Gandhi and Gun Control
You do actually know the context of the quote right? And that it has nothing to do with what you think? Right?
Your psychic powers are less brilliant than you might think. I do know the historical context of the quote, which makes it all the more powerful. The context of the quote is entirely consistent with the notion that civilian disarmament is ethically incompatible with the nonaggression principle of Ahimsa which Gandhi and I subscribe. This principle by no means implies that individual self defense is unjustified, and actually entails a rejection of the idea that the state can morally deny the individual the means to protect themselves.
Specifically the Indian Arms Act of 1878, which Gandhi is referencing in the quote, was a repressive imperial dictate that made ownership of a firearm illegal for Indian subjects — but not British. This is why Gandhi — who showed the world the power of nonviolent civil disobedience — could be personally opposed to using violence to fight tyranny, but could not and would not deny his fellow man the means to protect themselves from it, or any other harm
Being pacifist is not synonymous with being cattle. It’s likely only because our society is so entirely bereft of an ethical discussion that this misconception dominates.
A. Aubrey Bodine (1906-1970)
Baltimore City Life Museum Collection
Maryland Historical Society
Things most people know about Nellie Bly: She has a funny name.
Things I love about Nellie Bly:
- She went to Mexico to report on the people and their customs when she was 21. Twenty-one. That’s younger than me and probably younger than you and she went to rural Mexico in 1885 to do this shit for six months. And this was a time when women did the fashion pages for the papers and not much else.
- Then she went to New York because she was bored and pretended to be mad to get into a brutal women’s asylum so she could report from the inside. That’s some hardcore journalism in a time when conditions in those sorts of places were appalling.
“My teeth chattered and my limbs were …numb with cold. Suddenly, I got three buckets of ice-cold water…one in my eyes, nose and mouth.”
- Then in 1888, presumably just to annoy Jules Verne, she went around the world. In 72 days. And had a stop over in France to meet Verne and presumably flip him the bird.
- Then she married a millionaire. You literally couldn’t make this stuff up.
- And then…just to confirm her position as a hardcore badass, she reported on the front. And not the Western Front, the Eastern front, where people were sent for ballsing up.In short, Nellie Bly is more awesome and hardcore than anyone could hope to be. Plus she’s pretty. And she has the same lame bangs as Sarah O’Brien and I wuv her too.
Submitted by agreeablecar
Hillard, Nicholas - Sir Walter Raleigh
“Sir Walter Raleigh (/ˈrɔːli/, /ˈræli/, or /ˈrɑːli/;ca. 1554 – 29 October 1618) was an English aristocrat, writer, poet, soldier, courtier, spy, and explorer. He is also well known for popularising tobacco in England.”
Wiki has a version of the image with better colour balance, but it’s smaller.
Get a look inside the complexes that housed the Manhattan Project in photographer Martin Miller’s series Slouching Towards Bethlehem…Birth of the Nuclear Genie.
Miller on his project:
One cannot see the nuclear-explosives production facilities built during the Manhattan Project without experiencing a sense of awe at what was accomplished. The scientific, engineering, managerial, labor, and logistical challenges that were met and overcome are separately impressive but, taken together, simply astonishing. It is all the more incredible that this was done in the context of a desperate and bitter war that had already strained the nation’s manpower and resources as never before. Yet appreciation of the monumental achievements of the Manhattan Project cannot be considered without a pang of regret at what it unleashed into the world. It is an enduring paradox and essential human tragedy that so much selfless devotion to cause, so much creative intellectual energy, and so many good intentions gave birth to such a monstrous reality. It is a reality that would threaten the survival of the very civilization that made it possible. Although the end of the Cold War significantly lessened that threat, humankind may never again be free of its shadow.
This is a fine accompaniment to this amazing vintage home movie footage of Manhattan Project scientists letting off some steam around New Mexico. There was both a human side and the non-human side to the Manhattan Project … and we should remember both of them. Love this gallery.
"Libertarians are not determinists who feel that unseen, mystic forces move men and history in inexorable patterns, up and down fated graphs. Libertarians, being radicals, know that men can move history, that Man is history, and that men can grasp their own fate, at the root, and advance it."
Karl Hess (via anarchei)
But who would pave the roads!?!?
- Statist: Without government, society would descend into chaos.
- Anarchist: Historically and today, there has been no greater agent of chaos, disorder, violence, and lawlessness than coercive government. No private concern has ever or could ever match the government's anti-social effects on society. When free of a coercive agent, humans (as social animals) tend to cooperate and organise in self-interest and concern for others. The corruption so common in government agencies and institutions that stems from possessing a coercive monopoly can be regulated by competition in non-coercive market counterparts to such institutions (courts, security, etc.).
- Statist: You seem to trust people in theory more than you would in real life. Real people are inherently evil; therefore, we need government to keep them in line.
- Anarchist: Government is made up of people. If people are inherently evil, the worst thing that could happen is for a small group of them to seize and maintain a monopoly on crime (unjustified use of violence). I definately don't trust people with that.
- Statist: I just can't imagine how a society could function without government. It just all seems a little "pie in the sky".
- Anarchist: There was a long period of time when people simply could not imagine how society could function without the church, or how economies could function without slavery. These are ancient institutions with rigorously taught mysticisms. It takes time, study and reflection to be able to imagine a world without them.
- Ultimately the world always changes and the people change with it. We have to strive collectively to change it into a world better suited for happiness. It is up to us to culturally determine what the next generation sees as neccesary and good and anarchists want posterity to live in a world of freedom, equality, and solidarity.
- Statist: Umm . . . I see, yes. I admire your idealism but, WHO WOULD PAVE THE ROADS!?!?!
Made this screwing around on Illustrator. Click on image for full size. If anyone is interested in the history, see the books in the Sources at the bottom. Also, on the social psychology of slavery in general, see Understanding Global Slavery by K. Bales (who I tumblr quoted here).
UPDATED: Spelling typo fixed.