#laws have genuine impact and standing for or against a policy makes sense when that’s the only choice on the table

[charliextea]

has it ever occurred to anyone that the black and white thinking of anti-/pro- language is a trauma response and we all probably need therapy? and like, life is not actually black and white almost ever??? because human beings are complicated? and forcing yourself to pick a side and draw a line in the sand all the time is probably really bad for our mental health collectively?

[alittlelessdemocracy]

Chapter 22

Excerpt from Robert Jay Lifton’s excellent book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism:

A discussion of what is most central in the thought reform environment can lead us to a more general consideration of the psychology of human zealotry. For in identifying, on the basis of this study of thought reform, features common to all expressions of ideological totalism, I wish to suggest a set of criteria against which any environment may be judged - a basis for answering the ever-recurring question: "Isn't this just like 'brainwashing'?"

These criteria consist of eight psychological themes which are predominant within the social field of the thought reform milieu. Each has a totalistic quality; each depend upon an equally absolute philosophical assumption; and each mobilizes certain individual emotional tendencies, mostly of a polarizing nature. In combination they create an atmosphere which may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which at the same time poses the gravest of human threats.

1. Milieu Control

The most basic feature of the thought reform environment, the psychological current upon which all else depends, is the control of human communication. Through this milieu control the totalist environment seeks to establish domain over not only the individual's communication with the outside (all that he sees and hears, reads or writes, experiences, and expresses), but also - in its penetration of his inner life - over what we may speak of as his communication with himself. It creates an atmosphere uncomfortably reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984.

Such milieu control never succeeds in becoming absolute, and its own human apparatus can - when permeated by outside information - become subject to discordant "noise" beyond that of any mechanical apparatus. To totalist administrators, however, such occurrences are no more than evidences of "incorrect" use of the apparatus. For they look upon milieu control as a just and necessary policy, one which need not be kept secret: thought reform participants may be in doubt as to who is telling what to whom, but the fact that extensive information about everyone is being conveyed to the authorities is always known. At the center of this self-justification is their assumption of omniscience, their conviction that reality is their exclusive possession. Having experienced the impact of what they consider to be an ultimate truth (and having the need to dispel any possible inner doubts of their own), they consider it their duty to create an environment containing no more and no less than this "truth." In order to be the engineers of the human soul, they must first bring it under full observational control.

2. Mystical Manipulation

The inevitable next step after milieu control is extensive personal manipulation. This manipulation assumes a no-holds-barred character, and uses every possible device at the milieu's command, no matter how bizarre or painful. Initiated from above, it seeks to provoke specific patterns of behavior and emotion in such a way that these will appear to have arisen spontaneously, directed as it is by an ostensibly omniscient group, must assume, for the manipulated, a near-mystical quality.

Ideological totalists do not pursue this approach solely for the purpose of maintaining a sense of power over others. Rather they are impelled by a special kind of mystique which not only justifies such manipulations, but makes them mandatory. Included in this mystique is a sense of "higher purpose," of having "directly perceived some imminent law of social development," and of being themselves the vanguard of this development. By thus becoming the instruments of their own mystique, they create a mystical aura around the manipulating institutions - the Party, the Government, the Organization. They are the agents "chosen" (by history, by God, or by some other supernatural force) to carry out the "mystical imperative," the pursuit of which must supersede all considerations of decency or of immediate human welfare. Similarly, any thought or action which questions the higher purpose is considered to be stimulated by a lower purpose, to be backward, selfish, and petty in the face of the great, overriding mission. This same mystical imperative produces the apparent extremes of idealism and cynicism which occur in connection with the manipulations of any totalist environment: even those actions which seem cynical in the extreme can be seen as having ultimate relationship to the "higher purpose."

At the level of the individual person, the psychological responses to this manipulative approach revolve about the basic polarity of trust and mistrust. One is asked to accept these manipulations on a basis of ultimate trust (or faith): "like a child in the arms of its mother." He who trusts in this degree can experience the manipulations within the idiom of the mystique behind them: that is, he may welcome their mysteriousness, find pleasure in their pain, and feel them to be necessary for the fulfillment of the "higher purpose" which he endorses as his own. But such elemental trust is difficult to maintain; and even the strongest can be dissipated by constant manipulation.

When trust gives way to mistrust (or when trust has never existed) the higher purpose cannot serve as adequate emotional sustenance. The individual then responds to the manipulations through developing what I shall call the psychology of the pawn. Feeling himself unable to escape from forces more powerful than himself, he subordinates everything to adapting himself to them. He becomes sensitive to all kinds of cues, expert at anticipating environmental pressures, and skillful in riding them in such a way that his psychological energies merge with the tide rather than turn painfully against himself. This requires that he participate actively in the manipulation of others, as well as in the endless round of betrayals and self-betrayals which are required.

But whatever his response - whether he is cheerful in the face of being manipulated, deeply resentful, or feels a combination of both - he has been deprived of the opportunity to exercise his capacities for self-expression and independent action.

3. The Demand for Purity

In the thought reform milieu, as in all situations of ideological totalism, the experiential world is sharply divided into the pure and the impure, into the absolutely good and the absolutely evil. The good and the pure are of course those ideas, feelings, and actions which are consistent with the totalist ideology and policy; anything else is apt to be relegated to the bad and the impure. Nothing human is immune from the flood of stern moral judgments. All "taints" and "poisons" which contribute to the existing state of impurity must be searched out and eliminated.

The philosophical assumption underlying this demand is that absolute purity is attainable, and that anything done to anyone in the name of this purity is ultimately moral. In actual practice, however, no one is really expected to achieve such perfection. Nor can this paradox be dismissed as merely a means of establishing a high standard to which all can aspire. Thought reform bears witness to its more malignant consequences: for by defining and manipulating the criteria of purity, and then by conducting an all-out war upon impurity, the ideological totalists create a narrow world of guilt and shame. This is perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, a demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something which not only does not exist but is in fact alien to the human condition.

At the level of the relationship between individual and environment, the demand for purity creates what we may term a guilty milieu and a shaming milieu. Since each man's impurities are deemed sinful and potentially harmful to himself and to others, he is, so to speak, expected to expect punishment - which results in a relationship of guilt and his environment. Similarly, when he fails to meet the prevailing standards in casting out such impurities, he is expected to expect humiliation and ostracism - thus establishing a relationship of shame with his milieu. Moreover, the sense of guilt and the sense of shame become highly-valued: they are preferred forms of communication, objects of public competition, and the basis for eventual bonds between the individual and his totalist accusers. One may attempt to simulate them for a while, but the subterfuge is likely to be detected, and it is safer to experience them genuinely.

People vary greatly in their susceptibilities to guilt and shame, depending upon patterns developed early in life. But since guilt and shame are basic to human existence, this variation can be no more than a matter of degree. Each person is made vulnerable through his profound inner sensitivities to his own limitations and to his unfulfilled potential; in other words, each is made vulnerable through his existential guilt. Since ideological totalists become the ultimate judges of good and evil within their world, they are able to use these universal tendencies toward guilt and shame as emotional levers for their controlling and manipulative influences. They become the arbiters of existential guilt, authorities without limit in dealing with others' limitations. And their power is nowhere more evident than in their capacity to "forgive."

The individual thus comes to apply the same totalist polarization of good and evil to his judgments of his own character: he tends to imbue certain aspects of himself with excessive virtue, and condemn even more excessively other personal qualities - all according to their ideological standing. He must also look upon his impurities as originating from outside influences - that is, from the ever-threatening world beyond the closed, totalist ken. Therefore, one of his best way to relieve himself of some of his burden of guilt is to denounce, continuously and hostilely, these same outside influences. The more guilty he feels, the greater his hatred, and the more threatening they seem. In this manner, the universal psychological tendency toward "projection" is nourished and institutionalized, leading to mass hatreds, purges of heretics, and to political and religious holy wars. Moreover, once an individual person has experienced the totalist polarization of good and evil, he has great difficulty in regaining a more balanced inner sensitivity to the complexities of human morality. For these is no emotional bondage greater than that of the man whose entire guilt potential - neurotic and existential - has become the property of ideological totalists.

4. The Cult of Confession

Closely related to the demand for absolute purity is an obsession with personal confession. Confession is carried beyond its ordinary religious, legal, and therapeutic expressions to the point of becoming a cult in itself. There is the demand that one confess to crimes one has not committed, to sinfulness that is artificially induced, in the name of a cure that is arbitrarily imposed. Such demands are made possible not only by the ubiquitous human tendencies toward guilt and shame but also by the need to give expression to these tendencies. In totalist hands, confession becomes a means of exploiting, rather than offering solace for, these vulnerabilities.

The totalist confession takes on a number of special meanings. It is first a vehicle for the kind of personal purification which we have just discussed, a means of maintaining a perpetual inner emptying or psychological purge of impurity; this purging milieu enhances the totalists' hold upon existential guilt. Second, it is an act of symbolic self-surrender, the expression of the merging of individual and environment. Third, it is a means of maintaining an ethos of total exposure - a policy of making public (or at least known to the Organization) everything possible about the life experiences, thoughts, and passions of each individual, and especially those elements which might be regarded as derogatory.

The assumption underlying total exposure (besides those which relate to the demand for purity) is the environment's claim to total ownership of each individual self within it. Private ownership of the mind and its products - of imagination or of memory - becomes highly immoral. The accompanying rationale (or rationalization) is familiar, the milieu has attained such a perfect state of enlightenment that any individual retention of ideas or emotions has become anachronistic.

The cult of confession can offer the individual person meaningful psychological satisfactions in the continuing opportunity for emotional catharsis and for relief of suppressed guilt feelings, especially insofar as these are associated with self-punitive tendencies to get pleasure from personal degradation. More than this, the sharing of confession enthusiasms can create an orgiastic sense of "oneness," of the most intense intimacy with fellow confessors and of the dissolution of self into the great flow of the Movement. And there is also, at least initially, the possibility of genuine self-revelation and of self-betterment through the recognition that "the thing that has been exposed is what I am."

But as totalist pressures turn confession into recurrent command performances, the element of histrionic public display takes precedence over genuine inner experience. Each man becomes concerned with the effectiveness of his personal performance, and this performance sometimes comes to serve the function of evading the very emotions and ideas about which one feels most guilty - confirming the statement by one of Camus' characters that "authors of confessions write especially to avoid confessing, to tell nothing of what they know." The difficulty, of course, lies in the inevitable confusion which takes place between the actor's method and his separate personal reality, between the performer and the "real me."

In this sense, the cult of confession has effects quite the reverse of its ideal of total exposure: rather than eliminating personal secrets, it increases and intensifies them. In any situation the personal secret has two important elements: first, guilty and shameful ideas which one wishes to suppress in order to prevent their becoming known by others or their becoming too prominent in one's own awareness; and second, representations of parts of oneself too precious to be expressed except when alone or when involved in special loving relationships formed around this shared secret world. Personal secrets are always maintained in opposition to inner pressures toward self-exposure. The totalist milieu makes contact with these inner pressures through its own obsession with the expose and the unmasking process. As a result old secrets are revived and new ones proliferate; the latter frequently consist of resentments toward or doubts about the Movement, or else are related to aspects of identity still existing outside of the prescribed ideological sphere. Each person becomes caught up in a continuous conflict over which secrets to preserve and which to surrender, over ways to reveal lesser secrets in order to protect more important ones; his own boundaries between the secret and the known, between the public and the private, become blurred. And around one secret, or a complex of secrets, there may revolve an ultimate inner struggle between resistance and self-surrender.

Finally, the cult of confession makes it virtually impossible to attain a reasonable balance between worth and humility. The enthusiastic and aggressive confessor becomes like Camus' character whose perpetual confession is his means of judging others: "[I]…practice the profession of penitent to be able to end up as a judge…the more I accuse myself, the more I have a right to judge you." The identity of the "judge-penitent" thus becomes a vehicle for taking on some of the environment's arrogance and sense of omnipotence. Yet even this shared omnipotence cannot protect him from the opposite (but not unrelated) feelings of humiliation and weakness, feelings especially prevalent among those who remain more the enforced penitent than the all-powerful judge.

5. The "Sacred Science"

The totalist milieu maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic dogma, holding it out as an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. This sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself. While thus transcending ordinary concerns of logic, however, the milieu at the same time makes an exaggerated claim of airtight logic, of absolute "scientific" precision. Thus the ultimate moral vision becomes an ultimate science; and the man who dares to criticize it, or to harbor even unspoken alternative ideas, becomes not only immoral and irreverent, but also "unscientific." In this way, the philosopher kings of modern ideological totalism reinforce their authority by claiming to share in the rich and respected heritage of natural science.

The assumption here is not so much that man can be God, but rather that man's ideas can be God: that an absolute science of ideas (and implicitly, an absolute science of man) exists, or is at least very close to being attained; that this science can be combined with an equally absolute body of moral principles; and that the resulting doctrine is true for all men at all times. Although no ideology goes quite this far in overt statement, such assumptions are implicit in totalist practice.

At the level of the individual, the totalist sacred science can offer much comfort and security. Its appeal lies in its seeming unification of the mystical and the logical modes of experience (in psychoanalytic terms, of the primary and secondary thought processes). For within the framework of the sacred science, and sweeping, non-rational "insights." Since the distinction between the logical and the mystical is, to begin with, artificial and man-made, an opportunity for transcending it can create an extremely intense feeling of truth. But the posture of unquestioning faith - both rationally and non-rationally derived - is not easy to sustain, especially if one discovers that the world of experience is not nearly as absolute as the sacred science claims it to be.

Yet so strong a hold can the sacred science achieve over his mental processes that if one begins to feel himself attracted to ideas which either contradict or ignore it, he may become guilty and afraid. His quest for knowledge is consequently hampered, since in the name of science he is prevented from engaging in the receptive search for truth which characterizes the genuinely scientific approach. And his position is made more difficult by the absence, in a totalist environment, of any distinction between the sacred and the profane: there is no thought or action which cannot be related to the sacred science. To be sure, one can usually find areas of experience outside its immediate authority; but during periods of maximum totalist activity (like thought reform) any such areas are cut off, and there is virtually no escape from the milieu's ever-pressing edicts and demands. Whatever combination of continued adherence, inner resistance, or compromise co-existence the individual person adopts toward this blend of counterfeit science and back-door religion, it represents another continuous pressure toward personal closure, toward avoiding, rather than grappling with, the kinds of knowledge and experience necessary for genuine self-expression and for creative development.

6. Loading the Language

The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. In [Chinese Communist] thought reform, for instance, the phrase "bourgeois mentality" is used to encompass and critically dismiss ordinarily troublesome concerns like the quest for individual expression, the exploration of alternative ideas, and the search for perspective and balance in political judgments. And in addition to their function as interpretive shortcuts, these cliches become what Richard Weaver has called "ultimate terms" : either "god terms," representative of ultimate good; or "devil terms," representative of ultimate evil. In [Chinese Communist] thought reform, "progress," "progressive," "liberation," "proletarian standpoints" and "the dialectic of history" fall into the former category; "capitalist," "imperialist," "exploiting classes," and "bourgeois" (mentality, liberalism, morality, superstition, greed) of course fall into the latter. Totalist language then, is repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical, relentlessly judging, and to anyone but its most devoted advocate, deadly dull: in Lionel Trilling's phrase, "the language of nonthought."

To be sure, this kind of language exists to some degree within any cultural or organizational group, and all systems of belief depend upon it. It is in part an expression of unity and exclusiveness: as Edward Sapir put it, "'He talks like us' is equivalent to saying 'He is one of us.'" The loading is much more extreme in ideological totalism, however, since the jargon expresses the claimed certitudes of the sacred science. Also involved is an underlying assumption that language - like all other human products - can be owned and operated by the Movement. No compunctions are felt about manipulating or loading it in any fashion; the only consideration is its usefulness to the cause.

For an individual person, the effect of the language of ideological totalism can be summed up in one word: constriction. He is, so to speak, linguistically deprived; and since language is so central to all human experience, his capacities for thinking and feeling are immensely narrowed. This is what Hu meant when he said, "using the same pattern of words for so long…you feel chained." Actually, not everyone exposed feels chained, but in effect everyone is profoundly confined by these verbal fetters. As in other aspects of totalism, this loading may provide an initial sense of insight and security, eventually followed by uneasiness. This uneasiness may result in a retreat into a rigid orthodoxy in which an individual shouts the ideological jargon all the louder in order to demonstrate his conformity, hide his own dilemma and his despair, and protect himself from the fear and guilt he would feel should he attempt to use words and phrases other than the correct ones. Or else he may adapt a complex pattern of inner division, and dutifully produce the expected cliché's in public performances while in his private moments he searches for more meaningful avenues of expression. Either way, his imagination becomes increasingly dissociated from his actual life experiences and may tend to atrophy from disuse.

7. Doctrine Over Person

This sterile language reflects characteristic feature of ideological totalism: the subordination of human experience to the claims of doctrine. This primacy of doctrine over person is evident in the continual shift between experience itself and the highly abstract interpretation of such experience - between genuine feelings and spurious cataloguing of feelings. It has much to do with the peculiar aura of half-reality which totalist environment seems, at least to the outsider, to possess.

The inspiriting force of such myths cannot be denied; nor can one ignore their capacity for mischief. For when the myth becomes fused with the totalist sacred science, the resulting "logic" can be so compelling and coercive that it simply replaces the realities of individual experience. Consequently, past historical events are retrospectively altered, wholly rewritten, or ignored, to make them consistent with the doctrinal logic. This alteration becomes especially malignant when its distortions are imposed upon individual memory as occurred in the false confession extracted during thought reform.

The same doctrinal primacy prevails in the totalist approach to changing people: the demand that character and identity be reshaped, not in accordance with one's special nature or potentialities, but rather to fit the rigid contours of the doctrinal mold. The human is thus subjected to the ahuman. And in this manner, the totalists, as Camus phrases it, "put an abstract idea above human life, even if they call it history, to which they themselves have submitted in advance and to which they will decide arbitrarily, to submit everyone else as well."

The underlying assumption is that the doctrine - including its mythological elements - is ultimately more valid, true, and real than is any aspect of actual human character or human experience. Thus, even when circumstances require that a totalist movement follow a course of action in conflict with or outside of the doctrine, there exists what Benjamin Schwartz described as a "will to orthodoxy" which requires an elaborate facade of new rationalizations designed to demonstrate the unerring consistency of the doctrine and the unfailing foresight which it provides. But its greater importance lies in more hidden manifestations, particularly the totalists' pattern of imposing their doctrine-dominated remolding upon people in order to seek confirmation of (and again, dispel their own doubts about) this same doctrine. Rather than modify the myth in accordance with experience, the will to orthodoxy requires instead that men be modified in order to reaffirm the myth.

The individual person who finds himself under such doctrine-dominated pressure to change is thrust into an intense struggle with his own sense of integrity, a struggle which takes place in relation to polarized feelings of sincerity and insincerity. In a totalist environment, absolute "sincerity" is demanded; and the major criterion for sincerity is likely to be one's degree of doctrinal compliance - both in regard to belief and to direction of personal change. Yet there is always the possibility of retaining an alternative version of sincerity (and of reality), the capacity to imagine a different kind of existence and another form of sincere commitment. These alternative visions depend upon such things as the strength of previous identity, the penetration of the milieu by outside ideas, and the retained capacity for eventual individual renewal. The totalist environment, however, counters such "deviant" tendencies with the accusation that they stem entirely from personal "problems" ("thought problems" or "ideological problems") derived from untoward earlier influences. The outcome will depend largely upon how much genuine relevance the doctrine has for the individual emotional predicament. And even for those to whom it seems totally appealing, the exuberant sense of well-being it temporarily affords may be more a "delusion of wholeness" than an expression of true and lasting inner harmony.

8. The Dispensing of Existence

The totalist environment draws a sharp line between those whose right to existence can be recognized, and those who possess no such right.

Are not men presumtuous to appoint themselves the dispensers of human existence? Surely this is a flagrant expression of what the Greeks called hubris, of arrogant man making himself God. Yet one underlying assumption makes this arrogance mandatory: the conviction that there is just one path to true existence, just one valid mode of being, and that all others are perforce invalid and false. Totalists thus feel themselves compelled to destroy all possibilities of false existence as a means of furthering the great plan of true existence to which they are committed.

For the individual, the polar emotional conflict is the ultimate existential one of "being versus nothingness." He is likely to be drawn to a conversion experience, which he sees as the only means of attaining a path of existence for the future. The totalist environment - even when it does not resort to physical abuse - thus stimulates in everyone a fear of extinction or annihilation. A person can overcome this fear and find (in martin Buber's term) "confirmation," not in his individual relationships, but only from the fount of all existence, the totalist Organization. Existence comes to depend upon creed (I believe, therefore I am), upon submission (I obey, therefore I am) and beyond these, upon a sense of total merger with the ideological movement. Ultimately of course one compromises and combines the totalist "confirmation" with independent elements of personal identity; but one is ever made aware that, should he stray too far along this "erroneous path," his right to existence may be withdrawn.

[mayansmcx]

Hell Hath No Fury - An Invitation (part 2)

The car ride starts off just like any other car ride between two people who don't know each other but now have to spend the next two hours together: quiet and awkward.

After a few minutes of tense silence, I decide to muster up the confidence I had right before we started our drive back. Luckily, charging head long into conversations in potentially uncomfortable situations is something I'm great at.

"So, how long have you known those guys?" I ask.

He looks at me quickly before shifting to lean against the door. His eyes are fixated out the window as he replies "Coco, man I don't even know how long. Feels like forever though. And EZ, I've known him since he was born."

"Brothers?" I inquire.

"Yeah but I got the better genes in the family 'cuz clearly I'm the sexier one" he says as he lays his hand on his chest in emphasis.

"Well I was just gonna say that, obviously. Poor EZ must have had such a hard time growing up with a GQ cover model as a brother," I laugh.

He seems more at ease too, "You say that like a joke, but we both know I'm fine."

I shake my head and chuckle and we return back to the previous state of silence.

"So..." he begins, apparently feeling like it's his turn to break the tension, "how long have you worked for Pena? I haven't seen you around much before."

"You make it a habit to know all of the Mayor's staff?" I start to joke. "But no, I've been here about six months now."

"What is it you do for her exactly?" He asks, his interest seemingly genuine.

"I basically oversee all her staff. Handle the day to day stuff, coordinate things for her, advise her on things. I'm pretty much her right hand." The answer never changes but the more I have to explain it, the more boring it sounds.

"So she says jump and you say..." he starts off before I jump in.

"I say 'how high? Through which hoop? Have you considered what me jumping through this hoop will do for re-election? Have you considered how jumping over skipping may impact our optics?'" I rattle on.

His eyes widen a second as he processes what I'm sure is my alarmingly unpolished personality. "How'd you get into working here?" he fires off another question.

"Well, in college I majored in Political Science. My dad got me into politics at a young age. I tried on a bunch of different majors: Nursing, English, hell, even Philosophy, but none of them kept my interest and I'd find myself debating constitutional rights and policy with the weird school protestors. After I graduated, I did a fellowship program up in Sacramento in the Capitol. From there I headed up the campaign for a Congressman and when he won election he brought me on as his Communications Director in DC. Shortly after that, he made me his Chief when his other one crashed and burned." I explain. 

"Is the money good?" He asks

"Growing up my dad always told me 'you can do anything for money but if you spend 40 years of your life doing something you hate, you will never be happy.' But that being said, no, the money doesn't suck for the most part. I took a huge pay cut coming from DC to here, but I'm happier. Or at least I think I am." I tell him

"So why aren't you in DC?" He prompts further.

"That's a long, complicated story. Anyways, what about you? Are bar fights your favorite hobby?" I ask, hoping he'll gloss over me trying to change the subject.

"Not always," he says, "but sometimes people piss me the fuck off".

"So you're a hot head" It's not a question, but a statement.

"I like to think I'm just a passionate guy." He jokes.

"Ok, hot head" I laugh.

The rest of the ride, the tension dissipates. The conversation remains light; I talk a little bit about college and some of the things I've seen and done in DC, and he tells me bits and pieces of his story in return, neither of us delving into anything serious or heavy.

We work our way back into Santo Padre and he starts to guide me to wherever it is I need to drop him off.

"So where is it that I'm taking you?" I ask.

"The scrapyard. Bish will probably want to see you again, you know, to say thanks and all that" he tells me.

"That's fine" I tell him.

We eventually pull up into the scrapyard, which based on the signs is called "Romero Brothers Scrap & Salvage". I park and Angel and I both exit the car.

"This way." He indicates as he sets off to the main doors.

We walk in and see everyone dispersed around the room. EZ is behind the bar that Coco is sitting at, while Bishop and Taza are casually talking to other members on the couch.

"Hey Prez, we're back." Angel interjects when their conversation seems to hit a lull.

Bishop looks up and sees us both, stands up, and walks over to us.

"Glad to see you in one piece, Angel" He slaps his hand down on Angel's back twice. "And Lennon, thanks again for doing this for us.' He says earnestly.

"It was no trouble at all, my pleasure really. It's not every day you get to be on the inside of Fight Club" I smile, hearing Angel suck his teeth and bite back a retort.

"Coco says you scared the piss out of the badges." Bishop says, sounding amused.

"They got under my skin. When people get under my skin, my mouth runs faster than my brain can filter. The results are always amusing for someone, not always amusing for me though" I smirk.

"Sounds like you and Angel have that in common" Bishop says, a smile on his face.

"Seems so. Only I have the common sense to use my mouth and not my fists." I wink at Angel.

"I bet you do." Angel catches the innuendo I inadvertently made.

Rolling my eyes, I look back at Bishop who is now flanked by Taza.

"ANYWAYS," I sarcastically emphasize, "it was a pleasure helping you guys out." I tell the two leading members.

"Thanks again" Bishop nods, he starts to turn away before quickly facing me again. "We're having a get together tonight. You should come so we can express our gratitude properly. There's booze, and we'll even have Angel fight tonight that way you can see what it is that you released back into society." He smirks.

"Yeah, that actually sounds great. I don't get out much since Toni... uh Mayor Pena... is the only person I ever really see. Work is never done, ya know?" I tell them.

"'Toni?' You and the Mayor are tight?" Coco suddenly jumps into the conversation; I was unaware he'd been listening.

"Yeah," I say, pissed at myself for letting that slip. "It's not something I like to broadcast. I'd rather people know I got here on my own merits than thinking I'm just my friends lapdog. I met her during my fellowship." I explain further.

"That one up in Sac, right?" Angel asks without missing a beat.

"That's the one" I smile.

"Angel finally pays attention for once" EZ jokes.

"Tch, shut up, EZ" Angel shoves him.

I'm thoroughly enjoying this interaction, feeling incredibly comfortable in the presence of men who are well documented to be on the other side of the law when I see a black Escalade pull into the scrapyard.

"Seems you guy have some company, let me get out of your hair. I'll see you guys tonight. What time?"  I ask the group.

"Eight O'Clock" EZ tells me.

"Alright, see you then" I smile brightly as I start to turn around. With all the smiling I've done today I thank god my parents invested in good orthodontia work when I was in high school.

"Shit!" I hear one of the men say as I press my hand on the door to swing it open.

As I make my way through the lot back to my car, I see the men start to exit the Escalade, but can really only make out the details of the two closest to me. The man coming from the back is well dressed in what is easily a designer suit. His hair is styled meticulously, and his face is well chiseled. The man next to him has two long braids and even from a distance looks intimidating. As I slide into my car, I make eye contact with them both. I start my car and begin to pull away. Looking in my sideview mirror I can see they are still watching me; it's almost as if they want to ensure I leave. A chill rushes down my spine briefly which causes me to laugh.

I've been in the room with serious power players before, two random men from a tiny city in the middle of nowhere are hardly any threat. I think.

[theoptimisticpatriot]

Who speaks for England?

How the people of England view England, Britain and the union

A St George’s Day blog first published by the Centre for English Identity and Politics

This is the 21st St George’s Day since devolution left England as the only part of the United Kingdom with no national democracy. With the union at the centre of public debate once again it’s a good time to talk about England and the people who live here. As by far its largest part, what happens in England is frequently more consequential for the union than events in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Rather than weigh into the constitutional debate, I will share some thoughts on the different ways people in England see the nation, the union, Englishness and Britishness. For years, politicians and commentators alike have struggled to find a consistent language with which to talk to and about England and its place within the union. In part, this stems from confusion about how the people of England see themselves.

I’ll sketch the three main strands of thinking about nation and union. In the real world they are blended together in different measure. But they are distinct enough to shape the politics of England and of the union.

The dominant ‘Anglo-centric British unionists’ are not just unionists who live in England: they have a view of the union that is uniquely English. The ‘Political English’ are a recently influential group prioritising their view of England’s interests. The ‘New British’, another emerging identity, have a form of Britishness shared by a younger, graduate, cosmopolitan England and by many of England’s ethnic minorities.

All three are distinctly English — that’s true even for those who reject the very idea of being English. They are views of England and the union that are rooted in England, shaped in England, and much harder to find outside England. As we meet them, it should become clearer why the much vaunted ‘English nationalism’ hasn’t yet materialised.

The ‘Anglo-centric British unionists’

The largest and most hegemonic group is Anglo-centric British unionism. Its roots lie in England’s historic view of the union as, in essence, the extension of English institutions and the expression of English interests. In the assertive form of most Leave leaders and personified by Boris Johnson it can properly be described as Anglo-centric British nationalism. It also dominates the outlook of the Labour Party in England, the Whitehall civil service machine, the London-based UK media, and England’s cultural and arts establishment.

If the English have seen England at the heart of the union (and at the heart of empire) Scotland’s claim on the union insisted on respect for its distinct national culture, legal and education system. The balance between those different views of the union has crumbled as the different parts of the union have taken different political directions. The Conservatives dominate England (but lose everywhere else). The SNP has displaced Labour in Scotland. Wales has its own distinct and currently Labour led politics. The old Ulster Unionist/Tory and SDLP/Labour alignments have broken down. British politics, in the sense of every part of Britain being contested by the same parties, no longer really exists and may not return.

The effect has been to make the Anglo-centric British nationalism of English Conservatism the all-powerful government of England and of the union.

So, for example, in its handling of the NI Protocol and the Internal Market Bill, the Anglo-centric British nationalist union government gave England’s interest in Brexit priority over the interests of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland in membership of the union. It lies behind the desperate attempt to save the union with more flags and cheques with union jacks on the back.

But we shouldn’t forget that the Remain campaign in England was also run by Anglo-centric British unionists. Remain campaigned as ‘Wales Stronger in Europe’, ‘Scotland Stronger in Europe’ and — only in England — ‘Britain Stronger in Europe’. Attlee’s Labour was a British nationalist and unionist government in which Labour could accommodate Scottish and Welsh views of the union. From the 1970s nationalist pressures led Scottish and Welsh Labour to define their national interests against the politics of England, a process accelerated by Thatcherism and the collapse of the post-war consensus. This delivered devolution but left Labour in England with a residual Anglo-centric British unionism. Labour in England calls itself UK Labour, never names England even when talking about England, opposes any national English democratic institutions, and asserts the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament and the union government. Its leaders use the union flag alone to represent national patriotism.

Whitehall is riddled with Anglo-centric assumptions about the union, either ignoring the devolved administrations or acting as though they do not (or should not) exist . When the pandemic started, the London based UK media struggled to understand let alone explain why the devolved administrations could make their own lockdown responses. It took complaints from Welsh MPs for Johnson and Hancock to start specifying which nation’s pandemic response they were in charge of. Anglo-centric British unionist assumptions run so deep they are barely recognised let alone articulated.

All strands of Anglo-centric British unionism agree that England needs no democratic national institutions because the union itself provides for English interests. England not only has no Parliament, but no machinery to coordinate English policy and legislation. The inevitable consequence is the concentration of union power in London that makes England the most centralised nation in Europe. Anglo-centric unionism has helped to foster a largely unfocussed English regionalism that sporadically claims a fairer deal from the union government in London. By holding out the possibility of a special deal here or a bit more funding there, the unionist centre divides the localities and prevents them coming together as a coherent force for change.

Those who conflate Anglo-centric British nationalism with a genuine English nationalism should recognise that it has left England with no government, no national democracy, no fair distribution of funding and no serious devolution of power from the centre. It may deliver for some in England; it doesn’t deliver for England as a whole.

‘Political Englishness’

The ‘Political English’ are much more focussed on England as a nation. They combine an emphasis on identifying as English more than British with a tendency to hold strong views on England, the union and the EU. (They tell pollsters they are ‘English not British’ or ‘more English than British’ but most don’t define themselves against Britishness as such — it’s a matter of emphasis). The Political English are also likely to say that a locality is an important part of their identity, so that people with a strong county or regional identity are often strongly English as well. Of all England’s residents they are the least likely to identify as European.

A majority of the Political English want an English Parliament; even more want English MPs alone to make English laws in the Westminster Parliament. They want political parties to stand up for English interests within the union. They think decisions about England should primarily be made at national level, although they are also open to devolution within England.

The Political English have been sceptical of both the United Kingdom and the European Union. While the demand for Brexit was largely shaped by Anglo-centric British nationalists it was the Political English who delivered the crucial votes. Their support for UKIP forced the Conservative party to offer a referendum. When it was held 70% of the ‘more English than British’ voted to Leave (while the equally English and British split 50:50 and a majority of the more British voted Remain).

The Political English believe devolution has been unfair on England and far too generous to Scotland in particular. Only a minority support English independence, but most would be unconcerned if the union broke up. During the tortuous debates on the EU Withdrawal Treaty Parliament the Political English thought it was more important to complete Brexit than keep Scotland in the union or safeguard the NI Peace Process (although few may have believed that either would be the actual outcome).

The political English are a 21st century phenomenon. At the turn of the millennium, it mattered relatively little whether a voter was English, British or any combination of the two. But the collective impact of asymmetric devolution, globalisation, economic restructuring, austerity, the expansion of higher education and mass immigration seems to have fostered the resentful and distinctive Political Englishness that culminated in the Brexit vote and a powerful endorsement for Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party in the ‘Get Brexit Done’ election of 2019.

While many had always been Conservative voters, large numbers also come from former Labour communities. Like the rest of England, the Political English have become steadily more liberal on migration in recent years, but they were the most disconcerted by the impact of mass immigration on their settled idea of community. The gap has widened between the liberal cosmopolitan values of England’s major cities and younger graduates and the Political English who are more likely to live in less diverse and smaller communities.

The curious absence of English nationalism

We can see that what some call English nationalism, as manifest in the Brexit vote, is the product of two rather different groups: Anglo-centric British unionism and Political Englishness. But the description doesn’t fit either. England’s unionism is British nationalist, not English. As for Political Englishness, it’s a strange sort of nationalism that has no significant political party, no programme, no public intellectuals, nor social or civic institutions. So, if Political Englishness shows the similar concerns for ideas of the national interest, of national governance, democracy, and sovereignty that are found in other political nationalisms, why hasn’t Political Englishness found expression as a genuine political nationalism with its own part(ies), programmes and leaders? Why has it played only an enabling role for an Anglo-centric British nationalism that rejects many of its English aspirations?

In part there has been an absence of political leadership. The Political English occupy a part of the political landscape that is left of centre economically but socially conservative. Until now, no political party has tried seriously to represent this combination of values.

But the bigger issue is that while the defining values of Political Englishness are deeply held they are also narrow. Political Englishness does not as yet represent a rounded view of England as a nation, society or economy. Unlike other nationalisms political Englishness represents neither a shared history nor common values around which a vision of the future can be shaped. While it could be mobilised by a Euroscepticism it shared with Anglo-centric British nationalism, it does not have the agency to mobilise itself. The power of Anglo-centric British unionism has kept political Englishness narrow and subordinate. Denied a forum in which England can re-imagine itself as a 21st century nation, the Political English are left poorly represented in the political system.

‘New Britishness’

Like political Englishness, New Britishness is a relatively recent development. Don’t be fooled by the label, or by their tendency to describe themselves as ‘more British than English’, the New British are just as English as the others I have described (though they may well not identify as such).

New Britishness has two strands. In part it is the product of British multiculturalism. In part it has also become the national identity of choice of the expanding liberal, cosmopolitan, graduate populations centred in London and other major and university cities.

While political Englishness is usually quite comfortable with British identity, New Britishness often defines itself against Englishness. For liberal cosmopolitans, the rejection of Englishness may not only be a response to a perceived ‘small c’ conservatism and less positive attitudes towards diversity, but also a deeper rejection of ideas of national belonging and patriotism themselves. For many members of ethnic minorities, hesitation to identify as English may often reflect a lingering sense that somehow Englishness is not ‘open’ to them.

At the current time the attitudes of these two groups towards ideas of England, Britain and the union are sufficiently similar to regard the New British as a single phenomenon.

But it’s not clear how long these two strands of New Britishness will stay intertwined. As Englishness become inexorably more inclusive it is becoming more attractive to ethnic minorities, particularly those born in England. At the same time, significant parts of many ethnic minority communities share a broader social conservatism, strong sense of group identity and an openness to patriotism that is much more akin to the political English.

New Britishness only really exists in England. And for all it calls itself British, it is quite unlike conceptions of Britishness found elsewhere in England or the rest of the union.

‘British multi-culturalism’ only happened in England. The Britishness represented by shared citizenship was the focus, reinforced by the assumption of Anglo-centric British unionism that British, rather than English, was the proper national identity for England. The civil society and political leaders of Scotland and Wales, and the minority communities in those nations, were able to pursue their own paths towards inclusive ideas of national identity. It is no coincidence that British values are only on the curriculum in English schools. In its own right British multiculturalism was a success story and a product of popular struggles to challenge racially defined national identity, but Englishness was excluded from the multi-cultural project. Though becoming rapidly becoming more inclusive, Englishness has lagged in finding its own multi-cultural forms. This progress is often hindered by the vehemence with which the New British insist that Englishness is and will always be a reactionary identity. (Ironically, this insistence finds a receptive audience in Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists, thereby reinforcing the idea of England as ‘the other’ and undermining the very Britishness of the New British).

The New British have very different values to other British identifiers in England, and those in Scotland and Wales. In England the New British were overwhelmingly Remain voters. The British in Scotland and Wales were more likely to vote Leave (as were many in England who were both English and British). The New British — British more than English — tend to be less patriotic than either the English or the equally English and British. They are more likely to identify also as European or hold another national identity. The liberal cosmopolitan values held by many of the new British do not sit easily with the social conservatism common amongst many Anglo-centric British nationalists.

Unlike Anglo-centric British unionism, New Britishness sometimes doesn’t rest on any clear ideas about Britain as a nation, state or union at all. Opposed to any recognition of the England within the union it has yet to produce any distinct contribution to debates about the future of the union, nor to developing a shared history or values on which the future of Britain or the union could be built. In Scotland and Wales, younger, more highly educated and liberal voters are often at the core of the nationalist project. In England the same New British voters often eschew any idea of a national politics at all.

The New British now provide the bedrock of support for Labour in England — Labour actually beat the Conservatives amongst these voters in 2019 — and much of the support of the Liberal Democrats and Greens too. Labour’s membership and activists reflect the same world view and combine with the Anglo-centric unionism of its leadership to exclude England from the national story. If the Conservatives have recently enjoyed the support of the majority of the political English, Labour has been the expression of new Britishness. Neither seems able to speak to voters across England’s tribes.

Who speaks for England?

These pen pictures are caricatures, of course. They only illustrate tendencies to think in a certain way. As a ‘more English than British’, Remain voting, Labour activist on the party’s soft left, even I don’t fit the picture I have painted of political Englishness (even though I share many of its ideas of national democracy and sovereignty). But I hope they do capture some essential truths about the different ways England sees itself, Britain and the union.

All, including England’s unionism and England’s Britishness are clearly English. At root the tension between the different views is not a contest between an idea of England and an idea of Britain, but between different ideas of England. As yet, none have yet managed to tell a compelling story about England and its future. There is no shared vision about what sort of nation and society England might be in the future, how its economy would be run, in whose interests, and which shared values would tie us together. Until there is, we will struggle to understand what England’s future relationship with Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (and indeed the rest of Europe) might look like.

The challenges are clear.

Firstly, the suffocating dominance of a centralising Anglo-centric British unionism has to be challenged by the assertion of English democracy and the case for democratic English national institutions. But this can’t rest on its existing supporters amongst the political English. The case for English democracy must be recast as a civic and democratic reform for all. (If Anglo-centric British unionism isn’t challenged the current union is probably doomed anyway and England may have to confront its own future, but from the most negative possible starting point).

Second, English identity’s long but steady journey towards inclusive and civic for all those who would like to feel English has to be accelerated. It will happen anyway through the lived experience of greater diversity and the symbolism of sport amongst other things, but a much greater engagement by civic society and the state at local and national level is urgently needed.

Third, politicians in England need to talk to and about England. For too long, MPs and Ministers have obfuscated, hiding behind ‘the country’ or ‘Britain, even when they are talking only about England. By doing so they perpetuate the myth that England does not and should not exist and contribute to the marginalisation and stereotyping of Englishness.

Fourth, the emergence of a 21st century England most be supported by those who work in the voluntary sector, culture, academia, the arts and faith organisations. Too many have drunk too deep in the wells of Anglo-centric unionism and New Britishness. Too many are reluctant to explore or reflect the range of views amongst the people who live in England. The New British have a responsibility to engage with, not turn their backs on, the rest of England.

Fifth, the national debate about what our economy and society should look like after Brexit and Covid should no longer be kept separate from discussions about the future of England, how it is governed, where power should lie and in whose interests it is used. This used to be a role played by political parties, think tanks and pressure groups, but few currently show much enthusiasm for the task beyond a limited endorsement of regionalism.

Who speaks for England? At the current time, too few and not that well. Who will take up the challenge?

[premimtimes]

Author: Simbo Olorunfemi

Reviewer: Emman Shehu

Column writing in newspapers, magazines or the social media beyond the entertainment aspect should be a platform not just for sharing knowledge but also a place for interrogating important issues. Everyday for the Goliaths: What Manner of Democracy is this ?, The Devil is not in the Politics and Politics is not a Game for Gentlemen are primarily collections of articles written by Simbo Olorunfemi over a period of five years, from 2014 to 2019.

These 131 articles of varying length including a poem, showcase the prodigious capacity of the author and how he is able to use his background in Political Science, International Law and Diplomacy as well as Journalism to closely appraise a panoply of issues that affect Nigeria.

So in one sense these three books reflect our recent political history from the events that undermined the Jonathan Administration leading to his historic defeat at the polls, and the problematic change under Buhari’s tenure.

Olorunfemi has two quotes that preface Everyday for the Goliaths. One reads:

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.

Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

These are the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was a Lutheran pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident, and key founding member of what was termed the Confessing Church.

His writings on Christianity’s role in the secular world have become widely influential, and his book The Cost of Discipleship has been described as a modern classic. Bonhoeffer’s stance against the Nazis led to his being hanged in 1945.

The other quote is from Proverbs 31: 8-9 and reads: Speak up for the people who have no voice, for the rights of the down and outers. Speak out for justice. Stand up for the poor and destitute.

Olorunfemi’s position is that Nigeria’s history for sixty years has been dominated by Goliaths who have succeeded in undermining the system . Lofty policies are circumvented, governance is incapacitated and politics becomes a tool for mindless power grab.

The consequence is that there is a loss of sense of values which works to the advantage of the Goliaths. In his words: But beyond the incompetence on the part of our leadership and the systemic failure so apparent, the greatest challenge facing our nation today is the lack of an agreed code of conduct. We have lost a sense of appreciation for the right values. We are no longer able to tell apart what is right from what is wrong. Declaration for political office takes precedence over sobriety over loss of lives. Yet in the face of evil staring us all in the face, it is difficult to rally popular support for change among Nigerians. Ethnic and religious bigotry now dominate our thought, discourse and relationships. Pseudo-intellectuals deploy manipulation and fear, across the media, to engineer hatred among the people. The country sits on tenterhooks, rocked to and fro by those bent on pulling it further apart. (EFTG pp 3-4.)

Everyday Goliaths

The manipulations have also ensured that strong institutions which should be the pillars of the society and the support structure of democracy are grossly weakened and rendered ineffective.

All through the three books, detailed examples are given of how these institutions have been sabotaged. These are presented with convincing clarity.

The banking system is characterised by gross violations, so too the judiciary and all the other public institutions. An immediate consequence is that well-thought out policies are distorted to make room for inefficiency which benefits only the manipulators to the detriment of the larger populace.

Fuel subsidy provides a glaring example as as tool for shaping positive economic impact, yet the Goliaths and their allies are able to turn it into “a rent-seeking system fashioned to benefit banks, traders, government officials and all sorts of middlemen.”

At every turn policies and regulations are deliberately rigged without a care so that the public institutions become anti-people every step of the away even in such things as responding to official letters or in registering a trademark or patent.

Olorunfemi highlights the situation with several examples including these personal experiences in The Devil is not in the Politics in the article “Nigeria’s Anti-People Public Institutions and the ‘ise-ijoba’ Syndrome”.

A services platform was set up by the Federal Government not too long ago. It is a month since we engaged with them to register a trademark. No response has come, beyond the initial acknowledgement of receipt of application. How does anyone do business in an environment where the rule of law is away on vacation ? To get justice in the court requires a lot of prayer and fastng – a case we instituted in court against a bank since 2012 is yet to commence hearing even with the front-loading system in Lagos. (TDINITP p203)

These deliberate distortions and manipulations have become cancerous to the extent that they have affected the mindset of the citizenry.

Thus the Goliaths are able to continue to exploit the system and even when there is a semblance of change, they so easily change the narrative and work against anything that would render them irrelevant.

A case in point is the 2015 general elections where the incumbent lost for the time in Nigeria’s political history. The author provides a compelling background for this historic outcome and explains that it was a reaction to the accumulation of the ills that had become untenable within the system. So the eventual winner merely provided a rallying point for the collective expression of angst.

Yet the new path envisaged by that electoral victory has been strewn with serious obstacles because on the one hand those who lost out and in collaboration with the Goliaths are untiring in frustrating the possibilities of change.

Unfortunately, per contra, those who propel the new direction are not doing enough to overcome the hurdles being thrown at them.

So the point is that tough decisions need to be made and followed through with all the commitment necessary because in reality, politics is not a game for gentlemen. In the Biblical narrative featuring Goliath, the giant is eventually vanquished by a determined minnow called David.

Olorunfemi appears to argue that genuine change is possible through a renewed mindset and a willingness to engage the forces of distortion and manipulation. For such a situation to arise, generality of the populace must come to an understanding that change begins with the individual.

We must also begin to question the seeming established nomenclatures that have become vehicles of manipulation. Is there anything like true Federalism ? Is there a perfect constitution? Are strong institutions possible?

The success story of Cadbury is featured in an article and is clearly intended to show that with proper vision and planning and willing adherents, a strong institution can be created with benefits that can be transposed to the larger society thereby creating a ripple effect of progress.

But achieving such success and progress requires a positive vision, the appropriate determination and will to overcome the established system of the Goliaths. There is no place for fence sitting. No place for a negative mindset.

No place for allowing the old ways of emtrenched marginalisation to continue unhindered. The June 12 experience is highlighted as an example of a collectivisation that can work .

In what can pass for a manifesto Olorunfemi propounds in Politics is not a Game for Gentlemen what he terms “16 Random Laws of Politics” and these are:

1. Never underestimate the power of silence.

2. Never forget the base.

3. Never underestimate the power of influence.

4. Never forget that politics is a contest.

5. Get your timing right.

6. Know when to strike,

7. There is a time to sow and a time to reap.

8. You must serve your way up.

9. The end of politics is action.

10. Play with emotion, but don’t get emotional.

11. Know when to pull back, never lose sight of tomorrow.

12. Disruption is not by mouth.

13. What you are seeing is not what you are seeing.

14. Never forget to carry your people along.

15. Politics is essentially not about right or wrong.

16. Know the laws so that you can know how to break them.

In these three books, Olorunfemi establishes himself as one willing to think out of the box as some of his positions clearly show. One would , for instance, expect that given his South West origin and attachment for June 12 and the current crop of progressives, he would align himself with their perception of federalism, fuel subsidy, and constitutional change.

That, however, is not the case as he appears willing to buck the trend but in a pragmatic and well-reasoned manner.

Everyday Goliaths

His passion for changing the fortunes of the downtrodden and marginalised shines through from article to article. He is also able to present his position convincingly not just with detailed facts, but also with engaging witticisms and fresh metaphors earthed in current situations and drawing from his Yoruba heritage.

One comes away seeing a genuine believer in the Nigerian project, determined to sling devastating shots at our Goliaths.

*Dr Shehu is a Nigerian activist, public intellectual and writer who has received education in literature and communication. He is also the director, International Institute of Journalism (IIJ). He has written several press articles, literary books, contributed chapters to books, edited books and journals. His main areas of interest are literature, communication and development, globalisation, African studies and creative writing.

Book Review: Contending with a nation’s goliaths Author: Simbo Olorunfemi Reviewer: Emman Shehu Column writing in newspapers, magazines or the social media beyond the entertainment aspect should be a platform not just for sharing knowledge but also a place for interrogating important issues.

[andrewjohnsonmpls]

The future of policing and community safety

Let’s talk about the future of policing and community safety. First, to dispel any misinformation or misunderstanding right up front: No, the City Council did not vote to abolish the police department. No, there have not been any decisions made on budget cuts. No, we cannot have lawlessness or anarchy. And yes, there are still emergency calls which will require armed law enforcement to respond. Two weeks ago, the world watched in horror, disgust, and anger as George Floyd was murdered by police officers in Minneapolis. For nearly nine minutes he was slowly asphyxiated while he and citizens around him pleaded for officers to stop. We know George Floyd’s murder was not an anomaly. There is a pattern across our nation tracing back 400 years to when Africans were kidnapped, tortured, murdered, and forced into labor through violence. Subjugation didn’t end with slavery. And the disparities we see today in our city run unbroken from the actions and decisions from this past to our present. When I first ran for office, I had a perspective of our police department that many of you have had. I figured there were some bad officers that shouldn’t be in their jobs (much like any other profession), but otherwise the institution was mostly a public good that could use some reforms here and there. Once elected I learned a lot more and realized it wasn’t so simple. I witnessed more than one Mayor and Police Chief work hard to implement reforms. They improved and expanded training, tightened up use of force policies, implemented body-worn cameras, and pushed cultural change that was centered around values we all share. Yet despite these efforts, and the decades worth of efforts that came before them, we were still seeing many problems. Over the past six years I have voted to pay tens of millions of our precious tax dollars to victims of police violence in settlements that would have likely cost taxpayers far more if they proceeded to trial. I watched many videos of this violence and heard time and again about officers with lengthy histories of complaints and payouts against them who were somehow, inexplicably, still on duty and interacting with the public. When Mayor Frey and I moved to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, we later found out that police continued to make arrests and 46 of 47 (97.8%) arrested were black people. Reports continued to come out of big racial disparities in policing. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights just last week opened an investigation into MPD for patterns of racial discrimination and civil rights violations. I have also listened to many residents in our community who are black, indigenous, or people of color who have said that they do not feel safe around today's MPD and shared with me painful personal experiences. There are many more examples of problems. We read about the 3rd Precinct (our precinct) being a “playground for renegade cops” (even after different leaders at the helm were tasked with fixing it). And I have heard from many of you about your disgust with the police union (whose role it is to speak for rank and file officers) smearing the reputation of a murder victim and continuing to show contempt for civilian oversight of law enforcement (a basic tenant in our republic). Ironically, despite all of this, Minneapolis has often been praised as a model for police reform. I believe it’s fair to say that these experiences and observations point to a larger problem than just a few bad apples. It paints the institution of MPD as broken. It is important to reconcile this with the truth that there are many officers who truly do serve with compassion and care. Viewing the institution as broken is not an attack on those individuals who swore an oath to protect and serve. I take responsibility for my part in underestimating the extent of dysfunction within the institution. As a Council Member I have also been frustrated and stymied trying to push for reforms over the years. The City Charter gives the authority over police operations and policymaking to the Mayor. Given our limited authority, the Council has three primary tools available to us: budget approval (top-line numbers), an up/down vote on the appointment of the Chief, and an up/down vote on the police union contract. We used these in ways we felt we could and pushed in many other ways for change.  We made investments in groundbreaking violence intervention work to disrupt the cycle of violence in communities. We funded many of the reforms sought by the Mayor and Chief. We eliminated some laws that, upon analysis, were used to inappropriately target residents while not actually reducing or aiding in the reduction of crime. I led the effort to establish a workgroup that analyzed what calls currently handled by police officers could be better addressed by other trained professionals (and free up time for officers to focus on calls where they were needed). Heck, we even tried to put a City Charter amendment on the ballot for voters to decide if the Council should have some authority in police policymaking so that we could better help with reform efforts (but that never made it onto the ballot due to opposition from some council members). It is with this history, the experiences and voices of community members, and the shortcomings of past reforms that we must ask what to do next. Some may think that the path forward is to keep trying more reforms as has been done for decades. That maybe this time it will somehow be different, and we will get the changes in results we would like to see. I personally don’t think that will be enough. We have seen black leaders and youth rally in this moment and lead the call for change. They have made the request that we join a community-led effort to re-imagine public safety and an alternative to MPD as it exists today. I support their call and stand in solidarity of bringing community together in this work over the next year. The language some use around this makes me uncomfortable, and I know it makes some of you uncomfortable or scared: disband, defund, dismantle, abolish. Some in the media seized on those terms to sensationalize or even mischaracterize the effort. To be clear: no one has been advocating that we simply end MPD without an alternative public safety department to replace it. We cannot have a vacuum where there is no law enforcement, and we know that there will still be a need for armed law enforcement for some emergency calls. We cannot allow anarchy or a wild west situation. Many of you are also exhausted from having to be on high-alert in the aftermath of recent civil unrest and feel that law enforcement is needed more than ever. We also know that there are many calls currently being handled by police that can be handled in a better way. For instance, the crimes that touch our ward the most are property crimes. Right now, rather than having two armed officers come fill out a report after a theft has happened, what if we had someone come out to not only fill out a report but also to proactively: offer a home security audit and connect homeowners with resources? Determine if your block has a leader and if not help establish one? Provide communication to neighbors about this crime and recommend actions they could take? Help gather community impact statements for consideration by judges? Better utilize restorative justice to help break the cycle of crime? (Effectively an expansion of the Crime Prevention Specialist role). These are just some ideas, and I know you all have many more on the ways we can achieve better outcomes that make our community safer. The commitment yesterday to start the process of engaging with community over the next year in re-imagining what a new public safety department could look like is an effort to bring us all together and put every idea on the table. We will need to develop a sound and thoughtful plan if it is to be implemented. We will need community buy-in. We will likely need it to go on the ballot in November 2021, as well as some changes in state laws. And importantly, we will need to be confident that it will result in greater safety for all residents. It’s a bold and challenging undertaking, but if this is not the time to try and consider what we as a community want public safety to look like, then when is? This effort should not hamper immediate actions to implement change to MPD, some of which have already been taken (such as the further tightening of the use of force policy last Friday), and some of which will soon come. I believe it will be important to collaborate with the Mayor and Police Chief in this work, both of whom see the problems and are genuinely committed to change. I also believe we can make some changes in the upcoming budget (no decisions have been made yet) to better invest in proven violence prevention efforts and other community-based strategies for safety. And not lost in all of this are the inequities and instabilities in our communities that result in many of the crimes that occur and must be addressed as well. Some of you are likely skeptical or concerned about this effort to re-imagine public safety and an alternative to MPD as it exists today. I get it. You want to feel safe in our community and maybe believe this is pie in the sky thinking that is unrealistic. But I ask that you keep an open-mind and participate once community engagement efforts are launched. Let’s work together over the next year in this community-led effort to see if we can put together a plan that makes sense, is thoughtful, and will result in a safer community for all. More to come.

(Emailed to constituents June 8th, 2020)

[fatimakhans12345]

Speech by Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel at the 8th Aspen Southeast Europe Foreign Ministers' Conference

Speech by Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel at the 8th Aspen Southeast Europe Foreign Ministers' Conference

-- check against delivery--

My esteemed fellow Foreign Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen,

I am very pleased that you have come here to Berlin!

I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to you, Mr Ambassador, and the Aspen Institute for the hospitality and preparation of this conference.

I am especially pleased to open our discussions today on the Western Balkans together with you, Jacub [Deputy Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic].

Because we stand here today as the representatives of two countries whose parents’ generations still faced each other as bitter enemies.

They became enemies after the peaceful coexistence of our two countries was brutally destroyed by the Nazi policy of expansion and aggression.

Destruction, devastation and forced displacement – all of this left deep and painful scars in the relations between our two countries, the Czech Republic and Germany.

Therefore, we had to rebuild trust and learn again to deal with each other peacefully. This rapprochement required strength, time and also some courage. Because not everybody in the Czech Republic and Germany was in favour of a new beginning after so much violence and hatred.

With the German-Czech Declaration of 1997, we allowed our common history to become fertile ground for a close partnership, and even a friendship. We are now neighbours and friends, closely connected to each other through the European Union.

Today’s conference is another result of the excellent cooperation between the Czech Republic and Germany. This genuine reconciliation between our countries and the very close relations we enjoy today – not only between governments but also between our societies – could perhaps be an inspiration for the Western Balkans, too.

Because when I look at our neighbouring region today, a region which is so important to us, I am concerned about the developments there.

This is why I am convinced: All of us, especially the countries of the region, must work harder for a peaceful, prosperous and European future for the Western Balkans.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me therefore share with you which I think are the trends in the Western Balkans that are worrying me. And also what I think we can do to reverse these trends.

Tensions within and between the region’s countries have increased. We see that political divisions within societies contribute to more confrontational regional politics – and vice-versa. The demons of nationalism and of ethnic divisions that seemed to have been overcome already, seem to be re-emerging.

I believe we have to look closely at what is causing these developments.

We then come to the conclusion that the main problems are homegrown. I am talking about reform gridlock, corruption, economic stagnation and political instability. And we see how fears and unresolved traumas are used to divert attention from these problems. These are issues internal to the region.

However, we must also be aware that the Western Balkans region isn’t immune to what is happening in Europe and around the world.

I am concerned that countries from outside the region try to re-establish spheres of influence through old geopolitical thinking. Thereby, they pit neighbours against each another – and also against the European Union!

Of course, it also doesn’t help either when the impression is created that Europe is primarily attending to its own affairs and does not care enough about the Western Balkans!

These factors – which are not rooted in the region, but have an impact on it – weaken the reform dynamic even further. This is only strengthening the forces that are interested in maintaining a bad status quo.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, something must be done – because the critical developments in the Western Balkans have a direct impact on us in Central Europe.

The positive message here is: The close interdependency also holds true in a positive sense – when things are going well for countries in the Western Balkans, this is also good for the European Union because we need strong partners in the Western Balkans.

Therefore, I am convinced that it is in the interest of the countries of the Western Balkans as well as of the European Union to do everything to jointly adopt the right course again.

And the overall direction is clear since the summit in Thessaloniki, and I would like to reaffirm it: European Union membership for the six countries in the Western Balkans – that’s the goal! Because the accession process and subsequent membership in the European Union are the best ways we can imagine to stabilise the region in the long term.

But an honest analysis also has to include a bitter truth: The prospect of membership in the European Union has lost some of its appeal in recent years in the Western Balkans.

There was always a downturn in enthusiasm for EU accession when the public realised that the process itself is challenging and takes a long time.

There are of course tangible reasons for this trend: The benefits of closer ties with the European Union, as well as the progress already achieved, have so far been barely visible for the populations. On the contrary, many people are primarily confronted with the social hardships that are a consequence of implementing long-needed reforms in the candidate countries.

It is often the elderly and underprivileged who suffer most from this, but also the younger generations. The employment statistics show a clear picture. Youth unemployment is sometimes over 60 percent. This means that young people barely have a chance of finding a suitable job in the domestic labour market.

One of the consequences is that many of those people who have the opportunity “vote with their feet‟ and leave. Young and well-educated people, in particular, are leaving the region in great numbers. This, of course, is the group of people most needed to build thriving economies.

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is therefore clear to me that we can’t simply continue doing things as we did before. And we must target different levels:

Firstly, we must work together on changing the stories that we tell here in the European Union – but also in the countries of the Western Balkans – and adapt them to reality. That applies to all sides!

We in the European Union have to acknowledge, more than we have previously, that such a profound transformation process requires a lot of strength and courage. We must give greater recognition to the fact that societies in the Western Balkans are in the middle of a huge reconstruction process – economically, politically and socially.

However, I think it also means that the elites, in particular, in these countries should avoid telling the wrong stories about the European Union.

The European Union is, of course, not a messiah that can suddenly solve all the problems of the Western Balkans. Such expectations can only lead to disappointment!

And the European Union is also not the devilish power that forces the countries of the Western Balkans to implement reforms. I completely understand that economic reforms are difficult and not always popular – we have seen this in Germany in the last decade and we have similar difficult discussions in the Euro Zone today.

But one thing has to be clear: Regardless of the accession process to the European Union, it is in the interest of the countries of the region to push these reforms ahead. Because this is the only viable way to make their countries competitive in the long term. These reforms are not a favour to the European Union. They are in the interest of your own countries!

But we have to be careful not to limit this conversation to economic issues. We should encourage a more comprehensive discussion.

I say this because sometimes it seems to be forgotten that the EU is first and foremost about peace. There is no better guarantor of peace with your neighbours than being member states of the European Union. Nowhere else in the world can people live with such freedom, safety and social protection as in Europe.

Instead of blaming the European Union for all that goes wrong, responsible politicians should encourage their citizens not to forget this  – because our offer of membership still stands!

We must also make sure that the extensive support that the European Union already provides for the Western Balkan countries becomes more visible. It should not be the case that in Serbia, for example, a large proportion of the population – according to the surveys – still believes that Russia is the country’s largest financial supporter. If the people are completely unaware of everything that the European Union does, it’s hardly surprising that their interest in the accession process is limited.

One example: I don’t understand why one is greeted on the trip from Belgrade Airport into the city centre by a large poster that celebrates the Russian-Serbian friendship, while the yellow and blue of the European Union is totally invisible.

In this regard, we must make significant improvements together – meaning the EU as well as the Western Balkan countries.

However, it isn’t just a matter of the stories that we have to change, ladies and gentlemen. The second level on which something needs to be done is the area of practical cooperation.

We, as Europeans, have to take concrete steps: The European Union’s enlargement process must be enhanced and given additional support. Otherwise, it cannot be ruled out that the Western Balkans will slip away from us before our very eyes. This is not what we want. Therefore, we must stay the course!

That does not mean – and I want to stress this – that I am advocating compromises in the conditions for membership. Nothing of the sort. There should be no discounts in key areas, particularly in relation to the rule of law, the justice system, the fight against corruption and press freedom.

However, I am firmly convinced that we in the European Union must develop more and fresh ideas. Yet not only ideas. We should also provide more financial means for their implementation in order to reduce the social hardships associated with the region’s transformation.

Furthermore, it would be in our own best interests if we were to allow the Western Balkan countries to participate in more of the European Union’s programmes.

Another key point that we have to consider is the strengthening of regional cooperation. I am pleased with the positive dynamic that the “Berlin process” has created. But I also say quite openly that all of us here need to be much more ambitious. We need a “Berlin process reloaded”! The process must generate visible improvements for the local populations. Therefore, we should give priority to ideas aimed at making the region an attractive economic area. This would inevitably lead to closer ties with the European Union and would help to accelerate the accession process.

I therefore welcome the efforts of Commissioner Hahn who is actively working toward the creation of a common economic area in the region. This path is both right and forward-looking; better conditions for intra-regional trade and investment don’t just help to unblock development potential. Economic integration of the Western Balkans based on European standards also makes integration into the European Union easier.

But we should not stop there. We must now also accelerate the large infrastructure projects that are economically vital! Projects that also have special symbolic significance, such as the highway between Serbia, Kosovo and Albania. In order to finance it, I propose that we should set up an additional fund for infrastructure projects. Member states of the EU as well as the EFTA and the European Economic Area could contribute to the fund as donors.

The growth of Industry 4.0 also offers great prospects for the Western Balkans. However, the Western Balkan countries will only be able to benefit from this, if they have an efficient IT infrastructure and if there is a reliable legal framework for IT services. It is imperative that the Western Balkan countries address this collectively so that each country doesn’t end up with a different standard. It is important not to lose any time on this. In my opinion, an IT summit in the region would be an ideal opportunity to promote this idea.

I am convinced that generally more should be done to make the region more attractive for foreign investment.

But we all know that investors are less likely to invest if they feel the rule of law is not taken seriously. So there is also a strong economic argument to strengthen independent institutions: the parliaments, the justice sector and to protect the independence and freedom of the media.

We all know also that countries with well-educated skilled workers are attractive investment locations. Germany has benefited from this for decades. The key to success in our case is dual vocational training, meaning the theoretical transfer of knowledge combined with an apprenticeship at a company.

Why don’t we establish a fund for the countries of the region to finance projects in the area of dual vocational training, which the countries can then apply for? This would create positive competition and ensure that the funds are used where they are really needed.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am aware that all these things cost money. But I say to you: If we don’t make money available today to keep the Western Balkans on the right track during this crucial phase, the consequences will be a lot more expensive for all of us! The European Union needs strong partners in the region.

But, my fellow Foreign Ministers, it is now your responsibility to make it clear to the European Union that your countries want to stay the course in the same way. To stay the course toward a future that won’t just benefit your citizens economically and socially. But a future that also binds your countries together as neighbours in a peaceful manner.

We – Czechs and Germans – have experienced this wonderful transformation! Therefore, I appeal to you to take advantage of this historic opportunity! And I can assure you: We will support you on this path!

Thank you for your attention.

from UK & Germany http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2017/170531-BM-Aspen.html?nn=479796

[medianetworksandprotest]

Kelsey Opiel - Final Assignment

From past to present, new media has been used to enhance and promote certain ideals. One of these examples is Pacifica Radio. Pacifica Radio used various forms of media, both print and electronic, to reach a widespread audience and promote its various messages, which included but were not limited to, progressive political ideals, such as Marxism, opposing the Korean war, marijuana law reformation, and support for the Civil Rights Movement and racial equality. Founded in 1949 by John Lewis and Lewis Hill, the group of independently-run stations, under the umbrella of Pacifica Radio, is famous for developing such things as Democracy Now!, an non-profit alternative news organization, and KPFA Berkeley, a liberal radio station concerned with free speech. (1, 4)

Most notably, Pacifica Radio used, and still uses, radio broadcasts of interviews with influential musicians, activists, and forward thinkers of the time. Interviews were broadcasted on Pacifica Radio’s stations, which hosted guests such as Che Guevara, Latin American revolutionary, Bertrand Russell, who was one of many influential radio guests to oppose the Vietnam war, and Allen Ginsberg, the progressive poet, who brought Beat Poetry to the airwaves in 1955. These big-name, forward thinkers drew in other progressives, particularly in the Berkeley, California area where the radio stations were frequented. Pacifica Radio allowed an intellectual outlet for progressives of the time, who sought both an outlet and breeding ground for their views and oppositions to mainstream government policies and cultural norms. (4)

One of the Pacifica Radio stations used rallies and protests to express their views and make them known to a wider public audience, as well as to promote their revolutionary idea for listener-funded radio based on the concept of free speech. In August of 1999, Pacifica Radio’s station, KPFA, hosted a rally at Sproul Plaza in Berkeley, California, the birthplace of Free Speech Movement in 1964, to argue that their station . 15,000 gathered to march and chanted things like “Whose Station? Our Station!” and “What Do We Want? Free Speech! When Do We Want It? Now!” (3)

Lastly, moving themselves into a newer realm of media, Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!, a non-profit news organization, hosts a daily television to reach its listeners. The point of Democracy Now!, and its show, is to bring to the forefront news stories that are less likely to get picked up by more mainstream news sources, or get watered-down in hopes of not stirring up resentment from viewers. John Downing writes in the book, Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media, “the ongoing daily commitment of Democracy Now! to using all electronic channels to open the public's eyes is an unparalleled contribution toward a genuinely democratic information society.” (2)

While radio was especially important in the realm of new media, photography was an equally important medium that was used before modern technology really took hold. Photography played a crucial role in the remembrance and response to the Pearl Harbor attacks. Though most people are familiar with the United States’ role in World War II, many Americans feel a special connection to Pearl Harbor, a Japanese attack on a Hawaiian naval base, killing 1500 people. Every December 7th, Americans remember the lives lost in this tragedy and its importance in America’s involvement in the war. It is hard to understate the meaning of the Pearl Harbor attacks, as they jumpstarted American civilian passion for defeating Germany and Japan, and incited a worldwide race towards nuclear weapons and the science that makes them possible. Without the Pearl Harbor attacks, not only would 1500 American lives be spared, but Germany may have won World War II, and in turn, conquered much of Europe, leaving it in a vastly different state than it is today.

A photograph of a sinking ship, the USS Arizona, at Pearl Harbor has a lasting effect on Americans (5). This photograph has been seen in numerous journalistic sources and is the cover photo of a widely known book on Pearl Harbor, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett. When American citizens read that book, they see FDR’s face overlaid with an image of a burning ship sinking into the ocean. This gives many a large feeling of unease and subconsciously puts FDR into the seat of blame for the attack. Therefore, this image was used to skew politics by encouraging association of the attacks on Pearl Harbor with the president.

This photo was also shown many years later in The Atlantic, proving its longevity and relevance to today’s world. (6) When one sees the sinking USS Arizona, we are reminded why we went to war and of the consequences and destruction the world faces when it cannot remain peaceful. The toppling over of the USS Arizona is reminiscent of the toppling of Japan and Germany from world domination, but also of the lives that were shattered both during the attack on Pearl Harbor and throughout the world. This photograph reminds Americans to be patriotic and to internalize that it was America that was attacked, perhaps ignoring the attacks that America issued against other countries.

This photo is also the namesake and backdrop of the Pearl Harbor remembrance site on the University of Arizona library Special Collections page on Pearl Harbor, clearly showing its dominance as one of the most important photographs of the attacks. (5) Next to the photo, a tagline reads “That Terrible Day”, reminding Americans of the horror of being attacked and that it was Americans who were the victims of WWII. One would find it difficult to visit a website on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which caused multitudes more deaths and destruction than Pearl Harbor, and have it taglined “That Terrible Day” next to a photo of a decimated city.

Technology plays an important role in the ways organizations and movements can solicit and effectively carry out their missions. With the continued increase in technology, particularly social media, organizations and moments are using new and creative tools to help their cause. Though, it can be argued that technology cannot replace the fundamentals of organization, it can help enhance and facilitate them. (8) As compared to the past, where things such as cassette tapes, flyers, mosques, bazaars, and word of mouth were vital to getting a specific message spread regarding the Islamic Revolution in the 1970s, social media and new technology, such as the internet and platforms like Twitter, allowed important information to be shared globally in a rapid, widespread fashion during the 2009 Islamic Revolution. It is noted that Twitter was credited with keeping the world informed of what was happening on the ground and with helping the protesters organize. (8)

During the 2009 Islamic Revolution, the use of Twitter proved vital to sharing gruesome, bloodied photos of protesters to the Western world and through several different types of media. The internet allowed protesters to keep the world informed of what was happening on the ground and helped the protesters organize. (8) While platforms like Twitter lack a clear sense of organizational hierarchy and make it difficult to distinguish a spontaneous demonstration from a larger, orchestrated uprising, they can relay information much faster than more traditional methods. (9)

It is argued that social media’s use of listservs and creation of alternative news sites are pathways to changemaking phenomena such as “guerilla communication” and “culture jamming”, which are techniques that provide free resources online, as well as the free circulation of goods. These techniques are responsible for such culture changes as “Buy Nothing Day”, methods that seem to be an integral way for communities and organizations to take an indirect stand for or against a cause with a large holistic impact. (9)

Works Cited:

1. "Democracy Now!" Democracy Now! N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.

2. Downing, D. H. John. "Democracy Now! and Pacifica Radio (United States)." Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media, edited by John D. H. Downing, SAGE Reference, 2011, pp. 163-164. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=sunybuff_main&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX1700800087&sid=summon&asid=bfbb583a7ee9cf6df9f67e43f739a794. Accessed 26 Mar. 2017.

3. Kaye, Herb. "15,000 March for KPFA." People's Weekly World, 1999.

4. KPFA Los Angeles. "The Pacifica Foundation." The Pacifica Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.

5. Stinnett, Robert B. Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. New York, NY: Free Press, 2000.

6. "USS Arizona: That Terrible Day | UA Special Collections." Omeka RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

7. Taylor, Alan. "World War II: Pearl Harbor." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 31 July 2011. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

"Pacifica Radio Archives: Guardians of Our History." YouTube. YouTube, 01 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 May 2017.

KPFA Shut Down. Dir. Mary Francis Barry. YouTube.com. N.p., 12 May 2008. Web. 24 May 2017.

Image: Amazon.com

Image: The Japan Sociey

These Black Lives Matter tweets show the power of Black Lives Matter movements in creating a network across cities to promote the work and events of each city’s movement. For example, the larger Black Lives Matter twitter has retweeted both of these events in two different cities, one is a petition signing and the other is a protest. Both let people across the glove stay informed and up to date on BLM issues and encourage people to participate, as well as giving these smaller BLM organizations exposure.

[lexieduranyoung-blog]

In Other News (no.5)

#DayWithoutImmigrants (or A Day Without Immigrants) was a protest and boycott that took place on February 16, 2017. The supposed point of this day was to demonstrate the importance of immigration - and to protest President Trump's plans to build a border wall and to potentially deport millions of illegal immigrants. The strike called for immigrants not to go to work, to avoid spending money, and to keep their children home from school. Over 50 restaurants were closed in Washington, D.C. on that day. Others were also closed, across the country, including over 1,000 businesses in Dallas, Texas. However, the L.A Unified School District urged students not to take part in the protest. In the Bay Area, Redwood City School District also asked families to ensure their kids came to school. DC Public Schools sent an email out stating that all staff and students were expected to be in school throughout the day. What was supposed to be a "Day Without Immigrants" turned into "Life Without a Job" for some. Among those - some restaurants fired their workers who did not come into work on that Thursday, 18 people in Nashville, 12 in Catoosa, around 30 in Denver, and 21 were fired from Encore Boat Builders.

I am just genuinely exhausted from seeing and hearing about all of these protests. I will argue that the Day Without Immigrants protest was one of the more lawful ones (and definitely more peaceful). That is a breath of fresh air! Still, it's just another day for people to get out into the streets and complain. The whole day, I was wondering who actually was out there protesting - actual immigrants or a bunch of caucasian, left-wing "activists"? Hispanics are some of the most hard working people there are. They are about the love of their families and providing for them. I cannot imagine that too many would be willing to risk their jobs to march in the streets. I also wondered what it was that people were trying to achieve - a happy medium or the freedom to basically do whatever they want? Do I think that all immigrants should be banned from entering our country? No. Do I think that we need more secure borders? Yes. Currently, the majority of immigrant households (legal and/or illegal) use some type of government assistance - whether it be food stamps, medical insurance, student loans, or welfare. Better securing our borders and a better vetting process could help to decrease that number. It would free up jobs for actual citizens - that is if citizens would actually get off their asses and go find those jobs. It would also lessen the hold-up for those who are actually going through the process of becoming a legal citizen. In my opinion, Trump's policies are trying to achieve a happy medium - allow immigrants, but in the correct and lawful way. Our country can no longer be a free-for-all for immigrants, our citizens will suffer - why any citizen would protest that is beyond me. Morality has been issued as a reason, but clearly everyone has a different moral standard. That being said - I think that it is time to move on, pray for and support our Nation's leader, and find more proficient ways of trying to make change. I think that one of the best ways to do this, is to always remain open minded to the opinions of others around you. If we cannot all work together, we should at least respectively agree to disagree. Our country doesn't have to be as divided as it is now, it shouldn't be. I am always intrigued by the opinions of others, even if they are not similar to mine, and as long as they aren't close-minded themselves. In an effort to better understand the world's take on immigration, I reached out to some of our close friends and a few acquaintances. I asked each of them for a short statement that explains their stance on immigration, the recent protest, and President Trump's stance on the matter. I wanted to share them with readers:  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am all for people protesting and standing up for what they believe in. As for me, I am Puerto Rican. Therefore, I guess I could say I am blessed to be a part of the United States. However, what the immigrants are going through right now, I feel for them. Honestly, my word of encouragement would just be to stand up for what is right. Keep fighting the fight, because ignorance never wins.- Junior Rodriguez (male/22)

I didn't participate in the “Day Without Immigrants” protest. It was not because it does not affect me, but because people are misinformed. I think the media should stop pushing their opinions down our throats and they should actually do their jobs, which is inform us. Being here illegally does affect U.S. citizens. Instead of dividing ourselves, we would push for laws that would make all those people legal. I agree with Trump when he says he wants all of the “bad guys” out. I have seen it first hand; people in Mexico get involved in the drug world and do disgusting things. Then when things get bad, and their family is danger, they want to flee the country. I lived in Mexico for 2 years and I have seen some people do this, try to escape claiming they are scared. They were not scared when they were getting all that money for stealing and kidnapping. They come here expecting a new beginning, but do not want to face consequences for what they have done. It is not fair for me to have them as my neighbors, when I know they do not care for other people. – Anonymous (female/29)

I do understand the importance of immigration and why people would want to protest racial profiling. However, not going to work and keeping your kids from going to school is not the way to go. There are ways of protesting and boycotting, but not in this way. – Cedric Mendoza (male/16) I saw the protest “A Day Without Immigrants” take full force, as thousands of immigrants marched against the well known immigration policies of President Donald Trump. As a proud Mexican, I watched the protest evolve and become a way for immigrants to be heard and noticed. It made a statement that diversity is what makes America great. -Anonymous (male/24)

We are a very generous country, when it comes to immigration, we always have been.There are many who benefit from that, like my friends that immigrated here from Mexico, legally. But illegal immigrants should never benefit, from breaking our nation's laws. -Jose Hernandez (male/32) The sole purpose of "Day without Immigrants" was meant to show the impact immigrants make to this country. Now many Americans might think the protest is a bit absurd since many Americans are not against immigrants, they are against illegal immigrants. I believe that this whole protest would've made a bigger impact if a more immigrants across the country had taken part of the protest . Instead of just one or two major cities across the nation. Now this country pretty much has a give/take relationship with illegal immigrants in this country. Though some might not agree , having a day without immigrants is actually a loss instead of a gain. -Stephanie Bonilla (female/19)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In other news: We had our very own protest supposedly happening, in Conway, Arkansas - over a one dollar hike, on drink prices, at the local dive bar. Bears Den Pizza has been around for about 8 years, now. It's is without a doubt the cheapest bar in town, even without running the well-known daily specials. It is probably also the most popular bar in town, as it is adjacent to the city's largest college. Of course it is always full of college-aged kids, freshly legal to drink. If you're above the age of twenty-five, you probably refer to the bar as "The Dirty D" or "The Bear Trap" and occasionally tease those that still live at the bar. However, by 11:00pm on the weekends (and especially on Crawfish Sunday's), you still see customers of all ages and the true "regulars" starting to pour in - the ones who have frequented there since it's opening. Unlike these little kids, that feel the need to protest, we aren't unappreciative or delusional. We are not dumb enough to think that standing on the bar's sidewalk, holding up signs, and whining will change anything. We also just don't care - as the majority of us have jobs, families, better things to do, and could care less about an extra dollar. Again, it is still the cheapest bar in town.  

I've always known the owners and the staff to take care of their good customers. These teeny-boppers who consider themselves regulars (because they hang out there every single night, hardly run a tab, and don't tip the waitresses who have to put up with their immature behavior all night) don't fall into that category. If you want to loiter, go to the Kroger parking lot. If you feel the need to bitch, over a one dollar rise on the price of drinks, you probably shouldn't be out spending your money on alcohol in the first place. Not to mention, if you can't afford that extra dollar, how in the hell are you going to afford your full tab at any other bar? It's not the bar's fault that you don't get enough allowance to cover the increase. Anyone who uses common sense and logical thinking, knows it was a smart business decision - and I promise, that place won't be missing these kids who are on a Bears Den strike. If anything, it has only encouraged those who have always supported the business, to do so even more.  https://www.facebook.com/bearsdenpizzaconway/