Category Archives: Eugenics

Julia Mtraux, now 24, first started having severe fatigue and chronic pain about six years ago symptoms that led to her eventual diagnosis with vasculitis, which involves inflammation of the blood vessels, in January 2018.

She was hospitalized for a week and then bedridden for six months. Her medical needs made it necessary for her to drop out of college at McGill University. During this period, she said, many people in her life simply stopped checking in on her.

Courtesy of Julia Mtraux

Mtraux, who is immunocompromised, described her universitys decision to drop its mask mandate as a careless mistake that will perpetuate eugenics.

Now, as we enter the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic and society tries to return to normal, Mtraux is feeling left behind once more.

Rates of infection are falling, yet contracting even a mild case of the virus, said Mtraux, who is fully vaccinated, could worsen her condition by wreaking havoc on her vascular system. And as institutions around her reduce or eliminate COVID-19 precautions, her concerns are increasing. For instance, the University of California, Berkeley, where she is pursuing a masters degree in journalism, recently lifted its mask mandate.

Its really scary to me almost traumatic thinking that I could get sick again, Mtraux said.

As Jews from all walks of life confront a third year of life with the virus and its psychological, social, and economic effects, we asked a selection to share their insights. Some, like Mtraux, focused on the need for society to continue caring for those most vulnerable to COVID-19. Others reflected on how the pandemic has prompted them to rethink what it means to live a full and Jewish life.

Altogether, they painted a picture of a Jewish community searching for joy and meaning after two years of profoundly disrupted personal and communal existence, as the U.S. hurtles toward a milestone of 1 million deaths from COVID-19. (The official global toll eclipsed 6 million earlier this month.)

Courtesy of Rabbi Joseph Ozarowski

As JCFS Chicagos rabbinic counselor and chaplain, Ozarowski has developed virtual modalities of supporting people who are grieving.

I dont think weve fully processed the losses that weve sustained, said Rabbi Joseph Ozarowski, author of To Walk in Gods Ways: Jewish Pastoral Perspectives on Illness and Bereavement and president of Neshama: Association of Jewish Chaplains.

Yet Susan Einbinder, a Judaic studies professor at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, is trying to be optimistic. During waves of bubonic plague, she said, early modern Jewish communities kept praying, writing, building, getting married and having kids.

The lesson from the past may be less about Here comes the pandemic, and now what do we do? and more about Its here to stay, and what do we do? she said. And where do we find the resilience, humility and compassion to live in a way we aspire to live as Jews and as human beings?

Whenever something awful happens, April Baskin, formerly the Union for Reform Judaisms czar for racial diversity, equity and inclusion work, says to herself, I wonder what wonderful things will come of this.

For Baskin, one blessing of an otherwise cataclysmic pandemic is that it helped bring to life a cherished vision.

She first founded the social justice organization Joyous Justice in 2019, shortly before she moved from the U.S. to Senegal, planning to travel back and forth between the two countries. But progress was slow.

In March 2020, days before her flight from Senegal, she learned that flights were being grounded due to concerns over COVID-19. Being forced to stay in one place, she said, brought her a new kind of focus. God was indirectly saying, Stop being afraid, believe in the beauty of your dreams and go for it its kind of your only option, she said.

Photo by Michael Temchine

April Baskin (left) and Tracie Guy-Decker (right) of Joyous Justice run the podcast Jews Talk Racial Justice.

She started a podcast with Tracie Guy-Decker, then deputy director of the Jewish Museum of Maryland, which the two use to unpack issues of race and racism. She coached clients on antiracist work. Requests for her services skyrocketed after George Floyds murder in Minneapolis triggered a nationwide reckoning with race.

For Baskin, who is Black and Cherokee, it reinforced the importance of the work the pandemic had prompted her to zero in on. If we choose for it to be, she said, all shit can be fuel or fertilizer.

Guy-Decker, who is white, first got involved with antiracist work during the 2015 Baltimore protests that followed the death of Freddie Gray, a Black man, from a spinal cord injury sustained while in police custody. Five years later, she knew she wanted to do more. And so she quit her museum job in October 2020 to join Baskin full-time.

A past version of herself, she said, would have found the idea of leaving a stable, brick-and-mortar job to help a friend with a startup completely absurd especially with her husband on a Navy assignment in Bahrain, and an 8-year-old daughter at home. But the events of 2020 had given her a fresh perspective, and it didnt seem so absurd anymore, she said. It actually seemed like the most lucid thing I could do.

She makes less money now, Guy-Decker said, but she can still make ends meet. She always thought she needed a traditional job to support her family, but she now recognizes that some of her limits were self-imposed.

For Guy-Decker, like Baskin, the stress of the pandemic proved clarifying; she now works toward making spaces more inclusive toward Jews of Color, work she sees as related to the Talmudic expression kol Yisrael arevim ze baze, roughly translated as all Jews are responsible for each other. Its a message the pandemic has made her take more seriously than ever.

We all focus on actual dollars and cents, she said, but there are other currencies we trade in including time, happiness and meaning.

When the pandemic struck, many Jewish (and non-Jewish) eateries suffered but not Marisa Baggetts Zaydes NYC Deli in Memphis, Tenn. The kosher catering business thrived so much that around Passover 2021, Baggett expanded it, opening a restaurant.

It was exciting but overwhelming, and it took a serious illness for Baggett to realize her pace of work wasnt sustainable or fulfilling. She closed her restaurant in July 2021 to focus on her recovery, and is now establishing herself as a painter who tells stories from Torah and Talmud in a contemporary light.

Courtesy of Marisa Baggett

Baggett at work in her at-home atelier.

Two years into the stresses of the pandemic, and often still fatigued since her illness, Baggett is happy with a slower pace of life. The old me wouldve said, In five years, I plan to blah blah, but for now, Im enjoying the process and looking forward to seeing what happens, she said. When I look back at the idea of constantly being productive, Im surprised I didnt burn out sooner.

Focusing on being alive, rather than pursuing achievement, is kind of the essence of Torah, she said.

Baggett connected her new lifestyle to the practice of shmita a Biblically mandated sabbatical that occurs every seven years and begins on Rosh Hashanah. In the Torah, it is a time to forgive debts and let the land lie fallow but can, in broader terms, be viewed as a time of rest and renewal. (The world is currently in a shmita year.)

I dont think weve ever needed shmita as much as we do right now, said Betsy Stone, a psychologist and adjunct lecturer at Hebrew Union College. In the same way that muscles need to be stressed and rest to grow, people need to rest to be able to grow.

Courtesy of Betsy Stone

Were not in the suffering Olympics, Stone says. I think, in a pandemic, everyone has something to complain about.

COVID-19 has required a phenomenally high level of adaptation, Stone said, yet theres been no rest and reset time.

Many of us say things like, There are other people who have it worse than I do, Im not food-insecure, or I have a roof over my head, but it just layers shame on top of trauma, Stone said. Its not productive.

In support groups she leads, Stone is seeing, for instance, extreme stress and fatigue among rabbis, cantors and other Jewish professionals who have faced increased need among their congregations and, in making decisions about communal precautions, become impromptu epidemiologists. The level of burnout for some is almost paralyzing, she said.

Were going to see mental health issues coming out of this pandemic for at least a decade, and if were smart, well begin to address those issues before they explode all over us not after, Stone said.

Rabbi Hara Person, chief executive of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, noted that the past two years have shaken loose underlying issues like stress and burnout that existed long before the pandemic. The Reform rabbinical organization, she said, will continue to expand webinars, support groups, one-on-one counseling and other offerings to promote rabbinic wellness.

Its clear that rabbis need a tremendous amount of support, in both their personal and professional lives, Person said. The stronger rabbis are emotionally and spiritually, the stronger the communities they serve can be.

Photo by Mary Dalnekoff

One of Grossmans achievements as rabbi has been bringing Howard Countys interfaith and interracial community together through Courageous Conversations about Race and Religious Bias, which celebrated its second year on Zoom in February.

Rabbi Susan Grossman, one of the Conservative Movements first woman rabbis, is set to retire in June after 25 years of service at Beth Shalom Congregation, a Conservative shul in Columbia, Md.

Shell also step down from an unusually long 30-year tenure on the Conservative Judaism Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, through which she has helped shape the movements policies regarding COVID-19.

Despite the tragedies of the pandemic, Grossman stressed that the last two years have also brought forth the possibility of transformation. She noted that the so-called Greatest Generation the Americans who grew up during the Great Depression and fought in World War II were incredibly able to cope and also the most generous and considerate generation.

We can find peace, she said, in avodah and chesed service and acts of loving kindness, respectively by showing empathy and compassion not just for fellow Jews but for all of our neighbors.

Part of that process: Learning to reinforce the strength of our communities, even and especially under difficult circumstances.

Jews who feel like theyre part of a Jewish community feel less isolated and cope better than those who are not part of a Jewish community, said Eva Fogelman, a psychologist in private practice in New York.

Fogelman says that lesson will be particularly important to remember as we enter the third year of the pandemic. A group of experts recently warned that despite a broad nationwide relaxing of precautions, the nation is not yet at the next normal. The group, which includes former leaders of the CDC, cautioned that the virus is not yet at low enough levels to be considered endemic, and that more research into long COVID is needed.

Additionally, the possibility of future surges and variants remains. While nearly two-thirds of American adults are fully vaccinated, only 41% of children ages 5 to 17 are fully vaccinated. About 20 million children under 5, who are not yet eligible for vaccination, remain unprotected. And at least 7 million immunocompromised adults live in the U.S.

I really hope that people are willing to do the bare minimum to protect each other, Mtraux said.

Luckily, Fogelman said, we have developed these creative, innovative ways of being apart yet being together.

Courtesy of Susan Einbinder

Amid the omicron variant, Einbinders students were confused, angry and burned out. Their future is in suspension, she said, and their present is upside down.

And as Einbinder, the UConn professor, pointed out, Jews have been overcoming obstacles to gathering for centuries. During a bout of plague in 1631, she said, Jews in Padua, Italy were told to pray from their windows and recite the vidui, the deathbed confession, from their doorways, with witnesses stationed in the street. They didnt have the Internet, she said, drawing a connection to Jewish communities quick pivot to virtual offerings early in the COVID-19 pandemic, but they used physical space in creative ways. And the Jewish community remains creative. The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards has recently ruled that even after the public health threat of COVID-19 has ended, Jews can continue to use technology to make a minyan.

Theres amazing resilience in Judaism, Grossman said. Whatever weve experienced, we dont wallow in it. We learn how to make ourselves and the world a better place because of it.

Originally posted here:

Entering a third pandemic year, Jews see reasons to hope and stay cautious - Forward

Content warning: this story contains brief mention of sexual assault.

A Stanford University assistant dean spoke to Santa Rosa Junior College students about the women behind the disability rights movement in America on Zoom on March 14.

The SRJC Womens History Month Committee and the SRJC Arts and Lecture Committee co-sponsored the Women and Disability in America event to celebrate Womens History Month.

Disability Resource Specialist and Womens History Month Committee member Laura Aspinall introduced speaker Catherine Sanchez, Stanford University assistant dean of students in the office of community standards. Sanchez has earned a bachelors degree in human biology and a masters degree in sociology at Stanford University.

As an administrator, Cat continues her advocacy work for the disabled community, including advising students hosting disability related talks and helping to create a disability community space on campus, Aspinall said.

Sanchez said in order to understand the disabled experience of today, we have to understand what it was like in the past. Disabled people have always been active in our society, yet their disabled narrative often isnt shared, she said. One such historical figure is Harriet Tubman, who is well known for her work on the Underground Railroad, yet few are aware she was epileptic since she was teenager.

We only hear a story of heroism, but we dont hear what her life as a disabled person was like as she was carrying on her incredible work, Sanchez said.

By omitting the disabled narrative from historical figures, we silence disabled members of modern society, she said, especially those with multiple marginalized identities.

According to Sanchez, Western society has two main models of viewing disability: individual and social. The individual model views disability as belonging to the individual who needs to be cured or fixed in order to function in society, while in the social model disability occurs when society doesnt accommodate the needs of the individual.

Sanchez said disabled narratives have been hidden from U.S. society since the colonists, who brought the individual model view from Europe where disability was seen as a fact of life. At that time, she said many disabled people were locked away from view by their families or forced by the community to move away or live in workhouses for criminals; a practice echoed today, when many unhoused or incarcerated individuals suffer from mental disabilities.

Shunning disabled people progressed from community practice to our nations laws, Sanchez said. Slavers used mental disability to justify their inhumane treatment of slaves, and attributed escape attempts to mental illness, calling it drapetomania. After the Civil War, when many soldiers came home disabled or maimed, cities across the U.S. passed ugly laws, which forbade unsightly people from being in public view.

When we separate disabled people from society, we also pitfall into defining historical figures by their disability rather than their achievements. Sanchez contrasted Tubman to Helen Keller who is more known for becoming a successful author after she overcame her deafness and blindness, instead of her disability rights activism, like helping found the American Civil Liberties Union.

With Tubman we get her activism and almost none of her disability experience. With Keller we get her disability and none of her activism, Sanchez said.

Sanchez said Keller was a complicated figure because, while she fought for disabled rights, at one time she supported refusing medical care for babies born with severe disabilities, which she eventually changed her mind on.

Its important that we understand people as their whole selves and include this in her story, she said. Ableism, like other forms of bigotry, is an action. We are all complicit in ableist systems and we can all perform ableist acts, but theres not inherently negative ableists. Our stories are more complicated than that.

Kellers views against severe disabilities were influenced by the popular theory of the time, eugenics, which encourages some people to procreate and prevents others from doing so based on perceived superior and inferior genetic qualities, Sanchez said.

The eugenics ideology led to the forced sterilization of many disabled people in America, Sanchez said. The first documented victim of forced sterilization was Carrie Buck, who was committed to the Virginia State Colony of Epileptics and Feebleminded by her foster parents after being raped by her foster mothers nephew. The superintendent selected her for sterilization to test a new state law that protected doctors who sterilize people with intellectual disabilities without their consent for eugenics purposes. His decision was upheld in court.

The 1927 Supreme Court ruling on this case set the tone for the treatment of disabled people in our country for decades, and for the treatment of multiple or severely disabled people up to our current times, Sanchez said.

Another victim of forced sterilization was Betty Lou Hammer, who became disabled after receiving a beating in jail. Hammer is known for her voting rights activism and organizing the Mississippi Freedom Rights Summer. She was sterilized in jail, which was common among Black women at the time. She coined the term Mississippi Appendectomy, because women were told they were getting a medical procedure but were sterilized without their consent while they were under anesthesia.

Sanchez said the disability rights movement of the 1960s was backed mainly by polio survivors of the 1940s and 50s polio epidemic, who fought for equal access to education. A major figure in this movement was Johnnie Lacy, who co-founded the Berkeley Center for Independent Living: one of the bedrocks in the disability rights movement.

As a Black woman, Lacy had to fight to pursue higher education at San Francisco State University and wasnt allowed to be officially part of the university when taking classes and couldnt participate in graduation, Sanchez said. One of the first activists to mention intersectional discrimination, Lacy didnt feel she belonged to either the Black or disabled communities, which is an experience many disabled people of color experience today.

Disability is a very intersectional identity, and I think its important that when we think of these types of efforts, were also thinking of disability, and the ways that its interacting with these other types of identities, Sanchez said.

In the modern era, Sanchez said, one of the ways disabled people are separated from society is through fashion, as clothing is rarely made to fit a variety of bodies. She said female beauty is often viewed as symbolic to a womans reproductive ability and worth, and disabled mothers are at a higher risk of having their children taken from them in court.

When we perpetuate the idea that disabilities are ugly and shameful, people feel uncomfortable talking about them, Sanchez said, which leads to similar lines of thinking as colorblind racism.

Colorblind bigotry tends to show up in the disability context as a desire to leave our disabilities unspoken, unshared and unshown, Sanchez said.

Jillian Mercado, queer and disabled British model and actress, advocates against people hiding their disabilities, Sanchez said. In an interview with Fashionista Magazine, Mercado said the only time she saw disabled people while growing up was in commercials about cancer, which made her self-conscious about her disability. Now Mercado has a large social media following and works to promote more representation and self love.

Sanchez finished her talk by answering questions from attendees. One question was what is the difference between equity and equality?

Sanchez used an example of three people of different heights trying to look over a wall to watch a baseball game. One person is tall enough to look over the wall, one is almost tall enough to look over and one is not nearly tall enough to look over. Equality would be treating them all equal by giving each a stepping stool of the same height. The problem is the stepping stool would only benefit one person: the one who is almost tall enough to look over the wall. Equity would be recognizing that each person is different and providing appropriate accommodations so that all three can watch the game with the same level of comfort.

Another question asked was how can I make the classroom or workspace more inclusive and accessible?

I would try to look for ways that you can include what is called universal design, which is finding multiple ways to make things accessible to people. For example, if you are presenting materials to your class that are PDFs, then make sure that theyre accessible via a screen reader, Sanchez said.

She also said students can get ideas by contacting SRJC disability services.

Read the rest here:

The little known history of the women behind the disability rights movement in America - The Oak Leaf

Its known now as the big lie; the idea that Donald Trump perpetuated the idea among his supporters that the only way his campaign would lose this election would be if there was interference from his opponents. Trumps infamous quote saying, .make sure your vote gets counted. Make sure because the only way were going to lose this election is if the election is rigged created the foundation for a new way of thinking that placed doubt upon the United States voting system.

Creating a loss of confidence in the voting system allowed Trump to put the blame of his failure not on himself but instead on the government for unfairly targeting him. This positioned him as a martyr who only wanted to keep America great. But by perpetuating mistrust in the voting system and our own representatives, Trumps Big Lie has significantly larger effects than just influencing this election. In fact, the consequences were seen soon after when groups of armed terrorists surrounded the Capitol building in an attempt to sway the results. An insurrection such as this leaves many to wonder, what will happen next?

Trumps term in office created a ground for these white supremacists ideals to fester and build momentum. Since the beginning of his administration, Trump has created a safe place for right wing extremists in the United States. In 2019, emails between Trump and his senior advisor for policy and chief speechwriter, Steven Miller, were published. In these emails, Miller expresses robust support for many extreme white supremacist concepts, including the great replacement theory, race science, and eugenics. Going further, Miller blamed immigrants for crime and even praised the Confederacy. To put in plain terms, a senior advisor to the President of the United States supported ideas which greatly resemble white supremacist and Nazi propaganda.

Among the people involved in the attack on the Capitol which led to the death of five Americans white supremacist and right-wing terrorist groups played a huge role. Militia groups that spouted right wing rhetoric used the January 6th riots as an opportunity to recruit and enlist more individuals for their cause. Militias such as the Proud Boys showed up to events claiming to keep order such as providing security for Mike Pence and Roger Stone or detaining protestors. Right wing militia groups threatened the security of our country which we saw all too well during the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville in 2017 when private militias outgunned and outmanned the actual police force. Time after time these right-wing militias have deterred and prevented police from actually enforcing law and order.

In the United States, white supremacist violence has been drastically increasing. Since 2015, there have been 267 plots or attacks involving right wing extremists resulting in 91 fatalities (Washington Post). Right wing extremism began gathering momentum shortly after the election of former President Barack Obama in 2008.

The use of social media has contributed greatly to the rise of white supremacy. An example of social medias effect on the right-wing agenda is Taylor Michael Wilson who, on October 22, 2017, pulled the brakes on a train, carrying a handgun and a pocket knife. After a struggle with a train conductor, Wilson was restrained. Later, Wilson stated to a deputy that he was going to save the train from black people. It was later found that Wilson had deeply immersed himself in right wing propaganda through social media.

Original post:

The Destructive Legacy Of January 6th The Gothic Times - The Gothic Times

Editors Note:FIIs #MoodOfTheMonth for March, 2022 isWomens History Month. We invite submissions on the contributions of women, the trajectory of the feminist movement and the need to look at history with a gender lens, throughout the month. If youd like to contribute, kindly email your articles tosukanya@feminisminindia.com

Todays society is rampant with transphobia and the erasure of intersex and non-binary communities. A rigid binary of man and woman dictates our lives and seems entwined with the very structure of the society, so much that it begins to feel like a fact. But these are myths incorrectly spread by colonial forces to perpetuate and validate the eugenics theory. This is not to say that man and woman are incorrect, just that they are not the only gender identities.

Another myth is that systemic transphobia has always existed. While it is true that historically, gender non-conforming individuals may have been treated differently, they have not been discriminated against in the abhorrent way they are today. They were revered and even worshipped in some societies. More importantly, their existence was not denied so outrightly.

This article attempts to break down the history of how the myth of the sex and gender binary came to be and elaborate on how complex and diverse the spectrums of gender and sex have always been.

Gender is not a naturally occurring phenomenon, but is actively constructed by the society and culture. Today, we live in a global world and the concepts of what is masculine and what is feminine may seem universal. But if we examine the traditional values of each society, this is not the case.

For example, dresses and skirts are worn by women in the United States of America. But in Scotland, men are the ones who traditionally wear kilts, a form of clothing that resembles a skirt. In fact, if we pay attention to the kurta, a garment worn by all genders in India, it is shaped like a dress.

Get premium content, exclusive benefits and help us remain independent, free and accessible.

BECOME AN FII MEMBER

Choose Your Plan!

The perceptions of masculine and feminine also change over time. There are many examples of this. Pink was initially considered a boys colour. High heels were invented for men. The arts, which are now considered soft and feminine, were initially deemed inappropriate for women and were dominated by men until quite recently. Since gender is constructed by the society, and the society tends to ignore or deny non-binary genders, they are currently not as rigid. However, there is some pressure on non-binary people to present as androgynous.

At the beginning of the British period, before colonial rule became downright oppressive and British culture was imposed onto the Indian society, in the Indian subcontinent, transgender and intersex people used to accept protections and benefits by some Indian states by remaining united as the Hijra community

Transgender and intersex individuals have been recognised in India since ancient history. Hijras,eunuchs, Kothis, Aravanis, Jogappas or Shiv-Shakthis are groups or tribes of transgender and/or intersex people who have a strong historical presence in our country.

There is historical evidence of recognition of intersex, transgender and gender non-conforming people during the early writings of ancient India. The concept of tritiyaprakriti or napumsaka had been an integral part of the Hindu mythology, folklore, epic and early Vedic and Puranic literature.

The term napumsaka had been used to denote the absence of procreative ability, presented by highlighting differences from both male and female markers. Thus, some of the early texts extensively dealt with issues of sexuality and the idea of more than two biological sexes. The Jain text even mentions the concept of psychological sex, which emphasised the psychological make-up of an individual, distinct from their sexual characteristics- or what we today call gender identity.

While the vocabulary may have been different, it is clear that ancient India did not think that gender equated to sex, nor denied the existence of a gender spectrum. People of the Hijra community were even considered closer to god and were invited to bless weddings and newborns.

This is a practice that continues even today. However, the difference is that the community was allowed to live with dignity at the time. They were provided alms for their services but were not allowed to participate in trade. Today, we live in a capitalist society where everyones earnings relies on trade and trade-related activities. Their traditional services are not in as much demand. They are still not allowed to participate in trade, except now it leads to extreme poverty. There may not be a rule denying them dignity, but the society has taken away their means to earn.

Also read: How Has Bollywood Misrepresented The Hijra Community?

People of the Hijra community played a famous role in the royal courts of the Islamic world, particularly in the Ottoman empires and the Mughal rule in Medieval India. They rose to prominent positions as political advisors, administrators, generals, and guardians of the womens chambers. They had free access to all spaces and sections of the population, thereby playing a crucial role in the politics of empire-building in the Mughal era.

At the beginning of the British period, before colonial rule became downright oppressive and British culture was imposed onto the Indian society, in the Indian subcontinent, transgender and intersex people used to accept protections and benefits by some Indian states by remaining united as the Hijra community.

The benefits included the provision of land and a small amount of money for agricultural activities. All of this changed later when British rule and influence seeped into cultural practices and perceptions. One of the reasons the Hijra community survived is because they were helped by Indian state monarchs.

The eugenics theoryis a set of beliefs and practices that aime to improve thegeneticquality of ahuman population,historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting the ones deemed superior. This was the theory used by Nazi Germany to justify their atrocities, including the massacre of over six million Jews.

The superior people meant White people, specifically cisgender men and women who were heterosexual, non-disabled and neurotypical. Indians, who were brown, were considered inferior. The colonisers used this theory to justify colonial rule and oppression.

An important thing to realise about the acceptance of LGBTQIA+ identities in pre-colonial history is that they were only accepted as the other. This acceptance was conditional transgender and intersex people were only allowed to survive if they fulfilled their roles and remained part of the Hijra community. There is, of course, nothing wrong with being in the community. The problem is that they were never given a choice

Eugenics theory had a strong connection to gender. Firstly, it was used to justify European patriarchal norms by establishing inherent biological differences between men and women, which meant that men had to be providers and women had to be caregivers. In fact, when the Suffragette movement started in the 1920s, those women were deemed to be of a third gender.

These gender norms were further used to justify racial discrimination. For instance, Brown women were considered less of women because, on average, they had more body hair than White women. Additionally, as mentioned before, the Indian society accepted gender non-conforming groups, which appalled the British, who thought it was perverted and an insult to their culture.

They described the Hijra community as cross-dressers, beggars and unnatural prostitutes. These facts were used to form a theory that White people were more civilised and advanced because they were the only ones who were able to be purely male and female. While the rest of the world had intersex ancestors, White people had pure ancestors- Adam and Eve. Each person of colour, including Indians, had a mix of male and female in them. This became the basis for the justification of White supremacy.

The colonisers believed that it was their duty to make people of colour as pure as possible because of the White mans burden, which meant that White people had a duty to civilise other primitive cultures, essentially morphing those cultures into their own while ensuring they remained at the top of the racial hierarchy.

This is why they began enforcing gender norms and trying to erase any trace of transgender and intersex indentities, even outlawing many things they considered gender nonconformity, such as effeminate men. They also outlawed homosexuality, a practice India continued well after independence till 2018.

The British were so successful in sowing the seeds of gender exclusion in our country that the country still continues to frown upon gender nonconformity. Transgender and intersex folk, including those belonging to the Hijra community, struggle even today.

An important thing to realise about the acceptance of LGBTQIA+ identities in pre-colonial history is that they were only accepted as the other. This acceptance was conditional transgender and intersex people were only allowed to survive if they fulfilled their roles and remained part of the Hijra community. There is, of course, nothing wrong with being in the community. The problem is that they were never given a choice.

If you were intersex or transgender, you had to be part of the Hijra community and play the part. No matter how prestigious these duties were, it is essential to acknowledge that there was never any choice in the matter. They could only be part of mainstream society if they played the role of the other.

They could not lead ordinary, domestic lives, get married, raise children, participate in trade or agriculture, if they so wished. They were part of society without being part of societal activities. While this is better than outright exclusion, it is a bargain and not liberation, and not something we wish to return to. While pre-colonial Indian history has had many silver linings for the LGBTQIA+ community, it is important to acknowledge that it has not always been golden.

Aso read: FII Interviews: In Conversation With Kiran Nayak. B, A Trans, Disabled, Award-Winning Social Activist

This article is simply trying to say that systemic transphobia is not our heritage. Colonial rule, White supremacy and racism have twisted our perceptions of gender. It is time we stop defending transphobia in the name of tradition and sanskaar since it is certainly not our sanskaar that we uphold today with our bigotry.

Featured Image: Maktoob Media

Read more here:

Colonisation And Transphobia: The History Of The Binary Construct Of Gender In India - Feminism In India

During history-based and cultural celebratory months like Womens History Month, we have a habit of championing the achievements and experiences of the individual (often in a singular moment) instead of the collective group action over decades. I love to learn and share about a hidden figure or under-hyped person as much as the next. However, in choosing to highlight these moments so disproportionately, we leave behind all the people who come after and before them. Also, this attitude coincides with the same, deeply flawed individual bootstraps narrative put on traditional (typically dealing with white men, that is) American history.

So, while Ill eventually share a biography or memoir (I love a good memoir), this time I wanted to share seven (or more) American History books that center on women! Some of these books focus on a group of women overall, and others focus on how women navigated a moment. All of these focus primarily on American History before the 70s (though most go past that at the end), or this list would never end.

In A Black Womens History of the United States, Two historians tell the story of the U.S. pre-1619 to 2000 through the lives and perspectives of Black womenpre-1619 because of the first Black woman who traveled from New Spain (Mexico) to a place that would become New Mexico in the U.S, Isabel de Olvera. They also address that issue of individualism at the expense of a singular narrative in the book. At the beginning of every chapter, the section begins with the story of a Black woman and then expands to other womens conditions in similar circumstances and gives historical context. The authors prompt the readers to reflect on what privileges allow the initial chapters story to live on today.

So far, this ReVisioning History series has only published one book specifically regarding women, so Im patiently waiting for more!

I dont remember how I came across They Were Her Property, but I do remember finding it after reading A Black Womens History of the United States. Jones-Rogers book shows readers not only that white women were cruel to Black women for more reasons than insecurity, but also participated in the cruelest aspects like torture and the slave market right alongside the men. It forces readers to contend with the reality of how the enslavement of Black women served white women. The book doesnt just say that this treatment was wrong, because we already know that. Instead, it reminds us that the limited economic mobility and social power of free women came at the expense of other women.

From biblical texts to Darwins theories, American society has always looked for guidance (and excuses) on what womens role in the country should be. Often, this came in the form of mens ideas and interpretations. However, women, at every turn, have had differing opinions on this place. Kimberly A. Hamlins From Eve to Evolution looks at how the women (specifically Darwinist first-wave feminists) interpreted Darwins theory and the science that came after it during the Guilded Age (approximately 1870 to 1900). Science and feminism dont always go great together, as many of these women brushed up against (or outright advocated for) eugenics. However, the book still provides overlooked views from women during rapid scientific development.

Similar to A Black Womens History of the United States, Our Voices, Our Histories: Asian American and Pacific Islander Women takes a collection of stories to weave together a larger history. However, in this case, this serves as an anthology for 35 Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women to author their individual cultures history, from the politics of language to the role of food and family (adoptees and generational stories). In addition to these histories as curated by the authors, each chapter introduces readers to a new AAPI author.

A Queer History of the United States examines how gender and the ever-changing concepts of femininity and masculinity shape American culture. Author Michael Bronski was a little too light on the pre-colonist time, in my opinion, but the book still provides excellent details on the lives and laws policing gender and then family. Other than the final chapters, which come back to a very timely thesis, one of my favorite sections features how gendered expectations shifted during and after industrialization. For the first time, so many unmarried people (within the U.S.) were living outside of the roof of their parents for work, and boys and girls clubs (including housing situations) popped up to make sure morality was still in check.

Like the other titles in this series, Bronski wrote for a general audience. However, if you want an even more reader-friendly version, check out A Queer History of the U.S. for Young People.

Speaking of the choices of married and unmarried women, this next book features all the ways the government (historically and currently) influences peoples marriage. If you think about it for more than a second, the governments policymaking influences how, when, and if marriage is recognizednot just as a formal union but in terms of income tax and social safety net programs.

Cott published this in 2002, but lots of marriage-related issues have shifted since then, like same-sex marriage being federally recognized and the hyper-awareness of how marriage plays into the immigration system. Since the early days of COVID-19, disabled people have warned that this pandemic will affect shared healthcare and family dynamics. Many disabled people wanting to get married to long-term partners dont because it will limit their access to life-or-death care. You can read some of their stories via #VowsYetPromised.

Written by then-editor-in-chief of Bitch Media Evette Dionne, Lifting as We Climb follows the history of voting for all women through the advocacy of Black women. The story begins before the end of slavery as white women abolitionists grew concerned that they would gain the right to vote after Black men and ends looking at the work of women through the Civil Rights legislation of the 60s. Dionne writes this in such a way that the younger activist still in high school can learn about this history, but its still comprehensive. Also, the book connects the role of all Black women, regardless of social class, and the efforts of women today to ensure voting is made accessible.

Despite the millions of Indigenous, AAPI, and Latin American women (and others not seen as white at some point in time) who have and continue to be a part of American history, there are significant gaps in recent books detailing their history. Often, womens experiences get a chapter in some books or individuals get mentioned rather than larger movements and histories. This gap exists in regular history books for consumers, but titles bridging that gap are abundant in academia. When putting together this list, I aimed to focus on accessibility, meaning I limited the inclusion of such titles. However, with so many gaps, I wanted to include them here in a separate section.

Read something that we missed? Lets share more books in the comments down below.

(image: Beacon Press, New York University Press, and Viking Books for Young Readers.)

The Mary Sue has a strict comment policythat forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults towardanyone, hate speech, and trolling.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

More here:

7+ Books on Complex Experiences of Women in US History - The Mary Sue

Ann Connery Frantz| Telegram & Gazette

Area author Patrick Broderick, who writes as Silas Barrow, will be at Tidepool Bookshop, 372 Chandler St., at 6:30 p.m., March 24, to present his book, For Their Blood Burns Wild.

Broderick, a Clinton resident, has written about a fictional (but once real) society that employs eugenics to sort out the perfect from the imperfect genetic family. Those deemed impure (criminals, homosexuals, mentally ill or anyone with a disability in their family) are rounded up and sterilized before being removed from proper societies, their belongings confiscated, their jobs ended.

Its based on the real turn-of-the-century eugenics movement in the U.S., during which thousands of people were sterilized in various states. The author researched the era thoroughly and has written an absorbing novel, revolving around a fictional family, hiding with others from the eugenics agents and gang members of pures, who search for anyone deemed imperfect. It is a readable, thought-provoking story, opening up a dialogue about societal attitudes toward people with different backgrounds, different lifestyles or medical problems.

Barrows self-published book is available at Tidepool and through Amazon.

Author Fern Davis Nissim of Shrewsbury has written a series to encourage children to engage in family history through the characters of ants. The first books in her series, Antilines Brave Adventure: A Tale of Freedom for Young Children, and Antilines True Discovery: A Tale of Finding Family and Friendship, opens the world of family backgrounds and accepting others who are different. Nissims little Red Ant books urge an understanding of freedom, self-acceptance and tolerance.

Currently, there are six books in the red ant series.

As her first foray in illustration, Fern adapted her dads original story, Antilines Brave Adventure, into a rhyming format for her own grandchildren. In the second book, Antilines True Discovery, written and illustrated by Nissimand Sue Fleishman, they have kept the integrity and personality of the main character as she moves forward on her journey of self-discovery and awareness of the world around her.

Despite her years in marketing, communications and public relations, Nissim fulfilled a lifelong ambition after she became a grandmother, starting the Little Red Ant series for her grandchildren to learn about self-discovery, family and the world they share. She created the books as conversation starters between adults and young children.

For information, see http://www.littleredantbooks.com/ourbooks.

E. Raymond Tatten of Sterling has published Sawyers Regret: A Contest with Circumstances, a story of Colonial America based on the actual October 1705 kidnapping of a 16-year-old Lancaster boy and his father by Indians. The book is an entertaining read, and will provide younger students of Lancaster history with information about kidnapping and ransom of pioneers that they may never have suspected. Elias and his father joined a small group of prisoners as they made their way 500 miles to Canada. The book in paperback or Kindle is available on Amazon and Root and Press Bookstore.

The NOW Book Group meets at 5 p.m.March 17at the TidePool Bookshop, Chandler Street. Topic is Nella Larsens Passing. The February bookwill be reviewed before discussion turns to March, with Richard Osmans The Thursday Murder Club. The book features strong female characters and pushback on stereotypes of the elderly.

The March 15 SciFi Book Club meeting at Simon Fairfield Public Library, Douglas, will discuss Andy Weirs Hail Mary. The novel tells the story of a teacher-turned-astronaut who awakens from a coma afflicted with amnesia.

Fairfields Book Bunch club will meet at 4 p.m.March 23to discuss Chasing Vermeer by Blue Balliett.

Send book club news to ann.frantz@gmail.com. This column is published twice monthly.

See original here:

Read It and Reap: Clinton author explores perils of perfection in novel about eugenics - Worcester Telegram

Photos provided by Susana Susana Ortiz

The search for the perfect world, the perfect civilization, the perfect human being is a recurring theme, a fundamental question and perhaps intrinsic to our nature. How can we improve the world as a society, as individuals? The history of humanity is largely the history of the answers to these questions in action, operating on the face of the earth. Literature has also contributed to this debate, but instead of being restricted to looking back, it has the power to imagine how far the consequences of the ideas that guide humanitys actions can go along paths traced from today.

The lesson we can draw from history, from the times paradise on Earth has been promised, is that with the best of intentionsor disguised as the best of intentionsthe greatest atrocities are committed. The role of dystopias may not be to teach lessons but to suggest questions, to shake, to wake up, to open ones eyes to what is not yet but could be, or even more alarming, to show what is already happening but remains in some way hidden from our eyes. Instead of the blunt inevitability of history, dystopias,even if they paint sometimes dire pictureshold out the hope that something can still be done about it.

Babel tangentially deals with a dark page of history that cannot be erased but can be prevented from repeating: eugenics. The eugenics movement arose at the end of the 19th century by attempting to apply the theories of Darwin to human beings. Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin himself, is considered the father of eugenics, defined in his own words as the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations. This affirmation carries an intrinsic racist formulation and the denial of the equality of all human beings, of their equal value and dignity.

Theories of scientific racism were fed from the seed of eugenics, which reached wide development in the United States with authors such as Madison Grant with The Passing of the Great Race, a book published in 1916, where he made the statement of the racial superiority of the Northern Europeans. This publication contributed to the founding of the American Eugenics Society in 1921, an organization from which eugenics theories were transformed into government policies, such as the forced sterilization of people with disabilities or mental illness, but especially of the black population. Later, it was praised by Hitler.

These racist and eugenicist policies explicitly served as a model for the Nuremberg Laws that institutionalized the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. They were taken to the extreme with the massive sterilization of Jewish women and the Aktion-T4 plan that ended the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who, due to different physical or psychological disabilities, were considered a financial and genetic burden on German society and state.

In the world of Babel, the racial component of the eugenics of the early 20th-century has been overcome, but instead, the new eugenics establishes the criteria to determine which lives are worth living and which are not based on genetic parameters. Only the fittest should be born for the good of the community, which is still an approach similar to that of Nazi Germany since it is an exclusive community, of which only the certified are part.

The new eugenics, using scientific and technological progress, develops and takes genetic determinism to the last consequences, an idea that was already present in the first eugenics movement and postulates that we are determined in all aspects of our existence by our genetic material and that human beings do not change. However, the evidence against that claim is overwhelming. The personal experience of any individual is enough to show that life is ever-changing and that although genetics is a factor to be taken into account, it is a conditioning element but not a determining factor. Our history, experiences, decisions, freedom of action and conscience say more about someone than any genotype can.

Determining who should or should not live by their genetic information is an arbitrary decision, just like the 19th-century race theories used by early eugenists. They also believed that they acted following the infallibility of science and progress. But what is science but a relative and partial knowledge of the immensity of the universe? What is progress but a word empty of content and in need of a direction? Science and progress must be placed at the service of humanity as a whole and, at the same time, of each and every one of the human beings in a particular and personal way. Not the other way around. When humanity ceases to be an end and becomes a means, human lifeespecially that of vulnerable, oppressed and discriminated groupsbecomes something disposable, substitutable. As Hannah Arendt said: where human life becomes superficial, totalitarianism lurks

In Babel, we see how the lives of those who do not meet the genetic standards are directly cut short without further consideration. Seeing this on stage can surprise or even shock us, but the truth is that reality is not far off. Considered one of the fathers of modern genetics, Jrme Lejeune, the French scientist who discovered trisomy 21, or Down syndrome, also developed the amniocentesis as a prenatal diagnostic tool soon after. His biggest fear was that instead of becoming a scientific breakthrough for treating and improving the quality of life for people with Down syndrome, it would become a way to eliminate them before they were born. His fears have been confirmed over time as well as in the cases of people with spina bifida or even with easy-to-treat diagnoses such as cleft lip.

I cannot get out of my head two moments in the theater where both Renee and Ann said they did not want to bring a monster into the world. Is it possible for a child, a baby, no matter how serious his condition is, to be a monster? Can a defenseless being without guilt or evil be a monster? Would it not be the other way around? Are not those who deem them monsters, the ones who deny their humanity, the real monsters?

I have kept thinking about that word, monster, and I have discovered that after allalthough a shiver ran down my spine when I heard it in the playmonster is not an entirely inappropriate way to refer to those who are different. It is a word that originated from the Latin monstrumto showthis is derived from the verb monere, which means to warn. According to classical literature, a monster was a warning sent to the world by supernatural forces to communicate a message.

Perhaps those whom we insist on calling monsters are here to tell us something, to show us that the perfect human being is none other than the one capable of showing humanity, of leaving their selfishness, to give on behalf of others. To warn us that the true human being is the one capable of seeing in the eyes of otherseven in those who are differentperfect human beings, just like him, with the same value and dignity.

See original here:

Babel, and the Search for the Perfect Human Being - The Independent

It still comes as a surprise to some people that Prohibition was one of the flagship policies of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, alongside womens suffrage, income tax and anti-imperialism. The idea of a fundamentalist Christian Left is as alien to modern readers as the idea of Progressive eugenics, but both flourished in the USA in the decades leading up to the First World War.

This is no secret. While it is easy to imagine Prohibition being enabled by killjoy conservatives, almost every book on the subject written in my lifetime has given due credit to Bible-thumping progressives. As Mark Schrad notes in this controversial new history of Prohibition, it is even acknowledged on Wikipedia.

Smashing the Liquor Machine does not seek to downplay the role of Progressives, nor does it dismiss their prohibitionism as a mistake. On the contrary, Schrad argues that Prohibition was a righteous cause that has been maligned and misunderstood by generations of historians. It was seen as a social justice issue at the time and, he says, it should be recognised as such today. It was not, he claims, an act of coercive paternalism enforced on the Wets by the Drys, but a progressive shield for marginalised, suffering and oppressed peoples to defend themselves from further exploitation.

Central to his thesis is the claim that prohibitionists were not illiberal because they never sought to stop people drinking; they merely wished to destroy the exploitative liquor traffic and, above all, the saloon. For Schrad, this is a crucial distinction because, he argues, restricting commercial activity was not viewed through the prism of liberty at the time and should not be viewed as such today. The crusade was not against drinking but against predatory capitalism, of which the liquor traffic was the most insidious example.

He leans on three facts to make this case. Firstly, the biggest prohibitionist pressure group of the era was called the Anti-Saloon League rather than, say, the Anti-Alcohol League. Secondly, temperance activists talked endlessly about the evils of the liquor traffic and the liquor trust. Thirdly, neither the 18th Amendment nor the Volstead Act which was enacted to enforce it banned the possession or consumption of alcohol.

All this is true. Prohibitionists talked obsessively about the evils of the drinks industry, a habit which Schrad has picked up in the course of his research (I lost track of the number of times he uses the words exploitative and predatory to describe it). They often said that their real enemy was the alcohol industry, and Schrad implores us to take them at their word. But taking people at their word is not always good advice, especially for historians studying fanatical single-issue pressure groups who repeatedly used the bait and switch technique on the public.

The freedom to sell and the freedom to buy are indivisible

We do not say that a man shall not drink, said Richmond P. Hobson when he presented his prohibition amendment to the House of Representatives in December 1914. We do not say that man shall not have or make liquor in his own home for his own use. Perhaps he meant it. After all, his amendment to the constitution proposed only that the manufacture for sale, transportation for sale, importation for sale and exportation for sale of intoxicating liquors be forever prohibited. The amendment failed, but by 1917 the Anti-Saloon League was in a far stronger position. With victory in sight, their new text which became the 18th Amendment deleted every mention of the phrase for sale and simply banned the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors. Aside from a carve-out for American farmers which permitted the fermentation of cider and other fruit juices for personal use, the home production of alcohol was made illegal.

Consumption and possession remained legal, but it is doubtful whether the 18th Amendment would have been ratified had the Anti-Saloon League pushed their luck any further. In any case, a ban on consumption was hardly necessary. The freedom to sell and the freedom to buy are indivisible. Few Americans had the skills, resources or floor space to brew their own beer and distill their own whiskey, even if it had been legal. In practice, their freedom to consume relied on the drinks industrys freedom to sell. Schrads history ends in 1920 just as Prohibition comes into force so he never has to deal with the fall out, but it should be noted that the Anti-Saloon League managed to get a de facto ban on the purchasing and possession of alcohol in 1929 when the Jones Act made it a felony to fail to report the sale of alcohol; in other words, the buyer had to turn himself in.

Why should we judge prohibitionists by their words when we can judge them by their actions? If, as Schrad argues, Prohibition was really about regulating capitalist excesses and opposing exploitation and profit, why was home-brewing banned? If the Anti-Saloon League was only concerned with saloons, why didnt the 18th Amendment simply ban saloons and allow alcohol to be sold in shops and restaurants? If prohibitionists did not object to people drinking in the privacy of their own home, why did they fight so hard for the Webb-Kenyon Act which banned the interstate sale of alcohol by mail order? Schrad insists that the latter was not some nefarious attempt to erode individual liberty to drink but that is exactly what it was.

When asked why he robbed banks, the Prohibition-era criminal Willie Sutton is reputed to have said because thats where the money is. Prohibitionists went after the saloons because thats where the alcohol was. They went after the booze industry because it made booze. The whole point of smashing the liquor machine was to stop people drinking liquor. Enforced sobriety was not an unfortunate side effect of Prohibition. It was the whole point.

Prohibitionist broadsides against the liquor traffic were not purely rhetorical. The Drys genuinely hated the drinks industry and you did not need to be a teetotaller to deplore the way some saloons operated. But the rhetoric served another purpose. If left-wingers believed, as Schrad does, that the actual battle lines of prohibition werent between religion and drink, but capitalist profits versus the common good, it was obvious whose side they should be on. In the same way that modern public health activists shout about Big Tobacco and Big Soda when campaigning for lifestyle regulation, fury at the liquor barons helped obscure the reality that it was their fellow citizens who were the quarry. The campaign for Prohibition showed how easy it is to get people to sacrifice liberty if they believe that faceless corporations will suffer more.

Smashing the Liquor Machine is a rebuttal to almost every history book written about prohibition, but it particularly feels like a riposte to Lisa McGirrs The War on Alcohol (2016). McGirr emphasised the disproportionate suffering of ethnic minorities and urban immigrants under Prohibition and drew parallels with the war on drugs. Schrad, by contrast, emphasises the role of ethnic minorities in bringing Prohibition about. He focuses on Black and Native American prohibitionists who have often been overlooked and searches beyond the USA to discover prohibitionist movements in India, Russia, southern Africa and beyond. He makes it clear that prohibitionism was not the preserve of gammon-faced evangelists in Kansas but was endorsed by a range of public figures including Gandhi, Lenin and Tolstoy.

This is a valuable contribution to the literature and bolsters his argument that Prohibition was not a howl of rage by angry WASPs against modernity. As it happens, I share Schrads scepticism about the overly simplistic sociological theories of Joseph Gusfield, who argued that Prohibition was a symbolic crusade between rural Protestants and city-dwelling immigrants. Nevertheless, it is difficult to ignore the religious dimension in the USA. The movement began with women praying in saloons. It was led first by the Womens Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and then by the Anti-Saloon League (popularly known as the church in action). It was supported by the YMCA, YMWA, Salvation Army and many other Christian organisations. Schrad does a fine job of highlighting prohibitionists from more diverse backgrounds and he makes an interesting argument about the role of temperance in fighting colonialism, but his approach sidelines the white Protestant reformers who were more representative of the Anti-Saloon Leagues rank and file.

Even the more open-minded prohibitionists were happy to exploit the prejudices of others

Richmond P. Hobson, for example, was one of the most famous anti-alcohol campaigners of his day but is barely mentioned in this book. Almost as famous was the baseball player turned evangelist Billy Sunday who receives just two mentions despite the Anti-Saloon League saying in 1913 that the liquor interests hate Billy Sunday as they hate no other man. The dour and corrupt Bishop James Cannon, who served as the Anti-Saloon Leagues chief legislative lobbyist, is mentioned in passing three times. The only white, male, American prohibitionist who features heavily is the charismatic William Pussyfoot Johnson. Johnson was an important figure in the international temperance movement, but getting Prohibition over the line in the USA was the work of less sympathetic characters who are pushed to the periphery of this book, leaving the impression that the typical prohibitionist was less Methodist, less white and more in tune with the politics of modern day liberals than she was.

Racism and xenophobia were endemic a century ago, and we should not judge our ancestors by our own standards. Nevertheless, Schrad is too quick to ignore and downplay the Social Darwinism of many Progressives. Even the more open-minded prohibitionists were happy to exploit the prejudices of others, whether stirring up fears about black drunkards in the Deep South or fuelling hatred of the Hun after 1914 to turn the public against Americas German brewers. Schrad claims that neither phenomenon was significant. Contemporary Anti-Saloon League cartoons tell a different story.

At times, the revisionism goes too far. Schrad claims the prohibitionists were given a helping hand in the late 19th century by emerging medical science, which debunked long-standing myths about purported benefits of moderate alcohol consumption and which identified health risks which have since been substantiated by volumes of peer-reviewed research. Central to this was the WCTUs Mary Hanchett Hunt who set up the Department of Scientific Temperance Instruction in order to, as Schrad puts it, publicise new scientific investigations into the harms of alcohol and encourage their teaching as part of public-school physiology courses.

This is absurdly generous. Hunt was a fraudulent monomaniac who used the WCTUs political muscle to put sensationalist pseudo-science on the school syllabus for decades while syphoning money off into a secret bank account to pay her mortgage. By the late 19th century, temperance instruction was mandatory in all federal schools, and Hunt used her power as de facto censor to create what she called trained haters of alcohol. It is thanks to her that generations of school children were taught that most beer drinkers die of dropsy, that alcohol burns the skin, is instantly addictive and is poisonous in any quantity. Needless to say, such claims are not supported by modern science, unlike the benefits of moderate drinking which have indeed been corroborated by volumes of peer-reviewed research.

The scandal of single-issue fanatics embedding lies in school textbooks for half a century is barely hinted at by Schrad, who concedes only that unsound temperance propaganda may have been counterproductive to the cause while insisting that there was breathless hyperbole on both sides. Scientific temperance wasnt some connivance of Victorian Bible-thumpers looking to legislate morality, Schrad writes. In Hunts hands, that is exactly what it was.

Schrad is neither a teetotaller nor a prohibitionist. His objection is to predatory liquor capitalism, and he seems to favour a state-run alcohol industry. I dont share that view. Having been happily exploited by the liquor machine for the last thirty years, I have no great desire to smash it. As I am not a socialist, the knowledge that Trotsky supported prohibition does not warm me to the cause. I do not see Prohibition as a liberation movement from economic exploitation, as Schrad calls it. I think he is on firmer ground when he says, two pages earlier, that the prohibition movement was based upon a deep-seated desire to get rid of whiskey.

Despite strongly disagreeing with its central premise, I greatly enjoyed this book. Schrad is a gifted historian and a fine story teller. His research on the temperance movements of Europe and the British Empire, which make up half the book, is original and valuable. If nothing else, it is refreshing to hear the story told from the prohibitionists perspective. Many of them truly believed it was a movement of liberation. No one ever sees themselves as the bad guys.

What is missing from the story is the lesson that should never be forgotten, that the prohibitionists were wrong, that the desire to drink alcohol did not disappear with the abolition of the industry, that millions of Americans went out of their way to be exploited by the insurgent liquor traffic that emerged under Prohibition, and that this industry was more predatory than the one it had replaced.

Read more:

Smashed stereotypes or revisionist reveries? | Christopher Snowdon - The Critic

The Eugenics War was initially discussed in "Star Trek: The Original Series," during the now-iconic episode, "Space Seed." The episode had the Enterprise crew stumble across the SS Botany Bay, which was adrift in space. They find that, after nearly 200 years, members of the crew are still alive in suspended animation. The Enterprise crew awakens the leader and brings him on board their ship, where he discloses that he is Khan Noonien Singh. The crew soon discovers that Khan and his people were genetically engineered to be perfect examples of the human species. In the 1990s, however, the augmented humans turned against the non-augmented humans, believing themselves to be superior, and the Eugenics War broke out.

While augmented humans have been discussed briefly in other Trek shows, such as by Dr. Bashir (Alexander Siddig) in "Deep Space 9" and the incredibly fun arc in "Enterprise" that brought back the character Doctor Soong (Brett Spiner) from "The Next Generation," this bloody war in Federation history has never truly been explored. We propose an entire series dedicated to this story. Audiences could even have Spiner reprise his role of Doctor Soong, as he was instrumental in creating the augments. The show could showcase Khan's beginnings and how he and his crew were eventually lost in space for years on the Botany Bay.

Originally posted here:

Star Trek Series We Want To See On The Small Screen - Looper

Dear readers,

The Flyer published an editorial article Wednesday titled COVID-19: SU needs to stop playing with eugenics. Harassment and derogatory remarks on social media led to article and post edits later that evening, verifying the article was an editorial/opinion.

After death threats were made, the article was pulled down for the safety of the writer, Summer Smith, and The Flyer staff. The Flyer stands by Smiths first amendment rights, and the article was not taken down because of the articles contents or Smiths opinion.

Our organization condemns all threats and derogatory comments toward staff members and Salisbury University community members, especially those part of marginalized groups.

Moving forward, The Flyers editorial section will now be referred to as opinion, and a new social media policy has been implemented to protect The Flyer staff and SU community members. Anyone who violates the policy will be blocked from all of The Flyers social media accounts.

Posting anonymously does not exempt social media users from being held accountable for their actions through alternative disciplinary channels.

The Flyer supports audience engagement and constructive commentary, but will not tolerate harassment, derogatory remarks or threats of any kind on our organizations social media accounts or the personal accounts of our staff members.

The Flyer intends for this letter to encourage and establish a safe space for all communities at SU.

Kindest regards,

The Flyer staff

Graphic courtesy of The Flyer staff.

View original post here:

A letter from The Flyer - The Flyer