Showing posts with label bigotry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bigotry. Show all posts

5.06.2025

day 8: tulsa: a drive through kansas, a walking tour, and a sudden change of plans

"The Golden Driller" is as tall as
the Statue of Liberty, sans pedestal.
Yesterday we got an earlier start, and drove through the state of Kansas to Tulsa. When I was planning this trip, I didn't think about doing anything between Kansas City and Tulsa; I probably should have left a little more time for that. When I saw signs for Osawatomie and Potawatomie, I remembered John Brown, one of the more fascinating figures in American history. 

The John Brown Memorial Park and Museum was not open for the day as we passed the exit. On the way back, we'll be heading for a day game, so no John Brown on this trip. This is in keeping with all the times we missed John Brown historical site in New York State!

We also passed Will Rogers' birthplace and museum, and Coffeyville, a small town which boasts about its run-in with some outlaws called the Dalton Gang. We aren't especially interested in either place, but it was interesting to know they were there.

We also passed through the tiny town of Talala. Tala-la. Not only do we see Tala's name in that, but I called her Talabobala. Ah, Tala. Cookie often reminds me of her: so beautiful, so smart, such a little devil. 

The most direct route from KC to Tulsa was not a major highway, but mostly one lane in each direction. We drove through huge stretches with nothing but farmland to the horizon, and through some very tiny communities, until we hit the ugly outskirts of Tulsa. Outskirts look the same everywhere.

The previous day, I had booked a walking tour of downtown Tulsa. I saw it online and it sounded good. Tulsa has a relatively large collection of art deco buildings, and hidden tunnels built by oil magnates who didn't want to mingle with the riff raff. When we got into town, it was pouring -- the first rain we've seen on the whole trip. (We had beautiful weather for our game in St. Louis, and the following night, the game was rained out!) We didn't really want to spend two hours walking in the rain, but the guide said the tour was mainly indoors. 

Mary took us through several nearby buildings, walking us through Tulsa's history and pointing out architectural and design details. It was... all right. Not stupendous, but not bad. We learned a lot about the city's history, from an Indigenous settlement, through the cattle industry, the discovery of oil, various economic busts, and finally the revitalization of the downtown. And we definitely saw architecture and art that we would not have seen otherwise.

I was wondering if Killers of the Flower Moon would come up, and it did. Once, through one of the oil magnates who married an Osage woman -- but apparently loved her, and they were married before her land become so valuable, and a second time when we were in a building where part of the movie was filmed. I asked her how the book was received, and she said "very well". She also said the same is true of the "race riots". None of them learned about this when they were growing up, but the city now acknowledges these difficult parts of its history.

Race riots: that's what white Tulsa calls the massacre. The same term that is used for the turmoil in inner-city Detroit and Newark during the 1970s. There was only one "race" rioting in Greenwood, Tulsa, and it was white. The incident is more accurately described as a pogrom -- an act of terrorism. And it was a massacre, of Black people by white people. 

We were very tired after a long drive and a two-hour walking tour. We drove to our Airbnb, and had a rude shock. Allan walked in first and immediately said there was a very strong smell -- and Allan has almost no sense of smell. I was barely over the threshold before I started to cough and choke. It was a scented air "freshener" smell, which I am very sensitive to. The smell was so strong, that even standing on the driveway with the front door open, I was coughing.

I messaged the host and asked if there was something we could unplug or undo to air out the house. He told me the locations of three plug-ins, and also said a lot of rain was expected, so not to leave the windows open. We then realized we couldn't stay there. There was simply no way. Breathing is not optional! 

I had to find another Airbnb at the last minute, with about an hour before the same-day window for booking would close. I figured, book something now, worry about the refund later. I really wanted an Airbnb, as opposed to a hotel, because I want a kitchen, and I had been planning on doing laundry. We are staying in Tulsa five nights, and an Airbnb would be much more comfortable.

I did find a place pretty quickly, at a comparable price. It seemed very far away, but we later realized it's just on the other side of the city. Both places are outside of downtown, but in opposite directions. The first place was in a neighbourhood clearly in transition, with tiny little houses, some lovely and some very run-down. The place we're now staying in is upscale suburban, an apartment above the garage of a large house. It includes a small deck overlooking a wooded area. On the drive there, I was still coughing. 

Allan went out to get supplies (there was only decaf coffee!) and dinner while I started doing laundry. I also messaged the first Tulsa host, who said I should officially cancel the booking through the app. He refunded four nights out five, and no fees. This would have left me paying $330 for the privilege of almost having an asthma attack on someone's driveway.

There was no point arguing with the host. He was acting like he did me a huge favour by issuing a refund at all. He kept saying I should have told him in advance, he would have taken care of it. That never would have occurred to me; in a lifetime of travel, this has never been a problem. 

I ended communication with the host and contacted Airbnb support. It didn't take long, and I did end up with a full refund, which has already gone through on my credit card. 

Today and the rest of this week, we have finally arrived at the impetus for this trip: the Bob Dylan Center and the Woody Guthrie Center. Besides the exhibits, Allan will do some deeper Dylan research. He feels like he needs weeks, months, or years to read and listen to everything in the extensive Bob Dylan archives. We've talked about how our time here cannot be enough, and how we should choose to feel grateful we were able to be here, rather than focusing on the incompleteness. 

5.05.2025

day 6: kansas city: the negro leagues baseball museum is great but has problems

Yesterday we took our time in the morning, then headed back out to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, housed in the same building as the American Jazz Museum. 

What was lost and why

Both jazz and Black baseball have some roots in Kansas City, along with many other US cities. Both museums, plus a display in the atrium between the two, emphasize that this neighbourhood -- called "18th & Vine" -- was the centre of a thriving Black community that, in a sense, was destroyed by integration, or at least de-segregation. That is certainly the story of the Negro Leagues, the Black press, and many other Black American institutions. It was the sad, ironic price of the successes of the civil rights movement.

To me, it sometimes seems like the nostalgia for those vibrant days doesn't adequately emphasize why these parallel Black institutions existed: because Black people were not allowed to participate in mainstream American life, and the penalty for attempting to do so -- for defying Jim Crow -- were severe, often fatal, and routinely visited on the entire Black community. No story provides stronger evidence of that than that of our next stop, Tulsa.

I can understand the nostalgia, especially considering how historically Black communities were neglected after de-segregation, with crappy schools and an almost total lack of services. And as a writer, I know that it's never easy to balance a story with "this, but that, too". Here at 18th & Vine, I feel there is too much "this" (it was beautiful then) and not enough "that" (it was unjust, and dangerous, and scary, and hideous).

The Negro Leagues Baseball Museum does a better job of that, since the sole reason for the Leagues' existence was racism. There is a good walk-through what the Negro Leagues were, why and how they developed, who the stars were, who organized and funded the teams, what conditions were like, and so on. But still, it begins with a short overview film (narrated by James Earl Jones), which concludes with something like "then Jackie Robinson made it and everything was grand". Even two more sentences of how long it took to actually integrate, how Black players were shut out of coach and manager positions, or the prejudice they faced in the earlier years, would have helped. You could write that and still end on a hopeful note of steady progress.

Negro Leagues Baseball Museum

The museum itself? Meh. In several places, glass display cases were blocking printed information, many objects on display were not identified at all, information was in the wrong chronological order, terms were not explained. It wasn't a total mess like the Egyptian museum in Cairo, but there were several instances of these missteps. People do love this museum, and I think most people wouldn't notice these things, but a professional organization shouldn't make these errors.

Socialism, feminism, and unionism -- or not

One excellent piece was an entire display, including an excellent short film, highlighting the work of Lester Rodney. Rodney was a sportswriter for the socialist newspaper The Daily Worker. Rodney made the fight to integrate baseball his fight, both in his writing and by organizing. Day after day, year after year, he called out baseball's racism, using many different tools, including pickets and petitions. At one point, he delivered more than 1.5 million signatures of fans to Kenesaw Mountain Landis, the racist commissioner of baseball who (along with racist team owners) was responsible for the ban on Black players continuing as long as it did. Rodney was a hero of the civil rights movement, and he was a socialist. Allan and I were both so happy to see him highlighted. 

There was a section on Black women in baseball, which was great. But did it have to be titled "The Beauty of the Game"?? I was horrified. 

While I'm complaining, would it kill historians to occasionally note the importance of trade unionism in these fights? In the early NLBM displays, there is a general timeline running parallel to the baseball information, to give the viewer a sense of what was happening in the larger country and civil rights movement, concurrent with the Negro Leagues. I was very pleased to see A. Philip Randolph and the Sleeping Car Porters there. But why not identify the first succesful Black-led labour union, or idntify Randolph as a union leader, or even use the word union at all? 

Connie Morgan, a Black, female ballplayer I had never heard of, apparently worked for the AFL-CIO -- which I only learned in a sentence saying she retired from that organization. Was Morgan a labour activist? We don't know, since apparently we don't talk about unions. 

The film in the 18th & Vine exhibit also highlighted the success of Black teachers and waiters, without ever mentioning that thrived through being organized. It highlighted the roles of social clubs and churches in organizing pickets and boycotts, but not the role of Black trade unions.

Gift shops without books!

The NLBM carries only shirts, hoodies, and caps, with a sad, tiny section of books -- a few titles, some copies damaged. The American Jazz Museum did only slightly better, with a nice display of children's books. But considering all the books on jazz that are out there, it still sucked. 

Allan said that on his first-ever visit to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, the gift shop offered a huge section of books. He had no money and literally spent his last dollars on a SABR publication -- even that was there. On his next visit to Cooperstown, when we went together in 1989, there were almost no books. This is very sad. Unforgiveable.

Neither of us wanted anything from the NLBM gift shop. At the AJM gift shop, I bought a great pair of earrings, and a collection of Ralph Ellison's writing on jazz, and Allan found a set of three bookmarks featuring the art of Jean-Michel Basquiat. Allan loves Basquiat and collects art bookmarks from everywhere we travel, so that was perfect.

The carnivore's vacation

After the museum, we spent a long time driving around looking for a grocery store (even with Google Maps) to replenish our supplies, then went back to the apartment so I could rest. We were still deciding which barbecue restaurant to try, but it turned out many had closed for the day or would be closed by the time we got there. 

We ended up at Jack Stack, a local chain. The menu, service, and food were all amazing. I had a combination plate with lamb ribs (I had no idea that such a thing existed in barbecue!) and baby backs; Allan had a combo of burnt ends, sausage, and spare ribs. The beans were rich and molassesy, and slaw was light and tangy. Naturally, half my dinner is in the fridge right now, waiting for my breakfast. But even Allan has leftovers waiting for him, from both Stroud's and barbecue. We also each had a "KC Lemonade," made with lemonade, blackberries, and vodka, a treat for us these days.

When we didn't order dessert, Allan said something about my being tempted by crème brûlée -- and with our check, the server brought us a crème brûlée packaged to go, on the house. Super nice!

I have not yet stubbed a toe

The Airbnb is working better now that I've figured out some of the accessibility issues. We decided to keep our one-night reservation here later in the trip, rather than cancel and book a hotel. We'll probably re-pack so we can bring fewer things down the steep steps.

Today is our day in Kansas City without the jazz and baseball museums. We're planning on seeing some buildings downtown, including the famous library, eating more barbecue, and possibly hearing live music tonight. 

I don't care about art museums unless there's a collection or a specific work or artist I want to see -- in which case I care hugely -- and no city on this trip qualifies. We don't enjoy zoos or aquariums, because animals, and we don't care about science centres. That automatically rules out a lot of sightseeing. But we do enjoy architecture, and walking around cities, and I wanted to make sure we saw a litle of KC.

Also on my list: a drive into Kansas City, Kansas, making this trip three states I had never visited -- Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas -- rather than two.

4.25.2025

the residential school denier who won't face voters -- and the party that stands by him

Aaron Gunn, the Conservative candidate for North Island-Powell River (my riding), is a bigot and a residential school denier. 

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

Allan recently shared with me a sobering piece by Greg Palast. It illustrates so much of what is wrong with both the US's fake electoral system and the major media. Palast -- an impeccable researcher -- has run the numbers, and he reveals a simple truth: Trump lost. 

Millions of Americans have had their right to vote stolen through corrupt, antidemocratic, and racist lawmaking. Because guess what? Most victims of this vote-theft are Black.

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

I've written many times about my views on the practice of shunning certain art or entertainment based on the morals or habits of the creator. In short, I don't do it. I want to experience all the creativity the world has to offer. I only wish I could experience more of it. I don't filter my likes and dislikes through a screen of moral judgement.

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

This started out as a "things i heard at the library" post, but it got too complicated. Instead, it's a story about my life as the manager of a public library in a high-risk community.

First we heard about Georgie

Headed to a library near you.
Earlier this week, we learned that a regular customer of ours, someone we saw every day without fail, was killed. Murdered. We regularly hear of substance-use-related deaths, and suicides, and deaths from general poor health. But this was the first time in my experience in Port Hardy that we heard about a homicide.

The man who was killed was a sweet, kind, quiet person. He didn't have housing and lived at the local Salvation Army shelter. He was a regular at the community puzzle table. When he first appeared in the branch, he was very withdrawn and sat in a corner by himself. One of our staff took it upon herself to slowly, gradually, quietly bring him into the library community.

The news that he had been killed was truly shocking and heartbreaking. But I can't be heartbroken at work. If I'm heartbroken at work, I can't do my job. So I save my heartbreak for when I'm home, by myself. And in this way, my work unintentionally comes home with me. 

I also realize the same is true for my staff, and it's my job to support them and offer resources if they need them. So also in this way, my work follows me home.

Then we dealt with the retraumatization, and probably toxic drugs

The following day, someone came up to the info desk, spoke a few incoherent words, sat down on the floor, then collapsed. Kneeling beside her, staff first asked another team member to call an outreach worker, then changed her mind and asked her to call 911. While that was going on, two more people entered the branch, both staggering and incoherent. Both sat down, then passed out. Within an hour, four separate ambulances took away a total of seven people.

Things calmed down after that. Later in the day -- right before the start of a program -- another person collapsed, another ambulance called. That brought us to five calls and eight people, breaking the previous record.

We can only assume this was at least partly a response to Georgie's death, which triggered a wave of retraumatization. Adding to that, several area drug dealers are now incarcerated, which means that people are buying from new dealers, a new supply, so they cannot judge the dosage, and there may be fentanyl or other toxic substances in the mix. 

Everyone survived. We are grateful for that.

In between, a program

The program went off as planned: "Good Health Starts at the Supermarket". A registered dietician from the public health office gave a presentation on how to "shop healthy". We had draw prizes of grocery gift cards, and a bag of healthy groceries. Ten people attended, and the prize winners -- low income people themselves -- shared with the others. 

I organized this program, which is part of what I do. Incidentally, and importantly, it was one of the very few programs attended by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous library customers. That was very gratifying.

While the program was going on, I attended (virtually) a Board meeting of the Mt Waddington Family Literacy Society, of which I am now co-chair.

The next day, building community connections to combat racism

The following day, I co-chaired a steering-committee meeting of the Welcoming Communities Coalition of North Vancouver Island. The Coalition is dedicated to reducing and eliminating barriers to newcomers' full participation in our communities, with a focus on antiracism.

Our North Island communities have become the landing place for a large number of newcomers to Canada. These folks, all of whom have arranged employment, are needed and should be welcomed into our towns, but of course that is not always their experience. 

Being a newcomer is not easy, but I cannot imagine how much more difficult it is made by small-town, remote-community life. When the Immigrant Welcome Centre opened an office in this region, I decided to make newcomers an intentional focus of my library branches.

Connecting with the Immigrant Welcome Centre, I also found the Welcoming Communities Coalition, which is part of the IWC, but not involved in direct service provision. One thing led to another, and I became the co-chair of the Welcoming Communities Coalition steering committee on North Vancouver Island. 

Through connections I have made during my work here, I was able to invite others to the table -- people who can greatly help move our work forward. These connections are indeed my greatest contribution to this work.  

At this recent meeting (which I organized), I truly felt the power and potential of forging and cultivating community connections. The people I invited will become the key players at making our efforts successful. I say this not to pat myself on the back or to win praise. I say it with a sense of wonder and much joy that I have come so far, and that I have shaped my work in this way. It is deeply satisfying.

The folks on the steering committee are seasoned, realistic activists and advocates. We know we will not eliminate racism in our communities. However, we will:
- organize events designed to celebrate diversity and promote cultural exchange,
- educate residents about racism and antiracism,
- connect newcomers with resources,
- encourage and facilitate the reporting of hate crimes and racist actions,
- help newcomers understand the specific cultural context of our communities, especially relationships with Indigenous communities, 
- educate people about human rights, and
- take a visible stand against racism and invite everyone in our communities to do so with us.

What else I'm up to

This is a window into my working life. I'm also interviewing and hiring new staff, overseeing and supporting the work of frontline workers, overseeing five facilities, giving presentations to community groups, designing programs, and plowing through a small mountain of paperwork. And hopefully soon, helping my union bargain our next contract. 

8.17.2024

why i call kamala harris by her last name and wish you would too

Here's a question for progressive folks following the US election campaign: Why do you call Kamala Harris "Kamala" and call Tim Walz "Walz"?

* * * * 

A long time ago, way back in the late 80s, Allan and I would watch a local news broadcast together. We're talking regular TV, "the news" on three times daily -- two local broadcasts (one at 6:00, one at 10:00 or 11:00 pm), and one national broadcast.

During the sports portion of the broadcast, the sports anchor would talk about Mattingly -- Don Mattingly of the New York Yankees, Ewing -- Patrick Ewing, of the New York Knicks, and Chrissie -- tennis great Chris Evert. She wasn't Evert. She was Chrissie.

There were some pioneering broadcasters, notably on ESPN, who broke with this tradition and called female athletes by their last names, but it was unusual, and ESPN was not yet the giant it would later become.

Women's team sports, for the most part, were ignored completely. Big female sports stars were usually called by their first names. Chrissie, Martina, Steffi. Mary Lou. 

The reason for this is simple: sexism. Women's sports were not taken seriously. Calling Chris Evert Chrissie was infantilizing and disrespectful, reflecting the way women's sports were served to the public.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, women's sports grew in stature. The groundbreaking US legislation that mandated funding parity for male and female sports programs -- usually referred to as "Title 9" (Title IX) -- began to bear fruit. Young female athletes received better coaching and had more opportunities. Women's college sports became more visible and more exciting. ESPN broke new ground with a 24-hour sports-news cycle, so they needed more events to cover. That organization also had a progressive mandate to report on sports with less sexism and racism. 

I don't doubt that there are local sportscasters in Texas or Florida -- or hell, in upstate New York or rural Alberta -- that refer to Serena, Simone, or Megan, but at this point, they are likely the exceptions. Sportscasters and sportswriters routinely referring to Williams, Biles, and Rapinoe is a sign of a less sexist view of women's sports.

Can we please apply this to the political sphere?

Surely if we can refer to female athletes by their last names, we can give female candidates for the presidency of the United States the same respect?

During Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaigns, most people referred to her as Hillary. Some said this was to distinguish between Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. Really? So during the 2016 presidential election campaign, while Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump, if we heard the name Clinton, we might think someone was referring to Bill Clinton, who left public office in 2001? 

Another excuse given for calling female candidates by their first names is that we feel like we know them, we believe they are our friends, so we're on a first-name basis with them. Why, then, didn't anyone call Obama Barack? And how can this be said of a woman who so many voters and pundits despise? 

A more likely suspect is the feminist age-gap: why younger women are more likely to change their last names when they marry, why they don't mind being referred to as girls rather than women. I don't get it, but those are personal choices (although with political implications). We're talking about the professional, national, and international stage. Different standards  should apply.

Office workers are still routinely called girls and health-care workers can't seem to make it past ladies. To be clear: these workers refer to themselves and their co-workers as girls and ladies. I've worked in both of these environment (combined) for decades, and the habit seems impervious to change. Every time I hear someone refer to a group of social workers, hospital workers, library workers -- any group of women working in a predominantly female field --  as girls or ladies I want to cry or scream. Or I felt that way when I was younger. Now I just feel the sadness and resignation of defeat. 

Ladies should go the way of mulatto. Lady is not only sexist, but its roots are classist and tied to gender norms -- what was considered "ladylike", i.e. acceptable female behaviour. Someone will point out that the roots of a word are not important if the word is now used in a different context. Then why are we no longer using master bedroom and grandfathered in? Because those expresisons are rooted in slavery. The same applies to ladies, a word rooted in classism. Yet it is so prevalent I despair of it ever changing. 

We are finally seeing gender-neutral terms for various jobs become the norm: writer, actor, lawyer, doctor, athlete, politician, flight attendant, cleaner, housekeeper. Speech patterns are finally reflecting reality: people of different genders do all kinds of jobs. There is no need -- never has been a need -- to qualify a job title with --ess or lady. The job is the job. 

So why is the name not the name?

I don't expect anyone to change their speech habits after reading this post. Perhaps a writer with a wider reach can at least open up the conversation. The candidates are Trump, Vance, Harris, and Walz.

8.11.2024

what i'm reading: path lit by lightning, the life of jim thorpe

Jim Thorpe was one of my fascinations as a child and teen. I spent a lot of time watching old movies on TV, and one day stumbled on "Jim Thorpe: All American," starring Burt Lancaster as Thorpe. I also read from a biography series in my school library, and there was a book on Thorpe. Thorpe was considered the greatest athlete in the world, and he was Native American. I don't know why his story captivated me so. The underdog? The outsider? Indigenous? For whatever reasons, I was star-struck.

My early interest in Indigenous peoples and cultures has lasted a lifetime, as has my abiding interest in the nexus of social issues and sport. So when I saw that David Maraniss had written a biography of Thorpe, I immediately put the title on my list: Path Lit By Lightning: The Life of Jim Thorpe.

It's a masterful work, and also a very sad story. While Thorpe's accomplishments are truly amazing, and should be much more widely known, his life story is more about frustration and loss than about excellence and winning.
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.
Just how good was Thorpe?

In his prime, Thorpe was universally considered the greatest athlete in the world. He ran faster, jumped higher, threw farther, and excelled in more sports than anyone the world had ever seen. He was unquestionably the greatest American football player the world would see for decades, perhaps a century -- possibly ever. He was big and strong, and also light and graceful, winning trophies for ballroom dancing. Thorpe's sports intelligence was so keen that he could watch someone perform a feat or technique once, then effectively imitate it, then best it.

In the 1912 Stockholm Olympics, he won gold medals in both penthalon and decathlon, which then consisted of long jump, javelin throw, 200-meter dash, discus throw, and 1500-meter run. In an incident now famous on social media, someone stole Thorpe's track shoes only moments before the competition. Scrambling, he found two shoes, a mismatched pair -- one retrieved from a trash can -- and won a gold medal wearing those.

After the Olympics, in the Amateur Athletic Union's All-Around Championship -- equivalent to today's world championships in any given sport -- Thorpe won seven of the 10 events he competed in and placed second in the other three, breaking the world record for total points scored. Martin Sheridan, a five-time Olympic gold medalist, was present when his record was broken. He told the press, "Thorpe is the greatest athlete that ever lived. He has me beaten fifty ways. Even when I was in my prime, I could not do what he did today."

I don't watch football (in any of its forms), but reading Maraniss's thrilling descriptions of Thorpe's preternatural ability to avoid tackles, running around, through, and over any opponent in his path, I would give anything to have seen Thorpe play. Sportswriters ran out of superlatives to convey what they had seen.

Here's a view from 1950.
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. 
For 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.
Disgraced by a disgraceful injustice

In 1913, one year after Thorpe's internationally celebrated success in Stockholm, he was stripped of his titles, and his medals and trophies were confiscated, after it was revealed that Thorpe had played some loosely organized semi-pro baseball. 

Playing bush-league baseball during the summer was a fact of life for hundreds of college athletes. This was technically against the rules, but the rule was rarely, if ever, enforced. Most college athletes would play under a fake name, and officials simply looked away. Thorpe made the "mistake" of using his real name and took no great pains to hide his play. The price for his honesty was catastrophic. The Olympic Committee invalidated Thorpe's wins, and declared the silver medalists the victor.

Protest rang out all over the world. The silver medalists in pentathlon and decathlon, athletes from Norway and Sweden respectively, refused to accept the gold, saying Thorpe had earned it and they had not. Athletes, coaches, fans throughout the world, and the King of Sweden were united in their opposition to the decision. It was not reversed.

Thorpe would press his cause throughout his life, writing letters, speaking to sportswriters, and mentioning it in public appearances, asking for his gold-medal status to be reinstated, and to be given the medals and trophies he had won. 

One man made sure this didn't happen: Avery Brundage.

Nazis and ordinary snakes

Avery Brundage was a powerful Olympic official (and a competitor of Thorpe's) who staunchly defended the elitism of the Olympics. Under his vision, the modern Olympics were a celebration of amateurism -- meaning, people wealthy enough to have copious leisure time, unsullied by the need to support oneself or one's family. He defended this vision at the expense of an incredibly talented, honest, and vulnerable athlete. 

Brundage, not incidentally, was a Nazi. He had a long, glorious career defending racial purity and the murderous, racist regimes that sought to enforce it.

Arguably more devastating than the rescinded gold medals was the betrayal that enabled it. Thorpe's influential coach, Glenn "Pop" Warner, and the head administrator of the Carlisle Indian Boarding School claimed to have no knowledge of Thorpe's baseball play. They took the athlete on whose talents their careers -- and profits -- were built, and threw him under the proverbial bus. They blatantly lied about their knowledge of Thorpe's activity, and feigned shock and outrage, thus saving their own careers and ruining Thorpe's.

The rest is struggle

The rest of Thorpe's life would become a series of struggles, or perhaps one long struggle and a long series of disappointments. People would routinely rip him off. He would go on a baseball barnstorming tour, play all the games, live on a meager allowance, then at the end of the tour, the producer would say, sorry, I have no money to pay you, goodbye. There is story after story like this. Bad investment deals. Grand schemes for a football league. Organizers doling out hope and stringing him along. And always, Thorpe's generous nature, always wanting to help others, giving away money he himself desperately needed. 

Maraniss writes:
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 had a minor movie career, at a time when Hollywood was making westerns, in which the Indians were always bad guys, while also promoting the "noble savage" stereotype. It comes as no surprise that the Hollywood Indians, as they were called, were paid less than white actors, and used only as extras. If a movie called for a starring Indian role, it was invariably played by a white actor. This was, of course, a practice that Hollywood employed for decades with leading roles depicting Asians, Latinos, and Native Americans, and has only recently begun to drop, from public pressure.

Thorpe became a spokesperson for Native Americans in the movie business, advising newcomers on how to survive in the business and advocating for Native actors, pushing for them to get their fair due. I had no idea, and I loved this.

If you've never had occasion to read sports pages of old newspapers, you might be shocked at the way the press covered Thorpe. The racist stereotyping is constant and so pervasive, you might think it was a parody. 

Native American athletes were always called Chief, and said to be "on the warpath". Headlines routinely read "Big Chief Thorpe Runs Heap-um Fast", "Injun Thorpe Say You No Catch Me," and similar. 

Having read a lot of this kind of thing over time, I was not surprised. When Joe DiMaggio signed with the New York Yankees, sportswriters gleefully told their readers DiMaggio hardly smelled like garlic at all. Seriously. These "jokes" never stopped. There were pitifully few instances of game stories or features about Thorpe that did not contain these racist stereotypes. His greatest champion in the press, the talented and famous Grantland Rice, wrote seriously and beautifully about Thorpe. But even Rice employed the accepted wisdom of the day, that Thorpe was the last of a "dying race," childlike in his innocence.

Crossing many paths

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.

Thorpe's career intersected with many people who would later become famous. He demolished both George S. Patton and Dwight D. Eisenhower on the football field, he batted against the great Walter Johnson, he was friends with Babe Ruth (he and Thorpe had much in common), and was befriended and aided by Bob Hope. Maraniss skillfully uses each encounter to illuminate facets of Thorpe's personality and talents.

Maraniss has an excellent take on Native American issues. Living at the Carlisle Indian Boarding School worked out well for Thorpe, not unlike how St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys worked out for Babe Ruth. But Maraniss doesn't use this to mount a specious argument on the effectiveness of the Indian Boarding Schools. He is very clear on what was going on -- the destruction of families and culture, the infantilizing of adults (Native Americans were forced to petition Indian Agents to access their own money), the forced assimilation, the school conditions that were ripe for, and rife with, abuse.

Here's an interesting and maddening note.
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.
* * * *

Many years ago, I put Maraniss's book They Marched Into Sunlight on my List. Looking over the list for our recent pilgrimage to Powell's in Portland, I thought, do I still want to read this? Nah. I moved the title into the "no longer want to read" section. (No deleting!) Now that I've read Path Lit by Lightning, my interest in that earlier book is renewed. Maraniss has also written a biography of Roberto Clemente, among many other works,

I will also note that Path Lit by Lightning reminded me greatly of my partner Allan's first book, 1918: Babe Ruth and the World Champion Boston Red Sox. 1918 has a shorter time-span and narrower focus, but the two books and the writing styles have a lot in common. Maraniss's play-by-play of football games is almost as good as Allan's recreation of baseball games from those long-ago days.

If you're all tl;dr about my blog, this excellently written review of Path Lit by Lightning by Keith Olbermann is really worth reading. 

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
"The problem today is that society is so polarized. We need to come together and find common ground."

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

We recently watched "Strange Fruit: The Biography of a Song," a documentary we found on Kanopy. Kanopy's catalogue includes a vast number of documentaries, many of dubious quality; we're skeptical every time we click on one. "Strange Fruit" was good -- not great, but solid, and worth watching.

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 fruit
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 was, of course, murder. And it was terrorism, intended to enforce the codes of white supremacy known as Jim Crow. 

It was also entertainment, a public spectacle. This is one of the most disgusting parts of the history. It certainly smashes any notion that these murders were perpetrated by a few "bad apples".  

It was also allowed to happen. 

There was strong and consistent activism against lynching. More than one anti-lynching bill was brought forward in Congress. And one Southern fillibuster after the next made sure it didn't become law. 

Of course, no law should have been needed. Murder is already illegal. But in these crimes, no one was ever charged. No one was held accountable.

I am purposely not including some of the most disgusting and lurid aspects of this hideous practice, for the same reasons I did not include details of the torture of concentration camp victims in a recent post about Operation Paperclip. If you don't know about the history of lynching in the United States, I encourage you to learn about it. (Colson Whitehead's The Underground Railroad must have educated many people about this.)

It has not ended

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.