Category Archives: Abolition Of Work

As a young girl growing up in Northern California, Ashley Rubin dutifully said her prayers each night before going to sleep. She routinely included what she now sees as a strange request: that all bad people go to prison.

Heres this 8-year-old child who is not really old enough to understand the significance of any of this but knows that sending people to prison is just what we do, says Rubin, whos now a sociologist specializing in US prison history at the University of Hawaii at Mnoa. The idea of punishing criminals with time in prison is so ingrained in our culture, she says, that most people assume that prisons have always existed.

But they havent. For most of Western history, long-term incarceration wasnt used as punishment, and many countries even had rules against it, Rubin tells Knowable. The idea of confining people for long periods of time as punishment was really quite revolutionary. Her research involves combing archives for records, letters and other documents on the early history of prisons, and along with other scholars she argues that prisons as we now know them first arose in the nascent United States, shortly after the Revolutionary War. (Jails, used for short-term confinement, have a much longer history in Europe and around the world.)

Prisons were controversial from the start, and over the last 230 years the public conversation about them in the United States has taken many turns. At first, Rubin says, they were billed as a humanitarian achievement a more effective and more humane way to punish criminals than corporal and capital punishment. But their purported goals have shifted with time, with varying degrees of emphasis placed on protecting the public by taking criminals out of circulation, punishing them for their crimes, rehabilitating them into better citizens and serving as a deterrent to other would-be lawbreakers.

When prisons fail to rehabilitate criminals or reduce crime, or when they end up costing more than the public wants to pay, conversation tends to be about that particular issue and not about the inherent limitations of prisons as institutions, says Rubin: Im not an abolitionist, but I cant look at the history of prisons and not think, why are we still using them?

Rubin thinks we have unrealistic expectations when it comes to prisons, expecting them to do too many and often contradictory things. She spoke with Knowable about the early history of prisons and how it could inform current discussions about prison reform. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Werent people getting locked up way before the late 1700s? Ive seen it in movies!

Yes, but those were jails, not prisons. There were, for example, workhouses in England and the Netherlands in the 16th century that held a big mix of people, including vagrants, debtors and prostitutes. Even orphans in some cases. People who had done minor things or hadnt necessarily been convicted of a crime, or were being held awaiting trial, or until they paid a fine or for other administrative purposes. Some scholars have argued that those were the first prisons, but in my view they were more similar to what we would call a jail today. Jail is basically a short-term holding cell, not a place of punishment, and weve had that throughout history.

If you think of prison in the way we use the word today, that idea is pretty new. I would define it as a place designated for punishment of people who have been convicted of typically serious offenses, and their punishment is long-term confinement, usually more than a year.

Before prisons existed, how were criminals punished?

In England and colonial America, the primary form of punishment was capital punishment. Pretty much everything was a capital offense, including moral offenses like adultery and religious offenses like breaking the Sabbath. Authorities might let it slide the first time, and they handed out a lot of pardons to prevent the system from killing everybody.

Over time, that softened so that less serious offenses were typically punished with corporal punishment like whipping or branding, usually on the cheek or hand. Or, to show how close you came to getting executed, you would be sentenced to spend an hour standing on the scaffold where they hanged people with the noose around your neck. In the 16th and 17th century, banishment was also a punishment. In the 18th century, fines were also widely used, often in combination with corporal punishment.

When and where did the first prisons arise?

The first actual prison is the Massachusetts state prison that opened in 1785, just after the American Revolution. Then came Connecticut in 1790 and Pennsylvania in 1794. Those are the first three state prisons in the world.

What was the rationale that led to their founding?

I would say the most immediate reason was that in the view of social reformers, politicians and other influential people at the time, the existing punishments just werent working to deter crime. Capital and corporal punishment were also seen as inhumane, but I would say deterrence was the main reason. A big concern at the time was that the existing punishments were actually causing more crime. The fear was that people would go to an execution and get blood lust and want to go kill people themselves. Prison advocates argued that people would hear scary stories about prisons, and the thought of being locked away from friends and families would terrify them into never committing a crime.

Simultaneously, there was this movement to reform jails because the conditions were just terrible, grotesque even. There was a lot of fighting and corruption, and they were hotspots for disease. Those ideas kind of came together the desire for a new type of punishment, and the need to reform the jails and paved the way for prisons as we now know them.

Was rehabilitation ever part of the goal?

That was another part of it. Prison advocates also thought that incarceration would be good because it would remove people from their bad environments. If you have a family thats not treating you well, or youve run away from an apprenticeship and fallen in with people who are a bad influence and you have access to alcohol, the idea was that they just needed to remove you from that environment and put you into a good, clean, moral environment.

All the early prisons, for over a century, involved hard labor. They thought, Criminals are lazy, so lets teach them discipline and put them to work. But there was also a little bit of recognition that people just hadnt been trained in a particular vocation, so they needed to be trained to do the work. There were additional educational and religious overtones. So, if people were illiterate, they were taught to write, and they were given moral guidance, which oftentimes was religious.

Was there much public debate about prisons in those early days?

Oh, yeah. There was a huge debate that went on from the 1780s into the 1820s. The original question was: Should we have capital and corporal punishment, or should we have prisons? You had pro-capital punishment people arguing that prison wasnt harsh enough, and you had pro-prison people arguing that prison was more severe than capital punishment and that its better in that way.

But at the same time the prison advocates were kind of speaking out of both sides of their mouths, trying to convince others that prison wasnt torture and to combat the common refrain that humans are social creatures, and you cant deprive them of social intercourse. That was a major concern what happens when you put human beings in long-term captivity.

How long were sentences in the early days of prisons?

They typically were about a couple years. The average wasnt that different from today, interestingly enough, except that there werent very long sentences or life sentences. The longest sentences would be like eight to 12 years in the early days.

How did solitary confinement begin?

The first prisons were mostly dormitory-like facilities. They were cleaner and better run than the jails had been, so they were much better at reducing disease. But by the 1800s or 1810s, people were starting to become concerned that putting prisoners together was allowing them to infect each other with their criminality that people would go to prison and become savvier in their criminality. In the first generation of prisons, solitary confinement was sometimes used as punishment, but at the beginning of discussions about the second generation of prisons, many wanted to use solitary confinement for all prisoners.

Was that controversial at the time?

There was an epic debate about the humaneness of all this that got going in the 1820s. It focused on two prisons, with different approaches to the problem of how to use solitary confinement and not kill prisoners or make them go insane.

At Auburn State Prison in New York, prisoners worked in a large workshop during the day, but they werent allowed to talk or even look at each other. They were socially but not physically isolated. In the evenings they were confined to tiny individual cells.

In contrast, at Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, prisoners were kept in solitary confinement around the clock, but they had rooms that were big enough for them to work in and access to a small private yard for fresh air. They were allowed to talk with prison staff and receive occasional visits from penal reformers in the local community, but they were not allowed contact with family, friends or other prisoners.

The Auburn system won out. The decision ultimately hinged not on which system was more humane but on the perception that the Auburn system was more cost-effective and profitable. It used smaller cells, which were cheaper to construct, and factory-style labor, which was generally considered more efficient. Auburn wasnt actually more profitable, but people believed it was. By the 1850s every state except for Pennsylvania had adopted the Auburn system. At that point, theres just no more controversy prisons were here to stay.

How would you characterize the public debate over prisons today?

Its a weird time. Its very messy. Were in this moment of transition. On the one hand, activism is big right now there are calls to defund the police, more public talks, big books getting published about abolishing prisons. There are also discussions in mainstream newspapers about how abolition is more complicated than just getting rid of prisons; it requires reimagining society in a way that addresses the major oppressive structures that contribute to criminality and necessitate punishment. Were seeing more people in the mainstream talk about abolition of various criminal justice institutions than I had expected to see in my lifetime.

Ashley Rubin

On the other hand, thats still a small group overall. And were experiencing massive polarization. At the same time that prison abolitionists are making headlines, other folks mostly Trumpian Republicans, but also some self-identified conservative criminologists argue that we need more prisons to keep society safe from violent criminals. Any time theres an increase in crime rates, they see it as evidence that we need more incarceration, rather than looking at what type of crime were talking about and whats really causing it.

How can the history of prisons inform that discussion?

I think the biggest lesson of prison history is how prisons keep failing us and yet we keep using them anyway. Weve always had an overly optimistic idea about what they could accomplish, but we kind of are OK with it when theyre just barely doing what theyre supposed to do, or even when they massively fail.

We keep thinking, We can fix it. We convince ourselves that the problem isnt prisons per se, its the model of prison were using, or the way weve implemented it, or the resources we gave it, or the people who are running it. But we havent looked at the history of prisons and really taken seriously whats causing all these failures. We havent looked at the inherent limitations of prisons and whether they can actually accomplish all the goals we set for them.

We tell people who run prisons to keep their prisoners and staff safe and healthy, but to do it within a budget and certain rules that may not be realistic. For example, we tell people who run prisons to make sure the prison experience is not exactly fun, and maybe to make sure prison feels like punishment, and maybe to rehabilitate them, and definitely to keep prisoners inside so they cant hurt people on the outside. Basically, we tell prisons to do too many things, and its not like we give them all the tools they need to do any of these things.

If we want to make prisons better, we need to think more carefully about what we actually want prisons to do, give consistent messages about that, and stop piling on conflicting goals that make it impossible for prisons to live up to our overly high expectations.

So thats the conversation you think we should be having?

Honestly, I think the conversation we should be having is not one about prisons.

If were talking about prisons as a tool for rehabilitation, you can have the best-designed prison, and it will be virtually meaningless if people released from prison face the types of challenges on the outside that they face now: the inability to receive various kinds of governmental assistance, prohibition from getting certain types of jobs (including jobs they were trained for while in prison), difficulty getting most jobs because of background checks and discrimination against people with criminal records, a slew of fees and fines they still need to pay, not to mention the lack of help finding a place to live and transitioning to the outside world. They have a very tight rope to walk to not return to prison.

If we want to prevent crime and were talking about punishment, were also having the wrong conversation. If deterrence worked well for crime reduction, we would have more evidence that it works, but we only have weak and mixed evidence. If you want to prevent crime, you have to intervene before the crime happens.

I think the right conversation to be having is one about social policies and the things that actually work to prevent crime. Things like education, universal basic income, childcare, shoring up health care, early childhood nutrition all these things that have nothing to do with crime directly, but benefit everyone in society.

Free online event: March 23

Prisons were once considered a sign of progress, a victory for public health that was more humane than disease-ridden, overcrowded jails and the harsh physical punishments meted out on the town green.

Yet today, prisons face a legitimacy crisis, and are considered by many policymakers and reformers as bloated, inhumane institutions.

How did we get here? Whats reasonable to ask of prisons and do they ever work as intended? How is incarceration experienced by those who are imprisoned?

Watch this discussion with a formerly incarcerated writer and a sociologist to learn how the history of prisons can inform our understanding of mass incarceration today. Register now!

10.1146/knowable-031722-1

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.

More here:

The Invention of Incarceration - JSTOR Daily

Jean-Baptiste Carpeauxs classic marble sculpture Why Born Enslaved! (1868) shows the bust of an unknown Black woman. Tattered clothing exposes a bare breast, and Afro-textured hair frames the womans face. Her nose flares as she looks over her left shoulder in fear, agony, with possibly a mixture of disgust and desired vengeance.

The sculpture is at the center of a new exhibit, Fictions of Emancipation: Carpeaux Recast, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Multiple variations are showcased along with modern takes and reworkings of the piece. Surrounding the sculpture are variations made of terracotta, plaster and paint, and unbaked clayall crafted by Carpeaux. A plaster shell reworking, Negress (2007) by Kara Walker, is perched in a corner.

A contemporary rendition of the sculpture featuring a basketball player in a similar pose, After La Negresse (2006) by Kehinde Wiley, sits near the original. Fixed at the center of the room, the popularity of Why Born Enslaved! is seen with its various spawns circling it. The perimeter of the room is adorned with other pieces of artwork unrelated to Why Born Enslaved!but similar in context.

What the show highlights are a series of profound dislocations of perception: We see right in front of us how 19th century artwork featuring Black subjects by white artists represented and misrepresented those subjects, and then today we see those same subjects re-interpreted, realizing how they were once mistakenly seen, and pondering who they really were.

The exhibit redirects the conversation of tone and purpose of ethnographic 19th century European art. In an effort to correct racial inaccuracies featured in the Mets 150-year existence, current curators and historians attempt to highlight misrepresentations and fallacies of the supposed Black experience that was created by white artists.

Entering the exhibit, I was immediately pulled to a quote printed on a wall by Dr. Fabienne Kanor, a writer, filmmaker, and Pennsylvania State University professor, talking about her childhood in France. She detailed her experience watching La Noiraude, a TV show about a black cow that continuously had bad luck. No matter what, the cow always seemed to run into some sort of obstacle, and Kanor loved it.

Like millions of French people, I listened to the black cows laments, and I laughed. I laughed at her, Kanor said. I laughed to tears until some white schoolmates decided to baptize me La Noiraude. And then the TV screen became a mirror. And I became La Noiraude. And then I became a problem. Representation is not something to be taken lightly. When it is false, it is heavy. It stops us from flying toward our authentic selves.

Allegory of Africa, Frdric-Auguste Bartholdi (French, Colmar 18341904 Paris), modeled ca. 186364

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Moving clockwise around the edge of the room, the artwork starts with Jean-Lon Grmes Bashi-Bazouk (186869), an oil painting of a Black male model costumed in silk fabric to capture the artists idea of a Turkish soldier in the Ottoman Empire. Next comes Charles-Henri-Joseph Cordiers sculpture Woman From the French Colonies (1861). A Black female model is draped in a seemingly luxurious robe to represent a type rather than an accurate portrait. The bust exoticizes the concept of the Black woman as an object and novelty. Even the title demeans her identity.

These works are incredibly beautiful, in terms of their materiality and their artistic bravura, Fictions of Emancipation co-curator Elyse Nelson told The Daily Beast. But underlining them is something incredibly harmful as well. I think its really important for us to have more honest, clarifying conversations around what underpins those works.

Representations are charged, co-curator Wendy Walters explained. They are used in context. In some ways, its about getting a stronger sense of understanding about how representation is used before one evaluates it, as opposed to just seeing it be present because of the novelty of it or the unusualness of it and assuming that its good.

The exhibit dives into racial tropes enveloped in classic pieces of art that were considered groundbreaking and socially enlightening during the time of their creation. Signs throughout the exhibit explain that artists of the period created fantasy portraits of colonized subjects.

White artists wanted to tell the stories of Black people how they viewed Black people. Black artists were far and few in-between during the years after slavery was abolished in European colonies, so storylines relied on white artists trying to explain a livelihood from the outside looking in. In turn, Black modelswho financially struggledwere hired to convey the message white artists wanted to tell. Their Blackness was exploited as forms of propaganda.

The ways in which we have presented these works of art and displayed them to the public for a century have been acts of white supremacy. This exhibition seeks to address that critically.

Elyse Nelson

At what point do you move on from this narrative? Why rehash this predatory, racist history? Nelson said. Why continue to tell the story that Black communities are so familiar with? And the truth is that I feel that the Met cannot move beyond it until its done the work of addressing its own institutional colonialism. The ways in which we have presented these works of art and displayed them to the public for a century have been acts of white supremacy. This exhibition seeks to address that critically.

Nelson and Walters acknowledged that they were unsure of the reason why there was an influx of emancipation art after slavery in the Western Hemisphere was abolished. It was a time when places that once held enslaved Africans were no longer the focus and a new wave of colonization in North Africa and Southeast Asia became the trend. The white elite wanted to show how socially progressive they were and would commission artists to create pieces for their liking.

Maybe it was a sense of nostalgia or white guilt. Regardless, those classic sculptures and paintings demonstrated something to the public that wasnt real. Being Black was synonymous with the term slave and inferiority.

There were remnants in the exhibit that reminded me of my childhood. Just like the passage from Kanor, I had a realization of cartoons Id watch that made me feel uncomfortable, as if I was witnessing something forbidden and dark.

Coming across the Allegories of the Four Parts of the World (1730-32) by Johann Justin Preissler, I saw four types of women who were deemed to be representations of the global quadrants. The European woman was adorned with a crown and fully clothed. The Native and African women were undressed and surrounded by wild animals to indicate a level of savagery.

Tunes from syndicated 1950 and 60s-era Merrie Melodies rang in my head when a cartoon would feature a story in the jungle and what was considered standard exotic music would heavily play in the forefront. Wild tribal members would yell and jab their spears at whoever was seen as an intruder. The intruder would be afraid of the tribe whoof coursewere cannibals and practiced some heathen primal religion.

(L) Print of a Free Man, Louis Darcis (French, died 1801), 1794, (R) Print of a Free Woman, Louis Darcis (French, died 1801), 1794

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Then, there was a pair of illustrations by Louis Darcis: Print of a Free Man (Moi Libre Aussi) (1794) and Print of a Free Woman (Moi Libre Aussi) (1794). A Black man and Black woman with over-emphasized bulbous lips and large eyes making a plea for their humanity. It simply reminded me of the banned cartoons I found online after I became olderand other cartoons I watched as a kid that were never deemed offensive enough to be taken out of circulation.

Stereotypes. I think that notion of humans as typological categories still exists, Nelson said. Its so hurtful that we view people as types rather than as individual humans. For me, thats the danger.

At the heart of the exhibit is Why Born Enslaved! I stared at the sculpture of the woman, trying to understand what the model felt at the time she posed for Carpeaux. Did she realize the extent of which her image would carry, that her story would be misconstrued as a tale of triumph rather than a white artist exploiting her Blackness for his own artistic motives?

The sculpture was originally titled La Negresse, a degrading term simply meaning Black woman. The model/subject is so far removed from being human that her Blacknessand sexual objectivityis singular enough to be its own artistic subject.

Over time, the sculpture has gained recognition and grown in fame. It has been featured in an Ivy Park ad with Beyonc; Janet Jackson has a copy of the mold in her home. At one point, Why Born Enslaved! was heralded as racial progress for including subjects of Black people, especially Black women. But the tone and context of the artwork has to be considered; theres more to it than filling a void.

Instead, it creates a misrepresentation that Black people could feel only one emotion, that they had no concept of joy because of bondage, that they were not complex human beings with variety. However, Black people are dynamic like any other group and deserve accurate portraits to convey their real lives.

Black audiences see the same bait and switch in pop culture today. ABC is infamous for creating shows about Black people but for white viewers. Its as if its a disguise for diversitywhen in reality its a level of Blackness that will keep white people comfortable. Black stories on film tend to focus on slavery or the Civil Rights movement. They have come to be known as Black trauma porn where Black stories can only be accepted when the performers are playing enslaved people or fighting through Jim Crow.

Abolitionist Jug, ca. 1820

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

The Help received a wave of criticism from Black readers and viewers due to its white-savior complex. The Black women who worked as maids throughout the Mississippi town had no concept of happiness without the white protagonist. Though stories need to be told for historical context, other Black narratives need to be shared for more accurate and modern portrayals.

I think that theres a challenge with works that are supposed to fill in for a lack of representation, Walters said. It makes it seem like that work has already been done, [like] we dont need any more representation because it already exists. Thats an issue in terms of what images or what works get reported and what gets made in the present tense.

Though the Met works to initiate conversations about representation and changing how classic works are viewed, Black people still are not totally in control of their narrative. During the press opening, a vast majority of the audience who attended the exhibit were white. Though its making an effort to fix the kink in the chain, the industry is still like a bastardized form of telephone where the story gets misconstrued farther and farther down the line.

We wanted to create different levels of opportunity for people to respond to the works put forward, Walters explained. Along with the exhibit, the curators organized a display where people could write their thoughts on the meanings of representation, abolition, legacy, and central Black figures in art.

Some people cant stand these works. Some people adore them. Some people are ambivalent about them. Theres not a single response from Black audiences that were anticipating.

Wendy Walters

One person wrote that the legacy of Black art is the lack of humanization. Another said that abolition is about breaking chains, while another wrote that it is rewriting the historical canon to prioritize and uplift Black voices, dismantling ever-present systems of systemic racism. Voices of power was noted as the key force in who narrated history.

We put this forward as a way to say this is a complicated set of works, Walters continued. We want you to look at them and we want to know what you think about them. Some people cant stand these works. Some people adore them. Some people are ambivalent about them. Theres not a single response from Black audiences that were anticipating. We want to make a place for that multiplicity response because thats what people do. People respond in multiplicities.

I think that this work had to be done because these works are already in view at the Met, and theyve never been critically addressed, Nelson said. We talked about it as maybe a pivot point. Lets address it and then let our audience and the community tell us how to move forward. Lets learn from it.

Read more:

The Met Museum Asks: How Can Black-Themed Art Be Freed from the White Gaze? - The Daily Beast

ST. LOUISWhat is the delay in closing the Workhouse? moderator Maquis Govan asks Mayor Tishaura Jones at avirtual town hall on re-envisioning public safety February8.

The event was co-organized by Action St. Louis, an affiliate of the Movement for Black Lives. The groups 5014 arm, Action St. Louis Power Project, endorsed Jones during her 2021 mayoral run. The Rev. Michelle Higgins opened the event by thanking Jones warmly for valuing and loving the constituents of this city in this way: taking the time to listen to our questionsdirectly.

Now, activists want clarification on when the mayor will fulfill her campaign promise to close the St. Louis Medium Security Institution, more commonly known as the Workhouse, which activists have been trying to shut down foryears.

The jail itself opened in 1966, but its nickname and legacy is areference to the 1840s, when St. Louis sent manacled scofflaws to work off debt 10hours at atime in arock quarry. Since the Workhouse opened, its been followed by areputation for human rights violations and poor conditions, including pests, mold, lack of heat and poor medicalattention.

In 2017, avideo of people screaming inside the Workhouse circulated online. At the time, the jail did not have air conditioners; the temperature inside hit 115 degrees. In 2018, momentum from the resulting protests led Action St. Louis, with legal advocacy group ArchCity Defenders, to launch the Close the Workhouse campaign.

Action St. Louis formed after the 2014 Ferguson uprising and has been primarily focused on organizing street uprisings into long-term issue campaigns. Alongside other local and national groups, for example, it succeeded in 2018in ousting county prosecutor Bob McCulloch, who had declined to press charges in the police killing of Michael Brown in2014.

Issue campaigns dont have the same timeline as electoral campaigns, says Kayla Reed, the groups co-founder and executive director. It may take several years to get something like [Close the Workhouse] done, but its been worth the investment.

A 2018 report from the Close the Workhouse campaign found up to 95 percent of people were held in the Workhouse because they couldnt pay pre-trial bonds. And, in acity whose population is 50 percent Black, almost 90 percent of the people held wereBlack.

In July 2020, the Board of Aldermen voted to close the Workhouse, and the campaign declared victorybut the jail remained open because, the city said, moving people to another jail would cause Covid-19overcrowding.

When former city treasurer Tishaura Jones announced her second bid for mayor, in November 2020, her platform called for the full closure of the Workhouse, which she had advocated since 2016and Action St. Louis made arare foray into electoral politics by endorsing Jones.

Paid and volunteer canvassers with Action St. Louis Power Project knocked on more than 60,000 doors, and Jones won by 4% to become the citys first Black woman mayor.

On Jones first full day in office, April 21, 2021, she filed abudget proposal to close the Workhouse. By June 2021, most of the Workhouses detainees had been moved to St. Louis other jail, the City Justice Centerbut the Workhouse remains open, though only the jails most recent addition, known as the CJCAnnex.

To the question Govan posed at the virtual town hall, submitted by audience member Janice Banks, Jones reassured the audience that the Workhouse as everybody knows it is closed and the 23 people held at the Annex would be transferred as soon as repairs were completed at the City Justice Center, potentially by the end of February.

The Annex remainsopen.

The town hall was designed in part to get Tishaura on public record saying when shes going to close the Workhouse, give us atimeline, says Jae Shepherd, abolition organizer for Action St. Louis. Shepherd sees aneed for more forums with elected officials. The town hall was the first Action St. Louis has organized, and it drew more than 180 people with more than 150 questions. At adebriefing aweek later, some attendees felt the mayor hadnt made clear commitments and wanted follow-through on two things: First, reforming the citys new Cops and Clinicians program, designed to send social workers alongside police officers on mental health calls, to be able to send clinicians alone. Second, to end no-knock warrants and raids.

We had folks whose loved ones were killed from ano-knock raid, Shepherd says. [Jones] has the power to do amoratorium.

Action St. Louis is converting the feedback from the debriefing into alist of questions and demands to send toJones.

Its really important for voters to understand that elected officials work for them, and that they can ask questions between elections, Reed says. We shouldnt only engage with our elected officials during [get-out-the-vote] cycles. For us, it was important that elected officials keep their promises, remain accountable to their base around their campaign commitments and work in deep collaboration with organizations that are seeking to build transformative policies for ourcommunity.

Reed adds that the win is not the candidate getting into office, but the moment where the candidate is in office and meets thedemand.

Read the original here:

St. Louis's Movement-Backed Mayor Promised to Close an Infamous Jail. What's the Hold Up? - In These Times

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

Workers at Marathon Texas City Refinery (Source: USW)

To join the Oil Workers Rank-and-File Committee, email oilworkersrfc@gmail.com.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The United Steelworkers leadership is using every dirty trick in the book to push through its four-year agreement, which would substantially reduce our real take home pay and give the oil bosses a free hand to cut jobs, endanger our lives, and destroy the conditions of the next generation of refinery and petrochemical workers.

At BP, the USW is trying to ram through the national contract at a vote tomorrow without releasing the full deal and giving workers enough time to study and discuss it. As one brother at the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana told us, There is still no info on the contract we are voting on Thursday. Unreal. I heard through the grapevine we can go view the 32-page document at the hall after work. Six weeks of talks and we get a couple hours to read it and decide. It's not a valid vote...it's a cattle call.

At USW Local 11-470 at the Phillips 66 refinery in Billings, Montana, the USW International forced workers to re-vote on the national agreement after they rejected it on March 4. During an informational meeting two days later, national USW reps told workers if they voted down the contract then they would be on an economic strike, in which the company would be free to terminate all union members and hire back whoever they wanted without any contract protections.

In other words, the USW is threatening us, not the company, with strike action. It is telling us: If you strike, we will leave you on your own, starve you on the picket line, and if you are fired, you will be on your own. To drive this threat home, the USW is holding up the example of the Beaumont, Texas workers, who the USW left on the picket lines for 10 months before signing a deal with ExxonMobil that gutted seniority rights, job classifications and quadrupled the probationary period to 24 months, creating a new tier of lower paid at-will employees to replace senior workers.

This cannot stand. We have to fight and overturn this miserable deal. We urge our brothers and sisters at BP and the other companies to vote it down and to build the Oil Workers Rank-and-File Committee to prepare a national strike.

From the beginning, the USW has operated as an enemy of rank-and-file workers. Oil workers were never in a stronger position to fight than this year. The companies are making record profits. Several key refineries, including Marathons Galveston Bay Refinery, were down for various reasons as the contract expired. Rather than striking when the iron was hot and when the companies were most vulnerable, the USW ordered us to stay on the job.

Then after weeks of telling us Marathon and the other oil giants were refusing to seriously negotiate, USW President Tom Conway suddenly announced on February 25 that he had reached an agreement with substantial gains for workers. But the deal was essentially identical to the one the union rejected February 1. In a recent press release, Conway boasted that he had signed a responsible contract, which did not add to inflationary pressures.

In fact, the deal will impose all the inflationary pressures on the backs of workers. It includes a first year raise of only 2.5 percent and an average of three percent annually over four years. With inflation running at 7.9 percent and sure to rise in coming months, this means by the end of four years we will have suffered a major reduction in our living standards. We will not be able to keep up with fast rising prices for fuel, food or the outrageous co-pays and other out-of-pocket medical expenses contained in this contract.

The USWs adamant opposition to strike action must be seen within the context of the Biden administrations increasingly dangerous military confrontation with Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. Conway announced this deal the day after the invasion, and three days after the USW president took part in a virtual White House meeting with President Biden, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks. While the White House and the USW have kept the content of the discussion secret, there is no doubt Biden told Conway in no uncertain terms that he had to settle the contract and block a strike that could shut down two-thirds of the countrys refinery capacity. In other words, this is a government-dictated contract, which will rob us and reward the oil bosses!

No class-conscious worker would support Russias invasion of Ukraine. But the US and NATO pushed Putin into a corner through the eastern expansion of NATO and massive military buildup on Russias borders. Despite the crocodile tears the big business politicians in Washington are shedding for the Ukrainian people, they are being used as pawns in the US governments regime change operation in Russia, which is aimed at turning Russia into a colony of the US and European powers. The same giant energy firms, which are waging a war against us, are licking their chops over the possibility of seizing the vast oil and gas reserves of Russiajust like they did in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, which was sold to us with lies about weapons of mass destruction.

There is another major factor is this reckless war drive: the Biden administration and the corporate media are creating an external enemy to rally against, so workers dont fight our real enemies, which are at home!

Theyre telling oil workers, railroad workers, dock workers and others we cannot strike because well disrupt the economy and undermine national defense, even as the war profiteers in the oil and defense industries laugh all the way to the bank.

We are not idiotsand we are certainly not slaves. We have every right to carry out an economic strike, no matter what Conway and his high-paid henchmen on the regional and local level say.

As we said in our founding statement, the OWRFC urges workers to reject any contract that does not include the following:

A 40 percent raise and the restoration of Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA);

Restoration of the 8-hour day;

Expansion of paid time off, including a six-week vacation during the first year of service and one month of paid paternity leave;

Fully paid medical benefits;

The hiring of more full-time workers;

The establishment of worker-run health and safety committees and the abolition of corrupt joint labor-management committees;

Workers control over production rates and input over capital expenditures;

Fully paid pensions and retiree medical benefits after 25 years of service;

The elevation of contractors to full-time positions, with the same pay and benefits.

The USW has kept us from using our enormous strength to win these demands. That is why we formed the Oil Workers Rank-and-File Committee (OWRFC). Our committee seeks to unite workers throughout our industry, including the tens of thousands of contract workers who are being used as cheap labor. They are our class brothers and sisters too!

But we cannot fight the giant corporations and their bought-and-paid political parties alone. That is why our committee will unite oil workers with striking Minneapolis teachers, the BNSF and Canadian Pacific railroad workers, the dock workers in California, Oregon and Washington whose contracts expire in July, and the millions of other workers fighting against the sacrifice of our lives and livelihoods to corporate profit.

We are working for global corporations, which can only be fought for by uniting energy workers across all national boundaries. American workers have more in common with the workers of Russia, China, Mexico and other countries than they do with the billionaires and corporate-controlled politicians in the US. It is only through our common struggle that can finally put an end to the pandemic, the danger of new wars over oil and other resources, and guarantee that we, the workers, who create all of societys wealth, can have a future free from want, inequality and the horrors of war.

To join the Oil Workers Rank-and-File Committee, email oilworkersrfc@gmail.com.

Sign up for more information about how to join or build a rank-and-file committee in your workplace

Read the rest here:

Oppose USW threats and lies! Launch a national strike to overturn the government-dictated sellout contract! - WSWS