"There are many whites who are trying to solve the problem. But you never see them going under the label of liberals. That white person that you see calling himself a liberal is the most dangerous thing in the entire western hemisphere. He’s the most deceitful. He’s like a fox. And a fox is always more dangerous in the forest than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he’s up to. But the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped in such a way that even though you see his teeth you think he’s smiling and take him for a friend."

Malcolm X on white liberals, 1963(?)

Here’s Malcolm X explaining in more details about the hypocrisy of white liberals:

http://freedombyanymeans.tumblr.com/post/41181960983/the-white-liberals-are-nothing-but-political

http://freedombyanymeans.tumblr.com/post/41577556206/historically-in-america-the-white-liberal-has

(via disciplesofmalcolm)

(Source: youtube.com, via the-uncensored-she)

"If someone can be kicked out of school for copying a paper, a person should be kicked out of school for raping another human being."

— Wagatwe Wanjuki, UVM Dismantling Rape Culture Conference 2014 (via byebyethinspo)

(via sans-nuage)

the-uncensored-she:

10 Poverty Myths, Busted | Mother Jones

america-wakiewakie:

1. Single moms are the problem. Only 9 percent of low-income, urban moms have been single throughout their child’s first five years. Thirty-five percent were married to, or in a relationship with, the child’s father for that entire time.

2. Absent dads are the problem. Sixty percent of low-income dads see at least one of their children daily. Another 16 percent see their children weekly.

3. Black dads are the problem. Among men who don’t live with their children, black fathers are more likely than white or Hispanic dads to have a daily presence in their kids’ lives.

4. Poor people are lazy. In 2004, there was at least one adult with a job in 60 percent of families on food stamps that had both kids and a nondisabled, working-age adult.

5. If you’re not officially poor, you’re doing okay. The federal poverty line for a family of two parents and two children in 2012 was $23,283. Basic needs cost at least twice that in 615 of America’s cities and regions.

6. Go to college, get out of poverty. In 2012, about 1.1 million people who made less than $25,000 a year, worked full time, and were heads of household had a bachelor’s degree.

7. We’re winning the war on poverty. The number of households with children living on less than $2 a day per person has grown 160 percent since 1996, to 1.65 million families in 2011.

8. The days of old ladies eating cat food are over. The share of elderly single women living in extreme poverty jumped 31 percent from 2011 to 2012.

9. The homeless are drunk street people. One in 45 kids in the United States experiences homelessness each year. In New York City alone, 22,000 children are homeless.

10. Handouts are bankrupting us. In 2012, total welfare funding was 0.47 percent of the federal budget.

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY V. I. LENIN – 4.22.1870Image: LENIN FISHES IN REVOLUTIONARY WATERSFrom the Mural: MOTHER EARTHBy Mike Alewitz/ 1989Mural at Children’s Hospital, Managua, NicaraguaDedicated to the Children of PalestineComplete Mural
Via Mike Alewitz

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY V. I. LENIN – 4.22.1870

Image: LENIN FISHES IN REVOLUTIONARY WATERS
From the Mural: MOTHER EARTH

By Mike Alewitz/ 1989

Mural at Children’s Hospital, Managua, Nicaragua
Dedicated to the Children of Palestine

Complete Mural

Via Mike Alewitz

jonnovstheinternet:

So I heard it’s Earth Day

image

(via harperisafairy)

"I don’t broadcast every high & I don’t hide every low. I’m trying to live. I’m not trying to convince the world I have life."

— (via astoldbylloyd)

(Source: blahblahbekke, via daniellemertina)

"There is a wonderful way to avoid teens throwing rocks at your armored military jeep, it’s called getting the fuck off occupied land."

Remi Kanazi

(via anonymousmilitant)

(via anonymousmilitant)

america-wakiewakie:

World Bank Wants Water Privatized, Despite Risk | Al Jazeera
Humans can survive weeks without food, but only days without water — in some conditions, only hours. It may sound clichéd, but it’s no hyperbole: Water is life. So what happens when private companies control the spigot? Evidence from water privatization projects around the world paints a pretty clear picture — public health is at stake.
In the run-up to its annual spring meeting this month, the World Bank Group, which offers loans, advice and other resources to developing countries, held four days of dialogues in Washington, D.C. Civil society groups from around the world and World Bank Group staff convened to discuss many topics. Water was high on the list.
It’s hard to think of a more important topic. We face a global water crisis, made worse by the warming temperatures of climate change. A quarter of the world’s people don’t have sufficient access to clean drinking water, and more people die every year from waterborne illnesses — such as cholera and typhoid fever — than from all forms of violence, including war, combined. Every hour, the United Nations estimates, 240 babies die from unsafe water.
The World Bank Group pushes privatization as a key solution to the water crisis. It is the largest funder of water management in the developing world, with loans and financing channeled through the group’s International Finance Corporation (IFC). Since the 1980s, the IFC has been promoting these water projects as part of a broader set of privatization policies, with loans and financing tied to enacting austerity measures designed to shrink the state, from the telecom industry to water utilities.
But international advocacy and civil society groups point to the pockmarked record of private-sector water projects and are calling on the World Bank Group to end support for private water.
In the decades since the IFC’s initial push, we have seen the results of water privatization: It doesn’t work. Water is not like telecommunications or transportation. You could tolerate crappy phone service, but have faulty pipes connecting to your municipal water and you’re in real trouble. Water is exceptional.
(Read Full Text) (Photo Credit: ZME Science)

america-wakiewakie:

World Bank Wants Water Privatized, Despite Risk | Al Jazeera

Humans can survive weeks without food, but only days without water — in some conditions, only hours. It may sound clichéd, but it’s no hyperbole: Water is life. So what happens when private companies control the spigot? Evidence from water privatization projects around the world paints a pretty clear picture — public health is at stake.

In the run-up to its annual spring meeting this month, the World Bank Group, which offers loans, advice and other resources to developing countries, held four days of dialogues in Washington, D.C. Civil society groups from around the world and World Bank Group staff convened to discuss many topics. Water was high on the list.

It’s hard to think of a more important topic. We face a global water crisis, made worse by the warming temperatures of climate change. A quarter of the world’s people don’t have sufficient access to clean drinking water, and more people die every year from waterborne illnesses — such as cholera and typhoid fever — than from all forms of violence, including war, combined. Every hour, the United Nations estimates, 240 babies die from unsafe water.

The World Bank Group pushes privatization as a key solution to the water crisis. It is the largest funder of water management in the developing world, with loans and financing channeled through the group’s International Finance Corporation (IFC). Since the 1980s, the IFC has been promoting these water projects as part of a broader set of privatization policies, with loans and financing tied to enacting austerity measures designed to shrink the state, from the telecom industry to water utilities.

But international advocacy and civil society groups point to the pockmarked record of private-sector water projects and are calling on the World Bank Group to end support for private water.

In the decades since the IFC’s initial push, we have seen the results of water privatization: It doesn’t work. Water is not like telecommunications or transportation. You could tolerate crappy phone service, but have faulty pipes connecting to your municipal water and you’re in real trouble. Water is exceptional.

(Read Full Text) (Photo Credit: ZME Science)

(via cloud-scapes)

Race without Racists: A Critical Look At France’s Outlawing of ‘Race’

shatteredlavender:

image

Bonilla-Silva’s most persuasive and strongest claims in Race without Racists are the abstract liberalism and minimization of racism frameworks. Abstract liberalism is described as involving political and economic liberalism “in an abstract manner to explain racial matters,” while minimization of racism alludes to discrimination being “no longer a central factor affecting minorities” (Bonilla-Silva, Race without Racists, 28-29).  In 2013, France’s National Ambassy outlawed the usage of the term ‘race’: “From now on, the word ‘racial’, as well as ‘race’, will be dropped from relevant articles of the French penal code, or replaced by the word ‘ethnic’” (Harvey Morris, "France Fights Racism by Outlawing ‘Race’", International New York Times). France has a history of colonization and involvement in the deportation of Jews to concentration camps during World War II. In an effort to leave the past behind and reduce current racial violence, the French Ambassy relinquished the surface-level infiltration of the concept of race and its legacy. France’s horrid past, its impact on its present and its incompatibility with the country’s current beliefs are evidence of what social psychologist Leon Festinger defines as cognitive dissonance, which is causing France’s leadership to erase what it perceives as the problem—race (Eshleman, O’Malley Halley and Vijaya, Seeing White: An Introduction to White Privilege and Race, 191). Bonilla-Silva’s infrastructure for identifying and analyzing color-blind racism is key to examining this phenomenon.

As France attempts to minimize racism through the implementation of abstract liberalism, the country fails to recognize that it is furthering the oppression of the racialized collectives. Academic writers in The Guardian—Alana Lentin and Valerie Amirauz—argue that the demise of ‘race thinking’ in France will result from the elimination of ‘racial’ and ‘race’ from the French Constitution and laws (Harvey Morris, "France Fights Racism by Outlawing ‘Race’", International New York Times). France’s minimization of racism utterly disregarded the past and contemporary discrimination of the status of minorities socially, economically and educationally (Bonilla-Silva, Race without Racists, 31). New racism will have an environment to manifest within; visible expressions of violence against individuals based upon race in France may be altered to more subtle expressions. Dominant actors will justify such occurrences by pointing to nonracial explanations, which will conceal the core of race’s existence and its systematic impact on populations.

-S.L.

(via blacksupervillain)

terarroni:

thisbombasspussygoticktick:

sisoula:

Cause Black people can damn well read theirs.

truly

Scientific fact, actually. Researchers at the University of Toronto Scarbrough found that White people’s neuron system fired less when viewing people of color performing…

america-wakiewakie:

"This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible" by Charles E. Cobb Jr. | AmazonVisiting Martin Luther King Jr. at the peak of the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, journalist William Worthy almost sat on a loaded pistol. “Just for selfdefense,” King assured him. It was not the only weapon King kept for such a purpose; one of his advisors remembered the reverend’s Montgomery, Alabama home as “an arsenal.”Like King, many ostensibly “nonviolent” civil rights activists embraced their constitutional right to selfprotection—yet this crucial dimension of the Afro-American freedom struggle has been long ignored by history. In This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed, civil rights scholar Charles E. Cobb Jr. describes the vital role that armed self-defense played in the survival and liberation of black communities in America during the Southern Freedom Movement of the 1960s. In the Deep South, blacks often safeguarded themselves and their loved ones from white supremacist violence by bearing—and, when necessary, using—firearms. In much the same way, Cobb shows, nonviolent civil rights workers received critical support from black gun owners in the regions where they worked.Whether patrolling their neighborhoods, garrisoning their homes, or firing back at attackers, these courageous men and women and the weapons they carried were crucial to the movement’s success. Giving voice to the World War II veterans, rural activists, volunteer security guards, and self-defense groups who took up arms to defend their lives and liberties, This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed lays bare the paradoxical relationship between the nonviolent civil rights struggle and the Second Amendment. Drawing on his firsthand experiences in the civil rights movement and interviews with fellow participants, Cobb provides a controversial examination of the crucial place of firearms in the fight for American freedom.

america-wakiewakie:

"This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible" by Charles E. Cobb Jr. | Amazon

Visiting Martin Luther King Jr. at the peak of the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, journalist William Worthy almost sat on a loaded pistol. “Just for selfdefense,” King assured him. It was not the only weapon King kept for such a purpose; one of his advisors remembered the reverend’s Montgomery, Alabama home as “an arsenal.”

Like King, many ostensibly “nonviolent” civil rights activists embraced their constitutional right to selfprotection—yet this crucial dimension of the Afro-American freedom struggle has been long ignored by history. In This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed, civil rights scholar Charles E. Cobb Jr. describes the vital role that armed self-defense played in the survival and liberation of black communities in America during the Southern Freedom Movement of the 1960s. In the Deep South, blacks often safeguarded themselves and their loved ones from white supremacist violence by bearing—and, when necessary, using—firearms. In much the same way, Cobb shows, nonviolent civil rights workers received critical support from black gun owners in the regions where they worked.

Whether patrolling their neighborhoods, garrisoning their homes, or firing back at attackers, these courageous men and women and the weapons they carried were crucial to the movement’s success. Giving voice to the World War II veterans, rural activists, volunteer security guards, and self-defense groups who took up arms to defend their lives and liberties, This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed lays bare the paradoxical relationship between the nonviolent civil rights struggle and the Second Amendment. Drawing on his firsthand experiences in the civil rights movement and interviews with fellow participants, Cobb provides a controversial examination of the crucial place of firearms in the fight for American freedom.

(via cultureofresistance)

pretentioususernametosoundsmart:

gooseko:

iplaybassoon13:

dantheinsane1:

zenpencils:

ERICA GOLDSON: Graduation speech

Erica Goldson must have had some serious balls to give this speech

This is beautiful.

this is so wonderful 

This hit hard. Our education system is desperately in need of fixing.

(via psilolysergicamine)

"You don’t ask people with knives in their stomachs what would make them happy; happiness is no longer the point. It’s all about survival; it’s all about whether you pull the knife out and bleed to death or keep it in."

— Nick Hornby, How to Be Good (via lastuli)

(Source: splitterherzen, via anonymousmilitant)