Category Archives: Government Oppression

SAN FRANCISCO, CA Sometimes referred to as the underdog and unlikely candidate, Eric Curry, a 27-year-old San Franciscan is running for San Franciscos 12th Congressional District seat. He officially launched his campaign to win the congressional seat once held by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) in the Bay Area on Monday April 19, 2021.

According to the Bay Area Reporter, Curry, who would be the first gay Latino candidate to represent the district, is a democrat deeply invested in the rights of the working class, LGBTQ+ community and eco-friendly sustainability. He announced his candidacy after Pelosi hinted at the possibility that 2022 may mark the end of her time serving as House speaker. Pelosis suggestion of stepping down created debate as to whether she should also retire from Congress altogether the following year and opened the door for Curry to run for Congress. Curry told the Bay Area Reporter that he is focused on raising his name recognition with voters and seeking donations in order to have a fighting chance at surviving the primaries on June 7, 2022.

Curry states that hes running for Congress in his hometown of San Francisco because we simply cannot wait any longer for Medicare For All, housing reform, a Green New Deal and student loan forgiveness. He feels that the decisions are being made by politicians who wont be around in 20 years to deal with the consequences of their decisions.

It will be my generation, our kids and our grandchildren who will bear the brunt of the climate crisis, the healthcare crisis, the looming economic crisis and thus, we deserve a seat at the table, he says.

Curry pledges that on day one in office, he will cosponsor H.R. 794 The Climate Emergency Act.

Im quite baffled that our current representative, whom I deeply respect, doesnt seem to understand the urgency of the climate crisis, he explains. Once Congress acts on climate change, we can address the student loan crisis, Medicare For All and raising the minimum wage. But my priority is making sure we still have a planet to live on in 20 years.

According to Mercy Corps, the impacts of climate change do affect every continent and country, but it doesnt affect every demographic equally. The impoverished populations throughout the globe face the heavy social burdens of poverty and oppression while being forced to deal with the harshest consequences of environmental changes. Those who live in poverty have the least resources to cope with the struggle to earn a living, care for their families and live in a stable environment that has not been impacted by the climate.

The Climate Emergency Act would allow the president to declare a national emergency as result of climate change under section 201 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1621), making it possible for the president to:

(A) Upgrade public infrastructure, create nationwide access to clean energy and water, access to public transportation and high-speed broadband internet;

(B) Retrofit millions of homes, schools, business offices and industrial buildings to reduce the daily carbon footprint;

(C) Increase investments into public health response in preparation for extreme climatic events;

(D) Protect the vast wetlands, forests and public lands that may be in danger due to extreme weather;

(E) Create economical empowerment opportunities for farmers and rural communities by supporting regenerative agriculture and investing in American based food systems that support farmers, agricultural workers, healthy soil and climate resilience;

(F) Encourage transformative development of the American industrial base, creating high wage paying manufacturing jobs, including expanding the manufacturing of clean technologies that reduce industrial pollutions; and

(G) Establish new employment programs as needed.

Curry has put his activist background to work in organizing with grassroots progressive organizations across the country during the 2020 elections. He was a volunteer on Kamala Harris Presidential Campaign, participating in her organizing academy and later organizing for the Biden/Harris ticket. As a native Spanish speaker, Currys skills were useful for native Texans and Georgians as he was also a volunteer for the Warnock and Ossoff Senate campaigns. Due to his experience, he understands firsthand how money can influence elections.

There is no place for corporate money in politics. None. Corporations dont vote; people do. How on earth can I make the best decisions for the American people if my judgment is clouded by corporate interests? Curry asked Mills students in a campaign email.

Curry wants people to know that he is committed to running a campaign of, by, and for the people. If elected, the welfare of his constituents, not the corporations, will guide all of his actions in Congress.

According to Caltech Science Exchange, political action committees (PACs)is formed to represent business, labor or ideological interests by individuals privately raising money that will be donated to a political campaign. Those funds are then used for campaigns that sway an election either for or against targeted candidates, ballot initiatives or legislation that affect public policies by either altering legislators roll call voting or influencing election outcomes. Political candidates will often raise money to fund their campaigns and to demonstrate the breadth of their support through the aid of PACs. Campaign finance laws dictate who can contribute to a campaign, how much money they can contribute and how the funding may be used at the local, state and federal levels. Campaign funding can come from individual donors, political party committees and PACs.

When PACs alter legislators rollcall voting behavior, often called roll-call buying, a lawmaker will choose to simply vote present when being persuaded by PACs funding. Rollcall vote-buying often operates in a quidproquo fashion, which can limit the PACs influence on public policy.

When PACs influence election outcomes, a particular candidate will author a vote in favor of legislation that favors the PACs interest, providing specific benefits to the donating PACs as that candidate serves in office.

One social issue that PACs tend to influence is immigration policies. Currys stances on the detention centers at the Southwestern American borders and how the issue made him feel as the child of immigrants were made clear.

My mother came to the United States in the midst of a horrific civil war in El Salvador. My Abuelito [grandfather] and Abuelita [grandmother] came from nothing, but worked hard to provide the resources for my mother and her sisters to have the privilege of being able to immigrate to the United States legally, Curry says.

Curry reflects upon how many immigrants are not afforded the same opportunities as his mother and her family were and that it doesnt make them any less deserving of the American Dream.

I strongly oppose the detention centers at the border. The migrants at the border are not criminals; they are people just like you and me who are fleeing oppression, natural disasters, and corruption and are ready to work hard and contribute to our economy, Curry says.

The El Salvadorian Civil War ravaged the Central American state country of El Salvador, where approximately 75,000 Salvadorans died between 1980 to 1992. The two primary actors were a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group called the Farabundo Mart National Liberation Front (FMLN) and the government of El Salvador. According to Aljazeera, FMLN guerrillas used kidnappings, bombings and terrorist tactics that involved killing mayors and informants. The civil war between the FMLN and the government of Salvador caused the civilians caught in the crossfire to become alienated and seek refuge abroad to avoid execution by the governments death squads. Currys family came to the U.S. seeking asylum and escaping the violence.

As a third-generation immigrant whose family came to this country fleeing civil unrest and oppressive governments, Curry has been working hard to become a trailblazer for future generations of Americans. This is the story of many South and Central American and Caribbean immigrants seeking asylum at our nations borders. Especially Salvadorian asylum seekers, who face execution upon their return to their native home. Salvadoran gangs prey on deportees who have very little to no protection by authorities upon return.

While talking about military actions being carried out against civilians, Curry opened up about police reform and the militarization of law enforcement in America and expressed his support of potentially abolishing the 1033 program that gives local law enforcement military-grade weapons and gear.

I absolutely support police reform and if elected, will fight from day one to support policies ending qualified immunity and increasing implicit bias training for law enforcement, said Curry. I also fully support the abolishment of the military surplus equipment transfer program [1033].

When dealing with the issue of military surplus and what many considered the worsening drug crisis, the 101st Congress enacted theNational Defense Authorization Act in 1990. Section 1208 of the NDAA made it possible for the Secretary of Defense to transfer to Federal and State agencies personal property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and ammunition, that the Secretary determines is suitable for use by such agencies in counter-drug activities; and excess to the needs of the Department of Defense. It was originally labeled the 1208 Program, until 1996 when Congress replaced Section 1208 of the act with Section 1033, according to News Week.

Curry is jumping headfirst into humanitarianism in politics. In refusing PACs money, standing in support of abolishing the 1033 program, fighting to release asylum seekers at the border, agreeing with the HR 794 Climate Emergency Act, advocating for a minimum wage increase, championing health care for all and eliminating student loan debt, Curry is keeping in tradition with the liberalism of current House Speaker Pelosi.

See more here:

The unlikely underdog in the fight: Following Eric Curry's journey to the 12th Congressional District seat The Campanil - Mills Campanil

In the keenly watched assembly election of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee brought the Modi-Shah politicking to a grinding halt. Banerjee secured a landslide victory for Trinamool Congress (TMC) as it swept the state by winning 213 of the 292 seats in the state. But keeping aside all the politics and statistics, there are voices of many Bengalis, some extremely popular, some completely unknown, who raised to the occasion and took a stand against voting for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ahead of the polls.

In November 2020, a group of people connected to various social and mass movements came together to create a forum called Bengal against Fascist RSS-BJP. The forum started a peoples campaign No Vote To BJP, which went to the farthest corners of the state. Students, youngsters, teachers, doctors and social activists joined the forum voluntarily and campaigned for the cause.

Kushal Debnath, one of the convenors of the forum, had then told The Wirethat through this campaign, they are not asking people to vote for TMC or any other political party, but requesting people to not vote for the BJP. Stopping the BJP from coming to power in Bengal is extremely crucial today, otherwise their fascist aggression will gain steam across India, Debnath said.

Dwaipayan Banerjee, a member associated with the forum, said, We got support from people cutting across various socio-economic strata. People associated with cinema, music, theatre, academia, all joined the movement as they believed this was essential. People joined from different political backgrounds, but they did not represent their party ideology. They joined as individuals who genuinely believe that BJP must not come to power inBengal,

Another convenor of the forum, who played an active role throughout the campaign, Kasturi Basu said, Our campaign minced no words in its attack on the BJP-RSS, exposing their every move as inimical to the interests of our people. It made no irresponsible comparisons of the fascist party BJP with other parties in the fray. It aimed to convince people, particularly those who have swung towards the BJP in the recent past, that this time they should not make a mistake again. It was imperative to stop the BJP from coming to power in Bengal to avoid centralised authoritarianism, to establish a firm mandate against NRC-CAA-NPR (National Register of Citizens-Citizenship Amendment Act-National Population Register), to uphold the sanctity of federalism, to say no more riots and religious majoritarian bigotry.

The members organised street corner meetings, street plays, put up posters and distributed pamphlets in various towns and villages. They also set up a social media team which ran an intense online campaign parallel to the street campaign. The No Vote To BJP campaign released a series of videos, each addressing various issues related to Bengal. The video series went viral and garnered millions of views.

The Joint Forum against NRC, a non-political civil society group, ran a campaign in various districts of West Bengal to educate people on CAA and NRC.The forum attacked the BJP and their leadership, alleging that the Union home minister Amit Shah was bluffing and misleading the Matua community on citizenship issues.

Also read: What Will the West Bengal Election Result Mean for Bihars Political Parties?

The Modi government at the Centre is deliberately issuing these rules now so that they can garner the support of Dalit refugees like Matua, Namasudras, Rajbangshis by hanging on to the roots of unconditional citizenship before the assembly elections, the forum had said on February.

The forum had also organised a Citizenship Protection Yatra, which started on February 26 from the border village of Betai and ran for a week in the refugee-concentrated areas of Nadia and North 24 Parganas, and ended on March 5. The main aim of the yatra was to raise awareness against the false promise of giving citizenship to the refugees and to demand repeal of the two laws, CAA 2003 and CAA 2019.

On asking what compelled the forum to organise this campaign amid a pandemic, Prasenjit Bose, a convenor of the forum, said, First, we were fighting against the NRC-NPR-CAA 2003 and 2019, and the BJP, in its Bengal manifesto, mentioned that they will implement CAA after coming to power in Bengal. So, we were duty bound to fight this and make the Bengal electorate aware of the possible danger. Second, the Bengal election this time was not just another state election, it had national context. This election was fought against the backdrop of the pandemic, catastrophic farm laws, NRC, CAA and a whole lot of wrong policies. BJPs win in Bengal would have bolstered their agenda of opposition-less India and weakened our democracy. So, with all means we had to fight to stop them.

No Vote to BJP campaigners. Photo: Himadri Ghosh

Taking a stand

Theatre group Jana Gana Mana performed a play called Indurer Kol(Mouse Trap) in various rural villages in Bengal. The play fundamentally premised against the fascist forces dealing with issues like NRC, CAA, inflation, LPG price hike with a pinch of sarcasm. While performing at the Mangrove Theatre Centre in the Sundarbans region on the occasion of World Theatre Day, the cast and crew were attacked by the local BJP leaders.

Playwright Shubhankar Das Sharma had told The Wire, We have seen in BJP-ruled states that freedom of speech and expression was suppressed. Here also, they are trying to silence peoplesvoices. They can try as much as they want to scare us, but we are not going anywhere, we are not scared. We will continue to enact the play at various places.

The group enacted the play in more than 84 locations starting from August 2020.

Just three days ahead of the first phase of the assembly election, a galaxy of artists from cinema, theatre and music fields came together in a music video, highlighting the need to stamp out fascist forces. In a song titled Nijeder Mote, Nieder Gaan (Our song about our views), without explicitly naming the BJP, the artists had taken a stand against its ideology of hatred. The music video features artists such as Parambrata Chatterjee, Anirban Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi Chakraborty, Rudraprasad Sengupta, Anupam Roy, Rupankar Bagchi, Riddhi Sen and Suman Mukhopadhyay.

The song, penned by one of the top film and theatre actors from West Bengal, Anirban Bhattacharya, touches upon issues like communal violence, love-jihad and forced nationalism, while promoting pluralism, fake news and propaganda. The video is directed by actors Riddhi Sen and Rwitobroto Mukherjee.

Poster of the music video. Photo: Special arrangement

The Wire asked Parambrata Chatterjee if he ever feared backlash for taking a stand against the central government, to which he said, Definitely. We have been seeing the BJP in power since 2014. We witnessed many wrongs by this dispensation. But [we] havent spoken enough about it because of some kind of fear. Now that it came to us, to capture our state, steamroll politics of hate and divide, which defies all democratic norms, we cant stay quiet. We have to speak against a fascist, autocratic dispensation.

Chatterjee opined that civil society has an important role to play in society and therefore, it should speak about the pressing issues. History shows how artists in India and across the globe played a crucial role in various socio-economic and socio-cultural issues. Indias foundation is unity in diversity. Now if some party or government tries to appropriate culture with an aim to create a homogenised society, it goes against the very idea of India. That must be resisted. People must speak up, he further said.

Also read: How West Bengal Halted the BJPs Chariot

The video not only received appreciation from people across the country, but also created a controversy as the makers were verbally attacked by several BJP leaders. BJP state president Dilip Ghosheven issued a warning and said, Artists should restrict themselves to singing and dancing. Dont try to do politics. Leave that to us. Or else we will take care of them.

Speaking toThe Wire, sociologist Piya Chakraborty, who was also part of the video, said, Since January, with the increasing polarisation regarding Bengal elections and the overall religious fascism, crushing of dissent and economic decline in the entire country.. We felt like we had to express our thoughts. Art was the best way to resist.

When asked about why she felt resisting the BJP was so central to this election and the political future of Bengal, Chakraborty said, The politics of the BJP centres around religious polarisation and Hindu majoritarianism. Not only does that go against the secular ethos of Bengal but also dangerous for its minority population and overall maintenance of peace and coexistence.

During the election, a band from Kolkata, Fiddlers Green, released a song urging voters of Bengal to be hushiyar'(beware). The song is a part of the video series produced and directed by senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. The basic theme of the song was to urge people to be aware of the seeds of hatred that are being sown and how it could have serious consequences in the future.

Screengrab from Fiddlers Green music video Dike Dike Hao Hushiar.

Songwriter Swadesh Misra said that since the BJP came to power at the Centre, he was closely following deep distress in the society, from demonetisation to farm laws to divisive policies like CAA, NRC, attacks on dissenters, oppression of communities, aggressive push of North India culture etc. I felt the urge to take a stand against the fascist regime which has captured all institutions and bulldozed Indias federal structure through its one language, one nation, one government policy. When I got the chance to be a part of this project, I jumped immediately.

Misra further said that the BJPs win in Bengal would have helped the saffron party in taking forward their agenda of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. They [BJP] are doing social engineering to change this country, destroy Indias secular values and end the idea of co-existence. BJPs Bengal win would have boosted their agenda.

Last but not the least, the visit of farm leaders from Delhi border toBengal. Although it can be debated if it had any electoralimpact, but, their visit and doing mahapanchayat in places like Nandigram, Singur and Asansol created a talking point both in rural and urban Bengal.

Leader of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) Rakesh Tikait got a huge response when he reached Nandigram for the mahapanchayat. In a scathing attack on the BJP, Tikait said in Nandigram, BJP is planning to ruin the lives of farmers by supporting big corporations. They dont care about you and me. They are here to sell this countrys asset and hand it over to companies. This government is not run by a party, it is run by companies. So, to teach a lesson, BJP must be defeated. You will have to defeat them in Bengal.

Here is the original post:

How Bengali Civil Society Stood up Against the BJP - The Wire

Pop star-turned-politician, Wine, termed the Governments action as cowardly. [Courtesy]

The homes of opposition politicians Bobi Wine and Kizza Besigye have been surrounded by police as Uganda prepares for Yoweri Musevenis swearing-in on Wednesday, May 12.

The two took to Twitter on Monday night, May 10, to express concern over heavy police presence around their places of residence.

Both Wine and Besigye allege harassment of their supporters by law enforcement officers.

Pop star-turned-politician, Wine, termed the Governments action as cowardly.

The former presidential aspirant maintains Musevenis swearing-in for the sixth time as President is illegal.

The coward is aware that he is [an] illegitimate [president], and that is why he is very scared of the people, Bobi Wine said on the micro-blogging site.

Besigye wondered why the Government would deploy police to his house, yet he was out of the country.

Ugandas National Army Deputy Spokesperson, Deo Akiiki, defended the police deployment, saying the move was meant to avert possible chaos.

Take a quick survey and help us improve our website!

With credible evidence from intelligence, we shall not hesitate to arrest more of these schemers as and when we detect, said Akiiki in a televised address.

NTV Uganda reports that at least 4,000 people, including 11 Heads of State, have been invited to Musevenis swearing-in, which will be held at the Kololo Grounds in the capital Kampala.

According to reports by Ntv Uganda, Mr Musevenis inauguration has been marred by an increased security presence especially in urban areas and their environs.

Museveni got 5.85 million votes (58.64 per cent) of the total votes cast in the January 14, 2021 presidential election, while his closest challenger, Bobi Wine, amassed 3.48 million votes (34.83 per cent).

Wine claimed the results were doctored to place Museveni as the winner.

Museveni came into power in 1986 after overthrowing General Tito Okello, whose regime lasted for only 181 days.

Since then, he has won all presidential elections in Uganda.

Read this article:

Wine, Besigye claim oppression ahead of Museveni swearing-in - The Standard

The Kindred Spirits sculpture in Midleton, County Cork, Ireland, pays tribute to a gift from the Choctaw nation to help during the 19th century potato famine. Ireland paid it back with donations to the Navajo and Hopi nations to help them during the pandemic. Gavin Sheridan hide caption

The Kindred Spirits sculpture in Midleton, County Cork, Ireland, pays tribute to a gift from the Choctaw nation to help during the 19th century potato famine. Ireland paid it back with donations to the Navajo and Hopi nations to help them during the pandemic.

Last year, the Irish people raised nearly $2 million dollars for the Navajo and Hopi Nations so they could protect themselves from the pandemic. At the time, the infection rate in the Navajo community 2,304 cases per 100,000 was the highest in the country and nearly 40% higher than even the epicenter of New York City.

It was a show of thanks to Native Americans for a $170 gift sent by the Choctaw to the Irish people at the height of the potato famine in 1847.

When vaccines became available, Navajo Nation leaders made a concerted effort to obtain vaccines from the U.S. government and get shots in arms quickly to ensure that their residents were protected from the virus. The results have been tremendous, with nearly 90% of the eligible population receiving at least a first dose.

These last few weeks, as COVID set India aflame in a profound surge, Navajo Nation continued the cycle of generosity forward by gathering PPE to send to India via the Indian embassy in Washington, D.C.

This may seem like a feel-good story about pandemic generosity. And it is.

But there is another perspective. This chain of donations is akin to a crowdfunding campaign for a medical bill that should be covered through a strong social safety net, not by asking those with the least to scrounge together what little they have.

The burden of helping marginalized people in need in our global community belongs to those with wealth and power in this case, wealthy nations like the United States and not to those who have borne the brunt of systemic oppression and economic disenfranchisement.

But up to now in this pandemic, well-off nations have chosen a state of vaccine apartheid. Rich countries as a rule have enough vaccines. Poorer countries do not.

The privileged countries of the world could take a lesson from the Navajo nation and Irish experience. And indeed, the U.S. took a huge step in that direction last week. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai announced the Biden administration's support for a version of the World Trade Organization proposal to temporarily waive intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines.

This signal from the administration could be a potentially transformative move in the global fight against COVID-19. If followed up by swift and transparent negotiations, a temporary waiver on intellectual property could mean that countries with a severe shortage of vaccines could deploy additional manufacturers to meet the needs of their citizens, without fear of either being sued or sanctioned.

To live up to its potential, this waiver must be accompanied by technology transfer and active support to manufacturers in other countries so supply can increase. While none of this will happen overnight, it's imperative that this process moves with the urgency dictated by people dying needlessly each moment we continue without a comprehensive strategy for global scale-up of vaccines.

As for the objections by the pharmaceutical industry that it will take too long for other countries to master the technology: They said the same thing about HIV drugs and hepatitis vaccines. This was proven wrong: Manufacturers in low- and middle-income countries entered the market, and millions of people have been treated or immunized as a result. In our opinion, the industry's arguments simply indicate a desire to control the market and maximize revenue, and do not reflect the reality that time and time again, manufacturers in other countries have demonstrated that they can not only master new technologies, they can achieve scale, bring down costs, and ultimately help save more lives.

The alternative is for companies like Pfizer and Moderna to make the vaccine and sell it to other countries or give it to COVAX a joint program run by the World Health Organization and two nonprofits which aims to supply a limited number of vaccines to less wealthy countries.

But COVAX is expected to reach just 3% of the populations of low-income countries by early July. So the outlook is not positive to reach its original modest target of up to 20% of these populations by the end of 2021.

And even if it reaches its most ambitious goals, COVAX would never solve our current crisis of a lack of vaccine production worldwide. It is not a production plan; it is merely a distribution scheme. What we need is the former equipping nations with the knowledge and infrastructure to produce their own vaccines.

That's why we support the Biden administration announcement. It embodies the spirit of the Navajo Nation and Irish solidarity.

When the U.S. took a stand this week to change course, it took a critical first step to bringing an urgency to our response that has been lacking to date. A first step to finding our way back from vaccine apartheid to vaccine equity.

Sriram Shamasunder (@srijeeva) is associate professor of medicine at UCSF. He has worked clinically in low- and middle-income countries over the last 15 years. He is the director of UCSF HEAL, a health training program in Navajo Nation and rural India since 2014.

Priti Krishtel (@pritikrishtel) is a founder and an executive director of the Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge, and has spent nearly 20 years addressing structural inequities in how medicines are developed and distributed worldwide.

See the original post here:

What The Navajo Nation And Ireland Can Teach Rich Countries About Generosity : Goats and Soda - NPR

In what is believed to be the biggest protest in history, in late November 2020 farmers from across India drove 200,000 trolleys and tractors towards Delhis borders in a mass protest against agricultural reforms. This was followed a few days later by a general strike involving 250 million people in both urban and rural areas of India as workers joined together to support the farmers.

The strike continues, despite the global public health crisis, which is hitting India harder than any other country in the world. Fear of COVID-19 has not deterred farmers, who have emphatically stated that regardless of whether they contract the virus, the black laws will kill them anyway.

The movement first began in the state of Punjab in June 2020, as farmers blocked freight railway lines in protest against these black laws, which increase corporate control over all aspects of the food chain from seed to sale. Farmers unions argue that the laws undermine state-controlled prices of key crops, by allowing sales outside of state mandis (markets).

The laws also enable corporations to control what contract farmers grow and how, thus reducing the bargaining power of small farmers. Corporations will be allowed to stockpile key produce and hence speculate with food, which was previously illegal. Finally, the laws provide legal immunity to corporations operating in good faith, thereby voiding the ability of citizens to hold agribusiness to account.

Braving tear gas and water cannons, thousands of farmers and their families descended on Delhi and transformed its busy roads into bustling camp cities, with communal langhar kitchens.

Undeterred by police violence, farmers fed these aggressors who beat them by day with free food by night. This act of community service not only underscored the peaceful intentions of the protests but also encapsulated one of the key ideas of the movement: no farmers, no food.

In the same spirit of solidarity, farmers at Delhis borders are responding to the rapidly escalating spread of COVID-19 in the city. They are distributing food packages and essential goods to hospitals, as well as in bus and railway stations for those leaving the capital.

Farmers from numerous states, of all castes and religions, are coexisting and growing the protest movement from the soil upwards literally, turning trenches into vegetable gardens. Many farmers refer to this movement as andolan a revolution where alliances are being forged between landless farm labourers and smallholder farmers. In a country deeply divided by caste and increasingly religion, this coming together around land, soil and food has powerful potential.

Women have also taken leading roles, as they push for recognition as farmers in their own right. They are exploring the intersections of caste oppression, gendered labour and sexual violence in person and in publications such as Karti Dharti a women-led magazine sharing stories and voices from the movement.

Despite the largely peaceful protests, farmers have been met with state repression and violence. At various points water supplies have been cut to the protest sites and internet services blocked. Undeterred, farmers have prepared the camp sites for the scorching summer heat that now envelops them.

Amnesty international has called on the Indian government to stop escalating crackdown on protesters, farm leaders and journalists. Eight media workers have been charged with sedition, while 100 people protesters have disappeared. In response, parliaments around the world have issued statements and debates on the right to peaceful protest in India, as well as a free and open press.

The heavy-handed government response and intransigence to the key demands of the movement adds grave doubt for farmers who are now being asked to disband protest sites in the interest of public health. It highlights the hypocrisy of being told to go home, while the ruling BJP was holding mass rallies in West Bengal.

The fear is that COVID-19 could derail the momentum of this movement, as with the protests around the Citizen Amendment Act, which were cleared in March 2020 due to enforced lockdown to curb the spread of COVID-19. Farmers repeat that they will leave as soon as the government repeals the laws and protects the minimum support price of key crops.

There has been a groundswell of support from around the globe, from peasant movements, the Indian diaspora community and celebrities including Rihanna and climate activist Greta Thunberg. This movement is fighting for the principles of democracy on which the Indian state was founded and is part of a civil society movement filling in for the state, which has been found sorely wanting in its response to the calamitous consequences of COVID-19.

The black laws are but the latest in a long history of struggle faced by Indian farmers. Indias sprawling fields have been sites of green revolution experimentation since the 1960s. This has worsened water scarcity, reduced crop genetic diversity, damaged biodiversity, eroded and depleted soils, all of which has reduced soil fertility.

The financial burden of costly inputs and failing crops has fallen on farmers, leading to spiralling debts and farmer suicides. The impacts of climate change and ecologically destructive farming are primary reasons for this financial duress. However, the movement has yet to deeply address the challenges of transitioning towards socioeconomically just, climate-friendly agriculture.

Peasant movements around the world highlight the importance of collective spaces and knowledge-sharing between small farmers. The campsites in Delhi provide a unique opportunity to link socioeconomic farming struggles to their deep ecological roots. These are indeed difficult discussions, but the kisaan (farmer) movement has provided spaces to challenge caste, religious and gender-based oppression.

The movements strength is its broad alliances and solidarity, but it remains unclear whether it will link palpable socioeconomic injustices to environmental injustices and rights. The ecological origins of COVID-19 make these connections ever more pressing the world over.

View original post here:

Indian farmers' strike continues in the shadow of COVID-19 - The Conversation UK

Abu Ali al-Ansari, a political analyst and Islamic scholar based in London, tells the Tehran Times that the ArabIsraeli normalization is a betrayal by Arab monarchies and it will not lead to the disappearance of the Palestinian cause.

This normalization is one of the final nails in the occupation of Palestine, and it will be one of the reasons for the final destruction of both the Arab and European Zionist project in the region, notes Abu Ali al-Ansari.He believes that the Arab people are not in favour of the normalization, and he explains the reality is that the Arab monarchs have very little to do with the Arab people; they are closer to their Zionist masters and to the Empire be it the British or the U.S. Empires.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: How do characterize the current situation in West Asia?

A: The situation in West Asia is at a pivotal stage in history at this time. Most of the so-called Arab monarchies, including those who consider themselves to be the custodians of the two holy places, are firmly in the pocket of the Empire and the forces of the real Axis of Evil.

However, with His grace, there is also a massive resurgence within the populations of the Arab and Muslim countries, and the Axis of Resistance, the forces who have fought against various Western and Zionist projects like DAESH and so-called Israel are stronger than ever.

I believe that we are living in a historic time when soon we will see the demise of the Empire, and along with it its Axis of Evil, and the dawn of a new age in the regionWhile the propaganda mechanism against the Resistance Axis is in full swing, and working tirelessly, every move that the enemies make thinking they can harm the Axis of Resistance fails. It appears as if the Empire and its allies are stuck in quagmire after quagmire in the West Asia region (and elsewhere), and with the advent of the Coronavirus, their predicament becomes far worse.

I believe that we are living in a historic time when soon we will see the demise of the Empire, and along with it its Axis of Evil, and the dawn of a new age in the region, with His grace.

Q: What is your thought on the ArabIsraeli normalization?

A: This normalization is an academic exercise. It is nothing new. These Arab sheikhdoms, these oilfields and shopping malls with flags, run by the most corrupt of the corrupt people, have always been partners with the Zionist entity. Some even reference entities such as so-called Saudi Arabia and the so-called UAE as the Arab Zionists.

They have only ever given lip service to the plight of the people of Palestine. Providing charity, but never actually providing any useful support be it diplomatic or military to the Palestinians in their resistance to Zionist occupation.

The reality is that the U.S. has finally managed to get these Arab leaders to be honest, to express publicly that they are with the Zionists; and indeed, that the Palestinians need to give up the struggle for their rights and freedom from occupation.

This is a fatal mistake for these Arab rulers and given the way they have abused their own populations, it is but a matter of time till they are dealt the final and fatal blow.

These Arab sheikhs who in reality are just DAESH but with formal attire failed in Syria and Iraq, they are failing catastrophically in Yemen, and they should understand that the fire they have ignited in Yemen will burn them, and will be a means to the ultimate liberation of Palestine.

Q: Do you think the normalization can lead to forgetfulness of the resistance and the Palestinian cause?

A: I believe this is the intention of the Empire, this is exactly what they want. They want the Arabs to forget Palestine, to become taken in with the material benefits that they will allegedly obtain as a reward for the so-called normalization. However, I have no doubt that this is a mistake.

This normalization is an academic exercise. It is nothing new. These Arab sheikhdoms, these oilfields and shopping malls with flags, run by the most corrupt of the corrupt people, have always been partners with the Zionist entity.Even if sadly the majority of the people of these Arab oil fields and shopping malls with flags support this normalization; this normalization will not make the Palestinian cause disappear.

It will in fact polarise and make clear those who are with the oppressed and those who are with the oppressors.

This normalization is one of the final nails in the occupation of Palestine, and it will be one of the reasons for the final destruction of both the Arab and European Zionist projects in the region.

Q: Basically, can the normalization be generalized to Arab nations or it is considered a betrayal by Arab monarchies? In your view, will Arab nations come along with this betrayal?

A: I believe that the normalization is something for the Arab monarchs (who in and of themselves lack any real legitimacy, but thats another discussion for another time), I do not believe the Arab people are in favour of this.

After all, if your brothers home were stolen, his family killed, his daughters raped and his sons massacred, and then your brother is told he cannot fight back, would you expect your brother to accept this? Would you accept this? No person with any honor or dignity will ever accept this regardless of which faith they follow.

The reality is that the Arab monarchs have very little to do with the Arab people; they are closer to their Zionist masters and to the Empire be it the British or the U.S. Empires. They are servants of the Empire and only seek to occupy the Arab countries and peoples.As Ive said, this normalization is one of the final nails in their coffins.

Q: As you know, the Israeli regime has been violating human rights in the case of Palestinians, including the recent Israel blockage of covid vaccines from entering Gaza. How do you assess this brutal decision? Why have international organizations, especially the UN, been playing a passive role there?

A: Honestly speaking, this is not unexpected. There is little humanity when it comes to the Zionists, they are a fascist supremacist entity, who care little for anyone else.

For them to block the COVID vaccination from the people of Palestine is completely expected; as far as the Zionists are concerned the sooner all the Palestinians are removed from existence the better for the Zionists.

Arab leaders including organizations like the so-called Arab League have done nothing to help the people of PalestineThe real tragedy is that the Arab leaders including organizations like the so-called Arab League have done nothing to help the people of Palestine (aside from the customary lip service).

As for the so-called United Nations. The United Nations cannot be expected to do anything as long as it is owned and controlled by the masters and supporters of the Zionists, this is a reality. The UN is the one that is responsible for the occupation of Palestine, by doing nothing, doing less than nothing to help the Palestinians, even after UNSC resolution after resolution condemning the Zionists and declaring their behaviour in cases as war crimes.

The UN is impotent and will remain impotent as long as the veto remains (especially while it remains with the U.S., UK, France who are known and strong allies and partners of the Zionist entity).Sadly, to expect these intentional organizations to do anything that would counter U.S. foreign policy is wishful thinking.

Q: The Western media is trying to introduce the Axis of Resistance as a kind of expansion of the Shiite influence over the region. What do you think?

A: This is nothing new. The Western media is not really a news forum that provides real analysis; rather it is a mouthpiece for the foreign policy Zionist-inspired and controlled of the Empire. This needs to be understood.The Western media is more interested in keeping the people comatose and in their happy little delusions, worrying about non-issues than to educate the people on the reality that their so-called elected officials are committing, the crimes being committed in their names, and so on.

The current line taken by the Western media is nothing new at all. It must be understood that the Islamic Republic of Iran, more so the Islamic Revolution Guard Corp, and more so its Quds Force, that was led by the great martyr of Islam, Hajj Qassem Soleimani, may God rest his pure soul, and that now continues its march led by Sardar Ismail Qaani, may God protect him; and led by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khamenei, may God protect him, have taken the most important steps in ensuring that the West Asia region is kept free and to minimize the influence of the Zionist Axis.

Yes, Islamic Iran has supported unwaveringly the Palestinian Resistance, the Lebanese Resistance, the Yemeni Resistance, and more besides, because they are humane causes, they are causes where a people are standing up to oppression, occupation, and to tyranny.The Empire and its mouthpieces the Western Media have a problem with this, because this is a war on the information arena as well as the physical arena.

For every victory that the Resistance Axis has on physical arena, the enemies have to reduce the pain of that victory by creating an operation on the information arena (the soft war arena). This is why, the Islamic Resistance, the people standing against the forces of the Empire, must become stronger on the Soft War arena; that way, for every victory on the physical arena, there is also a monumental victory on the information arena; which ultimately will further break the back of the Empire.

Q: What will be Biden's foreign policy toward this dispute? Do you think the normalization continues in Biden's presidency?

A: As far as the U.S. is concerned, especially in matters of foreign policy; and more so than the foreign policy that is related to the Zionist entity, absolutely nothing will change (except to give more support to the Zionist entity). The U.S. is a firm ally to the Zionists, be it with a Democratic or Republican or any other party government. The same is the case with other Western countries, including the UK, France, and such.

While the formalization of normalization was started during the Trump regime, it will continue, and mark my words, become more expansive during Biden.

Link:

The normalization will not make the Palestinian cause disappear: Political analyst - Tehran Times

May 11, 2021, 3:55 PM

For more than 800 years, English naval ships have been launching from Portsmouth, bound for the worlds oceans.Last week, the Royal Navy opened a new era with the departure of a new aircraft carrier, HMSQueen Elizabeth, for the beginning of an seven-monthdeploymentthat will bring it to the Indo-Pacific, along with a strike group. There, the Royal Navy task force will participate in operations designed to ensure freedom of navigation and open seas. The reason? We see China as being a challenge and a competitor, said Britains first sea lord, Adm. Tony Radakin, during a visit with his U.S. counterpart, Adm. Mike Gilday, the chief of naval operations.

Some might wonder why the British are sticking their toes into the turbulent waters of far-away Asiawhy London is suddenly so committed to upholding a free and open Indo-Pacific, adopting the slogan used by the Trump and Biden administrations alike. Or, even more tellingly, why so many nations even beyond the United Kingdom are increasingly vocal in their criticisms of Beijing.

The looming Chinese-U.S. confrontationand especially the United States supposedly more aggressive stanceis often cited as the main threat to global peace. The danger is argued to be the result of former U.S. President Donald Trumps attempts to overturn four decades of more cooperative U.S. policy toward China. Trumps moves, including imposing tariffs, banning tech companies, challenging Beijings influence campaigns, increasing naval operations in the South China Sea, and deepening ties with Taiwan, led to warnings that Washington was turning China into anenemyand pushing the two nations closer to conflict.For example, an open letter to then-President Trump signed by more than 100 American academics and former diplomats and military officers expressed the belief that many U.S. actions are contributing directly to the downward spiral in relations.

The fact that the Biden administration has not only continued but in some ways intensified Trumps policies has added to concern that the U.S. foreign-policy elite is now irrevocably committed to a confrontational approach to China. Thus, the Nations Michael Klare criticized Secretary of State Antony Blinken for lambasting the Chinese at his Anchorage meeting with his Chinese counterparts and stated that the U.S. Navys freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea were provocative maneuvers, despite The Hagues 2016 rejection of Beijings claims in those waters.

Were it really the case that America alone was to blame for U.S.-Chinese tensions, then one might expect to see other countries dissociate themselves from Washingtons apparently rash actions, either sitting on the sidelines or actively opposing U.S. policies. Instead, Beijing not only finds itself the target of a widening range of critics but in active disputes with a host of liberal nations.

From influence campaigns to hacking, from economic threats or coercion to the militarization of international waters, Beijing is increasingly exercising a might-makes-right foreign and security policy that is setting it against large parts of the world, independent of whatever is happening in U.S.-Chinese relations.

Perhaps the sharpest tensions are currently between Australia and China. Australia has been facing economic warfare from its biggest trading partner since it passed strict legislation starting in 2018 to block Chinese money from its domestic political system, ban Huawei from its 5G networks, and call for an international investigation into the origins of the coronavirus. Beijing hassince endedeconomic dialogue with Canberra and either banned or put damaging tariffs on billions of dollars of Australian products, including beef, wine, wood, and lobster. In response, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Paynecanceledtwo Belt and Road projects, and an Australian general warned of the high likelihood of armed conflict between the two countries.

Meanwhile, in the South China Sea, Philippine Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr.toldBeijing to get the fuck out of the waters of what Manila calls the West Philippine Sea. The highly undiplomatic chastisement came after months of Chinese pressure at Whitsun Reef, with China at one point lashing hundreds of fishing vessels together in an attempt to intimidate Manila into surrendering the reef, la the successful 2012 takeover of Scarborough Shoal. Beijing has largely ignored the 2016 Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling against Chinas claims in the South China Sea, continuing to send its fishing fleets and maritime forces into contested waters.

India remains on combat footing in the Himalayas, where Chinese forces regularlycrossthe so-called Line of Actual Control in strategic passes between Aksai Chin and Ladakh. Clashes there between forces of the two nuclear nations in the summer of 2020 led to the deaths of at least 20 Indian soldiers and an unknown number of Chinese. Indian commanders have stated that Chinese actions are the most aggressive since the 1962 border war between the two.

As for Japan, its air forcescrambledalmost 1,000 times in 2019 to counter Chinese incursions into airspace over the Senkaku Islands (known in China as the Diaoyu), while in 2020 Chinese vesselsenteredthe contested waters 333 times, forcing the Japanese coast guard and navy to respond. This continues a pattern of intimidation stretching back over a decade.

Even New Zealand, criticized by some in the West for being too hesitant to call out Chinese policies like the oppression of the Uyghurs or the crushing of Hong Kongs democracy, has started to change its tune. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently stated that it is becoming moredifficultto reconcile differences with China, its largest trading partner.

One can agree or disagree with Joe Bidens or Trumps China policy. Whats evident, though, is that other leading nations around the world are just as worried about Beijings threats to regional stability, freedom of navigation, domestic economic and political systems, democracy movements, and intellectual property. In short, whatever one thinks about U.S. policy, the problem does not lie simply with a Washington looking for a new enemy to fight. Rather, countries that share broadly liberal values believe based on their own assessments that Beijing is a threat in some degree to their way of life, too.

Given this environment, the new British desire to get more engaged in the Indo-Pacific is understandable, despite British Prime Minister Boris Johnsons statement that he is fervently Sinophile. His government, like others, now recognizes that it must deal with the China it has, not the China it wants.

In light of this reality, the more assertive policies of the Trump and Biden administrations make sense. In particular, the Quad alignment of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia has a particular utility in helping to forge a common security consensus among the leading liberal nations in the region. The Quad wont replace Americas defense alliances, but it can play a different type of role in promoting shared norms and cooperation.

The heads of state meeting of the Quadleaders this spring was an important milestone, but the participants need to begin discussing broader goals and the sensitive question of what kinds of joint actions they are willing to carry out that focus on security and stability. Given the tensions each of these countries has with China, the grouping likely will not be seen as anything other than anti-China. That, however, should not be an excuse to derail the coalition. The new commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. John Aquilino, will have an opportunity to help shape the next phase of the Quad initiative, working with the White Houses coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell.

Further, Washington and its Asian partners should consider how other, non-Asian nations concerned with regional stability may play a common role. Here, the French and British are the likeliest candidates. In addition to their dependence on open trade routes, the countries together have nearly millions of expatriate citizens or overseas dependents in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as territory stretching from the southern Indian Ocean to Oceania in the Pacific. Both have identified the Indo-Pacific as a key strategic concern; the French have released severalAsiastrategies, while the Britishemphasizedthe region in its recently concludedIntegrated Review.

No one will pretend that either Paris or London can play a role comparable to Washington, but neither should their interests be dismissed. With the British sending HMSQueen Elizabethto the region, and the French havingjoinedthe Quad nations in maritime exercises in April, these two nations have the potential to help buttress regular Quad activities and complement the more limited capabilities of the Japanese, Indians, and Australians.

In a number of important capitals in Asia and beyond, it appears that patience has run out with Beijing. No state is unaware of its economic ties with China nor the fact that the worlds second-most powerful nation will undoubtedly play a major global role. However, it is Beijings policies, not American nefariousness, that is causing an international reaction.

In response, a united front of both numbers and common interests is not an artificial creation but a natural evolution in response to Beijings actions. The world no longer needs to profess its goodwill in having tried for a half-century to integrate China into the global economic and political systems. The record of such efforts is clear, including repeatedly shying away from imposing any costs on Beijing for either predatory behavior or breaking agreements. Now, leading states are realizing that it is time to figure out how to defend both their interests and the broader community that has helped keep peace among the great powers since 1945.

Read the original:

US Allies Are Finally Rallying Around Washington's Assertive Stance on China - Foreign Policy

By Mohamed Elshekh

State-sponsored persecution and unlawful vigilantism characterize the sociopolitical conditions of many Muslim minority communities. The French Senates latest proposal to ban the hijab in public settings and the ongoing exodus of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar spotlight only a few manifestations of Islamophobia in countries across the globe. The laws and rhetoric against Islam and Muslims have led to violent killings, mass migration, and even genocide. These are not merely isolated case studies of Islamophobia but global trends that need to be challenged. Governments have mobilized targeted efforts against the beliefs and practices of Muslims, effectively rejecting international standards which safeguard religious pluralism and the freedom to worship

The Uighur Genocide

The Chinese governments systematic persecution of Uighur Muslims has been recognized as a genocide by the United States and several other countries. According to the United NationsConvention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, governments that engage in systematic oppression, ethnic cleansing, or mass sterilization with the desire to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group satisfy the essential conditions of genocide. Millions of Uighurs have been separated from their families, sterilized, and forcibly gathered into internment camps. Although President Xi Jinping describes these facilities as re-education camps and vocational training centers, evidence has emerged to indicate otherwise. Crimes against humanity are being systematically executedsubjecting the Uighur population to forced abortions, sterilization, torture, forced labor, and rape. The Chinese government has dismissed accusations of genocide as sensationalism and propaganda.

China justifies the targeted crackdown of Uighurs by maintaining that their re-education is critical for mitigating threats of terrorism, Islamic extremism, and separatist activity. The state-sponsored campaign began by discouraging burqas and veils, persecuting government officials who observed Ramadan, and selling pork and alcohol in Muslim neighborhoods. Over the years, the governments oppression of Uighurs escalated into a full-scale ethnic cleansing campaign and is now what can only be described as one of the worst mass atrocities in the modern world.

Indias Citizenship Law

Hate crimes and violence against Muslims have steadily increased in India since Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed office. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, statements by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders have encouraged and even incited violent attacks by party supporters who believe they have political protection and approval. The divisive rhetoric and anti-Islamic sentiment have resulted in violent and targeted campaigns against Muslim minorities who are suspected of selling or eating cow beef. Cow Protection groups have attacked and killed those involved in the cattle trade, with thirty-six Muslim victims identified from 2015-2018. The violent vigilantism against Muslims has gone largely unchecked, ignored, and remains justified by some BJP leaders.

Indias citizenship law, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), has only cemented and intensified the countrys growing anti-Muslim sentiment. The law offers citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, and Christian migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan but clearly excludes Muslims. The law aims to provide asylum to communities fleeing religious persecution but explicitly ignores the millions of Muslim Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and Hazara Shias in Afghanistan. The discriminatory law prevents Muslims from being listed in Indias National Register of Citizens (NRC), a project enacted to keep official records of all legal citizens across the country. The NRC, coupled with the CAA, could provide pathways to citizenship to non-native Indians of various religious backgrounds but will exclude Indian Muslims if they cannot prove their lineage.

The Perceived Dichotomy Between Islam and National Pride

Islamophobia extends far beyond the borders of China and India. Muslim minorities in France, Germany, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere have experienced Islamophobic discrimination to varying degrees. The United Nations Human Rights Council found that Islamophobic sentiments have risen drastically. In March 2021, UN Secretary-General Antnio Guterres addressed the issue of global anti-Muslim bigotry and discrimination: unfortunately, far too often, stereotypes are further compounded by elements of the media and some in positions of power. Anti-Muslim bigotry is sadly in line with other distressing trends we are seeing globally. As it relates to the formation of public opinion, politicians and the media are powerful actors; therefore, the weaponization of their rhetoric against a minority community is not only irresponsible but dangerous.

Muslims are seen as foreigners regardless of their nationality. They are treated as existential threats to the governments, communities, and countries in which they reside, and the evidence is clear. Uighur Muslims in East Turkistan are forced to pledge their loyalty to the Communist Party before they can embark on the annual Hajj pilgrimage, a pillar of the Islamic tradition. Muslims in India have been forced to eat pork and sing the national anthem by mobs and police officers. Likewise, Muslim women in France and Sri Lanka are fighting to ensure they can continue to wear burkas and hijabs. In nearly every situation, Muslim minorities are forced to recant their religious beliefs and publicly affirm their national loyalty above all else.

These situations accentuate the widely held belief that Islam and patriotism are mutually exclusivethat Muslims are averse to notions of national prideand forms a narrative where being Muslim irreconcilably trumps ones devotion to their homeland. Viewed as a threat to the fabric of sociopolitical structures, citizens cannot be Muslim and simultaneously affirm their national identity. Such perceptions should be rejected outright, as the otherization of Muslim minorities enables oppression, discrimination, and injustice. Whether through the use of soft power strategies like the International Day to Combat Islamophobiawhich aims to raise awareness about the rise of Islamophobia globallyfinancial sanctions, or any range of foreign policy tools, state-sponsored discrimination against religious minorities must be recognized, confronted, and addressed in relation to the severity of oppression and crimes committed.

Mohamed Elshekhis an Associate Editor at the Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations and graduate student in Seton Hall Universitys Masters in Business Administration (MBA) and Masters in Diplomacy and International Relations (MA) dual-degree program. Mohamed also serves as a graduate assistant in the Office of Internships and Career Development. He completed his undergraduate degree in Diplomacy & International Relations and Religious Studies at Seton Hall University where he focused on the relationship between peacebuilding and religion.This is his third piece published for the Journal.

View original post here:

Global Islamophobia: China, India, and Beyond | The Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations - Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy

Critical race theory is fast becoming Americas new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it and of those who have, many dont understand it. This must change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.

To explain critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism.

Originally, the Marxist left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Karl Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: The workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class and usher in a new socialist society.

During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million people. They are remembered for gulags, show trials, executions and mass starvations. In practice, Marxs ideas unleashed mans darkest brutalities.

By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, which had large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work and good citizenship.

But rather than abandon their political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marxs economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.

Fortunately, the early proponents of this revolutionary coalition in the US lost out in the 1960s to the civil rights movement, which sought instead the fulfillment of the American promise of freedom and equality under the law. Americans preferred the idea of improving their country to that of overthrowing it. Martin Luther King Jr.s vision, President Lyndon Johnsons pursuit of the Great Society, and the restoration of law and order promised by President Richard Nixon in his 1968 campaign defined the post-1960s American political consensus.

But the radical left has proved resilient and enduring which is where critical race theory comes in.

Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions over the past decade. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks and school curricula.

Its supporters deploy a series of euphemisms to describe critical race theory, including equity, social justice, diversity and inclusion and culturally responsive teaching.Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that neo-Marxism would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds nonthreatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, critical race theorists explicitly reject equality the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To them, equality represents mere nondiscrimination and provides camouflage for white supremacy, patriarchy and oppression.

In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA law professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.

Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government and would have the power to nullify, veto or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others deemed insufficiently antiracist.

One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since, according to Kendi, in order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anticapitalist.

In other words, identity is the means; Marxism is the end.

An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination and omnipotent bureaucratic authority.

Historically, the accusation of anti-Americanism has been overused. But in this case, its not a matter of interpretation: Critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.

What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees that they were committing microinequities and had been socialized into oppressor roles. The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that virtually all white people contribute to racism and that they must convert everyone in the federal government to the ideology of antiracism. And the Sandia National Laboratories, which design Americas nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day re-education camp where they were told that white male culture was analogous to the KKK, white supremacists and mass killings. The executives were then forced to renounce their white male privilege and to write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.

This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, Calif., an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities and rank themselves according to their power and privilege. In Springfield, Mo., a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an oppression matrix, based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and covert white supremacy.

In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate Black communism and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of spirit murder against black children and must bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgment of [their] thieved inheritance.Im just one investigative journalist, but Ive developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, I am not exaggerating from the universities to bureaucracies to K-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.

This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic and oriented toward broadly held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isnt limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, DC, but is true as well of institutions in the states even red states. It is spreading to county public health departments, small Midwestern school districts and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.

So far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion.

Conservatives in both the federal government and public school systems have told me that their equity and inclusion departments serve as political offices, searching for and stamping out any dissent from the official orthodoxy.

Second, critical race theorists have constructed their argument like a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenters white fragility, unconscious bias or internalized white supremacy. Ive seen this projection of false consciousness on their opponents play out dozens of times in my reporting. Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim such as all whites are intrinsically oppressors or white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children and then, when confronted with disagreement, adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel defensiveness or anger are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, lean into the discomfort and accept their complicity in white supremacy.

Third, Americans across the political spectrum have failed to separate the premise of critical race theory from its conclusion. Its premise that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine and learn from that history is undeniable. But its revolutionary conclusion that America was founded on and defined by racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution and our way of life should be overthrown does not rightly, much less necessarily, follow.

Fourth and finally, the writers and activists who have had the courage to speak out against critical race theory have tended to address it on the theoretical level, pointing out the theorys logical contradictions and dishonest account of history.

These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.

No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving cultural hegemony in Americas public institutions. It is driving the vast machinery of the state and society. If we want to succeed in opposing it, we must address it politically at every level.

Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of oppressors and oppressed? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become white traitors and advocate for white abolition? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of re-education? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military?

How about every one of us?

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted with permission from City Journal.

More here:

What critical race theory is really about - New York Post

By Joseph Giglio| The Patriot Ledger

While many national constitutions come and go every few decades,the U.S. Constitution has served the purpose for which it wasintended for more than two centuries. The United States is proudof its tradition of freedom of speech that was established in theFirst Amendment to the Constitution.

It allows for public criticism of the government.Without it, such behavior could land you in prison just ask Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.Still, there were many times in American history when this principle was traduced.

More: Giglio: Electric cars one of several disruptions that will steer auto industry

For example, some of the same people who ratified the Bill of Rights voted in Congress in 1798, during the presidency of John Adams, to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts that made it a crime to utter false, scandalous, or malicious speech against the government or the president.

The first 10 amendments to the constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. They were proposed by Congress in September 1789 and ratified by the states in December 1791.

Freedom of speech isnt the only freedom protected by the First Amendment. It reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

More: OPINION/COLUMN: Giglio: Managing the demographic risk of an aging population

Freedom of speech is considered a fundamental bedrock of liberty, allowing citizens to express their ideas and bring about changes that reflect the needs of its people. It gives voice to conflicting or dissenting opinions that promote healthy debate that moves society closer to realizing Americas founding ideals.

The Civil Rights Movement is a perfect example of free speech in action. During the 1950s and 1960s, activists such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used free speech as a tool to force change in society. Exercising their voice, these activists were able to outlaw racial discrimination that plagued the country.

More: OPINION/COLUMN: Giglio: Threat of rising inflation could burst any number of asset bubbles

But freedom of speech is not an unlimited right.The First Amendment only protects individuals speech from U.S. governmental oppression, control, and censorship; it does not extend to private entities.Companies have significant leeway to set their own standards and policies regarding employee conduct.

There is nothing illegal about a private firm censoring people on its platform. For example, Facebook banning former President Trump indefinitely from its platform and Twitter permanently banning him were within the companies legal rights in the aftermath of the Capital incursion on January 6.

The nation has long grappled with which types of speech should be protected and which should not. Interpreting the broad guarantees of free speech in the First Amendment has not been an easy task. Over time, the Supreme Court has spilled barrels of ink defining the freedom of speech. It has upheld peoples right to critique the government and hold political protests, but hasnt extended protection to those who incite action that might cause harm.

But what constitutes harm is still a matter of debate. For some, it is limited to physical harm as in the case of falsely shouting fire in a crowded movie theater. For others, harm encompassed a compromise to the dignity of others, as in the case of hate speech. Another recent argument is that free speech should be curtailed if it causes offense and the speaker makes you feel disrespected. This argument may be setting a lower bar for limiting free speech. But that is a story for another day.

In todays politically charged climate, some people believe government should restrict certain speech. But thankfully, the First Amendment protects everything from car commercials to fiery protests.

While it may be unfashionable to quote Americas first President, it merits recalling what he said about free speech: If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

Naturally, everyone has their own interpretation of those comments.

Joseph M. Giglio is a professor of strategic management at Northeastern Universitys DAmore-McKim School of Business.

Continue reading here:

OPINION/COLUMN: Giglio: The First Amendment and free speech - The Patriot Ledger