Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Maya Angelou 1928 - 2014


I have always admired the intellectual integrity and emotional depth of Maya Angelou even though I think she had political blind spots when it came to Bill Clinton and especially Barack Obama.

Still, it saddens me to read about her passing today.  But this is the course of life and she will live on in word and deed for longer than most of us. 

About a decade ago I bought three of her seven autobiographies in Portland and read in "The Heart of a Woman" (1981) that she was once married to Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) stalwart Vusumzi Make.

I asked my late dad if Robert Sobukwe ever mentioned the marriage between Vusumzi Make and Maya Angelou but he did not know.

That aside, reading Maya Angelou is always a journey into a quest for a greater human spirit.  Just recently I was passing time in a tea shop in Delhi and reading a recent article  she wrote on her mother, Vivian Baxter, entitled: "My terrible, wonderful mother" (The Guardian: March 30, 2014).

The article is an extract from her 2014 book entitled "Mom and Me and Mom".

 Maya Angelou and her mother, Vivian Baxter (Credit)

Her relationship with her mother was intense and often marked by disagreement and distance.  Over time she made peace with the "elegant" Vivian Baxter.  It is a remarkable story of resilience and forgiveness.

Forgiveness is a recurring theme in her writing.  Perhaps she has a liberating lesson for all of us with this quote: "It's one of the greatest gifts you can give yourself, to forgive.  Forgive everybody."

If you have not read her, start now.  If you have, read her again.

May her passing prompt many more young folks - especially girls and women - to pick up her books and read about a woman who dared to define her character and worth in a world too trapped in ugliness and despair.

Perhaps it is best to remember her life as she wanted:
“What I would really like said about me is that I dared to love.  By love I mean that condition in the human spirit so profound it encourages us to develop courage and build bridges, and then to trust those bridges and cross the bridges in attempts to reach other human beings.”
 May she rest in peace.

Onward!
*****
Update (May 30): See "Reconciling Maya Angelou's Legacy With Her Support of Clarence Thomas" by Philip Martin (Huffington Post Politics: May 29).

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Subcomandante Marcos Is No More

Upside Down World
Written by Desinformemonos
May 26, 2014.

Translated by Danica Jorden
Source: Desinformemonos.org
For audio recording of Marcos' goodbye click here.

“We believe that it is necessary for one of us to die so that Galeano may live on. So we have decided that Marcos must die today,” announced the Zapatista military head and spokesperson."


At 2:08 am this morning, Subcomandante Marcos announced that as of that moment, he had ceased to exist. In a statement made before those attending a tribute to Galeano, the Zapatista assassinated in the Zapatista community of La Realidad, the military head of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) noted: “If I were to define Marcos, the character, then I would say without hesitation that he was a mask.”

After more than 20 years at the helm of the political-military organization that first took up arms on the 1st of January 1994, Marcos announced that he has given up the command. He noted that after last year and the beginning of this year’s Zapatista Little School classes, “we realised that there was already a generation that could look us in the face, listen to us and speak to us without guidance or leadership, neither deferring to us nor requiring monitoring.” And so, he said, “Marcos, the personality, was no longer necessary. The next phase of the Zapatista struggle was ready.”

In the emblematic community of La Realidad, the same one where on May 2nd, a group of paramilitaries from the Independent Central of Agricultural Workers and Historic Campesinos (CIOAC-H) assassinated Zapatista Base Support Galeano, Subcomandante Marcos appeared at dawn, accompanied by six comandantes of the Clandestine Indigenous Revolutionary Committee and Insurgency Subcomandante Moisés, whom he named his successor in command last December.

“It is our conviction and our practice that we don’t need leaders or chieftains, messiahs or saviours, in order to develop and fight, only a little humility, a lot of dignity and a great deal of organisation; the rest either serves the collective or serves no purpose,” Marcos said.

A black patch with the design of a pirate skull covering his right eye, the erstwhile Zapatista spokesman recalled the dawn of the 1st of January 1994, when “an army of giants, or indigenous rebels, descended into the cities, and with their steps shook the world. Just a few days later, with the blood of our fallen ones still fresh in the streets, we realised that we weren’t being seen by those outside. Accustomed to looking past indigenous peoples, they didn’t raise their glance to look at us; accustomed to seeing us humiliated, they could not understand in their hearts the dignity of our rebellion. They fixated upon the only mestizo wearing a balaclava; in other words, they weren’t watching. So the men and women who lead us said: ‘They only see the smallest thing; let’s make someone as small as they are, so that when they see him, through him they will see us.’”

That was how Marcos was born, out of “a complex deceptive manoeuvre, a terrible and at the same time marvellous magic trick, a malicious move played by our indigenous heart; indigenous wisdom defying modernity through one of its bastions: the media.”

The press release, signed by “the free, alternative, autonomous or otherwise known media,” known in various alternative communication outlets as Radio Pozol, Promedia and Resistance Report, produced an atmosphere of applause and hurrahs at the EZLN after the Comandante’s announcement.

The image of Subcomandante Marcos travelled around the world in the early hours of the 1st of January 1994. The sight of a man armed with red bandoliers and an R-15, clad in a black and tan uniform covered with a woolen Chiapas Highlands chuj, his face covered by a balaclava and smoking a pipe, appeared on the front page of the most influential newspapers on the planet. Over the following days and weeks, his ironic and humourously charged communiqués were released, defiant and irreverent. The few hand-typed white pages were literally snapped up by the Mexican and international press. Twenty years and over four months later, Marcos has announced the end of this phase.

“It is hard to believe that twenty years later, ´nothing for us´ became more than a slogan, a good phrase for signs and songs, but a reality, La Realidad”, said Marcos. He added, “If being consistent is a failure, then incongruence is the path to success, and the way to power. But we don’t want to go that way, we’re not interested in that. Under those circumstances, we’d rather fail than triumph.”

“We believe,” he said, “that one of us must die so that Galeano may live on. So we have decided that Marcos must die today.”

“At 2:10 am, Insurgency Subcomandante Marcos forever descended from the stage, the lights were extinguished, followed by applause from members of the Sixth, and in turn a greater round of applause from Zapatista supporters, militants and insurgents,” was the report from La Realidad.

In keeping with his ironic style and traditional postscripts, the character of Marcos signed off with: P.S. 1 Game Over. 2.- Check Mate. 3.- Touché. 4.- Mmm, is this what hell is like? 5.- So now that I’ve dropped the mask, can I walk naked? 6.- It’s really dark in here, I need some light…”

Read the original post here.
*****
Comment: I am a great admirer of the cause of the Zapatistas.  And I am sure many reading the post above here and elsewhere are admirers of one kind or another.

But excuse me for a minute if I say the statement above is overly dramatic and romanticized bullsh*t that is just downright tiresome.

The hero who is known but unknown to just about the whole world has ridden off into the revolutionary sunset 'cause they have schools now and kids with new faces and expectations.

Please.

Save us the materialist next phase of the struggle spiel.  And spare us the equally pretentious drivel about dying so Galeano may live on.

What is the value of this kind of prank politics with its unavoidable undercurrents of hero worship and cult of personality nonsense?

Revolutions are about ideas and principles and not individuals, movements, or moments in history.

In this scheme it matters little that Marcos or Geleano lives or lived.

Onward!

Best Damn Kim/Kanye Comment on Gawker this Week

"This picture has to win some kind of award for depicting the biggest, 
 deepest, most dense collection of douchebaggery 
that humanity has ever witnessed."

Caribbean Reparations Initiative Inspires a Revitalization of US Movement

Don Rojas
May 26, 2014.

The headquarters of CARICOM, the Secretariat of the Caribbean 
Community, is just outside Georgetown, Guyana. 
Picture this scene. It was almost surreal, improbable just a few years ago: a room filled with presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers from the 15-nation Caribbean Community (CARICOM), all listening with rapt attention, several nodding in agreement, as one of the region's most distinguished academics, and perhaps the Caribbean's most prominent public intellectual, gave a riveting report on the recent work of CARICOM's Reparations Commission.

Yes, "reparations," as in compensation for the crimes of slavery and indigenous genocide at the hands of former European colonizers - reparations, as in reparatory justice for the horrific consequences of two of the greatest crimes against humanity in the history of this planet - the 400 years of the African Slave Trade and the systematic and calculated extermination of the indigenous peoples of the Americas - reparations, as in fundamental and comprehensive social, economic and political justice, indeed, historical justice for the descendants of African slaves and native American peoples.

This scene played out in the conference room of the beautiful Buccament Resort on the Eastern Caribbean island of St. Vincent on March 10, 2014; the occasion - the 25th Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community.

There was applause at the end of the professor's report. Not a single dissenting voice was heard from a group of leaders whose politics ranged from conservative through liberal to progressive. The CARICOM heads of government then proceeded to unanimously adopt a 10-point program for reparatory justice for the region.

This breakthrough plan calls for a formal apology for slavery, debt cancellation from former colonizers and reparation payments to address the persisting "psychological trauma" from the days of plantation slavery.

"For over 400 years Africans and their descendants were classified in law as nonhuman, chattel, property and real estate. They were denied recognition as members of the human family by laws derived from the parliaments and palaces of Europe. "This history has inflicted massive psychological trauma upon African descendant populations. This much is evident daily in the Caribbean. Only a reparatory justice approach to truth and educational exposure can begin the process of healing. Such an engagement will call into being, for example, the need for greater Caribbean integration designed to enable the coming together of the fragmented community," stated the CARICOM Reparations Commission.
Read the rest here.
*****
Comment: I have always been fascinated by arguments for reparations.  In large part the emphasis is based on the recognition that structural damage persists.

Detractors often express the knee-jerk reaction that reparations punish those who were not connected to the atrocities of the past.  This is a thin reading and understanding of how inequality is structured and how it persists.

That said though there is nothing really radical about a call for reparations.  In fact, reparations represent a more conservative argument for redress - where conservative is a reading bent on change within a system.

A revolution on the other hand would be the alternative in that its emphasis would be on complete systemic change or rupture.

What reparations movements often overlook is the subservience of asking beneficiaries of atrocities to fix the past and its persistent inequities.  And, when there is a measure of success the changes or fixes are almost always never enough - or even go far enough in spirit.

What we often have is a tense negotiation between political and economic interests at the very least.

The TRC in South Africa and Affirmative Action represent forms of reparations.  Most folks would be surprised by this because the colloquial understanding is of paying an agreed amount for injustices - like reparations after a war, for example.

But at its center, the reparations argument is about seeking redress.  The problems though remains the context within which the redress or remedy is to be decided.

For this reason, reparations is really not aimed at taking back the past and seizing what was lost or stolen.  More likely, reparations is dependent on keeping the system within which is agitates very much intact and drawing an approximation of benefits in the current epoch.

And, this approximation cannot be real in that it cannot exactly or even closely decide on what was lost or damaged.

How does one decide on a dollar amount for the losses and atrocities suffered as a result of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, for example?

Still, elites fighting over power in any one system will use the reparation argument to project what was lost and what is needed to remake or remedy the past.

Sadly, these same elites often miss the metaphorical boat and get lost inside the very system they are critiquing.

The outcome is that reparations is a seasonal - if you will - grab at attention that almost never goes very far from the platitudinous call for change.

Disaffected people don't need negotiated handouts is my thinking.  As Frederick Douglas once said: "power concedes nothing without a demand"

The point of argument here is not about the substance of repair that is needed but rather the systemic formula of reparations that does not nearly go far enough.

Onward!

Ps. See "The Case for Reparations" by Ta-Nehisi Coates (The Atlantic: May 21, 2014).

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Study: Black college grads have double the unemployment rate

Al Jazeera
Dexter Mullins
May 22, 2014.

More than half of black college graduates are underemployed, according to the Center for Economic Policy and Research
At age 33 and boasting an Ivy League graduate degree, Kitama Cahill-Jackson never thought he’d end up a security guard.

But after years of layoffs and coming in second in job interviews, the Emmy Award–winning documentary filmmaker took the job.

Cahill-Jackson dreamed of a career as a news producer. But now, after years of unsuccessfully searching for journalism jobs, he said he can’t even look at the news.

“When I got to work at 4:30 in the morning, I would listen to NPR. I don’t listen anymore because it makes me sad. That’s the career I didn’t have,” he said.

“I don’t read the paper because it breaks my heart. It breaks my heart that I put on this uniform every day and come in here, and I’m not seen as a professional. I worked so hard academically, and for all of that, to work at a job that only requires a GED.”

Cahill-Jackson is among the more than half of black college graduates who are underemployed, according to a study (PDF) released by the Center for Economic Policy and Research this month.

Recent black college grads ages 22 to 27 have an unemployment rate of 12.4 percent, more than double the 5.6 percent unemployed among all college grads in that demographic and almost a threefold increase from the 2007 level of 4.6 percent, before the Great Recession took its toll on the U.S. economy. More than half of black graduates, 55.9 percent, are underemployed.

Even for those who enter the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields, areas where grads are the most needed and paid the highest, African-Americans still have a 10 percent unemployment rate and a 32 percent underemployment rate.

The study’s authors blame racism, a faltering economy and an unequal playing field.

“We live in a racist society,” John Schmitt, one of the authors, told Al Jazeera.
Read the rest here.
*****
Comment: There has never been a time in the US where black unemployment in general has not been greater than that among whites.

This study does however prove that among college graduates - at the very least - the situation is much worse than before.  And, this is so even while some still think Obama's presidency has improved the lot of blacks in general.

The fact that "more than half of black graduates are working in jobs that do not require a college degree" is a chilling reminder that racism lives on despite.

Onward!

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Calls for Justice After Video Reveals IDF Shooting of Innocent Palestinian Teens

Common Dreams
Lauren McCauley
May 20, 2014.

Rights group says killings amount to "war crimes," demands international probe

 

Screenshot of video footage obtained by Defense 
for Children International Palestine
International outcry and condemnation came swiftly on Tuesday following the release of video footage showing two innocent Palestinian teenagers being shot dead by Israeli forces.

According to rights group Defense for Children International — Palestine, which obtained and circulated the security camera footage, Nadeem Siam Nawara, 17, and Mohammad Mahmoud Odeh, 16, sustained fatal gunshot wounds on May 15 by Israeli Defense Forces after participating in a demonstration near the Ofer military prison in the West Bank. The teens were there to mark Nakba (or Catastrophe) Day, which commemorates the 1948 mass displacement of Palestinians, and express solidarity with the hunger striking prisoners currently held in the detention center.

After the video was made public, assistant UN secretary general for political affairs Oscar Fernandez-Taranco demanded an "independent and transparent" probe into the circumstances surrounding the boys' deaths.

"It is of serious concern that initial information appears to indicate that the two Palestinians killed were both unarmed and appeared to pose no direct threat," said Fernandez-Taranco.

"The UN calls for an independent and transparent investigation by the Israeli authorities into the two deaths, and urges Israel to ensure that its security forces strictly adhere to the basic principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials," he said at a briefing of the UN Security Council.

Though the closed circuit television footage showed some rocks being thrown by protesters early on, as one witness reported, "at the moment of the killings, nothing was going on and no stone throwing was taking place."

"The images captured on video show unlawful killings where neither child presented a direct and immediate threat to life at the time of their shooting," said Rifat Kassis, executive director of DCIP. "These acts by Israeli soldiers may amount to war crimes, and the Israeli authorities must conduct serious, impartial, and thorough investigations to hold the perpetrators accountable."
The video below contains graphic and disturbing footage:


Read the rest here.

Also see The Electronic Intifada for more up-to-date coverage.

*****
Comment: May Nadeem Siam Nawara and Mohammad Mahmoud Odeh rest in peace.  


Their struggle will not be in vain.  In the end justice always prevails and barbarism of this kind is not left untouched.

As usual, the sounds of silence coming from Obama and his henchmen and women is about deafening.

We should not expect anything more.

Palestinian life is expendable to them and the US and its allies will join Israel in feigning innocence in this brutal massacre of two teenage boys.

BOYCOTT ISRAEL

Palestine will be free.  It is inevitable.

Onward!

Nobel Peace Laureates to Human Rights Watch: Close Your Revolving Door to U.S. Government

Alternet
May 12, 2014.

The leading human rights organization's close ties to the U.S. government call its independence into question.


 The following letter was sent today to Human Rights Watch's Kenneth Roth on behalf of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire; former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans von Sponeck; current UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Richard Falk; and over 100 scholars.

Dear Kenneth Roth,

Human Rights Watch characterizes itself as “one of the world’s leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights.” However, HRW's close ties to the U.S. government call into question its independence.

For example, HRW's Washington advocacy director, Tom Malinowski, previously served as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton and as a speechwriter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In 2013, he left HRW after being nominated as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights & Labor under John Kerry.

In her HRW.org biography, Board of Directors' Vice Chair Susan Manilow describes herself as "a longtime friend to Bill Clinton" who is "highly involved" in his political party, and "has hosted dozens of events" for the Democratic National Committee.

Currently, HRW Americas' advisory committee includes Myles Frechette, a former U.S. ambassador to Colombia, and Michael Shifter, one-time Latin America director for the U.S. government-financed National Endowment for Democracy. Miguel Díaz, a Central Intelligence Agency analyst in the 1990s, sat on HRW Americas' advisory committee from 2003-11. Now at the State Department, Díaz serves as "an interlocutor between the intelligence community and non-government experts."

In his capacity as an HRW advocacy director, Malinowski contended in 2009 that "under limited circumstances" there was "a legitimate place" for CIA renditions—the illegal practice of kidnapping and transferring terrorism suspects around the planet. Malinowski was quoted paraphrasing the U.S. government's argument that designing an alternative to sending suspects to "foreign dungeons to be tortured" was "going to take some time."

HRW has not extended similar consideration to Venezuela. In a 2012 letter to President Chávez, HRW criticized the country's candidacy for the UN Human Rights Council, alleging that Venezuela had fallen "far short of acceptable standards" and questioning its "ability to serve as a credible voice on human rights." At no point has U.S. membership in the same council merited censure from HRW, despite Washington's secret, global assassination program, its preservation of renditions, and its illegal detention of individuals at Guantánamo Bay.

Likewise, in February 2013, HRW correctly described as "unlawful" Syria's use of missiles in its civil war. However, HRW remained silent on the clear violation of international law constituted by the U.S. threat of missile strikes on Syria in August.

The few examples above, limited to only recent history, might be forgiven as inconsistencies or oversights that could naturally occur in any large, busy organization. But HRW’s close relationships with the U.S. government suffuse such instances with the appearance of a conflict of interest.

We therefore encourage you to institute immediate, concrete measures to strongly assert HRW's independence. Closing what seems to be a revolving door would be a reasonable first step: Bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as HRW staff, advisors or board members. At a bare minimum, mandate lengthy “cooling-off” periods before and after any associate moves between HRW and that arm of the government.

Your largest donor, investor George Soros, argued in 2010 that "to be more effective, I think the organization has to be seen as more international, less an American organization.” We concur. We urge you to implement the aforementioned proposal to ensure a reputation for genuine independence.

Sincerely,
  1. Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize laureate
  2. Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize laureate
  3. Joel Andreas, Professor of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University
  4. Antony Anghie, Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
  5. John M. Archer, Professor of English, New York University
  6. Asma Barlas, Professor of Politics, Director of the Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity, Ithaca College
  7. Rosalyn Baxandall, Professor Emeritus of American Studies, State University of New York-Old Westbury
  8. Marc Becker, Professor of Latin American History, Truman State University
  9. Jason A. Beckett, Professor of Law, American University in Cairo
  10. Angélica Bernal, Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
  11. Keane Bhatt, activist, writer
  12. William Blum, author, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
  13. Audrey Bomse, Co-chair, National Lawyers Guild Palestine Subcommittee
  14. Patrick Bond, Professor of Development Studies, Director of the Centre for Civil Society, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
  15. Michael Brenner, Professor Emeritus of International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh
  16. Jean Bricmont, Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Louvain; author, Humanitarian Imperialism
  17. Renate Bridenthal, Professor Emerita of History, Brooklyn College, CUNY
  18. Fernando Buen Abad Domínguez, Ph.D., author
  19. Paul Buhle, Professor Emeritus of American Civilization, Brown University
  20. David Camfield, Professor of Labour Studies, University of Manitoba
  21. Leonard L. Cavise, Professor of Law, DePaul College of Law
  22. Robert Chernomas, Professor of Economics, University of Manitoba
  23. Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University
  24. George Ciccariello-Maher, Professor of Political Science, Drexel University
  25. Jeff Cohen, Associate Professor of Journalism, Ithaca College
  26. Marjorie Cohn, Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
  27. Lisa Duggan, Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University
  28. Carolyn Eisenberg, Professor of History, Hofstra University
  29. Matthew Evangelista, Professor of History and Political Science, Cornell University
  30. Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton University
  31. Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Sociology, Queens College, CUNY Graduate Center
  32. Mara Fridell, Professor of Sociology, University of Manitoba
  33. Frances Geteles, Professor Emeritus, Department of Special Programs, CUNY City College
  34. Lesley Gill, Professor of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University
  35. Piero Gleijeses, Professor of American Foreign Policy and Latin American Studies, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
  36. Jeff Goodwin, Professor of Sociology, New York University
  37. Katherine Gordy, Professor of Political Science, San Francisco State University
  38. Manu Goswami, Professor of History, New York University
  39. Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University
  40. Simon Granovsky-Larsen, Professor of Latin American Studies, Centennial College, Toronto
  41. James N. Green, Professor of Latin American History, Brown University
  42. A. Tom Grunfeld, Professor of History, SUNY Empire State College
  43. Julie Guard, Professor of Labor Studies, University of Manitoba
  44. Peter Hallward, Professor of Philosophy, Kingston University; author, Damming the Flood
  45. John L. Hammond, Professor of Sociology, Hunter College, CUNY Graduate Center
  46. Beth Harris, Professor of Politics, Ithaca College
  47. Martin Hart-Landsberg, Professor Economics, Lewis and Clark College
  48. Chris Hedges, journalist; author, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning
  49. Doug Henwood, journalist; author, Wall Street
  50. Edward Herman, Professor Emeritus of Finance, University of Pennsylvania; co-author, The Political Economy of Human Rights
  51. Susan Heuman, Ph.D., independent scholar of history
  52. Forrest Hylton, Lecturer in History & Literature, Harvard University
  53. Matthew Frye Jacobson, Professor of American Studies and History, Yale University
  54. Jennifer Jolly, Co-coordinator of Latin American Studies, Ithaca College
  55. Rebecca E. Karl, Professor of History, New York University
  56. J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Professor of Anthropology and American Studies, Wesleyan University
  57. Ari Kelman, Professor of History, University of California, Davis
  58. Arang Keshavarzian, Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, New York University
  59. Laleh Khalili, Professor of Middle East Politics, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
  60. Daniel Kovalik, Professor of International Human Rights, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
  61. Rob Kroes, Professor Emeritus of American Studies, University of Amsterdam
  62. Peter Kuznick, Professor of History, American University
  63. Deborah T. Levenson, Professor of History, Boston College
  64. David Ludden, Professor of History, New York University
  65. Catherine Lutz, Professor of Anthropology and International Studies, Brown University
  66. Arthur MacEwan, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Boston
  67. Viviana MacManus, Professor of Women's and Gender Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
  68. Chase Madar, civil rights attorney; author, The Passion of [Chelsea] Manning
  69. Alfred W. McCoy, Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  70. Teresa Meade, Professor of History, Union College
  71. Thomas Murphy, Professor of History and Government, University of Maryland, University College Europe
  72. Allan Nairn, independent investigative journalist
  73. Usha Natarajan, Professor of International Law, American University in Cairo
  74. Diane M. Nelson, Professor of Cultural Anthropology, Duke University
  75. Joseph Nevins, Professor of Geography, Vassar College
  76. Mary Nolan, Professor of History, New York University
  77. Anthony O’Brien, Professor Emeritus of English, Queens College, CUNY
  78. Paul O'Connell, Reader in Law, School of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
  79. Christian Parenti, Professor of Sustainable Development, School for International Training Graduate Institute
  80. David Peterson, independent writer and researcher
  81. Adrienne Pine, Professor of Anthropology, American University
  82. Claire Potter, Professor of History, The New School
  83. Margaret Power, Professor of History, Illinois Institute of Technology
  84. Pablo Pozzi, Professor of History, Universidad de Buenos Aires
  85. Gyan Prakash, Professor of History, Princeton University
  86. Vijay Prashad, Edward Said Chair of American Studies, American University of Beirut
  87. Peter Ranis, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, CUNY Graduate Center
  88. Michael Ratner, human rights attorney; author, The Prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld
  89. Sanjay Reddy, Professor of Economics, New School for Social Research
  90. Adolph Reed, Jr., Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
  91. Nazih Richani, Director of Latin American Studies, Kean University
  92. Moss Roberts, Professor of Chinese, New York University
  93. Corey Robin, Professor of Political Science, Brooklyn College, CUNY Graduate Center
  94. William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
  95. Patricia Rodriguez, Professor of Politics, Ithaca College
  96. Andrew Ross, Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University
  97. Elizabeth Sanders, Professor of Government, Cornell University
  98. Dean Saranillio, Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University
  99. T.M. Scruggs, Professor Emeritus of Music, University of Iowa
  100. Ian J. Seda-Irizarry, Professor of Political Economy, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
  101. Denise A. Segura, Professor of Sociology; Chair, Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara
  102. Mark Selden, Senior Research Associate, East Asia Program, Cornell University
  103. Falguni A. Sheth, Professor of Philosophy and Political Theory, Hampshire College
  104. Naoko Shibusawa, Professor of History, Brown University
  105. Dina M. Siddiqi, Professor of Anthropology, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  106. Francisco Sierra Caballero, Director of the Center for Communication, Politics and Social Change, University of Seville
  107. Brad Simpson, Professor of History, University of Connecticut
  108. Nikhil Pal Singh, Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and History, New York University
  109. Leslie Sklair, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, London School of Economics
  110. Norman Solomon, author, War Made Easy
  111. Judy Somberg, Chair, National Lawyers Guild Task Force on the Americas
  112. Jeb Sprague, author, Paramilitarism and the Assault on Democracy in Haiti
  113. Oliver Stone, filmmaker; co-author, The Untold History of the United States
  114. Steve Striffler, Professor of Anthropology, Chair of Latin American Studies, University of New Orleans
  115. Sinclair Thomson, Professor of History, New York University
  116. Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of History and Latin American Studies, Pomona College
  117. James S. Uleman, Professor of Psychology, New York University
  118. Alejandro Velasco, Professor of History, New York University
  119. Robert Vitalis, Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
  120. Hans Christof von Sponeck, former United Nations Assistant Secretary General (1998-2000)
  121. Hilbourne Watson, Professor Emeritus of International Relations, Bucknell University
  122. Barbara Weinstein, Professor of History, New York University
  123. Mark Weisbrot, Ph.D., Co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
  124. Kirsten Weld, Professor of History, Harvard University
  125. Gregory Wilpert, Ph.D, author, Changing Venezuela by Taking Power
  126. John Womack, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Latin American History and Economics, Harvard University
  127. Michael Yates, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
  128. Kevin Young, Ph.D., Latin American History, State University of New York-Stony Brook
  129. Marilyn B. Young, Professor of History, New York University
  130. Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar, Professor of History; Co-Director, South Asian Studies, Brown University
  131. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and Coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies, University of San Francisco

Felicity Arbuthnot: West Funds Insurgencies

May 19, 2014.
Thursday, May 15 marked Nakba Day, Yawm an-Nakba, “Day of Catastrophe”, the onset of the displacement of up to 800,000 Palestinians, at the time 67% of the population, followed by the destruction of over 500 villages since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, under the commitment agreed to by the then British Foreign Secretary, Lord Arthur Balfour, in November 1917.

This week: “Figures released by the Ramallah-based Central Bureau of Statistics … put the number of registered Palestinian refugees at 5.3 million. Those refugees live in 58 United Nations-run camps in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” Tragedy on a scale near unimaginable – ongoing.

Hardly the day to plan another one. However, undaunted, Britain’s current Foreign Secretary, William Hague (“I have been a Conservative Friend of Israel since I was sixteen”) hosted a meeting of the “Friends of Syria” group (Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the UK and the US) to continue plotting to further decimate another Middle East country and overthrow yet another sovereign head of State.

As increasingly chilling, verified images appear of “opposition” – read insurgent – atrocities in Syria: beheadings, behandings, crucifixions, summary executions and, of course, cannibalism, Hague announced that: “the Syrian opposition would have its diplomatic status in the UK upgraded”, according to the BBC.

The Foreign Secretary was clearly following in his master’s footsteps since last week the Obama regime granted diplomatic foreign mission status to the “Syrian National Coalition” offices in New York and Washington, with a welcome present of a further promised $27 million increase in “non-lethal assistance to rebels fighting to oust President Bashar al-Assad.” This brings the total US support for the above crimes to $287 million.

Strangely, two days before the London meeting, it was announced that Israel’s Justice Minister Tzipi Livni was awarded “special mission” temporary diplomatic status to visit London, “to protect her against arrest and potential prosecution for alleged breaches of international law, including war crimes” relating to Israel’s attack on Gaza in December 2008-January 2009.

In December 2009 Livni cancelled a visit to Britain after an arrest warrant was issued by a London Court. “The British government subsequently changed the law on universal jurisdiction … in connection with international war crimes … Previously, citizens could apply directly to a Judge for an arrest warrant.”

Currently, London lawyers Hickman Rose working with Gaza’s Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) had again been seeking a warrant for Livni’s arrest, Hickman Rose requesting that the Crown Prosecution Service advise the police to apprehend her: “for suspected war crimes and to liaise with the Attorney General to approve criminal charges.”

PCHR Director Raja Sourani commented of the Foreign Office’s stunt: “As lawyers for the victims of widespread suspected Israeli war crimes, PCHR is very concerned that these kind of political acts endorse the ‘rule of the jungle’ rather than the ‘rule of law.’” Indeed.

The Foreign Office is remarkably selective when it comes to alleged war criminals. Livni’s visit met “all the essential elements for a special mission, and for avoidance of any doubt on the matter, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has confirmed consent to the visit as a special mission”, they commented.

The reason for Livni’s visit was shrouded in secrecy. What is known that the evening of the “Friends of Syria” meeting, she was to address a fund- raising dinner for the Jewish National Fund at London’s luxury Jumeirah Carlton Tower Hotel ($725 a night current lowest available rate, no wonder funds are needed.) But all those Foreign Office diplomatic sleights of hand to enable something she could have done by video-link?

Well, here’s a thought. Two days before Ms Livni’s arrival in London aided by the Foreign Office’s diplomatic goal post displacements, Major General Amos Yadlin, former Deputy Commander of the Israeli Air Force, who headed military intelligence between 2006-2010 said that “ Israel should weigh launching a military strike at Syria if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons against his civilian population …”

Preferable, though, mooted the General, would be a NATO led action led by the US, with Turkey the key country, establishing a no fly zone over Syria “at the very minimum.” Libya revisited. There should also be “standoff strikes” by NATO aircraft at strategic government targets.

“If Israel discovers that Assad is using chemical weapons against his people in mass attacks, it should intervene militarily”, said the representative of a regime who has used chemical weapons – not alone white phosphorous but also depleted uranium, both a chemical and radioactive weapon – against the Palestinians. Ironically, the article is headed: “Israel should punish Assad for killing civilians”, an expertise Israel has honed with impunity over sixty-six years.

Right on cue, on May 13th, in the lead to the London Conference, Human Rights Watch produced a report of “strong evidence” that Syrian government forces were using chlorine bombs. Coincidentally, the previous day a letter had been sent to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, querying the organization’s seemingly extraordinarily partisan relationship with the US government.
Read the rest here.
*****
Comment: Human Rights Watch is a front for western governments and their interests.  No thinking analyst or observer should take what they say to be serious human rights lobbying.

Syria is being set up for an invasion - with the help of Human Rights Watch - by forces allied to Israel's genocidal interests in the region.

Onward! 

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Hashtag Fail: #My Husband Kills Kids With Drones

Common Dreams
Abby Zimet
May 15, 2014.


Calling out the abject hypocrisy, drone opponents have picked up and run with Michelle Obama's sad-eyed contribution to the #BringBackOurGirls Twitter campaign in support of nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped by jihadist group Boko Haram, arguing, in the words of one revamped sign, "Your Husband Has Killed More Muslim Girls Than Boko Haram Ever Could." There was also a flood of goofy responses as well as furious redos of Ann Coulter's ever-racist, mean-spirited redo - #Bring Back Our Country - of Obama's original sign, thus underlining the many hazards of a hashtag activism that may or may not accomplish anything in the first place.


****
Comment: Good to see more folks are telling Michelle Obama exactly what to do with her hypocrisy.

Onward!

Friday, May 16, 2014

Hindu Nationalist Narendra Modi and BJP Win Big in India

Supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its leader Narendra Modi 
celebrate the party's emphatic win in the Indian elections 
in Gandhinagar, the capital of Gujarat. 
(Photograph: Divyakant Solanki/EPA)

*****
Comment: Disappointing but expected.

See more updates here.

Onward!

Monday, May 12, 2014

Nuns Voting in Kolkata

Nuns from The Missionaries of Charity queue as they 
wait to cast their vote in Kolkata during the final 
phase of India's national elections. 
(Dibyangshu Sarkar, AFP) 

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Jumoke Balogun: 'Dear world, your hashtags won't #BringBackOurGirls'

The Guardian (UK)
May 9, 2014.

Thanks for your concern but calling for America rather than Nigeria to take action does more harm than good

#BringBackOurGirls protests outside the Nigeria consulate in Johannesburg.
(#BringBackOurGirls protests outside the Nigeria consulate in Johannesburg. 
Photograph: Kim Ludbrook/EPA)
Simple question. Are you Nigerian? Do you have constitutional rights accorded to Nigerians to participate in their democratic process? If not, I have news for you. You can’t do anything about the girls missing in Nigeria. You can’t. Your insistence on urging American power, specifically American military power, to address this issue will ultimately hurt the people of Nigeria.

It heartens me that you’ve taken up the mantle of spreading “awareness” about the 200+ girls who were abducted from their school in Chibok; it heartens me that you’ve heard the cries of mothers and fathers who go yet another day without their child. It’s nice that you care.

Here’s the thing though, when you pressure western powers, particularly the American government, to get involved in African affairs and when you champion military intervention, you become part of a much larger problem. You become a complicit participant in a military expansionist agenda on the continent of Africa. This is not good.

You might not know this, but the United States military loves your hashtags because it gives them legitimacy to encroach and grow their military presence in Africa. Africom (United States Africa Command), the military body that is responsible for overseeing US military operations across Africa, gained much from #KONY2012 and will now gain even more from #BringBackOurGirls.

Last year, before Barack Obama visited several countries in Africa, I wrote about how the US military is expanding its role on the continent. In 2013 alone, Africom carried out a total of 546 “military activities” which is an average of one and half military missions a day. While we don’t know much about the purpose of these activities, keep in mind that Africom’s mission is to “advance US national security interests”.

And advancing they are. According to one report, in 2013, American troops entered and advanced American interests in Niger, Uganda, Ghana, Malawi, Burundi, Mauritania, South Africa, Chad, Togo, Cameroon, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Lesotho, Ethiopia, Tanzania, and South Sudan. 
Read the rest here.
*****
Comment: Jumoke Balogun has written what needs to be said and is absolutely spot on though too kind in places.

Word is that Michelle Obama is going to give a weekly address on the missing girls situation!

Huh?

Based on what agency?  Because she is black and a woman?

Please.  Give me a break.  Where was her concern when her husband and the white folks of Europe and their African stooges were killing innocent women, girls, old folks and men in Libya?

Libya is in Africa, right?

Now after that murderous rampage that killed Gaddafi there are tons of missing innocents.  Among them many women and girls.

Where is the concern for these African women and girls?

What absolute hypocrisy.  The US and the like-minded are pretending outrage which at its basis is not about concern for missing girls but rather the continuing vendetta against Islam.

Yeah I said it.

If this episode was not tinged by the supposed Islamic fanaticism of fringe elements in Nigeria then Michelle would be demonstrating press-ups to fat American kids instead of lathering us with her supposed concern.

And what of Jonathan Goodluck?  Enough ass kissing Mr President?  Is it not enough that AFRICOM basically operates out of your backyard?

Is this the second, third or fourth colonization?

And where is the African Union?  On break?

Some final questions?  Where are these missing girls?  Who are they?  And why can Nigeria not find them without having to draw the imperial massa and his/her henchmen into the fray?

Put faces and add details to this supposed story or it will always remain nothing more than suspicious.

Like Dead Prez once said before they too sold out: Niggaz ain't ready for revolution.

Onward!

Friday, May 09, 2014

bell hooks on Beyoncé

Professor bell hooks and Beyoncé
"I used to get so tired of people quoting Audre [Lorde], ‘The masters tools will never dismantle the master’s house.’ But that was exactly what she meant that you are not going to destroy this imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy by creating your own version of it. Even if it serves you to make lots and lots of money.

I’ve really been challenging people to think about would we be at all interested in Beyoncé if she wasn’t so rich, because I don’t think you can separate her class power, and the wealth, from people’s fascination with her. That here is a young, Black woman who is so incredibly wealthy. And wealthy is what so many young people fantasize, dream about, sexualize, eroticize. And one could argue, even more than her body, it’s what that body stands for—the body of desire fulfilled that is wealth, fame, celebrity, all the things that so many people in our culture are lusting for, wanting.

If Beyoncé was a homeless woman who looked the same way, or a poor, down and out woman who looked the same way, would people be enchanted by her? Or is it the combination of all of those things that are at the heart of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy?

And I’ve been saying, people of color, we are so invested in white supremacy, it’s tragic. Lorraine Hansberry said it is the only form of extremism that should discredit us in the eyes of our children that we remain so invested." ...

"I see a part of Beyoncé that is in fact anti-feminist — that is a terrorist, especially in terms of the impact on young girls. I actually feel like the major of assault on feminism in our society has come from visual media, and from television, and videos. Just think, do we know of any powerful man of any color who’s come out with some tirade against feminism? The tirades against feminism occur so much in the image-making business, and what we see.

What I’m concerned about constantly in my critical imagination is why don’t we have libratory images that are away from, not an inversion of, what society has told us?"
Read bell hooks on Beyoncé: She is a 'terrorist' because of her 'impact on young girls' by (Clutch: May 8, 2014).  

Also watch the entire Are You Still a Slave?” conversation between bell hooks, Janet Mock, Shola Lynch, and Marci Blackman held last night at The New School.

*****
Comment: I have always been fascinated by the work and intellect of Professor bell hooks.  About a decade or more ago I attended a public lecture she gave at a local university in Portland, Oregon, and came away impressed by the hold she has on her audience.

I agree with her position here but would not have used the word "terrorist" because it is inflammatory given the context of global 'terror' politics and the manner in which the word is laid heavy on the bodies of people of color - particularly Muslims - who are deemed enemies of whiteness (Americanness).

Some may argue that her use of the word inverts its meaning away from this imperial discourse but I would caution that hook's critique above suggests she is aware that inverting or taking back meaning is often meaningless when posed against a behemoth imperial power like whiteness.

That said I am happy to see bell hooks stepping away from applauding vacuous folks like Beyoncé and the patriarchal industry that props her up as a vision of 'post-race' black womanhood.

Young folks of any color and creed would do well to see the likes of Beyoncé and her husband as nothing more than capitalist products drawing more dividends from a torturous history of racism.

The Beyoncé machine does not represent anything more than the replication of capitalized racism and its violent degradation of black women.

Onward!

Monday, May 05, 2014

Lara Pawson: Angola's brutal history, and the MPLA's role in it, is a truth that we must tell

The Guardian (UK)
May 5, 2014.

To ignore what happened to Angolans in the 1970s, in the name of leftwing discipline and unity, is a dangerous betrayal

CD2 Angola Conflict/Popperfoto 2
Soldiers of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola in December 
1975. 'I was convinced that the MPLA was a radical socialist 
movement that epitomised the heroism of African liberation'. 
(Photograph: Popperfoto/UPH)
Over the centuries Europeans of various strains have tried to fulfil their fantasies in Africa. I should know because I'm one of them. Not that I have ever nursed urges to convert and conquer, trade and enslave, or paternalise, dominate and discriminate. But when I set off to Angola at the end of the summer of 1998 I was just one of many who had hoped to contribute to a socialist project on the continent.

I was convinced that, at its core, the ruling Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) was a radical socialist movement that epitomised the heroism of African liberation. I had been inspired by the writings of Basil Davidson and other British Marxists who left me in no doubt about the integrity of the MPLA under Agostinho Neto, the first president of independent Angola. Unlike its CIA-backed rivals – the National Front for the Liberation of Angola, and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (Unita), the latter having allied with South Africa's white minority regime for the best part of two decades – I believed that the MPLA had fought for the freedom of all Angolan people regardless of their ethnic origin, place of birth or skin colour.

That said, I also knew that after the fall of the Berlin Wall the MPLA had made a political U-turn. Abandoning Marxism and Leninism, it had adopted a market-driven economics that morphed rapidly into crony capitalism. The power of the one-party state, which had endured since 1975 until flawed elections in 1992, was now concentrated in President José Eduardo dos Santos. Nevertheless, like many on the left my loathing was focused so intensely on Unita that it was easy to view the MPLA as little more than a cold war victim of US foreign policy.

When I arrived in Luanda, the MPLA had long been – and still is – a member of the Socialist International, an organisation that claims to pursue "progressive politics for a fairer world". I remember my pleasure on hearing politicians and other members of the urban elite calling each other camarada (comrade). Even the party rhetoric sounded remarkably similar to that of the revolutionary years of the 1970s. But a few months into my new job, when the country's "fourth war" finally erupted, I could no longer hide from the blindingly obvious: if revolutionary politicians were what I was after, I was at least 20 years too late.

In fact, this was also wrong. I began to discover that the idea of a 1970s MPLA heyday was just as misguided. An Angolan colleague told me about 27 May 1977, the day an MPLA faction rose up against the leadership, and the honeymoon of revolution crashed to a halt. Some called it an attempted coup, but my colleague insisted it was a demonstration that was met with a brutal overreaction.

Whichever story you believe, six senior members of the MPLA were killed that day by supporters of the uprising. In response, President Neto, the politburo and the state media made many highly inflammatory statements that incited extraordinary revenge. In the weeks and months that followed, thousands of people – possibly tens of thousands – were killed. Some of the executions were overseen by Cuban troops sent to Angola by Fidel Castro to repel a South African invasion.

I found this knowledge profoundly challenging. It turned everything I thought I knew on its head, especially when I began to understand that the 1977 purge cemented a culture of fear that has shaped a generation. How, I asked myself, had this appalling event remained so little known outside Angola?



 Read the rest here.
*****
Comment: Revolutionary movements like any movement - even religion - is just made up of people and people are fallible and corruptible at the best of times.

I agree with the author that principles are more important than ideological movements.  But then again I am not a joiner and have a dim view of people - particularly organized groupings of people - most days.

This is a revealing article and one that begs a greater investigation.

Onward!

Sunday, May 04, 2014

Fred Brownell: The man who made South Africa's flag

Xin Fan
April 26, 2014.

 Fred Brownell
The multi-coloured flag of modern South Africa is a symbol of its post-apartheid rebirth. But while Nelson Mandela led the country on a "long walk" to freedom, the creation of the flag 20 years ago was a frantic sprint by an unsung hero, writes Xin Fan.

On a Saturday night at the end of February 1994 Fred Brownell's phone rang. The voice on the other end asked him to get a new national flag designed - within a week.

"It scared the living daylights out of me," says Brownell, now 74 and living in retirement in Pretoria.

Brownell was state herald, and had long known that the emerging new South Africa would need a new flag, but until this point he had not been asked to play a central role.

Initially, members of the public had been asked for their ideas. Some 7,000 sketches had been sent in, but none was judged appropriate. Then the authorities had turned to design studios. That too proved fruitless.

The months had passed by and now the first democratic elections - when the new flag was expected to be fluttering in the South African breeze - were little more than eight weeks away. Hence the urgent Saturday night call to Brownell.

Fortunately, he had already given the subject some thought.

He had been asking himself for some time what the new South African flag should look like. But his sketches had all ended up in the wastepaper basket until one day in August 1993, when he sat listening to an "interminable speech" at an international flag conference in Zurich.

"My mind started wandering," he recalls. "And then it struck me - aren't we looking for convergence and unification?" The convergence of the disparate groups within South African society, and their unification in one democratic state.
Read the rest here.
*****
Comment: South Africa heads to the polls on Wednesday.  The ruling African National Congress and its alliance partners, COSATU and the SACP, are expected to win a landslide election just short of a two-thirds majority in parliament.

When I read the article above this morning I wondered how many South Africans know the story of their national flag.

I would hazard a guess that not too many know that Fred Brownell designed the flag.  As of an hour ago I too was blissfully unaware of the man behind the flag.

What I did know was that Cyril Ramaphosa played a role in deciding the adoption of the flag.

As flags go I appreciate the story behind its design and now as election day edges closer I can claim to be more educated about the country I live in.

Though I must admit I have never really been drawn to the flag - well any flag really.  But that is another story and critique of nationalism and its herd mentality.

Onwards!

Friday, May 02, 2014

The Sterling Shuffle: Unpacking White Jewish Racism

Black Agenda Report
Sikivu Hutchinson
April 29, 2014

For the moment, a Jewish sports franchise owner is the most prominent racist in the United States. Donald Sterling’s conduct serves are a reminder that “the illusion of lockstep black-Jewish solidarity on liberal political coalition-building has long masked the reality of white Jewish privilege and investment in white supremacy.

Every Sunday for the past several years the mug of real estate mogul/slumlord and L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling has commanded prime ad space in the Los Angeles Times. Touting Sterling’s philanthropy, these ads often feature grinning photos of prominent African American politicians, religious leaders and other glad-handing public figures who’ve received hefty donations from his financial empire. After TMZ revealed a recording of Sterling’s racist comments about black people to girlfriend V. Stiviano, President Obama and other dignitaries were swift to condemn him. On Monday it was “shockingly” revealed that Sterling, who is Jewish, went the extra mile with his racism in the recording, contending that “the blacks are treated like dogs” in Israel to Stiviano. Responding to her criticism of this claim, Sterling reiterated that “the black Jews” are “less than” white Jews and that that is the way it should be.

Anti-black racism among white Jewish people is a seldom discussed aspect of the complicated arc of black-Jewish relations in the U.S. Yet Sterling’s comments are noteworthy because they not only highlight the white supremacist bent of Israeli anti-African sentiment but the social construction of Jewish whiteness. Echoing rancher Cliven Bundy’s recent references to blacks thriving under slavery, Sterling expressed the paternalistic view that he “supports” blacks on the team by giving them clothes, houses and cars. He then blasts Stiviano for comparing anti-black racism and discrimination to the Jewish Holocaust. Implicit in this shutdown is the notion that Jewish suffering under the Holocaust precludes consideration of how white Jews have benefited from institutional and systemic racism.

Published by Rutgers University Press (1989)
Buy at Powell's Books (Portland, Oregon)

The illusion of lockstep black-Jewish solidarity on liberal political coalition-building has long masked the reality of white Jewish privilege and investment in white supremacy. This is especially relevant to Sterling (who tellingly changed his name from Tokowitz to the more Anglicized Sterling) because he is a multi-millionaire developer who has also been the subject of two federal racial discrimination lawsuits involving tenants of color. In her book How Jews Became White Folk, Karen Brodkin notes that Jews contrasted themselves with the specter of a “mythic blackness.” Deeply ingrained racial stereotypes of shiftless, lazy, culturally pathological and mentally enslaved blacks – versus “hard working” immigrants streaming through Ellis Island in search of opportunity – have always been a subtext of the American dream. Hence, “mythic blackness” implicitly signified social dysfunction and downward mobility—i.e., the antithesis of American notions of rugged individualism and bootstraps uplift. This divide allowed Jewish, Irish and other reviled, provisionally white ethnic immigrants to highlight and capitalize on their (relative) whiteness. As Salomon Gruenwald notes in a review of Brodkin’s book, “Jews did not become white because they succeeded in spite of racism, rather, they succeeded because of white racism. Economic and social shifts following WWII reconfigured whiteness in such a way as to allow them – particularly Jewish men – the entitlements that being white brought (like the G.I. Bill and access to the suburbs).”

The long term economic legacy of these entitlements has been amplified in the post-civil rights era. African Americans of all income levels are hyper-segregated in urban communities heavily impacted by foreclosure, joblessness, predatory lending, subpar schools, racist policing and mass incarceration. And, relative to white working class homeowners, even the most wealthy African Americans are segregated into neighborhoods that have high poverty rates. As the most segregated racial group in Los Angeles, the socioeconomic divide between blacks and white Jews couldn’t be more profound. Like other European Americans in the post-World War II era, Jews took advantage of New Deal FHA, VA and GI Bill loans (which were denied to African Americans) to flee South L.A. and East L.A. neighborhoods and move to wealthier enclaves in West L.A. and the Valley. Once upon a time, predominantly Mexican American Boyle Heights was a thriving Jewish enclave. New Deal era affirmative action policies for white people, coupled with the Great Migration of African Americans from the South, facilitated white Jewish upward mobility and assimilation. As Ryan Reft writes on the transformation of Boyle Heights, “the Great Migration led others to rewrite the rules that kept whites separated from non-whites. As a result, definitions of whiteness shifted. Jews now found themselves increasingly included as part of the metropolitan area’s…conception of whiteness, and many took advantage of new housing opportunities.”

Sterling’s racist references to shiftless black untouchables are simply yet another snapshot of how caste, ethnicity and the bootstraps mythology play out in “post-racial” America. And in a country in which the racial wealth gap is most powerfully reflected in corporate real estate and apartheid-level access to private space people of color in particular shouldn’t be shocked or surprised.

Read the original article here.
____________________

Sikivu Hutchinson is the founder of the Women's Leadership Project and author of Godless Americana: Race and Religious Rebels (2013).
____________________
*****
Comment: Sterling's commentary on the mistreatment of blacks in Israel has been mostly invisible in the mainstream coverage.
 
Sikivu Hutchinson provides the needed interference above.

Sterling is a Jew and his views on blacks echoes those found among the Aryan folk who make up the KKK, for example.

How does this happen and why?

When did Jews become white in the US (and elsewhere really)?

The myth of the immigrant Jew working hard despite anti-Semitic racism to achieve the fabled American dream is largely misleading.  As Salomon Gruenwald is noted as saying above:"Jews did not become white because they succeeded in spite of racism, rather, they succeeded because of white racism."

These are uncomfortable truths for some.  Blackness as the deviant Other has provided a means for Jews and other so called ethnic whites to identify with Anglo-Saxon whiteness.  

In so doing they have merged interests to get a significant piece of the white American pie.

This process is not unique to so called white ethnics.  Hispanics or Latinos who identify as white mirror the same identity processes.  And when they do a lot of folks are left wondering how a Hispanic, George Zimmerman, can kill an innocent black teenager like Trayvon Martin on the strength of white racist assumptions about black deviance and its threat to white 'well-being' and privilege(s).

In all, becoming white means that any group allowed under the whiteness umbrella must perpetuate the mythology of an inherent black/African deviance.  This is the default rationalization of whiteness; white people do not exist in race terms without the demonization of black folks.

In South Africa large portions of the coloured and Indian populations reflect a similar dynamic but without becoming white in the skin sense.  But that is just part of the story.

As I have argued here on the blog and elsewhere the process of being white - or becoming white - is not circumscribed by skin color.  Rather, the process of being/becoming white is to be found in the ideology of whiteness and its relationship to domination - particularly via late capitalism in this epoch.

In effect, whiteness as an identity is not biological but definitively a matter of socialization impacted upon by space, place, politics and history.

What this means is that a coloured, Indian and a Jew can be anything but white in skin color or phenotype yet almost seamlessly identify and replicate the systems and privileges of whiteness.

This has led me to argue that you don't have to be white to be white.

 Race and racism are complex phenomena.  We would do well not to be fooled by skin-deep analysis.

And it is exactly for this reason that Sikivu Hutchinson has provided a very thoughtful - though short - article above.

Onward!