![]() |
"The Golden Driller" is as tall as the Statue of Liberty, sans pedestal. |
5.06.2025
day 8: tulsa: a drive through kansas, a walking tour, and a sudden change of plans
5.05.2025
day 6: kansas city: the negro leagues baseball museum is great but has problems
4.25.2025
the residential school denier who won't face voters -- and the party that stands by him
Pierre Poilievre stands by him, denying the denialism, claiming that the words Gunn said aren't really what he meant.
Gunn's residential school denialism tops a list of his other ignorant views, which include transphobia, admiration for Vladimir Putin, and support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Gunn has cancelled or no-showed every all-candidates meeting since this story broke. The man clearly lacks the courage to face voters and talk about his views.
* * * *
When Allan and I were looking into moving to Vancouver Island, one of the things that attracted us was local politics: the entire island was NDP, both provincially and federally.
Whatever the NDP is or is not, regardless what it is doing right and what it could do better, they are the party that most closely represents our values and our interests -- and what should be the interest of all Candian people, as opposed to corporations and industries. A place that votes orange in large numbers is going to be more comfortable for us than the southern Ontario ridings that flip back and forth between the Conservatives and the slightly less conservative Liberals.
Once here, I learned that the North Island has a history of flipping back and forth between Conservative and NDP representatives. The Conservatives pander to the Canadian equivalent of MAGA, while a high concentration of union members keep many of those voting for labour. And everyone hates the Liberals.
I have been very concerned about this election for many reasons.
Here in the North Island-Powell River riding, a much loved and well-respected Member of Parliament, Rachel Blaney, decided not to stand for re-election. The NDP candidate, Tanille Johnston, is articulate, passionate, and progressive. A young woman with Indigenous heritage, Tanille is a smart, sharp leader with the necessary courage and energy for the job.
Tanille has been a city councillor for Campbell River, but outside of that area, doesn't have a high profile or strong name recognition.
There is so much racism in this area, an abundance of aggrieved white men listening to talk radio. As issues rise to the forefront -- Reconciliation, trans liberation, immigrants and newcomers -- their reactions are predictable.
There is also an ignorant backlash against the provincial NDP that bleeds into the federal election. In the last provincial election, the riding flipped from orange to blue, our former and excellent NDP MLA being narrowly unseated by the Conservative candidate.
Given all these factors, I've been dreading and assuming that we will soon have a Conservative MP.
Then came Aaron Gunn and the revelations of his disgusting denialism of the impact of "residential schools" -- more accurately called concentration camps -- and Canada's role in colonial genocide. Even the dismissive language he used -- "get off Twitter and read a book" -- reveals his unsuitability to be a Member of Parliament. Does the man think the impact of the residential schools is a social-media myth? I'd like to know the last time Aaron Gunn read a book, and Tom Flanagan's latest doesn't count.
Many mayors and councillors of North Island communities signed a letter calling for Gunn to withdraw from the race. Port Hardy Mayor Pat Corbett-Labatt has said:
With everything happening around the world -- especially the troubling events in the United States -- I felt compelled to use my voice by signing this letter.
I believe that all people are equal, regardless of gender, race, religion, mental health, appearance, wealth, or age. To me, this letter is a stand against both overt and subtle forms of racism.
As Desmond Tutu once said, 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of the mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.'
Chief Boby Joseph's words continue to echo in my mind: 'We Are One'. I truly hope that whichever Member of Parliament is elected shares that belief.
[Quoted in local newspaper, no link available.]
With the federal election three days from now, blue lawn signs dominate our street. Pierre Poilievre says Gunn didn't mean what he very clearly said. And Gunn himself is in hiding.
So many of my neighbours either don't care, or they agree.
4.14.2025
greg palast: trump lost -- and our most hallowed media didn't tell us
As in Bush v. Gore in 2000 and in too many other miscarriages of Democracy, this election was determined by good old “vote suppression,” the polite term we use for shafting people of color out of their ballot. We used to call it Jim Crow.
Palast's analysis of this voter suppression may not tell us anything we didn't already know, but seeing the numbers is still stunning. And hearing so many Canadians ridicule Americans for electing this maniac, I feel compelled to share this as widely as I can.
Certainly this was not the first US election to be manipulated by the right wing, but it is certainly the most consequential.
Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes.
And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.
Stay with me and I’ll give you the means, methods and, most important, the key calculations.
But if you’re expecting a sexy story about Elon Musk messing with vote-counting software from outer space, sorry, you won’t get that here.
As in Bush v. Gore in 2000 and in too many other miscarriages of Democracy, this election was determined by good old “vote suppression,” the polite term we use for shafting people of color out of their ballot. We used to call it Jim Crow.
Go here to see the numbers and read the rest of the story.
Palast concludes:
Question: If these vote suppression laws—notorious example: Georgia’s SB 202—had no effect on election outcomes, then why did GOP legislators fight so hard to pass these laws? The answer is clear on the Brennan Center’s map of states that passed restrictive laws. It’s pretty much Trump’s victory map.
3.16.2025
a problem with a hero: the antisemitism of george orwell
Of course there are actions so heinous that knowledge of them could spoil any potential enjoyment, especially if the art isn't all that interesting in the first place. I'm not interested in oil paintings by Herr Hitler. I seldom enjoy stand-up comedy, so if a comedian's work is racist or sexist, it's incredibly easy for me to avoid it. But how Picasso or Woody Allen treated the women in their lives is irrelevant to me. Art and artist are not the same thing.
Imagine how this attitude was put to the test when I discovered that one of my writing heroes was antisemitic!
George Orwell and antisemitism
One of my life goals is to read everything published by my top three writing heroes: Charles Dickens, John Steinbeck, and George Orwell. Steinbeck: done. Dickens: three or four novels to go. Orwell is the easiest, since he died young, and didn't produce 1,000-page tomes.
Recently I decided to move this project forward a bit. In Powell's, I found the three Orwells I had left to read: Down and Out in Paris and London, Coming Up For Air, and A Clergyman's Daughter. I started with Down and Out, the literary and political godparent of Barbara Ehrenreich's brilliant exposé of labour and poverty, Nickel and Dimed.
Imagine my surprise in finding the book laden with antisemitism! Yikes! Hideous caricatures, disgusting descriptions, all completely gratuitous. DAOIPAL was published in 1933. In those times, it was very common to identify people by their ethnicity. "A little Hindu man was...," "the Pole was...". Today, that reads as lazy and shallow, but those types of references in DAOIPAL are not especially offensive. Except for Jews. And wow, is it ever a big exception.
As far as I know, this is found only in DAOIPAL, Orwell's first book, written when he was 30. Later in life, he had many close friends who were Jewish, he worked with Jewish editors and publishers, and more importantly, pressed the British government to give refuge to all Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. He was vocally opposed to the Third Reich's antisemitic policies, long before revelations of the death camps. So that's all good.
However, I've read that Orwell's letters -- which I plan to read -- are also laced with his private antisemitism. Ian Bloom, writing in The Jewish Chronicle considers "The Ever-Present Antisemitism of George Orwell":
Admirers of Orwell (among whom I count myself) have long been troubled by the strain of casual and perhaps not-so-casual antisemitism found in his published work, diary entries and private letters, especially in the 1930s. The almost schizophrenic contrast between his authorial hostility to these anonymous, nameless “Jews”, identified only by their religion, and his long friendships with individual Jewish publishers (Victor Gollancz and Fred Warburg) and writers (Arthur Koestler, T.R. (Tosco) Fyvel, Julian Symons, Jon Kimche, Evelyn Anderson and others) remains puzzling.
Bloom offers some cultural and literary perspective, reminding readers that antisemitism was rampant in British culture and common among its writers.
Literary antisemitism was the norm in England until relatively recently. If they mention Jews at all, most major 19th-century English novelists described unattractive stereotypes. Perhaps George Eliot is the shining exception, as is EM Forster in the next century. But Graham Greene, JB Priestley, Evelyn Waugh and Anthony Powell are all “guilty”, while HG Wells, Saki, GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc are positively odious. As for the poets, TS Eliot and Ezra Pound are simply vile. This then was the context, the prevailing milieu, when Orwell was serving both his literary and political apprenticeship in the 1930s. There was a prevailing hostility towards Jews in both spheres. If, like me, you expected better, even then, from the young Orwell, you’d be disappointed.
Unfortunately, on Bloom's list of examples, he includes Orwell's views on Zionism: that it is nationalist and colonialist, and that Zionists are the equivalent of white settler colonists. In other words, Orwell understood Zionism for what it is. If Bloom considers this view antisemitic, then I'm not sure how much I trust his thoughts on this topic. Was Orwell's antisemitism "ever present", or did he outgrow it?
Orwell: antisemitism as an irrational neurosis
Researching this post, I discovered that Orwell was actually concerned with antisemitism as a social evil, and tried to understand its ubiquity and its causes.
In "Orwell and Antisemitism: Towards 1984," Melvyn New writes:
In 1943 Orwell was deeply concerned with antisemitism as a social problem in England; in 1944-45 he seems as much concerned with its abstract nature. An "As I Please" column (11 February 1944), for example, begins with the statement that his review of two books on the persecution of the Jews had brought the "usual wad of antisemitic letters," which, he says, "left me thinking for the thousandth time that this problem is being evaded even by the people whom it concerns most directly". Orwell begins with his earlier insight into the problem: that the objective existence of "disagreeable Jews" is hardly the true cause of the prejudice.
Obviously the charges made against Jews are not true. They cannot be true, partly because they cancel out, partly because no one people could have such a monopoly of wickedness. . . . The official left-wing view of antisemitism is that it is some thing "got up" by the ruling classes in order to divert attention away from the real evils of society. The Jews, in fact, are scapegoats.The problem is, however, that pointing out this fact does not do away with the problem, "one does not dispose of a belief by showing that it is irrational." To argue in this way or to remind people of Nazi persecutions is to no avail: "If a man has the slightest disposition towards antisemitism, such things bounce off his consciousness like peas off a steel helmet."
Orwell, the pragmatic observer, calls for a "detailed enquiry into the causes of antisemitism," why Jews rather than another minority are "picked on," and what Jews are the scapegoat for. Significantly, he denies an economic cause, or that "sensible" people are immune, and concludes: "Clearly the neurosis lies very deep, and just what it is that people hate when they say that they hate a non-existent entity called 'the Jews' is still uncertain. And it is partly the fear of finding out how widespread antisemitism is that prevents it from being seriously investigated". In a very real sense, Orwell is raising the question he will raise again in 1984: "I understand how; I do not understand why?" [Quotes are from The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell.]
Although it pained me to see the antisemitism in DAOIPAL, I appreciated seeing this even more. Every human, every one of us, has bigotry. Not everyone admits it, examines it, and rejects it.
The little matter of the list
Discovering antisemitism in DAOIPAL wasn't the first time I had to grapple with some disturbing facts about George Orwell. In 2003, The Guardian published what is now referred to as "Orwell's List". Orwell "named names": he cooperated with British authorities by producing a list of people that he felt were security risks because of their ties to the Soviet state.
This news elicited a wide spectrum of reaction among progressive thinkers and writers, from Alexander Cockburn denouncing Orwell as despicable and no longer worth reading, to Christopher Hitchens brushing it off as trivial. The Wikipedia article "Orwell's list" includes a round-up of reaction.
It must be noted that the people whose names Orwell supplied to the British secret intelligence force weren't blacklisted. They weren't fired from positions, their careers ruined. The list comprised people deemed unsuitable to be part of a counterintelligence operation because of their close ties to the Soviet state. That's an important distinction.
The writer Bernard Crick writes that Orwell "did it because he thought the Communist Party was a totalitarian menace. He wasn't denouncing these people as subversives. He was denouncing them as unsuitable for a counter-intelligence operation."
Historian John Newsinger called Orwell's List "a terrible mistake on his part, deriving in equal measure from his hostility to Stalinism and his illusions in the Labour government. What it certainly does not amount to, however, is an abandonment of the socialist cause or transformation into a footsoldier in the Cold War. Indeed, Orwell made clear on a number of occasions his opposition to any British McCarthyism, to any bans and proscriptions on Communist Party members (they certainly did not reciprocate this) and any notion of a preventive war. If he had lived long enough to realise what the IRD was actually about there can be no doubt that he would have broken with it." (Given that the IRD produced propaganda, Newsinger's assumption is undoubtedly correct.)
I tend to agree with Crick and Newsinger. How much of that is rationalization, I cannot say. One could say I'm rationalizing all of it. Orwell was once antisemitic, but later repudiated it. Orwell named names, but he thought he was doing the right thing at the time, and the people on his list weren't blacklisted or ruined. It's rationalization -- and it's also true.
Why I read
So, knowing this, how could Orwell still be one of my greatest writing heroes? The answer is simple. I deeply love his work, and he was human.
George Orwell used his writing to fight totalitarianism, to denounce the hypocrisy of the ruling class, to champion workers, to champion socialism, to make us think more critically about capitalism. He cared deeply about justice. Like Woody Guthrie's guitar, Orwell's typewriter killed fascists. His writing is elegant, evocative, sparse, vivid. For me, his writing style is perfection. He was one of history's greatest essayists. 1984 is one of the greatest and most enduring books in the English language. The man who wrote that book was not perfect. He was human.
10.11.2024
it was the best of times, it was the worst of times: a tale of one library manager on two consecutive days
Headed to a library near you. |
8.17.2024
why i call kamala harris by her last name and wish you would too
8.11.2024
what i'm reading: path lit by lightning, the life of jim thorpe
Over the years, journalists often portrayed Thorpe as down and out, a shadow of his once grand self, working his way back to a better life from the bottom he hit digging ditches in Los Angeles during the depths of the Depression. It was an understandable if inadequate depiction. The arc of his life after his prime athletic years was less a series of jagged ups and downs than an unceasing exertion against the tide. He had launched so many endeavors in and out of sports, always temporary, always on the move. Hollywood extra. Indian organizer. Seamen. Bar greeter. Banquet speaker. Parks employee. Sports entrepreneur with the Tampa Cardinals in football, the World Famous Indians in basketball, Harjo's Indians in baseball, Jim Thorpe's Thunderbirds in women's softball. [His third wife] Patsy had many more plans for Jim, ranging from a national television show to an agreement to return to pro football with the Philadelphia Eagles, to serving as a pro wrestling manager -- all, they hoped, leading to the ultimate goal of fulfilling Jim's long-held dream of running the Thunderbird Fishing and Hunting Lodge along Florida's Indian River. As usual, most of it would never happen.
The Associated Press, after polling 391 sportswriters and broadcasters, declared Thorpe "the number one gridiron performer of the last 50 years," as he far outpaced Red Grange and Bronco Nagurski, the only other players in double figures in the voting, followed by Ernie Nevers, Sammy Baugh, Don Hutson , and George Gipp (who had four votes).
When the same electorate chose the greatest track athlete of the half century, Thorpe finished second behind Jesse Owens. More bests were named in succession in baseball, boxing, basketball, golf, tennis, swimming, and horse racing -- until on February 11, 1950, the AP announced the ultimate crown.The group of 56 athletes who received at least one vote as greatest athlete of the half century included Willie Hoppe in billiards and Dave Freeman in badminton, but the top 11 formed a gallery of major sports legends. At 11th came the electric Jackie Robinson, in his third year as the pioneer of [B]lack players in the major leagues, with two first-place votes and 24 total points. Next, counting down, came Nagurski at 10th, then Lou Gehrig, Owens, Grange, Joe Lewis, and Bobby Jones, none of whom reached 100 votes.
Disgraced by a disgraceful injusticeFor the top four, the numbers jumped exponentially. Ty Cobb had one first-place vote and 148 points for fourth. Jack Dempsey claimed 19 first-place votes and 246 total points for third. Babe Ruth had 86 first-place votes and 539 total points for second.All overshadowed by the colossus. Jim Thorpe finished with 252 first-place votes and 875 total points.
Over the years, journalists often portrayed Thorpe as down and out, a shadow of his once grand self, working his way back to a better life from the bottom he hit digging ditches in Los Angeles during the depths of the depression. It was an understandable if inadequate depiction period the arc of his life after his prime athletic years was less a series of jagged ups and downs than an unceasing exertion against the tide. He had launched so many endeavors in and out of sports, always temporary, always on the move. Hollywood extra. Indian organizer. Seamen. Bar greeter. Banquet speaker. Parks employee. Sports entrepreneur with the Tampa Cardinals in football about that the world famous Indians in basketball, hard joes Indians ing baseball, Jim Thorpe's Thunderbirds in women's softball. Patsy had many more plans for Jim, ranging from a national television show to an agreement to return to Pro Football with the Philadelphia Eagles to serving as a pro wrestling manager dash all, they hoped, leading to the ultimate goal of fulfilling gene gyms long held dream of running the Thunderbird fishing and hunting lodge along Florida's Indian River. As usual, most of it would never happen.
The Hollywood Indians, the Big Chiefs, and the warpath
Thorpe didn't lead an exemplary life. He struggled with alcohol and relationships. In that, he was no different than millions of others, and he had the additional burden of racism and discrimination. Thorpe lost his twin brother when he was a little boy, and his first child to the influenza pandemic. There was a lot of sadness and loss in his life.
Ten days before Christmas, a letter arrived from Horace J. Johnson, chief agent at the Sac and Fox Agency in Stroud. One document inside proclaimed that James Francis Thorpe had qualified to be deemed a United States citizen. He was 29. He had lived his entire life on American soil. He was educated at government schools. He could read and write. He had brought glory to the United States as the greatest athlete at the Olympics in 1912, praised by President Taft for representing "the best type of American citizen". His income as a professional baseball and football player exceeded the $3,000-a-year minimum that required him to pay federal taxes. All of that, yet only now was he granted citizenship.
7.25.2024
what i'm reading: how the word is passed by clint smith, a road trip through history and racism
Among the many recent titles published about racism, Clint Smith's How the Word is Passed: A Reckoning with the History of Slavery Across America is probably the most meaningful and accessible book I've read.
Smith takes the reader on a journey to nine places that are potent with the legacy of slavery, to see how the stories they tell reflect, distort, or deny that history.
Smith visits:
- Monticello, the plantation home of Thomas Jefferson,
- The Whitney Plantation, a non-profit that seeks to educate the public about the slavery,
- Louisiana State Penitentiary, always referred to as Angola,
- Blandford Cemetery, best known for a mass grave of Confederate soldiers,
- a Juneteenth celebration in Galveston, Texas,
- the African Burial Ground National Monument in New York City,
- the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington DC, and
- Gorée Island in Senegal, which was a holding station for kidnapped and enslaved people before they were forced onto ships.
Smith, who is a poet and also writes for The Atlantic, tells these stories with a blend of research, interviews, and personal reflection, and with a warm, open-minded, open-hearted approach that I found very engaging. How the Word Is Passed has won a boatload of awards, and there's no shortage of reviews online, so I'll just share a sample of some passages from the book that resonated deeply with me.
* * * *
I thought of my primary and secondary education. I remembered feeling crippling guilt as I silently wondered why every enslaved person couldn't simply escape like Douglass, Tubman, and Jacobs had. I found myself angered by the stories of those who did not escape. Had they not tried hard enough? Didn't they care enough to do something? Did they choose to remain enslaved? This, I now realize, is part of the insidiousness of white supremacy; it illuminates the exceptional in order to implicity blame those who cannot, in the most brutal circumstances, attain superhuman heights. It does this instead of blaming the system, the people who built it, the people who maintained it.
Many Jewish people, especially of earlier generations, felt deep shame that European Jews "allowed" themselves to be rounded up and slaughtered. Rape survivors believe they "let" themselves be raped.
The section on Angola was absolutely wild, one of those "I thought I knew how bad this was" moments.
The conditions under convict leasing [from Angola Prison] were often as gruesome as anything that had existed under slavery. . . . As one man told the National Conference of Charities and Corrections in 1883, "Before the war, we owned the negroes. If a man had a good negro, he could afford to take care of him. If sick, get a doctor. He might even put gold plugs in his teeth. But these convicts, we don't own 'em. One dies, get another."
From W.E.B. Du Bois in 1928, quoted in How the Word is Passed. I love hearing the states' rights argument demolished.
Each year on the 19th of January, there is renewed effort to canonize Robert E. Lee, the greatest Confederate general. His personal comeliness, his aristrocratic birth, and his military prowess all call for the verdict of greatness and genius. But one thing -- one terrible fact -- militates against this, and this is the inescapable truth that Robert E. Lee led a bloody war to perpetuate slavery. Copperheads like the New York Times may magisterally declare, "Of course, he never fought for slavery." Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. . . . No, people do not go to war for abstract theories of government. They fight for property and privilege, and that was what Virginia fought for in the Civil War. And Lee followed Virginia. . . . Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not, he was a fool. If he did, Robert E. Lee was a traitor and a rebel -- not indeed to his country but to humanity and humanity's God.
I also especially loved the sections on monuments and naming of public places. I want to see all the names on Vancouver Island restored to Indigenous words, especially those place-names that recall the architect of the residential "school" system: Duncan, Campbell, Scott. And most of all, I want to see the ridiculously named British Columbia wiped off the map and restored or updated. Here are several passages about that. Turns out we're all supporting white supremacy.
It is not simply that statues of Lee and other Confederates stand as monuments to a traitorous army predicated on maintaining and expanding the insitution of slavery; it is also that we, U.S. taxpayers, are paying for their maintenance and preservation. A 2018 report by Smithsonian magazine and the Nation Institute's Investigative Fund (now Type Investigations) found that over the previous ten years, U.S. taxpayers have directed at least forty million dollars to Confederate monuments, including statues, homes, museums, and cemeteries, as well as Confederate heritage groups. And in Virginia, the subsidizing of Confederate iconography is a more than century-long project.
In 1902, as Jim Crow continued to expand as a violent and politically repressive force, the state's all-white legislature created an annual allocation of the state's funds for the care of Confederate graves. Smithsonian's investigation found that in total, the state had spent approximately $9 million in today's dollars. Much of that funding goes directly to the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which received over $1.6 million in funds for Confederate cemeteries from the State of Virginia between 1996 and 2018.
Why should we restore names?
The creation of any monument sends a message, whether intentional or not. I think of the statues around the country of people who presided over Native genocide or forced resettlement, and how a young Indigenous child might experience that pedestaled figure.
More from W.E.B. Du Bois:
The most terrible thing about War, I am convinced, is its monuments -- the awful things we are compelled to build in order to remember the victims. To the South, particularly, human ingenuity has been put to it to explain, on its war monuments, the Confederacy. Of course, the plain truth of the matter would be an inscription something like this: "Sacred to the memory of those who fought to Perpetuate Human Slavery." But that reads with increasing difficulty as time goes on. It does, however, seem to be overdoing the matter to read on a North Carolina Confederate monument: "Died Fighting for Liberty!"
Smith, driving around his hometown of New Orleans:
"Go straight for two miles on Robert E. Lee."
"Take a left on Jefferson Davis."
"Make the first right on Claiborne."
Translation:
"Go straight for two miles on the general whose troops slaughtered hundreds of Black soldiers who were trying to surrender."
"Take a left on the president of the Confederacy, who understood the torture of Black bodies as the cornerstone of their new nation."
"Make the first right on the man who allowed the heads of rebelling slaves to be mounted on stakes in order to prevent other slaves from getting any ideas."
On the ancestry of Black Americans:
In my experience -- as both educator and student, as researcher and writer -- there was little mainstream discussion of who Black people were before they reached the coasts of the New World, beyond the ball and chain. This was something I had heard when I lived in Senegal, a decade prior, that we Black Americans were taught so little of our traditions, our cultures, our voices before we were taken and forced onto ships that carried us across the Atlantic. As Sue pointed out, the risk is that Black Americans understand our history as beginning in bondage rather than in the freedom of Africa that preceded it.
Language matters:
A statement like "Black Southerners were segregated because of their skin color" . . . that passive construction makes it seem as if segregation was completely natural, which absolves the enforces of segregation . . . from any sort of culpability.
This immediately reminded me of a familiar whitewashing: "Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier." Allan and I have often noted how this phrasing conceals the truth. It sounds like Robinson was the first Black person good enough to break through to the major leagues. How about "Black people were not allowed to play in this league because of the racism and discrimination of the teams' owners"? Or perhaps, "As in society overall, the owners of Major League Baseball teams supported segregation and discrimination, and did not allow Black players on their teams."
On this episode of "It Wasn't Only in the South", this is about slavery in Dutch New Amsterdam.
According to historian Jill Lepore, for every 100 people taken from Africa, only about 64 would survive the trip from the region's interior to the coast. Of those 64, around 48 would survive the weeks-long journey across the Atlantic. Of those 48, only 28-30 would survive the first three to four years in the colony. [Historians Ira] Berlin and [Leslie M.] Harris refer to New York at this time as "a death factory for black people."
From a teacher in Senegal:
Part of what Hasan teaches his students is that we cannot understand slavery and colonialism as two separate historical phenomena. They are inextricably linked pieces of history. Slavery took a toll on West Africa's population; millions of people were stripped from their homelands and sent across the ocean to serve in intergenerational bondage. The profound harm continued during colonialism, with much of the contenent stripped of its natural resources instead of its people. Hasan reflected, "In both situations, in slavery and colonization, what you have is a system of plunder. First, in slavery, we have a plunder of human beings. Africa had been ripped of its people. And colonization is a plunder of natural resources. Both are plunder systems."
I'll close with the passage that was immediately and profoundly resonant to me, as I wish it would be for all American Jews. My notes say "xref zionism".
What would it take -- what does it take -- for you to confront a false history even if it means shattering the stories you have been told throughout your life? Even if it means having to fundamentally reexamine who you are and who your family has been? Just because something is difficult to accept doesn't mean you should refuse to accept it. Just because someone tells you a story doesn't make the story true.
5.21.2024
polarization is not the problem. the problem is fascism.
Art by Maaike Hartjes |
I hear and read this a lot these days.
In this analysis, opposing points of view are characterized as "extreme". The best option, it is said, lies in the middle.
This is a deceptive and potentially dangerous belief.
When mainstream views move so far to the right that the ideas, if put into action, would destroy democracy and civil society, then it is our responsibility to oppose those views.
When bigotry and hate are rallying cries, it is our duty to stand in opposition, and in solidarity with the targets.
When political actions offend our core values, we must call them out and oppose them.
And if that appears polarizing, it's not the fault of the people trying to build a better world -- or trying to save the crappy one we have.
The opposite of extremism may not be extreme
The "polarization is the problem" view assumes that both ends of the spectrum are always extreme, and that a common-sense approach always lies somewhere in the middle.
So as the right wing has become more and more extreme, the definition of "centrist" -- supposedly middle ground -- has moved further to the right, too. In conversations with Canadians, I have been absolutely amazed that this is a novel concept: people don't seem to realize that centre is a relative term!
There is no active extreme left in either the US or Canada. There may be random individuals on the extreme left, but there is no political party representing those views, no widespread people's movement, no groundswell of public opinion.
The parties and viewpoints that oppose the extreme right are either moderate centre-right (Liberal Party, most of Democratic Party) or moderate center-left (NDP, some of Democratic Party). The Liberals, Democrats, and NDP are only far-left in a Fox News-induced fantasy world -- and through the polarization lens.
Take a look at those parties' platforms, the bills they put forward, how they vote. Not so very long ago, their positions were considered quite moderately liberal. The evidence for that is all around us: it's what's left of the public sector that the right-wing has been demolishing since the Reagan/Mulroney era. Advocating for public healthcare, affordable housing, public education, a fair tax code, green energy, and decent jobs is not extreme. Wanting an inclusive society is not extreme.
Define "greater good"
"We need to come together to work for the greater good."
This is a familiar refrain from the "polarization is the problem" mindset. But how should those with opposing viewpoints work together -- and why?
I can agree that in Parliament and Congress it would be best if political parties could work together. If a party votes yes for something when they put it forward, and vote no on the same thing when another party puts it forward, that is partisanship. It values party loyalty over society at large. It's counterproductive, childish, and wrong.
But when parties' values are opposed to each other, finding a so-called middle ground isn't necessarily a reasonable goal. Take healthcare, for example. If one party wants to expand the public health system, and one party wants to privatize it, those two parties can't find a middle ground and they shouldn't try.
Should the party that wants to expand public health care "compromise" and allow some privatization? Of course not! That party should oppose all privatization and seek to roll back whatever privatization has already taken place. Those are the actions that align with their values, and presumably the values of their voters. Finding so-called common ground would mean betraying their values, their voters, and the public health system.
After hearing "we need to come together to work for the greater good," we must insist: define greater good.
Can't we all just coalition?
What about a coalition? In most parliamentary systems of government, in countries throughout the world, parties enter into coalitions from time to time. Can Canada do that? Would we want it to?
I would probably support an NDP-Liberal coalition government, so those parties could work together to defeat the Conservatives. When this was attempted in 2009, it was scuttled by a weak Liberal leader, public ignorance, and propaganda, with a huge assist from the Canadian media. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said a coalition would "overturn the results of an election" -- and no one challenged or corrected him.** (If they did it was not amplified to the point where anyone could hear it.)
A coalition would be exciting, scary, potentially amazing. Potentially disastrous. Alas, we'll probably never know. It seems highly unlikely that we'll see a coalition government in Canada. But we could try.
If working together for the greater good means defeating the Conservatives -- who, in the Canadian context, are far-right -- then working together is a laudable goal.
Good guys vs. fascists
All my adult life, I've heard that's it's wrong to think in terms of us vs. them. But I've never believed that. Of course it's wrong when applied to nationality or ethnic background or so-called "race". But my own us vs. them has nothing to do with personal characteristics. My us vs. them is not even about class. It's about worldviews. Values. Right and wrong.
There are those who want justice, peace, equity. Who want everyone to have a safe and affordable place to live, quality healthcare, quality education. Those who value democracy. Who want everyone to be free to live and love as they choose, to create the families that they want, without government or religious interference.
And there are those who want profit, empire, and power. Warmongers. Hatemongers. People who believe that where their ancestors were born makes them superior. People who think their life choices should be the only ones available. People who want to reverse social progress. As an old boss of mine, Oz Elliott, used to say: good guys and fascists.
Being a good guy doesn't mean staying neutral or searching for common ground. It means standing up for what is right.
Polarization is, in reality, resistance. And in the face of fascism, bigotry, and hate, it's exactly what we need.
-----
** For some US readers: A coalition does no such thing. Everyone who was elected is still elected. What differs is who forms the government.
4.26.2024
"strange fruit" documentary: a nexus of the past and present, and a personal sense of loss
Strange Fruit: the song and reason
Strange Fruit, the song, bears witness to the violent persecution of Black Americans. The history of the song coincides with another shameful episode of the American experience -- the persecution of socialists and progressive thinkers.
If you aren't familiar with the song -- made famous by the great jazz singer Billie Holiday, and performed by many others through the years -- it is about lynching.
The lyrics:
Southern trees bear strange fruitLynching was, of course, murder. And it was terrorism, intended to enforce the codes of white supremacy known as Jim Crow.
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees
Pastor scene of the gallant south
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouths
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh
Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop
Here is a strange and bitter crop
Lynching is still happening. What is the ongoing murder of Black Americans by police if not lynching?
Mass incarceration and capital punishment are also lynching. Perhaps one could argue that those means of controlling Black people are part of the judicial system, and lynching is technically "extra-judicial"? That would be, as we say, a distinction without a difference. Slavery was legal, too.
"Strange Fruit: The Biography of a Song" was released in 2002, so the examples of contemporary lynchings are now dated: Amadou Diallo, the unarmed, 23-year-old man who was shot 41 times by police after reaching for his wallet, and Abner Louima, who was raped, tortured, and permanently disabled by police. If the film was made today, the most obvious reference would be George Floyd. But there would be so many examples to chose from.
It's not known how many Black Americans were the victims of lynchings from the 1830s until the 1960s. All we know is there were thousands -- probably more than 5,000.
Allan wondered if the total number of lynching victims of the past would be exceeded by the number of victims of police killings. And if we count mass incarceration, then that number is dwarfed by millions.
The songwriter: another history of persecution
Before watching this film, I didn't know who wrote "Strange Fruit," and I was under the impression -- false, as it turns out -- that it was written specifically for Billie Holiday.
"Strange Fruit" was written by Lewis Allen, which was a pseudonym for Abel Meeropol.
When I heard that name -- Meeropol -- it hit me like a jolt. I have only heard that name in one context: it was the last name of the family that adopted the Rosenberg children -- the children left orphaned by the executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I thought, was that a common last name, is this a coincidence?
Abel Meeropol's sons were interviewed extensively in this documentary, and as we watched, it began to dawn on me that these men, incredibly, were those children.
And if you don't know this shameful and disgusting piece of US history, here's something else to look up. During the height of anti-communist hysteria in the US, the Rosenbergs were accused of passing nuclear secrets to the Soviets. They were communists, and they were Jewish, and this fed the persecution. On June 19, 1953, Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg were murdered by the United States government.
The documentary shows how communism had been popular in the US, and that in the 1920s and 30s, members of the American Communist Party marched and sang and openly discussed their beliefs -- as was their right.
Abel Meeropol was a teacher in DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx, and as such, a member of the New York City Teachers Union. In those days, before the labour movement struck its fateful deal with government -- guaranteeing workers certain rights (which are constantly violated), in exchange for labour peace (which is strictly and often illegally enforced) -- the labour movement was more radical, and many members were communists. To paraphrase someone in the film: in no way was the teachers' union an arm of the communist party, but many members of the union were communist or had communist leanings.
The documentary eventually reveals that the brothers being interviewed were indeed adopted by the Meeropols, and their birth parents were Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. There is even footage of them, shot from a distance, leaving Sing Sing Prison on their last visit with their parents.
A sense of loss: the long goodbye
As a socialist and a Jew, the story of the Rosenbergs affects me profoundly. And now, hearing the name Meeropol affects me, too. It makes me miss my mother.
My mother is still alive, and in good physical health, and I am grateful for that. But she has dementia. In the past -- not even the distant past, just a few years ago -- after seeing this documentary, I would have called her. I would have said the name Meeropol and she would have said, "The family that adopted the Rosenberg children!". She read their book, We Are Your Sons, and told me a lot about the Rosenberg case. My mother knew a lot of history, and for all I know, she already knew that "Strange Fruit" was written by the adopted father of the two Meeropol children.
My mother and I used to talk about everything. She loved history, and we frequently talked about history and politics. Many times, she told me how the night before the Rosenbergs were scheduled to be executed, thousands of people filled New York City's Union Square, and similar protest rallies were held all over the world, calling for clemency.
Right now, as I write this, I can hear my mother's voice saying this. And I miss her.
----------
Post-scripts
Jewish-Americans?
In "Strange Fruit: The Biography of a Song," a person interviewed expresses their surprise upon learning that the songwriter was "not only white, but a Jewish-American". They say this as if it was strange that the writer would be Jewish. First of all, Jewish songwriters abounded in that era -- Irving Berlin and George Gershwin being the most famous, but there were many others. More importantly, no one should be surprised that a white person protesting bigotry and persecution was Jewish. Jewish people were always disproportionately represented in the civil rights movement. The reasons should be obvious.
I was also weirded out by the expression Jewish-American, which two people in the documentary use. As I thought about it, I realized it's not wrong. We say Italian-American, Irish-American, and surely Jewish-American is a similar idea. Perhaps the speakers, who were both Black, were mirroring the African-American, which was the preferred terminology of the time. But it's a strange expression nonetheless. We would normally say the songwriter was Jewish, or a Jewish man.
The Rosenberg Fund for Children
Michael Meeropol founded The Rosenberg Fund for Children, with this mission.
The Rosenberg Fund for Children was established to provide for the educational and emotional needs of children whose parents have suffered because of their progressive activities and who, therefore, are no longer able to provide fully for their children. The RFC also provides grants for the educational and emotional needs of targeted activist youth.
A list of their board members, past and present, is instructive and moving.