I must confess I am discouraged by the alarming countercurrent in US discourse, pushing back on the idea that "Alligator Alcatraz" is an "actual" concentration camp.
-
Deportation is dependent on violence. "mass" deportation means violence is inevitable and unavoidable.
It is impossible to process, justify, find places for millions of people who live in your country to go "en mass" just because you've changed your mind about who has full human rights.
This is the predictable outcome and as the population of the camps grows so will the human rights atrocities.
@futurebird I could not agree more with every single comment you've made to me here tonight. You are totally right.
Writing about the night at the RNC when they all had pre-printed "Mass Deportations Now" sign brought me back to writing after a very long hiatus. I'm not saying that to brag, I just saw all this coming and it freaked me out badly. I think you can feel it coming off the page:
How It Happens Here | Nina Illingworth Dot Com
Trump loving GOP fascists are calling for ethnic cleansing at the Republican National Convention and our media barely mentioned it; this is Weimar America.
Nina Illingworth Dot Com | "When the revolution is for everyone, everyone will be for the revolution" (www.ninaillingworth.com)
(You don't have to read it, I just absolutely wrote about what I thought they meant and why it was gonna be mass graves. I was, very upset. Since then I've focused on getting as many people as possible to accept these guys really are on that genocide trip... Also if you do read it, I'm sorry for the swearing about rich liberals but at that moment I realized they were gonna blow it and these nazis would win, so I was, really upset.)
-
Sometimes it feels like it's only some people here and Stephen Miller who really get what this is turning into and how fast it's happening.
They won't even let the lawyers of the people who have lawyers with the time an energy to go talk to them into the place.
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
Yep. I've been writing about this too, since the "Mass Deportation Now" signs. It's simply not physically possible for the US to deport the number of people the fascists want to get rid of. It would be prohibitively costly and time-consuming, and they'd *never* get it done before 2028.
That ghoul Miller has been shouting about 3000 detentions per day (they've not reached that yet).
Let's assume GhoulFace Asshole is right, and they can get 3000 per day moving.
There are something like 1200-1300 days left in the Trump administration.
In that time, then, they would (at 3000 per day) gather a maximum of 3.9M people.
The estimated population of undocumented people in the US is 11M people. Maybe more, but let's give the fascists the leg up on this one, and assume it's only 11M.
It would take another two full terms to reach 11M people. Eight more years after 2028.
That's just getting them in. To deport them, they have to be divvied up into bunches of, let's say 250 for the easy numbers, meaning 12 flights per day minimum just to keep up with detentions.
That's a flight every two hours for 11 years.
Do we really think this pack of idiots and sycophants can organise that well? I just gave them all the benefits of the doubt, and it's still an 11-year job.
Ahhh...but if you put the detention camps in swamps, you get plenty of mosquitoes. With mosquitoes, you get diseases spreading. If one has it, soon all will.
And that disease, given the lack of medical attention and even basic hygiene they're getting, will kill the majority of them *for them*. No messy gas chambers. Cholera, typhus, TB, hell, if you pick the right county, bubonic plague.
All they have to do is stuff them inside small cages, and wait for biology to work.
And who needs crematoria when you've got a large alligator population to feed?
My inner Cassandra wants to beg them to stop making her right.
-
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
Yep. I've been writing about this too, since the "Mass Deportation Now" signs. It's simply not physically possible for the US to deport the number of people the fascists want to get rid of. It would be prohibitively costly and time-consuming, and they'd *never* get it done before 2028.
That ghoul Miller has been shouting about 3000 detentions per day (they've not reached that yet).
Let's assume GhoulFace Asshole is right, and they can get 3000 per day moving.
There are something like 1200-1300 days left in the Trump administration.
In that time, then, they would (at 3000 per day) gather a maximum of 3.9M people.
The estimated population of undocumented people in the US is 11M people. Maybe more, but let's give the fascists the leg up on this one, and assume it's only 11M.
It would take another two full terms to reach 11M people. Eight more years after 2028.
That's just getting them in. To deport them, they have to be divvied up into bunches of, let's say 250 for the easy numbers, meaning 12 flights per day minimum just to keep up with detentions.
That's a flight every two hours for 11 years.
Do we really think this pack of idiots and sycophants can organise that well? I just gave them all the benefits of the doubt, and it's still an 11-year job.
Ahhh...but if you put the detention camps in swamps, you get plenty of mosquitoes. With mosquitoes, you get diseases spreading. If one has it, soon all will.
And that disease, given the lack of medical attention and even basic hygiene they're getting, will kill the majority of them *for them*. No messy gas chambers. Cholera, typhus, TB, hell, if you pick the right county, bubonic plague.
All they have to do is stuff them inside small cages, and wait for biology to work.
And who needs crematoria when you've got a large alligator population to feed?
My inner Cassandra wants to beg them to stop making her right.
@oldladyplays @futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
should we describing it as a extermination camp rather than a concentration camp at this point? -
@oldladyplays @futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
should we describing it as a extermination camp rather than a concentration camp at this point?@floppyplopper @oldladyplays @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
I want to say "not yet" however the pretext for these concentration camps is "deportation" but they are impeding that process by making it hard for lawyers to reach their clients, reducing the number of immigration judges and kidnapping people who have no country to "go back to" --if a person has lived in the us for upwards of five years, in some cases decades this is their home now.
-
There are metal bunk beds in cages, toilets in the corner and gruel as food.
What more do you need?
This isn't supposed to be a prison (not that prisons being like this would be OK either) but it's not a "prison" which is for those convicted of crimes. It's a "holding facility" but set up like a human flesh warehouse.
That is an internment camp.
It is a place where people are gathered, concentrated. A concentration camp.
The end.
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
I suspect some of the mainstream confusion comes from the fact that the Nazis didn't have a strict difference between concentration camps (where they put people they didn't like without any kind of due process, and didn't care if they died) and death camps (where they put people they didn't like with the express intent of killing them all, in the most efficient way possible). Some of their camps were set up as the former but became the latter. And reporting, both academic and news-focused, often refers to both as 'concentration camps', which led to confusion about exactly what a concentration camp was.
For this reason, historians often avoid the term 'concentration camp' for things that match the wider definition (places where people were sent without due process and often died as a result of overwork, poor nutrition, poor sanitation, abuse by guards, and so on). If you use the phrase, people tend to conflate it with the death camps (where people died as a result of being pushed into gas chambers or other mass-murder machines).
Part of this is probably linked to colonialism. A lot of the colonial powers used concentration camps before the Nazis and wanted a clear distinction between their human rights abuses and systemic genocide.
If you say 'concentration camp', a lot of people hear 'death camp' and will note that there are no gas chambers, no firing squads, and so on. I don't know a solution to this that doesn't involve teaching Americans about history, which is typically not an easy thing to do.
-
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
I suspect some of the mainstream confusion comes from the fact that the Nazis didn't have a strict difference between concentration camps (where they put people they didn't like without any kind of due process, and didn't care if they died) and death camps (where they put people they didn't like with the express intent of killing them all, in the most efficient way possible). Some of their camps were set up as the former but became the latter. And reporting, both academic and news-focused, often refers to both as 'concentration camps', which led to confusion about exactly what a concentration camp was.
For this reason, historians often avoid the term 'concentration camp' for things that match the wider definition (places where people were sent without due process and often died as a result of overwork, poor nutrition, poor sanitation, abuse by guards, and so on). If you use the phrase, people tend to conflate it with the death camps (where people died as a result of being pushed into gas chambers or other mass-murder machines).
Part of this is probably linked to colonialism. A lot of the colonial powers used concentration camps before the Nazis and wanted a clear distinction between their human rights abuses and systemic genocide.
If you say 'concentration camp', a lot of people hear 'death camp' and will note that there are no gas chambers, no firing squads, and so on. I don't know a solution to this that doesn't involve teaching Americans about history, which is typically not an easy thing to do.
@david_chisnall @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
Concentration camps turn into death camps because concentration camps turn people who were working, participating in society, parts of communities into an ongoing financial and logistical "burden" --it's designed to do this creating the permission structure for greater violence.
And the brutal conditions lead to death as the numbers grow which is also by design.
-
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
I suspect some of the mainstream confusion comes from the fact that the Nazis didn't have a strict difference between concentration camps (where they put people they didn't like without any kind of due process, and didn't care if they died) and death camps (where they put people they didn't like with the express intent of killing them all, in the most efficient way possible). Some of their camps were set up as the former but became the latter. And reporting, both academic and news-focused, often refers to both as 'concentration camps', which led to confusion about exactly what a concentration camp was.
For this reason, historians often avoid the term 'concentration camp' for things that match the wider definition (places where people were sent without due process and often died as a result of overwork, poor nutrition, poor sanitation, abuse by guards, and so on). If you use the phrase, people tend to conflate it with the death camps (where people died as a result of being pushed into gas chambers or other mass-murder machines).
Part of this is probably linked to colonialism. A lot of the colonial powers used concentration camps before the Nazis and wanted a clear distinction between their human rights abuses and systemic genocide.
If you say 'concentration camp', a lot of people hear 'death camp' and will note that there are no gas chambers, no firing squads, and so on. I don't know a solution to this that doesn't involve teaching Americans about history, which is typically not an easy thing to do.
@david_chisnall @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
It might have been more efficient to go into the neighborhoods of the people they want to eliminate and simply shoot them in their homes. But, even hard-liners can see the "optics" of such an action would be unpalatable.
-
@david_chisnall @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
It might have been more efficient to go into the neighborhoods of the people they want to eliminate and simply shoot them in their homes. But, even hard-liners can see the "optics" of such an action would be unpalatable.
@david_chisnall @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
So first it's "we are deporting the worst criminals" then "we are deporting those who have broken any law no matter how minor" then "we are deporting anyone who seems like the kind of person who might have broken a law"
But, for many there is no destination, they are warehoused, concentrated. And now "look at how they are draining our resources" so maybe they are put to work, this is how you create a problem that needs a final solution.
-
@david_chisnall @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
So first it's "we are deporting the worst criminals" then "we are deporting those who have broken any law no matter how minor" then "we are deporting anyone who seems like the kind of person who might have broken a law"
But, for many there is no destination, they are warehoused, concentrated. And now "look at how they are draining our resources" so maybe they are put to work, this is how you create a problem that needs a final solution.
@david_chisnall @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
It ends in the same place as simply shooting the people in their homes because the initial impulse was based in ethnic fears and a desire for racial and ethnic purity.
When you see human beings as problems you will eventually find only one solution.
I thought that is what we were learning in history class. How to recognize this shit.
-
@david_chisnall @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
It might have been more efficient to go into the neighborhoods of the people they want to eliminate and simply shoot them in their homes. But, even hard-liners can see the "optics" of such an action would be unpalatable.
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
The Nazis didn't do that even after they'd built their death camps, for two reasons.
First, shooting people isn't actually that cheap. You still need to dispose of the bodies. Killing a load of people in the same place makes it easier put them in mass graves.
Second, if you shoot people in the streets then, as you say, the optics are bad, but that matters for two reasons. People will be more likely to resist if they know that the alternative is death, and people are more likely to help people they know will die without help. If you keep up the fiction that they're 'just' being relocated, you can persuade a large portion of the population to not help them and convince them that resisting to the point of being shot is not worth it.
If you want to systematically exterminate people, letting them know that's what you're doing makes it harder, and having to do it where they are is expensive. Some of this has probably changed since the 1930s, because efficiency is no longer a priority for the folks who are trying to extract as much money from the government as possible without the constraints of basic ethical behaviour.
But my point is not that this isn't a concentration camp, it's that calling it one is historically accurate but in a way that can cause confusion due to over 80 years of intentionally ambiguous terminology. The good guys have internment camps, the bad guys have concentration camps.
-
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
The Nazis didn't do that even after they'd built their death camps, for two reasons.
First, shooting people isn't actually that cheap. You still need to dispose of the bodies. Killing a load of people in the same place makes it easier put them in mass graves.
Second, if you shoot people in the streets then, as you say, the optics are bad, but that matters for two reasons. People will be more likely to resist if they know that the alternative is death, and people are more likely to help people they know will die without help. If you keep up the fiction that they're 'just' being relocated, you can persuade a large portion of the population to not help them and convince them that resisting to the point of being shot is not worth it.
If you want to systematically exterminate people, letting them know that's what you're doing makes it harder, and having to do it where they are is expensive. Some of this has probably changed since the 1930s, because efficiency is no longer a priority for the folks who are trying to extract as much money from the government as possible without the constraints of basic ethical behaviour.
But my point is not that this isn't a concentration camp, it's that calling it one is historically accurate but in a way that can cause confusion due to over 80 years of intentionally ambiguous terminology. The good guys have internment camps, the bad guys have concentration camps.
@david_chisnall @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
Really good points. I just wonder if it is possible to explain to people that "mass deportation" isn't possible. The notion that people should "follow the immigration law" in this very uncritical way remains uncontested and uncontroversial even among people who see themselves as liberals.
And they think "mass deportation" could be a legal and orderly process but this isn't physically possible.
Mass deportation means concentration camps.
-
There are metal bunk beds in cages, toilets in the corner and gruel as food.
What more do you need?
This isn't supposed to be a prison (not that prisons being like this would be OK either) but it's not a "prison" which is for those convicted of crimes. It's a "holding facility" but set up like a human flesh warehouse.
That is an internment camp.
It is a place where people are gathered, concentrated. A concentration camp.
The end.
The existence of our prison system has normalized treating people in this way so that my point about "these aren't criminals" is lost in the noise.
Which is why having prisons like these camps for any people warrants more resistance.
If we were a country where even "real criminals" were not treated this way this would stand out more clearly.
-
The existence of our prison system has normalized treating people in this way so that my point about "these aren't criminals" is lost in the noise.
Which is why having prisons like these camps for any people warrants more resistance.
If we were a country where even "real criminals" were not treated this way this would stand out more clearly.
I found it interesting (disturbing, upsetting) that the Florida concentration camp is a "men's only" facility. There is no reason why women and children couldn't also be sent there, there are many women and children in the same category but I think Americans have been desensitized to seeing adult men (mostly non-white) in such conditions by our prison system.
The people doing this are thinking about optics and how to desensitize the public to more and more violence.
-
I found it interesting (disturbing, upsetting) that the Florida concentration camp is a "men's only" facility. There is no reason why women and children couldn't also be sent there, there are many women and children in the same category but I think Americans have been desensitized to seeing adult men (mostly non-white) in such conditions by our prison system.
The people doing this are thinking about optics and how to desensitize the public to more and more violence.
"Where are the men's right's activists livid at the way that notions of masculinity are being used to enable abuse?" I say, knowing exactly where they are and why they are silent.
The politicians and people running this concentration camp like to show images of huge crowds of men. Because it fits into a known category for many Americans. But the reason why those men are in that camp is a flimsy pretext that could also apply to a grandmother or a child.
-
Anyone who calls me hysterical for that last bit would have said I was hysterical about "they will set up camps" when I saw the "mass deportation now" signs.
Mass deportation isn't *possible* it's a euphemism. It always ends up being a euphemism.
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
My current thinking is that every American needs to do a personal risk assessment based on the fact that there is (or will be within weeks) no rule of law as we understand it.
I realize that some Americans have been in this position to some degree throughout the history of the country, but this is exponentially more serious for everyone. Imagine the worst possible outcome and be prepared for it as best you can be.
-
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
My current thinking is that every American needs to do a personal risk assessment based on the fact that there is (or will be within weeks) no rule of law as we understand it.
I realize that some Americans have been in this position to some degree throughout the history of the country, but this is exponentially more serious for everyone. Imagine the worst possible outcome and be prepared for it as best you can be.
@VirginiaHolloway @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
This kind of caution is probably good. But I see some promising positive signs. For example it's a good thing that companies that supply these facilities put tape over their logos when they drive in.
Find out who they are anyway.
If you know people who work for these companies let them know what you think of that work.
We as a nation *do* need to give our permission for this to get worse and we're be tested to see how much we will allow.
-
@VirginiaHolloway @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
This kind of caution is probably good. But I see some promising positive signs. For example it's a good thing that companies that supply these facilities put tape over their logos when they drive in.
Find out who they are anyway.
If you know people who work for these companies let them know what you think of that work.
We as a nation *do* need to give our permission for this to get worse and we're be tested to see how much we will allow.
@VirginiaHolloway @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes
Someone needs to wear the boots. And someone needs to make dinner for the people who wear the boots.
We should keep exposing the people who work for ICE, the contractors who supplied the metal bunk beds, the company that delivers the food. Everyone who participates in making the concentration camps.
-
I found it interesting (disturbing, upsetting) that the Florida concentration camp is a "men's only" facility. There is no reason why women and children couldn't also be sent there, there are many women and children in the same category but I think Americans have been desensitized to seeing adult men (mostly non-white) in such conditions by our prison system.
The people doing this are thinking about optics and how to desensitize the public to more and more violence.
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes when they were grabbing people to send to CECOT they were looking specifically for people with tattoos. It’s all about optics to make the base happy
-
@futurebird @AnarchoNinaAnalyzes when they were grabbing people to send to CECOT they were looking specifically for people with tattoos. It’s all about optics to make the base happy
Not just the base it's so the general US public can tell themselves "it's not THAT bad" because they can sort the disturbing images into categories they have been desensitized into not seeing for what they really are.
