homecontactarchivetheme

'About'Original PostsBurmabell hooks
»


theamericanprospect: The Making of a Dead Zone

theamericanprospect:

The Making of a Dead Zone



Globalization is not a natural, evolutionary, or inevitable phenomenon, as is often argued. Globalization is a political process that has been forced on the weak by the powerful. Globalization in not the cross-cultural interaction of diverse societies. It is the imposition of a particular culture on all others. Nor is globalization the search for ecological balance on a planetary scale. It is the predation of one class, one race, and often one gender of a single specie on all others. ‘Global’ in the dominant discourse is the political space in which the dominant local seeks control, freeing itself from local, regional, and global sources of accountability arising from the imperatives of ecological sustainability and social justice. ‘Global’ in this sense does not represent the universal human interest; it represents a particular local and parochial interest and culture that has been globalized through its reach and control, irresponsibility, and lack of reciprocity.

Globalization has come in three waves. The first wave was the colonization of the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia by European powers over the course of 1, 500 years. The second wave was the imposition of the West’s idea of ‘development’ on non-Western cultures in the postcolonial era of the past five decades. The third wave of globalization was unleashed approximately five years ago as the era of ‘free trade,’ which for some commentators implies an end to history, but for us in the Third World is a repeat of history through recolonization. Each wave of globalization has served Western interests, and each wave has created deeper colonization of other cultures and of the planet’s life.


— Vandana Shiva. “Ecological Balance in an Era of Globalization.” (2000). The Globalization Reader, Fourth Edition. 2012.(via thedarksideoflight89)



Elizabeth Martínez, a legendary civil rights and Chicano movement activist, has pointed out, along with her collaborator Arnoldo García of the National Network of Immigrant and Refugee Rights, that the new conditions that constitute neoliberalism and characterize economic development since the 1980s involve an almost total freedom of movement for capital, goods, and services—in other words, the absolute rule of the market. Public expenditures for social services have been drastically cut. There has been constant pressure for the elimination of government intervention and regulation of the market. Thus the privatization of gas and electricity, of health care, education and many other human services has emerged as the mode of increased profits for global corporations. Finally, Martínez and García point out, the concept of the public good and the very concept of “community” are being eliminated to make way for the notion of “individual responsibility.” This results in “pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education, and social security all by themselves—then blaming them if they fail, as ‘lazy.’”

I would add yet another point to this definition of neo-liberalism: the flawed assumption that history does not matter. This idea, formulated by Francis Fukuyama as “The End of History,” also involves, as Dinesh D’Souza put it, “The End of Racism.” Both race and racism are profoundly historical. Thus if we discard biological and thus essentialist notions of “race” as fallacious, it would be erroneous to assume that we can also willfully extricate ourselves from histories of race and racism. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we continue to inhabit these histories, which help to constitute our social and psychic worlds.

Neoliberalism sees the market as the very paradigm of freedom, and democracy emerges as a synonym for capitalism, which has reemerged as the telos of history. In the official narratives of U.S. history, the historical victories of civil rights are dealt with as the final consolidation of democracy in the United States, having relegated racism to the dustbin of history. The path toward the complete elimination of racism is represented in the neoliberalist discourse of “color-blindness” and the assertion that equality can only be achieved when the law, as well as individual subjects, become blind to race. This approach, however, fails to apprehend the material and ideological work that race continues to do.

When obvious examples of racism appear to the public, they are considered to be isolated aberrations, to be addressed as anachronistic attributes of individual behavior. There have been a number of such cases in recent months in the United States. I mention the noose that was hung on a tree branch by white students at a school in Jena, Louisiana, as a sign that black students were prohibited from gathering under that tree. I can also allude to the public use of racist expletives by a well-known white comedian, the racist and misogynist language employed by a well-known radio host in referring to black women on a college basketball team, and finally, recent comments regarding the golfer Tiger Woods…

These comments were, of course, readily identified as familiar—exceedingly familiar—expressions of attitudinal racism that are now treated as anachronistic expressions that were once articulated with state-sponsored racisms. Such occurrences are now relegated to the private sphere and only become public when they are literally publicized. Whereas, during an earlier period in our history, such comments would have been clearly understood as linked to state policy and to the material practices of social institutions, they are now treated as individual and private irregularities, to be solved by punishing and reeducating the individual by teaching them color-blindness, by teaching them not to notice the phenomenon of race.

But if we see these individual eruptions of racism as connected to the persistence and further entrenchment of institutional and structural racism that hides behind the curtain of neoliberalism, their meanings cannot be understood as individual aberrations. In the cases we have discussed, the racism is explicit and blatant. There is no denying that these are racist utterances. What happens, however, when racism is expressed not through the words of individuals, but rather through institutional practices that are “mute,” to borrow the term Dana-Ain Davis uses, with respect to racism?

— This is an excerpt from Chapter 10 of Angela Davis’ 2008 book: “The Meaning of Freedom and Other Difficult Dialogues”. You can read the full chapter here. The chapter is called: ‘Recognizing Racism in the Era of Neoliberalism’ (via thepeoplesrecord)



I have never really understood exactly what a ‘liberal’ is, since I have heard ‘liberals’ express every conceivable opinion on every conceivable subject. As far as I can tell, you have the extreme right, who are fascist, racist capitalist dogs like Ronald Reagan, who come right out and let you know where they’re from. And on the opposite end, you have the left, who are supposed to be committed to justice, equality, and human rights. And somewhere between these two points is the liberal. As far as I’m concerned, ‘liberal’ is the most meaningless word in the dictionary. History has shown me that as long as some white middle class people can live high on the hog, take vacations to Europe, send their children to private schools, and the reap the benefits of their white skin privileges, then they are ‘liberals’. But when times get hard and money gets tight, they pull off that liberal mask and you think you’re talking to Adolf Hitler. They feel sorry for the so-called underprivileged just as long as they can maintain their own privileges.

— Assata Shakur (via basednkrumah)



#1: You frequently find yourself advocating that the United States send troops, drones, weapons, Special Forces, or combat air patrols to some country that you have never visited, whose language(s) you don’t speak, and that you never paid much attention to until bad things started happening there.

#3: You think globally and speak, um, globally. You are quick to condemn human rights violations by other governments, but American abuses (e.g., torture, rendition, targeted assassinations, Guantánamo, etc.) and those of America’s allies get a pass. You worry privately (and correctly) that aiming your critique homeward might get in the way of a future job.

#4: You are a strong proponent of international law, except when it gets in the way of Doing the Right Thing. Then you emphasize its limitations and explain why the United States doesn’t need to be bound by it in this case.

#6. Even if you don’t know very much about military history, logistics, or modern military operations, you are still convinced that military power can achieve complex political objectives at relatively low cost.

#7: To your credit, you have powerful sympathies for anyone opposing a tyrant. Unfortunately, you tend not to ask whether rebels, exiles, and other anti-regime forces are trying to enlist your support by telling you what they think you want to hear. (Two words: Ahmed Chalabi.)


—

(a few of the) Top 10 Signs of ‘Liberal Imperialism’ by Stephen M. Walt

(via globalwarmist)



the-lone-pamphleteer:

“I know a hunger-striking prisoner who hasn’t eaten solid food in more than five years. He is being force-fed by the medical staff where he’s incarcerated. Starving himself, he told me during one of our biweekly phone calls last year, is the only way he has to exercise his first amendment rights and to protest his conviction. Not eating is his only available free speech act.

The prisoner has lost half his body weight and four teeth to malnutrition. He and his lawyer have gone to court to stop the force-feedings, but a judge ruled against him in March. If I asked you to guess where Coleman is being held, you’d likely say Guantánamo — “America’s offshore war-on-terror camp” — where a mass hunger strike of 100 prisoners has brought the ethics of force-feeding to American newspapers, if not American consciences. Twenty-five of those prisoners are now being manually fed with tubes.

But William Coleman is not at Guantánamo. He’s in Connecticut. The prison medical staff force-feeding him are on contract from the University of Connecticut, not the U.S. Navy. Guantánamo is not an anomaly. Prisoners — who are on U.S. soil and not an inaccessible island military base — are routinely and systematically force-fed every day.”

-Ann Neumann, “Guantánamo is not an anomaly — prisoners in the US are force-fed every day,” Waging Nonviolence, May 4, 2013



socialismartnature:

Harlem: 26 cops arrest & beat one unarmed Black youth, slam him to ground, then stop legal filming by witnesses.

This was May 13 at 3:30pm in the 135th St station of the B/C. Note the one arresting officer repeatedly telling the other to “relax.” The young man being arrested puts his leg up just so they don’t slam his face into the wall. When I turned my camera to catch the officers streaming into the station, two of them came behind me and one officer (Mancebo?) pushed me out of the station and would not let me turn around. Afterwards, I counted twelve police cars around the station.



if there is one thing radicals/progressives/liberals have failed to get right in the new age

navigatethestream:

its the notion of boycotts

you wanna know why the bus boycotts of the civil rights movement were so successful?

because an alternative black run transportation system was created for those who couldn’t walk to work or whatever they had to go

they didn’t just tell people “oh the bus enforces racist policies so don’t take it and FUCK if you can’t get to work on time or where you need to be!” 

they said “hey you’re paying to get on the bus and not even being given a seat let alone being ejected if a white passenger needs your seat. here’s a potentially better alternative where you pay to sit down and get to where you need to go” 

all this “boycott Target, Walmart, Monsanto owned companies” comes from a notion of boycott located in the politic of privileged white people

and that’s why they are largely unsuccessful

its why Obama just gave Monsanto the green light to commit even more fuckery to your food

its the reason why cooperation are considered people

its the reason why Walmart is allowed to usurp safety and labor regulations in their factories, and underpay their American workers

because you say “don’t spend your money there” and that’s the end of the story 

you expect people to locate their survival in a politic of “abstaining from unethical choices”

and then from there those unethical choices are somehow supposed to magically disappear. when really only a small percentage of people are able to boycott so many things

there wouldn’t be a movement located around the “99%” if 99% of people could really afford to stop shopping at the unethical places and stop buying the unethical brands

good luck with your hocus pocus activist logic 



American workers are more likely to be killed by their boss than a terrorist.

—

Every day, workers are forced to minimize safety in order to keep their jobs. The vast majority of American workers have no unions to defend their right to workplace safety. The U.S. Department of Labor and other federal agencies do not protect workers from being killed on the job.

The explosion in West, Texas was as big as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, yet there will be no war on this kind of terrorism. This is because the prevailing philosophy is profit before people.

American workers are more likely to be killed by their boss than a terrorist. Last year, approximately 5,000 workers were killed at work by unsafe conditions.

Kevin Harrington, New York City

(via socialismartnature)

Truth. 

Congress has been doing its best to gut OSHA for a long, long time now: fines have not risen in ages (big companies can absorb the “you willfully killed an employee” fine without blinking), and OSHA has had a shit of a time promulgating new regulations. Most OSHA regs date back to ANSI standards of the late 60s, and iirc, the last big update of chemical standards was in the mid-80s. (One of the last reg updates — hexavalent chrome, the same chemical that the Julia Roberts film was about — only happened because a union had sued for AN ETERNITY to get it. They won several times running — once to say, yes, you shall have your regulation; again to say, what, you mean you wanted it in a timely manner??; and again to say, what, when you said “timely manner” you meant timely-timely and not just whenever?? — before the courts finally told Congress to BACK THE FUCK OFF and let OSHA make their reg already.) 

…do I need to tell you how much manufacturing has changed since 1969? How about the chemical industry? SO MANY NEW CHEMICALS SINCE THE 1980s.

Hell, it’s gotten so bad, that the chemists (industrial hygienists, they’re called) employed by OSHA and NIOSH formed their own professional organization (the NCGIH), which publishes a book every year of what the regulations WOULD be if they got to have their say. And employers-of-conscience use THAT book in addition to the OSHA regs. But then a bunch of industry lobbyists up and sued NCGIH, trying to force them to stop publishing that book, because the book was making them look bad and sometimes helping employees win employer-negligence lawsuits.

(this is my bitter laugh)

And mind you, this all is far, far worse when viewed from an intersectionality perspective. F’rinstance, immigrants are FAR more likely to be killed on the job than other workers: some of that roots in language or culture (not knowing they have rights to a safer workplace than they’ve got, or not believing in those rights, once told; or alternatively, not being able to communicate with coworkers/employers well enough to understand what is or is not a dangerous way to do something), some of it is being in such an economically precarious position that they can’t afford to take the risk of trusting in whistleblower protections (which are far, far from perfect), and some of it is living in dead fear of *other* branches of the federal government (ICE!) and thus being justifiably unwilling to cooperate with *any* government inspectors. (In Oregon, there is a law expressly forbidding OR-OSHA inspectors from sharing info with immigration or police, to help back the “no really, you can trust me, I won’t turn you in, even if I *wanted* to the law forbids me from doing so, just tell me, IS YOUR EMPLOYER TRING TO KILL YOU?” Some white people are as mad as hell about that law and want it gutted, as you might imagine. God forbid that undocumented workers should have any kind of protection from their employers!)

The situation is a long, long way from how it was supposed to work, back when it was all set up in 1971. And yes, union-busting is part of the reason for that.

…and y’know, I’m just going to stop talking now, because I could go on about this for a long, long time.

But in summation: you should be able to go to work and come home with as many body parts as you left with, and you should be able to come home with them all in good working order, too. You really, really fucking should. 

(via sanguinarysanguinity)



That the Obama administration is now repeatedly declaring that the ‘war on terror’ will last at least another decade (or two) is vastly more significant than all three of this week’s big media controversies (Benghazi, IRS, and AP/DOJ) combined. The military historian Andrew Bacevich has spent years warning that US policy planners have adopted an explicit doctrine of ‘endless war’. Obama officials, despite repeatedly boasting that they have delivered permanently crippling blows to al-Qaida, are now, as clearly as the English language permits, openly declaring this to be so. It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself. Not only is it the end itself, but it is also its own fuel: it is precisely this endless war - justified in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism - that is the single greatest cause of that threat.

— Glenn Greenwald (via nexistepas)