Category Archives: Government Oppression

Book bans are spreading like wildfire through the U.S., with right-wing forces aggressively targeting fiction books that have protagonists of color or LGBTQ characters, as well as nonfiction analyses of racism and other forms of oppression.

Just this week, Penguin Random House the largest publisher in the U.S. filed a federal lawsuit to block book bans being imposed in Florida public schools located in Escambia County.

These bans are an attack on the type of critical questioning that is a crucial form of resistance against oppressive state power. They are an example of elite powers ongoing attempt to silence dissent and erase forms of knowledge production that call into question the status quo.

What we are witnessing in the form of book banning by conservative politicians and parent groups is a pedagogy of fear, which is fueled by a form of right-wing populism/nationalism that resists change, that rejects the unfinished and the yet to be. The banning of books is consistent with a world that is seen as fixed, where Socratic questioning is marked as a form of danger to those who fetishize ignorance and praise anti-intellectualism. It is not just the soul of the U.S. that is at stake, as President Biden said, but also its mind.

To tackle the deep anti-democratic and white racist nostalgic implications of book banning in the U.S., I spoke with Joe Feagin, the Ella C. McFadden Distinguished Professor in sociology at Texas A&M University, whose books Racist America and The White Racial Frame have been banned in some U.S. schools. Feagin is a leading sociologist regarding issues of systemic white racism in the U.S. He is the author of 80 books, including his most recent book, White Minority Nation: Past, Present and Future. In this exclusive interview with Truthout, Feagin discusses the history of book bans and book burnings, new threats to critical thinking and how we might begin to tackle this information censorship.

The banning of books by the school district violates parents and authors First Amendment rights, the lawsuit contends.

George Yancy: In his informative Truthout article on book banning, Chris Walker shares that, PEN America, a nonprofit organization that promotes free expression and human rights, found that 1,648 titles have been banned by schools across the entire country. A lot of these books had LGBTQ themes, featured Black or Brown characters, or explored themes of feminism. I am reminded of the warning issued by the Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana back in 1905: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I like Santayanas use of condemned, as it implies the sense of being doomed, which implies destruction.

Education is not about exposing children to pornographic material or teaching them to hate white people. However, I would argue that education is fundamentally linked to teaching students to think critically, to respect difference, to help construct a world in which people are not subjected to wanton violence predicated upon xenophobia and profound ignorance. Yet by banning books, various Republican lawmakers and draconian conservative parent groups are nurturing a U.S. that is already turning in the direction of a destructive, proto-fascist dystopia. Many will accuse me of hysteria. Yet, we know what the Nazi Party did in 1933. They engaged in public burning of books, especially those books that threatened their sense of themselves as normative. Joe, am I being hyperbolic?

Joe Feagin: No, anything but hyperbolic! Historically, banning books has always been about suppressing accurate public memories and the critical probing of oppressive U.S. pasts and presents always in the pursuit of creating greater ignorance and subservience in elite-ruled populations. A central aspect of advanced human rights civilizations is the ability to remember correctly those oppressive societal realities and to react energetically to their deep and continuing legacies in the present and future.

Unmistakably, book banning is an aggressive form of political censorship and a threat to constitutional free speech. It has been used historically and today by many authoritarian regimes to control and manipulate not only public opinion but also public political action.

This pattern of recent U.S. book banning calls up the brutal historical record of Nazi Germany, where Nazi officials early engineered public burning of books in many towns and cities. Why? Both because of increasing German nationalism (e.g. against threats of un-German books) and because of rising German racism (e.g. against threats of Jewish books). In his book, The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans underscores how these dramatic, very public book burnings were a part of Joseph Goebbelss and other Nazi leaders aggressive propaganda efforts to suppress an array of dissenting political authors and movements including those of Jewish, Communist, Socialist and liberal Germans. Fear of critical ideas about society has always been central to the book bans and burnings, not books themselves. Ironically, Goebbels, head of the Nazi propaganda ministry parroting Nazi racist and fascist framing, was a University of Heidelberg Ph.D. and author of more than a dozen literary books. This white fear of and hostility to racialized others knows no educational limits.

As the PEN America data you noted shows, U.S. book banning has been widespread and routinely targeted books with diverse ideas and perspectives for centuries now, especially those challenging white conservative sociopolitical ideas, norms and values.

A more recent April 2023 American Library Association (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom report shows matters are getting worse. No less than a record 1,269 attempts last year sought to remove books from an array of U.S. schools and libraries. These involved some 2,571 book titles, and again like the PEN report, most were written by or about members of Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ, and other marginalized communities. This ALA report indicates that most of these vigorous censorship efforts are well-organized and have typically targeted lists of books all at the same time.

Even more troubling for a democratic America is the fact that a majority of U.S. states now, as the ALA report underscores, have seen the introduction or passage of legislation that would severely restrict access to library materials, including withholding funding for libraries or criminalizing the professional activities of library workers who fail to comply with the likely unconstitutional demands. Being a librarian in many of our towns and cities is, sadly and amazingly, becoming a more dangerous job. Additionally, threatening, usually white, far right partisans often turn up at many local, once-routine meetings of political officials deciding issues like funding local libraries and schools.

When I think about the Trumpian slogan Make America Great Again, I see connections between the process of banning books and a certain white racist nostalgia for a world of sameness, a world where difference can only mean something that is vile, contaminated. In short, when I think about book banning, I think about modalities of cleansing. After all, book banning is a form of expulsion, an eradication of that which is unwanted. I realize that banning books isnt the same as ethnic cleansing. Yet, to ban books is also to ban their authors, which is a form of expelling the integrity of their lived experiences and the legitimacy of their identities. Indeed, it is also to ban the truth of history.

While this brings us back to Santayana, my point here is less about being condemned to repeat the past. Rather, Im placing emphasis upon the banning (I almost wrote burning) of books as a form of violence that attempts to erase the history of people who look like me. As a person whose ancestors suffered (and whose people continue to suffer) the vicious legacy of anti-Blackness, banning those books that tell the truth about who I am racially is a way of censoring the story of Black people, which means censoring the racist catastrophe that is the U.S. Im not saying that children of any racialized group should be exposed to the gruesome details and horrors of the lynching of Black bodies, but I dont want my history revised and whitewashed. For example, recall when a group of Texas educators suggested to the Texas State Board of Education that slavery be taught to second-graders as involuntary relocation. That is like a slap in the face; that is a form of violence. Does this make sense?

Societal oppression depends on information censorship and especially limiting access to dissenting information.

Indeed, again it certainly does. White Texas right-wingers have long provided the ground zero for such explosive and aggressive anti-democratic, information-banning efforts, even recently. You are accurately accenting the connection between this book banning and white racist nostalgia for a world of white control and racial sameness, where much racial difference is often viewed as contaminated and dangerous.

Today, banning books is indeed a form of anti-information violence that erases the history of people of color, especially African Americans, while also censoring discussions of the white racist oppression that has long been the foundation of the U.S.

Certainly, too, these actions are aimed at whitewashing history, including your example of far right Texas educators pressing for books and teachers to provide a phony and disguised history of slavery for elementary school children as some banal involuntary relocation. This is clearly white epistemic violence attempting to erase actual truths about the bloody U.S. history of African American enslavement.

Racist myths are central to many U.S. ideological battles over racial information. A recent Houston Chronicle article by Maggie Galehouse explained how fierce white attachments are to such racist colonizing stories. She notes the view of Mexican American scholars like Rudy Acua that the Alamo shrine in San Antonio has long been one sustaining source of the contemporary white racist framing of Mexicans and Mexican Americans. The Texas General Land Office that manages the Alamo has begun an expensive revitalization project for the site, including a museum for Alamo memorabilia. Advocates for the site have emphasized the historic white Anglo narrative of Alamo events, but several investigative journalists, in their book Forget the Alamo, have argued against spending the $450 million of government and private funds on a monument celebrating white Anglo heroes, many of them at that time tied to illegal Texas slavery, and the villainization of the Mexicans seeking to preserve what was then their country of Mexico. This Texas controversy does pit an honest history of the invasive white enslavers and other white colonizers against racist mythologies that young Texans (like me) have long been taught in public schools such as that the Alamo battle was between racially superior white Texans and inferior brown Mexicans over white Texas freedom.

As conservative groups (along with help from wealthy right-wing donors) continue in the direction of banning books, they are creating not just layers and layers of ignorance, but also layers of denial. It is denial (what happened to your people is not true) which will breed deeper forms of divisiveness. Communication across important differences will continue to collapse. Those who ban books, and the Herrenvolk implications of this process, will encourage epistemological silos and insular echo chambers that will continue to breed an us-against-them mentality. The proliferation of lies will follow, and we will find ourselves in a situation where truth is tethered to those who exercise greater power, where might makes right. To paraphrase Spanish artist Francisco Goya, the sleep of compassionate and critical collective deliberation breeds monsters. Is this where the U.S. is headed? Are we in the business of breeding monsters? Are we already there?

Yes, that book banning and censorship link to societal ignorance and class division has been widely discussed and documented in numerous media sites and academic literatures, past and present. Censorship can lead to a situation where truth is determined by those in power and can result in division and oppression. Most famously, in his book 1984, George Orwell sums up the dangers of this elite and state censorship and manipulation of societal truths with, War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Indeed, it is for whites with power. More recently, Margaret Atwood made a similar point in The Handmaids Tale, where an oppressive regime censors books and limits information for mass population control. Like numerous nonfiction books, these classic fictional accounts accent that societal oppression depends on information censorship and especially limiting access to dissenting information.

In my books Racist America and The White Racial Frame both now banned in some U.S. schools I have argued that this countrys long dominant white racial frame operates in part through the suppression of critical thought and the promotion of ignorance on many U.S. racial matters. Certainly, it helps whites to isolate themselves in white racial thought and action silos. It helps as well to maintain white racial privilege by shaping the way most whites and some other Americans, including generations of children, come to understand racism-related issues and in that way, to constantly reinforce systemic racism.

The ongoing racist and anti-democratic information process does create horrific societal monsters, individually and collectively. As noted previously, in the 1930s, the monstrously fascist Nazi party rose to great political power in Germany with the help of massive information control and the regulation censorship of books. By this means, they successfully created a constant atmosphere of extreme fear and thought control, thereby buttressing their strong hold on power in what soon became a fully totalitarian state controlling all aspects of German citizens lives.

Ultimately, the fight against information suppression, including book banning, requires a multifaceted approach utilizing educational, legislative and grassroots organizational efforts.

It is clear today that some states in the United States are moving aggressively in this direction, but it is unclear whether they have passed the point of no return. Additionally, unlike the famous European authoritarian countries like Nazi Germany, the U.S. still has numerous blue states controlled, as of now, by the Democratic Party, including the very powerful states of California and New York. This reality might well result in a very divided states of America at some point in the near future indeed what some have called a new Civil War.

I understand your emphasis on the importance of those numerous blue states, but Im not confident that those who are hell-bent on banning books are necessarily open to critical dialogue, especially when the very act of banning books is indicative of deep forms of fear. What do you see as a necessary means for combatting the banning of books? Will it consist of counter-legislation? Rethinking the meaning of education? Protecting the curriculum against those who want to exercise draconian control over knowledge production and exposure? How does one fight back? After all, this is not simply about what is read, but about what and who gets recognized.

How does one fight back against U.S. racialized fascism? That is clearly the bottom-line question for this countrys future. As I show in several of my books on U.S. racism and anti-racism, including my new book, White Minority Nation, there are many Americans working hard to project and protect critical and dissenting information on a range of oppression and anti-oppression issues, and to put that information into much pro-democracy actions at all government levels.

Let me think out loud about some possible progressive action efforts. To effectively combat book banning, to take one major example, I think anti-racists and other progressives should more aggressively foster critical thinking and dialogue by students at all levels of our educational system. Students should be empowered there to regularly question the social, political and economic status quo, especially regarding societal oppressions. They should learn how to personally and collectively challenge attempts to suppress critical knowledge in these educational areas, and yes, most other societal areas. For instance, integrating anti-racist and anti-oppression pedagogies into most schools regular curricula can help create educational environments that value the contributions of diverse Americans of all ages, regardless of their racial, class or gender statuses and backgrounds.

In addition, we need more aggressive and regular public campaigns raising individual and community awareness about the dangers of book banning and broader tactics of information suppression. These can make use of the older mainstream media and information tools, such as newspaper op-eds and community forums, as well as the many types of new social media. Such efforts also mesh well with accelerating grassroots organizing and activism. Contemporary African American activists like Stacey Abrams and Steve Phillips have recently shown just how important multiracial grassroots movements and coalitions can be in creating major social and political change. By organizing new multiracial protests and direct action efforts together with an array of other local and national political actions, they have not only raised the democracy awareness of many thousands of voters but also have helped create more democratic political bodies at the local and national levels. In this process, they have put great pressure on new and old political decisionmakers at all government levels to support the much needed democratic policy changes.

Clearly, too, reinvigorated progressive legal and legislative action are essential to liberate the countrys many long-suppressed voices of people of color, women of all backgrounds and LGBTQ folks. Progressive political activists must work together across these societal lines to draft and promote new policy legislation safeguarding intellectual freedom and extending democratic action in all forms, including in regard to educational curricula and both mainstream media and new social media. Additionally, where book banning occurs and thus violates individual and community rights, as it usually does, progressive political activists should engage in much more targeted legal actions to counter such information censorship. Working with civil liberties organizations can also help in using the existing laws and courts to protect intellectual freedom, such as under the First Amendment and other major U.S. laws.

Ultimately, the fight against information suppression, including book banning, requires a multifaceted approach utilizing educational, legislative and grassroots organizational efforts.

Unmistakably, to effectively combat the many forms of information censorship and anti-democratic control we need to collectively organize, constantly and widely, in many community and national efforts to defend the long-celebrated U.S. principles of democratic expression, free speech, intellectual diversity and critical thinking. This necessarily multi-lifetimes effort can take many forms, including counter-legislation, multiracial grassroots activism, new social and old media literacy education, and constant community outreach. We have examples of this already. For example, the courageous and influential American Library Associations Office for Intellectual Freedom provides extensive resources and much general support for librarians and teachers who face these many right-wing book challenges and anti-democratic censorship attempts. Additionally, the National Coalition Against Censorship currently offers much support, resources and advocacy for authors, artists, librarians and educators who face white right-wing threats to their freedom of expression. All anti-racist and other democratic progressive groups should, in my view, work assertively and aggressively to promote a broader understanding of human education, for all age groups, as a lifetime process of learning and critical inquiry accenting multiple human perspectives, experiences and voices and most especially those of long oppressed racial, class and gender groups. Undoubtedly, this requires much critical rethinking of educational curricula and associated pedagogy to include a more diverse and inclusive set of texts, authors and viewpoints. Certainly, too, people in these democratic progressive groups must cultivate a strong commitment to dialogue and empathy encouraging respectful communication across societys many differences, even in the face of much disagreement. Eternal democratic organization and dialogues for change seem to be the price of authentic liberty.

The world desperately needs journalism that investigates, reports on, and analyzes complex issues with honesty and integrity. We need journalism that can hold those in power accountable, shine a light on injustices, and give voice to the voiceless. But this kind of journalism depends on your support and we need to raise $36,000 in the next 3 days to keep Truthout moving forward.

We know not everyone can afford to contribute, but if you can, please make a tax-deductible donation to ensure we can keep publishing the stories that matter most. Every dollar makes a difference.

Follow this link:

How Can We Resist Book Bans? This Banned Author Has Ideas. - Truthout

Most of those wielding political power, today, in Nigeria at the local, state and federal levels need to be applauded for continuing faithfully in building more solid structures on the foundations, laid for inequality, by their predecessors. They have succeeded in contributing to the creation and sustenance of two different worlds for the (oppressors) owners of Nigeria and (oppressed) others.

At this juncture, we must state as always, metaphorically, that the mentioned reality is not, and should not be simplistically, in a pedestrian shallow-thinking manner, only ascribed to an Obasanjo, a Yaradua, Jonathan or Buhari! It is, and should be treated as, an inherited and deliberately-sustained colonial legacy; because past/current misleaders have been lucky to inherit a large number of people that made/make up a conquered docile populace unable and/or unwilling to ask questions and take misleaders to task.

Those in government appear to only have contenders in those who are either meandering towards joining them in sharing from the perceived war booty or are struggling to replace these misleaders in the same manner of replicating and furthering the agenda of sustaining the already-created two different worlds in Nigeria. Without mincing words or being comical, the country has been, and is still, a Turn-by-Turn (Anyhow) Limited!

In an earlier intervention, we said and still maintain that ..our people, of course, already had the propensity, through groupings, to oppress each other long before [European] colonialism but also eventually inherited the legacy of oppression left behind by the colonialists and instead of dismantling it, they went ahead to retain, strengthen and entrench it.. To be fair, we are aware that most of the colonialists were foreigners who came to this part of the world for their (hustling) businesses with the mindset of all is fair in war.

Thus, like elsewhere, it should not be news that they created their world within the geographical space they named Nigeria. Some lived like Lords, extracting resources home. To them, home was outside of Nigeria! What is still marvelling to us is that most Nigerians that took over from them were/are worse in this regard. In fact, the actions/inactions of those in power in Nigeria depicted and still depict them as foreigners! Or how do we describe a local government councillor, who, on getting into office, moves out of the neighbourhood, where he was voted for, to where elites reside?

People in government, in Nigeria, today, still see themselves as conquerors (the way most colonialists saw themselves in the past) that must not be questioned nor challenged by the conquered mere mortals. Certainly, they are dark-skinned colonialists of today! This country has always been an occupied territory right from European colonialists time through those of the military until today! Is this not so?

This conflict-spawning reality is a major reason why successive governments, in this country, have been weaponising poverty through different means. They have a mindset that is still stuck in the feudalism epoch while their governance approach is that of fascism. Their words must be law; so they want in the 21st century! These same people that benefited from public benevolence in health, education, and other social facilities, are the ones now advocating for privatisation and commercialisation of the same public assets.

These poorly-funded public facilities are already abandoned! They are now meant for only the conquered mere mortals that are without human rights! With all the well-intentioned advocacies, why are Nigerians still this docile? Undoubtedly, Fela Anikulapo-Kuti (19381997) and his Afrika 70 really understood the suffering masses of Nigeria when a track entitled Shuffering and Shmiling was recorded in 1977 and released in 1978. Yet, in 2023, Nigerians (most especially the masses) are still suffering and smiling!

They even support their oppressors to victimise their potential liberators! They have been sufficiently constrained and conditioned to the level where what dominates their thinking is how to ensure the next meal! For many, surviving in todays Nigeria is really a miracle! The country is not only trapped; so also are most of the poor inhabitants! The very limited economic opportunities are drastically declining due to senseless government policies! Nigerians are increasingly giving up on Nigeria! The defining spirit/mood of Nigerias youths/other age groups, now, is that of moving out of the country (by any means) in droves!

This zeitgeist is simply termed japa on the street! Living in Nigeria is truly frustrating! So, many are being pushed to japa but who will solve Nigerias challenges? These frustration-induced mass departures from Nigeria, especially by professionals in all fields, do not bother Nigerias misleaders! The country is really in trouble as those in power have not only sustained the two worlds in Nigeria but also have their safe homes out of the country. As said earlier, they are foreigners!

They loot Nigerias treasury and stash away the illicit wealth in foreign lands. They, their family and other loved ones treat themselves abroad. Their children/wards are trained in institutions abroad using resources illicitly obtained from Nigerians collective patrimony. This is why they are perpetually at war with disadvantaged Nigerians. Surreptitiously, it has always been a case of them against us! Investments in public health/education are not of priority to these foreigners. Hence, they have decided to go on an all-out-war against any person or group that call their attention to, and hold them responsible for, the decay in any public facility.

For instance, these fascists have tactically but illegally criminalise agitations for rights in the way they have been dealing with Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU). Although, there are cases in the law courts, we have said severally and will continue to remind all, that strike is NOT the problem but a symptom of a deep Weltschmerz in our public universities; once this is treated, strike will be gone!

This union (ASUU) has been on patriotic struggles to compel governments to honour collectively-bargained and mutually-reached agreements aimed at improving the countrys fast collapsing public universities. What did this government do? It simply resorted to force; a reminiscence of the military era! Is this a democracy? Really? When brawn and brain are in a contest, we know which will eventually win! Well now, the foreigners that call themselves Nigerian leaders have democratised poverty and created their own world but have not been, and will never be, able to prevent Mother Nature from democratising death!

Erakhrumen currently teaches at the Department of Forest Resources and Wildlife Management, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria.

The rest is here:

Owners of Nigeria and their multiple worlds - Guardian Nigeria

The past week all the nations anchors and all the kings men were trying to analyse the sweeping mandate from the people of Karnataka. It overturned a mighty double engine government. The large margin of victory made it impossible to put a coalition together again. Reasons for such an unforeseen debacle are usually sought in objective conditions: grinding poverty, caste oppression, scandalous reports of abuses of power and high-level corruption. This, though right to a certain degree, is actually a simplistic and one-sided view.

Karnataka is one of the golden states of India, the hub of the IT industry, among the top ten in providing college goers with good education. Its capital Bengaluru is where some of Indias richest IT and pharma czars reside. For youngsters from the dry northern plains dreaming big, it is a great provider of jobs, promoter of innovation and high technology and a fertile land for eventual global recognition.

Given the size of the prize, the game of thrones was fierce. Ever since the elections were announced, uncontrolled media reports began surfacing less in the mainstream media but vast numbers in the freer social media: about corruption, about persecution of marginalised groups, about pushing thousands of Muslim girls out of examination halls and classrooms because they would not (or could not) discard the hijab.

The much tom-tommed yojanas like Ujjwala had also come a cropper. The cheap gas cylinder promoted as a liberator of women from smoky kitchens were out of their reach in 2023. Added to these, the frequent push for Hindi and Sanatani Hindutva led by a Brahminical elite of temple priests and the Kannadigas, who had defied the caste system and created their own inclusive sects, began to protest.

In such restless times, the last straw on the proverbial camels back always comes from the ruling authoritys refusal to read the public mood and try to silence dissidence with an unnecessarily provocative assertion of power. When the Congress manifesto promised that it would ban the questionable militias that called themselves the Bajrang Dal, the drivers of the twin engine sarkar lost no time in interpreting it as a direct attack on Hindus who worshipped Lord Hanuman or Bajrang Bali.

Advertisement

Advertisement

There were Hanuman cut-outs, muscular Hanuman-like characters, parading in rallies, flourishing silver Gada (mace) and all. This unnecessary and bizarre use of Hindu gods tried the patience of an electorate which is known to be highly literate, modernised and culturally sophisticated. The media cell that promoted this worldview forgot how in history careless words have often brought down the greatest of empires.

The second reason things went sour was a highly personalised attack on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi after he was forced out of his parliament seat. It was ensured that he would be incapacitated until 2024 general elections. After Hindenburg Research released its report which, like the earlier Rafael deal created global headlines, a feeling began to grow that Gandhi had perhaps been unfairly deprived of his parliamentary membership as punishment for his loud public declaration that there had been a major cover up for the misdeeds of the government.

Also read: Is Rahul Gandhi What India Needs to Take On BJPs Double Engine Sarkar of Development and Terror?

His march (pad yatra) from Kanyakumari to Kashmir gave heft to the feeling. A grudging admiration was visible in the social media for a young(er) leader who was risking it all to give voice to Indias jobless youth and women all along the route. An attack on him as an ignorant Pappu now began to be perceived by many in these groups as their own humiliation.

Vocal for local is a nice turn of words but it also backfired locally. Bad roads, flooded streets, failed crops or some sensational atrocities against women and marginalised groups had been flooding the media all along and were one of the minor contributors to a debacle as large as this. Reporters and anchors ought to have done some psychoanalytical depth sounding of social media messages.

The favoured Godi media actually facilitated Gandhis frank public talk about the spurt in the wealth of the rich, citing the Hindenburg report and linking it to the lack of local jobs, mounting debts and spiraling prices hitting the common people hard.

Those of us who were hooked to the media realised that this time the masses did not flee the site where the opposition leaders were speaking to them. Nor did they line the streets and fill the square as expected when Delhi came riding a rath in support of the incumbent government in a shower of flower petals. Those that we saw on our screens as the cavalcade of limousines rolled on gave the security men a cautious look, tinged with curiosity but also somewhat tough and insolent. Nobody at the edge of the crowd feels moved. They still seem a bit timid and stand silently watchful.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi campaigning for the BJP in Karnataka, May 3, 2023. Photo: Twitter/@narendramodi

A rule that centralises all power in the capital rests on a belief that the common man is an abject creature and a terrorised society and media long-deprived of straight dialogues can be mesmerised by garrulous leaders holding one-sided preaching sessions. People reduced to the dependence on governments largesse, the labharthis, will crawl when asked to bend. Labharthis of all sorts do crowd the corridors of power from Delhi, Mumbai, to Ahmedabad, and Bengaluru. But it is a misleading phenomena.

The leader, cut off from frank interaction with sharp questioning minds, gets addicted to a continual display of power in glittering events, yatras and victory laps in flower-bedecked vehicles with huge contingents of armed commandos. The photographs, videos showcasing a grand presence, the common touch: tweaking a childs ears playfully, beating a drum, bowing deeply to an aged man or woman. This rather tiny arsenal of tricks has not changed much over the years but all this is a hall of mirrors. And those that revel in it mostly lack the necessary vision and professional skills.

For gaining Karnataka, every trick in the trade was tried: publicising harsh punishment to gundas, shauchalayas that would democratise indoor shitting, subsidised gas cylinders and large cardboard keys to new homes being presented to the visibly poor labharthis on stage. All in vain. When people decide they want change, they will bring in change.

See the original post here:

When People Decide They Want Change, They Will Bring in Change - The Wire

Simon Bolivar is one of the most famous characters in Latin American history. Standing alongside other independence leaders of the Americas, Bolivar is remembered as a giant in the transformation of South America and Hispanic America. Born in what is today Venezuela, Bolivar not only led and aided in the struggle for emancipation in his own country but was also crucial in the struggles of other nations. Latin America today would not be the same without Bolivars impact on society and his ambitious dreams for a united Hispanic America. Most remember him as the historical icon that he is, but some of his lifes history is left behind when learning about Bolivars achievements. Here are 5 interesting facts about his life.

Bolivars efforts for Latin American emancipation led him to war struggles all throughout the subcontinent. His dream was to liberate the Americas from Spanish control and unite the free nations under one government, a united Latin America. His hopes of freedom became true in time, with significant support and leadership on his part. But his aspiration for a united Latin America was short-lived. Nevertheless, his legacy remains strong and visible. In his honor, two Latin American nations owe their names to him: Bolivia, and his native Venezuela, which is officially named La Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela.

Other nations in Latin America still honor El Libertador, and from time to time, memorials from the time of the wars of emancipation still take notice of Bolivars efforts. Even Mexico, a nation largely unrelated to the emancipatory efforts in South America, has repeatedly honored the Venezuelan revolutionary, naming institutions, schools, universities, streets, and more after him.

Bolivars dream for a united Latin America also remains alive, and though not as strong as it once was, more and more collaboration between the Latin American countries keeps the hopes going for a more close region. Organizations like the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States strive for more integration and development among its members. Others, like Mercosur, take even more ambitious steps for unity. Aspiring for an integration similar to that of the European Union, Mercosur was founded on the ideal for regional integration, international cooperation, and the creation of a single market economic union. Although different from what Bolivar might have envisioned, Latin America continues to grow closer together even today.

Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox Sign up to our Free Weekly Newsletter

Please check your inbox to activate your subscriptionThank you!

Bolivar was born into an incredibly privileged family. His father, Juan Vicente Bolivar y Ponte, was a criollo merchant and colonel. In the Spanish colonial caste system, criollos were a powerful social group comprised of people born in the colonies but who also had Spanish descent or passed as such. They were second only to the Spanish-born Peninsulares, who concentrated most of the power and influence. Bolivars father not only held positions in the colonial administration but also inherited a vast fortune. By the time he was 16 years old, Simon Bolivar had gone to Europe to be educated but had also become an orphan.

Bolivars wealth aided in his exposure to the revolutionary liberal thinking of the time, which had been brewing in Europe for a while. His experiences led him to promise that he would liberate the South American Spanish colonies in his Juramento del Monte Sacro. Throughout his life, Bolivar inherited fortune after fortune, although always at the cost of tragedy, such as the death of his older brother, whose offspring were still too young, and thus the familys inheritance passed off to Bolivar.

Bolivars wealth was also one of the reasons for the development and success of many of the emancipatory struggles in South America, as he not only led many of said efforts but also financed them. Although it is said that Bolivar died with none of his wealth remaining after having spent it all in the revolutionary struggles of South America, this is false, as Bolivar still possessed a range of profitable assets. Nevertheless, Bolivar was still charitable to those close to him, providing his family with economic support and even declaring in his testament that one-third of his wealth would return to his three nephews.

Simon Bolivar was famously known as El Libertador, or The Liberator. But despite his devotion to the emancipation of the Spanish colonies in South America, Bolivar was not just an idealist. Instead, he was a strategic military leader who often took risks to get ahead in his war efforts. In 1819, for example, the revolutionaries surprised the Spanish army in the Battle of Boyaca, resulting in the decisive fall of the Viceroyalty of New Granada.

Bolivar was both incredibly ambitious and decisive in his actions. In 1812, a massive earthquake hit Caracas, weakening the revolutionaries. That same year they suffered decisive defeats against the Spanish, resulting in the fall of the First Republic by 1813. The Spanish showed no mercy against the revolutionaries, but the rebel side took a dark stance too. Bolivar issued el Decreto de Guerra a Muerte, or the War to the Death Decree, which allowed the killing of any Spanish civilian who didnt aid in the emancipatory struggle.

When the independence of New Granada was achieved, La Gran Colombia was born. But how the new nation was to be governed was a delicate and controversial subject. Bolivar believed a heavy hand was needed. He argued in favor of a president for life with almost unlimited reach in his power and a unitary form of government. Meanwhile, Santander, a former ally, argued for a federal government, limits to the reach and power of the presidency, and less influence from the military. Bolivar believed South America ought to be united, but with him ruling over the hypothetical nation. He understood that newly independent states would need a powerful figure to allow for such integration, and for a while, Bolivar was such a figure. Nevertheless, his tough stance came at a cost, and his dream crumbled.

Historically, politics almost always involves betrayal and flip-flopping sides. Nowhere is it more noticeable than when major historical changes occur. During such massive reconfigurations of power and influence, it is quite common to see changes in factions and allegiances. For most of the 19th century, the Americas were the ideal home to this chaotic environment, particularly in the Spanish Colonies.

Francisco de Miranda, considered a precursor in the Latin American emancipatory struggle, had collaborated in many other conflicts aiming for liberal ideas and independence. He had fought in Africa, America, and Europe, participating in the American Revolution and the French Revolution. His name is even engraved on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Naturally, when the revolutionary war started in his native Venezuela, Miranda was called to lead by Bolivar and others. But when the war reached a delicate point, Miranda capitulated in the name of all the revolutionary forces, acting upon his previous appointment as supreme leader. Bolivar was confused by Mirandas decision and believed his actions meant treason, so he had him arrested and delivered to the Spanish side. Miranda eventually died in captivity from natural causes.

Miranda was not the only one who fell out of Bolivars goodwill. When the war was won, the question of what would happen next was raised. Bolivar and Santander were the two foremost ideological leaders of the newly-born Gran Colombia. But their political differences were such that the former allies and friends fell apart and became adversaries. For a while, Bolivar remained the main leader, but some of his adversaries wanted to get rid of him. In 1828, an attempt on Bolivars life was made, and Santander was charged alongside other alleged collaborators. Santander was found a traitor and exiled, returning to Gran Colombia only after Bolivars resignation from the presidency.

Simon Bolivar certainly had a busy, demanding life. He was one of the most important leaders in the Americas during his life. He was a dedicated military leader, taking on the responsibility of a series of key battles and whole campaigns against the Spanish. And yet, despite all these, Bolivar didnt die from war or betrayal. Instead, he died from tuberculosis, or at least that is what was believed at the time.

Later in life, Bolivar had lost faith in South American politics and felt alienated. He was briefly called for support after a former close ally, Jose Antonio de Sucre was assassinated. But Bolivar, who was already waiting to leave for exile, had grown sick, and his health continued deteriorating until his death in 1830 at the age of 47.

Centuries later, in 2008, Hugo Chavezs government, unsatisfied with the conventional cause of Bolivars death, carried out an investigation to clarify the reasons behind his passing. The official report stated that Bolivar had actually died of histoplasmosis, a fungal infection with similar symptoms to tuberculosis. Furthermore, the report argued that the infection had been aggravated by arsenic poisoning. And though it is possible that rivals might have poisoned him, it was quite common at the time to use arsenic as a medical remedy, and Bolivar might have even taken it by his own initiative.

Bolivars life has gone down in history as one to be remembered. Like other Latin American independence leaders, Bolivars support and leadership of emancipatory movements in South America challenged the mighty Spanish Empire and its centuries-long colonial oppression over the Americas. But unlike many of them, Bolivar also dreamt of a united Hispanic America, a vast confederation that would not only aspire for emancipation but also for fraternity and prosperity.

Read the rest here:

5 Interesting Facts about Simon Bolivar - The Collector

The persecution of Uyghurs is most horrifying crime against humanity in China, the report said.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) has expanded its repression of the Uyghur in recent years, which includes limiting their freedom of expression, speech, religion, and freedom to move around, Voices Against Autocracy reported.

Several media reports have underlined the persecution of Uyghurs as the most horrifying crime against humanity in China.

Since 2017, the Chinese government has incarcerated over a million Uyghurs in "re-education camps" and subjected those who have not been detained to rigorous monitoring, religious restrictions, forced labour, and forcible sterilisation, according to Voices Against Autocracy.

It has been regarded as "the largest incarceration of a minority group since the Holocaust" by Western researchers.

A UN Human Rights Office assessment released last year indicated "patterns of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" in the camps. The vast majority of those incarcerated in the camps were never charged and had no legal recourse to protest their confinement.

According to a recent Al Jazeera report (released on 4 May 2023) citing a Human Rights Watch (HRW) forensic investigation, Chinese authorities have monitored the phones of the ethnic minority Uyghur for the presence of 50,000 known multimedia files that were used to flag what China views as extremism, with the mere possession of the Quran triggering a police interrogation.

Notably, China also continues to utilise its considerable influence to influence UN processes and ensure that its partners avoid publicly acknowledging Uyghur oppression.

Following the release of the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) voted down a motion by the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom to convene a debate on human rights abuses in Xinjiang in October 2022, just the second time in sixteen years reported Voices Against Autocracy.

On the Chinese atrocities on Uyghur minorities, Michael Levitt, writing in the Toronto Star said that world attention on the plight of the Uyghur has somewhat decreased.

He concludes his case by noting that the oppression of Uyghurs in China is one of the most heinous crimes against humanity.

According to the US State Department's annual report on religious freedom around the world violations of human rights in China and Iran have become a major cause of concern in recent times.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that most oppressive nations around the world are growing even more dire. "Governments in many parts of the world continue to target religious minorities using a host of methods, including torture, beatings, unlawful surveillance, and so-called re-education camps," he said.

Blinken underscored abuses against the predominately Muslim Uyghur minority group in the Xinjiang province of China, a country one senior State Department official described as "one of the worst abusers of human rights and religious freedom in the world."

The report accused Beijing of jailing as many as 10,000 or more people in 2022 in a widening campaign of repression against religious belief meant to bring all theological activity under the Chinese Communist Party's control.

The estimate of those imprisoned in the country ranging "from the low thousands to over 10,000" is one of many contained in the State Department's International Religious Freedom Report.

The US has previously determined that Beijing's treatment of the Uyghurs amounts to genocide and crimes against humanity, and the report, which covers the year 2022, said that persecution has continued steadily.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Waiting for response to load...

Go here to read the rest:

China Built Over A Million Uyghurs "Re-Education Camps" In 6 Years: Report - NDTV

On paper, LGBTQ people in South Africa are protected by the Constitution from discrimination, however, the reality is that many continue to face discrimination and sexual harassment, with no real access to justice for those hate-related crimes. Lesbian women are raped by men seeking to show them what it means to be a real woman, trans people do not have access to gender-affirming healthcare and LGBTQ people are increasingly seen everywhere as the reason for moral degradation.

We are in danger and in constant attack and our leaders dont care.

In February this year, Iranti, an LGBTQ organisation, called on the South African president to address the issues faced by LGBTQ people in his State of the Nation address.

We believe that if the president says something, then we can use his word to hold his cadres and officials accountable, which we are unable to do, said the co-executive director of Iranti, Nolwazi Tusini. Tusini said Iranti were blocked by government officials from doing their work of ensuring that people on the ground have access to the most basic services and human rights.

Despite these efforts, the president said nothing about LGBTQ people or their challenges. In fact, he invited the Uganda president, Yoweri Museveni, to receive the Order of South Africa medal, shortly after the Ugandan parliament had introduced the Kill the Gays Bill which promises the death penalty and life imprisonment to those who identify as queer.

A few weeks after adorning Museveni with the medal, the Ugandan parliament passed the bill, and civil society and various other organisations called on Ramaphosa to condemn the laws.

He has still said nothing. He is siding with a leader who has been publicly encouraging other African leaders to strip away the rights of LGBTQ people or a community he calls a Western disease.

Read more in Daily Maverick: What its like to be Ugandan and queer when your country turns against your identity

The silence of our leaders on the growing hate towards LGBTQ people makes them complicit in our oppression, if not responsible for it. Silence in the face of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, is a form of solidarity with those who seek to obliterate us, queer people, from the face of the earth. Our leaders continue to fail us by disregarding their responsibilities towards us, trivialising our rights and fabricating principles of equality to advocate for hate.

It is not enough for us, as South Africans, black, gay and otherwise, to be silent and hide behind constitutional rights that only sparkle on paper. We must offer our solidarity and support to fellow LGBTQ Africans, and use our voices to challenge leaders to do the right thing and cast our votes to choose better leaders when the old ones fail us. In the absence of good leaders, we must become the good leaders we seek.

If our leaders will not hear and see to our cries, then we, ourselves, must become the leaders who will. National elections are coming up next year, and we must be actively involved in deciding our future.

We are people with voices and issues that need to be heard.

Although significant progress has been made in advancing LGBTQ rights, true equality remains elusive, and one crucial avenue for progress is through LGBTQ political representation in elections and governance. We too deserve and require robust political representation to ensure our rights and interests are effectively addressed in the political arena.

Achieving political representation would allow us to break free from historical oppression and enable us to reclaim our agency. Through political representation, we would get a chance to shape policies, laws, and public discourse and address systemic discrimination.

We face unique challenges that require specialised legislation and public policy attention. Without political representation, our issues may be unheard or underrepresented, hindering progress and perpetuating injustices.

Our political landscape needs young, vibrant voices that will stand up for the rights of all minorities with a nuanced understanding of how power intersects with various forms of identities.

Imagining a political landscape that is intersectional requires minority groups to also consider the ways in which they could also be implicated in the oppression of other minority groups. This realisation might bring social movements together, instead of dividing them, so that they can collectively uproot the root of all oppression.

For example, black men, although marginalised, have been implicated in the oppression of women, children and LGBTQ people. Women have also been implicated in the oppression of LGBTQ people. Cishet women are fighting trans women over the definition of a real woman. Gay men are transphobic towards both trans men and women and sexist towards lesbians.

White women have failed to show solidarity with black women on womens issues, the same way white LGBTQ people have not shown enough solidarity to black LGBTQ people and the same way that LGBTQ South Africans have failed to show solidarity towards fellow LGBTQ Africans.

We are fighting each other, instead of trying to understand each other.

All oppression, as the artivist Stacey Ann Chin said, is connected.

No one is free if their freedom depends on the oppression of others. The Kill the Gays Bill in Uganda, does not only target those who identify as LGBTQ, it also targets those who live with and support LGBTQ people, as criminals guilty of promoting homosexuality. To exclude the rights of LGBTQ people to self-determine their identities, and to freely express that identity is not freedom or protecting morality; it is to become the new perpetrator.

The strides that were made to get where we are today, did not happen spontaneously. They were achieved as a result of the determination, courage and perseverance of those who imagined and pursued a just society. If it wasnt for the likes of Simon Nkoli, Phumi Mtetwa, Bev Ditsie, Edwin Cameron, Donne Rundell and others, we wouldnt have the explicit protection of sexual minorities in section 9 of the South African Constitution.

We need to charge ourselves with their courage and continue the work they have started.

Simon Nkoli, who was at the forefront of the LGBT liberation movement in South Africa, started his activist career fighting against apartheid as a black man. And then he experienced homophobia from his own comrades whose idea of liberation did not extend to sexual minorities.

When Simon Nkoli came out as gay to his comrades during the Delmas treason trial, they saw his sexual orientation as a threat to the liberation of black people. In fact, Gcina Malindi, who was a co-accused in the Delmas Treason Trial, as well as an ally and friend to Simon Nkoli, told me (in my research for the Nkoli Vogue Opera) that there were a few of us who were supportive and who were politically mature and progressive enough to know that his sexual orientation was no blemish on the struggle for freedom. And that in fact his struggle for recognition as a homosexual man had to form part of the struggle for liberation so that discrimination is abolished across the line.

Read more in Daily Maverick: A life resurrected an opera about Aids and the life of queer activist Simon Nkoli

We need leaders with the political maturity to abolish discrimination across all lines. The kind of political maturity we need must unite marginalised groups in their oppression, instead of dividing us with Olympics of oppression about who is the most marginalised.

Standing up for one social group doesnt have to come at the expense of another, and each struggle is valid and deserves to be resolved. We can listen to and support each other if we are open to a conversation that seeks to unite us in collective freedom, rather than divide us into hierarchies of marginalisation.

To be divided into hierarchies of oppression only makes us victims of divide and conquer, a tactic that was used by the apartheid regime to fuel divisions among anti-apartheid social movements, as a way to digress their collective efforts against the one true enemy. We are stronger together and more united than we are scattered and squabbling.

And so the time has come for us to unite in the margins of our oppression, to do more than just complain about the state of our country. We have to fight for our rights to become reality and not mere platitudes on paper. No one will do this for us but ourselves.

There is no longer time to hope, only time to act.

Queer folk, we are the ones we have been waiting for and the hour to save ourselves has come. We cant afford to be so despondent that we throw our hands in the air as if there is nothing we can do about our fate. There is much we can still do, individually and collectively. Let us not allow ourselves to be apathetic to injustice against us or those around us and we must, at all times, remain committed to our own liberation. To freedom. DM

Welcome Mandla Lishivha is a journalist, author of Boy On The Run and researcher for the Nkoli: Vogue-Opera, a musical opera on the life & trials of anti-apartheid and gay activist Simon Nkoli, composed by Philip Miller. Follow the @NkoliVogueOpera on Instagram

The rest is here:

Queer folk, the hour to save ourselves has come - Daily Maverick

Amy McVay Abbott| Indianapolis Star

Over a century ago, a headline in The Indianapolis Star screamed in all capitals, LIFE UNDER LIBRARY BANS. The School Commissions Library Committee prohibited Life magazines in all public reading rooms often used by schoolchildren. The authorities had received complaints from parents, who said the magazine was poisoning childrens minds.

Today our public schools have libraries, and children arent forced to go to public reading rooms. But, our general assembly recently handcuffed Hoosier school librarians with the passage of legislation that provides a procedure to request removing books from school libraries. Signed into law earlier this month by Gov. Eric Holcomb, a new law can result in a felony and prison time for librarians who harbor offensive books.

Language in the new law can consider certain materials as harmful to minors, akin to existing language for obscene materials in the Indiana Code. The final bill is here.

Banned books legislation signed: Gov. Holcomb signs book banning measure

School and information specialists are trained teachers with specialized subject expertise who sustain one of Indianas most valuable treasures: our knowledge. Libraries and school librarians do not exist in a vacuum. Each library functions within a school corporations budget and existing acquisition guidelines. The new legislation heaps new layers of bureaucracy on librarians, already coping with budgetary and staff shortages. The law requires schools to publish a materials catalog and offer a process for parents to request the removal of materials.

Growing up in a family of readers, I visited my school and public library frequently. In high school, I read To Build a Fire by Jack London. In the short story, a man walks alone with his dog in the frigid Yukon Territory of Canada. The man slips through the ice and must build a fire to warm his feet and save himself from freezing to death.

Missing books: Appleton: An afternoon at the Noblesville library, where children's books are under siege

Though I read this story half a century ago, it is etched into my memory. The author slowly builds tension, which still grips me years later. Londons themes often centered around fears common to people fear of self, nature and others different from us. Access to library materials taught me about the world beyond my small Indiana hometown and exposed me to the worlds broader fears.

Indiana parents should have the right and even the obligation to monitor what their children read.

But do parents have the right to decide for everyone else?

No. In a free society, we do not. Any discussion of a particular works morality can quickly descend into an endless, icy slope. One parent may object to Heather Has Two Mommies, while another finds Huck Finn reprehensible. Indiana has, however, decided through this bill that the individual can assess what is right and moral for the common good.

In the 1970s, many Hoosier schools embraced a more diverse literature curriculum called phase-elective English. I took a comparative literature course that examined classic literary poems against peace songs by Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan. Some parents objected to the anti-war songs, an echo of the century ago brouhaha over Life magazine.

Empty shelves at the library: Teen shelves half empty at Hamilton East as library conducts $300K board-pushed book review

What fear motivated those parents about anti-war songs? In To Build a Fire, the protagonist loses his battle against nature, his fear a fatal reality. So, what is the fear that motivated the new legislation?

Last week, Floridas governor, Ron DeSantis, signed legislation restricting the discussion of racism, sexism and oppression on state-supported college campuses. As the new legislation demonstrates, I fear a government that continues destroying freedom of thought and prosecuting those encouraging diverse education.

In her newsletter, Civil Discourse, former federal judge Joyce Vance sums up the issue, A strong system of public education is fundamental to keeping the Republic. Any local, state, or national elected official who tries to dismantle it should be called out and routed in future elections.

What can I do:

Information from the Anti-Defamation League

American Library Association Fight Censorship Page

Amy McVay Abbott is a journalist and author who lives in southwestern Indiana.

Read more here:

Preposterous! Book ban adds bureaucracy and removes parents ... - IndyStar

A few weeks ago, dozens of elected officials from all levels of the US government and both sides of the aisle came together to proclaim April 29 as #EndJewHatred Day a day of empowerment and solidarity in the face of growing antisemitism.

The magnitude of #EndJewHatred Day cannot be understated. It is historically unprecedented to have a nationwide bipartisan effort to recognize and empower the Jewish people to fight Jew hatred. These proclamations showcase the power of ordinary people who join together to fight for civil rights and social justice and the importance of bipartisanship and unity to achieve change.

Civil rights and social justice movements succeed by bringing together people from all walks of life to act for change. To foster successful allyship, however, individuals must be willing to let go of preconceived yet misguided notions they may hold about their allies.

Setting aside stereotypes to unite for positive change is even harder in the face of an establishment with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The establishment uses a narrative of oppression to describe people as divided by race, religion, or political ideology. These are distinctions made by the ruling elites to prevent the people from forming the alliances needed to shake the existing order and bring about social justice for those who need it most.

The establishment knows too well that if you identify with people by certain characteristics (immutable or not), you create an atmosphere that fosters distrust of those who dont share those characteristics. Distrust creates division, and when these divisions become internalized they give rise to bigotry and discrimination. Because of the distrust among people of different groups, this bigotry becomes systemic, making change impossible. This is precisely what the establishment wants.

Not too long ago, we saw signs that read, Whites only. Those signs didnt come down until an allyship was formed between people of different races and political backgrounds, standing together to demand the civil rights and protections we enjoy today. No one group, on its own, could have made that change. Today, the signs may be gone, but systemic racism still exists and in response, social justice advocates have been building new alliances to confront it.

In the fight for social justice, an allyship can be built around the simplest unobjectionable message: Black Lives Matter; Stop Asian Hate; End Jew Hatred. The power of these messages in bringing people together is their ability to transcend divisions, whether political, religious or other.

It doesnt matter who gets your vote, what you believe about policy issues, where you come from, or what color your skin is. These things are irrelevant to the universal truth of the message. And if you agree on the need to end Jew hatred in your lifetime, you can do your part to de-normalize antisemitism and make it socially unacceptable. You can do your part in assuring consequences for hateful conduct. You can be an ally, and together we can achieve positive change.

The problem is with the old guard that encourages tribalism as a means to maintain the status quo. In todays world, what better way to encourage tribalism than to suggest a political litmus test for social justice, and reinforce preconceived but erroneous ideas? We see this all the time when ideas or people are described as left-wing or right-wing. We see it in the suggestion, reinforced by some elected representatives, organizations, and even journalists, that only people who vote a certain way or hold certain positions on Israel can be true warriors for justice.

Make no mistake, the people who push these narratives are part of the problem, not allies working towards a solution. Injecting politics into a message of universal truth is meant to handicap the people fighting for change, not help them. Its meant to divide us and tear us apart, to destroy our unity in a common goal.

Without that unity we cannot effect the change in society that makes bigotry unacceptable. Without it we cannot pass bipartisan legislation that protects our identity while affirming and empowering us as people. We become disparate tribes pitted against one another by a patriarchal establishment responsible for the oppression of centuries.

Sadly, many false narratives have even penetrated the Jewish community, weakening our collective sense of identity and our ability to unite and fight to be heard.

The idea that we must pledge allegiance to one political party, or that we must fight for others to have the right to be heard, has kept us from standing up for ourselves. Unfortunately, our community is fragmented when it comes to asserting our civil rights, and the exploitation of our intergenerational trauma hinders our ability to unite and mobilize for social justice.

It is to be noted that, as the Jewish community has started to come together along with our allies in the End Jew Hatred movement, our trauma is used as a tool to pit us against one another and deny us the empowerment for which we strive. Regarding our right to fight for Jewish rights, we are told, alternatively, that we are too conservative; too progressive; too binary; too non-binary; too Sephardi; too Ashkenazi, too religious; or not religious enough.

Our motives are questioned. Our goodwill is challenged. Why? Because our unity is a threat to the establishment. Our grassroots actions threaten to upend the last vestiges of oppression. After all, now that other minority and marginalized people have stood up and forced change, who is left to keep down but the Jew?

The strength of the End Jew Hatred movement is in the people who understand the importance of unity in achieving a common goal. Its strength lies in partnering with everyone, no matter who they vote for as long as they demand justice for the Jewish people and respect for our identity and our civil rights. The reason End Jew Hatred is successful is precisely its message of unity.

Our emancipation from bigotry and discrimination has nothing to do with whether you voted for a Democrat or a Republican. The movements remarkable success serves as undeniable evidence: At a rally, two individuals representing polar opposite ends of the political spectrum stood shoulder to shoulder, proudly holding signs that bore the powerful hashtag #EndJewHatred.

These individuals embody a profound comprehension that the cause they champion transcends mere politics; instead, it is rooted in the fundamental principles of civil rights. They recognize that advocating for the civil rights of the Jewish people extends far beyond a religious or secular identity it is a duty incumbent upon every compassionate human being.

Regrettably, there exist some individuals who fail to grasp this profound truth, their minds shackled by narrow-mindedness. Incapable of perceiving the shared values that bind us, they demonstrate a lamentable inability to appreciate our common ground.

There may never have been (certainly not in modern times) a movement fighting for the civil rights of the Jewish people for social justice for the Jewish people in the face of ever-increasing Jew hatred.

There has never been a movement centered on the Jewish community as a minority community, targeted by systemic oppression and bigotry, and deserving equal protection under the law unbound by whats happening thousands of miles away in the Middle East.

The End Jew Hatred movement is built around the simplest, most unobjectionable message: We need to end Jew hatred in our lifetime.

Over the past few years this message has resulted in a grassroots movement that has captured the imagination of supporters across the world, sparked meaningful direct action in support of our civil rights, and empowered bipartisan cooperation to proclaim April 29 as #EndJewHatred Day.

This movement is greater than any divisive ideology. Ending Jew hatred is not political. It is not about any one organization, or any one person. A movement is greater than any one of us. It is about all of us. This is how we succeed in the fight for social justice we bring people together from all walks of life with the knowledge that by acting together, we cause change.

It is astounding that in this day and age, there are still some people committed to maintaining the status quo of bigotry and racism. They include the elected officials who refuse to accept #EndJewHatred Day and view Jew hatred through the lens of politics rather than social justice. They include the leaders of organizations who wont act in concert with anyone unless they are in charge.

They also include practitioners of yellow journalism, prone to sensationalism and scandal-mongering to drive traffic to their articles. They have one thing in common: the promotion of the tribalism that keeps us apart and prevents us from truly uniting for social justice.

As we strive to build a better society, we cannot afford to be distracted by the noise of those who would see us fail. We cannot afford to allow our differences to outweigh our commonality of interest and purpose. The very existence of those who try to divide us shows the need for the End Jew Hatred movement and the need to come together on bipartisan initiatives like #EndJewHatred Day.

We must reject attempts to politicize a universal truth, and continue to unite for the common good to continue to come together to #EndJewHatred in our lifetime. We invite everyone, especially the Jewish community, to join us.

The writer is co-founder of #EndJewHatred.

View original post here:

End Jew Hatred: Fight for social justice must be above political fray - The Jerusalem Post

If demonstrations are an act to draw sympathy for their cause, the violent rally staged by the construction union under the combative Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) on Tuesday and Wednesday in downtown Seoul failed to achieve the goal. For two days, union members caused extreme traffic congestion during the day and unbearable inconvenience to citizens at night as they slept on the street. Who would really listen to their demands?

The two-day protest in central Seoul was illegitimate from the beginning. Police disallowed them from staging the rally from 5 p.m. to prevent a traffic jam and protect pedestrians rights. But unionized members pressed ahead with it.

Many of them slept around the city hall building, which left a tremendous amount of trash, including many empty soju bottles and leftover food, not to mention urine on the street.

Citizens had to persevere all the horrid smells when reporting to work yesterday morning. Protestors may take pride in showing a determination to protest the governments hardline approach to them. But they must take responsibility for all the confusion and chaos they triggered.

The construction union claims that it took action to oppose the conservative governments oppression against them. But what the prosecution and the police have conducted is an investigation into their illegal acts such as obstructing a hiring of non-unionized members, obstruction of business, and demand for dirty money in return for favors to stakeholders, as well as extorting money from others when they show weaknesses. The police have discovered 866 cases of violation of the law in a 200-day special investigation. Many senior members of the construction union have been indicted on charges of threat, blackmail, and violence.

What the law enforcement authorities tried to do was to root out the tyranny of the mighty union, not their normal activities. It does not make sense for the union to define it as a political repression.

Such an aberrant way of demonstrating suggests their political goal of shaking the government instead of trying to convince the public of their cause. Familiar senior members of progressive civic groups and lawmakers from the Democratic Party also joined the violent rally on Wednesday to show their support for the union. If that is not political strife, what is?

It is regrettable that the same faces always appear in such anti-government protests. This suspicious mix of powers became a chronic disease in our society long ago. The answer must be found in the common sense of citizens who can say no to them.

Read the rest here:

Political strife, not protest anymore - The Korea JoongAng Daily

On January 6, 2021, supporters of former President Donald Trumpmany toting crosses and Trump flags, some with tactical gear and gunssmashed their way into the U.S. Capitol building, seeking to stop certification of Joe Bidens victory. As we watched the mayhem on TV, perhaps the question that crossed my mind also occurred to you: How the hell did we get here?

One obvious answer involves Trumps bogus election fraud claims, the logical endgame of a presidency built around grievance, paranoia, and wild falsehoods. But as one-time New Yorker legal reporter and former CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin shows in Homegrown: Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism, the road to January 6 can be traced back at least a quarter century to the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people, including 19 children. The perpetrator, Timothy McVeigh, embodied the anti-government, gun-obsessed, white supremacist rage evident on January 6a politics of rage that has moved from the fringe to very near the center of conservative politics (think Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, or of course, Trump himself). Though McVeigh was executed in 2001, Homegrown, released May 2, shows that his story is very much a story for today. Moreover, though the bombing took place north of the Red River, it is both a Texas story and a national one.

As befits the second-deadliest instance of domestic terrorism in U.S. history (exceeded only by the 1921 Tulsa Massacre), there is no shortage of work on the Oklahoma City bombing. Besides a compelling 2017 American Experience documentary, Richard A. Serranos gripping One of Ours (1998) is especially evocative in describing the carnage wrought by McVeighs truck bomb. American Terrorist (2001), by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, draws on extensive interviews with McVeigh to explain his worldview and motivations.

Homegrown inevitably covers much of the same ground as these earlier works, but has the advantage of two decades hindsight. We learn about McVeighs troubled childhood, his lifelong obsession with guns, his frustration over lack of job opportunities and his failure with women (Toobin notes that he was an incellonely and unwillingly celibatebefore the term existed), his rising anger against the federal government, and his attraction to right-wing extremist ideology. In the early 1990s McVeigh plugged into a growing underground community animated by an anti-government politics of grievance, including the nascent militia movement and the on-air screeds of Rush Limbaugh and Watergate-felon-turned-radio-personality G. Gordon Liddy. Especially formative for McVeigh was The Turner Diaries, a white racist fantasy book about patriots who spark a race war by blowing up FBI headquarters with a truck bomba prototype for the weapon McVeigh himself would deploy.

What moved McVeigh from inchoate rage to homicidal actionand what makes Homegrown very much a Texas storywas the disastrous 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco. For McVeigh, the siege constituted a federal assault on gun rights: He regarded guns as instruments of freedom and any attempt to regulate them, especially by the federal government, as a form of oppression, Toobin writes. During the long standoff, McVeigh drove from his home in Florida to see the siege for himself; while there, he sold anti-government, pro-gun bumper stickers from the hood of his car. One bore the slogan: A MAN WITHOUT A GUN IS NOT A CITIZEN. McVeigh left Waco after a few days, but was preparing to return and make some kind of stand against the feds when the siege ended with the fiery destruction of the compound, leaving 82 Branch Davidians dead.

Over the next two years, Toobin notes, McVeighs reaction to Waco exceeded mere political outrage and became a psychological obsession. Waco, he told a friend, drew the first blood of war. It became his central purpose to avenge the deaths of David Koresh and his followers. As Toobin shows, McVeigh was not alone in regarding Waco as an excuse for violence. For instance, Liddy, during a radio discussion of agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) responsible for the initial raid on the Branch Davidians, urged his listeners to kill the sons of bitches.

McVeigh took such exhortations to heart. He chose the Murrah Building as his target because it housed an ATF office. He chose April 19, 1995, as the date for the attack in part because it was the two-year anniversary of the fiery destruction of the Waco compound, and in part because it was the date the first shots were fired in the Revolutionary War. Considering himself a modern-day Minuteman, McVeigh hoped that his attack would spark a widespread rebellion of White patriots to overthrow the federal government, la The Turner Diaries.

Homegrown doesnt offer the vividness of Serranos book, nor the psychological insight of American Terrorist. But it offers its own rewards. The greatest by far is the way Toobin carefully maps the road that leads from McVeigh to MAGA, January 6, and the right-wing extremism and violence we see today. Significantly, the book opens not in 1995 but with the Capitol insurrection. The insurrectionists, Toobin writes, were McVeighs ideological successors:

During that quarter century, right-wing extremists launched a widespread wave of violence, of bombings, assassinations, and mass killings, which Toobin describes in disturbing detail.

Toobin contends that authorities, the media, and the public have been slow to wake up to todays right-wing extremist threats. Americans tend to associate terrorism with foreign actors like al-Qaida. Yet Toobin cites studies suggesting that most terrorist violence in the United States in the past two decades has been homegrownthe work of right-wing and white supremacist extremists.

Furthermore, Toobin writes, these outrages were too often explained, if not dismissed, as the work of lone wolves, rather than symptoms of a wider and deeper right-wing extremist threat. Thats dangerous, Toobin contends, quoting terrorism expert Juliette Kayyem: White-supremacist terror is rooted in a pack, a community. When one of them puts the violent rhetoric into action in the real world, the killer is often called a lone wolf, but they are not alone at all.

All the trends that McVeigh embodied came together under the forty-fifth president.

Indeed, Toobin argues, McVeighs politics of grievance and rage has become the beating heart of the right wing today. Timothy McVeighs legacy became clearest during Trumps campaign and presidency, Toobin writes. All the trends that McVeigh embodiedthe political extremism, the obsession with gun rights, the search for like-minded allies, and above all the embrace of violencecame together under the forty-fifth president. Then, when Trump became president, Toobin writes, the wolf pack had a new leader.

One final irony suggests just how dramatically the right has reshaped the landscape. In 1995, FBI agents were able to apprehend McVeigh only two days after the bombing because he happened to be jailed in Perry, 65 miles north of Oklahoma City. While making his getaway, McVeigh was pulled over by state trooper Charles J. Hanger: The getaway car had no license plates. When Hanger found McVeigh was carrying a handgun without a permit, McVeigh was arrested. But in 2019, Oklahoma changed its law to allow individuals to carry guns without a permitjust as Texas did two years later. If Hanger had stopped McVeigh under the new law, Toobin writes, he could not have arrested him. All Hanger could have done was give McVeigh a ticket.

Although Toobins reputation has recently been tarnished by scandal, in Homegrown he has produced the definitive book on McVeighs continuing legacy. This book serves as a wake-up call to the ongoing extremist threat, and a vivid reminder that, in the words of William Faulkner, The past is never dead. Its not even past.

See the article here:

'A Man Without a Gun Is Not a Citizen' - The Texas Observer