• ‘A system of #global_apartheid’ : author #Harsha_Walia on why the border crisis is a myth

    The Canadian organizer says the actual crises are capitalism, war and the climate emergency, which drive mass migration.

    The rising number of migrant children and families seeking to cross the US border with Mexico is emerging as one of the most serious political challenges for Joe Biden’s new administration.

    That’s exactly what Donald Trump wants: he and other Republicans believe that Americans’ concerns about a supposed “border crisis” will help Republicans win back political power.

    But Harsha Walia, the author of two books about border politics, argues that there is no “border crisis,” in the United States or anywhere else. Instead, there are the “actual crises” that drive mass migration – such as capitalism, war and the climate emergency – and “imagined crises” at political borders, which are used to justify further border securitization and violence.

    Walia, a Canadian organizer who helped found No One Is Illegal, which advocates for migrants, refugees and undocumented people, talked to the Guardian about Border and Rule, her new book on global migration, border politics and the rise of what she calls “racist nationalism.” The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

    Last month, a young white gunman was charged with murdering eight people, most of them Asian women, at several spas around Atlanta, Georgia. Around the same time, there was increasing political attention to the higher numbers of migrants and refugees showing up at the US-Mexico border. Do you see any connection between these different events?

    I think they are deeply connected. The newest invocation of a “border surge” and a “border crisis” is again creating the spectre of immigrants and refugees “taking over.” This seemingly race neutral language – we are told there’s nothing inherently racist about saying “border surge”– is actually deeply racially coded. It invokes a flood of black and brown people taking over a so-called white man’s country. That is the basis of historic immigrant exclusion, both anti-Asian exclusion in the 19th century, which very explicitly excluded Chinese laborers and especially Chinese women presumed to be sex workers, and anti-Latinx exclusion. If we were to think about one situation as anti-Asian racism and one as anti-Latinx racism, they might seem disconnected. But both forms of racism are fundamentally anti-immigrant. Racial violence is connected to the idea of who belongs and who doesn’t. Whose humanity is questioned in a moment of crisis. Who is scapegoated in a moment of crisis.

    How do you understand the rise of white supremacist violence, particularly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim violence, that we are seeing around the world?

    The rise in white supremacy is a feedback loop between individual rightwing vigilantes and state rhetoric and state policy. When it comes to the Georgia shootings, we can’t ignore the fact that the criminalization of sex work makes sex workers targets. It’s not sex work itself, it’s the social condition of criminalization that creates that vulnerability. It’s similar to the ways in which border vigilantes have targeted immigrants: the Minutemen who show up at the border and harass migrants, or the kidnapping of migrants by the United Constitutional Patriots at gunpoint. We can’t dissociate that kind of violence from state policies that vilify migrants and refugees, or newspapers that continue to use the word “illegal alien”.

    National borders are often described as protecting citizens, or as protecting workers at home from lower-paid workers in other countries. You argue that borders actually serve a very different purpose.

    Borders maintain a massive system of global apartheid. They are preventing, on a scale we’ve never seen before, the free movement of people who are trying to search for a better life.

    There’s been a lot of emphasis on the ways in which Donald Trump was enacting very exclusionary immigration policies. But border securitization and border controls have been bipartisan practices in the United States. We saw the first policies of militarization at the border with Mexico under Bill Clinton in the late 90s.

    In the European context, the death of [three-year-old Syrian toddler] Alan Kurdi, all of these images of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean, didn’t actually lead to an immigration policy that was more welcoming. Billions of euros are going to drones in the Mediterranean, war ships in the Mediterranean. We’re seeing the EU making trade and aid agreements it has with countries in the Sahel region of Africa and the Middle East contingent on migration control. They are relying on countries in the global south as the frontiers of border militarization. All of this is really a crisis of immobility. The whole world is increasingly becoming fortified.

    What are the root causes of these ‘migration crises’? Why is this happening?

    What we need to understand is that migration is a form of reparations. Migration is an accounting for global violence. It’s not a coincidence that the vast number of people who are migrants and refugees in the world today are black and brown people from poor countries that have been made poor because of centuries of imperialism, of empire, of exploitation and deliberate underdevelopment. It’s those same fault lines of plunder around the world that are the fault lines of migration. More and more people are being forced out of their land because of trade agreements, mining extraction, deforestation, climate change. Iraq and Afghanistan have been for decades on the top of the UN list for displaced people and that has been linked to the US and Nato’s occupations of those countries.

    Why would governments have any interest in violence at borders? Why spend so much money on security and militarization?

    The border does not only serve to exclude immigrants and refugees, but also to create conditions of hyper exploitation, where some immigrants and refugees do enter, but in a situation of extreme precarity. If you’re undocumented, you will work for less than minimum wage. If you attempt to unionize, you will face the threat of deportation. You will not feel you can access public services, or in some cases you will be denied public services. Borders maintain racial citizenship and create a pool of hyper-exploitable cheapened labor. People who are never a full part of the community, always living in fear, constantly on guard.

    Why do you choose to put your focus on governments and their policies, rather than narratives of migrants themselves?

    Border deaths are presented as passive occurrences, as if people just happen to die, as if there’s something inherently dangerous about being on the move, which we know is not the case. Many people move with immense privilege, even luxury. It’s more accurate to call what is happening to migrants and refugees around the world as border killings. People are being killed by policies that are intended to kill. Literally, governments are hoping people will die, are deliberating creating conditions of death, in order to create deterrence.

    It is very important to hold the states accountable, instead of narratives where migrants are blamed for their own deaths: ‘They knew it was going to be dangerous, why did they move?’ Which to me mimics the very horrible tropes of survivors in rape culture.

    You live in Canada. Especially in the United States, many people think of Canada as this inherently nice place. Less racist, less violent, more supportive of refugees and immigrants. Is that the reality?

    It’s totally false. Part of the incentive of writing this second book was being on a book tour in the US and constantly hearing, ‘At least in Canada it can’t be as bad as in the US.’ ‘Your prime minister says refugees are welcome.’ That masks the violence of how unfree the conditions of migration are, with the temporary foreign worker program, which is a form of indentureship. Workers are forced to live in the home of their employer, if you’re a domestic worker, or forced to live in a labor camp, crammed with hundreds of people. When your labor is no longer needed, you’re deported, often with your wages unpaid. There is nothing nice about it. It just means Canada has perfected a model of exploitation. The US and other countries in Europe are increasingly looking to this model, because it works perfectly to serve both the state and capital interests. Capital wants cheapened labor and the state doesn’t want people with full citizenship rights.

    You wrote recently that ‘Escalating white supremacy cannot be dealt with through anti-terror or hate crime laws.’ Why?

    Terrorism is not a colorblind phenomena. The global war on terror for the past 20 years was predicated around deeply Islamophobic rhetoric that has had devastating impact on Black and Brown Muslims and Muslim-majority countries around the world. I think it is implausible and naive to assume that the national security infrastructure, or the criminal legal system, which is also built on racialized logics, especially anti-black racism – that we can somehow subvert these systems to protect racialized communities. It’s not going to work.

    One of the things that happened when the Proud Boys were designated as a terrorist organization in Canada is that it provided cover to expand this terror list that communities have been fighting against for decades. On the day the Proud Boys were listed, a number of other organizations were added which were part of the Muslim community. That was the concern that many of us had: will this just become an excuse to expand the terrorist list rather than dismantle it? In the long run, what’s going to happen? Even if in some miraculous world the Proud Boys and its members are dismantled, what’s going to happen to all the other organizations on the list? They’re still being criminalized, they’re still being terrorized, they’re still being surveilled.

    So if you don’t think the logics of national security or criminal justice will work, what do you think should be done about escalating white supremacist violence?

    I think that’s the question: what do we need to be doing? It’s not about one arm of the state, it’s about all of us. What’s happening in our neighborhoods, in our school systems, in the media? There’s not one simple fix. We need to keep each other safe. We need to make sure we’re intervening whenever we see racial violence, everything from not letting racist jokes off the hook to fighting for systemic change. Anti-war work is racial justice work. Anti-capitalist work is racial justice work.

    You advocate for ending border imperialism, and ending racial capitalism. Those are big goals. How do you break that down into things that one person can actually do?

    I actually found it harder before, because I would try things that I thought were simple and would change the world, and they wouldn’t. For me, understanding how violences are connected, and really understanding the immensity of the problem, was less overwhelming. It motivated me to think in bigger ways, to organize with other people. To understand this is fundamentally about radical, massive collective action. It can’t rely on one person or even one place.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/07/us-border-immigration-harsha-walia
    #apartheid #inégalités #monde #migrations #frontières #réfugiés #capitalisme #guerres #conflits #climat #changement_climatique #crises #crise #fermeture_des_frontières #crises_frontalières #violence #racisme #discriminations #exclusion #anti-migrants #violence_raciale #suprématisme_blanc #prostitution #criminalisation #vulnérabilité #minutemen #militarisation_des_frontières #USA #Mexique #Etats-Unis #politique_migratoire #politiques_migratoires #Kurdi #Aylan_Kurdi #Alan_Kurdi #impérialisme #colonialisme #colonisation #mourir_aux_frontières #décès #morts

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • The Danger of Anti-Immigrant Extremism Posing as Environmentalism—and Who Funds It

    With President Joe Biden in the White House and Vice President Kamala Harris providing the deciding vote in the Senate, a range of long-sought Democratic policy goals are back in play, albeit just barely. That includes ambitious agendas on immigration and the environment.

    Could this be the administration that pushes through comprehensive immigration reform after decades of failed attempts? Will youth activists and the burgeoning movement for a Green New Deal provide a pathway to major climate legislation? If so, advocates and their funders alike face a tough road ahead, including an obstructionist congressional minority and opponents on both fronts that will look to appeal to the public’s darkest impulses to build opposition.

    At this inflection point, a report this month from the Center for American Progress, “The Extremist Campaign to Blame Immigrants for U.S. Environmental Problems,” offers a timely overview of the history of how opponents of immigration falsely portray it as a threat to the natural world—a strategy we’re likely to see more of in the months ahead. The report offers a valuable review of these efforts, ranging from the past anti-immigrant stances of some of the nation’s best-known environmental groups to the funders that have bankrolled the nation’s largest anti-immigration groups.

    Four years of an administration defined by its opposition to immigration, plus growing attention to climate change, breathed new life into the toxic and racist narrative of immigrants as a cause of environmental degradation. As the report lays out, this argument—often part of a right-wing, white supremacist ideology known as ecofascism, though CAP’s report does not use the term—found allies in the top echelons of government and media, including a former head of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and conservative commentators like Ann Coulter and Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

    In contemporary politics, this strategy is mainly seen as a right-wing phenomenon or an artifact of the racist and Eurocentric early history of conservation. Yet the fact that anti-immigrant sentiment found a home within top environmental groups, including Earthfirst! and the Sierra Club, which had a major faction in support of these ideas as late as 2004, is a reminder that it has found fertile soil in a variety of political camps. That makes the narrative all the more dangerous, and one against which funders working in both immigration and the environment ought to take a firm and vocal stance.

    Who’s funding anti-immigration work in the name of the environment?

    Although not comprehensive, the report highlights three funders as key backers of anti-immigration groups: Colcom Foundation, Weeden Foundation and Foundation for the Carolinas. The first two are, in their branding and language, environmental funders—and make those grants in the name of preventing further damage to the natural world.

    Colcom, founded by Mellon Bank heir Cordelia Scaife May, is far and away the largest funder. With a roughly $500 million endowment, it has provided a large share of the support for a network of groups founded by John Tanton, a Sierra Club official in the 1980s, whom the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) calls “the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement.”

    Recipients include NumbersUSA, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the Center for Immigration Studies, which we once called “Trump’s favorite immigration think tank.” The latter two are classified as hate groups by the SPLC, a designation the organizations reject.

    In keeping with the bending of reflexive political categories, it’s worth noting that May—who died in 2005—was also a substantial funder of Planned Parenthood due to her prioritization of “population control” as a means of achieving conservation. In 2019, the New York Times documented May’s dark journey to becoming a leading funder of the modern anti-immigrant movement, and the millions her foundation continued to move, long after her death, in support of ideas that gained a receptive audience in a nativist Trump administration. May’s wealth came from the Mellon-Scaife family fortune, which yielded several philanthropists, including another prominent conservative donor, Richard Mellon Scaife.

    Weeden, led by Don Weeden, has funded a similar who’s who of top anti-immigration groups, as well as lower-profile or regional groups like Californians for Population Stabilization, Progressives for Immigration Reform—which CAP calls the “most central organization in the anti-immigrant greenwashing universe”—and the Rewilding Institute.

    Both Weeden and Colcom, as well as the groups they fund, generally say they are neither anti-immigrant nor anti-immigration. Aside from restrictionist policy positions and racist comments by former leaders, it is revealing that the groups they fund are the favored information sources for some of the most virulently anti-immigrant politicians, both historically and among those who rose prominence during the Trump administration. For a deeper dive on Weeden and Colcom, see my colleague Philip Rojc’s excellent 2019 piece on these grantmakers.

    Finally, there is the Foundation for the Carolinas, which in many ways is a typical community foundation, with initiatives on topics from COVID-19 relief to local arts. But it also hosts a donor-advised fund that has supported several anti-immigration groups, including Center for Immigration Studies, FAIR and NumbersUSA. That fund channeled nearly $21 million to nine such groups between 2006 and 2018, according to the report.

    There’s a connection here to a larger problem of private foundations and DAFs, some of which are housed at community foundations, supporting 501(c)(3) nonprofits identified as hate groups, according to a recent analysis from the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Foundation for the Carolinas also made its list of top donors to these groups.

    An ideology funders must fight against

    As the debates over both immigration and climate policies move forward under this new administration, and the opposition marshals efforts to defeat them, this report offers a helpful guide to this enduring and noxious myth. It’s also an important reminder that if these ideas are not called actively combated, they can take root within well-intentioned efforts. Though it seems only a small number of foundations directly fund groups advancing these ideas, anti-immigrant sentiment is insidious.

    For example, while some commentators are suggesting that acceding to Trump-fueled demands for a border wall is how Congress could reach bipartisan action on immigration reform, the report notes how the existing sections of wall are ineffective against furtive crossings, disruptive to species migration, and in violation of Indigenous sacred sites. These facts—and more broadly, the connection to white supremacist and fascist movements—should put foundations on guard, whether they support grantees pushing for immigration reform, action on climate or both.

    With the United States and other nations facing greater and greater pressures from climate change—particularly as it forces migration from regions like Latin America and the Middle East—philanthropy would do well to be proactive now and draw a bright line in countering this ideology’s propagation.

    https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2021/2/24/anti-immigrant-environmentalism-is-resurgent-new-report-looks-at
    #extrême_droite #anti-migrants #USA #Etats-Unis #environnementalisme #environnement #migrations #nature #dégradation_environnementale #écofascisme #éco-fascisme #suprématisme_blanc #extrême_droite #Ann_Coulte #Tucker_Carlson #racisme #Earthfirst #Sierra_Club #deep_ecology #fondations #Colcom_Foundation #Weeden_Foundation #Foundation_for_the_Carolinas #Mellon_Bank #Cordelia_Scaife_May #mécénat #John_Tanton #NumbersUSA #Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform (#FAIR) #Center_for_Immigration_Studies #Planned_Parenthood #démographie #contrôle_démographique #néo-malthusianisme #néomalthusianisme #protection_de_l'environnement #philanthropie #Richard_Mellon_Scaife #Weeden #Don_Weeden #Californians_for_Population_Stabilization #Progressives_for_Immigration_Reform #Rewilding_Institute

    • The Extremist Campaign to Blame Immigrants for U.S. Environmental Problems

      With growing frequency over the past four years, right-wing pundits, policymakers, and political operatives have fiercely and furiously blamed immigrants for the degradation and decline of nature in the United States. William Perry Pendley, who temporarily ran the U.S. Bureau of Land Management under former President Donald Trump, saw “immigration as one of the biggest threats to public lands,” according to an agency spokesperson.1 A handful of right-wing anti-immigration zealots, including Joe Guzzardi, have repeatedly misused data published by the Center for American Progress on nature loss to make xenophobic arguments for anti-immigration policies.2 This so-called “greening of hate”—a term explored by Guardian reporter Susie Cagle—is a common refrain in a wide range of conservative and white supremacist arguments, including those of Ann Coulter, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, and the manifestos of more than one mass shooter.3

      The claim that immigration is to blame for America’s environmental problems is so absurd, racist, and out of the mainstream that it is easily debunked and tempting to ignore. The scientific community, and the little research that has been conducted in this area, resoundingly refutes the premise. Consider, for example, the environmental damage caused by weak and inadequate regulation of polluting industries; the destruction of wildlife habitat to accommodate wealthy exurbs and second homes; the design and propagation of policies that concentrate toxic poisons and environmental destruction near communities of color and low-income communities; the continued subsidization of fossil fuel extraction and trampling of Indigenous rights to accommodate drilling and mining projects; and the propagation of a throw-away culture by industrial powerhouses. All of these factors and others cause exponentially more severe environmental harm than a family that is fleeing violence, poverty, or suffering to seek a new life in the United States.

      The extremist effort to blame immigrants for the nation’s environmental problems deserves scrutiny—and not merely for the purpose of disproving its xenophobic and outlandish claims. The contours, origins, funding sources, and goals of this right-wing effort must be understood in order to effectively combat it and ensure that the extremists pushing it have no place in the conservation movement. The individuals and organizations that are most fervently propagating this argument come largely from well-funded hate groups that are abusing discredited ideologies that were prevalent in the 19th-century American conservation movement in an attempt to make their racist rhetoric more palatable to a public concerned about the health of their environment.

      While leaders of the contemporary, mainstream environmental movement in the United States have disavowed this strain of thought and are working to confront the legacies of colonialism and racism in environmental organizations and policies, a small set of right-wing political operatives are trying to magnify overtly xenophobic and false environmental arguments to achieve specific political objectives. In particular, these right-wing political operatives and their deep-pocketed funders are seeking to broaden the appeal of their anti-immigration zealotry by greenwashing their movement and supplying their right-wing base with alternative explanations for environmental decline that sidestep the culpability of the conservative anti-regulatory agenda. In their refusal to confront the true reasons for environmental decline, they are hurting the people—immigrants, Indigenous peoples, and people of color—who bear a disproportionate burden of environmental consequences and are increasingly the base of the climate justice and conservation movements.

      (...)

      https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2021/02/01/495228/extremist-campaign-blame-immigrants-u-s-environmental-problems

  • Je dois avouer que je suis un peu surpris par l’indécence crasse des éditorialistes venant défendre la légitimité de la théorie du grand remplacement au lendemain du massacre de Christchurch. Non pas le fait qu’il y ait des islamophobes en roue libre dans nos médias (ça, dirais-je, on a l’habitude), mais le fait qu’au lendemain d’un massacre aussi horrible, ils viennent se lâcher aussi ouvertement dans leurs émissions et sur leurs flux Twitter, sans même faire semblant d’attendre ne serait-ce qu’une petite période symbolique de respect pour les victimes. Le fait qu’il ne semble y avoir aucune vague d’indignation vertueuse de l’intérieur du système après un tel niveau de dégueulasserie fait partie, également, de l’aspect insupportable de ces interventions (on se souvient, à l’inverse, des interminables commentaires indignés quand tout le monde n’était pas au garde-à-vous après le massacre de Charlie Hebdo) – l’idée qu’on vienne défendre ouvertement la théorie du « Grand remplacement » au lendemain même d’un massacre que l’assassin justifie lui-même par la théorie du « Grand remplacement », ça n’a pas l’air de provoquer une large indignation médiatique.

    Pour le coup, je suis sidéré par cette attitude aussi ouvertement et immédiatement dégueulasse et irrespectueuse.

    Je vais te dire : j’y vois un marqueur de suprématisme blanc, cette façon de cracher à la gueule des « autres » en affichant sciemment son mépris raciste. Une signe des temps typiquement MAGA. Je veux dire que l’affichage du mépris raciste n’est pas un élément secondaire de leur comportement raciste, mais c’est l’élément central de leur communication. Il ne s’agit pas simplement de dire une saloperie raciste (ce qui se fait déjà très bien depuis longtemps dans notre culture), il s’agit désormais de le faire ostensiblement, avec la « fierté blanche » d’un facho bas du front.

    Dans le racisme ambiant usuel, on passe à la télé 7 jour sur 7 pour balancer les phrases codées du genre : « non mais on a bien le droit de critiquer l’islam ». Dans le suprématisme blanc en voie de banalisation, on passe spécifiquement à la télévision au lendemain du massacre d’une cinquantaine de fidèles dans une mosquée pour commenter l’évènement sous l’angle « ça ne doit pas nous interdire de critiquer l’islam et le grand remplacisme ».

  • What is the alt right? A linguistic data analysis of 3 billion Reddit comments shows a disparate group that is quickly uniting — Quartz
    https://qz.com/1056319/what-is-the-alt-right-a-linguistic-data-analysis-of-3-billion-reddit-comments-sh

    We’re witnessing the radicalization of young white men through the medium of frog memes. In order to see it, all you need to do is look at the words coming out of their mouths. The alt-right isn’t yet united, but it soon will be.

    #text-mining #trolls #alt-right #Trump #reddit

  • Richard Spencer Calls Himself ‘White Zionist’ – The Forward
    http://forward.com/fast-forward/380235/richard-spencer-touts-himself-as-white-zionist-in-israeli-interview

    In an interview on Israeli TV, Richard Spencer said that Israelis should ignore the anti-Semitism of the “alt-right” and instead respect and empathize with his desire to create a whites-only ethno state.

    #sionisme #sioniste #suprémaciste

  • Historians Question Trump’s Comments on Confederate Monuments - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/arts/design/trump-robert-e-lee-george-washington-thomas-jefferson.html

    President Trump is not generally known as a student of history. But on Tuesday, during a combative exchange with reporters at Trump Tower in New York, he unwittingly waded into a complex debate about history and memory that has roiled college campuses and numerous cities over the past several years.

    Asked about the white nationalist rally that ended in violence last weekend in Charlottesville, Va., Mr. Trump defended some who had gathered to protect a statue of Robert E. Lee, and criticized the “alt-left” counterprotesters who had confronted them.

    Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Mr. Trump said. “So this week, it is Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down.

    George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the president noted, were also slave owners. “I wonder, is it George Washington next week?” Mr. Trump said. “And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after?
    […]
    Mr. Grossman [executive director of the American Historical Association] noted that most Confederate monuments were constructed in two periods: the 1890s, as Jim Crow was being established, and in the 1950s, during a period of mass Southern resistance to the civil rights movement.

    We would not want to whitewash our history by pretending that Jim Crow and disenfranchisement or massive resistance to the civil rights movement never happened,” he said. “That is the part of our history that these monuments testify to.

    How the events in Charlottesville, and Mr. Trump’s comments, will affect the continuing debate over Confederate monuments remains to be seen. Mr. Witt [a professor of history at Yale], for one, suggested that white nationalist support might backfire.

    He noted that it was the 2015 murder of nine African-American churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., by a white supremacist that led to the removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the statehouse.

    The amazing thing is that the president is doing more to endanger historical monuments than most of the protesters,” he said. “The alt-right is producing a world where there is more pressure to remove monuments, rather than less.

    • Baltimore Removes Confederate Statues in Overnight Operation | 2017-08-16

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/baltimore-confederate-statues.html

      [...]


      Workers removed the Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson monument in Baltimore.

      Beginning soon after midnight on Wednesday, a crew, which included a large crane and a contingent of police officers, began making rounds of the city’s parks and public squares, tearing the monuments from their pedestals and carting them out of town.

      [...]

      Small crowds gathered at each of the monuments and the mood was “celebratory,” said Baynard Woods, the editor at large of The Baltimore City Paper, who documented the removals on Twitter.

      [...]

      The statues were taken down by order of Mayor Catherine Pugh, after the City Council voted on Monday for their removal. The city had been studying the issue since 2015, when a mass shooting by a white supremacist at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C., prompted a renewed debate across the South over removing Confederate monuments and battle flags from public spaces.
      The police confirmed the removal.

      [...]

      By 3:30 a.m., three of the city’s four monuments had been removed. They included the Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson Monument, a double equestrian statue of the Confederate generals erected in 1948; the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument, erected in 1903; and the Roger B. Taney Monument, erected in 1887.

      [...]

      Taney was a Supreme Court chief justice and Maryland native who wrote the landmark 1857 decision in the Dred Scott case, ruling that even free blacks had no claim to citizenship in the United States. Although Taney was never part of the Confederacy, the court’s decision was celebrated by supporters of slavery.

      The fourth statue, the Confederate Women’s Monument, was dedicated in 1917. Pictures showed that it too had been taken down early on Wednesday.

      [...]

      One Twitter user, James MacArthur, live-streamed the removal of the Lee and Jackson monument as it was unceremoniously torn from its pedestal and strapped to a flatbed truck. At street level, lit by the harsh glare of police klieg lights, the two generals appeared small.

      Residents were seen celebrating on the pedestal, on which someone had spray-painted “Black Lives Matter.”

      [...]

      A team of police cars escorted the statues out of town. Ms. Pugh suggested on Monday that the statues might be relocated to Confederate cemeteries elsewhere in the state. (Although Maryland never seceded from the Union during the Civil War, there was popular support for the Confederacy in Baltimore and Southern Maryland, where Confederate soldiers are buried.)

      [...]

      trouvé en cherchant au réseau

      #Baltimore #Charlottesville #statues #États_Unis
      #suprématisme_blanc #iconoclasme #Confédération #histoire #racisme #esclavage

    • Baltimore Removes Confederate Statues After Activists Gave City Ultimatium | (#vidéo 7’15’’) TRNN 2017-08-16

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A38qI75uwQE

      [...]

      Owen Silverman Andrews: Sure, I think it’s exciting, and the culmination of intense, years-long grassroots organizing and pressure that was a flashpoint, like you said, when white supremacist violence occurred in Charleston and then again in Charlottesville, but also in response to ongoing white supremacist violence here in Baltimore City. And so Fredrick Douglass said, “Power yields nothing without demand.” And that’s exactly what happened here. It was, “Oh, this is too expensive. This will take too long,” and ultimately, when push comes to shove, the government will respond when we force the government to respond and not before.

      Jaisal Noor: And so defenders, even liberal defenders I talk to say, “This is history. We can’t remove history. It needs to be preserved. We shouldn’t take them down.” How do you respond to those arguments?

      Owen Silverman Andrews: Sure. The Lee/Jackson monument is not history. It’s a false narrative. It’s the Lost Cause mythology. It was put up in the 1940s, not to honor fallen Confederate veterans like some of the older monuments supposedly were alluding to, but it was put up as a triumphant symbol of rising white supremacy and resurgent white power. And so leaving the Lee/Jackson statue in place is the erasure of history, not the removal of it. If you look at the way Nazi Germany, for example, has dealt with their past, they do not leave statues of Hitler and Eichmann in place. They remove them and put up plaques and said, “Jewish families lived here,” and that’s the way to remember history. Not to leave up triumphant statues of genocidal maniacs.

      Jaisal Noor: Yeah, and you didn’t hear those same people defending the statues of Saddam in Iraq.

      Owen Silverman Andrews: Exactly. Exactly. It’s a false logic, and it’s a defense mechanism of people who can’t grapple with either their own privilege or internalized white supremacy, and so we can remember history without celebrating slavery and genocide and rape.

      Jaisal Noor: And so is the work now done now that this is down?

      Owen Silverman Andrews: Columbus is next. There are two Columbus statues in Baltimore, One in Druid Hill Park, and another in Little Italy. And if those don’t come down based on government action from the City, then they’ll come down based on #grassroots_action. So those are the next two, Columbus in Druid Hill and Columbus in Little Italy. Columbus started the trans-Atlantic slave trade. He brought syphilis to the hemisphere. He was a rapist who took indigenous women to Europe and had sex with them against their will, and so we’re planning a funeral for Columbus to lay him to rest, and to move onto the next chapter so we can celebrate people like Thurgood Marshall and Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass, and hold up those leaders who struggled against that type of oppression instead of honoring those who initiated it.

      ||

      trouvé en cherchant dans le réseau

      #air_du_temps #goût_du_jour
      #bouleversement
      #séquelles #activisme

  • Hier (samedi 12 Août 2017) a Charlottesville aux E.U, les néo-nazies faisaient une manifestation.

    Des personnes ont organisés aussi une contre manifestation.

    Les néo-nazi en accord avec leurs valeurs on frappés des enfants racisés avec des bâtons.
    https://twitter.com/FranceNews24/status/896626306187526145

    Un terroriste néo-nazi a foncé en voiture sur la foule, faisant entre autre victime une syndicaliste de l’IWW (International Worker of the World, mouvement anarcho-syndicaliste) tuée sur le coup (comme le rapporte Solidaritat Obrera https://twitter.com/soliobreracnt/status/896620357624496129)


    https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/896455756072931328

  • Etats-Unis : l’état d’urgence est décrété à #Charlottesville, où se rassemblent des militants d’extrême droite

    Le gouverneur démocrate de la Virginie, Terry McAuliffe, a déclaré un état d’urgence à Charlottesville, où de nombreux militants d’extrême droite veulent dénoncer le retrait d’une statue du général sudiste Lee. Un véhicule a foncé dans un groupe de contre-manifestants, tuant au moins une personne.
    [edit vu ailleurs : TROIS morts et 19 blessé-e-s]

    http://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/usa/etats-unis-l-etat-d-urgence-est-decrete-a-charlottesville-ou-se-rassemb

    http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2017/08/12/aux-etats-unis-un-rassemblement-d-extreme-droite-interdit-a-charlottesville_

    La #fachosphere de twitter, très active comme à son habitude, a très vite lancé la rumeur que le conducteur serait un « jeune déséquilibré » antifa et anti #Trump, qui se serait « trompé » de manif... Le jeune en question, Joel Vangheluwe, a très vite démenti mais la rumeur était déjà partie et infectait jusqu’aux mainstream français pendant un temps...
    https://www.facebook.com/joel.notavailable

    Pour le contexte, je ne sais pas trop ce que vaut ce site mais il recense pas mal de sources d’automedias sur twitter sur le déroulé de la manif interdite, les affrontement entre suprémacistes blancs et antifas, mais aussi les milices et les flics...
    http://theantimedia.org/charlottesville-state-of-emergency

  • prenez ce couteau (Les Nazis {recrutent} les gamers. C’est un milieu...)
    http://prenezcecouteau.tumblr.com/post/158194029468/les-nazis-recrutent-les-gamers-cest-un-milieu

    Les Nazis {recrutent} les gamers. C’est un milieu qui est rempli d’hommes solitaires et isolés qui sont réceptifs à leur message.

    Avez-vous déjà vu le film Fight Club ? Vous voyez comment chaque personne qui rejoint le fight club est un type super triste qui cherche un sens aux choses et un sentiment d’appartenance ? Montrez cela à n’importe quelle personne qui a vécu la Seconde Guerre Mondiale et elle vous dira directement “C’était comme ça que les Nazis recrutaient les gens. C’est comme ça qu’ils ont transformé des hommes normaux en Nazis. Ils les ont trouvés quand ils étaient faibles, ils les ont fait se sentir inutiles et les ont entièrement reconstruits”. À sa sortie, ce film a touché tous mes amis de vingt ans. C’est dur de le regarder maintenant, presque terrifiant.

    Maintenant, pensez à votre groupe d’amis gamers. En grandissant, vous connaissiez combien de personnes qui tentaient désespérément d’appartenir à quelque chose ? Qui voulaient se sentir utiles ? Parce que ces 5 dernières années j’ai regardé tout un tas de gens dans ma communauté de gamers compétitifs devenir de véritables nationalistes blancs. Un nombre inquiétant.

    #male_entitlment #fascisme #masculinisme #suprématisme_blanc #fraternité #misogynie #sexisme