"Is it the aim of government simply to maintain order, as a referee, between two equally matched fighters? Or is it that government has some special interest in maintaining a certain kind of order, a certain distribution of power and wealth, a distribution in which government officials are not neutral referees but participants? In that case, the disorder they might worry about is the disorder of popular rebellion against those monopolizing the society's wealth. This interpretation makes sense when one looks at the economic interests, the social backgrounds, of the makers of the Constitution."
-A People's History, Howard Zinn
Friday, June 15, 2012
"The rich must, in their own interest, either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates.
Beard studied the economic backgrounds and political ideas of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the Constitution. He found that a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most of them were men of wealth, in land, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping, that half of the had money loaned out at interest, and that forty of the fifty-five held government bonds, according to the records of the Treasury Department.
Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds.
Four groups, Beard noted, were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of those groups."
-A People's History, Howard Zinn
Beard studied the economic backgrounds and political ideas of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the Constitution. He found that a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most of them were men of wealth, in land, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping, that half of the had money loaned out at interest, and that forty of the fifty-five held government bonds, according to the records of the Treasury Department.
Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds.
Four groups, Beard noted, were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of those groups."
-A People's History, Howard Zinn
War benefits the rich, not poor
"Revolutionary America may have been a middle-class society, happier and more prosperous than any other in its time, but it contained a large and growing number of fairly poor people, and many of them did much of the actual fighting and suffering between 1775 and 1783: A very old story.
The Military conflict itself diminished other issues, made people choose sides in the one contest that was publicly important, forced people onto the side of the Revolution whose interest in Independence was not at all obvious. Ruling elites seem to have learned through the generations - consciously or not - that war makes them more secure against internal trouble.
The force of military preparation had a way of pushing neutral people into line. In Connecticut, a law was passed requiring military service of all males between sixteen and sixty, omitting certain government officials, ministers, Yale students and faculty, Negroes, Indians, and mulattos. Someone called to duty could provide a substitue or get out of it by paying 5 pounds."
-A People's History, Howard Zinn
The Military conflict itself diminished other issues, made people choose sides in the one contest that was publicly important, forced people onto the side of the Revolution whose interest in Independence was not at all obvious. Ruling elites seem to have learned through the generations - consciously or not - that war makes them more secure against internal trouble.
The force of military preparation had a way of pushing neutral people into line. In Connecticut, a law was passed requiring military service of all males between sixteen and sixty, omitting certain government officials, ministers, Yale students and faculty, Negroes, Indians, and mulattos. Someone called to duty could provide a substitue or get out of it by paying 5 pounds."
-A People's History, Howard Zinn
1% vs 99% in 1700s
"The colonies grew fast in the 700s. Through all that growth, the upper class was getting most of the benefits and monopolized political power. The top 1% of the population consisted of 50 rich individuals who had 25% of the wealth. By 1770, the top 1% of property owners owned 44% of the wealth.
In the middle 1700s, colonial New England found that vagabonds and paupers kept increasing. There was a concentration of wealth, widening of the gap between rich and poor. The colonies, it seems, were societies of contending classes.
The country therefore was not "born free" but born slave and free, servant and master, tenant and landlord, poor and rich."
-A People's History, Howard Zinn
In the middle 1700s, colonial New England found that vagabonds and paupers kept increasing. There was a concentration of wealth, widening of the gap between rich and poor. The colonies, it seems, were societies of contending classes.
The country therefore was not "born free" but born slave and free, servant and master, tenant and landlord, poor and rich."
-A People's History, Howard Zinn
"Was all this bloodshed and deceit- from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the Puritans - a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization? Was Morison right in burying the story of genocide inside a more important story of human progress? Perhaps a persuasive argument can be made - as it was made by Stalin when he killed peasants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima. But how can the judgment be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced because the losses are either unmentioned or mentioned quickly?
The quick disposal might be acceptable ("Unfortunate, yes, but it had to be done.") to the middle and upper class of the conquering and "advanced" countries. But is it acceptable to the poor of Asia, Africa, Latin America, or to the prisoners in Soviet labor camps, or the blacks in urban ghettos, or the Indians on reservations - to the victims of that progress which benefits a privileged minority in the world?
If there are necessary sacrifices to be made for human progress, is it not essential to hold to the principle that those to be sacrificed must make the decision themselves? We can all decide to give up something of ours, but do we have the right to throw into the pire the children of others, or even our own children, for a progress which is not nearly as clear or present as sickness or health, life or death?"
-A People's History, Howard Zinn
The quick disposal might be acceptable ("Unfortunate, yes, but it had to be done.") to the middle and upper class of the conquering and "advanced" countries. But is it acceptable to the poor of Asia, Africa, Latin America, or to the prisoners in Soviet labor camps, or the blacks in urban ghettos, or the Indians on reservations - to the victims of that progress which benefits a privileged minority in the world?
If there are necessary sacrifices to be made for human progress, is it not essential to hold to the principle that those to be sacrificed must make the decision themselves? We can all decide to give up something of ours, but do we have the right to throw into the pire the children of others, or even our own children, for a progress which is not nearly as clear or present as sickness or health, life or death?"
-A People's History, Howard Zinn
Monday, June 4, 2012
An Important Message for Us to Ruminate
"Greetings
everyone,
We
all got caught up with Duggard
infestation and got it cleaned up. The blogging, vlogging, Tweeting, Facebooking, and
word of hand spreading around became viral. The action we partook in was not
based on a localized community front, but rather a strong national front
consisting of deaf people from all across the U.S, which for me is very rare.
To
be a Social Justice Activist, we must be continuously aware of our privileges.
ALWAYS. For instance, I am a Deaf, Blind, and Queer Woman of Color, yet I still
have many privileges that other people do not have within our community. I ask
you activist to please be mindful when you ask us, especially culturally
conscious Deaf people of color (DPOC), to participate in Deaf causes. People
often make the fatal mistake of associating culturally conscious DPOC with
other DPOC who only want to only associate themselves with being just Deaf. No
one within the Deaf community would like it if d/Deaf people, who do not
believe in language rights, to collaborate with hearing people by telling them
that we, Deaf people, are making to big of a deal about language oppression. We
would be infuriated if people within our community would try to unhinge
hundreds of years of constant work for the sake of ASL rights.
The
most deliberative, harmful and destructive mistake that you could make is to
ask us:
“As
a Deaf person of color, this is why you should fight with us because it impacts
you in many ways that you could never imagine.”
You
just reconfirmed and signed a proclamation that you are way more privileged
than we will ever be by saying that.
•
Where were you when Deaf children of color, undocumented immigrant children,
adopted children (internationally) and Deaf children of refugees were not
getting language rights? Where were you when they were being bullied because
they lacked ASL competency? When Special Ed specialists assigned ASL tutoring
for EVERY inner city (black and latin@) Deaf children?
•
Where were you when Deaf Queer youth and adults were constantly bullied and
taunted in the Deaf community? We wrote them off as pranks. It is not those
whom are LGBTQQI activist job to fight- it is yours as well, if you claim to be
a social justice activist.
•
Why are we not fighting for the Deaf Blind communities? We only joined when a
Deaf Blind leader shakes up something.
•
Why we are not holding our rapists and abusers accountable? Complicity equates
violations; you knew about it and say it’s not your business as she/he
continues to abuse this person or people. You make excuses for those rapist and
abusers by saying that they could not have done so: because they are well
known, and highly respected Deaf leaders. Having rapist, who hold highly
respected positions within our community is indeed, terrifying.
•
Why do we allow Rape Culture to be a part of the “Deaf /ASL experience”? Why do
we make a mockery of survivors by making rape jokes, gestures in ASL? That
should never be allowed- but we do not fight against them. It is not just the
Deaf Domestic Violence Agencies’ job but yours too, if you claim to be a social
justice activist.
•
Where were you when the Deaf community practiced “colorblindness”? The concept
of “We all are the same” is what is breaking up the communities within the Deaf
community because privileged people continue to say “we are all the same” and
not acknowledge DPOC’s injustice which in the same breath marginalizes and
minimizes the oppression we face.
•
Where were you when Deaf Leaders and Deaf elitists continued to minimize Deaf
marginalized people? Something is wrong with this equation:
A=
Deaf Person of Color B= Privileged White, Deaf person
a.
I don’t mind fighting with you to protest against AGB. Will you fight with me
to stop racism in Deaf schools?
b.
“Racism in Deaf schools, never heard!” But audism is very big- sure I’ll fight with you!
a.
Im not
talking about audism. Im
talking about racism, oppression based on the color of my skin.
b.
We, Deaf people don’t do that, we all are the same- D E A F ! I think you need
to reevaluate the issues. I don’t think its racism, but more so the
establishment of cliques.
As
a Social Justice Activist, I know my job. I know what is required of me, and
being non-judgmental is one of them. To watch and listen fervently, to
validate, to not minimize other people’s experiences are also very key
components that I take responsibility in. Most importantly, I do it for ALL
without questioning your cultural identity, language identity, and community
identity. The only people/groups I will READILY challenge is the white, body
abled, heterosexual man/men (both hearing and Deaf) and white people who claim
to be Social Justice activist and ask me to stand with them because they need a
person of color (tokenism).
I
close in hopes that we have all learned something from the Duggard
storm and that we really need to take the time to revisit what it means to be a
“Social Justice Activist”. We should be having communities within the community
dialogues- redevelop our approach; actively listening and participating.
Actively
yours,
Stephanie
D. Johnson"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)