• 4 Posts
  • 904 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle

  • Learn about early American history, specifically the Revolutionary War and the period shortly before it.

    The Regulator Movement in North Carolina, also known as the Regulator Insurrection, War of Regulation, and War of the Regulation, was an uprising in Provincial North Carolina from 1766 to 1771 in which citizens took up arms against colonial officials who they viewed as corrupt. Historians such as John Spencer Bassett argue that the Regulators did not wish to change the form or principle of their government, but simply wanted to make the colony’s political process more equal. They wanted better economic conditions for everyone, instead of a system that heavily benefited the colonial officials and their network of plantation owners mainly near the coast

    During the American Revolution, many prominent Regulators became Loyalists, like James Hunter who fought at the Battle of Moore’s Creek Bridge. … The Regulators notably were never against the monarchy - their issue was with local corruption and elites abusing them.

    Dunmore’s Proclamation was formally proclaimed on November 15. Its publication prompted between 800 and 2,000 slaves (from both Patriot and Loyalist owners) to run away and enlist with Dunmore. It also raised a furor among Virginia’s slave-owning elites (including those who had been sympathetic to Britain), to whom the possibility of a slave rebellion was a major fear.

    Later British commanders over the course of the American Revolutionary War followed Dunmore’s model in enticing slaves to defect—the 1779 Philipsburg Proclamation, which applied across all the colonies, was more successful. By the end of the war, at least 20,000 slaves had escaped from plantations into British service

    Shays’s Rebellion was an armed uprising in Western Massachusetts and Worcester in response to a debt crisis among the citizenry and in opposition to the state government’s increased efforts to collect taxes on both individuals and their trades.

    When the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, Massachusetts merchants’ European business partners refused to extend lines of credit to them and insisted that they pay for goods with hard currency, despite the country-wide shortage of such currency. Merchants began to demand the same from their local business partners, including those operating in the market towns in the state’s interior. Many of these merchants passed on this demand to their customers, although Governor John Hancock did not impose hard currency demands on poorer borrowers and refused to actively prosecute the collection of delinquent taxes. The rural farming population was generally unable to meet the demands of merchants and the civil authorities, and some began to lose their land and other possessions when they were unable to fulfill their debt and tax obligations. This led to strong resentments against tax collectors and the courts, where creditors obtained judgments against debtors, and where tax collectors obtained judgments authorizing property seizures.


    Just remember that the American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution that failed to address many of the underlying economic conditions plaguing the colonies from the outset. Yes, the American merchant class beat back the British Monarchists. But no, that wasn’t a happily-ever-after for the proletariat of the nascent nation.






  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_antisemitism

    Zionist antisemitism or antisemitic Zionism refers to a phenomenon in which antisemites express support for Zionism and the State of Israel. In some cases, this support may be promoted for explicitly antisemitic reasons. Historically, this type of antisemitism has been most notable among Christian Zionists, who may perpetrate religious antisemitism while being outspoken in their support for Jewish sovereignty in Israel due to their interpretation of Christian eschatology. Similarly, people who identify with the political far-right, particularly in Europe and the United States, may support the Zionist movement because they seek to expel Jews from their countries and see Zionism as the least complicated method (vis-à-vis ethnic cleansing or genocide) of achieving this goal and satisfying their racial antisemitism.

    The French-Jewish journalist Alain Gresh noted that the antisemitic right-wing politician and Nazi collaborator Xavier Vallat said that "Jews would never integrate into France and that they had to go to Israel.

    The historian David N. Myers wrote that “Leading white nationalists such as Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor liken their movement to Zionism, seeing it as a model for the kind of monoethnic purity they favor in [the United States].” Myers states that the “combination of pro-Israel and antisemitic sensibilities” is common within American politics due to the combined influences of the “Christian evangelical Right with its end-game theology”, “archly conservative” Catholics, and the political ideology of Donald Trump.


  • they didn’t inherit their immense wealth

    Except even that doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny. A big component of the market cap of any Fortune 100 company stems from equity and debt held by the generationally wealthy, typically through family funds managed by private equity groups. Amazon and Tesla aren’t worth $1T without the Vanderbilts and the Carnegies and the Adelsons and the Waltons bidding up asset prices. Microsoft doesn’t exist today without Bill Gates’s mom sitting on the IBM board of directors and handing her son the contracts for their 1980s OS. Hell, Berkshire Hathaway is owned by the sons of a Congressman and a federal judge, respectively.

    What’s more, the biggest source of market capital is inevitably government contracts. You can’t tell me that Michael Dell is “independently wealthy” when the bulk of his fortune came via the Texas public school system buying all his company’s computers. Particularly when the governors, legislators, and board members making these decisions are (a) big shareholders of the Dell corporation and (b) legacy scions of wealthy Texas families.








  • You have a better, equally integrated solution?

    I mean, we do. Linux OS, Libre Office, Apache servers, Linux Cloud Service of Choice, PostgreSQL.

    But you need techs familiar with those systems and businesses eager to implement Linux at a foundational level early on in the company’s development. Because a lot of businesses outsource their IT early on, and because a lot of end-user hardware has Microsoft pre-installed, and because the major IT outsourcers all get big kickbacks from Microsoft to be the default solutions, and because Microsoft has embedded itself at the university level at a global scale, and because Microsoft has successfully lobbied itself as the premier US contractor of choice for federal and state IT setups, it can be harder to find professionals willing and able to configure a Linux environment. This is assuming the company founders even think to ask for alternatives.

    That’s not to say it never happens. FFS, some of the biggest competitors to Microsoft - Amazon and Google most notably - have relied on Linux/PostgreSQL architecture to keep their overhead low and their integrations non-exclusive. But they’re exceptional precisely because they laid the groundwork early.

    The problem isn’t that integrated solutions don’t exist. The problem is that most CTOs don’t embrace them early on in the company’s development and find themselves trapped in the Microsoft ecosystem well after the point a transition would be easy.





  • The response to a movement being violent doesn’t make the movement violent

    It makes the event violent, which poisons the movement and discourages more civilians from participating.

    The '60s Civil Rights Movement wasn’t the first such movement in the US. We’d had multiple protest waves and minority ethnic civil revolts going straight back to emancipation (and before it). They largely failed because they could not win enough support from the broader proletariat.

    The '60s movement was only seen as a success because it won legislative and private sector concessions in a way prior movements failed to achieve. That happened first and foremost in cities and states where the police didn’t come in guns blazing and the political apparatus was ready to negotiate concessions quickly, to avoid further economic disruption. Those that did failed to enjoy the 60s/70s era of rapid economic growth and lost national influence as a result.

    But to say the Civil Rights Movement succeeded where it began? In Selma, Alabama and Little Rock, Arkansas, and the Mississippi Delta? Absolutely not. State violence crushed it. The movement ended in violence in these early enclaves. It was not peaceful because it was not received peacefully.