Culture of Resistance

america-wakiewakie:

america-wakiewakie:

Instead of asking where is Palestinian Gandhi let us stand with Palestinian Resistance | AmericaWakieWakie
July 30th, 2014
“The war neither began with us nor is it going to end with our lives.”
— Bhagat Singh
On April 13, 1919, in violation of a British colonial ban on meetings or gatherings, peaceful protestors assembled in Punjab, India to object to the recent killing of nearly 30 Indians in a previous protest. Unprovoked and without warning, colonial forces arrived and opened fire on tens of thousands of unarmed, defenseless Indians, mostly Sikhs, indiscriminately killing 379 men, women, and children. An estimated 1,200 were wounded.
The onslaught known today as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, or the Amritsar massacre to Punjabi natives, is said to have lasted 20 minutes. Yet, despite its brevity, for the move to action it spurred throughout colonial India it remains a seminal event in the fight for Indian independence. One man, 12 year old Bhagat Singh, was especially moved. The massacre planted in Singh’s young mind a longing for the freedom of his people that would propel him forward by any means necessary.
Eventually he would be hung by British colonial authorities for his propensity to fight brutal occupation with every method employed against the Indian people. In the wake of his death, for the majority of the world who does not know or care about the necessity of armed struggle, he has been forgotten. His story, and those like his, has been put on the back-burner while men like Gandhi have been memorialized as the embodiment of what oppressed peoples should do when faced with a conscienceless occupier. 
Such is not far from the expectation of Palestinians in the wake of decades of Israeli apartheid and occupation: In one form or another the question has been asked, “Where is Palestinian Gandhi?”
Though, even if ridiculously, it could be speculated as to where Palestinian Gandhi might be — a thought to be revisited later — we ought to ask why anybody would pose this question at all. The reality is asking this question is a sinister method of delegitimizing Palestinian armed resistance and self-defense. It is a tactical ploy to remove the focus from the violence Israel continues to perpetrate against Palestinians in order to place the impetus for peace solely on those suffering most. It is, in its purest form, victim blaming. And it has been incredibly effective.
Gandhi: A Myth to Which We May Not Want to Aspire
“In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.”
— Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture)
Nonviolence played a significant role in Indian independence, absolutely; but the premise that under the tutelage of Gandhi it was the premier force driving the nation toward liberation is a cherry-picked version of history. It downplays into nothingness the fact that the post-WWII crown could no longer maintain the brute force and financial obligation needed to run a global empire. Indigenous American scholar Ward Churchill in Pacifism as Pathology dismantled the myth that nonviolence effectively acted alone or in a vacuum unto itself:
“…Gandhian success must be viewed in the context of a general decline in British power brought about by two world wars within a thirty-year period. Prior to the decimation of British troop strength and the virtual bankruptcy of the Imperial treasury during World War II, Gandhi’s movement showed little likelihood of forcing England’s abandonment of India. Without the global violence that destroyed the Empire’s ability to forcibly control territories (and passive populations), India might have continued indefinitely in the pattern of minority rule marking the majority of South Africa’s modern history, the first locale in which the Gandhian recipe for liberation struck the reef of reality. Hence, while the Mahatma and his followers were able to remain “pure,” their victory was contingent upon others physically gutting their opponents for them.”
At best Gandhi worship ignores — at worst it erases — the revolutionary actions of people like Bhagat Singh and others who galvanized the resistance movement in colonial India. It removes the context of fear created by armed struggle, a reversal of the fear that underpinned British control of a country where Brits were enormously outnumbered. George Orwell, the famous author of 1984, as a former officer in the Indian police noted:
“Gandhi has been regarded for twenty years by the Government of India as one of its right-hand men… It was always admitted in the most cynical way that Gandhi made it easier for the British to rule India, because his influence was always against taking any action that would make any difference. The reason why Gandhi when in prison is always treated with such lenience, and small concessions sometimes made when he has prolonged one of his fasts to a dangerous extent, is that the British officials are in terror that he may die and be replaced by someone who believes less in “soul force” and more in bombs.”
The material and philosophical reality of nonviolence is one of insufficient means dictating for itself an impossible end. The sectarian nature by which many proponents of Gandhian doctrine preclude or lambaste the use of armed resistance only helps doom a people’s fight for liberation because it effectively counteracts any positive gain they together might achieve. A truly encompassing liberatory praxis must recognize the use of armed resistance as a legitimate and necessary method of achieving liberation. The dismantling of the Gandhi myth is therefore of primary importance in attaining such a praxis.
But what about Gandhi the man himself, his political doctrines aside? Recently feminist writer and activist Arundhati Roy shared her own criticisms of the late nonviolent leader, saying:
“The story of Gandhi that we have been told, is a lie. It is time to unveil a few truths, about a person whose doctrine of nonviolence was based on the acceptance of a most brutal social hierarchy ever known, the caste system. Gandhi believed that a scavenger should always remain a scavenger. Do we really need to name our universities after him?”
There are, of course, more critical views of Gandhi’s personal habits — his methods for testing his resolve for celibacy for instance — but at the core of his legacy lies an irrational, one-sided lore of a man whose message and methods were inadequate, however helpful,  and whose moral character was as flawed as anyone else’s. The real reason Gandhi is lauded while revolutionaries like Singh are diminished has more to do with what we do not know and why we are not taught it than with what we think we know.
In other words, if we were taught the truth that armed resistance does bring about significant change, we might be inclined to try it.
Reclaiming Resistance from Israel’s Tactical Propaganda
“Respect existence, or expect resistance.”
— CrimethInc.
Knowing the pitfalls of Gandhi’s character/nonviolence, that in reality his methods could only be successful when buttressed with armed resistance and the bankrupting of Britain’s military and financial prowess, why would anybody ask “Where is Palestinian Gandhi?” Well, it’s pretty simple really: If people buy into the idea that there ought to be a Palestinian Gandhi to do what the myth of Gandhi dictates, then if no Palestinian is successfully doing it the rest of the world can continue to blame Palestinians for Israeli initiated violence instead of holding Israel accountable.
More importantly, if Palestinians deviate from the doctrine of nonviolence and endorse armed resistance, Israel can portray itself as victimized, or at least only retaliating in an “equally” matched conflict. This is tactical propaganda. If looked for, it is openly visible in the current struggle for Palestinian liberation.
Mainstream media has constantly berated fighters in Gaza for using armed resistance in the face of overwhelming occupation. A principle mechanism of this berating has been the method of blaming-both-sides equally, regardless of the lopsided causalities of Israel’s current and past military offensives. Hamas, an entity ironically helped to prominence by Mossad as a counterweight to the PLO, has been dubbed the central objector to proposed ceasefires by Israel, Egypt, and humanitarian agencies despite the fact that Israel has far more frequently been the provocateur. After Hamas does reject any ceasefire terms, the question of Palestinian Gandhi is mouthed ad nauseam.
But there can be no great peace negotiator when every ceasefire calls for the continuation of Palestinian oppression. Such proposals are not negotiations — they are the demands of a wolf clothed in the rhetoric of the sheep to elicit international sympathy. Palestinians know this, and by majority they have claimed acceptance of such a ceasefire would be a condition of living death.
In the film Rang de Basanti,a historical fiction of Bhagat Singh and his comrades’ revolutionary actions, a group of young friends retrace and relive the struggle for Indian independence. In the course of their reenactment they discover the corruption of their own government through the death of a loved one and come to understand Singh’s motivations for armed struggle. When they attempt to nonviolently challenge the corruption that led to their friend’s death, they are met with brutal repression, another of them having been beaten into a coma.
They assassinate the Defense Minister of the Indian government, the man responsible, in response. As the Indian government attributes the assassination to terrorists, effectively martyring a corrupt official, in their last act the group seizes a radio station to finally tell the truth about the corruption they acted against. They, like Singh, willingly die for the people they love.
Whether or not their actions were warranted they did something far too many have not: They realized that in order for nonviolence to work, those trying to kill you have to care about you.
Israel’s Zionist government does not care about Palestinians. The so-called terrorism Israel says it is fighting, in reality, is the armed resistance created by the terrorism it commits. If Israel were really concerned with the alleged “terrorism” of Hamas, its most prudent action would be to immediately cease participating in the terrorizing of Palestinians. Such is the nature of cyclical violence, but by no means is it equivalent when one party has the 6th most powerful military in the world and the backing of United States military power while the other has rocks and homemade rockets. 
But this is at the core of asking “Where is Palestinian Gandhi,” to delegitimize Gazan resistance by decoupling the material reality of occupation from the right to self-defense. Jeff Sluka captured it well in National Liberation Movements in Global Context:
“The condemnation of liberation movements for resorting to… armed struggle is almost invariably superficial, hypocritical, judgmental, and unfair and tends strongly to represent another example of the generalized phenomenon of “blaming the victim.” The violence of the situation, the per-existing oppression suffered by those who eventually strike back, is conveniently ignored. The violence of the oppressed is a form of defensive counter-violence to the violence of conquest and oppression. In no armed national liberation movement I know of in history has this not been the case.”
After decades of war on Palestinians, Israel has threaded through itself a clearly defined and widely endorsed, yet often unarticulated, acceptance of violent oppression. It is a fully rationalized phenomenon for its government, with full confidence of Israeli Zionists and their sympathizers abroad, to carry out odious acts of state-sanctioned terrorism against Palestinians. Yet when those murdered, so clearly revealed in the scope of recent events, grow weary enough to fight against occupation, their resistance is totally fetishized, their humanity dehumanized. 
As in the lived and cinematic experience of Singh’s life, getting past the Gandhi myth is essential to understanding the material reality of what is happening on the ground in Gaza today. This understanding must lay bare the conditions of occupation, colonization, and apartheid. When we fully grasp this we ought to remember a people’s natural right to armed resistance. Blaming Palestinians for fighting oppression from a racist, Zionist government is outright victim-blaming. It makes us tools of oppression.
If we really must ask “Where is Palestinian Gandhi,” we should realize they likely are buried under the rubble of an Israeli missile.
(Photo Credit: Lucid Strike)

Still and always relevant.

america-wakiewakie:

america-wakiewakie:

Instead of asking where is Palestinian Gandhi let us stand with Palestinian Resistance | AmericaWakieWakie

July 30th, 2014

“The war neither began with us nor is it going to end with our lives.”

— Bhagat Singh

On April 13, 1919, in violation of a British colonial ban on meetings or gatherings, peaceful protestors assembled in Punjab, India to object to the recent killing of nearly 30 Indians in a previous protest. Unprovoked and without warning, colonial forces arrived and opened fire on tens of thousands of unarmed, defenseless Indians, mostly Sikhs, indiscriminately killing 379 men, women, and children. An estimated 1,200 were wounded.

The onslaught known today as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, or the Amritsar massacre to Punjabi natives, is said to have lasted 20 minutes. Yet, despite its brevity, for the move to action it spurred throughout colonial India it remains a seminal event in the fight for Indian independence. One man, 12 year old Bhagat Singh, was especially moved. The massacre planted in Singh’s young mind a longing for the freedom of his people that would propel him forward by any means necessary.

Eventually he would be hung by British colonial authorities for his propensity to fight brutal occupation with every method employed against the Indian people. In the wake of his death, for the majority of the world who does not know or care about the necessity of armed struggle, he has been forgotten. His story, and those like his, has been put on the back-burner while men like Gandhi have been memorialized as the embodiment of what oppressed peoples should do when faced with a conscienceless occupier. 

Such is not far from the expectation of Palestinians in the wake of decades of Israeli apartheid and occupation: In one form or another the question has been asked, “Where is Palestinian Gandhi?”

Though, even if ridiculously, it could be speculated as to where Palestinian Gandhi might be — a thought to be revisited later — we ought to ask why anybody would pose this question at all. The reality is asking this question is a sinister method of delegitimizing Palestinian armed resistance and self-defense. It is a tactical ploy to remove the focus from the violence Israel continues to perpetrate against Palestinians in order to place the impetus for peace solely on those suffering most. It is, in its purest form, victim blaming. And it has been incredibly effective.

Gandhi: A Myth to Which We May Not Want to Aspire

“In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.”

— Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture)

Nonviolence played a significant role in Indian independence, absolutely; but the premise that under the tutelage of Gandhi it was the premier force driving the nation toward liberation is a cherry-picked version of history. It downplays into nothingness the fact that the post-WWII crown could no longer maintain the brute force and financial obligation needed to run a global empire. Indigenous American scholar Ward Churchill in Pacifism as Pathology dismantled the myth that nonviolence effectively acted alone or in a vacuum unto itself:

“…Gandhian success must be viewed in the context of a general decline in British power brought about by two world wars within a thirty-year period. Prior to the decimation of British troop strength and the virtual bankruptcy of the Imperial treasury during World War II, Gandhi’s movement showed little likelihood of forcing England’s abandonment of India. Without the global violence that destroyed the Empire’s ability to forcibly control territories (and passive populations), India might have continued indefinitely in the pattern of minority rule marking the majority of South Africa’s modern history, the first locale in which the Gandhian recipe for liberation struck the reef of reality. Hence, while the Mahatma and his followers were able to remain “pure,” their victory was contingent upon others physically gutting their opponents for them.”

At best Gandhi worship ignores — at worst it erases — the revolutionary actions of people like Bhagat Singh and others who galvanized the resistance movement in colonial India. It removes the context of fear created by armed struggle, a reversal of the fear that underpinned British control of a country where Brits were enormously outnumbered. George Orwell, the famous author of 1984, as a former officer in the Indian police noted:

“Gandhi has been regarded for twenty years by the Government of India as one of its right-hand men… It was always admitted in the most cynical way that Gandhi made it easier for the British to rule India, because his influence was always against taking any action that would make any difference. The reason why Gandhi when in prison is always treated with such lenience, and small concessions sometimes made when he has prolonged one of his fasts to a dangerous extent, is that the British officials are in terror that he may die and be replaced by someone who believes less in “soul force” and more in bombs.”

The material and philosophical reality of nonviolence is one of insufficient means dictating for itself an impossible end. The sectarian nature by which many proponents of Gandhian doctrine preclude or lambaste the use of armed resistance only helps doom a people’s fight for liberation because it effectively counteracts any positive gain they together might achieve. A truly encompassing liberatory praxis must recognize the use of armed resistance as a legitimate and necessary method of achieving liberation. The dismantling of the Gandhi myth is therefore of primary importance in attaining such a praxis.

But what about Gandhi the man himself, his political doctrines aside? Recently feminist writer and activist Arundhati Roy shared her own criticisms of the late nonviolent leader, saying:

“The story of Gandhi that we have been told, is a lie. It is time to unveil a few truths, about a person whose doctrine of nonviolence was based on the acceptance of a most brutal social hierarchy ever known, the caste system. Gandhi believed that a scavenger should always remain a scavenger. Do we really need to name our universities after him?”

There are, of course, more critical views of Gandhi’s personal habits — his methods for testing his resolve for celibacy for instance — but at the core of his legacy lies an irrational, one-sided lore of a man whose message and methods were inadequate, however helpful,  and whose moral character was as flawed as anyone else’s. The real reason Gandhi is lauded while revolutionaries like Singh are diminished has more to do with what we do not know and why we are not taught it than with what we think we know.

In other words, if we were taught the truth that armed resistance does bring about significant change, we might be inclined to try it.

Reclaiming Resistance from Israel’s Tactical Propaganda

“Respect existence, or expect resistance.”

— CrimethInc.

Knowing the pitfalls of Gandhi’s character/nonviolence, that in reality his methods could only be successful when buttressed with armed resistance and the bankrupting of Britain’s military and financial prowess, why would anybody ask “Where is Palestinian Gandhi?” Well, it’s pretty simple really: If people buy into the idea that there ought to be a Palestinian Gandhi to do what the myth of Gandhi dictates, then if no Palestinian is successfully doing it the rest of the world can continue to blame Palestinians for Israeli initiated violence instead of holding Israel accountable.

More importantly, if Palestinians deviate from the doctrine of nonviolence and endorse armed resistance, Israel can portray itself as victimized, or at least only retaliating in an “equally” matched conflict. This is tactical propaganda. If looked for, it is openly visible in the current struggle for Palestinian liberation.

Mainstream media has constantly berated fighters in Gaza for using armed resistance in the face of overwhelming occupation. A principle mechanism of this berating has been the method of blaming-both-sides equally, regardless of the lopsided causalities of Israel’s current and past military offensives. Hamas, an entity ironically helped to prominence by Mossad as a counterweight to the PLO, has been dubbed the central objector to proposed ceasefires by Israel, Egypt, and humanitarian agencies despite the fact that Israel has far more frequently been the provocateur. After Hamas does reject any ceasefire terms, the question of Palestinian Gandhi is mouthed ad nauseam.

But there can be no great peace negotiator when every ceasefire calls for the continuation of Palestinian oppression. Such proposals are not negotiations — they are the demands of a wolf clothed in the rhetoric of the sheep to elicit international sympathy. Palestinians know this, and by majority they have claimed acceptance of such a ceasefire would be a condition of living death.

In the film Rang de Basanti,a historical fiction of Bhagat Singh and his comrades’ revolutionary actions, a group of young friends retrace and relive the struggle for Indian independence. In the course of their reenactment they discover the corruption of their own government through the death of a loved one and come to understand Singh’s motivations for armed struggle. When they attempt to nonviolently challenge the corruption that led to their friend’s death, they are met with brutal repression, another of them having been beaten into a coma.

They assassinate the Defense Minister of the Indian government, the man responsible, in response. As the Indian government attributes the assassination to terrorists, effectively martyring a corrupt official, in their last act the group seizes a radio station to finally tell the truth about the corruption they acted against. They, like Singh, willingly die for the people they love.

Whether or not their actions were warranted they did something far too many have not: They realized that in order for nonviolence to work, those trying to kill you have to care about you.

Israel’s Zionist government does not care about Palestinians. The so-called terrorism Israel says it is fighting, in reality, is the armed resistance created by the terrorism it commits. If Israel were really concerned with the alleged “terrorism” of Hamas, its most prudent action would be to immediately cease participating in the terrorizing of Palestinians. Such is the nature of cyclical violence, but by no means is it equivalent when one party has the 6th most powerful military in the world and the backing of United States military power while the other has rocks and homemade rockets. 

But this is at the core of asking “Where is Palestinian Gandhi,” to delegitimize Gazan resistance by decoupling the material reality of occupation from the right to self-defense. Jeff Sluka captured it well in National Liberation Movements in Global Context:

“The condemnation of liberation movements for resorting to… armed struggle is almost invariably superficial, hypocritical, judgmental, and unfair and tends strongly to represent another example of the generalized phenomenon of “blaming the victim.” The violence of the situation, the per-existing oppression suffered by those who eventually strike back, is conveniently ignored. The violence of the oppressed is a form of defensive counter-violence to the violence of conquest and oppression. In no armed national liberation movement I know of in history has this not been the case.”

After decades of war on Palestinians, Israel has threaded through itself a clearly defined and widely endorsed, yet often unarticulated, acceptance of violent oppression. It is a fully rationalized phenomenon for its government, with full confidence of Israeli Zionists and their sympathizers abroad, to carry out odious acts of state-sanctioned terrorism against Palestinians. Yet when those murdered, so clearly revealed in the scope of recent events, grow weary enough to fight against occupation, their resistance is totally fetishized, their humanity dehumanized. 

As in the lived and cinematic experience of Singh’s life, getting past the Gandhi myth is essential to understanding the material reality of what is happening on the ground in Gaza today. This understanding must lay bare the conditions of occupation, colonization, and apartheid. When we fully grasp this we ought to remember a people’s natural right to armed resistance. Blaming Palestinians for fighting oppression from a racist, Zionist government is outright victim-blaming. It makes us tools of oppression.

If we really must ask “Where is Palestinian Gandhi,” we should realize they likely are buried under the rubble of an Israeli missile.

(Photo Credit: Lucid Strike)

Still and always relevant.

Reblogged from America Wakie Wakie

america-wakiewakie:

Americans Don’t Actually Know Who They’re Bombing | YouGov
There is a great deal of confusion as to where, exactly, the US is conducting air and drone strikes, though the public does tend to support ongoing campaigns
On Tuesday this week the Pentagon revealed that it had launched air and drone strikes aimed at killing the head of the Somali Islamist group al-Shabaab, Ahmed Abdi Godane. While it is still unclear whether the operation was successful, it does not mark a major shift in US policy, which has seen the US launch attacks on al-Shabaab in Somalia before. US military action in Somalia is ongoing alongside the the US presence in Afghanistan, the continued drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and the recent decision to begin bombing ISIS militants in Iraq. 
YouGov’s latest research shows that many Americans are confused about where, exactly, the US is bombing. Most Americans are aware of the ongoing campaign in Iraq, and people tend to be aware of the strikes in Afghanistan. Less than a quarter of the public are aware that the US has recently launched strikes in Somalia, Pakistan or Yemen. 30% also say, incorrectly, that the US has recently conducted bombings in Syria and only 32% of Americans know that the US has not in fact launched air or drone strikes in Syria. 
Most Americans support conducting air or drone strikes in Iraq (60%), Afghanistan (54%) and Syria (51%). They also tend to support the ongoing drone campaigns in Somalia (45%), Pakistan (45%) and Yemen (38%). They would also tend to approve (38%) rather than disapprove (33%) of conducting drone strikes in Iran. 29% of Americans say that they would approve of the US bombing Gaza and Ukraine. 
The most recent use of US force in Iraq saw American firepower used to assist Iraqi, Kurdish and Shia forces in their offensive against ISIS to lift the siege of Amerli, a town populated by minority Turkmen. 
Full poll results can be found here. (Photo Credit: Screenshot from Lee Camps Redacted Tonight)

america-wakiewakie:

Americans Don’t Actually Know Who They’re Bombing | YouGov

There is a great deal of confusion as to where, exactly, the US is conducting air and drone strikes, though the public does tend to support ongoing campaigns

On Tuesday this week the Pentagon revealed that it had launched air and drone strikes aimed at killing the head of the Somali Islamist group al-Shabaab, Ahmed Abdi Godane. While it is still unclear whether the operation was successful, it does not mark a major shift in US policy, which has seen the US launch attacks on al-Shabaab in Somalia before. US military action in Somalia is ongoing alongside the the US presence in Afghanistan, the continued drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and the recent decision to begin bombing ISIS militants in Iraq. 

YouGov’s latest research shows that many Americans are confused about where, exactly, the US is bombing. Most Americans are aware of the ongoing campaign in Iraq, and people tend to be aware of the strikes in Afghanistan. Less than a quarter of the public are aware that the US has recently launched strikes in Somalia, Pakistan or Yemen. 30% also say, incorrectly, that the US has recently conducted bombings in Syria and only 32% of Americans know that the US has not in fact launched air or drone strikes in Syria. 

Most Americans support conducting air or drone strikes in Iraq (60%), Afghanistan (54%) and Syria (51%). They also tend to support the ongoing drone campaigns in Somalia (45%), Pakistan (45%) and Yemen (38%). They would also tend to approve (38%) rather than disapprove (33%) of conducting drone strikes in Iran. 29% of Americans say that they would approve of the US bombing Gaza and Ukraine. 

The most recent use of US force in Iraq saw American firepower used to assist Iraqi, Kurdish and Shia forces in their offensive against ISIS to lift the siege of Amerli, a town populated by minority Turkmen. 

Full poll results can be found here. (Photo Credit: Screenshot from Lee Camps Redacted Tonight)

(via america-wakiewakie)

Reblogged from America Wakie Wakie

america-wakiewakie:


Urban Outfitters Offers ‘Vintage’ Faux Blood-Stained Kent State Sweatshirt | TPM
Popular clothing retailer Urban Outfitters has taken heat for selling a faux blood-stained, “vintage” sweatshirt evoking the Kent State University shootings of 1970.


The mocked-up sweatshirt appeared on the retailer’s website Sunday evening. It appeared to be a reference to the shooting of college students by the Ohio National Guard in May 1970, complete with splotches of fake blood. The company’s website never described it as a reference to the shooting, however.
The product immediately invited backlash on social media.
By Monday morning, UrbanOutfitters.com listed the item as “sold out,” and any attempt to visit the product page displayed a notification without an image of the sweatshirt.
On Monday morning Urban Outfitters responded with an apology, addressing the sweartshirt’s bloody apperance.
"The red stains are discoloration from the original shade of the shirt and the holes are from natural wear and fray,” the statement read.
(Read Full Text) (Photo Credit: AmericaWakieWakie)

america-wakiewakie:

The mocked-up sweatshirt appeared on the retailer’s website Sunday evening. It appeared to be a reference to the shooting of college students by the Ohio National Guard in May 1970, complete with splotches of fake blood. The company’s website never described it as a reference to the shooting, however.

The product immediately invited backlash on social media.

By Monday morning, UrbanOutfitters.com listed the item as “sold out,” and any attempt to visit the product page displayed a notification without an image of the sweatshirt.

On Monday morning Urban Outfitters responded with an apology, addressing the sweartshirt’s bloody apperance.

"The red stains are discoloration from the original shade of the shirt and the holes are from natural wear and fray,” the statement read.

(Read Full Text) (Photo Credit: AmericaWakieWakie)

(via cultureofresistance)

Source america-wakiewakie

Reblogged from America Wakie Wakie

To replace private wars by a compulsory and lucrative judicial system, to impose a judicial system where one is—at one and the same time—judge, party to the dispute and tax collector, instead of a system of deals and settlements, to impose a judicial system which secures, guarantees and increases by significant amounts the levy on the product of constraint. It could not be imposed without armed force: wherever a feudal lord disposed of sufficient military power to enforce his ‘peace’ it was possible for him to impose juridical and fiscal levies. Having become a source of income, judgeships developed in the direction of the division of private property. But supported by the force of arms they developed in the direction of its ever increasing concentration. This dual development led to the ‘classical’ result: when, during the fourteenth century the feudal lords were faced with the great peasant and urban revolts, they sought the support of a centralized power, army and taxation system: and in this emergency there arose, together with the provincial High Courts, the King’s Procurators, official prosecutions, legislation against beggars, vagabonds, idlers, and before long the early rudimentary forms of police and a centralized judicial system. This was the embryonic state judicial apparatus which was superimposed upon, duplicated and controlled the feudal judges and their fiscal rights, but which allowed them to continue to function. There thus sprang up a ‘judicial’ order which had the appearance of the expression of public power: an arbitrator both neutral and with authority, of whom the task was both to ‘justly’ resolve disputes and to exercise ‘authority’ in the maintenance of public order. It was on these foundations, of social struggles, the levying of taxes and the concentration of armed force, that the juridical apparatus was erected.

Michel Foucault | On Popular Justice: A Discussion with Maoists (1971)

Reblogged from America Wakie Wakie

For instance, the World Bank is essentially an American instrument, and the United States is a food-surplus nation threatened with loss of foreign markets for farm products as modernization of European agriculture proceeds. For the World Bank to finance such institutional reforms in developing nations as would lead them toward self-sufficiency on food account would run counter to American interests. U.S. farm surpluses would become unmanageable as the overseas market for U.S. farm products dwindled. Hence, the World Bank prefers perpetuation of world poverty to the development of adequate overseas capacity to feed the peoples of developing countries.

There is a yet more subtle point to be considered. Mineral resources represent diminishing assets. It is in the interest of developing peoples to conserve such assets for their own ultimate use in manufacturing industries, as these develop within the borders of nations rich in raw materials but backward in general development. In the short run such domestic use of mineral resources is not possible because of inadequate industrial capital and consumer markets place. The specter is thus raised that in the long run these countries will find themselves depleted of resources as World Bank programs accelerate the exploitation of their mineral deposits for use by other nations.

The long-term prospect is thus for these countries to be unable to earn foreign exchange on export account sufficient to finance their required food imports. The World Bank has foreseen this. Its proposals for population limitation in these countries is a cold-blooded attempt to extort from them their mineral resources, without assuming responsibility for the sustenance of these peoples once the industrialized West has stripped them of their fuel and mineral deposits.

Consider the alternative, that World Bank loans and technical assistance foster agricultural self-sufficiency among these peoples. Assume substantial success in this endeavor in, say, a decade. Thereafter, exportation of fuels and minerals would become a matter of choice by these peoples, not a necessity. Such export might continue at current levels; it might increase, or it might diminish. The decision to conserve or to dissipate exhaustible resources would be autonomous, a matter of choice by these peoples and their governments, not something imposed upon them from outside. The decision about desirable levels of population also would be a local matter, not something demanded among the terms on which capital resources are obtained from foreign suppliers. The peoples now dependent would escape that trap. This is not intended or desired either by the World Bank or by the government of the United States and its client regimes….

Excessive industrialization in the United States, coupled with increasingly wasteful uses of resources on armaments and on personal luxuries that are essentially trivial in terms of human well-being, makes essential the U.S. exploitation of the developing countries, their resources and peoples. The United States is in deficit on raw-materials account, but is unwilling to limit its industrial expansion correspondingly. It is in surplus on farm products account, but is unwilling to limit its agriculture accordingly. The peoples of developing countries therefore are to be turned into the instrument through which the otherwise untenable U.S. economic process is perpetuated.

Michael Hudson | Super-Imperialism

jp morgan fired him for writing this stuff in the early 70s

(via antoine-roquentin)

(via america-wakiewakie)

mochamistress:

scum-baguette:

instagore:

kwamejaw:

tw-koreanhistory:

Gone In 41 Seconds — Police Quick to Kill Korean Artist

Feb 24, 2008

LA HABRA, Calif. — On the afternoon of December 31, 2007, two police officers encountered Michael Cho in the parking lot of a liquor store in La Habra, a small, generally quiet city in Orange County, California. It didn’t take long for the meeting to go bad. After less than a minute the officers unleashed a barrage of bullets on the 25-year-old artist, ending his life - and setting off an ongoing cascade of protests across Southern California’s Korean American community.

Computerized police logs obtained by New America Media suggest the officers quickly turned to deadly force when they confronted Cho, whom they suspected of vandalism. According to the Computer Automated Transcript documenting the incident, at 2:04 p.m. the cops contacted their dispatcher to say they’d located Cho. “Out with the subject near the liquor store,” the transcript reads. Just 41 seconds later they radioed dispatch again, this time saying they’d shot the suspect and now needed paramedics to attend to him. “Shot fired, Suspect down, Medics requested,” reads the transcript. In the aftermath of the killing, Cho’s family has publicly condemned the department, saying the officers rushed to shoot Cho, rather than using less lethal tools like pepper spray or Taser stun guns to subdue him.

“The police killed my son like a dog,” Cho’s mother, Honglan Cho, recently told the La Habra City Council. According to Shelly Lynn Kaufman, an attorney for the Cho family, the fusillade of bullets left ten holes in his body.

Read More: http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ad58d8b8031a47854d3676200f5c5be5 

This is nuts. I work in La Habra and I frequent the city a lot. Whether its in LA county, Orange County, America or abroad people of color are not safe at the hands of the police.

cant believe dispatcher said “shot fired” when it was way more than one

what the fuck

"This isn’t first time in recent memory that La Habra officers have killed a suspect. According to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, since July of 2004 La Habra cops have been embroiled in four shootings, killing two suspects and wounding two others. The record makes the La Habra Police Department one of the most deadly law enforcement agencies in a county with over 20 different municipal police departments.

According to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, since July of 2004, 49 police shootings involving 17 different police departments have occurred in Orange County; the shootings killed 35 and injured 21. The Santa Ana and Anaheim police departments, among the largest cities in the county, tallied the highest number of shootings with eight incidents each, followed by the far smaller La Habra and Fullerton departments, which were each embroiled in four shooting incidents. According to the most recent FBI statistics, Santa Ana and Anaheim employ 360 and 410 officers respectively. La Habra has 70 officers and Fullerton has 158 officers.”

fucking awesome. so proud. thanks guys.

How many of us are going to die before we take the power away from the police?

(via koreaunderground)