Truthout Stories Sun, 25 Jan 2015 17:23:26 -0500 en-gb New Front Opens in Cold War of the Koreas: Restaurants

If North Korea prides itself on the West never quite knowing what it will do next, there is a fantastic new example worth savouring. Plans are reportedly afoot to open a North Korean restaurant in Scotland – the first in the UK and second in Europe after Amsterdam. They are both part of the same chain, which is otherwise concentrated in Asia and owned by the North Korean government as a means of raising extra funds.

The Kim Jong-un regime would certainly be capitalising on the growing popularity of Korean food. It may still be considered more exotic than Chinese and Japanese fare, but this is changing fast. In the US, the average price of a meal in a Korean restaurant has been constantly rising for the past two decades, in what is a sign of growing prestige. It continued to climb even after 2010, when the prices of Japanese restaurants began to drop.

Changing US restaurant prices

(Image: Krishnendu Ray)(Image: Krishnendu Ray)

This may be partly a result of the Korean Cuisine (Hansik) Promotion Campaign, which was initiated by the South Korean government in 2009 with the goal of turning Korean food into one of the five most popular ethnic cuisines in the world by 2017. The plan is currently being rethought after receiving much criticism in the media, but there are nonetheless plenty of signs that the country’s cuisine is on the rise.

Seoul nights

London has more than its fair share of Korean restaurants. The Camden area has so many that it is sometimes informally known as Little Seoul. But until a few years ago, these restaurants were primarily patronised by Korean and Japanese businessmen. One of the key drivers for this changing was the arrival of Bibigo in 2012 – not in Camden but in Soho, in the middle of town.

Camden’s Korean preponderance

(Image: University of Leiden)(Image: University of Leiden)

Bibigo clearly caters to a local clientele hungry for an exotic experience. It was the first European outlet of the South Korean restaurant chain, managed by C J CheilJedang, Korea’s number-one food and bio business, and was followed by a second London opening in the Angel area last week.

The business launched in 2010 as one of the strategies of the government’s promotion campaign and has since also expanded to Beijing, Jakarta, Los Angeles, Singapore and Tokyo. What has worked for the South Korean government, clearly their northern neighbours think can work for them too.

North Korean restaurants are a relatively new addition to the global gastronomic scene. They began to emerge in north China during the 1990s and a decade later began to spring up in Jakarta, Hanoi, Kuala Lumpur and other cities across Asia. The Amsterdam restaurant opened in 2012, before closing and reopening in a different location in 2013.

Southern rice and northern noodles

Culinary culture in the Korean peninsula developed locally for centuries, leading to noticeable differences in ingredients and flavours. The food of the northern provinces tended to be less spicy due to the colder climate, for example.

The consumption of noodles is more widespread, since rice agriculture flourished primarily in the south. The most celebrated North Korean dish today is raengmyeon (“cold noodles”), a vinegary dish that comes in various varieties with chewy noodles made from either buckwheat or sweet potato. It only began to be consumed in the south after it was popularised by the North Korean refugees who flocked there after the Korean war (1950-1953).

But what will really distinguish a North Korean restaurant from one dishing up southern fare is the ambience and the song-and-dance routines, which are a unique mix of folklore and Stalinism, with added karakoe. The actual menus will not be much different, on the other hand. For example, the one in Amsterdam offers the Korean classics, such as pulgogi (thin slices of marinated beef grilled at the table), kimchi (pickled vegetables), and pibimpap (rice mixed with vegetables) – as well as sushi and sashimi, which are Japanese but are often served in Korean restaurants in the US to capitalise on the popularity of that cuisine.

North Korea’s marketing advantage

Just because the menus might be similar, this by no means implies that there are parallels in the contemporary culinary culture of North and South Korea. Affluence, the food processing industry and foreign culinary trends have transformed dietary life of South Korea since the 1980s, which has widened the breach with its North Korean neighbour at the same time.

Ironically the image of North Korea as the “nostalgic past”, good old Korea frozen in time, has grown into a powerful marketing tool for North Korean products on sale in South Korea.

With both Korean governments now pushing their countries' cuisines, it raises questions about who owns the property rights to Korean food. Where lies the legitimate source of the authentic Korean culinary tradition? This means that dining at a North Korean restaurant, whether in Amsterdam, Beijing, Hanoi or Scotland is much more than a culinary delight and exotic experience. It is a lesson in history and global politics as well.

News Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:56:52 -0500
With Syriza, the Greek People Can Revive Hope in Europe

Translated Sunday, January 25, 2015, by Isabelle Métral.

For Alexis Tsipras, Syriza’s candidate, an absolute majority in Parliament would be an asset in order to impose a renegotiation of the Greek debt. The radical Left’s leader promises to set up “a government for all Greek people” if his party comes first in Sunday’s election.

From our special correspondent in Athens:

Syriza is well and truly set to get into the saddle. The last twenty-five opinion polls broadcast by the Greek media all point in the same direction: the anti-austerity Left is in pole position. On the eve of a crucial general election, it even pulls further ahead of conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’ New Democracy. The only question is how much leeway will electors give Alexis Tsipras’ party in Parliament. Short of the absolute majority, Syriza would have to seek alliances in a confusing scene where split-offs cloud party lines as a result of the political crisis. “The stronger Syriza will come out, the safer the country’s future,” Alexis Tsipras insisted in Thessalonike last Tuesday and in Patras last Wednesday. Addressing thousands of supporters, he asked electors to give him a clear majority so that he can implement Syriza’s Leftist platform without having to negotiate and settle for less.

By all appearances, all the international pressure and threats from international financial institutions, all Brussels’ warnings have only fueled the Greeks’ determination to push austerity policies down under. Hence the aggressive radical strategy chosen by Antonis Samaras’ New Democracy. A leading figure in association with the disastrous policies dictated by the Troika (the European Central bank, the IMF, the European Commission), the Greek prime minister is hoping to hedge his losses by posing as the guardian of Greece’s future in the EU. “To initiate a conflict with Europe would be disastrous for Greece,” he insists, without ever assessing the results of the incumbent team’s policies. Never mind that they are disastrous from a social point of view, with an unemployment rate that stands at 27% (and peaks at 50% among young people), and are also significantly heavier on the lower classes. The social distress has worsened into a real humanitarian crisis, where an increasing proportion of the population are unable to meet their elementary needs in terms of food, health, and housing. Those that have newly fallen below the poverty line depend on the solidarity of their families and on volunteer social networks for keeping barely afloat.

Public services sold off to multinationals.

The austerity policies have spread their poison in the country’s economy. 90,000 small and medium-sized companies have been driven out of business between 2008 and 2011. The country’s frail productive foundation has gone bust, while public companies ahave been sold off to multinationals, pension funds and the Greek financial top-brass. To Yannis Eustathopoulos, an economist who works for the General Labour Confederation’s Labour Institute, the policies that have been implemented over the last five years “have contributed to a new model of economic growth based on the degradation of labour, of social rights, of the environment, and of territorial cohesion,” without these mutations however resulting in an alleviation of the public debt. It now stands at 175% of the GDP, against 113% in 2009 before the crisis. As to the 226,7 billion euro in aid granted by the Troïka since 2010 – in exchange for a stringent structural adjustment program – they have on the whole directly or indirectly benefited the financial sector.

In view of this poor track record, the statement of Wolfgang Schaüble, German Finance Minister, exhorting the Greek people to keep to the track of austerity and “accept the Troika’s control”, is ill received. Indeed it gives momentum to the campaign of Alexis Tsipras, who maintains that the only solution lies in “the cancellation of the greater part” of the debt since it is “unsustainable” and in its “restructuring” with a growth tag attached to it. Whereas the Right, which finds renegotiation unrealistic, waves the specter of “Grexit”, Syriza’s leader declares himself ready for a show of strength, even if the tactics were to lead Greece to exit from the euro zone if needs be. “Where would the line be drawn? How many suicides, how many school and hospital closures would we accept to take? Would 150 euro be the tolerable minimum for wages, and 100 euro for pensions? And how many million unemployed people and poor people? If you ask us the question, we will give you a clear answer: the euro must be compatible with dignity, justice, and solidarity,” Tsipras declared yesterday in his address to the Greek diaspora.

If Tsipras should not win the absolute majority, however, he would have to seek an agreement with other political forces. The Greek Communist Party (KKE) has so far been opposed to the principle of collaborating with Syriza. But this week it made a short step in the direction of a conditional support, no doubt to reassure its electors who might opt for a Syriza vote. “Of course, if circumstances permit and if the government proposes a law to stop the regression, we shall support it,” Dimitris Koutsoubas, the party’s secretary promises. But he stakes a clear limit: “If the Communist party openly supports this kind of government, it will lose the trust the people have placed in us; this would just alienate the people’s feelings - as has been the case with other communist parties that have supported governments.”

Pasok’s social democrats at a loss to reposition themselves

Practically wiped out by their support of the memorandums that laid down the austerity measures and by the impopularity of the incumbent coalition, Pasok’s social democrats seek to reposition themselves. Evangelos Venizelos, the vice prime minister and Foreign secretary says he is ready to support “ a national unity government” that included “supporters of the country’s European future”. A similar move towards Syriza was made by Stavros Théodorakis, a former famous TV figure that opted for politics and founded To Potami (the river) – a party that advocates “social policies” and a strict negotiation of the public debt”. Tsipras himself promises to set up a government for all Greeks if his party comes first in the polls - without the supporters of the memorandum. [1]


1. The "memorandum" is the document issued by the European Commission, setting forth their demands for crippling austerity policies put into place in 2011. The "memorandum" quickly became the focus for the popular discontent that arose in May 2010. The European Commission describes the memorandum in different terms.

News Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:14:27 -0500
Effort to Make the "Right to Vote" a True Constitutional Right

Vote signs(Image: Keith Ivey, justgrimes, debaird™, Erik (HASH) Hersman; Edited: JR / TO)

In an effort to undo the work being done in numerous states and counties to disenfranchise groups of voters, two progressive House members are aiming to make a promise that is implicit in the Constitution explicit – by calling on Congress to pass a “right to vote” constitutional amendment.

Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) unveiled their amendment at a press conference. “We need to have an affirmative right to vote… a minimum voting standard,” Pocan said, and that’s what this amendment is offering.

“The Pocan-Ellison Right to Vote Amendment would amend the Constitution to provide all Americans the affirmative right to vote and empower Congress to protect this right,” according to a statement on Pocan’s website.

The right to vote is not directly enshrined in the Constitution. The 14th and 15th constitutional amendments dictate that voting cannot be denied based on race, the 19th Amendment based on gender, and the 24th Amendment prohibits poll taxes. Each of these amendments has extended the right to vote; however, because the U.S. does not have a national voting process, states and localities currently make their own voting laws.

There are federal statutes that uphold the right to vote, most notably the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, in June 2013 the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. This section offered guidelines to states that have a history of undermining people’s right to vote, primarily based on race, and required these states to clear changes in their voting rules with the Justice Department. Since this provision was removed, conservative legislatures have successfully passed a series of voting changes, such as voter-ID laws and limits on absentee and non-Election-Day balloting.

Pocan said the disenfranchisement tactics that have been used in the past few years are “making it harder and harder for people to vote.”

Here is the text of the amendment:

SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

Ellison, in discussing the likelihood that this amendment would pass, pointed to other constitutional amendments that required time and effort of both politicians and activists “Americans just wouldn’t stop pushing for more rights for more people,” he said. “The time is always right to do what is right.”

Civil rights veteran Rev. Jesse Jackson also attended and discussed the work he’s been doing at the city level to garner local government support for the Amendment. Due to his advocacy, local counties are passing Right to Vote resolutions.

Julie Fernandez, Senior Policy Analyst for the Open Society Foundation, discussed the need for laws regarding voter’s rights to have higher standards of scrutiny. If this amendment passes, strict legal scrutiny will be applied to any attempt to disenfranchise voters. “Voting should be the place where we’re all equal,” she said.

Voting should be how any American can be involved and have a say in the laws that govern them. If this Amendment passes, it will give Americans the constitutional right many assume they already have, and will stop the Republican assault on voting rights. If you believe that everyone should have the right to vote, consider researching further and getting involved. Local governments, campuses, and organizations are all signing resolutions and are interested in your participation. FairVote has also initiated a Pledge to Stand With Voters. Click here to learn more and sign.

News Sun, 25 Jan 2015 10:26:07 -0500
Why Campaign Finance Reform Is the First Issue That We Must Address

Capitol Building - SOLD(Photo: takomabibelot/Flickr)

President Obama punctuated his State of the Union with a repeated refrain: “Surely we can agree.” With that mantra, he reminded us of our basic, universally shared values, foremost among them the inherent worth of every American life and the importance of giving all citizens a chance to succeed.

When the president enumerated what these values mean in practice - calling for child care, sick leave, equal pay, lower mortgage premiums and a higher minimum wage - it was safe to assume the American public was nodding along. Indeed, a new poll released today by the Make It Work campaign, an advocacy group, finds that the vast majority of likely 2016 voters strongly support reforms like the ones Obama outlined.

“These ideas will make a meaningful difference in the lives of millions of families,” Obama said. “That is a fact. And that’s what all of us - Republicans and Democrats alike - were sent here to do.”

To see more stories like this, visit Moyers & Company at Truthout.

But while ordinary citizens overwhelmingly want tax breaks for the middle class, better wages and mandatory sick leave, many politicians are not interested in passing these reforms - because the super-wealthy individuals and powerful special interests funding our elections do not. This explains why Senate Republicans blocked the Fair Minimum Wage Act last year and have defeated the Paycheck Fairness Act four times since 2013.

The sad truth is this: Politicians of all stripes are beholden to their donors, not the American public. And as long as special interest groups and extremely wealthy individuals continue to bankroll campaigns, they’ll be the only ones getting what they want.

Nonetheless, some continue to fight for change. Today, exactly five years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision gave outside interest groups unlimited ability to fund-raise and influence elections, legislators reintroduced a “Defending Democracy” package of campaign finance reforms.

These bills and amendments are “about restoring confidence in our democracy and ending this unfettered spending by anonymous donors that overwhelms the rights of individual Americans to be heard,” said Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) in a press release.

The package, which has the support of at least 29 reform groups, includes the following proposed bills:

The Empowering Citizens Act reforms the presidential public financing system, creates a congressional public financing system, shuts down individual-candidate super PACs and prohibits coordination between candidates and outside spending groups. Sponsors: Reps. David Price (D-NC) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

The DISCLOSE Act closes dark-money loopholes by requiring groups that spend $10,000 or more on campaign-related expenditures to file disclosure reports with the Federal Election Commission. Sponsors: Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

The Democracy for All Amendment provides Congress and individual states with the authority to regulate campaign finance and distinguish between people and artificial entities. Key sponsors: Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Reps. Ted Deutch (D-FL), Donna Edwards (D-MD) and Jim McGovern (D-MA).

The Real-Time Transparency Act requires all political committees to disclose contributions of $1,000 or more. Sponsors: Sen. Angus King (I-ME) and Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX).

The Sunlight for Unaccountable Nonprofits Act requires nonprofit organizations making campaign expenditures to disclose donors of $5,000 or more. Sponsor: Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT).

The Shareholder Protection Act requires corporations to disclose election-related spending to shareholders and the public, even if the money goes indirectly through a third party. Sponsors: Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) and Rep. Capuano (D-MA).

Five years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision we’ve witnessed the most expensive elections ever, the rise of dark money and more than $1 billion in unlimited contributions into federal elections through super PACs.

To be sure, this reintroduced package of legislative remedies stands an infinitesimal chance of passage in the new GOP-led Congress. But there is value in keeping these common-sense reforms on the front burner, to reinforce where both parties stand on the most vital issue of our time for our democracy. Surely we can agree that our country should no longer be bought and sold by America’s moneyed interests at the expense of everyone else.

Opinion Sun, 25 Jan 2015 10:15:30 -0500
Humanity's Future: Below Replacement Fertility?

United Nations, January 15, 2015 - Is below replacement level fertility the future for humanity? The answer to this seemingly simple question regarding human reproduction is not only of considerable demographic concern, but also has enormous social, economic and environmental consequences for the planet.

Aside from a global mortality catastrophe, the future size of the world’s population is determined basically by the number of children women bear. If the average number of births per woman remains more than about two, world population continues to increase.

However, if women on average have less than two births, then world population eventually decreases. A fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman under low mortality conditions is the replacement level, which over time results in population stabilisation.

Throughout most of human history women bore many children. In addition to offsetting high rates of infant and child mortality, a large number of children provided valuable assistance, needed labour and personal meaning to rural households as well as old-age support to parents.

At the beginning of the 20th century average global fertility was still about six births per woman. By 1950 world fertility had declined slightly to five births per woman, with less than a handful of countries having rates below the replacement level (Figure 1).

2015 0125fert (Source: United Nations Population Division)

At that time, most of the largest countries, such as Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Turkey, had rates of six or more births per woman. In addition, 29 countries, including Afghanistan, Algeria, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Rwanda, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, had average fertility rates of seven or more births per woman.

As a result of the high fertility rates and comparatively low death rates, world population grew very rapidly during the 20th century, especially in the second half. World population nearly quadrupled during the past century, an unprecedented demographic phenomenon, increasing from 1.6 to 6.1 billion.

Also during the past 50 years, historic declines in fertility rates occurred, resulting in a halving of the world’s average rate to 2.5 births per woman. Those remarkable fertility declines are unequivocal and widespread, with lower rates in virtually every country.

In 1950, 101 countries, or 44 percent of world population, had a fertility rate of six or more births per woman. Today 12 countries – with all but two in sub-Saharan Africa, representing five percent of world population – have a fertility rate of six or more births per woman.

In addition, the transition from high fertility to below replacement levels took place in all European countries as well as in Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. The transition to below replacement fertility also occurred across a broad and diverse range of developing countries, including Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Iran, Lebanon, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Tunisia and Vietnam. In sum, 75 countries, or close to half of the world’s population, are experiencing fertility rates below the replacement level (Figure 1).

With regard to future fertility levels, two key questions stand out. First, will countries with below replacement fertility remain at those levels? And second, in the coming decades will the remaining 126 countries also end up with below replacement fertility?

While future fertility rebounds cannot be ruled out, the general pattern over the last five decades has been unmistakable: once fertility falls below the replacement level, it tends to stay there. That trend has especially been the case for the many countries where fertility has fallen below 1.6 births per woman, such as Canada, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Russia.

Some countries consider sustained below replacement fertility as a threat to their economies and societies and have attempted to return to at least the replacement level through various pro-natalist policies, programmes and incentives, including reduced taxes, subsidised care for children and bonuses. However, such government attempts have by and large not achieved their objectives.

The forces that brought about declines in fertility to historic lows are widely recognised and include lower mortality rates, increased urbanisation, widespread education, improvements in the status of women, availability of modern contraceptives and delayed marriage and childbearing.

Other important factors include the costs of childrearing, employment and economic independence of women, divorce and separation, the decline of marriage, co-habitation, childless lifestyles and the need to save for longer years of retirement and elder care. Those forces and factors are likely to continue and become increasingly widespread globally.

According to United Nations medium-variant population projections, by mid-century the number of countries with below replacement fertility is expected to nearly double, reaching 139 countries (Figure 1). Together those countries will account for 75 percent of the world’s population at that time.

Some of the populous countries expected to fall below the replacement fertility level by 2050 include Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey. Looking further into the future, below replacement fertility is expected in 184 countries by the end of the century, with the global fertility rate falling below two births per woman (Figure 1).

It is certainly difficult to imagine rapid transitions to low fertility in today’s high-fertility countries, such as Chad, Mali, Niger and Nigeria, where average rates are more than six births per woman. However, rapid transitions from high to low fertility levels have happened in diverse social, economic and political settings.

With social and economic development, including those forces favouring low fertility, and the changing lifestyles of women and men, the transition to below replacement fertility in nearly all the remaining countries with high birth rates may well occur in the coming decades of the 21st century.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

News Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:42:32 -0500
The Next Big Progressive Battle: A Living Wage

Part of a global protest held on May 15, 2014 against exploitative labor practices.Part of a global protest held on May 15, 2014 against exploitative labor practices. (Photo: Bob Simpson/Flickr)

Truthout needs your help to publish grassroots investigative journalism and to share visions for a brighter future. Contribute now by clicking here!

On New Year’s Day, 20 states raised their minimum wages. That leaves a lot of states that aren’t increasing the minimum wage - along with the federal government.

Even some of those employees who are getting increases don’t have much to celebrate. Workers in Florida might barely notice their 12-cents-an-hour raise. And the extra 15 cents an hour in Montana, Arizona, and Missouri will be wiped out with inflation and climbing costs before the first paycheck is deposited.

U.S. legislators have refused since 2009 to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour - not even close to enough for full-time workers to make ends meet.

To put it bluntly, minimum wage is a poverty wage. Yet only 29 states have minimum wage rates higher than the federal rate - and some just barely.

In last year’s State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called on Congress to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

Although Congress turned a deaf ear, activists took up the challenge. “Fight for $15” movements across the country won among the most powerful progressive victories of 2014.

Cheers to cities like Seattle and San Francisco with minimum wage plans that will increase rates to $15 an hour in the next few years. Huge congratulations to voters in Oakland, California, as well in Arkansas, South Dakota, Nebraska, and others who voted for significant minimum wage increases.

But the truth is, while it’s a great start, none of these increases goes far enough, or lifts workers out of poverty fast enough. What’s needed is a living wage that allows full-time workers to cover their basic needs and have a little savings left over in case of an emergency.

The Job Gap Economic Prosperity series - a collection of research reports by the Alliance for a Just Society - shows that a living wage comes to over $15 an hour for a single adult in most states studied. A parent supporting a child needs to earn closer to $22 or $23 an hour.

Women and people of color are least likely to earn a living wage, with half or more working full-time and not making enough to make ends meet.

Poverty-level pay is taken for granted at restaurant chains like McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts, and major retailers like Wal-Mart, that would rather invest in government lobbyists to keep wages low than in their employees.

“If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, go try it,” Obama implored Congress in his latest State of the Union address. “If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.”

The sub-minimum wage for tipped workers has been stuck at $2.13 an hour for 24 long years. Imagine going to work every day, hoping beyond hope that the tips will make up for the tiny hourly wage. No worker should be a second-class employee.

Refusing to pay employees a wage they can live on isn’t a business plan. Paying employees enough so they can shop or dine at your business or neighboring businesses and grow the local economy - now that’s smart.

A full-time job should lead to financial stability, not poverty. We must continue to push Congress to raise the federal minimum wage and abolish the separate tipped minimum wage.

In the meantime, keep up the “Fight for $15.” We know that we can motivate our mayors, city councils, and state legislators by speaking out, sharing our stories, and presenting the facts. Most importantly, we have to vote.

Let’s make 2015 the year for $15 - and really have something to celebrate next New Year.

Opinion Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:31:47 -0500
Eighty People Control Half of the World's Wealth and All of the Elected Officials

Today, the bulk of the wealth is in the hands of just 80 people. Global poverty has continued to rise and it’s only going to get worse. Oxfam has predicted that if we do nothing, the wealthiest one percent of the world will control the same amount of wealth as the other 99 percent do combined.

World Economic Forum(Photo: World Economic Forum/Benedikt von Loebell; Edited: JR / TO)

Want to challenge injustice and make real change happen? That’s Truthout’s goal - support our work with a donation today!

The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting began in Davos, Switzerland.  The meeting convenes “global leaders from across business, government, international organizations, academia and civil society for strategic dialogues which map the key transformations reshaping the world.”  The hope is that the dialogue will lead to action on the part of the participating nations to improve conditions in their own communities, with an understanding that we are all globally connected.  The idea is that the actions in one community can affect another anywhere in the world.

The current state of global economic inequality shows just how tenuous that connection is.

In what has now become tradition, Oxfam International, a confederation of organizations dedicated to fighting poverty, issued a report on the current state of economic inequality. Last year’s report sent shockwaves through the world by announcing that just 85 people controlled the same amount of wealth as the bottom 3 billion people combined.  That was even more dramatic than 2010 when it took 388 people to control that much wealth.

Today, the bulk of the wealth is in the hands of just 80 people.

The reasons for the dramatic change are much as they have always been. The global recession had disproportionate negative effects on those in the middle and bottom of the economic scale. As most of the population slid down the scale, the recovery went quickly upwards. While the majority of the population relied on income, which decreased or disappeared, the rich had assets. Those assets grew in value just as the returns on investments began to bounce back. The rich got richer simply because with assets, it’s difficult to not remain wealthy.

Oxfam releases the report every year just as global leaders gather in Davos because the key to reversing the trend lies in the hands of government. The problem requires a coordinated global effort to tackle inequality, such as punishing tax dodging by corporations and wealthy individuals. Other initiatives include: Universal public services (i.e. health and education), shifting the burden of taxation from labor and consumption to capital and wealth, living wages, equal pay, and adequate safety nets that include a minimum income.

Interestingly, many of these policies have been promoted – and rejected – here in America.

Thirty-five of the 80 individuals controlling wealth hold American passports. Many of the names are familiar, such as Bill Gates, the Waltons of Wal-Mart fame, George Soros, Warren Buffett, both Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. It is also no surprise that many of these names are often seen on the same donor lists of politicians across the nation, Congress and our recent presidents. The Oxfam report notes than nearly 12 percent of political contributions come from the list of 80 billionaires.

In the first few weeks of the 114th Congress, legislation was introduced to roll back regulations on Wall Street, as well as consumer protection laws that have been in place. While voters have repeatedly said they want improved education, universal healthcare and a real chance at the American dream, our elected officials seem to not hear the public’s demands. These same elected officials are dependent on the money from the wealthiest, but are also responsible for creating policies that would reverse the flow of that wealth towards a more equitable distribution.

What we have here is not a failure to communicate but a clear and dangerous conflict of interest.

The inability to invest in assets, such as houses, savings, or highly expensive art has left the majority of the world with little to show for their hard work.  Global poverty has continued to rise and it’s only going to get worse. Oxfam has predicted that if we do nothing, the wealthiest one percent of the world will control the same amount of wealth as the other 99 percent do combined.

The estimated time of arrival for this global wealth distribution is next year.

News Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:24:03 -0500
US Army Special Forces Officially Recruit for "Mission for God"

(Image Copyright 2015, Military Religious Freedom Foundation.)(Image Copyright 2015, Military Religious Freedom Foundation.) "That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."

(2nd paragraph, Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, composed by Thomas Jefferson in 1777, enacted into Virginia law on January 16, 1786)

"Get this U.S. Army and get it well: The United States armed forces may surely fight and kill "for Country" and our legitimate national security interests. But our troops do NOT fight and kill for ANYONE'S "God" or related supernatural deity. In the preparation of this Op Ed, I exposed a number of senior active duty U.S. military leaders to the photo of this poster, including several active duty chaplains. To a man and woman, they were collectively ALL aghast that it was actually real and being used to lure young Americans into the Army's special forces."

C'mon, seriously? That freaking picture just says it ALL.

What an abysmal affront to "National Religious Freedom Day" which is to be celebrated tomorrow, January 16, 2015.

Having headed the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) for nearly a decade, we've been exposed to all sorts of unholy, unconstitutional cocktails inextricably mixing the intoxicating aroma of fundamentalist religion (almost always a wretched thing called "Dominion Christianity") with the dense and deep-pocketed foundations of the State. However, even WE at MRFF were hardly prepared for the stunning, unconstitutional disgrace we confirmed from client reports as recently as yesterday.

There it was; an in-your-face, proselytizing, U.S. Army officially-approved ( recruiting poster on prominent display at an Armed Forces Career Center in Phoenix, Arizona. That outrageously ghastly graphic encapsulates precisely that which we've been ceaselessly calling the attention of the American people to for all this time. The poster astoundingly displays the shoulder tabs of the U.S. Special Forces (i.e. Green Berets), Rangers and Airborne troopers accompanied by the seethingly sectarian slogan "ON A MISSION FOR BOTH GOD AND COUNTRY."

(Wait a damn minute. Phoenix? Arizona? Army Special Forces? "Mission For......God"? My first thoughts were of Pat Tillman.)

Excuse me? "GOD and country?" Ahem, well, just WHOSE "god" might that be, U.S. Army?

Let me fairly go out on a limb here and gamble that it is neither the god of Islam nor the god(s) of Hinduism? No way it's Buddhist, Sikh, Shinto, Native American Spiritualist or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. I believe it's a very safe bet to presume that the Army is pretending to refer to the "Judeo-Christian" god, and by THAT worn out and duplicitously deceptive label, of course, I really mean what the Army REALLY means; only the "Christian" god, Jesus. Unfortunately, as the experts will tell you, there are literally multiple tens of thousands of distinctly separate denominations of Christianity in existence. So, once again, the question is begged as to exactly WHICH "God" the U.S. Army Special Forces are boldly, publicly and eagerly recruiting for?

The military chaplaincy's motto is "Pro Deo et Patria" (Latin, meaning "For God and Country") but, hey, that's for noncombatant chaplains. THIS revolting Army recruiting poster is VERY specifically designed for the elite Special Forces universe of Green Berets, Rangers, Delta Force, Airborne etc. These recruiting targets populate the far, far end of the Army universe, indeed light years away, from the recruitment of non-weapons carrying chaplains.

It has consistently been MRFF's experience through the many years that there is always a greater population of Constitution-breaching, fundamentalist/Dominionist Christians in the special forces of the DoD; Navy SEALs, Air Force PJs, USMC Force Recon and the Army's designated recruiting targets of this very poster. (Remember the international controversy about those VERY same words being spoken by the Navy SEAL who shot Bin Laden in conjunction with "Geronimo, Geronimo"?)

Even the Pope himself has decried on multiple occasions the reprehensible, medieval idea that one can kill in God's name – even going so far as to say that the concept, "simply, is blasphemy". Yet here we have the most lethal killing machine devised in the history of humankind proudly extolling the virtue of what can only be described as "Holy Wars."

This unconstitutional catastrophe comes at a time, no less, when world leaders as diverse as Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu are marching together, arm in arm, in Paris and uniting behind the values of secular respect, religious tolerance, freedom of the press and all related basic civil rights. However, this incomprehensibly STUPID, and brazenly sectarian poster of American religious dominance at Marine Corps Recruiting Substation Paradise Valley universally destroys any credibility that the United States government is wholly devoted to these very basic democratic and human values.

Get this U.S. Army and get it well: The United States armed forces may surely fight and kill "for Country" and our legitimate national security interests. But our troops do NOT fight and kill for ANYONE'S "God" or related supernatural deity. In the preparation of this Op Ed, I exposed a number of senior active duty U.S. military leaders to the photo of this poster, including several active duty chaplains. To a man and woman, they were collectively ALL aghast that it was actually real and being used to lure young Americans into the Army's special forces.

In fact, this Poster of Shame lends incredible and irrefutable credence to what MRFF has been insisting from our very inception, which is that there exists a brutal, sectarian, Christian fundamentalist reign exercised within the United States Armed Forces, constituting a de facto Dominionist fifth column. In fact, it's often so brazen that it's not even very "fifth columny" anymore. Facts have borne out this assertion, in absolute spades. For example, we've seen the distribution of millenarian Left Behind video games to active-duty troops serving in Iraq. We've heard the anguished cries of servicemembers forced to attend hokey "Christian Rock" concerts on pain of "lockdown" and other forms of military retribution. We've seen the so-called "Jesus Rifles" which MRFF blew the whistle on, where Trijicon riflescopes were inscribed with specific New Testament Bible references engraved into the metal casings on nearly a million high-powered rifle sights. Oh, and if "Jesus Rifles" isn't enough of a bafflingly bizarre and contemptible example, there was the "Jesus Loves Nukes" mandatory indoctrination course that was used to train USAF nuclear missile launch officers at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Time and time again, we've been forced to go toe-to-toe with the United States Air Force Academy administration over its practically countless, savage offenses against the United States Constitution. Likewise, a recurring battle of ours has been one waged against the persistent usage of "Crusader" symbolism, evoking the brutal Western Christian colonization and merciless subjugation of Muslim nations during the Middle Ages. Our foundation submitted a very comprehensive accompanying document when I testified before the House Armed Services Committee in the United States Congress this past November. Our MRFF testimony unequivocally shows that all of the unconstitutional wickedness above is just a mere taste, indeed only the nuanced tip of a very large and exceedingly precarious iceberg of colossal, national security dangers.

Does our aggressive fight against fundamentalist Christian extremism, triumphalism and supremacy in our nation's armed forces, as so vividly displayed in this official Army recruiting poster, infuriate those who promote such bloody rancor and discord? Always and of course. Comes with the territory. You can decide whether it's worth it because we at MRFF already have decided that it most assuredly IS.

Yet here we find ourselves, ignominiously once again, faced with a disgracefully sectarian message of religious exceptionalism bearing the official U.S. Army stamp of approval. This painfully pathetic poster will no doubt serve, generally, as a red flag of limitless propaganda and, more specifically, as a recruiting bonanza of unbridled proportions for precisely those villains whom the world has united against in Paris, i.e. the Salafi-Jihadists such as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Islamic State, and myriad other backwards fundamentalists. As if immeasurably emboldening our Islamic enemies wasn't bad enough, this deplorable poster will enrage our Islamic allies and eviscerate our own service members' unit cohesion, good order, morale, discipline and military readiness.

Long story short, the poster at the Phoenix armed forces recruitment hub is an absolutely abominable slap in the face of everyone who's ever taken the time to digest, understand, and swear the servicemembers' sacred oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, let alone those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the values, rights, and protections contained therein.

And speaking of "ultimate sacrifice," I wonder what Pat Tillman would have said about that stinking poster of unconstitutional malfeasance in his beloved city and state of Phoenix, Arizona? Somehow, I don't think he'd agree that he was on a "Mission For God" when he courageously gave his life for his country in combat as a proud member of the U.S. Army's Special Forces.

Unfortunately, on the other hand, what might another Arizonan do about this; Senator John McCain, the brand new Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee? Don't hold your breath for him to lift a finger of even tepid protest against this recruiting poster. If anything, he'd likely applaud.

The world trembles in shock over the horrific crimes of murderous, fundamentalist, Islamic religiosity in one part of the globe. What of our own House here in America? Here in the States, we should spare no effort to aggressively investigate and ferociously uproot the vast legions of fundamentalist (Dominionist), Christian extremists who seek to smother our OWN secular, constitutional, American republic in the blood-drenched, theocratic "Crusader" memes of a once dark and distant era.

Sadly today, given our enormous arsenal of WMDs, even darker. And not so "distant" anymore.

Opinion Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:44:12 -0500
Fighting Extremism With Schools, Not Guns

Karachi - As a wave of outrage, crossing Pakistan's national borders, continues a month after the Dec. 16 attack on a school in the northern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, some citizens are turning away from collective expressions of anger, and beginning the hard work of building grassroots alternatives to terrorism and militancy.

While many millions of people are lashing out at the Taliban for going on a bloody rampage in a school in the province's capital, Peshawar, killing 141 people including 132 uniformed children in what is being billed as the group's single deadliest attack to date, The Citizens Foundation (TFC), a local non-profit, has reacted quite differently.

Rather than join the chorus calling for stiff penalties for the attackers, it busied itself with a pledge to build 141 Schools for Peace, one in the name of each person who lost their life on that terrible day.

"We dedicate this effort to the children of Pakistan, their right to education and their dreams of a peaceful future," Syed Asaad Ayub Ahmad, CEO of TCF, said in an email launching the campaign.

"With the formidable challenges facing the nation, we passionately believe that only education has the power to enlighten minds, instil citizenship and unleash the potential of every Pakistani," he added.

In their war against western, secular education, which the group has denounced as "un-Islamic", the Pakistan Taliban have destroyed over 838 schools between 2009 and 2012, claimed responsibility for the near-fatal shooting of teenaged education advocate Malala Yousafzai and issued numerous edicts against the right of women and girls to receive proper schooling.

In their latest assault on education, nine militants went on an eight-hour-long killing spree, throwing hand grenades into the teeming school premises and firing indiscriminately at any moving target. They claim the attack was a response to the military operation aimed at rooting out the Taliban currently underway in North Waziristan, a tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

While armed groups and government forces answer violence with more of the same, the active citizens who comprise TCF want to shift focus away from bloodshed and onto longer-term solutions for the future of this deeply troubled country.

The charity, which began in 1995, has completed 1,000 school 'units', typically a primary or secondary institution capable of accommodating up to 180 pupils, all built from scratch in the most impoverished areas of some 100 towns and cities across Pakistan.

The 7,700 teachers employed by the NGO go through a rigorous training programme before placement, and the organisation maintains a strict 50:50 male-female ratio for the 145,000 students who are now benefitting from a free education, according to TCF Vice President Zia Akhter Abbas.

In a country where 25.02 million school-aged children – of which 13.7 million (55 percent) are girls – do not receive any form of education, experts say TCF's initiative may well act as a game changer in the years to come, especially given that the government spends just 2.1 percent of its GDP on education.

"Our job is to ensure that wherever we have our schools, there are no out-of-school children, especially girls," Abbas told IPS. "We believe the change in society will come automatically once these educated and enlightened children grow up into responsible adults."

He added that the schools are designed to "serve as a beacon of light restricting the advance of extremism in our society."

The project has received widespread support from a broad spectrum of Pakistani society. Twenty-four-year-old Usman Riaz, a student at the Berklee College of Music in Boston who recently donated the proceeds of his jam-packed concerts in Karachi to TCF's efforts, says the Schools for Peace are a "wonderful way to honor the innocent victims".

But it will take more than one-off charitable donations to make the scheme a reality. It costs about 15 million rupees (148,000 dollars) to build and equip each new school, so the total bill for all 141 institutions stands at some 21 million dollars.

With a track record of building 40-50 schools a year, however, the NGO is confident that it will honor its pledge within three years.

Combating extremism

Besides immortalizing the victims of the Taliban's attack, experts here say that shifting the focus away from terrorism and onto education will help combat a growing pulse of religious extremism.

The prominent Pakistani educationist and rights activist A.H. Nayyar told IPS that it is crucial for the country to begin educating children who would otherwise be turned into "fodder for extremists".

In fact, part of the government's 20-point National Action Plan – agreed upon by all political parties dedicated to completely eradicating terrorism – includes plans to register and regulate all seminaries, known here as madrassas, in a bid to combat extremism at its root.

With thousands of such religious institutions springing up across the country to fill a void in the school systems, policy-makers are concerned about the indoctrination of children at a young age, with distorted interpretations of religious texts and the teaching of intolerance playing a major role in these schools.

Some sources say that between two and three million students are enrolled at the nearly 20,000 madrassas spread across Pakistan; others say this is a conservative estimate.

While there is some talk about bringing these institutions under the umbrella of the public school system, experts like Nayyar believe this will do little to combat the "forcible teaching of [...] false and distorted history, excessive emphasis on Islamic teachings to the extent of including them in textbooks of all the subjects, explicit teaching of jihad and militancy, hate material against other nations, peoples of other faiths, etc, [and] excessive glorification of the military and wars."

Nayyar and other independent scholars have been at the forefront of calling for an overhaul of the public school curriculum, which they believe is at odds with the goals of a modern, progressive nation.

But until policy-makers and politicians jump on the bandwagon, independent efforts like the work of TCF will lead the way.

News Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:22:16 -0500
Global Blackness

The following remarks were read at the Black Life Matters conference in Tucson, Arizona, on January 15, 2015.

Good morning, everyone. I'm sorry I couldn't be with you in person but am very glad to be part of this conversation.

My message here today is a message to the Black grassroots. I know there was some discussion about why this conference is taking place in the halls of a university or in Arizona. It may not be the best place to deliver a message to the Black grassroots but circumstances created this space and I know the organizers are committed to the conversations going beyond the halls of academia, so I share these comments in the hope that they reach Black people on a move.

Plainly, what I want to say is that we, Black people everywhere, see you and we are with you in the struggle.

It has been, for Africans outside of the U.S, significant and joyful to see the movement for Black life and dignity take hold, grow and capture the imagination in this moment there. The most recent uprisings and mass actions across the U.S have been the culmination, as I see it, of mobilizations and organizing that has been ongoing for decades and that were visible in response to the lack of government action to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, to the case of the Jena 6, of Troy Davis, of Trayvon Martin, and now of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, as well as in the attempts to build viable alternatives as in Cooperation Jackson. This moment in the movement has been triggered by the revolts in Ferguson but the movement is a movement for Black lives, Black life[i], Black dignity and Black self-determination in the tradition of Black liberation struggles. Understood in this continuum, it has been wonderful to hear Assata Shakur present in the chants in Ferguson "it is our duty to fight for our freedom, it is our duty to win," and indeed in this movement we must call out the names and organize to secure the freedom of the political prisoners that remain captive in U.S prisons for also demanding and defending Black life and dignity: Sundiata Acoli, Mutulu Shakur, Robert Seth Hayes, Albert Woodfox, Mumia Abu Jamal, Herman Bell, among too many others.

There has been an outpouring of global solidarity for the Black movement in the U.S by Black people in, to name but a few, South Africa, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Colombia, Brazil, the UK, France and from non-Black people who are also fighting against imperialism the world over, including in Palestine, where the historic solidarity between African and Palestinian peoples continues. Black people globally are claiming 'we are Ferguson' as an understanding of our linked fate and common oppression and in many cases because the manifestations of global anti-Black violence are so similar. In South Africa, for example, a booming prison industrial complex and accompanying State and non-State so-called 'security' apparatus is being established to protect capital from economically oppressed Black people (rather than protecting the masses of Black people from the violence of capitalism). In the U.S., a Black person is killed every 28 hours, and in Brazil approximately 118 Black people are murdered every day in what Afro-Brazilians are calling a silent genocide. One hundred and eighteen Black people are murdered every day!

The outpouring has highlighted not only the linked fate between us but also the asymmetry of how far the cries of indignation of les damnés carry. We have heard the cries of Ferguson echo across the globe. And yet, wherever we are we must listen hard to hear the resistance in Burkina Faso, in Guinea, in Colombia, in Sudan, in the DRC. To remix CLR James, the only place where Black people do not revolt is in the pages of the capitalist media. Just as anti-Black oppression is global and takes many forms that are embedded in systems of white supremacist, hetero-patriarchal, ableist, capitalism, resistance by Black people is also global and it is all of our duties to ensure that we are seeing, listening, being inspired by one another and living our solidarity with one another.

In Colombia, Black women have been in permanent assembly in the offices of the Ministry of Interior of Giralda since November 27 as part of their fight to protect their lands and territories from mining, to end the war on their bodies and to resist displacement. In Madagascar, peasants and farmers resisted massive land grabs, their uprisings leading to an overturn of government. However, their gains are being reversed in the name of liberal democracy. More broadly, the fight against land grab in Africa is a fight for Black life and survival, for self-determined development and is a global fight for the future that we all need to be paying attention to. With the collaboration of African governments and elites, about 20 million hectares of farmland has been grabbed since 2008, using the all too familiar justification that the land is unoccupied or unused. The land claims of pastoralists, women, peasants and small-scale farmers are marginalized from formal land rights processes and access to law and institutions by the colonial framework of land ownership that favors markets and businesses. Land use that is non-commercial, including medicinal, spiritual or grazing for pasture, is ignored to make way for large-scale, high-yield 'production.' Biodiversity is being patented, flora and fauna commodified, and water grabbed – this is no longer the prediction of great writers like Octavia Butler but the terrifying reality. Significant public relations efforts, by, amongst others, Bill Gates in partnership with Monsanto, to persuade governments and farmers that GMOs offer the solution to food insecurity are obscuring the market-dependency that this and mono-cropping would create for already market-marginalized small scale farmers on the continent. The sustainable future that global capitalism is envisioning and aggressively creating is one in which technology beats nature to maintain the luxury of a few. Black lives and lands remain commodities and disposable. Despite the threat, communities across Africa have been resisting land grab, and women have been organizing beyond borders to claim 'we are the solution' to sustainable food production.

Globally, women and queer folk are resisting and building alternatives at the intersections of patriarchy and capitalism. In the U.S, I have been dismayed by the erasure of Black cis and trans women's lives even within the Black Lives Matter movement. Where was the mass mobilization when Tanisha Anderson was murdered by the police? Where was the mass mobilization when Deshawnda Bradley was killed? Where is the movement for the sixty four thousand Black women that are missing in the U.S? On the continent of Africa, we witness the attempt to disappear Black women and queer lives and life from the very narrative of African identity. Armed with imported religious fundamentalisms, the promise of capitalist prosperity and the necessity for diversion and division, an alliance has formed to enshrine patriarchy, heteropatriarchy and transphobia into the fabric of Africa. It's important that we not fall into the trap of asserting that oppression and oppressive practices are a manifestation of African culture or tradition. As Amilcar Cabral reminds us, culture is dynamic and perpetually being made. Culture can be used as a tool for liberation or for the purposes of domination: the choice sits with us. Patriarchy is not my culture even if the system of patriarchy dominates the practices of those around me. I choose the traditions of freedom, respect, love and self-determination that are just as much embedded in the history and practices of my people. Women and Queer Africans are choosing and creating an Africa outside of the bounds of patriarchy by mobilizing in Soweto for Pride, through hundreds of people taking to the streets of Nairobi in miniskirts when a woman was stripped naked for being indecently dressed and by demanding an end to violence against sex workers under the banner of Black lives matter.

Black people came out globally to 'Bring Back our Girls' after over three hundred children were abducted from school in Chibok, Nigeria in May. The response of the Chibok community and the Nigerian women's movement sounded the alarm and spurred global solidarity from Philadelphia to London, Cairo to Dakar and Johannesburg. But our girls are still missing eight months later and many more Black lives have since been lost to the proxy battlegrounds of a global war that has been raging in a barrage of silence. When the demand rang out that our three hundred abducted Black girls be brought back, the outcome was more U.S troops with 'boots on the ground' in Africa. Militarized responses from the U.S are not new, but the humanitarian justification for U.S military infiltration into Africa is nonetheless duplicitous, be it in the response to 'Bring Back our Girls' or to the Ebola epidemic that has taken nearly eight thousand lives in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Ebola became an epidemic in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia and not in Spain, the United States or the UK, where there were also cases, because of systemic and entrenched impoverishment and inequalities: in other words, the differential effects of Ebola are directly tied to capitalist systems of exploitation. And it is capitalist interests that have maintained the attention of pharmaceutical corporations backed by the U.S military in the Ebola crisis, not human solidarity. Because Black lives matter we must build ways of being that disrupt imperialism, patriarchy, militarism, disrupt the entire system and sustain Black life.

Despite the unprecedented Black presence in the U.S administration, the murder, mass incarceration and impoverishment of Black people continues. Similarly, for the last fifty years, African states have had African administrations that do not serve the interests of African peoples. When there is no justice, there is just us. In this moment when the attention of so many is on the Black liberation movement in the U.S., there is significant political mileage in claiming ally-ship with the movement – the woodworks will be full. But genuine solidarity requires 'fighting on different terrains toward the same objectives'[ii], co-conspiracy rather than empty declarations of ally-ship. Co-conspiracy will require long-term commitment, introspection, and practice. It might start with a hashtag or wearing a t-shirt, it certainly can't end there.

I have seen, admittedly with some glee, consternation amongst sections of the Black community in the U.S around the organizing tactics and methods of the mobilizations for Black life and lives. During the uprisings in Tunisia, a communist comrade recounted that every evening he wrote an analysis of what was happening and how it was happening. Every morning he tore up his analysis. In only a few hours, what he understood felt no longer applicable, relevant or even enough to understand what was happening. The people were creating revolution. Not from a text book, the red book or any other book, but from their own experience and knowledge. Learning in action was the order of the day and a leaderfull[iii] not leaderless, movement was being created in the image of the aspirations of the people involved. It was definitely not a perfect uprising, there have been significant losses over the last four years but revolution is a process and without a doubt the uprisings changed Tunisia, Africa and the rest of the world in significant ways. The uprisings in the U.S feel similar in that they are grounded on years of organizing and part of a transformative process, they are leaderfull not leaderless and they have swept the old guard to the side to make room for the articulation of the peoples' aspirations. In Tunisia, the call was for 'bread and dignity,' in the U.S it is for Black lives. Both have clear affirmations and both affirmations challenge the economic, social, and political global order in their demand.

The systems of oppression that we challenge locally are global and we have a global Black village. We have a duty not only to indict the system, to shut it down, but to build new ways of being, doing and sustaining. We must become, in the words of Assata, weapons of mass construction. Indeed, we have nothing to lose but our chains.


[i] Fred Moten makes an important distinction here on Black lives and Black life: "We need to understand what the state is defending itself from and I think that in this respect, the particular instances of Michael Brown's murder and Eric Garner's murder are worth paying some attention to. Because what the drone, Darren Wilson, shot into that day was insurgent Black life walking down the street. I don't think he meant to violate the individual personhood of Michael Brown, he was shooting at mobile Black sociality walking down the street in a way that he understood implicitly constituted a threat to the order he represents and that he is sworn to protect. Eric Garner on the every day basis initiated a new alternative kind of market place, another mode of social life. That's what they killed, ok? So when we say that Black lives matter I think what we do sometimes is obscure the fact that it's in fact Black life that matters. That insurgent Black social life still constitutes a profound threat to the already existing order of things." See more:

[ii] Samora Machel

[iii] "The only leadership I can respect is one that enables every man and woman to be his and her own leader" June Jordan, Civil Wars

Opinion Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:25:56 -0500