Monthly Archives: November 2023

Which issues matter most? Share of likely Republican primary voters who said before the debate that each issue was among the most important to determining their primary vote

The top {{ top_n }} issues are shown. Other issues are {{ other_issues }}. Respondents could select up to three issues from a list of 20, with additional options for something else and dont know. Only those who responded to both pre- and post-debate waves of our survey are included.

Finally, before the debate, we also asked likely Republican primary voters what issues would be most important in determining their primary vote. (Respondents were allowed to select up to three issues from a list of 20.) Once again, among Republicans who responded to both waves of our poll, getting inflation and costs under control and controlling immigration led the way, with 52 percent and 41 percent respectively. Since the previous debate, though, keeping America safe from foreign conflicts or terrorism has spiked in importance. Thirty percent of Republicans now name it as one of their top issues, compared with 17 percent in our survey ahead of the Sept. 27 debate. This is likely a result of the Israel-Hamas war, which broke out after the Oct. 7 surprise terror attack on Israel by Hamas militants. Appropriately, foreign policy was the focus of an extended segment at the debate.

Our post-debate poll also asked debate watchers whether the debate did a good or a bad job covering some of these issues. It found that viewers were generally happy with how the debate covered the topics most important to them. For instance, 38 percent said the debate did an excellent or very good job covering immigration, while only 19 percent said it did a poor or terrible job. And 34 percent said the debate did an excellent or very good job covering the economy, while only 17 percent said it did a poor or terrible job doing so.

Viewers were less happy with how the debate covered other topics, though. For example, only 20 percent said the debate did an excellent or very good job covering crime and public safety, and 28 percent said it did a poor or terrible job. And only 20 percent of viewers said the debate did an excellent or very good job covering wokeness or political correctness, while 34 percent said it did a poor or terrible job covering that topic.

Read the rest here:

Who Won The Third Republican Debate? - FiveThirtyEight

Devils Tower, the first national monument in the United States and a ubiquitous Wyoming landmark, wasnt always Devils Tower.

In a time where many geographic names are being changed to rectify cultural insensitivities of the past or political correctness of the present, a longtime debate about renaming Devils Tower continues to simmer.

Petitions have been submitted to the U.S. Board of Geographic Names proposing a new name for the 625-foot-tall pillar of volcanic rock. A 2014 petition suggested renaming tower and national monument Bear Lodge, which is what it was commonly called by the Lakota, Arapahoe, Cheyenne and other American Indian tribes long before the first white settlers spotted it.

Wyoming Senate President Ogden Driskill, R-Devils Tower, and his family have lived in the shadow of Devils Tower for more than a century. He doesnt oppose geographic name changes, but said the critical consideration when doing so is intent, both past and present.

He said the name Devils Tower isnt, and never was, offensive so theres not enough of a case to rename it.

I see it as a solution thats looking for a problem, he told Cowboy State Daily. It makes absolutely no sense.

There are many American Indian legends surrounding the towers creation and variations on its name.

The common thread between most stories is an omnipotent spirit lifting a rock off the ground to rescue a group of young girls or boys who sought shelter on it from giant bears pursuing them. The rescued children are represented by the Pleiades star cluster, which still looms over the rocks summit, and the clawing the giant bears left as deep grooves along its sides.

Bears are primary figures in many of these legends, which is why American Indian names associated with the formation include Bear's House, Bear's Lodge, Home of the Bear and Bear's Lair.

There are other names for the tower and legends built around it, but Bear Lodge is recognized as the most common name among the tribes that lived in the region before the first contact with white settlers.

The name Devils Tower came from the journals of Henry Newton, a geologist and mapmaker traveling with a U.S. Army expedition exploring the Black Hills in 1875. According to that history, Newton was told the spectacular geologic formation was The Bad Gods Tower and that tribes avoided the landmark and the surrounding valley because of its ominous association.

Driskill has read Newtons writings, in which he recorded that none of his Sioux guides would venture into the valley with him and noted that the entire region seemed devoid of recent American Indian habitation. That was enough for Newton to see validity in calling it The Bad Gods Tower, even though he knew American Indian religion and legend didnt include the concepts of the devil or heaven and hell.

When expedition leader Col. Richard Irving Dodge published the book The Black Hills in 1876, he called the landmark the Devils Tower, categorizing it as a name adopted with proper modification by our surveyors.

The details of this history are debated. Theres a theory that Newton and Dodge confused the Lakota words wakansica (meaning bad god or evil spirit) and wahanksica (for black bear.)

The National Park Service, which discusses the Devils Tower naming debate on the monuments website, says several maps from the same period and earlier designate the landmark as Bear Lodge or something similar. But Dodges book was a popular read when it was published, and Devils Tower (losing the possessive) became the most well-known name in popular culture.

The formation was officially designated as Devils Tower since 1890, the same year Wyoming became a state and the U.S. Board of Geographic Names was established by the U.S. government. On Sept. 24, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt designated Devils Tower as the nations first national monument, further cementing the name.

Even in the 1870s, Newton and Dodge recognized their moniker wasnt a direct reflection of American Indian culture and legends but was consciously reflective of their understanding of it. For Driskill, thats enough to justify it remaining Devils Tower.

It absolutely in no way was intended to be derogatory or offensive to anybody, he said. It was named with the best interpretation they could find at the time. The intent is where its at in all of this.

Driskill cited several resolved and ongoing petitions to rename Western landmarks like the more than 40 places with the word squaw throughout Wyoming as justifiable and appropriate. Squaw is a recognized derogatory term for American Indians, and the U.S. Board of Geographic Names has repeatedly voted to remove the slur from landmark names.

When names or comments are made with intent for ill will, they absolutely need to be corrected, and theyre wrong, Driskill said. Its as wrong as it gets.

Even amongst those debating the name of the monument, the majority consensus is that Devils Tower was not given out of malice or with the intent to defame anyone. Still, many see the name change as an appropriate correction of a misunderstood history that should be taken seriously.

Devils Tower perhaps Wyomings most recognizable landmark that most visitors know as Devils Tower. Beyond semantics and cultural history, Driskill believes changing the name would directly impact the communities in northwest Wyoming.

Everyone knows what Devils Tower is, he said. Were not a huge national deal, but were known nationwide.

In an already remote and sparsely populated area, Devils Tower National Monument brings tourists to the region and benefits several local economies. Driskill said a name change wouldnt stop tourism altogether, but it could make many people unfamiliar with a landmark they already know.

They certainly arent going to know what (Bear Lodge) is. Itd be tough for tourism, he said.

Driskill cited a recent renaming in the Black Hills of South Dakota as an example of how a well-intentioned effort to be more culturally sensitive wasnt so simple.

On Aug. 11, 2016, the U.S. Board of Geographic Names changed the name of Harney Peak, the highest point in South Dakota, to Black Elk Peak. The peak had been named for U.S. General William S. Harney, who led U.S. Army troops during the Battle of Blue Water Creek in September 1855, where dozens of Brul Sioux women and children were killed and captured.

The new name was selected to honor the Sioux medicine man Black Elk, who fought at the Battle of Little Bighorn and survived the Wounded Knee Massacre.

Driskill supports that name change and the intention behind it. However, given the Siouxs history in the Black Hills, hes curious that the peaks new name was selected to honor that tribe, to the exception of many others that historically lived in the region.

Black Elk was a very famous, revered Sioux, he said. But he also happened to be one of the ones that kicked the tribes out who were there before the Sioux. Theyre fairly new to the Black Hills. Do we think the tribes that were there before think renaming the peak after a warrior who kicked them out of the Black Hills is a good thing?

Renaming Devils Tower to Bear Lodge would reflect a common name for the landmark among many American Indian tribes that lived in the area, but not all of them, Driskill said. The Black Elk renaming is a historical parallel that many Americans can relate to as an example of that mentality.

Does England think George Washington is as neat as we think he is, he said.

Regardless of the debates and disparities, Driskill sees every piece of history associated with Devils Tower as stories that can, and should, be told. There isnt a problem with the name, but there is a solution in the venue.

One of Driskills goals is to see a new visitor center built at Devils Tower National Monument. A new facility could be designed so everyone who visits the national monument is exposed to the history associated with the landmark and everyone associated with it.

We desperately need a new visitor center, he said. Id love to see it be built in conjunction with the tribes to let them tell their story. They absolutely need a platform to talk about what happened in the Black Hills, because it was their area.

In the meantime, there isnt an active effort or consideration to change the name of Devil Tower. That would require a vote by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names.

On Jan. 22, 2021, U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming, introduced a bill to the Senate that would have prevented the renaming of Devils Tower. The bill was cosponsored by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, but it did not receive support and has not been reintroduced.

Driskill called Wyomings congressional delegation absolute heroes for recognizing what Devils Tower means to Wyoming and the nation and trying to preserve it. Still, hes concerned that a future effort to redesignate the national monument could get enough momentum to make a change.

Its been a very tough deal through the years, he said. We need to promote equity and fairness and let everyone tell their story. There needs to be an awareness of whats there. But they probably have a better chance of telling their story their way than they do renaming it the other way.

Original post:

Although Many Have Tried To Change Name Of Devils Tower ... - Cowboy State Daily

Coopers hawk, Wilsons warbler, Henslows sparrow these are all familiar species to members of Chicagos birding community.

And theyre about to disappear. The names, that is, not the birds.

In a statement that sent shockwaves among the nations birders, the American Ornithological Society (AOS) announced last week that, starting in 2024, it will begin the process of renaming all eponymous birds birds named after people. People like William Cooper, Alexander Wilson and John Stevens Henslow.

The decision will apply only to English bird names under the societys jurisdiction in North America, the organization said, with an initial focus on the 70 to 80 eponymous bird species found primarily within the U.S. and Canada. (Scientific names will not be affected.)

There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today. We need a much more inclusive and engaging scientific process that focuses attention on the unique features and beauty of the birds themselves, said Colleen Handel, president of AOS and a research wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska.

Walter Kitundu, a member of the grassroots Chicago BIPOC Birders group, applauded the move by AOS.

There are a lot of unsavory characters who now have multiple species named after them, who were proudly racist and acted upon those views in despicable ways, Kitundu said. For birds unfortunate enough to have been saddled with these names, theres now an opportunity to gift them with descriptive and hopefully poetic names.

Beyond the instances of bad actors whose beliefs and deeds sully the birds to which theyve been attached, eponymous names in general lack relevance in terms of bird identification, he added. It strikes me that having a hummingbird of the North American West named after an Italian duchess isnt necessary or helpful in the least.

Removing not just the name but the apostrophe s accompanying it, which suggests ownership, restores birds dignity as entities unto themselves.

We are part of a large and complex web of life and not a single animal needs to carry the name of a human being, Kitundu continued. These shifts are important in shaping a relational view of nature. And that view allows us to better grasp the impacts of our behavior on the beings we share the planet with, and understand how to move in ways that support and nurture all forms of life.

A Henslow's sparrow, named for John Stevens Henslow, a mentor to Charles Darwin. This grassland bird has been in decline due to loss of habitat. (Jim Hudgins / U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Midwest Region).

But while the news drew praise from some quarters, it provoked vehement opposition elsewhere. Many who disagreed with AOS were particularly offended by the plan to do away with all eponymous names of both good guys and bad (and they are, by and large all men) without exception.

On social media, criticism was heaped on AOS for bowing to political correctness, along with defiant declarations of Well call them (birds) whatever we want.

There are areas of the birding community ... that are a dumpster fire, Edward Warden, president of the Chicago Ornithological Society, said of the eruption of non-civil discourse in certain circles.

Chicagos birding community has been largely supportive of AOS, with pockets of light dissent, said Warden. Despite the potential for divisiveness, he called the AOS decision the best possible one for both supporters and detractors alike," adding that "this is far from the first time birders have had to get used to new names.

Indeed, the AOS announcement comes on the heels of Chicago Audubon Society changing its name to Chicago Bird Alliance, removing the association with John James Audubon, whose towering reputation as a naturalist has been tainted by a fuller picture of his legacy, which also includes buying and selling slaves, plagiarism and the exploitation of natural resources.

Just like our decision to move away from the Audubon name, I think our constituents realize that we need to build a more just and inclusive society, said Judy Pollock, president of Chicago Bird Alliance. That includes looking to the future and not our past, which holds so much pain for some groups.

How Did We Get Here?

A thick-billed longspur, formerly known as McCown's longspur. The bird was renamed in 2020, due to John P. McCown's legacy as a Confederate general and record of warring against Indigenous people. (Scott Somershoe / U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mountain-Prairie Region)

Issues surrounding eponymous bird names had been bubbling under the surface for years, but boiled over in 2020.

The murder of George Floyd and the racial profiling of Black birder Christian Cooper prompted a group of ornithologists to form Bird Names for Birds, a movement that called on AOS and its North American Classification Committee to eliminate all eponymous names.

Eponymous common names are essentially verbal statues. They were made to honor the benefactor in perpetuity, and as such reflect the accomplishments and values that the creator esteemed, the founders of Bird Names for Birds wrote to AOS.

Apart from perpetuating colonialism and racism, and upholding people who often have objectively horrible pasts, eponymous names do a disservice to birds, Bird Names for Birds argued.

Birds are magnificent creatures, full of fascinating behaviors and exquisite plumages, the group said. Birds deserve to be celebrated for the evolutionary history that has shaped their particular traits, not for the moment when someone shot and dissected them.

AOS responded by creating an ad hoc English Bird Names Committee tasked with recommending the criteria that would be used to determine which bird names should be changed. Ultimately the committee concluded and AOS leadership agreed that a case-by-case consideration of every eponymous bird would be intractable, AOS said in a statement.

Any effort to make such judgments on past and present human figures would invariably be fraught with difficulty and negativity and become an unwelcome public and scientific distraction, the organization explained.

So, all eponymous names are set to go the way of the passenger pigeon. A handful of names, yet to be determined, will be part of a 2024 pilot that will introduce the process to be used going forward.

Big Trigger Moment

A Wilson's warbler. The name won't help ID this bird, best known for its black cap. (Lisa Hupps / U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Alaska Region)

For Jorge Garcia, who began birding four years ago and is also a member of Chicago BIPOC Birders, eponymous bird names have been a personal challenge and annoyance in more ways than one.

They have certainly been unhelpful in my learning of birds, as well as in my teaching and public engagements around them, said Garcia, volunteer coordinator for Openlands, including the organizations Birds in My Neighborhood program.

He cited Swainsons thrush, Swainsons warbler and Swainsons hawk as examples of birds that couldnt be more different, but share a name for reasons lost on a newbie attempting to make an ID.

Even more confounding are the five Wilson species, Garcia said, not to mention the Lincolns sparrow, which isnt named for the Lincoln (Abe), as a person might logically assume, but merely a Lincoln (Thomas, friend of Audubon).

The species that exemplifies not only Garcias struggle with eponymous birds but also illustrates the broader conundrum facing AOS, is the Coopers hawk.

These crow-sized hawks one of the more common eponymous birds found in Chicago are known for their great bursts of speed, powerful wingbeat, and a profile thats been compared to a flying cross, thanks to the birds short wings and long tail. None of these traits is suggested by the name Cooper, bestowed on the bird to honor William Cooper, who collected the specimens used to ID the hawk.

My first time seeing a Coopers hawk led me to unnecessarily search up who and why this persons name was attached to such a neat animal, Garcia recalled.

It was hard to care about the man who came up, in part because I was more interested in the bird, but also because by then Garcia had come to associate the surname Cooper with Amy Cooper, the White woman who accosted Christian Cooper in New Yorks Central Park, he said.

That incident was a big trigger moment for me to be more active online about my newfound hobby, realizing how important representation is, Garcia said. While I still use the name Coopers hawk often, I have made sure to allude to alternative names for this bird when possible in my work.

In this context, if AOS had decided to consider each eponymous bird individually, which interpretation of Cooper would hold sway? The one referencing a little known but influential 19th Century naturalist or the one connected to a particularly ugly episode of racism?

As AOS said: intractable.

Can History Be Erased?

A Swainson's thrush. Not to be confused with a Swainson's warbler or a Swainson's hawk. (ksblack99 / Flickr Creative Commons)

So whats to become of Cooper? Or Wilson? Or Henslow?

The notion that eliminating all eponymous bird names will somehow erase or negate the accomplishments and discoveries of perfectly decent naturalists and ornithologists is a concern that doesnt hold water, said Kitundu.

Those historical figures dont disappear when the birds who bear their names are given new ones, he said. People who want to know about those figures arent going to suddenly find themselves without resources. The people who made contributions, along with the odious figures, are still there for anyone who seeks to honor or rebuke them. Its just that now we dont have to celebrate them via bird names and we can uplift the birds themselves.

As for the argument that people like Audubon shouldn't be judged by todays standards, Kitundu rebuts that as well.

Its the old person of his time argument, as if abolitionists were not also of their time, he said.

Rather, the AOS decision is an example of people knowing better, and doing better, said Kitundu.

There is no need to hold on to problematic practices because of nostalgia, he said. I for one am happy about the proposed changes and excited to learn each and every new name and will share them with my young child when we are birding in years to come.

Contact Patty Wetli:@pattywetli| (773) 509-5623 |[emailprotected]

View post:

North American Birds Named After Bad People Will Get a New ... - WTTW News

About 50 University of Michigan community members gathered at the University of Michigan Museum of Art Wednesday evening for a panel event and viewing of Imagining the Indian, a documentary exploring the fight against Indigenous mascoting. The Research for Indigenous Social Action and Equity Center organized the documentary event, which featured a panel of prominent Indigenous activists.

The film chronologically follows the work of activists, professors and Indigenous peoples in their fight against Indigenous mascoting, including the mascots for popular sports teams such as the Kansas City Chiefs and the Atlanta Braves, which were accused of using racist and stereotypical depictions of Indigenous peoples by Native activists.

After the documentary screening, attendees were given the opportunity to ask questions to the panelists. Suzan Shown Harjo activist, journalist and poet who received the 2014 Presidential Medal of Freedom from former President Barack Obama joined virtually as a panelist. Harjo, who was featured prominently in the documentary, said she believes in the significance of personal narratives.

You dont have to be a scientist, you dont have to be a writer, you dont have to be the person in any organization, Harjo said. No, in my experience, this happened, this is my lived experience, or this happened to me, or this happened to my family. And thats so important for people to know.

Aviva Kempner and Ben West co-directors, co-producers and co-writers of Imagining the Indian also spoke on the panel. Kempner and West spoke on their motivations behind making the film and highlighted how many Indigenous people in the United States have spent years watching offensive and inaccurate portrayals of their culture. West said film is a way for Indigenous people to share their own experiences on a screen.

As my father says in the film, We need to tell our own stories, West said.

U-M Psychology professor Stephanie Fryberg, member of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington State, explained why she has devoted so much time to combating racist mascots in schools.

The Native mascot is a symptom of a society that continues to dehumanize us, Fryberg said.

Yancey Burns, co-producer and co-writer of the documentary encouraged audience members to join in advocating for change and Indigenous visibility.

It took so many hands, hearts, minds, energies, etc., to make this film happen, Burns said. And were just so appreciative of everyone now that you folks have seen the film, and youre part of the audience, youre part of the team. So we need you all to join the fight as well.

Fryberg said she felt it was important to distinguish the films motivations from those of performative activism, which she said played a large role in diminishing major social movements.

One of the things that we hope we did justice and comes through in the film (is) this is not a matter of opinion, or wokeness, or political correctness any longer, Fryberg said.

West also highlighted how the atrocities of the genocide of Indigenous peoples in the United States are too often reduced to a textbook conversation rather than being fully mourned and educated upon.

We are living, breathing, contemporary Native people and we historically have been reduced in a museum setting, to artifacts, to rows that are behind glass to look at, West said. Genocide must be acknowledged We are human beings, just like you are.

Harjo said the fight against Indigenous mascoting embodies various aspects of Indigenous culture that have become stereotyped and misunderstood.

We have history all over it, we have relatives all over it, Harjo said. We have everything but ownership and control. But we still carry out our responsibilities to it. We still have that treaty relationship. That means were going to strive for these things. And were going to fight like hell and fight in court and Congress and anywhere else for our rights under those treaties.

Daily News Contributors Lauren Kupelian and Gillian Reynolds can be reached at laurkup@umich.edu and gillyr@umich.edu.

Read more here:

"Imagining the Indian documentary combats Indigenous mascoting - The Michigan Daily

Disney has held a strong hold over the film industry for decades.

When imagining Disney, joy likely immediately floods ones mind. Beautiful memories of the pure days of childhood can be reminisced upon, with iconic films, shows and characters that instilled happiness, taught lessons and brought an enormous amount of color to the world. Though often created for a younger demographic, the productions are thoughtfully formulated, with relatable character struggles and dilemmas that all ages can relate to. As a result of the quality and concepts, the money followed Disney in droves, creating a multi-billion dollar industry that reigned supreme in cinema. So why is that success fading away?

Disney is evidently still an influential and dominant corporation. But according to The New York Times, their stock is down 56 percent and they have lost $512 million on the streaming service Disney Plus alone. With America attempting to become more progressive in its viewpoints, contrasting opinions are always manifested into being discriminatory and hurtful as quoted from TU Delta, in the wake of the woke movement, the cancel culture is emerging, a type of excessive political correctness that attempts to silence people with unwelcome opinions.

Therefore, out of fear of being canceled, which can result in consequences such as job loss and social ostracization, one type of ideology is constantly pushed in articles, speeches and now even movies, something Disney has been completely obsessed with to be seemingly modern.

As a result of rising women empowerment movements, Disney has continued to solely portray female roles as warriors and powerful leaders like in the productions of She-Hulk and Captain Marvel, which has been negatively received by people of all backgrounds and origins. However, contrary to claims of misogyny and non-inclusivity of critics, other characters that were created similarly such as Black Widow, Scarlet Witch and the cartoon Mulan were greatly received. So what makes them different?

Story continues below advertisement

The main reason is the personalities of these modern female characters, women who are seemingly perfect individuals, with shallow, haughty personalities and neither flaws nor challenges that they dont immediately overcome. They are written extremely two-dimensionally, claiming that to be portrayed as a strong woman, one needs to fit a specific role and constantly radiate confidence and invincibility, something that isnt representative and attainable by the average female.

Additionally, they are made to never have meaningful emotions, love for another or a desire to become a wife and a mother, almost as if these acts imply weakness. Contrary to these points, freshman Ariana Rao said, The idea of raising or having a family is really hard. Wanting to have a family means they have to go through childbirth which is in itself a really difficult taskit is a portrayal of a strong woman because it shows that they are willing to do that to create and raise a family.

The actress Elle Fanning, who played Aurora in the live-action Maleficent, has even publicly voiced her opinion about such controversies with similar statements. Fanning said, I think its a nice message to tell women, its okay to be comfortable in your femininity. Kindness is not weakness its quite the opposite.

She has also spoken about the personality of Aurora, a character that most of modern society views as anti-feminist because she mainly dreams of a significant other in her life, stating that Aurora is a very romantic princess she dreams of being married and becoming a mother and theres nothing wrong with that. It doesnt make a woman less strong because she wants that. I think thats actually a very modern take.

Much of Disneys issues also stem from recent sequels and live actions that utilize the same characters and names to garner attention, while drastically altering the stories to push political agendas, shown by the racial swapping of existing characters. The negative comments arent solely because of having actors of various ethnicities playing traditionally white roles, it is an issue of sacrificing quality, content, and messaging.

To expand on this claim, Rao has also said, Having a diverse cast is a great thing, but if the actors or actresses arent that good but they are diverse, that isnt fair to the other actors who maybe dont have that much of a diverse background but are still a better choice for acting.

This statement is comparable to Disneys constant act of checking certain boxes for liberal ideologies to be showcased when mindlessly swapping the ethnicities of characters and claiming that to be a representation of diversity. Audiences just desire creative tales, and only with new innovative stories, diversity of thoughts and actors can be incorporated into plots to ensure a high caliber of quality that isnt forced, approached half-heartedly and made to be the central purpose.

Excerpt from:

Disney's downfall attributed to cancel culture The Tide - The Tide

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Vladimir Putin had been instigating antisemitism in Russia long before the lynch mob stormed the airport in Dagestans capital Makhachkala, Aleksandar oki writes.

Islamophobia and antisemitism have been on the rise worldwide since the beginning of the Hamas-Israel conflict.

Both stem from two general kinds of racism: the grassroots one, which tends to originate in parts of society at the base level, and the top-down one, which is spread from those in power and their exponents.

As such, top-down racism is unthinkable in our day and age, as it would go against the basic moral principles of contemporary democratic societies.

On the other end of the political spectrum, autocratic leaders more often than not intentionally instrumentalise historical divisions in their societies including ethnic, religious, racial or class ones.

Dictators strive to profit from tensions in society in order to prevent various societal groups from uniting against their rule. Autocrats tend to know when and exactly how to stir and agitate certain social groups when they believe it's necessary.

Yet, sometimes these actions spiral out of control and produce unwanted results. That was the case with the recent anti-Jewish riot labelled by some as a pogrom at the Dagestan international airport.

Ever since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin has not shied away from stirring up anger and contempt against those of Jewish background or Jewish identity in general.

The dominant discourse spread by Moscow's power circles has been marked by a key talking point that can be summarised as the Anglo-Saxons (meaning, the West) have installed a Jewish puppet whos not even Jewish in a fundamental sense in Kyiv to cover up the contemporary Ukrainian Nazism."

This toxic notion has been thoroughly debunked, yet, this is almost exactly what Russia's Vladimir Putin said on 5 September, just two months before the antisemitic lynch mob stormed the airport inDagestans capital Makhachkala.

Western curators put at the head of contemporary Ukraine a personan ethnic Jew, with Jewish roots, with Jewish origins. And thus, in my opinion, they seem to cover up a certain anti-human essence, which is the foundation, the basis of the modern Ukrainian state, Putin said.

With the Kremlin's supposed denazification of Ukraine as the ideological basis for the legitimisation of its invasion of a neighbouring country, Putin has in fact repeatedly questioned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyys Jewish identity while also using it against him.

I have had many Jewish friends since childhood. They all say, 'Zelenskyy is not Jewish, he is a disgrace to the Jewish people' Zelenskyy is a man of Jewish blood. Yet with his actions, he covers up these neo-Nazi monsters, Putin said earlier in June.

On 22 October, a week before the Dagestans international airport rampage, a well-known state propagandist, Dmitry Kiselev, said on state TV that antisemitism is a cultural norm for hundreds of millions of Muslims, passed on from one generation to another. And no amount of political correctness can do anything about it.

This statement is indeed both Islamophobic and antisemitic. However, the same Russian state TV channels have, like the Kremlin, papered over their latent Islamophobia by taking a clear pro-Hamas position and placing tradition at the cornerstone of politics. This is why these kinds of messages were easily interpreted by some in the Northern Caucasus a traditionally Muslim-majority region as a way to legitimise hate and declare an open hunt on Jewish people.

It is also clear why the instigators believed there would be no pushback from the authorities, and why they ended up being treated much more leniently than Russian anti-war protesters, for example. Why would a country, which supports Hamas and claims that antisemitism is "tradition", persecute them if they embarked on an antisemitic campaign? And isn't this undertaking essentially just a fervent display of support for the state?

Besides official ties of the Russian leadership with Hamas, the mainstream media discourse in Russia has been clearly anti-Israel ever since Hamas' militants organised and conducted a massacre of Israeli civilians on 7 October.

There wasnt a single statement denouncing Hamas as an extremist or terrorist organisation in the Russian state media only calls for an independent Palestinian state and accusations against Israel of cynically murdering Palestinian civilians.

All of this is quite the opposite of responsible Western leaders, intellectuals and media pundits who always make it clear that the Hamas militants committed a horrible act of violence while voicing their legitimate concern for the protection of the Palestinian civil population.

This is the only way to combat antisemitism and send a clear message to society: terrorism is not acceptable under any circumstance, and any violent act or hate speech incident against Jewish citizens in the democratic world will be severely persecuted in accordance with the law.

This, of course, doesnt mean that protests in support of Palestine and Palestinians are or should be stigmatised. In fact, it means that there simply has to be a clear dividing line between propagating Hamas terrorism and supporting Palestinians.

Such a clear line was never drawn in Russian media. Instead, the Russian state sent a direct, malignant signal inciting its already highly antisemitic and intolerant society: Jews are Nazis in Ukraine, and they are now intentionally killing Palestinian children.

So if you were just a regular consumer of mainstream TV content in Russia, you would end up believing that taking the fight to nominally Jewish passengers of a flight from Tel Aviv that had landed in Makhachkala is a patriotic act in every possible sense.

In the end, Putin blamed the US for an easily anticipated explosion of antisemitism in Russia. It is necessary to know and understand where the root of evil is, that spider who is attempting to wrap the entire planet, the entire world, into its web, he said after the Dagestan riot.

Yet, the responsibility for the hate lies squarely on Putin and Russia. Russian propaganda has been demonising Ukrainians for almost a decade. Now its the turn of Russias Jewish population to be stigmatised, just like it was many times through history. And if Putin keeps having it his way, in the end, there will be no one left to hate.

Aleksandar oki is a Serbian political scientist and analyst with bylines in Novaya Gazeta. Formerly, he was a lecturer at RUDN University in Moscow.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at view@euronews.com to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Continue reading here:

The Kremlin fuelled antisemitism at home. Then it blew up - Euronews