linguaphile)

White men make up approximately 36% of the population, but commit 75% of mass shootings. What would be called terrorism by any other skin tone is suddenly some mysterious unnamed disease. We as a society are perfectly happy to further stigmatize mentally ill people, who are far more likely to be victims of violence than commit violence, in the service of protecting white supremacy and male entitlement.

Anonymous asked: So why don't feminists shave their armpits and stuff? It's not like MEN force you to do it, and like as a girl it's uncomfortable and holds more sweat and just ew. I don't know if you're braver or just lazier than the average girl

rebeccalinarebeccalina:

slayboybunny:

alright i don’t normally reply to these but im feelin chatty so here goes

first of all,  underarm hair helps ventilate sweat, control odor, and does a great job of keepin moisture away from the skin!! its 10x more physically comfy for me believe it or not!!

now, let’s have a short history lesson here, and keep in mind that we’re talking about westernized white women because in many places and cultures this phenomenon simply does not apply 

moving onward, ladies shaving their armpits didnt really catch on until around the 1920s and this was almost entirely sparked because marketing companies wanted to double the demographic they could sell razors to. to kickstart it, they released this scandalous picture in Harper’s Bazaar in 1915:
image

which first planted the seed.  at the time, the photo was extremely risque as it was really the first time a womans bare underarm had been shown in American media that wasnt pornographic. the word “underarm” itself was shocking! in a very deliberate move, they’d paired a revolutionary photo with a trend they wished to sell. in 1922 sears released “female” razors and it eventually trickled down to the middle class and the lower class with time, as fashion trends often do. turns out, the war against armpit hair was one of the most successful business campaigns ever!!

wanting to follow in these footsteps, they worked on leg hair. women still didnt begin shaving their legs until around 1943. even those iconic flappers who wore short hemlines still sported fuzzy legs! Daisy Fay Buchanan was probably a furry gal herself.

a part of the hesitation for a woman to shave her legs was that she would appear more promiscuous because the legs are so indicative of the vulva. alas, after WWII, Betty Grable posed for this sexy image: 
 
image

and eventually the look went from celebrities to other patriotic girls and then to everyone else. 

what do both have in common you ask???  they were both deliberately manufactured propaganda made by white men for the sole reason of making money by exploiting women. 

im not telling you what you should or should not do with your body and all the hair that grows on it. its ok if shaving makes you feel more feminine or clean. all im saying is that it’s a good idea to analyze why youve been lead to believe a little fuzz is so “ew” to you, and really think about whether it should be. it hasn’t always been this way (in fact it only recently became so) and im here to say it doesnt have to be that way either. take this knowledge and run with it but its ultimately your choice. 

as for me, no, i wouldnt say im braver or lazier than the average girl. i just reject the idea that a bullshit made up westernized whitie can make my decisions for me. and personally, i find my kitten armpits exceptionally cute. 

ill leave you with this my friend: if girls weren’t meant to have body hair then why do girl’s bodies grow hair  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

#important

autisticsolluxcaptor:

errors-dot-albi:

thatscienceteacher:

theveganarchist:

stfuconservatives:

lesserjoke:

antigovernmentextremist:

gerrycanavan:

Jury nullification. Pass it on.

Jury nullification is so fucking important.

This is something that more people should be aware of, if only because (in many states, at least) defense attorneys are actually prohibited from mentioning it to jurors. The law allows a jury to return a “not guilty” verdict contrary to the facts of the case, but not for the defense to inform them of that power or to argue for its application in the current trial.

I didn’t know about this. Wow.

always reblog

This is SUPER IMPORTANT and also a good reason to show up for jury duty. You know all those laws you think are stupid? This is your chance to maybe do something about it. 

I…. I thought this was common knowledge… signal boosting this because it obviously isn’t!

heres a video by cgpgrey explaining it

autisticsolluxcaptor:

errors-dot-albi:

thatscienceteacher:

theveganarchist:

stfuconservatives:

lesserjoke:

antigovernmentextremist:

gerrycanavan:

Jury nullification. Pass it on.

Jury nullification is so fucking important.

This is something that more people should be aware of, if only because (in many states, at least) defense attorneys are actually prohibited from mentioning it to jurors. The law allows a jury to return a “not guilty” verdict contrary to the facts of the case, but not for the defense to inform them of that power or to argue for its application in the current trial.

I didn’t know about this. Wow.

always reblog

This is SUPER IMPORTANT and also a good reason to show up for jury duty. You know all those laws you think are stupid? This is your chance to maybe do something about it. 

I…. I thought this was common knowledge… signal boosting this because it obviously isn’t!

heres a video by cgpgrey explaining it

(via rootless-but-grounded)

Preferring to date a race isn’t racist! It’s like preferring a certain hair color or height

racists

Let me break this down:

- Race is a social construct invented by Western Europeans to justify chattel slavery. Preferences aren’t biological or something you are born with, because race didn’t even exist until about 500 years ago.


-  Among PoC, there is no race/ethnic group/country where all the people have anything in common besides being from a certain part of the world. Among PoC, there is no race where every member has the same skin color, hair color, hair type, eye color, language, clothing, culture, etc. 

- The only race whose members all have something in common is white- all white people have to have light skin in order to be white. This rule was created by white people themselves, and is intentionally exclusive.

- Don’t even pretend that you don’t know there is a racial hierarchy in beauty. Everyone knows that in Western culture white women are seen as the most desirable, black women are seen as the least desirable, and everyone else is in the middle. Funny how these “innate” and “random” preferences seem to line up perfectly with white beauty standards/white supremacist ideals.


- No more false equivalencies. PoC not wanting to date white people is not the same as the reverse. PoC almost never believe that white people are unattractive/ugly, they just find it too difficult to meet a white person who is actively unlearning and working to dismantle white supremacy. 

- Stop trying to defend yourself. If you have racial or ethnic preferences, whether they are positive or negative, you are the problem, stop blaming it on everyone else. You have to acknowledge and unlearn whatever stereotype you’ve absorbed. 

Like a previous post I made, this post is also not a place to try to debate whether racial preferences are bad or not. I’ve made my statement based on pretty obvious facts about Western culture and white supremacy. If you don’t agree, move on.
However, feel free to share your experiences with this (either involving you or someone else).

(via wocrecovery)

I see y’all

(via kinkyblackgirl)

(via heyreadabook)

chescaleigh:

If At The End OF His Speech, You Still Think That Mascot “Honors” Him, You’re Still Missing The Point

There’s been a long-standing debate surrounding sports teams with names and mascots derived from Native American people. Some argue that these names are “paying tribute” or “honoring” Native Americans, but this moving speech from 15-year-old Dahkota Brown sheds much-needed perspective on on how these team names affect students like himself.

Still not convinced? Check out the Center for American Progress’ recently released report, "Missing the Point: The Real Impact of Native Mascots and Team Names on American Indian and Alaska Native Youth" for a detailed breakdown of why this conversation is so very important.

Anonymous asked: Can you explain what a "liberal" is? And what is the difference between being a Liberal and being liberal? I always hear them referred to differently, like "big L Liberal/little l liberal"? I'm just confused because I thought they were leftists? I know this is really stupid, but I'm a n00b, please bear with me haha

america-wakiewakie:

Well there is a lot of muddling with where it is you are using the term liberal. The United States, as usual, has adopted the word and thoroughly bastardized it into representing the opposite of what it means. Noam Chomsky breaks down the inability to communicate when the meanings of words are constantly debased and re-appropriated to mean very different things from what they meant in the context of their histories.

Liberal today is capitalist in nature. Wikipedia provides this:

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair electionscivil rightsfreedom of the pressfreedom of religionfree trade, and private property.

Well look at the contradictions there, namely the “ideals of liberty and equality” while advocating so-called “free trade” and “private property,” the bedrocks of capitalism which have given rise to massive inequality and debilitating poverty. So, and I am being brief here — and somewhat too reductionist so I apologize — liberalism, in the economic sense, is merely the cousin of its further rightwing family. 

The reason it is perceived as “the Left” is because of the framing of our political system to represent only a tiny spectrum of political discourse. 

In Democrats & Republicans: A Political Cartel I wrote:

Liberals and conservatives are two factions of the same team (read capitalists); we just perceive them as markedly different because of the degree to which the spectrum of political possibilities has been narrowed. A complex system of normalized indoctrination exists in our lives which ensure radical (read communist and anarchist) solutions are weeded out, or marginalized in one way or another.

The end result is a set of normalized choices manifested in a political cartel, or an association of political parties with the purpose of maintaining concentrated political power and restricting or repressing competition. What is valued as acceptable within this cartel comprising the modern political sphere then is a tiny spectrum which reflects only the range of needs of private corporate power and nothing more.

…Liberals and conservatives wholeheartedly participate in the concentration of power when they take a set of political positions which express the basic ideas of capitalism and then present a range of indoctrination within that framework — so any “solution” only enhances the strength of capitalist institutionalization, ingraining it in our minds as the entire possible spectrum of choice that there is.

This is the purpose of electoral politics, to present from our capitalist masters individuals whose ideas keep the flow of power moving upward; to normalize indoctrination; to, in effect, control the market by maintaining the perceived pedigree of capitalist ideas and restricting competition through the marginalization and repression of ideas new or contradictory.

The central point I am making is this: Liberals are not leftists, they are only perceived to be because we have ruthlessly destroyed real leftist movements in this country. 

In another piece — How could a Keynesian capitalist liberal like Obama be called a ‘socialist’? — I go on to explore why Liberals/Democrats would want to be called leftists at all. 

Democrats embrace the populism and sentimentality of proletarian emancipation while simultaneously advocating their enslavement to a wage economy (read capitalism), albeit a more equitable — word used loosely — distribution of wealth than the far right alternatives. They legislate from the Keynesian model, accommodated by welfare safety nets. This is why Democrats gladly accept “the Left” epithet.

Conservatives on the other hand use the same label (“the Left”) to disenfranchise would-be Keynesians through associating the failed USSR with real leftist ideology, contradictingly calling liberals “socialist.” The effect, therefore, is that both major American political parties benefit from falsely portraying one capitalist faction as “the Left”, granting it widespread however fallacious legitimacy in the eyes of the American public. 

All this is to say that a Liberal/liberal is a capitalist, oftentimes imperialist, rightwinger who happens to be just slightly “left” of their further right cousins, the free market capitalist. Liberals, essentially, are “left” because they advocate trying to humanize an inherently exploitative system. 

I suspect the difference between the capital and lowercase iterations has more to do with identifying as a Liberal, synonymous with Democrat, and generally being more liberal (as in open-minded, accepting) of new ideas, change, different people’s and cultures. Still, even with the fore-mentioned attributes, lowercase “liberal” people often fail to address systemic issues like institutional racism, heteropatriarchy. and imperialist foreign policies while claiming to love and care for oppressed peoples. 

Don’t you know that slavery was outlawed?”
“No,” the guard said, “you’re wrong. Slavery was outlawed with the exception of prisons. Slavery is legal in prisons.”
I looked it up and sure enough, she was right. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution says:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Well, that explained a lot of things. That explained why jails and prisons all over the country are filled to the brim with Black and Third World people, why so many Black people can’t find a job on the streets and are forced to survive the best way they know how. Once you’re in prison, there are plenty of jobs, and, if you don’t want to work, they beat you up and throw you in a hole. If every state had to pay workers to do the jobs prisoners are forced to do, the salaries would amount to billions… Prisons are a profitable business. They are a way of legally perpetuating slavery. In every state more and more prisons are being built and even more are on the drawing board. Who are they for? They certainly aren’t planning to put white people in them. Prisons are part of this government’s genocidal war against Black and Third World people.

Assata Shakur’s autobiography (via the-uncensored-she)

(via maddylouboo)