June 4, 1939 During what became known as the “Voyage of the Damned,” the SS St. Louis, carrying more than 900 Jewish refugees from Germany to the U.S., was turned away from the Florida coast. The ship, also denied permission to dock in Cuba, eventually returned to Europe; many of the refugees later died in Nazi concentration camps. The reality of what happened The movie based on the history
June 4, 1972 Angela Y. Davis, a former philosophy professor at the University of California, outspoken black leader and self-proclaimed communist, was acquitted on charges of conspiracy, murder, and kidnapping by an all-white jury in San Jose, California. More on Angela Davis Angela Davis wearing a peace button from peacebuttons.info, speaking at The Grays Harbor Institute, Hoquiam, Washington April, 2007
June 4, 1987 New Zealand passed legislation declaring itself nuclear-free. In 1986, New Zealand had banned the entry of U.S. Navy ships from their ports in the belief that they were carrying nuclear weapons or were nuclear-powered. U.S. government protests of the policy led to breakup of the ANZUS (Australia-New Zealand-United States) defense alliance.The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act of 1987 (which ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) prohibits the: • manufacture, acquisition, possession, control of any nuclear explosive device • aiding, abetting or procuring any person to manufacture, acquire, possess, or have control over any nuclear explosive device • transport, stockpiling, storage, installation, or deployment of any nuclear explosive device.
June 4, 1989 Hundreds of civilians were shot dead by China’s People’s Liberation Army during a bloody military operation in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. Students and workers had become part of a growing pro-democracy movement, gathering there continuously for weeks. The Chinese government still officially denies any deaths occurred; thousands who were arrested “disappeared” and remain unaccounted for. “… deaths from the military assault on Tiananmen Square range from 180 to 500; thousands more have been injured . . . thousands of civilians stood their ground or swarmed around military vehicles. APCs [armored personnel carriers] were set on fire, and demonstrators besieged troops with rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails.”* *From a comprehensive overview prepared by the National Security Archive based on formerly classified U.S. Government documents
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Harald Ringbauer et al. writing in Nature report on a genetic study of the ancient Phoenicians that is really going to anger Lebanese Christian nationalists. In fact, it contains a profound lesson for nationalists and nationalism in general, which is that the whole thing is a scam thought up in the last 250 years.
The 19th century racist thinker Ernest Renan saw a racial distinction between “Aryans” and “Semites.” From that point of view, the Punic wars between Rome and Carthage had a racial element, since Phoenicians were classed as “Semites.” But it turns out it was all a tiff among people we would now class as Italians.
The Phoenicians had been thought to be a unified civilization that began in what is today Lebanon. Well, they did start off in what is today Lebanon. But the “unified civilization” bit turns out to be a misconception.
The Phoenicians developed an alphabet. Like most alphabets, the letters had originally been pictograms. The Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic, as well as the Greek and Roman alphabets (we still use the latter) derived from the Phoenician. For instance a picture of waves stood for water (ma’), and that became our M, which still looks like waves. Or a circle stood for eye (`ayn), which became our ‘o.’
Since the Phoenicians founded city-states all around the Mediterranean and left inscriptions in that alphabet, scholars had assumed that they were a related people. Phoenician settlements in the western Mediterranean were called “Punic,” but the language and customs were the same.
Regarding the Lebanese origins of this civlizational complex, Ringbauer et al. write, “We find that individuals from the Levantine Phoenician site of Akhziv in present-day Israel cluster together with previously published Bronze and Iron Age Levantine individuals, including from Megiddo in present-day Israel and the Phoenician cities of Sidon and Beirut in present-day Lebanon.” That is, they looked at ancient individuals from around the Levant and found that they all had shared haplotypes, i.e. they were Canaanites. Phoenicians, Hebrews, Nabataeans, etc. were all Canaanites culturally and genetically.
Now imagine the scientists’ astonishment when they looked at DNA from individuals who had lived in Phoenician cities such as Ibiza off Spain or Carthage in Tunisia to find that it did not display the ancient haplotypes or genetic sequences associated with Levantine peoples.
They write, “However, a mitochondrial genome from Carthage and whole-genome data from 12 individuals from the nearby rural Punic site of Kerkouane show substantial south European ancestry as well as indigenous North African ancestry. Partial North African ancestry was also found in genome-wide data from eight individuals from two Punic sites in Sardinia, combined with a broad eastern Mediterranean ancestry. Together with analysis of the whole-genome sequence of an individual from Ibiza, which was also interpreted to harbour eastern Mediterranean ancestry, this suggested that Punic people had complex ancestry.”
They observe of these “Phoenicians of the middle and western Mediterranean, “They are broadly distributed with a primary mode overlapping Bronze and Iron Age individuals from Sicily and the Aegean, regardless of sampled location.” There were only three exceptions: two persons from Sicily and one from Sardinia showed Canaanite genetic heritage.
In all the other 119 samples from “Punic” sites, the genetic heritage was mixed, showing patterns similar to those in ancient Greece and Sicily. After around 550 BC, when Carthage was founded by the “Phoenicians” in what is now Tunisia, some North African [Amazigh] genetic heritage starts to circulate among some of them. But this was a minority population. The authors observe, “Even in North Africa, 10 out of the 27 individuals from Kerkouane and 5 out of the 17 individuals from Carthage can be modelled with no indigenous North African ancestry, and 84% of individuals from these sites have more than 50% Sicilian–Aegean ancestry, making it the dominant ancestry component also in North African Punic sites.”
Also, the Iberians were mostly not Iberians. “Only two Iberian individuals, from Ibiza and Cádiz, had confidently high proportions of Bronze Age Iberian ancestry… Instead, Punic sites in the western Mediterranean share similar ancestry distributions of predominantly Sicilian–Aegean or North African origin.”
So how did all this happen? The authors hypothesize that Lebanese Phoenicians colonized Sicily, which had earlier had Greek colonies, and the Sicilians adopted Phoenician language, religion and culture. They they were the ones who struck out west, establishing Phoenician colonies in the central and western Mediterranean.
Ringbauer and his colleagues explain, “A critical question raised by our results is how and when Canaanite–Phoenician culture and language were adopted by people without any detectable Levantine ancestry. One hypothesis is that, after Levantine Phoenicians founded settlements in the central and western Mediterranean in the early first millennium bce, these communities continuously incorporated people with Sicilian–Aegean ancestry.”
Glass head pendant, Phoenician or Carthaginian, ca. 450–300 BCE. Metropolitan Museum. Public Domain.
Reporting on the study for a Nature briefing, Ewen Callaway quotes Ringbauer as asking how it was that many Mediterranean peoples abandoned their own local cultures for that of the Phoenicians. “Does this mean Phoenician culture was like a franchise that others could adopt? That’s one for the archaeologists.”
Of course they were a franchise. So were the ancient Greeks, whose culture was adopted by so many Egyptians in places like Alexandria. As late as the 200s and 300s, there are no Arabic or Aramaic inscriptions in and around Damascus, only Greek ones. Ashkenazi Jews in Europe were also a franchise, which was joined by many gentiles — especially but not only women.
Nineteenth century European theorists of nationalism confused language groups with kinship groups, assuming that people who spoke a language were a “race,” perhaps even a “pure” one.
Today many Lebanese Christians claim to be “Phoenicians,” as though it was a pure “race” unconnected to the “Arabs.” And they take pride in Carthage, a Phoenician city, and in the Phoenician outposts of Spain, imagining they were all “Lebanese.” Ringbauer has knocked that down.
There are no nations or races of that sort. There are no “Aryans” and “Semites.” This was a linguistic distinction that was stupidly racialized. Racial “nation” was all a fevered racist fantasy. Even modern genetics only traces two lines of ancestry, the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial DNA of the X chromosome, whereas we have millions of ancestors. We’re all mongrels, all mixed up, and people in the Mediterranean basin all have a common ancestor from not so long ago. All humans have one likely only 200,000 years ago.
June 3, 1900 The International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union (ILGWU), a consolidation of seven smaller east coast needle trades unions, was founded. Read more Herman Grossman, ILGWU president
June 3, 1946 In Irene Morgan v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in interstate travel was unconstitutional as “an undue burden on commerce.” The southern states refused to enforce it, however, and Jim Crow (the term for laws, local and state, that enforced segregation) continued as the way of life in the South. Eleven years before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama, a young woman named Irene Morgan rejected that same demand on an interstate bus headed to Maryland from Gloucester, Virginia. Read more about Irene Morgan Recovering from surgery and already sitting far in the back, she defied the driver’s order to surrender her seat to a white couple. Like Parks, Morgan was arrested and jailed. But her action caught the attention of lawyers from the NAACP, led by (future Supreme Court justice) Thurgood Marshall, and two years later her case reached the Court. Headlines when Irene Morgan won out over Jim Crow (JC) segregation law
June 3, 1957 Thousands of scientists, led by Barry Commoner and Nobel laureate Linus Pauling, issued a call for banning nuclear weapons testing: “As scientists we have knowledge of the dangers involved and therefore a special responsibility to make those dangers known.” “…Then on May 15, 1957, with the help of some of the scientists in Washington University, St. Louis, I wrote the Scientists’ Bomb Test Appeal, which within two weeks was signed by over two thousand American scientists and within a few months by 11,021 scientists, of forty-nine countries….” –Linus Pauling Linus Pauling at a disarmament demonstration photo: Robert Carl Cohen
June 3, 1964 Conscientious objection, the refusal to bear arms in time of war on the grounds of moral or religious principles, became legally recognized in Belgium. A history of European conscientious objection
I admit my life was different but from the time I was five I knew I was attracted to males. Specifically both sexually and emotionally. One of the hell spawn female siblings even held me down to pound the point that I was “queer” into me. I did not understand why it was wrong, after all they were the ones telling me what to do and farming me out to their teen boyfriends. I craved being held by the boys and not so much the girls. But all the other gay and lesbian people I have talked to knew early also. Preteen time frame. 7 or 8 and up they knew they were gay and either knew they had to hide it or knew they couldn’t so had to live with being attacked for it. These people who think it is a choice, a fad, or a phase need to ask themselves the famous question. When did they know they were cis and straight and was it a choice they made. No they just felt it all their lives, they simply knew it. Same for the LGBTQ+. The only difference is straight cis kids see themselves everywhere from birth. Mommies and daddies, they see themselves in the older kids around them, in the news, movies, TV shows, and the books they read. It feels so natural to them they just don’t question it. They are lucky. Until recently like in the last decade LGBTQ+ kids did not see themselves reflected in society. No movies had kids like them, no books in the library had kids like them. Some kids did not even know the words for how they felt. It was changing in the last ten years. Schools made a push for inclusion and tolerance, movies showed LGBTQ+ kids, books had them as plots or characters. Kids could see themselves and be proud. That is what the haters, the anti-trans / anti-gay bigots want to remove. The ability of kids who are different from the majority to see themselves represented positively in society. It is why they write and pass don’t say gay bills, and why they ban books. It is why they try to ban drag shows and pride events. These people who demand a straight cis world with only them showing in public are terrified of a world where people can be different. To them those who are the other must be destroyed, ideas of acceptance and tolerance must be erradicated and removed. All because they don’t feel different from the majority so the difference must not be real. But it is and we need to realize the scars left on kids who grew up in the times when they never seen themselves represented in society. We must not go backward in time, regressing to a time of hate. Hugs
LGBTQ+ youth advocates gathered outside the Monmouth County Courthouse in Freehold on Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2023, where a school policy that would impact lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth was being reviewed in Superior Court. | Amanda Oglesby / Asbury Park Press / USA TODAY NETWORK
A new poll from Pew Research Center sheds some light on just how early LGBTQ+ people are aware of their identities. The study of LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. found that most respondents understood their identity before the age of 14, with a substantial portion knowing about their identities before the age of 10.
Among gay and lesbian adults, 36% said that they felt they were gay or lesbian before the age of 10 and 35 first felt they were gay or lesbian from ages 10 to 13. Only a minority – 29% – had their first feelings about their sexuality after the age of 14.
The numbers were similar for transgender people. Approximately 33% felt they might be transgender before age 10, and 25% felt the same way between ages 10 to 13. Only 19% had their first feelings about being transgender after the age of 18.
Bisexual people tended to know the latest, but even a majority of bisexual people said that they had their first thoughts about being queer before age 18. Half – 50% – had their first feelings of being bisexual before age 14.
The question often comes up in discussions of LGBTQ+ youth, with many on the right insisting that people can’t know their identities before adulthood. Often, these people claim that only LGBTQ+ people can’t know their identities before adulthood, but then support heterosexuality and cisgender identities in young people.
But these statements fly in the face of LGBTQ+ people’s lived experiences, which often include years of hiding their identities before they create a safer space for themselves to live authentically as adults.
While LGBTQ+ respondents generally first thought about their queer identities when they were very young, most waited until they were older to tell others. While 71% of gay and lesbian people said that they first knew about their sexuality before age 14, only 13% said that they told someone before that age. Approximately 58% of trans people first thought they might be trans before age 14, but only 15% told someone before that age.
This also contradicts the rightwing narrative that young people are saying that they are trans or gay to gain social acceptance and not because they actually identify as such. In reality, young people are saying that they’re straight or cisgender when they actually aren’t, likely to try and get social acceptance.
Pew broke down the results even more and showed that gay men generally felt that they were gay at a younger age than lesbian women, with 40% saying they were younger than 10 years old when they first thought they were gay, as opposed to 29% of lesbian women.
| Pew Research Center
Bisexual women, on the other hand, likely knew earlier than bisexual men. 53% of bi women said they felt they might be bi before they were 14 years old, while just 40% of bi men said the same.
| Pew Research Center
The poll was conducted in January of this year and involved a sample of 3,959 adult LGBTQ+ Americans. The survey asked about a wide variety of topics, including support from family and friends, ties to the larger LGBTQ+ community, and social acceptance.
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
(And let me interject that I know that sometimes I’m a language/punctuation police officer, but I despise the term “reverse discrimination.” Either discrimination has happened, or it hasn’t, to be proven to whoever decides. There is no “reverse discrimination”. grr. Also, this is not a spoiler nor my opinion on the case, it’s simply that I guess it’s good for some people that I do not sit upon the SCOTUS, because I’d want to dismiss and tell them to use appropriate words so that the court could accurately decide based upon the evidence of discrimination, without being distracted by superfluous words. Please be at liberty to laugh at me about this. Then read all the following. -A)
It’s June 1, and that means we’re starting the last month, more or less, of this Supreme Court term. The cases the Court has had briefing on and heard oral argument in will all be decided by the end of this month, although some years it spills over into the first week of July.
We never know which cases are coming next. The Court doesn’t decide them in the order they hear them argued. But usually the biggest, most impactful cases aren’t decided until the end.
This week for “The Week Ahead,” I’ve got a scorecard with some of the most important still-undecided cases for this term on it. The goal is to give you some background to refer to, so when you hear the Court has announced a decision in a certain case you’ll be prepared to understand its significance.
Here they are, in order of when they were argued, although that’s likely to have little to nothing to do with when we will see opinions.
U.S. v. Skrmetti
The issue in this case is whether states can ban gender-affirming care for trans youth in the context of a 2023 Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care, like puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for transgender patients who are minors. The Biden administration intervened in the case and was a party along with three transgender teens and their parents. That changed with the change in administrations. The Trump Justice Department, as you would expect, is on the other side of the case.
A key issue in the case is whether denying treatment to trans youth that is available to their gender conforming peers violates the Constitution by denying them equal protection under the law. A federal district court judge held that it did. But the Court of Appeals reversed. About 25 other Republican dominated states have similar laws. The result in this case will apply beyond Tennessee.
At oral argument, the conservative Justices seemed disinclined to accept the argument that this law is a form of sex discrimination, even though cisgender kids will be able to access treatment that transgender people won’t be able to receive if these laws stand. But the votes seemed to be in place to permit Tennessee and other states to keep their restrictive laws in place.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
The case involves a 2023 Texas law that is supposed to keep minors from accessing pornography online. It requires websites to verify a person’s age before they are admitted to the site. But an industry group that calls itself the Free Speech Coalition sued, claiming the law violates the rights of adults who want to access the content, an impermissible burden on free speech. The ACLU is on their side in the case.
There was at least some indication at oral argument that the Justices are aware we no longer live in a world of dial up internet connections and want to revisit the standards that are used to “protect kids.” The technical legal issue is whether the court of appeals used the wrong legal standard to decide the case. Instead of using the highest standard of review and requiring the Texas law to pass “strict scrutiny” before it could burden the adults’ right to have access to protected speech, they only required that there be a “rational basis” connecting the law to its intent to protect minors.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
The Court’s decision in this case could potentially signal a sea change in reverse discrimination employment litigation. The case involves a straight woman who claims she faced “reverse discrimination” on the job because she wasn’t gay, leading her to be passed over for promotion opportunities. The issue is whether a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group has to show that her employer is the “unusual” one who discriminated against the majority, before bringing a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If she wins, this sort of reverse discrimination case could become easier to bring.
The plaintiff lost out on a promotion to a lesbian woman. She was subsequently demoted and the position she was removed from was given to a gay man. All of this started 13 years into her employment, after a new boss, who was a gay woman, became her supervisor.
There was speculation following oral argument that the plaintiff might win unanimously. Justice Sotomayor seemed to say she thought the plaintiff might have a valid claim, noting that based on the record before the Court, there was “something suspicious” about what happened. The consensus among the Justices seemed to be that everyone had to be treated equally.
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos
There are two technical legal issues in this case, but together, they add up to an answer to the question of whether Mexico can sue U.S. gunmakers for what it has long maintained is their responsibility for the epidemic of gun violence within its borders. Mexico argues that a number of U.S. gunmakers made it possible for traffickers to illegally purchase firearms in the U.S., only for them to be provided to Mexican drug cartels.
The Court will decide: (1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.
If the Court decides in Mexico’s favor, its lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers will move forward.
Louisiana v. Callais
This is the Louisiana redistricting case. The issues revolve around whether a Louisiana congressional district created to comply with the Voting Rights Act resulted in an unconstitutional gerrymander that discriminates based on race. The Callais plaintiffs are a group of “non-African Americans” who say the redistricted map violates the Constitution because it takes race into account in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Although the Court may be inclined to do away with the Voting Rights Act at some point, this case is reminiscent of a 2023 gerrymandering case out of Alabama, where a 5-4 majority that included Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh upheld the Voting Rights Act and forced Alabama to comply with it, rejecting maps drawn by the state legislature that made it all but impossible for Black citizens to elect candidates of their choice to Congress.
This case might have a similar outcome. It has similarly complicated facts and an up-and-down history on appeal. It comes down to whether Louisiana, whose population is about 1/3 Black, will have a second Black opportunity district. The technical issues involve whether a three-judge district court in this case was mistaken when it ruled that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s decision on maps, whether it erred in finding those decisions couldn’t pass the strict scrutiny test and a set of preconditions known as the Gingles factors, and whether the case is the sort of “non-justiciable” matter that should be resolved through the political process, not decided in the courts.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
The issue here is whether religious parents’ rights are violated when a school board doesn’t give them the ability to opt out from having LGBTQ-themed books available to their children in elementary school. The issue is presented as: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
At oral argument, the Court’s conservative majority seemed sympathetic toward the parents.
Trump v. CASA, Inc. (consolidated with Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey)
This is the birthright citizenship case that was argued only earlier this month. We discussed it here. The issue isn’t whether Trump can end birthright citizenship. Rather, it’s whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts’ preliminary injunctions except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states while the litigation works its way through the courts.
It’s hard to believe that it was just over a year ago that I sat outside, across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court building in the Senate Swamp, listening to the oral argument and preparing to comment on it in real time. (snip)
At the time, I wrote, “The case is all about Donald Trump and whether he can be prosecuted for the most serious of his crimes against the American people, trying to hold onto power after losing the 2020 election. It’s also about the legacy of the Roberts Court and whether history will view the already unpopular Justices as the Court that gave away democracy.”
Overall, there are more than 30 cases remaining on the Court’s dockets. There are also a number of procedural and other issues pending in cases that haven’t been fully briefed for a decision on the merits this term. This is the so-called shadow docket, where litigants ask the courts to make decisions in cases characterized as emergencies. Cases involving deportations and DOGE are among them. And also, the wild card, a number of cases still percolating through the lower courts where the issues aren’t yet ripe enough to be before the Supreme Court, but could become so in the next few months, at least enough to merit a trip to the shadow docket and interfere with the Supreme Courts’ summer break. The biggest question that remains for me is whether this Court will continue down the path it set itself upon last term, or will tell Trump no in a meaningful way?
Welcome to the new week. Thanks for being with me at Civil Discourse as we approach our third anniversary.
Last December, a Culpeper Jury (Trump country) found former Sheriff Scott Jenkins guilty of one count of conspiracy, four counts of honest services fraud, and seven counts of bribery. Fortunately for the corrupt sheriff, he’s a MAGAt.
In fact, Shurf Jenkins is a minor MAGAt celebrity, as he has pro-MAGA views that got him featured on Breitbart multiple times, was a guest on the Daily Signal podcast, and even got him an appearance on Fox & Friends after vowing to “deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.” This is kinda what got him into trouble.
By the way, nobody’s gun rights are in danger. Republicans use it as a fear tactic to win public office.
Jenkins accepted $75,000 worth of bribes. He took cash and campaign contributions from eight people, including two undercover FBI agents. In return, he gave them badges and made them auxiliary deputy sheriffs, despite not having any training for the position (it’s kind of an honorary position, but it gives them a lot of cop powers). He also pushed officials to restore one bribe-payer’s right to possess a gun as a convicted felon. He was also able to give some of his bribers the right to carry concealed weapons without permits.
What’s fucked up about that last part is it’s extremely easy to get a concealed-carry permit in Virginia. About the only thing that could stop a person from getting a concealed-carry permit in Virginia would be if they were a convicted felon or something. For example, Donald Trump would NOT be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in Virginia. (snip-click through to read on, it’s quite good!)
Elon Musk, drugged up by Ann Telnaes
The New York Times has an extensive piece on his drug use while campaigning for Trump Read on Substack
Trump, in his brilliant ability to read people (like Putin) gave Musk the power to indiscriminately cut federal programs and workers, destroying careers and affecting millions of Americans’ lives. Read the NYT article by investigative reporter Kirsten Grind and Megan Twohey, who was part of the team that broke the Harvey Weinstein story in 2017.
Also, I want to mention that I’ve been publishing here at Scottie’s Playtime since 7/10 or 11, and normally, have posted one of these each day. There hasn’t been much change or updating for a while; the newsletter and history website is Carl Bunin’s labor of love, depending upon the sales of buttons, pencils, and other merch. I’ve been reading these since 2001, and have noted it feels as if we here may have seen some of these before, and definitely will have by next month. So: should I continue after July 10th, or has everyone seen these, and enough is enough for a while? I don’t mind either way, but I don’t want to use up space and give people repeats. Just let me know in comments over the next few days, OK? And thanks for visiting Scottie’s Playtime!
June 1, 1845 Sojourner Truth (born Isabella Baumfree, but went by the name she believed God had given her as a symbolic representation of her mission in life) set out from New York City on a journey across America, preaching about the evils of slavery and promoting women’s rights. She had been a slave with several owners but was legally free when slavery was abolished in New York state. Read more about Sojourner Truth (There’s a very cool yet somewhat incendiary comment there on this page; go see it.)
June 1, 1932 Gay rights organizer Henry Gerber published an article in Modern Thinker magazine attacking the view that homosexuality is a neurosis. In 1924, Henry Gerber, a postal worker in Chicago, started the Society for Human Rights, America’s first known gay rights organization. “The Society for Human Rights is formed to promote and protect the interests of people who are abused and hindered in the legal pursuit of happiness which is guaranteed them by the Declaration of Independence, and to combat the public prejudices against them.”
After having created and distributed a newsletter called “Friendship and Freedom,” Gerber was arrested and held for 3 days without a warrant or being charged with any infractions. Upon release he lost his job for “conduct unbecoming a postal worker.” Following the last of his three trials, in which the charges were ultimately dismissed, Gerber moved to new York City and re-enlisted in the U.S. Army, serving another 17 years. He lived until 1972, passing away at the the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home in Washington, D.C., living long enough to see the Stonewall Rebellion [see June 28, 1969], the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. More on Henry Gerber
June 1, 1942 On the advice of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler ordered all Jews in occupied Paris to wear an identifying yellow star on the left side of their coats. The following month 13,000 French Jews were deported to the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camps.
June 1, 1950 Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine), then the only woman in the Senate, and just the second in U.S. history, denounced Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) and his “red-baiting” tactics on the floor of the U.S. Senate, in a speech called “A Declaration of Conscience.” “Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism—the right to criticize; the right to hold unpopular beliefs; the right to protest; the right of independent thought.” Text of the Senator Smith’s Declaration
June 1, 1963 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and readings from the Bible in public schools violated the establishment clause of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution in School Dist. Of Abington Township v. Schempp. The Court reasoned that the daily practice was unconstitutional because a public institution was conducting a religious exercise and “that public funds, though small in amount, are being used to promote” a particular religion. “It is not the amount of public funds expended; as this case illustrates, it is the use to which public funds are put . . . .” The decision
June 1, 1967 The Vietnam Veterans Against War (VVAW) was founded in New York City after six Vietnam vets marched together in a peace demonstration. The group was organized to give voice to the growing opposition to the escalating war in Indochina among returning servicemen and women.
VVAW, through open discussion of soldiers’ first-hand experiences, revealed the truth about the nature of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. VVAW demonstrating against Iraq war 2004 The VVAW today
Presuming we have elections, we’re gonna be rich in good people to elect. Here’s another one I’ve been watching and donating to for a couple of months. I may have posted about her here before, but I’m not certain.
Wow. A group that initially included no Jews hatched a plan to make support for Palestine a crime. The US is following their playbook and supporting the mass killing & removal of Palestinians.Group Behind Project 2025 Has a Plan to Crush the Pro-Palestinian Movement http://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/18/u…
Cooking the books? Fears Trump could target statisticians if data disappointsProposed rule change could pave way for president to fire economists whose figures prove politically inconvenientwww.theguardian.com/us-news/2025…
LGBTQ+ youth advocates gathered outside the Monmouth County Courthouse in Freehold on Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2023, where a school policy that would impact lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth was being reviewed in Superior Court. | Amanda Oglesby / Asbury Park Press / USA TODAY NETWORK
