Daily Archives: September 15, 2020

Last month, the conservative philosopher Yoram Hazony published an essay in Quillette on The Challenge of Marxism. Hazony is known for his 2018 book The Virtue of Nationalism, which lodged some valid critiques of liberalism, but was ultimately unconvincing in its effort to reframe nationalism as an anti-imperialist endeavor. His chosen exemplars included the United Kingdom, France, and the United States all countries with long histories of colonialism and expansionism.

With his new essay, Hazony has jumped into the culture wars, attempting to explain and criticize the astonishingly successful Marxist takeover of companies, universities and schools, major corporations and philanthropic organizations, and even the courts, the government bureaucracy, and some churches. He concludes with a call for liberals to unite with conservatives to halt this takeover, lest the dastardly Marxists achieve their goal of conquering liberalism itself.

Hazonys essay, though long and detailed, has many flaws. In the end, its less a compelling takedown of contemporary leftists than another illustration of why conservatives should read Marx.

Hazony opens his essay with an odd claim. Contemporary Marxists, he argues, arent willing to wear their colors proudly, instead attempting to disorient their opponents by referring to their beliefs with a shifting vocabulary of terms, including the Left, Progressivism, Social Justice, Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism, Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, Wokeness, and more. Nonetheless the essence of the political left remains staunchly Marxist, building upon Marxs framework as Hazony understands it.

For him, Marxism has four characteristics. First, it is based on an oppressor/oppressed narrative, viewing people as invariably attached to groups that exploit one another. Second, it posits a theory of false consciousness where the ruling class and their victims may be unaware of the exploitation occurring, since it is obscured by the ruling ideology. Third, Marxists demand the revolutionary reconstitution of society through the destruction of the ruling class and its ideology. And finally, once the revolution is accomplished, a classless society will emerge.

This account ignores a tremendous amount of what makes Marxism theoretically interesting, focusing instead on well-known tropes and clichs. It is startling, but telling, that Hazony never once approaches Marxism as a critique of political economy, even though Marx was kind enough to label two of his books critiques of political economy. By effacing this fundamental characteristic of Marxism, Hazony reduces it to a simplistic doctrine that could be mapped onto more or less anything.

If it is true that Marxism is just an oppressor/oppressed narrative with some stuff about a ruling ideology and revolution tacked on, then mostly every revolutionary movement through history has been Marxist even before Marx lived. The American revolutionaries who criticized the ruling ideology of monarchism and waged a war for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would fit three of Hazonys four characteristics, making them borderline proto-Marxists. About the only thing that remains of what distinguished Marx in Hazonys account is his claim that we are moving toward a classless society, something about which the German critic wrote very little.

Marxism is a very specific modernist doctrine, inspired by the events and ideas of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Marx drew on three dominant currents in European thought at the time: the German philosophical reaction to Hegel, French radicalism, and English political economy.

From Hegel, Marx took the idea that history is the story of humanity moving toward greater freedom, understood by both Hegel and Marx as the capacity for self-determination. Marx famously attempted to turn Hegel right side up by contending that the renowned philosophers emphasis on ideas was misguided: material relations, Marx argued, largely moved history forward. From French radicalism, Marx took the idea of a class conflict between workers and the bourgeoisie. He was certain that one day we would live in a classless society, where every individual could develop each side of their nature.

And from the English political economists, Marx took much of his understanding about how capitalism worked; in particular, he drew on David Ricardo to argue that the exchange value of commodities lay in the socially necessary labor time invested in them. This last point was important for Marx circa Capital Volume One, since it seemed to explain the mechanism of workers exploitation. As David Harvey has pointed out, in the later posthumous volumes things become more complicated as Marx began to theorize on the nature of fictitious capital in the stock and credit markets. These developments demonstrated how capitalism was able to adapt to its own contradictions, but only through quick fixes that left the fundamental tensions intact and could even sharpen them over time.

This quick summary by no means captures the breadth of Marxs work. But it should at least suggest how much richer Marxism is than the simple antagonisms Hazony puts forward.

This tendency for crude simplification extends to Hazonys treatment of neo-Marxism, which he associates with successor movements led by Michel Foucault, postmodernism, and more including the Progressive or Anti-Racism movement now advancing toward the conquest of liberalism in America and Britain. But how or why these movements owe much, if anything, to Marxism is left extremely vague. Michel Foucault famously denigrated Marxism as outdated nineteenth-century economics and even flirted with neoliberalism. So much for class conflict as the engine of history. As for the anti-racist movements gathering steam across the world, theyre more likely to look to Martin Luther King and other totems of the black freedom struggle than Marx.

None of this is to say these movements dont or shouldnt draw from Marx (they should!). But reducing them to simply updated Marxism ignores the particularities and histories of progressive figures and movements rather ironic given that Hazony spends a great deal of The Virtue of Nationalism arguing for the benefits of a world of particular nations, each with its own identity, history, and customs that warrant respect.

Later in his essay, Hazony makes the novel decision to criticize liberals who believe Marxism is nothing but a great lie. This isnt because he wishes to praise Marxisms theoretical insights or political ambitions, but because he shares its progenitors critical appraisal of liberal individualism.

Hazony argues Marx was well aware that the liberal conception of the individual self, possessing rights and liberties secured by the state, was an ideological and legal fiction. While liberals felt that the modern state had provided full liberty for all, Hazony takes the Marxist insight to be that there will always be disparities in power between social groups, and the more powerful will always oppress or exploit the weaker. As he puts it:

Marx is right to see that every society consists of cohesive classes or groups, and that political life everywhere is primarily about the power relations among different groups. He is also right that at any given time, one group (or a coalition of groups) dominates the state, and that the laws and policies of the state tend to reflect the interests and ideals of this dominant group. Moreover, Marx is right when he says that the dominant group tends to see its own preferred laws and policies as reflecting reason or nature, and works to disseminate its way of looking at things throughout society, so that various kinds of injustice and oppression tend to be obscured from view.

Hazony goes on to criticize American liberals for pushing secularization and liberalization, particularly by excluding religion from schools and permitting pornography, which amount to quiet persecution of religious families. Liberals tend to be systematically blind to the oppression they wreak against conservatives, merely assuming that their doctrines provide liberty and equality for all. Hazony thinks Marx was far savvier in recognizing that by analyzing society in terms of power relations among classes or groups, we can bring to light important political phenomena to which Enlightenment liberal theories theories that tend to reduce politics to the individual and his or her private liberties are systematically blind.

None of this means Hazony is sympathetic to the idea that workers are the victims of exploitation or anything else that smacks of left-wing critique. Later in the essay, he criticizes Marxism for having three fatal flaws. First, Marxists assume any form of power relation is a relationship of oppressor and oppressed, even though some are mutually beneficial. Second, they believe that social oppression must be so great that any given society will inevitably be fraught with tension, leading to its eventual overthrow. And finally, Marx and Marxists are notoriously vague about the specifics of post-oppression society, and their actual track record is a parade of horrors.

Of the three, only the last strikes me as at all compelling. It is true that Marx never spelled out what a postcapitalist society would look like, and this ambiguity has led to figures like Stalin invoking his theories to justify tyranny. Socialists are better-off confronting this problem than pretending it doesnt exist, which makes us easier prey for critiques like Hazonys.

But whatever Marx intended, we can infer from his Critique of the Gotha Program that he wanted a democratic society free of exploitation, where the means of production were owned in common and distribution was organized according to the principle from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Whatever that might look like, it bears little resemblance to the litany of dictatorships conservatives love to point to when trashing Marxism. (Conservatives critics also skate by the central role that class struggle and Marxist-inspired parties played in building social democracies, even if those societies never transcended capitalism.)

There are big problems with pretty much every other feature of Hazonys analysis of the flaws of Marxism and leftism. Hazony never takes on the specifically Marxist point that the relation between capital and labor is indeed oppressive and exploitative a key point, since Marx never claimed that all types of power relations or hierarchies were illegitimate. His argument was far more specific: capitalist relations were oppressive because they were based on the systematic exploitation of labor.

Hazony might have been on firmer ground with his second criticism if hed leaned into his critique of the teleological vision of history, which led some classical Marxists to claim capitalism was going to inevitably fall and be replaced by communism. But his contention doesnt even rise to this level. Instead, he wants to argue that in a conservative society, it is possible weaker groups [would] benefit from their position, or at least are better-off than in a revolutionarily reconstituted polity.

And this is where things get interesting.

Hazony isnt fond of liberalism. He sees American liberalism in particular as an oppressive force that has bullied religious and conservative families by advancing a pornographic, secular agenda. But Hazony is also deeply anxious that liberals will ally with progressive and Marxist groups the great evil, in his mind to further corrode conservatism.

In the most insightful part of his essay, Hazony describes the dance of liberalism and Marxism. Liberals and Marxists both believe in freedom and equality, and both are hostile to inherited traditions and hierarchies. Marxists and other progressives just take things a step further by arguing that real freedom and equality havent been achieved because of capitalism and other elements of liberal society. Under the right conditions, Hazony argues, liberals might become sympathetic to these arguments, since they often draw on the principles and rhetoric of liberalism. Liberals might even start pushing a Marxist agenda.

Hazony, then, isnt criticizing Marxism in the name of defending liberalism. What he is doing trying to entice centrists to side with the political right rather than the political left. He is willing to tolerate liberals as part of an alliance to prevent the Marxist conquest of society.

To make this attractive to liberals, Hazony raises the stakes by suggesting the political left wants to destroy democracy and eliminate both conservatives and liberals. He argues that both conservatives and liberals are distinct in allowing at minimum a two-party system dominated by themselves. By contrast, Marxists are only willing to confer legitimacy on ... one political party the party of the oppressed, whose aim is the revolutionary reconstitution of society. And this means that the Marxist political framework cannot co-exist with democratic government.

This is patently wrong. One of socialists ambitions since the nineteenth century has been to advance democracy in the political sphere, which is why they were central to the struggle for workers suffrage in Europe and elsewhere. Socialists deplore liberal capitalism for not being democratic enough. Likewise, the other progressive groups denigrated in Hazonys essay are hardly foes of democracy: anti-racist movements have been agitating against voter suppression.

It is also telling that Hazonys essay ignores the antidemocratic efforts of contemporary conservative strongmen, from Viktor Orbns dismantling of democracy in Hungary to Trumps flirtations with canceling the 2020 election. Probably a savvy move given that none of this supports Hazonys contention that liberal democrats have nothing to fear from aligning with the political right.

Interestingly, Hazonys essay skirts near a deep insight, before rushing away, perhaps for tactical reasons. The insight: both liberalism and Marxism properly understood are eminently modernist doctrines. Both emerged within a few centuries of each other and are committed to the principles of respecting moral equality by securing freedom for all.

The march of liberalism and socialism have razed traditionalist orders and hierarchies that insisted on naturalizing inequities of power. These traditionalist orders were neither natural nor particularly beneficent, subordinating women, LGBT individuals, religious and ethnic minorities, and so on for millennia.

Liberalism often failed to live up to its principles, which is partly why the political left emerged and remains so necessary. Liberals often engaged in just the kind of tactical alliances with conservative traditionalists Hazony calls for in order to maintain unjustifiable hierarchies. But this alliance is always fraught, since a liberal who doesnt believe in freedom and equality for all is no liberal.

The same is true of those of us on the political left, except we believe that these ideals cannot be achieved within the bounds of the liberal state and ideology. More radical reforms are needed to complete the historical process of emancipation from necessity and exploitation, though what reforms and how radical are matters of substantial debate. (My own preference is for what the philosopher John Rawls would call liberal socialism.)

All this brings us squarely back to Karl Marx, who was very aware of these dynamics. With Engels, he applauded liberal capitalism for both its productive capacity and, for the first time, enshrining formal equality for all. It had achieved this precisely by upending the old traditionalist order, profaning all that was sacred, and forcing humanity to face up to its real conditions for the first time.

But liberalism remained just one stage in the movement of history, and like all before it would eventually give way to a new form of society. Whether this is inevitable, as Marx sometimes seemed to imply, there are indeed many limitations to liberal democracy as it exists today. Liberals sincerely committed to freedom and equality should recognize that and ask if they are better-off allied to a political right committed to turning back the clock or striding into the future with progressives and socialists who share many of their fundamentally modernist convictions.

View post:

Why Liberals Should Unite With Socialists, Not the Right - Jacobin magazine

Few know about James Baldwin's years spent in Turkey. "I can't breathe, I have to look from the outside," he once remarked when asked why in 1961 he began visiting Istanbul on and off for a decade. Turkey offered him a space to escape from the racism and homophobia he experienced in the United States, but also to reflect more deeply on who he was.

He once reminisced about eating lunch with Turkish filmmaker Sedat Pakay and Greek actress Irene Pappas, who commented to Pakay, "Look at those eyes, 400 years of oppression in them."

The Ottoman enslavement of Greeks and Armenians and Mustafa Kemal Atatrk's genocide and expulsion of them in the early 20th century are vastly distinct phenomena from the transatlantic slave trade and Jim Crow laws in the U.S. But both of our countries have constructed myths to conceal these ugly realities that they are founded upon.

"It is, of course, in the very nature of a myth that those who are its victims and, at the same time, its perpetrators, should, by virtue of these two facts, be rendered unable to examine the myth, or even to suspect, much less recognize, that it is a myth which controls and blasts their lives."

Baldwin continues to say in his 1964 essay "Nothing Personal" that this "blindness," this willful forgetfulness of one's history and the injustices committed, is a cause of "spiritual disaster," not only for the oppressed, but even more so for the oppressor.

When I heard the news about Hagia Sophia being converted from a museum to a mosque, I instantly thought back to Baldwin's words. Turkey's insistence on denying the 400 years of enslavement, the millions of lives killed, and suppression of the Orthodox Christian community is a denial of Turkey's identity.

Turkey's culture is a rich tapestry weaving together the threads of the Seljuks and Ottomans, the Greeks, Armenians, and Turks, Christians and Muslims, people of all different shades and skin tones, leaders who have committed heinous atrocities and who have led the country to new heights. To deny any of the complexities and nuances of this history is to blind oneself to the reality of what it means to be Turkish.

I remember my first time visiting Hagia Sophia. I was with my grandfather, who was born in Istanbul to Greek and Armenian parents. This was his first time back in 35 years. He presented his native city to me with pride, tinged with a hint of anguish. He complained to me after our first night there of nightmares of being attacked for being an "infidel."

And yet, Istanbul remains his city. His mixture of Greek, Armenian and Turkish blood, his Orthodox Christian faith, has left its indelible mark on the city, and will continue to do so ... even if the majority of Armenians and Greeks were murdered, and the remainder left along with him in the '50s, and the Christians that make up less than 1% of Istanbul's population including the ecumenical patriarch continue to face restrictions.

The virtue of leaving Hagia Sophia as a museum is that it allows people to feel that complex mix of emotions pride and sadness, appreciation and shame that the space evokes. The Byzantine mosaics and Islamic calligraphy speak to the value of both religions and the ethnic groups that adhered to each, as well as the injustices that have been perpetrated throughout the centuries not only Muslim against Christian, but also Christian against Muslim and Christian against Christian (our tour guided pointed to a red mark on the wall, claiming that it was the bloody handprint of a Catholic in the Fourth Crusade).

The systemic denial of the Armenian Genocide and expulsion of Christians continues to be a point of contention to this day. I recounted the story of my great grandmother's escape from Izmir to the island of Chios during the expulsion of 1922 to a new Turkish friend I met in college, hoping that sharing this with her could be an opportunity for healing and reconciliation. "There was no genocide," she proclaimed, irritated with my presumption. "It's all propaganda from the American government."

"So then why did my great grandmother see Turkish soldiers raping and mutilating women as she was running to the port?"

"It's not the Turkish government's fault that some soldiers decided to do those things on their own."

I felt pity. Such blindness can hardly be liberating. Thus my concern for those who would be praying the following afternoon in the newly minted mosque. Can one freely commune with God Allah while being in denial of reality? Can Muslims and Christians love and dialogue with each other, seek the Mystery of the Divine together, while shielding our faces from the truth?

That Friday at 4 p.m. EST, I attended the Akathist service at my family's Greek Orthodox parish, joined spiritually by other Orthodox, Catholic, and hopefully Muslim communities, to beg God for the gifts of repentance and reconciliation, and of the honesty and courage to embrace reality, to embrace history, in all of its grace and ugliness.

During the service, I thought about Baldwin's words in "Nothing Personal." I thought about the blindness of the slave traders to their own humanity, their own need for love and intimacy, which drove them to dehumanize other human beings, and in the process, dehumanize themselves. It was their insecure attachment to wealth, power and complacency that drove them to perpetuate this lie, this false divide between brothers and sisters, by any means necessary. Baldwin recognizes, however, that this blindness, this affinity for mendacity, is not only an American phenomenon. It's a temptation that humans throughout the world are subject to.

We live by lies. And not only, for example, about race whatever, by this time, in this country, or, indeed, in the world, this word may mean but about our very natures. The lie has penetrated to our most private moments, and the most secret chambers of our hearts. Nothing more sinister can happen, in any society, to any people. And when it happens, it means that the people are caught in a kind of vacuum between their present and their past the romanticized, that is, the maligned past, and the denied and dishonored present. It is a crisis of identity. And in such a crisis, at such a pressure, it becomes absolutely indispensable to discover, or invent the two words, here, are synonyms the stranger, the barbarian, who is responsible for our confusion and our pain. Once he is driven out destroyed then we can be at peace: those questions will be gone. Of course, those questions never go, but it has always seemed much easier to murder than to change. And this is really the choice with which we are confronted now.

The prayers of the Akathist service brought me back to the roots of this blindness which are as old as the fall. But it also placed me in front of a promise, a glint of hope, that is born from entrusting our fears, sins, and woundedness to the New Adam and Eve.

The news of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's decision to convert the Kariye Museum (formerly the Holy Savior church) in Chora to a mosque brought me back to Baldwin's words. One who is determined to remain blind to reality, to perpetuate a division between us and them, must continuously strive to eliminate history. I continue to offer my prayer to the Divine Healer of wounds and to his Mother, ever more fervently, and united more deeply in solidarity with all of those whose stories face the threat of erasure from history.

[Stephen Adubato studied moral theology at Seton Hall University and currently teaches religion in New Jersey. He also blogs at Cracks in Postmodernity on the Patheos Catholic Channel.]

See original here:

James Baldwin, blindness and Hagia Sophia - National Catholic Reporter

4h ago

Share this article:

By Elinoro Vronique Rajaonah

Film Review: The Art of Fallism

The Art of Fallism, directed by Aslaug Aarsther and Gunnbjrg Gunnarsdttir, is the story of the South African student protests of 2015, one that made headline news and reverberated around the world and was chronicled with hashtags like #RhodesMustFall.

But it is also an insiders account of the tensions and contradictions within the activism movement that was demanding better from their school administrations and the government.

Using a mix of talking heads and on-the-ground coverage of the struggle at the University of Cape Town, The Art of Fallism chronicles the courage and motivations of the students at the forefront of the various fallist movements. The film is also a story of inclusivity that allows for a diversity of voices that were at least in theory, united by a common cause.

This documentary gives voice to the activists, to the struggles as well as the microaggressions that arose from the movement, highlighting the often sidelined voices of women and the trans community. In this way The Art of Fallism feels like a corrective to many of the historical struggles that often centre on the actions of (white) men. As though they were the only actors. Audiences are able to grasp how fundamentally flawed many movements can be when they make no room for inclusion and shared responsibilities.

The Art of Fallism critiques the kind of society that elevates violence as the only response to oppression. In such instances, power becomes a prize to be seized by the loudest and the strongest, leaving minorities as dispensable, to be used and dispatched soon after. It doesnt only accuse the system but also the movement, indicting people who would rather look away from oppression of any other group, as long as the problem doesnt affect them.

If there is any lesson that The Art of Fallism offers, it is that unfair structures must be dismantled. But while doing so, a lot of deliberate introspection is mandatory so that at the end of the day oppressors aren't simply replaced, but are made redundant.

* The Art of Fallism can be viewed free online at the Durban International Film Festival here until September 20. View the trailer here.

* Elinoro Vronique Rajaonah is a young Malagasy film critic, who has been critiquing films for two years. She has always been fascinated by visual arts, is an illustrator and has a keen interest in storytelling. Rajaonah participated in the recent Talents Press, an initiative of Talents Durban in collaboration with the Durban FilmMart.

The Independent on Saturday

Read more from the original source:

The Art of Fallism: The fight of a lifetime - IOL

Advertisement

In 2013, Pakistan was gearing up to witness its first civilian transfer of power, having been ruled over for more than half the years since independence by the military.

Three days before the general elections of that year, journalist Declan Walsh, former correspondent for The Guardian and the New York Times bureau chief in Pakistan, returned to his home in Islamabad, Pakistans posh capital. To his surprise, security officials were at his door. They handed over his expulsion letter and asked him to leave the country within 72 hours. Walsh couldnt challenge the order and the reasons for his expulsion remained unknown at that moment.

Over seven years later, Walshs second book The Nine Lives of Pakistan: Dispatches from a Divided Nation, was published by Bloomsbury UK on September 3. The book is based on Walshs time working in Pakistan more than a decade in total. Walsh uses nine lives from Pakistan to tell the story of one of the worlds most perplexing (and misunderstood) countries. Along the way, he deconstructs the countrys power dynamics, ethnic and religious conflicts, and identity crisis all of which he argues pose a bigger threat for Pakistan than the much touted dangers from the Taliban. Walsh also talks about his expulsion and experiences reporting out of Pakistan in the book.

The Diplomats Shah Meer Baloch interviewed Declan Walsh about his latest book, Pakistan, regional politics, media freedom, and more.Below are excerpts.

Shah Meer Baloch: How representative are these nine lives for a diverse and complicated country such as Pakistan?

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Declan Walsh: No group of nine, or even ninety-nine, lives could do justice to a country as diverse, tumultuous or intricately fascinating as Pakistan. And the goal is not to represent, but to understand. I chose to write about this group of people because their stories helped me to understand the country, not only through the dramatic events they became swept up in, and in many cases were consumed by kidnappings, uprisings, assassinations but also because their experiences were a window on the eternal themes that have dogged Pakistan since its birth in 1947: identity, faith, and a sense of unresolved history. Im wary of writers who speak about countries in general terms Pakistanis think this or Egyptians like that and, in that sense, there are many potential nine lives. But these were the ones that opened a window on the country for me and, hopefully, for my readers.

From Salman Taseer to Anwar Kamal Khan, as you showed, most Pakistani politicians have contradictory public and private identities. What are the consequences of these contradictions on Pakistani politics and society?

At first glance, Pakistan seems to be filled with stark contradictions. An observant Muslim may say his or her prayers then guzzle whiskey after dinner; even socially liberally people might hide important details about their lives from their own families. Westerners often take these contradictions for hypocrisies. But after a while, I started to see them through the lens of public and private spheres that allow a kind of tolerance. In Pakistan, and perhaps South Asia more generally, many people enjoy greater freedoms and more permissive lives than outward appearances suggest. Their neighbors or parents or village mullah may well be aware of this the important thing is not to rub it in everyones face. This isnt always a force for good, and it can certainly retard social progress, but its not all bad either.

The book has an immense literary touch. Youre quoting Sadat Hasan Manto, a giant of 20th century Urdu literature, with regard to Pakistani history, culture, and politics. How and why did Manto seem relevant to contemporary Pakistan?

Manto is best known for his short storyToba Tek Singh, a powerful parable about the absurdities of Partition in 1947. But Mantos other writings, and many of his real-life experiences, foreshadowed the issues that still loom large. He wrote fearlessly about the countrys troubled nationalism, the instrumentalization of blasphemy, and the schisms that cut across society, in stories and essays that, with some tweaks, could have been written today. His work is also graphic, earthy, and filled with a cheeky and subversive humor that is true to the best work on Pakistan. Manto is the ultimate antidote to the saccharine portraits of what Pakistan is, or could be, that are favored by Pakistanis ideologues.

We learn fromthe book that there was a plot to kill veteran activist Asma Jahangir when she opened up against human rights abuses in Balochistan. Journalist Hamid Mir survived a suicide attempt when he reported about the human rights violation and insurgency in the same province. You were expelled from Pakistan for reporting on Balochistan. Whats the reason behind Balochistans information blackhole and what can the media do when there is no access?

Balochistan is the story nobodys heard of outside Pakistan, and few inside the country are particularly aware of. Its strange, just by dint of its size and location: This is a province that accounts for 43 percent of the landmass of a sizable country, wedged between Iran and Afghanistan. And its always been a reluctant part of Pakistan, with periodic uprisings against the central government since the 1940s. Part of the obscurity stems from the fact that its latest revolt, that started in the mid-2000s, is relatively small in size, and, from a Western perspective, of limited interest because the rebels leading it do not, for the most part, subscribe to an extremist Islamic ideology.

Get first-read access to major articles yet to be released, as well as links to thought-provoking commentaries and in-depth articles from our Asia-Pacific correspondents.

But I came to realize that the conflict had an importance greater than its size. It was a product of a powerful fault line that runs deep across the length of Pakistan the tension between the marginalized people of the peripheries and a powerful, army-dominated center. Theres been periodic uprising by disgruntled Sindhis, Pashtuns, and Balochs, always directed at Punjab and military-centric governments. And that, in turn, stems from the great unresolved question: what do they all share, as Pakistanis? The original idea Islam is clearly not enough.

You describe Pakistans central debate as between two frontiers Anwar Kamal Khan representing the old ways, Baitullah Mehsud as the harbinger of a new order that justified its violence with a lumpen version of sharia law. You extensively relied on these two identities to frame the book, while overlooking the current non-violent movement in former Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and their stories of standing against both identities and even the atrocities of the Pakistan establishment.

Youre referring to the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement or PTM, a major Pashtun civil rights group that rose to prominence in recent years, as I was finishing the book. The PTM wasnt around a decade ago, when I was hanging out with Anwar Kamal, the Pashtun politician who waged a private war against the Taliban. At that time, the honorable Pashtun tradition of pacifist politics was represented by the Awami National Party, a party rooted in the anti-colonial-struggle of the 1920s and 1930s, then struggling for survival. A string of Taliban suicide attacks devastated the party, killing several of its leaders and, ultimately, driving it out of its urban stronghold in Karachi.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Since then, the PTM has clawed back some of that ground, thanks to the charisma of its young leader, Manzoor Pashteen, and to the appeal of a message that inspires Pashtuns tired of being portrayed as either Taliban terrorists or the victims of violence. I do mention the phenomenon in the book, though, through the story of a former intelligence officer who approached me after I was expelled from Pakistan. He had worked with the spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and painted a frank picture of how the agency worked from the inside. When I met him in Europe where he lives in exile, I asked what motivated him to come forward. It partly came down to his identity as a Pashtun.

Unlike many Western journalists who focus more on a country crippled grappled with terrorism and religious extremism, you have deconstructed Pakistan in an unprecedented way in the book while depicting ethnic and religious identities and their looming threats over the country and the powerful military playing the shots. How do you see the future of Pakistan?

The terrifying wave of Islamist militancy suicide bombings and many thousands of deaths that threatened to rip Pakistan apart for about a decade following the Red Mosque siege in Islamabad in 2007 has thankfully receded. But the issues that gave rise to the militant explosion remain unresolved. Much evidence suggests that Pakistans generals have not renounced their ardor for the Islamist proxy fighters who have wreaked so much havoc. But they have, for expedient political and financial reasons, forced many of these groups underground for now. And the rivalry with India, which has driven that policy for decades, has only gotten worse, in part as a result of the Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi. So while things have quieted in Pakistan there is little reason to believe, alas, that they will stay like that.

Do you think new geopolitical alignments and Pakistans inclination toward China and the enmity for India will bring more oppression for ethnic minorities in Pakistan amid the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)?

Pakistans pivot towards China goes back decades dont forget, it was one of a handful of countries that publicly supported Beijing after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre because China offers cherished support to Pakistans military, such as covert assistance with the nuclear weapons program, without the kind of demands made by the United States and other Western countries about cracking down on Islamist militancy. As relations with Washington reached a nadir following the operation to capture Osama bin Laden, Islamabad moved even closer to China, in the shape of the China-Pakistan Economic corridor, originally valued at $46 billion.

But despite the rhetoric about a boundless China-Pakistan relationship higher than the mountains, deeper than the seas I suspect there are limits, and I think they are becoming more apparent. Chinese loans and other financial assistance can carry a high cost, and as the coronavirus pandemic exacts a stiff economic price in the coming years, we may see China call in its chips with countries like Pakistan. Chinas harsh treatment of its own Muslim citizens in western Xinjiang province is likely to strain relations, no matter how much Prime Minister Imran Khan tries to glass over the story (or pretend he hasnt read the reports of those abuses).

Lastly, can you shareany memories of the senorita,as you call her in her profile, the prominent human rights lawyer Asma Jahangir who called spade a spade? After she passed away following a stroke in 2018, how big a vacuum did her death create in Pakistani civil society?

After Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad in 2011, Jahangir redoubled her criticism of the Pakistans most powerful generals, calling for their budgets to be slashed and their powers to bereined. Useless duffers, she memorably called them on television. Thats perilous talk in Pakistan at the best of times, but in that tense moment, with the army particularly sensitive to criticism, it was borderline foolhardy. About a month after bin Ladens death, an investigative journalist named Saleem Shahzad was found dead floating in a canal, with signs of torture. Most journalistsblamed the spy agency. In an interview a few days later, Jahangir was asked if it was not dangerous to continue with her caustic, mocking attacks on the military. Im sure it is, she replied. But we all live dangerous lives here. And so it remains, for those who speak truth to power in Pakistan.

Visit link:

Declan Walsh on the 'Nine Lives of Pakistan' - The Diplomat

Months into the global COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers have begun discussing what the new normal might look like in metropolitan environments. Some urban planners have framed COVID-19 as an opportunity to re-imagine and improve cities built landscapes.

Such calls follow a common prescriptive: that post-epidemic planning will reinvent cities into dreamscapes of public health, equality and technological progress.

Urbanism journalist Alissa Walker recently argued, though, that now is not the time for imagining an urbanist utopia. Instead, she writes, people must come to terms with the historical processes that have

made COVID-19 more catastrophic than it should have been.

Doing so, argues Walker, requires an honest accounting of the role that fields like urban planning, public health and social work have played in producing urban inequality.

The connection between these fields has roots in 19th and 20th-century empire. Throughout much of the African continent, colonial officials exploited outbreaks of disease to implement racial segregation and create economic systems that intentionally marginalised Africans.

We are historians of Ghana, each currently writing about a different major city. These are Kumasi, Accra and Sekondi-Takoradi. In our research efforts and in those of many other scholars weve repeatedly seen how medical experts and modernist urban planners exploited outbreaks of disease.

Their efforts legitimised emerging systems of technical expertise and advanced white supremacy, global capitalism and imperial order. Those practices, which sidelined indigenous values and systems in favour of Western models, are reproduced through urban planning, public health, and development practice in cities across the continent.

There is persistent surprise at the low levels of COVID-19 infection on the continent. There are also inaccurate predictions about its potentially deadly consequences. This suggests that Western models continue to operate as African and global leaders grapple with COVID-19.

In the late 19th century, colonial governments often gave medical authorities wide latitude as the de facto architects of urban space. This was inspired by outdated scientific theories of contagion and disease. As the field of urban planning emerged in the 20th century, its practitioners built on these earlier models, reinforcing existing patterns of racial segregation and economic inequality.

Take the example of Accra, the Ghanaian capital city. It became the capital of the country then called Gold Coast in 1877. After 1877, British officials sought to decongest the city centre so that they could better control populations and create space for their own administrative and economic activities.

Their efforts were most effective in the aftermath of epidemics and natural disasters. These were occasions when urgent public health needs emboldened official action and left local communities vulnerable. Following the citys first plague outbreak in 1908, colonial officials evacuated the most congested districts and moved residents to safe peripheral areas. An earthquake in 1939 inspired additional relocations, allowing the government to seize land for its own purposes.

Similar patterns unfolded in the second city of Kumasi, a regional trade hub. In 1924, residents experienced their first plague. Shortly thereafter, they experienced drastic spatial changes in the name of sanitation and urban order. Making a safer Kumasi began with the state-sponsored destruction of the citys zongo or majority Muslim quarters. Sites were redeveloped for European residential, commercial or recreational needs. Former residents were shuttled into government-built houses not suited to healthy urban life.

In the port town of Sekondi-Takoradi, now a joint city, outbreaks of disease real and imagined were frequent flashpoints for the flexing of urban planning and public health muscle.

In 1940, Takoradi became home to a British Royal Air Force base and Allied aircraft assembly station. Experts designed a plan to demolish city structures and erect armed roadblocks to protect British and American soldiers from malaria. As one city resident quipped nearly 30 years earlier, the real disease that prompted such emergency measures was that of racial prejudice.

These examples emphasise two fundamental points. The first is that urban planning models and expertise were tethered to the interests of British Empire and oppression of colonised people.

In cities like Accra and Kumasi, which had been settled long before the arrival of the British, outbreaks of disease were opportunities to remake the towns and seize land from local residents. In the planned town of Takoradi, concerns about disease gave planners another chance to control urban residents. Their efforts produced two distinct zones for the colonised and the colonisers.

Second, colonial state planning and public health efforts often targeted, and at times destroyed, local forms of urban knowledge and city design. In many cases, local sanitation and hygiene practices were far more effective than those touted by European experts.

The resilience of African urban spatial, social and economic cultures in the face of this social engineering warrants more attention. But its also important to acknowledge the spatial, cultural, and economic violence that people endured in the name of urban improvements.

These kinds of reflections are important in Ghana right now, as the Accra Metropolitan Assembly continues to demolish homes in working-class communities in Accra.

The patterns of colonial spatial violence that played out in Ghanaian cities echo around the world. Contemporary debates about gentrification, inequality and social determinants of health in 21st-century cities point to the importance of revisiting the politics of colonial capitalism and public health.

Building new cities needs to start with new conversations that place cities like Accra, Kumasi and Sekondi-Takoradi at their centre. It must recognise the thinking that pervades professional fields charged with improving urban life. This process starts with seeing and listening to the communities that experts have long excluded from policy debates.

An earlier version of this article appeared in Nursing Clio.

More:

Urban planning needs to look back first: three cities in Ghana show why - The Conversation CA

With the November election just around the corner, its only to be expected that President Trump would seek to rally conservative voters and drive his supporters to the polls. So, when his administration, on September 4, instructed the federal government to eliminate all training in Critical Race Theory, some thought it was just a red-meat stunt to excite the Republican base. Others saw it as an act of right-wing censorship and an obstruction of racial progress.

In truth, theres much more to this development than mere politicization and censorship.

Heres a breakdown of what the administration is doing and why its a welcome move.

It has come to the President's attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date training government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought wrote in the executive memorandum.

Employees across the Executive Branch have been required to attend trainings where they are told that virtually all White people contribute to racism or where they are required to say that they benefit from racism, Vought explained. According to press reports, in some cases these training [sic] have further claimed that there is racism embedded in the belief that America is the land of opportunity or the belief that the most qualified person should receive a job.

The order instructed federal agencies to identify and eliminate any contracts or spending that train employees in critical race theory, white privilege, or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil.

How did it "come to the President's attention," and what press reports is Vought referring to?

Well, President Trump is known to watch Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News. And days before the memo was issued, Carlson had on journalist Christopher Rufo to discuss his multiple reports uncovering the extent to which Critical Race Theory (CRT) was being used in federal training programs.

"For example, Rufo claimed, the Treasury Department recently hired a diversity trainer who said the U.S. was a fundamentally White supremacist country," wrote Sam Dorman for the Fox News web site, "and that White people upheld the system of racism in the nation. In another case, which Rufo discussed with Carlson last month, Sandia National Laboratories, which designs nuclear weapons, sent its white male executives to a mandatory training in which they, according to Rufo, wrote letters apologizing to women and people of color."

Rufo challenged President Trump to use his executive authority to extirpate CRT from the federal government.

CNN's Brian Stelter (as well as Rufo himself) traced Trump's decision directly to the independent investigative journalist's self-proclaimed "one-man war" on CRT, of which the recent Carlson appearance was only the latest salvo.

Selter characterized Trump's move as a reactionary attack on the current national "reckoning" on race. He cited the Washington Post's claim that, "racial and diversity awareness trainings are essential steps in helping rectify the pervasive racial inequities in American society, including those perpetuated by the federal government."

So which is it? Is CRT "divisive" and "toxic" or is it "rectifying" and "anti-racist"?

To answer that, it would help to trace CRT to its roots. Critical Race Theory is a branch of Critical Theory, which began as an academic movement in the 1930s. Critical Theory emphasizes the "critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures," as Wikipedia states. Critical Race Theory does the same, with a focus on racial power structures, especially white supremacy and the oppression of people of color.

The "power structure" prism stems largely from Critical Theory's own roots in MarxismCritical Theory was developed by members of the Marxist "Frankfurt School." Traditional Marxism emphasized economic power structures, especially the supremacy of capital over labor under capitalism. Marxism interpreted most of human history as a zero-sum class war for economic power.

According to the Marxian view," wrote the economist Ludwig von Mises, "human society is organized into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable opposition.

Mises called this view a "conflict doctrine," which opposed the "harmony doctrine" of classical liberalism. According to the classical liberals, in a free market economy, capitalists and workers were natural allies, not enemies. Indeed, in a free society all rights-respecting individuals were natural allies.

Critical Race Theory arose as a distinct movement in law schools in the late 1980s. CRT inherited many of its premises and perspectives from its Marxist ancestry.

The pre-CRT Civil Rights Movement had emphasized equal rights and treating people as individuals, as opposed to as members of a racial collective. I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, Martin Luther King famously said.

In contrast, CRT dwells on inequalities of outcome, which it generally attributes to racial power structures. And, as weve seen from the government training curricula, modern CRT forthrightly judges white people by the color of their skin, prejudging them as racist by virtue of their race. This race-based pre-trial guilty verdict of racism is itself, by definition, racist.

The classical liberal "harmony doctrine" was deeply influential in the movements to abolish all forms of inequality under the law: from feudal serfdom, to race-based slavery, to Jim Crow.

But, with the rise of Critical Race Theory, the cause of racial justice became more influenced by the fixations on conflict, discord, and domination that CRT inherited from Marxism.

Social life was predominantly cast as a zero-sum struggle between collectives: capital vs. labor for Marxism, whites vs. people of color for CRT.

A huge portion of societys ills were attributed to one particular collectives diabolical domination: capitalist hegemony for Marxism, white supremacy for CRT.

Just as Marxism demonized capitalists, CRT vilifies white people. Both try to foment resentment, envy, and a victimhood complex among the oppressed class it claims to champion.

Traditional Marxists claimed that all capitalists benefit from the zero-sum exploitation of workers. Similarly, CRT "diversity trainers" require white trainees to admit that they "benefit from racism."

Traditional Marxists insisted that bourgeois thoughts were inescapably conditioned by "class interest." In the same way, CRT trainers push the notion that virtually all White people contribute to racism as a result of their whiteness.

Given the above, it should be no wonder that CRT has been criticized as racist and divisive.

Supporters of CRT cast it as a force for good in todays rectifying reckoning over race.

But CRTs neo-Marxist orientation only damages race relations and harms the interests of those it claims to serve.

In practice, the class war rhetoric of Marxism was divisive and toxic for economic relations. And, far from advancing the interests of the working classes, it led to mass poverty and devastating famines, not to mention staggering inequality between the elites and the masses.

Today, the CRT-informed philosophy, rhetoric, and strategy of the Black Lives Matter organization (whose leadership professed to be trained Marxists) is leading to mass riots, looting, vandalism, and assault. The divisive violence has arrested progress for the cause of police reform, destroyed countless black-owned small businesses, and economically devastated many black communities.

Those who truly wish to see racial harmony should dump the neo-Marxists and learn more about classical liberalism. FEE.org is the perfect place to start.

So much for CRT being a force for good. Of course, even horrible ideas are protected by the First Amendment. The government should never use force to suppress people from expressing ideas, speech, or theories it dislikes.

Critics insist that President Trump is engaged in this kind of censorship by targeting CRT.

Not so.

No one is banning White Fragility, the blockbuster CRT manifesto. No one is locking up those who preach CRT or ordering mentions of it stripped from the internet.

The memo simply says that taxpayer dollars will no longer be spent promulgating this theory to federal government employees. As heads of the executive branch, presidents have wide latitude to make the rules for federal agencies under their control. Deciding how money is spent certainly falls under their proper discretionand it is always done with political preferences in mind, one way or the other.

It is not censorship for Trump to eliminate funding for CRT, anymore than it was censorship for the Obama administration to choose to tie federal contracts to a businesss embrace of LGBT rights.

Elections have consequences, one of the most obvious being that the president gets to run the executive branch. If we dont want the president's political preferences to be so significant in training programs, then we should simply reduce the size of government and the number of bureaucrats.

In the meantime, stripping the federal government of the divisive, toxic, and neo-Marxist ideology of Critical Race Theory is a positive development for the sake of racial justice and harmony.

See original here:

What is 'Critical Race Theory'? The Controversy, Explained | Dan Sanchez, Tyler Brandt, Brad Polumbo - Foundation for Economic Education

Through a Native Lens is a new column from film critic and citizen of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Shea Vassar, who will dive into the nuance of Hollywoods best and worst cases of Indigenous representation. This entry looks at the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, Two-Spirit, and Trans relatives that inspired the 2017 film Wind River.

I guard every memory of you. And when I find myself frozen in the mud of the real far from your loving eyes, I will return to this place, close mine, and take solace in the simple perfection of knowing you.

Taylor Sheridans Wind River opens with a bright full moon that overlooks an open snow-covered field. Frantically, a young girl runs across the cold white blanket. She stumbles around, becoming unable to make it much further. A few days later, US Fish and Wildlife tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner) finds her body. He identifies her as Natalie, a young Native woman who is just eighteen years old. Sheridans attempt to talk about continued colonial violence is a well-intentioned gesture. However, the truth that inspired the film is an everyday reality for Native women, and in order to understand Wind River, the history and understanding of the modern threat to Native women must be understood.

Colonial violence has been an issue since the beginning of exploration. Christopher Columbus own writing states that he and his men would enslave women and children for labor and sexual acts. The story of Matoaka, known to most as Pocahontas, includes her being kidnapped and raped before being taken away from her homelands. Countless unnamed women and femme-presenting individuals have experienced horrible attacks since European contact and historical oppression. This violence continues in many forms to this day, in many places, including reservations like Wind River.

Originally, no one was recording the Missing and Murdered crisis. Indigenous organizations have assembled teams and released reports and other tools to help document the violence. For example, the Sovereign Bodies Institute created a database that holds the testimonies regarding any Indigenous woman, girl, or two-spirit community member who has experienced domestic violence, sexual assault, police brutality, gender violence, or another form of attack. This is a necessary step in getting the people in power to care about this violence as well as finding ways to be preventative.

There are some details of Wind River that are extremely accurate. One in three Native American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, and murder is the third leading cause of death among American Indian/Alaska Native women. Natalie is attacked, brutalized, and sexually assaulted by other men who live in the man camp while visiting her boyfriend Matt, who works as security on an oil rig.

Man camp is another term for the temporary housing for the workers and is a big threat in areas where big oil and pipeline construction are evident. The overwhelmingly male labor forces that are brought in to work at these sites are a complete menace to reservations and other tribal communities. The toxic masculinity that comes with these makeshift living situations puts locals at risk, especially Native women and femme-presenting individuals from Indigenous communities.

According to the National Institute of Justice, a majority of the perpetrators against Native citizens are non-Native. The current battles led by community matriarchs in Minnesota and surrounding areas against Line 3, Wetsuweten territory against the Coastal GasLink pipeline, and in unceded Secwepemc Territory with the Tiny House Warriors against the Trans Mountain pipeline are evidence of these threats. The quest for oil not only is a non-consensual violation of the Earth but also of Indigenous bodies.

As in Wind River, usually, the more serious crimes like murder, fall under federal jurisdiction. This is why FBI Agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) receives Natalies case. Her lack of preparation is obvious from the moment she steps out of her vehicle in a thin jacket instead of full winter gear. She is like a good amount of North America: unaware of the systematic powers at work which led to the untimely death of a young Native woman.

Though statutes have tried to empower tribal communities and current bills are stuck in Congress, the reasoning for this goes back to when the United States was first established. The federal government held the power over tribal affairs under the Articles of Confederation. When the Constitution was being written in order to replace the Articles of Confederation and limit federal power, the throwing in of and with the Indian tribes at the end of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 created the federal basis for all tribal law. Obviously, the United States was much smaller and did not involve all 576 federally recognized tribes that are victims of colonial violence today.

The biggest flaw in Wind River is that Natalie is not the main character in the story about Native death. The discovery of her body is the impetus for the film, the reason why Cory and Jane are searching for answers. The film renders her a prop, a vessel for the emotion of the white male protagonist found in Cory and his white female sidekick, Agent Banner.

While the entirety of the film is heavy, a bleakness is shadowing over the main character, Cory. This is because of another Native girls death: Corys daughter and Natalies best friend, Emily. We tried to be very careful with Emily, Cory states when telling Jane about her death. Tried to plan for everything. She was such a good girl. But we let our guard down. This main characters guilt as well as the identity of her killer oversees every moment in Wind River, tainting the story by putting a white male gaze on an all too true experience.

Like the unknown situations that led to Emilys death, most Native families do not get answers about their loved ones who go missing or are murdered. There are still too many names of relatives from all different communities that have yet to find a sliver of justice and agood amount of the current solutions presented to Native communities are like putting a bandaid on a gunshot.

Legislation can only help so much since the federal government doesnt have the best record with tribes. In order to completely destroy this treacherous force that is attempting to eliminate Indigenous people, we must be proactive. This means standing in solidarity with those who are on the frontlines, protesting pipeline construction. We must advocate for the inclusion of Native histories and current events in educational curriculums. Ultimately, we must continue fighting against stereotypical Native imagery that serves as mascots and underdeveloped plotlines in the media.

Follow this link:

The Harsh Reality Behind Wind River - Film School Rejects

Graphic courtesy of Eva Knaggs 22

I would hope, at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic and after almost four years of a fascist president, that I do not need to tell you how much our lives depend on systemic social, economic and political change. Because complacency is harder to maintain when the truth is on display, I will list a few reasons anyway: the prison-industrial complex brutalizes Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) as a result of bipartisan support for these institutions. Millions of Americans have lost their health insurance with their jobs when they need it the most because neither the Democratic nor Republican parties care about the American people. Thousands of manufacturing plants were granted permission at the end of March to bypass environmental laws meant to reduce pollution of land, air and water during the rapid spread of a respiratory illness. As of Sept. 12, according to The New York Times, over 192,855 Americans have died from COVID-19, due to our governments ineptitude to adequately respond to this public health crisis.

The American people are in the midst of a catastrophe that will not end whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden secure the presidency come November. Deep systemic change that targets the root causes of these problems not establishment policies of moderation, or as I like to call it, complacency is the only way out of this emergency.

In response to these deep wounds inflicted by the U.S. government, both major political parties refuse to back any of the genuine solutions to these issues currently on the table, such as Medicare for All, the Green New Deal or legislation towards defunding the prison-industrial complex. Instead, the Democratic Party champions the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris presidential ticket. They promote these decidedly non-revolutionary candidates on the grounds that they will battle for the soul of the nation, unite for a better future and build back better than ever, according to the campaigns official website. In contrast to the fascist Trump administration, these promises could be a sigh of relief, a glimmer of hope that the nation can go back to normal come Jan. 20 of next year.

But whose normal are we talking about? For the wealthy, white, college-educated person with a love is love or Black Lives Matter sign in their front yard (on stolen land, paid for with generational wealth), sure, a Biden presidency represents normalcy, or the privilege to pay no mind to politics. For the communities of color disproportionately subjected to policing, however, a presidency by the author of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act with the former attorney general of California as vice president is still normalcy, but normalcy marked by suffering and an existential fear.

This normalcy espoused by establishment Democrats, therefore, is not-so aligned with social justice and equality, but is rather geared toward preserving painful inequalities based on class and race. America is not only in shambles because of the Republican Partys blatant disregard for the working class, BIPOC or gender and sexual minorities: the empty reforms upheld by Democrats continue to exacerbate the very inequalities they scorn Republicans for creating.

Graphic courtesy of Eva Knaggs 22

Im looking at you, Joe Biden, for your criminal justice plan. According to his campaigns website, his policy includes an additional $300 million toward community policing, which strengthens oppressive police institutions under the guise of reform. Stripped to its core, the establishment agenda pushed by Democrats is, as Biden reassured rich donors in 2019, an agenda promising that nothing will fundamentally change.

Speaking in a language the Democratic National Committee (DNC) can understand, a candidate running on a platform of stagnation cannot get votes from those who need the most assistance from policies at the presidents fingertips. Before liberals and progressives jump to shame those who are not enthusiastic about voting for Biden, we need to get at the root causes of why people are not excited to vote. If some believe that their lives will not improve whether Trump or Biden resides in the Oval Office, maybe it makes sense that politics has turned into this disgusting beast many avoid interacting with. Politics is about compromise, sure, but compromise on things like school and infrastructure budgets, not on whether BIPOC deserve the ability to live their lives in peace or whether healthcare is a human right. Establishment Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, only differing in how overt politicians and constituents are in their support of systems that perpetuate systemic inequalities.

We, the American people, deserve something better. We deserve empathy and kindness, expressed through policies that uplift everyone to be creative and to live our lives in peace. We deserve politicians who run on a platform of change because a return to normalcy is unbearable for too many Americans.

Graphic courtesy of Eva Knaggs 22

Trumps fascism is driving my very reluctant vote for Biden in November, but lets stop pretending that a vote for the cop-loving Biden-Harris ticket will create direly-needed change, and lets stop accepting a politics of stagnation. Our potential for radical empathy is an untapped force that can truly transform politics. Next time the DNC serves the interests of moderates those who find it acceptable to push policies that perpetuate oppression, but wrapped in a pride flag, a Black Lives Matter yard sign and a My dogs a Democrat bumper sticker on a silver platter, we progressives will not be so accepting of a Biden 2.0.

Read more from the original source:

The establishment will not save us - The Wellesley News

TORONTO, Sept. 14, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- This morning, as the federal Liberal cabinet meets to set their priorities for the Throne Speech, over 280 organizations that include 8 million people are calling for a fair society with equal rights for migrants. Faith, labour, climate and Indigenous leaders are sending a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau stating, We call for a single-tier immigration system, where everyone in the country has the same rights. All migrants, refugees and undocumented people in the country must be regularized and given full immigration status now without exception. All migrants arriving in the future must do so with full and permanent immigration status. The full letter and list of signatories will be released during the press conference.

The full statement and signatories is at http://www.StatusforAll.ca (www.StatutpourTous.ca for French).

Migrants in Canada are hit hard by the COVID-19, with many dying and thousands unable to access the emergency care and support that others in Canada have relied on. At least 1,300 farm workers have contracted COVID-19 just in Ontario. The pandemic has revealed the extent to which Canada relies on migrants to grow our food, care for our families, deliver our packages, and support our schools. And yet, while migrants form the backbone of this country, they are relegated to an underclass with substandard rights and precarious status, compounding their hardship. Trudeau has promised to build back better. This must include equal rights and full immigration status for migrants.

For far too long, migrant workers have been denied equal rights in Canada. They have been subjected to recruiter corruption, employer exploitation, poverty wages, treacherous work, harassment, intimidation, discrimination, and threats of deportation. Today, the Labour movement, not only here in Ontario, but across the country, reaffirms this call for full and permanent immigration status for all, said Patty Coates, President of the Ontario Federation of Labour. The OFL is Canadas largest provincial labour federation, representing over one million Ontario workers belonging to 54 affiliated unions. Provincial labour federations representing unions in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Northern Territories, Nova Scotia, PEI, Saskatchewan, and Yukon are also signatories to the statement.

The letter initiated by Migrant Rights Network - Canadas only national migrant-led coalition - highlights how, Migrants, refugees, and undocumented people want to take care of their families and be active members of their communities. But federal immigration rules tip the scales against them.

Canada is the 10th largest contributor to global climate change, which is forcing millions of people from their communities as they flee environmental destruction, conflict driven by increasing resource scarcity, and massive land grabs that give way to huge development projects - including Canadian-owned mining and extractive activities. Migrants who make their way to Canada deserve to live with dignity, respect, and status. The Canadian government can and must make choices now to allow the care and solidarity that are shaping our experience of the present to transform our future," says Catherine Abreu, Executive Director, Climate Action Network, Canadas largest climate coalition representing over 100 organizations.

Major environmental organizations including 350.org, The Leap, Council of Canadians, Environmental Defence Canada, Blue Green Canada and Wilderness Committee have also added their voice to the open letter that reads, Full immigration status for all is an essential step towards eliminating inequalities in the workplace and necessary for a transition to a just and sustainable economy of care.

Extraordinary times call for bold action. In taking this step, Canada will not only sustain our population and expand our economy, we will strengthen families, honour essential workers and build cohesive community with our neighbours. Status for all is racial, labour, and social justicewrapped into one. It just makes good sense, added Jennifer Henry, Executive Director of KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives. KAIROS is Canadas faith based coalition of 10 churches and religious organizations. The United Church of Canada, Islamic Social Services Association, Loretto Sisters Canada and Office of the National Indigenous Anglican Archbishop are also signatories to the letter.

Over the last 6 months, Migrant Rights Network members have organized over 30 protests for full and permanent immigration status for all. Todays open letter, signed by organizations representing all sectors of society from across the country, shows that migrants are not alone.

The letter outlines how, COVID-19 has exposed deep inequalities in our society. The fault lines are gendered and racialized: the worst impacts are being felt by women and in Indigenous, Black and Brown communities.

Lindsey Bacigal, Director of Communications for Indigenous Climate Action, a national Indigenous led climate organization, agrees and added, Migrants and Indigenous Peoples share similar experiences of injustice in so-called Canada. Full and permanent status for all is an important step in rectifying this, while also working towards creating a just and equitable future where our communities can do more than just survive, but we can thrive. Anything less allows for systems of oppression - and those that uphold them - to continue to benefit from the injustices our communities face.

Mark Hancock, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) added, Thousands of migrant workers and undocumented people, mainly racialized workers, are doing essential work that supports us all. Theyre being exploited because of their immigration status, and that has to stop. CUPE stands with migrant workers in their fight against discrimination, low wages, and dangerous conditions, and calls on the Canadian government to end this unfair and unequal treatment, and ensure all migrants, refugees and undocumented people have the right to live and work in Canada. CUPE is Canadas largest union and is a signatory to the letter, along with Unifor, Canadas largest private sector union. United Steelworkers, National Union of Public and General Employees and SEIU Local 2 are among many national and provincial labour signatories.

Other signatories of note include Oxfam, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, ACORN, Leadnow, Canadian Federation of Students, SumofUs and the federal body of immigration and settlement agencies, Canadian Immigrant Settlement Sector Alliance.

http://www.MigrantRights.ca

Syed Hussan, 416-453-3632, hussan@migrantworkersalliance.org

Here is the original post:

Hundreds of groups with over 8 million members call for equal rights and permanent immigration status for migrants amidst COVID-19 recovery -...