#Should racism and discrimination be viewed as public health threats

[ausetkmt]

Should racism and discrimination be viewed as public health threats? A new study argues they should - ABC News

LONDON -- Racism and discrimination must be acknowledged as public health threats in the fight to address global health disparities, according to a new study.

As part of the four-paper series published in The Lancet medical journal Thursday, researchers from countries around the world, including the U.S., U.K., Brazil and India, carried out a major review of scientific literature and used data from hundreds of articles in recent years.

The tendency among health professionals has been to explain unequal health outcomes on either genetics or economic conditions, according to the study's authors. But in order to tackle racial health inequities, racism and discrimination themselves should be classified as public health threats globally, the authors say.

"Racism has always been a public health threat," Alexandre White, assistant professor of sociology and the history of medicine at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, told ABC News. "It has emerged time and time again, especially over the last 10 to 15 years."

Research into the intersection of race and health disparities has advanced in recent years, particularly in the U.S. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention almost every two in three pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. A 2020 report found that non-Hispanic Black women experienced a higher pregnancy-related mortality rate -- a disparity placing them nearly three times more at risk of dying due to pregnancy-related causes compared to non-Hispanic white women.

STOCK PHOTO/Getty Images

"This study is tremendously important [as] it sheds light on the fundamental role that racism, xenophobia and forms of discrimination actually play on health, both from a structural level and generational level over time," White said. "But also fundamentally since the COVID-19 pandemic we've seen the ways in which, especially racism and xenophobia, affects who gets sick, how seriously and why."

The study also reports that racial biases in health care can lead to a stress response -- affirming previous studies that found discrimination, whether overt or covert, can lead to chronic stress responses which can affect human neurological and immune systems. That chronic stress response can lead to lower life expectancies and is associated with other health complications such as anxiety, depression and heart disease.

"It's not only because of racism at the individual interpersonal level," Dr. Abi Deivanayagam, a public health doctor, researcher, activist and one of the study's authors, told ABC News. "It's racism in the way that our society is structured. And that's very real. And it's really important that we acknowledge this in a medical journal like The Lancet so that health people recognize that this is something this is our duty of care to patients. And our care really has to go beyond the individual to making sure that our systems are safe for our patients."

Although discrimination against minority groups comes in different forms around the world according to such factors as race, ethnicity and religion, a pattern of worse health outcomes for minority groups can be seen globally.

According to Deivanayagam, the study has drawn two major conclusions.

"One thing is that there is evidence globally that shows that racism, xenophobia and discrimination affect a range of different health outcomes, and that this is embedded across different levels of society and that it affects people across the course of their lives ranging from COVID-19, to vaccines, to actually getting health care access," she told ABC News. "The second thing is that we need to get to the root cause of this. And the way we do that as health professionals is to recognize that racism, xenophobia and discrimination are actually a public health threat."

[anguyen06]

Week 2 Blog Post (due 09/02)

In what ways has the credibility of the news changed over the last few years?

Gonzalez and Torres, in the “News for All People” reading, have noted that “the believability of our nation’s news organization has plummeted sharply in recent decades” (Gonzalez and Torres, 2013, p. 1). An explanation for this could be because of how the news has changed from strictly distributing information about current events to how many clicks an article can get from their viewers. News outlets can arguably be seen to be money-driven, and, based on the reading, the public recognizes the intentions of these broadcasting stations. Another explanation could also be because of how political news stations have become. The information given has been skewed to fit the biases and agenda of particular political parties, such as Fox News favoring more towards the conservative Republican Party and CNN leaning towards the liberal Democratic Party. Knowing this, it makes the information given unreliable with its narrow perspective. For example, police brutality could be conceptualized in certain ways depending on which stations deliver this type of information. A news station that supports the President and government-aided groups might minimize the actions and effects of police brutality and abuse, therefore the credibility of the news has been reduced significantly to being a money-driven and political-favoring business.

How have news stations played a role in racism?

In recent times, more stories of racial discrimination have been the highlight of the weekly news.  The problem with this is that some stations agree with the comments of how certain races of people deserve to be treated differently. Another problem with this is that, as noted by Gonzalez and Torres, “...newspaper, radio, and television played a pivotal role in perpetuating racist views among the general population. They did so by routinely portraying non-white minorities as threats to white society racial ignorance, group, hatred, and discriminatory government policies” (Gonzalez and Torres, 2013, p. 2). While the ways of spreading information and opinions have allowed these actions to take place in an ill-mannered way, news stations have brought more attention to a serious problem that has been happening for decades before. In other words, news stations haven’t discovered a shocking revelation that people have been discriminating against people for their race, broadcasting media just started documenting these injustices. It is important to note that while news stations may have played a major role in allowing racism to have a platform, it does not necessarily be the cause of the growing cases of racism and discrimination.

How does power play a role in how people receive information?

Power plays a somewhat significant role in how people receive information. In Christian Fuchs’s words, “power has to do with who controls society… who owns basic resources, who has the reputation to influence and change society” (Fuchs, 2013, p. 7). With this in mind, power has the ability to shape how information goes out to the public. For instance, a well-known, well-funded news station may be where most people get their information and daily updates on world events due to its popularity and (so-called) reliability. However, it does not mean that these news outlets are reliable. Society tends to automatically assume that because of its popularity/name and influence, it is genuinely reliable. It is important to recognize the factors of power that play into decreasing the reliability of information: paying off a news reporter/writer, framing the story in a negative way or positive way, or even not acknowledging certain news reports. 

Should society be concerned about how social media has consumed the majority of people’s time?

There is no doubt that social media has become one of the most used forms of communication and platforms of socialization. Society should be concerned by how much time social media consumes the majority of people’s time if the usage of social media is being abused and if it affects the individual in a negative way. Social media could be abused by users taking advantage of how anonymous one could be online. This creates vulnerability of blatant harassment, doxxing, and even trafficking or social media users. The other concern of spending too much time on social media is if it affects the social media in a destructive way. Cyberbullying has emerged as a result of the creation of the internet and social media applications. It has caused mental health deterioration, depression, and, more concerning, suicidal thoughts amongst users. Social media has the ability to keep connections with one another, build relationships, and create businesses for small entrepreneurs, but there are also extreme risks of spending too much time online and on social media without being aware of the dangers and consequences of it.

Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media: A Critical Introduction. SAGE Publications Ltd, 7. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781446270066

Gonzalez, J & Torres, J. (2013). News for All the People: The Epic Story of Race and the American Media. European Journal of Communication, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113476985c

[gschneider21ahsgov]

Political Party Action

Republican: The republicans stance is more on ensuring order between law enforcement and the American People rather than racial justice as a whole. However they agree that law officials should be held responsible for their actions and when they break the laws themselves they should have Immediate  dismissal and when appropriate prosecution for department officials who have violated their oath to office. They believe the President should take time to strengthen relationships between citizens and law enforcement rather than creating a divide. I believe that the only way for the American people to begin to trust law enforcement lots of reform must be made.

Democrat: The Democrats recognize there is a big issue with our justice system right now. They understand that, “Our system has criminalized poverty, over policed and underserved Black and Latino communities, and cut public services.” They recognize police brutality and want to fix this issue. The Criminal Justice system needs reform. They recognize the hardships minorities must endure in this country such as, “Black parents must have “the talk” with their children, to try to protect them from the very police officers who are supposed to be sworn to protect and serve them.”  Their plan is to start with the schools and communities. By getting rid of the school-to-prison pipeline and eliminating law enforcement in schools. Democrats beloved's schools need  funding to hire, “ guidance counselors, social workers, nurses, or school psychologists.” “Democrats will establish strict national standards governing the use of force, including banning the use of chokeholds and carotid holds and permitting deadly force only when necessary and a last resort to prevent an imminent threat to life And we will ban racial and religious profiling in law enforcement.” I agree with everything the democrats have to saw about racial justice. it is clear that it is happening and they are admitting to it and have plans in place to end the racial discrimination in the justice system.

Libertarian: Libertarians Believe that the government should never be allowed to violate our rights. they want to repeal laws that create crimes without victims like the medicinal or recreational use of drugs. They believe that everyone has the the rights the due process, a speedy trial, and innocence until proven guilty. They are against intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains. On the topic of discrimination, Libertarians believe that, “Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation” I agree with their stance on justice. All Americans should have equal rights and it is wrong to violate these rights based on race. 

Green: The Green Party is committed to, “Complete reparations to the African American community of this nation for the past four hundred plus years of genocide, slavery, land-loss, destruction of original identity and the stark disparities which haunt the present evidenced in unemployment statistics, substandard and inadequate education.” They understand that big steps must be taken to end the abuse that minorities are dealing with. This includes ending criminalization in Black and Brown communities. they realize that we need to eradicate poverty and invest in health care in order to fix these issues. They want to ban all Confederate flags and signs of white supremacy. For Law enforcement they want to end the racial profiling and stop harassing a violence against minorities with, “ No other justification than race or ethnic background.” They support measures to end racism and police brutality against people of color. The Green Party is mostly for fixing the mistakes the country made in the past. I agree with their stance on fixing relationships between the justice system and the minorities of this country. I agree that actions must be taken to end racial profiling in the police force.

Peace and Freedom: The Peace and Freedom party recognizes the rise in racial discrimination. They recognize that, “Minority families are disproportionately victimized by cutbacks in health care, education, child care, welfare, food stamps and jobs.” This party demands that racial discrimination is ended and that we must enforce anti discrimination measures in hiring and promotion. They believe that police and prison officials must be held accountable and adequately punished when they brutalize and murder minorities. They understand that the actions by law enforcement cannot go unprosecuted. They believe that we must take action to ensure that all people are equal in the eyes of the government and American people. I agree with the Peached and Freedom party as well. Police must be held accountable and we need to take action and create plans to ensure that the rights of all citizens are not violated.

Which party position do you identify with the most? Is that surprising? 

I identify most with the Democratic parties position. This is not surprising to me because I have researched their views on Racial justice before.

Would you vote for their presidential candidate?

I would vote for their presidential candidate.

Presidential debate assessment: Was your civic action issue a topic during the debate? If so, summarize the position taken by each candidate during the debate; the effectiveness of their argument; whether you agree or disagree 

Racial Justice was brought up during the debate.

Joe Biden: Recognizes the discrimination against black Americans and the loss of justice in the case of Breonna Taylor. Biden recognized that police reform is needed but is not for defunding the police. He also recognized the protests and supports all peaceful protesting. He does not agree with any of the violence seen. Biden’s points supported the dead of the Democrats on the issues of racial justice.

I agree with Biden on many things. I do not like the violence at protests but majority of the protests are extremely peaceful. I think that we need a lot of police reform and better training for the police for situations with minorities and mental health crisis.

Donald Trump: Claims all the protests are violent .ended racial sensitivity training says it is racist.says racial sensitivity training are sick and bad ideas and are radical.He refused to condemn white supremacy and instead attacked the left. His claims were contradicted the points the republicans made. Instead of trying to strengthen bonds between law enforcement and American citizens Trump further divided them by refusing to acknowledge police brutality and the failures of the justice system.

I do not agree with any of Donals Trumps points. He failed to acknowledge the police brutality as well as refusing to condemn white supremacy groups. It terrified me to hear that he ended racial sensitivity trainings because I believe that those training are extremely important.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh will speak at the National Canadian Council of Muslims Townhall, and announce his plan to replace Liberal rhetoric with real action to address racism in Canada.

“Absolutely no one should be made to feel like they don’t belong, or that they’re not safe – not online, not at school or work, and not in their communities. Too often, though, racialized Canadians still experience discrimination. I’m committed to standing up for people by confronting online hate and Islamophobia,”said Singh. “The Liberals have missed opportunity after opportunity to make Canada more inclusive. Pretty speeches about diversity are no replacement for concrete action.”

Singh will announce NDP commitments to tackle racism, including Islamophobia, with action. They include:

Making social media platforms responsible for removing hateful and extremist content.

Boosting enforcement against hate crimes with dedicated hate crimes units.

Passing a federal law to ban carding.

“The Liberals have left social media giants to voluntarily develop policies around hateful and extremist content, and that’s not working,” said Singh. “It’s time to take on the web giants so we can better protect Canadians — that’s who I’m in it for.”

Singh will also address employment discrimination and other topics, and participate in a panel discussion.

“White supremacy and any group that spreads supremacist views have no place in Canada,” added Singh. “As political leaders, we have to not only pay lip service to diversity and inclusion — we have to be vigilant to stamp out racism.”

The NDP’s New Deal for People proposes several measures to take meaningful action on racism and Islamophobia.

– 30 –

What people are saying:

“We are at a critical point in time. Police reported hate crimes have increased exponentially and over 40% of those reported crimes are motivated by hate of race or ethnicity. Victims of these hate crimes are every day people who deserve to live in safety and with dignity. The growing threat of far-right extremism in Canada is a real risk to not only our democracy, but our national security. Yet, this issue is largely excluded from the public agenda. I am pleased to see Jagmeet Singh and his team prioritize this important issue in their vision for a better Canada.”

Dr. Barbara Perry Director of the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism at Ontario Tech University

“Over the last few years, I have become increasingly disheartened by the fact that I am living in a Canada I no longer recognize. The disturbing rise of anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous racism, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism, while always a reality within our institutions, seems to have intensified in the public sphere in recent years.

The NDP vision document on Confronting Racism gives me hope that we will see a government that is finally ready to admit that we too have a “race problem” and that is committed to addressing it in its many forms – overt and direct and systemic and structural.

I want to be able to recognize my Canada again – a Canada that, while not perfect, is determined to get back on track with upholding its core values of equity and justice.

As a university professor who works with Black, Indigenous, immigrant and other racially diverse communities, I share the NDP’s stated commitment to ensuring that every Canadian is valued and respected, regardless of their race, culture and ethnic background and that every social institution is equipped and ready to identify, name, and address structurally-embedded forms of racism that harm the social, economic, and political well-being of racialized communities.

As I continue to work with communities to address long-standing forms of racism and other inequalities, I will hold the NDP accountable to the vision outlined in their vision document.”

Dr. Ingrid Waldron, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University and Director, Environmental Noxiousness, Racial Inequities and Community Health Project

Tagging: @ontarionewsnow @abpoli @politicsofcanada

[ingek73]

Meghan Markle: The Unofficial Patron Saint of Daughters With Toxic Fathers

DADDY DEAREST

Daughters dealing with difficult fathers are connecting online and cheering Meghan Markle on, as her father Thomas Markle uses interviews to try to emotionally blackmail her.

Mandy Velez

Assistant Managing Editor

Published Feb. 04, 2020 4:42AM ET

OPINION

Thomas Markle was recently on the British television show Good Morning Britain, complaining about his favorite subject, estranged daughter Meghan, and how unfairly treated by her and Prince Harry he feels.

“You do acknowledge that doing interviews will not make it easier?” anchor Susanna Reid asked Markle.

“There is no other way to reach them,” he responded, the “them” being his daughter who does not want to talk to him and his son-in-law. In other words, she’s “no contact,” which means quite literally no longer making contact or accepting contact with a loved one. It’s a move that is well-known in the world of toxic relationships.

Not many people understand why a child would cut a parent off, least of all, it seems, Piers Morgan, Reid’s co-presenter and Meghan Markle’s U.K. media agitator-in-chief. Glazing over his colleague’s questioning, he chimed in and attempted to garner empathy for Markle, asserting that Meghan and Harry cut Thomas off for missing the wedding because “they just didn’t believe your health problems were so bad you couldn’t fly.”

This weekend, Sun Online reported that Meghan and Harry don’t want Meghan’s mom, Doria Ragland, to become Thomas’ “pawn” after he revealed he had written to Doria to ask if she could help reconnect him with Meghan.

What a mess—and a triggering mess for me and many other women.

After the Good Morning Britain interview, I immediately logged onto Facebook and made my way to the group I’m in for daughters of narcissistic or toxic fathers. It’s a place of refuge when I’m feeling uneasy or tasked with dealing with my own father’s hurtful behavior.

It’s a place where thousands of women or women-identifying people from around the world, from teenaged to middle-aged and older, can openly ask for advice or just vent about the troubled relationships they have with their parent. Other members lend their support or advice in the comments, which can range from heart emojis to YouTube videos and educational articles. When I got there, there was already a thread about Markle’s comments. The comments ranged from rage to disgust to hurt for Meghan.

I do not know the reality of the situation between Thomas and Meghan, I admit that—but in how he has treated Meghan publicly I feel a strong personal echo of what it is to be a child targeted in such a way by their parent. I am far from alone.

Markle’s attacks against his daughter have gone on for a while, at least publicly since he pulled out of her 2018 wedding to Prince Harry. And, lately, it seems they’ve been a lot more frequent. In the same week he spoke with Piers Morgan—adding that he did not believe she was subject to racism as a royal in the media—he accused his daughter of “cheapening” the royal family and a week later threatened her with weekly interviews until she loved him again. The group has followed it all.

We’re familiar with the tactics of our abusive fathers that mimic Markle’s, whether we are in contact with them or not. We know the feeling of having someone who is supposed to love you the most respect your boundaries the least, and use emotionally manipulative tactics as Markle has (like when he says he misses his grandchild or asks for money) to get you to have a relationship with them again.

We have been lied to, gaslit, trash-talked, and guilt-tripped by either the toxic parent or by those around us who just don’t get it. Like Meghan, many of us have been told we’re the wrong ones for protecting ourselves or to just get over the pain they may have caused us, because they love us, and isn’t that enough? We are asked: why are we trying to hurt them? And if that doesn’t make us come “back,” we will be sure to regret it. And also, if we don’t, they may die—and their death will be our fault.

“He’s making very public what should be a private conversation. At the end of the day, when boundaries are being violated, it can definitely qualify as abusive. It’s a bad lesson on how to be a parent”

Dr. Ramani Durvasula, a clinical psychologist and author of works about toxic behavior including Should I Stay or Should I Go?: Surviving a Relationship With a Narcissist, told The Daily Beast that while she can’t diagnose Markle without knowing him, his actions line up with attributes of toxic behavior.

“He’s making very public what should be a private conversation,” she said. “At the end of the day, when boundaries are being violated, it can definitely qualify as abusive. It’s a bad lesson on how to be a parent.”

It is likely the reason that myself, and others in the group, feel the pain so deeply as we watch this all play out. It’s like we’re watching our own lives on a much larger scale. The same week I watched the Piers Morgan interview, my own dad texted me from a fourth new number in an attempt to reach me, despite me asking him for some space.

I’m not the only one. One woman from the group echoed what many replied in the comments of stories on the Markles: that he reminds her of her own father.

“I get anxious when reading or hearing the degrading things he says about Meghan and Harry. It’s all too familiar,” she told The Daily Beast. She explained her own father behaves in ways that are degrading or disrespectful of boundaries, and allegedly threatens her when things don’t go his way.

Another says her experiences make her empathetic toward Meghan: “I understand how hard it is to deal with a situation like this. I grew up with a man just like him.”

The Markle relationship is one that triggers us, but also helps us feel seen. Daughters of fathers with narcissistic traits struggle with issues like anxiety and depression at a rate higher than our peers without a toxic parent in the picture, due to both the abuse and the silence that comes from the shame associated with the subject.

Dr. Stephanie Kriesberg, Pys. D., who has experience studying and counseling victims of narcissistic parent and child relationships, called the daughters who carry this burden “a secret society.”

“[Toxic fathers] can look very different in public than they do in private. Plus, our society doesn’t endorse the idea that we can be critical of our parents,” said Dr. Kriesberg. She didn’t want to comment on Meghan, specifically, but made a broader point: “Society doesn’t expect a woman who says, ‘I’m not inviting my father to my wedding.’”

The result? Daughters of toxic fathers like me grasp at any chance to feel like someone gets it. The situation between Meghan and her dad has triggered us, but at the same time, made us feel so much less alone. Though all fathers who exhibit narcissistic or toxic traits have different styles of abuse—from the silent treatment to threats—Dr. Kriesberg says the common thread among their daughters is rejection. And those of us who experience it find healing and validation in each other, and though she may not know it, Meghan.

A week ago, in a Meghan Markle thread, everything came to a head when a group member officially dubbed her our patron saint: The Patron Saint of Daughters of Toxic Men.

The more Markle chooses to speak ill of his daughter, the more I empathize with her. This, in turn, helps me empathize with myself. The toxicity in the language Markle uses toward his daughter has made me see that abusive family dynamics, whether they stem from mental illness or not, does not discriminate. It’s not the fault of the victim of such abuse in parent-child situations; it’s simply the luck of the draw. Sometimes, the person who draws such a card is a princess.

Meghan is not perfect and neither am I. No human being is. There may well be some very valid criticism of her behavior, of how she and Harry have managed their royal lives, and how they have exited from their royal duties.

“We want to feel our experiences and our choices to protect ourselves are valid. Without saying a word, Meghan gives us that”

But watching her face the onslaught of slights from her father is painful for those of us tied to this special kind of parental emotional abuse, who are desperate to find others who understand. We want to feel our experiences and our choices to protect ourselves are valid. Without saying a word, Meghan gives us that.

She didn’t choose to be a very public image of what family toxicity looks like and I’m not 100 percent sure that is how she views the situation—Lord knows she already wants to shed elements of the royal role she has.

But as long as her father lashes out, I will continue to cheer Meghan Markle on, as will many other daughters. With her as an example, we will grow the strength to deal with our own fathers and whatever fallout that decision may bring. We will discuss the interviews that trigger us and relate to the behaviors we find familiar. And, for once, we will not feel alone.

[alapporte19ahs]

The 3 Ps Assessment: Parties, Political Interest Groups, and PACs

1a. Republican: Restrictions on energy is taking thousands of jobs and hurting the American economy. We nee to use our own oil, “clean coal”, natural gas, solar, geothermal, and nuclear energy to relieve our dependence on Middle east oil.

Democrat: America should be running on clean energy by the mid-centry. American states are already seeing an increase in hurricanes, droughts, and flooding. The need for clean energy means there’s a need for new jobs to work for clean energy companies instead of big oil.

Libertarian: Governments shouldn’t be subsidizing any form of energy and they have a terrible track record with the environment, so they aren’t responsible for it. We shouldn’t trust governments with out environment and energy resources.

Green: Climate change is the largest threat facing America and the world today. They want to cut 95% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. They want to encourage and create clean energy jobs. They want a strong international climate treaty. They want an economic policy for a safer climate treaty. They want clean agriculture.

Peace and freedom:They believe that socialism is necessary to end the destructiveness of capitalism on our environment. They want to out-law unsustainable practices such as clear cutting and fracking. They want free public transportation, and to eliminate nuclear power plants. They want to restore the damage in our air and water systems. They also want to end environmental racism.

1b. Republican: I agree that we need to relieve our dependence on oil from the Middle East, but we don’t have the same reserves as them. We don’t have enough oil in the U.S to support how much we use. We need to be relieving dependence on all oil, natural gas, and coal. And focus on solar energy.

Democrat: I agree with almost everything the democratic party said about climate change. But their predictions aren’t realistic. Scientists say we’re not doing nearly enough to keep “global temperature increases to “well below” two degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”(as agreed in the Paris agreement). To do this we need to lower our meat consumption greatly, but it doesn’t state that as ways we can lower our CO2 and methane emissions.

Libertarian:I agree the the government has a bad tech record with the environment, but in dire times the government should take control and restrict certain things to ensure public safety and health for generations to come.

Green: I agree with all of the libertarians points. I don’t know that they’re reachable, but they do include the effects of animal agriculture. they want to encourage less meat consumption, and promote organic and local food production and distribution.

Peace and freedom: I agree with everything that peace and freedom says. Sadly, this is the only way we can really stop climate change, and ensure life on earth for the human race.

1c. I agreed most with the Peace and Freedom’s platform. This doesn’t surprise me too much because although they're views are extreme, we need an extreme and radical change to combat climate change.

2a. Sierra Club

2b. "The purposes of the Sierra Club are to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives."

2c. 1. Protect wild places and endangered species

      2. Keep our air and water clean

      3. Ensure a clean energy future

      4. Curb climate change

      5. Keep the pressure on politicians and corporations to ensure safe and healthy communities

2d. The Sierra Club endorses the legislation 1631 that “holds polluters accountable by investing in projects that will lead to cleaner air, cleaner water, and a healthier future for Washington.”

2e. There are Sierra Clubs located around the nation, but there are local ones in Oakland and Berkely. On October 27, there’s a “ walk through the city of the dead” at the Colma BART station. On October 29 there’s a “speak up for SF’s resolution supporting the bay-delta protection plan” in San Francisco city hall. There’s the “West Contra Costa monthly group meeting” on November 3 in Berkely.

2f. Yes there are volunteer opportunities including planting trees, canvassing, and attending hikes.

3a. California Environmental Justice Alliance 

3b.  "The California Environmental Justice Alliance is a statewide, community-led alliance that works to achieve environmental justice by advancing policy solutions. We unite the powerful local organizing of our members in the communities most impacted by environmental hazards- low-income communities and communities of color- to create comprehensive opportunities for change at a statewide level. We build the power of communities across California to create policies that will alleviate poverty and pollution. Together, we are growing the statewide movement for environmental health and social justice."

3c.1. Replacing big polluting industries with a green, locally based and sustainable economy 

     2. People’s lives and health are more important than big business profit

     3. Working to have no barriers to opportunity for low-income communities and communities of color.

     4. Working to have no discrimination in state policies and practices.

     5. Working to relay only on clean energy and eliminate toxic industries that pollute our water, land, and health.

3d. The CEJA endorses AB 523  by Assemblymember Reyes to expand access to clean energy in California.This will help break down barriers that don’t allow low income  communities to have affordable access to clean energy.

3e. They’re located on Oakland. I did not find any local meeting I could attend.

3f. Yes you can volunteer to send a pre-written email to governor Brown asking him sign AB 523.

4. Both the Sierra Club and the CEJA seemed pretty organized, but the Sierra club had more opportunities to get involved and just generally more to explore on their site. The sierra Club seems more successful, partially because they have more ways to get involved on their website. The Sierra Club targets people around the nation that are concerned about the environment and want to get involved, while the CEJA is geared toward Californian’s who are concerned about the environment. The CEJA seemed to project more concern for the health of low-income areas, and people of color that are often not represented in environmental justice, and are at the highest health risks because of where they live and the amount of money the have (environmental racism). The CEJA’s supporters include APEN (Asian Pacific Environmental Network), CBE (Communities for a better Environment), CCAEJ ( Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice), and CAUSE ( Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy).

5a. Koch Industries

5b. “We challenge ourselves to improve people’s lives by creating better products using fewer resources. At the same time, we challenge barriers that hinder competition, opportunity, innovation and progress.”

5c. Total receipt: $3,767,334

     Spent: $3,754,267

     cash on hand: $1,602,378

5d. they have given a total of $1,488,000 to candidates. 2% went to democrats, and 98% went to republicans.

5e. Some of their donors include Koch Industries, Invista Sarl, and Molex LLC. Invista makes chemicals, polymers, fabrics and fibers for clothing, carpets, and car parts. Molex LLC is a technology company that makes products such as lighting, and cables. Most of their donations come from their own company.

[wsmith215]

Racism, Not Genetics, Explains Why Black Americans Are Dying Of COVID-19

There is still plenty we don’t know about COVID-19, but one fact is inescapable: African Americans are disproportionately represented among the dead. Although the numbers are incomplete, the non-profit APM Research Lab estimates that, as of May 27, the overall death rate from COVID-19 is 2.4 times greater for African Americans than it is for white people.

It is easy to lose sight of what this ratio really means, the human toll it represents. So let’s be clear: If Black people were dying at the same rate as white Americans, at least 13,000 mothers, fathers, daughters, sons and other loved ones would still be alive.

One would expect this staggering inequality to provoke outrage. For some, it has. But much of the public and scientific reaction has instead invoked baseless ideas about unknown genes that make African Americans vulnerable to the virus, rather than focusing on abundant evidence for the devastating biological consequences of systemic inequality and oppression.

The racist idea that vulnerability is intrinsic to blackness comes from politicians, scientists, physicians, and others. In an NPR interview, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who was a medical doctor before entering politics, claimed, without providing evidence, that “genetic reasons,” among other factors, put African Americans at risk of diabetes and, therefore, of serious complications from COVID-19. Scientists writing in the Lancet, one of the world’s leading medical journals, suggested—also without evidence—that ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality may be partly attributable to “genetic make-up” and speculated on a “genomically determined response to viral pathogens.” Epidemiologists writing in Health Affairs noted that “that there may be some unknown or unmeasured genetic or biological factors that increase the severity of this illness for African Americans.”

This racialized view of biology is not only wrong but harmful. (Nor is it new in medicine, as documented in Dorothy Roberts’s Fatal Invention, Rana Hogarth’s Medicalizing Blackness or Harriet Washington’s Medical Apartheid.) For starters, we know that race is a poor proxy for human genetic variation. Compared to other primates, humans exhibit remarkably little genetic variation—a consequence of our relatively recent origin as a species—and the variation that does exist is patterned geographically but not racially. Consider skin color, which varies gradually from the equator to the poles but never reveals a discrete break corresponding to distinct “races.” Genetic variation, moreover, does not come in neatly colored packages. For example, the genes that influence skin color are distributed independently of genes that influence the risk for any particular disease. Given the heterogeneity of groups we call “black” or “white,” treating those categories as proxies for genetic variation almost always leads us astray.

How, then, do we explain that “black” and “white” still predict biological endpoints like hypertension, diabetes or—now—COVID-19? The answer is straightforward: Human biology is more than the genome. Our environments, experiences and exposures have profound impacts on how our bodies develop, turning genetic potential into whole beings. Most of us learned this lesson in high school—phenotype is the product of genotype and environment—but we tend to forget it when it comes to race. If we take the lesson seriously, it becomes clear that systemic racism is as much a part of biology as genomes are: The conditions in which we develop—including limited access to healthy food, exposure to toxic pollutants, the threat of police violence or the injurious stress of racial discrimination—influence the likelihood that any one of us will suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes or serious complications from COVID-19.

Unfortunately, this whole-person view of biology remains uncommon even in fields where it should be widespread. Consider a highly cited 2006 paper in Human Genetics by Hua Tang and colleagues from the University of Washington and the University of California, San Francisco. The researchers analyzed data from the Family Blood Pressure Program, a sizeable clinical study, to test whether DNA-based estimates of genetic ancestry—which they tellingly dubbed “racial admixture”—predicted body mass index and blood pressure in Mexican American and African American adults. Tang and colleagues concluded that their results were “suggestive of genetic differences between Africans and non-Africans that influence blood pressure,” though they acknowledged that genetic effects were likely to be small compared to environmental ones.

In suggesting a genetic basis of racial disparities in blood pressure, Tang and colleagues reprised a long-standing but unsubstantiated assumption that people of African ancestry are predisposed to hypertension. This assumption matters anew because some are invoking it to account for racial inequalities in death rates from COVID-19. Renã Robinson, a professor of chemistry at Vanderbilt University, told NPR that African Americans can be characterized as “potentially having genetic risk factors that make them more salt sensitive,” an apparent reference to a widely disseminated yet discredited hypothesis for hypertension, which suggests that the Atlantic slave trade created conditions favoring salt-retaining genotypes among enslaved Africans and their descendants. (Robinson noted there are likely to be additional causes.) In fact, billions of dollars’ worth of effort to find alleged genetic contributors to racial disparities in cardiovascular disease has turned up nothing.

The study by Tang and colleagues illustrates two common errors that allow racial-genetic thinking to persist. The first, remarkably, is that the study found no statistically significant relationship between African genetic ancestry and blood pressure. The suggestion of “genetic differences,” then, clearly reaches beyond the data. Such unwarranted inferences are not as rare as you’d think. In April, the Journal of Internal Medicine published a paper asserting a genetic basis for racial differences in obesity without actual genetic evidence.

The second problem is more subtle. Recall that Tang and colleagues examined two biological variables—genetic ancestry and blood pressure. If they found an association, they assumed it was because of some unidentified genetic variants that (a) increase susceptibility to high blood pressure and (b) were more common in people of African ancestry. Yet they did not test that assumption, nor did they pursue the alternative possibility that biological associations could be driven by sociocultural processes.

It is easy to take the logic used by Tang and colleagues for granted. Most researchers assume that genetic ancestry is related to health through genetic effects. But what if genetic ancestry and blood pressure are linked because of systemic racism, rather than DNA? What if people with more African ancestry in a racist society are more likely to be poor (they are), to experience discrimination (they do), or to face any number of other stressors we know are associated with high blood pressure? Evidence indicates such connections are better explanations than alleged genetic differences.

Not long after the Tang study came out, Amy Non, then a Ph.D. student in anthropology at the University of Florida and now an associate professor at the University of California, San Diego, took a hard look at the underlying data from the Family Blood Pressure Program. She noticed a single, crude proxy for the wide-ranging consequences of systemic racism: educational attainment. Working with myself and Connie Mulligan, a genetic anthropologist and Non’s advisor at Florida, she replicated Tang and colleagues’ analysis of genetic ancestry and blood pressure but added years of education as another variable. Whatever evidence there might have been for a genetic effect evaporated. Instead, as we reported in the American Journal of Public Health, every additional year of education was associated with an 0.51 mmHg drop in blood pressure, on average. Genetic ancestry added nothing.

In the time of COVID-19, this finding is a reminder that genetic ancestry might matter only because we think it should. If we assume that people who are racialized as “black” or “white” are fundamentally different and treat them accordingly, the paradoxical result is that it will produce the very biological differences we presumed to exist in the first place. But it’s not because of any deep-seated differences in our DNA. It’s because our social structures and attitudes promote the well-being of some and devalue others.

In his NPR interview, Cassidy downplayed the role of systemic racism as a root cause of COVID-19 inequalities. “That’s rhetoric, and it may be,” he said. “But as a physician, I’m looking at science.” However, the science does not say what Cassidy thinks it does. Thanks to decades of careful research, we know that what we gloss as “race” corresponds poorly to genetic variation, and we know that racism is deadly. An ethical, scientific response to COVID-19 demands that we honor the highest standards of evidence in evaluating genetic guesswork, while measuring the biological costs of systemic racism and intervening to stop it.

Source link

The post Racism, Not Genetics, Explains Why Black Americans Are Dying Of COVID-19 appeared first on The Bleak Report.

from WordPress https://bleakreport.com/racism-not-genetics-explains-why-black-americans-are-dying-of-covid-19/

[96thdayofrage]

An Open Letter to the Michigan Civil Rights Commission on Their Report: “Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint”

There were some positive aspects to the report on the poisoning of Flint, Michigan. But, the commission left the responsible officials off the hook, as if “racism” exists without “racists.” The Governor and his men knew exactly what they were doing to the people of Flint, just as they knew what they were doing to the people of Detroit, through their Emergency Financial Manager regimes. “There’s nothing unconscious about their racist evil.”

“It blatantly let top policy makers who are responsible for poisoning Flint off the hook for what they did and why.”

First, the Good News

There’s much to applaud in the Michigan Civil Rights Commission’s recent report (February 17, 2017) regarding the deep historical and social origins of the now-notorious Flint water poisoning catastrophe.

This includes:

1. Exposing the historical story of implicit bias, structural and systemic racialization behind this atrocity adds official recognition to the critical dynamics, particularly the “cumulative and compounding effects” of all discrimination and environmental racism (P. 82), far beyond and much better than the simplistic and limiting notions of individuals’ intentional, subjective racial prejudice that undermine our civil rights laws. This is a notable achievement for an official government body -- especially if it’s followed by policy actions to prevent repetition of such abuses in the future. I don’t want to be misinterpreted as dismissing this positive aspect of the commission’s work;

2. Calls for specific reforms of the emergency manager statutes to avoid future cases of destruction of local democracy, accountability and the rule of law at the local level are welcome; and

3. The Commission’s acknowledgement of its own failure to intervene on a timely basis for the benefit of the People of Flint, and their vow to do better in the future, displays sincere reflection and commitment. It is appreciated.

I don’t want to minimize these good things in the report. But as a lifelong Michigander who submitted written testimony to the commission that, although uncited, is very much in line with their ultimate findings,[ii] I feel morally compelled to say that I am seriously dissatisfied with the report.

In brief, I believe it misapplies complex, historical analysis of flexible and only partially developed environmental justice concepts, and especially the distinction between implicit and intentional racism, to blatantly let top policy makers who are responsible for poisoning Flint off the hook for what they did and why. Let me explain.

Racism without Racists, Poisoning without Culpability

The commission’s “implicit bias” narrative, based on the brilliant work of native-born Detroiter and leading critical race scholar john a. powell, reflects a sophisticated, contemporary and deeply insightful view of the way that racialization works to oppress People of color (and, as the commission notes, to injure Whites as well). But that welcome perspective should never be employed as a shield for government officials whose implementation of state policies and actions causes harm. The commission stumbles badly on this vital point of accountability.

The key flaw in the commission’s reasoning runs throughout the report. It is perhaps most evident in the commission’s express adoption of the word “racism,” but avoidance of the term “racist” in their report, because of “a lack of consensus on the common definition of the [latter] term.” (P. 21) Much later, near the end of its report, the Commission states that “Racial disparities are too often sustained by structures and systems that repeat patterns of exclusion.” (P. 127) Unfortunately, the commission’s misapplication of implicit bias theory, and structural and strategic racialization, to excuse policy makers whose unconscious prejudices, ideological biases and plain incompetence and arrogance poisoned Flint, effectively sustains and repeats those very patterns of exclusion. This is completely unacceptable.

Excusing Official Misconduct

The commissions “racism without racists” construct takes back with one hand whatever positive effect it achieved with the other, via their exhaustive discussion of implicit bias, structural and strategic racialization. While these concepts offer much promise in understanding the attitudes, actions and conflicts experienced by People in our communities, applying them to the acts of policy makers responsible for poisoning Flint is a cop out.

The Governor and his men claimed, in their campaigns for office and in their “emergency management” policies, policies they re-enacted even after being rejected by public referendum, that they knew what they were doing. (As Michigan’s great public citizen and Governor Frank Murphy observed in the era of the great depression: Sacrificing all issues for the sake of balancing the budget is fanaticism. That’s what they were doing.) Implicit bias, structural and strategic racialization should never be allowed as a defense to such official misconduct. The commission’s failure to recognize this fundamental distinction between ordinary People’s implicit personal social attitudes, and the awful consequences of official actions by policy makers, converts their report in substantial degree from a needed exposé into an unjust, structurally racist cover-up.

“Implicit bias, structural and strategic racialization should never be allowed as a defense to such official misconduct.”

The commission’s inability to place well-deserved blame where it lies with state government leaders is even further exemplified by their rather shocking statement: “We have neither seen nor heard anything that would lead us to believe that anyone in government permitted something they believed to be harmful to continue because of the racial makeup of Flint.” (P. 12) One must ask in this context, what in the world would it take?

Long before they admitted it, the top state government officials had significant information that would convince any reasonable person that 1) Polluted water is harmful; 2) Most People in Flint are of color and poor; and 3) They were being forced to use polluted water. Avoiding the conclusion that “government permitted something they believed to be harmful to continue because of the racial makeup of Flint” under these circumstances is apologizing for decisions and actions that implemented structural and systemic racism, of which these top officials should have known and which it was their duty to avoid and later stop. The commission’s failure to reach this inevitable, common sense conclusion is an extremely grave, unconscionable error.

Ignoring Critical Relevant Evidence

One of the ways the commission achieves this myopic result is by completely ignoring -- in spite of their otherwise comprehensive historical overview -- the damning official history of government attacks on environmental justice in the 1980s and 90s, centered around Flint and Genesee County. As I stated in my written testimony (note 2, below):

“Some 20 years ago, the issues of environmental racism and environmental justice -- the disproportionate adverse exposure of People of color communities and the poor to pollution and other environmental dangers -- were addressed by environmental agencies and courts in two (2) major cases that arose in Flint: 1) The Genesee Power Station (GPS) case; and 2) The Select Steel case.

The GPS case involved a wood-burning incinerator sited near Flint’s impoverished north end, a community already swamped with other toxic, heavy industrial sources of pollution. Negotiations with the incinerator resulted in an agreement to significantly reduce the amount of lead paint-contaminated construction and demolition wood the incinerator was allowed to burn. (They originally described their business to state environmental officials as “burning demolished Detroit crack houses”.)

After that partial settlement, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under Gov. John Engler and Director Russell Harding insisted on a historic environmental justice trial of the allegation that they violated Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act by permitting the GPS, the first such trial ever. The Genesee County Circuit Court, Hon. Archie Hayman, entered an injunction against granting more air pollution permits in Genesee County after a 1997 trial that included lots of evidence of increased lead poisoning in Flint because of the GPS; the injunction was subsequently reversed on appeal for a procedural technicality.

The Plaintiffs in the GPS case had also filed the first administrative Title VI environmental racism claim with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1992. After initially losing the file, EPA later found it and opened an investigation, but they have never issued any decision. Meanwhile, 3 of the 4 Plaintiffs died.

“EPA rendered a decision against environmental justice that abandoned any meaningful attempts to remedy environmental racism.”

A second major environmental justice case arising in Flint was decided adversely after a bogus, pro forma investigation in 1998 by EPA: the infamous Select Steel decision. In Select Steel, the same plaintiffs complained about a proposed (never built) steel recycling facility that would further pollute their already overburdened community. EPA came under heavy political pressure in both Michigan and Washington, DC, including explicit threats to zero out the budget of their Office of Civil Rights. EPA rendered a decision against environmental justice that abandoned any meaningful attempts to remedy environmental racism, refusing to use their power to bring public health and environmental quality in Flint up to standards enjoyed in white suburban communities.

In significant part as a result of the Flint Select Steel precedent, environmental racism has found no legal remedy at EPA.

Why did these regulators ignore the pleas of Flint residents who were forced to drink smelly, foul and discolored water for a year and a half? Because that was the policy of allowing substandard environmental and public health conditions in communities like Flint, conditions that would never be allowed in whiter, more affluent communities. And that precedent was largely established in Flint in the 1990s. The ongoing Flint River scandal was the result of emergency management and the Snyder administration’s depraved indifference to health of People in Flint, as well as longstanding, established de facto environmental policy to allow such pollution in these communities.

The Flint River’s lead poisoning is just an extreme case

Ironically, on January 19, 2017, EPA finally issued their administrative Title VI decision in the GPS case. They found the state violated Title VI in their permit process. “… EPA finds that the preponderance of evidence supports a finding of discriminatory treatment of African Americans by MDEQ in the public participation process for the GPS permit considered and issued from 1992 to 1994.” 25 years later, it’s a textbook case of “justice delayed is justice denied.” The commission should not have ignored this evidence.

Leaving out Flint’s important role in the attack and rollback against environmental justice perpetuates the very exclusion the commission decries, and allows current state leadership off the hook for implementing racist abuses in Flint in 2014-15. This seriously compounds the commission’s admitted failure to come to the aid of the People of Flint in their hour of need. That is why I feel compelled to write this response.

Racist Restructuring is not only about Flint

In addition to erasing the significant history of anti-environmental justice state actions in and around Flint, the commission’s selective application of history leads to other major contradictions. For example, Detroit’s decline and revitalization is a product of the same history of structural and systemic racism, suburbanization, housing and employment discrimination, capital flight and separate and unequal benefits of crucial infrastructure, all rooted in regional development shaped by implicit bias, that the commission details in Flint. Indeed, the two cities’ histories of abuse by such structural, systemic forces are inextricably related.

Detroit, like Flint, was subjected to Governor Snyder’s racist and undemocratic “emergency management” restructuring and asset-extraction policies; instead of contaminated water, Detroit’s structural adjustment involved mass denial of water via shut offs to tens of thousands of families comprising well over a hundred thousand individuals, an atrocity that was condemned by UN representatives as a human rights violation. This dubious achievement has been widely celebrated in the corporate media as Detroit’s “resurrection.” [iii] It is not critiqued by the commission, although it represents another manifestation of the same deep history of implicit bias, structural and strategic racism that is their primary focus.

Ignoring Agency and Power

In political terms, emergency management deprived predominantly African American citizens in the managed communities of their agency in democracy. Now the commission’s “racism without racists” reframing of the Flint River scandal lets the perpetrators off the hook for their abuses and crimes, by excusing their agency because it “merely" reflected implicit bias the commission believes they shouldn’t be called out on, because it supposedly did not rise to the level of intentional, willful prejudice embodied in state policy. In addition to devastating democracy by ignoring the crucial role of agency, this is far too charitable to the structurally racist miscreants at the top of Michigan’s power systems. For the record, neither Snyder nor any of his Republican enablers in the state legislature have lifted a finger to date to fix the deadly problems caused by Michigan’s unprecedented emergency management statute. There’s nothing unconscious about their racist evil.

Coincidentally, the release of the commission’s report coincides with the release of the justly acclaimed James Baldwin documentary film, “I Am Not Your Negro.” Baldwin’s simultaneously blunt and eloquent message to American White People perfectly captures the moral blame that should be cast for poisoning Flint, and should serve as a useful corrective to the commission’s tragic evasions of official culpability:

“What white people have to do, is try and find out in their own hearts why it was necessary to have a nigger in the first place. Because I’m not a nigger. I’m a man, but if you think I’m a nigger, it means you need it. . . . If I’m not a nigger here and you invented him — you, the white people, invented him — then you’ve got to find out why. And the future of the country depends on that. Whether or not it’s able to ask that question.”[iv]

It is long past the time to stop the “relentless poisonous action” of Snyder and his associates; the systemic, structural and implicit nature of the racist bias underlying their shocking, depraved actions should not be an excuse.

Tom Stephens is a people’s lawyer living in Detroit.

NOTES:

[i] The Flint Water Crisis: Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint (link)

[ii] The Flint River Lead Poisoning Catastrophe in Historical Perspective (link)

I also drafted the original, much stronger version of the Michigan State Environmental Justice Policy that was disastrously watered down by DEQ bureaucrats in 2009-10, under pressure from corporate and white supremacist special interests. That “Executive Directive” is discussed at length by the commission beginning on P. 100. The commission’s analysis of this farcical process and the meaningless document it produced is pure tautology: If Michigan had an effective policy against environmental racism, then there would have been a policy against environmental racism that might have been effective. True. But that’s not the question. The question is why the state government’s bad actors did what they did.

Lansing’s systematic inattention to issues addressed in our communities’ original draft environmental justice executive order, like the precautionary principle, cumulative impact of multiple pollution sources, communities’ rights to directly petition the state to investigate and remedy environmental injustice, and environmental racism (as well as feral, unregulated capitalism) itself, came after fighting tooth-and-nail against grassroots groups seeking such policies for 30 years. This notice-and-refusal-to-correct-injustice evidence adds culpability – even willful depravity, in the unprecedented circumstances of Flint in 2014-15 - to the depths of unconscious, implicit bias that undoubtedly plague all levels of the Snyder administration. This is precisely why I reject the commission’s reasoning and conclusion; they seem to be saying that, since structural and systemic bias are overwhelmingly implicit and unconscious (Nobody in state government endorses “I am a racist”), it would be unduly hurtful to attribute blame where blame would otherwise be due. I respectfully dissent.

Flip the script: The policies and actions of high officials like Governor Rick Snyder, Transformation Manager Richard Baird, and Treasury Secretary Andy Dillon that exposed the People of Flint to contaminated water were racist. Fundamentally, environmental racism is the state’s policy. The Flint River crisis proves it beyond doubt.

[iii] This uncritical corporate and white supremacist backslapping has been debunked by scholarship. Detroit's Recovery; The Glass is Half Full at Most “…[B]y a number of measures Detroit continues to decline, and even when positive change has occurred, growth has been much less robust than many narratives would suggest. Second, within the city recovery has been highly uneven, resulting in increasing inequality. … Overall, citywide data suggest Detroit is continuing to experience decline that makes it worse off than it was in 2000 or even 2010 in the depths of the national recession. Population, employment and incomes continue to decrease, while vacancies and poverty have increased.” (emphasis added)

[iv] I Am Not Your Negro; James Baldwin's Lesson for White America Still Hits Home 50 Years Later

[phynxrizng]

PREDICTIONS 2017

Predictions 2017 by mistressmyst Predictions 2017 a message from Selacia To view more of Selacia's insight, visit her website, Selacia and the Council of 12 Predictions 2017 In the year 2017, a crisis of trust long in the making will be surfacing across the world. This will have far-reaching consequences for us as individuals and for our entire planet. Continue reading to understand what this means, why we should care, and what we as divine changemakers can do to make a difference. As you read, too, you will learn about the seeds of hope being planted in 2017 and what they mean for you. Background – Crisis of Trust First, some background on the crisis of trust we face. This energy of distrust is more primordial than evolutionary, stemming from humanity’s fear-based conditioning. In other words, it’s very old and more tribal than inclusive. Tribalism has been with us throughout the ages, but in recent decades since the 1990s, the tribalistic “us-and-them” mentality is having a big resurgence. Examples: Brexit, the 2016 US elections, Middle East violence driven by ancient tribal structures, extremist Islam reflecting a tribal-mindset involving warrior pride and hate-fueled jihadism, corrupt business practices including bribes, and a general tendency of superpowers to believe that it’s their role to facilitate regime change in other countries. Regardless of how tribalism manifests, it poses a threat to a peaceful and loving world. A tribal-mindset is black-and-white, with a narrow sense of belonging. Anyone outside the group is suspect, not to be trusted, and a threat. Building trust and cooperation between tribal-based groups is painstakingly difficult. Meanwhile distrust fuels division and causes people to feel even more separate from one another. Distrust and Division Distrust is a learned fear-based response. People learn to distrust others who don’t look like them, don’t think like them, or don’t practice the same religion. Many times, this distrust is in ancestral DNA, coming from centuries-old experiences of the generations. Example: When I do personal DNA intuitive healing sessions for someone trying to cope with discrimination, I often intuitively see DNA-level patterns show up in the energetic field around the DNA. We then can trace things back to times when the person’s ancestors were impacted by religious intolerance, class discrimination, or racism. Being able to see where this comes from and to heal it at the genetic level for ancestors is a powerful antidote for present personal struggles with discrimination. Shift in What and Who We Trust As our society has become more polarized and everyday life more uncertain, there has been a shift in what and who we trust. Last century, for example, it was more common to put our trust in institutions like governments, banks, the health system, and international forums. Today with that trust waning and new technologies available, we are more likely to rely on others outside the system – even strangers. Examples: many now use technologies like Lyft and Uber for rides, Airbnb for hotels, WebMD and Mayo Clinic apps and websites for health assessments, and mobile apps for blood pressure and heart-rate readings. Having a growing array of life tools outside the norm has boundless benefits and can help us to take charge of things that we used to delegate to others. A bonus: as educated consumers, we take back our power and become more actively engaged in managing our lives. A red flag: if we label the established systems as inherently bad in a black-and-white way, our linear thinking can backfire. No traditional system is all bad or all good. There are shades of gray. Sometimes we really need to see a doctor and use services of a bank. Governmental bodies and police forces carry out essential services needed for a stable and workable society. In summary, if you realize that you distrust institutions, be open to seeing both the good and the bad. Reforms of unworkable systems and institutions can occur when problems are brought to light and conscious citizens use their voices and actions to affect change. When we don’t do this, the crisis of distrust escalates. Distrust and Division Distrust and division go hand in hand. We see it every day in society. Distrust shows up in countless ways - as racism, gender bias, bigotry, national extremism, and religious intolerance. Division follows – people feeling separated by race, gender, class, religion, or political views. Contributing Factors When people are afraid enough and misinformed or lied to with propaganda, they are vulnerable to control and manipulation by those in power. In such circumstances, people can be convinced to accept unimaginable atrocities and loss of freedoms. People can be influenced by fake news and a twisting of the facts, feeling divided against their neighbors and even their own families. In extreme situations, people will even kill one another. There are countless examples of this throughout humanity’s history - including in the next phase of history that humanity is now creating moment-by-moment in present time. Response to Distrust When the societal tide turns towards distrust on a big enough scale, people may respond with anger or apathy. If people feel that their voice isn’t heard by political decision makers, they may withdraw from active engagement in typical channels like voting or peaceful protests. This is usually an emotional response, and is self-sabotage because personal power is unconsciously given away. A disempowered group of people is even more susceptible to control and abuse by those in power. Tyrants and power-hungry leaders seeking to make their mark on the world can take advantage of the void created by a disempowered and silent populace. The unsuspecting people may even see the unscrupulous leaders as “saviors” – as though they are the only ones who can fix things. In a distrustful society, people can be convinced of falsehoods by politicians, media, or special interest groups that know how to craft a disinformation campaign. This has happened throughout history. However, today the potential negative impact is substantially greater than ever before. People often get their news online through infotainment disguised as facts. A lie told repeatedly over weeks or months can be accepted as truth. It’s like the public becomes numb to the information, unconsciously reacting to it without question. Cycles of Distrust Throughout history, we’ve had cycles of distrust followed by times of building trust and collaboration. Examples: Italy’s notorious dictator Mussolini in the 1920s capitalized on distrust and used propaganda to fuel his rise to power – founding fascism, dismantling constitutional limits on his power, and creating a police state. From 1941-45, the Nazis under Hitler systematically carried out a mass genocide of Jews. The UN in 1948 adopted a universal set of human rights, sending a signal to oppressive leaders that disregard for human rights is intolerable. The International Space Station, first launched in 1998 to study the Earth and space, was made possible through a trusted partnership between several countries. The tide turned abruptly on September 11, 2001 with terror attacks on US soil –leaving a marker of distrust still witnessed today. Distrust of crisis proportions doesn’t appear overnight, but develops in a gradual process as people lose trust in each other and in the very institutions that keep things working. In an atmosphere of distrust, society does not function well. Without trust and cooperation, basic things like markets and long-term planning are compromised. Chaos reigns, slowing progress in addressing key issues impacting not only quality of life but continued sustainability of life on Earth. Examples: climate, peace, and global resources. The Personal Level What’s unfolding in society is not just something outside of you. There is a very personal level involved. It is about you and everyone you love. Here are a few examples to help you understand the big picture. As you are reading this portion, too, keep in mind that this personal level applies to countless people across the world. Some may be in your family or other circles. Some may be strangers. All represent some piece of the whole – now being played out across the world as a crisis of distrust. Every single one, including you, needs your love and compassion. First, it’s not easy as an individual to live in a society that doesn’t function well due to division and distrust. Daily life routines can be disrupted because of ongoing intensity, uncertainty, and dramas that often are of a startling nature. Not knowing what’s going to happen next can keep you on edge. The unknowns now are greater than most of us have experienced in this lifetime. If you are an empath - sensing the chaotic and nervous pulse of society - these times can be even more challenging. Second, you likely are processing your own pieces of distrust. Some are influenced not only by recent events, but by past life influences recorded in your DNA. You may distrust certain individuals, categories of people, or those who serve society in key roles. Examples of people: politicians, wealthy people, lobbyists, journalists, police, and other authority figures. Examples of institutions and business: government, media, multinationals, big retailers, and things representing the status quo. Third, living in a climate of distrust may catalyze self-doubts and a deeper soul searching about your life purpose and how you fulfill it. Any tendency you previously had to distrust yourself and your decisions may be amplified in this cycle. One way this could play out is an increased worry about the future. You may not trust that things will get better, or that things will get better for you personally. When faced with a deadline to make a life-changing decision, you might distrust yourself to choose the correct option. Fourth, a world filled with distrust and division can feel unsafe. There are countless reasons you might feel insecure. A big one many people fear is a possible terror attack. It’s also common to feel unsafe about potentials for identity theft or cyber bullying. In places with recent regime change bringing dictatorial-type leaders to power, people are insecure about preserving their freedoms. And, of course, in the background for people everywhere is the concern about world peace and the tenuous nature of preserving it given the number of power-hungry leaders. Fifth, a climate of distrust between countries can negatively impact the economy and your standard of living. Example: a tribal-mindset to trade has historically backfired. In 1930 after the US stock market crash, the US enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff to raise taxes on imports. The idea was to keep out cheap imports and create jobs. This backfired. US consumers had to pay more for imported products, so they were not better off, and the economy took longer to recover from the Depression. Sixth, resurgence in tribalism is likely to bring to the surface humanity’s ancient unresolved patterns of discrimination in all of its forms. This supreme distrust of the “other” could involve things like race, religion, gender, national identification, and sexual orientation. You may not personally experience discrimination. However, you likely know of someone impacted. As long as discrimination exists, the loving world all of us want cannot fully manifest. Seventh, countries having tribal squabbles can delay or even reverse progress to address climate change. What this means on an everyday personal level is more extreme weather, increased air pollution, adverse health effects, rising sea levels impacting heavily populated coastal areas, species die-off, and an increasingly less sustainable planet for future generations. What’s Needed Next With a crisis of distrust coloring everyday life, it is imperative that we divine changemakers take an active role in transforming our world and our way of life. This is not the time to take a back seat and silently watch as leaders govern through lawmaking and executive orders. We must have a voice. Elements of a Democracy A democracy functions and upholds freedoms when citizens are actively engaged. This means that people become educated on issues and candidates ahead of elections, vote, observe how leaders conduct the business of government, and feel free to criticize leaders without retribution. Criticism can take the form of peaceful protests. Citizens are allowed to assemble freely to discuss views. Elections are free and fair for all. A workable democracy has a free press with regular access to governmental workings and leaders. The government in power does not censor information, news sources, or specific journalists. Divine Changemakers – Making a Difference Here are suggestions for making a difference in 2017 and beyond. As a divine changemaker, you are alive now to make changes for a more loving world. You stand at the forefront of the massive shift happening now. This role is actually encoded within your very DNA. Having this role means that you are on the leading edge of change, experiencing many things before others do, and helping to lead the way forward. Indeed, you are at your best when you are actively engaged in your divine changemaker role. What You Can Do in 2017 Stay conscious and aware of yourself - including your thoughts, emotions, and actions. Extend that conscious awareness outside of you, to other people and world events. Remind yourself daily that your energy matters, and use that energy for good. No matter how crazy things seem, remember daily that you are not a victim. You are a conscious being at cause in life, co-creating your own reality and your world. Use your thoughts and actions constructively to make a difference in big and small things. Be the one in your circles who smiles, finds humor in the bizarre, and applies kindness. Do not give up on yourself or on humanity as a whole. Strive to see the good in yourself and others. Do this even when focusing on someone you dislike. Do this for yourself after you have had a bad day and feel discouraged. Remembering the basic goodness in all people helps you to go on during difficult times. Cope better with unknowns and fears about the future by coming back to yourself in the present. No one knows for sure exactly what will happen next, on a personal level or in the outer world. On a quantum level, there are endless possibilities for what tomorrow might look like. Rest your overthinking mind, then, and put your focus on the present moment. Treat it as the precious time that it truly is. Upset about what you see in the outer world? Get in touch with your feelings and why you have them. Once you are conscious to your feelings, turn your criticism into benevolent action. Rather than simply complain to others, find your positive voice of change and act on it as a citizen of the world. Voice your thoughts within your community, on a grassroots level in your country, and to the political leaders who represent you at all levels of government. As you voice your opinions, visualize your words being received and acted upon. Become one who helps repair division through consciousness and peaceful actions. Invite a knowing of the causes and places that most need you in this role. Add power to your role with daily visualizing and intentions – seeing yourself as a bridge builder and peacemaker. Become vigilant about your intake of information and apply a healthy skepticism. Avoid becoming duped by fake news and political propaganda by becoming astute in digesting news. Slow down, be present, and question what you hear. Avoid getting your news by scanning headlines. Get your news from multiple sources. Insist that it be reliable, with several credible named sources that you can validate. If something seems too outlandish to be true, that should be a big red flag to check out the information. Fair news won’t report only one side. A fair story will be current – watch for stories that recycle information or photos to create bias. Most likely, we’ll be witnessing a number of unprecedented events in 2017. Some may be shocking, some simply surprising. A big underlying theme throughout the year will be unpredictability. Continue reading to find out about the silver linings and the seeds of hope that indeed exist side-by-side with the disarray. Discover what these mean for you. Future Seeds of Hope Regardless of how crazy things become in 2017, life will go on. Your plans and projects can be re-energized within the new energies. Spiritual transformation potentials can be amplified by leaps and bounds. Relationships – new and current – can manifest in ways more supportive of you and your path. One silver lining in 2017 is the potential for new beginnings. The energies will support this. On a personal level, think of this as a blessing for your life and what you want to manifest. Even your established projects having success could benefit from adding something to the mix – like an additional collaborative partner or a new specialty that adds to what you already have. Revive a current relationship by finding an additional shared focus or introducing new ways of being with each other. A second silver lining in 2017 involves change and your response to that change. The acceleration of change is not slowing down. Change is like a palpable force stimulating transformation of all things that need to evolve. Interestingly, while we humans are wired to dislike change, when the momentum of change becomes super-charged and we realize we’re better off going with it, we find ourselves at a beneficial tipping point. At that stage, the sheer force of this momentum ironically can make it easier to adapt and evolve. Think of this year as a crucial time to build a new infrastructure for your life – inner and outer. The energies support this! As you focus on the specifics of what you want to create, you will be planting seeds of hope for your near and longer-term future. This kind of seed planting is happening already during these unique moments on Earth. Humanity as a collective is regularly planting the seeds of the next creations. The key for you now is to become conscious of your personal role in the planting. It’s you taking charge of you and your new directions. It’s you accepting your quantum power to create, change creations, and invent new ones. This is big! Doing this is what your soul wants for you. You are not a cog in a machine, or a hub on humanity’s wheel of evolution. You are an eternal and timeless divine being who can create in boundless ways. Trust this. Trust in your ability to make a difference. Trust in the power of your love to fuel the perfect next steps for your life. Trust in the divine voice within you that knows truth. Know beyond a doubt that you are meant to be on Earth now for a grand purpose that only your soul fully understands. Trust that this is valid, and let it guide you step-by-step throughout the year. REPOSTED BY, PHYNXRIZNG

[ladystylestores]

A Racial Awakening in France, Where Race Is a Taboo Topic

PARIS — Growing up in France, Maboula Soumahoro never thought of herself as Black.

At home, her immigrant parents stressed the culture of the Dioula, a Muslim ethnic group from Ivory Coast in West Africa. In her neighborhood, she identified herself as Ivorian to other children of African immigrants.

It was only as a teenager — years after the discovery of Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, “The Cosby Show” and hip-hop made her “dream of being cool like African-Americans’’ — that she began feeling a racial affinity with her friends, she said.

“We were all children of immigrants from Guadeloupe, Martinique, Africa, and we are all a little bit unlike our parents,’’ recalled Ms. Soumahoro, 44, an expert on race who lived in the United States for a decade. “We were French in our new way and we weren’t white French. It was different in our homes, but we found one another regardless, and that’s when you become Black.’’

Besides fueling heated debates over racism, the killing of George Floyd by the police in Minneapolis has underscored the emergence of a new way of thinking about race in the public discourse in France, a nation where discussion of race and religion has traditionally been muted in favor of elevating a colorblind ideal that all people share the same universal rights.

That ideal has often fallen short in reality, especially as French society has become more diverse and discrimination remains entrenched, leading some to wonder whether the universalist model has run its course.

Today it is being challenged perhaps most vociferously by the many Black French who have gone through a racial awakening in recent decades — helped by the pop culture of the United States, its thinkers, and even its Paris-based diplomats who spotted and encouraged young Black French leaders a decade ago.

To its opponents, Black and white, the challenge to the universalist tradition is perceived as part of the broader “Americanization” of French society. This challenge risks fragmenting France, they say, and poses a threat far more central to the modern republic’s founding principles than familiar complaints about the encroachment of McDonald’s or Hollywood blockbusters.

Even those Black French who have been inspired by the United States also consider America to be a deeply flawed and violently racist society. In France, people of different backgrounds mix far more freely, and while Black people occupy fewer high-profile positions than in the United States, like all French citizens they enjoy universal access to education, health care and other services.

“When I consider both countries, I’m not saying that one country is better than the other,” said Ms. Soumahoro, who has taught African-American studies at Columbia and now teaches at the Université de Tours. “For me, they’re two racist societies that manage racism in their own way.”

Most of France’s new thinkers on race are the children of immigrants from the former colonial empire. Growing up in households with a strong sense of their separate ethnic identities, they gradually began to develop a shared sense of racial consciousness in their neighborhoods and schools.

Pap Ndiaye — a historian who led efforts to establish Black studies as an academic discipline in France with the 2008 publication of his book “La Condition Noire,” or “The Black Condition’’ — said he grew aware of his race only after studying in the United States in the 1990s.

“It’s an experience that all Black French go through when they go to the United States,” said Mr. Ndiaye, 54, who teaches at Sciences Po. “It’s the experience of a country where skin color is reflected upon and where it is not hidden behind a colorblind discourse.”

The son of a Senegalese father and a Frenchwoman, Mr. Ndiaye is a “métis” in the French context, or of mixed race, though he identifies himself as a Black man.

His views of the world and himself were a radical challenge to the French state. Rooted in the Enlightenment and the Revolution, France’s universalism has long held that each human being enjoys fundamental rights like equality and liberty. In keeping with the belief that no group should be given preference, it remains illegal to collect data on race for the census and for almost all other official purposes.

But the unequal treatment of women in France and of nonwhite people throughout its colonies belied that universalist ideal.

“Universality could work easily enough when there weren’t too many immigrants or when they were white Catholics,” said Gérard Araud, France’s former ambassador to the United States. “But faced with Islam on one side and Black Africans on the other, this model has evidently reached its limits. And so the debate is that on one side is this universalism, which is a beautiful ideal, but on the other is how to say at the same time that, yes, it’s not working.”

Tania de Montaigne, a French author who has written about race, said that Black French will fully integrate only through the rule of law and citizenship. Emphasizing a racial identity, she said, would make Black French perpetual outsiders in a society where the overwhelming majority aspires to a colorblind universalism.

“They say that there’s something, wherever you are in the world, whatever language you speak, whatever your history, this Black nature endures,” said Ms. de Montaigne, 44, whose parents immigrated from Martinique and the Democratic Republic of Congo. “But that’s exactly how you make it impossible to become a citizen, because there will always be something in me that will never be included in society.”

In the United States, many immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean or Asia develop a shared sense of race and grow acutely aware of the role of race in America, a country where it is part of the daily conversation.

Rokhaya Diallo, 42, a journalist who is also one of France’s most prominent anti-racism activists, said she became aware of a shared sense of race only after she became an adult and often found herself the only Black person in an academic or professional setting. She grew up in La Courneuve, a suburb of Paris known as a banlieue, in a building with mostly immigrants from France’s former Southeast Asian colonies.

Race was never talked about. But fleeting images of Black people on French television struck a chord in Ms. Diallo, whose parents came from Senegal and Gambia. Like many people of her generation, she loved a children’s television series called “Club Dorothée.” But she could never forget an episode — a colonial trope — in which the host, a white woman, is boiled alive in a caldron by three Black men.

“I’d talk about it with my brother,’’ Ms. Diallo said. “We weren’t able to put it in words, but I remember how it annoyed us — cannibals, stupid Blacks, things like that.”

By contrast, American shows that were broadcast later in France, like “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” or “The Cosby Show,’’ showed Black people who were “comfortable in their skin,” Ms. Diallo said, adding, “The only positive images of Black people that I saw came from the United States.”

Thanks to a U.S. government program, Ms. Diallo, who founded an anti-racism organization called Les Indivisibles in 2007, visited the United States in 2010 to learn about “managing ethnic diversity in the U.S.”

Ms. Diallo is one of several high-profile individuals who took part in the U.S. program, a fact that has contributed to fears, especially among French conservatives, of an “Americanization’’ of French society.

The U.S. Embassy in Paris began reaching out to ethnic and racial minorities in France after the Sept. 11 attacks as part of a global push to “win hearts and minds.”

The embassy organized educational programs on subjects like affirmative action, a taboo concept in France, drawing nonwhite French audiences for the first time, said Randianina Peccoud, who oversaw the outreach programs and retired from the embassy last year.

Ms. Peccoud, who is from Madagascar, a former French colony, also identified grass-roots leaders like Ms. Diallo in the banlieues — often eliciting angry reactions from French officials and fueling enduring suspicions.

“They were afraid that people in the banlieues would start to be a little aware of their own situation in French society,” Ms. Peccoud said.

The visits to the United States, organized around themes like community organizing in Chicago and diversity, also gave participants an introduction to an alternative vision of society.

Almamy Kanouté, an actor, activist and leader in the ongoing protests against police violence in France, visited the United States in 2011 to learn about policies toward new immigrants. In Minneapolis, he met a French-speaking man from Laos whose roots were acknowledged despite his becoming an American citizen — in contrast to France’s assimilationist policies.

“Here, they want us to melt into a single body and put aside our cultural diversity,” said Mr. Kanouté, 40, whose parents are from Mali and who appeared in “Les Misérables,” the Oscar-nominated film. “With us, that’s not possible. We’re French, but we don’t forget what makes us whole.”

For younger Black people in France, their awareness of race partly grew out of the work of the older generation. Binetou Sylla, 31, a co-author of “Le Dérangeur,” a book about race in France, said she vividly remembers buying the first edition of Mr. Ndiaye’s “The Black Condition,” which helped established Black studies in France, and “had devoured” it.

Another co-author, Rhoda Tchokokam, 29, grew up in Cameroon before immigrating to France at the age of 17. While her racial awareness emerged in France, it evolved in the United States, where she went to study for two years, watched all of Spike Lee’s movies and discovered the works of Toni Morrison and Black feminists like Angela Davis and Audre Lorde.

“When I started meeting Black people in France, I started broadening my outlook a little,” Ms. Tchokokam said. “I still didn’t think of myself as Black because that’s a long process, where today I define myself as Black politically. Back then, I started becoming aware and when I arrived in the United States, it’s in fact there that I was able to put it in words.”

Aurélien Breeden and Constant Méheut contributed research.

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/2C1htFz

[clubofinfo]

Expert: If there is indeed an anti-semitism problem in the UK’s Labour party, it is not in the places where the British corporate media have been directing our attention. What can be said with even more certainty is that there is rampant hatred expressed towards Jews in the same British media that is currently decrying the supposed anti-semitism of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Here is a piece of what I hope is wisdom, earned the hard way as a reporter in Israel over nearly two decades. I offer it in case it helps to resolve the confusion felt by some still pondering the endless reports of Labour’s supposed anti-semitism “crisis”. Racism towards Palestinians In the first year after my arrival in Israel in late 2001, during the most violent phase of Israel’s suppression of the Palestinians’ second intifada, I desperately tried to make sense of the events raging around me. Like most new reporters, I searched for experts – at that time, mostly left wing Israeli analysts and academics. But the more I listened, the less I understood. I felt like a ball in a pinball machine, bounced from one hair-trigger to the next. My problem was exacerbated by the fact that, unlike my colleagues, I had chosen to locate myself in Nazareth, the largest Palestinian city in Israel, rather than in a Jewish area or in the occupied territories. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians seemed much more complex when viewed through the prism of Palestinian “citizens” living inside a self-declared Jewish state. The Israeli experts I contacted deplored the brutality of the occupation unequivocally and in ways it was difficult not to admire, given the morass of anti-Palestinian sentiment and self-righteousness into which the rest of Israeli society was rapidly sinking. But each time I latched on to such an Israeli in the hope of deepening my own understanding, something they said would knock me sideways. As readily as they condemned the occupation, they would laud the self-evidently bogus liberal democratic credentials of a Jewish state, one that I could see from my location in Nazareth was structurally organised to deny equal rights to its Palestinian citizens. Or the experts would echo the Israeli government’s inciteful claims that this largely quiescent Palestinian minority in Israel – a fifth of the population – was at best a demographic threat to the Jewish majority, and at worst a Trojan horse secretly working to destroy the Jewish state from within. The very racism towards Palestinians in the occupied territories these experts eschewed, they readily flaunted when discussing Palestinians inside Israel. Were they really leftists or covert ethnic chauvinists? Appearances can be deceptive It was many months before I could make sense of this puzzle. An answer was only possible when I factored in the Israeli state’s official ideology: Zionism. Israeli leftists who were also avowed Zionists – the vast majority of them – saw the conflict exclusively through the colonial prism of their own ethnic privilege. They didn’t much care for Palestinians or their rights. Their opposition to the occupation was barely related to the tangible harm it did to the Palestinian population. Rather, they wanted an end to the occupation because they believed it brutalised and corrupted Israeli Jewish society, seeping into its pores like a toxin. Or they wanted the occupation to end because the combined populations of Palestinians in “Greater Israel” – in the occupied territories and inside Israel – would soon outnumber Jews, leading, they feared, to comparisons with apartheid South Africa. They wanted Israel out of all or most of the occupied territories, cutting off these areas like a gangrenous limb threatening the rest of the body’s health. Only later, when I started to meet anti-Zionist Jews, did I find an opposition to the occupation rooted in a respect for the rights and dignity of the Palestinians in the territories. And because their position was an ethical, rights-based one, rather than motivated by opportunism and self-interest, these anti-Zionist Jews also cared about ending discrimination against the one in five Israeli citizens who were Palestinian. Unlike my experts, they were morally consistent. I raise this, because the lesson I eventually learnt was this: you should never assume that, because someone has adopted a moral position you share, their view is based on the moral principles that led you to adopt that position. The motives of those you stand alongside can be very different from your own. People can express a morally sound view for morally dubious, or even outright immoral, reasons. If you ally yourself with such people, you will invariably be disappointed or betrayed. There was another, more particular lesson. Ostensible support for Palestinians may in fact be cover for other ways of oppressing them. And so it has been with most of those warning of an anti-semitism “crisis” in Labour. Anti-semitism, like all racisms, is to be denounced. But not all denunciations of it are what they seem. And not all professions of support for Palestinians should be taken at face value. The vilification of Corbyn Most reasonable observers, especially if they are not Jewish, instinctively recoil from criticising a Jew who is highlighting anti-semitism. It is that insulation from criticism, that protective shield, that encouraged Labour MP Margaret Hodge recently to launch in public a verbal assault on Corbyn, vilifying him, against all evidence, as an “anti-semite and racist”. It was that same protective shield that led to Labour officials dropping an investigation of Hodge, even though it is surely beyond doubt that her actions brought the party “into disrepute” – in this case, in a flagrant manner hard to imagine being equalled. This is the same party, remember, that recently expelled Marc Wadsworth, a prominent black anti-racism activist, on precisely those grounds after he accused Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth of colluding with right wing newspapers to undermine Corbyn. The Labour party is so hamstrung by fears about anti-semitism, it seems, that it decided that an activist (Wadsworth) denigrating a Labour MP (Smeeth) is more damaging to the party’s reputation than a Labour MP (Hodge) vilifying the party’s leader (Corbyn). In this twisted set of priorities, a suspicion of possible racism towards a Jewish MP served to justify actual racism against a black party activist. But the perversion of Labour party values goes much further. Recent events have proven that party officials have decisively prioritised the rights of diehard supporters of Israel among British Jewry to defend Israel at all costs over the right of others, including Jews, to speak out about the continuing brutalisation of Palestinians by Israel’s occupation regime. Hodge and the other Labour MPs trumpeting anti-semitism might be entitled to the benefit of the doubt – that they truly fear anti-semitism is on the rise in the Labour party – had they not repeatedly indulged in the kind of anti-semitism they themselves have deplored. What do I mean? When they speak of an anti-semitism “crisis” in the party, these Labour MPs – and the fervently pro-Israel lobby groups behind them like the Jewish Labour Movement – intentionally gloss over the fact that many of the prominent activists who have been investigated, suspended or expelled for anti-semitism in recent months – fuelling the claim of a “crisis” – are in fact Jewish. Why are the “Jewish” sensitivities of Margaret Hodge, Ruth Smeeth or Louise Ellman more important than those of Moshe Machover, Tony Greenstein, Cyril Chilson, Jackie Walker or Glyn Secker – all Labour activists who have found their sensitivities, as Jews opposing the abuse of Palestinians, count for little or nothing among Labour officials? Why must we tiptoe around Hodge because she is Jewish, ignoring her bullygirl tactics to promote her political agenda in defence of Israel, but crack down on Greenstein and Chilson, even though they are Jewish, to silence their voices in defence of the rights of Palestinians? ‘Wrong kind of Jews’ The problem runs deeper still. Labour MPs like Hodge, Smeeth, Ellman and John Mann have stoked the anti-semitic predilections of the British media, which has been only too ready to indict “bad Jews” while extolling “good Jews”. That was only too evident earlier this year when Corbyn tried to put out the fire that such Labour MPs had intentionally fuelled. He joined Jewdas, a satirical left wing Jewish group that is critical of Israel, for a Passover meal. He was roundly condemned for the move. Jewdas were declared by right wing Jewish establishment organisations like the Board of Deputies and by the British corporate media as the “wrong kind of Jews”, or even as not “real” Jews. In the view of the Board and the media, Corbyn was tainted by his association with them. How are Jewdas the “wrong kind of Jews”? Because they do not reflexively kneel before Israel. Ignore Corbyn for a moment. Did Labour MPs Hodge, Ellman or Smeeth speak out in the defence of fellow Jews under attack over their Jewishness? No, they did not. If Greenstein and Chilson are being excommunicated as (Jewish) “anti-semites” for their full-throated condemnations of Israel’s institutional racism, why are Hodge and Ellman not equally anti-semites for their collusion in the vilification of supposedly “bad” or “phoney” Jews like Jewdas, Greenstein and Chilson. It should be clear that this anti-semitism “crisis” is not chiefly about respecting Jewish sensitivities or even about Jewish identity. It is about protecting the sensitivities of some Jews on Israel, a state oppressing and dispossessing the Palestinian people. Policing debates on Israel When the Guardian’s senior columnist Jonathan Freedland insists that his Jewish identity is intimately tied to Israel, and that to attack Israel is to attack him personally, he is demanding the exclusive right to police the parameters of discussions about Israel. He is asserting his right, over the rights of other Jews – and, of course, Palestinians – to determine what the boundaries of political discourse on Israel are, and where the red lines denoting anti-semitism are drawn. This is why Labour MPs like Hodge and journalists like Freedland are at the centre of another confected anti-semitism row in the Labour party: over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-semitism and an associated set of examples. They want all the IHRA’s examples adopted by Labour, not just most of them. There are very clear, existing definitions of anti-semitism. They are variations of the simple formulation: “Anti-semitism is the hatred of Jews for being Jews.” But the IHRA takes this clear definition and muddies it to the point that all sorts of political debates can be viewed as potentially anti-semitic, as leading jurists have warned (see here and here). That is only undercored by the fact that a majority of the IHRA’s examples of anti-semitism relate to Israel – a nuclear-armed state now constitutionally designed to privilege Jews over non-Jews inside its recognised borders and engaged in a half-century of brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people outside its borders. To be fair to the drafters of the IHRA guidelines, these examples were supposed only to be treated as potentially anti-semitic, depending on the context. That is the express view of the definition’s drafter, Kenneth Stern, a Jewish lawyer, who has warned that the guidelines are being perverted to silence criticism of Israel and stifle free speech. And who are leading precisely the moves that Stern has warned against? People like Jonathan Freedland and Margaret Hodge, cheered on by large swaths of Labour MPs, who have strongly implied that Corbyn and his allies in the party are anti-semitic for sharing Stern’s concerns. Hodge and Freedland are desperate to strong-arm the Labour party into setting the IHRA guidelines in stone, as the unchallengeable, definitive new definition of anti-semitism. That will relieve them of the arduous task of policing those discourse boundaries on the basis of evidence and of context. They will have a ready-made, one-size-fits-all definition to foreclose almost all serious debate about Israel. Want to suggest that Israel’s new Nation-State Law, giving Jewish citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights denied to non-Jewish citizens, is proof of the institutional racism on which political Zionism is premised and that was enshrined in the founding principles of the state of Israel? Well, you just violated one of the IHRA guidelines by arguing that Israel is a “racist endeavour”. If Freedland and Hodge get their way, you would be certain to be declared an anti-semite and expelled from the Labour party. Grovelling apology Revealing how cynical this manoeuvring by Hodge, Freedland and others is, one only has to inspect the faux-outrage over the latest “anti-semitism crisis” involving Corbyn. He has been forced to make a grovelling apology – one that deeply discredits him – for hosting an anti-racism conference in 2010 at which a speaker made a comparison between Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and the Nazis’ treatment of Jews. That violated another of the IHRA examples. But again, what none of these anti-semitism warriors has wanted to highlight is that the speaker given a platform at the conference was the late Hajo Meyer, a Jewish Holocaust survivor who dedicated his later years to supporting Palestinian rights. Who, if not Meyer, deserved the right to make such a comparison? And to imply that he was an anti-semite because he prioritised Palestinian rights over the preservation of Israel’s privileges for Jews is truly contemptible. In fact, it is more than that. It is far closer to anti-semitism than the behaviour of Jewish critics of Israel like Greenstein and Chilson, who have been expelled from the Labour party. To intentionally exploit and vilify a Holocaust survivor for cheap, short-term political advantage – in an attempt to damage Corbyn – is malevolence of the worst kind. Having stoked fears of an anti-semitism crisis, Hodge, Freedland and others have actively sought to obscure the wider context in which it must be judged – as, in large part, a painful debate raging inside the Jewish community. It is a debate between fervently pro-Israel Jewish establishment groups and a growing body of marginalised anti-Zionist Jewish activists who wish to show solidarity with the Palestinians. Labour is not suffering from an “anti-semitism crisis”; it is mired in an “Israel crisis”. ‘Repulsive’ campaign In their silence about the abuses of Meyer, Jewdas, Greenstein, Chilson and many others, Freedland and Hodge have shown that they do not really care about the safety or sensitivities of Jews. What they chiefly care about is protecting their chosen cause of Israel, and crippling the chances of a committed supporter of Palestinian rights from ever reaching power. They are prepared to sacrifice other Jews, even victims of the Holocaust, as well as the Labour party itself, for that kind of political gain. Hodge and Freedland are behaving as though they are decent Jews, the only ones who have the right to a voice and to sensitivities. They are wrong. They are like the experts I first met in Israel who concealed their racism towards Palestinians by flaunting their self-serving anti-occupation credentials. Under the cover of concerns about anti-semitism, Freedland and Hodge have helped stoke hatred – either explicitly or through their silence – towards the “wrong kind of Jews”, towards Jews whose critical views of Israel they fear. It does not have to be this way. Rather than foreclose it, they could allow a debate to flourish within Britain’s Jewish community and within the Labour party. They could admit that not only is there no evidence that Corbyn is racist, but that he has clearly been committed to fighting racism all his life. Don’t want to take my word for it? You don’t have to. Listen instead to Stephen Oryszczuk, foreign editor of the Corbyn-hating Jewish News. His newspaper was one of three Jewish weeklies that recently published the same front-page editorial claiming that Corbyn was an “existential threat” to British Jews. Oryszczuk, even if no friend to the Labour leader, deplored the behaviour of his own newspaper. In an interview, he observed of this campaign to vilify Corbyn: “It’s repulsive. This is a dedicated anti-racist we’re trashing. I just don’t buy into it at all.” He added of Corbyn: “I don’t believe he’s antisemitic, nor do most reasonable people. He’s anti-Israel and that’s not the same.” Oryszczuk conceded that some people were weaponising anti-semitism and that these individuals were “certainly out to get him [Corbyn]”. Unlike Freedland and Hodge, he was also prepared to admit that some voices in the Jewish community were being actively silenced: “It’s partly our fault, in the mainstream Jewish media. We could – and arguably should – have done a better job at giving a voice to Jews who think differently, for which I personally feel a little ashamed. … On Israel today, what you hear publicly tends to be very uniform.” http://clubof.info/

[trendingnewsb]

It’s time to take the ‘great’ white men of science off their pedestals | Yarden Katz

Of course the Oxford statue of Rhodes should fall but what about novelist HG Wells, and father of gynaecology J Marion Sims, too, asks Harvard medical school fellow Yarden Katz

Sciences most elite magazine, Nature, published an editorial recently arguing that calling for monuments to figures such as J Marion Sims often called the father of gynaecology to be removed amounts to whitewashing history. Sims is widely praised for developing techniques in gynaecological surgery and founding a womens hospital in New York in the mid-1800s. But Sims experimented on enslaved black women and infants, operating up to 30 times on one woman to perfect his method. Last month, women wearing bloodied hospital gowns staged a protest by Simss statue outside the New York Academy of Medicine.

Natures editorial sparked outrage and the magazine has now backpedalled. As critics pointed out, the magazines argument was essentially the same as that for keeping Confederate monuments such as the statue of Robert E Lee at the centre of recent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. The idea that statues need to stay put for historys sake was also invoked in the debate about Oxford Universitys statue of British imperialist Cecil Rhodes, which remains in place despite protests.

As this latest controversy shows, science also has its monuments to white supremacy. Like Confederate monuments, these statues should be removed. They are daggers to the open wounds of communities that have long known that white supremacy reaches far beyond the sphere of conventional politics into medicine and science. But removing these monuments wont be sufficient on its own. The row about Sims reminds us how hard the scientific establishment works to present an image of science as apolitical. What is needed is an honest re-examination of sciences history and politics an examination of the kind that scientists have often tried to silence.

While Natures editorial purported to object to whitewashing the past, the magazine has done plenty of whitewashing itself. A profile of novelist HGWells last year described him as a science-populariser driven by a desire to use writing to make the world better, often by projecting utopian visions. It left out Wellss enthusiasm for eugenics.

HG Wells wrote of swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people who would have to die out and disappear. Photograph: Popperfoto/Getty Images

Wells gave a glimpse into his flavour of utopia when he wrote in 1901 that those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people that fail to be efficient would have to die out and disappear. He also produced long screeds on Jews. According to Nature, though, Wells embodied the essence of the scientific method, which conferred on its user the authority to rethink and challenge stale ideas. When a 50,000 bronze statue of Wells was unveiled last year in Woking, Surrey, an official said the statue was meant to inspire future generations of young people to continue in Wellss legacy.

There are also institutional monuments within science to be revisited. Britains prestigious biomedical research institute, the Crick, is named after Francis Crick, famous for his Nobel-prizewinning work on the double helix structure of DNA with James Watson. Both were proponents of eugenics. In the early 1970s, Crick defended other prominent racist scientists who proposed a plan where individuals deemed unfit would be paid to undergo sterilisation. Crick wrote in one letter that more than half of the difference between the average IQ of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, which will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in the environment. He urged that steps be taken to avoid the serious consequences. Crick also proposed that irresponsible people be sterilised by bribery. In the brochure of the institute bearing his name, Crick is nonetheless presented as a scientific hero known for his intelligence and openness to new ideas.

Unfortunately, mainstream histories of science often repeat these hero mythologies. Horace Judsons book The Eighth Day of Creation, perhaps the most celebrated history of molecular biology, verges on hagiography as it chronicles the lives of great men such as Watson and Crick leaving eugenics unexamined, while playing down Rosalind Franklins role in the discovery of the double helix.

The point is not that scientists should be held to higher standards of behaviour. Rather, it is that racist and sexist ideologies can and do make their way into scientific theories. It is essential to recognise this, since these theories can provide the intellectual gloss for discrimination. A controversial memo recently circulated by a Google engineer, for example, based its claim that women are less capable than men in certain jobs on evolutionary psychology a claim that, as physicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein subsequently wrote, gains legitimacy from the unfortunate fact that its 2017, and to some extent scientific literature still supports a patriarchal view that ranks a mans intellect above a womans. Theres no shortage of examples of scientists who have found ways to see sexist or racist ideas as universals of nature.

Nonetheless, there has been a persistent effort to manufacture a public image of science as being above the fray of politics especially since the election of Donald Trump. In the build-up to Aprils March for Science, in Washington and across the US, for example, some scientists were chastised for tainting the project with politics (or worse, identity politics) by talking about having been marginalised within the scientific community or bringing up the roles science plays in warfare.

While some alternative marches for science have since embraced science alongside social justice, the official March for Science group didnt. Issues deemed political took a back seat to what was presented as the greater threat: the possibility that Trump and the Republicans would slash the budget of the National Institutes of Health, the largest sponsor of biomedical research in the US. A university professor even argued in an article that social scientists (those scholars who might challenge the whitewashed histories of science) should stay home as they risk doing more harm than good.

So how should the scientific community come to terms with its history? One critic of Natures editorial suggested that since science is a self-correcting discipline, scientists decisions about who among them deserves to be honoured might self-correct too. But this appeal only sustains the myth of value-free, apolitical science. Theres no magical feature of the scientific enterprise that insulates it from society and endows it with self-correcting powers. Even now, the new fascination with CRISPR a system that can be used to edit the genomes of human embryos has revived old visions of genetic determinism of the sort that fuels eugenics. Science is made up of many diverse and fragmented disciplines and, as in any other area of knowledge, it takes work to keep old demons such as racism at bay. Changes to the scientific enterprise come through constant struggle. Its often said that figures such as J Marion Sims simply conformed to the norms of their time. But fresh looks at history can revise conceptions of past norms. Antebellum African-Americans, as Britt Rusert has shown, boldly challenged the racist science of their day by drawing on Charles Darwins new evidence that all humans share a common ancestor. There were more options available at the time than is conventionally admitted. Just as the movements to remove Confederate statues, or those of British colonial rulers, force us to re-examine officially sanctioned versions of history, so the movement to topple monuments to racist scientists offers an opportunity to rewrite the histories of science.

Yarden Katz is a fellow in the department of systems biology at Harvard Medical School and an affiliate of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University

Read more: http://ift.tt/2yaQorN

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2yW6JFa via Viral News HQ

[jensenlewis2-blog]

Land and Water Issues in America

Americans face many battles everyday involving issues of land and water, such as the Flint water crisis that contaminated countless families main water source with lead. Another issue being water getting cut off to certain groups and privatized in Detroit, or drilling oil holes and wells in areas of land that are sacred to many Native American groups and where people are vulnerable to the pollution being put into the air. Many view these issues as systematically racist and unnecessary leading to the great debate of how these issues are handled in our country and how environmental racism plays a role.

In 2014, in Flint Michigan, public officials made a decision for the city that they thought would save millions of dollars over time. The decision was to change their water supply from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD), to building their own pipeline to connect the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA) to Flint. During the time that this new pipeline was to be built, Flint needed a substitute water supply so they switched to the Flint river. In recent history, the flint river actually was the main water source until the 1960s. Just four months after this switch, the city received countless complaints about the quality of the water, such as the smell and color of the new water. Complaints in which were denied by state officials for months.

This is an actual representation of what the water in Flint, Michigan looked like after the decision to switch to the Flint river was made Compared to normal water found anywhere else…

Many officials actually fought that the water was pure and not harmful. The Mayor of Flint was quoted saying, “It's regular, good, pure drinking water, and it's right in our backyard. This is the first step in the right direction for Flint, and we take this monumental step forward in controlling the future of our community’s most precious resource.” This is such an important quote because it shows how much research and time was put into this new transition for the city by public and state officials at the time. Just four months after the switch, the flint river was tested for E. coli and Coliform Bacteria. The only thing the city did to fix this was raising the chlorine levels throughout the river. Which made the situation worse because chlorine makes water more acidic causing corrosion to pipes.

A representation of the effects lead and chlorine have on household pipelines.

The main thing found in the Flint water was the high levels of lead. Many studies found high levels of lead in children which led to a city advisory. Saying that every person or household should be aware that any type of level of lead should be considered unsafe. About 6 months after the switch the city decided to change back to the Detroit water supply but at that point it was already too late because the pipes throughout the city had already been corroded by lead. After the news and facts about this major water issue came out, two state regulation officials resigned. As well as two state officials at the MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), and Flint’s water quality supervisor Micheal Glaskow, all facing criminal charges. Michigan’s attorney general stated that the three, “face felony charges including misconduct, neglect of duty and conspiracy to tamper with evidence. They’ve also been charged with violating Michigan’s Safe Drinking Water Act.”

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Flint, Michigan is a 40% black city. Since this issue first erupted, many speculations and protests have occurred saying that something like this would never happen in a mainly white neighborhood or town such as Birmingham or Ann Arbor. Many reported that Flint was a unique target because of the known black community it is. Flint, Michigan did not get equal protection of environmental or public health laws and didn’t have a say in any of it either. In the past couple decades, racial discrimination in housing, education, and employment have been present in Flint, Michigan. At one-point Flint had the most prosperous auto industry in all of Michigan before this discrimination occurred. In this event of the water issue, whites mostly populated the suburbs leaving the mostly black population to struggle to maintain a water system that was built for a much larger city.

In the end, major issues and concerns were ignored. At the time of need, state officials didn’t express any concerns for this major crisis, but when they did decide to take action, it was already way too late.

Another water issue that occurred in America is the issue of water being cut off and privatized to certain groups in Detroit. This issue didn’t have to do with availability of water, but more so from local governments going broke and being unable to finance their own control over the water. In Detroit, joblessness, poverty and homelessness remain major problems. The reason this story is interesting is because it shows how certain classes and races of hard working people are discriminated against other institutions and other corporations. In this situation in Detroit, the water shut offs are mostly related to the poor households and the working class, but not businesses that don’t stay caught up in their bills who get to keep their water turned on. In 2015, 23,300 homes got their water turned off, but thousands of businesses that owed millions of dollars were left with their water. Studies show that businesses and government-owned properties owe almost twice as much as homeowners do.

Many citizens in the Detroit Area fought the battle against water privatization with protest and signs like these saying, “Water is a human right!”

The reason that so many households were shut off from their water is because they weren’t able to pay anymore. These people couldn’t pay their bills because of the last decade water rates have raised by almost 120% when the Detroit city council voted to increase the rates by 19% back in 2009. It’s no wonder they couldn’t keep up with their bills especially in a city where almost 40% of the residents live below poverty.

We can easily come to the conclusion that this was served to forcefully remove thousands of people from Detroit. These water shut offs were a majority to African American households. The largest race population in Detroit happens to be African American and after these shut offs the U.S. lost nearly 25 percent of its overall residents in the African American community. The impact of these water shut offs and policies is that when there is no water in a home, it becomes almost impossible to live. Even residents with children were subject to laws under the Child Protection Services (CPS) because of the households not being fit to live in anymore without water. Water is an essential resource that should be available to every person as it is a human right to have. The way that this was handled by the DWSD should’ve never happened and it should’ve been looked at in a fair way that looked out for all people not just businesses and government properties. 

Lastly it brings us to Chaco Cultural National Park. Home to some of the most sacred land to many Native American pueblos. This historical park has the possibility of being overtaken by fracking drills on land that had been leased by the BLM for close to $3 million. Chaco canyon is protected by development but there is a 10-mile buffer around the park that is not protected. About 90% of the Greater Chaco Canyon has already been leased for oil and gas development. Countless Native American groups as well as both of New Mexico’s State Senators are doing all they can to take action. These fracking drills are known for being made very close to vulnerable people such as, infants, school children, the elderly, and those with weakened immune systems. What fracking does to these people is it creates a range of threats to public health and safety such as things like, fires, explosions, well failures, spills, or even contaminated drinking water. Many groups are fighting to bring an overall end to fracking in order to protect public health and the environment. It’s crazy how in all the places across the whole nation, this ancient landmark is the chosen place for consideration of these oil and gas drills.

This is a fracking sire positioned less than 200 yards from this home and neighborhood greatly increasing the risk of health issues for people who live nearby.

The history of Chaco Canyon goes all the way back to between 900-1150 AD. The ruins of a once flourishing Pueblo still stands today after many centuries. This land is known for its world heritage and is in great danger of becoming just another oil site. This is very disheartening to many indigenous groups because of the ties they have to this land and how it will not only affect the land but their lives as well.

The sacred land known as Chaco Canyon which is in danger of fracking oil drills.

These issues all tie together because they show how modern political leaders are still in a very racial and unnecessary mindset. These leaders are making decisions that are affecting our nation as a whole and driving people apart. Race doesn’t only involve profiling in America. It also plays the role of environmental racism regarding land, water, and regulations. The communities affected by this are fighting every day to fight these bad decisions by state and public officials.

[nofomoartworld]

Hyperallergic: The Stories of Asian American Activism in 1970s LA

Installation view of publications in Roots: Asian American Movements in Los Angeles 1968–80s at the Chinese American Museum (all photos by the author for Hyperallergic)

LOS ANGELES — “Instead of going to class, I’ve been working with the Asian Student Mobilization Committee,” a college student wrote in a letter to their mother in 1972. “If nothing else, the events of the past week have convinced me … that prolonged struggle and political education are necessary to effect change.” So begins one young person’s politicization, borne out of opposition to the US wars in Southeast Asia and galvanized by the sight of “friends and fellow students getting their faces smashed with night sticks.”

The letter is one snapshot of Asian America contained in the Chinese American Museum’s Roots: Asian American Movements in Los Angeles 1968–80s. Through books, posters, films, and music, the exhibit brings together varied local histories of movement building by Asians and Pacific Islanders, from anti-gentrification protests in Chinatown to Samoan community organizing in the South Bay. It’s a timely look at the shapes and forms of resistance that can inform today’s political struggles against an emboldened front of white supremacy and xenophobia.

Come-Unity newspaper (May 1972), published by the Asian American–led organization Storefront, which created grassroots programs for the mostly black residents in its neighborhood

According to the Los Angeles Human Relations Commission, hate crimes against Asian Americans tripled in the US in 2015 as part of an overall growing rate of violence against people of color; one civil rights organization recently responded by establishing the first tracker of hate crimes against Asian Americans. After Donald Trump’s inauguration, the White House website was changed to remove all references to the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI), which had previously worked to increase AAPI access to federal programs, and no longer mentions Asian Americans, or any other minority group, as a policy focus. Since Inauguration Day, 16 of 20 members of the President’s Advisory Commission on AAPIs, among them prominent community leaders and public figures, have resigned in protest against the Trump administration’s discriminatory actions.

The hard-won gains of past activists, whether the establishment of ethnic studies departments at universities or social services for immigrant communities, now face threats by exclusionary policies that are nothing new to the US. But what has also not changed is the potential of self-organized communities to wrest power and resources away from oppressive institutions. The stories presented by Roots give a sense of how the early Asian American movement sought to overcome atomization and define itself. Importantly, it was not exclusively preoccupied with the struggles of its own members — solidarity with Latinx, Black, feminist, and third-world movements was a foundational and evolving part of its activism, one that defined liberation as social and economic justice for all, not just some, groups of people.

Installation view, Roots: Asian American Movements in Los Angeles 1968–80s

The Vietnam War was the major crisis that politicized Asian Americans, but events at home also became key battles that forced them to think of foreign and domestic policies as a unified attempt to disenfranchise people of color. Resembling the graphic illustrations of Black Panther artist Emory Douglas, a poster by artist Leland Wong celebrates 1971 as the “year of the people” and depicts armed resistance against police brutality. A 1970 newspaper, echoing today’s gentrification struggles, commemorates the effort to preserve low-income housing for the elderly Chinese and Filipino residents of San Francisco’s International Hotel. Another poster, from 1982, calls for medical aid to survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, with additional demands for an end to US military interventions abroad as well as racism within the country. These examples emphasize how Asian American activists perceived violence in and outside of the US as connected: calling for an end to one necessitated calling for an end to the other.

Clockwise from left to right: Poster for poet Lawson Inada’s performance in Los Angeles (1971), image of playwright Frank Chin speaking at the University of Southern California (date unknown), and photograph of silkscreening workshop (date unknown)

Art became a significant outlet for writers, musicians, visual artists, and filmmakers seeking to voice their identities and political struggles. The Amerasia Bookstore in Little Tokyo, which operated from 1971 through 1992, served as a hub for movement publications and writers like Lawson Inada, a Japanese American poet who spent part of his childhood in an internment camp during World War II. Inada, playwright Frank Chin, and others would go on to publish Aiiieeeee! (1974), the first major anthology of writing by Asian Americans. In her book Serve the People: Making Asian America in the Long Sixties, which is an indispensable companion to the Roots exhibit, writer and filmmaker Karen Ishizuka says:

The arts of activism intersected the lives of those touched by them, creating meaning, defining purpose, and acting as a catalyst for change. The preponderance of creative expressions alongside critical analyses of U.S. imperialism and manifestos of anti-racist programs attests to the cultural as well as political revolution that gave birth to Asian America.

As continues to be true today, these artists of color created work both in response to political currents and out of personal necessity, telling stories that were otherwise not being told. Los Angeles collective Visual Communications (cheekily abbreviated VC) produced independent films documenting the lives and histories of Asian Americans that served as a counterpoint to the villainous or reductive stereotypes of Hollywood. Some of those films are on display in Roots: the cross-cultural and transpacific sounds of Japanese American jazz band Hiroshima is the subject of VC co-founder Duane Kubo’s “Cruisin’ J-town” (1975), while Linda Mabalot’s groundbreaking “Manong” (1978) portrays the labor struggles of Filipino farm workers in the Central Valley.

Also on view are several editions of the newspaper Gidra (1969–74), which served as the major communications arm of the Asian American movement. Founded by UCLA students and run entirely by volunteers, the publication produced political analyses, satirical cartoons, and other coverage of everything from the Vietnam War to global capital to cultural stereotypes. Visually rich and politically incisive, the newspaper’s articles and illustrations suggest a patchwork of perspectives and identities that comprised 1970s Asian America.

A section of the exhibit titled “Feminism and LGBTQ Movements” features the January 1971 edition of Gidra, whose cover announces it as a “special women’s issue.” The need for a special issue suggests that women’s voices had not been centered or recognized to the degree they should have been. Two photographs depict Gidra volunteers — all female — in the midst of one of several “wrap sessions” that led to the creation of the women’s issue. Despite the radical claims of the movement, Asian American artists and activists had plenty of blind spots, as the exhibit takes pains to demonstrate. Many of the leading members skewed male, cisgender, and heterosexual, with identity politics based on an opposition to “feminized” or “emasculated” personas (the editors of Aiiieeeee!, for example, defined “feminine” writers as not being “truly” Asian American). Facing these limitations, feminist and queer activists organized to create their own support systems and platforms that centered labor, health, and other issues that did not always find a home in the larger movement.

Newsletters published by the Asian Women’s Center

In a part of the exhibition, visitors are invited to write on Post-it notes in response to a series of guiding questions, one of which asks, “What does Asian American mean today?” Implying that present Asian American discourse is at odds with its radical past, one note lists “silence,” “anti-blackness,” and “white assimilation,” while another names “complacency” and “ignorance.” These seem to be responses to the historical amnesia and political atomization that have led to Asian Americans demonstrating on behalf of someone like Peter Liang, the Chinese American cop who murdered an unarmed black man, Akai Gurley, in 2014. That was a far cry from 1975, when thousands of Asian Americans packed the streets of New York’s Chinatown to protest for Peter Yew, a young engineer who was brutally beaten by police, and against all forms of oppression and discrimination. “Asian American” was once a radical marker of identity, yet today it can feel like a rather innocuous or less meaningful designation. It can even seem conservative or reactionary.

Growing up in Southern California during the ’90s, I recall the fear and anxiety of the local Korean community during the LA uprising, when many Korean-owned businesses at the epicenter went up in flames. I was too young to grasp the root causes of the riots, but old enough to understand that the video of the four cops beating Rodney King (which was played ad nauseam on television) had something to do with them. What I didn’t know at the time was the name of Latasha Harlins, the African American teenager murdered, just a year before the uprising, by a Korean shop owner who suspected her of stealing a bottle of orange juice. Some Korean Americans recall how the community came together to defend itself and rebuild what was lost, but I have to wonder exactly whom they were defending against and who was being left out in the first place.

Although social movements like the early Asian American one do eventually reach their terminus, the story of Asian America — as vast and nebulous as it has always been — doesn’t end with the 1980s. The objects in the exhibit comprise a vibrant history of uprisings, provocations, and world building, but how do we avoid relegating resistance to the past? Today, although they may not always be visible to the mainstream, many young Asian Americans have taken up the mantle of political struggle, continuing where earlier movements left off and expanding the fight to include intersectional identities and solidarity. Whether it’s queer diasporic Koreans showing up for Black Lives Matter or anti-imperialist Filipino activists marching against the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Los Angeles remains home to many Asian American activists of multiple generations. Roots will hopefully not be the only attempt to present stories of political activism and movement building by Asian Americans, whose work seems more urgent and vital than ever.

Installation view, Roots: Asian American Movements in Los Angeles 1968–80s

Gidra (February 1973)

Installation view of ephemera from Filipino American activist movements

Alan Takemoto, poster marking the 10th anniversary of the annual pilgrimage to Manzanar (1979)

Installation view, Roots: Asian American Movements in Los Angeles 1968-80s

Roots: Asian American Movements in Los Angeles 1968–80s continues at the Chinese American Museum (425 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles) through June 11.

The post The Stories of Asian American Activism in 1970s LA appeared first on Hyperallergic.

from Hyperallergic http://ift.tt/2mPRmU5 via IFTTT

[trendingnewsb]

It’s time to take the ‘great’ white men of science off their pedestals | Yarden Katz

Of course the Oxford statue of Rhodes should fall but what about novelist HG Wells, and father of gynaecology J Marion Sims, too, asks Harvard medical school fellow Yarden Katz

Sciences most elite magazine, Nature, published an editorial recently arguing that calling for monuments to figures such as J Marion Sims often called the father of gynaecology to be removed amounts to whitewashing history. Sims is widely praised for developing techniques in gynaecological surgery and founding a womens hospital in New York in the mid-1800s. But Sims experimented on enslaved black women and infants, operating up to 30 times on one woman to perfect his method. Last month, women wearing bloodied hospital gowns staged a protest by Simss statue outside the New York Academy of Medicine.

Natures editorial sparked outrage and the magazine has now backpedalled. As critics pointed out, the magazines argument was essentially the same as that for keeping Confederate monuments such as the statue of Robert E Lee at the centre of recent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. The idea that statues need to stay put for historys sake was also invoked in the debate about Oxford Universitys statue of British imperialist Cecil Rhodes, which remains in place despite protests.

As this latest controversy shows, science also has its monuments to white supremacy. Like Confederate monuments, these statues should be removed. They are daggers to the open wounds of communities that have long known that white supremacy reaches far beyond the sphere of conventional politics into medicine and science. But removing these monuments wont be sufficient on its own. The row about Sims reminds us how hard the scientific establishment works to present an image of science as apolitical. What is needed is an honest re-examination of sciences history and politics an examination of the kind that scientists have often tried to silence.

While Natures editorial purported to object to whitewashing the past, the magazine has done plenty of whitewashing itself. A profile of novelist HGWells last year described him as a science-populariser driven by a desire to use writing to make the world better, often by projecting utopian visions. It left out Wellss enthusiasm for eugenics.

HG Wells wrote of swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people who would have to die out and disappear. Photograph: Popperfoto/Getty Images

Wells gave a glimpse into his flavour of utopia when he wrote in 1901 that those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people that fail to be efficient would have to die out and disappear. He also produced long screeds on Jews. According to Nature, though, Wells embodied the essence of the scientific method, which conferred on its user the authority to rethink and challenge stale ideas. When a 50,000 bronze statue of Wells was unveiled last year in Woking, Surrey, an official said the statue was meant to inspire future generations of young people to continue in Wellss legacy.

There are also institutional monuments within science to be revisited. Britains prestigious biomedical research institute, the Crick, is named after Francis Crick, famous for his Nobel-prizewinning work on the double helix structure of DNA with James Watson. Both were proponents of eugenics. In the early 1970s, Crick defended other prominent racist scientists who proposed a plan where individuals deemed unfit would be paid to undergo sterilisation. Crick wrote in one letter that more than half of the difference between the average IQ of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, which will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in the environment. He urged that steps be taken to avoid the serious consequences. Crick also proposed that irresponsible people be sterilised by bribery. In the brochure of the institute bearing his name, Crick is nonetheless presented as a scientific hero known for his intelligence and openness to new ideas.

Unfortunately, mainstream histories of science often repeat these hero mythologies. Horace Judsons book The Eighth Day of Creation, perhaps the most celebrated history of molecular biology, verges on hagiography as it chronicles the lives of great men such as Watson and Crick leaving eugenics unexamined, while playing down Rosalind Franklins role in the discovery of the double helix.

The point is not that scientists should be held to higher standards of behaviour. Rather, it is that racist and sexist ideologies can and do make their way into scientific theories. It is essential to recognise this, since these theories can provide the intellectual gloss for discrimination. A controversial memo recently circulated by a Google engineer, for example, based its claim that women are less capable than men in certain jobs on evolutionary psychology a claim that, as physicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein subsequently wrote, gains legitimacy from the unfortunate fact that its 2017, and to some extent scientific literature still supports a patriarchal view that ranks a mans intellect above a womans. Theres no shortage of examples of scientists who have found ways to see sexist or racist ideas as universals of nature.

Nonetheless, there has been a persistent effort to manufacture a public image of science as being above the fray of politics especially since the election of Donald Trump. In the build-up to Aprils March for Science, in Washington and across the US, for example, some scientists were chastised for tainting the project with politics (or worse, identity politics) by talking about having been marginalised within the scientific community or bringing up the roles science plays in warfare.

While some alternative marches for science have since embraced science alongside social justice, the official March for Science group didnt. Issues deemed political took a back seat to what was presented as the greater threat: the possibility that Trump and the Republicans would slash the budget of the National Institutes of Health, the largest sponsor of biomedical research in the US. A university professor even argued in an article that social scientists (those scholars who might challenge the whitewashed histories of science) should stay home as they risk doing more harm than good.

So how should the scientific community come to terms with its history? One critic of Natures editorial suggested that since science is a self-correcting discipline, scientists decisions about who among them deserves to be honoured might self-correct too. But this appeal only sustains the myth of value-free, apolitical science. Theres no magical feature of the scientific enterprise that insulates it from society and endows it with self-correcting powers. Even now, the new fascination with CRISPR a system that can be used to edit the genomes of human embryos has revived old visions of genetic determinism of the sort that fuels eugenics. Science is made up of many diverse and fragmented disciplines and, as in any other area of knowledge, it takes work to keep old demons such as racism at bay. Changes to the scientific enterprise come through constant struggle. Its often said that figures such as J Marion Sims simply conformed to the norms of their time. But fresh looks at history can revise conceptions of past norms. Antebellum African-Americans, as Britt Rusert has shown, boldly challenged the racist science of their day by drawing on Charles Darwins new evidence that all humans share a common ancestor. There were more options available at the time than is conventionally admitted. Just as the movements to remove Confederate statues, or those of British colonial rulers, force us to re-examine officially sanctioned versions of history, so the movement to topple monuments to racist scientists offers an opportunity to rewrite the histories of science.

Yarden Katz is a fellow in the department of systems biology at Harvard Medical School and an affiliate of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University

Read more: http://ift.tt/2yaQorN

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2yW6JFa via Viral News HQ