Pillory at Cidade Velha,

Isle of Santiago, Cape Vert

Una història interminable.

 

Quan Espanya va abandonar el Sàhara Occidental el 1975, la regió al llarg de la costa atlàntica d'Àfrica no va experimentar la mateixa descolonització que els veïns.

Tant és així que, 50 anys després, els sahrauís, la majoria refugiats a Algèria, continuen esperant un referèndum d'autodeterminació de l'ONU, cosa que sembla cada cop menys probable en vista dels avenços diplomàtics i militars del Marroc a la regió.

 

Campaments Refugiats Sahrauís - Al Aaiún - Tindouf (Algèria).

 

noteolvidesdelsaharaoccidental-org.translate.goog/dossier...

-------------------------------------------------

50 years of waiting for refugees.

 

A never-ending story.

 

When Spain left Western Sahara in 1975, the region along Africa's Atlantic coast did not experience the same decolonization as its neighbors.

So much so that, 50 years later, the Sahrawis, most of whom are refugees in Algeria, are still waiting for a UN referendum on self-determination, which seems increasingly unlikely given Morocco's diplomatic and military advances in the region.

 

Sahrawi Refugee Camps - El Aaiún - Tindouf (Algeria).

  

--------------------------------------------------

 

Un nou rècord de 55.7ºC s'ha registrat avui en els Campaments de Refugiats Sahrauís passant-se el anterior rècord de 52,3 ° C registrat a principis d'aquest mes.

 

En l'actualitat, la regió del Sàhara, on es troben aquests assentaments, destaca com la zona on s'ha registrat la temperatura màxima més alta de la història a l'Àfrica. Aquest any, la regió sud d'Algèria arribava als 54 graus registrats com a rècord mundial en Oueregla.

 

I la mínima més alta? Aquest divendres, el camp de Smara registrava la temperatura mínima més alta de 40,2 graus durant la nit.

www.elconfidencialsaharaui.com/2018/07/nuevo-record-de-te...

 

No oblidem que en la tragèdia del Sàhara, Marroc és el culpable i Espanya el responsable pel seu abandó i desinterès.

Cap dels governs de la democràcia ha plantat cara al Marroc i tractat de defensar la població sahrauí i els seus drets. Segons l'ONU Espanya segueix sent el país colonitzador responsable, ja que mai es va produir la descolonització.

 

Campaments Refugiats Sahrauís - Smara - La casa dels texans.

-----------------------------------------

Live at 55.7ºC

A new record of 55.7ºC has been registered today in the Sahrauish Refugee Camps, going past the previous record of 52.3 ° C registered earlier this month.

 

Currently, the Sahara region, where these settlements are located, stands out as the area where the highest highest temperature in history in Africa has been recorded. This year, the southern region of Algeria reached the 54 degrees recorded as a world record in Oueregla.

 

And the highest minimum? This Friday, the Smara field recorded the highest minimum temperature of 40.2 degrees during the night.

 

Let us not forget that in the tragedy of the Sahara, Morocco is the culprit and Spain is responsible for his abandonment and disinterest.

None of the governments of democracy has faced Morocco and tried to defend the Sahrawi people and their rights. According to the UN, Spain remains the responsible colonizing country, since decolonization never took place.

 

Refugee Camps Sahrauís - Smara - The house of jeans.

 

Dag Hammarskjöld (29 July 1905 — 18 September 1961) was a Swedish diplomat and the second Secretary-General of the United Nations, serving from 1953 until his death. Known for his integrity and moral courage, Hammarskjöld worked to keep the UN independent from political and economic pressures, defending the rights of newly decolonized nations.

 

In 1961, he was deeply involved in the Congo Crisis, trying to preserve peace and national unity while opposing foreign interference and corporate exploitation of African resources. On September 18, 1961, his plane crashed near Ndola, Zambia, while he was en route to peace negotiations. The circumstances of the crash remain disputed: later investigations and testimonies have suggested the possibility of foul play or external attack.

 

Hammarskjöld’s legacy endures as a symbol of idealism, moral strength, and the personal cost of standing up against global powers in the name of peace and justice.

I publish Dag Hammarskjöld’s portrait as part of a series dedicated to those who lost their lives for truth, justice, and human dignity. He represents the kind of pacifism that threatens the powerful — a man who believed peace should not serve political or economic interests.

 

This project remembers those silenced by the system, whose integrity and courage made them inconvenient. Each image is a small act of resistance against forgetting, and a tribute to those who paid with their lives for believing in a better world.

En primer término, la antigua base española de Aargub, situada al lado sur de la bahía de Río de Oro, aproximadamente a unos 11 km de distancia en linea recta de la localidad de Villa Cisneros, hoy Dakhla, que vemos en la parte superior de la imagen.

 

Llegó a convertirse en la Jefatura y Plana Mayor del Grupo Nómadas II, perteneciente a la Agrupación de Tropas Nómadas del Sahara.

 

Hoy está ocupada por el ejército marroquí.

 

Sahara Occidental es uno de los diecisiete territorios no autónomos bajo supervisión del Comité Especial de Descolonización de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, con el fin de terminar con el colonialismo. Se encuentra en su mayor parte ocupado ilegalmente por Marruecos, mientras que la zona este del mismo es habitada por el pueblo saharahui que proclamó la República Árabe Saharahui Democrática y lucha por recuperar la zona actualmente invadida.

  

In the foreground, the former Spanish base of Aargub, located on the south side of Río de Oro Bay, approximately 11 km as the crow flies from the town of Villa Cisneros, now Dakhla, which we see at the top of the image.

 

It once served as the headquarters and general staff of the Nomads II Group, part of the Nomad Troops Group.

 

Today, it is occupied by the Moroccan army.

 

Western Sahara is one of the seventeen non-self-governing territories under the supervision of the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization, which aims to end colonialism. It is largely illegally occupied by Morocco, while the eastern part is inhabited by the Sahrawi people, who proclaimed the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and are fighting to recover the currently invaded area.

  

I am exhausted but flickr tells me I've been signed up for a year, so here's to it.

 

The furniture is chattering loudly, more than ever before. Tomes on decolonization in South Asia discuss nation-building with Eastern European novelists steps from the bickering pots and pans. At night, I hear my piano crying for me to free him from the cinderblock walls of his storage unit.

 

Spring is lovely, I've taken many photos. I'll be back to post them soon enough. :)

   

I missed them during the quarantine closure, but since reopening with excellent safety measures, I've begun decolonizing my record collection here.

ex governor of so-called German East Africa.

Wissmann statue was overthrown 55y ago by students in Hamburg

 

➡️ Hermann von Wissmann had been THE icon of a colonial-romantic glorification in Germany. On Oct 31, some of the '68 students finally tilted his statue down

➡️ Wissmann had reprensented the German Empire in various power positions in the so-called 'German East Africa', today Tanzania, Ruanda, Burundi.

➡️ As Reichskommissar from 1888-91 He formed a 'Wissmann troop' of 1000 Askari (mercenaries). On so-called 'punitive expeditions' he practiced the brutal 'scorched earth tactics': villages were looted, supplies set on fire and the captured people forced to work on the plantations of the German settlers.

➡️ During his tenure as colonial governor, he introduced a cottage tax, the later tightening into a poll tax was a weighty reason for the outbreak of the anti-colonial Maji-Maji War (1905-1907), which killed an estimated 300,000 Africans.

 

金針花 . 忘憂草

Taimali has a on the coastline of the Pacific Ocean.

The Tai Mali village was started 1,000 years ago by Qian YaoKao who was ancestor of the Pai Wan race. The Qian YaoKao is also called DaMa race. Guangxu 3th year, due to DaMa has similar pronunciation to Tai Ma, thus it has been called Tai Mali by mainland people. Early in the Republic Era, other aborigines such as the Ah Mei and Bai Wan races were moving continuously to Tai Mali village. During the Japanese colonial period, there were also some residents from Miaoli, Nantou, Zhanghua, Yunlin, Jiayi, Tainan, Gaoxiong, and Pindong settling in Tai Mali village.

Due to the increasing population, the military area service was established and subordinated to the Taitung. In the 26th year of the Republic Era, it had changed to Tai Mali area service. However, after Taiwan decolonized from Japan in the the 34th Republic Era, it changed to Tai Mali village. Also, according to Qing Dynasty literature record, the Tai Mali origin called Da Maomai as well, it had changed to Tai Mali when the Han people moved there.

The significance could not be traced but might related to the earlier resident eastern Pai Wan race. In the meanwhile, there was a legend from the Pai Wan race that said that it was because the sun was rising from the eastern sea level, thus it had been called - Ja.Bau.Li which is Village of Sunrise.

 

太麻里鄉位於台灣台東縣東南方，北臨卑南鄉、台東市，東濱太平洋，西鄰金峰鄉，西南連達仁鄉，南接大武鄉。

本鄉背倚中央山脈，除沿海平原外，大多為山地，海拔最高約2000公尺，氣候上屬熱帶季風氣候。鄉內居民包括2/3的漢人（閩南、客家、新住民）及1/3的原住民（阿美族、魯凱族、排灣族）。2000年的千禧迎曙光活動使本鄉聲名大噪，也為本鄉贏得了「日升之鄉」的美名。

The Hmong/Mong people (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, Nyiakeng Puachue: "", Pahawh Hmong: "" Hmong pronunciation: [ʰmɔ́ŋ]) are a Southeast Asian ethnic group living mainly in southern China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and Myanmar. They have been members of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) since 2007. In China they are classified as a subgroup of the Miao people.

 

During the first and Second Indochina Wars, France and the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from North and South Vietnam and the communist Pathet Lao insurgents. This CIA operation is known as the Secret War.

 

HISTORY OF HMONG

The Hmong traditions and legends indicate that they originated near the Yellow River region of China. According to linguist Martha Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied some of the same areas of southern China for over 8,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong–Mien–speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although it has been shown that Hmong-speaking populations had comparatively more contact with northern East Asians than had the Mien.

 

The ancient town of Zhuolu is considered to be the birthplace of the widely proclaimed legendary Hmong king, Chi You. Today, a statue of Chi You has been erected in the town. The author of the Guoyu, authored in the 4th to 5th century, considered Chi You’s Jiu Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San-Miao people.

 

In 2011, White Hmong DNA was sampled and found to contain 7.84% D-M15 and 6%N(Tat) DNA. The researchers posited a genetic relationship between Hmong-Mien peoples and Mon-Khmer people groups dating to the Last Glacial Maximum approximately 15-18,000 years ago.

 

Conflict between the Hmong of southern China and newly arrived Han settlers increased during the 18th century under repressive economic and cultural reforms imposed by the Qing dynasty. This led to armed conflict and large-scale migrations well into the late 19th century, the period during which many Hmong people emigrated to Southeast Asia. The migration process had begun as early as the late-17th century, however, before the time of major social unrest, when small groups went in search of better agricultural opportunities.

 

The Hmong people were subjected to persecution and genocide by the Qing dynasty government. Kim Lacy Rogers wrote: "In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, while the Hmong lived in south-western China, their Manchu overlords had labeled them 'Miao' ('barbarian' or 'savage') and targeted them for genocide when they defied being humiliated, oppressed, and enslaved."

 

Since 1949, the Miao people (Chinese: 苗族; pinyin: miáo zú) has been an official term for one of the 55 official minority groups recognized by the government of the People's Republic of China. The Miao live mainly in southern China, in the provinces of Guizhou, Hunan, Yunnan, Sichuan, Guangxi, Hainan, Guangdong, and Hubei. According to the 2000 censuses, the number of 'Miao' in China was estimated to be about 9.6 million. The Miao nationality includes Hmong people as well as other culturally and linguistically related ethnic groups who do not call themselves Hmong. These include the Hmu, Kho (Qho) Xiong, and A Hmao. The White Miao (Bai Miao) and Green Miao (Qing Miao) are Hmong groups.

 

HMONG CLANS OF HAN ORIGN

A number of Miao lineage clans are also believed to have been founded by Chinese men who had married Miao women. These distinct Chinese-descended clans practice Chinese burial customs instead of Hmong style burials. In Sichuan, they were known as "Chinese Hmong" ("Hmong Sua"). The Hmong were instructed in military tactics by fugitive Chinese rebels.

 

Chinese men who had married into Hmong clans have established several Hmong clans. Chinese "surname groups" are comparable to the Hmong clans which are patrilineal, and practice exogamy. Hmong women married Han Chinese men who pacified the Ah rebels who were fighting against the Ming dynasty, and founded the Wang clan among the Hmong in Gongxian county, of Sichuan's Yibin district. Hmong women who married Chinese men founded a Xem clan in a Hmong village among Northern Thailand's Hmong. Lauj clan in Northern Thailand is another example of a clan created through Han and Hmong intermarriage. A Han Chinese with the family name of Deng found another Hmong clan there as well.

 

Jiangxi Han Chinese have held a claim as the forefathers of the southeast Guizhou Miao. Children were born to the many Miao women who had married Han Chinese soldiers in Taijiang before the second half of the 19th century. The Hmong Tian clan in Sizhou began in the seventh century as a migrant Han Chinese clan.

 

Non-Han women such as the Miao became wives of Han soldiers. These soldiers fought against the Miao rebellions during the Qing and Ming dynasties and at that time Han women were not available. The origin of the Tunbao people can be traced to the Ming dynasty, when the Hongwu Emperor sent 300,000 Han Chinese male soldiers in 1381 to conquer Yunnan and the men married Yao and Miao women.

 

The presence of women presiding over weddings was a feature noted in "Southeast Asian" marriages, such as in 1667 when a Miao woman in Yunnan married a Chinese official. In Yunnan, a Miao chief's daughter married a scholar in the 1600s who wrote that she could read, write, and listen in Chinese and read Chinese classics.

 

The Sichuan Hmong village of Wangwu was visited by Nicholas Tapp who wrote that the "clan ancestral origin legend" of the Wang Hmong clan, had said that there were several intermarriages with Han Chinese and possibly one of these was their ancestor Wang Wu; there were two types of Hmong, "cooked", who sided with Chinese, and "raw", who rebelled against the Chinese. The Chinese were supported by the Wang Hmong clan. A Hmong woman was married by the non-Hmong Wang Wu according to The Story of the Ha Kings in Wangwu village.

 

CULTURE

Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der (Hmoob Dawb), and Hmong Leng (Hmoob Leeg) are the terms for two of the largest groups in the United States and Southeast Asia. These subgroups are also known as the White Hmong, and Blue or Green Hmong, respectively. These names originate from the color and designs of women's dresses in each respective group, with the White Hmong distinguished by the white dresses women wear on special occasions, and the Blue/Green Hmong by the blue batiked dresses that the women wear. The name and pronunciation "Hmong" is exclusively used by the White Hmong to refer to themselves, and many dictionaries use only the White Hmong dialect.

 

In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Hmoob Leeg (Green Hmong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.

 

White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language, with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.

 

VIETNAM AND LAOS

The Hmong groups in Vietnam and Laos, from the 18th century to the present day, are known as Black Hmong (Hmoob Dub), Striped Hmong (Hmoob Txaij), White Hmong (Hmoob Dawb), Hmong Leng (Hmoob Leeg) and Green Hmong (Hmoob Ntsuab). In other places in Asia, groups are also known as Black Hmong (Hmoob Dub or Hmong Dou), Striped Hmong (Hmoob Txaij or Hmoob Quas Npab), Hmong Shi, Hmong Pe, Hmong Pua, and Hmong Xau, Hmong Xanh (Green Hmong), Hmong Do (Red Hmong), Na Mieo and various other subgroups. These include the Flower Hmong or the Variegated Hmong (Hmong Lenh or Hmong Hoa), so named because of their bright, colorful embroidery work (called pa ndau or paj ntaub, literally "flower cloth").

 

NOMENCLATURE

CHINA

Usage of the term "Miao" (苗) in Chinese documents dates back to the Shi Ji (1st century BC) and the Zhan Guo Ce (late Western Han Dynasty). During this time, it was generally applied to people of the southern regions thought to be descendants of the San Miao kingdom (dated to around the 3rd millennium BC.) The term does not appear again until the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), by which time it had taken on the connotation of "barbarian." Being a variation of Nanman, it was used to refer to one kind of indigenous people in the southern China who had not been assimilated into Han culture. During this time, references to Unfamiliar (生 Sheng) and Familiar (熟 Shu) Miao appear, referring to level of assimilation and political cooperation of the two groups. Not until the Qing dynasty (1644–1911) do more finely grained distinctions appear in writing. Even then, discerning which ethnic groups are included in various classifications can be problematic.

 

This inconsistent usage of "Miao" makes it difficult to say for sure if Hmong and Mong people are always included in these historical writings. Christian Culas and Jean Michaud note: "In all these early accounts, then, until roughly the middle of the 19th century, there is perpetual confusion about the exact identity of the population groups designated by the term Miao. We should, therefore, be cautious with respect to the historical value of any early associations."

 

Linguistic evidence, however, places Hmong and Mong people in the same regions of southern China that they inhabit today for at least the past 2,000 years. By the mid-18th century, classifications become specific enough that it is easier to identify references to Hmong and Mong people.

 

The term 'Miao' is used today by the Chinese government to denote a group of linguistically and culturally related people (including the Hmong, Hmu, Kho Xiong, and A Hmao). The Hmong and Miao of China today believe they are one people with cultural and linguistic affiliations that transcend oceans and national boundaries. The educated elites of the two groups maintain close transnational contacts with one another.

 

SOUTHEAST ASIA

In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo, Mông or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by some Hmong people in the USA.

 

A recent DNA research in Thailand found that Hmong paternal lineage is quite different from those lu Mien and other Southeast Asian tribes. The Hmong-Mien (HM) and Sino-Tibetan (ST) speaking groups are known as hill tribes in Thailand; they were the subject of the first studies to show an impact of patrilocality vs. matrilocality on patterns of mitochondrial (mt) DNA vs. male-specific portion of the Y chromosome (MSY) variation. However, HM and ST groups have not been studied in as much detail as other Thai groups; here we report and analyze 234 partial MSY sequences (∼2.3 mB) and 416 complete mtDNA sequences from 14 populations that, when combined with our previous published data, provides the largest dataset yet for the hill tribes. We find a striking difference between Hmong and IuMien (Mien-speaking) groups: the Hmong are genetically different from both the IuMien and all other Thai groups, whereas the IuMien are genetically more similar to other linguistic groups than to the Hmong. In general, we find less of an impact of patrilocality vs. matrilocality on patterns of mtDNA vs. MSY variation than previous studies. However, there is a dramatic difference in the frequency of MSY and mtDNA lineages of Northeast Asian (NEA) origin vs. Southeast Asian (SEA) origin in HM vs. ST groups: HM groups have high frequencies of NEA MSY lineages but lower frequencies of NEA mtDNA lineages, while ST groups show the opposite. A potential explanation is that the ancestors of Thai HM groups were patrilocal, while the ancestors of Thai ST groups were matrilocal. Overall, these results attest to the impact of cultural practices on patterns of mtDNA vs. MSY variation.

 

HMONG/MONG CONTROVERSY

When Western authors came in contact with Hmong people, beginning in the 18th century, they referred to them in writing by ethnonyms assigned by the Chinese (i.e., Miao, or variants). This practice continued into the 20th century. Even ethnographers studying the Hmong people in Southeast Asia often referred to them as Meo, a corruption of Miao applied by Thai and Lao people to the Hmong. Although "Meo" was an official term, it was often used as an insult against the Hmong people, and it is considered to be derogatory.

 

The issue came to a head during the passage of California State Assembly Bill (AB) 78, in the 2003–2004 season. Introduced by Doua Vu and Assembly Member Sarah Reyes, District 31 (Fresno), the bill encouraged changes in secondary education curriculum to include information about the Secret War and the role of Hmong people in the war. Furthermore, the bill called for the use of oral histories and first-hand accounts from Hmong people who had participated in the war and who were caught up in the aftermath. Originally, the language of the bill mentioned only "Hmong" people, intending to include the entire community. Several Mong Leng activists, led by Dr. Paoze Thao (Professor of Linguistics and Education at California State University, Monterey Bay), drew attention to the problems associated with omitting "Mong" from the language of the bill. They noted that despite nearly equal numbers of Hmong Der and Mong Leng in the United States, resources are disproportionately directed toward the Hmong Der community. This includes not only scholarly research but also the translation of materials, potentially including the curriculum proposed by the bill. Despite these arguments, "Mong" was not added to the bill. In the version that passed the assembly, "Hmong" was replaced by "Southeast Asians", a more broadly inclusive term.

 

Dr. Paoze Thao and some others feel strongly that "Hmong" can refer to only Hmong Der people and does not include "Mong" Leng people. He feels that the usage of "Hmong" about both groups perpetuates the marginalization of Mong Leng language and culture. Thus, he advocates the usage of both "Hmong" and "Mong" when referring to the entire ethnic group. Other scholars, including anthropologist Dr. Gary Yia Lee (a Hmong Der person), suggest that "Hmong" has been used for the past 30 years to refer to the entire community and that the inclusion of Mong Leng people is understood. Some argue that such distinctions create unnecessary divisions within the global community and will only confuse non-Hmong and Mong people trying to learn more about Hmong and Mong history and culture.

 

As a compromise alternative, multiple iterations of "Hmong" are proposed. A Hmong theologian, Rev. Dr. Paul Joseph T. Khamdy Yang has proposed the term “HMong” to encompass both the Hmong and Mong community by capitalizing the H and the M. The ethnologist Jacques Lemoine has also begun to use the term (H)mong when referring to the entirety of the Hmong and Mong community.

 

HMONG, MONG AND MIAO

Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adopted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.

 

In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"—taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.

 

Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders reflects a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao.

 

DIASPORA

Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.

 

Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards and characterized with both assimilation, cooperation and hostility, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.

 

At the 2019 national census, there were 1,393,547 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the Opium Poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong started moving to the Central Highlands and some crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.

 

In 2015, the Hmong in Laos numbered 595,028. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.

 

After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad (see Laos below). Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.

 

In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, much Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.

 

Myanmar most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.

 

As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular, in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.

 

In the rest of the world, where about 5% of the world Hmong population now lives, the United States is home to the largest Hmong population. The 2008 Census counted 171,316 people solely of Hmong ancestry, and 221,948 persons of at least partial Hmong ancestry. Other countries with significant populations include:

 

France: 15,000

Australia: 2,000

French Guiana: 1,500

Canada: 835

Argentina: 600

 

The Hmong population within the United States is centered in the Upper Midwest (Wisconsin, Minnesota) and California.

 

HMONG IN VIETNAM

Hmongs in Vietnam today are perceived very differently between various political organizations and changed throughout times. The Hmongs of Vietnam are a small minority and because of this, their loyalty toward the Vietnamese state has also been under question. Nonetheless, most Hmongs in Vietnam are fiercely loyal to the Vietnamese state, regardless of the current ideologies of the government with only those minorities supportive of Hmong resistance in Laos and Cambodia. These are mostly Christian Hmongs who have fallen under target and poverty strike by alienation of both three Indochinese governments, since there has been no Hmong armed separatism in the country. The Hmongs in Vietnam also receive cultural and political promotion from the government alike. This unique feature distanced Vietnamese Hmongs from Laotian Hmongs, as their Laotian cousins are strongly anti-Vietnamese.

 

LAOS

U.S. AND LAOTIAN CIVIL WAR

In the early 1960s, partially as a result of the North Vietnamese invasion of Laos, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Special Activities Division began to recruit, train and lead the indigenous Hmong people in Laos to fight against North Vietnamese Army divisions invading Laos during the Vietnam War. This "Secret Army" was organized into various mobile regiments and divisions, including various Special Guerrilla Units, all of whom were led by General Vang Pao. An estimated sixty-percent (60%) of Hmong men in Laos joined up.

 

While Hmong soldiers were known to assist the North Vietnamese in many situations, Hmong soldiers were also recognized for serving in combat against the NVA and the Pathet Lao, helping block Hanoi's Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos and rescuing downed American pilots. Though their role was generally kept secret in the early stages of the conflict, they made great sacrifices to help the U.S.

 

Thousands of economic and political refugees have resettled in Western countries in two separate waves. The first wave resettled in the late 1970s, mostly in the United States, after the North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao takeovers of the pro-US governments in South Vietnam and Laos respectively. The Lao Veterans of America, and Lao Veterans of America Institute, helped to assist in the resettlement of many Laotian and Hmong refugees and asylum seekers in the United States, especially former Hmong veterans and their family members who served in the "U.S. Secret Army" in Laos during the Vietnam War.

 

HMONG LAO RESISTANCE

For many years, the Neo Hom resistance and political movement played a key role in resistance to the Vietnam People's Army in Laos following the U.S. withdrawal in 1975. Vang Pao played a significant role in this movement. Additionally, a spiritual leader Zong Zoua Her, as well as other Hmong leaders, including Pa Kao Her or Pa Khao Her, rallied some of their followers in an additional factionalized guerrilla resistance movement called ChaoFa (RPA: Cob Fab, Pahawh Hmong: ChaoFaPahawh.png). These events led to the yellow rain controversy when the United States accused the Soviet Union of supplying and using chemical weapons in this conflict.

 

Small groups of Hmong people, many of the second or third generation descendants of former CIA soldiers, remain internally displaced in remote parts of Laos, in fear of government reprisals. Faced with continuing military operations against them by the government and a scarcity of food, some groups have begun coming out of hiding, while others have sought asylum in Thailand and other countries. Hmongs in Laos, in particularly, develop a stronger and deeper anti-Vietnamese sentiment than its Vietnamese Hmong cousins, due to historic persecution perpetrated by the Vietnamese against them.

 

CONTROVERSY OVER REPATRIATION

In June 1991, after talks with the UNHCR and the Thai government, Laos agreed to the repatriation of over 60,000 Lao refugees living in Thailand, including tens of thousands of Hmong people. Very few of the Lao refugees, however, were willing to return voluntarily. Pressure to resettle the refugees grew as the Thai government worked to close its remaining refugee camps. While some Hmong people returned to Laos voluntarily, with development assistance from UNHCR, coercive measures and forced repatriation was used to send thousands of Hmong back to the communist regime they had fled. Of those Hmong who did return to Laos, some quickly escaped back to Thailand, describing discrimination and brutal treatment at the hands of Lao authorities.

 

In the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, The Center for Public Policy Analysis, a non-governmental public policy research organization, and its Executive Director, Philip Smith, played a key role in raising awareness in the U.S. Congress and policy making circles in Washington, D.C. about the plight of the Hmong and Laotian refugees in Thailand and Laos. The CPPA, backed by a bipartisan coalition of Members of the U.S. Congress as well as human rights organizations, conducted numerous research missions to the Hmong and Laotian refugee camps along the Mekong River in Thailand, as well as the Buddhist temple of Wat Tham Krabok.

 

Amnesty International, the Lao Veterans of America, Inc., the United League for Democracy in Laos, Inc., Lao Human Rights Council, Inc. (led by Dr. Pobzeb Vang Vang Pobzeb, and later Vaughn Vang) and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights organizations joined the opposition to forced repatriation.

 

Although some accusations of forced repatriation were denied, thousands of Hmong people refused to return to Laos. In 1996, as the deadline for the closure of Thai refugee camps approached, and under mounting political pressure, the U.S. agreed to resettle Hmong refugees who passed a new screening process. Around 5,000 Hmong people who were not resettled at the time of the camp closures sought asylum at Wat Tham Krabok, a Buddhist monastery in central Thailand where more than 10,000 Hmong refugees were already living. The Thai government attempted to repatriate these refugees, but the Wat Tham Krabok Hmong refused to leave and the Lao government refused to accept them, claiming they were involved in the illegal drug trade and were of non-Lao origin.

 

In 2003, following threats of forcible removal by the Thai government, the U.S., in a significant victory for the Hmong, agreed to accept 15,000 of the refugees. Several thousand Hmong people, fearing forced repatriation to Laos if they were not accepted for resettlement in the U.S., fled the camp to live elsewhere within Thailand where a sizable Hmong population has been present since the 19th century.

 

In 2004 and 2005, thousands of Hmong fled from the jungles of Laos to a temporary refugee camp in the Thai province of Phetchabun.

 

The European Union, UNHCHR, and international groups have since spoken out about the forced repatriation.

 

ALLEGED PLOT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERMENT OF LAOS

On 4 June 2007, as part of an investigation labeled "Operation Tarnished Eagle," warrants were issued by U.S. federal courts ordering the arrest of Vang Pao and nine others for plotting to overthrow the government of Laos in violation of the federal Neutrality Acts and for multiple weapons charges. The federal charges allege that members of the group inspected weapons, including AK-47s, smoke grenades, and Stinger missiles, with the intent of purchasing them and smuggling them into Thailand in June 2007 where they were intended to be used by Hmong resistance forces in Laos. The one non-Hmong person of the nine arrested, Harrison Jack, a 1968 West Point graduate and retired Army infantry officer, allegedly attempted to recruit Special Operations veterans to act as mercenaries.

 

In an effort to obtain the weapons, Jack allegedly met unknowingly with undercover U.S. federal agents posing as weapons dealers, which prompted the issuance of the warrants as part of a long-running investigation into the activities of the U.S.-based Hmong leadership and its supporters.

 

On 15 June, the defendants were indicted by a grand jury and a warrant was also issued for the arrest of an 11th man, allegedly involved in the plot. Simultaneous raids of the defendants' homes and work locations, involving over 200 federal, state and local law enforcement officials, were conducted in approximately 15 cities in Central and Southern California in the US.

 

Multiple protest rallies in support of the suspects, designed to raise awareness of the treatment of Hmong peoples in the jungles of Laos, took place in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Alaska, and several of Vang Pao's high-level supporters in the U.S. criticized the California court that issued the arrest warrants, arguing that Vang is a historically important American ally and a valued leader of U.S. and foreign-based Hmong. However, calls for then Californian Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then President George W. Bush to pardon the defendants were not answered, presumably pending a conclusion of the large and then still-ongoing federal investigation.

 

On 18 September 2009, the US federal government dropped all charges against Vang Pao, announcing in a release that the federal government was permitted to consider "the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted." On 10 January 2011, after Vang Pao's death, the federal government dropped all charges against the remaining defendants saying, "Based on the totality of the circumstances in the case, the government believes, as a discretionary matter, that continued prosecution of defendants is no longer warranted," according to court documents.

 

THAILAND

The Hmong presence in Thailand dates back, according to most authors, to the turn of the 20th century when families migrated from China through Laos and Burma. A relatively small population, they still settled dozens of villages and hamlets throughout the northern provinces. The Hmong were then registered by the state as the Meo hill tribe. Then, more Hmong migrated from Laos to Thailand following the victory of the Pathet Lao in 1975. While some ended up in refugee camps, others settled in mountainous areas among more ancient Hill Tribes.

 

AMERICAS

Many Hmong refugees resettled in the United States after the Vietnam War. Beginning in December 1975, the first Hmong refugees arrived in the U.S., mainly from refugee camps in Thailand; however, only 3,466 were granted asylum at that time under the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975. In May 1976, another 11,000 were allowed to enter the United States, and by 1978 some 30,000 Hmong people had immigrated. This first wave was made up predominantly of men directly associated with General Vang Pao's secret army. It was not until the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980 that families were able to enter the U.S., becoming the second wave of Hmong immigrants. Hmong families scattered across all 50 states but most found their way to each other, building large communities in California, Minnesota and Wisconsin. As of the 2010 census, 260,073 Hmong people reside in the United States the majority of whom live in California (91,224), Minnesota (66,181), and Wisconsin (49,240), an increase from 186,310 in 2000. Of them, 247,595 or 95.2% are Hmong alone, and the remaining 12,478 are mixed Hmong with some other ethnicity or race. The vast majority of part-Hmong are under 10 years old.

 

The Hmong people, who are a distinct ethnic group with ancient roots and ancestry in China, began settling in Minnesota in 1975. The Hmong came to Minnesota as refugees from the destructive wars that had ravaged and taken place in their homelands in Laos. Today, there are 150,000 Hmong in the U.S. states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and California. More than 66,000 Hmong reside in Minnesota with the majority living in the St. Paul area. The Twin Cities metro is home to the largest concentration of Hmong in America. For decades, the Hmong have not only made a profound impact on their adopted home in Minnesota, but the Hmong culture has collaborated with the community to document this remarkable story by collecting images, artifacts, oral histories, sharing stories, and by publishing articles and books on the Hmong experience.

 

In terms of cities and towns, the largest Hmong-American community is in St. Paul (29,662), followed by Fresno (24,328), Sacramento (16,676), Milwaukee (10,245), and Minneapolis (7,512).

 

There are smaller Hmong communities scattered across the United States, including those in Minnesota (Rochester, Mankato, Duluth) Michigan (Detroit and Warren); Anchorage, Alaska; Denver, Colorado; Portland, Oregon; Washington; North Carolina (Charlotte, Morganton); South Carolina (Spartanburg); Georgia (Auburn, Duluth, Monroe, Atlanta, and Winder); Florida (Tampa Bay); Wisconsin (Madison, Eau Claire, Appleton, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Oshkosh, La Crosse, Sheboygan, Manitowoc, and Wausau); Aurora, Illinois; Kansas City, Kansas; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Missoula, Montana; Des Moines, Iowa; Springfield, Missouri; Arkansas, Fitchburg, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island.

 

Canada's small Hmong population is mostly concentrated within the province of Ontario. Kitchener, Ontario has 515 residents of Hmong descent, and has a Hmong church.

 

There is also a small community of several thousand Hmong who migrated to French Guiana in the late 1970s and early 1980s, that can be mainly found in the Hmong villages of Javouhey (1200 individuals) and Cacao (950 individuals).

 

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

Some Laos- and Vietnam-based Hmong Animists and Christians, including Protestant and Catholic believers, have been subjected to military attacks, police arrest, imprisonment, forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and torture on anti-religious grounds.

 

The deportation of Zoua Yang and her 27 children from Thailand in December 19, 2005 after the group was arrested attending a Christian church in Ban Kho Noi, Phetchabun Province, Thailand, where upon arrival back in Laos, Ms. Yang and her children were detained, after which the whereabouts of much of the family are still unknown.

 

For example, in 2013, a Hmong Christian pastor, Vam Ngaij Vaj (Va Ngai Vang), was beaten to death by police and security forces. In February 2014, in Hanoi, Vietnamese government officials refused to allow medical treatment for a Hmong Christian leader, Duong Van Minh, who was suffering from a serious kidney illness. In 2011, Vietnam People's Army troops were used to crush a peaceful demonstration by Hmong Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical Christian believers who gathered in Dien Bien Province and the Dien Bien Phu area of northwestern Vietnam, according to Philip Smith of the Center for Public Policy Analysis, independent journalists and others.

 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has documented official and ongoing religious persecution, religious freedom violations against the Laotian and Hmong people in both Laos and Vietnam by the governments. In April 2011, the Center for Public Policy Analysis also researched and documented cases of Hmong Christians being attacked and summarily executed, including four Lao Hmong Christians.

 

WIKIPEDIA

Three “Solidarity Storytelling” murals were created by Chinese artist Emma Xie, Indigenous artist Chase Gray, and Black artist John Sebastian on the south-facing wall of Murrin BC Hydro Substation at 700 Main Street, Vancouver.

 

The substation wall doesn’t come with a desirable mural viewing vantage.

 

The three-panel 'Solidarity Storytelling' mural features a Tibetan meditation master, a Coast Salish design reflecting artist Chase Gray's Musqueam heritage and an ode to young Black women who are part of the Black Lives Matter movement.

 

The vision for this mural was to interweave Chinese, Black and Indigenous culture and presence in a vibrant and dynamic manner building towards a decolonized future collectively.

 

The artwork is part of the 2021 Vancouver Mural Festival (VMF) Black Strathcona Resurgence Project and is intended for community healing and building towards a future in solidarity in the city.

Beading is one of the defining mediums of contemporary Indigenous art on this continent, and this landmark exhibition brings much-needed critical attention to the breadth and impact of this practice.

From early beads made of seeds and shells, to trade beads and computer pixels, Indigenous artists have long used beadwork to tell stories, honour loved ones, and celebrate beauty. As they embrace techniques and knowledge passed from previous generations, today’s Indigenous artists are using beading to address concerns and concepts related to history, decolonization and resistance.

Ranging from wearable art and portraiture, to installation and video, the works in Radical Stitch connect past and present, as they imagine new worlds. With humour, poignant testimony, and political and social commentary, this exciting exhibition examines the contemporary and transformative aspects of beading through the innovative works of artists and the tactile beauty of the medium.

Washington, DC

The concept of this image and write-up stems from the book Between Two Ages, which was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski and published in 1970. The content of this book deals with issues from the Cold War era. Much of the information is obsolete, yet some of it can be applied to our time. He even left a few nuggets of insight into the globalist plan.

 

Brzezinski wondered how America would fare in its transition from the industrial age to the technetronic age (the digital age or the third industrial revolution). Currently, we are in transition between the third industrial revolution and the fourth industrial revolution. The first industrial revolution occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries and introduced mechanization and industry. The second industrial revolution took place in the late 19th and early 20th century and brought electricity and mass production. The third industrial revolution, from the mid-20th century to the present, gave us computers and the internet. We are currently entering the fourth industrial revolution. It will usher in artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics, quantum computing, blockchain and digital ledgers, digital tokenization and crypto assets, virtual and mixed reality, biotechnology and transhumanism. The fourth industrial revolution will introduce a new worldwide economic system based around digital biometric IDs, central bank digital currencies, social credit scores, and carbon footprint trackers. During COVID-19, the transition of the fourth industrial revolution was referred to as the Great Reset or Build Back Better. Understand this: they cannot bring in this new system without the implementation of digital IDs!

 

The elitist scum don’t have the power to take over the world by force. They must seize it slowly through deception, propaganda, social engineering, and technology. Technology has both unified and fragmented society. Civilization was once separated by time and space. A person on one side of the world didn’t know what was happening on the other side. A traveler or messenger would have to travel a long way to relay distant news. Technology gave us the radio, the television, and the internet. As technology advanced, it reduced time and space between people. This sped things up. Today, we find people with similar interests online. We put less effort into local friendships that build community. We, instead, build impersonal relationships with people from around the world. We have isolated ourselves from the real world and those around us. This isolates us from our social support system, and we become lonely. A similar situation happens with nations. Nations also had a certain amount of time and space, which acted as insulators against excessive friction. This gave them room to maneuver, and it gave them the distance needed to maintain their own identity.

 

As people increasingly moved to the big cities, it became harder for them to make and maintain friendships. Agenda 21 of the United Nations aims to relocate individuals from rural areas to the cities. They call it sustainability. They will use endangered species as an excuse to keep or push people off the land. Aww, those poor endangered turtles and frogs! The Bundy Ranch standoff highlighted some of these things. “When the U.S. government declared the Mojave desert tortoise an endangered species in 1989, it effectively marked the cattle ranchers of Nevada’s Clark County for extinction. Rancher Cliven Bundy once had neighbors on the range: when the tortoise was listed, there were about 50 cattle-ranching families in the county. Some of them fought court battles to stay, rejecting the idea their cattle posed a danger to the tortoises. But, one by one, they slowly gave up and disappeared. Clark County is not an isolated case. Disputes over land rights are playing out in many Western states, especially in rural areas, where some residents and lawmakers question the legitimacy of the federal government’s claim to swathes of land.” They also want to designate more and more land as parklands and protected areas.

 

Previously, I posted a write-up inspired by three Canadian government documents. These documents said that climate change would eventually drive people off parts of the land, and that insurance companies would not provide insurance to anyone living in such areas. They also talked about regularly using weather manipulation. Shocker! One thing I failed to mention was their plan to give large tracts of land to the Indians. They admitted that this would cause anger, protests, and violence. British Columbia passed legislation to incorporate this United Nations declaration into law: the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The government is now working towards giving the Indians vast plots of land. The Indians are claiming a city not far from me! This would destroy private property rights in the province. Read the communist manifesto, and you’ll see who desires to abolish private property. Decolonization! Truth and reconciliation! This is nothing new to me; I knew these things were coming many years ago. I knew they would use the Indians to drive us from the rural areas into the cities. Eventually, they will remove the Indians from the land. They are but pawns.

 

Agenda 21 is the 100-year plan of the United Nations to implement global governance. They must rely on public-private partnerships (governments, corporations, NGOs, and billionaires) to execute their plan. This is a form of fascism! As we speak, governments, corporations, and billionaires are swallowing up rural lands. Rural data centers, anyone? Save the environment! Climate emergency! Mismanage the forests to create wildfires. Mismanage logging to cause flooding. 15-minute smart cities are the future! How about Saudi Arabia’s megacity NEOM, which will be 170 kilometers long! NEOM will be a special economic zone—a Network state. Or what about Tri-State City, which would span across the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany? Get the farmers off the land; we need to build our Tower of Babel! “The next Global superpower will be a Network state.” These megacity Network states will be part of a worldwide techno-feudal system. In the Book of Revelation, there are ten kings, just sayin’.

 

When one era ends and another begins, the lines get blurred. At the time, it’s hard to distinguish which era is which. This new era will shape our society culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically. It will affect all aspects of our lives. In order to bring us into this age, they will need to swap the old system with the new. The old is not compatible with the new.

 

AI will replace many jobs, so we must introduce Universal Basic Income. Yet, to truly solve this problem, we must merge man with AI. Transhumanism will bring about worldwide equality! These post-humans will become dependent on the new system. There will be no going back to the old system or way of life. They must deal with their loss of humanity. They must find a new sense of meaning in this brave new world. Their perceived reality will be different, yet their new sensations will be quite real.

 

Everyone will be completely malleable. We will tamper with their very essence. We will modify their personality, manipulate their behavior, exploit their emotions, control their reason, and guide their conscious decisions. No longer will propaganda be needed to manipulate them. “I foresee the time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behaviour and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain.” Indeed, Brzezinski mentioned using chemicals for mind control and altering the human genetic structure. He also believed that in a few decades, “they could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations.” Such a society would be dominated by technocrats whose claim to power would be superior scientific knowledge. They would not hesitate to influence public behavior with the latest modern technology. They would keep society under close surveillance and control.

 

People’s reality has moved from a local to a global context. Brzezinski doesn’t like the term “global village,” instead, he likes the term “global city.” A village has important characteristics such as: “personal stability, interpersonal intimacy, implicitly shared values, and traditions.” A global city, on the other hand, is “a nervous, agitated, tense, and fragmented web of interdependent relations.” The interactions of the global city lack intimacy, which causes insecurity. The high-trust culture associated with village intimacy will be absent from the nervous interaction of the global city.

 

A global community fragments humanity. It detaches people from their traditional roots. In the past, an individual only associated with their family and village. Eventually, their reach expanded to other regions of the nation. Today, we associate with a global community. The past had greater cohesion and harmony than the global ecosystem of today. Currently, experts from around the world collaborate to solve problems. This sounds like ‘global citizens,’ from a ‘global community,’ solving ‘global problems.’ Kumbaya! Social engineering at its finest!

 

Mass media exploits our fragmented society, creating a highly controlled society. Cultural change will come through social engineering. People will deliberately and consciously choose to follow what they’ve been fed. According to Brzezinski, electronic devices could be used to educate children from home. This is reminiscent of COVID-19! During the next plandemic or climate lockdown, these “developments may become the handmaidens of constructive change.” Brzezinski also concluded that feminism would enhance society’s cultural growth and standards. Of course, anything that corrupts and fragments society helps the globalist agenda.

 

“A community of the developed nations must eventually be formed if the world is to respond effectively to the increasingly serious crisis that in different ways now threatens both the advanced world and the Third World.” They want to bring together the leaders of the developed world to discuss global problems. As you can see today, we have globalist entities like the G7 and G20. They desire to use global cooperation to string the world’s nations together, using “a variety of indirect ties.” They can then steer those nations by using various intergovernmental organizations. Of course, their crowning jewel is the United Nations. They must have interconnected cooperation—a cooperative community of nations. They want the rich nations to help the poor nations, because they don’t want the third world to revolt against the system. Foreign aid, here we come, cha-ching, cha-ching! Foreign aid is also a great tool for guiding the Third World in the desired direction.

 

Brzezinski said that sovereignty is fiction. He stated that they must make “intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure.” Cashless society, here we come! They want to build an “international structure of production and financing” for international trade. In progressive stages, they want to introduce free-trade areas. Of course, these free-trade areas (economic zones) are really megacity Network states. They want to bring in a “global taxation system.” Woohoo, a global carbon tax!

 

Just think! A man on a white horse brings peace to the Middle East. Then the Jews start building their new temple. Strange, a rider on a red horse then comes to take peace from the earth? The Enlightenment tradition has failed! Liberalism has failed! Democracy has failed! Free market capitalism has failed! Therefore, we’ll introduce a new authoritarian system! Stakeholder capitalism (fascism), here we come! Green economy, here we go! Fight the state, fight diversity, have your civil war, the red horseman will slaughter you with his sword. Oh, wait, what do we have here? The mother of all harlots—the world religion—rides in on the Beast with seven heads and ten horns (kings). We’ll create a one-world religion and bring spiritual unity. Hey, let’s have a ceremony for the new Jewish temple! Now, the vision of the trashumanists will come true: an AI god will be introduced. Oh, what’s this abominable idol of desolation sitting in the temple? World, here’s your new AI god! Surprise, surprise, a zealous Jew kills the antichrist at the celebration. Wow, say it ain’t so, the antichrist comes back to life! “He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits in God’s temple, proclaiming that he himself is God.” Hooray, the christ has risen! Let’s worship the antichrist and his Image. Then the Beast and the ten kings destroy the harlot (Revelation 17:16). She served her purpose; we have the true christ now! Ta-da, all people must take the Mark of the Beast-chip. Finally, the world has transitioned into the new age. It’s an age of global technocratic governance and transhumanism.

 

The mindset of some of these globalists and transhumanists could be used to create a sci-fi movie: The technocrats rule as kings in their Network states. They recreate mankind in their own image (trans-humans). They recreate nature (trans-nature). Eventually, the useless eaters—the peasant class—are done away with. No upgrades for you! The technocrats then fight to outlast, outwit, and outplay one another, until they destroy the earth and what’s left of mankind. Next, they inhabit the planets, recreating the universe (trans-universe). In the end, they fight until one is left standing. The winner is declared god!

 

“This new perspective involves growing recognition that man’s propensity for scientific innovation cannot be restrained—that as long as man’s mind functions, scientific innovation will be one of its expressions.” ‒ Zbigniew Brzezinski

 

Our world appears to be like The Truman Show: scripted and fake! I’ve stumbled upon numerous things over the years, and I hope to study them deeply. It would take a lifetime of reading. Nevertheless, I think it’s possible to find the evidence needed to answer my questions.

 

What if wars are planned?

What if communism was aided and abetted?

What if fascism was nurtured too?

What if protests are planned?

What if economic crashes are deliberate too?

What if the Federal Reserve is privately owned?

What if we were taken off the Gold Standard to kill the middle class and indebt us?

What if most of our politicians are puppets?

What if political parties are one big uniparty?

What if our democracy is an illusion?

What if Western Intelligence is run by outside interests?

What if the CIA assassinates American Presidents?

What if the CIA assassinates people like Charlie Kirk too?

What if the CIA is behind the mainstream news?

What if the CIA is behind Hollywood too?

What if the CIA is behind the music industry?

What if the CIA is behind the drug epidemic? What if they want sex, drugs, and debauchery too?

What if the CIA is behind the drug cartels?

What if the CIA is behind the Mafias?

What if the CIA is behind the gangs?

What if the CIA is behind domestic terrorist attacks? What about 9/11 too?

What if the CIA is behind many of the international terrorist groups?

What if the CIA is behind many of the mass shootings?

What if the CIA is behind many of the serial killers?

What if the CIA uses brainwashing and mind control?

What if the CIA was behind the feminist movement?

What if the CIA was behind playboy and Hugh Hefner?

What if the CIA was behind Hustler and Larry Flynt?

What if the CIA was behind Jeffrey Epstein?

What if the CIA is behind human sex trafficking?

What if the CIA is behind human trafficking?

What if the CIA is behind the porn industry?

What if Western intelligence was behind major occult figures?

What if Western intelligence was promoting the occult?

What if Western intelligence was promoting the New Age movement?

What if esoteric ideologies have shaped our thinking to accept the new world order?

What if the CIA assassinated foreign politicians and installed puppets? What if these puppets allowed the World Bank, IMF, and corporations to rape their natural resources and make them debt-slaves too?

What if the CIA is behind many of the AI companies? What if their CEOs are in bed with Trump too?

What if the Internet is a net and the World Wide Web is a web to ensnare us?

What if our education system is meant to dumb us down and indoctrinate us?

What if sex education is meant to make the youth promiscuous?

What if race and gender theory are preparing them for a transhuman society without race and gender?

What if schools are sexually grooming children?

What if the lack of discipline in schools spoils and ruins them?

What if they discourage old-school parental discipline such as spanking?

What if the welfare system is used to make people dependant?

What if the welfare system was used to break up the black family? What if abortion is used to keep their population numbers down too?

What if birth control was legalized for population control?

What if abortion was legalized for population control?

What if homosexuality was legalized for population control?

What if they made AIDS in a laboratory?

What if they weaponized cancer?

What if they weaponized Lyme disease and other diseases? What about Dementia, Alzheimer’s, and Autism too?

What if antidepressants fry our brains? What if they cause suicides, killings, and mass shootings too?

What if they use frequencies, microwave technology, and 5G to harm and control us?

What if chemtrails rain down heavy metals? What if they block sunlight too?

What if plastics screw with our hormones? What if microplastics can be linked to chronic diseases too?

What if they put fluoride in the water to pacify us?

What if genetically modified foods modify us?

What if AI is meant to replace us?

What if Climate Change is a hoax?

What if green energy is a scam?

What if COVID-19 was a plandemic?

What if mRNA technology alters DNA?

What if vaccines are for population control?

What if they are trying to sterilize us? What if sterilizing agents have been found in baby products too?

What if multiculturalism is meant to replace our culture?

What if mass immigration is meant to bring down the West too?

What if work visas are meant for cheap labour?

What if modern technology is meant to rewire our brains?

What if the purpose of the United Nations is world governance?

What if they’re building a surveillance society?

What if they’re building a cashless society?

What if they’re building a transhuman society?

What if ten rulers control the world from behind the scenes? What if they’re the patriarchs of the wealthiest families in the world? What if they’re Satan’s minions too?

What if?

 

Revelation 17:12-13: “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the Beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the Beast.”

  

Wandering the streets of Vancouver's Eastside.

 

This mural is on the south side of the York Theatre on East Georgia Street at Commercial Drive.

 

The mural was painted in June 2018.

 

Designed and painted by The Cultch Youth Program, youth program manager Ariel Martz-Oberlander, and lead artists Richard Tetrault and Sharifah Marsden.

 

The mural features some very Vancouver motifs (a bicycle and rain drops) plus one prominent figure: local hip-hop artist and activist JB the First Lady.

 

JB THE FIRST LADY:

Jerilynn Snuxyaltwa Webster (a member of the Nuxalk & Onondaga Nations) is known by her stage name "JB the First Lady". Webster was born in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan 12 March, 1984.

 

Webster moved to Vancouver in the early 2000s where she attended her first hip-hop show by Tribal Wisdom, a group of young Indigenous rappers. The show was a pivotal moment for Webster in her journey as a hip-hop artist inspiring her to create music to empower other young people.

 

JB is well known for her involvement in the Idle No More movement and for emceeing rallies for Indigenous rights, decolonization, environmental justice, and the issue of violence against Indigenous women.

 

Despite national recognition, Webster maintains a strong focus on supporting and giving back to youth in her community.

 

JB is hip hop and spoken word artist, beat-boxer, cultural dancer and youth educator. With four studio albums under her belt, JB sees her songs as a way of capturing oral history, and isn’t afraid to write lyrics that speak to challenging subjects like residential schools and missing and murdered indigenous women.

 

YORK THEATRE:

Opened in 1913 as the Alcazar Theatre it was built with full stage facilities and was designed by architect John McCarter.

 

On February 12, 1940 it was re-named York Theatre and became the home of the Vancouver Little Theatre for 54 years. In the 1940’s the facade was given a streamline Art Moderne' style remodel.

 

In more recent years it became a cinema, known as the Raja Cinema Commercial operated by Raja Cinemas and showed Indian movies. The closed and by 2008, the building was threatened with demolition.

 

In collaboration with Vancouver City councillor Jim Green and Henriquez Partners Architects a feasibility study was completed that demonstrated the viability of reinvesting in the theatre.

 

With the financial backing from the City of Vancouver and Wall Financial a local developer, the York Theatre was saved and rehabilitated through a heritage and density transfer agreement.

 

The building reopened as the York Theatre December 2013 as a live performance theatre with 370 seats.

 

The York is operated by the Vancouver East Cultural Centre (CULTCH)

  

what did the world do at the end of the war?

  

The world reacted to the end of World War II with a mix of jubilation, relief, and a somber understanding of the immense cost of the conflict. Here's a breakdown of some key responses:

 

Celebrations and Relief:

 

Widespread Joy: News of the surrenders (first Germany in May 1945, then Japan in August 1945) sparked massive celebrations in Allied countries. People filled the streets,embracing and cheering, marking the end of years of hardship, anxiety, and loss.

Return of Soldiers: The end of the war meant the return of soldiers to their home countries. This was a joyous occasion for families and communities, although it was also a period of readjustment for many veterans.

Reconstruction and Recovery:

 

Devastation in Europe and Asia: Many parts of Europe and Asia lay in ruins. Cities were bombed, infrastructure was destroyed, and economies were shattered. The immediate focus was on providing humanitarian aid, rebuilding infrastructure, and restarting economies.

The Marshall Plan: The United States launched the Marshall Plan, a massive economic aid program to help rebuild European economies. This was crucial in preventing further instability and fostering recovery.

Political and Geopolitical Shifts:

 

Emergence of Superpowers: The war significantly altered the global balance of power. The United States and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers, leading to a period of geopolitical tension known as the Cold War.

Formation of the United Nations: In 1945, the United Nations was established with the goal of preventing future global conflicts through international cooperation and diplomacy.

Decolonization: The war weakened European colonial powers, contributing to the rise of independence movements in Asia and Africa.

Dealing with the Aftermath:

 

Nuremberg Trials: The Nuremberg trials were held to bring Nazi leaders to justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace. This set a precedent for international criminal law.

Coming to Terms with the Holocaust: The full extent of the Holocaust was revealed after the war, shocking the world and leading to a greater understanding of the horrors of genocide.

A Desire for Peace:

 

"Never Again": The immense suffering caused by the war led to a widespread desire to prevent future global conflicts. This sentiment was reflected in the formation of the United Nations and other international efforts to promote peace and cooperation.

In summary, the end of World War II was met with widespread celebration and relief, but also marked the beginning of a long process of recovery, reconstruction, and dealing with the political and social consequences of the conflict. 1 The world was forever changed by the war, and its aftermath shaped the course of the 20th century. 2

1.

The End of World War II 1945 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

 

www.nationalww2museum.org

 

2.

How the legacy of the Second World War shaped the modern world | Imperial War Museums

 

www.iwm.org.uk

  

Sources and related content

The End of World War II 1945 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

 

www.nationalww2museum.org

 

Europe in ruins in the aftermath of the Second World War - Historical events in the European integration process (1945–2009) - CVCE

 

www.cvce.eu

 

The Reconstruction of Europe - EU Learning - Carleton University

 

carleton.ca

 

Marshall Plan (1948) | National

Museum of Modern Art - MoMA

 

Exhibition 'The Project of Independence Architectures of Decolonization in South Asia, 1947–1985'

 

'Kamalapur Railway Station, Dhaka, Bangaldesh' by 'Daniel C. Dunham' and 'Robert G. Boughey' (1968) - photograph by 'Randhir Singh' (2020)

 

DSC00985

52 Weeks Project

 

A beautiful sunny day in Amsterdam...

Location: Surimamekade, KNSM Eiland Amsterdam

Coordinates: 52°22'39" N 4°56'25" E

Reason: An afternoon well spent by discoverng my own city by bike. This bicycle ride ended up here on the Surinamekade on the KNSM Eiland. Never made a "52 Weeks" selfie at this island before.

KNSM Island: The KNSM Island is a man-made peninsula in the Eastern Docklands of Amsterdam. It is named for the Koninklijke Nederlandse Stoomboot-Maatschappij (KNSM), the Royal Dutch Steamboat Shipping company which used to have its headquarters and its docks on the island. It is now a large residential area containing modern architecture with a mostly well-off population.

Originally, the island was a breakwater for the Oostelijke Handelskade, just like the adjacent Java Island. Later its level was raised with soil dredged from the North Sea Canal. The ensuing harbor terrain was occupied in 1903 by the KNSM, which covered most of the island. In 1956 the KNSM celebrated its centennial, but the decolonization of the Dutch East Indies and the growth of cargo transport spelled the end of the company, which merged into Nedlloyd in 1981. KNSM moved some of its to the Western Docklands of Amsterdam and stopped others, and finally left the area in 1977. In the 1980s, squatters, artists, and urban nomads took over the area. In the 1990s, these groups that occupied what had come to be known as "sloaps" ("sites left over after [or before] planning") and had originally been tolerated, were slowly ordered out by the city.

In the 1990s the entire area was reshaped into a housing area, based on a 1988 blueprint by Jo Coenen, his first big project. He envisioned a mixed use of the space, and planned "super blocks," big buildings containing lots of individual homes and apartments, along a central avenue, mimicking the organization of the island's former warehouses and storage buildings. The redevelopment of the island was part of a masterplan that would turn the entire Eastern Docklands into modern residential areas to allow the city to expand. Many of the old buildings on the KNSM Island were preserved by order of the city, such as the old cafeteria, the houses of the medical doctors, a storage building ("Loods 6"), a customs building, and the office of the Rijn Scheepvaart Maatschappij. While plans initially called for a rather exclusive neighborhood of home owners, the city mandated that a significant portion of the homes were to be built as rentals, to attract a more diverse population. Still, the island is known as a place for yuppies; the English paper The Telegraph called it "Dockland chic." [ Wikipedia - KNSM Island ]

Weather: Sunny, 22° C

To Listen: Calvin Harris - This Is What You Came For feat. Rihanna (Youtube)

Self-portrait technics: Joby portable gorillapod mounted on my bicycle with self-timer (10 seconds).

2018 Native American Two-Spirit Powwow

San Francisco, CA

 

The Two-Spirits powwow seeks to decolonize communities and lead the way toward accepting all genders and sexualities, realigning with Native traditions of love, togetherness, and seeing strength in differences.

 

Two-spirit people is a modern umbrella term used by some indigenous North Americans for gender variant individuals in their communities. Powwows are traditional, Inter-tribal events that promote community togetherness, healing, and wellness.

  

Decolonization / Common language of all admirable beings (series)

Olympus OM-D E-M5-Mark III + Schneider 45mm / 4 (enlarger lens)

Mexico City / CDMX

December 12, 2020

The photographic portfolio entitled “GLOBALIZING CONTAMINATIONS” was among the finalists at the PORTFOLIO SIFEST 2018 international award (Italy). This photography project is the result of a one-month period lived in Africa from Kenya to Tanzania. In the 1950s and 1960s, the European colonial powers gradually ceased to administer their African territories. The process of “apparent decolonization” led to the gradual departure of all the expatriate personnel of the colonizing nations: administrators, soldiers and all those who had settled in the “colony”. This process favored the creation of independent states and paved the way for new foreign influences over those of the colonial powers. Therefore, after some years living in Africa, I came to ask myself: “How has the influence, after decolonization, of European countries evolved in the face of the emancipation of African countries and the competition of new powers?”

The image above shows the late British actor Richard Attenborough in character as Regimental Sergeant Major Lauderdale in the 1964 film Guns at Batasi. The photograph is a vintage, autographed promotional photo.

 

The film is set in the East African nation of Batasi during a military coup, where British soldiers are caught in the middle of a power struggle between rival factions. Attenborough's character is a strict, by-the-book disciplinarian who attempts to maintain order and protect his men amidst the volatile political situation. The movie explores themes of decolonization and the end of British colonial rule in Africa. Attenborough won a BAFTA Award for Best British Actor for his performance in the film.

 

About the Film - Guns at Batasi (1964): A black-and-white drama set in a fictional African military outpost during a coup d'état. Plot: The film focuses on the stiff-upper-lip RSM Lauderdale's struggle to maintain order and discipline among his men while sheltering an official from the new regime. Cast: The film also starred Jack Hawkins, Flora Robson, and featured an early role for Mia Farrow.

 

About the Actor - Richard Attenborough (later known as Baron Attenborough) Career: A prominent actor, director, and producer with a career spanning over six decades. Notable Works: He is known for iconic roles in films such as The Great Escape, Jurassic Park, and as the director of the Oscar-winning film Gandhi.

 

Richard Samuel Attenborough, Baron Attenborough (29 August 1923 – 24 August 2014) was an English actor, film director and producer. Attenborough was the president of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA) and the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA), as well as life president of the Premier League club Chelsea. He joined the Royal Air Force during World War II and served in the film unit, going on several bombing raids over continental Europe and filming the conflict from the rear gunner's position. He was the older brother of broadcaster and nature presenter Sir David Attenborough and motor executive John Attenborough. He was married to actress Sheila Sim from 1945 until his death.

 

As an actor, Attenborough is best remembered for his film roles in Brighton Rock (1948), I'm All Right Jack (1959), The Great Escape (1963), Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964), The Sand Pebbles (1966), Doctor Dolittle (1967), 10 Rillington Place (1971), Jurassic Park (1993) and Miracle on 34th Street (1994). On stage, he appeared in the West End in 1952, originating the role of Detective Sergeant Trotter in Agatha Christie's murder mystery The Mousetrap, which has since become the longest-running play in London and the world.

 

For his directorial debut in 1969's Oh! What a Lovely War, Attenborough was nominated for the BAFTA Award for Best Direction. He was additionally nominated for his films Young Winston (1972), A Bridge Too Far (1977) and Cry Freedom (1987). For the film Gandhi, in 1983, he won two Academy Awards, Best Picture and Best Director. The British Film Institute ranked Gandhi the 34th-greatest British film of the 20th century. Attenborough has also won four BAFTA Awards, six Golden Globe Awards, and the 1983 BAFTA Fellowship for lifetime achievement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Richard and David Attenborough are brothers. David is a renowned naturalist and broadcaster, while Richard was an actor, director, and producer, famous for his roles in films like Gandhi and Jurassic Park. They had a third brother, John, who was a car executive.

 

LINK to video - Richard Attenborough tribute to his brother David Attenborough - www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHXx9dMLat4

 

LINK to video - Why Lord Richard Attenborough Spent 20 Years Making Gandhi | Parkinson - www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT6EY3KvYv8

Un conflicte enquistat i amagat entre l’arena del desert: els refugiats saharauis, uns 150.000, porten 41 anys a Tindouf, on viuen de l’ajuda internacional.

Aviat celebraran el 42è aniversari de la seva república.

Per Algèria hi passa tota l’ajuda internacional destinada als refugiats, i també és Algèria qui proveeix tots els serveis: l’aigua -que fa arribar amb camió cisterna-, els mòbils, el wifi i, des de fa mig any, una línia elèctrica.

 

El Sàhara, una moneda de canvi per al Marroc

 

Fa més de quatre dècades que els saharauis busquen una solució.

Després d’una mala descolonització espanyola va venir la passivitat de la comunitat internacional, que en tots aquests anys ha sigut incapaç de trobar un encaix sostenible a aquest poble que malviu acollit a Algèria, potser confiant que el sentiment d’identitat i pàtria es diluiria entre les generacions més joves.

L’ONU considera que és un territori pendent de descolonitzar i aposta per l’autodeterminació del poble saharaui, però mai s’ha atrevit a portar fins a les últimes conseqüències el procés que duu a les urnes.

A l’altra banda sempre hi ha el Marroc, el país que, quan les tropes espanyoles van deixar la colònia africana, va ocupar la regió militarment, i fins ara.

www.ara.cat/suplements/diumenge/Oblidats-al-desert_0_1749...

 

La Fatou en els Campaments Refugiats Sahrauís a Smara.

--------------------------------------------

Forgotten in the desert

 

A conflict enquished and hidden between the sand of the desert: Sahrawi refugees, about 150,000, are 41 years old in Tindouf, where they live on international aid.

Soon they will celebrate the 42th anniversary of their republic.

For Algeria, all international aid for refugees is passed, and it is also Algeria that provides all the services: water, which is used to reach a tanker, mobile phones, Wi-Fi and, for half a year, a line electric

 

The Sahara, a currency for Morocco

 

For more than four decades, the Saharawi have sought a solution.

After a bad decolonization in Spain, the passivity of the international community came, which in all these years has been unable to find a sustainable fit for this friendly town that is invaded by Algeria, perhaps confident that the sense of identity and homeland would be diluted among younger generations

The UN considers that it is a territory that is pending decolonization and is committed to the self-determination of the Sahrawi people, but it has never dared to bring to the final consequences the process that it takes to the ballot boxes.

On the other side there is always Morocco, the country that, when the Spanish troops left the African colony, occupied the region militarily, and so far.

www.ara.cat/suplements/diumenge/Oblidats-al-desert_0_1749...

 

La Fatou at the Sahrauish Refugee Camps in Smara.

La Japonaise is a 1876 oil painting by the French Impressionist painter Claude Monet. Painted on a 231.8 cm × 142.3 cm canvas, the full-length portrait depicts a European woman in a red uchikake kimono standing in front of a wall decorated by Japanese fans. Monet's first wife Camille Doncieux modeled for the painting.

The painting was first exhibited in the second Impressionism exhibition of 1876, and is now exhibited at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

In the painting, Monet depicts Camille in a padded, heavily decorated red kimono (an uchikake) belonging to a famous Japanese actor, standing on Japanese-style tatami mat and in front of a wall decorated by Japanese uchiwa [ja] fans. Camille, whose hair was dark, wears a blonde wig, emphasizing her identity as a European woman, indicating that the painting shows the performance and appropriation of Japanese culture rather than an authentic Japanese environment.

Camille's body, turned in profile, shows her face turned towards the viewer, a gesture likely inspired by gestures found in traditional Japanese dance; illustrations depicting Japanese dance, such as Charles Wirgman's A Japanese dinner party, were popular in Europe at the time, and would likely have been available for Monet to draw inspiration from.

Monet placed particular importance in the depiction of the detailed samurai embroidery on Camille's robe, positioning the face of the samurai in the near centre of the canvas. The depiction of the samurai, with dark hair, a stern facial expression and a strong grip on the sword in his belt, contrast Camille - with blonde hair, holding a fan delicately and smiling - strongly, drawing attention again to the difference between the "Japanese" setting and the European woman within it. Camille's raised right hand holds a folding fan in the colours of the French flag, which also appeared in one of Renoir's paintings.

The contrast between Camille and the painting's faux-cultural setting is increased further by a backdrop of uchiwa fans. Though most depict only hazy Impresssionist landscapes, with one on the left showing a red-crowned crane, a fan to the right of Camille's raised right hand shows a Japanese woman wearing a kimono and a traditional hairstyle, depicted on a rosy red background. Separated from the others with a contrasting background, it draws attention as the woman's face tilts in the opposite direction to Camille's, echoing the other. While Camille looks out at the viewer with a smile, the woman in the fan shows an almost astonished facial expression looking at her European counterpart.

Money became one of Monet's biggest troubles in the 1860s. His father had cut his allowance due to Monet's rebellious decision to create works unsuitable for the state-sponsored Salon exhibitions. Although Monet's financial condition improved in the early 1870s after his works were recognized and regularly purchased by art dealer Paul Durand-Ruel, this support began to erode due to Durand-Ruel's difficulty in selling them; due to the loss of this important source of income and the expenses Monet faced in moving into a new house, beginning in 1874, he began to fall back into financial difficulty.

In desperate need of money, Monet created this painting of his wife in a red kimono that he borrowed from a friend, and sent the painting to Durand-Ruel's gallery in the second Impressionism exhibition of 1876, along with 18 other paintings, including the famous Woman with a Parasol - Madame Monet and Her Son. Given the popularity of Japonisme in France at this time, Monet hoped to sell La Japonaise at a high price to ease his financial difficulties.

Forty years later, in 1918, when the art dealers Georges Bernheim and René Gimpel visited Monet and informed him that La Japonaise had sold for a very decent price, Monet was said to stated that he was ashamed by the fact of having painted the work simply to please the market, calling it "a piece of filth". Some scholars believe that he may have been more committed to this subject than these comments would suggest; when the work was in progress, Monet wrote to Philippe Burty, a famous art critic and collector of Japanese artworks, commenting that it was "superb" to paint the heavily detailed kimono. Other scholars argue that this letter may have been an "advertisement" instead of Monet's true words, and motivated by a desire to influence notable critics who held an interest in Japonisme such as Burty.

Another possible motivation for the creation of this painting is that Monet wished to "compete" with his friend Édouard Manet's work The Lady with the Fans, modeled by Nina de Callias in 1873. There is no solid evidence that Monet had seen this work in person before he painted the La Japonaise, but he seemed to know of it from an engraving of Manet's sketch of the work, published in the book Revue du monde nouveau in February 1874. A 1876 review in the journal Le Soleil even described Monet's works as "following suit".

After being exhibited in the second Impressionism exhibition in 1876, the painting received attention, though not always positive, from art critics. Critics Émile Zola and Alexandre Pothey praised the work for its innovation and bold use of colors, but many critics described the work as "bizarre" and sexually suggestive. The critic Simon Boubée wrote in his review: "He has shown a Chinese in a red robe with two heads, one is that of a demi-mondaine placed on the shoulders, the other that of a monster, placed we dare not say where." Other writers pointed out the placement of the samurai's head on the robe as being suggestive, coupled with the depiction of unshesthing his sword. Camille's "coquettish" facial expression was also said to be part of the erotic symbolism.

The criticism seemed to embarrass Monet, who likely withdrew the work from the exhibition before its end to prevent public viewing,[4] though he claimed the work had been purchased by a secret buyer at the unbelievably high price of 2,020 francs. Many art historians have questioned the authenticity of this record-breaking price, with a variety of different explanations. Some believe that it was a publicity stunt played by Monet and Ernest Hoschedé; that Hoschedé bought it at a high price and Monet secretly repurchased it back.[3] Another art historian believes that the purchase was a "face-saving fable" to move the public attention away from the embarrassing criticism. The hypothesis that the unprecedentedly high price was not real offers an explanation for the content in a letter from Monet to his friend Édouard Manet, in which the painting was mentioned. Monet wrote:

"I would be very obliged to you if you would not repeat to anyone what I told you on the subject of La Japonaise. I have promised to keep it quiet, it would inconvenience me. I count, then, on your discretion and, in case you may already have dropped a word to Dubois, recommend to him the most complete silence, otherwise, there would be endless gossip and annoyances for me."

It is possible that Monet had informed Manet of his trick, and that he had warned him not to tell anyone else, or that Monet wanted to hide from the public the painting Camille had modeled for, given the criticism of the painting's sexually suggestive nature, though no one mentioned Camille's name in connection with the work until Monet revealed her role to Georges Bernheim and René Gimpel in 1918, the blond wig having disguised her identity until this point.

In 2015, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston held a special program called "Kimono Wednesdays" in which visitors were invited to pose in front of La Japonaise while wearing a replica of the kimono in the painting. The kimono, made in Kyoto, was offered by NHK, the Japanese cosponsor of the initiative. The kimono was first exhibited in several Japanese cities, and visitors to the exhibition were invited to pose for photos wearing the kimono.

The MFA brought the kimono to Boston and continued the activities that had taken place in Japan.[6] The event drew criticism from protesters, who described the program as an example of Orientalism and white supremacy, accusing the museum of having "insufficiently [grappled] with [the painting’s] post-colonial legacy". As part of the protest, a Tumblr blog titled "Decolonize Our Museums" criticized the "Kimono Wednesday" event as a form of "cultural appropriation", and described it as "enacted by a historically white institution that retains the 'power to represent—and therefore dominate—other ethnic and cultural groups'".

Although the museum stopped allowing visitors to wear the kimono in response to the criticisms, the program was defended by some, with Japan's deputy consul general telling the press that the protest did not make sense from a Japanese perspective. Japanese counter-protesters led by Timothy Nagaoka visited the exhibition wearing their own kimono after the MFA stopped allowing visitors to pose wearing the replica, arguing that kimono could be enjoyed by people of all ethnicities, not only the Japanese. Meiji University professor Shaun O'Dwyer also defended the program, citing his concern of the shrinking nature of the traditional kimono making industry, and the need of any possible publicity for its survival.

Monet chose the subject of Japonisme partially for its popularity in the Parisian art market in the 1870s, with his later works reflecting a deeper level of understanding and application of Japanese aesthetics, compared to the comparatively surface-level depiction shown in La Japonaise

Artists: Mike 360, Release, Beats 737, Desi, Rate, Abacus, Pancho, Yesenia Molina, and Dora Chavarria and Lavie Raven.

East Oakland, Ca.

Instagram: @pixelina

The Royal BC Museum once had a large and splendid First Peoples Gallery. Sadly, the 21st century form of censorship known as "decolonization" has made sure nobody can see it. This Big House interior is all that remains on public view.

 

Strangely, while the room's artistic, cultural and historical importance is self evident, the museum has chosen to leave visitors to the space completely uninformed. There is no physical signage of any kind in the room or outside the entrance. I found the text below hidden away under the "Past Exhibits" menu on the Royal BC Museum's web site.

 

Since BC's political and cultural establishment seems bent on erasing all history that does not conform to the dictates of decolonization ideology, why is the Jonathan Hunt House even open to the public? The Museum could have locked the door and painted it white to match the walls, and new visitors would have been none the wiser.

 

The answer may be found in the paragraphs that appear below. Simply put, Jonathan Hunt's descendants own what settler colonialists like me call the intellectual property to the installation. I want to think they were unwilling to go along with the Royal BC Museum's censorship, preferring instead to honor Jonathan Hunt's wish that the Big House be open to all visitors regardless of their ancestry.

 

Not all forms of restriction on the dissemination of information are alike. This is where cultural relativism enters the conversation. Even before the Royal BC Museum self-censored its account of the history of the Jonathan Hunt House, another category of information about the Big House appears not to have been available to the public. If a description of the meaning of the sculptures has ever been published, I have been unable to find it.

 

So be it.

 

Cultural relativism requires that we respect the values and practices of other cultures even (or especially) when we would not approve of them in our own society. Universal notions of morality impose limits on this principle. So does common sense.

 

I submit that the reason there isn't a printed or virtual interpretive guide to the sculptures and their imagery is that it constitutes secret tribal knowledge. That's evident in a key passage from the information provided by the Royal BC Museum:

 

"In the potlatch system, the Chief formally presents, to an invited audience, crest images, songs, names, and other prerogatives to which he claims inherited rights."

 

Jonathan Hunt and his heirs invited the general public to view the material culture inside the ceremonial room. They chose not to share "crest images, songs, names, and other prerogatives to which [they claim] inherited rights" with us.

 

It's likely that someone not of native ancestry who was versed in the conventions of Northwest art could name the types of beings the sculptures depict, but their particular significance to the clan as recounted in songs and stories would be forever out of reach.

 

This practice is likely as old as humankind. I can accept it even though the withholding of information by cultural institutions in Canadian and American institutions in service of decolonization ideology makes me see red.

 

If it turns out that I'm all wet because I simply failed to find the guide I was looking for, I'll gladly revise this text.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A ceremonial house

 

In the First Peoples Gallery in the Royal British Columbia Museum, you are privileged to enter the house of Chief Kwakwabalasami, the late Jonathan Hunt, a Kwakwaka‘wakw chief who was born and lived his life in the community of Tsaxis (Fort Rupert) on the northeast coast of Vancouver Island.

 

The house is both a museum installation and a real ceremonial house. In the potlatch system, the Chief formally presents, to an invited audience, crest images, songs, names, and other prerogatives to which he claims inherited rights.

 

The audience’s recognition of the Chief’s claim is its legal validation. Jonathan Hunt potlatched twice for this house, once at Victoria and once at Alert Bay, and spent thousands of dollars in the appropriate manner to confirm his right to display the house and its images.

 

An arrangement between Jonathan Hunt, his descendants and the Royal BC Museum allows the Museum to exhibit the house permanently, while cultural ownership of the house and its images remains in the Hunt family.

www.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/visit/exhibitions/first-peoples-g...

The army ants are recruiting again

The Hmong/Mong people (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, Nyiakeng Puachue: "", Pahawh Hmong: "" Hmong pronunciation: [ʰmɔ́ŋ]) are a Southeast Asian ethnic group living mainly in southern China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and Myanmar. They have been members of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) since 2007. In China they are classified as a subgroup of the Miao people.

 

During the first and Second Indochina Wars, France and the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from North and South Vietnam and the communist Pathet Lao insurgents. This CIA operation is known as the Secret War.

 

HISTORY OF HMONG

The Hmong traditions and legends indicate that they originated near the Yellow River region of China. According to linguist Martha Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied some of the same areas of southern China for over 8,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong–Mien–speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although it has been shown that Hmong-speaking populations had comparatively more contact with northern East Asians than had the Mien.

 

The ancient town of Zhuolu is considered to be the birthplace of the widely proclaimed legendary Hmong king, Chi You. Today, a statue of Chi You has been erected in the town. The author of the Guoyu, authored in the 4th to 5th century, considered Chi You’s Jiu Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San-Miao people.

 

In 2011, White Hmong DNA was sampled and found to contain 7.84% D-M15 and 6%N(Tat) DNA. The researchers posited a genetic relationship between Hmong-Mien peoples and Mon-Khmer people groups dating to the Last Glacial Maximum approximately 15-18,000 years ago.

 

Conflict between the Hmong of southern China and newly arrived Han settlers increased during the 18th century under repressive economic and cultural reforms imposed by the Qing dynasty. This led to armed conflict and large-scale migrations well into the late 19th century, the period during which many Hmong people emigrated to Southeast Asia. The migration process had begun as early as the late-17th century, however, before the time of major social unrest, when small groups went in search of better agricultural opportunities.

 

The Hmong people were subjected to persecution and genocide by the Qing dynasty government. Kim Lacy Rogers wrote: "In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, while the Hmong lived in south-western China, their Manchu overlords had labeled them 'Miao' ('barbarian' or 'savage') and targeted them for genocide when they defied being humiliated, oppressed, and enslaved."

 

Since 1949, the Miao people (Chinese: 苗族; pinyin: miáo zú) has been an official term for one of the 55 official minority groups recognized by the government of the People's Republic of China. The Miao live mainly in southern China, in the provinces of Guizhou, Hunan, Yunnan, Sichuan, Guangxi, Hainan, Guangdong, and Hubei. According to the 2000 censuses, the number of 'Miao' in China was estimated to be about 9.6 million. The Miao nationality includes Hmong people as well as other culturally and linguistically related ethnic groups who do not call themselves Hmong. These include the Hmu, Kho (Qho) Xiong, and A Hmao. The White Miao (Bai Miao) and Green Miao (Qing Miao) are Hmong groups.

 

HMONG CLANS OF HAN ORIGN

A number of Miao lineage clans are also believed to have been founded by Chinese men who had married Miao women. These distinct Chinese-descended clans practice Chinese burial customs instead of Hmong style burials. In Sichuan, they were known as "Chinese Hmong" ("Hmong Sua"). The Hmong were instructed in military tactics by fugitive Chinese rebels.

 

Chinese men who had married into Hmong clans have established several Hmong clans. Chinese "surname groups" are comparable to the Hmong clans which are patrilineal, and practice exogamy. Hmong women married Han Chinese men who pacified the Ah rebels who were fighting against the Ming dynasty, and founded the Wang clan among the Hmong in Gongxian county, of Sichuan's Yibin district. Hmong women who married Chinese men founded a Xem clan in a Hmong village among Northern Thailand's Hmong. Lauj clan in Northern Thailand is another example of a clan created through Han and Hmong intermarriage. A Han Chinese with the family name of Deng found another Hmong clan there as well.

 

Jiangxi Han Chinese have held a claim as the forefathers of the southeast Guizhou Miao. Children were born to the many Miao women who had married Han Chinese soldiers in Taijiang before the second half of the 19th century. The Hmong Tian clan in Sizhou began in the seventh century as a migrant Han Chinese clan.

 

Non-Han women such as the Miao became wives of Han soldiers. These soldiers fought against the Miao rebellions during the Qing and Ming dynasties and at that time Han women were not available. The origin of the Tunbao people can be traced to the Ming dynasty, when the Hongwu Emperor sent 300,000 Han Chinese male soldiers in 1381 to conquer Yunnan and the men married Yao and Miao women.

 

The presence of women presiding over weddings was a feature noted in "Southeast Asian" marriages, such as in 1667 when a Miao woman in Yunnan married a Chinese official. In Yunnan, a Miao chief's daughter married a scholar in the 1600s who wrote that she could read, write, and listen in Chinese and read Chinese classics.

 

The Sichuan Hmong village of Wangwu was visited by Nicholas Tapp who wrote that the "clan ancestral origin legend" of the Wang Hmong clan, had said that there were several intermarriages with Han Chinese and possibly one of these was their ancestor Wang Wu; there were two types of Hmong, "cooked", who sided with Chinese, and "raw", who rebelled against the Chinese. The Chinese were supported by the Wang Hmong clan. A Hmong woman was married by the non-Hmong Wang Wu according to The Story of the Ha Kings in Wangwu village.

 

CULTURE

Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der (Hmoob Dawb), and Hmong Leng (Hmoob Leeg) are the terms for two of the largest groups in the United States and Southeast Asia. These subgroups are also known as the White Hmong, and Blue or Green Hmong, respectively. These names originate from the color and designs of women's dresses in each respective group, with the White Hmong distinguished by the white dresses women wear on special occasions, and the Blue/Green Hmong by the blue batiked dresses that the women wear. The name and pronunciation "Hmong" is exclusively used by the White Hmong to refer to themselves, and many dictionaries use only the White Hmong dialect.

 

In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Hmoob Leeg (Green Hmong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.

 

White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language, with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.

 

VIETNAM AND LAOS

The Hmong groups in Vietnam and Laos, from the 18th century to the present day, are known as Black Hmong (Hmoob Dub), Striped Hmong (Hmoob Txaij), White Hmong (Hmoob Dawb), Hmong Leng (Hmoob Leeg) and Green Hmong (Hmoob Ntsuab). In other places in Asia, groups are also known as Black Hmong (Hmoob Dub or Hmong Dou), Striped Hmong (Hmoob Txaij or Hmoob Quas Npab), Hmong Shi, Hmong Pe, Hmong Pua, and Hmong Xau, Hmong Xanh (Green Hmong), Hmong Do (Red Hmong), Na Mieo and various other subgroups. These include the Flower Hmong or the Variegated Hmong (Hmong Lenh or Hmong Hoa), so named because of their bright, colorful embroidery work (called pa ndau or paj ntaub, literally "flower cloth").

 

NOMENCLATURE

CHINA

Usage of the term "Miao" (苗) in Chinese documents dates back to the Shi Ji (1st century BC) and the Zhan Guo Ce (late Western Han Dynasty). During this time, it was generally applied to people of the southern regions thought to be descendants of the San Miao kingdom (dated to around the 3rd millennium BC.) The term does not appear again until the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), by which time it had taken on the connotation of "barbarian." Being a variation of Nanman, it was used to refer to one kind of indigenous people in the southern China who had not been assimilated into Han culture. During this time, references to Unfamiliar (生 Sheng) and Familiar (熟 Shu) Miao appear, referring to level of assimilation and political cooperation of the two groups. Not until the Qing dynasty (1644–1911) do more finely grained distinctions appear in writing. Even then, discerning which ethnic groups are included in various classifications can be problematic.

 

This inconsistent usage of "Miao" makes it difficult to say for sure if Hmong and Mong people are always included in these historical writings. Christian Culas and Jean Michaud note: "In all these early accounts, then, until roughly the middle of the 19th century, there is perpetual confusion about the exact identity of the population groups designated by the term Miao. We should, therefore, be cautious with respect to the historical value of any early associations."

 

Linguistic evidence, however, places Hmong and Mong people in the same regions of southern China that they inhabit today for at least the past 2,000 years. By the mid-18th century, classifications become specific enough that it is easier to identify references to Hmong and Mong people.

 

The term 'Miao' is used today by the Chinese government to denote a group of linguistically and culturally related people (including the Hmong, Hmu, Kho Xiong, and A Hmao). The Hmong and Miao of China today believe they are one people with cultural and linguistic affiliations that transcend oceans and national boundaries. The educated elites of the two groups maintain close transnational contacts with one another.

 

SOUTHEAST ASIA

In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo, Mông or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by some Hmong people in the USA.

 

A recent DNA research in Thailand found that Hmong paternal lineage is quite different from those lu Mien and other Southeast Asian tribes. The Hmong-Mien (HM) and Sino-Tibetan (ST) speaking groups are known as hill tribes in Thailand; they were the subject of the first studies to show an impact of patrilocality vs. matrilocality on patterns of mitochondrial (mt) DNA vs. male-specific portion of the Y chromosome (MSY) variation. However, HM and ST groups have not been studied in as much detail as other Thai groups; here we report and analyze 234 partial MSY sequences (∼2.3 mB) and 416 complete mtDNA sequences from 14 populations that, when combined with our previous published data, provides the largest dataset yet for the hill tribes. We find a striking difference between Hmong and IuMien (Mien-speaking) groups: the Hmong are genetically different from both the IuMien and all other Thai groups, whereas the IuMien are genetically more similar to other linguistic groups than to the Hmong. In general, we find less of an impact of patrilocality vs. matrilocality on patterns of mtDNA vs. MSY variation than previous studies. However, there is a dramatic difference in the frequency of MSY and mtDNA lineages of Northeast Asian (NEA) origin vs. Southeast Asian (SEA) origin in HM vs. ST groups: HM groups have high frequencies of NEA MSY lineages but lower frequencies of NEA mtDNA lineages, while ST groups show the opposite. A potential explanation is that the ancestors of Thai HM groups were patrilocal, while the ancestors of Thai ST groups were matrilocal. Overall, these results attest to the impact of cultural practices on patterns of mtDNA vs. MSY variation.

 

HMONG/MONG CONTROVERSY

When Western authors came in contact with Hmong people, beginning in the 18th century, they referred to them in writing by ethnonyms assigned by the Chinese (i.e., Miao, or variants). This practice continued into the 20th century. Even ethnographers studying the Hmong people in Southeast Asia often referred to them as Meo, a corruption of Miao applied by Thai and Lao people to the Hmong. Although "Meo" was an official term, it was often used as an insult against the Hmong people, and it is considered to be derogatory.

 

The issue came to a head during the passage of California State Assembly Bill (AB) 78, in the 2003–2004 season. Introduced by Doua Vu and Assembly Member Sarah Reyes, District 31 (Fresno), the bill encouraged changes in secondary education curriculum to include information about the Secret War and the role of Hmong people in the war. Furthermore, the bill called for the use of oral histories and first-hand accounts from Hmong people who had participated in the war and who were caught up in the aftermath. Originally, the language of the bill mentioned only "Hmong" people, intending to include the entire community. Several Mong Leng activists, led by Dr. Paoze Thao (Professor of Linguistics and Education at California State University, Monterey Bay), drew attention to the problems associated with omitting "Mong" from the language of the bill. They noted that despite nearly equal numbers of Hmong Der and Mong Leng in the United States, resources are disproportionately directed toward the Hmong Der community. This includes not only scholarly research but also the translation of materials, potentially including the curriculum proposed by the bill. Despite these arguments, "Mong" was not added to the bill. In the version that passed the assembly, "Hmong" was replaced by "Southeast Asians", a more broadly inclusive term.

 

Dr. Paoze Thao and some others feel strongly that "Hmong" can refer to only Hmong Der people and does not include "Mong" Leng people. He feels that the usage of "Hmong" about both groups perpetuates the marginalization of Mong Leng language and culture. Thus, he advocates the usage of both "Hmong" and "Mong" when referring to the entire ethnic group. Other scholars, including anthropologist Dr. Gary Yia Lee (a Hmong Der person), suggest that "Hmong" has been used for the past 30 years to refer to the entire community and that the inclusion of Mong Leng people is understood. Some argue that such distinctions create unnecessary divisions within the global community and will only confuse non-Hmong and Mong people trying to learn more about Hmong and Mong history and culture.

 

As a compromise alternative, multiple iterations of "Hmong" are proposed. A Hmong theologian, Rev. Dr. Paul Joseph T. Khamdy Yang has proposed the term “HMong” to encompass both the Hmong and Mong community by capitalizing the H and the M. The ethnologist Jacques Lemoine has also begun to use the term (H)mong when referring to the entirety of the Hmong and Mong community.

 

HMONG, MONG AND MIAO

Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adopted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.

 

In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"—taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.

 

Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders reflects a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao.

 

DIASPORA

Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.

 

Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards and characterized with both assimilation, cooperation and hostility, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.

 

At the 2019 national census, there were 1,393,547 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the Opium Poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong started moving to the Central Highlands and some crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.

 

In 2015, the Hmong in Laos numbered 595,028. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.

 

After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad (see Laos below). Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.

 

In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, much Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.

 

Myanmar most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.

 

As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular, in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.

 

In the rest of the world, where about 5% of the world Hmong population now lives, the United States is home to the largest Hmong population. The 2008 Census counted 171,316 people solely of Hmong ancestry, and 221,948 persons of at least partial Hmong ancestry. Other countries with significant populations include:

 

France: 15,000

Australia: 2,000

French Guiana: 1,500

Canada: 835

Argentina: 600

 

The Hmong population within the United States is centered in the Upper Midwest (Wisconsin, Minnesota) and California.

 

HMONG IN VIETNAM

Hmongs in Vietnam today are perceived very differently between various political organizations and changed throughout times. The Hmongs of Vietnam are a small minority and because of this, their loyalty toward the Vietnamese state has also been under question. Nonetheless, most Hmongs in Vietnam are fiercely loyal to the Vietnamese state, regardless of the current ideologies of the government with only those minorities supportive of Hmong resistance in Laos and Cambodia. These are mostly Christian Hmongs who have fallen under target and poverty strike by alienation of both three Indochinese governments, since there has been no Hmong armed separatism in the country. The Hmongs in Vietnam also receive cultural and political promotion from the government alike. This unique feature distanced Vietnamese Hmongs from Laotian Hmongs, as their Laotian cousins are strongly anti-Vietnamese.

 

LAOS

U.S. AND LAOTIAN CIVIL WAR

In the early 1960s, partially as a result of the North Vietnamese invasion of Laos, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Special Activities Division began to recruit, train and lead the indigenous Hmong people in Laos to fight against North Vietnamese Army divisions invading Laos during the Vietnam War. This "Secret Army" was organized into various mobile regiments and divisions, including various Special Guerrilla Units, all of whom were led by General Vang Pao. An estimated sixty-percent (60%) of Hmong men in Laos joined up.

 

While Hmong soldiers were known to assist the North Vietnamese in many situations, Hmong soldiers were also recognized for serving in combat against the NVA and the Pathet Lao, helping block Hanoi's Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos and rescuing downed American pilots. Though their role was generally kept secret in the early stages of the conflict, they made great sacrifices to help the U.S.

 

Thousands of economic and political refugees have resettled in Western countries in two separate waves. The first wave resettled in the late 1970s, mostly in the United States, after the North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao takeovers of the pro-US governments in South Vietnam and Laos respectively. The Lao Veterans of America, and Lao Veterans of America Institute, helped to assist in the resettlement of many Laotian and Hmong refugees and asylum seekers in the United States, especially former Hmong veterans and their family members who served in the "U.S. Secret Army" in Laos during the Vietnam War.

 

HMONG LAO RESISTANCE

For many years, the Neo Hom resistance and political movement played a key role in resistance to the Vietnam People's Army in Laos following the U.S. withdrawal in 1975. Vang Pao played a significant role in this movement. Additionally, a spiritual leader Zong Zoua Her, as well as other Hmong leaders, including Pa Kao Her or Pa Khao Her, rallied some of their followers in an additional factionalized guerrilla resistance movement called ChaoFa (RPA: Cob Fab, Pahawh Hmong: ChaoFaPahawh.png). These events led to the yellow rain controversy when the United States accused the Soviet Union of supplying and using chemical weapons in this conflict.

 

Small groups of Hmong people, many of the second or third generation descendants of former CIA soldiers, remain internally displaced in remote parts of Laos, in fear of government reprisals. Faced with continuing military operations against them by the government and a scarcity of food, some groups have begun coming out of hiding, while others have sought asylum in Thailand and other countries. Hmongs in Laos, in particularly, develop a stronger and deeper anti-Vietnamese sentiment than its Vietnamese Hmong cousins, due to historic persecution perpetrated by the Vietnamese against them.

 

CONTROVERSY OVER REPATRIATION

In June 1991, after talks with the UNHCR and the Thai government, Laos agreed to the repatriation of over 60,000 Lao refugees living in Thailand, including tens of thousands of Hmong people. Very few of the Lao refugees, however, were willing to return voluntarily. Pressure to resettle the refugees grew as the Thai government worked to close its remaining refugee camps. While some Hmong people returned to Laos voluntarily, with development assistance from UNHCR, coercive measures and forced repatriation was used to send thousands of Hmong back to the communist regime they had fled. Of those Hmong who did return to Laos, some quickly escaped back to Thailand, describing discrimination and brutal treatment at the hands of Lao authorities.

 

In the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, The Center for Public Policy Analysis, a non-governmental public policy research organization, and its Executive Director, Philip Smith, played a key role in raising awareness in the U.S. Congress and policy making circles in Washington, D.C. about the plight of the Hmong and Laotian refugees in Thailand and Laos. The CPPA, backed by a bipartisan coalition of Members of the U.S. Congress as well as human rights organizations, conducted numerous research missions to the Hmong and Laotian refugee camps along the Mekong River in Thailand, as well as the Buddhist temple of Wat Tham Krabok.

 

Amnesty International, the Lao Veterans of America, Inc., the United League for Democracy in Laos, Inc., Lao Human Rights Council, Inc. (led by Dr. Pobzeb Vang Vang Pobzeb, and later Vaughn Vang) and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights organizations joined the opposition to forced repatriation.

 

Although some accusations of forced repatriation were denied, thousands of Hmong people refused to return to Laos. In 1996, as the deadline for the closure of Thai refugee camps approached, and under mounting political pressure, the U.S. agreed to resettle Hmong refugees who passed a new screening process. Around 5,000 Hmong people who were not resettled at the time of the camp closures sought asylum at Wat Tham Krabok, a Buddhist monastery in central Thailand where more than 10,000 Hmong refugees were already living. The Thai government attempted to repatriate these refugees, but the Wat Tham Krabok Hmong refused to leave and the Lao government refused to accept them, claiming they were involved in the illegal drug trade and were of non-Lao origin.

 

In 2003, following threats of forcible removal by the Thai government, the U.S., in a significant victory for the Hmong, agreed to accept 15,000 of the refugees. Several thousand Hmong people, fearing forced repatriation to Laos if they were not accepted for resettlement in the U.S., fled the camp to live elsewhere within Thailand where a sizable Hmong population has been present since the 19th century.

 

In 2004 and 2005, thousands of Hmong fled from the jungles of Laos to a temporary refugee camp in the Thai province of Phetchabun.

 

The European Union, UNHCHR, and international groups have since spoken out about the forced repatriation.

 

ALLEGED PLOT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERMENT OF LAOS

On 4 June 2007, as part of an investigation labeled "Operation Tarnished Eagle," warrants were issued by U.S. federal courts ordering the arrest of Vang Pao and nine others for plotting to overthrow the government of Laos in violation of the federal Neutrality Acts and for multiple weapons charges. The federal charges allege that members of the group inspected weapons, including AK-47s, smoke grenades, and Stinger missiles, with the intent of purchasing them and smuggling them into Thailand in June 2007 where they were intended to be used by Hmong resistance forces in Laos. The one non-Hmong person of the nine arrested, Harrison Jack, a 1968 West Point graduate and retired Army infantry officer, allegedly attempted to recruit Special Operations veterans to act as mercenaries.

 

In an effort to obtain the weapons, Jack allegedly met unknowingly with undercover U.S. federal agents posing as weapons dealers, which prompted the issuance of the warrants as part of a long-running investigation into the activities of the U.S.-based Hmong leadership and its supporters.

 

On 15 June, the defendants were indicted by a grand jury and a warrant was also issued for the arrest of an 11th man, allegedly involved in the plot. Simultaneous raids of the defendants' homes and work locations, involving over 200 federal, state and local law enforcement officials, were conducted in approximately 15 cities in Central and Southern California in the US.

 

Multiple protest rallies in support of the suspects, designed to raise awareness of the treatment of Hmong peoples in the jungles of Laos, took place in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Alaska, and several of Vang Pao's high-level supporters in the U.S. criticized the California court that issued the arrest warrants, arguing that Vang is a historically important American ally and a valued leader of U.S. and foreign-based Hmong. However, calls for then Californian Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then President George W. Bush to pardon the defendants were not answered, presumably pending a conclusion of the large and then still-ongoing federal investigation.

 

On 18 September 2009, the US federal government dropped all charges against Vang Pao, announcing in a release that the federal government was permitted to consider "the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted." On 10 January 2011, after Vang Pao's death, the federal government dropped all charges against the remaining defendants saying, "Based on the totality of the circumstances in the case, the government believes, as a discretionary matter, that continued prosecution of defendants is no longer warranted," according to court documents.

 

THAILAND

The Hmong presence in Thailand dates back, according to most authors, to the turn of the 20th century when families migrated from China through Laos and Burma. A relatively small population, they still settled dozens of villages and hamlets throughout the northern provinces. The Hmong were then registered by the state as the Meo hill tribe. Then, more Hmong migrated from Laos to Thailand following the victory of the Pathet Lao in 1975. While some ended up in refugee camps, others settled in mountainous areas among more ancient Hill Tribes.

 

AMERICAS

Many Hmong refugees resettled in the United States after the Vietnam War. Beginning in December 1975, the first Hmong refugees arrived in the U.S., mainly from refugee camps in Thailand; however, only 3,466 were granted asylum at that time under the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975. In May 1976, another 11,000 were allowed to enter the United States, and by 1978 some 30,000 Hmong people had immigrated. This first wave was made up predominantly of men directly associated with General Vang Pao's secret army. It was not until the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980 that families were able to enter the U.S., becoming the second wave of Hmong immigrants. Hmong families scattered across all 50 states but most found their way to each other, building large communities in California, Minnesota and Wisconsin. As of the 2010 census, 260,073 Hmong people reside in the United States the majority of whom live in California (91,224), Minnesota (66,181), and Wisconsin (49,240), an increase from 186,310 in 2000. Of them, 247,595 or 95.2% are Hmong alone, and the remaining 12,478 are mixed Hmong with some other ethnicity or race. The vast majority of part-Hmong are under 10 years old.

 

The Hmong people, who are a distinct ethnic group with ancient roots and ancestry in China, began settling in Minnesota in 1975. The Hmong came to Minnesota as refugees from the destructive wars that had ravaged and taken place in their homelands in Laos. Today, there are 150,000 Hmong in the U.S. states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and California. More than 66,000 Hmong reside in Minnesota with the majority living in the St. Paul area. The Twin Cities metro is home to the largest concentration of Hmong in America. For decades, the Hmong have not only made a profound impact on their adopted home in Minnesota, but the Hmong culture has collaborated with the community to document this remarkable story by collecting images, artifacts, oral histories, sharing stories, and by publishing articles and books on the Hmong experience.

 

In terms of cities and towns, the largest Hmong-American community is in St. Paul (29,662), followed by Fresno (24,328), Sacramento (16,676), Milwaukee (10,245), and Minneapolis (7,512).

 

There are smaller Hmong communities scattered across the United States, including those in Minnesota (Rochester, Mankato, Duluth) Michigan (Detroit and Warren); Anchorage, Alaska; Denver, Colorado; Portland, Oregon; Washington; North Carolina (Charlotte, Morganton); South Carolina (Spartanburg); Georgia (Auburn, Duluth, Monroe, Atlanta, and Winder); Florida (Tampa Bay); Wisconsin (Madison, Eau Claire, Appleton, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Oshkosh, La Crosse, Sheboygan, Manitowoc, and Wausau); Aurora, Illinois; Kansas City, Kansas; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Missoula, Montana; Des Moines, Iowa; Springfield, Missouri; Arkansas, Fitchburg, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island.

 

Canada's small Hmong population is mostly concentrated within the province of Ontario. Kitchener, Ontario has 515 residents of Hmong descent, and has a Hmong church.

 

There is also a small community of several thousand Hmong who migrated to French Guiana in the late 1970s and early 1980s, that can be mainly found in the Hmong villages of Javouhey (1200 individuals) and Cacao (950 individuals).

 

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

Some Laos- and Vietnam-based Hmong Animists and Christians, including Protestant and Catholic believers, have been subjected to military attacks, police arrest, imprisonment, forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and torture on anti-religious grounds.

 

The deportation of Zoua Yang and her 27 children from Thailand in December 19, 2005 after the group was arrested attending a Christian church in Ban Kho Noi, Phetchabun Province, Thailand, where upon arrival back in Laos, Ms. Yang and her children were detained, after which the whereabouts of much of the family are still unknown.

 

For example, in 2013, a Hmong Christian pastor, Vam Ngaij Vaj (Va Ngai Vang), was beaten to death by police and security forces. In February 2014, in Hanoi, Vietnamese government officials refused to allow medical treatment for a Hmong Christian leader, Duong Van Minh, who was suffering from a serious kidney illness. In 2011, Vietnam People's Army troops were used to crush a peaceful demonstration by Hmong Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical Christian believers who gathered in Dien Bien Province and the Dien Bien Phu area of northwestern Vietnam, according to Philip Smith of the Center for Public Policy Analysis, independent journalists and others.

 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has documented official and ongoing religious persecution, religious freedom violations against the Laotian and Hmong people in both Laos and Vietnam by the governments. In April 2011, the Center for Public Policy Analysis also researched and documented cases of Hmong Christians being attacked and summarily executed, including four Lao Hmong Christians.

 

WIKIPEDIA

General Sir John Monash.

(1865-1931) was a civil engineer who became an Australian military commander in World War I. Regarded as Australia's greatest general, his brilliant leadership turned the tide of the war. Monash was also a born writer and intellect, and his writing displays a delight in detail, mastery and grace.

  

Dust jacket note on "John Monash"

The Australian Victories in France in 1918.

 

See Currency and other words at ozwords.com.au/

By Kel Richards..

 

Using the kit lens and a 10mm tube.

 

From Google Gemini AI.

 

what did the world do at the end of World war II?

  

The world reacted to the end of World War II with a mix of jubilation, relief, and a somber understanding of the immense cost of the conflict. Here's a breakdown of some key responses:

 

Celebrations and Relief:

 

Widespread Joy: News of the surrenders (first Germany in May 1945, then Japan in August 1945) sparked massive celebrations in Allied countries. People filled the streets,embracing and cheering, marking the end of years of hardship, anxiety, and loss.

Return of Soldiers: The end of the war meant the return of soldiers to their home countries. This was a joyous occasion for families and communities, although it was also a period of readjustment for many veterans.

Reconstruction and Recovery:

 

Devastation in Europe and Asia: Many parts of Europe and Asia lay in ruins. Cities were bombed, infrastructure was destroyed, and economies were shattered. The immediate focus was on providing humanitarian aid, rebuilding infrastructure, and restarting economies.

The Marshall Plan: The United States launched the Marshall Plan, a massive economic aid program to help rebuild European economies. This was crucial in preventing further instability and fostering recovery.

Political and Geopolitical Shifts:

 

Emergence of Superpowers: The war significantly altered the global balance of power. The United States and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers, leading to a period of geopolitical tension known as the Cold War.

Formation of the United Nations: In 1945, the United Nations was established with the goal of preventing future global conflicts through international cooperation and diplomacy.

Decolonization: The war weakened European colonial powers, contributing to the rise of independence movements in Asia and Africa.

Dealing with the Aftermath:

 

Nuremberg Trials: The Nuremberg trials were held to bring Nazi leaders to justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace. This set a precedent for international criminal law.

Coming to Terms with the Holocaust: The full extent of the Holocaust was revealed after the war, shocking the world and leading to a greater understanding of the horrors of genocide.

A Desire for Peace:

 

"Never Again": The immense suffering caused by the war led to a widespread desire to prevent future global conflicts. This sentiment was reflected in the formation of the United Nations and other international efforts to promote peace and cooperation.

In summary, the end of World War II was met with widespread celebration and relief, but also marked the beginning of a long process of recovery, reconstruction, and dealing with the political and social consequences of the conflict. 1 The world was forever changed by the war, and its aftermath shaped the course of the 20th century. 2

 

Proud Breastfeeding moms

Unió forta de dues cordes o peces semblant que es creuen formant un lligam fort.

 

Hi ha molts contactes entre la societat catalana i els exiliats que malviuen al desert com a conseqüència d'una mala descolonització.

Fins i tot, en diferents ocasions, diversos diputats del Parlament de Catalunya han visitat els campaments i han expressat la seva opinió negativa sobre les condicions de vida dels refugiats i la manera com el Marroc no permet resoldre aquesta situació.

 

De tota manera, la sensibilització de la societat catalana no impedeix, de moment, que els sahrauís hagin de dependre en gran mesura de l'ajuda i la cooperació internacionals per continuar la seva lluita de supervivència.

 

De tota manera, un dels programes d'ajuda que ha quedat intacte, de moment, és "Vacances en pau", a través del qual mig miler de criatures sahrauís passen els mesos de juliol i agost amb famílies a Catalunya.

 

Nusos i haimes dels Campaments Refugiats Sahrauís a Dajkla.

------------------------------------------

Knot.

 

Strong union of two strings or similar pieces that are created forming a strong bond.

 

There are many contacts between Catalan society and the exiles who malvive the desert as a result of a bad decolonization.

Even on several occasions, several Members of the Parliament of Catalonia have visited the camps and expressed their negative opinion about the living conditions of refugees and the way in which Morocco does not allow this situation to be resolved.

 

In any case, the awareness of Catalan society does not prevent, for the time being, that the Saharans should rely heavily on international aid and cooperation to continue their struggle for survival.

 

In any case, one of the help programs that remained intact, for the moment, is "Vacations in peace", through which half a thousand Saharan children spend the months of July and August with families in Catalonia.

 

Knots and Haimes of the Sahrauish Refugee Camps in Dajkla.

Proud Breastfeeding moms

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) was a Colossus-class aircraft carrier of the Royal Netherlands Navy. Formerly the British ship HMS Venerable, she was sold to the Netherlands in 1948 as a light attack carrier and operated Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighters, which were in 1958 replaced by Hawker Sea Hawk jet aircraft. In 1960, she was involved in the decolonization conflict in Western New Guinea with Indonesia. After a major refit in 1964, following the settlement of issues threatening its former colonial territories and changes in the mission for the Royal Netherlands Navy within NATO, the role was changed to anti-submarine warfare carrier and primarily ASW aircraft and helicopters were carried. At that time, the last Dutch Sea Hawks were phased out and the Koninlijke Marine ’s FJ-4B fighter bombers were relegated to land bases and soon handed back to the USA and re-integrated into USMC units. As an alternative multi-role aircraft that could both deliver strikes against ground as well as sea targets and provide aerial defense for the carrier or escort its slow and vulnerable ASW aircraft, the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was procured.

 

The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-powered Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system. The Skyhawk was a relatively light aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg), had a top speed of 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h) and very good handling, making it a serious threat in an aerial dogfight. The aircraft's five hardpoints supported a variety of missiles, bombs, and other munitions.

The A4D (re-named into A-4 under the USA’s unified designation system) was capable of carrying a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II–era Boeing B-17 bomber and could even deliver nuclear weapons using a low-altitude bombing system and a "loft" delivery technique. The A-4 was originally powered by the Wright J65 turbojet engine, but from the A-4E onwards, the more fuel efficient and powerful Pratt & Whitney J52 engine was used. The Skyhawk proved to be a relatively common United States Navy aircraft export of the postwar era. Due to its small size, it could be operated from the older, smaller World War II-era aircraft carriers still used by many smaller navies during the 1960s. These older ships were often unable to accommodate newer Navy fighters such as the F-4 Phantom II and F-8 Crusader, which were faster and more capable than the A-4, but significantly larger and heavier than older naval fighters.

 

At the same time as the Netherlands, Australia was looking for a new carrier-borne jet aircraft, too, and in negotiations with Douglas for newly built A-4s for the RAN's carrier HMAS Melbourne, a Majestic-class light aircraft carrier. These aircraft had a very similar duty profile to those the Royal Netherlands Navy was looking for, and in order to save development costs and speed up the procurement process, the Royal Netherlands Navy simply adopted the Australian specifications which became the unique A-4G variant, the Skyhawk’s first dedicated export version.

 

The A-4G was directly developed with minor variations from the current, most modern Skyhawk variant, the USN's A-4F. In particular, the A-4G was not fitted with the late Skyhawk variants' characteristic avionics "hump", had a simple ranging radar for air-to-air combat and was modified to carry four underwing Sidewinder AIM-9B missiles (instead of just two), increasing their Fleet Defense capability. Additionally, the A-4Gs for the Royal Netherlands Navy received the avionics package to deploy radio-controlled AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, which the Kon. Marine had been using together with the FJ-4Bs for some years, and Skyhawks’ capability to provide buddy-to-buddy refueling services with a special pod made them a vital asset for carrier operations, too.

 

A total of twenty A-4G Skyhawks were purchased by the Royal Australian Navy in two batches for operation from HMAS Melbourne, and the Koninlijke Marine ordered twelve. These aircraft were part of the first A-4G production batch and arrived in 1967, together with four TA-4J trainers, for a total fleet of sixteen aircraft. The machines were delivered in the contemporary US Navy high-visibility scheme in Light Gull Grey and White, but they were soon re-painted in a less conspicuous scheme of Extra Dark Sea Grey on the upper surfaces and Sky underneath, conforming to NATO standards of the time. After initial conversion training from land bases the re-formed MLD 861 Squadron (a carrier-based unit that had operated Fairey during the Fifties) embarked upon HNLMS Karel Doorman in February 1968 with a standard contingent of six carrier-based aircraft. The rest was stationed at Valkenburg Naval Air Base for maintenance and training and frequently rotated to the carrier.

 

However, the Dutch Skyhawks' career at sea was very short – it lasted in fact only a couple of months! A boiler room fire on 26 April 1968 removed HNLMS Karel Doorman from Dutch service. To repair the fire damage, new boilers were transplanted from the incomplete HMS Leviathan. But this did not save the ship, and in 1969 it was decided that the costs for repairing the damage in relation to the relatively short time Karel Doorman was still to serve in the fleet proved to be her undoing and she was sold to the Argentine Navy, renamed Veinticinco de Mayo, where she would later play a role in the 1982 Falkland Islands Conflict.

Additionally, the fatal fire accident coincided with the arrival of land-based long range maritime patrol aircraft for the Royal Netherlands Navy that were to take over the ASW role Karel Doorman had been tasked to perform ever since the start of the 1960s. These were one squadron of Breguet Atlantique sea-reconnaissance aircraft and one of P-2 Neptunes, while the international NATO anti-submarine commitment was taken over by a squadron of Westland Wasp helicopters operated from six Van Speijk-class anti-submarine frigates.

 

This left the Royal Netherlands Navy with a full operational squadron of almost brand-new aircraft that had overnight lost their raison d'être. To avoid sunk costs the government decided to keep the Skyhawks in active service, even though only land-based now and as part of the Netherlands air force's home defense – a plan that had been envisioned for the A-4Gs for the mid-Seventies, anyway.

In 1974, the A-4G's MLD 861 Squadron was disbanded (again) and the aircraft were formally transferred to the Royal Netherlands Air Force, where they received new tactical codes (H-30XX - H- 30YY) and formed the new RNLAF 332 Squadron, primary tasked with aerial support for the Netherlands Marine Corps. To avoid staff and equipment transfer costs to a different location, the Skyhawks stayed at their former home base, Valkenburg Naval Air Base, where they operated alongside the MLD’s new long-range maritime patrol aircraft.

 

At that time, the machines received a small update during regular overhauls, including the ability to deploy the new TV-guided AGM-65 Maverick missile (which replaced the unreliable and rather ineffective AGM-12) as well as more effective AIM-9J air-to-air missiles, and an AN/APQ-51 radar warning system, recognizable through small cone-shaped radomes under the nose, at the tail and under the wing roots. Being land-based now, some machines received a new NATO-style camouflage in Olive Drab and Dark Grey with Light Grey undersides, even though the Skyhawks’ full carrier capability was retained in case of a NATO deployment on another nation’s carrier.

In 1979, when the RNLAF received its first F-16A/B fighters, all Skyhawks eventually received a more subdued grey three-tone camouflage with toned-down markings which was effective both over the sea and in the sky, similar to the RNLAF’s NF-5A/B day fighters.

 

However, the arrival of the modern F-16, which was in any aspect superior to the A-4 except for a lack of carrier-capability, meant that the RNLAF Skyhawks’ career did not last much longer. In the early Eighties, all Dutch A-4Gs were replaced with license-built F-16A/B fighter bombers. They were placed in store and eventually sold to Israel in 1985, where they were revamped and re-sold with surplus A-4Es to Indonesia as attrition replacements after high losses during the anti-guerilla warfare in East Timor. They were delivered in 1986 and served in Indonesia until 2003, where the last Skyhawks were finally retired in 2007.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 1.5 in (12.230 m)

Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)

Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)

Wing area: 260 sq ft (24 m²)

Airfoil: root: NACA 0008-1.1-25; tip: NACA 0005-.825-50

Empty weight: 9,853 lb (4,469 kg)

Gross weight: 16,216 lb (7,355 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,113 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P-6A turbojet engine, 8,500 lbf (38 kN) thrust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,083 km/h) at sea level

Range: 1,008 nmi (1,160 mi, 1,867 km)

Ferry range: 2,194 nmi (2,525 mi, 4,063 km)

g limits: +8/-3

Rate of climb: 5,750 ft/min (29.2 m/s)

Wing loading: 62.4 lb/sq ft (305 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.526

 

Armament:

2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon with 100 RPG

5× hardpoints with a total capacity of 8,500 lb (3,900 kg)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This what-if project was more or less a stopgap: I had a Hasegawa 1:72 A-4E/F kit in The Stash™, primarily bought for its separate avionics hump that is supposed to be transplanted on a Fujimi A-4C someday to create an A-4L, of which AFAIK no OOB kit exists. However, I played with potential fictional operators, and read about the Australian A-4Gs. When I compared them with the historic timeframe of the Dutch HNLMS Karel Doorman, I recognized very close parallels (see background above) so that a small Skyhawk fleet for a single carrier with a focus on ASW duties would make sense – even though Karel Doorman was soon struck by a fire and ended the story. However, this was a great framework to tell the story of Dutch Skyhawks that never had been, and my model depicts such an aircraft soon after its update and in late RNLAF colors.

 

The Hasegawa kit is not bad, but IMHO there are better offerings, you can see the mold’s age. It goes together easily, comes with a good pilot figure and offers optional parts for an E or F Skyhawk, plus lots of ordnance, but it comes with raised (yet very fine) panel lines and an odd canopy: the clear part is actually only the canopy’s glass, so that the frame is still molded into the fuselage. As a result, opening the cockpit is a VERY tricky stunt (which I eventually avoided), and the clear piece somehow does not fit well into its intended opening. The mold dates back to 1969, when the A-4E/F was brand new, and this was all acceptable in the Seventies and Eighties. But for today’s standards the Hasegawa kit is a bit outdated and, in many cases, overpriced. Permanent re-boxings and short-run re-issues do not make the old kit any better.

 

Despite these weaknesses the kit was built OOB, without big modifications or the optional camel hump for the A-4F, with the early straight IFR probe and with parts from the OOB ordnance. This included the ventral drop tank (which comes with an integral pylon) and the underwing pylons; from the outer pair the integral launch rails for the Bullpups were sanded away and replaced with a pair of longer launch rails for AIM-9B Sidewinder AAMs from the scrap box.

As a modern/contemporary detail I scratched a training/dummy AGM-65 Maverick without fins for one of the inner underwing stations, which would later become a colorful eye-catcher on the otherwise quite subdued aircraft. Additionally, some small blade antennae were added around the hull, e. g. on the front wheel well cover for the Bullpup guidance emitter.

  

Painting and markings:

A Kon. Marine Skyhawk offers a wide range of painting options, but I tweaked the background that I could incorporate a specific and unique Dutch paint scheme – the early Eighties livery of the RNLAF’s NF-5A/Bs. These aircraft initially wore a NATO-style green/grey livery with pale grey undersides, but they were in the late Seventies, with the arrival of the F-16s, repainted with the F-16s’ “Egypt One” colors (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375). However, the Egypt One scheme was not directly adopted, only the former RAF-style camouflage pattern was re-done with the new colors. Therefore, the Skyhawks were “in my world” transferred from the Dutch Navy to the Air Force and received this livery, too, for which I used Humbrol 125, 126 and 127. The pattern was adapted from the sleek NF-5s as good as possible to the stouter A-4 airframe, but it worked out.

However, the result reminds unintentionally a lot of the Australian A-4Gs’ late livery, even though the Aussie Skyhawks carried a different pattern and were painted in different tones. Even more strangely, the colors on the model looked odd in this striped paint scheme: the dark Gunship Gray appeared almost violet, while the Medium Gray had a somewhat turquoise hue? Weird! Thankfully, this disappeared when I did some post-panel-shading after a light black in washing…

 

The cockpit became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), even though there’s hardly anything recognizable through the small canopy: the pilot blocks anything. The landing gear and the respective wells became classic bright white (Revell 301), as well as the air intake ducts; the landing gear covers received a thin red outline.

The Sidewinders and their launch rails became white, the drop tank was painted in FS 36375 like the underside. The dummy AGM-65 was painted bright blue with a white tip for the live seeker head.

 

The decals were gathered from various sources. The RNLAF roundels came from a generic TL Modellbau sheet, the tactical code from a Swiss F-5E. The small fin flash is a personal addition (this was not common practice on RNLAF aircraft), the red unit badge with the seahorse comes from a French naval WWII unit. Most stencils were taken from the OOB sheet but supplemented with single bits from an Airfix Skyhawk sheet, e. g. for the red trim around the air intakes, which was tricky to create. The interior of the fuselage air brakes was painted in bright red, too.

  

After a Koninlijke Marine FJ-4B Fury some years ago, here’s a worthy and logical successor, even though it would have quickly lost its naval base, HNLMS Karel Doorman. Really bad timing! Even though not much was changed, this simple looking aircraft has IMHO a certain, subtle charm – even though the paint scheme makes the Dutch Skyhawk look more Australian than intended, despite representing an A-4G, too. But time frame and mission profiles would have been too similar to ignore this parallel. Not a spectacular model, but quite convincing.

The photographic portfolio entitled “GLOBALIZING CONTAMINATIONS” was among the finalists at the PORTFOLIO SIFEST 2018 international award (Italy). This photography project is the result of a one-month period lived in Africa from Kenya to Tanzania. In the 1950s and 1960s, the European colonial powers gradually ceased to administer their African territories. The process of “apparent decolonization” led to the gradual departure of all the expatriate personnel of the colonizing nations: administrators, soldiers and all those who had settled in the “colony”. This process favored the creation of independent states and paved the way for new foreign influences over those of the colonial powers. Therefore, after some years living in Africa, I came to ask myself: “How has the influence, after decolonization, of European countries evolved in the face of the emancipation of African countries and the competition of new powers?”

“Are there any specific things you’re focusing on in your growth?”

“Decolonizing my mind. I immigrated from the Philippines when I was 7. My path has been one of being indoctrinated with western society and the ‘American dream’. Now I’m at a point in my life of trying to learn who I really am. To move past the things that have made me not love myself.”

“What’s the biggest inhibitor of your self-love?”

“Patriarchy. How men treat the women in my community. Growing up I learned implicitly that women were...mmm...white men...that come into my country have an expectation. Whether they’re coming from a consensual conversation or something else, it’s affecting our women. It has affected me, it’s affecting my mother. And not all in bad ways. But there’s an objectification.”

“I feel you. Thanks so much for sharing. Your vulnerability is beautiful.”

(2/2)

Today I finished a big essay which has been stressing me for a few weeks now (along with other deadlines as well!). Had a few ideas for photos along the way to express how I felt. Took the opportunity to snap a few before returning books to the library.

 

Highest position in Explore: 27 on Sunday, March 29, 2009

  

Tenuous Link: piled on top of each other

The concept of this picture is based off the books/papers “Queering Anarchism,” “Priests of the Goddess: Gender Transgression in Ancient Religion, History of Religions,” “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival,” and “Trans-Spirit: Religion, Spirituality and Transhumanism.”

 

“Till heart’s bewitched, till senses reel: With Satan I have struck my deal.” – Karl Marx

 

Anarchism is another denomination of the religion of Karl Marx. That is why, when all the denominations of Marx gather together to evangelize in protest, they all put forth the same basic tenets of faith. When they unite as one in the spirit of Marx, they all look the same, they all act the same, and they all sound the same. That is why Anarchism looks at the neo-Marxist doctrine of gender/queer theory through a lens of the oppressed vs the oppressor, intersectionality, and collectivism. Indeed, Marxism is a Machiavellian religion.

 

Gender theory is a communist manual on how to break down the family and societal norms in order to destroy capitalism and democracy. Marxism is a faith based religion: Jesus shed His blood to bring salvation to humanity, yet in communism the bloodshed of millions brings salvation for humanity. Its salvation is obtained through revolution. The end justifies the means to gain their heaven on earth. Its prophet is Karl Marx. (Like Cain, Marx was bitter and angry). Its apostles are activists. Its disciples must spread their gospel of socialism to the entire world and make disciples from all nations. They cast out the demons of capitalism. They baptize their converts into socialism. These converts were capitalists, but now they are born again (woke) socialists. They have seen the light of socialism! If one backslides from the faith, they will be excommunicated! They have replaced sainthood with victimhood. They have replaced sinners with capitalists. Their trinity is Marx, Mao, and Marcuse. They have the moral conviction that they are right.

 

Gulags 5:22-23 “But the fruit of Marx is hate, anger, envy, bitterness, selfishness, narcissism, covetousness, violence, murder.”

 

Indeed, the anarchist religion is the only true religion. Its moral laws are the truth: Thou shalt abolish all hierarchies! Thou shalt abolish capitalism! Thou shalt abolish private property! Thou shalt abolish the state! As you can see, they have their universal battle between good and evil. They are righteous crusaders for their cause. They fight their crusade against “the tyranny of the state, religion, and society.” They “challenge dominant forms of social organization including the state, marriage, capitalism, parenting, love relationships, friendships, and families.” They do all these things in the hope of obtaining their utopian heaven on earth. It is a religion of decadence.

 

“Anarchism is the only philosophy that brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man’s subordination. Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man.” – Emma Goldman

 

Now, let’s move on and take a look at the definition of Queer:

 

“UNLIKE GAY identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence. ‘Queer,’ then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative—a positionality that is not restricted to lesbians and gay men but is in fact available to anyone who is or who feels marginalized because of his or her sexual practices.” – David Halperin

 

In the book Queering Anarchism, they also use David Halperin’s definition of queer. They particularly concentrate on “Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant.” Now, for those who want to learn more about this subject, here are some excerpts from Queering Anarchism:

 

“Queer liberation is the destruction of straightness.” “The subjective interpretations of sexuality within Queer theory subvert any monolithic traditional notion of sex, sex roles, gender, and even sexual orientation.” “We need to oppose the institution of state-sanctioned marriage because it strengthens the nuclear family as the consumptive and reproductive unit of capitalism.” “The nuclear family, for example, perpetuates capitalism.” “The struggle against sexual and gender oppression is an important component of a larger struggle to transform and establish a new society.” “The destruction of straightness would mean a world in which all of our bodies, all of our desires, all of our genders, all of our consensual sexualities, would be honored and viable.” “All of us have an obligation to unlearn straightness—to unlearn the ways we have been socialized into straightness, much like the ways in which we have been socialized into capitalism.” “The struggle for queer liberation, and the struggle to abolish straightness; these are inseparable from anti-capitalist and anti-statist struggle.” “The entire capitalist patriarchal white supremacy that structures our world unequally, and indeed preys on unequal relations of power, requires heteronormative relationships. Break down those kinds of relationships, and we are also starting to break down patriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism.”

 

“Queer theory understands people in relation to the normal and the deviant, creating infinite possibilities for resistance. Queer theory seeks to disrupt the ‘normal.’” “In other words, a queer critique of capitalism based on an analysis of commodity fetishism would do the following: it would have to recognize that the heterosexual matrix based on the gendered division of labor is not so much an extension of patriarchy into capitalism but rather a genuine product of it. Capitalism does not only assign men and women different roles within its realm, it also creates the modern notion of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine.’” “Queer theory shows that gendered identities as well as sexualities are not fixed and ‘natural’ but rather that they are socially constructed, fluid, and changeable—both socially and with regard to physical bodies. Gender and sexuality, in this view, are not something we are born with but something we do—or ‘perform’—on a daily basis. Queer politics therefore calls for a subversion of fixed identities such as ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ ‘straight,’ ‘homosexual,’ and so on by exploring individual performances that break out of these categories altogether.” “The heteronormative, hierarchical two-gender system in its current form is a result, rather than a predecessor, of modern capitalism.” “Biological and medical discourses about gender and sexuality shift historically.” “The transition to capitalism was indeed a main driving force of the conquest over different forms of gender expression and sexuality, enforcing a strict gender/sex binary.” “Gender is socially and not biologically constructed.” “Instead, gender is a product of social norms, individual behaviors, and institutional power.” “From the very moment of birth, our bodies are fit into a social system in which there are two genders, built upon the myth that the two sexes are ‘natural.’” “We are imprisoned by a gender binary.” “To achieve liberation, we must reject the binary gender system, which divides us into two mutually exclusive categories.” “I argue not that gender transgression or deviance is in itself revolutionary, but that we must transcend or destroy the gender-based power relations, as part of a sort of decolonizing.” “Our liberation from heteropatriarchy is intimately tied to the struggle to dismantle racism, capitalism, and an authoritarian state. In other words, our movements need to understand and confront how systems of oppression—capitalism, heteropatriarchy, and white supremacy—intersect, and reproduce one another.”

 

“I have often pointed out the importance of considering the essential role played by pleasure in drug use—even in the most chaotic use—and its life-endorsing ‘usefulness,’ as well as the need to draw on the parallels between the gay liberation and the drug users’ rights movements.”

 

“When it is operating at its best, anarchism is tearing down the borders of nation states, smashing the borders of capitalist control, and transgressing all borders of oppression and authoritarianism. When queer(ness) is operating at its best it is tearing down the borders of gender, smashing the confines of compulsory monogamy, and transgressing the moralism of sex and sexuality. When abolition is at its best it is tearing down the prison walls, smashing the police state, and transgressing the power of punishment while instituting new forms of transformative justice.”

 

“The trans community defies the ‘accepted’ social constructs of sex and gender, of free market capitalism, and the state with its need for society’s adherence to strict social norms/constructs in order to maintain its operating systems of power, keeping its focus on assimilation within a system that by definition constrains the core concept of trans.” “So a key tenet of trans liberation lies within the liberation of one’s self (and others) from the tyranny of the state, religion, and society; and equally important—from our own self-imposed tyranny.” “It is our promiscuity that will save us.” “Without justice, there can be no pleasure. After all, what we are protecting is a right to social imagination that rejects both paternalism and positivism, while opening spaces for alternative social relations and ways of embracing experience outside the realm of the rational experience.” “To do away with shame and the repression it fuels, pleasure activists push to transform the social order.”

 

These anarchists seem to confuse hedonism with love. If I were to say that they desire hedonism, they would say that they desire love.

 

“If they can discredit capitalism, they can consider themselves free to pursue their own impractical vicious morality.” – Ayn Rand

 

Their goal is to queer society. Queer movements, however, are nothing new. They have been around since ancient times:

 

The Galli were priests of the gods Cybele and Attis. This cult became popular in Roman. The goddess Cybele was a Hermaphrodite. She had her male parts castrated, turning her into a female. The god Attis castrated himself, thus the Galli also practiced self-castration. The Galli earned money by begging. It appears that they also made money through prostitution.

 

The Gala were priests of the goddess Inanna/Ishtar in ancient Mesopotamia. There’s a Sumerian saying: “To destroy, to build up, to tear out and to settle are yours, Inanna,” and, “To turn a man into a woman and a woman into a man are yours, Inanna.” Since Ishtar could transcend categories, her followers where emboldened to defy and redefine social boundaries, especially those related to gender. An ancient Sumerian proverb said: “When the Gala wiped off his ass [he said], ‘I must not arouse that which belongs to my mistress (Inanna/Ishtar).’” They spelled the word “Gala” with the cymbals of “penis + anus.” It appears that they also made money through prostitution.

 

The Hijra of India worship the goddess Bahuchara Mata. Bahuchara Mata cut off her breasts, thus cursing a bandit named Bapiya with impotency. The castration of the Hijra removes both the penis and testicles. While they are being castrated, they chant the name of their goddess. The Hijra earn money by begging and prostitution. They consider themselves to be neither man nor women, though they generally wear women’s clothing in public. There are many striking parallels between the Galli and Hijra.

 

“The goddesses who stand at the head of these cults—Cybele, Bahuchara Mata, and Inanna/Ishtar—also share important traits. All three are credited with the power to inspire divine madness, which can include the transformation of gender.” These kinds of gender cults also spread beyond India into Southeast Asia, Borneo, and Sulawesi.

 

In alchemy the Androgyne, or Rebis (“god” self), signifies the union of opposites, such as spirit and matter, soul and body, light and dark, male and female, human and divine. Androgyne is a gender identity on the queer gender spectrum; it is a blending of both genders or somewhere in between. “The Rebis, meaning duality, is the divine fruit that grows from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, however, the Rebis is actually the true and complete form of the divine fruit and largely considered to be the end result between harmony and discord.”

 

“Adam ate the apple and anti-pleasure religious doctrine took a foundation that we are still grappling with today.” – Queering Anarchism

 

“Transfeminism builds on the work that came out of the multiracial feminist movement, and in particular, the work of black feminists.” Feminism, which has played a large role in birthing the modern-day transgender movement, has its roots in the occult. A while back, when I was looking into the first wave feminist movement, I found that many of its writers were occultists. You can even do a Google or YouTube search for “feminism and the occult.” It’s easy to find! Guess what group has been deeply ingrained in both the feminist and transgender movements? Marxists, the ones who want to abolish the family.

 

Sexual immorality is one of many vices that cause an empire to decline. If we examine the fall of empires in history, we can see many parallels with our society today. In the early stages of an empire, according to Sir John Glubb, boys are expected to be tough and manly. They are expected to tell the truth, because lying is cowardly. They must courageously face their fears like men. They must have honor and duty. Decline starts when the people start to seek wealth. The desire for money gradually replaces loyalty and self-sacrifice. People go from service to selfishness. Students no longer go to college for learning and virtue, but they go to obtain degrees that will gain them the highest salaries. Once the nation becomes wealthy, it desires to protect its wealth and luxury. The citizens become cowardly, and they consider the conquest of their forefathers as immoral. Their ancestors were heroes, but they are inferior. So they vilify their empire as evil, which gives them a feeling of moral superiority. Since these people lack physical toughness, they chase after academic honours. Knowledge spreads and intellectualism grows. This leads to lots of discussion and debates. These arguments are not very fruitful, and produce men of little action. Their forefathers were men of action, but they are not. They have become cowardly, lazy and weak. In their intellectual pride, they think that they can solve the world’s problems. Yet they lack selflessness, dedication and service. The people become more and more politically divided. As the nation grows weaker, it becomes less unified.

 

In the first stages of an empire the people are homogeneous, so they have strong feelings of solidarity. However, as the empire declines, it increasingly brings in foreigners. These immigrants form their own communities, in order to protect their own interests. When the crap hits the fan, they are less likely to sacrifice their lives and prosperity for the empire. They come from different cultures and tend to cause cracks and divisions over time. As the nation further declines, it employs cheap foreign workers to perform menial tasks. The empire becomes sympathetic to other races and generously bestows the rights of citizenship on every race, proclaiming equality for mankind.

 

The influence of women in public life is often connected with decline. The empire starts to loosen it morals and abandons sexual morality. It becomes indifferent to religion and becomes increasingly materialistic. The politicians become more and more corrupt, enriching themselves. The government spends lavishly on its own benevolence. Music becomes increasingly erotic. Obscene language, which would not have been tolerated in the past, becomes normal. People also spend more time on leisure, amusement, and sports.

 

“Decadence is a moral and spiritual disease, resulting from too long a period of wealth and power, producing cynicism, decline of religion, pessimism and frivolity. The citizens of such a nation will no longer make an effort to save themselves, because they are not convinced that anything in life is worth saving.” – Sir John Glubb

 

In a declining empire, as people become more educated, new technologies are discovered. We see the same thing in our decadent society. Artificial intelligence is growing by leaps and bounds. Soon there will be machine learning systems around the world that will be linked to digital biometric IDs, central bank digital currencies, and social credit score systems. The natural world and the digital world are merging ever-increasingly. And the future is heading towards transhumanism.

 

“Trans-Spirit researchers” want to gain a complete understanding of religious and spiritual phenomena, so that they can manipulate and control them for the supposed good of society. They want to induce spiritual experiences and altered states of consciousness, using all technologies at their disposal. This includes transcranial electro-magnetic stimulation, visual and auditory stimulation, and chemical agents. Once they fully understand the operations of the neurological mechanisms of the brain, then the brain “can be monitored, manipulated and managed benevolently as a living art.” Creepy! Can anyone say: modern day MK-Ultra!?! “Transhumanist spirituality will be possible without mythology or religious belief. It will be highly personalized, and based on spiritual practices that have scientifically verified value. Transhumanist spirituality will be the ultimate fruit of the Trans-Spirit research program.” The author of this transhumanist paper kept using the word “rational” when talking about transhumanism. Why, then, are these rational transhumanists so irrational? They are mad scientists with a god complex! They want to manipulate and control the human brain, specifically in a religious context. As the last sentence of this academic paper states: “Transhumanist spirituality will be the ultimate fruit of the Trans-Spirit research program.”

 

The Bible warns about the transhumanist spirituality of the Beast. 666: you will be transitioned into a transhuman! The Beast system will include worship of Caesar, thus an idol of the Antichrist will be erected. This Image of the Beast will be given life (artificial intelligence) to speak. This AI Image will be the brains of the Beast surveillance system (the internet of all things). By law, all people must worship the Beast. The Image of the Beast will know who does not worship the Beast. The brains of those who have the Mark will be manipulated, and they will worship the Beast. Through technology, they will have a feel-good spiritual experience. Those without the Mark of the Beast will not worship the Beast. They will not have the Digital Biometric Mark that connects them to the Beast system. Those who refuse to worship the Beast will be arrested and sentenced to death.

 

Society is being steered towards these things. The LGBTQ movement has the support of governments, multinational corporations, billionaires, and banks. It is no coincidence that sperm counts and testosterone levels have been decreasing in men over the years. Transhumanists talk about producing a genderless transhuman society, where people evolve with future technologies into non-human super beings. The logical conclusion of transhumanism is the end of the human race. Their agenda is anti-human, and they are advocating for the extinction of mankind. They want to play God, just like their father the Devil; for the Devil desires to be God. “And if you eat the apple, you too will be like God.” Humans are indeed rebellious sinners, and sin ends in destruction and death. Yet through Christ Jesus there is salvation!

  

Kamera: Nikon FM

Linse: Nikkor-S Auto 55mm f1.2 (1970)

Film: Rollei P&R 640 @ box speed

Kjemi: Rodinal (1:25 / 13:30 min. @ 20°C)

 

-Monday 26 February 2024: What an eventful day - so many things happening all at once - all of which deserves looking further into:

 

- US Air Force soldier Aaron Bushnell self-immolates in a shocking protest outside the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C and dies from his injuries.

- Palestinian prime minister Mohammad Shtayyeh (b. 1958) and his PA government resigns.

- Jordanian Air-Force airdrops humanitarian aid of food and other supplies in Gaza

- Last day of the ICJ hearing on the legality of Israeli occupation of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

- Final day for Israel to deliver their report to the ICJ in the South Africa vs. Israel genocide case on what measures they have been taking in order to prevent genocide - it was delivered just hours before the deadline.

  

While we try to digest the rapid bombardment of suddenly fast-forward development, news and unexpected flux - for a better understanding of the context, I want to share with you a worthwile broadcast which goes deeper into the history of Palestine, the PLO and the PA:

  

COLONIAL LAW AND THE ERASURE OF PALESTINE

 

by Chris Hedges (b. 1956), The Real News Network February 2, 2024 [See and listen here]

 

For a century, international law derived from British colonial rule has been premised on the non-existence of Palestinians as a people.

 

In Palestine, the law has been used as a tool of oppression to legitimize and advance the dispossession of the Palestinian people for more than a century. From the theft of Palestinian land by legal mechanisms to the non-recognition of Palestinians as a people with the inalienable right of self-determination, the law is yet another weapon wielded against the Palestinian people by Israel and its patrons. Activist, attorney, and Rutgers University professor Noura Erakat joins The Chris Hedges Report to discuss the use of lawfare against Palestine and her new book, Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine.

 

Studio Production: Cameron Granadino

Post-Production: Adam Coley

 

TRANSCRIPT

 

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

“Time and time again,” the human rights attorney, Noura Erakat (b. 1980), writes, “we see evidence of the laws assumed insignificance in the dispossession of Palestinians. Great Britain remained committed to establishing a Jewish national homeland and Palestine, despite its legal duties as the mandatory power to shepherd local Arab peoples to independence. The permanent mandates commission remained committed to the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine in contravention of the covenant of the League of Nations, which in discussing the dispossession of the communities formally belonging to the Turkish empire, stated that the wishes of these communities must be a primary consideration.”

 

“The United Nations proposed a partition of Palestine without legal consultation and in disregard of the existing populations wellbeing and development, which the same covenant had declared to be a sacred trust of civilization. Zionist militias established Israel by force without regard to the partition plans stipulated borders.”

 

“The United Nations accepted Israel as a member despite the state’s violation of the non-discrimination clauses of the partition plan and of the UN’s own condition that Israel permit the return of forcibly displaced Palestinian refugees. The very origins of the Palestinian Israeli conflict,” Erakat continues, “suggests that it is characterized by outright lawlessness and yet few conflicts have been as defined by astute attention to law and legal controversy as this one.”

 

“Do Jews have a right to self-determination in a territory in which they did not reside but settled? Are Palestinians a nation with the right to self-determination or are they merely a heterogeneous polity of Arabs eligible for minority rights? Did the United Nations have the authority to propose partition in contravention of the will of the local population? Are the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip occupied as a matter of law that is, are they recognized as such by law?”

 

Does Israel have the right in law to self-defense against the Palestinians living in the occupied territories? Do Palestinians have the right to use armed force against Israel? Is the root of Israel’s separation barrier built predominantly in the West Bank illegal? Is Israel an apartheid regime?

 

Joining me, discussing these issues examined in her book, Justice For Some: Law and The Question of Palestine, is the human rights attorney and assistant professor at Rutgers University, Noura Erakat (b. 1980).

 

You begin the book, I think making a crucial point, and that is that the entire legal system, and this predates the establishment of the state of Israel under the British mandate, is grounded in the denial of sovereignty to the Palestinian people. And I, as we said before I went on air, reminded me very much of the construction of the American legal system, another settler colonial project, basing it on Locke’s primacy of property. So you build a legal system on a distortion. And this was something that the British imposed. Let’s go back and look at that.

 

Noura Erakat:

 

Absolutely. And so I think that the invocation of John Locke (1632-1704) is very apt here. Specifically as we were discussing earlier, Locke theorizes the social contract as was later applied in the United States as a social contract for settlers only through the exclusion of indigenous peoples and their erasure. And here what you’re describing as the perversion and the denial of sovereignty to Palestinians is what I capture as a colonial erasure, the erasure of the juridical status of Palestinians as a international people with the right to self-determination. There was never a denial that there were people on these lands, but that there was an outright denial whether these people constituted a political community with the right to exercise self-determination, what we’re using interchangeably here with sovereignty, though I would caution that sovereignty has come to take on quite new meaning beyond just statehood and self-governance. But in so far as we’re discussing this particular moment, it’s the aftermath of the First World War.

 

And the British have basically promised Palestine to its native peoples and promised self-determination across the former Ottoman territory is what they describe as the area a mandate. They’ve also promised Palestine and designated it as a site of Jewish settlement as captured by the Balfour Declaration, which was approved by British Parliament in 1917. That later becomes the Preambular text for the Palestine mandate, which governs the regulation of this mandate territory. Now, in so doing, and this is why I examine the language of the Balfour Declaration, the declaration itself only recognizes Jews was having a right to self-determination when they designated as a site of settlement and recognizes the original inhabitants, but only describes them as having a right to civil and religious rights. So they have the right to practice their religion freely and to move about freely, but they do not have a right to political rights.

 

And that’s what I capture as the colonial erasure. Once the British do that, and now it’s incorporated in the Palestine mandate in 1921, it becomes, I suggest, not just British colonial prerogative as the mandatory power. It now becomes international law and policy by which the entire permanent mandate commission, which is overseeing the governance of all the mandates. Now remember the mandates are set up as being trusteeships that will be shepherded to self-determination. But as Timothy Mitchell points out, this was about the consent of the governed. That self-determination here only meant that the governed decided who would be their mandatory power. But this becomes an other way to continue French and British colonial penetration into the Middle East and North Africa without necessarily granting independence to these peoples who have to fight for their independence. But even within that construction, they set apart Palestine as a part of international law and policy.

 

They set it apart from the other class A mandates in saying unlike those mandates that are being shepherded to independents that have a provisional government, that are able to represent themselves, Palestine because of its designation as a side of Jewish settlement has to be now developed in another way. And so they suppress any form of Palestinian sovereignty and self-determination even in contravention of the League of Nations covenant, which regulates the mandate territories, the mandates themselves that says, for example, “You cannot contravene the wishes of the original inhabitants.” Well, obviously we know that the inhabitants rejected Zionism and wanted self-determination, that there should be some sort of self-government, but they wouldn’t allow representative self-government because if they did, that would contravene the Balfour Declaration.

 

And now the Balfour Declaration was part of the Palestine mandate, which was international law. The PMC resolves this in basically saying, “Why don’t we first prioritize the settlement of Jewish persons and then we’ll move on to resolve the issue of the rights of the original inhabitants?”

 

And this points out to something interesting, Chris, which is often I think we give too much credit to Britain and to this imperial access of having a plan, that they planned that there would be a Jewish state. And I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I think that they wanted to thwart self-determination in general and maintain Palestine as a site where they can continually justify their intervention and their colonial penetration in order to basically compete with the French in the MENA region as well as to justify their presence through some sort of colonial benevolence.

 

And what crystallizes later is why this becomes the demand. Now, the Zionist demand for a Jewish state is not something that they necessarily intended and why it becomes a blunder. This becomes a blunderous policy for them as we see in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the British leave and they give this to the United Nations and they say, “We don’t know what to do anymore. We can’t resolve this. We’ve made too many promises, we’ve created a bit of a Frankenstein here.” But all that to say is that it was through their 30 years of that mandatory authority that they create the conditions that basically make ripe Zionist militias to then establish a Jewish state themselves, a Zionist state with a solid Jewish demographic majority that is contingent on the removal and dispossession of the original Palestinian people.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

Well, at the inception, the Jews and Palestine who were a small minority were essentially seen as colonial administrators. And during the Arab Revolt, 37, 38, 39, the British were arming the Zionist militias as auxiliary units. You’re write, all of it backfired. But from the inception, and this was I think the underlying point of the Balfour administration, it was through the Jewish community that essentially they were going to maintain this colony. Isn’t that correct?

 

Noura Erakat:

 

Yeah, very interesting here. This is also part of a broader colonial trope that they wanted to protect the minority Jewish population as a religious population, and it’s under this kind of benevolent auspices that they can justify their own intervention, right? But they wanted, for example, to maintain direct access and build a railroad from Haifa to Baghdad as part of a broader British vision, that this wasn’t about creating a homeland for Jews, for the British as much as it was about achieving their policy as you’re describing. A few things about the Great Revolt. The Great Revolt is so significant, not only because here the British are arming the Jewish Yeshu, the Zionists and training them in this moment leaving arms to them. At the same time, Rashid Khalidi (b. 1948) points out to us that through the course of the Great Revolt, the British actually end up decimating 10% of the male adult population either through imprisonment, exile, or outright killing.

 

And so this makes the Palestinians, in fact, some 10 years later when now they’re facing off with the Zionist militias in the falling apart of the partition plan, unable to resist I think more forcefully. So that’s absolutely significant.

 

The second thing I’ll say about the Great Revolt is that it changed British policy that whereas the British refused to reexamine their commitment to Zionism between 1917 and 1936 in the aftermath of the Great Revolt because they realized that they could not resolve this forcefully, they could not partition Palestine as a matter of force, that the Palestinians refused that outcome, that it would have to be done by force. They actually revised their Zionist policy for the first time when they issue the white paper and they walk back that policy and now say that the future will be determined by a referendum and that there will somehow be an Arab federal state instead. Obviously, none of this comes to fruition, not least of which because the Second World War begins.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

And I just, as you point out in your book, the Arab Revolt was actually quite successful. I think they even occupied, as you say, Jerusalem for five days, huge parts of the country. And the British declared martial law and brought in, was it a hundred thousand or 200,000 British troops? So it required Draconian British military power, in essence to crush these aspirations. And then as you point out, left the Palestinians weakened. You had a Jewish brigade of course in World War II incorporated into the British Army, and then they pushed through the seizure of land, 78% of land 1948 when they created the state of Israel, which is an important part.

 

Noura Erakat:

 

Before you go there, Chris, I just want to point out this point about martial law significant in three ways, I should say. Number one, the martial law regime that the British apply during the Great Revolt in order to basically crush the Palestinian insurgency and uprising is something that they’re applying across their colonial geographies and their colonial holdings, whether it be in Malay, in Kenya, in India, this is a form of their suspending all civil rights in order to be able to exercise whatever they deem necessary for their national interests. And so the colonial legacy, here, I say that to just emphasize that as exceptional as many aspects of the Palestinian struggle for liberation are, that it’s actually quite common and emblematic of a broader colonial history. The second thing that I want to point out is that upon its establishment, Israel, one of the first act of the Knesset is to adopt Britain’s emergency regime, almost verbatim, almost verbatim, for the purpose of achieving its settler colonial ambitions.

 

Of course, they become sovereign over 78% of Palestinian lands, but those lands still belong to Palestinians. It takes 12 years until 1960 in four phase plan where now the state of Israel, no longer the Zionist militias, are now the state forces, are incrementally taking that land through a regime of immigration law, property law, and emergency rule of which the military law is central as it’s applied solely to the Palestinian population that remains, that eventually become citizens of the state as well.

 

And then the third thing that I’ll say about that martial law is that once they lift the martial law, in 1966, this is precisely what now they apply to the Palestinians and the West Bank in Gaza to continue that settler colonial expansion. So the legacy, this broad global legacy of martial rule in order to achieve their colonial ambitions becomes a central organizing technology of Israeli governance in order to fulfill its own settler colonial ambitions, both within what becomes Israel as well as in what we describe as the occupied territories in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

So there were two key points I picked up from your book. One, this continuum between a legal system set up by the British settler Colonial project and the Israeli settler colonial project really almost seamless and premised on exactly the same point that the Palestinians have no sovereignty, the Palestinians, Golda Meir (1898-1978), I think said they don’t exist as a people. And so just the same legal tools that the British were using to dispossess and strip Palestinians of basic rights are no different from the tools that Israel uses. Is that correct?

 

Noura Erakat:

 

I’ll modify that slightly. And also, unfortunately, [inaudible 00:18:35] D. Muir says this in an interview with the International Herald Tribune where she says, “It’s not as if there was a land with a people that we dispossessed. It was a land without a people for a people without a land.” This is emphasizing that colonial erasure, Golda Meir, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952), Arthur Ruppin (1876-1943), all of these founding figures, Zionist figures understand full well there are Palestinians, they just do not recognize them as a political community.

 

There’s this continuing discourse of savagery, barbarism, lack of civilization, do not know how to rule themselves. It’s a colonial project. Zionism is very much a settler colonial project, which makes this revisionism that we’re seeing today, describing it as a national self-determination movement, or worse as the greatest form of anti-colonial revolt. So laughable because it is exalted, self exalted as a colonial project. The other thing I’ll just modify slightly is that insofar as the British were concerned, it wasn’t just that they were targeting Palestinians, they were also suppressing any form of national self-determination because of their imperial interest.

 

They wanted to stay there, they didn’t want to leave. But the infrastructure that they set up for us, this emergency infrastructure in particular is what Zionists adopt in Toto, almost verbatim, when the Israel establishes itself and they do so whereas when the British passed, they actually impose the martial law and the emergency regime on everyone. The Jewish Zionists as well as Palestinians, when Israel adopts it in the Knesset, it’s imposed on Palestinians only in order to continue now a specific form of dispossession. What the British do is engage in immigration, which is engage in a discriminatory form of immigration that just doesn’t regulate the immigration of Jewish settlers. And also a land regime where we’re seeing a tremendous sale of lands that’s also unregulated, not regulating the market properly so that Palestinians are not necessarily stripped forcefully what they’re stripped of as their political right, their political right to represent themselves, their political right to organize their political right to make decisions on what this looks like.

 

But not in the same way of once Israel is established. At that point, the law is retooled specifically to transform Palestinian lands into Israel lands. And once in the form of Israel lands, that’s just the cover because if you say Israel, that means that, oh, everybody who’s a citizen of Israel. But in fact, it’s a cover to say Jewish national lands in particular because upon its establishment in 1950 and 1952, Israel bifurcates Jewish nationality from Israeli citizenship. And this is key. This is key especially to those who discuss apartheid because Israel doesn’t become an apartheid regime for failing to establish a Palestinian state and truncating Zionist sovereignty across the 1949 Armistice lines or what we know as the 1967 lines. Israel is predicated on a discriminatory framework that bifurcates Jewish nationality through which all rights flow.

 

This is an extraterritorial right that promises any Jewish person within outside, who’s never even heard of the state, who might be born today, to land, to employment, to housing, to education, to governance in a way that will never become accessible even to the Palestinian inhabitants that never leave. 20% of Israel’s population are the Palestinians that stay through the 1948 war, but even they don’t have those same rights. They’re only entitled to Israeli citizenship. And there’s a two-tiered system, one of nationality and citizenship, and one of citizenship only, and citizenship only is a form of second class citizenship or a fifth pillar. And so this too is part of a legal edifice that defines the state and its establishment.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

In the book, you talk about the legal recourses that Palestinians, in particular the PLO, and what I found interesting is that while they didn’t achieve their ultimate objective, they often achieve secondary objectives that benefited the Palestinian people almost by default. Can you explain that?

 

Noura Erakat:

 

Well, you’re leaving it very open-ended because as you know, I divide the book into five critical junctures. Each of those junctures is really catalyzed by some sort of violent confrontation that becomes an opportunity to recalibrate the balance of power. And in each of these episodes, that relationship between power and law becomes formative in both defining how we understand the question of what becomes the question of Palestine as articulated by the United Nations in 1948, it suddenly becomes a question, and defines the meaning of law in particular. So what the Palestinians do, and those junctures are 1917, in the aftermath of the first World War, 1967, the 1967 war, 1973, the October 1973 war, 1987, the First Palestinian Intifada and 2000, the Second Palestinian Intifada, which also shapes and defines ongoing warfare to this day when Israel shifts from a policy of occupation to explicit warfare against the Palestinians who live under its occupation.

 

So I say that all to lay out the audience, that I’ll just focus on the juncture and the aftermath of the 1973 war. When I articulate in the book that this was really the apex of when the Palestinian Liberation Organization due to the law astutely to achieve its national ambitions. Now, this is also nuanced because at this time in 1973, the PLO as defined by its militia forces who take over the PLO in 1968, their goal is full liberation. They want to liberate all of Palestine. They have no ambitions for a state. There’s no articulation of that. This is a decolonization movement they want to liberate. They want to free the land. In the aftermath of the 1973 war, and specifically we see this very explicitly in ’74, we might see it earlier, but very explicitly in ’74, there is now a seed planted that envisions the establishment of a truncated Palestinian state as either the stepping stone of full liberation or the final solution.

 

We don’t see that question resolved until 1988 when the Palestinians now enter Oslo. So I’m just setting this up for the audience to be able to explain that even we say, what do Palestinians want? At this point there’s a lot of nuance. There’s an explicit agenda of full liberation, but there’s also now a latent agenda by some elements of the PLO led by Fatah, and I would say even a very conservative element of Fatah, not all of Fatah at this time. So now what? Okay, so in ’74, the Palestinians basically make their first foray into the United Nations. Their objective is actually not to enter the United Nations. They want to enter the Middle East peace process now being shepherded by the Soviet Union, but by primarily the United States, by Nixon, who’s both the Secretary of State and the head of the National Security Council, who in pursuance of Zionist goals as well as US national interest, disaggregates the Arab Israeli question, or the Arab Israeli conflict, I should say, into an Egyptian Israeli track, a Lebanese Israeli track, a Jordanian Israeli track, a Syrian Israeli track, and leaves out the Palestinians altogether.

 

What the PLO really wants is to be able to negotiate on behalf of themselves and not by proxy. Failure to be able to incorporate themselves into that negotiating process, now they set their sights on the United Nations, and that’s when they enter in ’74 to pass Resolution 3236 and 3237, which together both affirms their Juridical status as a people when it says that the PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and not merely a [inaudible 00:28:23] of refugees in need of humanitarian assistance and establishes a corrective to Resolution 242, which doubles down on their erasure by describing them as refugees only, and establishes a quid pro quo arrangement whereby Israel will enjoy permanent peace in recognition for returning all of the territories. And so this is seen as an instrument of defeat. So that’s the first kind of what, I guess, one might describe as that’s not exactly what they wanted.

 

What they wanted was to enter into the negotiations. This is what they do, which is also very successful. That didn’t advance their cause as much. And in the summer of ’75, they decided that they wanted to expel Israel from the United Nations in the same way that the non-aligned movement had expelled South Africa and unseated it from the United Nations. But in their effort to do so, they were primarily blocked by Egypt under the leadership of Anwar El-Sadat (1918-1981), who saw that the only pathway forward was through some sort of US alliance in order to get the Sinai back to recoup the Sinai and wanted to continue negotiations with Israel. So actually stymied this initiative to unseat Israel from the United Nations. Instead, what the Palestinians do in the summer of ’75 at the International Women’s Conference, at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, at the non-aligned movement, amongst the organization of African Union is basically a condemnation of Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination.

 

That wasn’t the primary goal, but that was the consensus. So they come back to the general assembly and now work to create one of the most significant, I think, legal achievements when they amend the decade against racism that was targeting apartheid in Namibia and South Africa to also include a condemnation of Zionism. And we get Resolution 3379 that declares that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination that would only be rescinded by the PLO itself in 1991. And so I would say that these are just a few examples of what… I think I’m responding to your question of perhaps what Palestinians had sought and what they do instead using these legal maneuvers. And obviously all of this entry of foray is also restricting the Palestinians themselves, but it’s a restriction that they welcome in order to advance their other goals.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

Let’s talk about Oslo. You opened that chapter quoting Edward Said (1935-2003), who calls it a Palestinian Versailles, and really, I think, you make a very persuasive argument that it destroys the PLO as an effective resistance organization.

 

Noura Erakat:

 

When I started this chapter, I really was starting it and interested in it as a legal scholar, and I thought to myself, one of the offerings that I can make is to explain to a non-specialist, what did Oslo do in order to permanently subjugate Palestinians? Because that’s what it is. Oslo is a sovereignty trap. It doesn’t promise, there’s never even a mention of the Palestinian state. None of its negotiating terms promises an eventual outcome of a Palestinian state. Palestinians don’t get anything. And so I wanted to explain that, how does Israel create this new administration under Oslo to regulate access to water, access to land, access to movement? How does Oslo set up all of these strictures? But when I read the actual documents, the Declaration of Principles, also known as Oslo 1, when you read Oslo 2, that sets up this jurisdictional regime of area A, B, and C, when you read why and Taba and so on, it’s so obvious how Palestinians are subjugated that I thought to myself, well, you don’t need to be a legal expert to have this takeaway, you just need to be literate.

 

So instead, I decide to answer a question I don’t know the answer to yet, which is why? Why would the PLO enter into something so obviously devastating and self-defeating. And in trying to answer that question, what becomes clearer to me anyway, is that this really is about salvaging the PLO, that that’s what was being done. The PLO after its expulsion from Lebanon in 1982 in removal to Tunisia, is now no longer has a solid base where it almost oversees, one would say the infrastructure of a para state with a significant refugee population within Lebanon that constitutes an entire institution of representation and services and functioning, and also it doesn’t have the grounds for cross border attacks. That’s a significant blow. By 1987, they continue to weaken, not least because of the emergence of opposition like Hamas, that now becomes even more popular than the PLO struggle, as well as the fact that now there’s an organic movement within the West Bank in Gaza that’s leading an Intifada, an uprising so that the center of gravity shifts from the Palestinian diaspora to Palestinian lands themselves.

 

And this is undermining the PLO’s authority together with the fact now by the time Arafat throws his hat in and supports Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait, which in retribution Gulf states, Kuwait, number one basically says Palestinians out. And now there’s a whole loss of remittances to the Palestinians, as well as the fact that anybody that wants to support Palestine is going to support opposition and not the PLO itself. So all of these things come together to basically shape a moment where the PLO was at the edge of irrelevance, at the edge of irrelevance. And entering into the negotiations, they had a very adept team at Madrid, Washington, that saw the writing on the wall [foreign language 00:35:33] are very clear in their legal analysis in mourning that Israel is basically offering the same thing that was offered in the 1978 Middle East peace process in the negotiation between Sadat and Begin leading up to the 1979 permanent Egyptian Israeli peace, which is an autonomy framework.

 

That’s all they’re offering. They offered the same thing in ’78. The only difference now when they’re offering it in the lead up to the adoption of the Declaration of principles is that they’re saying that Palestinians will not only be able to govern themselves on these different plot of lands, but can also govern certain plots of land, but only there. They still won’t be able to exercise jurisdiction. And instead of electing a local government to do it, they’ll allow the PLO to do it. Those are literally the only differences between ’78 and what we ultimately see in ’93. One of the interesting things about doing this work, Chris, and this research, is that the legal literature is dominated by Israeli scholars, especially on these questions. So part of the work that I was doing was also helping to create a Palestinian archive to advance these legal arguments.

 

And doing that meant that I interviewed the interlocutors that were there. I interviewed the negotiators themselves, so Camille Mansour (b. 1945), who was there and was a negotiator and is a legal scholar. It’s his words where he illuminates that if you lose Palestinian representation, we go back to being just no people anymore. We had to save the PLO in order to save our status as a juridical people. But in exchange for that recognition, we basically relinquished Palestine.

 

The rescindment of the 1975 resolution declaring Zionism is a form of racism, is emblematic. The amendment of the charter that says that Palestinians will no longer resort to armed force when Israel is not making similar concessions. It doesn’t say we’re not resorting to armed force. The recognition of Israel. Palestinians recognize Israel. There’s no mutual recognition of a Palestine. And so Palestinians basically see and surrender what should have remained on the table as part of their negotiating leverage as a condition for entering into Oslo, which becomes the trap that they remained frankly ensconed within. Although we obviously see many, many cracks and Oslo has been dead, even though many have tried to keep it up on stilts. But that’s what’s happening. That’s what people are celebrating in 1993, even though though Edward Said, Haidar Abdel-Shafi, Nabil Shaath, and many others recognized as an instrument of defeat, this Palestine, it’s done, Palestine has been lost. And even Hanan Ashrawi (b. 1946), Dr. Hahan Ashrawi, who recognizes what a loss this is, also agrees that it was still worthwhile because they didn’t want to relinquish the status of the PLO. And so people are not stupid.

 

This was a very logical decision. The PNC approves Oslo, approves the DOP. So this is also not necessarily just betrayal by the PLO, even though it is betrayal by the negotiating team in Oslo, which was the back channel secret negotiation, but the negotiators in Washington had no idea about. But just adding nuance here that there was a lot. The PLO in its own documentation says that they entered into Oslo and Dr. Nabil Shaath (b. 1938), who’s also one of my interlocutors, says, “We knew it was bad, but we entered on good faith.” And that faith obviously didn’t bear out for them. It didn’t do what they had hoped.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

There was a lot of corruption. I was in Gaza after Oslo and the PLO leadership were importing their duty free Mercedes and building villas. As you point out in the book, the PA (Palestinian Authority) spends most of its budget on internal security functioning in essence as a colonial police force, the hierarchy that’s willing to do that dirty work can live very well. But we’ve now reached a point, and of course in the elections in 2006, the PA lost, Hamas won even in the West Bank. So in many ways, I don’t know if you would agree, it’s nullified itself as a credible movement on behalf of the Palestinian people at this point. Would you agree?

 

Noura Erakat:

 

100%. I think that this is consensus amongst Palestinians, which is what’s so troubling that the PA, even according to Oslo, the PA is only meant to be an administrative body. It should deliver mail. It should pick up the trash. It should complete administrative functions. It was never appointed to lead the Palestinian liberation movement, which should have remained within the purview of the PLO. But we see a collapse of the PA in the PLO in a way that blurs these lines on the firsthand. And then instead what we see, it was supposed to have a temporary function until we moved into permanent status negotiations and the establishment of the Palestinian state. There’s never a mention of the Palestinian state, Chris. Even the negotiators themselves, Yitzhak Rabin (1922-1995) who is hailed as the peacemaker and assassinated for his willingness to enter into Oslo by an Israeli settler.

 

Even he says there will never be a Palestinian state. So this temporary arrangement should have only lasted for five years. Let alone now we’re above three decades, and the PA has been a very, very significant instrument part and parcel of Israel’s occupation regime. It is doing the work on behalf of Israel. It is coordinating security with Israel. It is arresting Palestinians. It is providing intelligence on where Palestinians are. It is actually entering into Palestinian public squares to beat Palestinians to suppress their protests, even now against the genocide in Gaza. Just think. Just think the fact that the public sector is bloated, but the primary part of the Palestinian public sector is the security sector. And that security sector is basically policing Palestinians to protect Israel settlement enterprises. I had said before, and I’m saying now again, that in contrast, there’s no dedication, for example, to invest in the agricultural sector.

 

Had the PA now collapsed with a PLO invested in an agricultural sector, it might’ve been able to create and cultivate an economy that can engage in boycott of Israeli goods even rather than be flooded with Israeli goods into the market. But this also goes hand in hand with the fact that the PLO has never even endorsed boycott. There’s still committed, even if it’s a state led, a truncated Palestinian state, to that structure at the expense of liberation. And why at the expense of liberation, because this is not inclusive of all Palestinians. It’s not inclusive of the Palestinian refugees. It’s certainly not inclusive of the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel, and it doesn’t have a vision of how is it that Palestinians are going to be free from Israeli dominance as opposed to what they’re banking on, which is an autonomy arrangement whereby they will forever receive certain incremental privileges from Israel and its patron, the United States, in exchange for being good natives.

 

And this is the trap that we remain in, and it puts Palestinians… It makes our struggles so much harder. And many people are asking, how is Gaza? And the West Bank too. I mean, obviously the West Bank is being subject to untold and unprecedented violence from the beginning of this year, but especially since early October. But Palestinians are not even able to mount a significant and a robust resistance to protect themselves because not only are they being attacked by Israel and their settler vigilantes who are being armed, but they’re also being attacked and policed by the Palestinian authority.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

You compare the PLO to the Namibians and you make some, I think, really important points about how they were far more astute. They rejected the South African peace process as an alternative. SWAPO refused to enter South Africa’s exclusive sphere of influence and maintain an adversarial position, unlike the PLO, which has committed to US mediated bilateral talks for 25 years, SWAPO never relinquished its right to the use of force, and it never ceased its armed struggle. Talk about the difference because they were far more successful. And then of course you had Cuban troops stationed in Angola.

 

Noura Erakat:

 

I bring up Namibia in the conclusion because there is, especially in the realm of Palestine, and we see this now because of the South Africa application at the ICJ, there is a way because of the failure of politics really, and a failure of a Palestinian leadership to articulate some sort of a political program and a resistance vision. And resistance here, I mean robustly like diplomatic resistance, economic resistance, popular resistance, cultural resistance, delegitimizing, a Zionist colonial project. Nothing. There’s nothing. And in the absence of that, unfortunately, human rights and rights-based programs have taken up an inordinate amount of space in a way that even supplants the language of politics that now Palestinian politics are hollowed out instead with principles of law, which is detrimental, is detrimental because the law is only a tool. That very same law like human rights law that Palestinians use to assert their right to family and their right to not be harmed.

 

Settlers in the West Bank are invoking that same body of law to say that it’s their human right to maintain these lands and to be protected and to be free of Israeli state violence. The law will set up a battleground only, but that can only be resolved through politics. And so I bring that to the fore to say, because so many people bring up Namibia as an example of a very astute use of the law. Here it is. Namibia waged a multi-year legal battle where they incrementally scaffolded a legal argument at the ICJ in order to demonstrate firstly and foremost the illegitimacy of South Africa as a mandatory power and a governing power in Namibia and South Africa. And then scaffolding on top of that other rights of their right to self-determination and so on and so forth. But it’s not because of this robust jurisprudence that the Namibians ultimately gain independence. That’s necessary.

 

That was strategic. That helped build a language to use. It helped cultivate international support. But ultimately it wasn’t a legal decision. South Africans don’t leave Namibia because the court said so, they could care less. Ultimately why they leave is because you have Cuban forces who are fighting alongside, who are in Angola that the US wants out of Angola. This becomes a proxy for the US and the Soviet Union and Cuba being involved, and part of that negotiation of withdrawal includes withdrawal from Namibia. So there are other things happening where this influences the United States and shifts its position on apartheid as well. But the Namibians, as you point out in and as I point out in the book, are also very astute. They never enter into a South African sphere of influence. They’re offered the same thing that Palestinians are offered in the form of black homelands and autonomous governance.

 

They reject that. They never rescind their right and to use armed force, which is enshrined as a result of the non-aligned movement, enshrined as a right for people living under alien occupation, racism and domination. So that matters too. Now, I say all that to say to the credit of the Palestinians that this environment in which Namibia is maneuvering or Namibians are maneuvering, excuse me, doesn’t exist by the time the Palestinians are entering into Oslo. In fact, we’re seeing Namibian and South African independence. Mandela has been released. We’re seeing the fall of apartheid. We see the fall of the Soviet Union. We see the emergence of a unipolar world. So this balance of power that really did enable a different kind of liberation struggle for Namibians is not available to the Palestinians at the time. And so we can sit here retrospectively and say, “Well, nothing could have been worse than what they’ve done now.”

 

But all of this is conjecture, obviously. I’m less concerned about the trap that Palestinians enter into based on this balance of power based on the political considerations. I’m more concerned that they haven’t shifted course and policy when it was clear. If you didn’t know the day of like Abdel-Shafi and Said than others, you certainly knew by 2000 when the Camp David agreement collapses. Now it’s over. [inaudible 00:51:44] is besieged and killed. That’s it. There’s no excuse. Because I want to give some benefit of the doubt that they thought they couldn’t get anything better. Fine. But by 2000, you knew that this was a dead end. So there’s absolutely no explanation why Palestinians would stay in that arrangement since 2000 through 2023, a quarter of a century, knowing full well, there’s no way out.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

Well, Palestinian Street. The average Palestinian has walked away from it. They walked away from it a long time ago.

 

Noura Erakat:

 

Even in this moment, the Palestinian liberation struggle’s not being led by an official Palestinian leadership, which makes this moment even more profound, that we’re Palestinian Diaspora, Palestinians on the ground. Everybody has been coordinating and working without a centralized governance system, certainly without any means and funding, and yet has been able to mobilize in a decentralized fashion.

 

The Boycott National Committee establishes itself in 2005, launches an international boycott divestment in sanctions movement. This is civil society. It has nothing to do with the Palestinian leadership. The way that Palestinians bring back a condemnation of Zionism, which we see first in the Durban Conference in 2001. The review conference of the decade against racism happens in Durban, South Africa in 2001, where Palestinians raise the banner and say, “Israel’s an apartheid regime, and Zionism is racism once again.” Palestinians have never relinquished that front, and we even see it in the realm of knowledge production where scholars have reconstructed very robustly, not only making clear that Israel is a settler colonial project, but that there’s an entire realm of Palestinian indigenous studies of tradition, of economy, of belonging, of family, all sorts of tradition of land use, of sea technology that could be studied, which brings us into 2024.

 

The reason we remain alive as a people is because the people have insisted that we are here.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

I want to close by talking about the resistance. That was more than a hundred days of saturation, bombing of Gaza, destruction of every form of infrastructure that can sustain existence from wells to hospitals, to bakeries to schools, horrific numbers of dead. I was in Sarajevo during the war, which was awful, three to 400 shells a day, four to five dead a day, two dozen wounded a day. I only say that as a comparison to Gaza, where hundreds of people are being wounded and killed a day just to point out the scale. And yet, US intelligence estimates that only 20 to 30% of resistance or fighters, Hamas fighters, have been killed. It’s becoming clear that if Israel does not achieve its goal, which I don’t see how it will of eradicating Hamas, and Hamas and the resistance survives, which I feel it will then in any way, the Palestinians win.

 

And however horrific Gaza becomes other than the Yemenis, the Houthis, nobody is intervening to halt this genocide despite all the legal bodies we have at the UN and everywhere else. But talk about the resistance and whether I know how I knew one of the founders of Hamas, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi (1947-2004) was in his house with him and his family. His wife was just killed on October 19th. And not by the way, the demonized image of a leader of Hamas. He was a pediatrician, highly educated, graduated first in his class from the University of Alexandria, very soft-spoken, brilliant figure, assassinated in 2004 along with one of his sons. Let’s talk about the resistance. And so whether you embrace the ideology of Hamas or not, for me, is irrelevant. I think it’s been amazingly successful.

 

Noura Erakat:

 

Well, I want to nuance this in many ways. I want to nuance this by having a lot of mixed feelings about strategy and moving forward. And I want to emphasize here, I think, and I understand, I understand this idea of that if they’re not defeated, they win, which is a tenant of asymmetric warfare and guerilla combat. But I can’t do that with ease, given the magnitude of loss and given just how painful it’s been.

 

Images that I saw last night are still ravaging me inside of what are we going to tell these kids who have suffered so much? 355,000 children because of dehydration are at risk of permanent, cognitive, under development and stunting, right? So it’s hard for me, Chris, as much as if they’re not defeated, obviously I don’t want them to be defeated. And what people don’t understand when they say that is because surrender doesn’t bring us back to an ordinary life, which is normally what war looks like. You fight, you fight, you fight, you fight, and then one party surrenders because then you just go back to ordinary life. Palestinians don’t go back to an ordinary life. So surrender is not an option. At the same time, I want to take time to mourn. Palestinians have not had time to mourn. There is such deep devastation that’s generational, that’s traumatic, that’s social, that’s political that I want to honor and hold here. And it’s very painful. It’s just very, very painful.

 

And I don’t know what we do. I don’t know what we do because not only are we holding onto that pain, but now we have in Israel a society that is not just quasi okay with an apartheid racist regime. They have literally become avid supporters of genocide as a matter of rights. They’re fascists, society, media, children are taunting their elders, their principal for expressing empathy for Palestinians. For me, I paused to say, what is the victory here when now we have to deal with a society? What is the exit plan? How do you defeat fascism in a world where it’s being nurtured by Germany and the United States and Britain and Canada? They’re applauding them. And so where is the accountability here? So I just countenance the language of victory, to be honest, and I know that puts me at odds and probably deflates a lot of people who want to hear something else, and I just want to ground this in something else of what it means that Israel cannot decimate Hamas military.

 

They cannot. There is no military solution. There is no military solution. They cannot decimate Hamas. They haven’t. Hamas is still firing rockets from the middle of Gaza City. As you point out, they’ve not even decimated half of their militants in the Gaza Strip. They’ve not turned the Palestinians against Hamas, which was part of their military objective. If anything, they’ve made Hamas more popular and robust, not only amongst Palestinians, across the air world and the world in general. And they’re not any closer to retrieving their captive, their captive military personnel or rescuing their civilian hostages, which they were only able to retrieve and return through diplomatic negotiations. Someone has to ask, how can you justify the 11th most significant military in the world? Be trust by US intelligence, with advanced weapons technology that has had no red lines for over a hundred days, that has not even come close to achieving any of its military objectives, but has certainly destroyed Palestinian life, conditions of life that’s promising devastation into the future.

 

We have to agree that anybody who’s now supporting this is outright supporting a terroristic program that’s basically targeting Palestinian civilians, as put by Professor [inaudible 01:01:51], Palestinian civilians are clearly the military objectives. Hamas is the collateral damage.

 

So I think that we have to use this to agree that there is no way out, but that the road ahead is what we absolutely need to keep our eyes on. For me, victory is liberation. Victory is a world where Palestinians are recognized as having human life that is sacred and worthy of protection and deserving of self-defense, which Palestinians have asserted over and over and refused to relinquish. I cannot believe this is in controversy.

 

And so insofar as the cessation, for me, first and foremost, the cessation of hostilities is necessary just to end the genocide. And then insofar as it demonstrates there’s no military solution and exposes that Zionism is predicated on just a genocidal program that’s an ongoing Nakba in their own words, Avi Dichter (b. 1952) said it clearly, “This is Gaza.” Gaza Nakba 2023. They’ve equated their peace and security to genocide and ethnic cleansing. In so far as it illuminates that in order to get us to the threshold that it’s not controversial, that it’s not controversial, that Palestinians deserve life.

 

Chris Hedges:

 

Thank you. That was Noura Erakat, human rights attorney and assistant professor at Rutgers University. I want to thank the Real News Network and his production team, Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley, David Hebden, and Kayla Rivara. You can find me at chrishedges.substack.com.

 

This article first appeared on The Real News Network and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The Hmong (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, IPA: [m̥ɔ̃ŋ]) are an ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Hmong are also one of the sub-groups of the Miao ethnicity (苗族) in southern China. Hmong groups began a gradual southward migration in the 18th century due to political unrest and to find more arable land.

 

During the first and second Indochina Wars, France and the United States recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from north and south Vietnam and communist Pathet Lao insurgents, known as the Secret War, during the Vietnam War and the Laotian Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Hmong refugees fled to Thailand seeking political asylum. Thousands of these refugees have resettled in Western countries since the late 1970s, mostly the United States, but also in Australia, France, French Guiana, Canada, and Argentina. Others have returned to Laos under United Nations-sponsored repatriation programs.

 

SUBCULTURES

Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der and Hmong Leng are the terms for two of the largest groups in America and Southeast Asia. In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Moob Leeg/Moob Ntsuab (Blue/Green Mong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.

 

White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.

 

VIETNAM

Vietnamese Hmong women continuing to wear 'traditional' clothing tend to source much of their clothing as 'ready to wear' cotton (as opposed to traditional hemp) from markets, though some add embroidery as a personal touch. In SaPa, now with a 'standardised' clothing look, Black Hmong sub-groups have differentiated themselves by adopting different headwear; those with a large comb embedded in their long hair (but without a hat) call themselves Tao, those with a pillbox hat name themselves Giay, and those with a checked headscarf are Yao. For many, such as Flower Hmong, the heavily beaded skirts and jackets are manufactured in China.

 

NOMENCLATURE

In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by many Hmong people and are infrequently used today outside of Southeast Asia.

 

The Hmong people were also referred to by some European writers as the "Kings of the Jungle," because they used to live in the jungle of Laos. Because the Hmong lived mainly in the highland areas of Southeast Asia and China, the French occupiers of Southeast Asia gave them the name Montagnards or "mountain people", but this should not be confused with the Degar people of Vietnam, who were also referred to as Montagnards.

 

HMONG, MONG AND MIAO

Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group, but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adapted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.

 

In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was actually members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"-taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.

 

Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders, reflect a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao."

 

HISTORY

The Hmong claim an origin in the Yellow River region of China. According to Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied the same areas of southern China for at least the past 2,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong-Mien-speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although Hmong-speaking populations show more contact with Han than Mien populations. Chinese sources describe that area being inhabited by 'Miao' people, a group with whom Hmong people are often identified.

 

The ancient town of Zhuolu, is considered to be the legendary birthplace of the Miao. Today, a statue of Chi You, widely proclaimed as the first Hmong king, has been erected in the town. The Guoyu book, considers Chi You’s Jui Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San Miao people

 

CULTURE

The Hmong culture usually consists of a dominant hierarchy within the family. Males hold dominance over females and thus, a father is considered the head in each household. Courtships take place during the night when a man goes to visit a woman at her house and tries to woo her with sweet-talks through the thin walls of the house where the woman's bedroom may be located. If a man kidnaps an unwilling woman as a bride, she would have to marry him or risk having a tarnished reputation.

 

Today, bridenapping is uncommon because those marriages can end in divorce since women are no longer afraid of a tarnished reputation. During a marriage, the man pays the woman's family for taking away a daughter who is economically essential to her parents. Hmong women retain their own maiden names following marriage, but attends to the ancestors of their husbands. The children they bear take their husbands' clan names. Consequently, the Hmong favour having sons over daughters because sons perpetuate the clan.

 

The Hmong practice shamanism and ancestor worship. Like other animists, they also believe that all things are endowed with spiritual beings and so should be respected.

 

See Anne Fadiman's ethnography: The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down for more info.

 

Hmong families in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos practice subsistence agriculture, supplemented by hunting and some foraging. Although they have chickens, pigs and cows, the traditional staple of the Hmong consists mostly of vegetable dishes and rice. Domestic animals are highly valued and killed for consumption only during special events such as the New Year's Festival or during events such as a birth, marriage, or funeral ritual.

 

GEOGRAPHY

Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.

 

In China the majority of the Hmong today live in Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan. The Hmong population is estimated at 3 million. No precise census data exist on the Hmong in China since China does not officially recognise the ethnonym Hmong and instead, clusters that group within the wider Miao group (8,940,116 in 2000). A few centuries ago, the lowland Chinese started moving into the mountain ranges of China's southwest. This migration, combined with major social unrest in southern China in the 18th and 19th century, served to cause some minorities of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan to migrate south. A number of Hmong thus settled in the ranges of the Indochina Peninsula to practise subsistence agriculture.

 

Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.

At the 2009 national census, there were 1,068,189 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the opium poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong have started moving to the Central Highlands and some have crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.

 

In 2005, the Hmong in Laos numbered 460,000. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.

 

After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad. Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.

 

In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, many Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.

 

Burma most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.

 

As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. California became home to half this group, while the remainder went to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Montana, and North Carolina. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.

 

WIKIPEDIA

Proud Breastfeeding moms

Proud Breastfeeding moms

Proud Breastfeeding moms

GUIDE AND SUPERVISION... Holistic Way, Super Vision, Eye Nutrition...pineal gland create inner light and super vision of your dreams...Lighting is a standout amongst the most imperative components in home stylistic layout. A decent lighting makes a feeling of warmth and inviting interest in the house. It likewise empowers you to perform every day errands well, makes you agreeable and above all outwardly upgrades the room.

 

Abstract: Sustainability has the potential to provide a holistic framework that can bridge the gap that is often found between socio-economic justice and environmental discourses. However, sustainability and sustainability education have typically accepted the prevailing socio-economic and cultural paradigm. It is my aim in this paper to demonstrate that a truly holistic and visionary sustainability (education) framework ought to demand radical and critical theories and solutions- based approaches to politicize and interrogate the premises, assumptions, and biases linked to the dominant notion of sustainability. If we are to envision and construe actual sustainable futures, we must first understand what brought us here, where the roots of the problems lie, and how the sustainability discourse and framework tackle—or fail to tackle—them. To do this is to politicize sustainability, to build a critical perspective of and about sustainability. It is an act of conscientização (or conscientization), to borrow Paulo Freire’s seminal term, of cultivating critical consciousness and conscience. In lieu of the standard articulation of politics as centralized state administration, ‘critical sustainability studies’ is based on a framing that gives prominence to a more organic, decentralized engagement of conscientious subjects in the creation of just, regenerative eco-social relations. It illuminates the ideological and material links between society, culture, and ecology by devoting particular attention to how knowledge and discourse around and across those realms are generated and articulated. I believe that future scholarship and activism in sustainability and sustainability-related fields would benefit immensely from dialoguing with this framework.

 

The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.

 

– Murray Bookchin, The Meaning of Confederalism, 1990

   

Introduction: Why Sustainability (and Sustainability Education)?

 

Despite conflicting opinions over what the terms ‘sustainability’ and its variant ‘sustainable development’ actually mean, the framework of sustainability has gained a lot of traction in the last two decades. Its Western origins can be traced back to the writings of Western philosophers and seminal environmentalists like John Locke and Aldo Leopold (Spoon, 2013). Redclift (2005) asserts that sustainability as an idea was first used during the ‘limits to growth’ debates in the 1970s and the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference. Perhaps the most commonly quoted definition of sustainable development is that of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) who states that “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43).

 

Sustainability has the potential to provide a holistic framework that can bridge the gap that is often found between socio-economic justice and environmental discourses. After all, recent scholarship indicates that the issue of environmental quality is inevitably linked to that of human equity (Morello-Frosch, 1997; Torras & Boyce, 1998; see Agyeman, Bullard, & Evans, 2002), and thus they need to be thought about together. I hold that an actual sustainable society is one where wider matters of social and economic needs are intrinsically connected to the dynamic limits set by supporting ecosystems and environments.

 

Sustainability education has emerged as an effort to acknowledge and reinforce these interrelationships and to reorient and transform education along the lines of social and ecological well-being (Sterling, 2001). By being rooted in whole systems thinking, i.e. “the ability to collectively analyze complex systems across different domains (society, environment, and economy) and across different scales (local to global)” (Wiek, Withycombe, & Redman, 2011, p. 207), sustainability education strives to illuminate the complexities associated with the broad, problem-oriented, solution-driven nature of sustainability (Warren, Archambault, & Foley, 2014). If we are to devise cultural systems that are truly regenerative, this “novel” brand of education urges the teaching of the fundamental facts of life by stewarding learning communities that comprehend the adaptive qualities of ecological patterns and principles (Stone, 2012). Sustainability education highlights the centrality of ‘place’ as a unit of inquiry to devise reciprocal—and thus sustainable—relationships where one nourishes and is nourished by their surrounding social and ecological milieus (Williams & Brown, 2012).

 

Additionally, sustainability and, as a consequence, sustainability education are future- oriented and therefore demand ‘futures thinking’: the ability to assess and formulate nuanced pictures of the future vis-à-vis sustainability predicaments and sustainability problem-solving schemes (Wiek, et al., 2011). In a nutshell, futures thinking suggests that we need to imagine the potential ramifications of past and current human activities by critically analyzing them today if we are to conceive of new, more sustainable futures (Warren et al., 2014). Future studies can therefore help people to pursue their “ontological vocation” as history makers (Freire, 1993, p. 66) and to (re)claim their agency as a means of creating the world in which they wish to live (Inayatullah, 2007).

 

However, sustainability and sustainability education have typically accepted the prevailing socio-economic and cultural paradigm despite their apparent holistic intent and(theoretical) efforts to reconcile the three pillars of sustainability—equity, environment, and economy. Whether intentionally or not, they have promoted curative solutions instead of reflecting new, critical mindsets that can actually generate meaningful socio-cultural innovation by naming and discursively dismantling the systems and processes that are the root causes of the complex problems we face. And, as Albert Einstein once put it, “no problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it.”

 

It is my aim in this paper to demonstrate that a truly holistic and visionary sustainability (education) framework ought to demand radical (of, relating to, or proceeding from a root) and critical (of, relating to, or being a turning point) theories and solutions-based approaches to politicize and interrogate the premises, assumptions, and biases linked to the dominant notion of sustainability.

 

Troubling (Monolithic) Sustainability

 

In order to be able to unveil and critically analyze the propositions and suppositions of what I call ‘the monolithic sustainability discourse,’ it is fundamental to start with the etymology of the word ‘sustainability’ itself. The operationalization of the term can be problematic for it implies prior judgments about what is deemed important or necessary to sustain. While some of these judgements might resonate with an array of environmentalists who perceive that the health of the planet and the well-being of our descendants are being—or are already—compromised by certain human activities, various other perilous premises and assumptions are generally left unacknowledged as a result of the depoliticized character of the dominant discourse of sustainability. Lele and Norgaard (1996) have put forward three questions that can help us to uncover and think more critically about these presuppositions in and across various contexts and scales: (a) what is to be sustained, at what scale, and in what form?; (b) over what time period, with what level of certainty?; (c) through what social process(es), and with what trade-offs against other social goals? (p. 355).

 

By building on these critical questions and clarifications, we can better understand the nuances of how the destructive and thus unsustainable ethos of dehumanization and socio- ecological exploitation may inform and permeate normative notions and articulations of sustainability. Yet, this is only plausible if sustainability is politicized. To politicize is to engage the existing state of socio-political affairs, to problematize that which is taken for granted, to make explicit the power relations that are an innate part of everyday life and experience (Bailey & Gayle, 2003). In an attempt to comprehend why sustainability is typically depoliticized we ought to examine briefly its discursive history.

 

The term ‘sustainable development’ became a part of the policy discourse and almost every day language following the release of the Brundtland Commission’s report on the global environment and development in 1987 (Redclift, 2005). While their definition included a very clear social directive, its human and political dimensions have been largely overlooked amongst references to sustainability, which, due to its environmental origins (Lele & Norgaard, 1996) and neoliberal focus on rights rather than needs (Redclift, 2005), have typically focused on bio- physical, ecological issues (Vallance, Perkins, & Dixon, 2011). Social sustainability, which has been conceptualized in response to the failure of the sustainability approach to engender substantial change (Vallance et al., 2011), is the least developed of the three realms and is frequently framed in relation to ecological and/or economic sustainability (Magis & Shinn, 2013). I assert that the reason for this is twofold: first and foremost, the sustainability agenda was conceived by international committees and NGO networks, think tanks, and governmental structures (Agyeman et al., 2002), which makes it a top-down approach and, consequently, less likely to recognize and address themes such as structural poverty, equity, and justice (Colantonio, 2009); and second, because social sustainability is made subservient to economics and the environment, it fails to examine the socio-political circumstances and elements that are needed to sustain a community of people (Magis & Shinn, 2013).

 

Sustainability, since its inception as a Western construct, has been progressively viewed as a crucial driver in economic development and environmental management worldwide. Nevertheless, as delineated above, its almost universal focus on reconciling the growth model of economics and the environment has served to covertly depoliticize the dominant discourse and therefore render it uncontentious if not intrinsically benign. It is worth further exploring the dynamics of depoliticization for I believe they are at the radicle of the issues sustainability attempts to address in the first place.

 

Bailey and Gayle (2003) identify a series of acts that can be associated with the dynamics of depoliticization, three of which can be observed when examining the monolithic sustainability discourse: (a) eschewing political discourse; (b) removing from the discourse the recognition that social advantages are given to certain constituent groups; (c) not disclosing underlying viewpoints or values. These processes are enmeshed with intricate ideological instances that help to mask the systemic and/or structural nature of a social or cultural matter (Bailey & Gayle, 2003). Further, as Foucault (1984) has stated, “power is everywhere” (p. 93) and it is embodied and enacted in discourse and knowledge. Hence, possessing the analytical tools to name and unpack these discursive ideological formations and power dynamics ought to be a prerequisite to the development of more holistic and critically conscious understandings and applications of sustainability.

 

Politicizing Sustainability

 

If we are to envision and construe actual sustainable futures, we must first understand what brought us here, where the roots of the problems lie, and how the sustainability discourse and framework tackle—or fail to tackle—them. To do this is to politicize sustainability, to build a critical perspective of and about sustainability. It is an act of conscientização (or conscientization), to borrow Paulo Freire’s seminal term, of cultivating critical consciousness and conscience (Freire, 1993). It is a call for the necessity to highlight, problematize, and disrupt what I have termed ‘the ethos of unsustainability’ and its interrelated ideologies of dehumanization and exploitation. Ultimately, to embrace a stance that fails to scrutinize the sources of degradation and exploitation is to uphold the power relations that sustain oppressive structures (Freire, 1993; Perry, 2001). I assert that only by delving into the origins of the ‘ethos of unsustainability’ can we really devise sustainability paradigms that are capable of promoting significant socio-cultural transformation.

 

To comprehend the contours of the predicaments that loom on our horizon as well as their premises and logics, we must go back over 500 years in history to 1492, the year that marks the beginning of the current colonial era and the globalization of the European colonial imaginary (Tuck and Yang, 2012). It is important to note that my intention in doing so is not to provide a sweeping, all-encompassing description of this genealogy/historical process, but rather, to simply name, connect, and emphasize the ideological systems and patterns that have been conceptualized and reconceptualized so as to sustain the ethos of unsustainability and its exploitative power structures. After all, as Freire (1993) has indicated, “to name the world is to change it” (p. 88).

 

(World) Capitalism: A Technology of European Colonialism

 

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the word ‘colonialism’ stems from the Roman word ‘colonia,’ which meant ‘settlement’ or ‘farm.’ The OED describes it as:

 

… a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state; the community so formed, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors, as long as the connection with the parent state is kept up.

 

In Colonialism/Postcolonialism, Ania Loomba (2001) points out that this definition fails to link the word ‘colonialism’ to its ideologies of conquest and domination as it eschews any testimonial about those peoples who were already living in the places where the colonies were formalized. She offers another, more nuanced definition that hints to the processes of conquest and control of other peoples’ land and resources (Loomba, 2001, p. 2):

 

The process of ‘forming a community’ in the new land necessarily meant unforming or re-forming the communities that existed there already, and involved a wide range of practices including trade, plunder, negotiation, warfare, genocide, slavement and rebellions.

 

Loomba (2001) illuminates that while European colonialisms from the late fifteenth century onwards included a miscellany of patterns of domination and exploitation, it was a combination of these patterns that generated the economic disparity required for the maturation and expansion of European capitalism and industrial civilization; thus, capitalism demands the maintenance of colonial expansion in order to flourish. In spite of colonialism not being a monopoly of capitalism because it could be—and has been—utilized by so-called ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ states as well (Dirlik, 2002), capitalism is a technology of colonialism that has been developed and re-structured over time as a means of advancing European colonial projects (Tuck and Yang, 2012). Colonialism was the instrument through which capitalism was able to reach its status as a global, master frame (Loomba, 2001).

 

A distinction between the three historical modes of colonialism might help to further elucidate the interrelationships between capitalism and colonialism.

 

Theories of coloniality as well as postcolonial theories typically acknowledge two brands of colonialism: external colonialism, which involves the appropriation of elements of Indigenous worlds in order to build the wealth and the power of the colonizers—the first world—, and internal colonialism, the bio- and geo-political management of people and land within the borders of a particular nation-state (Tuck and Yang, 2012). A third form, settler colonialism, is more suitable to describe the operationalization of colonialisms in which the colonizers arrive and make a new home on the land (Tuck and Yang, 2012). The settler objective of gaining control over land and resources by removing the local, Indigenous communities is an ongoing structure that relies on private property schemes and coercive systems of labor (Glenn, 2015).

 

In these processes of colonialism, land is conceived primarily if not exclusively as commodity and property, and human relationships to the land are only legitimized in terms of economic ownership (Tuck and Yang, 2012). These combined colonialist ideologies of commodification and private property are at the core of the various political economies of capitalism that are found in today’s globalized world (O’Sullivan, 2005). By relying on the appropriation of land and commodities through the “elimination of the Native” (Wolfe, 2006, p. 387), European colonialisms wind up restructuring non-capitalist economies so as to fuel European capitalism (Loomba, 2001). The globalization of the world is thereby the pinnacle of a process that started with the formation of the United States of America as the epitome of a Euro- centered, settler colonialist world power (Quijano, 2000).

 

Inspired by the European colonial imaginary, which transforms differences and diversity into a hierarchy of values (Mignolo, 2000) as well as by economic liberalism, which erases the production and labor contexts from the economy (Straume, 2011), the capitalist imaginary constitutes a broad depoliticization that disconnects its ‘social imaginary significations’ from the political sphere (Straume, 2011). Given that capitalism is imbued with European diffusionist constructs (Blaut, 1989), namely ‘progress,’ ‘development,’ and ‘modernity,’ the depoliticization of this now globalized imaginary is required not only to maintain the resilience of capitalism as a master frame (Straume, 2011), but also to camouflage its interconnectedness to European colonial systems.

 

Antonio Gramsci’s (1971) study and articulation of the conceptualization and operation of ideologies proves fruitful in terms of understanding how the capitalist imaginary has been used to facilitate processes of globalization that benefit European colonialisms. He argued that ideologies are invaluable when manufacturing consent as they are the means through which certain ideas and meanings are not only transmitted, but held to be true (Gramsci, 1971). Hence, hegemony, the power garnered through a combination of ideologies and coercion, is attained by playing with people’s common sense (Gramsci, 1971) and their lived system of meanings and values (Williams, 1976; see Loomba, 2001). Since subjectivity and ideology are key to the expansionist capitalist endeavor and its interrelated logics of commodification and domination (Gramsci, 1971), it becomes necessary to summon and dissect the colonial ideas and belief systems that have served and continue to serve as its conduits. This can in turn help us to interrogate the value systems and mental models that directly and/or indirectly inform the dominant notion of sustainability (education).

 

White Supremacist, Heteropatriarchal State Capitalism

 

As devised and practiced by Europeans and, later, by other Euro-centered powers such as the United States, colonial ideologies of race and racial structures smooth the way for capitalist production (Wolfe, 2006). The Eurocentric construct of race as “a system of discrimination, hierarchy and power” (Olson, 2004, xvii, p. 127-128) conveys colonial experience and infuses the most essential realms of world power and its hierarchies (Quijano, 2000). The state and its many institutions are particularly pivotal in sustaining these racialized ideologies that are obligatory for the development and continuance of capitalism (Loomba, 2001).

 

Slavery, as the foundation of notions of race and capitalist empire and one of the pillars of white supremacy, marks the concepts of ‘progress’ and ‘development’ as white (Painter, 2010) and renders black people as innately enslaveable, as nothing more than private property (Smith, 2010a). Within the context of the United States, the forms of slavery can and, indeed, have changed—from chattel slavery, to sharecropping, and more recently, to the prison industrial complex, which is still grounded in the premise that black bodies are an indefinite property of the state (Smith, 2010a)—yet, slavery as a logic of white supremacy has persisted (Smith, 2010a). The other two pillars of white supremacy are genocide, which expresses the need for Indigenous Peoples to always be disappearing, and orientalism, which builds on Edward Said’s influential term to explain how certain peoples and/or nations are coded as inferior and, therefore, a constant threat to the security and longevity of imperial states (Smith, 2010a).

 

The pillars of white supremacy may vary according to historical and geographical contexts (Smith, 2010a). Nonetheless, the centering of whiteness is generally what defines a colonial project. The formation of whiteness, or white identity, as a racialized class orientation stems from political efforts by capitalist elites and lawmakers to divide and conquer large masses of workers (Battalora, 2013). White identity is perhaps one of the most successful colonial and capitalist inventions since it “operates as a kind of property … with effects on social confidence and performance that can be empirically documented” (Alcoff, 2015, p. 23). It is a very dynamic category that can be enlarged to extend its privileges to others when white supremacist social and economic relations are jeopardized (Painter, 2010). It sustains itself, at least partially, by evading scrutiny and shifting the discursive focus to ‘non-whites’ (Silva, 2007). Whiteness is to be made invisible by remaining the norm, the standard, that which ought not to be questioned.

 

Capitalism therefore depends on and magnifies these racial hierarchies centered on whiteness. And, since race is imbricated and constructed simultaneously with gender, sexuality, ability, and other colonial categories—a conceptualization that serves to obscure white supremacy in state discourses and interventions (Kandaswamy, 2012)—, it is crucial to investigate the other ideologies that also shape class formation processes.

 

Heteropatriarchy, the combination of patriarchal and heterosexual control based on rigid and dichotomous gender identities—man and woman—and sexual orientations—heterosexual and homosexual—where one identity or orientation dominates the other, is another building block of colonialism. Patriarchy is employed to naturalize hierarchical relations within families and at a larger, societal level (Smith, 2010b). Similarly, heteronormativity paints heterosexual nuclear-domestic arrangements as normative (Arvin, Tuck, and Morrill, 2013) and is thus the bedrock of the colonial nation-state (Smith, 2010b). These social and cultural systems that configure heteropatriarchy are then apprehended as normal and natural whereas other arrangements or proclivities are demonized and perceived as repulsive and abnormal (Arvin et al., 2013). Heteropatriarchy is directly linked to colonial racial relations as it portrays white manhood as supreme and entitled to control over private property and to political sovereignty (Glenn, 2015). This indicates that the process of producing and managing gender frequently functions as a racial project that normalizes whiteness (Kandaswamy, 2012).

 

The laws and policies that were designed to institutionalize the formation of whiteness and white supremacy demonstrate that race, class, and gender are intertwined systems that uphold, constitute, and reconstitute each other (Battalora, 2013). The state and its ideological institutions are therefore major sites of racial struggle (Kandaswamy, 2012); they are responsible for devising and constantly revising the rationale that guides a white supremacist, heteropatriarchal settler colonialism grounded in the need to manufacture collective consent. These discourses are rooted in a pervasive state process that combines coercive state arbitration with societal consent by articulating the ideologies that link racial structure and representation as an effort to reorganize and distribute resources according to specific racial lines (Ferguson, 2012).

 

Despite increasing globalizing neoliberal urges toward deregulation and privatization, capitalism is still enabled and supported by the state. Its ‘ideological apparatuses,’ the state institutions and ideologies that enable and support the classist structure of capitalist societies (Althusser, 1989), is still fundamental to the expansion of capitalist enterprises; the nation-state is capitalism’s atomic component. The neoliberal state has utilized innovations in methods of social discipline and control along with legal practices to facilitate the process of economic globalization (Gill, 1995). Yet, all these schemes that involve retention of power through dominance and manufactured consent are rooted in divide and conquer strategies that cause those in subservient positions in society to engage in conflicts with one another (Hagopian, 2015). The interlinked logics and ideologies of white supremacy and heteropatriarchy conceived by state capitalism serve to spur dissent between potential opponents and thereby further stratify socio-economic classes. This prevents them from building a unified basis that can present a tangible threat to the status quo (Hagopian, 2015). Colonial and neocolonial powers have repeatedly deployed this stratagem to not only increase their geographical reach, but also to normalize and standardize the economic growth model of capitalism.

 

Colonialism is hence not just an ancient, bygone incident. The ideologies and processes delineated above demonstrate that it has remained very much in effect within contemporary capitalist and neoliberal frameworks (Preston, 2013). It then becomes critical to investigate how the dominant sustainability discourse may or may not collude in these schemes so that we may conceive of holistic blueprints that beget positive socio-ecological transformation.

 

Sustainability and Colonialism: Contradiction or Conscious Ideological Maneuver?

 

By unearthing what I believe are the roots of the predicament that sustainability attempts to heal, namely the ethos of dehumanization and exploitation rooted in divide and conquer systems, it becomes easier to analyze how the colonial political economy of capitalism may conserve hegemonic ideologies that pervade social relations and knowledge generating processes.

 

Yet, these ideologies and knowledge schemes have been given minimal attention in sustainability (education) scholarship. Even though some academics have contributed to the generation of a more critical comprehension of the interrelationships between capitalism, environmental degradation, and socio-economic justice (see Cachelin, Rose, & Paisley, 2015; Martusewicz, Edmundson, & Lupinacci, 2011; Pellow & Brulle, 2005), this major blindspot in linking sustainability to the colonial imaginary and its legacies prompts the following questions:(awhy are critiques of colonialism and capitalism so infrequent in the sustainability literature?: (a) why are critiques of colonialism and capitalism so infrequent in the sustainability literature?; and (b) how does that impact the discourse of sustainability?

 

I assert that, in spite of calls for paradigm shifts, the dominant disancourse of sustainability in the West embodies a transnational, globalized standard of economic growth. The promise that economic development can eradicate or at least alleviate poverty and hunger in a sustainable way reflects some of the same goals and values of the optimistic ‘ecological modernization’ concept and perspective, which suggest that the development and modernization of liberal capitalism result in improvements in ecological outcomes (Buttel, 2000). The neoliberal, capitalist overtones of sustainable development not only expose the contradiction inherent in the term, but they also serve to further commodify nature (Cock, 2011). This neoliberalization of nature, which has recently gained a lot of attention in the corporate world and academia under the lexicon of ‘ecosystem services,’ alienates people from their physical surroundings and therefore reinforces the society-nature divide. In short, the sustainability discourse has been appropriated by the capitalist master frame and has transformed most if not all social and ecological relations into financial ones. In lieu of addressing social and environmental justice issues, this form of “green” or “natural” capitalism is responsible for deepening both social and environmental inequalities (Cock, 2011).

 

Since sustainability (education) is (supposed to be) a praxis-oriented framework that symbiotically combines thought and action for transformative, liberatory ends, it ought to embrace this critique of colonial capitalism and the subsequent neoliberalization of the political economy if it is to oppose and resist hegemonic ideologies in its multiple and diverse manifestations. After all, whether intentionally or not, what matters in the end is that those discourses of sustainability that do not take a stance against colonialism and capitalism only serve to preserve them and the status quo. An understanding of these interdependent systems allows for the development of critical sustainability dialogues and actions that can actually promote the paradigmatic shifts required to redress the socio-cultural problems that are at the heart of the environmental crises. Thus, sustainability can and should be reframed to suggest a process of personal, social, and cultural conscientization that is environmentally sound, i.e. one that follows ecological principles and patterns, instead of upholding the dehumanizing, exploitative, and paradoxical ‘development as growth’ standard of global capitalism.

 

The following section combines the analyses and critiques presented in the preceding (sub)sections into a single, cohesive, and holistic framework, and further elucidates the distinctions between monolithic sustainability and critical sustainabilities.

 

The Framework of Critical Sustainability Studies

 

[T]he political cannot be restricted to a certain type of institution, or envisioned as constituting a specific sphere or level of society. It must be conceived as a dimension that is inherent to every human society and that determines our very ontological condition.

 

- Chantal Mouffe, The Return of the Political, 2005

 

‘Critical sustainability studies,’ while not exactly novel in the sense that it draws on principles, concepts, and positions that are foundational to other frameworks and fields—more specifically, critical Indigenous and ethnic studies, postcolonial theory, queer theory, feminist theory, crip theory, social ecology, political ecology, and cultural studies—, presents itself as an alternative to the sustainability theories and conceptualizations that have failed to engage a truly intersectional analysis of dominant sustainability and environmental discourses, policies, and practices. Its primary objective is to rearticulate sustainability as it has the potential to provide a more holistic conception of conscientization that can bridge the gap between social and economic justice and environmental sustainability.

 

The framework indicates a crucial double political intervention: to put sustainability and critical theory in conversation; to embed sustainability and ecology into critical theory and vice- versa. As I discussed in the previous section, sustainability has, for the most part, become a hegemonic and, therefore, highly problematic discourse that refuses to transform the complex ideologies and systems that undergird the ethos of unsustainability and the current socio- ecological crises. On the other hand, critical theory, which seeks to extend the consciousness of the human self as a social being within the context of dominant power structures and their knowledge management operations (Kincheloe, 2005), could benefit from incorporating ecological principles and the sustainability notion of ‘place’ into its analytical toolbox. After all, I am as interested in localizing critical knowledge—without disconnecting it from global matters and realities—as I am in putting forth more critical and radical views of sustainability. Hence, this framework brings together what I believe are some of the most robust and cutting edge theories and methodologies to facilitate the deconstruction of the questionable ideologies that guide Western epistemologies like (hegemonic) sustainability.

 

Critical sustainability studies encourages sustainability scholars and/or educators to move from a defined methodology of problem-solving to the more critical moment of calling something into question (Freire, 1993). By rooting it in conscientization, I propose an orientation to sustainability and sustainable development that politicizes and reveals it as an agenda, discourse, and knowledge system that ought to be contested and rearticulated so that it can incorporate and critically engage with emancipatory understandings of power and power relations. Furthermore, by problematizing and closing the culture-nature divide, it can lay down the groundwork for the paradigmatic changes necessary to heal widespread colonialist alienation from the wider ecological community and to create visions of deep sustainabilities that can engender ecologically sound socio-cultural transformation.

 

I stress that the notion of sustainabilities is necessary if we have the intention of opposing and displacing the monolithic, top-down and now universalized sustainability agenda, which I refer to as ‘big S Sustainability.’ After all, much like science (Parry, 2006), sustainability is not the property of any one culture or language. There are different ways of seeing and knowing sustainability, so it is time to pluralize it in the literature and discourse. This simple act is an extraordinary intervention in itself because within the colonial imaginary “sustainability” means “Western sustainability.” By centering “novel” understandings of sustainability that are concerned with the specificities of geo-political, cultural, and historical contexts and power relations, sustainability scholars and educators can create theories and visions of sustainability that can lead to the development of more just, place-based cultures and social ecologies.

 

Critical sustainability studies as I envision it is a consciousness-raising exercise that is particularly useful in educational settings. It indicates methodology as much as content. This praxis-oriented framework can help teachers and students alike to develop consciousness of freedom and to acknowledge authoritarian socio-cultural tendencies that have toxic environmental ramifications. The next section provides an overview of its tenets, the educational philosophy that underpins it, as well as the four preliminary methodological principles and examples of related pedagogical interventions that directly inform the framework and its liberatory, decolonizing ambitions.

 

Epistemological Position, Preliminary Methodological Principles, and Pedagogical Interventions for Conscientization

 

The epistemological, methodological, and pedagogical implications of critical sustainability studies are rooted in an ethical and political vision, one that is found in the vast majority of social ecology and political ecology projects: that “the domination of nature by man [sic] stems from the very real domination of human by human” (Bookchin, 2005, p. 1). In other words, we cannot overcome the ecological crisis unless we rid ourselves of the colonial ideologies of domination and hierarchy that permeate all forms of systemic and systematic exploitation and dehumanization. While much easier said than done, critical sustainability studies seeks to conceptualize this vision by building on the following tenets:

 

That sustainability and sustainability education are not neutral, they either advance or regress justice and Critical sustainability studies strives to promote justice and ecological regeneration.

That an analysis of power is central to understanding and engendering positive socio-cultural Critical sustainability studies strives to be conscious of power relations and to identify power inequalities and their implications.

That it is crucial to foreground the sociocultural identities and experiences of those who have been (most) oppressed – people of color, people with disabilities, queer and transgender people, the working class and the economically poor, undocumented immigrants, Critical sustainability studies acknowledges that just, healthy cultures and societies can only be cultivated if we examine the circumstances that cause and maintain socio-economic marginalization.

That positive socio-cultural transformation comes from the bottom up. Critical sustainability studies emphasizes and advocates a collective and decentralized approach to sustainable change.

And, finally, that the human community is inherently a part of rather than apart from the wider ecological world. Critical sustainability studies affirms that this relational ethos serves as the epistemological foundation of novel, dynamic worlds where healing and justice are at the front and center of our cultural and ecological identities.

In addition to delineating critical sustainability studies as a praxis that is founded on the above tenets, the framework is guided by a critical constructivist epistemological position. Strongly influenced by Freirean pedagogies and the Frankfurt school of thought, critical constructivism endeavors to dissect the processes by which knowledge is socially constructed; in other words, what we know about the worlds we live in always demands a knower and that which is to be known, a contextual and dialectical process that informs what we conceive of as reality (Kincheloe, 2005). This epistemological position problematizes and extends constructivism by illuminating the need for both teachers and students to develop a critical awareness of self, their perspectives, and ways their consciousness have been shaped and/or reshaped by society (Watts, Jofili, & Bezerra, 1997). Critical constructivists attempt to comprehend the forces that construe consciousness and the ways of seeing and being of the subjects who inhabit it (Kincheloe, 1993, as cited in Watts et al., 1997). This political, counter- Cartesianism, and anti-objectivist philosophy (Kincheloe, 2005) is central to an emancipatory approach to sustainability and sustainability education, and is, therefore, at the root of the critical sustainability studies conception of holistic conscientization.

 

www.susted.com/wordpress/content/critical-sustainability-...