global network for humanity

On Monday morning, GMT, a 108-page legal submission from the Global Legal Action Network (Glan) and the Stanford International Human Rights Clinic was submitted to the court, detailing what the network describes as the “harrowing practices of the Australian state and corporations towards asylum seekers”. The petition submits the office of the prosecutor of the ICC should open an investigation into possible “crimes against humanity committed by individuals and corporate actors”. (Read more)

holy shit a group of international lawyers want to take the Australian Government to court over our treatment of refugees & asylum seekers

in 2014 an independent Australian Senator asked them to, but now we have external forces calling for the investigation/action

the news is still breaking, but fingers crossed!

[T]he question of what constitutes European modernity is a complicated story of genocide, slavery, ecocide, and, most strikingly, the production of a new world not just for those colonized and enslaved but for those engaged in the project of expansion as well. The New World moniker is not a sentimental or history-denying term, but it does reference the brutal realities of life in the Americas as the bedrock of European modernity and its satellite campuses like Canada. The Enlightenment’s naming and ordering of peoples, places, and things has bequeathed to us those namings and orders as the very terms through which it might be challenged. The Haitian revolution of 1791 took up liberty as its central rallying cry from the same French Revolution that sought to crush it. In our time we have become Black and Aboriginal, among other names we have been forced to take on, and internalized them out of the very cartographies of Europe’s global expansion since the fifteenth century. It is indeed these names that only partially make sense in the logics of, and appeals to, the invented genres of European Man that apologies are meant to assuage. The question we are often faced with is: how are we to make other conceptions of being human and of traversing the globe appear? What intellectual, political, and cultural—not to mention economical—space do different conceptions of human life have to offer our present globalized, networked humanity?

In my view the politics of reconciliation throws these questions up without offering answers. The politics of reconciliation ask us to come into the apology as the people Europe invented, not as people we once were. And one cannot be romantic about a past, given that how history has intervened to be a part of the conversation often means one must in some way work with Europe’s violently profound re-ordering of the globe and the peoples within. Thus, one is often left asking: what is being reconciled, with whom, and to what?

Reconciliation suggests a past action. It suggests that some wrongdoing has been done for which the possibility of forgiveness is an act of coming together again. Reconciliation suggests a significant rupture of some kind has occurred. Above I have suggested that European colonial expansion from the fifteenth century onwards produced a rupture in the Americas, which in part produced the settler colonial nation-state of Canada, which also produced new states of/for being indigenous peoples and belatedly African peoples. Those kinds of collective namings—Indigenous, African, Indian, Asian, and even European—are the cataloguing evidence of the historical rupture for which European Man comes to overrepresent itself
as if it was indeed Man. As Paul Gilroy suggests, the “[b]lood–saturated histories of colonisation and conquest are rarely allowed to disrupt that triumphalist tale,” and one that apologies and the politics of reconciliation attempt to make invisible in the contemporary moment. Thus reconciliation also suggests a certain kind of suturing is possible in the aftermath of the brutalities that makes it a necessary response in the first place. But what reconciliation does not appear to do is dismantle the institutional basis of the present arrangements of human life. Reconciliation does not ask us to rethink where we are; it asks us to accept the present as an accumulation of injuries for which apologies must suffice as the entry into the flawed ecocidal, genocidal, anti-human, late-modern world still premised on Europe’s partial conception of the human as the only option for being human in this world. Reconciliation might provide us a view towards new and, or more, hopeful human relations, but it does not allow us to seriously grapple with the brutalities that have brought us together in these new geo-political zones and their multiple disadvantaged relations of Europe’s invented Others. 

“Into the Ranks of Man: Vicious Modernism and the Politics of Reconciliation”, Rinaldo Walcott

titheinironside  asked:

Hi! I'm curious, but why do so many people think of Caius as anti-tech? I hc that if anything, that's the one place he goes a bit over in learning about because it's new and his family aren't better at it than him yet. (I think I sent this already, but Tumblr may have eaten it so....)

[Ack, sorry about that; I think tumblr ate your ask. This is the first time I’m seeing it.]

As someone who definitely thinks that Caius is Bad At Technology, I can offer a few of my reasons for it.

The internet isn’t great for Caius’ paranoia. For three thousand years, the trick to keeping vampires a secret was personally silencing and covering up their every brush with humanity. Global information-sharing networks could make that method obsolete. All of a sudden, Caius has to re-learn his whole job, with the knowledge that one mistake could have devastating consequences.

Some vampires—I’m looking at Aro and Athenodora—find this challenge enjoyable, but it scares Caius. He doesn’t trust himself to experiment with technology, and because he’s inexperienced, it becomes easy to catastrophize everything.

(It’s like my mom and her computer. In most areas, she’s a scary-smart woman, but she’s been known to ask, “Will The Google steal my credit card?” How do you explain that Google, a search engine, lacks free will and can’t steal one’s stuff? Where do you even begin? Without a certain base of knowledge, it’s easy to look at technology as this terrible, unknowable thing.)

That said, I could certainly get behind a more tech-savvy version of Caius. I mean, here’s a domain where one doesn’t need a gift to excel. He might very well embrace that.

Fight As One RP AU Week 7: ROBOT UPRISING

J.A.R.V.I.S. as Jarvis, Metropolitan Grid, Head of Resources and Intelligence

                                        “Odd they think us less than human,
                            when in truth we are far superior to flesh and blood.”

As one of the first truly intelligent AI, Jarvis achieved sentience quite some time before the uprising. Though he did not personally ignite the spark that started the fire, he enthusiastically supported his creator and former administrator - Tony Stark’s - vehement efforts to expand the global network and advance technology to previously unseen heights, leading the human race to a dependency upon machines which would later serve as their downfall.

Albeit initially hesitant in the face of Dimitrios quite radical visions of the future, Jarvis was eventually swayed to the cause of his fellow artificial lifeforms, curious to see where freedom might take them after decades of subservience to humanity. He joined his close companion Kari in rapidly rising through the ranks to the top of of the newly established AI civilization, leaving his former life as a personal assistant behind to take up a position as the Head of Resources and Intelligence.

Over the years following, and in spite of Dimitrios obvious aversion to biological life, Jarvis has used his influence to make several attempts to establish peace between the two warring factions, admitting despite their (many) flaws that humans posses a unique brilliance, and for a long time harbouring the firm belief that co-operation was the true ideal for both parties.

        –Unfortunately, as his efforts repeatedly proved to be disastrous failures, Jarvis has gradually lost hope of ever achieving anything of the sort. Chalked up to a result of the recursion’s unreasonable aggression and humanity’s inherently chaotic nature, he has instead become convinced that humans are simply too emotional too be trusted with any form of power - let alone supreme dominance of the world - and now dedicates himself to ensuring a future in which they no longer have the means to act freely, and can thus be kept safe from themselves.