The Treaty of Fort Jackson (also known as the Treaty with the Creeks) was signed on this day in 1814 at Fort Jackson in Alabama. The treaty was agreed upon in the aftermath of the defeat of Red Stick (Upper Creek) resistance by U.S. forces at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.

The treaty was the "largest single Indian cession of southern American land", according to historian Michael Rogin - around 23 million acres in Alabama and Georgia. The U.S. forces won with the battle with the help of allied Cherokee and Lower Creek forces friendly to the American side.

The terms of various treaties with the Creek nation would go on to be consistently violated by Americans colonizing the south.

I hope you nerds have a good month of August cuddle

Remember no crackers

anti-cracker-aktionqin-shi-huangdi-fireball

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 4 weeks ago (13 children)

Petition to ban white people from talking about (cis) gender dynamics, please. There's an exhausting thread with a lot of dogshit takes going on right now, not entirely full of white people, but a lot of generalizing white masculinity culture to all men. I just do not and cannot trust people saying "death to men" and "masculinity is the whiteness of gender". There are too many examples of nonwhite men being demonized, dehumanized, and murdered, and trans women have been swept up in those dragnets as well, ans white women have been instrumental in that too. Someone more educated has probably written about this but I just don't feel capable of writing it up coherently

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 4 weeks ago* (1 child)

    I've been saying this, and honestly, truthfully, what might be a hot take (at least with most of the left-wing cracKKKers I interact with, though I've seen more nuance on this from some fellow POC) is that I actually do not trust misandry.

    Of course, it's not me saying it's "as bad as misogyny" or validating the woes of incels who want to deny that society is patriarchal.

    But ISTG, every time I see a white (cis) woman talk about how "evil" men are, I do not assume she is just some "girlboss" who is innocuously punching up at her oppressors. I believe she is most likely a transphobic, racist bioessentialist who'd never acknowledge the dangerous power that she has over men of color, especially since it is the rule, not the exception, for white women to have a very self-centered approach to injustice and only care about oppression that personally affects them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • And there is actual discrimination involved in this, the bigotry against immigrant men who are the main target of right wing propaganda especially in Europe, it paints Arab and African men specifically as "SA"ers and thieves and is used to justify hate crimes. There's the fact that even human right organizations use "women and children" to refer to civilians in wars against third world countries, as if to say "it's okay to kill Iranian, Palestinian, Lebanese, Yemeni and all other browns if they are men". POC men also face gender specific fetishisation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

    Death to men= when bad things happen to racialized men, it's okay to ignore them because they're men

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

    Yes! A comrade was running a reading group of Mohammed el-Kurd's book Perfect Victims wherein he talked about why he had to recenter men. Men are part of the community, and the western press (when it deigns to talk about Israel's atrocities at all) says in the same breath that it's terrible to kill women and children but fine to kill men. And future men, as in boys, as in children. But when the men are murdered, the women aren't going "thank god we've been freed from our oppressive males", no, they mourn their brothers, their sons, their husbands, their uncles, their friends.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Shit, even boys can be subject to the same treatment. I remember there were a couple of times where teenage Palestinian boys were described as something along the lines of "underage men" or something like that in mainstream media sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The amount of times Machismo gets brought up to explain the “depravity” of LATIN CULTURE annoys the hell out of me, as if Anglos don’t view Latinas as some sort of walking sex toy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago

    When Kopmala lost to Trump so many whites were blaming latinos, esp men, cause "they're so sexist they would never vote for a woman to have power over them" while ignoring many if not most latam countries have had at least one female president while the us has had 0 lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    White people who have any kind of marginalization will hide under it to be vile racists. See white women complaining about all men while historically owning slaves, including black male slaves, white trans and queer people acting like they're the biggest victims of everything while appropriating the statistics, lived experiences and the murders of trans and queer racialized people for their own gain and being racist to poc cause "they're homophobic/transphobic" or another bs excuse while they kill us all under the rainbow banner of lgbt rights and feminism (see the list of trans murder victims of any year and you can count on one or two hands the number of white ones out of all named). Hell even this supposed leftist site had a whole struggle session about how you're a raging ableist if you had any kind of negative feelings about a white man who screamed the n slur with a hard r to a group of black men lmao. Anything about the "evil men/cishet/whatever" can be dismissed 90% of the time when it comes out from the mouth of a white mf cause dig deep enough and you'll see that rhetoric being used for racist shit. I could say more but other comrades have said it already in this thread. In conclusion: yes all crakkkers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    The cracKKKers of this site tend to always assume good of white women and white queers. They'll see a white women spew shit against "all men" and never stop for a second to wonder if her definition of "men" might include trans women or if she is aware of the racial violence she could enact on men of color*. I feel like I rarely ever see struggle sessions related to gender, but I do recall some. The way this site handles gender dynamics is less likely to be scrutinized, but on racial subjects? That's where people especially get uncomfortable and always want to cause a ruckus. That's how we were able to have so many separate struggle sessions about Ansarallah being "antisemitic." This is also why this time I saw some liberal white man on some Instagram reel say "White people treat Black people the way men treat women" made me uncomfortable. That kind of framing greatly misses the point and is so damn reductive. It's reminding me of that John Lennon song, too (you know the one). The compartmentalization is annoying as well. People might think shit like "In Western countries, a Black man is privileged over a white woman in terms of gender, but the white woman is privileged over him in terms of race," but that's not actually how it works. You cannot separate the way gender factors into racial dynamics here. The way gender is handled on these two bodies is not something that exists in a vacuum, detached from any other aspect about them, so people shouldn't oversimplify that shit.

    *Though this didn't happen with a "white" Western country, this is also reminding me of this time we had this post uncritically celebrating South Korea's 4B movement and then everyone who was cheering that shit on felt embarrassed and started deleting/editing comments when someone commented that said movement is actually horrible in many ways. Such includes transphobia and how they are really more so the product of internalized racism (i.e., they are against sex with Korean men, but sure as hell don't mind sex with male Western tourists, akin to the "divestor" shit you see among a small portion of Black women)

    Here's what I don't understand, though: how the fuck can someone hear of a "female separatist movement" in SSouth KKKorea of all fucking places and then be baffled when that movement is extremely bioessentialist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there has ever been a time when female separatism HASN'T been bioessentialist. If it wasn't, chances are there would have to be very awkward conversations about how trans and non-binary people factor into this shit, and these movements certainly do not permit such nuances. Their approach is already undialectical as fuck and tries to reduce "dismantling patriarchy" to individual acts of abstinence against men.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    you have articulated exactly how i felt about 4B. certain communities at least acknowledged it had transphobic elements, but this thread is literally the only place i've seen discuss its pro white men angle.

  • source
  • parent