Recent comments in /f/History

hasbrochem wrote (edited )

it absolutely could be but that's part of my issue/problem. this is not clearly laid out or explored and especially for a topic like this, we should make sure to take extra care, IMO.

there's a lot that's still not understood with some of the origins, like saturnalia (which ended before the 25th though the way it was celebrated is very reminicent of xmas) or the ideas that important people like prophets died on the day they were created/conceived, which would put jesus's birthday in december since he died in march/april (assuming there was a jesus...lolz). sorry this is from memory so I might have mixed something up.

again, this my main concern is about how careful the person doing this work is being not only with running down sources but also in their explanations as people will take and twist this to try and delegitimize other atrocities if they can.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Is it possible that Sinterklaas celebration was derived from Christmas celebration? St. Nicholas is well known throughout the Christian-colonized world as the saint associated with Christmas celebrations, I thought. Plus, I think that Christmas Dec. 21-25 celebrations are very old, coming from Roman holidays themselves, so it would make sense that these things are relatively fluid culturally. Perhaps I am mistaken, though.

3

hasbrochem wrote

An interesting read, no doubt, but from the first comment

An excellent article, but as an Afro-Dutch woman I have to correct you. “Sinterklaas” & his blackface helper Zwarte Piet/Black Pete do NOT come at Christmas. The holiday is called Sint Nicholas/Sinterklaas and is celebrated on the 5th of December.

We do celebrate Christmas, but at the 25th of December and without St. Nicholas or Black Pete.

And the American name for Father Christmas, “Santa Claus” came from the word “Sinterklaas” – not the other way around.

if they got these seemingly simple pieces incorrect, or just missed them, how much else are they glossing over, misreading, and/or misinformed about wrt this topic? especially with so many assholes looking to justify/excuse the atlantic slave trade this isn't a trivial matter.

as Saidiya wrote in lose your mother:

I wanted to engage the past, knowing that its perils and dangers still threatened and that even now lives hung in the balance.

3

neverinNJ OP wrote (edited )

My favorite quote in the article

But in the absurdist analysis, human striving of any sort is fundamentally ridiculous, and all meaning is at bottom imaginary. Zoom out until yours is the long view of the cosmos, and there is no essential difference between chasing a football and chasing a career, or a first home, or the eradication of racial injustice, or your soulmate. All of our huffing and puffing will exhaust itself and be forgotten, in time. To find meaning anywhere, Camus thought, required approaching life with more than cold reason. It required filtering reality through different states of being.

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

lol i assumed it was a metatextual DaDa reference. You know, for the essay's period authenticity. ;)

3

hasbrochem OP wrote

ugh, yeah, I've been getting repeats like this lately for some reason. I catch them if I go through and clean up a text, sorry about that this time.

3

conseil wrote

even if it was used by Lenin slightly modified (as "revolutionary liberation"), does not cease to appear for the first time in Bakunin's revolutionary speech. But the Marxist and Anarchist gap during those years is already large and it may have been difficult for Lenin to admit that he was influenced by Bakunin. even though it was used by Lenin slightly modified (as "revolutionary defeatism"), it does not cease to appear for the first time in Bakunin's revolutionary speech. But the Marxist and Anarchist gap during those years is already large and it may have been difficult for Lenin to admit that he was influenced by Bakunin. even though it was used by Lenin slightly modified (as "revolutionary defeatism"), it does not cease to appear for the first time in Bakunin's revolutionary speech. But the Marxist and Anarchist gap during those years is already large and it may have been difficult for Lenin to admit that he was influenced by Bakunin.

I think this part's gotten fucked up somewhere along the line, btw

2

hasbrochem OP wrote

okay, machine translation (not corrected, it's too long) in three parts. first part as the body of the post and the other two as comments here. hopefully it actually is interesting to you. ;)

2

hasbrochem OP wrote

PART III

The conflict within the revolutionary trade union organization USI, part of which was in favor of the Italian involvement in the war, brought the organization into the hands of the anti-militaristic majority in September 1914. Also the major Volonta magazine had the strongest anti-nationalist and anti-war line and promoted the internationalist and anti-capitalist role of anarchism. Eventually the anarchist supporters of the intervention were unable to enforce themselves in the anarchist movement. On the contrary, the anti-militarist tendency of anarchism when Italy finally entered the war was manifested in the army with many deserts and other acts of disobedience. Anarchists also organized and participated in popular anti-war demonstrations.

The anarchists participated in the Turin uprising in August 1917 - where the hostility of the Italian proletariat in the war and the desire for social change skyrocketed. In the last year of war due to excessive repression, anarchist activities declined. Nevertheless, the end of the war marked a return to mass action and organization within the movement. However, the October Revolution awakened the anarchists' hopes. In general, the end of the great war found the anarchists ready for revolutionary action (Staid, 2013).

In Germany, the anarchists turned against the war. Also, the artistic group of the dancers, in contrast to the futurists (of whom artistically had been influenced enough) reacted to the war (Hans, 1983). After the war, the pro-aristocratic artistic group of the "Progressives of Cologne", who were communist advisers, emerged (Everest, 2013). But the most important events concerning anarchists were in Bavaria after the end of the war. The Bavarian Soviet republic (which lasted about five months) was part of the 1918-1919 German revolution which followed the German defeat in the First World War (Harman, 1997). Both in the German revolution and in the creation and operation of short-term democracy, anarchists played an important role.

Karen Aisen (socialist and member of the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD)) declared Bavaria on November 8, 1918 (Harman, 1997) as a free state, as the crowd had been uprooted in the past few days. free state [5]. The capital of the new state was Munich. Although the Bolshevik revolution was inspiration to most of Europe's rebels, Aisner tried not to identify with the Bolsheviks and thus did not bring property. Aisner was finally murdered by a far-right (Harman, 1997). Gradually, the anarchists and Communists began to gain more power, and on 6 April 1919 Soviet democracy was proclaimed by the reigning Gustav Ladwater (1870-1919) as anarchist Ehr Muhamm.

This soviet pro-initiation phase did not last long. Finally, on April 12, 1919, the Communist Party took control of the rebellious Soviet republic led by Eugen Leviné6. The army and Freikorps right-wing finally came to Munich and defeated the rebels after hard fighting, while many of them fought. Also included in the soviet was Ret Marut, who during the war published the anarchist magazine Der Ziegelbrenner. After the commune defeat, Maruto left exile in Mexico to save his life. We can say that he almost disappeared from his old comrades to protect himself, and changed his name. It is none other than the famous author B. Treven (Everest, 2013).

CONCLUSIONS-EXPLANATION OF THE ANARCHY STATE

Anarchists played a very important role in the events associated with the First World War. We have already seen that they were related to the explosion of war. A group of revolutionaries, influenced by various ideologies, including anarchism, triggered the First World War. Of course, the execution of the successor in Sarajevo was the cause and not the cause. Surely the war would break out sooner or later but it would obviously have a different shape and maybe a different course.

We also saw that most of the anarchists resisted the war, unlike the Socialists and the Social Democrats. An exception to the anti-war attitude of the anarchists were some anarchists who tried to influence the whole anarchist movement in favor of the war. Eventually they did not.

To understand this fugitive anarchist tendency, one has to look at the history of anarchy. Until the outbreak of the 1st World. all anarchists were unambiguously identified with the internationalist and anti-militaristic struggle. This is due to Bakunin's past before becoming anarchist (he was a slave nationalist) but also to some controversial movements of important anarchists (with a great influence on the then revolutionary movement) such as the participation of Proudhon in the (democratically elected) government of Napoleon III (Preposier, 2011 and Tzol, 1975). The above events had created some misunderstandings and ideological ambiguities. Notwithstanding the aforementioned anarchist philosophers, there have been internationalists and rebels,

So before World War I some anarchists had overcome Bakuin's internationalist standards and had chauvinistic views. With the outbreak of the Great War this became more intense. The futurists (most of them because there were exceptions) in Italy are a classic case of anarchopatrians who became after fascists (Botsola and Tistandl 1984). They were certainly not the only ones. However, the fact that some anarchists in Italy easily embraced some fascist-nationalist beliefs demonstrates that before they joined the fascist party, and even then they still had anarchists, they should not have truly internationalist views. Indicative of the ideological ambiguity of the time is that even Mussolini came from a family of anarchists, while in his socialist era he liked anarchist terrorists.

Lastly, the anarchists had a very significant impact on the revolutions brought about by the war. Significant action was in the revolution of Russia, but also in the revolutions and revolts that followed the end of the war (especially in Italy, Hungary, Germany). Thus thousands of anarchists participated in these revolutions, playing an active role, while many also sacrificed their lives for the revolutionary purpose (for example, Ladotun was murdered). Indeed, Italian anarchists participated in the anti-fascist struggles of Italy in 1920-1922 (Staid, 2013). In Spain a few years later (Paz, 2006), CNT-FAI anarchists will fight against Spanish nationalists during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). For years (1917-1939), anarchists found themselves in Europe with nationalists, conservatives, extreme right and fascists. These events altered the anti-communist stance of the anarchists.

As the war and military struggle of the anarchists against fascism and nationalism was taking a dramatic turn, the ideological identity of anarchism became clearer because of some thinkers like Bergman, Goldman and Rocker. For example, I mention the example of Rocker. His book, "Nationalism and Culture," Rooker wrote it in response to nationalism that became the dominant stream at that time in Germany. Nationalism, according to Rokeer, enslaves the individual in the state (Rocker, 1998). This book has had an enormous impact on anarchists.

His general political attitude defined (along with other intellectuals, of course) the anarchist movement as completely anti-nationalist and internationalist, thus clearing many misunderstandings that had been created by the life and work of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin. Whatever the influence of Rocker and other internationalist anarchists, however, the majority of the anarchists from those troubled years of the First World War had a clear stance against the war.

We have already mentioned anarcho-syndicalist CNT but the same applies to all major anti-authoritarian groups and organizations such as the American IWW. But even the most prominent anarchists turned in 1914-1918 against the war. Lautauer, Sorel, Bergman, Emma Golmann, Malatesta (Jol, 1975) are just a few of the examples of well-known and influential anarchists who said no to the war.

The anti-nationalist, anti-racist, anti-militarist and internationalist spirit within the anarchists (though during World War I was already the most powerful) will become the dominant in the years following the end of the First World War, with the result that anarchism is almost synonymous with anti-militarism and anti-vowalism.

In the Second World War, many anarchists fought anti-fascist guerrillas across Europe. These anarchists saw the Second World War as a continuation of the Spanish civil war, that is, as a continuation of the anti-fascist struggle. No matter how historically this choice (that they fought against the Axis forces) seems to have been justified, as World War II is now regarded as a fair war, at least if one is seen by his anti-Nazi party. On the contrary, the First World War seems so unfair and irrational. So the choice of the anarchist minority in favor of the war is still condemned by the anarchist movement.

Note Agitprop Anarquista: This text was written by Panagiotis Xirouhakis and is contained in the last issue of zero geographic 25

4

hasbrochem OP wrote

PART II

Of course, Lenin's position on imperialist wars differs in some respects from Bakunin's views or from the practices of the Communists. Lenin sought the defeat (Appignanesi, 1977) of Tsarist Russia from Germany (so that the revolution in the now defeated Russia was easier) and believed that in the same direction the German revolutionaries had to fight and propagate (defeat of the country their). As he himself stated his theory of imperialist war was the opposite of socialist patriotism. The rebellion, always according to him, must hope for the defeat of his country, so that the civil war (Appignanesi, 1977) is easier. The Communists, as we have already said, have fought against the First Invaders (patriotic and socially motivated) but also against the French state (with class and social motivation). Bakunin also called, as we have already seen, a struggle for the ultimate goal of the social and class revolution. Nevertheless, this idea of ​​the revolution through the imperialist wars, even if it was used by Lenin slightly modified (as "revolutionary liberation"), does not cease to appear for the first time in Bakunin's revolutionary speech. But the Marxist and Anarchist gap during those years is already large and it may have been difficult for Lenin to admit that he was influenced by Bakunin. even though it was used by Lenin slightly modified (as "revolutionary defeatism"), it does not cease to appear for the first time in Bakunin's revolutionary speech. But the Marxist and Anarchist gap during those years is already large and it may have been difficult for Lenin to admit that he was influenced by Bakunin. even though it was used by Lenin slightly modified (as "revolutionary defeatism"), it does not cease to appear for the first time in Bakunin's revolutionary speech. But the Marxist and Anarchist gap during those years is already large and it may have been difficult for Lenin to admit that he was influenced by Bakunin.

Here, to point out that Lenin's left-wing political enemies like Plekhanov and Martov (Jelketsis, 2017) have accused him of the "Bakunism" in the years of the war, especially as regards his pursuit of the revolt by violent and the destruction of the old system (if Bakunin would have considered his honor if he lived to have influenced Lenin, even though he was part of it).

Also, as I have already said, in his work "State and Revolution" (1917), Lenin had presented the commune as a model for the future revolution (Jelketsis, 2017), where he puts the armed popular masses as bodies of the revolution aimed at self-government. But the "State and Revolution" is an exception (and contradiction) in Lenin's entire theoretical work. In general, he believed in the inadequacy of revolutionary spontaneity and gave priority to the discipline of the party, the revolutionary leadership of party members, and bureaucratic centralization.

However, Lenin's relations with anarchism do not stop here. Leninism, according to the Ulam historian (1998), has some similarities with Neyjayphism. Nechayev (Jol, 1975) was a Russian zenith that had been influenced by Bakunin (of course, the latter for some time seemed to have accepted the influence of Netsayev). Netsayev absolutely believed in the achievement of the revolution through the use of any means, even of terrorism. We must emphasize that in the early years of his life Lenin accepted the influence of the Russian Nile Movement, whose member was his eldest brother (Ulam, 1998), who was even executed for his attempt to assassinate Tsar with other zeros. Also after his life, although he embraced Marxism, Netsayev's influence was not indifferent (Service, 2000).

It was also influenced by Netsayev's idea of ​​the revolutionary who should be solely interested in the revolution and for nothing else. In Leninism, however, this idea (that the revolution is the absolute priority) will not be realized through the action of the nihilists, who in their eyes seemed romantic and did not fully express the working class4. On the other hand, Lenin considered the Bolshevik party (which is the leader of the working class) as the ideal body of the revolution. Thus he adapted Netsayev's idea into his own political perception (Radzinsky, 1997). The revolutionary party had to devote itself totally to the idea of ​​the revolution. The latter became the Bolsheviks' ultimate goal. However, the prominent Marxist Plekhanov accused the Bolsheviks of using Netsafev's tactics (Yelkachez, 2017),

The conviction of the graphs is that the later Marxist historiography silenced as much as these influences could be found, and something that it found (at least as far as the influence of Russian zeroism) and Eric Hobsbawm (1959) is concerned. We see, however, that the anarchism of the 19th century (through Bakunin, the anarchists of the Paris Commune and Netsayev) influenced to some extent the ideological identity of Bolshevism (which, of course, is most clearly influenced by Marx and the general Marxist political philosophy).

However, the anarchists of those war years who were faithful to the idea of ​​revolution, took part with zeal in the revolutionary events of the First World War (Nettlau, 1996).

At the international level, the majority of the anarchists opposed the war, such as the CNT's anarcho-syndicalists in Spain. In Russia most anarchists did not follow Kropotkin and his team in their anti-bolshevik and anti-bolshevik stance (Avrich 2005). Indeed, many anarchists have originally favored an alliance with the Bolshevik party. Such was the case of the Mabovites.

Nestor Makhno's movement is an anarchist effort with a huge geopolitical influence on the events associated with the First World War and its post-revolutionary consequences (Bielas and Bielas, 2008). During the Austro-German invasion of 1918 against the Russian Revolution (which had acquired radical features since October 1917), Makhno organized an armed resistance. Then, during the Russian civil war, the Makhnovites allied with the Bolsheviks against the "White" and other "enemies of the revolution" (Tzol, 1975). The most important force of counter-revolutionaries was the "White". Though many "White" were tsarists, tsarism was not the connecting ideological link of this movement (indeed, there were "White people" who were supporters of democracy, republicans, socialists, etc.).

Eventually, Makhno's army (which even reached its top tens of thousands and relied on self-management) after crushing the Ukrainian nationalists and the White House, was betrayed by its old ally, the Red Army, and eventually defeated. Until recently, Makhno was forgotten even in Ukraine (where the Bolshevik winners had seduced him). However, Makhno's contribution to the Russian Revolution was huge (Tzol, 1975). Makhno's army was excellent at a tactical level (Tzol, 1975), achieving many victories against the enemies of the revolution. He also invented "smart weapons", such as farm horse-drawn chariots equipped with machine guns (and called tachanka). Last, for some time,

In Hungary, the small but militant Hungarian anarchist movement (Everett, 2006), co-operating with the Bolshevik party and left-wing socialists, helped create the Budapest Commune (which ran from 21 March to 1 August 1919). On 21 March, the Hungarian Soviet Republic was declared the first after Russia. The relationship of the anarchists with the Bolshevik party in the case of Hungary despite some frictions was good. But the party itself had a relatively anti-authoritarian character. This was because in 1918 (Everett, 2006) some of the Hungarian anarchists participated in the newly established communist party of Hungary (which played a very important role in the events of the commune) and tried to turn the party into more libertarian paths.

Eventually the commune collapsed when the Romanian army on behalf of the Advent invaded Hungary and defeated the revolutionary forces. The Commune succeeded a trade union government, while on Aug. 6 the Romanian army occupies Budapest. But things will get worse. The coup d'état of Hungarian Admiral Michel Horty (who in the coming years as a regent binds Hungary to the chariot of Nazi Germany) follows the government. Then the Hungarian nationalists, under the eyes of the Romanian occupation army, unleash the "white" terror that left behind the thousands of victims (including several anarchists).

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Italian anarchist movement flourished. In addition, by 1914, the anarchist movement was boosted by the influx of new members as a result of the struggles against the Libyan campaign and struggles to defend the working class. In Italy, the results of the intra-national struggle over the issue of war were less damaging to the anarchist movement than in other countries. But in general, the Italian left has not had such a mood as in the other countries. So Partito Socialista Italiana (PSI) has not fervently boosted the war effort as did various major socialist parties in the rest of Europe1.

The anarchist interventionists in favor of Italy's entry into the conflict were not many, and it has been argued that 1 such attempts were initiated by Nysex and hibernate anarcho-individualists. We have already seen the case of the futurists who fall in part in the category of anarcho-individualists (Botsola and Tisdale, 1984).

4

hasbrochem OP wrote

I usually just use a machine translation, I'll post that in a minute as part of this if you don't mind waiting for a few.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

A lot of this ancestry-determining web technology that's become popular doesn't work as well for POC as it does for ytes, especially for black americans whose documents have often been unavailable for easy access. It'll be interesting to see how the conversation changes (or doesn't) now that more light is being shed on this topic.

4

Cheeks wrote

Most don't realize those responsible for the potato famine(the lumpin cultivar, hardly a famine though it was the foundation for peasant diet) were the English landlords. It was during a time of abundance, plenty of food to go around, it was just exported at the detriment of the peasant Irish for the profit of the English landlords.

2

hasbrochem wrote

Even these reformers, though, used Pueblo dances as a stage on which to project their feelings about changing sexual mores, notes Jacobs. They liked the idea that Native women represented strong-minded “new women” who were in control of their own sexuality—just as they wanted to be.

we still see this kind of thing happening from indigenous people's in the americas to the kurds in rojava to palestinians to...projection rather than attempting to understand.

In 1924, the dance issue made it to a women’s club convention. There, white women attempted to speak up for Pueblo Indians, despite the frustration of Pueblos who would rather have spoken out themselves.

they don't need saviors, or someone to give voice to their cause, they already have their own voice. we just need to listen to what they're already saying.

100 years and the same shit is still going on...

3