Daniel Imperato – Official Website
Daniel Imperato For President 2024
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Biden to Order US Dollar Replaced with Trackable “Spyware” Version? appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post What Kind of Ukraine Do We Support? appeared first on Global Research.
First published on September 22, 2008.
Of relevance to the ongoing restructuring of agriculture under the helm of NATO, the Gates Foundation, Monsanto and the Rockefellers.
***
The controversial ‘Doomsday Seed Vault’, a nuclear-bomb-proof vault deep into the side of …
The post NATO’s Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic appeared first on Global Research.
First published in December 2016, this article is of relevance to an understanding of the ongoing debate on Climate Change as well the Green New Deal, largely controlled by the financial establishment. The Rockefellers also play a key role in …
The post The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan appeared first on Global Research.
A newborn baby was found dead in a cardboard box in an abandoned field in Wisconsin. Santos Asucena Caseres Cruz, the mother, has been arrested in connection to the death. She was charged with one count of neglecting a child resulting in death, and moving, concealing, or burying the corpse of a child, according to legal documents.
Whitewater Police Department officers responded to the report of a dead infant at the Twin Oaks Trailer Park, located around 55 miles from Milwaukee, at 11 am on March 4.
Upon finding the box, they discovered a black garbage bag, a red cloth, and the baby’s remains. The baby was wrapped in a cloth, which was found to be stained with blood, and the umbilical cord was still attached and had blood from birth on the body. The cause of death could not be determined through an autopsy.
Police were able to use the box to track down the mother. There was a shipping label on the box that had an address that was led to an one of Cruz’s children. They told authorities that his father believed Cruz, had an affair that resulted in a pregnancy and an abortion.
Still, when questioned by officers, Cruz denied being pregnant and hiding the newborn in a field. She allowed officers to search her car and residence and provided a buccal swab.
Another child of Cruz’s, told the police that Cruz was in the restroom for an extended period on January 27 due to stomach pain, and there was a lot of blood which led them to believe her mother was hemorrhaging.
Cruz eventually admitted to being pregnant and hiding it from her family due to the fact that the baby’s father was not her husband and that the baby was alive when it was born, but she did not do anything to help. To avoid her children discovering the truth, she did not call 911.
Cruz hid the baby in a box beneath the sink cabinet, retrieved it in the early morning hours, and left it at the trailer park a half hour later. She confessed to checking on the box every day and crying.
Cruz was arrested, and her bond was set at $10,000. She is due in court for a preliminary hearing on April 4.
A truck pushes floodwater near a car stranded by widespread flooding as a series of atmospheric river storms melts record amounts of snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains on March 23, 2023, near Corcoran, California. (David McNew / Getty Images)
Helen Thompson is professor of political economy at the University of Cambridge and the author of Disorder: Hard Times in the 21st Century. In the second part of her interview with Jacobin, she spoke about the causes of the populist moment that made possible the candidacy of Donald Trump and other right-wing populists. These political actors, Thompson argues, were able to take the position of insider-outsiders, attacking the excesses of dynastic political systems from which they themselves had benefited.
Superficially, the victory of figures like Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron suggests that a successful restoration is underway. But looking forward, Thompson sees three key fault lines that could undermine attempts across both sides of the Atlantic to reestablish the pre-populist political order. These are the contradiction between the fossil fuel–dependent development goals of much of the Global South and the West’s plans for a green transition; the rising geopolitical rivalry between China and the United States; and the uneven distribution of the precious minerals required to sustain the new green energy infrastructure.
There is, Thompson claims, no way of addressing these challenges within the parameters of our current global political system. What this means for the future is unclear, but one thing is certain: the much-discussed “end of history” is well and truly over.
This work has been made possible by the support of the Puffin Foundation.
A beauty operator poses on a pile of picket signs in protest of working conditions for hairdressers and cosmetologists in New York in the 1950s. (Irving Haberman / IH Images / Getty Images)
Are you tired of working your shitty nine-to-five? Do you feel overworked and underappreciated? Forget a “dream job,” quit working for the Man and become a luxury travel influencer instead!
That’s the theme of a popular TikTok meme, which started off life as a viral tweet with a quite different meaning. The saying “I don’t dream of labor” has been everywhere on social media in recent years, most notably in a TikTok audio featuring the voice of user @mrhamilton stating in a mock mid-Atlantic accent, “Darling, I’ve told you several times before, I have no dream job — I do not dream of labor.” The audio has since been used in over 51,400 videos. The quote is often falsely attributed to the likes of James Baldwin; in fact, it seems to have originated with Twitter user @thetrudz, whose tweet “My ‘dream job’ is . . . not working. No work. I don’t dream about labor” went viral in 2019.
Understandably, the statement resonated: a record-breaking 50.5 million US workers quit their jobs in 2022, on the heels of a previous record of 47.8 million quits in 2021, in what has become known as the “Great Resignation.” With the COVID-19 pandemic creating a tighter labor market, especially in lower-wage service occupations, workers not only recognized they deserved more, they started to demand it. But these demands largely took the form of individuals switching jobs or asking for higher wages instead of organizing collectively.
On Twitter, the “I don’t dream of labor” meme retained its intended meaning as a critique of how capitalism shapes our desires. But the statement quickly began to take on a different shape through a rapid-fire game of social media telephone. TikTok users began using the audio as the background music to luxury travel vlogs and designer shopping sprees, flaunting their wealth while “I don’t dream of labor” plays in the background. The phrase has been transformed from a pithy anti-capitalist critique to an endorsement of neoliberal capitalism’s worst excesses — used to justify wealth without work and mindless consumption, feeding the capitalist need for endless growth.
The repackaging of the slogan in this context may come as a surprise, but it is understandable that individuals want to try to stop thinking of labor and instead lead carefree lives of luxury. Workers are recognizing the brutality of labor under capitalism laid bare by the pandemic. Yet the “I don’t dream of labor” meme is unfortunate proof that one can recognize capitalist exploitation as the root of their problems without understanding collective action to be the solution.
As Vivek Chibber argues in his recent book, The Class Matrix, cultural trends in values and norms, including those that bubble up on platforms like Twitter and TikTok, are often downstream of material economic realities. Under capitalism, workers must sell their labor for a wage to survive; if they can’t find and keep a job, they face poverty, homelessness, or worse. A rational awareness of the costs and risks involved in collective action — it can get you fired, for example — leads workers to resign themselves to their exploitation. For many, their best option is to try to improve their situations on an individual level; with levels of union and other class organizations already at historic lows, individual workers typically calculate that the costs and risks of organizing collectively outweigh those of trying to find a new job or even striking out on their own as entrepreneurs.
Today the United States remains at record lows of union density, despite a recent wave of new organizing drives, largely among young workers at Starbucks and college campuses, and historic wins like the repeal of right-to-work laws in Michigan. But workers in France, rather than “quiet quitting,” have kicked off weeks of general strikes, protests, and riots in response to the government’s attempted increase of the national pension age. Some say this difference is a result of “American individualism,” but the collective efforts of workers at various points in US history suggest a different explanation. “Class consciousness is the consequence of class organization,” Chibber says — not, as many have suggested, the other way around.
As long as capitalism persists, only the capitalist class can afford to “not dream of labor.” A select few are allowed to avoid the thought of work, while the toiling masses are left to do the very labor that enables the ultrarich not to think about it. The world of designer bags and luxury travel depicted in the many videos participating in the “I don’t dream of labor” meme cannot exist without the labor of the workers who stitched the bags, the baristas who poured the coffee, the people who generated the wealth featured in these videos in the first place. This luxury for the wealthy few requires the exploitation of workers en masse.
A world without any labor is probably not possible, at least not anytime soon. But socialists dream of a world of less work and better work: one where socially necessary labor is shared fairly, where unnecessary labor for private gain is eliminated, and where major decisions about production and distribution are made democratically.
Getting to this better world will require work from all of us. It will mean organizing collectively against the systems that exploit us, not individually striving to make our own lives more lavish at the expense of others. We may not all be able to be luxury travel influencers, but we can all join the growing rank-and-file labor movement and leverage worker power to win change on a massive scale. Instead of dreaming of either the exploited labor of capitalism or the self-indulgence of the idle rich, we can dream of a world that is more beautiful, more just, and freer for everybody.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version), or on the Translate This Article above.
To receive Global Research’s …
The post 750 U.S. Military Bases Globally, $7.2 Trillion US Nuclear Weapons Expenditure Since Hiroshima, Nagasaki appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to …
The post Sri Lanka’s Neoliberal Nightmare, Widespread Famine Triggered by Covid-19 Lockdown and an Unpayable External Debt appeared first on Global Research.
College students at Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland, 1955. (Afro American Newspapers / Gado / Getty Images)
Gentry Torian fought bravely with the 92nd Infantry Division, the only all-black infantry division to see combat in Europe during World War II, only to return home to racial discrimination. Reflecting later to his wife, Celeste Torian, he said of postwar America, “The only good thing was the GI Bill.”
“Every black we knew used the GI Bill,” Celeste told political scientist Suzanne Mettler. Gentry used it to fulfill his lifelong dream of becoming a public schoolteacher.
Scores of black veterans across the country had experiences similar to the Torians’. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, popularly known as the GI Bill, offered an exceptionally comprehensive list of benefits to World War II (and later Korean War) veterans. Any veteran with at least ninety days of service and without a dishonorable discharge was eligible. The benefits included unemployment payments of $20 per week for up to one year and low-interest loans to buy a house, farm, or business.
But the GI Bill is perhaps best known for how it transformed higher education in this country. Veterans who served for at least ninety days were guaranteed one year of education or vocational training, with another month added for each additional month of service up to four years. Veterans who used these benefits did not have to pay a dime in tuition costs, and they even received monthly subsistence payments.
It has become a popular trope to insist that black veterans did not benefit in any substantial way from the GI Bill. For example, the famous professor of African American history Henry Louis Gates Jr asserted that the “GI Bill systematically excluded most African Americans” in a recent YouTube video. In early 2022, this historical interpretation of the GI Bill compelled the introduction of a bill that would extend certain GI Bill benefits to surviving spouses and some direct descendents of black World War II veterans.
It is certainly true that there were problems and limitations in the implementation of GI Bill benefits for black veterans. But many of those limitations were a product of a Jim Crow system that predated the bill’s passage. The GI Bill did not create these structural limitations, and the elimination of Jim Crow was always beyond the scope of the legislation’s ability.
For many black veterans and their families, the GI Bill represented an exceptionally positive experience with government that contrasted sharply with the indignities of Jim Crow.
A wholesale dismissal of the legislation obscures the fact that black veterans’ experience of the GI Bill was far more nuanced and positive than many critics suggest. Their stories are documented in Suzanne Mettler’s work, including her book Soldiers to Citizens: The G.I. Bill and the Making of the Greatest Generation and her article specifically about black veterans, “The Only Good Thing was the G.I. Bill.”
Interviews with people like Celeste Torian reveal that, for many black veterans and their families, the GI Bill represented an exceptionally positive experience with government that contrasted sharply with the indignities of Jim Crow. To ignore this experience is to discount the role of the expanded welfare state in improving the lives of black Americans in the context of extreme racial inequality.
When it came to implementation, the GI Bill fell shortest in its distribution of low-interest home loans. Here, the long-standing discriminatory practices of the real estate industry were the decisive factor.
Though the federal government guaranteed the loan, applicants had to find a bank or lending agency they could use. Local banks often denied loans to black individuals and families. Ebony magazine reported that out of 3,329 VA-backed loans in Mississippi in 1947, only two went to black veterans. One black veteran in a survey testified, “I was required to make a 10 percent down payment because I was told that colored GIs were a bad risk.”
There is no question that black GIs were largely unable to take advantage of the GI Bill’s home loan benefits. However, black veterans’ experience with the educational benefits of the GI Bill were much more positive.
Too often, scholars have used a narrow framework through which to evaluate the usage of GI Bill benefits. Several academic papers have asserted that the educational inequality between blacks and whites was worsened due to the GI Bill. But that conclusion can only be sustained if one focuses exclusively on college attendance and graduation. This perspective fails to take into account both inequalities that predated the GI Bill and the full scope of educational benefits offered.
By the end of World War II, only 17 percent of black soldiers had graduated from high school, compared to 41 percent of white soldiers. Clearly, black veterans were not as well-positioned to use the benefits for college education as their white counterparts. Most black veterans utilized the GI Bill for vocational training and other noncollege programs. Overall, 3.5 million veterans gained vocational training through the GI Bill, causing the number of trade schools in the country to triple.
When taking into account the full range of GI Bill benefits, black veterans actually made use of them at a higher rate than white veterans. A 1950 Veterans Affairs study found that 49 percent of nonwhite veterans had used the benefits, compared to 43 percent of white veterans. Surprisingly, black veteran usage was higher even in the Jim Crow South: 56 percent of nonwhite Southern veterans had used the GI Bill by 1950, compared to 50 percent of white veterans.
Overall, 3.5 million veterans gained vocational training through the GI Bill, causing the number of trade schools in the country to triple.
In the North, widespread usage of the GI Bill by black veterans advanced the desegregation of institutions of higher education in the early postwar period. Black veteran Reginald Wilson remembered that one-third of the veterans at his alma mater Wayne State University were black at the time he attended.
Tuskegee Airman Henry Harvey used the GI Bill to attend Northwestern University. In an interview with Mettler, he reflected that, without the GI Bill, “I possibly would have continued my education, but it would have been at a local junior college . . . where the tuition was $60 a semester. . . . So there’s a possibility I would have gone to college, but it would have taken much longer.”
In the Jim Crow South, the choices for black veterans were more limited due to the segregation of higher education. Again, this was not an effect of the GI Bill but a preexisting practice that the GI Bill itself could not remedy.
Even as all-white colleges kept black veterans out, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) like Howard University, Morgan State University, Morehouse College, and more greatly expanded due to the increased demand. Between 1946 and 1947, overall enrollment at colleges and universities increased by 13 percent, but enrollment at HBCUs expanded by 26 percent.
While the expansion of HBCUs could be seen as positive, the manner in which it took place during this period was not ideal. Already underfunded, HBCUs did not have the proper resources to absorb this increased enrollment. Many students reported overcrowded classrooms and inadequate living conditions. Nevertheless, while the GI Bill did not overturn educational inequality in the South, it did dramatically increase educational opportunities for African Americans.
Available data suggests that the GI Bill may have been even more meaningful to black veterans than to white veterans, perhaps because it stood out so sharply from the discrimination they experienced in other areas of life. In a World War II veterans survey, 92 percent of black higher education beneficiaries and 89 percent of black noncollege beneficiaries in the 92nd Infantry Division considered the bill a turning point in their lives. Only 78 percent of white higher education beneficiaries and 58 percent of white noncollege beneficiaries said the same.
In Mettler’s countless interviews and testimonials, black veterans from the 92nd Infantry Division detailed the many ways the GI Bill acted as a positive force in their lives. One beneficiary claimed that the program “broadened my scope of knowledge, made me hireable, interesting; increased my friendships, which now, fifty years later, still permeate my life.”
Others said the GI Bill “helped me get a job with General Motors,” “gave me a chance to try other venues of work,” or simply “helped me make a decent living for my family.” These accounts from black veterans themselves need to be fully taken into account when considering the effects of the GI Bill.
Mettler goes further than just asserting that the GI Bill was a positive experience for most black veterans. She also makes a compelling argument that the program helped boost civic engagement and civil rights activism among its beneficiaries.
Again, the GI Bill could not and did not end Jim Crow. Even after gaining an education using the GI Bill, most black veterans faced fierce discrimination in the job market. But that process itself had an interesting effect: the experience of the GI Bill raised black veterans’ expectations of government, helping throw into sharper relief the gap between the way they were treated and what they knew was possible. Mettler explains:
After the war they encountered the discriminatory job market and social system, but they knew from their G.I. Bill experience that they had the right to be treated on equal terms to other Americans. Thus, their encounter with discrimination at this juncture provoked their political mobilization, as the fundamental unfairness of such treatment became all the more evident and intolerable following experiences that differed so sharply.
Available data supports this assertion. During the height of the civil rights movement, from 1950 to 1974, 35 percent of black GI Bill users participated in protest activities, compared to 8 percent of nonblack GI Bill users. Black GI Bill users were overrepresented in the organizations that were most active in the fight for civil rights, such as the NAACP and Urban League.
Between 1965 and 1979, during the height of new local black governing regimes, 31 percent of black GI Bill users were involved in local government compared to 4 percent of black nonusers. Black veterans were also very active in fraternities that played an important supporting role during the civil rights movement, such as Alpha Phi Alpha, Omega Psi Phi, and Kappa Alpha Psi.
During the height of the civil rights movement, from 1950 to 1974, 35 percent of black GI Bill users participated in protest activities, compared to 8 percent of nonblack GI Bill users.
The story of Hosea Williams is a great example of this dynamic. Williams used the GI Bill to complete high school and then went on to earn a master’s degree in chemistry from Morris Brown College. After getting hired by the US Department of Agriculture as a research chemist, Williams was recruited to serve on the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Martin Luther King Jr’s staff.
NAACP field secretary Medgar Evers used his GI Bill benefits to enroll at Alcorn State University in Mississippi. His college experience prepared him for a life of activism as he became class president, yearbook editor, and student newspaper editor. Most important of all, Evans was exposed to the civil rights movement on campus.
The GI Bill has received much the same treatment in American political discourse as the New Deal. It has become fashionable to simplistically dismiss New Deal social programs as hopelessly racist and unavailable to African Americans. While there is no denying that New Deal benefits were not distributed equally, these historical accounts propagate a wildly misleading picture of how black people actually interacted with the New Deal in its totality.
In the context of a thoroughly racist society, the New Deal represented a significant step forward for many black working people. As scholars like Adolph Reed have tirelessly pointed out, blacks were overrepresented in many New Deal programs like the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps, where black workers made up a larger share than their percentage in the overall population.
Far from an abstract academic debate, cynical and inaccurate depictions of the New Deal have been used to try to discredit both of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns and the overall growing social democratic tendency in US politics. There is a similar danger in ignoring the complexity of black Americans’ experience with the GI Bill.
A more accurate and nuanced appreciation of the GI Bill’s usage among black veterans is needed. The program’s large-scale success should give us hope that governance for the public good is possible again for all working people, regardless of their race.