RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
No, We Don't Need These Forever Wars Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=59325"><span class="small">Jason Brownlee and Branko Marcetic, Jacobin</span></a>   
Tuesday, 04 May 2021 12:40

Excerpt: "China doesn't have an empire. The United States doesn't need to saber-rattle. And we really don't need to fight these forever wars."

U.S. president Joe Biden in Washington, D.C., 2021. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
U.S. president Joe Biden in Washington, D.C., 2021. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)


No, We Don't Need These Forever Wars

By Jason Brownlee and Branko Marcetic, Jacobin

04 May 21


China doesn’t have an empire. The United States doesn’t need to saber-rattle. And we really don’t need to fight these forever wars.

f the Left’s expectations were low for Joe Biden on the domestic sphere, they were somewhere around floor level when it came to foreign policy. Biden didn’t promise much, and what he did promise didn’t seem to point to anything particularly ambitious.

But have conditions nonetheless forced a subtle shift in US foreign policy? And what does the future hold, as Biden takes the reins of empire at a perilous time of global crisis and declining US supremacy?

Jacobin’s Branko Marcetic spoke to Jason Brownlee, professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin, about Biden’s foreign policy so far, the state of American empire, and whether the United States is really headed toward a “New Cold War” with China.

BM: We’re speaking on Biden’s hundredth day in office. What are your thoughts on his foreign policy so far?

JB: Biden has, for some of us, confounded expectations. Certainly at the macro level there is continuity. The United States is trying to maintain primacy in the world.

But two small rhetorical issues where I think Biden has been more direct and more progressive than his predecessors is: one, when it came to the coup in Myanmar in February, he called it a coup; and two, he acknowledged the Armenian genocide, which is a step his predecessors hadn’t taken.

He has also ended the ground war in Afghanistan. That won’t end the US presence in Afghanistan; I expect the United States will continue to be involved in the country as a proxy war, similar to how we’re involved in Iraq and Yemen, where we use air power, special forces, and local surrogates to maintain a presence there. In that sense, I think the forever wars aren’t going to end, and I don’t see Biden wrapping up the US presence in the wider arc of the Persian Gulf region either.

Structurally he hasn’t reoriented the course of American power overseas, and if we dug into details region by region there’d be several cases where his policies would be subject to a lot of criticism. For example, in the Middle East beyond Afghanistan, we see carte blanche to Israel, standard anti-Iranian policies, and constraints to weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that are provisional.

There’s also been no change in US relations with Egypt, no punishment for Sisi’s oppression of Egyptians. And in the Western hemisphere, Biden has not even returned to the rapprochement with Cuba that Obama pursued, and has taken a more hardline stance toward leftist governments while being supportive of right-wing governments.

BM: In his speech announcing the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden seemed to double down on the framework of the “War on Terror.” Are we looking at a future where the United States continues to fight that so-called war while also embarking on a massive military buildup to counter China?

JB: Now that the Iraq War’s over, and now that the Afghan ground war is winding down to completion, the “War on Terror” operations are relatively inexpensive in terms of US lives and in terms of expenditure. It’s one of the reasons they continue without much discussion or attention among the US public.

The question for Afghanistan depends on what happens with the Taliban. We could see a straight up military reconquest of Kabul, and then we’d be back to a pre-9/11 status quo, where the northern alliance is in a tiny bit of the country, and the Taliban is again the government in Afghanistan. It’s analogous to Vietnam in the 1970s, where eventually an insurgency will come down and overthrow the government. Does the United States accept that as we eventually did in Vietnam, or does it fight to prevent that?

There is another course, where the Taliban decides to exercise military restraint and comes to some sort of power-sharing agreement. That would be the most hopeful outcome, because the Taliban does have a mass constituency and the war will not end until that constituency is incorporated into national politics.

On China: the country remains the United States’ single biggest trading partner, so it’s hard for me to think of them as being in a Cold War. The competition that Biden sees the United States in is about economic growth. Currently, China’s GDP in purchasing power terms is larger than the United States. By the end of the decade it’ll be larger than the United States in current dollar terms too.

So Biden is hoping to delay that moment when China gets the bragging rights of saying it has the largest economy in the world. And he’s hoping to do that by bolstering domestic US growth and at the same time using the nationalist notion of economic competition to win the domestic debate at home over domestic spending. He’s turning the types of discretionary spending, welfare, and infrastructure projects that Republicans would criticize into a national security issue.

BM: One of the ironies of the Cold War is that while it led to many terrible things, the drive to compete with the Soviet Union also contributed to some positive steps, including civil rights and more public investment. Do you see a similar dynamic happening now?

JB: If it leads to growth and advances in education spending, and raises living standards more broadly, it could gain a kind of political momentum. But I would hope that one would not need to use nationalist rhetoric in an adversarial framework to justify commonsensical welfare spending in a developed state like the United States. In the long term it’s not healthy to have some external Other that you use to justify your domestic policy agenda. If Bernie Sanders was president and was proposing the same thing, I don’t think he would be talking about the need to compete with China. These programs have their own innate benefits.

The backdrop to this conversation is the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been useful for clarifying the important role government can play in people’s lives. It’s reminded ordinary Americans that when it comes to their safety and security, threats like ISIS and the like were really inflated the past couple of decades. Public health has a direct impact on their lives, and, in that respect, government can play a positive role.

BM: Is the Cold War analogy that we hear so often applied to US-China relations today correct or appropriate? Is China really in the equivalent position that the USSR was during the actual Cold War?

JB: The short answer is no. China is not a global power, it’s a regional power. The Soviet Union had nuclear capabilities well outside its territory, nuclear-armed submarines and so on. At some point, military spending between the United States and USSR was comparable, though the United States was well ahead. China’s military spending is less than half of the United States’ spending, and it doesn’t have the international network of bases the United States has.

The United States remains an empire — an empire in decline, but still an empire — and China is not. I don’t think the Cold War analogy is useful for two countries that are so economically interdependent, and given the conflict and proxy wars that took place between the US and USSR for decades.

BM: To what extent do you think the lessons of the past few decades of foreign policy been learned or internalized by the national security establishment in the United States?

JB: The costs of the Democrats’ ignoring public opinion on bread-and-butter issues have risen. We have decades of public opinion data going back to the 1970s, showing strong majorities of average Americans prioritize material conditions at home, and not pursuing regime change wars and ground invasions of other countries. The same polls show policymakers in Washington and opinion makers around them in think tanks and so on favor free market approaches and political change overseas through military intervention.

What we’ve seen so far with Biden suggests that for the moment, this disconnect between the priorities of the public and that of the policy-making elite is being bridged. But I’d say right now there’s no evidence leading figures in “the Blob” have substantially changed their worldview.

I think two things explain why we’re on a course of foreign policy restraint, relatively speaking. One is that COVID-19 has concentrated minds and eliminated room for discretionary campaigns and interventions and humanitarian crusaderism, if you can call it that. Of course, that might change if a crisis comes up and if the pandemic subsides.

The second factor is the 2020 elections. They obviously put Biden and Harris into the White House, but they were not good for the Democrats. It suggests that if they don’t take seriously the domestic policy priorities of the electorate, they could get really wiped out in 2022 and 2024. I think there is an electoral calculus at work here in which the interventionist policies the Blob likes and the public opposes are not considered electorally feasible.

If the Democrats don’t compete effectively on domestic policy, they will lose out to Republicans for a long period of time, the way their counterparts in Hungary and India lost out to [Viktor] Orbán and [Narendra] Modi. Biden and his close confidants seem to understand that in a pure, realpolitik kind of way, they need to do what Clinton and Obama didn’t do, and align the Democratic Party with domestic priorities that are commonsensical and will have broad support.

BM: What is the state of US primacy in the world? Is the United States still established as the world’s superpower, or are things more tenuous right now?

JB: When international relations scholars look at primacy in terms of a unipolar and multipolar world, they tend to look to wealth as the basic metric of power. While China within the decade will surpass the United States in GDP, if you add to US GDP the GDP of NATO, the EU, and a few other allies, you would quickly get to over 50 percent of world GDP in the hands of the United States and various allies.

I think as long as that remains the case, US primacy — even if it’s shared primacy with European partners, Australia, Canada, Japan, and South Korea — would remain dominant. Also, so long as the US dollar remains the global reserve currency, then I see the United States continuing to enjoy an important kind of economic primacy.

BM: What is the prospect of a break from business-as-usual on foreign policy in the foreseeable future?

JB: The first step to ending US wars overseas is to elevate domestic needs and domestic priorities on the public agenda. COVID-19 made that happen in a big way.

We can see a shift away from some of the worst types of intervention that happened under Bush and Obama, but it’s not going to be a shift that is heralded or celebrated, because it’s the absence of interventionism. It’s the glory of not doing.

I’d also say, it’s not going to be coherent. Capital and US business and finance interests at the top of the US hierarchy can be served in a number of ways. They can profit from wars, but also from peace and diplomacy. The 1979 peace deal between Egypt and Israel saw billions of dollars of business opportunities for defense firms, even though it was a peace deal. Dick Cheney, in the private sector in the 1990s, supported lifting sanctions on Iran because his business interests at the time aligned with better relations with the country. We won’t find consistency, even among people who are really ideological.

We’ll see a mix of military and diplomatic options, but I think overall we’ve seen a return to pre-9/11 strategy where the main approach to intervention is to work through local proxies and use airpower, and now drone strikes, minimizing US casualties and the cost that the American public experiences at home. At the same time, it’ll be highly destabilizing for the countries on the receiving end.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Report: Trump's Inner Circle Is Terrified. To Be Fair, They Probably Should Be. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>   
Tuesday, 04 May 2021 11:17

Levin writes: "If you haven't been keeping up with the legal affairs of Donald Trump of late, what you should know is that the guy is very likely f--ked."

Donald Trump. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty Images)


Report: Trump's Inner Circle Is Terrified. To Be Fair, They Probably Should Be.

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

04 May 21


To be fair, they probably should be.

f you haven’t been keeping up with the legal affairs of Donald Trump of late, what you should know is that the guy is very likely f--ked. With the ex-president facing no fewer than 29 lawsuits and three criminal investigations, his tax returns are currently in the hands of Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., whose team is also working to flip the Trump Organization employee who knows where all the bodies are buried and has both (1) cooperated with prosecutors in the past and (2) made some rather interesting comments about the company’s legal dealings. At the same time Rudy Giuliani had his home and office raided by the feds last week, a turn of events that former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara has said is very, very bad news for the NYC mayor turned Trump lawyer/cautionary tale. All of which reportedly has the rest of the 45th president’s inner circle extremely concerned about their own legal exposure.

CNN reports that the raids on Giuliani’s Madison Avenue apartment and Park Avenue office have “left allies of the former president feeling uneasy about what could come next,” according to sources close to Trump. “This was a show of force that sent a strong message to a lot of people in Trump’s world that other things may be coming down the pipeline,” one adviser told CNN. According to that person, the seizing of Giuliani’s electronic devices has “ignited a sense of fear” inside Trump’s orbit “that Justice Department officials may be more willing to pursue investigations of the 45th president or his inner circle than many Trump allies had previously believed.” The same person opined to CNN that they couldn’t believe “you would need to send seven FBI agents to go and collect a cell phone and laptop,” calling the raid “overkill.”

Of course Giuliani and the rest of Trump’s allies may still be operating under the false sense of security provided by the last administration’s Justice Department, run by Bill Barr, wherein alleged criminals were shielded from consequences thanks to their proximity to the equally shady president. As The New York Times reported last week, political appointees at the DOJ blocked prosecutors from obtaining the Giuliani warrants last summer and again after the election. (They were only granted once Merrick Garland took over, which, as Bharara noted, was a delay that could have accidentally cost Giuliani a Trump pardon.)

And speaking of Trump’s inner circle, last week his former “fixer,” Michael Cohen, claimed that Giuliani would ultimately turn on Trump to save himself. And not just Trump, but the entire family. “There’s no doubt that [Giuliani is] nervous…. And it’s rightfully so that he’s nervous, because he knows the power of the SDNY is unlimited, and they use that power,” Cohen said. Noting that Giuliani presumably “has no interest in going to prison and spending the golden years of his life behind bars,” Cohen said, “Do I think Rudy will give up Donald in a heartbeat? Absolutely. He certainly doesn’t want to follow my path down into a 36-month sentence.” He added: “What’s ironic here is the fact that these tactics of the Southern District of New York, in terms of bullying you into a plea deal, were created by Rudy Giuliani going back 30 years ago. And it’s just ironic that the tactics that he created for that office are now going to be employed against him, in terms of making him plead guilty and, certainly, at the least, turning over information about Jared, Ivanka, about Don Jr., about Donald himself, about all of these individuals in that garbage can orbit of Donald Trump.” A person close to the 45th president concurred that Giuliani would end up cooperating with prosecutors, telling CNN: “Even the most loyal people have their breaking point,” adding that Giuliani flipping “wouldn’t shock me at all.”

In an email to CNN, the former NYC mayor’s attorney said Giuliani “has done nothing wrong” and that the raids demonstrated a “corrupt double standard” by Joe Biden’s DOJ in its treatment of Trump’s associates versus Democrats, seemingly a reference to the fact that Hunter Biden has not been prosecuted for the fictitious crimes Giuliani has claimed the president’s son committed in Ukraine. Not acknowledged by Giuliani, of course, is the other inconvenient fact that many of Trump’s allies are criminals. So, y’know, there’s that.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
'Decades Ahead of His Time': History Catches Up With Visionary Jimmy Carter Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57945"><span class="small">Megan Mayhew Bergman, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 04 May 2021 08:16

Excerpt: "A new film rejects the popular narrative and recasts the former president, 96, as hugely prescient thinker, particularly on climate change"

Former president Jimmy Carter. (photo: Paul Hennessey/Getty Images)
Former president Jimmy Carter. (photo: Paul Hennessey/Getty Images)


'Decades Ahead of His Time': History Catches Up With Visionary Jimmy Carter

By Megan Mayhew Bergman, Guardian UK

04 May 21


A new film rejects the popular narrative and recasts the former president, 96, as hugely prescient thinker, particularly on climate change

hen I reach Jimmy Carter’s grandson by Zoom, he answers wearing a Raphael Warnock campaign T-shirt. Jason Carter is a lawyer and politician himself, mid-40s, animated and well-read, with blue eyes reminiscent of his grandfather’s. He’s just got off the phone with his 93-year-old grandmother, Rosalynn. It’s a special day; Joe Biden is on his way to the Carter house in Plains, Georgia.

“My grandfather has met nearly everyone in the world he might want to,” Jason Carter says. “Right now, he’s meeting with the president of the United States. But the person he’d say he learned the most from was Rachel Clark, an illiterate sharecropper who lived on his family’s farm.

“He didn’t pity her,” Carter says. “He saw her power. My grandfather believes in the power of a single human and a small community. Protect people’s freedoms, he says, and they can do great things. It all comes back to an enormous respect for human beings.”

Carter is openly moved speaking about his grandfather, though it’s also clear he does so often. A spate of recent biographies and documentaries shows not just a renewed interest in the former president, but a willingness to update the public narrative surrounding his time in office. Recent biographer Jonathan Alter calls Carter “perhaps the most misunderstood president in American history”.

Carter, who lost his bid for re-election in a so-called landslide to Reagan in 1980, is often painted as a “failed president” – a hapless peanut farmer who did not understand how to get things done in Washington, and whose administration was marked by inflation, an energy crisis and the Iran hostage disaster.

Subsequent presidents, especially fellow southern Democrat Bill Clinton, kept a distance – assumably not wanting to be seen as part of a political narrative that emphasized piety over getting things done. Even Obama was apparently wary of being associated with the sort of soft-hearted ineffectuality ascribed to Carter.

But was Carter actually so ineffectual?

In his 2020 biography of Carter, Alter speaks to a more nuanced interpretation of Carter, calling him “a surprisingly consequential president – a political and stylistic failure, but a substantive and far-sighted success”. It is, perhaps, the far-sighted nature of Carter’s ambitions, particularly around energy, that allows us to appreciate him more four decades after his term concluded.

Born in 1924, Carter is now 96. Americans must process his mortality and the onset of climate change, which Carter explicitly warned the nation about 40 years ago.

Carterland, a just released documentary, offers a particularly sharp focus on Carter’s extensive work on conservation, climate and justice.

“Here’s what people get wrong about Carter,” Will Pattiz, one of the film’s directors tells me. “He was not in over his head or ineffective, weak or indecisive – he was a visionary leader, decades ahead of his time trying to pull the country toward renewable energy, climate solutions, social justice for women and minorities, equitable treatment for all nations of the world. He faced nearly impossible economic problems – and at the end of the day came so very close to changing the trajectory of this nation.”

Will’s brother, Jim, agrees. “A question folks should be asking themselves is: what catastrophes would have befallen this country had anyone other than Jimmy Carter been at the helm during that critical time in the late 1970s?”

Those late 1970s were defined by inflation, the cold war, long lines at gas pumps, and a shift in cultural mores. Carter himself showed a willingness to grow. Although Carter served in the navy himself, he pardoned Vietnam draft-dodgers. Though from a segregated and racist background in Georgia, Carter pushed for affirmative action and prioritized diversity among judicial nominees, including the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Amalya Lyle Kearse. He employed Mary Prince, a Black woman wrongly accused of murder, as his daughter Amy’s nanny, a move criticized by some contemporary thinkers as perpetuating domestic servitude.

What was radical in the 1970s can appear backwards decades later; the public narrative works in both directions. Carter is, in some respects, difficult to narrativize because he could be both startlingly conservative – financially, or in his appeal to the deep south’s evangelicals – and progressive, particularly on human rights and climate. He seemed to act from his personal compass, rather than a political one.

He startled the globe by personally brokering the critical Middle East peace treaty between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin at Camp David. He ceded access to the Panama canal, angering conservatives who thought he was giving away an American asset. Through the Alaska Natural Interests Lands Conservation Act, he doubled the national park system and conserved over 100m acres of land – the most sweeping expansion of conserved land in American history.

He was not afraid to make unpopular moves, or ask for personal sacrifice. He was old-fashioned and a futurist, and nowhere did his futurism matter more, or seem more prescient, than on climate and conservation. He risked speaking directly to the American public, and asking them to do a difficult thing – focus on renewable energy and reduce reliance on oil.

He paid the price for this frank ask, and so did we.

In advance of his trip to Plains, Georgia, Biden participated in a video tribute to Carter, joining an all-star cast of Georgia politicians, the familiar faces of Senator Jon Ossoff, Senator Raphael Warnock and Stacey Abrams serving as an affirming nod to Georgia’s return to political importance.

The messages address the substance of the film, but also serve as a heartfelt thank you to a former president who has only recently begun to look prescient on climate, and singular in his moral bearing.

“He has always lived his values,” Abrams says in the video.

“Our world cries out for moral and ethical leadership,” Warnock offers. “Few have embodied it as clearly and consistently as Carter.”

“He showed us what it means to be a public servant, with an emphasis on servant,” Biden says.

Many Americans can’t help but spot a link between Carter and Biden – who became the first elected official outside of Georgia to support Carter’s bid for the presidency in 1976. Biden’s colleagues decried him as an “exuberant” idealist at the time.

There’s also an increasingly stark comparison between the Carter and the Trump administration.

James Gustave Speth served as the chairman of Carter’s Council on Environmental Quality. As Carter’s chief adviser on environmental matters, Speth helped brief Carter on climate change and direct policy. He finds the contrast between Carter and Trump “striking”.

“People see now that Carter was at a pole,” Speth tells me. “Carter was the opposite of Trump – and everything that people despised about him. Carter had integrity, honesty, candor and a commitment to the public good of all else. Carter was a different man, totally.”

Carter’s vice-president, Walter Mondale, died a month ago at 93, perhaps putting an exclamation mark on the need to expedite overdue praise and understanding. Speth agrees that it would be best to speed up our recognition of Carter. “So many fine things are said over the bodies of the dead,” Speth said. “I’d love to have the recognition occur now.”

Speth is also working on his own book on the Carter administration, that covers the Carter and subsequent administrations on climate and energy and highlights the failure to build on the foundation that Carter laid. His project, soon to be published with MIT, carries a damning title: They Knew.

One of the most profound– even painful – parts of watching documentaries like Carterland is bearing witness to the fact that Carter was right on asking us to drive less, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to focus on conservation and renewable energy. Not only was Carter’s vision a path not taken, it was a path mocked. Reagan removed the solar panels from the White House, politicized the environmental movement and painted it as a fringe endeavor.

“Carter was our only president who had a visceral environmental and ecological attachment. That was part of his being,” Speth says. “We had an opportunity in 1980 – but we’ve lost 40 years in the pursuit of a climate-safe path. We can no longer avoid serious and destructive changes, period. That didn’t have to happen.”

I ask Speth why getting Carter’s legacy right matters. First, Speth says, it’s important to recognize the example Carter set for looking ahead, in a culture that prizes soundbites and short-term gains. “Carter was a trained engineer who believed in science,” Speth points out. “He understood things on a global scale, and believed in forecasting. Preparing for the long run is rare in politics.”

Carter’s biographer Alter agrees. “If there is a gene for duty, responsibility and the will to tackle messy problems with little or no potential for political gain,” he writes, “Jimmy Carter was born with it.”

While none of these recent documentaries or biographies seeks to portray Carter as a saint or even politically savvy, they do insist that his presidency was more successful than history has acknowledged, particularly on the energy, conservation and human rights fronts. Still, there are aspects of his single term that will probably remain embedded in his narrative, such as his tenuous relationship with Congress, early catering to segregationists to win votes, and Iran’s hostage crisis.

What can we learn from the shifting narrative around Carter’s presidency?

“You can talk about how Carter was an underrated president,” film-maker Jim Pattiz says. “But can you ask yourself: what qualities do you actually want in a leader? Do you want someone who will challenge you to be better, or speak in catchphrases and not ask much of you?

“This film is a cautionary tale,” Pattiz says. “We can elect another Carter. Let’s reward leaders willing to do the right thing.”

Jason Carter has lived with the nuances and inconsistencies in the narrative surrounding his grandfather’s presidency his entire life. “Stories are always summaries,” he says. “They leave out so much so that we can understand them in simple terms. Public narrative, these days, is so often about politics. It should really be about the great, public problems we’re solving. There’s a difference.

“I don’t want history to be kind to my grandfather,” Jason Carter tells me. “I just want history to be honest.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I Should Only Know Ma'Khia From TikTok Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=59319"><span class="small">Camille Squires, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Tuesday, 04 May 2021 08:16

Squires writes: "I learned Ma'Khia Bryant's name like everyone else when last week she was shot and killed by police in Columbus, Ohio."

A photo of Ma'khia Bryant is held during a demonstration. (photo: Allison Zaucha/NYT)
A photo of Ma'khia Bryant is held during a demonstration. (photo: Allison Zaucha/NYT)


I Should Only Know Ma'Khia From TikTok

By Camille Squires, New York Magazine

04 May 21

 

wish I’d never known Ma’Khia Bryant’s name. Ideally, our only virtual encounter would have gone something like this: A TikTok-fluent teen, she uploads a hair-tutorial video in which she succinctly and expertly lays her baby hairs and pulls her curls into a side ponytail. A 27-year-old millennial, I watch the video on my phone while lying in bed, my own tangle of hair tucked under a bonnet. I notice how she places her finger in order to swoop her baby hairs just so, and make a mental note to try the technique myself sometime. I “like” the post, save it to a collection titled “hair,” and keep scrolling. Maybe my engagement would have been one more small piece of positive feedback, encouraging her to make another video, and another, because she would have had time.

Instead, I learned Ma’Khia Bryant’s name like everyone else when last week she was shot and killed by police in Columbus, Ohio (just minutes before the verdict was released in the Derek Chauvin trial in Minneapolis). According to her mother, 16-year-old Bryant had called the police seeking their help in breaking up a fight. Instead, once they arrived, an officer shot her in the chest after she appeared to lunge at another girl with a knife.

Like so many other people who have died at the hands of police, Ma’Khia’s life has been collapsed into those moments surrounding her death. Her image has been splashed across newspapers and protest signs, hashtags reminding us to #sayhername. The video of the incident made the rounds online, and almost immediately, people began to debate whether her holding a knife was grounds for a police officer to kill her within seconds of arriving on the scene.

To counter this narrative, others began sharing the hair tutorials Bryant had uploaded on TikTok. In each one, a wordless Ma’Khia can be seen conditioning and combing through her thick hair before slicking it into space buns or tying accent braids to frame her face, all over a backing track of neo-soul or ’90s R&B. I no longer watch videos of Black people being killed by police, but seeing these videos of Ma’Khia alive and happy felt almost as gutting.

In them I see not just the carefree innocence of a teenager, not just the hallmarks of an utterly quotidian life — the bunk beds in the background, the affordable beauty-supply-store products she used — I also see the potential of a life snuffed out so soon. It’s difficult to describe the precision it takes to really lay your edges flat against your forehead so that they look purposeful and not just greasy. But Ma’Khia had mastered it. She knew which products to use to make her curl pattern defined and not frizzy. She could apply false eyelashes! At 16, I was struggling to tame my hair with a headband.

Those videos, and what happened to their protagonist, are a reminder that police violence can penetrate even the sacred online spaces I visit. Natural-hair videos, and the community built up around them, have been a necessary balm amid all the other difficult news I consume. Girls like Ma’Khia were there to show me how to finally achieve a wash-and-go and how to stretch my hair without heat, and to remind me to trim my ends often. We created a little world of product recommendations and life hacks just for us.

By teaching one another how to style our hair — hair that for so long has been deemed difficult and ugly by a world centered on whiteness — we show love to one another. We say, “Hey, sis, check out how cute I look! You can look like this too.” This knowledge sharing is an extraordinary, banal gift that Black women give to one another. That an agent of the state would take one of us from the community, and someone so young who had so much left to give, is a remarkable act of violence whose effects ripple far out to places and time immeasurable.

Ma’Khia had a genuine eye for design. I wonder what she would have done with this skill as she got older, how else she would flourish if she had been allowed to. Her mother said that she had just made the honor roll. Maybe Ma’Khia had a knack for biology. Maybe she was a skilled writer. What else could she have done with her talents? Who could she have been in her community, and what more could it have poured into her? All of these questions without answers, because the police took these options from her.

These possibilities are what get obscured when even a well-meaning public turns victims of police violence into symbols of an entire structural problem. In less than a year from the day a Black man in Minneapolis suffocated under the knee of a police officer, the name “George Floyd” has become shorthand for a legacy of racist police violence, a global protest movement against that legacy, and a hundred different corporate entities’ pledges to “reckon with” that legacy. The flattening of an individual into an emblem is how we get Nancy Pelosi thanking Floyd for his “sacrifice,” when all he wanted was to buy some cigarettes on Memorial Day. It’s how we get the memeification of a woman who was shot to death in her sleep.

I am not sure how hard all of us observers really try to imagine these victims in all the fullness and complexity their lives contained. How earnestly we try to grasp the truth that Black people killed by police are neither threats with superhuman strength nor pious martyrs giving their lives over to a larger cause. They are ordinary, fallible people who may or may not be concerned with doing their hair. In Ma’Khia Bryant’s TikToks, we’re afforded a short glimpse of a three-dimensional life. We have a chance to honor the fullness of that life, and not just its end.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Privilege of Happiness: One Man's Story Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47905"><span class="small">Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website</span></a>   
Monday, 03 May 2021 12:41

Keillor writes: "The first One Hundred Days of Uncle Joe have gone by in a whoosh and we've mostly forgotten the guy with the Art Deco hair."

Garrison Keillor. (photo: MPR)
Garrison Keillor. (photo: MPR)


The Privilege of Happiness: One Man's Story

By Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website

03 May 21

 

he first One Hundred Days of Uncle Joe have gone by in a whoosh and we’ve mostly forgotten the guy with the Art Deco hair. Time rushes on. I look at the unread novels on my bookshelf and wonder what crime I need to commit to get sentenced to prison long enough to read them all. Probably handing over nuclear secrets to the Russians but I assume they already have them.

Crime, however, seems unlikely due to the fear of virus transmission which has locked us in our homes and brought me under close supervision by my wife. Thanks to her, my consumption of double cheeseburgers is at an all-time low; my intake of greens is now close to that of an adult giraffe. I am in her hands even when I’m not in her arms. She keeps telling me, “There is no point in wasting money,” and so we live like tenant farmers in the Dust Bowl, we save tiny portions of leftover salad in little plastic containers and we use bars of soap until they are the size of a potato chip. I grew up with Frugal Monetary Theory, but I’ve been corrupted by the ATM: stick in a card and it blows money at you like bubbles from a pipe. She finds a wad of cash in my jeans pocket and says, “What do you need all this money for?” Good question.

I’m a happy man. I had a happy frugal childhood, riding my bike around the countryside back before cellphones and apps that parents could track you with on a laptop, but I avoid talking about happiness because I have young leftist friends who, if I admit to being happy, say, “Well, that’s very nice for you but not everyone is as privileged as you were.”

Privilege was not what made me happy. Dad worked for the post office, we were six kids, so though we weren’t impoverished, we could see it from there. No, it was the bike and freedom and the truck farmers who’d pay a kid to hoe corn and pick strawberries and I’d take my dough to the corner store and buy a couple Pearson’s Salted Nut Rolls and take them down to the Mississippi and eat them and skip stones. It wasn’t about privilege. Why can’t a man talk about happiness without getting a poke in the eye from someone who’s just read a book about systemic inequity and wants you to know it?

The great privilege of my childhood was hoeing and weeding, which is denied to kids now whose moms go to Whole Foods to purchase raspberries from New Zealand and a bag of baby arugula hand-raised in the coastal foothills of Northern California by liberal arts graduates, instead of growing food in a garden and affording their children a useful education.

Weeding is editing and editing is a basic skill desperately needed now that the computer has led to floods, downpours, typhoons of verbiage. Everything is ten times too long. (I had a couple thousand words here about my old editor William Shawn, which I’ve taken out, as you can see.) I read a memoir now and then and I think, “This person never mowed a lawn or weeded a flower bed.” Their book has, in a manner of speaking, a lot of old rusted cars and busted appliances sitting in tall weeds that need to be thrown down in a coulee and the grass mowed.

I grew up mowing lawns, parallel lines, back and forth, it was deeply instilled in me and that’s why I write prose today and not

Butterflies go tipitipitipitipi
toward the blue
crocus and focus
looking for nectar
and stick out their
connector like a straw
and cry,

aha

Notice how the irregularity makes it seem sort of artistic. So what? Sew buttons on your underwear. I am happy going back and forth, back and forth, putting subject and predicate together. It’s therapeutic. When I was your age, kiddo, I had artistic ambition, which was the privilege of ignorance — to look down the road and imagine being honored by the U.S. Essay Association, but in the pandemic, it’s all about today. A walk in the park, a skinny sandwich for lunch, a brief nap, a poem.

A virus called COVID-19
Can be sneaky, mysterious, mean,
But once immunized
I have been surprised
By days that are calm and serene
And limericks that are pleasant though clean.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 Next > End >>

Page 123 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN