#economic reconciliation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

niriqatiginnga · 9 months

Text

#community #participatory research #manitoba #winnipeg #Indigenous #entrepreneurship #economic reconciliation #inclusion

0 notes

vonlipvig · 8 months

Text

ooh found some good guides for some suzerain runs i definitely wanna follow.

never mind that it says you need to manually modify the code to activate an event because it's bugged and i probably won't know how to do that and i will cry about it but HELL YEAH let's go for it!

#it's bugged? well unbug it what if i touch the code and the whole game explodes huh #but yeah maybe i'll try for that rumburg reconciliation run before we go full war #also THERE ARE SECRET STATS? what the fuck is economic development AH MAN THATS WHY IM ALWAYS IN A DEPRESSION #according to jules

3 notes · View notes

mexicanistnet · 6 months

Text

Mexico's tourism soars with 16.7 million international visitors from Jan-Oct 2023, surpassing pre-pandemic levels by 13.8%. U.S., Canada, and Colombia lead the influx, contributing to economic growth and social reconciliation. Airport hubs like Cancun see record numbers.

#Mexico tourism #international visitors #economic growth #social reconciliation #Airport hubs #Cancun

0 notes

fursasaida · 5 months

Text

This article is from 2022, but it came up in the context of Palestine:

Here are some striking passages, relevant to all colonial aftermaths but certainly also to the forms we see Zionist reaction taking at the moment:

Over the decade I lived in South Africa, I became fascinated by this white minority [i.e. the whole white population post-apartheid as a minority in the country], particularly its members who considered themselves progressive. They reminded me of my liberal peers in America, who had an apparently self-assured enthusiasm about the coming of a so-called majority-minority nation. As with white South Africans who had celebrated the end of apartheid, their enthusiasm often belied, just beneath the surface, a striking degree of fear, bewilderment, disillusionment, and dread.

[...]

Yet these progressives’ response to the end of apartheid was ambivalent. Contemplating South Africa after apartheid, an Economist correspondent observed that “the lives of many whites exude sadness.” The phenomenon perplexed him. In so many ways, white life remained more or less untouched, or had even improved. Despite apartheid’s horrors—and the regime’s violence against those who worked to dismantle it—the ANC encouraged an attitude of forgiveness. It left statues of Afrikaner heroes standing and helped institute the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which granted amnesty to some perpetrators of apartheid-era political crimes.

But as time wore on, even wealthy white South Africans began to radiate a degree of fear and frustration that did not match any simple economic analysis of their situation. A startling number of formerly anti-apartheid white people began to voice bitter criticisms of post-apartheid society. An Afrikaner poet who did prison time under apartheid for aiding the Black-liberation cause wrote an essay denouncing the new Black-led country as “a sewer of betrayed expectations and thievery, fear and unbridled greed.”

What accounted for this disillusionment? Many white South Africans told me that Black forgiveness felt like a slap on the face. By not acting toward you as you acted toward us, we’re showing you up, white South Africans seemed to hear. You’ll owe us a debt of gratitude forever.

The article goes on to discuss:

"Mau Mau anxiety," or the fear among whites of violent repercussions, and how this shows up in reported vs confirmed crime stats - possibly to the point of false memories of home invasion

A sense of irrelevance and alienation among this white population, leading to another anxiety: "do we still belong here?"

The sublimation of this anxiety into self-identification as a marginalized minority group, featuring such incredible statements as "I wanted to fight for Afrikaners, but I came to think of myself as a ‘liberal internationalist,’ not a white racist...I found such inspiration from the struggles of the Catalonians and the Basques. Even Tibet" and "[Martin Luther] King [Jr.] also fought for a people without much political representation … That’s why I consider him one of my most important forebears and heroes,” from a self-declared liberal environmentalist who also thinks Afrikaaners should take back government control because they are "naturally good" at governance

Some discussion of the dynamics underlying these reactions, particularly the fact that "admitting past sins seem[ed] to become harder even as they receded into history," and US parallels

And finally, in closing:

The Afrikaner journalist Rian Malan, who opposed apartheid, has written that, by most measures, its aftermath went better than almost any white person could have imagined. But, as with most white progressives, his experience of post-1994 South Africa has been complicated. [...]

He just couldn’t forgive Black people for forgiving him. Paradoxically, being left undisturbed served as an ever-present reminder of his guilt, of how wrongly he had treated his maid and other Black people under apartheid. “The Bible was right about a thing or two,” he wrote. “It is infinitely worse to receive than to give, especially if … the gift is mercy.”

#south africa #apartheid #colonialism #palestine

13K notes · View notes

otherworldlyinfo · 10 months

Text

WallyGPT: The Growth of Wally and Revolutionizing Personal Finance

The Birth of Wally: A Solution to Common WoesWally’s Early Days: Bridging the Gap with Machine LearningVersion 3.0: Automated Tracking and Global ReachWallyGPT Emerges: The AI RevolutionHyper-Personalization at Its Finest: WallyGPT in ActionGlobal Impact and Data Privacy AssuranceEmpowering Through Uncertainty: Navigating Economic ChallengesA Journey of Innovation and Empowerment with…

View On WordPress

1 note · View note

howdoesone · 11 months

Text

How does one assess the effectiveness of truth and reconciliation processes in addressing war crimes?

Assessing the Effectiveness of Truth and Reconciliation Processes in Addressing War Crimes Introduction Truth and reconciliation processes have emerged as important mechanisms for addressing war crimes and human rights abuses in societies recovering from conflict. These processes aim to uncover the truth about past atrocities, provide justice for victims, promote healing and reconciliation, and…

View On WordPress

0 notes

ice-devourer · 1 year

Text

economics and its battalion of graphs will be the death of me fr

#like STOP i plan on specializing in taxes and bank reconciliation not this why do i have to go thru this and be EXAMED on it WHYYY (T — T)#i love all my major subjects EXCEPT this thing AAARGHHH #im motivating myself by dangling bsd manga reading time like a carrot hanging from a stick #‘u can read once u finish economics’#memo entry

0 notes

saxafimedianetwork · 2 years

Text

A Self-Portrait Of Somaliland: Rebuilding From The Ruins

This #document is truly a #collaborative product & the #participants were the people of #Somaliland who are engaged in #rebuilding their #society & #lives from #ruin. This document is about their #story, #hopes, #worries & #actions. By @AcademyApd

(more…)

View On WordPress

0 notes

allthecanadianpolitics · 3 months

Text

An Indigenous woman has announced her intent to run for the leadership of Alberta’s NDP. This follows former Alberta premier Rachel Notley's recent announcement that she is stepping down as party leader after almost 10 years. Jodi Calahoo Stonehouse was elected as the MLA for Edmonton-Rutherford in May 2023 and garnered acclaim as the first First Nations woman to be elected to the Alberta Legislature, and the first to run for leader. She is the second Indigenous woman, to Pearl Calahasen, Metis, elected in 1989. Calahoo Stonehouse is a member of the Michel First Nation, a mother to five children with an extensive resume, including an arts degree and a Masters in Science and Resource Economics. Before her career in politics, she was the reconciliation advisor to the president and vice provost at the University of Alberta, and most recently, the Executive Director of the Yellowhead Indigenous Education Foundation.

Tagging @politicsofcanada @abpoli

#cdnpoli #canada #canadian politics #canadian news #alberta #alberta ndp #first nations #michel first nation #jodi calahoo stonehouse

150 notes · View notes

reasonsforhope · 11 months

Text

"After its first-ever left-wing presidential administration took charge of negotiating permanent peace with the socialist FARC rebels, Colombia’s forests are feeling the effects with a 26% reduction in deforestation in the conflict areas.

These dense, biodiverse rainforests that are a part of the Amazon in places, and independent of it in others, have been one of the many victims of the country’s civil war.

However, President Gustavo Petro is conducting peace negotiations that put the environment first with around 20 splinter factions of the FARC guerillas, who have responded positively.

De-facto leadership in the conflict areas in the forested state of Gauviare has instituted its own deforestation moratorium, and an estimated 50,000 hectares of rainforest have been saved as a result.

“This is really dramatic,” conservationist Rodrigo Botero told The Guardian. “It’s the highest reduction in deforestation and forest fires that there has been in two decades.”

The Guardian recently covered these peace negotiations alongside a delegation from Norway which included that country’s environment minister, Espen Barth Eide.

“What I’m hearing, seeing, and feeling in these meetings is that there is an enhanced understanding that you cannot build a new Colombia on the basis of the further deterioration of nature, so you have to find an economic, social, political, inclusive process that is more respectful towards nature than before,” Barth told the English paper.

Often flying under the radar when compared to its neighbor Brazil, Colombia is the second-most biodiverse country on Earth, and the most biodiverse in terms of bird life.

It’s the 25th-highest country in the world for Forest Integrity Index score (8.26) and boasts twice as many square miles of highly-intact forest than of poorly-intact forest, almost all of which resides in the conflicted states of Amazonia, Caquetá, and Putumayo.

If the Petro government can really put the brakes on the conversion of forests into pastureland for cattle, it would be helping to save one of the most valuable tropical forest ecosystems on Earth."

-via Good News Network, 7/14/23

#colombia #latin america #amazon #amazon rainforest #amazonia #putumayo #petro government #civil war #conservation #biodiversity #good news #hope #hope posting

388 notes · View notes

nimas-li-kvar · 4 months

Note

well, why not exactly like south africa? why not like any other arab country where muslims and christians and atheists and hindus live side-by-side just fine? why not like the diverse western nations that finance your state's existence? what exactly about palestinians is so Inherently Evil And Irredeemable (bc that is honestly how you sound) that they would not have the humanity and morality to treat people like people?

it's always the same fear of the day after. white south africans are alive. white american colonisers are fucking thriving. same in australia, in new zealand. immigrants to arab countries lead entire lives there. why not like any of them?

What an exhausting, insulting question... that truly has nothing to do with anything I said. I was speaking about Hamas and leftists who support their aims to dismantle Israel, not the Palestinian people.

I have never said that it’s impossible that Muslims, Christians, Jews, (and Samaritans, Druze, etc.) will live side-by-side. They already do, in Israel. There is discrimination, but they do indeed live side-by-side. What I said was that it will not happen under Hamas rule. Which is an objective fact. The Gaza strip, by the way, is currently 98% Muslim.

I also never said that Palestinians are “inherently evil and irredeemable,” nor did I imply it. You lie in order to paint me, as an Israeli, as hateful. I am not. I spoke only of Hamas. Your conflation of a militant terrorist group with civilians is unfortunate. Hamas has proven time and time again that they do not have the humanity to treat people like people. I said nothing of the Palestinian people.

While I owe you nothing, I'll have you know that I am absolutely in favor of steps towards a peaceful solution and mutual recognition of both nations. I think it is outrageous that there are Palestinian detainees held without charge. I find the number of deaths in Gaza an unacceptable collective punishment. I am supportive of cultural and economic efforts towards reconciliation (e.g., bilingual Arab-Jewish schools and summer camps, joint activism efforts, organizations that promote dialogue and cross-cultural events, shared efforts to help victims of violence, cultural exchange and language learning initiatives). I think the current government is a disaster. I want to see a world where Jews, Christians, and Muslims—and Samaritans, Druze, and Baháʼís—live in peace together in that land. The fact that you saw me saying that Hamas would enact genocide if given the chance (which is true) and interpreted that as me saying Palestinians are “inherently evil” (which I did not say) is truly sad.

The reality is Hamas is not a resistance group. It is an Islamic ultranationalist militaristic dictatorship that has kept its citizens as prisoners by stealing international aid and running military operations to commit war crimes from under schools and hospitals. It is a terrorist group that rapes, murders, and tortures civilians, including children and infants. Peace in the region will not be possible without a demilitarized Gaza. Hamas rule is incompatible with peace. If you support Hamas, you support the violent expulsion or genocide of Israeli Jews from our homeland. You can (and should) be in support of Palestinian self-determination. This belief is also incompatible with support for Hamas. Israeli war crimes do not absolve Hamas's war crimes.

Another thing I find interesting is that you refer to a dismantled Israel as “another Arab country,” and in the same breath claim that Jews would continue to live there. I wonder, was it a coincidence that you failed to list Jews in your list of religions living side-by-side, or are you aware that there are very, very few Jews living in Arab countries today? In case you are unaware, the absence of Jews from the Arabian peninsula, the Mesopotamian region, and North Africa is a result of diasporic Jewish minorities fleeing, being expelled, and/or being ethnically cleansed. Prior to that, they lived with second class status (dhimmis) under Islamic rule. As an Israeli Jew, I cannot set foot in many Arab countries today. Is that your version of coexistence?

And let us be clear: The remaining ethnic minority groups do not live in peace in the Muslim-majority countries of the region. The examples are endless. The genocide of the Yazidis by the Islamic State. The Houthi persecution of Yemenite Jews and Baháʼís. The displaced Christians from the Syrian civil war. The Middle East is rife with examples of radicalized religious extremists being entirely incompatible with coexistence with minority groups.

Yet, in your list of co-existing religions, you picked Hinduism: a minority religion that, while practiced in some Middle Eastern countries, is not indigenous to the region. Perhaps you did this in ignorance. Perhaps it was an attempt to support your point that some immigrants and migrants can indeed lead reasonable lives in Arab countries (e.g., Indian expats in the Emirates or Saudi Arabia), as ethnic minorities with a homeland to return to. Needless to say, it's an irrelevant and feeble attempt to claim that religions currently coexist well in the Muslim-majority countries. As a whole, they do not.

Let's talk about your list of colonizers next. White South Africans being alive has nothing to do with Israel. White people thriving in the USA, Australia, and New Zealand have nothing to do with Israel. Those examples are particularly bizarre anyway, as, excepting South Africa, you’ve picked countries where the colony essentially remained in place and became the ethnic majority. But none of these colonies have anything to do with Israel, because Israel is not a colony.

Jews are indigenous to Israel. We are one of a small number of indigenous Levantine ethnic groups who call that land home. The word colony requires a context we do not have–a colony for what country? What existing country is expanding territory? We are a 4000 year old nation, many of us displaced by the Romans, and who, after 2000 years of oppression and genocide both in the diaspora and in our homeland, won our independence from the occupying force in power at the time: the British. We have nothing to do with European colonizers. You cannot colonize your own homeland.

Again, that does not mean I support the Israeli government or the IDF's actions. I fully believe Palestinians also deserve self-determination in our shared land. Our status does not change the Palestinian story. It does not undo their suffering. The situation in Gaza is untenable and an outrage. Our status does not change the inhumane conditions that Israel, along with other countries (like Egypt) have placed on the population of Gaza.

But Jews being indigenous to the region matters—because the context to understand Israel is not one of colonizer-colonized. Ours is an ethnic conflict in the context independence after a long history of many colonial powers (British, Ottoman, etc.), a wider political context of Arabization and oppression of ethnic/religious minority groups in the entire Middle East, as well as a global context of hatred of Jews and Arabs, and of Western meddling.

It also matters because it highlights the fact that Palestinians are our cousins—both because many Palestinians are likely decedents of Jews, Samaritans, etc. who were Arabized and forcibly converted Islam—but also because the Arabs are our cousins too. It is important to remember that this is an ethnic conflict, and not a situation in which one group can "go home." We have to find a way to coexist. Hamas is not that way.

Is “leading a life,” as you say, enough? Well, we wouldn't be able to, under Hamas. They have made that clear. But even if a Hamas-led state made room for dhimmi-status Jewish Israelis, then no, it would not be enough. (Remember, it is not even enough for many Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship to live under our state with full rights.) Self-determination is important. Maintenance of language and culture is important. Statehood matters, for both Palestinians and Israelis. I do not believe we are ready for a fully unified state. Perhaps we never will be. But whatever the solution, it is imperative that both people have self-determination in their homeland.

And be it a unified democratic binational state, a single federal government with autonomous cantons/states that govern themselves, a "two states, one homeland" two state confederation, a fully-realized two state solution, or any other solution: the violent—and yes, evil—Hamas regime can play no part.

#israel palestine conflict #israel #palestine #westoid leftoids at it again #leftist antisemitism #jumblr

118 notes · View notes

qu33nb3337 · 2 months

Text

Eloise and Cressida, my thoughts.

I’ve seen quite a few posts about these two but nothing that really reflected my perspective, so here goes.

Cressida

I’m actually excited to dig into her character more, to this point she has been a two dimensional villain which I understand. As the audience we aren’t meant to like Cressida. In the books, the Bridgertons and Penelope dislike her due to her cutting remarks and slimy nature. She is a straight forward villain with no complexities to her character. However the show delves into the shades of grey around the characters and presents them all as flawed complicated beings which means this book narrative of Cressida doesn’t really fit within that. I’m excited to find out what lies beneath.

I also think this friendship will begin to introduce Benedict’s Sophie’s storyline as I think Sophie’s stepfamily will be the Cowpers. It will provide a link between the Bridgerton’s and Sophie and the show loves a link.

Eloise

I think Eloise has been behaving like a typical girl her age, she’s a teenager and as such she thinks the world revolves around her. Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Eloise’s character, she has some cracking lines and Claudia Jessie plays her brilliantly. However Eloise is very caught up in herself.

When it comes to her friendship with Penelope she assumes that Penelope wants what she wants, thinks what she thinks and doesn’t ever really consider that might not be true. Eloise is blind to their very differing social standing, very different family situations and dynamics and how that affects them. As we saw in season 1, Eloise didn’t believe Penelope would be interested in marriage because she herself is not interested in it. Eloise has a supportive family, who despite their bickering want happiness for each other. Penelope has a family that constantly mocks, belittles and dismisses her. Eloise can depend on her family, Penelope can not. The Bridgertons are able to weather a certain amount of scandal whereas the Featheringtons cannot. Which would mean, regardless of whether Penelope wanted an epic love story or not Eloise should have been aware enough of her friends situation to know that she likely would need to marry for economic reasons if nothing else.

I am not convinced that Eloise is aware of Penelope’s crush. The line from the trailer from Eloise to Colin about since when did he care about Penelope suggests that she may not. When I look back at the last two seasons there’s no evidence to suggest that she is aware. She wouldn’t have seen them dancing in either season. The first season she wasn’t at the balls because she wasn’t out yet and the second season, we only saw Colin and Pan dance once at the Featherington ball and Eloise would have been ransacking Pen’s room at the time. Whenever Colin and Pen are talking in season 2 Eloise would show up and whisk Pen away which could be indicative of how she views their conversations as trivial and unimportant. I don’t think she is aware that they have formed their own relationship separate to her. I think she will have assumed they converse because of her, she is the link and without her what would they have to talk about.

However Eloise questioning Colin in the trailer about whether Penelope is trying to make him her husband could be because she is aware of the crush but has chosen to ignore it? I don’t know. I am interested to see how they play it.

I think what I am getting at is that Eloise doesn’t really know Pen like Pen knows her. Their friendship isn’t equal, Pen is desperate to please Eloise as we saw in season 2 when she writes a whistledown article that reflects Eloise’s thoughts about womanhood. I think their falling out will have a big impact on Eloise and their journey to reconciliation will be key to her her developing into from a teenager to an adult. To Eloise realising that others thoughts and opinions are different to her own but just as valid, that not everyone is as they appear to be, that her life whether she likes it or not is changing. I think her relationships with her siblings will develop, she will hopefully begin to see that they are all carrying a burden and are all a little lost.

I am hopeful that her friendship with Cressida will start some of these things in motion. It must lead her to question what she thinks of people if she befriends a person she believed to be awful. I don’t think she has befriended her to spite Penelope. I think they bond over something and I think Eloise will see the complexities of Cressida’s character and really learn that friendship is just as complex which will lead her to reflect on what happened with Penelope.

That’s my two cents. I could be wrong. I often am. What do you think?

#bridgerton #bridgerton season 3 #eloise bridgerton #cressida #polin #authors #colin x penelope #colin bridgerton

50 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 2 years

Note

I'm seeing a lot of leftists complain about Biden not being able to do anything and how Republican presidents were able to write executive orders for seemingly whatever they wanted, and I got confused. So i wanted to ask: why does it seem like Republicans can pass whatever they want whenever they want but Democrats can't?

Welp. This is, yet again, another Online Leftist "argument" that isn't correct, doesn't give an accurate view of the situation, and doesn't propose any helpful alternatives. I know that the Republicans can often feel like an overwhelming and unstoppable evil machine, but the truth is that despite the chaos and damage of Trump's four years to American democratic society and sociopolitical norms, he didn't actually pass much legislation -- even with a compliant Republican-controlled Congress from 2016-18. The Republicans didn't even succeed in legislatively repealing the ACA, despite trying zillions of times to do it, and mostly just passed tax cuts for rich people and other bad economic policy, since they could do it with budget reconciliation (the same process that Democrats used to pass the American Rescue Plan with only 50 votes in the Senate and no Republican support). Because budget/financial legislation isn't subject to the filibuster, the Republicans could pass it with the same simple-majority vote. But they didn't really succeed in doing much else.

Next, Trump's most onerous and infamous executive orders -- withdrawing from WHO and the Paris Agreement, the "Muslim Ban," etc etc -- were all in the list of things that Biden reversed on his first day in office. This is why, as myself and others have said, policy based solely on executive orders is never a long-lasting or ideal way to do something, since it's subject to instant repeal if an administration with different ideological priorities happens to succeed you. Besides, this whole "Biden should just executive order everything!!!" demand basically means that he should just... be Trump and try to exercise the presidency like a king? Online Leftists have no patience for or interest in the American democratic legislative process any more than the fascist wingnuts, and while I get the desire for a quick solution, that's still not going to be a magical panacea that fixes everything. It's not an excuse or an escape from having to put in the work.

Right now, Democratic control of Congress is slender and very contingent on whether Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema feel like supporting something in the Senate, and as long as they won't budge on reforming the filibuster, that means Democrats are likewise limited in what they can do from a legislative perspective. It's unfortunate that people deliberately don't understand that there's a huge difference between 60 Democratic senators and 50 Democratic senators, but there is, and since the Obama-era 59/60 Democratic Senate included seats in red states that a Democrat will never win again in the post-Trump era, it's always going to be a matter of very thin margins and major wrangling. None of this is to say that the Democrats shouldn't be doing more; obviously, they should, and I was sharply critical of Biden's initial response to the Roe overturn. Everything I have seen since has confirmed my opinion that the administration wasn't prepared, might not have thought it would really happen even after the draft leaked, and were wary of taking too "drastic" steps or openly trying to overrule the Supreme Court. This results from, as I have said before, Biden's over-reliance on his outdated belief that American democratic institutions will function more or less properly, even if they're currently staffed and controlled by terrible anti-democrat fascist evangelical nutcases. And that is... just not true, unfortunately.

That said, Biden has picked up the pace in recent days: he issued an executive order to maintain abortion access insofar as possible, the Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance that any federally funded hospital must provide a life-saving abortion regardless of state laws, Democrats in the Senate are trying to pass legislation preserving the right to travel out of state for care, and there is talk of Biden declaring a federal public health emergency, which would likewise preserve access at least in the life-threatening cases. None of this happened in the first weeks after the overturn, and I'm glad to see it happening now, even if there are still more steps to be taken. But as I have explained many, many times, an executive order does not magically work everything out and fix it immediately. It directs the relevant federal departments to come up with and implement a solution, and that still takes time and effort. And as I said, it is the least durable and most easily overturned form of policymaking, and should not be the option of first resort for any number of reasons.

The current leftist demand just seems to be "issue an executive order that instantly fixes everything and makes SCOTUS irrelevant so we don't have to feel any guilt about not voting for Clinton and laughing off everyone who warned us that this was going to happen." And that, likewise, is totally unrealistic. Biden can take concrete steps with his executive authority to ameliorate the situation to some degree; he has done some already, and hopefully will be pushed into more. But there is no way to simply remove SCOTUS as a major political piece, or make its decisions irrelevant, or wave our hand and pretend it doesn't exist. There are still obviously far more barriers to abortion care and access than there were while Roe was the law of the land, and that was the direct and intended result of them overturning it. That is not going to disappear.

Anyway. The claim that "Republicans can always do whatever they want and Democrats can't because they just don't try" is not true. As noted, the Republicans didn't actually do that much during Trump's time in office, and all their major victories now are coming as a result of the Republican-hijacked SCOTUS handing down decisions that are not easy to reverse, challenge, or otherwise get around. This is exactly why the Republicans played the long game with the direct goal being to capture the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, and why Democrats need to expand or significantly reform it if any of us plan on having any civil rights again in our lifetimes. But to do that, we need to get an actual working majority in the Senate, hold the House, and then keep the pressure up for the promised filibuster reform and subsequent legislation to actually get done. I know that pointing out that things take time and have concrete steps that need to be accomplished in a certain order isn't as satisfying or pithy as "just do it all now and stop making excuses!!!", but it is, alas, still the case.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts

1K notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 1 year

Note

Why has the American comics industry been so adverse to unionization? I've been reading through the Comics Broke Me hashtag on Twitter and I've realized how difficult it's been to even get meager compensation for work that provides the backbone for billion dollar smash hits.

I would highly recommend Abraham Josephine Riesman's biography of Stan Lee, True Believer, both as an excellent portrait of the man himself and how his industry changed across the decades. (Bell and Vassallo's Secret History of Marvel is also quite good on the early history of the company.)

When the comics industry emerged out of the pulp and magazine industry in the 30s, it was not the "backbone for billion dollar smash hits" that it is today - it was a low-rent, fly-by-night industry that was associated with pornography and organized crime. Notably, it was also an low-cost industry that sold a very cheap product (the original 10-cent comic was about $1.80 in today's money) to children. More on this in a bit.

Even when it suddenly experienced a sudden increase in popularity with Action Comics #1, everyone in the industry thought that it was a passing fad that would be temporary - and so there was less resistance to the work-for-hire system that bosses like Martin Goodman used to keep their costs down. Not no resistance - as Riesman notes, Jack Kirby and Joe Simon got pissed when Goodman started stiffing them on the profit-sharing from Captain America, so they started moonlighting at D.C, Stan Lee found out and snitched on them to his cousin-in-law/boss, and that led to them getting fired - but less.

However, there was another reason why it was hard to start a union in the comics industry, which is that a lot of comics creators were vaguely ashamed or embarrasse to be associated with it. Even before Wertham and the moral panic of the 1950s, comics were (as I've noted above) seen as a bit scuzzy, a form of disposable crass commercial entertainment aimed at an undiscerning audience of children, and certainly not respectable Real Art. While they were trying for their big break into the more prestigious worlds of fine art or literary fiction, writers and artists viewed their work in the comics industry as a day job that was best kept a bit under wraps - hence why Stanley Lieber only used the nom-de-plume Stan Lee for the comics, because he wanted to keep his then-real name for the career in novel-writing that he wanted to have.

Moreover, there was a particular ethnic angle to this distancing. As I've written a bit about before, there was a tendency among Jewish creators of this generation to keep Judaism subtextual and to change their names to keep their own Judaism subtextual - hence Stanley Lieber taking on a more gentile-sounding name, hence even a proud and pugnacious Jewish man like Jacob Kurtzberg choosing to go by Jack Kirby. Partly, this was done as a means of achieving economic opportunity in a society that wasn't exactly welcoming to creators with Jewish surnames. (Hence the line in the West Wing about Toby Ziegler going by Toby Ritchie when he worked as a telemarketer.) This is another reason why these Jewish creators were working in comics in the first place, because the "Mad Men" who ran the advertizing industry wouldn't hire them.

But partly it was done to avoid becoming a shanda fur die goyim - a Yiddish expression that means "a shame in front of the gentiles" - by associating the Jewish community with a (heavily Jewish) industry that was viewed as little more elevated than the schmatta trade in comparison to the prestigious world of art and literature. It's an old story - literally, it's the plot of The Jazz Singer, the first talkie about a Jewish entertainer (in blackface, unfortunately) and his conflict and eventual reconciliation with his more traditional family.

youtube

After comics went through its first big boom in WWII and then survived the crash in the 50s and saw the second big boom in the 60s, a lot of creators realized that the handshake work-for-hire deals that they had started with had screwed them out of a lot of money. This started some very high profile long-running lawsuits, as first Siegel and Shuster and later Kirby and Ditko sought to get a portion of the rights to the characters they had created. (Some of these lawsuits settled only a few days ago, and some are still ongoing.)

As Riesman explains, the Copyright Act of 1976 created an opening for comics creators by requiring that there be a written agreement between a work-for-hire creator and their employer establishing the transfer of copyright. This created an existential crisis for the Big Two comics companies, and the new Marvel Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter immediately tried to get his creators to sign one-page contracts transferring their rights. Hotshot artist Neal Adams urged creators to not sign the contract and invited them to a meeting at his place to discuss forming a union. Shooter retaliated by threatening to black ball anyone who joined Adams' organization - and this blatant violation of U.S labor law cowed comics creators into signing the contracts and signing away their rights and the drive to unionize comics died the same way a lot of union drives die.

Things have gotten a bit better in recent decades - the 90s comics boom and the departure of the Image guys improved the situation for creators' rights somewhat due to competitive pressure, but there are still significant problems when it comes to comics creators' access to health care, pensions, and other benefits. There have been some recent union wins - the Comic Book Workers United organized Image Comics - but these tend to be unions of staff workers rather than creators. There is the Cartoonists' Co-op, which is looking to move in the direction of acting like a union but is a very nascent organization that's a long way away from that yet. And it remains galling that the most that creators see from the billions made by Disney and Warner Brothers Discovery are $5,000 checks dispensed to keep them quiet.

It's not going to get better until writers and artists unionize.

#comics #comics meta #stan lee #jack kirby #jim shooter #labor history #trade unions #jewish history #subtextual judaism #cultural history #marvel #marvel meta #dc #dc meta

186 notes · View notes

why-am-i-not-fictional · 2 months

Text

Things to script - nature or status of realities

This is something I recently started inputting into my DRs to make them better and safe. I got much help from ChatGPT too to categorize all these things. I wanted to share it with you guys too :) feel free to use anything for your scripts. Happy Shifting!!!

All of the below discriminations does not exist in any of my DRs

Misogyny

Racism

Homophobia

Transphobia

Classism

Ableism

Ageism

Xenophobia

Islamophobia

Anti-Semitism

Colorism

Nationalism

Casteism

Environmental injustice

Sexism

Sizeism

Religious discrimination

Ethnic discrimination

Discrimination based on immigration status

Discrimination based on language

Discrimination based on nationality

Discrimination based on indigenous status

Discrimination based on political beliefs

Discrimination based on marital status

Discrimination based on parental status

Discrimination based on veteran status

Discrimination based on HIV/AIDS status

Discrimination based on neurodiversity

Discrimination based on mental health status

Discrimination based on physical appearance

Discrimination based on cultural practices

Discrimination based on regional or geographical origin

Discrimination based on caste or social status

Discrimination based on educational background

Discrimination based on housing status

Discrimination based on criminal record

Discrimination based on economic status

Discrimination based on access to healthcare

Discrimination based on access to education

Discrimination based on access to employment opportunities

All of the below issues have been solved many years ago and they do not exist in the times of any of my DRs

Poverty

Economic inequality

Environmental degradation

Climate change

Pollution

Deforestation

Political instability

Armed conflicts

Civil wars

Humanitarian crises

Global health challenges

Infectious diseases

Pandemics

Inadequate healthcare systems

Lack of access to essential medicines

Educational disparities

Limited access to quality education

Illiteracy

Child labor

Child marriage

Gender inequality

Women's rights violations

Child labor

Human trafficking

Forced labor

Modern slavery

Corruption

Lack of transparency

Ineffective governance

Authoritarian regimes

Suppression of free speech

Violations of human rights

Arbitrary detention

Torture

Persecution

Indigenous rights violations

Land grabs

Cultural appropriation

Technological and digital divides

Ethical dilemmas in technology

Privacy concerns

Data breaches

Cybersecurity threats

Food insecurity

Malnutrition

Water scarcity

Access to clean water

Sanitation issues

Homelessness

Housing affordability

Urbanization challenges

Aging population

Elder abuse

Mental health stigma

Lack of access to mental health services

Substance abuse

Addiction

Disability rights violations

Accessibility barriers

Stigmatization of disabilities

LGBTQ+ rights violations

Discrimination based on sexual orientation

Discrimination based on gender identity

Family rejection

Reproductive rights violations

Access to reproductive healthcare

Maternal mortality

Child mortality

Access to clean energy

Energy poverty

Fossil fuel dependence

Renewable energy transition challenges

Wildlife conservation

Endangered species protection

Animal rights violations

All the DRs I shift to are abundant of the following things

Compassion

Empathy

Cooperation

Collaboration

Sustainability

Environmental stewardship

Peacebuilding

Conflict resolution

Dialogue

Reconciliation

Education

Knowledge-sharing

Critical thinking

Cultural diversity

Cultural respect

Inclusivity

Equality

Justice

Ethical leadership

Integrity

Accountability

Service to others

Health promotion

Well-being

Healthcare access

Mental health support

Social support systems

Innovation

Creativity

Social justice

Fairness

Equity

Human rights

Freedom of expression

Freedom of assembly

Democratic governance

Rule of law

Transparency

Accountability mechanisms

Community empowerment

Grassroots activism

Civic engagement

Volunteerism

Philanthropy

Sustainable development

Responsible consumption

Renewable energy adoption

Conservation

Biodiversity protection

Animal welfare

Gender equality

Women's empowerment

LGBTQ+ rights

Disability rights

Indigenous rights

Racial equity

Anti-discrimination policies

Social welfare programs

Poverty alleviation

Economic empowerment

Access to education

Access to clean water

Sanitation infrastructure

Housing rights

Food security

Global cooperation

International aid and development

Humanitarian assistance

Conflict prevention

Diplomacy

Multilateralism

Solidarity

Tolerance

Forgiveness

Resilience

All of the DRs I shift into are currently successfully overcoming the following challenges as they rise

Sustaining Progress: Maintaining the momentum of positive change and preventing regression into previous discriminatory attitudes and practices.

Ensuring Equity: Addressing lingering disparities and ensuring that the benefits of progress are equitably distributed across all communities.

Adapting to Changing Circumstances: Remaining flexible and responsive to evolving societal needs, dynamics, and challenges over time.

Balancing Interests: Navigating competing interests, values, and priorities among diverse stakeholders in society.

Preventing Backlash: Mitigating potential backlash from individuals or groups who may resist or oppose efforts to eliminate discrimination and promote positive change.

Addressing Unforeseen Consequences: Anticipating and addressing unintended consequences or side effects of interventions aimed at addressing societal issues.

Managing Complexity: Dealing with the complexity of interconnected social, economic, political, and environmental systems, which may require interdisciplinary approaches and collaboration.

Maintaining Engagement: Sustaining public engagement, participation, and support for ongoing efforts to promote equality, justice, and well-being.

Ensuring Accountability: Holding individuals, institutions, and governments accountable for upholding principles of fairness, transparency, and ethical conduct.

Resisting Entrenched Power Structures: Challenging and dismantling entrenched power structures, systems of privilege, and institutionalized forms of discrimination.

Addressing Global Challenges: Collaborating internationally to address global challenges such as climate change, inequality, and conflict, which require coordinated action across borders.

Cultural Sensitivity: Respecting and accommodating diverse cultural norms, values, and perspectives while promoting universal principles of human rights and equality.

Managing Resources: Efficiently allocating resources and managing competing demands to sustain progress and address ongoing needs in society.

Promoting Inclusivity: Ensuring that marginalized or vulnerable groups are included in decision-making processes and benefit from positive changes in society.

Building Trust: Fostering trust, cooperation, and solidarity among individuals, communities, and institutions to sustain positive social transformation.

Addressing New Challenges: Remaining vigilant and adaptive to emerging challenges and threats to equality, justice, and well-being in an ever-changing world.

#reality shifting #desired reality #reality shift #shifting community #shifting motivation #shiftblr #shifting consciousness #shifters #shifting script #scripting

26 notes · View notes

zvaigzdelasas · 1 year

Text

Joe Biden campaigned in 2020 on the promise of new ideas, more competence, and a “return to normality.” But when it comes to economic sanctions, President Biden has chosen instead to maintain the path that his predecessor set. From Venezuela to Cuba to Iran, the Biden administration’s approach to sanctions has remained remarkably similar to Trump’s. On the campaign trail, candidate Biden promised to rejoin the Iran deal and to “promptly reverse the failed Trump policies that have inflicted harm on the Cuban people and done nothing to advance democracy and human rights.” Yet two and a half years after taking office, the Biden administration has made little progress towards fulfilling these promises. While economic sanctions may not seem important to the average American, they have strong implications for the global economy and America’s national interests. President Biden initially showed promise by requesting that the Treasury Department conduct a swift review of U.S. sanctions policies. However, the review’s publication in October 2021 was underwhelming. It produced recommendations such as adopting “a structured policy framework that links sanctions to a clear policy objective,” and “ensuring sanctions are easily understood, enforceable, and, where possible, reversible.” If the U.S. was not already undertaking these measures, it is fair to ask what exactly was taken into consideration when prior sanctions were implemented. The failure to reenter the Iran deal is the most egregious error of Biden’s sanctions policies. Apart from harming American credibility and acting as a strong deterrent to any future countries looking to enter diplomatic agreements with the U.S., Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy has been a complete failure. As the United States Institute of Peace notes, Iran’s “breakout time” —the time required to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb — stood at around 12 months in 2016. As of today, Iran’s breakout time stands at less than a week. It did not have to be this way. Although Iran violated segments of the JCPOA after American withdrawal, it never left the deal completely, signaling potential for a reconciliation. Yet the Biden administration declined to lift sanctions initially. As Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, told CNN in early 2021, “It was the United States that left the deal. It was the United States that violated the deal.”[...]

Biden has shown similar hesitancy on Cuba. Although the administration has taken certain steps to undo Trump’s hardline stance, there remains much room for progress. Six decades of maximum pressure on Cuba have failed completely, serving primarily to harm Cuban civilians and exacerbate tensions with allies who wish to do business with Cuba. The U.S. embargo of Cuba is incredibly unpopular worldwide. A U.N. General Assembly Resolution in support of ending the embargo received 185 votes in support, with only two against — the U.S. and Israel. Steps such as reopening the American embassy in Havana and removing restrictions on remittances are positive developments, yet the Biden administration could do much more. Primary among these are removing Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list and ending the embargo once and for all. This would not only improve daily life for Cuban civilians, but increase business opportunities for Cubans and Americans alike. Trump also attempted his maximum pressure strategy with Venezuela, but failed to achieve anything resembling progress. In one of his final actions in office, he levied even more sanctions on Venezuela, further isolating one of the region’s largest oil producers. Venezuela is another country where the Biden administration has taken mere half-measures. Easing some sanctions in late 2022 is a positive sign, but there is no serious justification for keeping any of the Trump-era sanctions in place. All of these actions have had major consequences, not only for the citizens of the sanctioned countries, but also for Americans. As oil prices spiked following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the fact that Iran and Venezuela, two of the world’s largest oil producers, were unable to sell on the U.S. market no doubt led to higher gas prices for American consumers. And the millions of Americans with family in sanctioned countries face serious difficulties in visiting and sending remittances to their family members. Despite these measures, none of these countries are considered serious threats to the U.S. In a March 2023 Quinnipiac poll, Americans rightly ignored Iran, Venezuela and Cuba when asked which country “poses the biggest threat to the United States.” Just two percent chose Iran as the biggest threat, with zero choosing Cuba or Venezuela.

These sanctions are unpopular, ineffective and quite often counterproductive to American interests. While changing the course of U.S. foreign policy can take quite some time, the dangers of hesitancy are quite clear. Rather than maintaining the Trump status quo on sanctions, which saw record increases, President Biden should fulfill his campaign promises and end the ineffective and costly sanctions on countries such as Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, and return to the use of diplomacy to further American national interests.

You know things are bad when The Hill is coming after you as a democrat (note the lack of mention about sanctions on China or DPRK)

22 Jun 23

107 notes · View notes