Daily Archives: August 26, 2021

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

As a child in her San Antonio fourth grade classroom, Alejandra Lopez learned about the Battle of Alamo the way most Texas students do: The Anglo fighters were valiant heroes against the Mexican enemy, led by Gen. Antonio Lpez de Santa Anna.

I remember thinking, Oh no, I have the same last name as the bad guy, as the villain in this story, she said. That is really messed up, to carry that as a fourth grader.

When her father tried to tell her the story from the Mexican perspective that the white settlers were colonizers she said she didnt trust him.

I put the trust in my teachers, she said.

Years later, arriving as an undergraduate at Stanford University, she took an introductory course in Chicano/Chicana studies. She said she learned that white settlers wanted independence from Mexico largely to preserve slavery, which Mexico had outlawed, and she quickly realized that the history she had learned in K-12 had been severely lacking.

It was written from a perspective that is not the perspective of my people that is meant to indoctrinate me, a working class woman of color, into an American narrative of exceptionalism, she said. As a young brown child, I was being meant to experience history through the lens of the colonizer.

That absolutely atrocious feeling eventually helped lead her to become a teacher back in her hometown.

I wanted to teach differently than I had been taught, she said.

How Texas students learn about race and history has become an incendiary topic in recent months. In a state where more than half of public school students are Hispanic and 27% are white, many conservative state lawmakers have raised alarm about the idea of lessons that seek to reframe history lessons.

Those lawmakers have repeatedly claimed that critical race theory is being used to teach children that they are racist and that the U.S. is an irredeemably racist country. They have already passed one measure, House Bill 3979, purportedly to combat the theory, though the bill never mentions it by name nor does anything to ban directly teaching its concepts, such as racial formation and intersectionality.

Meanwhile, Gov. Greg Abbott has called for more legislation, declaring that he wants to abolish critical race theory in Texas classrooms and adding the issue to the agenda for two consecutive special sessions of the Texas Legislature. One such bill that calls for students to be taught a a commitment to the United States and its form of government has already passed the Senate and will be heard in a House committee hearing Tuesday.

But as those debates rage on, some teachers across disciplines are pressing on with approaches to teaching that are influenced by forms of critical theory such as critical race theory. These approaches look very different from how Republicans characterize it, they say.

Far from trying to incur guilt in white students or establish racial superiority, they say, anti-racist teaching efforts are about affirming and empowering all students, in light of their race, class and all aspects of identity, to be critical thinkers and agents of their own learning and to make sense of themselves, their communities and their society in complex ways.

In 2018, Lopez and other colleagues founded PODER, the social justice caucus of the San Antonio teachers union.

I was angry at the fact that a district that has over 96% students of color was not equipping teachers to meet their needs, to teach in a culturally relevant way, said Lopez, who is now president of the union.

The group runs trainings several times a semester that roughly 20 teachers from across the district join, discussing teaching methods based on Gloria Ladson-Billings work on the intersection of education and critical race theory.

At one recent training, Lopez told teachers about a monthlong project she carried out in her second grade classroom. The class first reads a book titled Milos Museum, in which a young Black child feels alienated at a museum and goes home to create her own community museum. Students then go through artifacts at home, choose something thats meaningful to them and set up a community museum in the classroom. Family members come and act as guides.

It shows, These are the things that are meaningful to me in my community and showcases them in a way where the children feel pride and their identities are being affirmed, she said.

Another PODER co-founder, Luke Amphlett, trains teachers about the concept of counternarratives and uses them in his U.S. history classroom at Burbank High School in San Antonio.

On the first day of class, he shows his students a double-layered painting where a portrait of Thomas Jefferson is pulled back, revealing the image of Sally Hemings one of the people he enslaved, and the mother of six children he fathered.

Every year, almost all of his students recognize Jefferson in the painting by Titus Kaphar, he said, but not a single student can name Hemings.

His class in a high school where 98% of students are Latino or Latina and more than 87% are economically disadvantaged then discusses why that is, the significance of that and through whose perspective American history is usually taught.

They realize in that moment, on day one, that theyve basically understood the story of this country through the eyes of powerful, rich, white men, he said.

He said that teaching a history grounded in counternarratives is not just about representing and including multiple groups, which is important but its also about thinking about why some groups have been left out or put in the limelight, as well as what that says about our current society.

There is a deep, rich, complex view of the world, and view of the past, that can emerge from the fact that we have people in different intersectional positions of power and oppression in society, he said. Some of those stories are amplified and some of them are erased.

Teachers are doing this work amid an ongoing backlash against efforts to discuss and address racism in America, as lawmakers and parents raise alarm around what they call critical race theory.

State Rep. Steve Toth, R-The Woodlands, said that much of the new critical race theory law, which he authored, was motivated by concerns he heard from parents who feel their kids are being indoctrinated.

Weve heard, You should feel guilty for what [white people have] done, he said. We have heard, Youre people of privilege, and you should feel guilty for that privilege.

During the regular legislative session, Toth cited Not My Idea, a childrens book examining how power and privilege affects white people, as the main example of critical race theory in Texas classrooms, claiming it was being recommended in Highland Park schools though the district said it was not being used.

Meanwhile, the issue has become a talking point in districts and school board elections across the state as some parents say the theory sows racial division and indoctrinates students into a far-left ideology.

The majority of teachers want to get back to teaching kids how to read and write at an early age, and as they progress through the process, how to be critical thinkers, to think for themselves not to indoctrinate these children, Toth said. Critical race theory does not teach a child how to think critically.

Teachers and experts say that no one is teaching critical race theory in classrooms, nor are they teaching Republicans characterizations of it. Angela Valenzuela, an education policy professor at the University of Texas at Austin, called the idea that teachers are blaming their white students for systemic racism a false, exaggerated claim.

Amphlett said that these teachers arent trying to force students to reject the dominant account of historical events, but instead are teaching them to critically weigh multiple perspectives and understand the complex, political, subjective ways that knowledge is created and understood. They teach them to be engaged in that process as critical thinkers in what he called the opposite of indoctrination, he said.

[We] will caution students not to accept the counternarrative on face value just because its different from the dominant narrative, but to develop complex syntheses of these different approaches to perspectives on history, he said.

Keffrelyn Brown, a teacher-educator and professor of cultural studies in education at UT-Austin, said this tenet of critical race theory is essential to anti-racist teaching that knowledge has never been neutral.

Because of the way that power has operated, there have been Eurocentric standards that have defined what counts as what we know, she said.

When Andrew Robinson, an eighth grade U.S. history teacher at Uplift Luna Preparatory in Dallas, teaches about Christopher Columbus, he gives them multiple perspectives including a cartoon video that shows the dominant narrative that in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, excerpts from Columbus journal that show his attitudes toward Indigenous people, historical documents describing his abuse of them and an article that defends Columbus actions. Afterward, he asks the students to write about what they think and why.

Giving them multiple perspectives gives kids a chance to consider, OK, what is propaganda, what am I being fed here and why am I being fed this? he said. It gets them asking questions and hopefully gets them interested to a point that they become self learnerswhere theyre going in and looking stuff up and reading stuff on their own.

Even before that, he teaches material about Indigenous communities and histories that arent in the state curriculum. This works to counter the dominant narrative that American history began when Columbus arrived.

Brown, the UT-Austin professor, said that kind of approach can be used in all subjects.

For example, in arts education, she helps teachers think about questions like, Who are the musicians and the visual artists that get identified as important for all students to learn about? What are the approaches that are left out, or that are not valued in the same way?

And Lopez, the San Antonio teacher, said the approach applies to all aspects of students identity and learning, not just race.

When you talk about culturally relevant pedagogy or anti-racist education, people think that its just about race they dont recognize that systems of oppression affect people in an intersectional way, Lopez said. Race is central and very important, but it is not the only way that dominant ideology perpetuates itself in our education system.

For example, she noted that class is also an important factor.

If Im only showing them books about people who have an upper middle class background, then my students who come from a working class background are still not going to see themselves reflected, she said.

Many teachers pursuing anti-racist work find solidarity in formal and informal networks of like-minded educators. One such group, Educators in Solidarity, was formed after the shooting of Mike Brown in 2014 and connects teachers in Austin committed to anti-racist teaching.

Eliza Gordon, one of the groups co-founders, said one of its arms is a cultural proficiency and inclusiveness team that plans a yearly conference, which last year had more than 800 attendees and focused on themes like reimagining discipline practices. A legislative and policy arm does political advocacy, including organizing against HB 3979 during the regular legislative session. The group has 28 active members, most of whom are full-time educators, and engages more than 1,500 people across social media and newsletters.

One member, AISD kindergarten teacher Elizabeth Wilson, heads a teacher mentorship program that connects about 15 newer teachers at a time with more established teachers to offer support and guidance for doing anti-racist work.

That relationship and that mentorship has been really powerful and empowering teachers to say no, this is important and even though Im a first or second year teacher, I understand that this critical work needs to be done, she said.

She said that EIS has given her a crucial community and support network.

Sometimes when youre doing this work, and you feel like youre in isolation, it can feel like, Wait, am I crazy? Is this right or wrong? she said. Having a network of teachers who you know you can lean on is really helpful.

These networks will be even more important as the school year begins and HB 3979 takes effect, Amphlett said. Hes spearheading a group called the TEACH Coalition, which currently has about 20 professors and K-12 educators across the state meeting weekly to prepare to support teachers.

Theyre preparing an academic defense of critical race theory, which is helpful to their practice despite not being something they directly teach students. But overall, they plan to focus more on the laws underlying attack on anti-racist education. In the works are events and teach-ins for teachers to learn more about anti-racist and culturally relevant teaching, as well as curriculum resources theyre developing and plan on disseminating to teachers. They created a statement against HB 3979 that has more than 300 signatures.

The purpose of our work as anti-racist educators is not to be Democrat or Republican its to do whats right for every kid, Gordon said. And to make sure that when we go into a school building, were honoring kids lived experiences and their stories.

Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Join us Sept. 20-25 at the 2021 Texas Tribune Festival. Tickets are on sale now for this multi-day celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the days news, curated by The Texas Tribunes award-winning journalists. Learn more.

Read the original here:

I wanted to teach differently than I had been taught: How some Texas educators practice anti-racist teaching - The Texas Tribune

Few observers of global discourse range as widely as Elnathan John, the novelist, satirist, and lawyer who frequently participates online and off in conversations about art, politics, and culture pertaining to at least three continents. His novel, Born on a Tuesday, is a coming-of-age story set in his native Nigeria. In Becoming Nigerian: A Guide, he tried his hand at satire.

Today, John lives in Berlin, where, in addition to writing, he works with academic institutions to foster collaboration between scholars and writers. I first encountered him on Clubhouse, the live-audio social-media platform, where Ive listened to him hold forth in conversations with members of the Nigerian diaspora, Americans across the political spectrum, and anyone else whos awake when he is.

Earlier this month, I invited him to lunch, hoping to better understand his perspective on the social-media era: We both use some of the same platforms, but I wondered whether we worry about the same threats to public discourse, and to what extent our experiences of the same spaces might differ.

This is a condensed, edited version of our conversation.

Conor Friedersdorf: Youre Nigerian. You live in Berlin. And you regularly talk on U.S.-based social-media platforms. We first encountered each other on Clubhouse during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns. What value did you find in the live group-audio conversations that app offered?

Elnathan John: I could find people from all across the world with whom to have conversations that I couldnt have elsewherefor example, to talk about Afrofuturism without having to plan some special event, or science fiction or history or philosophy with people from 10 different universities around the world that I would not otherwise meet, and who would not tweet. In the beginning, people treated Clubhouse like a safe space, and many people felt freer to talk about what ideas they actually had, unlike on Twitter, for example, where many were wary about sharing opinions.

Friedersdorf: Because they feared professional consequences?

John: Yes.

Friedersdorf: Do you think such fears about what many now call cancel culture are justified or overwrought?

Read: How capitalism drives cancel culture

John: There have always been codes of silence. At every time in history, to have access to people's true thoughts, one needed to learn a communitys codes and go deeper than superficial conversation. But today many people feel disoriented because the code is changing very fast and few understand where the changes come from. It used to be that if I didn't offend the chief of the village or the gods of the village, I could have freedom in other aspects. Now the source of power is less clear. It is globalized. You can say something about someone thousands of miles away and have instant repercussions.

And it is democratized: So many more people, especially young people, exercise power in controlling these public conversations. With their savvy and their numbers, they can demand consequences for certain kinds of speech. But their code is always changing, often very quickly and unpredictably, so many people feel that until they understand the new equilibrium, they must be circumspect observers and cannot talk freely.

Friedersdorf: Is this an American phenomenon, or do you see it in Germany and Nigeria too?

John: I would say that it is globalizingyou know, it is in the process of doing that, because the biggest site of these contestations is the United States, and the United States is the greatest exporter of culture. So its conversations quickly become the standard for conversations elsewhere.

Read: The blue check mark's evil cousin

Friedersdorf: Is that because most of the big social-media platforms are American companies?

John: It's not just the apps. Its everything America has done to spread its influence, because America dominates the media. We all consume it. In some way, shape, or form, things trickle down.

And its pervasive when you speak to Americans that they are unaware of their position in the world and this cultural hegemonythat their conversations very quickly dominate the public space because everybody is affected by these influences. You grew up watching American TV. You grew up listening to American music. And often you might have to remind people that maybe we want to step back from America being the center of this conversation.

For example, say I want to talk about slavery in northern Nigeria. One of the books I'm writing now is set in a time when the so-called caliphate in what is now northern Nigeria was at its peak. At that time, at least one in four persons was an enslaved person or in indentured servitude. At one point, we had probably the highest number of slaves in the world. Id like to talk about this without talking about slaves in the U.S. or white people. You know, why do I have to talk about white supremacy when writing about this period in Nigeria? But the conversation always goes there.

This U.S. hegemony is true regardless of race. Even if you are oppressed in America, you still have this outsize influence globally, and the rest of us are choking on it. And we would like to have conversations in our local spaces that do not always devolve to American tribal wars.

Friedersdorf: When members of the Nigerian diaspora connect online, what issues are of particular interest?

John: I think more Nigerians abroad are becoming politically active because they are increasingly affected by the ineptitude of our government at home. We find this in things such as very poor consular and embassy services. For example, during the pandemic, Nigerians in many countries have been unable to get passports. The embassy in Germany has not issued passports in many months. If your passport expires, you are stuck. You cant go anywhere. My passport expires in two days. So Im stuck here for a few months, and work travel is part of how I pay my rent.

Nigeria has many ways of extending its reach even to those of us who moved away, most dramatically with its increasing violence and spate of kidnappings, because if your brother is kidnapped, if they call you with a gun to his head, you have to send money no matter where in the world you are. We can no longer hide from Nigeria. Unless you have zero family, its tentacles reach wherever you are. You know that the hardship there is increasing, that inflation there is skyrocketing, so if you make remittances, you must increase those remittances. In these ways, Nigerians all over have an understanding of what happens in Nigeria. They support dozens of people back home. They hear the news reports, and they feel them in their pocket, too.

Friedersdorf: How has all of this affected the political views of the Nigerian diaspora?

John: I think that more people are questioning the idea of Nigeria. Especially abroad, I hear people questioning the reason why Nigeria is a single country. I dont think I have ever heard as many young Nigerians question that as I have just in the past few monthsthey have a desire to break up the country or to restructure it. And, of course, we have all of these separatist leaders who are emerging. We see Nigeria fracturing and hemorrhaging from a million cuts, and everyone is starting to think maybe we should go our separate ways, or talk about whether we want Nigeria to be a country, because we are such different people, and we are not getting along.

And now people are leaving without an end date. The idea is: When I leave, I will try to make it permanent. I don't know anyone who says, I just want to spend two years abroad. Everybody I know says, Im not going back. When I talk to my friends in Nigeria, they tell me, Dont think of coming back. Things are bad. They tell me, Whatever youre doing, make sure you can stay. With such uncertainty and violence, middle-class Nigerians are leaving in droves.

Friedersdorf: The United States is divided between people who believe our democracy is threatened and those who believe such fears are overwrought. There are concerns in Europe about the far right. How do Nigerians pondering whether and where to migrate view those questions?

John: I had a conversation with a bunch of Nigerians on Clubhouse, many of us abroad, where we discussed What is a safe place for a Black person in the world? We kept saying, you know, a white person can just up and go to Europethey mix in, and theyre fineand we kept asking, Where can a Black person go in the world and feel at home? And where can a Nigerian person go?

For a Nigerian, we cant go to South Africa and feel at home, because we experience xenophobia. Whenever theres a crisis, they attack us as Nigerians. We cant even go to Ghana, which is one of the most stable places that you can go in Africa. We increasingly have anti-Nigerian sentiment there, too, because theres a lot of us, and theres this tendency for people to feel overwhelmed by our presence. We upset the balance of things in many places by our sheer numbers alone, but also by our sheer hustle, the way we show up and we are like, Okay, were not having fun; were here for business. So often we dont feel at home elsewhere in Africa.

But we also understand the instability in some European countries. We know that this kind of far-right rhetoric is affecting local politics. In much of Europe, countries are moving to the right, you know, which means that people who are immigrants will be at the receiving end. And we certainly dont feel welcome in America, not just because of police violence or whatever, but because of the friction between Africans and African Americans, which is a very big problem.

Nigerians go to America, and they dont always support African American political movements, for, say, reparations, or progressive movements. While some queer Nigerians and women find escape by leaving Nigeria and joining progressive movements, many Nigerians are actually very conservative in their beliefs. And they are focused not on politics but on hustle. Nigerians go and say, What business is to be made? And many African Americans feel undermined when Black Nigerians get scholarships and achieve in universities and get benefits. That can grate on many African Americans, especially because some people on the right use Nigerian successes as a cudgel: You see those Black people doing well. Why wont you stop complaining about race? In turn, African Americans think, These guys dont understand our context. It annoys them that many Nigerians are oblivious to their long struggle against racism.

Of course, thats not going to stop Nigerians from coming to the U.S., because they know theres opportunity in America. They know that if they put their head down and participate in the grind, it is likely that they can make something of their lives, because America is the kind of place that, you know, if youre in the right place and you hustle right, you are likely to hit something.

So this is something Nigerians worry about: Where in the world can we feel at home too?

Read: The migration driven by developed countries

Friedersdorf: Youre always blunt, even when discussing sensitive issues. Why?

John: There is too much skirting around issues. Too many times, in academic writing and in communication in general, meaning hides in the folds of politeness, in the folds of doublespeak. Its a waste of time. How about you just say what you actually mean? And then its easier to confront whatever feelings exist. If you know, from the outset, this is exactly what I think, then we can have a conversation, then we can get angry and perhaps move past the anger. Or then you can decide, Actually, I dont want to engage with this. So it saves everybody time. I do try to not be unkind when Im direct. Im not fond of speaking without any understanding of the effect that ones words have on others. But there is elegance and utility in clarity.

And Im against attempts to stop people from speaking clearly, or stifling or criminalizing thoughts or dissent, because the only way that we can improve our thoughts and ideas is if we know exactly what other people are thinking. So I worry about this collateral damage that I see.

Friedersdorf: Do you mean that efforts to advance social justice are doing collateral damage to freedom of expression?

John: At times, yes.

I think that right now, centuries-old oppression and discrimination are being challenged, often by people who were not able to talk about themselves with human dignity before, because they werent present in the imagination of the people who shaped public discourse. Now they have the power to claim space for themselves and to say, I have been here; I demand to be acknowledged.

The demolition of injustices is good and necessary. I think of it like a house being constructed. Construction usually begins with demolition, right? Its not always elegant, and its not always painless. You know, there will be glass that will splinter, bricks that come down, that kind of thing. So sometimes we have this collateral damage that happens when things are being demolished.

But there are ways of having controlled demolitions, where you think, How can we bring down this 20-story building, this mammoth of oppression, without destroying the buildings around it?

Friedersdorf: What specifically would you recommend to people who want to demolish injustice, when they speak or converse, without destroying other important edifices in our society?

John: I want to protect free speech, for example. And a multiplicity of ideas and views. And inclusivityreal inclusivity, which is not excluding others because you want to include some. I also want to hear outliers, people who challenge even my deeply held beliefs. I need those people because outliers usually are the ones that push us to find new ways of thinking in the world. The right way to do the discourse is not to lump people who have genuine questions or disagreements with what you see as a perfectly just world with people who are antagonistic to your very existence.

Theres value in separating those groups.

I distinguish people who might mean well, but who nevertheless run afoul of what constitutes justice to me, from people who are committed to reducing the space in which I can exist as a free human with dignity. With the former, I want to reach points of compromise. And not just compromise. I want avenues of open discourse and debate. Thats more important than any type of compromise. If you have free, open conversation, you show an awareness that you alone do not have all the answers. And that youre working with other people who may have answers.

Of course, there is no substitute for having a healthy political space. One way of defining that is a space where the most privileged are open to challenge and the least privileged are sure of protectionthe most privileged are not above scrutiny, and the least privileged have, at least, safety. In between those points, the stakes are lowered in ways that open up space for conversation.

Friedersdorf: In todays political space, do you feel free, as a novelist and a satirist, to speak your own mind, or do you feel hemmed in by social pressure?

John: I have great privilege because Im able to say what I want to say, and I have a publisher that knows me, who will stand by me if I am simply expressing my thoughts. So I can talk about sex and the fact that people are so prudish, which many people are afraid to discuss, or about how people police language and dont want you to talk about your body or your politics or the things you really hate or that you really love. But right from the start, I guarded my ability to speak my mind, by showing people what to expect, so that they would not treat me like a role model.

Once youre treated as a role model, everybody wants you to say the perfect thing. But no human being is like this in real life. You know, we all want to be able to falter. We all want to be able to figure things out. Yet we elevate these people and we say, You cannot have inchoate thoughts. You cannot have thoughts in progress. You cannot have wrong thoughts. You have to always speak quickly and speak directly to every issue and also speak perfectly. You cannot say, Im thinking about this or stay silent. Then, you are supposedly siding with the oppressor.

Youre not allowed to be human anymore.

Friedersdorf: Why do you guard and value your independence so assiduously?

John: Theres a trade-off. Some people take love and adoration, and they sacrifice some part of themselves, some part of their humanity, and say, Okay, I sacrificed the ability to say what I want to sayI will say nothing that upsets anyonebut give me love, admiration, and money, and Ill take it.

Im not interested in that kind of trading. I cherish being able to say what I want to say, but not as an irresponsibly exercised freedom, like I just want to run my mouth. I try to think deeply about what I say. Thats why sometimes I dont answer questions: Im still thinking about this or that. And as a satirist, I have a responsibility to interrogate power, and there is power in what is popular.

Friedersdorf: Do you mean the power of the masses?

John: There are many kinds of power. It irritates me, simply saying a thing that many people want or expect to hear, and people say, Oh, he called out that injustice; hes so brave. I'm like, this is not bravery! Bravery is when, in spite of all of the things I have to lose, I still say exactly what I think.

Satire can become complicit with any kind of powerthe power of government, the power of a political faction, the power of what the masses likeand whenever it does, it is time to recalibrate. So we have these satirists who are super powerful, you know, they can call on Hillary Clinton, and shell show up and do an interview with them. They can call on whichever politician.

They should admit: Look, I am power now. They can't say, I'm calling out power. No, you are power. Satirists must interrogate their own positionality. I try to say, How am I implicated in this thing personally? Because satire never used to be popular. You know, it was always unpopular because it rubbed people the wrong way, and people are mostly agreeable. They want to be around agreeable people. And real satire has no intention to pander to anybodys desire for agreeability. So when my satire becomes popular, I must ask, What is the problem? Why are there so many people that are comfortable with my work? People mistakenly assume that there is just one group of powerful people, one level of power, government or old white men, blah, blah, blah. If you keep attacking them, everyone applauds, as if you are attacking power, but if everyone is applauding, then you have not properly interrogated all of the levels of power. To do so is not punching down. It is to recognize that there are many different levels of power.

Friedersdorf: So how should a satirist decide where to punch?

John: Satire is always more complicated than just punching in a certain direction, because you can possess and wield power even as others wield power over you. You can oppress even while being oppressed.

If I am being praised for my satire, I keep asking myself, Why is the applause so loud? Who are these applauding people? And I often find you guys are too comfortable. Then I zero in there, and some people always say, Oh, now you are attacking the wrong people. But they are also holders of power! What is popular has power and can be oppressive, even if it is determined by people who do not perceive themselves as powerful. If you can spur a crowd, if there are people whom you can hurt, if there are communities that can be harmed by your activity, if there are systems you can help demolish, then no, whoever you are, you are not just the good guy.

Follow this link:

Elnathan John on Satire and Cancel Culture - The Atlantic

What is happening in Haiti? What led to the assassination of President Jovenel Mose, a right-wing figure until recently aligned with the dominant foreign interests in the country?

Although the situation is still unclear, in detailing the circumstances, there is no doubt that transnational imperialism has once again put its foot in the stirrup in Haiti, through its main weapon of war and politics, the United States. Local authorities point the finger of responsibility at the United States and vice versa. It is likely that both are right and that there was a collusion of sectoral interests in the face of the tragic negligence of Jovenel Mose, who was a successful businessman exporting bananas and had no previous experience of political activity.

It is important to remember that Haitis territory was literally occupied by the United States through the marines for two decades, between 1914 and 1934, with the objective, not hidden by President Woodrow Wilson (President 1913-1921), of protecting US economic interests. These are structural problems of society.

What is the scale of the crisis in Haitian society?

In Haiti, there is a very serious multifaceted crisis. Political, social, and economic. The national state has lost its monopoly on the use of legitimate violence and the result is that violence has spread. The capital Port-au-Prince is dominated by rival gangs and the practice of kidnapping people and making ransom demands has become recurrent in the country. Gang rapes happen, out of any control.

Parliament was due to be re-elected in January 2020. But the elections were not held. Famine and rising commodity prices are terrible. And such a situation confirms the ineffectiveness of international organizations and international occupations such as MINUSTAH (United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, which lasted from 2004 to October 2017), whose real objective is to maintain order and not to pacify.

MINUSTAH, by the way, has benefited from a significant participation of Bolsonarist military leaders from Brazil, who, in some cases, even try to shield their actions in that country from criticism.

Exactly. General Carlos Alberto dos Santos Cruz led the United Nations Mission in Haiti from January 2007 to April 2009. He held the secretariat of Bolsonaros government, after which he opposed the government. General Floriano Peixoto Vieira Neto, commander of the mission between April 2009 and April 2010, also became secretary general of the Brazilian presidency at the beginning of the current administration. General Edson Leal Pujol, who led MINUSTAH from 2013 to 2014, was commander of the Brazilian army from 2019 to February 2021. Tarcsio Gomes de Freitas, Minister of Infrastructure, served from 2005 to 2006 in Haiti as head of the technical section of the engineering company of the Brazilian Peacekeeping Force. General Otvio Rgo Barros, former spokesman for the Bolsonaro government, was commander of the 1st Infantry Battalion of the Peace Force. Fernando Azevedo e Silva, former Minister of Defence, held the position of Chief of Operations of the Brazilian contingent in Haiti from 2004 to 2005. And, General Lus Eduardo Ramos, current secretary of government to the president [since 21 July 2021], served from 2011 to 2012 in the Brazilian troops in Haiti.

Not to mention, of course, General Augusto Heleno, current head of the Internal Security Cabinet (GSI) and right-hand man (we might say!) of the president, who was the first commander of MINUSTAH in 2004. He is strongly suspected of being responsible for a massacre in the poor district of Cit Soleil, in Port-au-Prince, in 2005: operation Poing fort, with 300 soldiers, invaded this community and caused about 70 deaths, including women and children, after firing 22,000 shots. The fact is that Lulas government, after drawing accusations, withdrew General Heleno from Haiti.

We note that the military presence in Haiti has served as a kind of laboratory for the genocidal policy of the Bolsonaro government, including the federal intervention in Rio de Janeiro in 2018, commanded by General Braga Netto, current Minister of Defence. The latter was not in Haiti, but went directly to the seat of the operation, acting as military attach to the United States in 2013-14.

It should not be forgotten that the legitimately elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was deposed in 2004 by the US army with the support of the French and Brazilian governments, among others. It is a question of controlling the poor and black populations in a situation of increasing poverty, in Haiti and here in Brazil.

Haiti has a specific and little-known history, which stands out in the Americas. How do you relate the countrys past to the present?

Haiti was the first country to proclaim the abolition of slavery and the second to proclaim its independence in the Americas. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the French thinker Abb Grgoire (1750-1831, who argued in the Constituent Assembly for the abolition of privileges and slavery as well as universal male suffrage) stressed that Haiti was like a beacon that shone in the West Indies, bringing hope to the oppressed and arousing the hatred of the oppressors. The Haitian revolution highlighted the capacity for struggle of enslaved workers and their ability to transform society, destroying slavery and colonialism.

Haiti has always been the scene of violent disputes between the powers, and, after its independence, it became a wasteland due to the action of France and other European countries. Little by little, the US has established itself as the new leader. The victorious Haitian independent state at first defeated all the European powers and the United States politically and militarily. But these countries have gradually regained control of the economy and have exercised a kind of terrible revenge.

There is a strong break with the historical past and memory in international perception. Haiti is usually presented today as the poorest country in the Americas. And thats it. The concealment of the Haitian revolution is symptomatic and is one of the ingredients of oppression. Although a large part of the Haitian population, the oppressed majorities, know who Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the slave who proclaimed independence in 1804 and who also became the most popular figure in voodoo, was. The historical past is in permanent reconstruction and in tension with the present.

In the end, isnt the level of interventionism in the country, given its anti-imperialist pioneer past, a cruel and real representation of a certain racism and white supremacism, bequeathed by colonialism and slavery that are at the root of these discriminatory ideologies? Are we not talking about a country punished by bourgeoisies inherited from this historic stage who are simply unable to deal with the self-determination of non-white peoples?

Yes, it is a good way of understanding what is happening in Haitian society today, beyond the stereotypes of poverty and violence. The Haitian revolution initially brought a dose of political, economic, and social liberation. But even these partial achievements were to be destroyed by colonialism and imperialism. And, it is worth saying, with alliances between the new local elites which emerged from independence and colonialism. The Revolution itself, with its clearly liberating dimension, already bore the germ of its self-destruction, which would be realized in an alliance between national and international dominators; now most of the population is oppressed by the exploitation of its labour power and the concentration of land, even if they are no longer slaves.

Although Cuba and Haiti have presented themselves as two rebellious Caribbean islands, there are differences in this process. What happened in Haiti after independence was an anti-blockade. The new nation-state struggled to structure itself in a sovereign manner, despite the determination of some of its leaders and the population, because the isolation then imposed on Haiti led to a frantic race by the European powers and the United States to a predatory and unregulated trade. Without customs tariffs, charging abusive prices, in a looting imposed by force. That is why the current situation is inherited from post- and counter-revolutionary violence, based on racism, on white supremacy on the notion of considering as unacceptable the sovereign and popular autonomy of the black and mulatto population as protagonists of their own history.

Haiti and Cuba have been (and are) the protagonists of a striking example of resistance to capitalist models and white supremacy, despite the many specificities and dissimilarities of their respective historical trajectories. This explains the treatment they are currently receiving, including from the mainstream media.

In this sense, we have seen this type of tension manifest itself here in the recent case of the burning of the statue of the bandeirante (adventurers who from the 17th century penetrated Brazil in search of mineral wealth and reducing Amerindian populations to slavery) Borba Gato in So Paulo (in the early 18th century, he was appointed General Superintendent of Mines and set up two huge fazendas, named Borba and Gato

First, my total and unrestricted solidarity with comrade Paulo Galo, one of those who are still in prison [following this attack on the statue of Borba Gato], and to all those who participated in or supported in any way the attack on the monument. They are political prisoners in this frightening and sick Bolsonarist Brazil in which we live.

The mainstream media were not outraged when the statues of the Soviet leaders were destroyed with much more violence. On the contrary, such acts were considered a gesture of freedom and civilization... It is therefore not the defence of the integrity of works of art that is at stake here.

What saddens me most in this episode is that the statue of Borba Gato remains intact with its structures firm. Businessmen in So Paulo have already offered to finance its restoration, which will not be complicated. It is a crude metaphor for Brazils history. Colony, independence, empire, republics, and domination metamorphoses, but its general features remain. It has emerged almost unscathed from the offensives to which it was subjected. Therefore, the hypocritical bourgeoisie is affected by attacks on monuments but supports or is indifferent to the daily attacks of the state against the poor population in Brazil. It mourns the memory of those who enslaved Indians and blacks, but not that of the Amerindian peoples and Afro-descendants who are massacred in our daily lives. How many thousands of black people and natives have been beheaded by characters like Borba Gato!

It is necessary not only to destroy all the symbolism of these monuments, but also to move forward and create new reference symbols. This applies to the past, present and future of society. Let us get to know and not forget the Haitian revolution.

Read the original:

Haiti has always been the scene for violent conflicts between the powers - International Viewpoint

Text Size:A- A+

When your morning messages and updates have only one person in their sharing,then it can be safely assumed that person was central to many peoples lives and interests. It is rare to find such acceptance across the board. Gail Omvedt, an American-born Indian scholar, prolific writer, public intellectual, researcher, activist, and founder of socio-political movements, is one of those.

Gail Omvedt passed away on 25 August 2021 at 10 am at her village in Kasegaon, Sangli, Maharashtra at the ripe age of 80. Omvedt was born on 2 August 1941 in Minneapolis. She attended Carleton College and went to University of California, Berkeley for her doctorate. She was one of the first among American scholars who truly spent time with the oppressed people trying to unearth their archives for an international audience that was otherwise only fed a Brahminical, elitist point of view.

Omvedt first came to India in 1963 and then came back again to research on her PhD dissertation in 1970. Her dissertation Cultural Revolt in a Colonial Society: The Non-Brahman Movement in Western India, 1873-1930 was submitted in 1973,which was eventually published as a book with emphatic appreciation from social justice movements in India.

The era of 1960s and70s saw the emergence of peace movements in theWest. The new culture of finding soul and freeing it from the trap of consumerism and imperialism was trying to find solutions elsewhere, to find a true meaning of life. The East became a hub of a new generation of activists fighting against war, nuclear arms, ethnic and colour violence, with the touch of Communist struggle. The university and college campuses in America did not budge down and dared to face the might of the empire, its police and capital.

This approach of delving into other cultures and learning from them brought the famous hippy culture. When theWestern world was trying to learn various traditions from India and grasping the mostly Brahminical approach of the Indic past, there were honourable exceptions who chose to study the real, ideal, and peoples India as opposed to the privileged castes India.

Also read: Understanding the new Dalit identity: Radical, angry, urgent and international

Gail, as she was fondly called by her friends and colleagues in India and abroad, took up a teaching position in San Diego after submitting her PhD dissertation, but the distance between her home and her loving country, India,was becoming impractical. She finally chose to settle in India in 1978 and eventually married aShudra caste activist,Marxist, Phuleite Dr Bharat Patankar. Omvedt relinquished her American citizenship to become Indian in 1983.

Gail was a household name of the Dalit and worker rights activists of the70s,80s, and90s. I grew up listening to her and another American scholar Eleanor Zelliots names. One could notice a white woman speaking fluent Marathi and addressing rallies, seminars, conferences, while also vociferously publishing seminal texts and offering public commentaries in newspapers, magazines, while at the same time theorising movements for the academic world. A polyglot thinker,Gail offered the required assurance to the anti-caste, workers, environment, and womens rights movements.

Like most activists, my father knew her and marvelled at her work. They had mutual interest in BAMCEF (the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation), workers movements, and the power of literature and cultural movements. They would bump into each other at BAMCEF conventions.

Also read: Dalit history threatens the powerful. That is why they want to erase, destroy and jail it

The list of books authored by Gail is vast. She poignantly wrote about the social movements against caste, workers and peasant movements, and religion. She also authored books on the most important thinkers of the anti-caste world Phule and Ambedkar alongside a list of anthologies that combine archival research, ethnographic observations, journalistic reportage, biographical notes, and intellectual history.

For mainstream publishers in India, texts on Dalits were mostly guided and published by Gail.Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr. Ambedkar and the Dalit Movement in ColonialIndia andAmbedkar: Towards an Enlightened Indiaprofiled Ambedkar.Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Casteoffered an anti-caste substance to the Buddhist revival and contrasting flavours with Brahminism that opposed the open, liberal, and universal social view of Buddhism. Her contribution to Indias feminism and the womens movement is vital.We Shall Smash This Prison: Indian Women in Strugglewas a landmark in that she assessed the variants of feminist movements.

Gails most famous text in recent times wasSeeking Begumpura: The Social Vision of Anticaste Intellectualsthat literally subverted the elite paganism of the Indian crybabies over the European Renaissance. Putting aside these conventional tropes, Gail aptly put the modernist revival at the hands of Dalit and Shudra intellectuals Chokhamela, Janabia, Ravidas, Kabir, Tukaram,who existed prior to or during the famous European modernity. This text shook me from inside. A spark ran throughout the body as I started devouring it.

Also read: Why neo-liberal capitalism failed Dalit enterprise

Gails writings were lucid and accessible. She wrote on a topic in a crisp and concise way. Her books are indispensable for students and the public to know more about India and its past. Almost taking the responsibility of filling the gap, Gail produced a scholarship in English. Her vast list of Dalit and Shudra caste collaborators, comrades and network of movements and their leaders is proof that Gail was a trusted friend. Along with her husband,she co-founded Shramik Mukti Dal (Workers Liberation Party) and remained a regular invitee and advisor to various movements across the board.

Whenever the Dalit movement was faced with challenges posed by Brahminical actors or foreign individuals, Gail was prompt to respond to and offer the nuanced perspective of Dalit response. During the famous WorldConferenceAgainstRacismin Durban, South Africa, Gail was holding the fort strong to push back against the misguided apprehensions of the Indian government.

A recipient of several awards, fellowships, and professorships at national and international institutes, Gail Omvedt was the most influential American ambassador to India. She became an ideal for Western scholars on how to write, intellectualise, and reach scholarship into the masses. She could be seen on the streets leading a movement as easily as she would teach in classrooms or advise international bodies.

Omvedt represents a generation of scholarship and activism that combined diverse ideologies to fight out oppression. One could embrace Buddha, Phule, Ambedkar, Shahu, Marx and still not break each others head. Looking back,it seems like a delicious combination. Todays generation will have to work very hard to develop a similar blend.

Gail is survived by her husband Bharat Patankar, daughter Prachi, son-in-law Teju, and granddaughter. She is immortalised in our memories. The community will not forget the grateful contribution of an unrelated, distant foreigner becoming our Gail.

Suraj Yengde, author ofCaste Mattersand an associate at Harvard University, is currently in Tuscany, Italy. He tweets @surajyengde. Views are personal.

(Edited by Prashant Dixit)

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

Link:

Gail Omvedt took caste to global audience that was fed only a Brahminical point of view - ThePrint

Anti-capitalism, progressive alliances, trans rights and more: here's how the debate is shaping up.

The Green Party of England and Wales leadership election is now in full swing. And on Monday, members were given their first proper opportunity to question the candidates at the first leadership hustings.

All five tickets were represented with Tamsin Omond representing team Womack/Omond, Martin Hemingway representing team Hemingway/Rothery and Carla Denyer representing team Denyer/Ramsay. [Former deputy leader Shahrar Ali and 2019 election candidate Ashley Gunstock are standing individually.]

Over the course of two hours, we learnt a lot about the candidates and their campaigns. Here six of the big takeaways.

Progressive alliances used to be all the rage. Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley were big advocates for them when they stood successfully for the leadership in 2016. A number of Greens stood down for Labour or Lib Dem candidates in the 2017 general election. In 2019, the controversial Unite to Remain pact saw Greens enter an alliance with the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru.

But this years crop of leadership contenders are much less enthusiastic.

While less strident in his opposition, Shahrar Ali a well known critic of the strategy implied at the hustings he remained opposed.

Martin Hemingway said that he didnt see how a progressive alliance could realistically get rid of the Tories and deliver PR.

Carla Denyer said she agreed with the idea of a one off progressive alliance to deliver proportional representation in principle. But she also made clear that Labour have to come on board, that shes not holding out hope and that the Greens should make clear that Labour are the stumbling block.

Tamsin Omond was noncommittal, instead choosing to talk about the need to grow the partys membership and strength so as to strengthen its hand in the event of any negotiations with other parties. Nevertheless, Omond described progressive alliances as an interesting preposition. Hardly the ringing endorsement.

Ashley Gunstock was the only contender to explicitly commit to progressive alliances, arguing they were key to getting rid of the Tories. He made this case even in his opening remarks. Later, on the specific question, he said I dont think we can avoid getting into positive progressive alliance.

One of the questions posed to candidates was whether the Green Party is an anti-capitalist party. In what will be music to the ears of the partys left, all candidates more or less agreed.

Tamsin Omond quoted Audre Lordes masters tools proposition before going on to argue that a system built on capitalism and colonialism that has extraction at its heart cant deliver climate justice. They continued by repeating the old Green adage that we cant have infinite growth on a finite planet.

Carla Denyer said yes I think I do agree that the party is anti-capitalist. She went on to say that the party is in the business of moving beyond capitalism but this needs to be better messaged for the public.

Martin Hemingway pitched the Green Party as a party opposed to growth and therefore an anti-capitalist party. He said the party was pursuing different economic ends to those that capitalism pursues.

Shahrar Ali was in agreement and branded capitalism a faulty economic system.

Ashley Gunstock was also in broad agreement that the party is anti-capitalist.

The format of Green Party hustings dont lend themselves well to conflict between panelists. And hustings over Zoom are are never going to bring such conflicts to life in the way they would in person. Even without the format enabling candidates to respond to each others points or to come back in and debate an issue the body language and human connection from a face to face event allows this to bleed through much more readily.

So by all measures the first hustings was incredibly cordial. Despite some pretty significant disagreements (well come to that), for the most part the hustings remained cordial. Candidates calmly responded to the questions in turn.

In 2020s leadership election, some of the hustings became a lot more heated. Given the stakes, and the nature of disagreements in this years contest, this may well happen again as the campaign goes on.

It will be of little surprise to people following the contest even with the most passing of interest that the issue of transphobia was the primary point of disagreement among contenders. Bundled together in a question on how to tackle both antisemitism and transphobia within the party, the responses from candidates on both these issues were illuminating.

Ashley Gunstock had little to give in terms of practical steps of tackling these issues. He did, however, give a flavour saying that tackling them is all about education to stop people being afraid of things they dont understand.

He spoke at greater length about antisemitism, recanting stories of his work with school children organising pro-Palestine protests, and his telling them that they shouldnt conflate the Israeli government with Jewish people.

Carla gave additional context for her response. She argued that the issues with transphobia in the party were part of a bitter so-called culture war over trans rights.

Although saying that neither transphobia or antisemitism in the party would be fixed overnight, she said that we need take a clear and consistent line in support of trans rights, against antisemitism. She went on to say that she and Adrian Ramsay wanted to make the party more welcoming and inclusive and to work with liberation groups to facilitate workshops on oppression where people can ask questions and learn about that oppression.

She also argued that the disciplinary committee needs to be better resourced to tackle complaints around transphobia and antisemitism. Denyer also reiterated her support for the motion to Green Party Conference which is calling for guidance on antisemitism to be embedded into the partys constitution. That guidance would include a range of definitions of antisemitism including that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

Tamsin Omond came from a similar position on the issues as Denyer. They made the case that reaching out communities experiencing oppression, building trust with them and listening to their experience was crucial.

In addition, Omond said that they and Amelia were committing to build new accountability processes within the party to shut down hate speech. Omond also stated that if elected they would establish a panel made up of liberation groups that would be regularly consulted on issues effecting them.

Martin Hemingway took a notably different approach. He started by saying that he did not believe antisemitism or transphobia were major issues within the party. He clarified this by arguing that disagreement on antisemitism was mostly about whether the party should adopt the IHRA definition. Hemingway went onto say that he supports the Jerusalem Declaration as an alternative to the IHRA definition.

On transphobia, he acknowledged that there was a deep divide within the party, claiming that it was a case of two sides shouting at each other. He said that Tina Rothery and himself would not take one side or the other. His proposed solution on the issue was to create an assembly of members that could come to a balanced position on trans rights.

Shahrar Alis response will be unsurprising to many. His decision to make supporting those who disagree with the partys policies on LGBTIQA+ rights a central plank of his campaign mean his views on this are well known.

At the hustings, he did not give an answer on what he would like to see done to tackle transphobia and antisemitism in the party. However, he did say that he believed womens free speech as being oppressed in discussions around trans rights. He also described a vocal minority of supporters of trans rights as extremely nasty.

On antisemitism, he argued that allegations of antisemitism were in some instances being used to stop people from criticising the state of Israel.

Given the clearly polarised views on these issues it is more than likely well see similar exchanges in future hustings.

Many of the candidates responses to members questions were strong. Often they were thought through, evidenced and passionate.

However, there were moments where it became apparent that candidates werent hugely on top of the detail, and hadnt been well briefed by their teams. To some extent this is understandable. In a hustings, all manner of questions on all manner of questions can get thrown at you.

Nevertheless, at some points candidates lack of knowledge was apparent. This was most clear on a question on the governments Health and Care Bill. Most candidates branded it inadequate before pivoting to talk about their general position on the NHS.

In the context of a leadership hustings, it doesnt matter all that much. Theres no follow up question from a prying interviewer. But if elected, much mustard will remain uncut if they arent able to answer confidently on a wide range of issues.

Members were blessed in the hustings as former leader [and LFF Contributing Editor] Natalie Bennett was in the chair. From admissions of having too many tabs open to keep an eye all the functions of Zoom, to her attempt to explain how random.org works to determine candidates speaking order, Bennett brought a warm, entertaining approach to the whole affair. Candidates seemed at ease. Im sure the audience was for the most part too. If there was a winner from tonight, it was Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle.

Chris Jarvis is editor of Bright Green, and Head of Strategy and Development at Left Foot Forward. This piece was first published by Bright Green.

Image credit: Bristol Green Party Creative Commons

As youre here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But theres a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the rights hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

Were not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isnt free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as 1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, were so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

Read this article:

6 things we learnt from the first Green Party leadership hustings - Left Foot Forward

A U.S. soldier watches civilians at a processing center for Afghan refugees at Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly, Virginia on Aug. 24, 2021.Photo: Joshua Roberts (Getty Images)

Airbnb said on Tuesday it will provide free temporary accommodations to 20,000 Afghan refugees fleeing the Talibans virtually complete takeover of Afghanistan in the wake of U.S. military withdrawal, with the program beginning immediately.

CEO Brian Chesky tweeted early Tuesday that the company will begin housing 20,000 Afghan refugees globally for free, adding that while the company will be paying for the stays, we could not do this without the generosity of our Hosts. Chesky added: The displacement and resettlement of Afghan refugees in the US and elsewhere is one of the biggest humanitarian crises of our time. We feel a responsibility to step up.

In a statement, Airbnb said that that it and Chesky would be covering costs through the non-profit 501(c)(3) Airbnb.org, which has previously provided housing for disaster victims and health workers during the novel coronavirus pandemic. The organization will also be soliciting donations for its Refugee Fund. It is working with resettlement agencies and other partners to identify those in need of housing. The company added that it urges fellow members of the global business community to join efforts to provide immediate support to Afghan refugees.

Reached by email, Airbnb did not say how long it would be providing the housing or covering bills. However, the company wrote in the statement it has already provided 165 refugees from Afghanistan safe housing shortly after touching down in the U.S. over the last weekend.

The Taliban, an ultra-reactionary Islamic militant group originally backed by the CIA and Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence agency to fight the Soviets during the Cold War, controlled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, when they were deposed by the U.S. in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks for providing safe haven to the Al-Qaeda terror network. But it was never even close to being destroyed and continued to fight both the U.S.-led coalition occupying the country and security forces commanded by the U.S.-backed Afghan government. President Joe Bidens administration, having promised to bring an end to the seemingly never-ending U.S. occupation of the country, has so far chosen to abide by a deal struck with the Taliban under Donald Trumps administration to pull out all U.S. troops (though it extended the timeline to the end of August 2021). Despite assurances to the contrary from Bidens administration, the Afghan government put up little resistance and effectively ceased to exist beyond isolated groups of holdouts as Taliban forces consolidated control in mere weeks.

G/O Media may get a commission

The 20 disastrous years of U.S. occupation stretched across four presidential administrations, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and untold economic and social damage. And according to United Nations estimates, ended with just short of 2.5 million registered Afghan refugees. The only part of Afghanistan where U.S. military forces remain stationed is the airport in Kabul, where tens of thousands of refugees desperate to avoid retribution and/or oppression by the resurgent Taliban have fled in recent weeks in a last-ditch effort to board the last planes leaving the country.

The Taliban have since announced that while they will let foreign nationals leave, they will not allow Afghan citizens to reach the airport, and they oppose any continued evacuations beyond Aug. 31. Witnesses have described the militant groups crackdown on dissent and reprisals against those suspected of assisting U.S. or NATO forces during the occupation. On Tuesday, according to CNBC, the Biden administration said it had evacuated or helped evacuate some 58,700 people from Afghanistan since Aug. 14, including about 21,600 airlifted since Monday. According to the Washington Post, Biden told G-7 leaders on Tuesday that he believes the evacuation will be completed by the Aug. 31 deadline. While he is not expected to announce an extension, the White House left open the possibility that the final withdrawal date could change if necessary.

Many of the refugees are currently in squalid conditions, such as in hangars at Doha, Qatars Al Udeid Air Base, where thousands are reportedly being held in searing August temperatures without air conditioning and a dire lack of resources. Axios obtained an email, sent last Friday by U.S. Central Command supervisory special agent Colin Sullivan, detailing conditions at the base including uncleaned human waste and a rat infestation. Sullivan wrote, While not in any way downplaying the conditions in Kabul nor the conditions the Afghanis [sic] are escaping from, the current conditions in Doha are of our own doing.

Airbnb said in the statement that Airbnb.org has provided accommodation to roughly 75,000 people in need since 2012. Chesky tweeted, I hope this inspires other business leaders to do the same. Theres no time to waste.

The company, which operated in Afghanistan during the U.S. occupation and still has a small number of listing there as of Tuesday afternoon, isnt the only one offering to help during the crisis (and implicitly pick up some PR goodwill in the process). According to Reuters, Verizon Inc. has announced plans to waive charges for calls to Afghanistan through Sept. 6, while Walmart is donating $1 million to nonprofits to support Afghan refugees. The Pentagon said this weekend that it has enlisted 18 aircraft from United Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and others to take displaced persons to their next destinations after disembarking from flights leaving Afghanistan, Reuters added.

Read the original:

Airbnb Says It Will Host 20,000 Afghan Refugees Following Taliban Takeover of Afghanistan - Gizmodo