15,578 notes
posted 5 hours ago (by: originallrose)
originallrose:

Here is a list of companies that will hire felons. Please share this and repost if you know of people who are looking to better their lives and work.

originallrose:

Here is a list of companies that will hire felons. Please share this and repost if you know of people who are looking to better their lives and work.

46,352 notes
posted 15 hours ago (by: violette-roses)

violette-roses:

hair goals forever X

18,696 notes
posted 16 hours ago (by: throwherinthewater)

craftylindsey:

lucifers-kittykat:

This is Susan Robinson, one of the last people in the country who can preform late term abortions after the murder of Dr. George Tiller. This is from an awesome documentary called After Tiller, about the last 4 late-term abortion practitioners in the country. It’s a great watch and available on Netflix, would strongly recommend. 

warrior woman

9 notes
posted 18 hours ago
v important $2.99 clearance tshirt from msp; the epitome of a steal buy

v important $2.99 clearance tshirt from msp; the epitome of a steal buy

29,175 notes
posted 1 day ago (by: hayywil)

hayywil:

Repeat after me:

Date someone who matches you in emotional development.

Date someone who matches you in emotional intelligence. 

Date someone who can support you emotionally.

209,655 notes
posted 1 day ago (by: amandaspoetry)

amandaspoetry:

i am so glad you exist, even if you exist so far away from me 

269,278 notes
posted 1 day ago (by: loki-has-a-tardis)
loki-has-a-tardis:

This is honestly the best poster I have found in a while supporting breast cancer awareness. I am honestly so sick of seeing, “set the tatas free” and “save the boobies”. There is no reason in hell a life threatening, life ruining disease should be sexualized. “Don’t wear a bra day,” go fuck yourselves. You’re not saving a pair of tits, you’re saving the entire package: mind, body, and soul included. Women are not just a pair of breasts.

loki-has-a-tardis:

This is honestly the best poster I have found in a while supporting breast cancer awareness. I am honestly so sick of seeing, “set the tatas free” and “save the boobies”. There is no reason in hell a life threatening, life ruining disease should be sexualized. “Don’t wear a bra day,” go fuck yourselves. You’re not saving a pair of tits, you’re saving the entire package: mind, body, and soul included. Women are not just a pair of breasts.

102 notes
posted 1 day ago (by: wr3n)

wr3n:

Autumn hues in the neighborhood

380,099 notes
posted 1 day ago (by: sizvideos)

ataoldotcom:

detodossantos:

sizvideos:

Watch it in video

Follow our Tumblr - Like us on Facebook

This. This is how you break down ableist barriers. This is incredible for the deaf and for the custies. I would love to learn sign language, and I would learn it faster if it was standing between me and booze

this is so important

87,945 notes
posted 1 day ago (by: girldwarf)
disabilityinkidlit:

girldwarf:

Pretty much.

[screenshot of Facebook post by someone called Miranda. The post says: “Even if I humor anti-vaccine activists and for a second believe that vaccines cause autism in 0.01% of children they’re administered to (spoiler alert: vaccines don’t cause autism), I am still deeply disturbed that these people are more afraid of people with disabilities than they are of fatal, painful, and endemic diseases. If cognitive disabilities are more threatening to you than children never getting to grow up because polio makes a comeback, you have priorities to reevaluate my friend. Shame on you for brainwashing mothers an families into believing that autism is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a person.]

disabilityinkidlit:

girldwarf:

Pretty much.

[screenshot of Facebook post by someone called Miranda. The post says: “Even if I humor anti-vaccine activists and for a second believe that vaccines cause autism in 0.01% of children they’re administered to (spoiler alert: vaccines don’t cause autism), I am still deeply disturbed that these people are more afraid of people with disabilities than they are of fatal, painful, and endemic diseases. If cognitive disabilities are more threatening to you than children never getting to grow up because polio makes a comeback, you have priorities to reevaluate my friend. Shame on you for brainwashing mothers an families into believing that autism is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a person.]

299 notes
posted 1 day ago (by: gradientlair)

gradientlair:

"How we embody the oppressor within is where all feminist work begins." I’ve said and written this many times. This self-exploration, introspection and critical reflection is so important. I do this with myself every day and also over time.

One of the ways I’ve embodied oppressive thinking that I’ve had to continually challenge and reject includes the faulty White supremacist and patriarchal notion of separating emotion from logic. This binary exists to disregard collective and emotionally expressive non-White/Afrocentric cultures as “primitive” and to raise individualist and less emotionally expressive facets of Eurocentric culture as “superior.” It is also patriarchal because though deeply feeling and erotic power (H/T Audre Lorde) are sources of intuition and great knowledge for women, they’re disregarded as inferior knowledge and “weak” because patriarchy teaches men to disregard this way of knowing. Most of all, as thinking and feeling beings, we’re rarely engaged in any logical processes that are devoid of emotion, only told that “warm” emotions (associated with women) are lesser ones.

Anger, when male, is still deemed “logical” since anger is tied into aggression which is a facet of patriarchal masculinity, and anger is then excluded from emotions. But even anger or apathy themselves are emotions. What men feel are emotions. Feelings and expressions of feelings associated with maleness such as anger and rage/aggression or fear of more powerful men (or women) and intimidation/resentment are emotions. Men’s actions are also guided by emotions.

Conversely, women’s calm or informed passions are written off as “emotional” arguments even when the same level of intellect, nuance and insight is made in a woman’s argument as a man’s. A man literally has to become verbally or physically violent before his argument is deemed “too emotional.” His anger and irrationality based on said anger is still viewed as “logical” as long as the escalation to violence doesn’t occur (and even at times when it does, since such aggression is written off as “just being man”). All a woman has to do is to be passionate about her argument and reject gaslighting or silencing while presenting her argument in order to be deemed “emotional” where “emotional” becomes a pejorative. The same thing tends to play out in debates between a privileged person and an oppressed person. The rules of tone policing and the devaluation of emotion will be arbitrarily applied to the oppressed person. And this emotion versus logic myth prevents true dialogue and discourse which is more than conversation or even argument/debate.

For me, rejecting the White supremacist and patriarchal idea that the absence of emotion is a higher plane of knowing and intelligence has been critical. And it has been a process. I’ve learned more about the power of my expression and my knowledge and how it involves multiple facets: it’s lived experience, which includes a specific subset of knowledge, emotion and intuition that no amount of essays or books can teach someone who isn’t a Black woman. As a Womanist, when I center my own experiences and the diversity of experiences of Black women, I am able to more clearly see others since centering Whiteness and maleness (as you learn to do in school and life) in terms of thinking or experiencing excludes many, and definitely dehumanizes those who aren’t White and/or male.

This re-centering shapes how I approach my reading, writing and learning. And to articulate this perspective effectively, I have to be fully engaged in how I experience my experiences, or be connected to, not disconnected from my emotions, as well as fully engaged in how said experiences shape my knowledge. And fragmenting them all as a form of “higher intelligence” actually makes little sense. Emotions are heavily involved in intellectual interpretations and learning itself.

Another reason that I suspect that emotions, intuition and lived experience are devalued is because they connect to a source of information that more accurately can characterize the manifestations of oppression. So it’s not a coincidence that White supremacist and patriarchal ways of thinking and feeling remain fragmented. How could one articulate the inferiority of others without the delusions involved in believing such thought is logically abstract and involve no emotion? Entire frames of thought are built around rejecting said guilt, self-loathing and resentment that the dehumanization of others naturally create in a human consciousness. Then the rationalization that if some people are actually “less than human” then subordination, domination and oppression are the “logical” responses to their existence comes about. Some of the “greatest” White male thinkers of all time have articulated this point of view and have included it in everything from philosophy to science. It’s interesting how their suppositions, clearly based on a politics of emotion—on hatred and a need for dominance to mask emptiness, self-loathing and fragmentation—are called “natural,” “logically made” inferences.

I view it as a strength to be in touch with the multiple ways by which I acquire information and express knowledge. I continue to reject that only that which I acquire through abstract absorption and shaped by perspective external to mine is valid or the most important knowledge. Only by dismissing the heterosexist notion of humans as fragmented opposing halves meant to “complete” each other as long as we abide by rigid conceptions of gender (usually ones that are cissexist also) meant to keep women as “feeling-only beings” who are dominated and men “thinking-only” beings who dominate can all humans begin to get in touch with multiple ways of learning, knowing and expressing. Only by dismissing the White supremacist notion of centering Whiteness and Eurocentric ways of knowing as “universally" applicable and the "boiler plate" way of thinking, feeling and expressing can Black and other people of colour fully realize that our ways of knowing, feeling and thinking are just as accurate and even more applicable to our lives.

For Black women, this means that not just the fragmentation involved in emotion versus logic is rejected but also the sociopolitical fragmentation of gender versus race is rejected. We embrace ourselves as whole, feeling and thinking, where neither is privileged over the other. We connect to our experiences as women, as Black people and as Black women, specifically. All three, and any other identities (i.e. class, sexual orientation, citizenship, complexion, size, etc.) that speak to our experiences.

When those treated as the least among us are centered, those treated as the most among us are still included. And for the latter, having to give up the ability to oppress as a “logical” reaction to choosing to dehumanize others is not “oppression.” It’s actually embracing the idea that what they feel (and what others feel) cannot be separated from what they know (and what others know and experience). No more excuses can be made as to why it is logical to oppress.

12,177 notes
posted 2 days ago (by: superselected)
superselected:

#IamaLiberianNotaVirus. A Call To End Ebola Stigmatization and Prejudice.MORE.

superselected:

#IamaLiberianNotaVirus. A Call To End Ebola Stigmatization and Prejudice.

MORE.

745,841 notes
posted 2 days ago (by: kentmcfuller)

kentmcfuller:

do not fix your dark circles let the world know youre tired of its shit and ready to kill a man

19,835 notes
posted 2 days ago (by: thepeoplesrecord)
thepeoplesrecord:

The Malala you won’t hear aboutOctober 16, 2014
Malala Yousafzai, the 17-year-old Pakistani activist, has won a well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize, putting her and her amazing, tragic story back in the spotlight. Per usual, nevertheless, the corporate media has taken this positive development and exploited it in the service of U.S. imperialism.
The corporate media loves talking about Malala’s remarkable bravery and strength in standing up for girls’ rights to education, and the brutality of the Taliban forces that tried to assassinate her on her school bus. Such coverage fuels its orientalist, neocolonialist narrative about “backward,” misogynist Muslims and their need for “white saviors,” thereby legitimizing Western imperialist interests in South and West Asia.
Malala’s Nobel victory can be appropriated by the U.S. political establishment to “prove” that its invasion, occupation and destruction of Afghanistan has “helped” its people. (As for the hundreds of thousands killed and injured in the process, well, those inconvenient exceptions aren’t part of this narrative.)
As Michael Parenti points out, while most people who win the Nobel “Peace” Prize do so for war-mongering and crimes against humanity (Henry Kissinger boasts one, for example, along with Barack Obomba himself), Malala actually deserves hers. This makes the exploitation even more grotesque.
Malala has devoted her life to fighting for education for children—a most noble and important cause. When she implored at the United Nations, “Let us pick up our books and our pens, they are the most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one book and one pen, can change the world. Education is the only solution,” the Western intelligentsia ate it up like a voracious canine gobbling up its kibbles (on second thought, perhaps a vulture would have been a more apt choice for this simile).
Everyone can agree that education for children is a positive goal. By emphasizing that education is the only solution, the West can draw attention away from the very realmaterial concerns facing the vast majority of the world.
This oversight is by no means the fault of Malala. In that same speech, just before the above excerpt, she spoke of “a glorious struggle against illiteracy, poverty and terrorism.” Two of these three things are endlessly emphasized throughout the corporate press. You can guess which one is excluded.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The Malala Who Opposes Global Poverty
Roughly half of the world still lives on less than $2.50 per day. Around one-quarter of people live in extreme poverty, less than $1.25 a day. UNICEF estimates that 24,000 children under the age of five die each and every day because of poverty, meaning that “every 3.6 seconds one person dies of starvation. Usually, it is a child under the age of 5.” And, in many countries, poverty is getting worse.
Education certainly has a role in the fight against poverty, and it’s important that one learns, say, basic chemistry. (Malala was sitting in chemistry class when she was informed she had won the Nobel Prize.) But learning basic chemistry does not provide billions of impoverished people with food, clean water, and health care. That takes material, collective action.
Malala understands how poverty creates and perpetuates the very social and political ills against which she is fighting. She continuously stresses the importance of not just spreading education, but of directly combating poverty. Yet these calls fall on the selectively deaf ears of the Western media.
The press picks and chooses which of Malala’s messages are amplified—and which are silenced. It can hardly get enough of her insistence on the importance of “the philosophy of nonviolence I have learned from Gandhi, Bacha Khan and Mother Teresa.” The Western intelligentsia positively salivates upon hearing such messages, despite the fact (or because of it?) that Gandhi was a virulent racist and Mother Teresa had ties to Central and South American dictators.
Interestingly, many of the same people lauding the Nobel Peace Prize laureate for her advocacy of nonviolence also happily cheered on the violence of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The utter hypocrisy does not strike them. After all, it has always been much more useful to advocate a philosophy of nonviolence for individuals and oppressed groups than hegemons and states.
As much as it highlights Malala’s words on education and nonviolence, the U.S. corporate media never mentions the side of Malala that it doesn’t like, the side of Malala that doesn’t serve but rather challenges Western imperialist interests, the side of Malala that overtly opposes not just U.S. drone strikes but capitalism itself.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The Malala Who Opposes Drones
On October 11, 2013, Malala met with Barack Obama in the Oval Office. The press could hardly have lauded the president more for taking the time out of his busy schedule to meet the 16-year-old activist, and for bringing his family with him.
What went much less reported was that at this meeting, Malala warned that U.S. “drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.”
The White House, which, given its supposed investment in fighting terrorism, would presumably not be interested in spreading it further, left these comments out of its official statement.
Just a few weeks after this meeting, another Pakistani girl visited Washington to testify before Congress, and received much less media attention. Nabila Rehman was 8 years old when she was out in a field picking okra and her grandmother was eviscerated before her eyes by a U.S. drone strike. Seven children were also wounded, including family members.
Nabila’s brother Zubair, a 13-year-old who was injured in the US drone attack, told the five congress-people decent enough to show up, “I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. Drones don’t fly when sky is grey.” The Rehman family’s story was so dreadful that the translator burst into tears while telling it to Congress.
Given such a horrific report, you’d think the U.S. government would express interest in learning from it to make sure random civilians are not again slaughtered by bombs falling from microscopic dots in the sky. Yet only five (out of 435) House members attended the hearing.
Al Jazeera writer Murtaza Hussein noted that, in a symbol of the “utter contempt in which the government holds the people it claims to be liberating, while the Rehmans recounted their plight, Barack Obama was spending the same time meeting with the CEO of weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.”
Clearly, stoking the military-industrial complex that creates the Predator drones that have murdered and injured thousands of innocent civilians is a higher priority for the president of the United States than meeting the actual victims of what can only correctly be referred to as state terrorism.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The Malala Who Opposes Capitalism
Last year, I wrote a brief article titled Malala Yousafzai, Spivak, Abu-Lughod and the White Savior Complex. I noted that Gayatri Spivak, in her classic article "Can The Subaltern Speak?" explained that colonialist powers justify their draconian, parasitic rule with the belief that they are “white men are saving brown women from brown men.”
In her well-known essay, "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?" Lila Abu-Lughod situated Spivak’s thesis in a contemporary setting, explaining how the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was justified with the exact same argument—the Bush administration was a group of overwhelmingly white leaders who consistently worked against women’s rights in their own country but now acted desperate to “save” Afghan women from Afghan men.
In his article Malala Yousafzai and the White Saviour Complex, journalist Assed Baig explored how this racist “white man’s burden” phenomenon is still alive and well, detailing the repugnant ways in which the West has exploited Malala Yousafzai’s amazing strength and bravery to support its interests.
Absent from many of these discussions, however, is that Malala herself is well aware of this manipulation. In a statement released on October 13, 2013, she defiantly declared that she is "not a Western puppet."
When discussing the way in which the neocolonialist West exploits and manipulates those working against oppression, one should be careful to establish that this is not done to them unwittingly. We are dealing with agents, individuals who understand the implications of their actions and change them accordingly. To forget this fact is, in a less overt way, to uphold the very paternalist, neocolonialist strictures we seek to destroy.
As Spivak reminds us, the subaltern indeed speaks—and not only speaks but resists oppressors. Articulated a bit differently, Arundhati Roy insisted, “There’s really no such thing as ‘the voiceless.’ There are only the deliberately silenced or the preferably unheard.”
The attempt to deliberately silence Malala is not only evident in the way the U.S. corporate media ignores her criticism of U.S. drones; even more insidious is its complete disregard for the Nobel Peace Prize laureate’s politics. In March 2013, Malala sent this message to the congress of Pakistani Marxists:

First of all, I’d like to thank The Struggle and the IMT [International Marxist Tendency] for giving me a chance to speak last year at their Summer Marxist School in Swat and also for introducing me to Marxism and Socialism. I just want to say that in terms of education, as well as other problems in Pakistan, it is high time that we did something to tackle them ourselves. It’s important to take the initiative. We cannot wait around for any one else to come and do it. Why are we waiting for someone else to come and fix things? Why aren’t we doing it ourselves?
I would like to send my heartfelt greetings to the congress. I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.

This is the Malala the Western corporate media doesn’t like to quote. This is the Malala whose politics do not fit neatly into the neocolonialist, cookie-cutter frame of presentation. This is the Malala who recognizes that true liberation will take more than just education, that it will take the establishment of not just bourgeois political “democracy,” but of economic democracy, of socialism.
When the courageous activist speaks of the importance of education and nonviolence, the West shouts her words loudly from the media mountaintops. When that same activist criticizes predator drones and, that most sacrosanct entity of all, capitalism, the silence is deafening.
Only the distinctive buzzing of U.S. killer drones can be heard, watching and bombing overhead, protecting empire and “freedom.”
Source

thepeoplesrecord:

The Malala you won’t hear about
October 16, 2014

Malala Yousafzai, the 17-year-old Pakistani activist, has won a well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize, putting her and her amazing, tragic story back in the spotlight. Per usual, nevertheless, the corporate media has taken this positive development and exploited it in the service of U.S. imperialism.

The corporate media loves talking about Malala’s remarkable bravery and strength in standing up for girls’ rights to education, and the brutality of the Taliban forces that tried to assassinate her on her school bus. Such coverage fuels its orientalist, neocolonialist narrative about “backward,” misogynist Muslims and their need for “white saviors,” thereby legitimizing Western imperialist interests in South and West Asia.

Malala’s Nobel victory can be appropriated by the U.S. political establishment to “prove” that its invasion, occupation and destruction of Afghanistan has “helped” its people. (As for the hundreds of thousands killed and injured in the process, well, those inconvenient exceptions aren’t part of this narrative.)

As Michael Parenti points out, while most people who win the Nobel “Peace” Prize do so for war-mongering and crimes against humanity (Henry Kissinger boasts one, for example, along with Barack Obomba himself), Malala actually deserves hers. This makes the exploitation even more grotesque.

Malala has devoted her life to fighting for education for children—a most noble and important cause. When she implored at the United Nations, “Let us pick up our books and our pens, they are the most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one book and one pen, can change the world. Education is the only solution,” the Western intelligentsia ate it up like a voracious canine gobbling up its kibbles (on second thought, perhaps a vulture would have been a more apt choice for this simile).

Everyone can agree that education for children is a positive goal. By emphasizing that education is the only solution, the West can draw attention away from the very realmaterial concerns facing the vast majority of the world.

This oversight is by no means the fault of Malala. In that same speech, just before the above excerpt, she spoke of “a glorious struggle against illiteracy, poverty and terrorism.” Two of these three things are endlessly emphasized throughout the corporate press. You can guess which one is excluded.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Malala Who Opposes Global Poverty

Roughly half of the world still lives on less than $2.50 per day. Around one-quarter of people live in extreme poverty, less than $1.25 a day. UNICEF estimates that 24,000 children under the age of five die each and every day because of poverty, meaning that “every 3.6 seconds one person dies of starvation. Usually, it is a child under the age of 5.” And, in many countries, poverty is getting worse.

Education certainly has a role in the fight against poverty, and it’s important that one learns, say, basic chemistry. (Malala was sitting in chemistry class when she was informed she had won the Nobel Prize.) But learning basic chemistry does not provide billions of impoverished people with food, clean water, and health care. That takes material, collective action.

Malala understands how poverty creates and perpetuates the very social and political ills against which she is fighting. She continuously stresses the importance of not just spreading education, but of directly combating poverty. Yet these calls fall on the selectively deaf ears of the Western media.

The press picks and chooses which of Malala’s messages are amplified—and which are silenced. It can hardly get enough of her insistence on the importance of “the philosophy of nonviolence I have learned from Gandhi, Bacha Khan and Mother Teresa.” The Western intelligentsia positively salivates upon hearing such messages, despite the fact (or because of it?) that Gandhi was a virulent racist and Mother Teresa had ties to Central and South American dictators.

Interestingly, many of the same people lauding the Nobel Peace Prize laureate for her advocacy of nonviolence also happily cheered on the violence of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The utter hypocrisy does not strike them. After all, it has always been much more useful to advocate a philosophy of nonviolence for individuals and oppressed groups than hegemons and states.

As much as it highlights Malala’s words on education and nonviolence, the U.S. corporate media never mentions the side of Malala that it doesn’t like, the side of Malala that doesn’t serve but rather challenges Western imperialist interests, the side of Malala that overtly opposes not just U.S. drone strikes but capitalism itself.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Malala Who Opposes Drones

On October 11, 2013, Malala met with Barack Obama in the Oval Office. The press could hardly have lauded the president more for taking the time out of his busy schedule to meet the 16-year-old activist, and for bringing his family with him.

What went much less reported was that at this meeting, Malala warned that U.S. “drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.”

The White House, which, given its supposed investment in fighting terrorism, would presumably not be interested in spreading it further, left these comments out of its official statement.

Just a few weeks after this meeting, another Pakistani girl visited Washington to testify before Congress, and received much less media attention. Nabila Rehman was 8 years old when she was out in a field picking okra and her grandmother was eviscerated before her eyes by a U.S. drone strike. Seven children were also wounded, including family members.

Nabila’s brother Zubair, a 13-year-old who was injured in the US drone attack, told the five congress-people decent enough to show up, “I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. Drones don’t fly when sky is grey.” The Rehman family’s story was so dreadful that the translator burst into tears while telling it to Congress.

Given such a horrific report, you’d think the U.S. government would express interest in learning from it to make sure random civilians are not again slaughtered by bombs falling from microscopic dots in the sky. Yet only five (out of 435) House members attended the hearing.

Al Jazeera writer Murtaza Hussein noted that, in a symbol of the “utter contempt in which the government holds the people it claims to be liberating, while the Rehmans recounted their plight, Barack Obama was spending the same time meeting with the CEO of weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.”

Clearly, stoking the military-industrial complex that creates the Predator drones that have murdered and injured thousands of innocent civilians is a higher priority for the president of the United States than meeting the actual victims of what can only correctly be referred to as state terrorism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Malala Who Opposes Capitalism

Last year, I wrote a brief article titled Malala Yousafzai, Spivak, Abu-Lughod and the White Savior Complex. I noted that Gayatri Spivak, in her classic article "Can The Subaltern Speak?" explained that colonialist powers justify their draconian, parasitic rule with the belief that they are “white men are saving brown women from brown men.”

In her well-known essay, "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?" Lila Abu-Lughod situated Spivak’s thesis in a contemporary setting, explaining how the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was justified with the exact same argument—the Bush administration was a group of overwhelmingly white leaders who consistently worked against women’s rights in their own country but now acted desperate to “save” Afghan women from Afghan men.

In his article Malala Yousafzai and the White Saviour Complex, journalist Assed Baig explored how this racist “white man’s burden” phenomenon is still alive and well, detailing the repugnant ways in which the West has exploited Malala Yousafzai’s amazing strength and bravery to support its interests.

Absent from many of these discussions, however, is that Malala herself is well aware of this manipulation. In a statement released on October 13, 2013, she defiantly declared that she is "not a Western puppet."

When discussing the way in which the neocolonialist West exploits and manipulates those working against oppression, one should be careful to establish that this is not done to them unwittingly. We are dealing with agents, individuals who understand the implications of their actions and change them accordingly. To forget this fact is, in a less overt way, to uphold the very paternalist, neocolonialist strictures we seek to destroy.

As Spivak reminds us, the subaltern indeed speaks—and not only speaks but resists oppressors. Articulated a bit differently, Arundhati Roy insisted, “There’s really no such thing as ‘the voiceless.’ There are only the deliberately silenced or the preferably unheard.”

The attempt to deliberately silence Malala is not only evident in the way the U.S. corporate media ignores her criticism of U.S. drones; even more insidious is its complete disregard for the Nobel Peace Prize laureate’s politics. In March 2013, Malala sent this message to the congress of Pakistani Marxists:

First of all, I’d like to thank The Struggle and the IMT [International Marxist Tendency] for giving me a chance to speak last year at their Summer Marxist School in Swat and also for introducing me to Marxism and Socialism. I just want to say that in terms of education, as well as other problems in Pakistan, it is high time that we did something to tackle them ourselves. It’s important to take the initiative. We cannot wait around for any one else to come and do it. Why are we waiting for someone else to come and fix things? Why aren’t we doing it ourselves?

I would like to send my heartfelt greetings to the congress. I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.

This is the Malala the Western corporate media doesn’t like to quote. This is the Malala whose politics do not fit neatly into the neocolonialist, cookie-cutter frame of presentation. This is the Malala who recognizes that true liberation will take more than just education, that it will take the establishment of not just bourgeois political “democracy,” but of economic democracy, of socialism.

When the courageous activist speaks of the importance of education and nonviolence, the West shouts her words loudly from the media mountaintops. When that same activist criticizes predator drones and, that most sacrosanct entity of all, capitalism, the silence is deafening.

Only the distinctive buzzing of U.S. killer drones can be heard, watching and bombing overhead, protecting empire and “freedom.”

Source

5 notes
posted 2 days ago
i think this is the last social media site i have to spam this moment

i think this is the last social media site i have to spam this moment