Daily Archives: March 18, 2022

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: As Russias invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth week, President Biden has announced $800 million in new military aid for Ukraine. According to the White House, the package will include over 20 million rounds of ammunition, 100 unmanned drones, 2,000 Javelin anti-armor missiles and 800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems. Biden spoke at the White House Wednesday.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Our new assistance package also includes 9,000 anti-armor systems. These are portable, high high accurately high-accuracy shoulder-mounted missiles that the Ukrainian forces have been using with great effect to destroy invading tanks and armored vehicles. Itll include 7,000 small arms machine guns, shotguns, grenade launchers to equip the Ukrainians, including the brave women and men who are defending their cities as civilians, and theyre on the countryside, as well. And as well as the ammunition, artillery and mortar rounds to go with small arms, 20 million rounds in total. Twenty million rounds. And this will include drones, which which demonstrates our commitment to sending our most cutting-edge systems to Ukraine for its defense.

AMY GOODMAN: Bidens remarks came hours after the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, gave a virtual address to Congress. While repeating his call for a NATO no-fly zone, Zelensky invoked the attacks on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. While most of Zelenskys speech was in Ukrainian, he delivered part in English directly to President Biden.

PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: As the leader of my nation, I am addressing the President Biden. You are the leader of the nation, of your great nation. I wish you to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.

AMY GOODMAN: While the Biden administration has so far rejected calls for a no-fly zone, more details are emerging of how the U.S. has covertly aided Ukraine. Yahoo News is reporting a small group of veteran CIA paramilitaries helped train Ukrainian special forces prepare for fighting against Russian forces.

As the United States is pouring arms into Ukraine, there are signs that progress is being made on the diplomatic front to end the war. The Financial Times is reporting that Ukrainian and Russian delegates have discussed a 15-point deal under which Russia would withdraw troops in exchange for Ukraine renouncing its ambitions to join NATO and agreeing not to host foreign military bases or weapons to remain neutral.

To talk more about these latest developments, were joined by Phyllis Bennis, author and fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, her recent piece headlined The Best Way to Help Ukraine Is Diplomacy, Not War.

So, Phyllis, thanks so much for rejoining Democracy Now! to talk about this issue now. Can you respond to whats happening on the ground in Ukraine and what President Biden announced yesterday, the massive infusion of weapons to Ukraine?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, you know, Amy and good morning to you both the $800 million that was just announced in new weapons comes on top of an almost $15 billion aid package that has much of which will go to Ukraine for a combination of humanitarian and military support. So this is something thats been going on for several months now, the massive arming of Ukraine in this war.

And I think that what were seeing in terms of the diplomatic possibilities is very much a way to see what the term they like to use is an off-ramp, an off-ramp for Russia, but also an off-ramp for the Ukrainian authorities to get out from under this constant escalation that were seeing, that the cost on civilian lives is horrific. And although we dont have good numbers, it does seem clear that the numbers of Russian troops that are being killed is also rising at a very, very fast rate. And both of these leaders are going to have a hard time continuing that level of casualties. So the question of whether this will be the beginning of an actual diplomatic solution becomes very, very important.

The new weapons obviously could shift somewhat the conditions on the ground. As weve all seen, the Russian military assault has not played out the way Biden sorry, the way Putin presumably intended it to. The Russian troops have been bogged down, partly physically bogged down in a number of parts of the convoys trying to get to take over Kyiv. But, on the other hand, the attacks, the continuing bombings, missile attacks, has created enormous civilian casualties, and the ability of the Ukrainian forces, both the military and the volunteer forces, to protect civilians is somewhat limited in that context. So the deal becomes very, very important.

What were hearing about this deal is not different than what has been anticipated in recent days, that a deal would have to include a Russian withdrawal and, of course, a ceasefire, that Ukraine would have to give up its claim to be intending to join NATO. The language that were hearing now may be included is some definition of a separate protection, a Ukrainian protection alliance, which would essentially allow an official legal treaty to be signed between Ukraine and a number of other countries, probably including the U.S., the U.K., Turkey, maybe a couple of other European countries, who would agree that if Ukraine were to be invaded or threatened again, they would come directly to the aid of Ukraine. So it would almost be like a sort of NATO countries lite, without the official political consequences of being an official member of NATO. And the theory is and this may well work that for the political goals that Putin has had, he would be able to say, I won. I got what I wanted. I got what I wanted when I sent in the troops. This is what they were sent in for, to be sure that Ukraine does not join NATO and that it emerges as a neutral country.

So, the question of Ukraine being neutral is apparently on the agenda. Its not one of the items that at least the initial reporting is saying Ukraine has already agreed to, but its a likely possibility. There are different versions of neutrality. Theres the existing European versions in Finland, Switzerland, Norway, and they all differ somewhat in what kind of militaries they can have, what kind of relationships they can have with other military forces. The Ukrainian authorities who have been involved in the diplomacy have said that the issue of maintaining a separate, independent military is not up for grabs, that thats a definite commitment that they will have, that they will have a Ukrainian military, and that the question of not allowing any foreign bases or foreign troops to be stationed in the country is not an issue because those are already prohibited under the Ukrainian Constitution. So, whats changed is not so much the terms of a possible agreement, but the fact that both sides and most notably Russia, which has been much more resistant to a diplomatic solution appears to be moving closer to that possibility.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Phyllis, could you respond specifically to go back to the question of the U.S. sending arms to Ukraine the provision, in particular, of these 100 so-called killer drones, Switchblade drones? This is the first time since the Russian invasion that the U.S. will be providing drones, though Ukraine has been using, apparently to great effect, Turkish armed drones provided by Turkey. Could you speak specifically about these drones that the U.S. is going to supply?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Yeah, this is a serious escalation of what the U.S. is sending. As you say, Nermeen, the Turkish drones have been in use by the Ukrainians for some time now. But these drones are significantly more powerful, and the expectation is that they would be used against groupings of Russian soldiers on the ground. And they could result in the deaths of large numbers of soldiers if they were used effectively.

The question of drone extension, where drones are being used, is a very serious global question as we look at the militarization that is increasing in the context of this war. Countries across Europe are talking about remilitarizing. Germany, in particular, is saying they are going to spend a lot more money on their military, that theyre going to start spending 2% of their GDP on military forces, something that has been a goal of NATO, that has so far has only been reached by about 10 European countries, not including Germany, which is of course the wealthiest country in Europe. So, this is a very serious level of escalation. Whether it will have a qualitative shift in the battlefield situation in terms of the balance of forces, I dont think we know yet, but it does represent a serious U.S. commitment.

Its important, I think, to keep it in the context of what were so far seeing as a continued commitment by the Biden administration to say no to the continued call for a no-fly zone. And this is important, because after President Zelenskys speech yesterday at the joint session of Congress that was a major focus of his demand, although his language, I think, indicated some recognition that hes really not likely to get that. But it is something that he has called for continuously, and I think he, presumably, felt that he had to continue to call for this kind of support, for a no-fly zone, because its such a popular demand inside Ukraine. And thats absolutely understandable. People in Ukraine are desperate with these attacks from the air. Most of the attacks so far have not come from Russian planes. Some have. And a no-fly zone, in theory, would be able to stop some of that. But most of the air attacks are coming from missiles and rockets that are coming from other ground-launched and other Russian military forces.

The other thing that we have to keep in mind here is what the cost would be of a no-fly zone. This is something that I think sounds so intriguing. It sounds like such a great idea. It sounds like something out of Star Wars, that its sort of a magical shield that will protect people on the ground. And it leaves out the reality of: How does a no-fly zone start? We can remember back a decade ago in the Libya crisis when U.S. diplomats it was centered in the State Department. There was a call for a no-fly zone. The opposition came from the secretary of defense, came from the Pentagon, ironically enough, saying and this was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who said, We should be clear that a no-fly zone in Libya starts with attacking Libya. It starts with, you have to take out the anti-aircraft forces on the ground; you have to take out the Russian, in this case, planes that are flying around, potentially dropping bombs. So its a major attack by the United States directly on Russia:the two most powerful nuclear-armed countries going to war with each other. Thats the beginning. Thats just the beginning of a no-fly zone.

So, its very, very important that the pressure remain on the Biden administration to maintain the opposition to a no-fly zone. Its going to be increasingly difficult, I think, because in Congress there is theres certainly not a majority, thankfully, but there are increasing members of Congress that are calling for a no-fly zone. Some of that is presumably political posturing. But if that rises and if theres a public call because theres this sense of, Well, lets just do that, lets just have a no-fly zone, as if it was this magical shield, I think that it will become increasingly difficult for the Biden administration. So that becomes increasingly important.

Its taking place,this debate is taking place, in the context of what I mentioned earlier, the increasing militarization that is one of the consequences of this war. Were seeing that certainly across Europe, but were also seeing it in the United States the new $800 billion [sic], parts of the $14.5 billion sorry, the $800 million for the new package, the $14.5 billion package that has already been underway for Ukraine. The arms dealers are the ones who are thrilled with this war. Theyre the ones that are making a killing. And that will continue. That will continue with a newly militarized Europe in the aftermath of this war. So the consequences are going to be very, very severe.

And the potential, if there is anything remotely resembling a no-fly zone, not only holds the threat of escalation, up to and including a nuclear exchange not something that I think the main forces on either side want, but is something that might be impossible to prevent if there were to be an escalation in a direct conflict between the U.S. and Russia. And in that context, again, the call may return for European countries to want U.S. nuclear arms in their countries. Right now there are five NATO nations that host nuclear weapons, that are under the control of the United States. Thats in complete violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. None of the nonproliferation and abolition treaties across Europe are working right now. There needs to be new arms control treaties. And right now the trajectory is in the opposite direction.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Phyllis, on the question of, you said, increasing pressure, that there may be increasing pressure on the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone, one question: Is it possible for the U.S. to become involved in imposing a no-fly zone without the consent of NATO countries? Because so far its not just the U.S., the Biden administration, thats ruled that out, but also the EU, also NATO countries. And then, second, despite the fact that there may have been progress in these negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, theres been a simultaneous escalation of rhetoric, with Biden calling Putin a war criminal, and Putin, in a televised speech yesterday, talking about scum and traitors in Russia, those who are pro-Western, who are not patriots, and rooting them out. Could you talk about both these issues?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Yeah. On your first point, Nermeen, you know, the question of Could the U.S. do something that the other NATO members dont like? the answer is, of course, they could. They are by far the most powerful part of NATO, and the notion that NATO members are somehow equal within NATO is almost as absurd as the notion that members of the U.N. Security Council are somehow all equal, or members of the General Assembly are all equal. The realities of world politics, that includes military strength, economic clout, all of those things, obviously play a role here.

Now, the question of Would the U.S. engage in creation of a no-fly zone with the significant opposition of their allies? I think is unlikely, but I think its unlikely the U.S. wants to do it anyway. I think that people in Washington, particularly in the Pentagon, recognize what the dangers might be of this. But its also its certainly possible that the U.S. could move unilaterally to engage in Ukraine. Ironically, it would presumably have the permission, or even a request, as its already had, from the government of Ukraine. So, the governments of surrounding countries would not be in that position, unless they were prepared to say that they were going to deny their airspace to the United States, which is simply not a reasonable thing to anticipate. So I dont think that NATO opposition in the face of a U.S. determination is likely to work. But again, I dont think that the U.S., at this stage at least, is intending to move towards a no-fly zone.

Im sorry, and Im forgetting what the second question was.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: [inaudible] negotiations to succeed, given the escalating rhetoric.

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Yeah. On the one hand, you know, this would not be the first time that escalations, both, unfortunately, on the ground, as were seeing in this horrific attack on the theater in Ukraine escalation in force before negotiations succeed is a common reality. Escalation in rhetoric before negotiations succeed is even more common. So, on a certain perverse level, this might actually be a good sign.

One of the challenges that were facing here is that these negotiations that are underway are direct bilateral talks between the two major parties, Russia and Ukraine. The U.S. has not engaged yet and said explicitly what would they be willing to accept in a deal, what would they be willing to give up. The U.S. has said, in the past, that it wants Ukraine to be a member of NATO. It has also said government officials have also said, quietly, privately, that they have no intention of allowing Ukraine to become a member of NATO, because they know what a provocation that would be on Russia. But they have not said explicitly, We are taking that off the table. Are they prepared to do that? Are they prepared to back a Ukrainian concession on that issue? That would be very important for the Biden administration to make clear, what the U.S. is prepared to give up in its own positioning and, crucially, what its prepared to accept from Ukraine. Is it prepared to accept all concessions that are made by Ukraine, whether it involves Ukraine as a neutral country, Ukraine permanently staying out of NATO?

The possibility the two tricky issues, I would say, that are not yet theres not even a report that they might be resolved they might be put off is the recognition of Crimea as belonging to Russia, something that Russia says its insisting on in the past, the Ukrainian government has said thats not acceptable and also the question of the status, whether independence, autonomy or something else, of the eastern provinces in Donbas. Both of those seem to be unresolved, but there is an indication that they might agree to put those off and not resolve those in the midst of a broader this 15-point agreement that were hearing about being underway, that would, crucially, begin with a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian forces. So those remain uncertain, but they may not ultimately prevent some kind of an agreement from being reached, hopefully soon.

AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis, we want to thank you for being with us, author and fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Well link to your piece, The Best Way to Help Ukraine Is Diplomacy, Not War.

Coming up, we talk to a Syrian filmmaker about how many of Russias military tactics in Ukraine resemble what she witnessed in her home city of Aleppo. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: John Lennons Imagine, performed in Russian by Nailskey. Interestingly, Russias prima ballerina Olga Smirnova has quit Moscows world-renowned Bolshoi Ballet after denouncing Russias invasion of Ukraine.

Originally posted here:

Phyllis Bennis: The Best Way to Help Ukraine Is Diplomacy, Not War & Increased Militarization - Democracy Now!

The government continues to shackle the agriculture sector and impoverish farmers. What Sharad Joshi said years ago about agriculture still holds: the central and the most essential fact about Indian agriculture is that it suffers from either the caprices of nature or, when the nature is benign, by the tyranny of governmental interventions.

Mr Joshi was not talking just about APMCs, the Essential Commodities Act and the abolition of the Fundamental Right to property. He was also alluding to the moratorium on farmers access to genetically modified (GM) crops.

Consider edible oils. India imports 13.1 million tonnes of edible oils annually at a cost of Rs.1.17 lakh crores because the Modi government does not allow high-productivity GM soyabean and canola seeds in India, even as it pays rich country farmers to use these technologies for Indias consumption. Even GM mustard, which was developed in India and approved by Indias regulator in 2017, is banned.

The bogey of GM food safety was busted a long time ago, including by the Modi government. On 19 July 2019 in response to Lok Sabha question 4441 in the Lok Sabha, BJPs Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Shri Babul Supriyo, said: There is no scientific evidence to prove that GM crops are unsafe.

Farmers would themselves never want to feed their children unsafe food, but when developed country food regulators and in India have declared GM crops to be safe, then bio-safety concerns are merely a figment of the imagination. Trillions of GM-based meals have been consumed by animals and humans across the world for three decades without a single adverse event. Indians consume vast amounts of GM-based edible oils without any harm and not just imported. India consumes over 1 million tonnes each year of cottonseed oil made from GM-based cotton, grown in India since 2002.

Biotechnology has been advancing at a breakneck speed. Today the full sequencing of the human genome costs a mere $600. Scientists can edit DNA using the low-cost CRISPR technology discovered in 2012. But Indias world-class biotechnologists feel disrespected in their own country their work is treated with suspicion.

Bt brinjal was developed in India and approved by Indias regulator (GEAC) in 2009 after tests that lasted nine years but arrogant Congress minister Jairam Ramesh over-ruled Indias scientists and in 2010 imposed a moratorium on all GM crops that the Modi government has not yet lifted. In the meantime, Bt brinjal was approved by Bangladesh in 2014 and by the Philippines in 2021 and has been consumed in vast quantities in Bangladesh without the slightest adverse effect.

Why does India even bother to teach biotechnology if it insists on rejecting the research of its biotechnologists? Vajpayee had coined the slogan: Jai Vigyan but Mr Modi has gone off on a completely opposite tangent. He wants to reverse the Green Revolution itself he wants farmers to go natural and stop using fertilisers and pesticides. Everyone knows that Mr Modis knowledge of history is limited to mythology, but could someone please tell him that in the 1950s and 1960s organic India averted famine only because of massive PL480 foodgrain imports from the USA? And even he might have heard by now how badly the 2021 mandatory organic farming policy of Sri Lanka has backfired.

Without the Norman Borlaug Green Revolution package of high-yield seeds, artificial fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation, India will starve. In 2003, Borlaug said: We better develop an ever-improved science and technology, including the new biotechnology, to produce the food thats needed for the world today. He warned against kooky ideas like organic farming: We are 6.6 billion people now. We can only feed 4 billion [with organic]. I dont see 2 billion volunteers to disappear [i.e. to choose to die].

The adverse impacts of Indias GM moratorium are being exacerbated by other restrictive policies. In 2021 SEBI banned futures trading in soyabean at a time when global prices were rising, causing huge losses to soyabean farmers. Thousands of farmers are now wondering: why would they grow oilseeds if SEBI will step in the moment farmers have any chance of getting a good market price? It seems farmers are only allowed low prices: Heads I win, tails you lose.

GM technology is very old and well-established by now. It was discovered in 1973 and the first GM crop was approved by the USA Food and Drug Administration in 1992. To date, 538 genetically modified organisms including foodcrops have been approved globally by various regulators. By 2016, 12% of global cropland (around 185 million hectares) grew GM crops, with GM soyabean occupying half the space. Herbicide tolerant crops constitute 88% of the total GM acreage.

GM crops have been developed for a wide range of improved properties such as insect resistance, altered fatty acid composition; faster maturation; reduced water use; ornamental modifications; extended shelf life, improved photosynthesis, improved biosequestration capability, improved nutritional value; toxin reduction, stress resistance and many others. For instance, Golden Rice, already approved by four nations, holds the promise of vastly reducing blindness in India and saving millions of lives. But does the Indian government even want to know about such things?

It is a basic principle of public policy that a government must not intervene where there is no proven harm. With biosafety concerns well out of the way, the government should move rapidly towards a light-handed co-regulatory model for biotechnology and allow farmers and consumers to benefit.

On 17 February 2022, Anil Ghanwat had launched the Feed India civil disobedience movement in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra with a detailed paper published on the rationale of the movement. The farmers now plan to hold a Feed India Feast in which the brinjal plants that were planted will be harvested and consumed at a public event as a celebration of modern biotechnology.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

See more here:

Biotechnology to feed India, natural farming to starve India - Times of India

Reading Time: 8 minutes

Ask what stories mean to someone and they might think about their favorite book, play, film, or TV show. But stories arent just a way to escape our reality; they are our reality.

Theyre the social media posts we scroll over, the back of the cereal box we absentmindedly read, the advertising we walk past, the sports games we watch, the conversations we overhear, the brand of clothes we wear, our workplaces mission, the inner voice in our head.

Stories are everywhere, and they shape how we understand the world, how we understand each other, and how we understand ourselves.

Theyre hardwired into us from when our ancestors sat around the campfire, telling each other stories not merely for entertainment but to share knowledge.

Its why children will understand and remember the moral behind stories like The Boy Who Cried Wolf more than the parental command: Dont tell lies.

Stories help us anticipate what might happen next, and in turn, help us navigate the world around us. Theres a growing consensus among scientists that the brain is essentially a prediction-making machine. Without our storytelling brains, sports games couldnt even exist.

Stories guide our lives and give them meaning. But the power of narrative is often used as a way to divide and control us.

Its because of stories that countries go to war, corrupt politicians get elected into office, and billionaires keep getting richer from the must-have products they market to us. As the well-known Native American proverb says: Those who tell the stories rule the world.

We are surrounded by stories that normalize injustice and violence in order to benefit the few. It is because of such dominant narratives of human supremacy; of fellow animals being other and non and less than; of their exploitation being normal, natural, necessary and even nice that we live in a world where the killing of individuals in their trillions is seen as morally neutral.

Toxic narratives of superiority and otherness underpin all oppressions, whether its speciesism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, or ableism.

These narratives continue to persist because they are intertwined and mutually reinforcing. Yet there is cause for hope. While stories got us into this mess, stories can help lead us out of it, too.

Because we make sense of the world best through stories, they create empathy in a way that facts and politics cant.

They can help us identify with those who dont automatically fall within our in-group, pulling back the curtain on whole communities who are often invisibilized or otherized by showing the world through their eyes.

The anti-slavery novel Uncle Toms Cabin, which was the first major US book to feature a Black protagonist, had a profound effect on attitudes towards African Americans and is often cited as the catalyst for the American Civil War.

Even Harry Potter has been shown to reduce childrens prejudice towards stigmatised groups.

Despite societies being indoctrinated by harmful, oppressive myths for centuries, even millennia, these are steadily being challenged and overshadowed by healthier narratives rooted in unity, love and freedom.

As social changers, one of the questions we need to ask ourselves is: what are the narratives that could drastically shift public perception around fellow animals and show that Animal Freedom is an issue that affects all of us?

Narrative is one of our main workstreams at Animal Think Tank, where were exploring which messages, stories, and narratives can connect most with others and cut across the political noise, and in turn help create lasting social and legal change for fellow animals in UK society.

It will be an extensive research project across a number of years, but what continues to inspire and motivate us is seeing how narrative change in other movements has resulted in huge leaps forward in social change.

On 26 June 2015, American history was made. The US supreme court ruled in favour of marriage equality across all 50 US states. Finally, same-sex couples had the freedom to marry. But how did this momentous change happen in a country as conservative and religious as America?

A huge driver of the movements victory was in changing their narrative. After a decade of pushbacks in the courts and lackluster polling, the movement realized that the public didnt understand that same-sex couples wanted to get married for the very same reason all couples do: love.

It was then campaigners realized that they needed to shift away from their current narrative around rights and justice to a narrative rooted in the heart-held values of love and freedom.

And so the Freedom to Marry campaign was born in 2003, telling positive and moving stories of conservative fathers wanting to walk their lesbian daughter down the aisle, of religious parents wanting their gay son to marry the love of his life, of children wanting their parents to be able to celebrate their love.

These stories forged the in-roads to making marriage equality relevant to voters, taking what was once deemed a side issue and reframing it to show how it affected wider society.

Within just six months of launching the new narrative, the campaign achieved its first historic win: Massachusetts became the first state to rule in favor of the freedom to marry.

With the precedent set, it took just 12 years for the remaining 49 states to follow suit.

Just like the tide turned for marriage equality when the movement stopped talking rights and started talking love, the immigrant rights movement made substantial headway when they too shifted away from rights and centered their narrative around family and freedom, platforming the first-hand experiences of undocumented storytellers.

A similar narrative shift happened in the pro-choice movement in Ireland, which used the positive, inclusive framing of Together for Yes to repeal the eighth amendment, and moved away from rights and choice to one of care and compassion.

The MeToo movement flipped the narrative around male sexual violence through women reclaiming it, telling their stories in their own words, and framing themselves as survivors united in solidarity, not isolated victims who had stories told about them.

Looking further back, changing the narrative has helped usher in social change for countless historic movements.

Part of the success of the abolition of the slave trade was not just stories like Uncle Toms Cabin, written by white abolitionists, but first-person stories of freed slaves (such as The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano).

These stories allowed others to see the world through former slaves eyes, evoking empathy for fellow people, rather than pity for slaves, helping to break down the us/them barrier.

Martin Luther King understood the power of storytelling more than most, and it was his iconic I Have a Dream speech that reframed the dominant narrative of the American Dream, widening who was considered worthy of being American dreamers.

His speech crafted a story of a different tomorrow, and his vision was so vivid and urgent in its depiction, it made others yearn for this fictional future over their current reality.

Other social justice movements show us not only that narrative matters but that movement collaboration matters. It is when a diversity of voices unify behind a shared narrative that it can begin to have traction.

To create an inclusive society that respects everyone, we need an inclusive approach to our narrative strategy. We dont believe one organization can come up with all the answers.

Thats why, alongside our narrative research, ideation, and testing, were collaborating with other creative thinkers and communicators across the movement to explore how, collectively, we can accelerate narrative change for Animal Freedom.

In February 2022, 27 of us (from faith groups to grassroots groups, to NGOs, to design agencies, to media, to think tanks) gathered in one space to discuss how we could more positively frame fellow animals in our discourse.

We explored how language and images convey meaning, and how the way in which we communicate affects how others think, feel and act.

While this first workshop only scratched the surface of the deep work involved in narrative change, this and future collaborations will help inform the messages, stories, and narratives to be developed and tested.

Just as crucially, it has laid the foundations for building a network of communicators to bring in the very best ideas and insights from across the movement, empowering all of us to be more effective storytellers for Animal Freedom.

If this sounds like something you or your organization are interested in being part of, or just want to learn more about narrative change for social change, we want to hear from you.

When thinking about how we can add to the narrative landscape around fellow animals, its useful to reflect back on how previous stories have already informed the wider narrative.

For all the damage that the likes of Moby-Dick and Jaws inflicted on our aquatic cousins by otherizing and demonizing them (which the author of Jaws now deeply regrets), there have been countless other stories that have challenged this stereotype.

Such as the recent Oscar-winning My Octopus Teacher, which centered a female octopus and showed her unique personality, curiosity, and ingenuity. (Well need many more stories like this to help challenge plans for commercial-scale farming of octopuses.)

Or, going further back, National Geographics 1979 album of whale songs, distributed to all of its 10.5 million subscribers (which still remains the biggest single pressing in recording history).

This dramatically reframed whales so they were no longer seen as monsters of the deep, but as beautiful, musical, cultured beings who inspired awe and reverence in us, not terror. This seemingly small shift in narrative saw a huge rise in public support for banning the hunting of whales.

There are countless other stories that show fellow animals as the diverse individuals they are, from the cinematic beauty of Gunda, to the heart-breaking realism of Green, to the cute-ified animation of Bambi (whose mothers killing, by a hunter known only as Man, also increased public anti-hunting morality).

And there are, of course, the many stories and narratives we bring as a movement. We shine a light on the dark industry secrets, we show fellow animals resisting their oppression, and we offer hope by showing survivors living free or in sanctuary.

As a movement, we continue to change the narrative around veganism, steadily bringing it into the mainstream by reframing what is normal, natural, necessary, and nice.

Yet while veganism and plant-based eating continue to increase in popularity, the number of fellow animals being killed also continues to rise.

And while we win occasional policy battles, these wins are always under attack and in danger of being reversed (or completely ignored, as with the UK ban on hunting foxes).

We want to discover if other narratives can bring us closer to Animal Freedom by shifting away from welfare, rights and veganism to more universal values, like freedom, love, and community.

After all, it is values like family and love that the animal exploitation industry knows to draw upon when selling products that are the very antithesis of this.

While a story can be told, a narrative has to be understood and felt. Narratives are the deep, often invisible, ideologies that stories and messages stem from. They exist as an interconnected system of stories that reinforce the underlying ideology.

Part of our work as communicators is revealing how the dominant narratives that are currently seen as common sense are in fact just myths that we have been force-fed for centuries.

But narrative change is not just about challenging and dismantling the toxic narratives that surround us; it is about offering a vision of a better future for everyone. At their core, thats what popular narratives are.

Whether its the spin of oppressive narratives like Make America Great Again and the American Dream, or the hopeful narratives of Gandhis Beloved Community, Kings dream, same-sex couples Freedom to Marry, a future where Black Lives Matter, or people coming Together For Yes, all narratives are about inspiring hope for the future.

The old narrative of individualism, competition, extraction and progress has failed us. Its been fractured by the pandemic, the climate crisis and increasing inequality. Right now, we are in between narratives. Were living in a time where new narratives can begin to take root in the void.

We are at a crucial point in our history when the stories we tell matter now more than ever. People are primed for a different, more hopeful story one of love, connection, cooperation and unity.

While narrative is only part of the social change work that is needed, its a vital part. It isnt a magic pill that will quickly topple speciesism or any other oppression; its a process one that will most likely take decades.

It needs all of us to discover the narratives that will most move society towards Animal Freedom. It needs all of us to show that a different future is not only possible, it is essential.

And it needs all of us to keep our vision of the future in circulation, reinforcing it through countless different stories and via countless different messengers, until that vision becomes reality.

Those who tell the stories rule the world that is the power of storytelling. And its time the story represented all of us.

If youre interested in learning more about narrative change for Animal Freedom, want to be a part of a growing network of communicators focused on this work, or would like to volunteer with Animal Think Tank, wed love to hear from you.

Original post:

Can Changing The Narrative Change Society? - Plant Based News

BusinessDiana Mahabir-Wyatt2 Days AgoA tourist dressed up for St Patrick's Day outside Temple Bar in Dublin city centre, Ireland on March 17, 2020. AP file photo -

March 17 is St Patricks Day, celebrated in most of the British Commonwealth, and certainly in non-Commonwealth countries such as the US, in New York. which often seems to be a country of its own with strong Irish roots. and where traditionally a huge parade takes place through the streets of that city.

The Irish, like Trinidadians, have a diaspora that can be found almost everywhere on the globe. In Montserrat, St Patricks Day is a public holiday. as so many of its early settlers came as indentured labourers from Ireland and their descendants, those who survived the volcanic eruption in 1995, are still there.

The Irish diaspora is as notable as those of most island peoples. Before the great famine of 1847, during which over a million Irish people died of starvation, the Irish were shipped out to the West Indies as indentured labourers after the abolition of slavery in 1834.

Just as people from India were rounded up by press gangs and shipped out to the colonies to replace the emancipated slaves, the Irish, treated as somewhat lesser mortals, were arrested for trespassing on private property or being drunk and disorderly (which they often were)and shipped off to faraway colonies, separated from their families for life, destined to labour as hewers of wood and drawers of water.

BV Lass, an historian from India wrote about it thus: "In relation to the British Empire, the largest and most concerted expression of indenture occurred between 1834 and 1920, when two million Indians, and thousands of others from across Asia, Africa, and Oceania were exploited under a system intended to replace enslaved African labour in the Caribbean and Mauritius. Thousands of Irish, English and Scottish people were also forced into indentureship in the New World."

We dont read much about them in our schoolbooks, though.

Britain's Prince Charles pours a pint of Guinness during a visit to the Irish Cultural Centre in west London, Tuesday, to celebrate its 25th anniversary in the run-up to St Patrick's Day. - AP Photo

Although diversity is a feature of Trinidadian culture and society that is often boasted about now, there are many Trinis who are not even aware that they have Irish DNA. Noted historians such as Fr de Verteuil, who has been the main person who has preserved the history of this country, a gift he has thereby given to the nation, wrote about the Irish presence in Trinidad as early as the late 1700s.

In fact, following periods when the Royal Irish Regiment was sent to Trinidad to quell the rebellious locals, Fr de Verteuil noted that they left behind them more illegitimate than legitimate offspring. Of the legitimate ones alone, anyone with an ancestor with a surname like Kernahan, Fitzgerald, Devenish, OConnor, Waldrond, Kelly, or Lloyd can trace their Irish heritage in TT, some to dates before the abolition of slavery and indentureship.

The Irish, known to be hot-headed, were made mention of in the local press, from which we get our records. In fact, one young Irishman was recorded in 1870 as being admonished for assaulting the editor of a newspaper. An Irishman named Laughlin was the editor of the Port of Spain Gazette at the time. I have often wondered if it was he who was assaulted.

Reading the daily papers in 2022, it may appear that the hot-headed Irish DNA is even more pervasive than is recorded. Irish men are known for their alcohol-fuelled pub life, which often ends in a donnybrook or brawl which can happen outside any bar in TT on a Saturday night.

Irish culture is strong on drama, music and literature. If you bother to look at Trinidad's ability to turn out dozens of new calypsoes, art exhibitions, mind-awing Carnival designs, stories and poems as the Bocas Lit Fest, the film festival and even a truncated semi-Carnival attest to, one wonders if the high energy that leads to creativity might not be embedded in the diverse strands of DNA we have picked up over the generations. That education from village primary schools to the most prestigious of secondary schools and the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture had roots deep in the missions that sent teachers here from Ireland cannot be denied.

The connections have continued up until this century. Historian Brinsley Samaroo has recorded resonating accounts of the Irish presence here in the 1900s. How many truly excellent Trini doctors like the legendary Dr Maria Bartholomew and Prof Courtenay Bartholomew trained in Dublin? How many nurses like the formidable nuns who, until it closed, looked after the patients in the leprosarium in Chacachacare? And established and ran schools for girls, at a time when educating girls was not deemed a priority by most families?

The Irish and Trini personalities resonate with each other for a reason.

St Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, who was actually born in Scotland, was himself a slave for the early part of his life, put to work as a child shepherd, but returned to Ireland as an adult, making him a kind of patron saint of immigrants. This seems appropriate, as most Trinidadian citizens are descendants of immigrants, either those seeking a better life than that they left behind, or refugees fleeing from religious persecution, war or racial discrimination. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

So St Patricks Day should be a day when every family with ancestral roots in another country, or, as is the case with almost all Trinidadians, several other countries, should be honouring the Ukrainians fleeing war in Europe, or the Venezuelans fleeing an economic downfall that social scientists and contemporary economists tell us may well be our destiny in the not-too-distant future.

Original post:

The Irish connection in Trinidad and Tobago - TT Newsday

LONDON William Hogarth is best known for his moralizing satires of British pretension, such as his painting sequences A Rakes Progress (173234) or Marriage a la Mode (1743), and for his xenophobic nationalism as exhibited, for example, by grotesque depictions of the French in The Gate of Calais (1843). The press for Tate Britains show Hogarth and Europe initially intrigues by promising to look at him in context with his European counterparts for the first time, [exploring] the parallels and exchanges that crossed borders and the cosmopolitan character of [his] art. While contemporary Britain is feeling the economic pinch from Brexit turmoil, this statement from curators Alice Insley and Martin Myrone sounds like a canny echo of pro-European Union sentiments.

However, a different topical issue emerges as the primary reason for contextualizing Hogarth and Europe that of societal inequality, racism, sexism, and colonialism. UK institutions are increasingly looking inward to examine their colonial pasts and links to slavery. Museum officials are rethinking ways to present the visual content of their collections, much of which perpetuates outdated and, at times, condemnable societal attitudes, and commissioning reports to identify where institutions have benefited from colonialism and slavery. In this spirit, we are invited to consider Hogarths period of Enlightenment during the 18th century as having ideals produced by, and [which] benefited, white men from the middle and upper classes. The concept of European superiority deepened, entrenching ideas about nation, personal identity, and racial difference, manifested in the horrors of transatlantic slavery.

It is unfortunate, then, that a heavy-handed approach to this project, combined with a lack of focus, sorely undermines the curators honorable intentions. This is the first exhibition I have seen in which the lead curators write the main wall captions, but an additional group of commentators has been formed to lend perspective and expertise in smaller captions. These include various art historians, artists, and conservationists, as well as the Museum Detox Interpretation Group, a body composed of people of color who work in museums and heritage and who seek to champion diversity in the arts. At best, the additional commentary is insightful and provides jumping off points for discussion, or highlights the significance of minor characters who are peripheral in the compositions.

Issues arise, however, when it becomes too speculative for instance, imagining the thoughts of marginalized figures in the artworks (often people of color) or forces the agenda beyond provability. Next to Hogarths The Distressed Poet (1733-35), for example, is a caption by Lars Tharp that homes in on the presence of porcelain and tea imported from Asia (specifically a red teapot that is probably Chinese), all of which are almost impossible to make out in the image itself other visitors I noticed also struggled to find these items. This reading ignores the main focus, which is a poet slumped over his latest work in a decrepit bedsit, neglecting his family, and the presence of a milkmaid demanding an unpaid bill, in favor of barely visible tropes of colonialist expansion in tea and porcelain. Other details, such as a cupboard empty save for a mouse, and a dog stealing food from the familys plate, clearly emphasize the primary satirical focus on the social and romantic pretensions of the aspiring poet at the expense of feeding his family and paying those who serve him.

It is actually a curious paradox that because the curators seek to find commonalities between Hogarth and his European contemporaries with the purpose of highlighting societal inequality, as well as exploitation and privilege resulting from slavery across the board, the exhibition might as well not be about Hogarth at all. This is unfortunate, as it is the most comprehensive collection of his art likely to be assembled for years to come; it includes 60 works, among them private loans and pieces from the US, notably the gorgeous portrait of Miss Mary Edwards (1742) from the Frick in New York.

The last room is filled with many portraits examining a trend toward depicting greater humanity in wealthy sitters, yet the question of inequality is again forced with this opaque explanation: Sometimes, where these images suggest subjectivities rejected or compromised by the dominant ideas about race, class and gender, they hint at the unfulfilled promises and contradictions of modern European society. A valid point is hovering around in this ambiguous language, but the dense academic prose seems to sidestep direct address of wealth and privilege.

Yet what most complicates the attempt to both unify Hogarth and European artists and highlight outdated depictions is the question of satire, and how he used it. Take Southwark Fair (1733), which depicts a fair that was held around Borough High Street every year until its abolition in 1762, and was often a scene of violence and impropriety. It is crammed with innumerable details of cartoonish figures engaged in revelry; on the far right a stage collapses under the weight of actors in a moment of chaos. Among the crowd are figures watching a peepshow, a dwarf playing bagpipes, and, in a clear indication of society gone topsy-turvy, a dog dressed as a gentleman and walking on its hind legs. It is demonstrably a wry condemnation of polite society breaking down with the excuse of a festival. Adjacent to the dog is a Black man playing a trumpet. The curators caption posits a deliberate parallel between the dog dressed as a gentleman and the trumpeter, indicating that while mocking social class it nonetheless signals deepening ideas of racial difference pervasive in 18th Century culture. There is no further comment given to support this reading, so it remains more a suggested interpretation than an overwhelmingly convincing example of outright racism within Hogarths work.

As the curators have centered inequality in 18th-century European society throughout the survey, satire promises a more productive way into the subject than simply looking out for evidence of colonialist tropes such as tea and porcelain or tobacco, coffee, and sugar [latent] elements of exploitation and subjection in Hogarths A Midnight Modern Conversation (shown at the Tate in a copy after the lost original). This is not to deny the recognition of such items as evidencing horrific exploitation in their production, but focusing on such items threatens to sideline the potential for a more complex discussion. (Ironically, the attention to satire highlights how distinct Hogarth is from his European contemporaries, whose works on view never achieve his capacity for nuanced satire.)

Far from simply recording things as they appeared, Hogarths exaggerated compositions and other satirical elements are active commentaries meant to provoke thought. The introductory text says the works shown express a critical view of society, but they also reveal the entrenchment of racist, sexist, and xenophobic stereotypes. Artists may have celebrated individuality, but they also made representations of people that are disturbing or dehumanising. Within Hogarth it is this tangling of the exaggerated grotesquery of satire and the recording of figures informed by entrenched racist perceptions of the time that problematizes any straightforward interpretation of his images.

The section on A Modern Midnight Conversation questions whether this image of white men falling about dunk, in various versions with Black slaves in attendance, is a moralizing condemnation of vice and the material mores of a society benefiting from slavery, or actually a gentle and affectionate ribbing of the behaviors of this strata of society, in which Hogarth was trying to ingratiate himself. In this instance we may see Hogarth as complicit in perpetuating colonialist stereotypes of slavery and oppression.

If the overarching aim of this show is, as it seems, to uncover and belatedly condemn the racist elements of these artworks, it misses an important point. Yes, much of the art contains unacceptable imagery as it reflects social and racial hierarchies of the time. But why assemble the most significant grouping of Hogarths from far and wide simply to sweep it wholesale into this bucket, without indicating why calling out the faults in historical artworks is important to our understanding of our world today? Or, likewise, discussing the ambiguity of satire, which allows the artist to position himself as an external critic and be complicit in the critiqued acts. This same positional ambiguity enables much ingrained racism and white privilege still. It is a fact that social systems, and thus daily lives, in the UK and abroad are shaped by the horrors of slavery and colonialism, but in seeking out and condemning artifacts from the past the curators of this and similarly themed exhibitions risk historicizing racism. Rather, we should relate it to todays very real and still entrenched racism and sexism. In short, what can we learn from these artworks if we hold them up as mirrors?

It is never a pleasure to address curatorial missteps when an exhibition has at its center a very urgent and honorable desire to condemn outdated racist views and stereotypes. Despite its shortcomings and sometimes muddled delivery, we should nonetheless admire the curators effort to reevaluate Hogarth whom, for a long while, has received a free pass under the all-forgiving umbrella of satire. One of British arts most revered eccentric characters should not be exempt from criticism and the curators should be credited for creating a conversation around the issue in the first place. An important takeaway from the show is the encouragement more than ever to consider the societal and historical context in which art is made; in short, not to simply take its message at face value, which is a core principle of investigative art history.

Hogarth and Europe continues at Tate Britain (Millbank, London, England) through March 20. The exhibition was curated by Alice Insley, Curator, British Art c 1730 1850, and Martin Myrone, former Senior Curator, pre-1800 British Art, Tate Britain.

Excerpt from:

A Hogarth Survey Has Good Intentions but Misses the Mark - Hyperallergic

The Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem begins with commemorating Jesus's condemnation by Pilate in the traditional site of Pilate's Praetorium and ends at the Holy Sepulcher with remembering his interment in the tomb. At each of the 14 stations in this "Way of the Cross," pilgrims are urged to meditate on the events and meaning of Jesus' death.

Yet Jesus's path to the cross did not really begin in Jerusalem. Jesus' teachings and ministry were the first stages of his path to the cross in Jerusalem, as prefigured in Mary's Magnificat and proclaimed in Jesus' inaugural sermon in his hometown of Nazareth. The seeds planted in verses read during Advent thus prepare us for Jesus's ministry, and Jesus's proclamation of good news for the poor and his critiques of power, wealth and oppression led inexorably to the Way of the Cross that we commemorate during Lent.

The Magnificat reflects on the nature of God's past actions to herald the forthcoming message of Jesus specifically on God's liberation of the exploited poor, the marginalized, and the disinherited, and God's overthrowing of powerful, unjust rulers (echoing the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2:1-10):

He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,and lifted up the lowly;he has filled the hungry with goodthings,and sent the rich away empty.

Jesus officially inaugurated this program of liberation when he began his public ministry, as Luke 4:16-21 relates. In the synagogue in Nazareth, Jesus read a text based on Isaiah 58:6 and 61:1-2:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,because he has anointed meto bring good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim release to the captivesand recovery of sight to the blind,to let the oppressed go free,to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.

After he finished the Scripture reading, Jesus said, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

This message of liberation is an important reminder that Jesus was an impoverished, first-century Jew who was a member of a politically, militarily and economically oppressed minority. Jesus's proclamation of release from Isaiah evokes the "year of release" in Leviticus 25 the Year of Jubilee that includes remission of debts, liberation of slaves, and restoration of land to its original owners a radical redistribution of wealth in an agrarian society.

Jesus' "good news to the poor" includes, in effect, "bad news" for the rich, as the "woes on the rich" in Luke 6:24-25 demonstrate, and Jesus's call for justice and his denunciation of injustice, like the Hebrew Bible prophets before him, are key elements of his message.

Part of the injustice against which Jesus speaks stems from his first-century context in which an unjust redistribution of wealth by the wealthy elite forced many small independent landowners into being landless, dependent laborers. The worsening economic situation of numerous Galileans led to growing resentment against these absentee landlords, and the economic hopelessness of the nonelite, including their inability to pay taxes to the rulers and pay off debts to the elite, was a central element of social conflict.

Aspects of Jesus's teachings must be interpreted in the context of this struggle over land and resources in which the wealthy elite relegated many nonelites to a bare subsistence level.

Jesus's core message of the kingdom of God engages with the harsh social realities of his hearers' daily lives and proclaims how life should be when God's reign is fully realized. He proclaims not just remission of debts to those who are broken down by oppression the root of the Greek word for oppression that Luke uses here means broken or shattered but also liberation and restoration.

The Argentinian human rights activist, architect, artist and writer Adolfo Prez Esquivel won the 1980 Nobel Peace Prize "for being a source of inspiration to repressed people, especially in Latin America." His acceptance speech noted that he received the award "in the name of the people of Latin America and especially in the name of the poorest and smallest of my brothers and sisters."

The goal, for Prez Esquivel, in contrast to the current social order in which "the rich become ever richer at the expense of the poor who become ever poorer," is "to achieve by nonviolent struggle the abolition of injustice and the attainment of a more just and humane society for all."

Prez Esquivel's "Stations of the Cross," created for the 500th anniversary of the colonization of the Americas and made available with commentary by Alastair McIntosh, reflects on Jesus's death and connects his suffering with contemporary Latin American people suffering from colonialism, poverty, hunger, illiteracy, economic inequality and other oppression. These contexts mirror the oppression of the Jewish people during the time in which Jesus lived, taught and was martyred, so Prez Esquivel's series of paintings seeks to provide a mode of response to such oppression one espoused by Jesus that bridges the gap between Jesus' era and our own.

The sufferings of Jesus, in this case, reflect the sufferings of campesinos (landless, tenant and/or peasant farmers) and other oppressed people in Latin America. In this way, the life and teachings of Jesus are contextualized in a contemporary setting without the domestication of his radical message against the wealthy and powerful.

The image for Station 3, for example, where Jesus falls for the first time under the weight of the cross, includes images of war and devastation, such as the murder of Archbishop scar Romero of El Salvador. The fallen Jesus is guarded by a Roman soldier holding a rifle, symbolizing the similar violence that afflicts the poor in contemporary Latin America by the ruling elite. The inclusion of Romero, in addition, reinforces that fact that Jesus proclaimed a prophetic message of active, nonviolent resistance to his followers, and Romero lays dying leaning against the eucharistic altar, where the death of Jesus is commemorated in the Roman Catholic Mass.

Station 7, where Jesus falls for the second time, illustrates the plight of the landless poor. The soldiers guarding Jesus wear contemporary uniforms and are equipped with a gun, clubs and a shield. Crowds of impoverished people march behind Jesus in protest, and their signs link his torture at the hands of the Romans with their oppression: Reforma agraria (agrarian reform) and Derecho a la tierra (right to land). In addition, most tellingly, the seven black ropes on the cross in the midst of the crowd represent murdered campesinos, McIntosh writes. The landscape in the background illustrates that abundant land is available for everyone in a just society.

In this situation, as Prez Esquivel notes, peasants "battle for survival" in the "wholesale eradication of subsistence farming and its replacement by agribusiness for export." Prez Esquivel calls for a nonviolent "battle" against such unjust repression, one based on Jesus's proclamation of good news to the poor and liberation of the oppressed (Luke 4:18-19).

Prez Esquivel's "Stations of the Cross" thus modernizes Jesus and his message authentically, without, as Christian interpreters have tended to do over the centuries, domesticating Jesus a first-century Jewish prophet of an oppressed people or anachronizing his radical message. Prez Esquivel's work should encourage all those who walk the Stations of the Cross this Lenten season also to meditate on Jesus' message of liberation of the oppressed.

Here is the original post:

Artist illuminates Jesus' radical message in the Way of the Cross - National Catholic Reporter