Thursday, 20 December 2012
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
blackfemlens: Nice White Boys Next Door
blackfemlens: Nice White Boys Next Door: By Sikivu Hutchinson Standing in line at the California Science Center the day of the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary school, my...
Tuesday, 4 December 2012
Monday, 3 December 2012
The Failed Estate: Scraping the Barrel
The Failed Estate: Scraping the Barrel: The more irrelevant newspapers become, the greater their resort to spin, deceit and wilful manipulation in the service of pandering to th...
Thursday, 29 November 2012
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
The Failed Estate: Safety in Numbers
The Failed Estate: Safety in Numbers: The self-mythology of journalism is that its practitioners are dissidents, contrarians, professional sceptics and iconoclasts. But the beh...
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
Monday, 26 November 2012
Saturday, 24 November 2012
The 4th Wave: for you, savita
The 4th Wave: for you, savita: I support abortion rights because I believe that a woman's right to control her own body is a central tenant to autonomy and personal freed...
Friday, 23 November 2012
Thursday, 22 November 2012
Monday, 19 November 2012
Sunday, 18 November 2012
Wednesday, 14 November 2012
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Friday, 2 November 2012
Moorfield Storey Blog: An Open Letter to Anti-Feminist "Libertarians"
Moorfield Storey Blog: An Open Letter to Anti-Feminist "Libertarians": Stefan Molyneux’s recent video, a defense of his statement that “feminism is socialism with panties” (from which he takes his title) is not ...
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
The Stand: Dr Denis Mukwege.
Dr Denis Mukwege-'The Stand'
A few days ago, Dr. Mukwege survived an attempt on his life. A group of armed men burst into his home, held his two young daughters and their friend at gunpoint, and killed a man who worked for him. It is fair to conclude that he was targeted because of his extraordinary work.....
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
Sunday, 28 October 2012
Keirsey Temperament
Studs
“…in earlier days, walk along the street in Chicago and be mobbed by people wanting to talk with him. He welcomed them all, and made slow if any progress to wherever he was going.”........
'Studs' Terkel-Provider Guardian Temperament
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
An Open Letter to Ann Coulter
An Open Letter to Ann Coulter
Dear Ann Coulter,
Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren’t dumb and you aren’t shallow. So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?
I’m a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public’s perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow. I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you. In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night.....see rest of John Franklin Stephen's letter
http://specialolympicsblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/an-open-letter-to-ann-coulter/
Dear Ann Coulter,
Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren’t dumb and you aren’t shallow. So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?
I’m a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public’s perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow. I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you. In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night.....see rest of John Franklin Stephen's letter
http://specialolympicsblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/an-open-letter-to-ann-coulter/
A feminist response to That Speech by Julia Gillard
by 99, editor of Turn Left
http://turnleft2013.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/a-feminist-response-to-that-speech-by-julia-gillard/
Just about every Australian who is a regular use of social media has probably seen That Speech by the Prime Minister. A week later, people I know are still talking about it.
When Julia Gillard called out the Opposition leader for his sexism and misogyny – it changed everything. Almost everything, mainstream media dismissed it, and carried on with their tired old narrative that everything in this country is wrong, and can only be fixed by a change of government. (Well, let’s face it, that was the solution in 2007).
That Speech was a hit of social media. Watching the speech live and following the tweets, even as it was happening we knew we were seeing history being made. Gough Whitlam’s speech to the crowd on the day of the Dismissal, Paul Keating’s ‘Redfern Speech’ and speech for the Unknown Soldier.
And now the Julia Gillard Misogyny speech.
The silence the following day, and days after, in our newspapers and on our televisions highlighted the huge gulf between old and new media.
For those of who watched the speech live, we knew how we felt as those words were spoken. We were discussing it and dissecting it as it was happening. And yet, the next day the political opinion writers of old media were trying to tell us we got the context wrong, we had missed the point, it was bad for feminism, it was… who knows.
The fact was, it was old media which had missed the point. They were trying to tell us that our lived experiences of watching the speech was wrong, our reactions were wrong, our feelings were wrong, our emotions were wrong, and that the experiences, reactions, emotions, feelings of those we talked to about That Speech were also wrong.
It was that moment that sealed the coffin on old media.
The fact that they were trying so hard to convince us that what we knew was “wrong” was proof of Old Medias irrelevancy.
Like the Churches who said the Bible had to be in Latin, a language the population didn’t speak, in order for the priests to be the official interpreters of the Word of their God.
The Canberra press gallery are acting like old-time priests.
They act like they are the only ones who can interpret correctly what was said in Parliament House. And like the Churches who lost power when the Bibles were printed in English and the people could read for themselves what the Word was, now people are getting their news direct from the source and the Press Gallery is surplus to requirements.
However, what is happening in Parliament House is just a small part of modern politics. Politics in this country is more than just politicians, it is in the home, the workplaces, the clubs, the social networks, it is the relationships between people.
Seventies feminists said ‘the personal is political‘, however, modern academics tells us ‘who cares what you think or feel, all that matters is that you can cite dead-white-European-males as a source‘.
During the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 for the Democrat nomination, famous lefties denigrated Clinton on the basis of her gender – from Michael Moore calling Clinton a ‘bitch’ to Randi Rhodes using the ‘fucking whore’ slur.
These are people who should have been on the same side.
Gender is both the reason for the personal attacks and the reason these powerful women are told they have no right to defend themselves.
They – whether the women of the Liberal party or the talking heads of MSM – tell us that Julia Gillard somehow betrayed feminism for speaking out.
Feminists fought for decades, even centuries, for the right to be treated as humans.
Here was one, speaking up against abuse in the workplace and we are told that She should have kept her mouth shut.
‘They’ said the Prime Minister was wrong for playing the gender card, but the basis for personal attacks and death fantasies from Alan Jones, Tony Abbott, Graham Morris is the gender of the Prime Minister.
These men abuse and bully women, then continue the bullying and abuse because their victims speak out.
The pushback is so strong because the people who oppose a female Prime Minister or an ALP government because they know That Speech has had an impact. If the speech was meaningless there would be no need to keep telling people just how meaningless it is.
No matter how conservatives try to reframe That Speech as being insignificant we, who watched it, know otherwise.
Only a weak man resorts to bullying and abuse against women when his intellect and policies (both lacking in the Opposition Leader) fail.
Now the story we are being told that is was not a moment for feminists to celebrate.
John Pilger wrote “Julia Gillard is no feminist hero” in The Guardian … Yeah, because nothing screams an understanding of contemporary Australian feminism like an old white male who abandoned Australia sometime in the previous century.
Quite frankly, Mr Pilger, no one cares what you think. You are irrelevant to this debate.
To drag that speech out of Parliament and put it next to asylum seekers, single mothers on Newstart allowance, Gillard’s ‘no’ vote on marriage equality, jokes at CFMEU dinners and say those things cancels out the message of that speech. Put That Speech in with a whole list of other things doesn’t put it in context, it removes it from its context.
‘They’ say but look at all these other things first – therefore Julia is not perfect, and her speech is bad for feminism – but here’s the thing about feminism (at least my feminism) – it’s not about finding a feminist role model and then worshipping that person.
Apart from the fact that it tends to be the usual suspects – old white right-wing men – bitching about Julia Gillard’s speech, they fail to grasp what feminism is.
If someone is expected to be perfect, then they stop being human and become gods, and feminism is not a cult, worshipping Julia Gillard.
Feminism is not about a set of rules where everybody has to all believe exactly the same things at the same time.
However, back to That Speech – Julia Gillard doesn’t have to be perfect for That Speech to have impact in the lives of women and girls in this country.
If a woman has to be perfect in order to be a feminist role model, then that would make her a not very good role model, no one is perfect, and since no one can be perfect, perfect people make bad role models.
After years of implied death threats and vile sexist abuse, Julia Gillard named it for what it was, sexism and misogyny. Incidents were no longer being dismissed with “boys will be boys”. Instead of convincing the entire country to live in some kind of silence about the abuse directed to the Prime Minister, which amounts to little more than “blaming the victim”.
We would not sit back and avert our eyes if this ongoing abuse was against any woman in a domestic situation, so why do we allow it in parliament?
This is what matters.
Feminism is about choosing those things that making your life better, it is about not putting up with second class treatment based on gender, it is not accepting less than being treated like a human being, what it is not is following a strict set of doctrine.
If the only thing women and girls get from That Julia Speech is ‘name and shame’ people who use sexism – then that can’t be bad for women. But for those watching, it was more than just naming abusers, it was also naming the abuse for what it was, and not hiding in shame.
Our silence is consent, It’s time to say enough is enough.
The shame is not the Prime Ministers because these things are done to her, the shame belongs to those on the Opposition benches who engage in daily sexism and abuse.
This is good for everyone, except those who are invested in and benefit from keeping women down.
And, in the end, the Old Media couldn’t care less about the context of the speech, they only care about bringing down a democratically elected government.
http://turnleft2013.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/a-feminist-response-to-that-speech-by-julia-gillard/
Just about every Australian who is a regular use of social media has probably seen That Speech by the Prime Minister. A week later, people I know are still talking about it.
When Julia Gillard called out the Opposition leader for his sexism and misogyny – it changed everything. Almost everything, mainstream media dismissed it, and carried on with their tired old narrative that everything in this country is wrong, and can only be fixed by a change of government. (Well, let’s face it, that was the solution in 2007).
That Speech was a hit of social media. Watching the speech live and following the tweets, even as it was happening we knew we were seeing history being made. Gough Whitlam’s speech to the crowd on the day of the Dismissal, Paul Keating’s ‘Redfern Speech’ and speech for the Unknown Soldier.
And now the Julia Gillard Misogyny speech.
The silence the following day, and days after, in our newspapers and on our televisions highlighted the huge gulf between old and new media.
For those of who watched the speech live, we knew how we felt as those words were spoken. We were discussing it and dissecting it as it was happening. And yet, the next day the political opinion writers of old media were trying to tell us we got the context wrong, we had missed the point, it was bad for feminism, it was… who knows.
The fact was, it was old media which had missed the point. They were trying to tell us that our lived experiences of watching the speech was wrong, our reactions were wrong, our feelings were wrong, our emotions were wrong, and that the experiences, reactions, emotions, feelings of those we talked to about That Speech were also wrong.
It was that moment that sealed the coffin on old media.
The fact that they were trying so hard to convince us that what we knew was “wrong” was proof of Old Medias irrelevancy.
Like the Churches who said the Bible had to be in Latin, a language the population didn’t speak, in order for the priests to be the official interpreters of the Word of their God.
The Canberra press gallery are acting like old-time priests.
They act like they are the only ones who can interpret correctly what was said in Parliament House. And like the Churches who lost power when the Bibles were printed in English and the people could read for themselves what the Word was, now people are getting their news direct from the source and the Press Gallery is surplus to requirements.
However, what is happening in Parliament House is just a small part of modern politics. Politics in this country is more than just politicians, it is in the home, the workplaces, the clubs, the social networks, it is the relationships between people.
Seventies feminists said ‘the personal is political‘, however, modern academics tells us ‘who cares what you think or feel, all that matters is that you can cite dead-white-European-males as a source‘.
During the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 for the Democrat nomination, famous lefties denigrated Clinton on the basis of her gender – from Michael Moore calling Clinton a ‘bitch’ to Randi Rhodes using the ‘fucking whore’ slur.
These are people who should have been on the same side.
Gender is both the reason for the personal attacks and the reason these powerful women are told they have no right to defend themselves.
They – whether the women of the Liberal party or the talking heads of MSM – tell us that Julia Gillard somehow betrayed feminism for speaking out.
Feminists fought for decades, even centuries, for the right to be treated as humans.
Here was one, speaking up against abuse in the workplace and we are told that She should have kept her mouth shut.
‘They’ said the Prime Minister was wrong for playing the gender card, but the basis for personal attacks and death fantasies from Alan Jones, Tony Abbott, Graham Morris is the gender of the Prime Minister.
These men abuse and bully women, then continue the bullying and abuse because their victims speak out.
The pushback is so strong because the people who oppose a female Prime Minister or an ALP government because they know That Speech has had an impact. If the speech was meaningless there would be no need to keep telling people just how meaningless it is.
No matter how conservatives try to reframe That Speech as being insignificant we, who watched it, know otherwise.
Only a weak man resorts to bullying and abuse against women when his intellect and policies (both lacking in the Opposition Leader) fail.
Now the story we are being told that is was not a moment for feminists to celebrate.
John Pilger wrote “Julia Gillard is no feminist hero” in The Guardian … Yeah, because nothing screams an understanding of contemporary Australian feminism like an old white male who abandoned Australia sometime in the previous century.
Quite frankly, Mr Pilger, no one cares what you think. You are irrelevant to this debate.
To drag that speech out of Parliament and put it next to asylum seekers, single mothers on Newstart allowance, Gillard’s ‘no’ vote on marriage equality, jokes at CFMEU dinners and say those things cancels out the message of that speech. Put That Speech in with a whole list of other things doesn’t put it in context, it removes it from its context.
‘They’ say but look at all these other things first – therefore Julia is not perfect, and her speech is bad for feminism – but here’s the thing about feminism (at least my feminism) – it’s not about finding a feminist role model and then worshipping that person.
Apart from the fact that it tends to be the usual suspects – old white right-wing men – bitching about Julia Gillard’s speech, they fail to grasp what feminism is.
If someone is expected to be perfect, then they stop being human and become gods, and feminism is not a cult, worshipping Julia Gillard.
Feminism is not about a set of rules where everybody has to all believe exactly the same things at the same time.
However, back to That Speech – Julia Gillard doesn’t have to be perfect for That Speech to have impact in the lives of women and girls in this country.
If a woman has to be perfect in order to be a feminist role model, then that would make her a not very good role model, no one is perfect, and since no one can be perfect, perfect people make bad role models.
After years of implied death threats and vile sexist abuse, Julia Gillard named it for what it was, sexism and misogyny. Incidents were no longer being dismissed with “boys will be boys”. Instead of convincing the entire country to live in some kind of silence about the abuse directed to the Prime Minister, which amounts to little more than “blaming the victim”.
We would not sit back and avert our eyes if this ongoing abuse was against any woman in a domestic situation, so why do we allow it in parliament?
This is what matters.
Feminism is about choosing those things that making your life better, it is about not putting up with second class treatment based on gender, it is not accepting less than being treated like a human being, what it is not is following a strict set of doctrine.
If the only thing women and girls get from That Julia Speech is ‘name and shame’ people who use sexism – then that can’t be bad for women. But for those watching, it was more than just naming abusers, it was also naming the abuse for what it was, and not hiding in shame.
Our silence is consent, It’s time to say enough is enough.
The shame is not the Prime Ministers because these things are done to her, the shame belongs to those on the Opposition benches who engage in daily sexism and abuse.
This is good for everyone, except those who are invested in and benefit from keeping women down.
And, in the end, the Old Media couldn’t care less about the context of the speech, they only care about bringing down a democratically elected government.
Sunday, 21 October 2012
Friday, 19 October 2012
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Saturday, 13 October 2012
Monday, 8 October 2012
Maria Mitchell-'Hunger of the Mind'
Maria Mitchell was born August 1, 1818 on the island of Nantucket in Massachusetts.
"We have a hunger of the mind. We ask for all of the knowledge around us and the more we get, the more we desire."
The first acknowledged woman astronomer in the United States.
Courtesy of Wikipedia:
Maria, a first cousin four times removed of Benjamin Franklin, she had nine brothers and sisters. Her parents, William Mitchell and Lydia Coleman Mitchell, were Quakers.
Maria Mitchell was born into a community unusual for its time in regard to equality for women.
Her parents, like other Quakers, valued education and insisted on giving her the same quality of education that boys received.
The Quaker religion taught, among other things, intellectual equality between the sexes. Additionally, Nantucket's importance as a whaling port meant that wives of sailors were left for months and sometimes years to manage affairs while their husbands were at sea, thus fostering an atmosphere of relative independence and equality for the women who called the island home. In spite of this, the women of Nantucket still lacked the right to own property or to vote, among other things.
After attending Elizabeth Gardener's small school in her earliest childhood years, Maria attended the North Grammar school, where William Mitchell was the first principal. Two years following the founding of that school, when Maria was eleven, her father built his own school on Howard Street. There, she was a student and also a teaching assistant to her father. At home, Maria's father taught her astronomy using his personal telescope. At age twelve and a half, she aided her father in calculating the exact moment of annular eclipse. Her father's school closed, and afterwards she attended Unitarian minister Cyrus Peirce's school for young ladies. Later she worked for Peirce as his teaching assistant before she opened her own school in 1835. One year later, she was offered a job as the first librarian of the Nantucket Atheneum where she worked for eighteen years.
Using a telescope, she discovered the "Miss Mitchell's Comet" (Comet 1847 VI, modern designation is C/1847 T1) on October 1st of 1847. Some years previously, King Frederick VI of Denmark had established gold medal prizes to each discoverer of a "telescopic comet" (too faint to be seen with the naked eye). The prize was to be awarded to the "first discoverer" of each such comet (note that comets are often independently discovered by more than one person).
She duly won one of these prizes, and this gave her worldwide fame, since the only previous woman to discover a comet had been Caroline Herschel.
Maria Mitchell was born into a community unusual for its time in regard to equality for women.
Her parents, like other Quakers, valued education and insisted on giving her the same quality of education that boys received.
The Quaker religion taught, among other things, intellectual equality between the sexes. Additionally, Nantucket's importance as a whaling port meant that wives of sailors were left for months and sometimes years to manage affairs while their husbands were at sea, thus fostering an atmosphere of relative independence and equality for the women who called the island home. In spite of this, the women of Nantucket still lacked the right to own property or to vote, among other things.
After attending Elizabeth Gardener's small school in her earliest childhood years, Maria attended the North Grammar school, where William Mitchell was the first principal. Two years following the founding of that school, when Maria was eleven, her father built his own school on Howard Street. There, she was a student and also a teaching assistant to her father. At home, Maria's father taught her astronomy using his personal telescope. At age twelve and a half, she aided her father in calculating the exact moment of annular eclipse. Her father's school closed, and afterwards she attended Unitarian minister Cyrus Peirce's school for young ladies. Later she worked for Peirce as his teaching assistant before she opened her own school in 1835. One year later, she was offered a job as the first librarian of the Nantucket Atheneum where she worked for eighteen years.
Using a telescope, she discovered the "Miss Mitchell's Comet" (Comet 1847 VI, modern designation is C/1847 T1) on October 1st of 1847. Some years previously, King Frederick VI of Denmark had established gold medal prizes to each discoverer of a "telescopic comet" (too faint to be seen with the naked eye). The prize was to be awarded to the "first discoverer" of each such comet (note that comets are often independently discovered by more than one person).
She duly won one of these prizes, and this gave her worldwide fame, since the only previous woman to discover a comet had been Caroline Herschel.
A Rational Temperament.
Maria's first teacher was a lady for whom she always felt the warmest affection, and in her diary, written in her later years, occurs this allusion to her:
"I count in my life, outside of family relatives, three aids given me on my journey; they are prominent to me: the woman who first made the study-book charming; the man who sent me the first hundred dollars I ever saw, to buy books with; and another noble woman, through whose efforts I became the owner of a telescope; and of these, the first was the greatest."
As a little girl, Maria was not a brilliant scholar; she was shy and slow; but later, under her father's tuition, she developed very rapidly. After her father gave up teaching, Maria was put under the instruction of Mr. Cyrus Peirce, afterwards principal of the first normal school started in the United States. Peirce took a great interest in Maria, especially in developing her taste for mathematical study, for which she early showed a remarkable talent.
The books which she studied at the age of seventeen, as we know by the date of the notes, were Bridge's "Conic Sections," Hutton's "Mathematics," and Bowditch's "Navigator." At that time Prof. Benjamin Peirce had not published his "Explanations of the Navigator and Almanac," so that Maria was obliged to consult many scientific books and reports before she could herself construct the astronomical tables.
Maria Mitchell was an inveterate reader. She devoured books on all subjects.
Rationals (NTs) are the problem solving temperament, particularly if the problem has to do with the many complex systems that make up the world around us. Rationals might tackle problems in organic systems such as plants and animals, or in mechanical systems such as railroads and computers, or in social systems such as families and companies and governments. But whatever systems fire their curiosity, Rationals will analyze them to understand how they work, so they can figure out how to make them work better.
In working with problems, Rationals try to find solutions that have application in the real world, but they are even more interested in the abstract concepts involved, the fundamental principles or natural laws that underlie the particular case. And they are completely pragmatic about their ways and means of achieving their ends.
Rationals don't care about being politically correct.
They are interested in the most efficient solutions possible, and will listen to anyone who has something useful to teach them, while disregarding any authority or customary procedure that wastes time and resources.
Sunday, 7 October 2012
Thursday, 4 October 2012
It Stands To Reason..
http://blog.keirsey.com/2012/10/04/it-stands-to-reason/
Reblogged from Please Understand Me-Keirsey Blog
Reblogged from Please Understand Me-Keirsey Blog
It Stands to Reason
by David Keirsey"It is my nature to be what I am." No, she didn't say that, Emma Goldman did, but she could have said the same. And, she knew much of what Goldman said was good, but not all. You see, she could learn from Goldman --- and Rand, Milgram, Harman, .... and from Voltairine de Cleyre. [...]
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
Champion Idealist-Dolores Huerta: 'Si se puede'
Si se puede-Yes it can be done.
"I couldn't stand seeing kids come to class hungry and needing shoes. I thought I could do more by organizing farm workers than by trying to teach their hungry children."
Dolores receiving Medal of Freedom from President Obama, 2012.
"I would like to be remembered as a woman who cares for fellow humans. We must use our lives to make the world a better place to live, not just to acquire things. That is what we are put on the earth for" (Griswold del Castillo 75).
Dolores Clara Fernandez Huerta (born April 10, 1930) is a labor leader and civil rights activist who, along with César Chávez, co-founded the National Farmworkers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers (UFW).
Courtesy of wikipedia:
Born on April 10, 1930, in the mining town of Dawson, New Mexico, Huerta was the daughter of Juan Fernandez—a miner, field/farm worker, union activist and state assemblyman—and Alicia Chavez.
Huerta was the couple's second child and only daughter; the couple divorced when Huerta was three years old.
Chavez raised Huerta and her two brothers, in the central California farm worker community of Stockton, California. Huerta's mother was known for her kindness and compassion towards others and was active in community affairs, numerous civic organizations, and the church. She encouraged the cultural diversity that was a natural part of Dolores' upbringing in Stockton. Chavez was a businesswoman who owned a restaurant and a 70-room hotel where she welcomed low-wage workers and farm worker families for affordable prices and sometimes even for free.This started Dolores thinking about civil rights.
Huerta's community activism began when she was a student in Stockton High School. Huerta was active in numerous school clubs, and was a majorette and a dedicated member of the Girl Scouts until the age of 18. Huerta attended college at the University of the Pacific's Stockton College (later to become San Joaquin Delta Community College) where she obtained a provisional teaching credential. After teaching grammar school, Dolores left her job and began her lifelong crusade to correct economic injustice.
About her at school:
Huerta was outgoing and performed well in school. A former classmate at Stockton High School recalled years later, “When we were in school, she was very popular and outspoken. She was already an organizer, but I didn’t think she’d get so serious and work for such a cause.”
Verbal Dexterity:
Huerta enjoyed a close relationship with her maternal grandfather, Herculano Chávez, who entertained the children with stories, as well as provided patient supervision andwise counsel. He recognized the intelligence and cleverness of his granddaughter. “My grandfather,” Huerta recalled in an interview with the author, “used to call me seven tongues … because I always talked so much.” This verbal dexterity would be an important asset in her adult life.
Idealists are naturally drawn to working with people, and whether in education or counseling, in social services or personnel work, in journalism or the ministry, they are gifted at helping others find their way in life, often inspiring them to grow as individuals and to fulfill their potentials. Idealists are sure that friendly cooperation is the best way for people to achieve their goals. They believe in giving of themselves to help others..
Dolores:
Giving voice to the disenfranchised of society, and can be capable organisers:
"Their strong drive to speak out on issues and events, along with their boundless enthusiasm and natural talent with language, makes them the most vivacious and inspiring of all the types."
A passion for justice has been the motivating force behind the long career of Dolores Huerta, co-founder along with César E. Chávez, of the United Farm Workers’union.
For over 40 years she has devoted her intellect, energy, and vibrant personality to improving the lives of farm laborers, Mexican Americans, and women. Huerta’s single-minded dedication to social change has been commemorated in murals, in songs, in newspaper articles and magazines, and in the hearts and minds of overlapping generations of tens of thousands of union members and supporters. Her determination and unswerving advocacy of the rights of the poor and the disenfranchised have earned her innumerable awards and recognition from labor,community service, Hispanic, religious, political, and women’s groups.
Still active in her autumn years, Dolores Huerta is acknowledged as one of the foremost women in the U.S. labor movement and is heralded as an inspiring role model for the youth of today. Although Huerta is sought after as a speaker, her early life, her upbringing, her awakening as a social activist, her relationship with César E. Chávez, her career struggles, and her contribution to the UFW are not well known outside of labor and Mexican American circles.
For over 40 years she has devoted her intellect, energy, and vibrant personality to improving the lives of farm laborers, Mexican Americans, and women. Huerta’s single-minded dedication to social change has been commemorated in murals, in songs, in newspaper articles and magazines, and in the hearts and minds of overlapping generations of tens of thousands of union members and supporters. Her determination and unswerving advocacy of the rights of the poor and the disenfranchised have earned her innumerable awards and recognition from labor,community service, Hispanic, religious, political, and women’s groups.
Still active in her autumn years, Dolores Huerta is acknowledged as one of the foremost women in the U.S. labor movement and is heralded as an inspiring role model for the youth of today. Although Huerta is sought after as a speaker, her early life, her upbringing, her awakening as a social activist, her relationship with César E. Chávez, her career struggles, and her contribution to the UFW are not well known outside of labor and Mexican American circles.
Dolores Huerta:
Huerta advocated the use of non-violent civil disobedience when necessary. She was arrested 22 different times. In San Francisco In 1988 during a lawful and peaceful protest of the platform of candidate George H.W. Bush, she was severely beaten. Several ribs were broken and she was hospitalized for emergency surgery. The incident was caught on tape which led to a ruling in Huerta’s favor against the San Francisco Police Department. The money she received went directly to benefit farm workers.
“Democracy can only work if the people take power,” says Dolores Huerta, and she has dedicated her entire life to addressing labor and social problems and then helping the people involved take appropriate power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)