Horror allegorizes problems; it sorts problems; it describes problems; it plays out problems. What it does not do is solve them, and this intractability is the main theme of the most gripping book of horror I have read as an adult. Ahmed Saadawi’s Frankenstein in Baghdad is a triumph of the genre, but it is also one where the monster, if allegorical, is also very real. Set in 2005 in the depths of chaos and terror of the US invasion of Iraq, Frankenstein in Baghdad gives us no scientist striving to know the nature of the human soul, toying with fate, daring to play God. Its creature—known as Whatsitsname—is likewise not a science experiment, but a metonymic tour guide through a sort of magical realist house of horrors—the sort of inane horrors that could only ensue from an American invasion in the name of “democracy.” (Here, we might pause to note that the acknowledged masterpiece of magical realism, Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years Of Solitude, was also inspired by a US-backed atrocity.) The fright is not merely a fun spook on the pages, but rather a stand-in for death, rage, tribalism, pain, gore, and the absurdities of fate.
Published nearly 200 years prior, Mary Shelley’s original Frankenstein was subtitled “The Modern Prometheus,” after the Greek myth about the god who, punished for giving fire to humans, was tied to a mountainside, doomed to have his liver devoured by raptors each day. The Greeks knew the liver regenerates, so accordingly this punishment would be eternal: Prometheus’ liver regrew every night. (A fair bit of body horror!) Sadaawi’s book, on the other hand, begins with a shady junkyard dealer named Hadi, whose main passions are whoring and ouzo, when he can afford them. Despite—or perhaps because of—his knowledge of his own degeneracy (is there ever really a difference?), he muses that the many dismembered body parts around town—thanks to both the US invasion and the vicious sectarian violence in its wake—deserve a proper burial.
A tinkerer, Hadi is quite handy with needle and thread, and, for those of you familiar with the source material, you can guess what happens next. Once enough body parts have been stitched together, the timely (or untimely) demise of a local security guard in an explosion renders his body a vaporous “pink mist” devoid of solid pieces, thus delivering a Shelleyan soul to the oozing, squishy, rotting patchwork of flesh. Whatsitsname is born. It’s alive!
While the original novel is subtitled for an actual god who gifted fire to mankind, the idea of human daring so sacrilege as to generate life (outside of, you know, fucking) is endlessly fascinating (like fucking). The ghost story is undoubtedly as old as camp fires, Promethean and otherwise. But gothic horror has its roots in a very particular moment in history, relevant to Shelley in a different (if also very scary) way compared with the historical context that informed Saadawi.
Apropos of fucking, the summer Mary Shelley started writing the book featured one hell of a Regency romp. After absconding to Europe in the wake of sex scandals too numerous and incestuous to list here, Mary Shelley, her new husband, Percy, and Lord Byron, among others, found themselves in Switzerland.
That climate catastrophe which gifted the world the gothic genre would also decide the fate of nations. Its global ramifications lasted for years. There was no summer of 1816. Europe, already reeling from the destruction of the Napoleonic Wars, which ended in 1815, sank into crop failure and misery that crystallized lower class discontent into political radicalism and revolt in the coming decades. In New England, the following winter after the lack of summer was dubbed “Eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death.” The region was so cold, it partly depopulated, driving the westward migration that would soon anoint itself “Manifest Destiny.” In South Asia, cholera killed at unprecedented rates, weakening empires and making way for total British conquest and greater European colonial incursion into Asia. That legacy and the United States’ subsequent 20th-century rebranding of empire set the stage for the horrors of Frankenstein in Baghdad, even if Mary Shelley provided the plot.
Caitlin McCormack
Sadaawi first published his update of Shelley’s tale, replete with djinns, genie folklore, and American incompetence, in 2013. It won a brace of major awards before Jonathan Wright translated it in 2018, winning it many more.
All that time—and still to this day—the book is wretchedly timely. Whatsitname initially seeks revenge upon evil, but that task in and of itself is a mire of gray areas and contradictions. Beyond the murky, moral ambiguity of seeking revenge in a sectarian conflict set loose by a brutal invasion, Whatsitsname is plagued by “serious putrefaction problems.” These, in turn, force it to be more indiscriminate in picking its victims simply to harvest body parts he needs to replace.
The violence literally feeds on itself and the moral imperative doubles back. The wacky plot descends into the Pynchonian (e.g., a “Tracking and Pursuit Department” becomes a focal point); Whatsitsname grows media savvy and gives the following soundbite: “Because I’m made up of body parts of people from diverse backgrounds—ethnicities, tribes, races and social classes—I represent the impossible mix that never was achieved in the past. I’m the first true Iraqi citizen.”
Though it is perhaps implied, one reason I hastened to name-check Young Frankenstein is that there is no describing Frankenstein in Baghdad without emphasizing its hilarity. The absurd premise of the book careens between horrors, but it never strays far from the sense of humor that, as the book suggests, is the next best thing to a moral compass. Sometimes, it’s all you’ve got left.
Rare is the book that will make you tear up, throw up, and crack up in a single chapter. Like Whatsitsname, it’s stitched together of too many parts to be identifiable as any single genre other than human. Whatsitsname is a metaphor for messes left behind, vendettas at tragic cross purposes, hopes of coexistence wrecked and rotting, but it is also a metaphysical mystery to behold, a sign of faith and of ruin. The “monster”’s name is dead-on.
In the original, Mary Shelley herself wrote an admonishment that could easily be applied to Western Imperialism: “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow." Perhaps the United States itself is the closest thing to an arrogant mad scientist forcing both its beliefs and its hierarchies on the ancient city of Baghdad—daring to play God by wanting to remake a country in its own image and, in the process, unleashing every demon from the depths of hell.
Ahmed Sadaawi rips out the soul of a Western metaphysical classic to attempt to describe the horrors that a soulless, thoughtless Western invasion unleashed. It’s alive: The elegance and grotesque totality of the metaphor are complete.
[post_title] => The Monster Mash of Imperialism
[post_excerpt] => Some spooky seasonal appreciation for Ahmed Saadawi’s "Frankenstein in Baghdad."
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => frankenstein-in-baghdad-ahmed-saadawi-book-review-essay-iraq-war-united-states-imperialism-novel-fiction-mary-shelley
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-10-28 17:12:12
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-28 17:12:12
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11228
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
Why you should pay attention to Indiana's Public Question 1 this election.
For 175 years, bail has been a constitutional right for everyone in Indiana awaiting trial, with the exception of anyone charged with murder or treason. The same system is used in most of the country, allowing defendants to live outside of jail while awaiting trial for a crime. It’s imperfect and favors the wealthy, but at its best, bail is meant to balance a person’s liberty—until and unless proven guilty—with the safety of the broader community.
On the Indiana ballot this November, Public Question 1 asks Hoosiers to amend the state’s constitution to narrow that right. If the amendment passes, anyone charged with any crime in the state could be denied bail if “the proof is evident or the presumption strong and the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community.”
Proponents of the measure, which first had to pass the state legislature, cite public safety concerns. They claim that people who are released from jail on bail too often go on to commit dangerous crimes.
On the other hand, opponents are concerned about preemptively taking away defendants’ liberty, the vague and broad language of the amendment, and the potential for biases in and out of the courtroom.
A High-Risk Proposal for Rare Offenses
Under the current bail system, even if someone is ultimately released on bail, it can take many days for them to be able to walk out. The new amendment would make it easier to hold people in jail while they wait for hearings and other procedures.
“It is a significant disruption on the life of that person if they're being held in custody,” says Ray Casanova, the chief public defender for Marion County, where Indianapolis is located. “I do think [the measure] is going to have a disproportionate impact on low-income folks.”
People held in jail can lose their jobs, potentially resulting in other losses, including housing and custody rights to their children. In jail, they may also not have access to essential medications. All before they have been found guilty of a crime.
Vicki Becker, a prosecutor in northern Indiana’s Elkhart County, told Indiana Capital Chronicle that the amendment was introduced because “so many individuals…were back out in the community without any accountability whatsoever and continuing to commit offenses against other people,” adding that, “it just did not sit well with prosecutors who are much more focused on protecting public safety.”
Others question whether the amendment is really needed to protect communities, including State Senator Rodney Pol, a Democrat from the northwestern corner of the state. “If you can demonstrate that [the accused] are unsafe, there are already avenues” to mitigate that risk, he says.
For example, in many counties, judges have the latitude to set bail high enough so that a defendant will not be able to pay it. Casanova also points to measures such as GPS monitoring, no-contact orders, and situations when bail can be revoked. “Is this provision really providing additional safety or is it just essentially removing a constitutional right?” asks Casanova.
Data shows it’s rare for people released on bail to commit violent crimes while awaiting trial—1.4% of high risk people released before their trial have done so, according to ACLU analysis of data from the Indiana Office of Court Service. Rates of new crimes were even smaller for those deemed moderate and low risk.
When those violent crimes do happen, “it’s a tragedy,” says Zach Stock, who works for the Indiana Public Defender’s Council as a legislative counsel. “It's just natural human nature to say, ‘Gosh, we had that guy confined. And had he remained confined, that wouldn't have happened.’”
“But that’s assuming that we have more power than we do. It's really hard to predict the future,” Stock says, which is what prosecutors are ultimately attempting to do when they try to prove to a judge that a person poses a risk of harm.
Unless you detain everyone, some people who are released ahead of their trial are going to commit a crime. Making those numbers as small as possible “does come down to improving our ability to predict the future,” says Stock.
A Precursor to Losing More Rights
For State Senator Pol, the amendment lays the ground for the abuse of other rights, like the right to protest or to unionize. Someone could be accused of being a violent protester, for example, and be held without bail, only to end up with a lesser charge of disorderly conduct. “Now I lost a year of my life for disorderly conduct, you know, because I was out at a protest,” Pol says.
Levi Gonzalez, a policy associate at The Bail Project, an advocacy and bail assistance nonprofit, echoed those concerns. He says such proposals are also not just limited to Indiana. In other states across the country, more laws are “looking to ultimately deprive people of their liberty at a moment where there's also a lot of political tension and upheaval,” he says. Given what he refers to as a “creeping authoritarianism” in the country, there could be political pressure “to make an example out of people“ arrested at a protest or demonstration.
The broad nature of Indiana’s ballot measure makes those concerns possible. It's different from the “tough on crime” eras in the 1980s and 1990s when change in the criminal justice system was incremental. “Now it's like, let's just go for everything,” says Gonzalez. This worries him.
Other states, like Tennessee and Alabama, are also broadening the scope of crimes for which people can be held without bail. But other states usually list specific new offenses that will be ineligible for bail. They don’t usually make it as broad as Indiana has, where, “any person who gets arrested for any offense now could potentially be at risk of being detained” without bail, says Gonzalez.
The wide scope of Indiana’s amendment means it doesn't necessarily only affect marginalized communities like the state’s Black and Latino residents, who make up around 18% of the state’s total population, says Gonzalez. “But of course, they're always going to be the ones that are going to face the brunt of this because those communities are ultimately going to be the ones that are going to come in contact with law enforcement more often.“
Protections Vulnerable Under Companion Bill
Should the amendment be approved by voters this November, another related bill passed by the state legislature earlier this year would also take effect.
The companion bill, as it’s called, would provide some protections to people facing charges and pretrial detention. It is “kind of a bright spot in what looks like an otherwise hopelessly contentious political landscape,” says Stock of the collaboration among his agency, prosecutors, judges, and legislators to create the bill.
The bill specifies a 48-hour time limit before a detention hearing and a person’s right to appeal a decision. It asks the state to meet a higher burden of proof, “because we are talking about taking away liberty before proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” says Stock. Judges will also have to document why they're making their decisions.
But because these protections aren’t in the amendment itself, they could easily be overturned by another legislative bill. Changes to the amendment, on the other hand, would require it to pass the legislature in two different sessions and then receive another ballot vote approval. “It's good to ultimately have that companion bill to provide that due process, but it's a lot better when it's enshrined in the actual constitutional language,” says Gonzalez.
Senator Pol is one of the legislators who worked on the companion bill and says it makes the amendment a little bit more palatable with the safeguards for the accused that it puts in place. “But I still don't think it goes far enough, and I still think that it is a dangerous precedent that's being set.”
While Senator Pol did vote to pass the amendment on the Senate floor, he says, “I’m still not a fan of it, and I'm still not going to vote for it on the ballot.”
[post_title] => Bail On the Ballot
[post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Indiana's Public Question 1 this election.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => 2026-election-midterms-united-states-indiana-public-question-1-amendment-crime-jail
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-10-09 15:48:52
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-09 15:48:52
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11136
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
Why you should pay attention to Alabama's Statewide Amendment 3 this election.
On the ballot in Alabama this November is a proposed constitutional amendment to policies on prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance in public K–12 schools.
Statewide Amendment 3 would compel local school boards to adopt rules requiring the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each school day and allow student-initiated and student-led prayer. However, the amendment would not require students to participate in either the Pledge or prayer. If passed, students would have the right to opt out based on their beliefs and would be allowed to leave the classroom during either.
On February 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education issued updated Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, replacing previous guidelines from 2023. The update states that students, teachers, and school employees retain their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, which includes engaging in personal, visible prayer. Although the United States Supreme Court previously determined that public schools and their employees (including teachers, coaches, and principals) cannot lead, organize, prescribe, or endorse prayer or religious exercises during school activities, Alabama has leaned into the Department of Education’s newest recommendations, which have created a voluntary religious expression loophole.
Back in May, the Alabama legislature approved the proposed amendment by attempting to explicitly enshrine student-led prayer into their state constitution to shield it from future legal challenges. Since April, Alabama law has required public K-12 schools to conduct the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each school day. Additionally, students are permitted to “pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during, and after the school day.”
The bill was introduced by Republican State Representative Reed Ingram, who says the United States was founded on Christian principles. He also says that today, there are families who don’t have time to implement faith-based activities, like prayer at home, because they are too busy working. (Though he notes he doesn’t personally know a family struggling with this.)
Both Republicans and Democrats in the Alabama House of Representatives and Senate have expressed support for the proposal.
“This is an opportunity, not mandatory; it's a voluntary basis, student-led only,” Ingram explains. “Nothing is going over the PA, and it’s nothing that’s going to be led by a teacher or principal. The student only prays if they stand up and tell the teacher they want to pray this morning, and the class will have that option.”
Ingham adds that student-led prayer can be led by students of all religions and faiths, not limited to just Christianity, but that’s not clearly written into the bill.
Following the 2024 presidential election, Baptist News Global reported that the conservative thinktank, the Heritage Foundation, does not propose a mandatory federal school prayer program. However, its conservative framework aligns with efforts like this one to expand and protect individual religious expression in public schools. (The Heritage Foundation wrote the infamous Project 2025, a conservative blueprint to transform the federal government and social structures of the country at large.)
Other people of fath, including Christians, are against implementing this type of bill into state law, like Rev. Julie Conrady, Minister at Unitarian Universalist Church of Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. She says that this kind of amendment imposes or forces a religion onto individuals who may not believe in the faith being practiced during student-led prayer.
“Alabama has plenty of churches. If folks are not getting what they need on Sunday morning, Wednesday night, and all the other opportunities they have for religious freedom and expression during the week, then they need to choose a different school for their children,” Conrady says. “Because Alabama public schools should remain available for every student to be themselves, without being coerced to subjective practices, including this bill.”
About 25% of Alabamians do not identify with Christianity, according to a Pew Research report from 2025. Conrady says this amendment dismisses that figure.
“The Universalist Church is included in the fourth of [Alabamians of other faiths], which also includes Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, nones, and the atheist, and the humanist,” she says.
The minister adds she’s been talking with other religious leaders who oppose this type of bill in other red states, and they are planning to take action up to the Supreme Court if the bill passes in November.
“There will never be a separation between church and state,” says Zareen Dodwad-Khan, 46, who lives in Leeds, Alabama. Khan is Muslim and has three kids in public schools. “If the majority of people want prayer in school, I’m not gonna fight it and say I'm totally against it, because I’m a minority. And I teach my kids about their religion and identity at home.”
However, Khan also says she will likely vote “no” for the amendment in November.
“I’m a Christian, who believes in Jesus Christ. We pray every night before dinner. It’s like church, politics, and school have all been mashed together and rolled into one. Instead of the way it was intended to be, which is all separate things and separate parts of our lives, they’re trying to make it all part of the same,” she says. “As a parent and a Chrisitian, I think that’s very concerning, and even for people who don’t believe the same way I do.”
Alabama voters will decide if they agree on November 3, 2026.
[post_title] => "There Will Never Be a Separation of Church and State"
[post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Alabama's Statewide Amendment 3 this election.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => 2026-election-united-states-midterms-down-ballot-alabama-statewide-amendment-3-pledge-of-allegiance-student-led-prayer-church-religion
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-10-09 22:25:12
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-09 22:25:12
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11126
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
Why you should pay attention to Virginia's Question 1 this election.
This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2026 United States election.
Sara Sanatkar learned firsthand how important it is to have the freedom to make decisions over her own body when she faced an unexpected pregnancy at 19 years old.
This was in 2019. Sanatkar was in an unhealthy relationship, and knew she wasn’t ready to be a mother. But, unfamiliar with the laws regarding reproductive care in her home state of Virginia, Sanatkar wasn’t sure if she could have an abortion, so she Googled it and learned about Roe v. Wade. Back then, she felt immense relief. “I can have access to care. I can have access to legal care. I can have access to safe care,” she remembers her 19-year-old self saying.
Sanatkar says she was “geographically lucky” to have gotten pregnant in Virginia. Born and raised in Tehran, Iran, Sanatkar grew up in a country where, even though her family and the general population supported the right to abortion, the government did not. Leaving Tehran at age 15 wasn’t easy; despite some of the drawbacks women face, such as the threat of death penalty for illegal abortions, it was the only home she’d known. The year before she moved, she remembers sitting in the back of a taxi with her mother, whose words altered her perspective of home and family. While holding her hand, Sanatkar’s mother told her, “I'm so happy that you get to live in a country where you get to make decisions about your own body.”
In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade—the ruling that had provided Sanatkar relief just three years before—ending the federal constitutional right to abortion, once again leaving the authority with individual states. Since then, 20 states have either severely restricted abortions or established total bans, including West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
As the Field & Canvass Manager at REPRO Rising, a grassroots political organization working to guarantee comprehensive reproductive healthcare information and services to all Virginians, Sanatkar now works alongside the Virginians for Reproductive Freedom coalition, which includes ACLU of Virginia, Virginia League for Planned Parenthood, and the National Women's Political Caucus of Virginia, to protect the right to reproductive freedom within their state constitution. Since August 2024, REPRO Rising has been organizing awareness around Virginia Question 1—one of three proposed amendments to the state constitution on the ballot this November.
In her organizing work so far, she has seen an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards the amendment. According to Sanatkar, many people view it as “very reasonable,” which has resulted in “a sense of pride for me as a Virginia voter,” she says.
“Across Virginia, we’ve heard a consistent message from voters,” she adds. “Regardless of their personal beliefs or experiences with reproductive healthcare, Virginians believe these deeply personal decisions should remain between a patient, their family, and their doctor, not politicians.”
For Virginians, the outcome of Question 1 will determine whether the state establishes a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, following a complicated, multi-year process to add the amendment to the state constitution.
The constitutional amendment was first introduced in January 2023. The General Assembly subsequently passed the amendment in January 2025. The state process requires an intervening election, and a House of Delegates election was held in November 2025. Then, the General Assembly passed the amendment for the second time in January 2026.
Now it is up to voters to vote yes or no. A “yes” vote means Virginians will have a constitutional right to make their own decisions on reproductive care, including abortion. (However, not without some potential restrictions: The proposed amendment would still allow the Virginian government to pass laws regulating abortion care in the third trimester though with decreased barriers.) A “no” vote will mean the status quo is maintained, including the same restrictions to abortion care in the third semester that require approval from three physicians. What’s more, abortion rights in the future could eventually be restricted with a change in office.
The issue has been a key part of Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s platform since her electoral victory over Glenn Youngkin last November. In June, half a year after taking office, Gov. Spanberger joined the Reproductive Freedom Alliance (RFA), a nonpartisan coalition of governors dedicated to protecting reproductive freedom across the nation.
“Virginia is the only state in the South where a woman has the same freedom to make her own healthcare decisions as she did before the fall of Roe v. Wade. Today, we are taking a step to reaffirm those freedoms,” Gov. Spanberger said in an RFA press release last June.
In effect, a “yes” vote means Virginia law won’t change, says Executive Director of Virginia ACLU Mary Bauer. “Our goal is not to change Virginia law. Our goal is to enshrine reproductive freedom into our constitution because we know that these rights can be taken away with a flick of a politician’s pen,” she says. “We want to make sure that our rights don’t depend on who happens to be in office at any given moment.”
Prior to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, roughly 3% of patients accessing abortion care in Virginia came from out of state. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and more Southern states limited access to abortions, the percentage of out-of-state patients jumped to 30%, according to the Virginia Independent. This means the results of Amendment 1 will affect more than just Virginians. Arguably, the state is the last stronghold for abortion care in the South.
“To see Virginia as a leader in this space is really a beautiful thing,” Bauer says.
If the amendment fails to pass, there is a risk that Virginia will transform into a state banning abortion, says Dr. Kimberly Chernoby, a physician and reproductive rights lawyer. “Virginia is a state that is not very clearly Democratic or Republican,” she says. “Our legislature has gone both ways, and so there is a real risk that in the future, and it could be near future, that we could lose access to reproductive healthcare.”
Amendment 1 also holds implications for practicing physicians. “It means that when my patient is miscarrying and I have to offer them an abortion to treat their miscarriage, that I'm not worried. ‘Am I going to go to jail? Am I going to lose my medical license? Am I going to be fined $10,000?’ The idea that any physician is asked to weigh those things at the bedside is really incredible,” Dr. Chernoby says. “Abortion is routine healthcare, and you cannot affect all other aspects of reproductive healthcare. When you limit abortion care, you are by definition going to limit all other aspects of reproductive healthcare, and you can't have one without the other.”
It’s exactly this full span of reproductive healthcare that Sanatkar is advocating for, and that she’s encountered broad support for through her organizing. “It's a very simple question: Do you want to have access to bodily autonomy, and do you want to be able to make decisions independently with your doctor without being scared that the state is going to punish you or your provider? And I think [the] majority of Virginians are going to say ‘yes’ to that,” she says.
[post_title] => When the Future of Bodily Autonomy Is in Question
[post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Virginia's Question 1 this election.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => 2026-election-down-ballot-virginia-question-1-abortion-bodily-autonomy-healthcare-womens-rights-voting
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-10-07 22:16:23
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-07 22:16:23
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11119
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
Why you should pay attention to Colorado's Proposition 134 this election.
This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2026 United States election.
In February 2025, just 16 days after President Trump took office for the second time, he signed an executive order banning trans girls and women from competing in girls’ and women’s sports in schools receiving federal funding. That directive, part of the administration’s broader assault on trans rights, goes against multiple studies showing that transgender students benefit from participating in athletics, including earning higher grades and a reduction in self-harm.
This November, Colorado voters will decide where they stand on this issue by voting on Proposition 134, a ballot initiative regarding the right of trans students to play on K-12 and college sports teams that align with their gender identity.
“We talk about the importance of sports being this place for community, particularly for youth, but this is a few people assuming for the rest of people what their values are around sports and inclusion,” says Ash Neufeldt of Rocky Mountain Equality about the measure. Rocky Mountain Equality is a Colorado-based LGBTQ+ non-profit organization that advocates for, educates, and supports LGBTQ+ individuals and families.
While supporters of the proposition describe it as an effort to protect girls' sports, opponents like Neufeldt are concerned about its ambiguity and the process for determining which students would face restrictions. “When it comes to things like this for people who are trying to keep particular gender roles, a lot of times, it's related to genitalia,” Neufeldt says. “It could have the most invasive implications for kindergarteners all the way through college athletes.”
Hannah*, a parent of a trans youth who requested anonymity due to safety concerns, agrees. “I think the thing is really poorly written and very vague. Anybody could be accused, and then what happens? The coach has to verify. How does that happen?” Hannah questions in what other setting would another parent be okay with a school meeting that is essentially about their child’s genitalia. “But somehow with our girls, it’s on the table because they're trans?” she asks.
While similar laws have been enacted in other states, including Idaho and Mississippi in 2020 and 2021, respectively, 2026 will be the first time U.S. voters decide on the issue at the ballot box. (Three other states—Washington, Arizona, and Nebraska—have similar ballot measures this November.) If passed, the initiative would require school- and association-sponsored athletic teams to be classified into one of three categories: males, females, or mixed. Teams designated for males would remain open to females, so long as no corresponding female team exists. The reverse, however, would not apply, meaning if no male team exists, anyone who is not a cisgender woman or girl would be barred from joining female teams. Neufeldt says this asymmetry points to a fixation and disdain for trans women and trans girls in particular. From her viewpoint, proponents of the measure are suggesting that a six-year-old transgender girl is somehow dangerous to cisgender girls of the same age.
The organization leading the campaign in support of the initiative, Protect Kids Colorado, says on its website, "Bigger, stronger biological males are invading girls' sports in Colorado, taking away our girls' dignity, safety, and opportunity.” Parents like Hannah push back against such arguments. “What do we need protection from? Show us one time when this has really, truly been a problem,” she says, referring to transgender athletes participating in K-12 sports. Beyond this, the "bigger, stronger" argument hinges on testosterone-driven puberty, a stage many trans kids never experience. While not every trans child uses puberty blockers, those who do must monitor hormone levels with regular blood checks. Hannah says these checks have shown her that her daughter’s testosterone levels are two-thirds lower than the average cisgender girl.
Another parent of a trans child who also asked for anonymity says they “are manufacturing an outrage that just doesn’t exist,” noting that Colorado already has guidelines from the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA). Under CHSAA's existing policy, a transgender student's home school conducts a confidential evaluation to determine eligibility—meaning coaches, athletic directors, and principals already have a formal process for making the call on what team(s) a student is allowed to play on, with CHSAA reviewing decisions on appeal rather than deciding unilaterally.
"The reality is Proposition 134 is so unclear. There's no accountability, there's no enforcement structure," says Nadine Bridges, Executive Director of One Colorado, an advocacy organization dedicated to advancing equality, freedom, and opportunity for LGBTQIA+ Coloradans and their families. "We have 179 school districts in the state of Colorado, and each one can interpret it any way they want. I don't believe they're setting up a structure to protect girls. I think they're setting up a situation that makes it even more gray. This is allowing government to get involved in decisions that families, experts, coaches, and schools should be allowed to make."
If the ballot measure passes in November, Neufeldt says sports will no longer be a place of fun, friendly competition and community building. It will become a place of interrogations. And that loss would fall on kids who are already struggling. Nearly 60 percent of transgender and nonbinary youth experience depression, and almost half have considered suicide in the past year. Laws that restrict sports participation worsen psychological stress for transgender youth, and the Bell Policy Center’s website highlights that Prop 134 would cut off transgender students from the benefits organized sports provide. It also notes there is no sound evidence that transgender participation in youth sports negatively impacts the well-being of cisgender youth.
For parents like Hannah, whose daughter has always been athletic and loves to be active, it’s heartbreaking to even consider. “Every body is different. There’s different athletic abilities, talents. Different heights, some kids are fast, some are clumsy. But learning how to win, how to lose, how to compete… It’s the one time for her that, for just a little while, she just gets to be like everybody else,” she says. “It’s this tiny moment in her life that she’s allotted to just be a kid.”
* Hannah is an alias. The family requested anonymity due to increasing safety concerns.
[post_title] => When a Kid Just Wants To Play Sports
[post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Colorado's Proposition 134 this election.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => 2026-election-united-states-colorado-proposition-134-down-ballot-transphobia-sports-voting
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-10-07 22:19:19
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-07 22:19:19
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11096
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
Why you should pay attention to North Carolina's Require Voter Identification Amendment this election.
This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2026 United States election.
Since 2018, North Carolina law has required photo identification for in-person voting, as do 24 other states. This November 3, however, state residents will vote on the North Carolina Require Voter Identification Amendment measure, a “legislatively referred constitutional amendment,” or referendum, which would alter the state’s constitution. It would require all voters—including absentee and mail-in voters—to provide a photo ID in order to participate in elections.
Whether voters reject or pass the amendment, the current voting requirements in the state of North Carolina would remain the same.
You’re not alone if you’re wondering why it’s even on the ballot. But North Carolina policy experts are concerned about it, warning that a ‘Yes’ vote would likely have lasting implications.
Recent changes to North Carolina voting laws
The last time that language about voter IDs appeared on North Carolina’s ballot was in 2024. Since then, a photocopy of a voter’s photo identification has been required for mail-in voting. Currently, there are still exceptions for lost or stolen IDs, or a voter’s disability status, allowing voters to use an alternative method of identification, like sharing the last four digits of their Social Security number.
According to Brooks Fuller, Policy Director with Common Cause NC, a non-partisan network of grassroots state policy experts, the original reason for the proposed measure was to ensure that voters are indeed who they say they are.
This year’s proposed amendment, however, does not include any language on exceptions, and Fuller says this could affect many US voters, muddying its true end goal.
“The only logical conclusion is that the legislators passing these laws want to make it more difficult for people to vote,” he says. “I imagine they can see who tends to vote by mail, and it's voters who they would prefer not to [be able to] vote.”
Data from 2022 analyzed by the non–partisan nonprofit Secure Democracy shows that nearly half of rural voters across the country vote by mail. In North Carolina, while most mail-in voters are white, Asian and Pacific Islander voters are the most likely to request an absentee ballot, while Black voters increased their mail-in participation five-fold in 2020. Black voters are also more likely to have their mail-in ballots rejected, generally for minor errors like a missing signature or address.
Democracy for all, not just a few
President of The League of Women Voters of North Carolina Jennifer McMillian Rubin says the proposed amendment is “troubling.” If passed, it would pose a barrier to North Carolina residents who are serving in the military or overseas, and Rubin argues being forced to mail in a photocopy of their IDs would likely keep them from voting.
The Voter Identification Amendment is just one of three referendums that The League is opposing this year. The other two, the Property Tax Levy Limit Amendment and the Reduce Constitutional Income Tax Cap amendments, would reduce the maximum personal income tax rate from 7% to 3.5% and require limits on property tax increases by local governments, respectively. The League is at odds with such changes because they would shift local funding decisions to the state, cement policy decisions into the constitution, and potentially reduce funding for future services, like education or disaster relief.
Altogether, the three propositions ”place policy decisions into the Constitution that are better addressed through legislation, where elected officials can respond to changing needs and voters can hold them accountable,” says Rubin. “It seems like overkill to put additional verbiage that would make this more permanent, more stringent, and less flexible to adapt to changing times and changing requirements.”
Common Cause NC, a nonprofit that works to protect voting rights, is concerned that historically marginalized populations will be most impacted by the proposal. Besides Black voters, Hispanic/Latine residents, disabled or elderly voters, people who work multiple jobs with varied shifts, and residents who simply do not drive could also be affected if the amendment passes.
In 2013, the US Supreme Court removed critical components of the Voting Rights Act, including requiring that certain districts obtain federal clearance before changing voting laws or practice due to previous racial discrimination. North Carolina’s legislature responded by decreasing accessibility to voting through tactics like closing down polling locations predominantly used by Black residents and limiting early voting. Four years later, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit blocked components of a North Carolina voting law that singled out Black voters in the state, stating that it “target[ed] African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”
Legal proceedings about racially motivated barriers in voting have been ongoing since, including arguments about redistricting. In 2025, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais rendered gerrymandering legal. This led two North Carolinian residents to drop their appeal to the Supreme Court after years of pushing the courts to reconsider district lines in favor of the Voting Rights Act. After the latest ruling, Rep. Rodney Pierce told Daily Tar Heels that the decision “left no path open to protect the voting rights of Black citizens in the state.”
Fuller is concerned that the latest proposed amendment is yet another attempt at creating additional barriers for historically marginalized populations.
“[It would] cement a part of our law that tends to suppress voter turnout and votes, particularly in vulnerable communities, and would do so even more egregiously than it already does,” Fuller says.
Resources for eligible voters
According to 2024 research led by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland, almost 21 million US citizens of voting age lack a valid driver’s license. The Center’s research also reveals that almost 29 million voting-aged US citizens have a valid license that does not match their current address or name, which means they couldn’t use it to verify their ballots. These findings support Fuller’s concerns surrounding racial inequities, as both Black and Hispanic voters are more likely to be without a valid license than their counterparts.
“That's the point,” Fuller says. “This is just doubling down, making it harder for those folks when they have already, by registering, proven that they are who they say they are.”
For those eligible to vote but without valid photo identification, Fuller encourages them to visit their County Board of Elections, a seldom used resource that is less cumbersome than securing a DMV appointment. He also suggests using VoteRiders for voters who need extra support procuring their IDs and transportation to their polling place.
Low on supporting data
Myths surrounding voter fraud fuel proposed amendments like this one, bolstering the idea that additional requirements would ensure voting accuracy. Yet Rubin says voting fraud in North Carolina is almost non-existent, and a 2024 social media campaign dedicated to busting voting myths, led by the North Carolina Board of Elections, confirms it.
“There is not an ‘election integrity’ reason to require a photo ID, especially not through a constitutional amendment,” argues Fuller. Instead, what is needed is voter education across party lines.
“It is cliche, and I hear it a lot, especially from my elders,” says Fuller. “But it is true: They would not be trying so hard to take away your vote if it didn't threaten their power. They just wouldn't.”
[post_title] => Why Ask Voters to Provide ID If It's Already Required?
[post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to North Carolina's Require Voter Identification Amendment this election.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => 2026-election-down-ballot-north-carolina-require-voter-identification-amendment-united-states-voting-rights
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-10-06 19:10:33
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-06 19:10:33
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11088
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
Women steeped in democracy work around the world share their thoughts on what we owe our shared future, and how we can all better contribute to our communities.
So much of what we once took for granted—democracy, belonging, institutions, even our sense of a shared future—feels unsettled. Being a good community member feels equally fraught, yet in the face of uncertainty, it has become all the more essential in the collective fight for a better tomorrow.
We asked women working across different fields, countries, and cultural backgrounds a simple set of questions: What does community mean to you? What can a person do today to become a better neighbor, organizer, and partner in a shared future? And what advice would you offer to anyone looking to strengthen their relationship to their community?
Their answers point toward a common practice and perspective: A shared future is not something we wait for. It is something we make together.
Community is contributing, no matter what it looks like
Tiffany Kagure Mugo is a Kenyan author and podcaster who focuses on issues around sex and sexuality within the African context. Based in Johannesburg, South Africa, she is actively involved in building a vast community of and for queer people across the African continent. Describing this community as the one she spends the most time in, she says it also intersects with the sex positive community she is a part of, which she’s worked to cultivate continent-wide for many years.
“The older I’ve gotten, the more my idea of community has shifted,” Mugo says. “When I was trying to figure out my sexuality, the idea of community was very much based on my social justice connections, who could help me figure out my sexuality… And then as I got older, it was the network of friends that I have built.”
At present, Mugo primarily sees community beyond the larger groups she aligns with politically, socially, and in terms of identity, and instead, as the people who are a part of her core support system. “The idea of community can be very nebulous,” she says. “For the longest time, because of being in the social justice world and having all these buzz words around community, it became a very rigid idea.” During that period of her life, Mugo considered community to be a fixed idea with definitive parameters that demanded a collective politics presenting itself in very specific ways. She has since shed that precise definition of community for one that makes room for more people, even if they are not always the people who are going to sit together at the same dinner party.
Beatriz Silva de Almeida Barros in São Paulo, Brazil applies a similar sentiment in her definition of community. On a granular level, hers is composed of people across six cities in the three countries she’s lived in—Brazil, the United States, and Ireland—plus the digital connections she’s made, some through her work as a gender equality advocate. Broadly speaking, however, Barros says it’s “important to allow yourself the idealism of caring about everyone in the world.” As Barros explains it, taking an interest and learning to be attentive to the ways she can reach others is precisely what has expanded her ability to reach more people across social and political divides.
“If I tell my Gen X coworker with no college education that I think abortions should always be free and legal, she’s going to think I’m another one of those commies and dismiss me out of hand,” she says. “If I tell her I wish her doctor hadn’t pressured her into having another child before she had a hysterectomy, without which she’d still have debilitating pain, we’ve taken a step in the right direction.”
Barros considers communities as groups that we’re a part of, de facto, even if we may not necessarily choose all the people in them, such as in a workplace. In such environments, she says, attempting systemic change to wholly improve people’s lives may not always be possible, but there are still always ways to make a difference.
“What we can do,” Barros says, “is make the experience of making a living more livable by being kinder to one another.”
Start where you are, with what you have
For Maria Perez, the Ecuadorian co-Executive Director of Democracy Rising, becoming a better community member begins with finding a place to contribute.
“Join a local organization that aligns with your values and with the vision of the world and your community you are interested in co-creating,” she says. “Get clear about what you have to offer.”
That contribution does not have to be extraordinary. It might be $20 a month. It might be volunteering an hour a week. It might be facilitation, graphic design, event planning, or simply a willingness to show up.
“I guarantee that any organization you align with is struggling to make ends meet,” Perez says. “Become an active supporter. It will take all of us.”
This idea—that citizenship is expressed through contribution—is deeply rooted in the Basque Country, where Ione Ardaiz, Projects Lead at Arantzazulab, describes a longstanding tradition of community development and collaborative governance known as herrigintza: building community, society, and public institutions together.
One of the concepts that shapes this work is auzolan, collective work carried out for the common good. It is based on a simple reciprocity: Sometimes you contribute your time and effort to help others; other times, you benefit from the support of your community. More broadly, Ardaiz says, auzolan expresses the idea that people come together “to create, sustain, and care for what belongs to everyone.”
Another Basque concept, erantzukidetasuna, combines ideas of responsibility, reciprocity, and shared obligation. It provides a stark contrast to the transactional worldview prevalent in Western governing philosophies, particularly so-called “free market capitalism.” In one word, erantzukidetasuna describes the mutual relationships in a successful society, including what we owe one another. Through this lens, citizenship is not only about having rights, but about taking responsibility for the conditions we share. Collective and individual wellbeing is not simply something provided by public institutions; both depend on people actively contributing to sustaining and strengthening them over time.
This is a useful corrective to the idea that civic life is something that happens somewhere else, in institutions or among professional organizers.
Based in east Kent, UK, Rebecca Gibson emphasizes this kind of local community engagement should go beyond one’s municipality, to include both offline and online spaces where people have shared values. A Londoner for most of her life who now lives in Canterbury, her local community involvement includes directly addressing the most pressing issues within her area, from climate change to roads. She also says the early days of COVID lockdown inadvertently made her much more attuned to her neighbors both near and far, especially some of the especially vulnerable and lonely older adults in her community, something now considered an epidemic across the globe.
“Through the parish council and the church, there was a real effort to connect with elderly neighbors and make sure they weren’t isolated,” Gibson says. “I was actually paired with an 86-year-old woman at the time, who was in poor health and I would do her shopping for her and regularly call on her through the window.” Their relationship superseded the time frame of the initiative, and they eventually became friends, something Gibson says might not have happened without the initial program, despite them living on the same street.
Separately, the genocide in Gaza has prompted Gibson to seek community beyond her usual networks, who didn’t share her outrage. She sought local groups of like-minded people, joining marches and setting up a continuous weekend stall in the city center to engage strangers. Previously on the board of Canterbury for Palestine, Gibson has become heavily involved in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement over the last few years, as part of the Palestinian-led global movement’s effort to put economic and political pressure on Israel.
“For me, it’s been a powerful reminder that community can come from the most unexpected places and that finding people who you share values with can turn a feeling of helplessness into something much more positive and active,” she says.
Practice belonging through relationship
That work begins with how we relate to the people around us.
Perez suggests a remarkably simple practice: Start a friendly conversation with someone whose worldview you suspect is different from your own—because of age, class, gender, ethnicity, or any other difference. “Acknowledging that you both belong in your community is a reminder that a shared future includes all of us,” she says. “These small, seemingly meaningless touches are really important.”
For Ouassima Laabich, a Moroccan futures practitioner and initiator, and a Project Lead of Muslim Futures at Superrr, that kind of relationship across differences requires something deeper.
“Being a better community member begins with honesty and authenticity: showing up as your full self, with the beautiful, the difficult, and the unfinished parts all present,” she says. She describes the self as an unfinished process, and says we have to grant other people that same permission to continue evolving. That means staying in uncomfortable conversations: the disagreement in a group of young friends, the moment when someone names a tension nobody wants to touch, initiating a conversation with the neighbor to whom you owe an honest word.
Community, in this sense, is not harmony. It is the ongoing work of maintaining a relationship.
To Laabich, community needs caring, both for ourselves and for others. Self-care, then, is not an escape from community responsibility, she argues—it is what allows us to return to it.
“Rest when you are depleted,” she says, “so that after some rest, you can still lead the counseling session, answer the message that keeps the network alive, knock on the door of the neighbor who has gone quiet.” And just as importantly, work within your real capacities: "Offer the two hours you have rather than the ten you wish you had,” she adds. “Name the task you can carry and the one you cannot.”
There is generosity in knowing our limits. A sustainable community is built not by people pretending to be limitless, but by people being honest about what they can give—and then giving it.
Move from participation to shared power
The women also point toward something larger than individual acts of community care: finding ways to share real responsibility for community decisions.
If building a shared future begins with how we show up for one another, sustaining that future requires us to develop ways of making decisions together. Movements need more than shared values, individual acts of solidarity, and heroes; they need cooperative structures that turn many individuals’ knowledge, relationships, and imagination into collective agency and shared power.
Movements must cultivate forms of cooperation and collective decision-making that can draw people together, while also renewing the institutions we already have, even when those institutions seem illegitimate, or have grown distant, depleted, or derelict. The work of democracy is not simply to build something new, but to reclaim and repair what belongs to all of us.
Many of the women are experimenting with different ways that communities can achieve this, and Perez is particularly proud of a recent effort to find “antidotes to fascism that are effective and applicable now, by regular people in their communities.” She convened elected officials, government bureaucrats, and community activists from across the country who are experimenting with shared decision-making models in their jurisdictions.
“They are learning from each other and troubleshooting together,” she says. The goal is to cultivate experiments in collaborative governance, “one seed at a time.”
This is also at the heart of Arantzazulab's work in the Basque Country: finding new ways to meaningfully involve citizens in public policymaking and decision-making, while also supporting innovation within public institutions. The aim is not simply to give people more opportunities to speak, but to rethink the relationship among public institutions, organized civil society, and individual citizens—and to strengthen the democratic ecosystem that connects them.
For Dr. Jayne Engle, a Canadian-American practitioner working at the intersection of democracy, cities, land relationships, and futures, this kind of civic infrastructure is increasingly essential. “Every community carries stories of the beautiful futures its people already know are possible,” she says.
Currently, she is especially enthusiastic about building Polity, a democracy cooperative developing digital civic infrastructure for more participatory, deliberative, and democratic forms of collective action. Engle sees this work, alongside the efforts of many others, as fundamental to building the civic agency required for the societal innovation and transformation demanded by this moment of geopolitical and geoeconomic disruption.
In other words, becoming a better community member is not only about becoming kinder or more engaged. It is also about building the capacity to make decisions together.
Learn to see what is possible
This form of collective action also requires imagination.
Engle encourages people to pay close attention to their own thought patterns and ways of seeing. As Anaïs Nin famously put it, “We don't see the world as it is, but as we are.” For Engle, futures thinking and systems thinking have to be accompanied by two other elements that are equally important: feeling and imagination. Their practice allows us to see possibilities, and to cultivate a collective imagination that makes resilience possible.
“Start where you are; do what you can,” she says. “Find the others. And lead with love and courage.”
Perez's work with communities experimenting in collaborative governance is one expression of this principle. Engle's partnerships with Indigenous community leaders through 7GenerationCities and their efforts to develop new practices of land relationships and stewardship is another. These practices change the time horizon of civic work: Instead of thinking only in election cycles or fiscal years, Engle asks us to think in generations.
“Learn to see—and sow—the seeds of the possible,” she says. “Every community carries stories of the beautiful futures its people already know are possible.” That means accepting that important ideas may initially feel too radical, even embarrassing. “Discomfort is often a sign you're onto something meaningful and important,” she says.
For Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah, a Ghanaian feminist and writer whose transnational work is at the center of sexual and reproductive rights and social justice, radical possibilities turn into radical realities when one considers what is absent from the community they have, and what they would like to have, then actually begins to build it.
“If there’s a space that you wish exists but doesn’t exist yet, create that space yourself,” she says. “Find people who are like-minded and invite them to co-create the space with you.”
She’s speaking from experience: Sekyiamah holds an annual festival centered around sex and sexuality, and for the first time ever, she’s excited that it will be held in a francophone country, Benin, allowing it to draw many French speakers from West Africa and elsewhere. Centered around pleasure, Sekyiamah is especially proud that she can approach sex and sexuality through this dimension, as an important part of the conversation. Bringing together her community of African feminists and queer people across Africa and its diaspora—including Mugo, who has previously attended—Sekyiamah takes great pride in the various people represented in organizing the festival and attending it, physically and virtually.
“I’m really proud of that, because it’s a community effort and also an effort that benefits the community, with the community being feminists, being queer people, being sex workers, being trans people, being gender non-conforming people,” Sekyiamah says.
Build for people you may never meet
Perhaps the most profound shift many of the women describe requires moving from thinking about community as the people who are here now, to thinking about community across time.
Engle describes the practice of considering “our future ancestors”—people who do not yet exist, but whose lives will be shaped by the decisions we make today. She asks herself a question that gives a different meaning to civic responsibility: “What did you do when you knew?”
This asks us to think beyond our immediate interests, our own political moment, and even our own generation. It asks us to become stewards rather than simply consumers of the places and institutions we inherit. And it connects back to the Basque concept of auzolan—how sometimes we contribute to something from which someone else will benefit in the future, just as we benefit from the work undertaken by those who came before us.
A shared future is built in this reciprocal space—between generations, between neighbors, between citizens and institutions, between what we can imagine and what we are willing to do.
The work is ordinary—and extraordinary
None of these women suggest that there is a single grand gesture that will repair our communities. Instead, they describe a collection of practices.
Join something. Give what you can. Talk to your neighbor. Stay in the difficult conversation. Know your limits. Rest so you can return. Share responsibility. Learn from people who see the world differently. Build institutions that allow people to make decisions together. Imagine futures that do not yet exist. Think across generations.
Community is something we continually make through our relationships, our contributions, our courage, our imagination, and our willingness to take responsibility for what belongs to all of us. Our shared future is not waiting to be discovered somewhere ahead. It is being built, one conversation, one act of care, one experiment, and one seed at a time.
[post_title] => How To Be a Better Neighbor
[post_excerpt] => Women steeped in democracy work around the world share their thoughts on what we owe our shared future, and how we can all better contribute to our communities.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => how-to-be-a-better-neighbor-community-member-development-democracy-decision-making-politics-shared-future-guide
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-09-10 19:43:50
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-09-10 19:43:50
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11001
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
A strangely hopeful book that looks at the longer arc of history to find lessons for abolition today.
A few years ago, I spent a couple of nights at the Panama Hotel in Seattle’s International District. The 1910 five-story brick building was designed for migrant workers by the city’s first Japanese-American architect, Sabro Ozasa, and smelled as mildewy as it was old. The wooden floors creaked loudly and the water traveling down the pipes roared whenever someone above me flushed the toilet. When booking the hotel, I had no idea about its quirks nor its story.
On February 19, 1942, after then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, more than 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry were forcefully removed from their homes and taken to internment camps. As a hub for Seattle’s Japanese community, the Panama Hotel offered to store many of these families’ heirlooms, their furniture, and trunks full of other valuable objects, until they’d be able to come home. But even after the last of these internment camps was shut down in 1946—after myriad families lost their homes, their livelihoods, and were forcefully relocated yet again—many personal possessions went unclaimed. Today, there are still around 8,500 objects in the hotel’s basement—a beautiful and devastating testament to its place in history, and to the immeasurable harm these camps left behind. If you go to the tea house on the first floor, you can see many of them through a glass panel: dusty leather trunks, silk kimonos, books, purses, and the yellowed front page of a newspaper announcing forced evacuation orders during World War II.
I think about those unclaimed family objects every time I read yet another headline describing the terrors of Trump’s turbocharged deportation campaign. In 2025 alone, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 442,637 people; according to the latest data, there are between 60,000 and 70,000 migrants stuck in ICE detention in the U.S. More than 70% of them have no criminal convictions.
Author John Washington (a fellow journalist and friend) has been investigating what he calls the “immigration enforcement regime” for years. His 2023 book, The Case for Open Borders, called for the abolition of border control as a way to minimize suffering and bring more equitable global economic growth. His latest, How to Close a Camp: Dispatches from the Fight Against Immigrant Detention, is an unapologetic look at the echoes of Japanese internment. As its title suggests, it is also a timely how-to guide for blocking the creation of new immigrant detention centers and the repurposing of old ones, and for changing the perception of migrants as “a population subject to detention under the guise of military necessity.”
How to Close a Camp shows how the more things change, the more they stay the same. How, just like Chinese migrants were detained as soon as they crossed the U.S.-Canada border in the 1880s, today’s brown and Black migrants are being kidnapped by masked federal agents and kept behind bars in horrid conditions for months. Part of that history, too, is the prison boom of the 1980s tied to the “War on Drugs,” and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security two decades ago as a response to the “War on Terror.”
“A camp warps and degrades reality both for those in fear of ending up in one and for those living alongside them,” Washington writes. “Our decisions as a society, meanwhile, are uprooting more and more people from their homes, pushing people to flee, and failing to meet them with the protection, basic rights, freedom, or dignity they seek.”
In spite of all this, How to Close a Camp is a strangely hopeful book. It is much more interested in the longer arc of history and what lessons it brings for abolition today. By examining successful direct action and pressure campaigns from the past, Washington identifies six main ways to get communities involved in exposing—and shutting down—the brutal for-profit immigrant detention system. “Closing a detention center is rarely a single strike,” he writes. “It’s a siege: conditions exposed through sustained communications with those inside, licenses challenged, permits denied, inspections weaponized, contracts terminated.” The sixth step? Let everyone know about your findings and what they mean. “You need to harness the research into a narrative, then start pressing on those levers of power.”
Albeit slowly, this shift is already happening: “Alligator Alcatraz,” a detention facility built in the Florida Everglades, shut down last month after multiple lawsuits and public outcry over its inhumane conditions. With How to Close a Camp as our guide, we gain a better understanding of how we can begin to close more of them.
[post_title] => Book of the Month: "How to Close a Camp" by John Washington
[post_excerpt] => "How to Close a Camp" is a strangely hopeful book that looks at the longer arc of history to find lessons for abolition today.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => how-to-close-a-camp-by-john-washington-immigration-detention-internment-book-of-the-month-botm
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-07-30 20:25:59
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-07-30 20:25:59
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=10797
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
Györgyi Gálik on trust, agency, and the invisible work of peacebuilding.
What are the conditions that make democracy possible?
This is the question that animates the work of Györgyi Gálik, the Hungarian co-founder of Governing Together at Dark Matter Labs, a non-profit research and design lab that builds alternative models for future economies. Unlike many democracy practitioners, Gálik is less interested in designing the next civic platform or participation process than she is in understanding the invisible conditions that ensure their success: trust, agency, kindness, dignity, psychological safety, and fostering relationships that allow people to govern together.
For Gálik, peacebuilding is not something that begins after violence, but rather the work of cultivating the social, relational, and institutional conditions that make violence less likely in the first place. In that sense, peacebuilding and democracy are not separate projects to her: They are expressions of the same underlying work.
"Peace begins much earlier,” she tells me “It begins in the everyday conditions that help people feel seen, valued, connected, and capable of shaping the world around them. Peacebuilding is the slow, everyday work of creating the conditions where people can act, choose, disagree, repair, and shape the systems that govern their lives.”
“Peacebuilding is less about the absence of violence and more about the presence of agency," she continues. "That is also how I understand democracy."
Learning Democracy Through Loss
For Gálik, this understanding emerged from both political observation and personal experience.
Raised in Hungary and having lived across Europe and North America, she became fascinated by the ways political systems shape everyday life. But her deepest lessons came from watching how people lose meaning when they lose agency—something she witnessed in her own home.
Throughout her life, Gálik’s father struggled with alcoholism, and died tragically at a time when addiction was treated primarily as a moral failing or personal weakness, rather than a consequence of trauma, disconnection, and unmet needs. What he lacked, she now believes, was not willpower alone, but community, dignity, empathy, meaning, and purpose.
Over time, she began to understand what happened to her father not simply as a family story, but also a political one: The same conditions that leave individuals vulnerable also leave democracies vulnerable.
Citizens who are filled with resentment and hurt, and feel powerless, unseen, and unheard, become easier to manipulate. People stripped of purpose and dignity become susceptible to cynicism and authoritarian appeals. Far more alarming, this can happen without most even realizing it: It has always frightened Gálik how much people can normalize almost anything if the conditions are made gradually enough.
"The personal and the political were never really separate to begin with," she says.
When Democracy Exists Without Genuine Choice
Few people understand this dynamic more viscerally than Hungarians.
Gálik points to recent investigations documenting how authoritarian governments can maintain the appearance of democracy while systematically narrowing citizens' choices in reality. Elections continue. Participation technically remains available. Yet fear, dependency, poverty, and intimidation hollow out any meaningful sense of agency.
This is something Hungarians have experienced firsthand. The former government stayed in power for 16 years, not simply by putting money in people’s pockets, but by deliberately maintaining widespread vulnerability with a disturbing level of precision. Threatening parents that their children could be taken away. Telling elderly people they could lose their place in care homes. Threatening families that their heating, gas, or electricity could be switched off, or that they’d lose their jobs. Letting criminals off in return for their votes.
What makes this system so chilling is how functionally, it narrows people’s choices without ever pushing them outside a system that depends on their votes and participation in order to maintain the illusion of a functioning democracy.
"A society can have consultation, elections, surveys, town halls, and participation processes, and still not have genuine democratic choice," Gálik explains.
For her, democracy is not simply the presence of participation, but meaningful participation.
That distinction feels increasingly relevant far beyond Hungary. Across many democracies, citizens are invited to participate while struggling with economic insecurity, housing crises, burnout, and declining trust in institutions. Formal participation remains, but if people cannot afford to lose their job, speak up, move home, access care, or have the capacity to imagine a different future, then democracy becomes procedural rather than real.
Democracy's Invisible Infrastructure
One of the most striking ideas in Gálik's work is her belief that, like any seed, democratic ideals need the rich microbiome that sustains healthy, regenerative soil to grow.
In politics, we tend to focus on what is visible: elections, policies, public meetings, constitutions, and institutions. But just as a plant depends on an unseen ecosystem of microorganisms to survive, healthy democracies depend on countless invisible interactions and flows of exchange. Integrity. Curiosity. Reciprocity. The ability to repair harm. The willingness to work across differences.
Without these, both on an individual and societal level, democratic institutions may continue to function on paper while becoming increasingly brittle in practice.
As a result of New Public Management, society’s dominant doctrine since the 1980s, and our broader desire to control complexity, most governments have invested heavily in measurable outputs and performance targets. Yet many technocratic reforms designed to improve efficiency and enable growth have unintentionally weakened the relationships that allow societies to function. Gálik argues that we have become experts at producing outputs, visions, and strategies while neglecting the human infrastructure that turns those outputs into meaningful outcomes for people and communities. A city can produce an award-winning climate strategy and meet every reporting requirement, yet still struggle to deliver meaningful change when departments are siloed, staff lack the capacity to collaborate across mandates, public trust is low, and political leaders are unable to sustain collective action over time.
"We are meeting the targets," one of Gálik’s colleagues observes, "but missing the point."
The Gendered Labor of Holding Society Together
The consequences of this invisible infrastructure are not distributed equally. Much of the work required to maintain relationships, build trust, manage conflict, and hold communities together is often performed by women, yet they remain largely unseen, undervalued, and uncompensated.
Like many women working in politics, public institutions, and social change, Gálik is familiar with the invisible labor required simply to be heard.
Having lived in seven different countries, she has encountered remarkably similar patterns. Many women learn very early that they need to be significantly overprepared to be taken equally seriously. They watch as strategic contributions go unnoticed. They learn to manage their tone, language, appearance, and demeanor to navigate institutions that were rarely designed with them in mind. They learn to present as smart enough, but never too smart.
The endless examples of code-switching she’s collected from women around the world are both humorous and sobering: wearing glasses to appear more serious, wearing a ring to signal they have a husband and are therefore to be taken seriously, bringing brothers as stand-ins to unlock credibility during negotiations.
But Gálik also sees an unexpected strength in these experiences.
Women, she argues, often become experts at reading power because they have spent their lives navigating it. They know how to build trust, maintain connection during conflict, and hold complexity without collapsing into domination.
These are not secondary skills. They are precisely what modern democracies so desperately need.
Gálik has never accepted a passive role in public life. Nor has she believed that the capacity to initiate change should be reserved for those who occupy positions of formal authority. Her advice to women facing authoritarianism is practical and urgent: find each other, protect each other, document what is happening, and refuse isolation. Throughout history, women have created new forms of communication when official channels become dangerous—from underground publishing networks to other mediums of resistance (including quilts, sewing circles, and silent public gatherings). That creativity and resourcefulness remain one of democracy's most enduring resources.
Trust as Democratic Infrastructure
Throughout our conversation, Gálik repeatedly returns to one word: trust.
Not trust as a feeling, nor as a given. But trust as infrastructure, and daily practice.
Roads do not emerge spontaneously. Neither do water systems, bridges, or electrical grids. They must be built, maintained, repaired, and protected. Trust requires the same kind of investment.
When trust collapses, participation becomes performative. Citizens may still show up, but they no longer believe their contributions matter. Democracy continues as a procedure while losing its legitimacy as a shared project.
The question should not be whether citizens trust institutions. The question is whether institutions behave in trustworthy ways. Do they listen? Repair harm? Share power? Tell the truth? Follow through?
These are governance questions, Gálik argues. But they are also peacebuilding questions.
The Work Ahead
Just weeks before our conversation, Hungarian voters ended their sixteen years of increasingly authoritarian rule. Yet Gálik cautions against viewing electoral victories as endpoints. Removing an authoritarian leader is only the beginning. The deeper challenge is rebuilding trust, institutions, civic confidence, and the everyday habits of democratic life among a population long treated as invisible and disposable.
The other challenge is dealing with the rightful resentment these governments leave behind. How might we see possibility in the widespread anger that results from an oppressive regime? Anger is a healthy and necessary response to injustice. It can be one of the most powerful motivating forces for change. The problem is what happens to anger when it has nowhere to go, when it is met with indifference, with the expectation to just move on, with contempt, or with further exclusion. There, it hardens into something more destructive.
As Gálik puts it, “The answer is not to suppress anger or to fear it. The question is whether we can create places where it can be transformed into agency, participation, and collective action. Democracies do not heal by asking people to suppress or forget what happened to them. They heal when people experience that their voices matter again.”
As our conversation ends, Gálik returns to the same idea that has guided her work from the beginning. She hopes that in ten years, Governing Together will have helped to build a serious field of practice around the relational foundations of democracy—one that nurtures both individual and societal wellbeing.
Democracy is not solely defended in court or in government halls. Peacebuilding doesn’t only happen after conflict. Both depend on whether people still believe they have agency in shaping a better future together—and whether they feel their lives carry meaning and purpose within it. Democracy, then, must be something we practice every day in our workplaces, neighborhoods, families, institutions, and communities. These everyday acts are the nutrients of democratic life. They sustain the social microbiome—the living ecosystem of relationships from which trust, cooperation, collective agency, and the belief that change is possible can grow.
It is a deceptively simple idea. And perhaps one of the most radical democratic arguments of our time.
[post_title] => The Soil Beneath Democracy
[post_excerpt] => Györgyi Gálik on trust, agency, and the invisible work of peacebuilding.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => gyorgyi-galik-governing-together-dark-matter-labs-hungary-democracy-peacebuilding-global-peacebuilders
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-08-03 20:28:56
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-03 20:28:56
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=10768
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
In their own words, how people in Minneapolis, New Orleans, and Los Angeles are still showing up for their neighbors in the fight against ICE.
Minneapolis, MN — Molly M.
In early December, kids stop coming to school. My daughter’s third grade class shrinks from 22 to 15, then eight. Over the next two weeks, a handful of parents and teachers raise funds for Christmas gifts and toiletries; organize rides; deliver big hunks of meat, tortillas, eggs, and beans. Families begin planning to send their kids back to school after the holidays. After my final food and supply delivery, I pat myself on the back. Wow, look at us. We did it!
Then, three days after winter break, Renee Good is shot in the face a mile from our house. ICE agents indiscriminately teargas a nearby high school. The city of Minneapolis cancels class for the week. The district announces distance learning for children terrified to leave home. I arrive at school to help organize tablets, Chromebooks, hotspots, and food. Hundreds of brown paper bags fill the room adjacent to the cafeteria; 175 students at my child’s school have opted into distance learning, and every single one needs something in this room. Our principal hovers over a spreadsheet. This is the craziest shit ever, she mumbles under her breath. I see a teacher crying, then another.
I deliver supplies to four families. At the first stop, an apartment building above a Somali shopping center, a masked ICE agent marches past me. I’m a blonde, white, middle-aged woman carrying three grocery bags; I’m his sister, his cousin. I’m someone he knows from high school. I take the elevator to the seventh floor and hand everything to a terrified mother who hasn’t left her apartment, or her children, in weeks.
"The news cycle has moved on. We have not."
The version of me that existed way back in 2025 could not fathom what we’ve pulled off in the months since. A small team of parents and educators raising over a quarter of a million dollars for rent, utilities, legal fees, groceries, hygiene products. We’ve organized food and supply deliveries for 75 families. We’ve patrolled the streets around school, scanning for ICE vehicles while simultaneously smiling at children—letting them know Everything will be fine! As if we know.
Operation Metro Surge ended in February, but did it? The week Tom Homan announced the departure of 700 ICE agents from Minneapolis, three parents at my kids’ school disappeared. ICE has merely changed tactics—they’re quieter, less overtly violent, but they’re still here. The news cycle has moved on. We have not.
Our mutual aid group is exhausted, as is every other one just like ours. We’re just regular people, primarily moms, with regular jobs and responsibilities—cooking and cleaning for our own families, caring for aging parents, driving our kids to swimming lessons. Teachers should be focused on instruction, not learning the habeas petition process or figuring out a 1:1 tutor to help homebound kids desperately behind. They should not be scrambling to find emergency mental health services for children.
For the families we’re supporting—our kids’ friends and classmates, their parents, their siblings—things aren’t even close to normal. They’ve depleted their savings. Parents have lost jobs, and even if a position is being held for them, many businesses teeter on the brink of closure, unable to offer the hours required to support a family.
Yes, Minnesotans deserve accolades for showing up 50,000 strong to protest on the coldest day of the year. And frankly, I think we deserve that Nobel Peace Prize, too. But the fight is not over. Springsteen has left, and what remains is the basic, boring, unsexy work of feeding people and keeping them in their homes. And because no one else is coming to save us, we will continue to fight ICE ourselves, one $20 donation, one box of diapers, and one carpool at a time.
Last December was a hurricane of emotion. Agony. Terror. Heartbreak. You can't unhear girls sobbing as their dad is taken away by masked agents.
But New Orleans weathers every storm of government abandonment. People are used to helping their neighbors survive, and that includes helping immigrants remain in our city.
Our system is called Ojos (Eyes). It works in limitless chats and social media posts on Facebook, TikTok, WhatsApp, wherever. Neighbors share information about ICE and police activity: the exact location, a time stamp, a description. We communicate verifiable, protective facts, not fear. Community “dispatchers” comb through group messages, call eye witnesses, and signal boost confirmed alerts in Unión Migrante forums. Allies head to the scene to film, sometimes exposing ICE live, often just arriving to post “DESPEJADO” once ICE leaves, so folks can transit there again.
Ojos is operated by everyone at once, in real time. Thousands of people participate. Some are confined to their homes for their safety. Some are citizens who parked up in churches, bars, and Mardi Gras krewe warehouses every day and night but Thanksgiving during the height of the Border Patrol occupation.
In a state where the Attorney General threatens prosecution of anyone who “interferes” with ICE arrests, we remind our participants that we're not impeding ICE’s operatives—the Constitution is; we just witness. We’ve learned to peacefully, legally, safely and effectively film and expose ICE and police, without getting Obstruction of Justice charges.
Limiting ICE’s ability to make arrests is paramount—we can't pay rent for everyone in the city for as long as these attacks may continue. People have to go to work. Rather than falling short with a finite band-aid of charity on these deep wounds, peaceful confrontation slows harm at its root.
"You can't unhear girls sobbing as their dad is taken away by masked agents."
We can't stop every arrest. But we can do a lot. Beyond alerts, Ojos educates followers on our rights to demand a warrant, to remain inside, to maintain silence, to film. Peaceful filming in the streets becomes a daily protest broadcast live as soccer moms, bartenders, and tech workers film ICE and Kenner cops, and then share their own families’ immigration stories on Facebook Live—Sicilians who fled gang violence not unlike in Honduras’; Jews who were kidnapped off the streets in broad daylight. It changes the public narrative.
Footage has aided civil lawsuits and deportation defense. Ojos led a 14-hour stand off between neighbors and ICE agents and cops at a trailer park in red voter Hammond, a suburb north of New Orleans. There were solidarity pizzas, politicians, journalists, thousands of viral views, and substantially fewer arrests than might have happened without so many ojos watching. Hammond’s City Hall exploded with vitriol against the agreement of local police collaborating with ICE in the aftermath.
Putting our bodies publicly and peacefully on the line isn't just about keeping our neighbors here. It's about keeping our democracy. I know this personally: Federal agents have come to my home to intimidate me. An eerie echo of the state violence I hear in the asylum interviews I interpret for. It’s the same violence my child’s father endured when he was beaten and wrongfully arrested while filming ICE, profiled as an undocumented Hispanic construction worker, though he's a citizen.
But We The People create our government and our reality. We the People of New Orleans choose love and peaceful, public, unified resistance, rather than cowering in fear and doom-scrolling in isolation. This choice is the future of our democracy. We hope others choose it, too.
When immigration raids intensified across Los Angeles last summer, almost every day seemed to bring another report of a neighbor’s disappearance. On the Westside, where I live, a beloved paletero was detained while selling ice cream on the street corner. Immigration agents kidnapped workers from a local car wash and day laborers outside a Home Depot. Neighbors reported seeing ICE vehicles staging at familiar shopping centers and church parking lots, turning ordinary places into sites of fear and uncertainty.
Suddenly, families across the city were faced with impossible choices, and many stopped working because they feared they would be next. Others returned to work because they felt they had no choice: The alternative meant falling behind on rent and risking their ability to support their families.
Like many, my neighbors and I wanted to do something concrete to help. Around that time, we saw that Ktown For All, a mutual aid organization in Koreatown, had begun buying out street vendors, and had published a guide explaining how other communities could do the same. That was the moment it clicked. Mutual aid is strongest at the hyperlocal level, where trust already exists and people can stay connected long after the immediate crisis has passed. We didn't need to invent something new to support and protect our neighbors. We could learn from organizers who had already done the work, and adapt it to our own neighborhoods.
As ICE raids have continued into another summer, street vendors remain among the workers most exposed to immigration enforcement. Their livelihoods depend on being visible in public spaces, often in the same locations every day. Many are women balancing the work of running a small business while caring for children and supporting their families. When those spaces become unsafe, they lose the ability to earn a living at all.
"Mutual aid is strongest at the hyperlocal level, where trust already exists and people can stay connected long after the immediate crisis has passed."
Our idea was simple. If the community could temporarily replace a vendor's lost income, that vendor would have one less reason to choose between personal safety and paying the bills. We started by visiting vendors we already knew. As the project grew, we partnered with local rapid response networks whose trusted community relationships helped us reach many more vendors than we ever could have on our own.
We expected to help a handful of people here in Mar Vista. Instead, our work has expanded to the entire Westside.
When we first started Westside Vendor Buyout, we realized almost immediately that the challenge wasn’t convincing people to care. It was giving people a tangible way to turn their concern into action. Hundreds of neighbors donated, and volunteers stepped up to contribute however they could. Some helped with translation or behind-the-scenes support, while others connected us with families we never would have met otherwise.
As we spent more time with vendors, we began to understand that the raids were doing far more than sowing fear. They were destabilizing entire households and livelihoods. Vendors described living day to day as plummeting sales turned to mounting debt and missed rent payments. One mother told us her son had considered leaving college because weeks of lost income made it impossible to keep up with household expenses. Another vendor received an eviction notice after staying home because she was too afraid to return to the corner where she had built her business. As customers disappeared, neighborhood businesses struggled.
We had originally imagined the Vendor Buyout as an emergency fund, but every conversation revealed another way the community could help. We created a Hire a Vendor program so neighbors could continue supporting local vendors whenever they needed food for an event. When families faced eviction, we organized emergency fundraisers to help keep them housed. We also partnered with community organizations to host tenant rights clinics and organized a Thanksgiving gathering where we broke bread with vendors and their families, shared groceries and holiday gifts, and spent time together outside the pressures of work and immigration enforcement. The gathering met immediate needs, but it also gave people a chance to get to know one another and build relationships that couldn't be forged through a cash transfer alone.
"We weren’t starting from scratch, but instead joining a much larger tradition of community care."
One of the most important lessons has been recognizing that our efforts did not emerge in isolation. Long before the current wave of raids, immigrant communities across LA were already building rapid response networks to combat years of immigration enforcement, creating trusted systems for sharing information and supporting families in moments of crisis. At the same time, mutual aid networks have expanded across the city, especially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2025 fires, creating new ways for neighbors to care for one another. We weren't starting from scratch, but instead joining a much larger tradition of community care, and have continued learning from those who have been doing this work for years.
Today, whenever possible, we also use Buyout funds to purchase food from participating vendors for mutual aid efforts already happening across the city. A contribution meant to support immigrant vendors can also help feed unhoused neighbors at a local distro or help sustain another community organization. It’s the main lesson I think we'll all carry forward, even long after ICE has left. The strongest mutual aid isn't a collection of disconnected projects. This work is about building a network of relationships where each act of solidarity makes the next one possible.
[post_title] => Helpers On the Ground
[post_excerpt] => In their own words, how people in Minneapolis, New Orleans, and Los Angeles are still showing up for their neighbors in the fight against ICE.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => helpers-on-the-ground-protest-mutual-aid-community-organizing-ice-raids-immigration-border-patrol-arrests
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-07-09 00:26:22
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-07-09 00:26:22
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=10700
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
Across the United States, activists and organizers are 3D printing one of the most surprisingly effective weapons against ICE.
So far, they've distributed over 1.5 million of them.
Before I even get a chance to ask my first question, Heidi DiJulio, Operations Manager at Protoplant, Inc., is off and running. A Vancouver, WA-based producer of filament for 3D printers, the company has become a part of a growing grassroots movement in the United States, whose organizers need what they sell in order to make one of their most effective weapons: 3D-printed whistles.
Across the country, whistling has become an ever-present background noise in communities invaded by ICE, a low-cost, instant-alert system that anyone can participate in. Everyone from crusty gutter punks to activist grandparents have been blowing whistles to alert people to immigration raids; as well as gathering outside hotels and other spaces used by immigration enforcement to ensure they cannot rest, eat, or move without being accompanied by a cacophony. It prevents abductions, saves lives, and makes ICE agents absolutely miserable. And, as noise protests have continued to grow, 3D printing has proven to be one of the most effective and affordable ways to get more whistles into more hands, fast.
“Protoplant is very proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish,” DiJulio says. “We’re very proud to bring it into our workspace, and figure out how to be part of a better future.”
While the ICE occupation—and noise protests—aren’t as visible as they were on social media in February and March of 2026, the demand for whistles is going strong. Over the last six months, Protoplant alone has shipped out over 500 kilograms and counting of their filament at a specially discounted price, and an additional 100 kilograms in gifted spools, enough to make approximately 300,000 whistles.
This steady supply of filament is essential for the activists and organizers—many working invisibly and unheralded—who continue printing and distributing thousands of whistles a week.
It’s also just one piece of a much larger movement still fighting back against ICE and showing no signs of slowing down.
Sounding the Alarm
When ICE first occupied Chicago, mutual aid organizers Emily Hilleren and Lauren Vega were quick to spring into action. They started distributing whistles at mass scale, among other supplies and support, and put out a call asking people with 3D printers for help meeting demand.
“I saw a neighbor in Chicago posting about leaving whistles in little free libraries and I was like ‘ooh I can probably do that,’” Hilleren wrote on Bluesky. “[S]uddenly I had tens of thousands of whistles passing through my condo.”
Chicago-based journalist Mo Ryan was early to join these efforts, and shared a few of the whistle calls with her friends, romance authors Kit Rocha and Courtney Milan. Though not local, the two were eager to help: both have large social media platforms, extensive networks, a love for 3D printing, and experience organizing under fascism. They began sharing information, boosting tips, and gathering resources and support, helping to raise awareness for what was quickly becoming a nationwide effort. As more and more people joined in, others were encouraged to contribute in whatever ways they could.
Before long, the group—alongside a rapidly growing collective of printers, activists, and organizers—became known as the Whistle Crew. Today, they’re one among many distribution groups across the United States rising up for community defense against ICE.
"Everything is very grassroots, driven by ways to put information in front of the people who need it."
They’re also still growing: As ICE has invaded more and more cities across the country, Hilleren and Vega have applied their experience in Chicago to supporting efforts in Minneapolis and beyond. So have Milan and Rocha, alongside the rest of the Whistle Crew, in an ongoing mass-distribution effort made possible through collaboration, skill-sharing, and organizing that is responsive to the needs of individual communities—rather than a top-down approach, one rooted in principles of mutuality and care.
The origins of this incredible mutual aid effort reflect a lengthy history of feminist organizing, drawing upon decades of lived experiences that value collectives over individual work. It also taps into the glorious side of human ingenuity that utilizes tech for good—a welcome disruption to our current tech dystopia.
Mary Sturgeon, who runs Solder and Bubblegum—a Seattle-based makerspace where visitors can use equipment (including 3D printers), learn technical skills, and connect with fellow nerds—was quick to get involved with the group after she saw Rocha posting about it. “Something I studied very heavily before I opened my space is the riot grrl movement and women in making,” she tells The Conversationalist. “What fascinated me was how underground it was, how record companies, everyone official said, ‘We’re not interested,’ so women just said, ‘We’ll figure this out ourselves.’”
A similar ethos, she believes, is core to how the Whistle Crew operates. “Everything is very grassroots, driven by ways to put information in front of the people who need it,” she says. “That’s it, that’s all we need to do.”
In the case of the Whistle Crew, as their work has expanded, so has their need for structure: to track who needs whistles, who can print them, and how to get whistles where they need to go. Both Milan and Rocha stress that while they are very public faces for the group, they are far from the only organizers in a leaderful movement—adding that some core contributors to the Whistle Crew remain invisible for safety reasons. Today, their network includes a distributed and diverse collective contributing logistical experience, tech expertise, and other critical moving pieces. They also resist hierarchical structures, rooting their work in the “we,” as Milan puts it, which is essential for effective, sustainable, and anti-patriarchal community organizing.
So far, the Whistle Crew has produced and shipped over 1.5 million whistles.
To continue this work, the group practices both conscious security practices and redundancy, calculated to avoid burnout and to avoid creating bottlenecks. Coordinating over Signal, they get supplies where they need to go as quickly as possible. If you’re a person who needs whistles, you email whistlerequests@proton.me. The person wrangling the inbox adds it to a list of requests for individual printers to claim, print, and ship directly to the requester. The group has been so overwhelmed with support that they’re not currently accepting new volunteer printers, but they have published a Wiki with information on printing and distribution so anyone can pick up this work in their own community. People who can’t print or be involved in logistics can also donate funds or purchase filament directly via Protoplant or Amazon wishlists, to ensure their printers have a steady supply.
“The goal,” says Zoe Quinn, one of the printers involved in the effort, “is obsolescence. I would love to not be doing this.”
Anti-Patriarchal Organizing for Fascist Times
There’s an interesting undercurrent to this incredibly rapid mobilization: It’s rising to meet a need, but has also at times been surprisingly whimsical. There are sparkly whistles. Transparent ones in a range of hues. Whistles in metallic rainbow tones. Fun shapes like fish and cats, and designs intended to be beautiful and sometimes silly as well as functional. A whistle is a whistle is a whistle, but there are more unconventional ways to get one, too. You can go to https://linktr.ee/3Dwhistles if you want, but toottootmotherfucker.com, whistlegoblins.fun, and whistlecoven.com will all get you to the same place.
One reason for that playful approach amongst the Whistle Crew? Many of the people doing the work are linked to Romancelandia, the community of romance readers and writers that moves mountains, and rarely shies away from hard work and fighting on the right side of history.
"Political resistance is women’s work and always has been."
As a historically gendered genre read predominantly by women, romance readers and writers are frequently derided and discounted, even though romance is consistently one of the best-selling fiction genres. (According to industry group BookScan, 51 million units sold between May 2024 and June 2025.) Unlike many other genres, romance also isn’t dominated by traditional publishing, and many authors choose to self-publish or engage in a mix of both. Romance writers often have incredible business acumen as a result, acting not just as authors, but editors, publicists, web developers, designers, and more, with incredibly diverse backgrounds and skillsets. (Milan, for example, is an attorney who clerked at the Supreme Court—and far from the only lawyer-romance writer.)
Milan and Rocha are also no strangers to political organizing: Their Romancing the Vote project, which started with 2020’s Romancing the Runoff in collaboration with fellow romance author Alyssa Cole, has raised more than a million dollars to support nonpartisan voting rights organizations, and the 2026 edition just launched, with auctions running through July 5. That experience—with promotion, logistics, and coordinating—has been critical for the whistle distribution effort.
Political resistance is women’s work and always has been. Even as people dismiss romance as unimportant and inherently less valuable because it is feminized, romance writers are engaging in an ancient form of unappreciated work traditionally performed by people who are not cis men: getting things done, cooperatively. “We have seven admins, zero are masculine,” Sturgeon says. Not everyone involved in the Whistle Crew is a romance writer or reader, of course; but feminist mutual aid and support principles are core to their work.
Fundamentally, it is also important not to mistake the Whistle Crew’s whimsy for unseriousness. The reason people are printing whistles is not fun. The way some are building sustainable networks for printing and distribution, though, is joyful, kind, and spacious—all necessary in the inclusivity and sustainability of this essential work. It's an approach that makes room for both people who are new to activism as well as old hands, for people who want to print no-nonsense, matte black whistles right alongside Quinn’s glow-in-the-dark ones.
"People of minoritized genders are used to working collectively for survival."
Perhaps unsurprisingly, some people are not happy about this “rainbow sparkle agenda,” as Rocha puts it, noting that a very small but sometimes loud group of people—mostly cis men—seem to be very upset about women making 3D printing cute. (Though everyone is quick to state that the positive responses far outweigh the negatives.) The response reflects a larger history of pushing women out of tech spaces, hearkening back to the treatment of women’s creative work as that of hobbyists and crafters, in contrast to men’s.
It's also a theme that long predates 3D printing, or for that matter, whistles.
The devaluation of women’s work replicates itself everywhere, including in online conversations as well as offline makerspaces, which are often where people curious about 3D printing are first introduced to it. These sites provide access to equipment, training, and space for a wide variety of projects, but are often heavily male-dominated. This is despite the fact that the original makerspaces were sites of women’s “craft” and housework, such as sewing circles and other resource-sharing activities, enabling women to teach each other skills, perform tasks together, and access equipment and other resources too expensive to afford individually—all of which is echoed in how the Whistle Crew operates today.
Women are consistently early adopters and creators across tech, from Ada Lovelace to Katherine Johnson to Reshma Saujani. They also currently lead several high-profile 3D printing companies, including Cinderwing. Still, men enjoy being loud and wrong, convinced that they are the original innovators and that work only becomes serious when they’re involved.
The whistle goblins are having none of it. Among other things, Sturgeon notes, mansplainers who complain it’s wasteful to use sparkly or rainbow filaments for 3D printing seem to have a skill issue.
“It’s not inefficient,” she tells me, “when you know what you’re doing.”
These derisive comments about colorful, playful whistles have often been accompanied with equal surprise that women can be such effective organizers. In January, one Twitter user complained, “The ‘No-Go-Zone’ in Minneapolis is getting fully stocked like a pop-up leftist supply depot, free hand warmers, winter gear, coffee, food, milk, you name it. This is PROFESSIONAL-grade logistics. Someone is BANKROLLING this autonomous zone.”
For organizers, though, it was just another day ending in "Y." People who are not cis men are often accustomed to being the logisticians both at home and at work, expected to make sure everything runs smoothly, with labor that remains largely invisible. The ones who cook the meals and wash the dishes, who shop for school supplies, who manage all the appointments, make the office coffee, and become the de facto note takers at meetings.
If you want distributed logistics to run smoothly, you need people who can work cooperatively and efficiently together—and people of minoritized genders are used to working collectively for survival.
They’re also the ones physically showing up for their communities to push back against ICE.
“The bravest and fiercest defenders of their neighbors,” shares one supply runner, who asked to remain anonymous, “have been women and especially teenage girls in Chicago.”
Making Organizing Sustainable with Play
For Quinn, who has been outspoken about their experience with depression and anxiety, finding a fun thread for their brain to focus on, like experimenting with a new filament or whistle design, has helped them build community. It has also helped them cultivate sustainability for themselves, something that has not only been critical for avoiding burnout so they can continue doing this work, but also, for their mental health.
Sometimes, Quinn says, a person just wants to “have a better day. I like having better days.”
“We’re printing whistles to fight back against people with guns and immunity,” an activity that can feel incredibly existential, depressing, and enraging, says Quinn. “If that’s all you have, it’s going to be really hard to sustain that. Play matters. It allows people to engage in ways they wouldn’t otherwise. It allows us to get through the shitshow.”
This is not just about finding joy for those involved in the herculean whistle distribution effort, but also making whistle use more accessible for people who are new to mutual aid and direct action. Anyone can carry and blow a whistle. But whistles are only effective if you wear them, and if you’re a person who loves fun and whimsy, you may be more likely to consistently carry a purple sparkly whistle than a plain one. That approachability is very much by design, allowing people to be more comfortable getting involved. For some, this might start and end with whistles, but it can also turn into more engagement with community organizing.
"An expansive approach to activism makes room for everyone and builds long-term sustainability."
This doesn’t mean the Whistle Crew doesn’t have room for those who prefer the plain and understated. As a marginalized person who has been treated like political fodder, Quinn stresses that they “don’t fault anybody who’s in a space where they can’t engage with [whimsy],” recognizing the essential value of diversity in organizing tactics. An expansive approach to activism makes room for everyone and builds long-term sustainability. Both whimsical and deeply serious people are essential to the ultimate cause of fighting fascism and protecting our neighbors. So is letting go of the ego behind wanting to be right, to fix what isn’t broken, to tell people who have been engaged in this work for a very long time that they’re doing it incorrectly. Feminist organizing, like the Whistle Crew has practiced, highlights how important this is, and provides a model for doing it.
A whistle a day—whether printed in army drab or trans pride stripes—keeps the jackboots away.
“I’d rather be printing swords,” Quinn says at the end of our conversation, returning to what got them interested in 3D printing in the first place. “Swords are cool, swords are fun. But we have to do what we’re doing because our country is setting up concentration camps, they’re kidnapping our neighbors, they’re scaling up at an alarming rate.”
“Hear me out,” I reply. “Whistle sword.”
“Hold on,” they say, as their eyes light up. “I gotta write this down.”
[post_title] => Welcome to the Whistle Rebellion
[post_excerpt] => Across the United States, activists and organizers are 3D printing one of the most surprisingly effective weapons against ICE.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => whistle-rebellion-crew-mutual-aid-ice-immigration-raids-romancelandia-activism-3d-printing-technology-noise-protests
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-07-03 01:59:28
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-07-03 01:59:28
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=10702
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
Looking back at the courage of activists in decades past can help keep you from falling into hopelessness today.
One of my New Year’s resolutions was to quit “doomscrolling” at night.
It was going okay, until the Minnesota ICE raids accelerated in late January, and staying glued to my phone felt like all I could do to help from an ocean away. A few days later, there was news of yet another anti-trans bathroom bill passing, this time in Kansas, after over 600 anti-LGBTQIA+ bills were introduced across the United States last year. That same week, the Epstein files were released.
Previously ongoing for several years, my doomscrolling had instilled in me a sense of hopelessness that didn’t allow for any light to shine in. After I relapsed, I began to make nihilistic jokes about how dire everything felt, heavy bags under my eyes amidst my renewed nighttime habit. Instead of transphobic laws, anti-immigration sentiment, and sky-high rent existing as separate issues to be tackled with careful activism, all of the “bad” in the world morphed into one large, unintelligible blob, entitled “the horrors.”
Concerned about the possible damage I was doing to my brain, I sought advice from Melody Li, therapist and founder of Inclusive Therapists and Mental Health Liberation. They confirmed my fears were legitimate: According to Li, a “sense of despair” is one of the primary mental health impacts of doomscrolling.
“Social media feeds and the algorithm are designed to be addictive and to keep us scrolling to generate profit,” Li says. “[This] may manifest as feelings of depression, anxiety and hopelessness. When combined with loneliness—as these apps are designed to keep us isolated from community and real-world interactions—the despair may even heighten.”
I knew my anxiety and sense of hopelessness were increasing due to what was going on in the world around me. Unsure of how to stop it, however, I decided to turn to my work and community for guidance.
I am a queer journalist working on a long-term assignment about historic LGBTQIA+ activism, which includes researching movements led by queer British women. On one of my most fun work days, I read about a group of British women known as the Lesbian Avengers, who staged demonstrations against an infamous Thatcher-era law which banned discussion of LGBTQIA+ topics in schools. In 1988, as the law was debated in Parliament, the Avengers threw lengths of washing line over the House of Lords balcony, and abseiled into the chamber. They were immediately thrown out of the building, though some of the group were arrested and put in a “cell by Big Ben,” released several hours later. Despite their efforts, the law passed anyway, and was in place for 15 years until its repeal in 2003, but learning of the Avengers’ bravery and creativity in standing against it was galvanizing.
It also sparked a realization that I wasn’t achieving much by doomscrolling except augmenting my anxiety: If just one story could stir a hope I hadn’t experienced in years, what might learning about others do?
I began with two of the best-known examples of LGBTQIA+ resistance: the 1960s Stonewall Riots and Compton’s Cafeteria Riot in New York and California, respectively. Both were led by trans women and drag queens resisting police harassment and violence, inspiring Pride protests as we know them today. Wanting to better understand the wider movement, I decided to dig further into past and ongoing LGBTQIA+ demonstrations across the globe, and was astonished by the rich history that rarely ever makes it to the mainstream.
I learned, for example, about the prolonged fight for India’s Hijra (transgender and intersex, otherwise known as “third gender”) community to achieve voting rights in 1994. The campaign group, All India Hijra Kalyan Sabha, had already secured their right to vote after a decade of organizing, but in the 90s, “third gender” was still not an option on electoral rolls, forcing voters to choose between “male” and “female”. After years of further activism, the Supreme Court of India finally recognized “third gender” on official documents in 2014.
In Argentina, legal safeguards for LGBTQIA+ people were propelled by a group of twenty activists who stormed the Buenos Aires Constituent Assembly on August 27, 1996. The group carried large photos of Carlos Jáuregui, a gay activist who died of AIDS-related causes the week prior. Jáuregui was widely known for his HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns, for creating the LGBTQIA+ group Gays por los Derechos Civiles in 1991, and for attempting to sue the Archbishop of Buenos Aires for discrimination. He also organized the first ever Pride March in the city in 1992, which was made up of around 300 people, many of whom wore masks to avoid being recognized. (Buenos Aires Pride now attracts around a million people.)
During the August 27 demonstration, activists tracked down members of the commission, refusing to leave until they signed a statement of support for outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Days later, on August 30, the anti-discrimination clause was approved into the Constitution of the city of Buenos Aires, which became the first city in Spanish-speaking Latin America to legally protect LGBTQIA+ people from discrimination. Today, Argentina’s LGBTQIA+ rights are rated higher than the UK and the US due to their strong protections against hate crimes.
In Uganda, the LGBTQIA+ community continues to stand up against mounting discrimination with joy and courage, throwing “guerrilla-style” Pride celebrations despite some of the strictest anti-LGBTQIA+ laws in the world. At great personal risk, activists and allies alike have fought through several channels, including legally challenging the country’s anti-LGBTQIA+ laws. A group of Ugandan mothers of LGBTQIA+ people even took on the President in an open letter criticizing homophobic legislation, writing that it has been “horrific” to see their children “verbally threatened, physically targeted and abused for who they are and for whom they love.”
Especially touching to me while investigating these brave, public feats of political activism was the knowledge that they were so often preceded by decades of quieter community-based activism—like the lesbians in San Diego who stepped up to donate blood during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the “buddy systems” which paired people living with HIV with an ally who “provided care, support and friendship when many people turned their backs,” the communities who fundraised for their vulnerable neighbors, and the friends who acted as each other’s chosen families. Many of these past activists’ strategies mirrored anti-ICE action in Minnesota, like noise protests, sit-ins, and mutual aid, demonstrating that in-person organization and community continue to be effective and powerful.
To curb some of these negative consequences, Li suggests allocating time limits on certain apps, turning off notifications, and setting boundaries with friends who might send you “doom” content. They also emphasize engaging with our communities—offline.
“Being in community helps us build collective power and systems of care that center our voices and needs,” they explain. “Doomscrolling will spiral us into isolation and a sense of helplessness… We must resist these tactics by taking part in community, where we can share resources, organize, strategize, and make change together.”
Li’s advice on harnessing our collective power has been especially meaningful to me, though I do still find myself doomscrolling on nights I can’t sleep. But more than before, I’m able to ease the urge to give into hopelessness by gaining strength from the past. I remember the women who abseiled into Parliament, the people who risked their lives dancing in the streets for Pride, the community protesting for trans rights today, and those who have bravely faced, and continue to face, the “doom” head-on. They remind me that the opposite of doomscrolling is action, and I have begun to act—to volunteer with my local LGBTQIA+ community, to amplify marginalized voices, to join local protest groups. Because of their example, I am able to turn away from the cold blue light of the screen, and instead find the light in the community around me.
[post_title] => How To Quit Doomscrolling When the World Is on Fire
[post_excerpt] => Looking back at the courage of activists in decades past can help keep you from falling into hopelessness today.
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => quit-doomscrolling-lgbtqia-activism-activists-history-marsha-p-johnson-stonewall-compton-cafeterio-riots-pride-hijra-carlos-jauregui-community-politics
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2026-06-11 16:59:47
[post_modified_gmt] => 2026-06-11 16:59:47
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=10649
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)