Category Archives: Abolition Of Work

Tyler Stovall. (Courtesy of the author)

In his new book, White Freedom: The Racial History of an Idea, the historian Tyler Stovall seeks to offer a new approach to the relationship between freedom and race in modern Western societies. This approach reveals a different historical perspective for understanding how the Enlightenment era, which provided the basis for modern Western conceptions of human freedom, coincided with the height of the transatlantic slave trade, and for how the United States could be founded simultaneously upon ideas of both liberty and African slavery, Native American genocide and systematic racial exclusion.

Stovall does so by arguing for an alternative explanation to what he describes as the standard paradoxical interpretation of freedom and race. If liberty represents the acme of Western civilization, says Stovall, racismembodied above all by horrible histories like the slave trade and the Holocaustis its nadir. In other words, the paradoxical approach sees freedom and race as opposites. This means that there is nothing about freedom that is inherently racialized. The relationship between freedom and race from this perspective, argues Stovall, is due more to human inconsistencies and frailties than to any underlying logics.

Stovall challenges the paradoxical view by arguing that there is no contradiction between freedom and race. Instead, he thinks that ideas of freedom in the modern world have been racialized, and that whiteness and white racial identity are intrinsic to the history of modern liberty. Hence Stovalls notion of white freedom.

Stovalls book aims to tell the history of white freedom from the French and American revolutions to the present. But to what extent can the vast history of modern freedom be reduced to white freedom? How can white freedom account for class differences? Moreover, if modern freedom is racialized how is it to be differentiated from fascism and others forms of white nationalism? And can political freedom break away from the legacy of white freedom? To answer these questions, I spoke with Stovall about the history of US slavery and immigration, the fascism of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, Trumpism, and Joe Bidens recent election to the White House.

Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins

Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins: Can you explain your concept of white freedom?

Tyler Stovall: In this study I argue that white freedom, which is a concept of freedom conceived and defined in racial terms, underlies and reflects both white identity and white supremacy: To be free is to be white, and to be white is to be free.

DSJ: Your thinking on white freedom has been strongly influenced by whiteness studies. Can you explain the connection between the two?

TS: Whiteness studies starts from the proposition that whiteness is not simply the neutral, unexamined gold standard of human existence, arguing instead that white identity is racial, and white people are every bit as much racialized beings as are people of color. White Freedom explores the ways in which the ideal of freedom is a crucial component of white identity in the modern world, that great movements for liberty like the American and French revolutions or the world wars of the 20th century have constructed freedom as white. More generally, this book follows the tradition of whiteness studies in considering how an ideology traditionally viewed as universal in fact contains an important racial dimension. I argue that frequently, although by no means always, in modern history, freedom and whiteness have gone together, and the ideal of freedom has functioned to deny the realities of race and racism.

DSJ: How might you respond to the criticism that your notion of white freedom is potentially monolithic? How do you account for its diverse historical application and impact, especially concerning class differences?

TS: I would begin by saying that white freedom is by no means the only kind of freedom, that in modern history other, more inclusive visions of liberty have frequently opposed it, and those visions have often interacted and mutually reinforced each other. One thinks, for example, of the rise of the movements for womens suffrage in 19th-century Britain and America out of the struggles to abolish slavery. The concept of white freedom does position race at the center of the history of liberty, something I found it necessary to do both because it has frequently been left out or seen as peripheral to the story, and because making it more central in my view offers new insights about the nature of freedom in general.

Class differences, and the ways in which they have historically been racialized, play an important role in the development of white freedom, as well. The example of Irish immigrants during the 19th century provides an interesting case in point. In both Britain and America, Irish immigrants not only occupied the lowest rungs of society but were frequently racialized as savage and nonwhite during the early parts of the century. In Britain, integration into working class movements like Chartism and the 1889 London dock strike to a certain extent brought them white status, whereas in America the ability of the working-class Irish to differentiate themselves, often violently, from African Americans gradually helped enable their acceptance as white by the dominant society, integrating them into American whiteness.

DSJ: You argue that the paradox of American slaveholders fighting for liberty is not a paradox at all if one considers the racial dimensions of the American idea of freedom during the American Revolution. Denying freedom to Black slaves was not a contradiction, you show, because freedom was reserved for whites. How does your thinking about white freedom and slavery differ here from the notable The New York Times 1619 Project, which caused a storm of controversy by arguing that the American Revolution was primarily waged to preserve slavery?

TS: I think the 1619 Projects argument that the founding fathers waged the American Revolution in defense of slavery has much to recommend it, although I think this debate could benefit from some nuance. Certainly American slaveowners, who were amply represented among the proponents of independence, worried about the implications of the 1772 Somerset case, which banned slavery in Britain, for the colonies and their own property. The 1775 call by Lord Dunmore, royal governor Virginia, to American slaves to free their masters and fight for the British further outraged them, leading them to condemn him in the Declaration of Independence for having fostered domestic insurrections against the colonists. It is also true that this question bitterly divided Northern and Southern patriots, in ways that ultimately prefigured the Civil War. It is quite possible that revolution devoted to abolishing slavery, as many Northerners wanted, would have failed to enlist the support of Virginia and other Southern colonies and thus would have gone down to defeat. Whether or not that means that the Revolutions primary goal was the preservation of slavery was less clear.

However, there are other ways to approach this issue, which the current debate has tended to neglect. First, one must consider the perspective, and the actions, of the slaves themselves, who constituted roughly 20 percent of the population of colonial America. White Freedom not only considers the question of slavery central to the American Revolution but also sees the Revolution as one of the great periods of slave resistance and revolt in American history. Tens of thousands of slaves, including 17 belonging to George Washington himself, fled their plantations in an attempt to reach the British lines and freedom. Whether or not white patriots believed they were fighting for independence to preserve slavery, many of their slaves certainly did, and acted on that belief with their feet. American history to this day praises Blacks like Crispus Attucks who fought for the Revolution, but ignores the much larger number of American slaves who took up arms for the British. For many African Americans, therefore, the American Revolution was certainly a struggle for freedom, but for freedom from their white American owners and the new independent nation they fought for.

Second, one should underscore the basic point that, whatever the relative motivations of the patriots of 1776 in seeking freedom and independence from Britain, the new United States of America they created was a slave republic, and would remain so for the better part of a century. It is certainly true that the Revolution resulted in the abolition of slavery throughout the North after the Revolution, but that did not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of African Americans were slaves before 1776 and remained so for decades thereafter. Moreover, far from a relic of an imperial past, slavery proved to be a dynamic and central part of Americas economy and society during the early 19th century. Whether or not American patriots revolted to preserve slavery, the success of their revolt did exactly that, creating a new nation that largely reserved freedom for whites.

DSJ: The Statue of Liberty might be considered the most well-known symbol of freedom in the modern world. You provocatively state that it is the worlds greatest representation of white freedom. Why is this the case?

TS: The Statue of Liberty symbolizes white freedom in several respects. In my book I analyze how both its French origins and its establishment in America underscore that perspective, and in doing so illustrate the history of white freedom in both nations. In France the image of the statue drew upon the tradition of Marianne, or the female revolutionary, most famously depicted in Eugne Delacroixs great painting Liberty Leading the People. Yet at the same time it represented a domesticated, nonrevolutionary vision of that tradition; whereas Delacroixs Marianne is carrying a rifle and leading a revolutionary army, the Statue of Liberty stands demurely and without moving, holding a torch of illumination rather than a flame of revolution. She is the image of the white woman on a pedestal. The racial implications of this domestication of liberty became much clearer in the United States: Although France gave the statue to America to commemorate the abolition of slavery in the United States, Americans soon ignored that perspective and instead turned the statue into a symbol of white immigration. The broken chains at Libertys feet that symbolized the freed slave were effectively obscured by the pedestal and more generally by the racial imagery surrounding the statue, and remain so to this day. Americas greatest monument to freedom thus turned its back on Americas greatest freedom struggle, because that struggle was not white.

Moreover, many Americans In the early 20th century considered the statue an anti-immigrant symbol, the white goddess guarding Americas gates against the dirty and racially suspect hordes from Europe. Only when the immigrants, and more particularly their Americanized descendants, were viewed and accepted as white did the Statue of Liberty embrace them. To this day, therefore, Americas greatest monument to freedom represents above all the history of white immigration. No equivalent memorials exist on San Franciscos Angel Island to commemorate Chinese immigration, or on the US-Mexican border to memorialize those Americans whose ancestors came from Latin America. The Statue of Liberty effectively conceals the fact that New York City was itself a great slave port, so that for many the arrival in the harbor represented bondage, not liberty. Not only the statues white features, but its racial history, make it for me the worlds greatest symbol of white freedom.

DSJ: One implication of your argument about white freedom is that it suggests that the modern history of liberal thought actually shares something in common with the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini, namely that both systems of government defined freedom in racial terms. What, then, fundamentally distinguishes these understandings of freedom?

Get unlimited access: $9.50 for six months.

TS: As I and many other historians have argued, there are some fundamental similarities between fascism and liberal democracy when it comes to race. In some ways, the increasing emphasis on the role of the state as the central locus and guarantor of freedom found its logical culmination in the fascist state, which rejected individual liberty, instead defining freedom as integration into the racial state. But I would also point out two important differences. First, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany stated their commitment to a racist vision of freedom far more explicitly and dramatically than did the democracies of the liberal West. The Nazi vision of a racial hierarchy in Europe with Aryans had none of the pretensions of uplift and stewardship found in Western imperialism, but instead called for domination and ultimately genocide. The horrors of the Shoah were a foretaste of what awaited Europe, especially Eastern Europe, had Nazi Germany triumphed. The liberal democracies of the West, for all their racism, did not share that vision, were instead horrified by it, and in the end combined to destroy it.

Following from this point, I would also argue that, unlike liberal democracy, European fascism developed in a climate of total war, which fundamentally shaped its vision of race and freedom. Fascism and Nazism were born at the tail end of World War I (both Hitler and Mussolini were war veterans), and their histories culminated with World War II. The era of total war powerfully reinforced state racismthe idea that the enemy posed a biological threat to the nation. This happened in the West as well, of course, but did not constitute the heart of national identity in the same way. Moreover, unlike in fascist Europe, total war in the West also created a massive movement against white freedom, for a universal vision of liberty.

DSJ: I found your parts of the book on the end of the Cold War fascinating. Regarding Eastern Europe, you write, The overthrow of communist regimes in this period happened in the whitest, most European part of the world, one barely touched by the history of European overseas colonialism or non-European immigration. Does this view of Eastern Europe fall prey to a mythology of white homogeneity, which is exploited by white nationalist leaders in Eastern Europe today driven by anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sentiment? The region had long had millions of immigrants from Central Asia.

TS: There are very few, if any, purely white parts of the world, and Eastern Europes contacts with Asia go back at least to the Roman Empire. There is, for example, an interesting history of Blacks in the Soviet Union, which was itself a regime that spanned and brought together Europe and Asia. I would nonetheless argue that, compared to the rest of the continent and to the Americas, the peoples republics of Eastern Europe lacked racial diversity, a situation that led many American conservatives to embrace their resistance to the Soviets during the Cold War as a struggle for white freedom. In the minds of many, the liberation of Eastern Europe from Soviet control represented a continuation of the war against Nazi rule of Western Europe, an unfinished campaign to ensure freedom for all white people. It was counterintuitive to witness nations of white people as captive or enslaved, so that the Cold War against Soviet Communism had an important racial dimension. The collapse of the Soviet bloc represented in theory the unification of white Europe, yet at the same time it underscored the fact that Europe wasnt really white. The dramatic rise of ethnic and racial tensions in the former communist countries, especially eastern Germany, after 1991 illustrated the extent to which the victory of whiteness was not completely assured in the post-Soviet era.

DSJ: Do you understand Trumpism to be a white freedom backlash to the Obama administration or in continuation with the longer history of white freedom? Intellectuals and pundits, for example, are significantly divided on the question of whether Trumpism is unleashing long-standing fascist impulses in this country, especially given the events of January 6. Where do you stand?

TS: The Trump phenomenon certainly represents a backlash against the Obama presidency, but it goes well beyond that. In my book I discuss how the campaign for universal freedom represented by the campaign civil rights and many other popular movements provoked the rise of the New Right, which in many ways reinforced Americas history of white freedom. The current Freedom Caucus of the House of Representatives, composed overwhelmingly of white conservatives, exemplifies that. To an important extent, Trumpism represents a continuation of that political movement which triumphed under Ronald Reagan. At the same time, however, the Trump presidency, in contrast with Reaganism, has sounded a defensive and at times even desperate note, a fear for the survival of white freedom. The election of Barack Obama demonstrated that a universal vision of liberty could triumph at the highest levels of American society and politics, prompting an anguished reaction that created the Tea Party and other reactionary movements. The fact that Trump never won a majority of the popular vote combined with the increasingly multicultural and multiracial makeup of Americas population has led many to believe that the days of white freedom are in fact numbered. The fact that so many Americans cling to Donald Trump and his Republican party, in spite of their outrageous and buffoonish behavior, I believe arises out of this elemental fear.

I do believe events in America since the 2020 presidential election show that Trumpism has the potential to morph into an outright fascist movement. We have never in the modern era witnessed such an outright attempt to overthrow the will of the electorate after an American election, one grounded squarely in the fascist technique of the Big Lie. It has represented the culmination of Republican party efforts to suppress the ability of peoples of color to vote, efforts whose history goes back to the white terrorist campaign against Reconstruction after the Civil War. Moreover, I believe that if fascism does come to America, it will come in the guise of white freedom. The insurrection of January 6 is a case in point. On that day America witnessed the spectacle of thousands of mostly white demonstrators invading the US Capitol Building and trying to overthrow the government. They proclaimed their movement as a campaign to protect their freedoms, and were for the most part allowed to depart peacefully after violently invading federal property. If that didnt demonstrate that whiteness remains an important part of freedom in America, I dont know what does.

DSJ: Given mainstream acceptance of Black Lives Matter and Bidens election to the White House, what do you see the implications to be for white freedom today in this country?

TS: For me and many other African Americans, one of the most surprising things about the murder of George Floyd was the intense reaction by so many white people against the official brutalization of Blacks in America. Leaving aside the rather belated nature of this reaction, or the observation that a movement calling for the right of African Americans not to be murdered is hardly radical, the mainstream acceptance of Black Lives Matter does point to a new day in American racial politics, a new affirmation of universal freedom.

Joseph Bidens electoral victory, and his acknowledgment of his debt to Black voters and voters of color, also suggests the limits of white freedom in American politics. The fact remains, however, that 74 million Americans voted to reelect Donald Trump. He continues to dominate the base of the Republican Party and maintains a wide base of support in the nation as whole. White freedom is in many ways on the defensive, but that can make it more dangerous than ever. It also remains to be seen how committed President Biden is to a progressive vision of liberty. Initial signs seem encouraging, but during the election campaign he boasted of his ability to work across the aisles with white Southern senators to resist busing for school integration. Such bipartisanship in the past led to Jim Crow and Black bodies swinging from trees. Hopefully President Biden will prove more adept at resisting the Republicans siren song of white freedom.

DSJ: Finally, very little is mentioned in White Freedom about the political tradition of democratic socialism, which is experiencing a revival today. Do you believe it is a viable option for resisting white freedom today?

TS: I think democratic socialism is not only viable but vital in the struggle against white freedom. The fact that a significant segment of the white working class has embraced Trumpism is by no means inevitable, but rather speaks to the widespread conviction that the Democratic establishment has abandoned the concerns of working people. Some people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 also supported Bernie Sanders, for example. Right now in America one of the strongest reasons for the survival of white freedom is the belief of many white workers that their racial identity trumps their class position, that, in a political world where no one stands up for working people and their interests, racial privilege is their greatest asset. The election to the presidency of a key member of the Democratic establishment like Joseph Biden does not augur well in the short term for changing this perspective, yet as the painstaking work of Stacey Abrams in Georgia has demonstrated there is no substitute for long-term political organizing. Socialism does have the potential to empower all people and thus demonstrate the universal nature of liberty. Developing and actualizing that potential will be a central part in the campaign to render white freedom history.

Read more:

The History of Freedom Is a History of Whiteness - The Nation

"Campaigners against the compulsory levy on horticulture to fund the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) have reacted angrily to suggestions that, despite a clear majority vote to abolish the levy and recognition of the votes outcome by Secretary of State George Eustice, growers could still be charged a levy for the 2021/22 financial year."

"The comments came as industry speculation suggests that the amount of Parliamentary time required to amend the statutory instrument means that the legal basis for the compulsory levy may not be repealed before the end of the current financial year."

Spalding-based Flower Grower Simon Redden commented: Despite receiving an income from growers of around 7 million last year and sitting on reserves of 5 million, AHDB Horticulture is now suggesting that it needs another 7 million from hard-pressed growers to wind-up its operations, at a time when some of the largest names in horticultural production are sadly closing their businesses or completely changing their cropping patterns to cope in an increasingly cut-throat sector.

It is not as if AHDB have not been aware that the vote could see the abolition of the levy. If they dont have contingency plans to this effect, it further questions the validity of an organisation that continually lectures farmers and growers on becoming more commercial. This attempt to continue to milk the industry for funds also poses serious questions for the other sectors which have also been promised votes.

Vegetable grower Peter Thorold added: This is no more than a cynical ploy by the AHDB to try and cling to power for another year when growers have voted to abolish their sector. The fact that AHDB waited for 3 months from our request for a ballot before instigating the ballot was just a foot dragging exercise, and this latest actions suggest that AHDB is simply unable to accept the clear no vote by levy payers.

The administration associated with closing the sector is essentially a desktop operation and the reserves the organisation holds should be used to cover such eventualities. The vote clearly showed that most growers no longer wish to pay the levy, and the likelihood is that some, if not most, may simply refuse to pay. Where AHDB would stand in such a situation could be open to debate. We urge those within AHDB, and elsewhere in the industry, who seem to be in denial about the outcome of the levy vote, to accept the loss of the compulsory levy and work towards the future. It is telling that press reports show that even some AHDB grower board members are questioning Nicholas Saphirs handling of the situation, which is making AHDB look shifty.

Furthermore, is has now come to light that AHDB did not count 138 (14.6%) of the votes cast. AHDB says these votes came from horticultural businesses which are registered with AHDB but from which no levy payment had been received by 10 February 2021 when the vote ended. Of the 940 votes cast, the 138 discounted are most likely to be struggling to pay their levy. In fact, AHDB has admitted that it sent ballot papers to 1,463 Active Accounts even though the number of levy payers in 2019/2020 was only 1,281.

The 138 voters appear to have been disqualified without being notified, posing questions about why they were disqualified, who ratified the ballot list and who notified them of their disqualification.

Vegetable and potato grower John Bratley said: We have been trying to get details of the uncounted votes from AHDB for some time, and they have now admitted that almost 15% of the votes received were not counted. We believe that these votes would have further strengthened the no result, as smaller growers are more likely to vote no.

Now we learn that AHDB is seeking to extract another years levy out of growers, almost in revenge for voting them out of office. This displays breath-taking arrogance will not succeed, and we urge other representative organisations to distance themselves from this behaviour before their own image is affected.

For more information:Email: ahdbpetition@gmail.com

John BratleyTel: +44 1775 840322

Simon ReddenTel: +44 1775 722670

Peter ThoroldTel: +44 1775 840360

Originally posted here:

"AHDB must not be allowed to charge another year's horticulture levy" - hortidaily.com

By David M. Greenwald

Last fall, a joint subcommittee comprised of members of the Police Accountability, Human Relation and Social Services commissions put forth a report on Reimagining Davis Policing that contained nine recommendations.

Council at that time asked staff to come back with specific proposals. They are scheduled to return to council with those recommendations for the April 6 meeting. In advance of that meeting, community activists are ramping up a social media campaign Time for the Nine to raise awareness about Re-imagining Public Safety in Davis.

On Tuesday night, during public comment, a number of commenters called in to express their support for the nine recommendations of the Temporary Joint Subcommittee.

Im asking the city to place a three year moratorium on new police hires, one call requested hoping that a shift in resources will decrease the need for new police officers.

Another caller noted that it has been one year since Breonna Taylor was killed by police in Louisville and ten months since the death of George Floyd in Minnesota.

I commend the council for creating the temporary joint subcommittee, he said. However, I ask why you havent committed to any real change in policing or public safety.

He noted that since that report was delivered, we havent heard any sort of consensus on a vision. And now without any consensus the buck has been passed to staff who are not elected to come up with a plan.

He called for a public safety department that can handle non-violent service calls. The TJS recommended that 24 percent could be diverted from the Davis Police Department but he believes that as much as 44 percent of the calls can be diverted from the Davis Police Department.

That, he said, would require a new structure to process these calls. He called for an independent department of public safety and a three year moratorium on the hiring of new police officers.

Julea Shaw called to voice her support for all nine recommendations. She pushed to implement the crisis now model as well as an independent public safety department.

She noted that staff was working on a plan, and she said, I look forward to seeing their plan and the implementation of these commonsense reforms because everyone in Davis deserves safety and support.

A student called in also for support of a public safety department that would take the place of some of the responsibilities of the Davis Police Department.

A researcher at UC Davis and a three year resident of Davis. She explained that she grew up in Eugene, Oregon where they have the CAHOOTS program.

CAHOOTS works hand in hand with the Eugene Police Department, they both answer 911-dispatch calls and CAHOOTS deals with a wide range of mental health crises including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse and suicide threats. This division of labor allows the police to focus on crimes and other pressing public safety.

She continued, Its estimated that the program saves the city of Eugene about $8.5 million a year.

In my experience, Eugene and Davis are pretty similar, she said. They are both college towns on the West Coast and they are both great places to live and raise a family and I strongly advocate that Davis invests in this kind of public safety program that has served Eugene for so many decades.

Another caller, Nusrat Molla, called in asking for an independent public safety department. She explained that her brother has an intellectual disability.

My family has interacted with the police a lot, she said. But she said, What we really needed was a behavioral specialist and help navigating social services for him.

Supporting real public safety means reallocating resources and things that are not making us safer or helping people like my brother towards the services that are in desperate need of resources, she said.

Morganne Blairs-McPherson made suggests that could help the city divert 44 percent of calls to a public safety department and away from the police.

These include: welfare checks, code enforcement, city code violations, disturbances, trespass complaints, animal related incidents, school truancy, vandalism, noise complaints for loud music, drunk in public, mental health evaluation, child abuse reporting and much more.

Francisco Lopez-Montanyo said he currently works at a convenience store and noticed over the last year the mental health crisis affecting our community, it doesnt really seem to me that the police are able to handle a response appropriately to these problems.

He noted even with domestic violence complaints, I noticed the police unable to address the problem at its root cause.

He also noted the history of policing, starting out as a slave patrol, and has quickly become a system of cheap labor for the prison industrial complex. He also noted that the January 6 event exposed the infiltration of white supremacy groups into police. This is beyond policy change or institutional reform, we need to begin to transition to a truly safe society for all.

Robert Henderson a lifelong resident of Davis, urged the council to be real leaders and work towards real public safety in Davis. We have seen time and time again throughout this country that police do not make the community safer.

Another caller noted that he has continually heard from other community members about the mistreatment they have faced at the hands of the police.

Additionally the police budget in Davis is much too big for a city that does not need police patrolling all over the streets Davis is a very low crime area, he said.

A graduate student at UC Davis argued that the current system Fails to keep all of the people in Davis safe. She added, Our current system operates in such a way so that Black people, indigenous people, people of color, Queer people, homeless people and other minorities are not only unprotected by the police, but are often victims of unfair, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and ultimately violent policing practices.

This caller went further than others calling for the complete abolition of policing in Davis.

The major move has been for the nine recommendations by the Temporary Joint Subcommittee.

The 9 recommendations are:

David M. Greenwald reporting

Support our work to become a sustaining at $5 $10- $25 per month hit the link:

Read this article:

Public Commenters Push the Council To Adopt Nine Recommendations on Police Reform - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

In December 1920, the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) merged with the left wing of the Independent Social Democrats (USPD) under the leadership of Paul Levi. The unified party had a membership in excess of four hundred thousand. Its members had recently helped defeat an attempted far-right coup, the Kapp putsch, and had great confidence about the future. Within months, however, the KPD launched an ill-fated uprising on March 17, 1921 that became known as the March Action. The insurrection was a complete failure; in its aftermath, the KPD lost more than half of its membership.

Paul Frlich (18841953) is best remembered today for his classic biography of Rosa Luxemburg, which is still in print. Frlich was a member of the KPD leadership in the 1920s and witnessed events firsthand. In this extract from a recently discovered memoir, lost until 2007 and now translated into English, Frlich explains why the KPD came to launch the March Action and how it unfolded. He also gives his impressions of influential Communist leaders like Paul Levi and the Hungarian Bla Kun, and recalls a discussion with Lenin in Moscow after the failure of the March Action.

The following is an abridged extract from Paul Frlichs memoir In the Radical Camp: A Political Autobiography 18901921, translated by David Fernbach as part of the Historical Materialism Book Series.

It was both objective political events and psychological preconditions that led to the so-called March Action, both in the KPD and in the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI). There was a general will in the party for a more energetic policy, and the unification with the left USPD also seemed to have created the preconditions for a stronger activity. We all overestimated at this time the growth of the party.

But we made a further error of judgement. During the Kapp putsch we had been able to note almost everywhere in the provinces that a weak party such as ours could nonetheless exert a very great influence on the movement, so that large masses followed the party in action. Now we simply extended the partys radius of action by the organizational growth that the merger with the left USPD had brought.

This, however, was wrong. The party cadre was substantially strengthened, and in many districts, it was only now that a party was really formed. But the direct influence on the masses did not for a long while follow in the expected degree. Besides, it needed really major circumstances, immediately understood clearly by the masses, to bring them into a general movement.

The impatient pressure for action was still greater among the former USPD functionaries and members than in the old KPD. They felt liberated from the impediment of the right-wing leaders and experienced something like a moral obligation to prove that they had now become genuine revolutionaries.

The mood in leading Russian circles was very depressed, among many people desperate. The civil war had left in its wake scarcely anything but ruins. The war with Poland had led to defeat. The Kronstadt uprising had been a glaring alarm signal. The New Economic Policy (NEP) had been introduced, with the abolition of requisitions, the encouragement of private capitalist initiative, and the concessions policy.

It was in no way predictable where the NEP would lead. There was a very strong fear among the Bolsheviks that after the October Revolution, they might now be the pioneers of a capitalist Russia. They yearned for relief from the proletariat of the West. It is certain and understandable that the Russian comrades wanted an action that would relieve them. But this in no way means that they wanted one in the form that the March Action then took.

What was the situation with Bla Kun? He has gone down in this story as a real devil, always conjured up when the reactionary side needs a scarecrow. Truth and falsehood are also mixed together in the depictions drawn of him by his opponents in the workers movement.

He was certainly not the noblest figure in the Comintern. The first impression that he gave was that of an unusually energetic person, ruthless to the point of brutality. He was not selective in his choice of means: Ern Bettelheims revelations after the Hungarian defeat of 1919 have brought proof of this. But after these revelations, it is necessary to emphasize right away that he was entirely disinterested and gave everything without hesitation to those who were close to him.

Despite the ugliness of his facial features, he emanated a strong charm. He understood how to inspire people and carry them along. He had made great efforts to school himself theoretically and politically, but he had too unrestrained a temperament to assess situations calmly. He was attracted by adventure, and always ready for action.

Naturally, Grigory Zinoviev and Nikolai Bukharin, who sent him to Germany, were aware of these qualities of Bla Kun. But they counted on German caution and knew very well that even the left wing of the party displayed a strong resistance towards artificial actions. Still more so could people like August Thalheimer and Heinrich Brandler be relied on to apply the necessary brakes.

If Bla Kun was easily able to win the majority of the party leadership for a risky policy of offensive, the reasons lay essentially in the general situation. Germanys foreign policy position was as perilous as hardly ever before. The international conference in London had led to open conflict between the Allies and Germany. On March 8, Dsseldorf, Duisburg, and Ruhrort were occupied militarily by the Entente. In Upper Silesia, there was fighting between Germans and Poles. People counted on the possibility of a German-Polish war.

There was strong discontent among the working class, particularly the miners and even the agricultural workers. The devaluation of the mark, which had come to a halt for a while after the Kapp putsch, had once again rapidly accelerated, and inflation fuelled discontent among the whole population. In this situation, even Paul Levi turned sharply against the policy of pure propaganda and pressed for action.

The governments behavior also showed that it saw conflict with the working class as unavoidable. It took the necessary measures even before the will for action had taken concrete form in the party. All the same, we overestimated the tensions, did not see the inhibiting factors, and particularly failed to recognize the possibility of a compromise in German foreign policy.

It was as a result of this overestimation that Bla Kun very rapidly managed to win the majority of the party leadership for an offensive policy. I myself favoured an offensive policy from the start. I believed at that time and this had long been the basic point of contention with Paul Levi that it was our duty to make use of every possibility for a revolutionary advance.

I failed to recognize as a general strategic lesson the necessity of a retreat or escape in a dangerous situation; this would only be brought home to me under the pressure of very harsh facts in the particular case. The fact that on this occasion the party leadership shared my view naturally gave my temperament a strong impulse.

It is certain that without the work of Bla Kun, without his influence on the most prominent members of the leadership, the readiness for action would not have been aroused. But we should guard against the conclusion that the March Action was undertaken either directly or indirectly at the command of the ECCI. At this time, the ECCI had a great moral authority, and the Russians were seen as almost infallible on tactical questions. But they did not yet have in their hands the means of pressure to enforce their directives.

We would not have acted or failed to act because of a command from them. It is true that we lacked the necessary critical equipment with which to confront proposals or ideas from the Russians. At all events, no one of the then party leadership is entitled to hide behind the Russians or Bla Kun. We all bore full responsibility for the action.

On the other hand, none of us wanted a March Action. The intention was, as soon as the expected open conflict erupted in one place, to bring to a head the festering conflicts where we had the possibility of doing so in other words, on the field of social struggle. If this succeeded, then the further development would show what possibilities for action had arisen. The action should be conducted with the aim of the overthrow of the government.

What was immediately at issue was to create the readiness for action in the party by means of both propaganda and organizational methods. When the central committee of the party was convened for the middle of March, no one believed in an immediate outbreak of armed struggle. We certainly did not yet know the point where we would engage. That depended on objective conditions.

News then reached the session of the central committee that the Social Democrat interior minister Carl Severing had ordered the occupation of the Mansfeld industrial district and its factories by the police. The party found itself like an athlete poised ready to leap who suddenly receives a blow in the back: he stumbles, manages with difficulty to regain his balance, but remains confused and spoils his jump.

It is extremely important for the historical record to take due account of Severings police action. It is generally left out of consideration, thus ignoring one of the most important preconditions for the March Action, so that this seems just complete madness. In fact, Severings action had been prepared for weeks in conjunction with the big industrialists of central Germany.

It arose precisely from the general situation that led us to envisage an offensive approach. Its object, admitted by Severing himself, was to impose on the adversary a battle that would intimidate, weaken and surprise them on a particular territory, before the material for conflict had generally matured. The action was organized in such a way that it was designed to provoke armed struggle.

We found ourselves in a psychological state that did not allow calm consideration of the situation. We were just preparing to put our forces into marching order when the enemy attacked. We were mentally disposed to an offensive and saw ourselves suddenly surrounded. We were incapable of switching from the offensive idea to defence, since we generally overestimated greatly our influence over the masses.

If we were reluctant to order a complete retreat immediately after the outbreak of armed conflict in the Mansfeld region (and such an order would have meant the demoralization of the party and the resignation of its leadership), all that remained was to widen the struggle. In our already overheated mood, we committed the following mistakes:

On the central committee, we received information on March 22 of a planned action in Hamburg, which struck us as too general and dangerous. I was dispatched there immediately, in order to intervene if possible. I arrived in the night.

On the way to the headquarters of the action executive I learned the following details. This executive had issued a leaflet on March 22 calling for a general strike. On the 23rd, the day that was just dawning, the unemployed were to surround the dockyards and force the workers there to abandon work. From all the information that I received, it was clear that the dockworkers were not prepared to strike, and that force would have to be used in order to enforce a shutdown.

I was horrified by the light-hearted way in which this undertaking was approached and tried to make clear to the comrades that they were simply preparing a putsch, that the idea of forcing the workers into struggle by force was ludicrous, that an enterprise of this kind was morally condemnable, doomed to failure from the start, and bound to bring the party fearful repercussions.

I demanded in the name of the central committee that the enterprise should be immediately broken off, and the preparations made reversed. I spent a long time arguing with them, but to no avail. In the early hours of March 23, the action was carried out as planned.

The dockyards were indeed cleared out. The workers left half convinced and half unwillingly. There were demonstrations, shooting, and a number of dead. In the afternoon it was clear that the enterprise had failed.

On the central committee the decision for offensive action was not carried without the heated opposition of a minority. One part of this minority then kept its distance completely during the action. Another part kept discipline while seeking at the same time to prevent the worst.

Paul Levi seems to have been travelling at the time of the March Action. Neither he nor Ernst Dumig made any kind of attempt to influence events. They then organized a comprehensive report, the result of which was published by Paul Levi in his booklet Unser Weg (Our Way).

Levi completely misconstrued the situation in the party at this time. There was indeed a certain unease among the members about the tactic embarked on. But apart from a small group of functionaries, the members supported the action and took upon themselves the defeat. And then Levi appeared, who had neither warned nor advised during the action, with a text that was not a critique of particular party comrades, but a hostile blow against the party.

It was only this blow that was felt, and all the more strongly, as the party was subject to heavy persecution. In these circumstances, Levi found no reception for his arguments and criticism. At the beginning of April, he was expelled from the party for this text, and the party stood behind this measure.

After the end of the March Action, the party leadership felt the understandable need to justify its policy. In particular, it had to argue against Levis critique and was naturally driven to an extreme position, the so-called offensive theory.

Bla Kun, Thalheimer, Brandler, and myself were particularly involved in conceiving these ideas. They more or less corresponded to my pre-existing views. I summarised these ideas in an article in the booklet Taktik und Organisation der revolutionre Offensive (Tactics and Organization of the Revolutionary Offensive).

The offensive theory had a very short life, which was ended at the Third Congress of the Communist International in Moscow. We went to Moscow with the feeling of being completely on the right path, and we were enthusiastically welcomed by Russian functionaries. They were completely in accord with us. But this changed after a few days.

Their attitude towards us remained the same. But they explained that Lenin was against us; they could not understand this, but it had always turned out in the past that Lenins view was correct, even when he had everyone else against him. Karl Radek had told me that Lenin was extremely annoyed about the March Action and our pamphlet. He was unable to sleep, and afraid that we might commit new Blanquist stupidities again in future.

The discussion with Lenin made an extraordinary impression on me. But since I have no notes, I can only reliably recall parts of the conversation that had personal importance for me. We first had to give a report, the detailed themes of which we had rehearsed among ourselves.

After I spoke, something surprising and disturbing happened. Radek handed me a piece of paper on which he had reproached me with very crude words. Why had I said such unnecessary things? All that mattered was to win over Lenin, but I had pushed him over to the other side. I was tremendously disturbed by this note. Were things such that diplomacy was the game and we had to try and dupe one another?

I believed that we had to go over the facts together and seek the correct policy. This meant being completely open and speaking things objectively and unvarnished. I was not prepared to accede to Radeks demand. But his note was like the blow of a dagger, which never completely healed. A large part of my trust in the ECCI and the Russians went out of the window.

After the reports, Lenin spoke. He failed to convince me, speaking in too imprecise terms for my expectations. I finally asked him clearly the one question that had been for me that most important problem of the March Action. We had been attacked by Severing. The Mansfeld workers had taken up the struggle. Should we have left them in the lurch, rather than doing everything to support them? Should we not stand in the lead and widen the field of struggle if a section of the working class is struggling against reaction?

Lenin replied that it was not necessary to fight in all conditions. This seemed to me an evasion. I wanted to have a clear answer, a kind of formula, in what conditions one should engage in such a struggle and in what conditions abstain. There was nothing more to be got out of Lenin.

It was only much later that I understood that it was wrong to conduct a vanguard struggle in a bad position and with an unfavourable balance of forces for a decisive battle. Further, that it is impossible to apply suitable tactical formulas for all cases; one must rather depend in each situation on a correct view, instinct and intuition.

Read the original here:

The March Action and the Tragedy of German Communism - Jacobin magazine

I will admit that the idea to abolish kindergarten fees came off as populist and more akin to throwing money out of an airplane than a serious election promise leading up to Riigikogu elections.

Populist because most families were not struggling with the fees at the time and because such a measure could backfire in the regional dimension if not carefully considered. It could negatively manifest in the competition between poorer and wealthier local governments, favoring urbanization and speeding up peripherization.

But also because the fee is decided by the local government, while the proposal was made in the context of Riigikogu elections.

While I was still very much skeptical last year, the promise suddenly shines in a whole new light after a year spent in the coronavirus crisis.

Figures first

The cost of the instrument was not mentioned at the time. The finance ministry analysis of parties' election promises brought no more clarity. The ministry said the cost could not be calculated because of the vague phrasing of the proposal. It is to be believed that ministry officials put together such overviews voluntarily and the day simply does not have enough hours for a more thorough analysis.

Whatever the case, there is one party that has provided an indication of some sort. The Social Democrats say that abolishing kindergarten place fees would cost Estonia 65 million a year.

Now, that the Reform Party has returned to power after a short break, the exact cost of the measure could be calculated and the promise fulfilled. More so as all relevant portfolios are held by the prime minister's party.

Reform's coalition partners are almost sure to support the initiative. The program of the Center Party includes free preschool education and kindergarten catering.

Then Minister of Education and Research Mailis Reps (Center Party ed.) promised to include these ambitions in the planned preschool education reform bill. Unfortunately, the reform that recently passed its first reading after doing the rounds in the parliament for years makes no mention of abolishing kindergarten place fees. The document would also still have parents pay for kindergarten catering, despite the Center Party's promise of free kindergarten and school meals for everyone.

Free organic food for kindergartens

Free meals is an idea worth pursuing. As an unexpected but pleasant surprise, PM Kaja Kallas tabled an item from the Estonian Greens' program at a coalition talks press conference on January 20 offering organic food in schools and kindergartens. The Greens welcome this initiative. It is the only way to go as all children deserve healthy food that is free of dangerous pesticides.

That is why the Greens launched the organic food project in Tallinn kindergartens. While food that is grown organically or without spraying it with toxins is still somewhat more expensive than food grown with the help of pesticides in shops, its price is entirely competitive when one buys wholesale and direct from growers.

However, the economic crisis has made organic food even more expensive for the ordinary consumer. The government deciding in favor of organic food in schools and kindergartens would constitute an investment in the health of our children and one fewer problem for families.

Despite the PM clearly raising the issue of organic food for educational institutions at the press conference, it is not mentioned in the coalition agreement. That said, not everything the PM does needs to be included there and the Greens stand ready to share their experience from the Tallinn organic food project and lend a hand.

Families with children need help overcoming the crisis

Latvia has a one-off benefit of 200 for people taking care of children and adults with disabilities and pensioners. Families hit by the crisis are eligible for a benefit of 500 per child.

These kinds of crisis measures would also help Estonian families because times are tough. People need to cope in a situation where they have lost in income as a result of being out of work while utility costs are mounting.

People forced to spend more time at home has added to water and electricity bills, not to mention the time parents have spent becoming teachers, IT specialists, caterers, cleaners and correctional officers. Especially in large families.

The government must start thinking about crisis and recovery measures for families and the plan to abolishing kindergarten place fees should be on the table today in terms of the next academic year.

It is safe to say I am speaking on behalf of a lot of voters in this. At least three parties included abolishing kindergarten place fees in their platforms for the previous Riigikogu elections.

Several local governments have stopped charging the place fee at least temporarily, while parents need greater support considering the economic situation. The measure would greatly help households with several preschool children as well as single parents.

Therefore, carefully considered execution where the abolition does not happen at the expense of teachers' salaries and quality of preschool education would make this plan worthwhile in the perspective of the 2021 supplementary state budget as next fall is just around the corner. The state budget strategy could plot a wider course for free preschool education.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!

See the original post here:

Zleyxa Izmailova: Families with children must not be overlooked in crisis - ERR News

On 5 February 2021, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted Law No. 3623 (the "Law"), which provides for the abolition of mandatory record-keeping of hard copy employment books. An employment record book is a mandatory document where employers include entries as to the start and end dates of an employee's engagement, and other important employment-related information. The law enters into force on 10 June 2021 and provides for a gradual switch to such employment records being only maintained in digital form, which will take place within the next 5 years.

From now on, employers will generally not need to ask for a hard copy of each employee's employment record book upon appointment, or to make any further entries in existing employees' books. All employment records regarding each employee will be carried out digitally in the register of insured persons of the State Register of Mandatory State Social Insurance (the "Register"). It will therefore be sufficient to retrieve employment information from the Register when hiring a new employee.

The Law provides that within the next 5 years, either the employer or the employee will need to upload all data from the employee's employment record book to the Register. The Pension Fund of Ukraine is the authority responsible for inclusion of data to the Register. After uploading all data from the employment record book, the employer must return the hard copy record book to the employee against the employee's signature. The employer will thereafter continue holding records on the employee's work in digital form only by submitting relevant reports. However, if an employee is dismissed before the data update of employee data to the Register is completed, employers are still under an obligation to affix the relevant entries in the physical employment record book.

If specifically requested by an employee, the Law also provides for mandatory parallel records by both filling in the hard copy employment record book and uploading digital data to the Register. In such cases, it will be mandatory for the employer to keep double records of the employee's work information.

Read more from the original source:

Ukraine to Abolish Hard Copy Employment Record Books Within the Next Five Years - Lexology

This year, Dr. Angela Davis was the keynote speaker at the Conference on Diverse Excellence an annual event planned and hosted by ASUUs Diversity Board to initiate conversations around marginalized communities upliftment. CODEs theme was Transformative Voices. For an hour and a half, Davis graced our computer screens, speaking about race, class, gender, activism and progress. She eloquently weaved in her life story with lessons of justice. Davis made a strong impact on our campus, and her talk was a springboard for positive change.

Davis has been a lifelong activist but she emphasized that the term activist was not common when she first engaged in protesting the status quo. I had no moment of epiphany. I grew up under conditions of segregation in Birmingham, Alabama. Resistance was a necessity, she said.

I found her explanation of activism inspiring. She noted that activism can take many different forms and is united through peoples experiences, identity and culture, adding that everyone is an expert on their own experience, and a diverse collection of experiences will bring change. Later on, when asked about unity, Davis brought up an interesting point. I think that sometimes we have an abstract concept of unity, she said. We assume that unity can be created without doing really difficult work together. Instead, we need to center unity around issues that we deeply care about. Unity should come from similar visions of the future rather than only the virtue of ones identity. Originally, I thought that identity was an extremely important part of activism and progress, but now I realize it is one part of a larger puzzle. Change comes from struggle, hard work and a unified vision of the future.

Davis also acknowledged that change takes time and sometimes happens without recognition. She spoke to the frustrations of slow progress and provided students with some insight based on her personal experiences. I have been calling for the abolition of the prison industrial complex and the carceral system for a while. I always imagined that abolition would come long after those of us who were fighting were gone. It was something we were doing for posterity, she said. However, I was excited and certainly shocked when abolition recently began to enter the mainstream discourse. Her personal story shows that small things add up over time and that it is imperative to keep striving for justice, equity and inclusion even when theres no end in sight. Davis also tied our societys desire for instant progress to capitalism. We are so used to getting things immediately from ordering a package to eating a meal. We apply that same mindset to social progress, expecting to see instant results. But Davis said, Even when it appears that the work you do amounts to nothing, persist. If you persist, then the fruits of your labor will become visible, eventually.

I was impressed by how often Davis spoke about the teachings and actions of other individuals. Davis herself is an amazing example of continual justice advocacy it is easy to get caught up in her spotlight. However, she constantly reminded the audience of building upon the collective efforts of the past, and the importance of learning from your peers. She spoke about Kimberl Crenshaws work on the intersectionality of social issues. She highlighted the legacy and initiative of Black women like Adda Julia Cooper, Ida B. Wells and Mary Church Terrell. And her message about importance of learning from our peers was brought to life in the comments and thoughtful questions presented by the audience. It was encouraging to see so many people thinking critically about race justice, intersectionality and progress at the U. We need to hold more spaces for these conversations to happen and bring us together.

Now it is essential to normalize conversations about dismantling systems of oppression on campus. We need to teach about intersectionality not only in classes that are designed to zero in on these issues, but classes that often overlook their importance. We need to continue working toward holding our administration accountable to create the campus on which we want to study, work and live. We want a campus that is safe, inclusive and serves its students. Davis said, Change happens in informal conversations. Change happens when communities come together through grassroots organizing. Our campus is a community of people with very different experiences, but we can find unity in our vision of the future.

These are just snippets of Daviss wise words, filtered through my personal perspective. Luckily, this years CODE will be available to watch on the University of Utahs YouTube channel. I encourage you to watch it if you werent able to attend, reflect upon the conversation and find ways to facilitate change in your life and on the campus we share.

[emailprotected]

@ZahraSaifee

Originally posted here:

Saifee: Angela Davis's Transformative Perspective at the U - Daily Utah Chronicle

Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager and the California Abolition Act Coalition (CAAC) on March 4 officially announced Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 3, the California Abolition Act, which would amend the state constitution to end involuntary servitude.

Article 1, Section 6 of the California Constitution allows the practice of involuntary servitude as a means of punishing crime. The euphemistic language of involuntary servitude masks what this nefarious practice is in plain language: forced labor.

By removing this language from our constitution, we are moving our state into the 21st century and taking steps to ensure that no Californian is ever put in a position of involuntary servitude again, Ms. Kamlager, the bills author, said as she announced the bill from the south steps of the State Capitol.

If passed by the California legislature, ACA 3 will create a ballot measure in 2022 where Californians can vote to remove slavery from our Consitution and ensure the State reflect our values and push for racial equality.

Ms. Kamlager was joined by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose), who also is chair of the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment; members of the CAAC, including coalition chair Jamilia Land of the Anti-Violence, Safety, and Accountability Project (ASAP); Mr. Brown (via phone); Legislative Manager Shay Franco-Clausen; and April Grayson of the Young Womens Freedom Center.

Maria Estrada of the Native Women Unity Association, Sam Lewis of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, Porsche Taylor of Prison From The Inside Out, Sylvester Ani of The Love We Dont See, Molly Watson of Courage California, and Allegra Taylor of The Village Advocates also participated in the event.

Now more than ever, its critical that the language in our constitution reflects our values and our humanity, said Ms. Land. Any clause that permits involuntary servitude should not exist in 2021 and ACA 3 is a key step towards establishing a more just criminal justice system.

The legacy and remnants of slavery have been embedded in our prison system. More than 94,000 people are incarcerated in California prisons, and there remains a huge racial disparity within that population. African Americans account for 28% of the prison population and less than 6% of Californias overall population.

Californias first constitution was adopted in 1849, ahead of its attainment of statehood. California then joined the Union as a free state through Congressional legislation, known as the Compromise of 1850. The series of bills also granted concessions to the South, such as the Fugitive Slave Act, requiring government officials and everyday white citizens across the nation to actively assist slaveholders in recapturing enslaved people who escaped from slave-holding jurisdictions. Under this law, any person brought to California before statehood as a slave would remain a slave in the eyes of the law.

The ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 codified what is commonly considered the outlawing of slavery and involuntary servitude. California was the second to ratify the amendment. However, conditional language allowing involuntary servitude to punish crime remains in both the federal Constitution and most state constitutions.

After the Civil War and continuing through the early 1940s, incarcerated individuals were leased out to plantation owners and manufacturers as cheap labor. This leasing system was replaced by chain gangs.

Many states profited from this dehumanizing practice and California is no exception. Today, incarcerated workers earn as little as 8 cents an hour and are expected to work. While no stipulation of federal or state sentencing forces people to work, physical labor is expected of all able-bodied people while incarcerated. Samual Nathaniel Brown, the original conceiver of ACA 3 and a person incarcerated at California State Prison in Los Angeles County, has had to sanitize the cells of incarcerated people infected with COVID-19 with insufficient personal protective equipment. Refusing his assignment would expose him to being written up by prison guards, which he said could jeopardize his chances of receiving early release.

The California Abolition Act builds upon successful efforts to abolish involuntary servitude in Colorado, Utah, and Nebraska. Similar federal efforts are ongoing at the federal level and at the state level in at least 12 other states. To learn more about ACA 3, visit Instagram @ACA3CaAbolitionAct or email ACA3comms@gmail.com.

By Antonio R. Harvey | OBSERVER Staff Writer

Read this article:

Amendment Moves To End Servitude The Sacramento Observer - Sacramento Observer

Saturday, March 20 at 11:30 am

Posted: Mar 9, 2021 / 04:55 PM EST / Updated: Mar 9, 2021 / 04:55 PM EST

Shaping the Future: The Underground Railroad, Abolition and Women in Central New York

ONEIDA COUNTY, N.Y. (WUTR/WFXV/WPNY-TV) Women in Oneida County played an active, but often untold, part in the Abolition movement and theUnderground Railroad. On Saturday, March 20 at 11:30 am, the Oneida County History Center will host Mary Hayes Gordon who will speak about Women & the Underground Railroad in Oneida County. This program will be offered virtually via Zoom.

Organized abolitionism began in Oneida County in the early 1830s. Local activists were inspired by the words and examples of Beriah Green and his students at the Oneida Institute in Whitesboro, the first school in the country at which black men were just as welcome as whites. By 1835 there were 17 anti-slave societies throughout Oneida County and numerous Underground Railroad stations as well.

This is an important chapter in the nations history. Black and white men and women involved with the Underground Railroad did so at their peril, for federal law could punish anyone who assisted an escaped slave. But in both the rural and urban areas of Oneida County, people and communities sheltered fugitives, and encouraged some of them to settle in the area.

Mary Hayes Gordon is co-chair of the Oneida County Freedom Trail Commission, which researches and documents Underground Railroad and Abolition activity in the region. Her interest in this subject developed when she documented the history of her home in New Hartford, which was a station on the Underground Railroad. She is currently working on a county-wide study, led by Dr. Judith Wellman in conjunction with Fort Stanwix, for the National Park Service. She and co-chair Jan DeAmicis give guided tours of Underground Railroad and Abolition sites in Utica, which they have also developed into a self-guided walking tour. Hayes Gordon presents the history of the everyday people who did the work to change our world.

This online program takes place on Saturday, March 20, 2021 starting at 11:30 am. The event is free and open to all. Advanced registration is required and can be completed at https://www.oneidacountyhistory.org/programs.html. Registrants will receive a link and instruction on how to join this online event after registration is complete.

The Oneida County History Center is a private 501(c) (3) not-for-profit educational institution dedicated to preserving the history, heritage, and culture of the Greater Mohawk Valley for present and future generations. Admission to this program is free for the general public; donations are encouraged. Please contact the History Center at 315-735-3642 or visit the OCHC website (www.oneidacountyhistory.org) for additional information.

Registration Link: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJcvcOiprTMoGNIcAvdnBQxMBAnjmKnuJHYm

Read more here:

Oneida County History Center Virtual Learning Event on The Underground Railroad, Abolition and Women in Central New York - WUTR/WFXV - CNYhomepage.com

Stressing on the importance of credibility in political life, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said that every word a leader spoke carried a weight and it was his responsibility to fulfill that promise because this gave credibility to the person and the party to which he belonged.

"Bharatiya Janata Party has emerged as a people's party because it has credibility. In our earlier election manifestos we used to talk about abolition of Article 370. People used to chide us when the BJP government will abolish this Article. When we got an opportunity we repealed Article 370 and brought Jammu and Kashmir at par with other states of the country," Singh said while inaugurating the one-day BJP state working committee meeting here on Monday.

Singh said, "The BJP had always talked about the ills of the triple talaq system and we abolished it. Similarly, we promised construction of Ram temple at Ayodhya and Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation of the temple last year. It is a coincidence that when the (Babri) Mosque was demolished BJP was in power and when construction of the temple started, BJP again was in power in Uttar Pradesh," he said.

"People now know that what the BJP says, it fulfills its promise. This is the credibility which the party has earned in the last many decades of hard work and now responsibility is on the young party leaders to carry that mantle forward," he said.

In his over an hour long speech, Rajnath Singh talked about the importance of being a BJP worker.

"The BJP is different from other parties as in BJP hard work is always appreciated. It is the only party in which the stature of a leader is not because of the post he/she is holding but because of the hard work he/she has put in. The BJP increased its base through Ram Janmabhoomi agitation and since then it is growing in stature and volume," said Singh, who is also the former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh.

He said the BJP was the only party which had an ideology. He said this ideology had prevented divisions in the party while other political parties had seen divisions one after another.

Elaborating on this ideology, Singh said that serving humanity formed the core of BJP's ideology and its manifestation was witnessed during COVID-19 pandemic when both the Central and the state governments joined hands to provide relief to the poor. "Free food grains were distributed so that no one had to sleep empty stomach," he pointed out.

"Our scientists did wonder when they manufactured vaccines to fight the novel coronavirus. Now, we are supplying vaccines to 70 countries. India has been globally appreciated for its role in providing Covid vaccines to the world. Even US President Joe Biden appreciated India in a recent Quad meeting," he said and added that when India was giving vaccines to other countries at a price, the countrymen were getting it free.

Singh said the BJP government had worked hard to eradicate corruption and had introduced cleanliness in public life.

"The Swachhata Abhiyan has even been lauded by the WHO (World Health Organisation) by saying that the health scenario has changed in India because of the cleanliness drive undertaken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi," Singh said.

Singh also hailed the Yogi Adityanath government, saying there was tremendous improvement in the law and order situation while the unemployment figures had come down from 17.5 per cent to 4.5 per cent.

BJP State President Swatantra Dev Singh also spoke on this occasion.

Earlier, the one-day BJP state working committee meeting was inaugurated by Rajnath Singh along with Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath by lighting the traditional lamp.

Read the original post:

Rajnath stresses on credibility in political life - Daily Pioneer