"That is the crucial backdrop for yesterday’s debate over whether the term “terrorism” applies to the heinous shooting by a white nationalist of nine African-Americans praying in a predominantly black church in Charleston, South Carolina. Almost immediately, news reports indicated there was “no sign of terrorism” — by which they meant: it does not appear that the shooter is Muslim.
Yet other than the perpetrator’s non-Muslim identity, the Charleston attack from the start had the indicia of what is commonly understood to be “terrorism.” Specifically, the suspected shooter was clearly a vehement racist who told witnesses at the church that he was acting out of racial hatred and a desire to force African-Americans “to go.” His violence was the byproduct of and was intended to publicize and forward his warped political agenda, and was clearly designed to terrorize the community he hates.
That’s why so many African-American and Muslim commentators and activistsinsisted that the term “terrorist” be applied: because it looked, felt and smelled exactly like other acts that are instantly branded “terrorism” when the perpetrator is Muslim and the victims largely white. It was very hard — and still is — to escape the conclusion that the term “terrorism,” at least as it’s predominantly used in the post-9/11 West, is about the identity of those committing the violence and the identity of the targets. It manifestly has nothing to do with some neutral, objective assessment of the acts being labelled."
They also have so much sway here in the US, that they can actually force companies to sell them their inventory for really low prices, or they will drop them as suppliers. This has actually caused much of the US's production loss to China, so that companies can compete to sell retailers the lowest prices possible just for exposure to consumers.
Tl;Dr they're really big
" Most third parties crumble. But, fleeting third-party movements have made remarkable social and political contributions. Third-party candidates have introduced popular and groundbreaking issues that were eventually co-opted by the major parties, such as: the abolition of slavery, unemployment insurance, social security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the 40-hour work week, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools like the referendum and the recall. Excluded third-party candidates can't break the bipartisan conspiracy of silence on issues where the major parties are at odds with most of the American people."
On the personal side, she lied about being African American, and through that also lied about having the experience of being African American, which is a huge part of being such a large figure in the NAACP. It's also likely that, had she not posed as black, she wouldn't have gotten her job at the head of the advocacy group at all. From only a professional viewpoint, this is inexcusable, and morally, it's just plain wrong.
This excerpt from the article sums up the social side of the issue pretty well:
" the ability to choose black is in itself a manifestation of racial privilege - and so the seemingly liberal permissibility around Dolezal's identity is in reality selective and segregated. As Winfrey Harris concludes: " I will accept Ms Dolezal as black like me only when society can accept me as white like her." Ethnic romanticisms and preoccupations are part and parcel of colonialism, interlinked to practices of dispossession and control premised on white superiority. Such perceptions have historically been one arm of the distorted view of the non-white world - exotic, but also backward, uncivilised and not to be trusted - that enables the politics of intervention, invasion and subjugation. In this context, calling yourself "culturally black" is on par with the Orientalism definitively deconstructed by Edward Said: A jarringly uncomfortable attachment to an "other" that warns of the assumption of a "lesser". And along with that, Dolezal's assumption of "blackness" is a sharp stab at an already open wound of cultural appropriation - a long history of cherry-picking bits of non-white culture (music, food, style; take your cherry-pick), without knowledge of what it represents, how hard it was fought for, or how this process reinforces and re-exploits power imbalances. The ease with which culture is swiped (not just respectfully enjoyed, but actively taken) still stands in sharp contrast to the damage the appropriation causes - and the Dolezal case has in some ways served to highlight the painful gulf between the two. "
- Shark Dentistpresent
Dead Hand (nuclear war) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Motivation. The purpose of the "Dead Hand" (or Perimeter) system, as described in a book of the same name, was to maintain a second st
Israel forced to apologise to Japan over offensive Hiroshima comments
Head of online public diplomacy disparaged commemorations for victims of atomic bombs on Facebook
Google Buzz is going away, but your posts are yours to keep - Gmail Help
In a few weeks we'll be retiring Google Buzz. At that time you won't be able to create any new posts, but your existing content will remain