Page 1 of 2
1 2

The Criminal Invasion of Ukraine

In answer to my friends on the left who are holding the US as primarily responsible for the invasion of Ukraine, I would respond as follows: Yes, we need to concede that the US broke agreements made with Russia after the Cold War, after German reunification and the collapse of the Soviet Union – a nation that is the guardian of the memory of the worst assault on any nation in human history, which saw the Nazis take the lives of millions of  Russians (Ukrainians and Belarusians were the two nations most affected in terms of casualties for both civilian and military populations).

. The US did expand NATO up to the borders of Russia when, in fact, there was no longer any need for NATO to exist after the breakup of the Soviet Union. But arms manufacturers saw massive profits in making former Soviet Bloc countries upgraded militarily to NATO standards (thanks to the generosity of loans provided by US arms manufacturers), and they needed an enemy in order to do so, and we know the outcome of that story which goes by the name ‘Cold War.’ And look at the stock market right now – arms manufacturers are making profits heads over heels while Ukrainian civilians are literally flying head over heels as targets of Russian artillery fire. We can bring up the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the like. Or bring up the argument about spheres of interest. Yes, we know that an integration of neighboring countries into U.S.-led military partnerships – bringing NATO to the doorstep of Russia – has helped fuel the crisis. And we can understand the security threat that the US-backed NATO alliance poses to countries bordering Russia, especially when Ukraine is also increasing its commercial ties with the European Union. Yes, we can be critical of the post-Maidan regime – since 2014, the US has been governing Ukraine in a de facto sense, and we know about the nationalist radicalization and the presence of neo-Nazis in Kyiv, the Azov Battalion, for instance – but let’s remember that they are not supported politically by the majority of the Ukrainian people. They have been integrated into the National Guard.  We cannot support Nazi ideology anywhere, and one can certainly find it in the United States without looking any further than the increase in far-right militia movements throughout the United States.  But it is important to remember that  there is more political support for the far-right in Germany and France than in Ukraine. All this we know. Yes, we all remember the warning by George Kennan, the architect of the United States Cold War Policy designed to contain the Soviet Union, a warning seared into our memory, that expanding NATO would be a “fateful error” that would  surely  “inflame nationalistic, anti-western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion” and would certainly imperil east-west relations.

But, at the same time, we must denounce Putin’s imperialist invasion of Ukraine as illegal and barbaric, even if this means siding with the US and NATO. Putin chose war. This is Putin’s war. We remember what Putin did to Grozny in 1999-2000, completely destroying the city. Is Ukraine part of a Grozny option? Will Kyiv become another Dresden flattened to rubble? In denouncing Russia’s invasion, we need not be a supporter of NATO or the imperialist history of the US. The US has little moral credibility left, certainly after the fiascos of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. And let’s not forget the Cuban missile crisis. And the more recent NATO missile base that exists in Poland (Aegis SM-3 Block IB missiles for Poland are already on-site, only a hundred miles from Russian territory and 800 miles from Moscow). But let’s be clear, Russia clearly needs to pull back its troops. Leave Ukraine. Demilitarize Donbas and Russian border areas. Ukraine needs to be designated a neutral country, and the US must acknowledge this. Give it a status similar to Finland.  Some version of the Minsk Accords.  The US must not ‘play’ this war in a way that seeks only advantages for itself, its arms manufacturers, its possible electoral advantages, searching for strategic geopolitical advantages; too many lives are at stake.  We are at a turning point that cannot countenance invasions like the Kremlin assault on Ukraine and expect to survive as a human race since, as Marx warned, we will be forging our own chains. We must support working-class, trade unionist, and socialist resistance to this unholy attack on Ukraine while remaining critical of the bourgeois aspects of the current Ukraine regime.  But our first demand is that Russian troops leave Ukraine immediately and cease to fabricate hollow and shameless pretexts that Ukraine is overpopulated by Nazis and have made preparations to commit genocidal acts on Russians living in Donbas.  Russia’s propaganda industry, as strong as it is, has failed in this instance, and only looks foolish.

But, at the same time, we need to understand why this war broke out. Understanding the war does not mean we are justifying this war. We are watching if not the first TikTok war, or the first war that is being viewed overwhelmingly through social media, in Twitterspace and Facebook, then at the very least a military conflagration that constitutes the first major Internet war where the power of social media is being felt to a greater extent than in all previous wars, in terms of scale, scope, evolution and the quality of the virtual experiences fed to the public. It is being brought to the world through live streaming, high-quality video, tweets and retweets and massive online platforms. More people are using the Internet than ever before, and there is a growing popularity of non-news sources and thus potentially more narrative control by the victims (Cuciu, 2022). We do have the issue of information being manipulated photoshopped, and that is and will be a persistent problem. Listening to many news reports that have decried the bloody violence inflicted by the Russian military in Ukraine reveals a disturbing trend: there appears to be a flagrant ethnocentricity and racism at work. Some pundits appear to be upset with the Russian attack on Ukraine mainly because (as they shockingly proclaim) it’s a war between prosperous middle-class people, between peoples that you would never find in Third World populations in Latin America or Africa, between ‘civilized’ people, people who ‘look like us’ – fashionable victims, unlike those unfashionable victims being bombed in, say, Yemen. If they were reporting on a war between tribal factions in Africa, they would not be nearly as emotionally invested. Those are the pundits whose demands for NATO to impose a no-fly zone are the loudest. But a physical engagement between Russia and NATO would be guaranteed to bring about mutually assured destruction.

Social media accounts of the war raise our emotions to a fever pitch. But we cannot lose our capacity for sound, rational judgement. And that means that those of us in the West must continue to challenge the imperialist playbook of NATO, as we continue to challenge Putin. And we must challenge the insanity playing out in the margins of the culture wars by Trump’s QAnon followers making the claim that Trump and Putin are working together to destroy the infrastructure of Ukraine because their actual goal is to destroy a bioweapons lab set up there by Dr Anthony Fauci. What about religious messianism playing out behind the scenes in this conflict? Russian President Vladimir Putin proclaimed that Ukraine ‘is an inalienable part of our own history, culture, and spiritual space.’ Since Putin has used the ‘defence of Orthodoxy’ argument to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we need to inquire as to the religious implications that stem from this ecclesiastical nationalism – ‘the Church tethered to the nation (autocephaly)’ – in this case, from Russia and Ukraine sharing the same Christian origins, that of the baptism of Prince Vladimir in 988 (De Gaulmyn, 2022). According to Isabelle de Gaulmyn, this “is a story that Vladimir Putin used in a speech tinged with Christian messianism. The Russian president’s spiritual confidant, Metropolitan Tikhon of Pskov and Porkhov, advocates for the unity of the peoples born of the baptism of Rus’ against a “decadent” West. This fits with the political views of many in Russian Orthodoxy.” However, Isabelle de Gaulmyn (2022) writes that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarch (UOC-MP), which opposes the invasion of Ukraine, is beginning to distance itself from Patriarch Kirill (Kirill is a Russian Orthodox bishop who became Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus’ and Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church on 1 February 2009). She notes that “[t]he patriarch has nothing to gain by encouraging the bombardment of Kyiv and its spiritual heritage, such as the Monastery of the Caves, where all the Russian saints have passed.” Pope Francis, the first-ever Roman pope to meet the Patriarch of Moscow, is sending a message through his diplomacy that by supporting Putin, The Russian Orthodox Church will lose not only Ukraine “but every bit of its influence in the Christian world.”  Russian Orthodox priest and theologian Cyril Hovorun says his Church is too entangled with Vladimir Putin and is drifting towards fascism (Corre, 2022).  Hovorun paints a picture of Russian orthodoxy that curdles the blood. Patriarch Kirill sees himself in a messianic light as a redeemer of Russia and is obsessed with the idea of a Manichean world consisting of a benevolent Russian civilization under siege by the ontologically evil West, which is complimented by the neo-imperialism of Putin. Hovorun asserts that the war in Ukraine “is being waged in the name of a special mission of religious unification, of protection of a kind of ‘holy land’ against the West – against the Western countries considered heretical, bad and liars, because they are Catholic or Protestant.  It is first of all a logic of expansion of the ‘Orthodox civilization’” (Corre, 2022).  It is a logic of expansion that knows no borders because its imperialist expansion is designed to bring Russian civilization to a corrupt Western world.  Americans should recognize this logic because it has played an enormous  role in its own Manifest Destiny narrative that has resulted in so much bloodshed in the name of defending and advancing American civilization against ‘barbarian hordes’.  But US imperialism is not the only imperialism.  Hovorun reports a sermon by Patriarch Kirill who stridently asserts “that the war in Ukraine is made necessary by the ‘genocide’ that would be perpetrated in the Donbass by Ukrainians against those who refuse Gay Pride” (Corre, 2022).   Is hosting a Gay Pride parade now the litmus test for civilization? Is it the defining characteristic of what separates good from evil? The notion that a Gay Parade has become an excuse for invading countries and slaughtering innocents must be met with the most severe denunciation.  But will denouncing Putin’s favorite Patriarch make any difference?    Especially when the mass media are treating the invasion as a spectacle, with little room, it seems, for rational maneuvering in the theatre of dialogue and peace-making. Donald Trump, known for his great admiration for authoritarian leaders, was impeached for threatening to hold military aid from Zelensky unless he provided damaging information on Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden.  And now Trump is taking credit for arming Ukraine with advanced American weaponry such as the FGM-148 Javelin (AAWS-M) is an American-made portable anti-tank missile.

  At the beginning of the invasion Trump described Zelensky as a “genius” and “savvy” and then he changed his tune and condemned the invasion. While President, Trump attacked NATO, and now he is spinning the past and claiming he attacked NATO only to make it stronger.  Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson of Fox News are spewing disinformation about the war, bending the truth in ways that favor Putin while both Republicans and Democrats are fighting over ways to use sanctions that will inflict the most pain on Russia.   The media is playing the war like a farcical plot from a television soap opera.

This much is clear:  Russia must pay for its criminal invasion. We must use every means available to support Ukraine, while at the same time trying to save the planet from nuclear devastation. This is a complex and difficult challenge, especially when we see babies that have been cut to ribbons by Russian missiles.  We must denounce toxic forms of nationalism and imperialist intervention, while continuing to search for a socialist and humanist alternative to capitalist value production. Trump must be de-pedestalized and Russia must be de-Putinized.   The people of Ukraine are fighting with an unflinching determination. We must try every means to combat the Russian imperialist aggression against Ukraine. We must hold all imperialist regimes accountable for their crimes the world over. That is why socialist internationalism is so important, especially at this inflection point in history. Russian or Western intervention must not be tolerated. Ukraine must be free to determine its own future.  That means that only Ukraine and Russia must create the final framework for a negotiated settlement.  Correspondingly,  the United States needs to support a settlement  that  meaningfully preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty and the US must give up its dream of a U.S.-run Atlanticist framework for Europe.

.

We must provide shelter and support for the refugees who have escaped this imperialist war that was initiated by the Kremlin. Putin must be placed in the dock for war crimes. And Putin’s bloody regime must be overthrown. All imperialist regimes must be consigned to the dustbin of history.

References

Corre, Mikael. (2022).  «Orthodox theology must be de-Putinized,» says leading Church scholar. Interview with Cyril Hovorun. La Croix International. March 11.

De Gaulmyn, Isabelle. (2022).  March 4.  Religious Nationalism. La Croix International. https://international.la-croix.com/news/editorials/religious-nationalism/15734

Suciu, Peter. (2022). Is Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine the First Social Media War? Forbes, March 1.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2022/03/01/is-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-the-first-social-media-war/?sh=5e1a51391c5c

Imagen: https://www.google.com/search?q=guerra+en+ucrania&sxsrf=APq-WBufBerm_iA5WVRKjktoFldY5IJtjQ:1647813265192&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWts_i1tX2AhU3RTABHbp3Cf0Q_AUoAXoECAIQAw#imgrc=5bJjl8jwFalafM

Comparte este contenido:

Switching sides: Whitewashing history in the age of Trump

By: Henry Giroux

Madeleine Albright, without irony, has written a book on resisting fascism. She has also published an op-ed in the New York Times pushing the same argument.

Albright, former secretary of state under Bill Clinton, is alarmed. She wants to warn the public to stop the fascism emerging under the Trump regime before it’s too late.

Unfortunately, moralism on the part of the infamous and notorious is often the enemy of both historical memory and the truth, in spite of their newly discovered opposition to tyranny.

It defies belief that a woman who defended the killing of 500,000 children as a result of the imposed U.S. sanctions on Iraq can take up the cause of fighting fascism while positioning herself as being on the forefront of resistance to American authoritarianism.

Albright appears on ‘60 Minutes’ in 1996.

Denis J. Halliday, the United Nations humanitarian coordinator in Iraq for part of the sanctions era, once said of those measures: “We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that.”

Is any policy worth the death of 500,000 children?

Albright, however, is not alone.

Hillary Clinton, herself a former war-monger and an unabashed ally of the financial elite, has also resurrected herself as a crusader in fighting the creeping fascism that now marks the Trump regime.

Speaking recently at the PEN World Voices Festival, Clinton appeared to have completely removed herself from her notorious past as a supporter of the Iraq war and the military-industrial-financial complex in order to sound the alarm “that freedom of speech and expression is under attack here in our own country.” She further called for action against America’s creeping authoritarianism.

‘Flight from memory’

It’s an odd flight from memory into the sphere of moral outrage given her own role in supporting a number of domestic and foreign policies both as a former first lady and as secretary of state.

There was the refusal to punish CIA torturers, the drone killings, the lavishing of funds to the military war machine, the shredding of the federal safety net for poor people and the endorsement of neoliberal policies that offered no hope or prosperity “for neighbourhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work.”

Clinton’s critique of Trump’s fascism does more than alert the public to the obvious about the current government, it also legitimatizes a form of historical amnesia and a long and suppressed legacy of cruelty and human misery. It gets worse.

Michael Hayden, the former NSA chief and CIA director under George W. Bush, has joined the ranks of Albright and Clinton in condemning Trump as a proto-fascist.

Writing in the New York Times, Hayden, ironically, chastised Trump as a serial liar and in doing so quoted the renowned historian Timothy Snyder, who stated in reference to the Trump regime that “Post-Truth is pre-fascism.”

And yet he’s now being regarded as an honest, expert commentator on intelligence and other issues.The irony here is hard to miss. Not only did Hayden head Bush’s illegal National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping program while the head of the NSA, he also lied repeatedly about about his role in Bush’s sanction and implementation of state torture in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Dubious heroes

The United States and its Vichy Republican Party has drifted so far to the fascist right that people like Albright, Clinton and Hayden are serving as heroes in the political and ethical resistance to fascism.

While the call to resist fascism is to be welcomed, it has to be interrogated, not aligned with individuals and ideological forces that helped put in place the racist, economic, religious and educational forces that produced it.

I am not simply condemning the hypocrisy of former politicians who are now criticizing the emerging fascism in the United States. Nor am I proposing that only selective condemnations should be welcomed.

What I am suggesting is that the seductions of power in high places often work to impose a silence upon people that allow them to benefit from and become complicit with authoritarian tendencies and anti-democratic policies and modes of governance. Once they’re out of power, their own histories of complicity are too often easily erased, especially by the mainstream media.

Their newly found stances against fascism do nothing to help explain where we are and what we might do next to resist it now that it’s engulfing American society and its economic, cultural and political institutions.

What is often unrecognized in the celebrated denunciations of fascism by celebrity politicians is that neoliberalism is the new fascism.

And what becomes invisible in the fog of such celebration is neoliberalism’s legacy and its deadly mix of market fundamentalism, anti-intellectualism, rabid individualism, unchecked selfishness, shredding of the welfare state, privatization of the public sphere, white supremacy, toxic masculinity and all-embracing quest for profit.

‘Savage politics’

The new and more racist, violent and brutal form of neoliberalism under Trump has produced both a savage politics in the U.S. and a corrupt financial elite that now controls all the commanding institutions of U.S. society.

Systemic corruption, crassness, overt racism, a view of misfortune as a weakness, unapologetic bigotry and a disdain of the public and common good has been normalized under Trump, but it’s been gaining strength for the last 50 years in U.S. politics. Trump is merely the blunt instrument at the heart of a fascistic neoliberal ideology.

We need to be wary, to say the least, about those mainstream politicians now denouncing Trump’s fascism who while in power submitted, as noted U.S. sociologist Stanley Aronowitz puts it, “to neoliberal degradations of health care, jobs, public housing, and income guarantees for the long-term unemployed (let alone the rest of us).”

What is often ignored in the emerging critiques of fascism is neoliberalism’s legacy coupled with the mainstream media’s attempts to hold up many of its architects and supporters as celebrated opponents of Trump’s fascist government.

Trump is the extreme point of a long series of attacks on democracy —and former politicians like Albright and Clinton cannot be removed from that history.

Unchecked and systemic power, a take-no-prisoners politics and an unapologetic cruelty are the currency of fascism because they have long been the wedge that makes fear visceral and violence more than an abstraction.None of these politicians have denounced nationalism, the myth of American exceptionalism and the forces that produce obscene inequality in wealth and power in the U.S., or the oppressive regime of law and order that has ruled the U.S. ruthlessly and without apology since the 1980s.


This lethal mix is also a pathological condition endemic to brutal demagogues such as Trump. Trump and his ilk demand loyalty —not to justice and democracy, but loyalty to themselves, one that stands above the truth and rule of law.

Stamp out amnesia

The calls to resist fascism are welcome, but they can’t be separated from the acts of bad faith that helped produce it.

The fight against fascism is part of a struggle over memory. We must not engage in historical and social amnesia.

It is also a fight to defend the public spheres and institutions that make civic literacy, the public imagination and critical consciousness possible. We must expose the forces that are and have been complicit in the longstanding attack on democratic institutions, values and social relations, especially those that now hide their past and ideological convictions.

Any resistance to fascism has to be rooted in the call to make education central to politics with a strong emphasis on the teaching of historical consciousness and civic literacy as crucial weapons.

At the same time, the fight must be unwavering in its refusal to equate capitalism and democracy. We are at war over not just the right of economic equality and social justice, but also against the powerful and privileged positions of whiteness, toxic masculinity and the elimination of solidarity and compassion.

This is a war waged over the possibility of a radical democracy while acknowledging that the rich and powerful will not give up their power without a fight.

Looking for guidance on fascism in the U.S. today? Listen to Parkland activist Emma Gonzalez, 18, not Albright, Clinton or anyone else who has been complicit. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

And so instead of listening to complicit politicians and others deeply embedded in a system of exploitation, disposability, austerity and a criminogenic culture, we need to listen to the voices of the striking teachers, the Parkland students, the women driving the #MeToo movement, the Black Lives Matter organizers and others willing to make resistance visible, collective and widespread.

The fight against American-style fascism cannot and will not be lead by establishment politicians and pundits parading as the new heroes of the resistance to Trump’s fascism.

Source:

http://theconversation.com/switching-sides-whitewashing-history-in-the-age-of-trump-95729

Comparte este contenido:

UK: Welsh education being used for propaganda, says UKIP AM

UK/May 08, 2018/Source: http://www.bbc.com

Wales’ education system is being used as a tool of propaganda, UKIP’s Welsh leader has alleged.

Neil Hamilton claimed that parts of the Welsh Baccalaureate on topics like inequality are being taught from a «centre-left disposition».

He said there was a «potential danger» that teachers may be biased, suggesting they may favour the Labour party.

First Minister Carwyn Jones said he saw no examples of «bias» in the curriculum.

The UKIP Wales leader said the qualification included a «global citizen challenge which deals with issues such as cultural diversity, fair trade, future energy, inequality and poverty».

«These are all highly political topics which need to be taught in a balanced way if education is not to degrade itself into mere propaganda,» Mr Hamilton told First Minister’s Questions in the Senedd.

He said he had seen the materials being used in teaching the courses which are all, he claimed, «from a centre-left disposition».

The comment drew heckles from other AMs.

Kirsty Williams
Image captionEducation Secretary Kirsty Williams looked on aghast as Neil Hamilton made his claims

«The false indignation coming from the other side proves the point I’m trying to make here,» Mr Hamilton replied, «that because they control the education system it is being used as a tool of propaganda.»

Mr Hamilton said the «mindset of a teacher is very important» and, quoting polling figures suggesting many secondary school teachers vote Labour, he said: «Even if bias is subconscious it must be regarded as a potential danger».

‘Revisionism’

But the first minister said «anything is centre-left» from Mr Hamilton’s perspective, alleging that he had supported the now-repealed Section 28 law that had banned local authorities from intentionally promoting the acceptability of homosexuality.

Mr Jones said: «We prefer balance. He wants right-wing revisionism.»

«I trust our teachers, bluntly, and I trust our students to able to think critically for themselves,» he told Mr Hamilton.

«There will be different views on how to address inequality, different views on how to address poverty.

«Nevertheless they are hugely important issues that I think every young person needs to think about.

«But I’ve seen no examples at all of any kind of bias being introduced into the curriculum.

«For my perspective I think it is hugely important that our students do have the ability to go beyond academic subjects because I think it makes them more rounded individuals when they do think more critically and more widely.»

Source:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-44038903

Comparte este contenido:

Kenya: How our university education system went terribly wrong

Kenya/ March 13, 2018/By EVAN MWANGI/Source: https://www.nation.co.ke/

The student unrest at Meru University of Science at Technology (MUST) that left a student leader dead last week exposes the soft underbelly of higher education institutions, once considered citadels of knowledge and a sure ticket to a better future.

The student, Evans Njoroge, was shot dead by the police as he and his fellow students protested higher tuition fees, bad management of their university, and poor facilities at the campus.

These are complaints also heard in both private and public universities across the country.

LECTURERS’ STRIKE
Public university lecturers have also downed their tools over what one professor at the University of Nairobi termed the “same old story of bargaining agreements that the government and university councils refuse to honour”.

The lecturers have not been paid their allowances because the universities claim they don’t have money to implement an agreement over improved pay.

The lecturers are also asking for a 150 per cent salary increase and a 100 per cent raise in housing allowance to cushion them from the high cost of living.

Already in coffins awaiting their mass funeral, only divine intervention can save Kenyan universities, as their degeneration reflects the general rot in a nation riddled with corruption, poor planning, and indifference to excellence.

“Universities are dealing with the same dysfunctional politics as the rest of the country,” Dr Wandia Njoya of Daystar University, a vocal critic of the way universities are run like businesses or dirty-handed political campaign machines, says.

“It’s all about ego and status, including expensive campaigning for campus positions.”

SATELLITE CAMPUSES
Most experts we interviewed noted that the main problem facing Kenyan universities is the mushrooming of substandard campuses.

With rapid expansion of universities to cater for rising demand for degrees (from seven public universities in 2012 to 33 in 2018), the quality of teaching and research has sunk to the lowest ebb.

Kenya’s 60 university colleges educate about 540,000 students annually, graduating about 50,000 students each year.

The need to cater for rising demands in higher education and finance university programmes after the government cuts on education spending has had its toll on quality.

Staffing is outstretched. “We don’t have the matching workforce and personnel to staff the increasing masses of students,” Dr Teresa Okoth-Oluoch, a specialist in language education and curriculum development at Masinde Muliro University, where she is the director of the Centre for Quality Teaching and Learning, says.

“The so-called university campuses dotting villages seriously compromise quality.”

FUNDING
Between 2013 and 2016, universities tried to fill the gap left by declining government funding by opening campuses all over the place, sometimes next to pubs, strip clubs, and doomsday churches.

But with high school mass failures in the past two years, these satellite campuses are starved of students and are falling like underwear in brothels next door.

“The competition to open campuses and village shoeshine universities is never about academic excellence,” Prof Maloba Wekesa of the University of Nairobi, who is also the organising secretary of the University Academic Staff Union, says.

“Most of those colleges are just income-generation projects and degree mill centres especially for politicians.”

Neoliberal policies that view everything in terms of profits have hit the universities where it hurts.

“Academics have bought into the lie that the way to run universities efficiently is to run them as profit-making businesses,” Daystar’s Njoya says in an interview with the Sunday Nation.

“Education is a completely different kind of organisation. We invest in people. We are accountable to the people we teach and the people in society.”

STUDENT ADMISSION
She adds that unless education is treated as a “public good” and not a profit-making venture, “we will have to cut corners on education: We have bigger-size classes taught by part-time lecturers to avoid spending money on faculty stability and quality education.”

Whereas universities across the world are allowed to set the standards regarding the students they want to admit, the Kenyan government requires all universities, including private ones, to admit only students who score C+ and above in high school.

Only 15 per cent of the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education candidate achieved the cut-off score last year.

The number is just enough for the slots in public universities, leaving private universities and income-generation streams in public universities without prospective students.

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES
Professor Mumo Kisau, the chairman of the Kenya Association of Private Universities, was quoted last week saying that private institutions have suffered a reduction of between 30,000 and 40,000 students this year.

Only Jesus Christ can save most of the faith-based universities whose prospective students rarely meet the high standards the government has set for universities.

With dwindling enrolment numbers, it is hard for these universities to remain afloat.

In late January, the Ministry of Education shutdown Presbyterian University of East Africa because the university finances were allegedly not in order.

This left its over 1,000 students in limbo, but the institution has since gone to court to oppose the closure.

ACCOMMODATION
Lukenya University Vice-Chancellor Maurice N. Amutabi thinks something should be done about the numbers of those allowed to proceed with university education.

“We have more spaces and capacity than the number of students we admit.

«It would have been good to have at least 20 per cent joining university than the current 10 per cent of all KCSE candidates,” the professor of history, who has previously worked at Kisii University and Central Washington University in the United States, says.

No tangible solutions are expected soon. Just as they prefer to receive their medical care abroad because Kenyan healthcare is comatose, our senior government officials, including those in the presidency, the opposition, and the education ministry give the local education system a wide berth.

They enrol their children in elite universities in Europe, America, New Zealand, and Australia.

GRADUATES
The only investment the ruling elites have in local universities is to ensure these institutions don’t produce independent-minded graduates.

A systematically degraded education system ensures universities churn out masses of graduates that are easy to control ideologically and acquiesce to the neoliberal agenda of the ruling elites.

With corruption affecting every sphere of public services, public universities are starved of the money they need to produce graduates worth giving a second glance on the job market.

Education officials misappropriate the money set aside for research.

“Funding of public universities is tied to how the Ministry of Education is able to do its budget, which mostly caters for salaries. Much of the (money) allocated for research is ‘eaten’ by ministry officials” Prof Maloba Wekesa says.

“We need a constant fraction of the budget to get to the specific universities to support research.”

INCOME
Although in dire financial straits, the universities have not been terribly creative in fundraising.

“Kenyan university financial models have never taken into account programme costs or developed innovative ways to protect the institutions from financial disasters,” Prof Ishmael Munene of Northern Arizona University in the US, who has written widely on the problems facing universities in Africa, says.

The shallow economic base means that the universities cannot provide basic needs for their students and staff.

Prof Munene mentions alumni donations, endowment funds, strategic investments, and industry partnerships among the possible initiatives to raise money and diversify income sources.

“The government is encouraging universities to find alternative sources of funding, including entrepreneurship, without compromising their core mandate,” Prof Mwenda Ntarangwi, a respected academic and the CEO of the Commission for Higher Education, says.

DONATIONS

His attempts to put in place quality assurance mechanisms will be a tall order, given the cynicism in the government structures.

Western universities frequently receive donations from philanthropists.

Buildings on campus and endowed chairs are named in honour of these donors.

Endowed chairs provide a bait to attract and retain the best brains around.

However, except maybe the industrialist Manu Chandaria, rich people in Kenya cannot be expected to come to a university’s aid with donations to boost teaching and research.

CORRUPTION
The interest of the country’s rich class is primitive accumulation of stolen wealth, following a familiar script: run down one parastatal after another by stealing their assets, then take to Twitter daily to share with the nation inspirational quotes on how to get rich.

Experts think the universities should specialise in the areas they are strongest in.

At the moment, the universities duplicate one another, imitating the University of Nairobi, and offering unviable courses.

Professional bodies have rejected degrees from several public universities.

For example, the Engineers Board of Kenya has previously blacklisted engineers trained at Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, Meru University of Science and Technology, South Eastern Kenya University (Seku), Technical University of Kenya, and University of Eldoret.

“What we need is a differentiation of institutions with some specialising in good teaching, others in excellent research, and still others providing education midway between research and teaching,” Prof Munene says.

SALARY
He sees in Kenyan universities outdated pedagogical practices that discourage critical thinking; weak doctoral courses that duplicate work done at the undergraduate level; poor governance structures; and the absence of strategic planning as the other challenges facing Kenyan universities.

With low pay, university academic staff resort to moonlighting to make ends meet.

There is hardly any time to prepare for classes, and they end up giving students yellow notes. Cases of missing marks are common across all universities.

Without any clearly laid down ethical standards, universities watch as professors sexually abuse their hapless students for good grades. Rarely are sexual predators on campus punished.

The systematic degrading of education to serve the ruling class has been effective.

TRIBALISM

Now Kenyan universities value mediocrity above anything else. Professors are hired on the basis of their ethnicity, and top brains are edged out to teach in South Africa, Europe or America.

The lack of basic management skills are the bane of university administration, and woe unto you if you expect a university administrator to respond to your enquiries on anything.

“You will not get feedback from them because they don’t know the importance of feedback and research,” Prof Amutabi says.

“The university fat cats are too busy to answer calls or emails.”

Ethnocentrism is the order of the day on campus. “Some people think universities belong to them because they bear their ethnic name or are located in their counties,” Prof Amutabi says.

POLITICIANS

On September 2016, Uasin Gishu Governor Jackson Mandagoled demonstrations to demand the sacking of the Moi University vice-chancellor on the basis that he did not come from the dominant ethnic community around the university.

The students have also responded well to the unrelenting assault on higher education.

Congratulations! Even those born in the city and cannot say “good morning” in their mother tongues are as tribalistic as their grandparents in the rural backwaters.

Their response to political crises is based purely on tribe, usually to secure power for their ethnic tin gods.

LEADERS
Like the rest of Kenya, the students choose their leaders on the basis of how much the candidate can drink, smoke illicit substances, and steal from the public coffers.

Unlike in the 1970s, when student leaders practised selfless ideals, their counterparts today are protégés of the corrupt national leadership, whom they eventually join at the national level to continue the vicious circle of degrading universities. 

The few student leaders who don’t play ball are shot in cold blood in potato farms — left to die like the universities whose interests they agitate for.

evanmwangi@gmail.com Twitter: @evanmwangi

Source:

https://www.nation.co.ke/news/education/How-our-university-education-system-went-terribly-wrong/2643604-4336630-cj92ug/index.html

 

Comparte este contenido:

Killing Children in the Age of Disposability: The Parkland Shooting Was About More Than Gun Violence

By: Henry A. Giroux

Donald Trump may have startled Republican lawmakers with his sudden and unexpected support for background checks and other gun control measures, but a closer look at his comments to lawmakers reveals his continued adherence to the core of the pro-gun script that he has been following all along.

At his meeting with lawmakers on February 28 Trump buckled down on the idea that the real problem is the existence of gun-free zones, arguing that eliminating gun-free zones «prevent [mass shootings] from ever happening, because [the shooters] are cowards and they’re not going in when they know they’re going to come out dead.»

The president’s repeated efforts to disparage the idea of gun-free zones fit with the earlier call for arming teachers made by Trump and one of his most powerful financial and ideological backers — the dark knight of gun violence, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre. Meanwhile, Trump has shown no interest in preventing school shootings by hiring more guidance teachers, support staff and psychologists. Trump’s call for a comprehensive gun bill may have made for «captivating» television, but it rattled NRA lobbyists and initiated a tsunami of calls to their allies on Capitol Hill. Nothing surprising to this reaction. It gets worse. Chris Cox, the top lobbyist for the NRA, met with Trump a few days after Trump made his remarks and suggested in a tweet that the president had backed away from his apparent embrace of gun control.

Moreover, there is little confidence following Trump’s remarks that Republicans would even remotely endorse legislation for gun control. The NRA «paid $5 million to lobbyists last year» and there is no indication that the time and money spent buying off cowardly politicians will prove ineffectual.

Trump’s proposal to arm teachers suggests that the burden of gun violence and the crimes of the gun industries and politicians should fall on teachers’ shoulders.

The deeply troubling call for eliminating gun-free zones and arming teachers comes at a time when many schools have already been militarized by the presence of police and the increasing criminalization of student behaviors. Suggesting that teachers be armed and turned into potential instruments of violence extends and normalizes the prison as a model for schools and the increasing expansion of the school-to-prison pipeline. What is being left out of this tragedy is that the number of police in schools has doubled in the last decade from 20 percent in 1996 to 43 percent today. Moreover, as more police are put in schools, more and more children are brutalized by them. There is no evidence that putting the police in schools has made them any safer. Instead, more and more young people have criminal records, are being suspended, or expelled from school, all in the name of school safety. As  Sam Sinyangwe, the director of the Mapping Police Violence Project, observes:

The data … that does exist … shows that more police in schools leads to more criminalization of students, and especially black and brown students. Every single year, about 70,000 kids are arrested in school…. [Moreover] since 1999, 10,000 additional police officers have been placed at schools, with no impact on violence. Meanwhile, about one million students have been arrested for acts previously punishable by detention or suspension, and black students are three times more likely to be arrested than their white peers.

Trump’s proposal to arm teachers suggests that the burden of gun violence and the crimes of the gun industries and politicians should fall on teachers’ shoulders, foolishly imagining that armed teachers would be able to stop a killer with military grade weapons, and disregarding the risk of teachers shooting other students, staff or faculty in the midst of such a chaotic moment.

In addition, the proposal points to the insidious fact that mass shootings and gun violence have become so normalized in the United States that, as Adam Gopnik points out, «we must now be reassured that, when the person with the AR-15 comes to your kid’s school, there’s a plan to cope with him.» Such statements make visible a society rife with the embrace of force and violence. How else to explain the fact that, at the highest levels of government, horrendous acts of violence, such as mass shootings involving school children, are now discussed in terms of containing their effects rather than eliminating their causes.

Protecting guns and profits have become more important than protecting the lives of young people.

In this logic the underlying causes of mass shootings and gun killings disappear and the emphasis for dealing with such violence reproduces an act of political and moral irresponsibility in its call to curtail or contain such violence rather than address the underlying causes of it.

We live in an age in which the politics of disposability has merged with what Jeffrey St. Clair has called the spectacle of «American Carnage.» The machineries of social death and misery now drive a mode of casino capitalism in which more and more people are considered waste, expendable and excess. The politics of disposability now couples with acts of extreme violence as pressure grows to exclude more and more people from the zones of visibility, justice and compassion. This is especially true for children. Violence against children in the United States has reached epidemic proportions. As Marian Wright Edelman points out,

Pervasive gun violence against children is a uniquely shameful all-American epidemic. Consider that since 1963, over three times more children and teens died from guns on American soil than U.S. soldiers were killed by hostilities in wars abroad. On average 3,426 children and teens — 171 classrooms of 20 children — were killed by guns every year from 1963 to 2016. And gun violence comes on top of other major threats of global violence that threaten our children.

A culture of cruelty, silence and indifference to the needs of children, built on the backs of the conservative media politicians and the gun industry and lobby, has become a central and ethically disturbing feature of American society. This is a culture of political corruption and social abandonment that «has a remarkable tolerance for child slaughter, especially the mass murders of the children of others.» This culture of violence has a long history in the United States, and has become increasingly legitimated under the Trump regime, a regime in which lawlessness and corruption combine to ignore the needs of children, the poor, elderly, sick and vulnerable. In the age of neoliberal brutality, protecting guns and profits have become more important than protecting the lives of young people. As is apparent from its policies, our society no longer views young people as a worthy social investment or the promise of a decent future. On the contrary, as John and Jean Comaroff note in Frontiers of Capital: Ethnographic Reflections on the New Economy, instead of becoming a primary register of the dreams of a society, youth have become «creatures of our nightmares, of our social impossibilities, and our existential angst.»

Viewed largely as a liability, the institutions that young people inhabit have been discarded as citadels of critical thinking and social mobility. As a result, such institutions, including schools, have become zones of social abandonment — often modeled after prisons — that appear to exist in a state of perpetual danger and fear, especially for students marginalized by race and class, for whom violence operates routinely and in multiple ways. Children are now defined largely as consumers, clients and fodder for the military or the school-to-prison pipeline. As a result, their safety is now enmeshed with the weaponized discourse of surveillance, and security personnel and police patrol their corridors. Horrific shootings boost the ratings and profit margins of the mainstream press, undercutting these news outlets’ will and ability to use their resources to address the culture and political economy of violence that now amounts to a form of domestic terrorism in the United States.

The message to students is clear. They are not worth protecting if they threaten the profits of the gun industries and the purses of the politicians who have become the lackeys for them.

As Brad Evans and I have argued in Disposable Futures: The Seduction of Violence in the Age of the Spectacle, violence has now become the defining organizing principle for society in general. It is also worth noting that the spectacle, marketing and commodification of violence powerfully mediates how the American public both understands the relations of power that benefit from the production of violence at all levels of society and how the visceral suffering that is produced can be neutralized in a culture of immediacy and «alternative facts.»

Of course, this logic is part of the politics of distraction that has become a trademark of the Trump administration. At the same time, it creates more profits for the gun industries and makes clear that most people, including children, have no safe space in the US. The message to students is clear. They are not worth protecting if they threaten the profits of the gun industries and the purses of the politicians who have become the lackeys for them. It gets worse. Rather than engage young people and other gun rights advocates in a debate about gun control, some conservatives mimic the discourse of humiliation and lies used relentlessly by Trump in claiming that «bereaved students were being manipulated by sinister forces, or even that they were paid actors.»

As objects of moral and social abandonment, young people are beginning to recognize that the response to their call for safety, well-being and future without fear is cruel and cynical. In addition, their struggle against gun violence makes clear that the Trump administration, the NRA, and the industries that trade in instruments of violence and death, are waging a war against democracy itself. The call to arm teachers also speaks to the Trump administration’s efforts to further militarize and expand the weaponization not only of the armed forces but also of spaces in which large numbers of students congregate. In his call to arm 20 percent of all teachers, Trump is suggesting that 640,000 teachers be trained and given guns. The Washington Post estimates that the costs of training teachers sufficiently could reach as high as $718 million while the cost of providing teachers with firearms could amount to an additional $251 million. According to the Post, «the full-price, more expansive training and the full-price firearm … creeps past $1 billion.» Furthermore, putting 640,000 more guns in schools is not only a reckless suggestion, it also further enriches the profits of gun makers by adding millions of dollars to their bottom line. Why not invest this amount of money in providing support staff and services for students — services that could meaningfully support those facing mental health issues, bullying, homelessness and poverty?

When combined with a culture of fear and a massive government investment in a carceral state, the politics of disposability eerily echoes the damaging legacy of a fascist past in the US, with its celebration of violence, concentration of power in the hands of the few, massive inequities in wealth and militarization of all aspects of society. There is no defense for weapons of war to be sold as commodities either to children or anyone else. Gun violence in the US is not simply about a growing culture of violence, it is about the emergence of a form of domestic terrorism in which fear, mistrust, lies, corruption and financial gain become more important than the values, social relations and institutions that write children into the script of democracy and give them hope for a decent future.

When the only self available to the public is rooted in the discourse of entrepreneurship, it is not surprising for a society to produce generations of people indifferent to the effects of mass violence.

A war culture now permeates American society — extending from sports events and Hollywood films to the ongoing militarization of the police and the criminalization of everyday behaviors such as violating a dress code or doodling on a desk. War has become a permanent element of everyday life, deeply etched into our national ideals and social relations. And those responsible for the bloodshed it produces appear immune from social criticism and policies that limit their power.

This debate about school shootings is not simply about gun violence; it is about a neoliberal order that has tipped over into authoritarianism, one for which the highest measure of how a society judges itself ethically and politically is no longer about how it treats its children. Violence on a grand scale certainly has produced a high sense of moral outrage within the US public at times, but not over the fate of young people.

People in the US need a new language to talk about violence in order to capture its many registers and the threads that tie them together. Under such circumstances, school violence cannot be understood outside of the deeply inordinate influence of money and power in US politics. The call to model schools after prisons would have to be examined against the rise of the punishing state and the Trump administration’s celebration of a «law and order» regime. The anger fueling what might be called white rage would have to be analyzed against the gutting of jobs, wages, pensions, health care benefits and the massive growth of inequality in wealth and power in the United States.

US society has become an abyss in which violence, disposability and the logic of social abandonment and terminal exclusion work against the interests of most children and for the interests of the rich and powerful. Weapons now operate in the service of what might be called the necro-power of casino capitalism. How else to explain the fact that there are more than 13,000 homicides a year in the United States, or that on average, seven teens are killed with guns daily. Yet the response on the part of politicians is either silence and inaction, or a more aggressive push to put more guns in circulation?

A cult of militarism has dragged extreme violence into the very soul of the US and has become a source of pride rather than alarm and anger. This depraved transformation is accelerated by a crisis of agency in which every relation is reduced to an exchange relation, one in which, as political theorist Wendy Brown has argued, «everything from learning to eating become matters of speculative investments — ranked, rated, balanced in your portfolio.» When the only self available to the public is rooted in the discourse of entrepreneurship, it is not surprising for a society to produce generations of people indifferent to the effects of mass violence, unsympathetic to the growing multitudes of disposable individuals and groups, and unmoved by a culture of deepening collective cynicism. Casino capitalism has numbed large segments of the American public into moral and political callousness. One consequence is an indifference to a society in which the killing of children is routine.

Mass shootings and gun violence in the US cannot be abstracted from what I call the death of the social, which involves the collapse of an investment in the public good, the ongoing destruction of democratic values, and the undermining of the common good. A toxic mix of rugged individualism, untrammeled self-interest, privatization, commodification and culture of fear now shapes American society, leaving most people isolated, unaware of the broader systemic forces shaping their lives, and trapped in a landscape of uncertainty and precarity that makes them vulnerable to having their anxieties, anger and rage misdirected.

The students from Parkland, Florida, are fighting back, embracing new forms of social solidarity and collective struggle.

All too often, the only discourse available for them to deal with their problems is provided by the disingenuous vocabulary of fear and security delivered in the call for gun ownership, the allure of violence as an antidote to their individual and collective anxieties, and a hateful appeal to racism, Islamophobia and demonization.

The hijacking of freedom and individual responsibility by extremists is corrosive and rots society from within, making people susceptible to what C.W. Mills describes as «organized irresponsibility» in his book The Politics of Truth. The right-wing attack on the welfare state, community and democracy functions to dissolve crucial solidarities and bonds of social obligation, and undermines mutual responsibilities. In the absence of the discourse of community, compassion and mutual respect, fear and violence have become the new currency mediating social relations at all levels of society. In a society in which the war of all against all prevails, the call for more guns is symptomatic of the shredding of the social fabric, the hardening of society, the evisceration of public trust, and a ratcheting up of a political and economic investment by the ruling elite in the machinery of cruelty, inequality and militarism.

Violence in the United States is part of a wider politics of disposability in which the machineries of social and political death accelerate the suffering, hardships and misery of children. For too long, youth have been written out of the script of justice and democracy. Gun violence, mass shootings and state violence are simply the most visible elements of a society that organizes almost every aspect of civil society for the production of terror and fear, and which views young people within the specter of uselessness and indifference.

Fortunately, the students from Parkland, Florida, are fighting back, shunning the coarse language used by apologists for systemic violence while embracing new forms of social solidarity and collective struggle. These young people are refusing to privatize hope or allow the ethical imagination and their sense of moral outrage and social responsibility to be tranquilized. They are not only outraged over the brutal actions of the defenders of gun violence, they feel betrayed. Betrayed, because they have learned that the power of the gun industries and the politicians who defend them do not consider their lives worthy of protection, hope and a future free of violence. They recognize that US society is unusually violent and that they are a target. Moreover, they are arguing convincingly that mass shooting in the United States have a direct correlation with the astronomical number of guns present in this country. But there is more at stake here than an epidemic of gun violence, there is the central idea of the US as defined by carnage — violence that extends from the genocide of Native Americans and slavery to the rise of mass incarceration and the instances of state violence now sweeping across the US.

At least for the moment, young people are refusing to live with a modern system of violence that functions as a form of domestic terrorism. Engaged in a form of productive unsettling and collective dissent, they are fighting back, holding power accountable and giving birth to a vibrant form of political struggle. The distinctiveness of this generation of survivors is clear in their use of social media, their willingness to speak out, their planned marches, their civic courage, and their unwillingness to continue to live with the fear and insecurity that have shaped most of their lives. Hopefully, this moment will transform itself into a movement.

Source:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/43732-killing-children-in-the-age-of-disposability-the-parkland-shooting-was-about-more-than-gun-violence

Comparte este contenido:

United Kingdom: Education secretary Damian Hinds rules out creating new grammars but says he wants existing schools to expand

United Kingdom/February 20, 2018/By: Nicola Bartlett/ Source: https://www.mirror.co.uk

Theresa May pledged to increase the number of selective schools ahead of the election but had to drop the promise after failing to win a majority.

Education secretary Damian Hinds has ruled out creating new grammar schools but he does want existing selective schools to expand.

The new education chief said that he would that he would enthusiastically back the expansion of England’s existing 163 Grammar schools.

Theresa May pledged to increase the number of grammar schools when she became prime minister and set aside money in her first budget.

But after her disastrous election result she no longer had the numbers in parliament to pass new legislation and the pledge was quietly dropped from the Queen’s speech.

Mr Hinds, who himself attended a Roman Catholic Grammar school has previously written about his support for expanding the selective sector and there were reports that the new education review would contain such a policy.

But today the new education chief ruled that out.

However Mr Hinds did reassert his commitment for the expansion of existing grammar schools which would not require a change in the law.

Asked if the government would be creating new Grammars, he said: «That is not what we’re doing we’re talking about being able to expand existing grammar schools.»

Instead he said: “Well what we are looking at is about the existing grammar schools and schools in general where there’s demand from parents and they’re providing a good education and there’s a need in the area can expand to take on more pupils.»

It is not only a turnaround for the PM, but also a change from Mr Hinds’s own views which he clearly set out in 2014.

In a chapter of a book Access all Areas , Mr Hinds said: “There is no appetite in the country for a wholesale return to academic selection at 11, for good reasons, but why not have at least one unashamedly academically elite state school in each county or major conurbation?”

Mr Hinds’s predecessor Justine Greening was publicly supportive of the prime minister’s grammar schools policy, but was known to be privately unenthusiastic – one of the reasons given for Mrs May’s decision to sack her from the education brief.

Source:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/education-secretary-damian-hinds-rules-12045982

Comparte este contenido:

Disposability in the Age of Disasters: From Dreamers and Puerto Rico to Violence in Las Vegas

By: Henry A. Giroux

Under the reign of Donald Trump, politics has become an extension of war and death has become a permanent attribute of everyday life. Witness the US’s plunge into a dystopian world that bears the menacing markings of what presents itself as an endless series of isolated catastrophes. All of these are inevitably treated as unrelated incidents; victims subject to the toxic blows of fate. Mass misery and mass violence that result from the refusal of a government to address such pervasive and permanent crises are now reinforced by the popular neoliberal assumption that people are completely on their own, solely responsible for the ill fortune they experience. This ideological assumption is reinforced by undermining any critical attention to the conditions produced by stepped-up systemic state violence, or the harsh consequences of a capricious and cruel head of state.

«Progress» and dystopia have become synonymous, just as state-endorsed social provisions and government responsibility are exiled by the neoliberal authorization of freedom as the unbridled promotion of self-interest: a narrow celebration of limitless «choice,» and an emphasis on individual responsibility that ignores broader systemic structures and socially produced problems. Existential security no longer rests on collective foundations, but on privatized solutions and facile appeals to moral character.

Under Trump, a politics of disposability has merged with an ascendant authoritarianism in the United States in which the government’s response to such disparate issues as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) crisis, the devastation of Puerto Rico by Hurricane Maria and the mass shooting in Las Vegas are met uniformly with state-sanctioned and state-promoted violence.

In an age when market values render democratic values moot, a war culture drives disposability politics. Indeed, the politics of disposability has a long legacy in the United States, and extends from the genocide of Native Americans and slavery, to the increasing criminalization of everyday behaviors and the creation of a mass incarceration state.

In the 1970s, the politics of disposability, guided by the growing financialization of a neoliberal economy, manifested itself primarily in the form of legislation that undermined the welfare state, social provisions and public goods, while expanding the carceral state. This was part of the soft war waged against democracy — mostly hidden and wrapped in the discourse of austerity, «law and order» and market-based freedoms.

At the beginning of the 21st century, we have seen the emergence of a new kind of politics of death, the effects of which extend from the racist response to Hurricane Katrina to the lead poisoning of thousands of children in Flint, Michigan, and dozens of other cities. This is a politics in which entire populations are considered disposable, an unnecessary burden on state coffers, and consigned to fend for themselves. This is a politics that now merges with aggressive and violent efforts to silence dissent, analysis and the very conditions of critical thought. People who are Black, Brown, poor, disabled or otherwise marginalized are now excluded from the rights and guarantees accorded to fully fledged citizens of the republic, removed from the syntax of suffering, and left to fend for themselves in the face of natural or human-made disasters. And their efforts to mobilize have been met with murderous police crackdowns and deportations.

With the election of Trump, the politics of disposability and the war against democracy have taken on a much harder and crueler edge, with the president urging the police to «take the gloves off» and the attorney general calling for a regressive «law and order» campaign steeped in racism.

Under 21st century neoliberal capitalism, and especially under the Trump regime, there has been an acceleration of the mechanisms by which vulnerable populations are rendered unknowable, undesirable, unthinkable, considered an excess cost and stripped of their humanity. Relegated to zones of social abandonment and political exclusion, targeted populations become incomprehensible, civil rights disappear, hardship and suffering are normalized, and human lives are targeted and negated by diverse machineries of violence as dangerous, pathological and redundant. For those populations rendered disposable, ethical questions go unasked as the mechanisms of dispossession, forced homelessness and forms of social death feed corrupt political systems and forms of corporate power removed from any sense of civic and social responsibility. In many ways, the Trump administration is the new face of a politics of disposability that thrives on the energies of the vulnerable and powerless. Under such conditions, power is defined by the degree to which it is abstracted from any sense of responsibility or critical analysis.

This type of disposability is especially visible under Trump, not only because of his discourse of humiliation, bigotry and objectification, but also in his policies, which are blatantly designed to punish those populations who are the most vulnerable. These include the victims in Puerto Rico of Hurricane Maria, immigrant children no longer protected by DACA, and a push to expand the armed forces and the para-militarization of local police forces throughout the country as part of a race-based «law and order» policy. Trump is the endpoint of a new dystopian model of disposability, and has become a window on the growing embrace of violence and white supremacy at the highest levels of power, as both a practice and ideological legitimation for increasing a culture of fear. Fear, in this context, is framed mostly within a discourse of threats to personal safety, serving to increase the criminalization of a wide range of everyday behaviors while buttressing the current administration’s racist call for «law and order.» This culture of fear threatens to make more and more individuals and groups inconsequential and expendable.

Under such circumstances, the US’s dystopian impulses not only produce harsh and dire political changes, but also a failure to address a continuous series of economic, ecological and social crises. At the same time, the machinery of disposability and death rolls on, conferring upon entire populations the status of the living dead. The death-dealing logic of disposability has been updated and now parades in the name of freedom, choice, efficiency, security, progress and, ironically, democracy. Disposability has become so normalized that it is difficult to recognize it as a distinctive if not overriding organizing principle of the new American authoritarianism.

While the politics of disposability has a long legacy in the United States, Trump has given it a new and powerful impetus. This era differs from the recent past both in terms of its unapologetic embrace of the ideology of white supremacy and its willingness to expand state-sanctioned violence and death as part of a wider project of the US’s descent into authoritarianism.

Running through these events is a governmental response that has abandoned a social contract designed, however tepidly, to prevent hardship, suffering and death. Large groups of people have been catapulted out of the range of human beings for whom the government has limited, if any, responsibility. Such populations, inclusive of such disparate groups as the residents of Puerto Rico and the Dreamers, are left to fend for themselves in the face of disasters. They are treated as collateral damage in the construction of a neoliberal order in which those marginalized by race and class become the objects of a violent form of social engineering relegating its victims to what Richard Sennett has termed a «specter of uselessness,» whose outcomes are both tragic and devastating.

A politics of disposability provides a theoretical and political narrative that connects the crisis produced in Puerto Rico after the devastating effects of Hurricane Maria to the crisis surrounding Trump’s revoking of the DACA program. Trump’s support of state-sanctioned violence normalizes a culture and spectacle of violence, one not unrelated to the mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas.

First, let’s examine the crisis in Puerto Rico as a systemic example of both state violence and a politics of disposability and social abandonment.

Puerto Rico as a Zone of Abandonment

On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria, a Category 5 storm, slammed into and devastated the island of Puerto Rico. In the aftermath of a slow government response to the massive destruction, conditions in Puerto Rico have reached unprecedented and unacceptable levels of misery, hardship and suffering. As of October 19, over 1 million people were without drinking water, 80 percent of the island lacked electricity, and ongoing reports by medical staff and other respondents indicate that more and more people were dying. Thousands of people are living in shelters, lack phone service, and have to bear the burden of a health care system in shambles.

Such social immiseration is complicated by the fact that the island is home to 21 hazardous superfund sites, which pose deadly risks to human health and the environment. Lois Marie Gibbs ominously reports that waterborne illnesses are spreading, just as hospitals are running low on medicines. Caitlin Dickerson observed that the «the Environmental Protection Agency cited reports of residents trying to obtain drinking water from wells at hazardous Superfund sites.» These are wells that were once sealed to avoid exposure to deadly toxins. The governor of Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rossello, warned that a number of people have died from Leptospirosis, a bacterial disease spread by animal urine.

The Trump administration’s response has been unforgivably slow, with conditions worsening. Given the accelerating crisis, the mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulín Cruz, made a direct appeal to President Trump for aid, stating with an acute sense of urgency, «We are dying.» Trump responded by lashing out at her personally by telling her to stop complaining. Cruz became emotional when referring to elderly and ill victims of Maria that she could not reach and who were «still at great risk in places where relief supplies and medical help had yet to arrive.» Cruz said the situation for many of these people was «like a slow death.» Stories began to emerge in the press that validated Cruz’s concerns. Many seriously ill dialysis patients either had their much-needed treatments reduced or could not get access to health care facilities. Because of the lack of electricity, Harry Figueroa, a teacher, «went a week without the oxygen that helped him breathe» and eventually died at 58. «His body went unrefrigerated for so long that the funeral director could not embalm his badly decomposed corpse.»

Scholar Lauren Berlant has used the term «slow death» in her own work to refer «to the physical wearing out of a population and the deterioration of people in that population that is very nearly a defining condition of their experience and historical existence.» Slow death captures the colonial backdrop of global regimes of ideological and structural oppression deeply etched in Puerto Rico’s history. The scale of suffering and devastation was so great that Robert P. Kadlec, the assistant secretary of Health and Human Services for preparedness and response stated that «The devastation I saw, I thought was equivalent to a nuclear detonation.»

Puerto Rico’s tragic and ruinous problems brought on by Hurricane Maria are amplified both by its $74 billion debt burden, an ongoing economic crisis, and the legacy of its colonial status and lack of political power in fighting for its sovereign and economic rights in Washington. With no federal representation and lacking the power to vote in presidential elections, it is difficult for Puerto Ricans to get their voices heard, secure the same rights as US citizens and put pressure on the Trump administration to address many of its longstanding problems. The latter include a poverty rate of 46 percent, a household median income of $19,350 [compared to the US median of $55,775], and a crippling debt. In fact, the debt burden is so overwhelming that «pre-Maria Puerto Rico was spending more on debt service than on education, health, or security. Results included the shuttering of 150 schools, the gutting of health care, increased taxes, splitting of families between the island and the mainland, and increased food insecurity.» Amy Davidson Sorkin was right in arguing that «Indeed, the crisis in Puerto Rico is a case study of what happens when people with little political capital need the help of their government.»

Not only did Trump allow three weeks to lapse before asking Congress to provide financial aid to the island, but his request reeked of heartless indifference to Puerto Rico’s economic hardships. Instead of asking for grants, he asked for loans. Throughout the crisis, Trump released a series of tweets in which he suggested that the plight of the Puerto Rican people was their own fault, lambasted local officials for supposedly not doing enough, and threatened to cut off aid from government services. Adding insult to injury, he also said that they were «throwing the government’s budget out of whack because we’ve spent a lot of money on Puerto Rico.»

Trump also suggested that the crisis in Puerto Rico was not a real crisis when compared to Hurricane Katrina. Trump’s view of Puerto Ricans as second-class citizens was exposed repeatedly in an ongoing string of tweets and comments that extended from the insulting notion that «they want everything to be done for them» to the visual image of Trump throwing paper towel rolls into a crowd as if he were on a public relations tour. Throughout the crisis, Trump has repeatedly congratulated himself on the government response to Puerto Rico, falsely stating that everybody thinks we are doing «an amazing job.» A month after the crisis, Trump insisted, without irony or a shred of self-reflection, that he would give himself a «perfect ten.»

These responses suggest more than a callous expression of self-delusion and indifference to the suffering of others. Trump’s callous misrecognition of the magnitude of the crisis in Puerto Rico and extent of the island’s misery and suffering, coupled with his insults and demeaning tweets, demonstrate the perpetuation of race and class oppressions through his governance. There is more at work here than a disconnection from the poor; there is also a white supremacist ideology that registers race as a central part of both Trump’s politics and a wider politics of disposability. It is difficult to miss the racist logic of reckless disregard for the safety and lives of Puerto Rican citizens, bordering on criminal negligence, which simmers just beneath the surface of Trump’s rhetoric and actions. Hurricane Maria exposed a long history of racism that confirms the structural abandonment of those who are poor, sick, elderly — and Black or Brown.

Trump embodies the commitments of a neoliberal authoritarian government that not only fails to protect its citizens, but reveals without apology the full spectrum of mechanisms to expand poverty, racism and hierarchies of class, making some lives disposable, redundant and excessive while others appear privileged and secure. Trump’s utterly failed response to the disaster in Puerto Rico reinforces Ta-Nehisi Coates’s claim that the spectacle of bigotry that shapes Trump’s presidency has «moved racism from the euphemistic and plausibly deniable to the overt and freely claimed.» What has happened in Puerto Rico also reveals the frightening marker of a politics of disposability in which any appeal to democracy loses its claim and becomes hard to imagine, let alone enact without the threat of violent retaliation.

Revoking DACA and the Killing of the Dream

Trump’s penchant for cruelty in the face of great hardship and human suffering is also strikingly visible in the racial bigotry that has shaped his cancellation of the DACA program, instituted in 2012 by President Obama. Under the program, over 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children or teens before 2007 were allowed to live, study and work in the United States without fear of deportation. The program permitted these young people, known as Dreamers, to have access to Social Security cards, drivers’ licenses, and to advance their education, start small businesses and to be fully integrated into the fabric of American society. Seventy-six percent of Americans believe that Dreamers should be granted resident status or citizenship. In revoking the program, Trump has made clear his willingness to deport individuals who came to the US as children and who know the United States as their only home.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was called upon to be the front man in announcing the cancellation of DACA. In barely concealed racist tones, Sessions argued that DACA had to end because «The effect of this unilateral executive amnesty, among other things, contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences … denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens» and had to be rescinded because «failure to enforce the laws in the past has put our nation at risk of crime, violence and even terrorism.» None of these charges is true.

Rather than taking jobs from American workers, Dreamers add an enormous benefit to the economy and «it is estimated that the loss of the Dreamers’ output will reduce the GDP by several hundred billion dollars over a decade.» Sessions’s claim that DACA contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors at the border is an outright lie, given that the surge began in 2008, four years before DACA was announced, and it was largely due, as Mark Joseph Stern points out, «to escalating gang violence in Central America, as well as drug cartels’ willingness to target and recruit children in Mexico … [A] study published in International Migration … found that DACA was not one of these factors.»

Trump’s rescinding of DACA is politically indefensible and heartless. Only 12 percent of Americans want the Dreamers deported and this support is drawn mostly from Trump’s base of ideological extremists, religious conservatives and far-right nationalists. This would include former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who left the White House and now heads, once again, Breitbart, the right-wing news outlet. Bannon is a leading figure of the right-wing extremists influencing Trump and is largely responsible for bringing white supremacist and ultranationalist ideology from the fringes of society to the center of power. On a recent segment of the TV series «60 Minutes,» Bannon told Charlie Rose that the DACA program shouldn’t be codified, adding «As the work permits run out, they self deport…. There’s no path to citizenship, no path to a green card and no amnesty. Amnesty is non-negotiable.» Bannon’s comments are cruel but predictable given his support for the uniformly bigoted policies Trump has pushed before and after his election.

The call to end DACA is part of a broader racist anti-immigration agenda aimed at making America white again. The current backlash against people of color, immigrant youth and those others marked by the registers of race and class are not only heartless and cruel, they also invoke a throwback to the days of state-sponsored lynching and the imposed terror of the Ku Klux Klan. Additionally, they offer up an eerie resonance to the violent and repressive racist policies of the totalitarian governments that emerged in Germany in the 1930s and Latin America in the 1970s.

Las Vegas and the Politics of Violence

On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock, ensconced on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, opened fire on a crowd of country and western concertgoers below, killing 58 and wounding over 500. While the venues for such shootings differ, the results are always predictable. People die or are wounded, and the corporate media and politicians weigh in on the cause of the violence. If the assailant is a person of color or a Muslim, they are labeled a «terrorist,» but if they are white, they are often labeled as «mentally disturbed.» Paddock was immediately branded by President Trump as a «sick» and «deranged man» who had committed an act of «radical evil.»

Trump’s characterizing of the shooting as an act of radical evil is more mystifying than assuring, and it did little to explain how such an egregious act of brutality fits into a broader pattern of civic decline, cultural decay, political corruption and systemic violence. It also erases the role of state-sanctioned violence in perpetuating individual acts of brutality. Corporate media trade in isolated spectacles, and generally fail to connect these dots. Rarely is there a connection made in the mainstream media, for instance, between the fact that the US is the largest arms manufacturer with the biggest military budget in the world and the almost unimaginable fact that there are more than 300 million people who own guns in the United States, which amounts to «112 guns per 100 people.» While the Trump administration is not directly responsible for the bloodbath in Las Vegas, it does feed a culture of violence in the United States.

Many Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, reinforced the lack of civic and ethical courage that emerged in the aftermath of the Las Vegas massacre by arguing that it was «particularly inappropriate» to talk about gun reform or politics in general after a mass shooting. By eliminating the issue of politics from the discussion, figures like McConnell erased some basic realities, such as the power of gun manufacturers to flood the country with guns, and the power of lobbyists to ensure that gun-safety measures do not become part of a wider national conversation. This depoliticizing logic also enabled any discussion about Paddock to be centered on his actions as an aberration, as opposed to a manifestation of forces in the larger culture.

The corporate press, with few exceptions, was unwilling to address how and why mass shootings have become routine in the United States and how everyday violence benefits a broader industry of death that gets rich through profits made by the defense industry, the arms manufacturers and corrupt gun lobbyists. There was no reference to how young children are groomed for violence by educational programs sponsored by the gun industries, how video games and other aspects of a militarized culture are used to teach youth to be insensitive to the horrors of real-life violence, how the military-industrial complex «makes a living from killing through defense contracts, weapons manufacturing and endless wars.» Nor did much of the media address how war propaganda provided by the Pentagon influences not only pro-sports events and Hollywood blockbuster movies, but also reality TV shows, such as «American Idol» and «The X-Factor.»

In the aftermath of mass shootings, the hidden structures of violence disappear in the discourses of personal sorrow, the call for prayers and the insipid argument that such events should not be subject to political analysis. Trump’s dismissive comments on the Vegas shooting as an act of radical evil misses the fact that what is evil is the pervasive presence of violence throughout American history and the current emergence of extreme violence and mass shootings on college campuses, in elementary schools, at concerts and in diverse workplaces. Mass shootings may have become routine in the US, but the larger issue to be addressed is that violence is central to how the American experience is lived daily.

Militant Neoliberalism in an Armed USA

Militarized responses have become the primary medium for addressing all social problems, rendering critical thought less and less probable, less and less relevant. The lethal mix of anti-intellectualism, ideological fundamentalism and retreat from the ethical imagination that has grown stronger under Trump provides the perfect storm for what can be labeled a war culture, one that trades democratic values for a machinery of social abandonment, misery and death.

War as an extension of politics fuels a spectacle of violence that has overtaken popular culture while normalizing concrete acts of gun violence that kill 93 Americans every day. Traumatic events such as the termination of DACA or the refusal on the part of the government to quickly and effectively respond to the hardships experienced by the people of Puerto Rico no longer appear to represent an ethical dilemma to those in power. Instead, they represent the natural consequences of rendering whole populations disposable.

What is distinctive about the politics of disposability — especially when coupled with the transformation of governance into a wholesale legitimation of violence and cruelty under Trump — is that it has both expanded a culture of extreme violence and has become a defining feature of American life. The state increasingly chooses violence as a primary mode of engagement. Such choices imprison people rather than educate them, and legitimate the militarizing of every major public institutions from schools to airports. The carceral state now provides the template for interacting with others in a society governed by persistent rituals of violence.

Democracy is becoming all the more irrelevant in the United States under the Trump administration, especially in light of what Robert Weissman, the president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, calls «a total corporate takeover of the US government on a scale we have never seen in American history.» Corporate governance and economic sovereignty have reached new heights, just as illiberal democracy has become a populist flashpoint in reconfiguring much of Europe and normalizing the rise of populist bigotry and state-sanctioned violence aimed at immigrants and refugees fleeing from war and poverty. Democratic values and civic culture are under attack by a class of political extremists who embrace without reservation the cynical instrumental reason of the market, while producing on a global level widespread mayhem, suffering and violence. How else to explain the fact that over 70 percent of Trump’s picks for top administration jobs have corporate ties or work for major corporations? Almost all of these people represent interests diametrically opposed to the agencies for whom they now lead and are against almost any notion of the public good.

Hence, under the Trump regime, we have witnessed a slew of rollbacks and deregulations that will result in an increase in pollution, endangering children, the elderly and others who might be exposed to hazardous toxins. The New York Times has reported that one EPA appointee, Nancy Beck, a former executive at the American Chemistry Council, has initiated changes to make it more difficult to track and regulate the chemical perflourooctanoic acid, which has been linked to «kidney cancer, birth defects, immune system disorders and other serious health problems.»

The sense of collective belonging that underpins the civic vigor of a democracy is being replaced by a lethal survival-of-the-fittest ethos, and a desperate need to promote the narrow interests of capital and racist exclusion, regardless of the cost. At the heart of this collective ethos is a war culture stoked by fear and anxiety, one that feeds on dehumanization, condemns the so-called «losers,» and revels in violence as a source of pleasure and retribution. The link between violence and authoritarianism increasingly finds expression not only in endless government and populist assaults on vulnerable groups, but also in a popular culture that turns representations of extreme violence into entertainment.

The US has become a society organized both for the production of violence and the creation of a culture brimming with fear, paranoia and a social atomization. Under such circumstances, the murderous aggression associated with authoritarian states becomes more common in the United States and is mirrored in the everyday actions of citizens. If the government’s responses to crises that enveloped DACA and Puerto Rico point to a culture of state-sanctioned violence and cruelty, the mass shooting in Las Vegas represents the endpoint of a culture newly aligned with the rise of authoritarianism. The shooting in Las Vegas does more than point to a record-setting death toll for vigilante violence; it also provides a signpost about a terrifying new political and cultural horizon in the relationship between violence and everyday life. All of these incidents must be understood as a surface manifestation of a much larger set of issues endemic to the rise of authoritarianism in the United States.

These three indices of violence offer pointed and alarming examples of how inequality, systemic exclusion and a culture of cruelty define American society, even, and especially, as they destroy it. Each offers a snapshot of how war culture and violence merge. As part of a broader category indicting the rise of authoritarianism in the United States, they make visible the pervasiveness of violence as an organizing principle of American life. While it is easy to condemn the violence at work in each of these specific examples, it is crucial to address the larger economic, political and structural forces that create these conditions.

There is an urgent need for a broader awareness of the scope, range and effects of violence in the US, as well as the relationship between politics and disposability. Only then will the US be able to address the need for a radical restructuring of its politics, economics and institutions. Violence in the US has to be understood as part of a crisis of a politics and culture defined by meaninglessness, helplessness, neglect and disposability. Resistance to such violence, then, should produce widespread thoughtful, informed and collective action over the fate of democracy itself. This suggests the need for a shared vision of economic, racial and gender justice — one that offers the promise of a new understanding of politics and the need for creating a powerful coalition among existing social movements, youth groups, workers, intellectuals, teachers and other progressives. This is especially true under the Trump administration, since politics and democracy are now defined by a threshold of dysfunction that points not only to their demise, but to the ascendancy of American-style authoritarianism.

Source:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42450-disposability-in-the-age-of-disasters-from-dreamers-and-puerto-rico-to-violence-in-las-vegas

Comparte este contenido:
Page 1 of 2
1 2