Revisionism

Although they are presented as harmless, goofy explorations of inane historical side-notes, cable TV specials such as Ancient Aliens and The Lost History of Ancient America normalise expressions of racist intellectual attitudes towards native peoples.

Their basic premise remains: ‘These primitive brown people couldn’t possibly have contributed to our cultural history! It must have been [aliens / giants / prehistorical Europeans]’. Indigenous peoples in North America, Latin America and Africa were practical metallurgists, experimental chemists, civil engineers and urban planners - restoring native peoples to their factual place in human developmental history reveals a dazzlingly beautiful archaeological narrative which throws grubby crypto-fascist conspiracy loons into the shade. 

Busting these absurd, revisionist ahistories is an anti-racist duty.

Nazis weren’t socialists.  Just Stop.

Look, I get why you think that.  “National Socialism!  It’s right in the name!”  It’s easy to think that, but I’m here to tell you exactly why you’re wrong.

And it’s a matter of stipulative definitions.  If you don’t know what they are:

If you want a clear example of how they’re used, one such example is the social justice definition of racism, dissected in the link.

They’re definitions that only apply to one very specific context, and Hitler’s usage of the term Socialism was clearly shown to be a stipulative one in a speech on November 16th, 1928.

“We have to strip the terms ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Socialism’ of their previous meaning. Only that man is a nationalist who stands by his people, and only that man is a socialist who stands up for the rights of his people both internally and externally.”

Standing up for the rights of Aryan Germans was, in Nazi Germany, the definition of a socialist in the phrase “National Socialist”.  This was in connection to what he pushed as the “National Community” which was the Aryan version of American Exceptionalism (”we’re better than everyone, we have a right to expand and take what we need, etc.”).  It wasn’t “Nationalism + Socialist”, a mixing of two ideologies.  It was an entirely new ideology.

He would go on to explicitly say that National Socialism “did not lie in socialism as a universal panacea nor was it a nationalist variant of that idea.”

“But what about the economics of Germany?”

He explained the over-arching philosophy of Nazi Germany’s economy as well in a meeting in 1930 with Strauss in Munich.  He was asked in reference to major German corporations like Krupp, ver-batim  

“Would everything remain unchanged in terms of ownership, profits and management?” 

Hitler’s reply?

“But of course.  Do you think I’m mad enough to destroy the economy?”

He would only step in and seize control of corporations when they worked against what he determined to be “the national interest”.

Which is why, when you rub two brain cells together, Schindler had enough money to save all those Jewish people.  He had political clout and wealth not from being a Party Member (like in soviet russia) but from being a rich businessman who didn’t work against the “national interest”.

Another thing to keep in mind was that Hitler didn’t call socialists “Socialists”.  He labeled them and their movement as “simply marxist(m)”.

He even used socialists and communists as scapegoats and persecuted them.  The Reichstag fire was famously blamed on communists.  He had Goebbels actively prevent socialists from running articles and speeches promoting their ideas.  Socialists were regularly arrested and sent to labor camps. The Night of Long Knives explicitly targeted Socialists and Communists for execution.

So after watching Hidden Figures I’ve been researching the lives of the main three protagonists and I found something really beautiful??? 

Karl Zielinski, the Polish Jewish man who in the film encourages Mary Jackson to go get her engineering degree is based on a real person! The real man’s name was Kazimierz Czarnecki and I wish that they’d left his real name in the narrative. He was a long time mentor of Mary and they even published a whole bunch of scientific papers together! And, when he retired, she threw a party for him.

Kevin Costner’s ‘Some White Men Were Good During Segregation’ plotline was utterly useless, unnecessary and complete historical revisionism designed to make white people feel comfortable. If they wanted a white male protagonist, they should have focused on the achievements of Kazimierz Czarnecki instead and celebrated the solidarity between Jewish people and Black people.

For me the most annoying examples of historical inaccuracy + Horseshoe Theory are when people claim to be against racism but they’re so Western-centric they think imperialism and racism was a European-only enterprise. And so, they go so far around the bend that they romanticise and fetishise powerful and expansionist non-European empires that were no less imperialist than the European empires they rail against. 

i’m sure you guys know because i’ve mentioned these before on my blog- but some of the biggest offenders here include the mind-boggling manner in which the Empire of Japan is championed as an “anti-colonial” force (even though it was an undisguised colonial power that caused a destructive conflict that left 25 million people dead in Asia). or the Ottoman Empire- when people disregard its genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks. we cannot claim to be anti-imperialist if we’re gonna be OK with it or assume it is somehow less serious because the imperialists are not white by Western standards. nor can we claim to be against Western imperialism because perpetuating Western-centric history is itself a manifestation of Western cultural imperialism.

Ignoring the capacity of non-European empires for war, racism and even genocide just to present a photoshopped version of them as somehow being 100% utopian, enlightened examples of “anti-colonial” state-building amounts to actively erasing non-European history. This is not seeing non-Europeans as fully actualised and complex human beings who, like all human cultures, could produce works of art, science and philosophy while also engaging in warfare and violence. The idea that the world was peaceful before the rise of European imperialism suggests the outlines of the world were always the same, that the modern concept of Europe was eternal (see the Roman Empire, which plainly saw Northern Europeans as uncivilised barbarians). It suggests Europeans were perpetually at the nexus of global power. When they were not. 

anonymous asked:

do you think that part of the reason why kink isn't seen as queer anymore by the new generation is due to a lack of queer elders? that if queer people hadn't been condemned to death in the aids epidemic that we would still have this as a part of queer culture?

oh, very much.  that and the way we’re often quite scattered - it takes actually seeking out queer culture, and there often isn’t an infrastructure in place for finding people to talk to (because institutionally shut out), and there’s so very many books and few guides to being critical about them…

like, prime setup for misinformation to be channeled by the people who never wanted kink associated with queer (cough, radfems and assimilationists, cough).  and ability to point to ~mainstream Examples~ that are alas far more visible and part of this new generation’s memory than any historical context

and there’s the, very tricky piece of.  telling people “listen to your elders” Tends To Go Not Well.  anecdota get dismissed as nonrepresentative, because Paradigms and the evidence of one’s own eyes and ears.  and that’s, really hard to shift?

i think it’s impossible to actually say, because yeah maybe this generation still would’ve adhered to “but look at 50 shades”?  but maybe kinky queer activists would’ve had a louder voice countering that whole media scene, also?

but, yes i do think, a lot of the work of “queer” specifically was horrifically set back by the aids epidemic, and stepping in to wedge that gap wider are your mainstreamers and radfems whooo play on “kink and poly are straight mainstream” to… divorce their attempt to become (not queer but) Gay Mainstream.

anonymous asked:

You said the Republican party fought against slavery.. That is true, but the Republican party around that time period have more modern Democrat beliefs. They were northerners who believed in equal rights. And the Democratic party in the 1800s had view more similar to modern Republican beliefs. The party's beliefs flip flopped around late 1800s-early 1900s.. The conservative states were always advocating for slavery and oppression. They were also the last states to give women the right to vote.

Originally posted by onemorechapter11

Let’s discuss some history then.

1791 - The Democratic-Republican Party is formed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson against Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans strongly opposed government overreach and expansion, the creation of a national bank, and corruption.

1804 - Andrew Jackson purchases the plantation that will become his primary source of wealth.

1824 - The Democratic-Republican Party split. The new Democrats were supported by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, and the National Republicans were supported by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.

1828 - Andrew Jackson is elected President of the United States.

1830 - Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, whereby the Cherokee and other native tribes were to be forcibly removed from their lands.

1831 - Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, whereby the Supreme Court ruled that Cherokee Nation was sovereign and the U.S. had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands. Andrew Jackson had already started to enforce the removal of the Choctaw.

1832-33 - The Whig Party is formed in opposition to Jackson’s government expansion and overreach in the Nullification Crisis and the establishment of a Second National Bank. The Whig Party successfully absorbs the National Republican Party.

1838 -  Many Indian tribes had been forcibly removed. Under Jackson, General Winfield Scott and 7,000 soldiers forced the Cherokee from their land at bayonet point while their homes were pillaged. They marched the Cherokee more than 1,200 miles to the allocated Indian territory. About 5,000 Cherokee died on the journey due to starvation and disease.

1854 - The Whig Party dissolves over the question of the expansion of slavery. Anti-slavery Whigs and anti-slavery democrats form the Republican Party with their sole goal being to end slavery.

1861 -The election of President Lincoln spurs the beginning of the Civil War.

1862 - Lincoln writes a letter where he declares he wishes to preserve the union regardless of the morals on slavery. He issues the Emancipation Proclamation, whereby all slaves in Union territories had to be freed. As states came under Union control, those slaves too had to be freed.

1863 - Frederick Douglass, former slave and famous Republican abolitionist, meets with Lincoln on the suffrage of emancipated slaves.

1864 - Lincoln revised his position on slavery in a letter to Albert G. Hodges stating “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”

1865 - Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrenders at the Appomattox Courthouse to Union victory. After Lincoln’s Assassination, Democrat President Johnson issues amnesty to rebels and pardons the slave owners of their crimes.

1865 - The 13th Amendment which ended slavery passed with 100% Republican support and 63% Democrat support in congress.

1866 - The Klu Klux Klan is formed by Confederate veterans to intimidate black and Republicans through violence, lynching, and public floggings. They gave open support to the Democrat Party.

1866 - The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is vetoed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson. Every single Republican voted and overturned the veto.

1868 - The 14th Amendment which gave citizenship to freed slaves passed with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The first grand wizard of the KKK, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest is honored at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

1868 - Representative James Hinds who taught newly freedmen of their rights is murdered by the KKK.

1870 - The 15th Amendment which gave freed slaves the right to vote passed with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

1871 - The violence of the KKK grew so savage that congress passed the Enforcement Acts to repress their influence.

1875 - Democrat Senator William Saulsbury speaks out against the Civil RIghts Act of 1875, claiming it will allow “colored men shall sit at the same table beside the white guest; that he shall enter the same parlor and take his seat beside the wife and daughter of the white man, whether the white man is willing or not, because you prohibit discrimination against him.“

1884 - A train conductor orders Ida B. Wells, a black Republican woman, to give up her seat and move to the smoking car. Wells was an investigative journalist who worked for a Republican journal to expose the horror of lynching. She advocated for the 2nd amendment rights for blacks so that they could protect themselves, and she denounced the Democratic Party for treating blacks as property unequal to whites.

1892 - Democrat Benjamin Tillman is re-elected to the Senate. He was a white supremacist who boasted his participation in lynchings. He is quoted saying that “as long as the Negroes continue to ravish white women we will continue to lynch them.”

1915 - Democrat President Woodrow Wilson screens KKK promotion film Birth of a Nation. The film pictured blacks as ignorant and violent savages, and the Klu Klux Klan as rescuers and protectors of the civilized world. The popularity of the movie revived the Klu Klux Klan which had previously gone extinct. Reportedly Wilson said about the film that “[it] is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”

1919 - The 19th Amendment which officially gave women the right to vote passed with 82% Republican support and 54% Democrat support in congress.

1924 - Thousands of Klansmen attend the 1924 Democratic National Convention.

1933 -  The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state.”

1933 - Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt passes the Agricultural Adjustment Act with the well-meaning goal to help farmers and sharecroppers. Instead, though it aided white farmers, it resulted in increased unemployment and displacement of black farmers.

1933 -  FDR established the National Recovery Administration to stimulate business recovery by forcing employers to pay higher wages for less work. This relief program was enforced on a local level and allowed Jim Crow racism to flourish, resulting in many blacks being fired to be replaced by whites. 

1934 -  The Federal Housing Administration is introduced under FDR. The FHA made homeownership accessible for whites, but explicitly refused to back loans to black people or even other people who lived near black people.

1936 - The Roosevelt Administration finally begins vying for the black vote. Though the relief programs neglected blacks, their communities were bombarded with advertisements. FDR began to garner black support though the vast majority remained economically unchanged and locked into poverty.

1942 - FDR orders American citizens of Japanese ancestry from their homes into interment camps without due process after the bombings at Pearl Harbor.

1953 - Senator Robert Byrd is elected into congress and remains a staunch Democrat until his death in 2010. He was a prominent member in the KKK and praised by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

1955 - Democrat Richard Daley is elected mayor of Chicago. He resisted residential desegregation, defended public school segregation, and used urban renewal funds to build massive public housing projects that kept blacks within existing ghettos.

1957 - The Civil Rights Act of 1957 is passes with 93% Republican support and 59% Democrat support.

1963 - After the assassination of JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson is sworn into office. LBJ was a Democrat remembered by a famous quote: “I’ll have them niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”

1965 - The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passes with 94% Republican support and 73% Democrat support.

1968 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated. MLK voted Republican.

1960-70s - A total of 24 Democratic members of congress switched to become Republican over a 20 year period. The majority of democrats in that time period remained democrats.

1995 - Dreams from My Father by Barack Obama is published. Obama discusses how the urban cities would become the new plantation for blacks under Democrat political bosses: “The plantation, the blacks have the worst jobs, the worst housing, police brutality rampant; but when the so-called black committee man come around election time, we’d all line up and vote the straight Democratic ticket. Sell our souls for a Christmas turkey. White folks spit in our faces, and we reward them with the vote.“

2009 - Hillary Clinton lauds Margaret Sanger, KKK advocate, white supremacist, and eugenicist at the 2009 Planned Parenthood Honors Gala: “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. I am really in awe of her, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life.”

Me: 1
History revisionism: 0

Originally posted by whiteangelxoxo

Reince Priebus is Trump’s White House Chief of Staff. This is his statement on Trump neglecting to mention the Jewish or any other specific victims of the Holocaust. This is how they turn a targeted genocide into “something that happened.” A majority of Jews in Europe and enormous numbers of Jews in the Middle East and North Africa were murdered because of the Nazis during the Holocaust. Erasing that fact is antisemitism. Telling Jews to shut up about our own genocide is antisemitism. If you want to talk about the other victims, mention who they were. Don’t universalize. Don’t omit. The Holocaust was not universal. To pretend otherwise is Holocaust Revisionism and Holocaust Denial. Do not normalize it.

REMINDER that the story of Mulan was stolen from Xiongnu /Central Asian tribes by Han imperialists!!! Every representation of Mulan as Han Chinese is revisionism!!! Remember how monstrous/demonized the Huns were portrayed in the Disney film? Well, Mulan was one of them!!!
youtube

A constant reality: How hard it is to do a historian’s work. We make enemies out of people not because we want to, but because we have to. Not that history or historians have not been manipulated. History has been manipulated oftentimes through revisionist means. There is a grain of truth in saying that history has been written by the victors. And since history is in the very gore and grime of things, telling the unfolding revealed drama of human nature, there are things that people often forget, or choose to forget. There are even some historians who choose not to reveal things, blinded by either conviction or political agenda. But then again, show me a historian who doesn’t have any tinge of bias. So then, it is my conviction that history is dangerous. For good or for ill, it is a tool for truth or for deception. It remains so especially when the actors in the history being told are still alive, through dynastic families that live on in our political life. It was Leon Ma. Guerrero who pointed out that indeed, an educated native is a dangerous native.

And so it is quite disturbing to find stuff on the Marcoses on the net. Stuff that are more or less positive and to the core, revisionist. I also noticed that most of these people who say that Marcos was the best president the country ever had never lived at the time of Martial Law. Whether driven by desperation and hopelessness for the country’s present problems, these young people now have a positive look at Marcos and his regime. It is also that dichotomy of discipline vs. freedom that most of these people argue on. We need to be disciplined, they say. Democracy doesn’t really work for us, because Filipinos do not know how to use and dispense their freedom. The Philippines needed Marcos. And Marcos put the Philippines on the map.

Really? 

But then, is it really worth it, to sacrifice our basic freedoms—freedom of the press, of the speech, of assembly—for order, for progress? Or for that matter, is it right to call a muted vox populi, a pervading fear to be taken in and never be seen again, as progress?

While I can also say I never lived at the time like these young people, I would like to reiterate that the same freedom that make them say something FOR the Marcoses was the same freedom that was never present when the Marcoses were in power.

Books are written to prove this. Scholars have published peer reviewed journals agreeing that the Philippines plummeted to economic debt under the Marcos regime. Victims that were never seen again remain missing. The corruption ran deep in the military during Marcos’s regime that it is hard to think how deep the rabbithole went. The materials are out there. The proof is staring us in the face.

So please. Enough with opinions. Show me some cold hard facts to support your view, and let us derive from those facts. For if what you say is truth, your stand would survive the scrutiny of academic inquiry, an exercise of freedom that Marcos himself discouraged.

My advise…. guys, read.

Video above, released by ABS CBN.

Blog posts on Martial Law HERE.

Socialist Korea makes sharp criticism of Chinese gov’t posture on U.S. threats

Socialist Korea lays it out to the revisionist leadership of China on its strike-breaking activities: 

Commentary on DPRK-China Relations

Pyongyang, May 3 (KCNA) – Kim Chol released a commentary on Wednesday, urging Chinese newspapers to refrain from making reckless remarks undermining the DPRK-China relations.

Noting that a string of absurd and reckless remarks are now heard from big neighboring countries, perhaps frightened at the U.S. blackmail and war racket, every day only to render the acute situation of the Korean peninsula more strained, the commentary says:     

The People’s Daily and the Global Times, widely known as media speaking for the official stand of the Chinese party and government, have recently carried commentaries asserting that the DPRK’s access to nukes poses a threat to the national interests of China. They shifted the blame for the deteriorated relations between the DPRK and China onto the DPRK and raised lame excuses for the base acts of dancing to the tune of the U.S.     

Those commentaries claimed that the DPRK poses a threat to “the security in the northeastern region of China” by conducting nuclear tests less than 100 km away from its border with China. They even talked rubbish that the DPRK strains the situation in Northeast Asia and “offers the U.S. excuses for deploying more strategic assets” in the region.     

Not content with such paradox, the commentaries asserted that to remain averse to the DPRK’s access to nukes is to preserve interests common to the U.S. and China, calling for slapping harsher sanctions against the DPRK in order to avert a war which would bring danger to China.     

The newspapers, even claiming China holds the initiative in handling the DPRK-China relations, made no scruple of letting out a string of provocative remarks urging the DPRK to choose one among such options if it doesn’t want military confrontation with China–“whether to face protracted isolation or to preserve national security by making a U-turn” and whether to break Sino-DPRK friendship or to dismantle its nukes.     

This is just a wanton violation of the independent and legitimate rights, dignity and supreme interests of the DPRK and, furthermore, constitutes an undisguised threat to an honest-minded neighboring country which has a long history and tradition of friendship.     

China is hyping up “damage caused by the DPRK’s nuclear tests” in its three northeastern provinces. This only reveals the ulterior purpose sought by it, being displeased with the DPRK’s rapid development of nukes.    

As far as “violation of national interests” oft-repeated by politicians and media persons of China is concerned, it is just the issue that the DPRK should rather talk much about.     

It is just the DPRK whose strategic interests have been repeatedly violated due to insincerity and betrayal on the part of its partner, not China at all.     

Some theorists of China are spouting a load of nonsense that the DPRK’s access to nukes strains the situation in Northeast Asia and offers the U.S. an excuse for beefing up its strategic assets in the region. But the U.S. had activated its strategy for dominating Asia-Pacific long before the DPRK had access to nukes, and its primary target is just China.     

China should acknowledge in an honest manner that the DPRK has just contributed to protecting peace and security of China, foiling the U.S. scheme for aggression by waging a hard fight in the frontline of the showdown with the U.S. for more than seven decades, and thank the DPRK for it.     

Some ignorant politicians and media persons of China daringly assert that the traditional relations of the DPRK-China friendship were in line with the interests of each county in the past. They are advised to clearly understand the essence of history before opening their mouth.     

Their call for not only slapping stricter sanctions but also not ruling out a military intervention if the DPRK refuses to abandon its nuclear program is no more than an extremely ego-driven theory based on big-power chauvinism that not only the strategic interests but also the dignity and vital rights of the DPRK should be sacrificed for the interests of China.    

One must clearly understand that the DPRK’s line of access to nukes for the existence and development of the country can neither be changed nor shaken and that the DPRK will never beg for the maintenance of friendship with China, risking its nuclear program which is as precious as its own life, no matter how valuable the friendship is.    

The DPRK, which has already become one of the most powerful nuclear weapons state, does not feel the need to think over how many options it has now.    

China should no longer try to test the limits of the DPRK’s patience but make proper strategic option, facing up to the situation.    

China had better ponder over the grave consequences to be entailed by its reckless act of chopping down the pillar of the DPRK-China relations.

Being a “Marxist” isn’t enough

It wasn’t until recently that radicals in bourgeois academic circles became bold enough to call themselves “communists” again. Before that, a trend emerged—which still continues today—of socialist academics calling themselves “Marxists,” but never daring to append the more dangerous names of Lenin and Mao to that title. They would declare fidelity to a critique of the current system they lived in, but continue to offer lukewarm, ineffective solutions to mitigate the ills of capitalism, indistinguishable from reformist solutions put forward by liberals. This allowed them to keep their jobs and ultimately become pet radicals for the bourgeoisie. The most prominent examples that immediately come to mind are Richard D. Wolff and Noam Chomsky—radicals in name, liberals in practice.

Recently I’ve become very skeptical of people who call themselves “Marxists” but don’t seem to be engaging in the kind of revolutionary activity that Maoist collectives in the US like the Red Guards or Revolutionary Collectives seem to. What do they mean by “Marxism” then?

Marxism is much more than a critique of capitalism, it’s dialectical and historical materialism—a science that was initiated by Marx and Engels and is still being developed to this day. Crucially, it’s a science that can only be advanced through revolutionary practice. If these “Marxists” are really scientists the same way Marx and Engels were, people who were actively engaged in the revolutionary struggles of their day, then where is their experimentation? After all, chemists and physicists have their laboratories and observatories; they’re constantly learning and putting their science to the test.

Furthermore, the communist movement has advanced far beyond Marx and Engels; we have the experiences of the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution, and the experiences of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China, the latter giving us the invaluable experience of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. There have been two ruptures in the science of revolutionary communism since Marx and Engels, those of Lenin and Mao. Today being a “Marxist,” that is, adhering fidelity to the science that Marx and Engels developed (and not just their critique of capitalism), means being a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. This is exactly like how physicists recognize that their science has developed a lot since Newton, and today the rupture of Einstein is recognized as a fundamental component of their science.

While Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and physics may both be sciences in the same analogous way, physicists (thankfully) don’t append the names of the main theorists who produced ruptures in their science, probably for good reason. The name “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” may not be ideal, but since the class struggle is a particularly vicious one and developments of a science of revolution in a world where capitalist ideology is overwhelmingly hegemonic prove to be difficult, the distinction has become necessary. The word “socialism” today means a million different things depending on who you talk to, most of them a far cry from what the Bolsheviks used the term to mean. “Communism” is quickly starting to look that way too. Maybe the name “revolutionary communism” would better encompass every aspect of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but I could quickly see revisionist trends twisting it around as Maoism gains hegemony in the communist movement.

Regardless, there’s a point I want to stress here: you can’t just be a “Marxist.” You have to be a communist. That means you need to be engaged in the class struggle and you have to uphold the developments it’s made since Marx and Engels. You have to go one step further than recognizing that the proletariat is the grave-digger of capitalism; if you’re a scientist and your science is revolution, you need to be engaged in revolution and struggle alongside the proletariat. Otherwise you’re just another liberal appropriating radicalism you didn’t earn.

Chauvinism in the Left and the Maoist Rupture

Chauvinism is a serious problem in the left that’s been plaguing it for decades. There’s a common trend of communism being seen as a “white person” thing, started by the “immortal gods” of revolution, Marx and Engels (i.e., white men). The truth is that these figures weren’t perfect, they were human beings, and because of their identities were sometimes guilty of making rightist eurocentric and masculinist errors. The contributions of non-white revolutionaries like Frantz Fanon, Kwame Nkrumah, Kevin “Rashid” Johnson, Fred Hampton, Gonzalo, Angela Davis, Huey P. Newton, Malcolm X, Leila Khaled, Ajith, Anuradha Ghandy, Jiang Qing, and others are constantly overlooked. There’s a good reason for this sentiment of suspicion, too, it didn’t just come out of nowhere; betrayal after betrayal have led the oppressed masses, especially those of oppressed nationalities, to distrust revolutionaries because of their history of chauvinist behavior.

Hopefully, the communist movement would have realized its chauvinist errors and come up with a solution by now, right? Marxism-Leninism-Maoism gives us a scientific way of handling this contradiction, and there are tests you can apply to Maoist organizations to see if they’re really interested in helping the people and not just phony petty-bourgeois impostors. I also want to point out that identity politics are not completely in contradiction with communism, that instead they should be extended via revolutionary theory and fully incorporated into that theory. Maoism has a method of handling these contradictions that Marxism-Leninism doesn’t, and if Maoists are doing their work right, any chauvinist or rightist petty-bourgeois errors will be corrected if the science of MLM is being followed correctly.

Here’s a quote from J. Moufawad-Paul’s “Continuity and Rupture,” a philosophical work that outlines the terrain of Maoism (which only crystallized as a coherent ideology between 1988 and 1993) in an attempt to provide clarity to this new theoretical tendency that is often poorly understood:

Mass-line, criticism and self-criticism, cultural revolution: these interlinked aspects of Maoism’s claim to be the next stage of science are necessary for building a movement that is capable of addressing the problems facing any revolutionary organization today. Here are some questions worth asking: is an organization building itself according to the will of the revolutionary masses while, at the same time, organizing this will and providing theoretical guidance; is this organization critical of itself and willing to accept that it is wrong; are the movement’s cadre serving the people and capable of self-criticism in a way that parallels the "checking of privilege” common in identity politics circles but, unlike these circles, tied to a coherent political line; does this movement see itself as capable of transcending the ruling ideas of the ruling class, grasping how certain ideological moments distort and over/under-determine the economic base (as Mao pointed out in On Contradiction), and constantly reforming itself through the long march of cultural revolution? Failure to answer these questions might in fact be a failure to concretely apply those theoretical insights that are supposed to make the name of Maoism into a concept.

How do we correct rightist errors and prevent chauvinism in a revolutionary collective? By understanding the dialectic between communists and proletarians, submitting ourselves to the people, accepting their unyielding criticism without thinking of ourselves, acting from the needs they express instead of our own subjective desires, and rectifying our errors without bringing our fragile egos into the mix.

Understanding how history is written is important. I still highly encourage anyone claiming to be a historian on this site to read books on the subject matter of historiography and that there are many schools of thought behind the academic side of things. Know what primary and secondary sources are. Make sure to understand how to properly use citations. Know what bias is. Know that most popular history books on the charts are not most likely not written by historians of any sort. Understand that not everything you read online is going to be telling you the truth. Always, and I mean always dig deeper. Know that historical revisionism is not always a bad thing since it sheds new ideas on old ones. It usually means challenging the orthodox views held by professional scholars about a historical event, or introducing new evidence, or of restating the motivations and decisions of the participant people. This is not the same thing as Historical negationism, which is where all the bullshit like denying the Holocaust, communist dictatorship crimes, saying the Armenian genocide didn’t happen. etc fall into. 

after being informed that minisoc is 38 years old and has children … i am truly amazed and i can’t help but wonder if little bashar and jong-un have fought against revisionism as bravely as minisoc

2

Hace un par de horas hice una publicación escribiendo que no sabía si era correcto hacer esto, sigo pensando lo mismo, pero en el fondo siento que es necesario.

Anoche salí a tomar algo con un chico que va a mi colegio, va a un año mas que yo, tiene 19 años, se llama Daniel. Después de 3hs en un bar, escuchando bandas, tomando cervezas, charlando, decidimos que era hora de irnos, ya era muy tarde. Fuimos a sentarnos a una plaza y nos quedamos un rato. Se le dió por besarme, se calentó y quería tener relaciones sexuales. Yo no quería, me agarró del brazo forzandome y me dijo “dale, no te ortives, vamos”, le dije “¿a donde me estas llevando?” mientras me tironeaba del brazo, reiteró “dale, vamos, vos seguime, no va a pasar nada”. Me subió a un remis, yo intentaba calmarme, y me llevó hasta el medio de la nada, un lugar que era puro campo, no había nada, ni nadie. Me tiró al pasto, se me tiró encima, en la desesperación intenté calmarme pero me forzó a sacarme la ropa, me obligo a darle sexo oral hasta el punto de vomitar, y acto seguido me empezó a penetrar sin lubricación ni nada, y sin preservativo. Estaba llorando a los gritos, me tapó la boca y me dijo “callate, que me calentas mas si lloras”, me dió vuelta y obligó a tener sexo anal, yo suplicandole a los gritos que por favor no lo haga, lo hizo y con todas sus fuerzas, dejándome al punto de sangrar. Sentía que ya no me podía mover, estaba débil, tenía el cuerpo rasguñado, lastimado, y aprovechó esa situación para seguir haciendome lo que quiso. Después de media hora de horror, me dejó tirada y se paró, nuevamente me obligó a darle sexo oral hasta vomitar, y filmó con mi celular como me violaba mientras me decía “te lo dejo de recuerdo”. Terminó, yo estaba tirada llorando, deseaba morirme, y me decía “deja de llorar, si vos te lo buscaste, es tu culpa”.

Después de contar esto de forma explicita, quiero empezar aclarando que no lo hago para hacerme ver, ni mucho menos para recibir mensajes de fuerza, lo hago para descargarme, y mostrar que no hay que quedarse calladx en caso de una violación. Sinceramente me da mucha vergüenza hacer público esto, principalmente porque puede ofender a alguien, o puede ser fuerte, pero es necesario. 

Hoy hice la denuncia con mi vieja, fue un día de llanto, de tramites, revisiones médicas y horas con la psicóloga especialista en género y violencia de género. Estoy bien, pero podría haber sido peor. La única persona que no sabe es mi viejo, y tengo mis razones, personalmente prefiero contárselo mas adelante cuando venga, aunque sabemos que no es lo correcto.

Si fuiste víctima de violación o algún otro abuso como me pasó a mi anoche, y estas leyendo esto, te ruego que por favor no te quedes calladx, es muy importante que hables, que muestres que te pasó, como quedaste, y todas esas cosas que te impiden sacar a la luz el resentimiento de haber sido abusadx. No me da vergüenza mostrar como quedó mi cuerpo, porque no hacerlo también es quedarme callada y ocultar parte de lo que Daniel me hizo. 

Yo no lo merecía, nadie merece esto.
Me siento vacía, siento que perdí algo, mejor dicho, que me sacó algo, siento que todo me da igual y que ya nada me importa. Lo único que siento y que se, es que esto es un proceso largo, y hoy tengo que ser mas fuerte, que la vida sigue y que hoy mas que nunca tengo que luchar junto con otras personas para que esto no siga pasando. Tengo bien clarito que llorando me puedo descargar, pero también hay que reaccionar. Sé que no estoy sola, amigxs y compañerxs me llamaron y escribieron durante todo el día, lloraban y lloraban mientras contaba lo que me pasó, lloraban de impotencia y tristeza al igual que yo, y me pone bien saber que tengo el apoyo de muchas personas, y eso es lo que me motiva a seguir viva y superar este hecho horroroso.

It is not the ignorance. That is a given, particularly when dealing with Spicy.

It is not the duck for cover by disingenuous people of greater intelligence than Spicy running about insisting on “clarifying” with “Battleground.” This to be expected and how the game is played. 

It is not the chilling use of “Holocaust Centers” instead of Death Camp, Concentration Camp, etc. That is just stomach sickening hissing from the mouths of snakes.

It is not A-historical revisionism. No, that is part and parcel of the political party of the president whom Spicy serves.

What it is, is this! That troubling word innocent… What it is, is the barely veiled and the hustle to cover up implication that the Syrian civilian victims were innocents, which, of course, they were, but that these people, whoever they were, in these “Holocaust centers” were not. That is what is being glossed here. 

It is the use of “his own people.” Meaning the hell what Spicy?! That German Jews, as one part of the Holocaust were not “Hitler’s people?” There is a lot of not too well hidden nastiness in this that goes far deeper than stupidity, or a lack of an education on ol’ Spicy’s part I fear. 

That is what is being missed, and that is what makes want to weep, howl like a mad dog, and pull my beard out.

Oh and just for a kick in the gut… Happy Pesach!

I honestly miss the radical leftist messages from the early Assassin’s Creed games; especially the ones from Subject 16′s puzzles:

Yeah! Highlight the theft of the means of production by the bourgeoisie! Let the workers own the means of production!

Yeah! Herald the call to revolution! Promote direct action!

Yeah! Show the people about the imperialist atrocities committed by the US against Chile, Iran, Argentina, and dozens of other countries!

Yeah! Challenge the bourgeoisie throughout all of history!


But in the one game that has Karl Freaking Marx in it – IN VICTORIAN LONDON WHERE INDUSTRIALISM AND WORKER’S RIGHTS ABUSES WERE LOUD AND PROUD – they turn him into a revisionist social democrat like:

I mean…what happened to the accuracy and the flame from the earlier games?

The idea that MLK was ‘nice’ to white supremacists is also just historical revisionism 

He was sent death threats. The FBI considered him dangerous. People assaulted and murdered many of his followers. White America thought he was too confrontational and not appeasing enough to the sensibilities of whites. He was considered disruptive and an “outside agitator.” He was not a beloved man. He was hated and despised.

His protests came with the risk of being brutalized or killed by police or vigilantes. He decried the white moderate for caring more about order than justice. He refused to condemn riots, ‘the language of the unheard,’ because of how violent America was to Black people. Despite their differences, Malcolm X offered him protection and self-defense. Even though he was committed to nonviolent resistance, which meant breaking the law, disrupting traffic and yes - willingly opening yourself to being brutalized, he was more complicated than you give him credit.

The United States hated him and for his troubles he was killed.

He was not the caricature of nonviolence you think he was. Read a fucking book.

— 

insurrectionarycompassion 

Click the link and read the whole thread. While the Civil Rights Movemnt brought with it many advances, one of its most unfortunate legacies is the way history is re-written so that our leaders are used to silence & guilt those who want to fight racism and refuse to prioritize the feelings of racists.

Happy Martin Luther King Day, please use this day to reflect and educate your self. 

Reject revisionist history when it comes to the horrors of racism and the battles that were held to oppose it.

We were in a battle then, and we are in a battle now.