Daily Archives: January 24, 2022

In 1938, a brilliant young Black scholar at Oxford University wrote a thesis on the economic history of British empire and challenged a claim about slavery that had been defining Britains role in the world for more than a century.

But when Eric Williams who would later become the first prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago sought to publish his mind-blowing thesis on capitalism and slavery in Britain, he was shunned by publishers and accused of undermining the humanitarian motivation for Britains Slavery Abolition Act.

Now, 84 years after his work was rejected in the UK, and 78 years after it was first published in America, where it became a highly influential anti-colonial text, Williamss book, Capitalism and Slavery, will finally be published in Britain by a mainstream British publisher.

Fans of the book include the rapper and author Akala, the novelist Monique Roffey, the poet Michael Rosen and Sathnam Sanghera, author of Empireland. He welcomed the news that 40 years after Williamss death, British people are finally waking up to the significance of his work: I think its amazing he hasnt been published until now, because you cant really make sense of Britains involvement in transatlantic slavery without reading his book, Sanghera said. You cannot begin to talk about slavery without talking about it. Its so important.

Slavery, Williams argues, was abolished in much of the British empire in 1833 because doing so at that time was in Britains economic self-interest not because the British suddenly discovered a conscience.

The capitalists had first encouraged West Indian slavery and then helped to destroy it, he writes. In the early 19th century, slave-owning sugar planters in the Caribbean British colonies enjoyed a monopoly on the supply of sugar to Britain, because of an imperial tax policy of protectionism. Williams argues: When British capitalism depended on [sugar and cotton plantations in] the West Indies, they [the capitalists] ignored slavery or defended it. When British capitalism found the West Indian monopoly [on sugar] a nuisance, they destroyed West Indian slavery as the first step in the destruction of West Indian monopoly.

In great detail, he lays out the scale of the wealth and industry that was created in Britain, not just from the slave plantations and in the sugar refineries and cotton mills, but by building and insuring slave ships, manufacturing goods transported to the colonies including guns, manacles, chains and padlocks and then banking and reinvesting the profits.

It was all this wealth created by slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries that powered the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, Williams argued. And it was this economic change that meant the preferential sugar duties which artificially pushed up the price of sugar in the UK, a deliberate policy that had once so suited the many wealthy British families involved in the slave trade came to be seen by 19th-century industrialists as an unpopular barrier to free trade, low factory wages and global domination.

The book, to be published by Penguin Modern Classics on 24 February, also traces the emergence of the slave trade in the 16th century when the demand for labour exceeded the number of white convicts and poor, white, indentured servants willing to work the land cheaply. A racial twist has been given to what is basically an economic phenomenon. Slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery, he writes.

Williams submitted his manuscript to the most revolutionary publisher he could find in 1930s Britain, Fredric Warburg, who had published Hitlers Mein Kampf in 1925 and would later go on to publish George Orwells Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It was rejected out of hand. Any suggestion that the slave trade and slavery were abolished for economic and not humanitarian reasons ran contrary to the British tradition, Warburg told him, adding: I would never publish such a book.

Even in modern Britain, Sanghera said, this attitude persists: Williams said: The British historians wrote almost as if Britain had introduced Negro slavery solely for the satisfaction of abolishing it. And that is the truest thing ever said about Britains attitude to slavery. We almost act as if we werent involved in it. We focus on the fact that we abolished it, we dont like to talk about what Williams talks about in the book: that we made a load of money out of it, that it was more than anything else an economic exercise. It made so many people in Britain so rich, and that wealth still exists today. Sanghera adds: Its a totally essential book. I was 42 when I first read it and it blew my mind.

One reason the book still has the power to shock is because, to this day, British historians still do not take the arguments in Williamss book seriously, according to Kehinde Andrews, professor of Black studies at Birmingham City University and author of The New Age of Empire. The orthodoxy of the history of the Industrial Revolution is that slavery wasnt important. If you go to most universities, most academics will say that and theyll dismiss the book because they just cannot accept that the Industrial Revolution could not have happened without slavery. Its that simple. You cannot have one without the other, which this book made the case for in 1938. And its still being ignored.

Capitalism and Slavery continued to be spurned by British publishers until 1966, when a small university press gave it a very limited print run here.

However, the text which is still in print in America and has been translated into nine different languages and published all over the world has been inaccessible and out of print in this country for years. Its good that the books being published by a major publisher, but its kind of an indictment that its taken more than 80 years, said Andrews. I hope people read it and its nice its available. But I think it will probably just get ignored in Britain, the way it has been, largely, in the past.

Continued here:

Eighty years late: groundbreaking work on slave economy is finally published in UK - The Guardian

Condemning the State Governments decision to outsource sanitary works in the local bodies, the sanitary workers struck work and staged a demonstration here on Monday.

The protesting sanitary workers said the Government Orders that paved way for outsourcing of sanitary operations in the local bodies should be annulled to ensure better quality of work in keeping the residential areas and the public places clean and tidy. The sanitary workers of all urban civic bodies should be given the minimum wages of 700 a day. Besides regularising the services of the sanitary workers serving on daily wages basis, the Tamil Nadu Government should appoint sufficient number of workers in the civic bodies for sanitary operations.

The Employees Provident Fund Organisation contribution being deducted from the wages of the sanitary workers should be properly paid in their accounts. Sanitary workers, who should not be compelled to segregate the degradable and non-degradable waste, should be provided with free uniform and all safety gadgets. Sanitary workers affected by COVID-19 should be given full wages and the incentive of 15,000, announced by the Tamil Nadu Government should be given to the sanitary workers also.

District president of CITUs Tirunelveli District Rural Development Employees Union Mohan led the agitation.

Go here to read the rest:

Sanitary workers demand abolition of outsourcing - The Hindu

Activists are too often romanticized as infallible beings who are naturally courageous as they take on grandiose missions. However, just like others maybe even more than others they are vulnerable and need to practice mindfulness, introspection, healing, forgiveness, and joy. They are human. They aim to build a better world while simultaneously becoming better people.

Advocating for a new world is draining work, yet can also be liberatory if the right tools are used. Fortunately, activist and co-founder of Black Lives Matter Patrisse Cullors has crafted the framework for activists to create an abolitionist future in her book An Abolitionists Handbook: 12 Steps to Changing Yourself and the World.

Cullors is known for co-founding the #BlackLiveMatter movement in 2013 along with activists Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi, as well as for working to abolish prisons, promote LGBTQIA rights, and perform movement work through the lens of critical race theory.

Shes the author of When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir, which chronicles her experiences within the now global movement as well as the continual struggles the Black community and other marginalized groups endure daily. While Cullors continues to offer so much for the world, particularly her Los Angeles community, she publicly declared on Instagram that 2022 is her year of healing.

Modeling her own mission, the handbook invites people to have courageous conversations while being sure to take care of themselves in order to fight for themselves and others. It challenges people to do more than read, but also dream, imagine, learn, and participate. BGN was able to catch up with Cullors via Zoom to discuss her book, the future of abolition work, and healing.

Abolition has always been a huge part of my value system. Its been the place I go back to when Im dealing with racism, when Im trying to envision the world I want to live in, my own world, but also a bigger broader world, Cullors said. I spend a lot of time thinking about how abolition as a practice is so critical for my health and for my familys health, whether its leaning into the perspective of my book or using my imagination and really thinking about what else is possible beyond what currently exists, I think a lot about how Black folks and Black Americans in particular our imaginations have been stolen from us.

Her handbook takes readers through the history of abolitionism and argues that the word abolition extends far beyond chattel slavery and is centered around envisioning freedom. People wish to be liberated from capitalism, militarism, sexism, racism, and many other unjust systems that society must imagine the world without.

Cullors explained, There isnt one Black person I know who doesnt dream about sci-fi/fantasy, there isnt one who doesnt dream something different about our world. 2021 impacted her in extremely draining ways, so 2022 is about combatting forces that try to diminish her as she makes the choice to keep envisioning the world she hopes to build.

However, imagination is only part of the many lessons that Cullors provides throughout the handbook. Taking action is an essential part of abolition, and doing the work is key.

She told BGN, I believe that abolition isnt meant to be like some academic test, but its something that we practice on a daily basis. Abolition, in so many ways, is very niche in our modern society. We need thoughts, we need questions to help guide us.

The self-work that the handbook asks for might be daunting for many readers, as Cullors guidance asks for a level of vulnerability, honesty, and accountability. In order to imagine and create a world in which people are treated with dignity, it asserts that we must first treat ourselves with dignity. For her, the road to healing has been a winding road. People often see her as an icon rather than a person who has experienced her own set of hurdles, including at one point preparing for her own death after an inundation of racist threats, criticism from those within the movement, and, in turn, her development of PTSD.

Abolition is asking us to remind ourselves of our humanity and what it means to live a life of dignity she said. In the handbook, Cullors urges people to allow themselves to feel what they need to and process the weight of oppression. This is part of breaking down normative structures that condition people to numb themselves merely to survive, rather than experiencing joy. One of the biggest takeaways is that abolition is more than survival or making failing systems better; its about new systems and mindsets to replace the old ones.

We have the right to rest as part of our generational healing. As people who are constantly fighting and challenging government institutions, part of the work is also the care we give to ourselves. I think about myself, my community, and family we deserve to take care of ourselves, Cullors said.

So much of the journey throughout the handbook is for Black, Brown, queer, trans, disabled, and poor folk who are taught to view their bodies, their love, and their dreams as wrong to understand that their trauma is valid and is the insidious work of a white cis capitalistic society that was never made for them. Cullors makes it clear that theres no reform for systems designed to keep white supremacy as the epitome of power.

She said, Its really easy to suggest what you think everyone else should be doing, but its hard to see ones self. Its hard to see your role in it. The reason I called it [the handbook] Changing Yourself and the World is because its about changing our world and the world outside of us.

In 2022, Cullors will be celebrating the launch of An Abolitionists Handbook with iconic scholar and activist Angela Davis for a virtual discussion at the LA County Library on January 27. Shell also be working with the Crenshaw Dairy Market on Abolitionist Self-Sustaining Pod and Autonomous Gardens, which will be used for gardening across Los Angeles.

An Abolitionists Handbook is available for pre-order at Barnes & Noble, including signed copies. The official release date is January 25, 2022.

Follow this link:

Patrisse Cullors Is Healing; 'An Abolitionist's Handbook' Invites Others to Join Her - Black Girl Nerds

It is time for America to recognize that abortion, just like slavery, is one of the greatest human evils that humans have ever experienced in world history, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said to a crowd of pro-life students and advocates Saturday.

Its time for the pro-life community to be on offense every single day for the unborn and moms and dads and families in America, Roberts said.

The president of The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, spoke to pro-life activists on the main stage of the Students for Life National Pro-Life Summit in Washington, following remarks by former Vice President Mike Pence.(The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.)

Roberts challenged the crowd to not grow weary in the fight to protect all life and see Roe v. Wade overturned, but to draw courage from those in history who have fought for individuals who did not have a voice.

There is a parallel between the fight to end abortion today and the long struggle to abolish slavery in Europe and America, the think tank president said.

William Wilberforce, despite opposition, dedicated his life to ending the slave trade in Britain.

Wilberforce spent 18 years serving in the British Parliament, beginning in 1780. His tireless work to end slavery ultimately resulted the House of Commons passage of the Slavery Abolition Act July 26, 1833. Wilberforce died three days later.

Even though the British political leader and abolitionist was ridiculed for his views, he was not dissuaded from the cause of abolishing slavery, Roberts said.

You see, the radical American left wants you to doubt your commitment to this cause [of life], Roberts warned, but we know that because truth is on our side, because the clarity of the Lords vision for the culture of life in the United States is the wind in our sails, that we will prevail, just as Wilberforce would remind us if he were here today.

In America, the abolitionist Frederick Douglass also serves as a reminder to remain courageous in the face of opposition, Roberts said. Douglass faced ridicule for his work to abolish slavery in the 1800s yet persisted.

In moments of despair, harness the optimism of leaders like Wilberforce and Douglass, Roberts challenged.

The left believes that they can discourage us from taking action, he said, adding that the pro-life movement will not be discouraged because you know the truth.

Roberts remarks come one day after thousands gathered on the National Mall to stand against abortion and participate in the 49th annual March for Life.

People came from across the nation to attend the march, which pro-lifers hope to be the last March for Life before Roe v. Wade is overturned. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in December in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, which could reverse the high courts 1973 abortion ruling on Roe.

While the battle for life will be won in the courtroom, the halls of Congress, and in state capitals, Roberts said, it begins when we speak to one member of our family, one friend, one stranger who is pro-abortion, and share why all life is worthy of protection.

And the reason we fight is, of course, for young women and for mothers and fathers, he said, but also for the future of this great nation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email[emailprotected]and well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

See the article here:

Time to Go on 'Offense' for the Unborn, Heritage's Kevin Roberts Says - Daily Signal

When Andrew Hunter thinks about the main subject of his book, he recalls having her in mind since the early 1990s.

Through her story, he says, she has the ability to connect to people in Black communities grappling with the legacy of slavery. Of the stories in books and articles aboutpeople enslaved, her narrative offered a unique perspective.

"I was thinking about Sophia for a long time," he said.

Hunter isreferring to Sophia Burthen Pooley, a enslaved womanonce owned by Indigenous leader Joseph Brant, then sold to Samuel Hatt in Ancaster during the 1800s.Hunter's new book, It Was Dark There All The Time, revisits her account as an enslaved person in Canada.

It Was Dark There All The Time is based on an interview done by Benjamin Drew, a man from Boston who came to Canada in 1855 to interview "people who had experienced slavery."Drew interviewed Burthen Pooley in the Queen's Bush, a place that Hunter described as an all-Black settlement around the Guelph-Kitchener area.

The original interview, totallingfive pages, unraveled the exposition of her time in slavery.

"What's unique about her story is she wasn't a fugitive, she wasn't a refugee," said Hunter, who lives in Hamilton. "She had actually been brought into Canada enslaved, and sold enslaved in Canada."

"Her interview is the only known first-person account from somebody who was enslaved in Canada."

Hunter said he's always "been interested in the stories that don't get told, who gets left out of the dominant Canadian narrative."

He had similar reasoning last year whenhe put up signs about Burthen Pooley around Dundas. The city took them down, saying they violated the sign bylaw.

Many don't know about the ghastly chronicles ofslavery in Canada, Hunter said. But it's not possible to discuss Hamilton and its local history, he said, without gazing upon the larger history of British colonialism.

The establishment of both Britain and Hamilton, Hunter said, relied heavily on slavery.

"The early development of Hamilton in the 19th century is totally tied into the wider development of the British Empire which is founded on child slavery," he said. "That is the economic foundation."

When Hunterbegan developing the book, he spoke to a mentor and friend, Charmaine Nelson, who leads the Institute for the Study of Canadian Slavery at NSCADUniversityin Halifax. As a white man, he said, he suspected that people may be critical of his work. But a piece of advice from Nelson swayed him.

"She said, 'You have to remember that slavery is all of our history,'" he said.

"The key is to approach the book not as me as an outsider trying to write Black history, but to write the story absolutely owning where I write from."

The interview Burthen Pooleygave, Hunter said, isa "gift" that essentially stands "as a calling forward."

"So much isn't resolved. Abolition isn't over," he said. "There's work to be done as allies, but it's hard work."

Talibah Howard is the youth and program manager for the Afro Canadian Caribbean Association of Hamilton.On Saturday, she joined Hunter for a conversation during thebook'slaunch event.

Thatlaunch, held virtually, includedexcerpt readings. Howardsaid that thebook "poses certain questions of its readers, regardless of race."

"It's a great way to have us thinking aboutCanada's relationship with race," she told CBC Hamilton.

Howard saidIt Was Dark There All The Time is a book that should be of interest to everyone. "It's a really good book for people to get into because it tells of history, it tells of a woman's story who wasn't able to tell her own."

"It's a great way to start having important conversations with the people around us."

Read the original here:

Hamilton author's new book tells the story of a woman enslaved in Canada - CBC.ca

FORMER Edinburgh University rector Iain Macwhirter rightly criticises those who, with a minimum of knowledge, seek to denigrate academics and scholars who dont agree with them on such matters as the reputation of David Hume, or the imagined crimes of Henry Dundas ("Universities are debased by groundless claims of racism", The Herald, January 19).

These attacks come from the chairman of a body known as The Edinburgh Slavery and Colonialism Legacy Review Group, the generally respected professor Sir Geoff Palmer. This clearly calls into question the purpose and legitimacy of an ad hoc body whose participants, other than Sir Geoff, are operating under the cloak of anonymity.

I was recently invited to send in a response to a long, rambling box-ticking public consultation survey from this secretive commissariat. It had all the hallmarks of one of those questionnaires which seek to pre-determine the desired response. Whatever authority this body has been granted by Edinburgh City Council or Edinburgh University, it should certainly not be entrusted with the power of life or death over the citys monuments and memorials.

This is not to say the suitability of such things should not be reviewed from time to time. About 300 yards north of Dundass column, there is a bronze plaque to Marie Stopes, a proponent of eugenics who favoured contraception as a means of controlling the birth rate of the lower orders, and sent love poems to a man she particularly admired, Adolf Hitler. I imagine few, if any, would object if this was removed and scrapped, but presumably, since her defects do not fall under the heading of Slavery or Colonialism, it will be staying in place.

Questions inevitably arise as to whether, say, the removal of the statue of Dundas, a listed artefact, on the recommendation of this anonymous body would be lawful. Last year the suggestion that a plaque be fixed to his column to place his effigy in historic context seemed like a reasonable compromise; however those entrusted with the wording decided to distort history by omitting all reference to the fact that it was Dundas, as a young Lord Advocate, who successfully and passionately defended the former slave, Joseph Knight, and then went on to steer William Wilberforces abolition bill through the House of Commons.

Bearing in mind that Martin Luther King, in The Purpose of Education, wrote that we should resist allowing our minds "to become invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda" it can reasonably be concluded that the plaque is a travesty.

It seems obvious that such manipulation of history, together with the recent savage attacks on members of our academic community, require the attentions of a Scottish Government inquiry led by qualified lawyers and historians who actually know what they are talking about.

David J Black, Edinburgh.

IN DEFENCE OF DUNDAS

I WRITE in support of the excellent articles by Iain Macwhirter (noted above) and Stuart Waiton ("Statues row reveals our childlike politics", The Herald, January 19), both exposing the disturbing side to the current campaigns by the city of Edinburgh and the University of Edinburgh to publicly demonstrate the correctness of their racial credentials. The councils Slavery and Colonialism Review Group is casting its net far and wide in an endeavour to identify anything and anybody associated with Edinburgh who can be linked in some way with slavery or to the British Empire. Even David Livingstone and the Royal Botanic Garden have been included as possible culprits by the Review. Furthermore, the treatment of David Hume on the part of the university has been shameful as have been the actions of those who attack critics like Professor Sir Tom Devine by labelling them as "racist". I just wish the Review zealots would make sure that they get their historical facts right before they rush to criticism.

There can be no doubt that Henry Dundas was a scoundrel. He was heavy drinker, a womaniser and a man who shamelessly used his considerable powers of patronage to help his friends, particularly fellow Scots. However, to continue to place all of the blame on Dundas for the delay in the abolition of the slave trade is I think unfair and ignores the reality of the tumultuous years of the early 1790s. Those attacking Henry Dundas have to address the question as to how a slave-supporting Parliament at that time was ever going to vote for abolition. Britain was then at war with Revolutionary France and was faced with the real prospect of invasion. Furthermore, the British establishment was terrified that the success of the French Revolution might inspire similar uprisings in the UK. The country was in turmoil and it fell to Dundas to try to restore order at home and to meet the French threat.

Realistically in the 1790s there was very little chance for legislation to abolish slavery to succeed in Parliament. A previous attempt to pass a motion for abolition had been very heavily defeated. Dundas knew perfectly well that Parliament was packed with members who had strong vested interests in the slave trade. It would take years for the force of the moral argument against the vile trade to have any chance of success. During the debate in 1792 he proposed a gradual path to abolition stating that "my opinion has been always against the slave trade". Indeed it was Dundas who had taken on the case of the West Indian slave Joseph Knight in 1777 which successfully established that there was no slavery in Scotland. Dundas concluded his remarks in the Court of Session by stating: "Human nature, my Lords, spurns at the thought of slavery among any part of our species. So it is quite wrong to state that Dundas was fighting a rearguard action against abolition and that he alone was responsible for condemning some 42,000 Africans to the horrors of slavery.

Eric Melvin, Edinburgh.

* IAIN Macwhirter and Stuart Waiton are correct about the increasing adolescent attitudes in our universities, local authorities and society generally, particularly when luminaries such as Sir Tom Devine and Professor Johnathan Hearn are insulted as racists. It is akin to traducing JK Rowling for her common-sense response to the fatuous moves by officialdom to abandon a word used since time immemorial to describe a female person.

Mr Macwhirter might also have mentioned that Viscount Dundas, by postponing the slave trades abolition by 15 years until 1807, possibly ensured that the trade did not continue thereafter, for 15 years or much longer. The new explanatory plaque installed on the Dundas monument should include this point too. It is sad that an otherwise-eminent professor like Sir Geoff Palmer should tarnish his reputation by such insults and thus undermine the objectivity of his review into Edinburghs involvement in slavery.

Last March he ascribed a racist element to the medics reaction when his wife gave birth to their first-born in 1977. As he was not present, and the staff did not know he was Jamaican, they were understandably concerned that the babys colouring might indicate something medically wrong (just as my mothers midwives in 1942 recognised something was wrong with me as a blue baby and called in a renowned Edinburgh paediatrician for advice and treatment).

He then linked this out of context with David Humes brief nuanced footnote about non-whites inferiority, said this is the statement that killed George Floyd (though whites die in similar circumstances) and led to the incident that Meghan and Harry talk about (about which he and we know almost nothing).

John Birkett, St Andrews.

SHAMEFUL TREATMENT OF FEMALE OAPs

MANY women's entitlement to a state pension has been systematically exploited by Westminster governments over the years. First we have the scandal of the Waspi (Women Against State Pension Inequality) group, women born in the early 1950s who were not afforded the Governments own rules of notice of an increase to their state pension age. Now we hear that women awarded a small state pension on their own right were ultimately eligible to claim 60 per cent of the basic state pension, based on their husband's contributions, something the women affected were not made aware of. This anomaly was highlighted as far back as during the Coalition Government's time in office (2010-2015) by the then Work and Pensions Secretary Steve Webb, yet only now do we hear any call for justice.

This is a scandal of monumental proportions because it affects well in excess of 100,000 women, many of whom have existed in poverty, with deteriorating health, unable to correctly look after themselves due to a lack of income. Many hundreds of hours of debate on the plight of the Waspi women have been heard in the House of Commons; there has been cross-party agreement for justice, yet the Westminster Government's exploitation of women and state pensions continues. Becoming a pensioner should be a good experience, an experience of "well done" after an average of 50 years of work, so it is quite galling to learn that the Government has been exploiting your entitlement to a state pension.

Catriona C Clark, Falkirk.

See the original post here:

Letters: We need an inquiry into slavery review controversy - HeraldScotland

Burgess is a distinguished professor of political science at Ohio University, a senior professional lecturer at DePaul University and a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project.

For the first time, the United States has been added to the list of backsliding democracies. And majority of young people no longer believe that they will do better than their parents, a key indicator of faith in the American dream.

Few may doubt that the United States is in one of the darkest, most challenging times in its political history, one rife with cynicism and pessimism. Fourteen months after the election, many in the Republican Party still do not accept that Joe Biden won the presidential election of 2020.

But history shows that politics change, sometimes beyond expectations. Fewer than 10 years ago, few may have thought that American democracy would be as imperiled as it is now. Likewise, positive political shifts that were once hard to imagine have become widely accepted, including the abolition of slavery, universal adult suffrage, minimum wage and maximum hours laws, easy access to birth control, and marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

Time and again, politics has changed in unlikely directions, sometimes resulting in heartening new political horizons.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In American politics, long periods of political order and stability are regularly followed by shorter bursts of significant political change. There have been six great political realignments in the history of American politics, and they have typically occurred during major crises such as the Great Depression or the Civil War.

Recognized realignments include the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800, which reversed a trend of growing national power and higher taxes that had dominated politics since the founding of the nation. Andrew Jacksons election in 1828 led to universal suffrage for white males, increasing the electorate substantially.

Abraham Lincolns victory in 1860 led to the abolition of slavery, and national power again became dominant when the Union prevailed over the Confederacy in the Civil War. Following William McKinleys win in 1896, progressive reforms such as the federal income tax and antitrust laws were instituted to address a growing wealth gap.

Franklin Delano Roosevelts election in 1932 led the national government to regulate the economy, creating a vast web of New Deal programs that established for the first time a social safety net for people devastated by the Great Depression. The funding for many of those programs was slashed and national power was devolved back to state and local governments after Ronald Reagans landslide victory in 1980.

Adjustments in political times recur every 40 years or so in U.S. politics, and it is long overdue. The periods prior to realignment are typically quite politically unstable and politically divisive. For example, mob violence between pro and anti-slavery forces broke out prior to Lincolns election in a series of incidents known as Bleeding Kansas, which has been called a small civil war.

Food riots and labor strife were rising prior to McKinleys election, due to the economic panic of 1893. Hunger marches and makeshift housing called Hoovervilles emerged across the nation, named as a jab at then President Herbert Hoovers inability to address the economic fallout of the Great Depression prior to Franklin Roosevelts election.

Radical politics often become more visible in the mainstream. For instance, in normal times, it would be unusual in mainstream American politics for a Democratic Socialist to gain as much traction as Sen. Bernie Sanders did during the 2016 presidential election, gaining over 13 million votes in the Democratic primaries.

Similarly, communist organizing was as strong as it has ever been in the United States during the 1930s and other revolutionary groups gained great visibility in the 1970s.

It is quite possible that the United States is in the midst of a major political realignment. It is true that a majority of Republicans continue to remain loyal to former President Donald Trump, believing that he won the election of 2020. Rep. Liz Cheney and her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney stood alone on the Republican side of the House chamber during recent events commemorating last years attack on the Capitol.

And yet, the evidence suggests that Biden defeated Trump soundly. The one-term Trump presidency yielded few major legislative victories apart from cutting taxes and judicial appointments.

Scholars have called this kind of political failure a disjunctive presidency, to indicate that the coalition supporting a long dominant party is fragmenting, a phenomenon that typically occurs right before a major political realignment.

Elected in 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter was a failed, one-term president who could not hold together the fragmenting New Deal governing coalition, right before the Reagan landslide in 1980 ushered in years of Republican dominance based on small government, lower taxes and devolution of power from the national government to the states.

Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats came to dominate politics after winning over 60 percent of the popular vote in 1936, and for many years thereafter.

Despite these recurring patterns across U.S. history, many people may find it impossible to imagine a different political order other than the one they are in at the moment.

Political history provides reasons for citizens to hold on through challenging political times. To be sure, it is hard to live through political instability, not knowing what will come next. But the certainty offered by cynicism and pessimism, however comforting in the short term, leads to political dead ends in the long run.

Historical patterns suggest that it is far better to have faith that this political darkness will end. But faith without works is not enough. Freedom from slavery, the minimum wage, and votes for women, were only won after years of organizing, resistance and activism.

Cynicism and pessimism make such work impossible. Though it may be painful, democracy requires nothing less.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

See more here:

OPINION: History shows the dark night of politics will end - The Fulcrum

After Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer fell two votes short of altering the filibuster rule and easing passage of voting rights legislation, progressive opponents of the filibuster were quick to find the bright side.

Despite this setback, it has never been clearer that the filibuster is a dead rule walking, read a statement from the Fix Our Senate coalition. Forty-eight Senate Democrats support reform. President Biden, a long-time supporter of the filibuster, now supports reform. Every Democrat running for Senate, from moderates to progressives, supports reform. As the late [Senate Majority] Leader [Harry] Reid said, its not a matter of if the filibuster will be eliminated, but when and who is in charge when that happens. Former Reid aide and author of the anti-filibuster book Kill Switch Adam Jentleson shared on Twitter that the trajectory is clear. Dems have crossed the rubicon & grasp the need for reform in a way they didn't before. Jonathan Chait of New York magazine wrote, [N]early the entire Democratic Party has figured out that, in the long run, the filibuster hurts them more than it hurts Republicans. The next time Democrats gain control, they will do away with whatever remains of it.

The eventual end of the legislative filibuster is absolutely a plausible scenario. But filibuster opponents should be careful not to assume it is an inevitable scenario.

Filibuster abolition does appear to have become the position of most Democrats: A recent CBS News poll found 58% of Democrats want to end the filibuster, versus only 14% who want it kept. But even in this era of polarized politics, a Senate majority typically includes at least a few members who have an interest in keeping some distance from the national party and displaying a degree of independence.

We saw such a political dynamic during the Trump administration, when three Senate Republicans refused to go along with repealing the Affordable Care Act not a lot, but enough to derail one the biggest items on the presidents legislative agenda. Back in 2005, when the Republican Senate majority threatened to set aside the filibuster to advance contested judicial nominations, a bipartisan Gang of 14 denied them the votes and forged a compromise confirming most of the nominees at issue. Now we are seeing it today, as West Virginias Joe Manchin and Arizonas Kyrsten Sinema were enough to quash a rule change and, with it, two voting rights bills dear to President Biden.

Also complicating matters is the six-year term, designed to insulate senators more than House members from the political passions of the moment and encourage taking the long view. Those planning to spend many years in the Senate have long protected the filibuster, knowing that even if they are in the majority today, they may be in the minority tomorrow. With the filibuster, they ensure the ability to wield power regardless of who is president, speaker and majority leader.

Moreover, as Manchin and Sinema have shown this past year, senators who want to display independence from party leaders, but also pass legislation, need the filibuster to necessitate broad compromise. Except in cases when one party holds a huge majority, that usually involves bipartisanship. Without the filibuster, party leaders can more easily marginalize mavericks.

Progressive filibuster opponents believe their path to success lies in increasing Democratic numbers in the Senate, rendering any mavericks impotent. They are rightly heartened by the number of Democratic Senate candidates in this election cycle squarely in support of abolition. With two Republican-held seats in Biden-won states on the ballot this year, and no Democratic-held seats in Trump-won states, slightly expanding the Democratic majority is not out of the question. Still, expanding the presidents partys Senate majority and keeping it in the House which would require losing no more than four seats in the lower chamber is an extremely tall order in a midterm election year, made even taller by Bidens low approval rating. And without control of the House, a Democratic Senate majority wouldnt have much incentive to prioritize abolishing the filibuster, since whatever legislation they passed would get bottled up in the House anyway.

This is why Chait speaks of the next time Democrats gain control. The main hope of progressive filibuster opponents lies in the next time their party possesses the White House, House and Senate. Democrats cant be very hopeful about the Senate elections in 2024, when the map tilts in the opposite direction: All three of the Democrats seats from Trump-won states will be on the ballot, and no Republican seats in Biden-won states will be. So the next Democratic trifecta could be at least several years away. Will that Democratic majority be homogeneous enough to muscle through filibuster abolition? Will filibuster abolition even be top of mind at that point in time? Its impossible to know.

Even today, the 48 Democrats who voted in favor of the rule change did not vote for permanent abolition. They did not even vote for a permanent rule change. What Schumer proposed was a one-time change that would effectively put a finite end on Senate debate and lead to a simple majority vote on the Democrats voting rights bills. Manchin and Sinema resisted on the knowledge that if you change the legislative filibuster by simple majority once (which requires exploiting a loophole in the rules known as the nuclear option), then you have set the precedent that the filibuster can be waived anytime a majority feels like it, and the filibuster is effectively no more. Some of the other 48 have previously expressed reluctance to get the rid of the filibuster, but concluded that voting rights merited an exception.

But what if the next time Democrats control the White House and Congress, voting rights isnt the big issue on their agenda? Would all of those in the 48 who are still in the Senate at that point still commit to filibuster reform or abolition by simple majority vote? Or will they have been in the Senate long enough probably after experiencing at least one more stint in the minority to take the institutionalist position?

This scenario presumes that Republicans havent abolished the legislative filibuster by that point. The next time they control the White House and Congress, they could well argue (much like Democrats often do today) that Democrats will get rid of the filibuster the first chance they get. So they might as well do it first and get something out it. That could well happen, though in 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell snubbed such a request from President Trump. And both McConnell and his possible successor, John Thune of South Dakota, said they will keep the filibuster in place if they take the majority.

To take such a dramatic step in all likelihood requires a powerful incentive. Some like Chait think Republicans dont have such an incentive, assuming all they want are tax cuts (which can be passed via the filibuster-proof reconciliation process) and judges (for whom the filibuster has already been nuked).

Democrats nuked the procedural tool in 2013 for lower court nominees after Republicans refused to allow confirmation of any of President Obamas judges to the second-most important judicial body, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Democrats concluded that control of the judiciary would always remain in Republican hands if they could never get their nominations through. While Democrats stopped short of applying the rule change to Supreme Court nominees, Republicans finished the job in 2017, after preventing Obama from filling a vacancy the year prior, thereby locking in a conservative Supreme Court majority for the foreseeable future.

The possibility remains that the Republicans agenda is not stuck in 2017 and, given the opportunity, they will find things they want to do beyond tax cuts and a judicial agenda.

In fact, Republicans are the ones who got rid of the filibuster in the House, back in 1890.

For much of the 19th century, the filibuster was more common in the House than the Senate. Then newly installed Republican Speaker of the House Thomas Reed enacted a sweeping rules reform that stripped the minority of its ability to deploy dilatory tactics. But things didnt work out quite as Republicans planned. Their narrow majority had become more ideologically diverse, including Eastern business owners who liked protective tariffs, Western populists who wanted looser currency, and Northerners who supported voting rights for African Americans. Plus, Democrats still had filibuster power in the Senate. Reed pushed through a voting rights bill on a plurality vote, but the Senates protectionists prioritized a new tariff bill, and then the partys Western faction joined Democrats in a filibuster of the voting rights bill. After the 1890 midterm elections, Democrats had taken control of the House. And in 1892, they claimed the White House and the Senate.

The filibuster is not on an inevitable path to its demise; a lot of political stars still need to come into alignment. And then, even if that happens, what follows may not be what the majority expects.

Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show The DMZ, and host of the podcast New Books in Politics.He can be reached at contact@liberaloasis.com or follow him on Twitter @BillScher.

Read this article:

Is the Filibuster a 'Dead Rule Walking'? - RealClearPolitics

NPHET has advised the Cabinet that it can remove almost every covid-19 restriction from social distancing to covid passes and hospitality curfews in the coming days Extra.ie can reveal.

As early as tomorrow the Government will be able to announce an end of grinding restrictions that have been imposed on the Irish population at various degrees of severity for almost two years.

NPHET advised the Government this evening that guidance on household visiting; early closing for hospitality and events; capacity restrictions for indoor and outdoor events and even social distancing can be ended as soon as the Government decides it is appropriate. In a major surprise, NPHET has advised that covid passes will not be required in venues and activities.

NPHET has also advised that the work from home advice can be eased on a phased basis.

Cabinet meets on Friday and is likely to consult with Dr Tony Holohan to decide the exact sequencing but pubs, restaurants and even nightclubs are likely to reopen fully as early as Monday. NPHET has set no timeline and has left that open to Government Extra.ie has learned.

The guidance from NPHET sent to Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly by letter said the Government should remove the majority of current restrictions, to include: Guidance in relation to household visits; early closing for hospitality and events; capacity restrictions for outdoor events. In consultation with the HSE, the public health doctors have also said that the covid-19 capacity restrictions should end for all indoor events, including weddings.

The sweeping breath of the abolition of measures recommended by NPHET is breathtaking when compared to the draconian restrictions endured by the Irish population, in varying degrees for almost two years. Further advice to Government also recommends: the ending of formal requirements for physical distancing of 2m and 1m distancing requirements in hospitality. All hospitality measures, like table service, 1m between tables, six per table etc will be ended.

Nightclubs will be permitted to open again. And, crucially for the economic health of city centres, public health advice to work from home will be removed, allowing a return to physical attendance in workplaces on a phased basis. Public health doctors and the HSE have advised that the return to work should be done on a phased basis.

The Government has also been advised, Extra.ie understands, that there should be an end to all curtailment of health services. NPHET has said it does not believe that there should be any further limiting of visiting in health care facilities, including nursing homes.

According to briefings to Extra.ie, from political and HSE sources, NPHET had not determined a timeline.

A senior Government source said: It is expected that Dr Holohan and perhaps HSE CEO Paul Reid will brief the three party leaders first. They will tell the Taoiseach that they believe that the lifting of restrictions can begin as soon as they believe is pragmatic.

It may be necessary to delay the reopening of hospitality until Monday, say, to give restaurants and bars time to get their staff rosters ready.

However, another Government source pointed out difficulties with delaying the mass reopening: Well once people hear of the extent of the lifting of restrictions, well it will be very hard to hold everyone back. Social distancing for instance will just go out the window immediately.

It is understood that there has been more extensive interaction between senior Government Ministers and NPHET in recent days. Government sources said the comparative weakness of the Omicron variant and the effectiveness of vaccines means that the pandemic is almost certainly in endemic stage.

However, NPHET has also recommended that some basic covid measures remain in place. For instance, if a person finds that they are symptomatic they should self-isolate, even if fully vaccinated.

Also wearing of masks and restrictions in schools should remain in place until 28 February. Also people will be reminded to continue to make individual risk assessment and if they believe they are at risk they should take appropriate action.

Go here to see the original:

Exclusive: Sweeping abolition of COVID-19 restrictions proposed by NPHET revealed - Extra.ie

The first popularly elected government led by B P Koirala enacted the Birta Abolition Act in 1959, that required zamindars formerly granted land by the state to pay full tax. Feudal landlords opposed the move, and it became one of the reasons why King Mahendra ousted Koirala in a coup detat on 12 December 1960.

B P believed that only genuine land reform would ensure that all Nepalis prospered together, and also deflect the Communism tide. But in justifying his coup, Mahendra declared that Nepals first democratically elected government had to be overthrown because it had failed to work in the interest of the poor.

Today, more than six decades later, BPs Nepali Congress that espoused social democracy is leading a governing coalition.Sher Bahadur Deuba,who once led the partys student union, is prime minister for the fifth time.

Yet, 1.5 million families representing a quarter of Nepals households, are still landless or have land issues. Some 53% of Nepals farmers own only 18% of the total cultivable land.

After ousting B P, King Mahendra continued the land reform to retain international support and quell domestic discontent. But the effort was half-hearted: the landed kept their land. Mahendra and his sonBirendraruled through a partyless Panchayat system for the next 30 years.

Ironically, unequal land ownership (the very reason that pushed Mahendra to stage his coup) became one of the factors that led to the Peoples Movement and the downfall of the Panchayat in 1990.

But even after the multi-party system was restored, there was only tokenism for land rights. In 1991, a commission set up to resolve the issue was dissolved even before it could complete its work. In the past three decades, 18 more land reform commissions have been formed by democratic governments, only to fizzle out.

Land ownership and rights have been weaponised time and again at election time since 1990 to win votes, but there has been no real change on the ground. The Nepali Congress, UML and Maoists are all guilty of making false promises to the landless.

The Maoists made land to the tiller and just land distribution a major point in their 40-point demand to Deuba in 1996 during his first tenure as prime minister. Their main slogan to recruit young men and women to take up arms was to promise land.

After all this, the landless have stopped trusting politicians who promise land. Disputes over land make up one-third of all cases in Nepals courts.

Various factors have changed the dynamics of land today. While educated Nepalis do not want to farm and migration is leaving arable land fallow, remittances fuel the market in real estate, the price of which has risen exponentially.

This unorganised and uncontrolled buying and selling of land has once again concentrated ownership in the hands of richer Nepalis, who have grown pheonmenally richer as property values escalate. There is a whole class of new-rich who have made their fortune through real estate speculation.

This is why we have the farce of the Baluwatar real estate scandal that involves the mightiest in the land, even while a quarter of the countrys population is landless.

The Gorkha empires expansion in the 18th century was financed by land, generals and soldiers were granted ownership of portions of the land they conquered. During the Shah reign, the royalty and courtiers could take what they wanted. During the Rana period, at least one-third of the total cultivable land in Nepal was distributed among those close to them. The Birta system may have been repealed six decades ago, but it is still intact in other forms through landlords, traders and brokers owning most property.

Real estate today is booming business, and a major source of revenue for the state from taxes. Urban land value appreciation has made it possible for some Nepalis to become fabulously rich overnight.

It is not productive when real estate speculation becomes a mainstay of the economy. It does not create jobs, and it exacerbates inequality. Private property rights effectively legitimise past injustices that parcelled out large swathes of the country to the privileged. It perpetuates discrimination and inequality, laying the seeds for future conflict.

To be sure, distributing land to the landless alone does not solve their problem, nor does it erase historical discrimination. Self-respect comes from belonging to the land, giving them a sense of purpose and responsibility. It is a start. But it should be without any condition, it cannot be a publicity stunt, or ploy to pad up vote banks.

If we are to safeguard the gains of the 2017 Constitution and build the pillars of the federal democratic republic from the ground up, we must pick up where B P Koirala left off 61 years ago.

Translated from an Editorial in the January-February 2022 issue of Himal Khabarpatrika dedicated to the issue of land.

More:

Ground reality of landlessness in Nepal - Nepali times