Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1215/01636545-10302933
Cecilia Belej
This Curated Spaces features a visual essay of photographs made by Alicia Sanguinetti, an Argentinean political prisoner of Alejandro Lanusse’s military government, on the last day of her captivity in Villa Devoto prison in Buenos Aires. Sanguinetti and her fellow political prisoners of the 1966–73 dictatorship were released by the democratic president Héctor Cámpora on the day he took office. This event, which occurred on May 25, 1973, is known as the Devotazo. Sanguinetti took these photographs—a roll of thirty-six black-and-white images—with a camera that her brother smuggled into the prison. The text includes comments by Alicia Sanguinetti from her interview with the author.
{"title":"Just before Freedom","authors":"Cecilia Belej","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10302933","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10302933","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This Curated Spaces features a visual essay of photographs made by Alicia Sanguinetti, an Argentinean political prisoner of Alejandro Lanusse’s military government, on the last day of her captivity in Villa Devoto prison in Buenos Aires. Sanguinetti and her fellow political prisoners of the 1966–73 dictatorship were released by the democratic president Héctor Cámpora on the day he took office. This event, which occurred on May 25, 1973, is known as the Devotazo. Sanguinetti took these photographs—a roll of thirty-six black-and-white images—with a camera that her brother smuggled into the prison. The text includes comments by Alicia Sanguinetti from her interview with the author.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48755456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1215/01636545-10302849
D. D’Antonio
Historical analyses of human rights violations in Argentina during the late Cold War have often focused on the fate of desaparecidos, the disappeared who were kidnapped, tortured, and sometimes murdered in clandestine detention centers during the 1976–83 military dictatorship. Instead, this article rethinks the chronology and nature of state violence in Argentina, examining how the situation of political prisoners in regular prisons officially recognized by the state was already deteriorating in 1960s, even under civilian regimes. The military achieved increasing control over the penitentiary system, especially after 1966, driving this institution away from the goal of reforming criminals and reshaping it as a tool to incarcerate political dissidents, who were treated as subversives with diminishing legal rights. This encroachment over the penitentiary intensified throughout the years, showing that the military used state institutions to control social conflict before 1976 and that it did so also through legal means and outside concealed clandestine spaces.
{"title":"Political Prison and the Rise of State Violence in Argentina during the 1960s and 1970s","authors":"D. D’Antonio","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10302849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10302849","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Historical analyses of human rights violations in Argentina during the late Cold War have often focused on the fate of desaparecidos, the disappeared who were kidnapped, tortured, and sometimes murdered in clandestine detention centers during the 1976–83 military dictatorship. Instead, this article rethinks the chronology and nature of state violence in Argentina, examining how the situation of political prisoners in regular prisons officially recognized by the state was already deteriorating in 1960s, even under civilian regimes. The military achieved increasing control over the penitentiary system, especially after 1966, driving this institution away from the goal of reforming criminals and reshaping it as a tool to incarcerate political dissidents, who were treated as subversives with diminishing legal rights. This encroachment over the penitentiary intensified throughout the years, showing that the military used state institutions to control social conflict before 1976 and that it did so also through legal means and outside concealed clandestine spaces.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43180944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1215/01636545-10302947
A. Skotnes
On the fifth anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s release after twenty-seven years in political prison, and nine months after his election as South Africa’s president, his new government and its allies held an important event. On February 11, 1995, 1,200 ex–political prisoners traveled to Cape Town for the Robben Island Reunion. The first day was held at the former maximum-security prison, the site of subjugation and struggle for many of the participants. The day culminated with a creative happening, as the former prisoners enthusiastically smashed rocks in the Limestone Quarry, negating this once oppressive labor and transforming it into an affirmation of freedom. On ensuing days, the reunion celebrated and demanded support for the ex-prisoners and set Robben Island on the path to becoming the country’s first national peoples’ museum and UNESCO World Heritage Site. Drawing on oral histories and photographs, this article examines the museum’s process of becoming and its subsequent trajectory in the continuing struggle for liberation.
{"title":"Robben Island and the Culture of Reconstruction in South Africa","authors":"A. Skotnes","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10302947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10302947","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 On the fifth anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s release after twenty-seven years in political prison, and nine months after his election as South Africa’s president, his new government and its allies held an important event. On February 11, 1995, 1,200 ex–political prisoners traveled to Cape Town for the Robben Island Reunion. The first day was held at the former maximum-security prison, the site of subjugation and struggle for many of the participants. The day culminated with a creative happening, as the former prisoners enthusiastically smashed rocks in the Limestone Quarry, negating this once oppressive labor and transforming it into an affirmation of freedom. On ensuing days, the reunion celebrated and demanded support for the ex-prisoners and set Robben Island on the path to becoming the country’s first national peoples’ museum and UNESCO World Heritage Site. Drawing on oral histories and photographs, this article examines the museum’s process of becoming and its subsequent trajectory in the continuing struggle for liberation.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47988536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1215/01636545-10302919
P. Fadem, Rachel Leah Klein, Benjamin Weber
This article describes the response of a group of California women prisoners and their allies on the outside to the conditions that radically altered and devastated the lives of people in prison during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Benjamin Weber, African American and African Studies faculty member at the University of California, Davis, reached out to the California Coalition for Women Prisoners (CCWP), with its over twenty-six years of relationships with incarcerated women in California prisons. CCWP members Pam Fadem and Rachel Leah Klein collaborated to intervene early in the pandemic to facilitate communication among people both on the inside and outside of prison.
本文描述了在持续的COVID-19大流行期间，一群加州女囚犯及其外部盟友对从根本上改变和摧毁监狱中人们生活的条件的反应。加州大学戴维斯分校的非裔美国人和非洲研究教员本杰明·韦伯(Benjamin Weber)向加州女囚犯联盟(California Coalition for Women Prisoners, CCWP)伸出了援助之手，该联盟与加州监狱中被监禁的女性有超过26年的关系。CCWP成员帕姆·法登和雷切尔·利亚·克莱因在疫情早期合作进行干预，以促进监狱内外人员之间的交流。
{"title":"Open Letters from Prison","authors":"P. Fadem, Rachel Leah Klein, Benjamin Weber","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10302919","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10302919","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article describes the response of a group of California women prisoners and their allies on the outside to the conditions that radically altered and devastated the lives of people in prison during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Benjamin Weber, African American and African Studies faculty member at the University of California, Davis, reached out to the California Coalition for Women Prisoners (CCWP), with its over twenty-six years of relationships with incarcerated women in California prisons. CCWP members Pam Fadem and Rachel Leah Klein collaborated to intervene early in the pandemic to facilitate communication among people both on the inside and outside of prison.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48848935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1215/01636545-10302891
Luis Rosa Pérez
Luis Rosa explains why he considers himself a political prisoner; what it means to be a political prisoner; how the state, guards, and other prisoners treated him; life in prison; and the importance of solidarity. He also explains how growing up Puerto Rican in Chicago affected his decision to support Puerto Rican independence.
Luis Rosa解释了他为什么认为自己是政治犯；政治犯意味着什么；国家、看守和其他囚犯如何对待他；终身监禁；以及团结的重要性。他还解释了在芝加哥长大的波多黎各人是如何影响他支持波多黎各独立的决定的。
{"title":"Luis Rosa Pérez","authors":"Luis Rosa Pérez","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10302891","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10302891","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Luis Rosa explains why he considers himself a political prisoner; what it means to be a political prisoner; how the state, guards, and other prisoners treated him; life in prison; and the importance of solidarity. He also explains how growing up Puerto Rican in Chicago affected his decision to support Puerto Rican independence.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42287213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1215/01636545-10302807
Orisanmi Burton
This essay traces the emergence of the carceral warfare project, a clandestine campaign to infuse US prisons with the logics and techniques of counterinsurgency. First exposed by Black Liberation Army member Dhoruba bin-Wahad, the project came into being between 1970 and 1978. The article begins by discussing the theory undergirding the carceral warfare project, a reactionary idea known as “the issue exploitation thesis.” Starting in 1970, seasoned cold warriors renovated their long-standing arguments against communism for application against imprisoned Black revolutionaries. Next, the FBI’s little-known Prison Activists Surveillance Program (PRISACTS) is discussed. Focusing on the words and deeds of George Jackson and Donald Bordenkircher—two central figures positioned on opposite sides of the struggle—the essay shows how the bureau used PRISACTS to treat carceral spaces as zones of counterrevolutionary warfare. Although the FBI officially discontinued PRISACTS in 1976, the final section argues that the FBI’s counterrevolutionary methodology had already been integrated into state prison systems by this date. Ultimately, this essay demonstrates that through prisons, internal security operatives engage in a plausibly deniable form of counterinsurgency warfare that seeks to isolate political prisoners from each other, from the general prison population, from their outside networks of support, and even alienates them from themselves.
这篇文章追溯了尸体战项目的出现，这是一场为美国监狱注入反叛乱逻辑和技术的秘密运动。该项目最初由黑人解放军成员Dhoruba bin Wahad曝光，于1970年至1978年间成立。文章首先讨论了支持尸体战项目的理论，这是一种被称为“问题剥削论”的反动思想。从1970年开始，经验丰富的冷战战士们重新提出了他们长期以来反对共产主义的论点，以适用于被监禁的黑人革命者。接下来，将讨论联邦调查局鲜为人知的监狱活动人士监视计划（PRISACTS）。这篇文章聚焦于乔治·杰克逊和唐纳德·博登基彻这两位处于斗争对立双方的核心人物的言行，展示了该局如何利用PRISACTS将尸体空间视为反革命战争区。尽管联邦调查局在1976年正式停止了PRISACTS，但最后一节认为，到目前为止，联邦调查局的反革命方法已经融入了州监狱系统。最终，这篇文章表明，通过监狱，内部安全人员参与了一种看似可否认的反叛乱战争，试图将政治犯彼此隔离，与普通监狱人口隔离，与他们的外部支持网络隔离，甚至疏远他们自己。
{"title":"Targeting Revolutionaries","authors":"Orisanmi Burton","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10302807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10302807","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This essay traces the emergence of the carceral warfare project, a clandestine campaign to infuse US prisons with the logics and techniques of counterinsurgency. First exposed by Black Liberation Army member Dhoruba bin-Wahad, the project came into being between 1970 and 1978. The article begins by discussing the theory undergirding the carceral warfare project, a reactionary idea known as “the issue exploitation thesis.” Starting in 1970, seasoned cold warriors renovated their long-standing arguments against communism for application against imprisoned Black revolutionaries. Next, the FBI’s little-known Prison Activists Surveillance Program (PRISACTS) is discussed. Focusing on the words and deeds of George Jackson and Donald Bordenkircher—two central figures positioned on opposite sides of the struggle—the essay shows how the bureau used PRISACTS to treat carceral spaces as zones of counterrevolutionary warfare. Although the FBI officially discontinued PRISACTS in 1976, the final section argues that the FBI’s counterrevolutionary methodology had already been integrated into state prison systems by this date. Ultimately, this essay demonstrates that through prisons, internal security operatives engage in a plausibly deniable form of counterinsurgency warfare that seeks to isolate political prisoners from each other, from the general prison population, from their outside networks of support, and even alienates them from themselves.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45946518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1215/01636545-10302863
Garrett A. Felber, Stephen Ward
This article explores the implications of a 1974 political debate between the radical priest Daniel Berrigan and the revolutionary theorists James Boggs and Grace Lee Boggs regarding support for the political prisoner Martin Sostre, as well as the meaning of the designation political prisoner itself. To begin, the article outlines and contextualizes their opposing positions—Berrigan’s view, common among radicals at the time, that all imprisonment is political, and the Boggses’ fear that lumping together political and nonpolitical prisoners would result in theoretical and political miscalculations, such as mistaking the rebellion of the most oppressed for fundamental revolutionary change. Such analysis highlights the stakes of these characterizations for revolutionary struggle. In particular, the dialogue between Berrigan and the Boggses reveals the limits of static definitions of political subjecthood and shows how studying and learning from these historical debates can help to create more nuanced, flexible, and capacious political visions and practices.
本文探讨了1974年激进牧师Daniel Berrigan与革命理论家James Boggs和Grace Lee Boggs之间关于支持政治犯Martin Sostre的政治辩论的含义，以及指定政治犯本身的含义。首先，这篇文章概述了他们的对立立场，并将其置于背景中——贝里根的观点在当时的激进分子中很常见，即所有的监禁都是政治性的，博格夫妇担心将政治和非政治性囚犯混为一谈会导致理论和政治上的误判，比如把最受压迫者的叛乱误认为是根本的革命变革。这种分析突出了这些特征对革命斗争的利害关系。特别是，贝里根和伯格斯夫妇之间的对话揭示了政治主体性静态定义的局限性，并表明研究和学习这些历史辩论可以帮助创造更细致、灵活和广泛的政治愿景和实践。
{"title":"“This Argument Is Far from Over”","authors":"Garrett A. Felber, Stephen Ward","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10302863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10302863","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article explores the implications of a 1974 political debate between the radical priest Daniel Berrigan and the revolutionary theorists James Boggs and Grace Lee Boggs regarding support for the political prisoner Martin Sostre, as well as the meaning of the designation political prisoner itself. To begin, the article outlines and contextualizes their opposing positions—Berrigan’s view, common among radicals at the time, that all imprisonment is political, and the Boggses’ fear that lumping together political and nonpolitical prisoners would result in theoretical and political miscalculations, such as mistaking the rebellion of the most oppressed for fundamental revolutionary change. Such analysis highlights the stakes of these characterizations for revolutionary struggle. In particular, the dialogue between Berrigan and the Boggses reveals the limits of static definitions of political subjecthood and shows how studying and learning from these historical debates can help to create more nuanced, flexible, and capacious political visions and practices.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49500007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1215/01636545-10302793
Marc Goulding, Teresa Meade, Margaret Power
Abstract This essay explores several key themes regarding political imprisonment and confinement. Neither governments nor activists agree on who is and who is not a political prisoner. Governments routinely deny they imprison people for political reasons. Instead, they consistently seek to criminalize those they detain as part of their effort to maintain the legitimacy of their rule and delegitimize those who act against it. A common definition of who is and who is not a political prisoner does not exist among prisoners, activists, or supporters. No international organizations or national bodies have developed a shared description of what constitutes a political prisoner. Instead, as this essay and the articles that follow illustrate, the subject is a matter of debate and discussion.
{"title":"Editors’ Introduction","authors":"Marc Goulding, Teresa Meade, Margaret Power","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10302793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10302793","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay explores several key themes regarding political imprisonment and confinement. Neither governments nor activists agree on who is and who is not a political prisoner. Governments routinely deny they imprison people for political reasons. Instead, they consistently seek to criminalize those they detain as part of their effort to maintain the legitimacy of their rule and delegitimize those who act against it. A common definition of who is and who is not a political prisoner does not exist among prisoners, activists, or supporters. No international organizations or national bodies have developed a shared description of what constitutes a political prisoner. Instead, as this essay and the articles that follow illustrate, the subject is a matter of debate and discussion.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134903610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1215/01636545-10302905
A. Godoy
This article shares insights from participatory research conducted with former political prisoners, all of whom survived torture during El Salvador’s armed conflict (1980–92). An analysis of declassified documents reveals that while US officials generally resisted efforts to examine abuses against guerrilla supporters, they advocated behind the scenes for international oversight of prisons, and, in doing so, helped save lives. However, former prisoners’ analyses of the documents shows that US advocacy perpetuated grave misrepresentations about the nature of state repression, further empowering the apparatus of institutional violence even as it spared selected actors. Participatory research projects like this one can offer victims of human rights abuses abetted by US foreign policy an opportunity to reckon with the records of empire. Not only does this process generate new knowledge, but it contributes to survivor-led processes of healing. This is important to counter the imperialist epistemologies that often characterize scholarship on US foreign policy.
{"title":"“A Form of Reparation”","authors":"A. Godoy","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10302905","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10302905","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article shares insights from participatory research conducted with former political prisoners, all of whom survived torture during El Salvador’s armed conflict (1980–92). An analysis of declassified documents reveals that while US officials generally resisted efforts to examine abuses against guerrilla supporters, they advocated behind the scenes for international oversight of prisons, and, in doing so, helped save lives. However, former prisoners’ analyses of the documents shows that US advocacy perpetuated grave misrepresentations about the nature of state repression, further empowering the apparatus of institutional violence even as it spared selected actors. Participatory research projects like this one can offer victims of human rights abuses abetted by US foreign policy an opportunity to reckon with the records of empire. Not only does this process generate new knowledge, but it contributes to survivor-led processes of healing. This is important to counter the imperialist epistemologies that often characterize scholarship on US foreign policy.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42994608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1215/01636545-10302877
S. Wilson
Calling some prisoners political prisoners and others social prisoners classifies the former as worthy of support and the latter undeserving of it. Instead of labeling prisoners this way, it is important to recognize the political nature of incarceration and that all prisoners deserve people’s solidarity.
{"title":"Political Prisoner or Politicized Prisoner","authors":"S. Wilson","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10302877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10302877","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Calling some prisoners political prisoners and others social prisoners classifies the former as worthy of support and the latter undeserving of it. Instead of labeling prisoners this way, it is important to recognize the political nature of incarceration and that all prisoners deserve people’s solidarity.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48088670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：