Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 1008
August 22, 2015
Bill Maher slams Trump immigration hypocrisy and Duggar scandal: “I say forget about building a wall around Mexico—build a wall around Josh Duggar”
On last night’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the host tore into Donald Trump, criticizing the Republican presidential candidate’s extreme views on immigration. “Republicans are tearing their hear out... doctors say the Trump that has been growing inside them is inoperable," riffed Maher. "Donald Trump, America’s great Irish hope, unveiled his immigration plan this week—and it is huge. It’s a three-point plan called Cinco de Bye-o. Here are the plans: repeal the 14th amendment, seize the wages of illegal immigrants who are working here, use that money to build a wall, and then deport all 11 million of them. Is any of this possible? No. But it gave millions of Fox News viewers their first erection in years.” Maher then honed in on the hypocrisy of Trump criticizing immigration when he himself has had a series of non-American wives. “His first wife is from Czechoslovakia. His current wife is from Slovenia,” Maher continued. "So, if you think crawling under a wall is the most disgusting way to become an American, somewhere there is a Panamanian woman hiding in a truck full of chickens with ten pounds of heroin-filled condoms in her stomach who’s thinking, ‘Well, at least I didn’t have to blow Donald Trump.’” Watch the rest of Maher’s monologue, which takes on the Ashley Madison Hack and the Josh Duggar scandal ("I say forget about building a wall around Mexico—build a wall around Josh Duggar”) below: On last night’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the host tore into Donald Trump, criticizing the Republican presidential candidate’s extreme views on immigration. “Republicans are tearing their hear out... doctors say the Trump that has been growing inside them is inoperable," riffed Maher. "Donald Trump, America’s great Irish hope, unveiled his immigration plan this week—and it is huge. It’s a three-point plan called Cinco de Bye-o. Here are the plans: repeal the 14th amendment, seize the wages of illegal immigrants who are working here, use that money to build a wall, and then deport all 11 million of them. Is any of this possible? No. But it gave millions of Fox News viewers their first erection in years.” Maher then honed in on the hypocrisy of Trump criticizing immigration when he himself has had a series of non-American wives. “His first wife is from Czechoslovakia. His current wife is from Slovenia,” Maher continued. "So, if you think crawling under a wall is the most disgusting way to become an American, somewhere there is a Panamanian woman hiding in a truck full of chickens with ten pounds of heroin-filled condoms in her stomach who’s thinking, ‘Well, at least I didn’t have to blow Donald Trump.’” Watch the rest of Maher’s monologue, which takes on the Ashley Madison Hack and the Josh Duggar scandal ("I say forget about building a wall around Mexico—build a wall around Josh Duggar”) below:
It didn’t start with Limbaugh and Trump: The deep roots of the GOP’s war on women
Donald Trump reduces the dog whistles of Movement Conservatism into cartoons that expose them for what they really are. Movement leaders profess to be shocked by his crude attacks on Megyn Kelly, but he has simply ripped the gentility off sentiments that the eminently “respectable” Weekly Standard made in its cover story three months ago. “If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016,” Joseph Epstein wrote, “she will not only be the nation’s first woman president but our second affirmative-action president,” elected, he said, thanks to her status as a member of a “victim group.” Days later, Fox News went after First Lady Michelle Obama with a similar argument. Fox contributor Angela McGlowan told viewers that “the reason she got into Princeton was probably because of affirmative action,” and that “the reason she became an associate at a law firm was probably because … they needed a woman, and a woman of color.” She added: “That’s a twofer.” Trump’s piggishness is merely a less euphemistic way of expressing what those who dominate the Republican Party have long believed and argued. For Movement Conservatives, women, by definition, are subordinate. They cannot succeed in America unless the government gives them a leg up. Properly constructed, the nation belongs to white men. The idea that the country should be led by white men goes back to antebellum slaveholders, who argued that the world was naturally divided between working drudges and elite leaders, who directed their workers and used the wealth the workers produced to promote progress. Slaves and workingmen had no such vision or ability, and they must be kept from power. If they were permitted to participate in government, they would demand more of the wealth they produced and fritter it away in extra food and small luxuries. That “redistribution” of wealth would hamstring society’s leaders, preventing them from devoting their energies and capital to advancing humanity. With the end of slavery and the enfranchisement of former slave men, this elitist argument translated into opposition to any social welfare legislation funded with taxes. But it focused on excluding lower-class men from power. Even after women got the vote in 1920, the idea that they stood for home and family helped to keep them from being seen as politically dangerous in the way that working men and male minorities were. Few politicians did much to move the needle toward anything resembling gender equality, but it was President Nixon who first threw women under the political bus of Movement Conservatism. Desperate to consolidate support during the turmoil of late 1960s, Nixon adopted the language of Movement Conservative speechwriter Pat Buchanan, who had come to the Nixon White House after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous 1964 campaign. In 1969, Buchanan divided the nation in two in a speech in which Nixon pleaded for the support of the “silent majority” to enable him to stand against “a vocal minority” trying to impose its will by protesting in the streets. Among those in the streets, of course, were the women demanding equal rights and fighting for “women’s lib[eration].” By 1971, Betty Friedan, author of the 1963 "The Feminine Mystique," complained that Nixon was doing nothing for women. What women really needed, she told an audience of politically active women, was political power. In January of the next year, the editors of Time defined Nixon’s silent majority when they named “The Middle Americans” their “Man and Woman of the Year.” According to the article explaining the award, these men and women prayed, loved America and hated the intellectuals, professionals and civil rights and women’s rights protesters who seemed to be taking over the country. Squeezed by inflation, they resented that their tax dollars went to programs that helped the very protesters who showed such disdain for them and what they believed to be traditional American values, including a family structure that had a male household head and a stay-at-home wife. After National Guard troops killed four students at Kent State in May 1970, Nixon worked to consolidate his wavering support by inflaming middle-class white voters against the “detractors of America” who wanted the government to help them out. On Labor Day 1971, Nixon contrasted industrious and purposeful men with lazy and slothful protesters demanding government programs. Those with a strong work ethic had built America, he said, but now unspecified “voices” were attacking the work ethic. “We see some members of disadvantaged groups being told to take the welfare road rather than the road of hard work, self-reliance and self-respect,” he claimed. The 1972 passage of Title IX, which promoted women’s education and athletic opportunities, and the Roe v. Wade decision the following year, encouraged opponents to believe that “liberated” women were absorbing government largesse to overturn the traditional order. In 1976, Ronald Reagan pulled together grasping women and minorities in his image of the “Welfare Queen.” He described a Cadillac-driving, unemployed female moocher from Chicago’s South Side — a geographical reference that implied the woman was black without actually saying so. “She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands,” Reagan claimed. “And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.” The story illustrated the idea that women, especially black women, were a special interest that simply wanted government handouts. They voted for Democrats in exchange for laws that provided those handouts. Movement Conservatives had now firmly lodged women in the category of people who engaged in the systematic perversion of government about which slave owners had warned: letting women vote amounted to wealth redistribution that would destroy traditional society. As Reagan rose to power, Movement Conservatives harped on the idea that women were ruining the nation with their demands for government support. Nothing illustrated their success more clearly than when, in 1984, Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale made the historic decision to tap a woman to be his running mate. New York Representative Geraldine Ferraro was a powerful Democratic leader who sat on the both the House Budget Committee and the Steering and Policy Committee. Nonetheless, sixty percent of voters thought Mondale had chosen her not because she was the best candidate, but because he was under pressure from the women’s groups whose votes he needed to win. In 1989, Movement Conservative anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed brought evangelical Christians to the support of the movement by focusing on abortion as the choice of women who refused to accept the results of their own actions. Increasingly, Movement Conservatives defined women outside their circle as a special interest eager for handouts to fund immoral lifestyles. After dramatic gains in the 1970s, women who did not embrace Movement Conservatism disappeared from mainstream public debate. During the Reagan years, Movement Conservatives continued to use the idea of women as a special interest group in order to promote their economic vision. Insisting that the key to a thriving economy was a booming business sector, they argued that businessmen must have confidence that they could keep their profits. Taxation to promote social welfare programs that helped women destroyed that confidence and thus weakened the country. When Reagan’s 1986 tax overhaul offered deductions to poor families, leading Movement Conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly protested vehemently that such a benefit was “just an idea of liberal bureaucrats who want to redistribute the wealth.” Anything “anti-growth” was “anti-family.” The best thing for American women was not to offer them equality of opportunity; it was to strengthen big business. The end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 began to shred the veneer of this anti-woman argument. With the end of the requirement to present evidence fairly, hosts like Rush Limbaugh emerged as leaders in the war against women who did not embrace their ideology, railing against “Feminazis” who threatened white men by taking their jobs, policing their speech and demanding equal rights, and who wanted to promote as many abortions as possible. In the hands of Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts, policies designed to open opportunities for women and minorities turned white men into victims. Even worse, they threatened to turn the nation into a hotbed of socialism as the taxes necessary to fund those programs redistributed wealth. Bashing women who advocated government programs became an easy shorthand for opposition to such programs, as Movement Conservative media illustrated by attacking Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute” because she testified before Congress to favor of laws requiring employers to include birth control in their health insurance packages. As Rush Limbaugh put it: “She wants to be paid to have sex ... She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.” Today Movement Conservatives ridicule the idea that they are waging a war on women. They argue that their focus on business growth and slashing welfare programs and government regulation is, by definition, pro-woman and pro-family, because everyone benefits when the economy booms, and the economy can boom only when businessmen don’t labor under the threat of taxes or regulation. Protecting women’s right to equal pay or raising the minimum wage (most minimum wage workers are female) would, in their formulation, hurt women. “I am insulted when I hear somebody talk about ‘women’s issues,’” the Republicans’ only female presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina, said recently. “Feminism” is “a left-leaning political ideology” that is “used as a political weapon to win elections.” But when Donald Trump calls women fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals, he exposes the Movement Conservative ideology as the sexist vision it is. When women have a political voice, many of them support government policies that promote education, maintain clean and safe cities, and force businesses to pay fair wages and provide safe work environments. Those things cost tax dollars. But they are not handouts for lazy sluts; they are the duties of a government that responds to everyone rather than to a very small class of wealthy leaders. Dog whistles about women who want handouts are simply an acceptable way to say that women are not worth as much as the men who must dominate the government. At the heart of Movement Conservatism is the conviction that America belongs to elite men alone.
Atheists are no less moral: The sad delusion of the Christian Evangelical movement
When most people thinks about Las Vegas they picture some combination of gambling, burlesque, night clubs and legalized prostitution—the pleasures that earned Vegas the nickname Sin City. But when Sociologist Lori Fazzino thinks about Las Vegas, she pictures churches. Seventy-seven percent of Las Vegas residents say they are religious, mostly Christian; and Vegas caters to a largely Christian population of tourists, many of whom party hard on Saturday night and then attend one of the 30 churches surrounding the strip on Sunday. And yet, the city’s public image makes it a target for revival meetings, “church planting” and missionary outreach by conservative Christians who see the city as ripe for redemption. According to Fazzino, that makes Sin City a fascinating place to study religious belief and non-belief. Fazzino is an instructor and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Nevada, and a former Evangelical Christian. Her research explores social movements and identity, religious conversion and deconversion, and in particular how people leaving their religion arrive at a new worldview and community. In this interview she discusses challenges faced by secular groups and individuals in a city that is enamored with both sin and salvation. Tarico: You’re a former Evangelical, a former erotic dancer, and now an academic sociologist studying religion in Las Vegas. That combination is a bit dizzying. How in the world did you end up where you are? Fazzino: I was raised Catholic and got saved at an Evangelical mega-church at age 16. But in 2007, I was excommunicated, well as much as you can get excommunicated from a Protestant church. I was living just south of Seattle, very involved in a church called Real Life. I also was in a very bad marriage with a man who lied to get me down the aisle. About a year in, I learned that we were deeply in debt to the point that we almost lost our house. Well, I'm a survivor. I used to dance at a club when I was 18, and so I decided to go to Alaska and dance. On the way, I got in a very bad car accident; I was hanging upside down in my car. After they got me out, my husband called our pastor. When the pastor learned why I was on the road, he basically said, “Lori is nothing but a whore, and if she comes around here we will have her arrested.” He didn’t want me tainting the church teenagers. I was devastated. Although I decided on my own to end my marriage, my deconversion was precipitated by my former pastor. I remember thinking that church was the one place we were supposed to be protected from backstabbing, lying, judgment, and betrayal; if this was part of religion I wanted no part in it. I could find all of that outside of the church. In 2010, now single, I moved to Nevada for graduate school, and a colleague brought me onto a case study about religious deconversion and spiritual abuse. Until then I had forgotten how interested I was in understanding religion from the standpoint of sociology. I’ve been doing research in this area ever since. Tarico: So a key driver was your personal experience. Fazzino: Absolutely! So much so that I had to constantly check my biases. When I started focusing on deconversion, I found myself questioning—Am I just doing this to get back at my pastor? But my answer was no. I was angry for a period of time, sure, but today I’m more interfaith: How can we have our respective worldviews and still work in a way that minimizes the harm? That’s what interests me. There is an incredible lack of research on deconversion, and I knew from my experiences that people had a story that needed to be told. I wanted to help facilitate that process. I also am drawn broadly to giving voice to misrepresented minorities. My specializations are religion and cultural movements, but before focusing on secular groups I worked with people who identify as vampires. Tarico: Do secularists and vampires have something in common that I don’t know about? Fazzino:Both are marginalized, misunderstood, have to face people who are dismissive of their experiences, and are assumed to be unethical. The vampire community lives by a Bill of Ethics, and research has shown that atheists are no less moral than theists. Tarico: So tell me about your research. Fazzino: Part of what I do is look at the everyday experience of irreligion and specifically how nonbelievers navigate the cultural landscape of Las Vegas. This includes the lived experience of religious deconversion, and the construction of irreligious morality, for example. Another part of what I do is examine secularism as a social movement. I’m particularly fascinated with the rise of groups that come together around secular identity—how do they compare to groups that come together around religion? Some people seem to think that religion is going to be eradicated, but as a sociologist I don’t think so. We know from history religion and what being religious looks like will change. But completely disappear? I’m extremely skeptical. You can’t dismantle a social institution without putting something in its place. Tarico: What are you finding as you study secular groups? Fazzino: One of my preliminary findings is that there’s nothing special about the secular groups with regard to social dynamics. They have drama and interpersonal dynamics just like church groups, just like any other group. I think there are some specific growing pains in the secular groups. Most are new so there’s no institutional memory. People come together spontaneously and so they may not know how to be leaders or how to organize groups or events. (As cultural institutions, churches have models and structures in place for all of this.) Also, people are mixed about how to interact with faith groups. Some want to go out of the way to provoke them; others see themselves as part of the broader spiritual landscape and want to join inter-faith community service. Some people need to be angry as part of the de-conversion process; others are more interested in building bridges. One challenge in the current landscape is that secular folks who want community have limited options. On the UNLV campus we have 30 religious organizations, 20 of which are Christian based. That’s in Las Vegas, not the Midwest! Contrast that with one secular group, an affiliate of the Secular Student Alliance. Where do people go if it’s not a fit? By the way, that’s where I got my start, the Secular Student Alliance. After being forcibly ejected from my church, I found the one secular club at UNLV. The Secular Student Alliance is where I met people and where some of my deconversion trauma was healed. It is also where I realized that these are amazing people who need to have a voice. Tarico: As a psychologist, I’m most intrigued by this part of the deconversion process—personal healing and people finding their voice and reclaiming their lives, whether that means learning to trust their own basic goodness and ability to think, or whether that means recovery from religious trauma syndrome. But as a sociologist, you are particularly interested in the dynamics around culture shift. Fazzino: We need a better conversation about religious discrimination and privilege. Scholars have traditionally approached discussions about discrimination as an us-vs-them dichotomy rather than talking about it as multidimensional. We talk about male privilege, white privilege, Christian privilege instead of cisgender privilege, race privilege, and religious privilege. If we want people to understand discrimination, we need to stop setting up inherently adversarial conversations. Each one of us knows what it feels like to be treated badly because of one or more of our social identities. The key is to open up these conversations from a place of common ground. Then perhaps people might have a better understanding of why secular activism is necessary! Tarico: Talk to me a bit more about this—the secular activism that you think is valuable or even necessary. Fazzino: Atheists have been largely invisible in the past, and in my research I argue that we need to rethink what activism looks like. Findings from my research indicate that, on the local level, secular groups engage in three different kinds of activism: We’re going to sue the city because atheists can’t perform marriage ceremonies--that’s political; Let’s to participate in a Light the Night march wearing Friendly Atheist t-shirts--that’s social; Let’s talk about being open about our worldview to friends and family--that’s personal. Tarico: So in your research on the secular movement in Vegas, you identify these three levels of activism: political advocacy, social theater, if you could call it that, and creation of personal networks. Fazzino: One place this all comes together in Vegas is the United Church of Bacon. Tarico: The United Church of Bacon? Fazzino: In 2010, a former marine named John Whiteside and some friends of Penn and Teller decided to disrupt the status quo by starting a real church with a funny name and then, as they put it, pursuing the same “silly privileges” as other churches. The United Church of Bacon (UBC) has legal standing as a church. It raises money for charities and ordains secular celebrants who have now performed hundreds of weddings; and it claims 4,000 members around the world. So it’s both playful and serious, community and advocacy, on the ground and online. The political part focuses on challenging religious privilege and misuse of public funds. For example, members of one Vegas mega-church used to illegally park on the streets and corners to the point that it was dangerous, but the metro police department didn’t want to get involved. So, UCB drew attention to the issue until it got fixed. At a social level, last year, John Whiteside wanted to get a document notarized for a secular celebrant, but the notary at his local Wells Fargo refused, presumably because of the church name. John asked for an internal investigation and then asked Wells Fargo to update materials on religious discrimination, but they refused. So UBC organized a protest that engaged secular groups from across the country. David Silverman from American Atheists, August Brunesman and Gordon Maples from the Secular Student Alliance, and Jason Torpy from the Military Association of Atheists came to Vegas. Almost a hundred people participated in a two day protest, and several thousand signed petitions. Many closed their Wells Fargo accounts. The protest prompted media discussion across the country about discrimination against atheists. Besides garnering earned media, the United Church of Bacon has now put up several secular billboards with quotes from America’s founding fathers. The goal is to end discrimination against atheists. Tarico: The third layer of social activism you mentioned was the personal layer, individual people coming out about their secular worldview or loss of religious belief. The idea is that when people know a member of a stigmatized minority and care about that person, their views tend to change. Fazzino: There’s a lot of power in simply being visible. That’s why the Openly Secular campaign is near and dear to my heart. It’s not about advocacy in the sense of picking political or social battles. But we know that when people actually know an atheist they look on them differently. One way I apply my academic research to help people outside of academia is that I have researched and written (or co-written) several toolkits for the Openly Secular campaign. One that is currently in press discusses how to deal with death and grief, which is an unrealized area of discrimination. Last year the Las Vegas secular community lost three members in a very short time. Despite clear instructions, family members co-opted the grieving process and made it about God, for example saying in a memorial service, “I know my sister is in heaven and when I get there I’ll tell her she was wrong.” For secular people sitting in the service, it was like a jab right on top of the grief. How do you handle it when you are told to be quiet at your father’s funeral? Tarico: How do other faculty in your department react to this work? Fazzino: The professors and other graduate students in my department are phenomenal. This summer the College of Liberal Arts gave me a Dean’s award, which means that people on the committee see my work as important. That was a big deal because I have high visibility as an atheist who also does qualitative research on atheists. I have a number of Youtube videos. That could be problematic for many reasons, but the award was validation that I’m doing something right for my city and my movement. Anything I can do to allow more of these marginalized voices to emerge, that’s what I’m about. If my research can help reduce stigma and create deeper understanding of why someone would self-identify as a vampire or want to be an atheist, maybe it will increase compassion. Tarico: You clearly aspire to be not just an ivory tower academic but a change agent. As someone who is doing research not just out of intellectual curiosity but to address harms in society, does it ever get discouraging? Fazzino: Absolutely! When I’m passed over for an opportunity because I openly identify as an atheist, I get discouraged. When I see intra-movement fighting between secular organizations, I get discouraged. When I see the lack of racial/ethnic and gender diversity in the movement, I get discouraged. When I see antagonism from secular activists towards religion and religious people, I get discouraged. But as I was collecting data for my Master’s thesis about deconversion, one participant named Adam said something that changed the face of my work. He said, “I feel like I’ve won the cosmic lottery just by being here.” I was operating on the basis of deconversion being negative, but there are many people like Adam finding and embracing a more authentic life. So, yes, I may get discouraged, but discouragement is part of living authentically. And that is precisely why I need to keep doing what I’m doing.
When most people thinks about Las Vegas they picture some combination of gambling, burlesque, night clubs and legalized prostitution—the pleasures that earned Vegas the nickname Sin City. But when Sociologist Lori Fazzino thinks about Las Vegas, she pictures churches. Seventy-seven percent of Las Vegas residents say they are religious, mostly Christian; and Vegas caters to a largely Christian population of tourists, many of whom party hard on Saturday night and then attend one of the 30 churches surrounding the strip on Sunday. And yet, the city’s public image makes it a target for revival meetings, “church planting” and missionary outreach by conservative Christians who see the city as ripe for redemption. According to Fazzino, that makes Sin City a fascinating place to study religious belief and non-belief. Fazzino is an instructor and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Nevada, and a former Evangelical Christian. Her research explores social movements and identity, religious conversion and deconversion, and in particular how people leaving their religion arrive at a new worldview and community. In this interview she discusses challenges faced by secular groups and individuals in a city that is enamored with both sin and salvation. Tarico: You’re a former Evangelical, a former erotic dancer, and now an academic sociologist studying religion in Las Vegas. That combination is a bit dizzying. How in the world did you end up where you are? Fazzino: I was raised Catholic and got saved at an Evangelical mega-church at age 16. But in 2007, I was excommunicated, well as much as you can get excommunicated from a Protestant church. I was living just south of Seattle, very involved in a church called Real Life. I also was in a very bad marriage with a man who lied to get me down the aisle. About a year in, I learned that we were deeply in debt to the point that we almost lost our house. Well, I'm a survivor. I used to dance at a club when I was 18, and so I decided to go to Alaska and dance. On the way, I got in a very bad car accident; I was hanging upside down in my car. After they got me out, my husband called our pastor. When the pastor learned why I was on the road, he basically said, “Lori is nothing but a whore, and if she comes around here we will have her arrested.” He didn’t want me tainting the church teenagers. I was devastated. Although I decided on my own to end my marriage, my deconversion was precipitated by my former pastor. I remember thinking that church was the one place we were supposed to be protected from backstabbing, lying, judgment, and betrayal; if this was part of religion I wanted no part in it. I could find all of that outside of the church. In 2010, now single, I moved to Nevada for graduate school, and a colleague brought me onto a case study about religious deconversion and spiritual abuse. Until then I had forgotten how interested I was in understanding religion from the standpoint of sociology. I’ve been doing research in this area ever since. Tarico: So a key driver was your personal experience. Fazzino: Absolutely! So much so that I had to constantly check my biases. When I started focusing on deconversion, I found myself questioning—Am I just doing this to get back at my pastor? But my answer was no. I was angry for a period of time, sure, but today I’m more interfaith: How can we have our respective worldviews and still work in a way that minimizes the harm? That’s what interests me. There is an incredible lack of research on deconversion, and I knew from my experiences that people had a story that needed to be told. I wanted to help facilitate that process. I also am drawn broadly to giving voice to misrepresented minorities. My specializations are religion and cultural movements, but before focusing on secular groups I worked with people who identify as vampires. Tarico: Do secularists and vampires have something in common that I don’t know about? Fazzino:Both are marginalized, misunderstood, have to face people who are dismissive of their experiences, and are assumed to be unethical. The vampire community lives by a Bill of Ethics, and research has shown that atheists are no less moral than theists. Tarico: So tell me about your research. Fazzino: Part of what I do is look at the everyday experience of irreligion and specifically how nonbelievers navigate the cultural landscape of Las Vegas. This includes the lived experience of religious deconversion, and the construction of irreligious morality, for example. Another part of what I do is examine secularism as a social movement. I’m particularly fascinated with the rise of groups that come together around secular identity—how do they compare to groups that come together around religion? Some people seem to think that religion is going to be eradicated, but as a sociologist I don’t think so. We know from history religion and what being religious looks like will change. But completely disappear? I’m extremely skeptical. You can’t dismantle a social institution without putting something in its place. Tarico: What are you finding as you study secular groups? Fazzino: One of my preliminary findings is that there’s nothing special about the secular groups with regard to social dynamics. They have drama and interpersonal dynamics just like church groups, just like any other group. I think there are some specific growing pains in the secular groups. Most are new so there’s no institutional memory. People come together spontaneously and so they may not know how to be leaders or how to organize groups or events. (As cultural institutions, churches have models and structures in place for all of this.) Also, people are mixed about how to interact with faith groups. Some want to go out of the way to provoke them; others see themselves as part of the broader spiritual landscape and want to join inter-faith community service. Some people need to be angry as part of the de-conversion process; others are more interested in building bridges. One challenge in the current landscape is that secular folks who want community have limited options. On the UNLV campus we have 30 religious organizations, 20 of which are Christian based. That’s in Las Vegas, not the Midwest! Contrast that with one secular group, an affiliate of the Secular Student Alliance. Where do people go if it’s not a fit? By the way, that’s where I got my start, the Secular Student Alliance. After being forcibly ejected from my church, I found the one secular club at UNLV. The Secular Student Alliance is where I met people and where some of my deconversion trauma was healed. It is also where I realized that these are amazing people who need to have a voice. Tarico: As a psychologist, I’m most intrigued by this part of the deconversion process—personal healing and people finding their voice and reclaiming their lives, whether that means learning to trust their own basic goodness and ability to think, or whether that means recovery from religious trauma syndrome. But as a sociologist, you are particularly interested in the dynamics around culture shift. Fazzino: We need a better conversation about religious discrimination and privilege. Scholars have traditionally approached discussions about discrimination as an us-vs-them dichotomy rather than talking about it as multidimensional. We talk about male privilege, white privilege, Christian privilege instead of cisgender privilege, race privilege, and religious privilege. If we want people to understand discrimination, we need to stop setting up inherently adversarial conversations. Each one of us knows what it feels like to be treated badly because of one or more of our social identities. The key is to open up these conversations from a place of common ground. Then perhaps people might have a better understanding of why secular activism is necessary! Tarico: Talk to me a bit more about this—the secular activism that you think is valuable or even necessary. Fazzino: Atheists have been largely invisible in the past, and in my research I argue that we need to rethink what activism looks like. Findings from my research indicate that, on the local level, secular groups engage in three different kinds of activism: We’re going to sue the city because atheists can’t perform marriage ceremonies--that’s political; Let’s to participate in a Light the Night march wearing Friendly Atheist t-shirts--that’s social; Let’s talk about being open about our worldview to friends and family--that’s personal. Tarico: So in your research on the secular movement in Vegas, you identify these three levels of activism: political advocacy, social theater, if you could call it that, and creation of personal networks. Fazzino: One place this all comes together in Vegas is the United Church of Bacon. Tarico: The United Church of Bacon? Fazzino: In 2010, a former marine named John Whiteside and some friends of Penn and Teller decided to disrupt the status quo by starting a real church with a funny name and then, as they put it, pursuing the same “silly privileges” as other churches. The United Church of Bacon (UBC) has legal standing as a church. It raises money for charities and ordains secular celebrants who have now performed hundreds of weddings; and it claims 4,000 members around the world. So it’s both playful and serious, community and advocacy, on the ground and online. The political part focuses on challenging religious privilege and misuse of public funds. For example, members of one Vegas mega-church used to illegally park on the streets and corners to the point that it was dangerous, but the metro police department didn’t want to get involved. So, UCB drew attention to the issue until it got fixed. At a social level, last year, John Whiteside wanted to get a document notarized for a secular celebrant, but the notary at his local Wells Fargo refused, presumably because of the church name. John asked for an internal investigation and then asked Wells Fargo to update materials on religious discrimination, but they refused. So UBC organized a protest that engaged secular groups from across the country. David Silverman from American Atheists, August Brunesman and Gordon Maples from the Secular Student Alliance, and Jason Torpy from the Military Association of Atheists came to Vegas. Almost a hundred people participated in a two day protest, and several thousand signed petitions. Many closed their Wells Fargo accounts. The protest prompted media discussion across the country about discrimination against atheists. Besides garnering earned media, the United Church of Bacon has now put up several secular billboards with quotes from America’s founding fathers. The goal is to end discrimination against atheists. Tarico: The third layer of social activism you mentioned was the personal layer, individual people coming out about their secular worldview or loss of religious belief. The idea is that when people know a member of a stigmatized minority and care about that person, their views tend to change. Fazzino: There’s a lot of power in simply being visible. That’s why the Openly Secular campaign is near and dear to my heart. It’s not about advocacy in the sense of picking political or social battles. But we know that when people actually know an atheist they look on them differently. One way I apply my academic research to help people outside of academia is that I have researched and written (or co-written) several toolkits for the Openly Secular campaign. One that is currently in press discusses how to deal with death and grief, which is an unrealized area of discrimination. Last year the Las Vegas secular community lost three members in a very short time. Despite clear instructions, family members co-opted the grieving process and made it about God, for example saying in a memorial service, “I know my sister is in heaven and when I get there I’ll tell her she was wrong.” For secular people sitting in the service, it was like a jab right on top of the grief. How do you handle it when you are told to be quiet at your father’s funeral? Tarico: How do other faculty in your department react to this work? Fazzino: The professors and other graduate students in my department are phenomenal. This summer the College of Liberal Arts gave me a Dean’s award, which means that people on the committee see my work as important. That was a big deal because I have high visibility as an atheist who also does qualitative research on atheists. I have a number of Youtube videos. That could be problematic for many reasons, but the award was validation that I’m doing something right for my city and my movement. Anything I can do to allow more of these marginalized voices to emerge, that’s what I’m about. If my research can help reduce stigma and create deeper understanding of why someone would self-identify as a vampire or want to be an atheist, maybe it will increase compassion. Tarico: You clearly aspire to be not just an ivory tower academic but a change agent. As someone who is doing research not just out of intellectual curiosity but to address harms in society, does it ever get discouraging? Fazzino: Absolutely! When I’m passed over for an opportunity because I openly identify as an atheist, I get discouraged. When I see intra-movement fighting between secular organizations, I get discouraged. When I see the lack of racial/ethnic and gender diversity in the movement, I get discouraged. When I see antagonism from secular activists towards religion and religious people, I get discouraged. But as I was collecting data for my Master’s thesis about deconversion, one participant named Adam said something that changed the face of my work. He said, “I feel like I’ve won the cosmic lottery just by being here.” I was operating on the basis of deconversion being negative, but there are many people like Adam finding and embracing a more authentic life. So, yes, I may get discouraged, but discouragement is part of living authentically. And that is precisely why I need to keep doing what I’m doing.
Donald Trump at the wheel: He’s driving the GOP over a cliff, and the establishment can’t stop him
After a week’s worth of soundbites from presidential candidates about “anchor babies” and repealing birthright citizenship, it is now clear, if it wasn’t already, that Donald Trump has the steering wheel of the Republican Party firmly in his grasp. So despite the Republican National Committee’s infamous “autopsy” of the 2012 election — which found that the party could not compete unless it fixed its increasingly toxic image among the Latino electorate — the GOP’s presidential primary has devolved into a contest to see who can demonize and dehumanize immigrants the most. If a sensible, pragmatic Republican Party “establishment” actually existed, now is right about when it would step in. But it doesn’t, of course; so it won’t. Which is not to say that what passes for the GOP establishment nowadays has gone silent. As recent pieces from elite conservative pundits in Slate and Politico Magazine show, something approximating an establishment is still in the mix. The problem, though, is that this establishment is completely incapable of controlling Trump, much less the party’s overall message. And whether they opt for conflict or cooptation, their attempts to manipulate Trump will inevitably fail. Because the establishment, unlike Trump, cannot bring itself to see the Republican Party — and the conservative movement, in general — for the clumsy vehicle of politicized resentment and white identity politics that it really is. True, conservative elites have been playing some version of this game for a while now; using extreme reactionaries to win elections but pretending the GOP is run by urbane, center-right moderates. But those forces used to be disorganized enough that long-shot protest candidacies (like the Pat Buchanan’s in the 1990s) were the best they could do. And that made maintaining the lie — that the conservative movement’s inmates did not run the asylum — a whole lot easier. At this point, however, that’s no longer the case. Nevertheless, they’re still trying. And thus do we get pieces like this one in Slate, by National Review’s Reihan Salam, which operates from the absurd premise that conservative, iconoclastic minority voters can be brought into the GOP coalition without tearing the whole thing apart. “There appears to be a nontrivial share of black voters who are open to a center-right message,” Salam writes near the end of his piece. “Winning them over,” he continues, “will mean decontaminating a GOP brand.” If the GOP coalition was the pluralist, cosmopolitan entity of his imagination, Salam would have a decent point. But such a GOP wouldn’t have a xenophobic, populist figure like Trump, whose mantra is that “we” must “take our country back,” as its biggest star, would it? If the Republican Party was comprised of voters who signed-up because they held “conservative positions on issues,” which is what Salam seems to think, then how could an ideological grab-bag like Trump be in the position he’s in? As Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul complained earlier this summer, Trump is anything but a consistent conservative. But as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who hopes to be the second-choice of Trump’s supporters, seems to understand, the kind of voters who now control the GOP primary don’t see politics through that prism. They don’t love Trump because of any long-held views on taxes or abortion or Social Security; they love Trump because they see him as “one of [them].” Obviously, Salam is not the only serious right-wing pundit to misunderstand the GOP coalition. He’s not even the only one from National Review to do it as of late. Editor-in-chief Rich Lowry recently wrote a piece for Politico Magazine that celebrated Trump’s influence. Yet he littered his praise with caveats about how Trump’s “bar-stool bombast” and “excesses” obscured his larger, more intellectually defensible views. But for the Republicans flocking to Trump, the rhetoric isn’t an afterthought; it’s what Trumpism is. Lowry’s attempt to rush to the front of the pro-Trump mob and then try to lead it is relatively feeble. But even if his column was as powerful as it would need to be to get these people’s attention, it would still fail. Because Lowry, like Salam, doesn’t know how to talk to these people, which is due in no small part to his spending so much of his career responding to liberal criticism by pretending these folks don’t even exist. In that sense, speaking to them in their own language, as Trump does, would be a defeat. Then again, what would Lowry or Salam actually say to these people, hypothetically, to get them to stop making the GOP look so viciously nativist? While the differences between the two groups are in a sense aesthetic, this is a case where style and substance and one and the same. Trump’s backers adore him because he’s willing to say the things they believe, but are told they shouldn’t. For them, a strategy that required no more public talk of “anchor babies” would be missing the point. And that’s why the GOP finds itself in its current predicament, and why no one should expect a pragmatic, sober-minded establishment to ultimately step in. Until the Trump phenomenon collapses due to the public’s fatigue or Trump’s individual boredom, this is how the GOP primary will remain. The only candidates who’ll survive will be the ones willing to kick dirt on illegal immigrants. They’ll be the ones who stopped campaigning in the GOP of the pundits’ imaginations, opting instead to win over voters who actually exist.After a week’s worth of soundbites from presidential candidates about “anchor babies” and repealing birthright citizenship, it is now clear, if it wasn’t already, that Donald Trump has the steering wheel of the Republican Party firmly in his grasp. So despite the Republican National Committee’s infamous “autopsy” of the 2012 election — which found that the party could not compete unless it fixed its increasingly toxic image among the Latino electorate — the GOP’s presidential primary has devolved into a contest to see who can demonize and dehumanize immigrants the most. If a sensible, pragmatic Republican Party “establishment” actually existed, now is right about when it would step in. But it doesn’t, of course; so it won’t. Which is not to say that what passes for the GOP establishment nowadays has gone silent. As recent pieces from elite conservative pundits in Slate and Politico Magazine show, something approximating an establishment is still in the mix. The problem, though, is that this establishment is completely incapable of controlling Trump, much less the party’s overall message. And whether they opt for conflict or cooptation, their attempts to manipulate Trump will inevitably fail. Because the establishment, unlike Trump, cannot bring itself to see the Republican Party — and the conservative movement, in general — for the clumsy vehicle of politicized resentment and white identity politics that it really is. True, conservative elites have been playing some version of this game for a while now; using extreme reactionaries to win elections but pretending the GOP is run by urbane, center-right moderates. But those forces used to be disorganized enough that long-shot protest candidacies (like the Pat Buchanan’s in the 1990s) were the best they could do. And that made maintaining the lie — that the conservative movement’s inmates did not run the asylum — a whole lot easier. At this point, however, that’s no longer the case. Nevertheless, they’re still trying. And thus do we get pieces like this one in Slate, by National Review’s Reihan Salam, which operates from the absurd premise that conservative, iconoclastic minority voters can be brought into the GOP coalition without tearing the whole thing apart. “There appears to be a nontrivial share of black voters who are open to a center-right message,” Salam writes near the end of his piece. “Winning them over,” he continues, “will mean decontaminating a GOP brand.” If the GOP coalition was the pluralist, cosmopolitan entity of his imagination, Salam would have a decent point. But such a GOP wouldn’t have a xenophobic, populist figure like Trump, whose mantra is that “we” must “take our country back,” as its biggest star, would it? If the Republican Party was comprised of voters who signed-up because they held “conservative positions on issues,” which is what Salam seems to think, then how could an ideological grab-bag like Trump be in the position he’s in? As Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul complained earlier this summer, Trump is anything but a consistent conservative. But as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who hopes to be the second-choice of Trump’s supporters, seems to understand, the kind of voters who now control the GOP primary don’t see politics through that prism. They don’t love Trump because of any long-held views on taxes or abortion or Social Security; they love Trump because they see him as “one of [them].” Obviously, Salam is not the only serious right-wing pundit to misunderstand the GOP coalition. He’s not even the only one from National Review to do it as of late. Editor-in-chief Rich Lowry recently wrote a piece for Politico Magazine that celebrated Trump’s influence. Yet he littered his praise with caveats about how Trump’s “bar-stool bombast” and “excesses” obscured his larger, more intellectually defensible views. But for the Republicans flocking to Trump, the rhetoric isn’t an afterthought; it’s what Trumpism is. Lowry’s attempt to rush to the front of the pro-Trump mob and then try to lead it is relatively feeble. But even if his column was as powerful as it would need to be to get these people’s attention, it would still fail. Because Lowry, like Salam, doesn’t know how to talk to these people, which is due in no small part to his spending so much of his career responding to liberal criticism by pretending these folks don’t even exist. In that sense, speaking to them in their own language, as Trump does, would be a defeat. Then again, what would Lowry or Salam actually say to these people, hypothetically, to get them to stop making the GOP look so viciously nativist? While the differences between the two groups are in a sense aesthetic, this is a case where style and substance and one and the same. Trump’s backers adore him because he’s willing to say the things they believe, but are told they shouldn’t. For them, a strategy that required no more public talk of “anchor babies” would be missing the point. And that’s why the GOP finds itself in its current predicament, and why no one should expect a pragmatic, sober-minded establishment to ultimately step in. Until the Trump phenomenon collapses due to the public’s fatigue or Trump’s individual boredom, this is how the GOP primary will remain. The only candidates who’ll survive will be the ones willing to kick dirt on illegal immigrants. They’ll be the ones who stopped campaigning in the GOP of the pundits’ imaginations, opting instead to win over voters who actually exist.
August 21, 2015
Police trying to uncover motive in federal building shooting
NEW YORK (AP) — Investigators are trying to figure out why an armed veteran slipped through a side door of a federal building in Manhattan, fatally shooting a security guard before killing himself.
Federal agents swarmed Kevin Downing's home in Fort Lee, New Jersey, hours after the Friday evening shooting, searching for anything that could help them understand the shooting.
They said the 68-year-old former federal employee and armed forces veteran opened fire at the federal building on Varick Street that houses an immigration court, passport processing center and a regional office for the Department of Labor.
As he approached a metal detector, Downing shot FJC Security Services guard Idrissa Camara, police said. Camara was supposed to leave work at 4 p.m. but had agreed to stay for an extra shift, his company said.
After shooting the senior security guard in the head at close range, Downing walked toward an elevator where he encountered another employee, and then shot himself in the head, said James O'Neill, a chief with the New York Police Department.
"We're in the very early stages of the investigation and are working to establish his motive for coming here, if he had an intended target beyond the security officer, and what the motive was behind the crime," O'Neill said. There was no indication the shooting was terrorism-related, he said.
John Miller, the NYPD's deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism, said Downing was a former employee at the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Detectives still are trying to piece together his work history.
A New Jersey newspaper, The Record, reported that Downing had been fired from his job at the New York City office of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1999. In 2013, U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell wrote a letter to the Department of Labor saying "there is evidence to indicate Mr. Downing's termination was inappropriate because it was in retaliation for his communication with Congressional staff regarding what he believed to be waste and abuse present in the Bureau of Labor Statistics."
Neither Pascrell nor a spokesman for the Labor Department returned calls from The Associated Press late Friday.
Asked about the prospect that Downing was a whistleblower, Miller told reporters: "That would go to potential motive. Part of the background we're conducting now is, 'What was his motive?'"
Miller said Downing had also collected Veterans Affairs benefits, but investigators were unsure which branch of the armed service he served in. A VA spokeswoman said the agency had offices in the building but did not immediately respond to questions about Downing's military service.
The FBI is assisting in the investigation because Camara was working as a contractor for a federal agency, police said.
Camara was armed but never had a chance to defend himself, the security company said.
"Camara ... was an extraordinary Senior Guard who was well trained, cared deeply about his job and knew that building better than anyone else," said Michael McKeon, a spokesman for the security company.
Hector Figueroa, the president of Camara's union, 32 BJ SEIU, said he was horrified by the news.
"Security officers around the city and country serve on the front line each and every day to keep us safe and secure," Figueroa said. "We are heartbroken that one of our own has fallen. We hope some of our questions in the face of this terrible tragedy will be answered. For now, we are keeping Camara's family and loved ones in our thoughts and prayers."
___
Associated Press writers Jake Pearson and Colleen Long contributed to this report.
Amazon and the pick-up artist: How the celebration of “purposeful Darwinism” destroys women first
It hasn’t been a good week for Amazon so far. It’s never a good week for Amazon when it’s revealed that, as the “Everything Store,” some of the “everything” they sell is morally reprehensible. The content currently being protested is the bibliography of Daryush Valizadeh/Roosh V, the controversial “pickup artist” whose “dating advice” consists of advocating predatory behavior and in at least one case, this: "In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she couldn’t legally give her consent." Roosh’s antics during his tour of Canada have inspired fierce resistance and protest, calling attention to his long career of monetizing misogyny. But Amazon isn’t just dealing with facing the fact that in their obsessive desire to catalog and make available every book in the world they’ve ended up peddling what are, at best, beginner’s guides to sleazy manipulation and are, at worst, potential date rape manuals. They’re also dealing with the massive backlash over the New York Times’ exposé demonstrating how Amazon manages to be so successful at selling everything--everything from Tupperware to electronics to books describing how to ignore a drunk girl when she says “No.” The way to become the Everything Store is, apparently, to push your employees to the limits of human tolerance, reducing them to tears at their desks, and throwing them into a “data-driven” lion’s den where they must endure constant criticism, constant judgment, constant debates until only the fittest ideas--and the fittest personnel--survive. It’s unsurprising that a “company culture” that’s laser-focused on getting the customer exactly what they want exactly when they want it with no delay and no waste probably wouldn’t stop to ask the bigger questions. Questions like “Do people really need the things we sell?” and “What effect does this instant-gratification consumer culture we’re creating have on society?” and “What will the future PR consequences be of us selling a book instructing men to pressure women into sex by any means necessary?” Probably no one at Amazon gave any thought to the content of Roosh’s charmingly named "Bang" series shelved in their “Love & Romance” section; probably no one at Amazon was aware of those particular books at all. You certainly couldn’t say that Amazon consciously decided to support Roosh’s worldview by carrying those books. And yet that’s the thing. Roosh’s world and Amazon’s aren’t all that different. They’re really two versions of the same thing. Now, I’m not making the obvious incendiary accusation that Amazon is some kind of hotbed of sexual harassment--that was one allegation that was never made in the New York Times piece. But I am saying that both Amazon and Roosh envision and embrace a world of cutthroat “purposeful Darwinism,” as a former Amazon HR manager puts it. Roosh and his pickup-artist colleagues describe dating and sex with the telling term “game”; they rank the “sexual market value” of women they pursue on a 1-10 scale; they categorize men as “alpha” or “beta” or “omega” based on their success with women. They treat the world of sex and dating as fundamentally competitive, as part marketplace and part battlefield, to the point where Roosh tracks the price index of sex as a commodity and escalates the hoary old “battle of the sexes” metaphor to nuclear levels. The dark world of pickup artistry is one where genuine love in a sexual relationship is a fairytale and where true friendship between men and women is impossible--and, indeed, one where friendship among men is likewise impossible, since life is a game where all men are competitors and women are the ball. That, after all, is the thought process behind Roosh’s most disturbing troll post, his call to legalize rape that occurs on private property. In the public sphere, he reasons, we can have global standards of behavior that apply to everyone, but in our private homes, it’s up to individual women to protect their “virtue”--or find a man who will do it for them, by taking ownership of them. It’s just the logic of the free market, after all--men want women based on their “sexual market value,” and if they’re allowed to freely compete for women with all the means at their disposal, the strongest and fittest men are the ones who will succeed in life and pass on their DNA. Roosh’s ideology isn’t all that far from the actual Social Darwinism of days past, with the same pseudoscientific invocation of evolution to justify his behavior, but with a lot less emphasis on money and a lot more emphasis on sex. That’s really why Roosh is so offensive. He takes the logic you’re supposed to apply to economics and instead applies it to sex and intimacy. We see the concept of a “sexual marketplace” is grotesque in a way that the regular marketplace is not because sex is personal in a way the abstract buying of goods and services is not, and therefore sexual violation one of the deepest possible violations. I don’t disagree with any of that. But the fact that treating sex as a cutthroat competition is especially screwed up doesn’t make others forms of cutthroat competition okay just because they’re happening in the workplace or the marketplace, where they’re “supposed to.” If we lived in a utopia where everyone started from a baseline level of financial stability maybe it’d be different. But as it is, workplaces like Amazon’s are filled with personal violations, if of a less serious nature. When your pregnancy miscarries and you have to head straight back into working 80-hour weeks or lose your livelihood, that’s a personal violation. When your marriage and your family suffer because your boss is emailing you and texting you in the middle of the night demanding your attention, that’s a personal violation. When you live in a state of constant anxiety because you know your co-workers have been incentivized to throw you under the bus with negative evaluations to keep their own jobs thanks to “stack ranking,” that’s a personal violation. And, because we indeed do not start out on a level playing field in life, these no-holds-barred no-man’s-land environments violate women far more than they do men. In a society where we’d truly escaped the shackles of the gender roles thrust on us, maybe the free market really would be egalitarian. But as it is, when you demand employees work 80-hour weeks to keep their jobs, it’s women who get pushed to take on that work along with the burden of childcare and household chores, not men. When you refuse to make allowances for reproductive health for your employees, it’s the women who get punished for pregnancy, not the men. And when you demand that everyone fight and fight hard to keep their jobs at all times, and argue and argue hard to defend their ideas at all times, that puts women in a difficult double-bind, since we retain the social programming that causes us to perceive behavior as insubordinate or rude in women that we see as assertive and confident in men. This is what happens when you go no-holds-barred, when you decide there shouldn’t be any boundaries stopping you from going after your goals with all your might--when either as a scheming pickup artist or as a visionary CEO you decide to toss aside all scruples and conventions because it’s just that important that you maximize your profits and/or your chance of getting laid. When you don’t put any checks on power, the powerful oppress the powerless. When you don’t do anything to “disrupt” how power is distributed, it ends up distributed in the old, familiar ways--the wealthy vs. the poor, whites vs. people of color, and, I would argue most of all, men vs. women. Amazon can claim to be surprised that it turned out that when they were building their product catalog that Roosh's types of books were in there. They can claim that it’s unfair to claim that their ongoing struggles with their gender balance in the office have anything to do with the misogynistic dreck among their products. But the two problems are just facets of the one big problem. Roosh’s product line is in Amazon’s catalog because Amazon, generally, does not care what they sell as long as they can make money off of it. Amazon’s gender balance suffers because Amazon, generally, does not care what’s going on with their employees on a personal level as long as they’re hitting “data-driven” targets. And when you decide you don’t care--that you’re going to work the system as it exists now with no concern for whom the system puts in a position of strength vs. a position of weakness--you end up perpetuating the strong oppressing the weak, regardless of what your intentions were. The recent publicity around Roosh is causing the world at large to condemn him, and I’m glad for that. Roosh’s philosophy and his actions hurt everyone, but they especially hurt women. And it’s a mistake to describe Roosh purely as driven by “hatred” or “rage,” though he does display both of those emotions at times; what makes Roosh so damaging is his callousness, the fact that he’s already decided he’s going to get what he wants from the women he targets and is coldly unaffected by how his actions affect them. Read his shoulder-shrugging description of how he feels about the incapacitated woman in "Bang Iceland": “I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do.” Then reread the New York Times exposé on Amazon’s workplace culture, and the defenses of it put forward by various denizens of Silicon Valley. Most of them only halfheartedly gesture at trying to deny the abuses took place; instead they claim they’re justified by Amazon’s success. “Making money is what they do.” “Shipping products cheaply is what they do.” “Cutting margins to the bone is what they do.” Amazon apologists will complain--with some justification--that attacking Amazon for selling Roosh’s books as a way to protest Roosh’s public behavior, when plenty of other outlets also sell Roosh’s books, is a way to make Amazon a target of opportunity, just like singling out Apple in particular for making hardware in China. But I think the connection goes deeper than that. The rise of pickup artist culture coincided with the rapid growth of the tech sector and the “disruptive” influence of companies like Amazon on our economy. Much of the language of pickup artists—”going for the close” and the like--is directly taken from the business world. It seems like if you have a culture that celebrates the genius of people who are really really good at making lots of money by acting recklessly and ruthlessly without regard for human consequences, that’s going to bleed over into sex and dating somewhere. If you tell one group of young men that anything they do in the pursuit of profit is ultimately justified because the free market ensures everyone gets what their competence and diligence earns them… well, another group will apply that lesson to getting laid. In a very direct way Roosh benefited from the “anything-goes” culture of the Internet, the reluctance of anyone nowadays to be a “gatekeeper,” of Amazon and their colleagues’ implicit message that as long as he could find a paying audience for his books describing how to victimize and manipulate and assault, it wasn’t anyone’s business what effect his writing had on other people. As long as the customers were happy and he was happy and Amazon got their cut, the collateral damage on women unlucky enough to meet Roosh’s students at parties and in bars was nobody’s concern. It’s not just Roosh. And it’s not just Amazon. But these two stories breaking in the same week show where this culture of callousness has gotten us, this culture insistent on believing our world is a neutral playing field where unbridled, individual competition leads to excellence, as opposed to a fucked-up hierarchy of power where unbridled, individual competition just leads to the powerful victimizing the powerless even harder. So yes, tell Amazon to think about coming up with a policy about carrying how-to guides by Roosh V and other sexual predators. But don’t stop there. Tell everyone in the world to look at how Amazon does business and whom they choose to do business with. And ask if the world that attitude is building is the world we want to leave to our kids.It hasn’t been a good week for Amazon so far. It’s never a good week for Amazon when it’s revealed that, as the “Everything Store,” some of the “everything” they sell is morally reprehensible. The content currently being protested is the bibliography of Daryush Valizadeh/Roosh V, the controversial “pickup artist” whose “dating advice” consists of advocating predatory behavior and in at least one case, this: "In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she couldn’t legally give her consent." Roosh’s antics during his tour of Canada have inspired fierce resistance and protest, calling attention to his long career of monetizing misogyny. But Amazon isn’t just dealing with facing the fact that in their obsessive desire to catalog and make available every book in the world they’ve ended up peddling what are, at best, beginner’s guides to sleazy manipulation and are, at worst, potential date rape manuals. They’re also dealing with the massive backlash over the New York Times’ exposé demonstrating how Amazon manages to be so successful at selling everything--everything from Tupperware to electronics to books describing how to ignore a drunk girl when she says “No.” The way to become the Everything Store is, apparently, to push your employees to the limits of human tolerance, reducing them to tears at their desks, and throwing them into a “data-driven” lion’s den where they must endure constant criticism, constant judgment, constant debates until only the fittest ideas--and the fittest personnel--survive. It’s unsurprising that a “company culture” that’s laser-focused on getting the customer exactly what they want exactly when they want it with no delay and no waste probably wouldn’t stop to ask the bigger questions. Questions like “Do people really need the things we sell?” and “What effect does this instant-gratification consumer culture we’re creating have on society?” and “What will the future PR consequences be of us selling a book instructing men to pressure women into sex by any means necessary?” Probably no one at Amazon gave any thought to the content of Roosh’s charmingly named "Bang" series shelved in their “Love & Romance” section; probably no one at Amazon was aware of those particular books at all. You certainly couldn’t say that Amazon consciously decided to support Roosh’s worldview by carrying those books. And yet that’s the thing. Roosh’s world and Amazon’s aren’t all that different. They’re really two versions of the same thing. Now, I’m not making the obvious incendiary accusation that Amazon is some kind of hotbed of sexual harassment--that was one allegation that was never made in the New York Times piece. But I am saying that both Amazon and Roosh envision and embrace a world of cutthroat “purposeful Darwinism,” as a former Amazon HR manager puts it. Roosh and his pickup-artist colleagues describe dating and sex with the telling term “game”; they rank the “sexual market value” of women they pursue on a 1-10 scale; they categorize men as “alpha” or “beta” or “omega” based on their success with women. They treat the world of sex and dating as fundamentally competitive, as part marketplace and part battlefield, to the point where Roosh tracks the price index of sex as a commodity and escalates the hoary old “battle of the sexes” metaphor to nuclear levels. The dark world of pickup artistry is one where genuine love in a sexual relationship is a fairytale and where true friendship between men and women is impossible--and, indeed, one where friendship among men is likewise impossible, since life is a game where all men are competitors and women are the ball. That, after all, is the thought process behind Roosh’s most disturbing troll post, his call to legalize rape that occurs on private property. In the public sphere, he reasons, we can have global standards of behavior that apply to everyone, but in our private homes, it’s up to individual women to protect their “virtue”--or find a man who will do it for them, by taking ownership of them. It’s just the logic of the free market, after all--men want women based on their “sexual market value,” and if they’re allowed to freely compete for women with all the means at their disposal, the strongest and fittest men are the ones who will succeed in life and pass on their DNA. Roosh’s ideology isn’t all that far from the actual Social Darwinism of days past, with the same pseudoscientific invocation of evolution to justify his behavior, but with a lot less emphasis on money and a lot more emphasis on sex. That’s really why Roosh is so offensive. He takes the logic you’re supposed to apply to economics and instead applies it to sex and intimacy. We see the concept of a “sexual marketplace” is grotesque in a way that the regular marketplace is not because sex is personal in a way the abstract buying of goods and services is not, and therefore sexual violation one of the deepest possible violations. I don’t disagree with any of that. But the fact that treating sex as a cutthroat competition is especially screwed up doesn’t make others forms of cutthroat competition okay just because they’re happening in the workplace or the marketplace, where they’re “supposed to.” If we lived in a utopia where everyone started from a baseline level of financial stability maybe it’d be different. But as it is, workplaces like Amazon’s are filled with personal violations, if of a less serious nature. When your pregnancy miscarries and you have to head straight back into working 80-hour weeks or lose your livelihood, that’s a personal violation. When your marriage and your family suffer because your boss is emailing you and texting you in the middle of the night demanding your attention, that’s a personal violation. When you live in a state of constant anxiety because you know your co-workers have been incentivized to throw you under the bus with negative evaluations to keep their own jobs thanks to “stack ranking,” that’s a personal violation. And, because we indeed do not start out on a level playing field in life, these no-holds-barred no-man’s-land environments violate women far more than they do men. In a society where we’d truly escaped the shackles of the gender roles thrust on us, maybe the free market really would be egalitarian. But as it is, when you demand employees work 80-hour weeks to keep their jobs, it’s women who get pushed to take on that work along with the burden of childcare and household chores, not men. When you refuse to make allowances for reproductive health for your employees, it’s the women who get punished for pregnancy, not the men. And when you demand that everyone fight and fight hard to keep their jobs at all times, and argue and argue hard to defend their ideas at all times, that puts women in a difficult double-bind, since we retain the social programming that causes us to perceive behavior as insubordinate or rude in women that we see as assertive and confident in men. This is what happens when you go no-holds-barred, when you decide there shouldn’t be any boundaries stopping you from going after your goals with all your might--when either as a scheming pickup artist or as a visionary CEO you decide to toss aside all scruples and conventions because it’s just that important that you maximize your profits and/or your chance of getting laid. When you don’t put any checks on power, the powerful oppress the powerless. When you don’t do anything to “disrupt” how power is distributed, it ends up distributed in the old, familiar ways--the wealthy vs. the poor, whites vs. people of color, and, I would argue most of all, men vs. women. Amazon can claim to be surprised that it turned out that when they were building their product catalog that Roosh's types of books were in there. They can claim that it’s unfair to claim that their ongoing struggles with their gender balance in the office have anything to do with the misogynistic dreck among their products. But the two problems are just facets of the one big problem. Roosh’s product line is in Amazon’s catalog because Amazon, generally, does not care what they sell as long as they can make money off of it. Amazon’s gender balance suffers because Amazon, generally, does not care what’s going on with their employees on a personal level as long as they’re hitting “data-driven” targets. And when you decide you don’t care--that you’re going to work the system as it exists now with no concern for whom the system puts in a position of strength vs. a position of weakness--you end up perpetuating the strong oppressing the weak, regardless of what your intentions were. The recent publicity around Roosh is causing the world at large to condemn him, and I’m glad for that. Roosh’s philosophy and his actions hurt everyone, but they especially hurt women. And it’s a mistake to describe Roosh purely as driven by “hatred” or “rage,” though he does display both of those emotions at times; what makes Roosh so damaging is his callousness, the fact that he’s already decided he’s going to get what he wants from the women he targets and is coldly unaffected by how his actions affect them. Read his shoulder-shrugging description of how he feels about the incapacitated woman in "Bang Iceland": “I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do.” Then reread the New York Times exposé on Amazon’s workplace culture, and the defenses of it put forward by various denizens of Silicon Valley. Most of them only halfheartedly gesture at trying to deny the abuses took place; instead they claim they’re justified by Amazon’s success. “Making money is what they do.” “Shipping products cheaply is what they do.” “Cutting margins to the bone is what they do.” Amazon apologists will complain--with some justification--that attacking Amazon for selling Roosh’s books as a way to protest Roosh’s public behavior, when plenty of other outlets also sell Roosh’s books, is a way to make Amazon a target of opportunity, just like singling out Apple in particular for making hardware in China. But I think the connection goes deeper than that. The rise of pickup artist culture coincided with the rapid growth of the tech sector and the “disruptive” influence of companies like Amazon on our economy. Much of the language of pickup artists—”going for the close” and the like--is directly taken from the business world. It seems like if you have a culture that celebrates the genius of people who are really really good at making lots of money by acting recklessly and ruthlessly without regard for human consequences, that’s going to bleed over into sex and dating somewhere. If you tell one group of young men that anything they do in the pursuit of profit is ultimately justified because the free market ensures everyone gets what their competence and diligence earns them… well, another group will apply that lesson to getting laid. In a very direct way Roosh benefited from the “anything-goes” culture of the Internet, the reluctance of anyone nowadays to be a “gatekeeper,” of Amazon and their colleagues’ implicit message that as long as he could find a paying audience for his books describing how to victimize and manipulate and assault, it wasn’t anyone’s business what effect his writing had on other people. As long as the customers were happy and he was happy and Amazon got their cut, the collateral damage on women unlucky enough to meet Roosh’s students at parties and in bars was nobody’s concern. It’s not just Roosh. And it’s not just Amazon. But these two stories breaking in the same week show where this culture of callousness has gotten us, this culture insistent on believing our world is a neutral playing field where unbridled, individual competition leads to excellence, as opposed to a fucked-up hierarchy of power where unbridled, individual competition just leads to the powerful victimizing the powerless even harder. So yes, tell Amazon to think about coming up with a policy about carrying how-to guides by Roosh V and other sexual predators. But don’t stop there. Tell everyone in the world to look at how Amazon does business and whom they choose to do business with. And ask if the world that attitude is building is the world we want to leave to our kids.
The rise of the “solosexual”: How millennials are rewriting the rules of sexuality
Somebody warn Pat Robertson: The gay agenda has struck again. According to a recent survey from YouGov, 50 percent of British millennials don’t label themselves as completely heterosexual. Forty-three percent of 18-to-24-year-olds identify somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale—which lists sexual orientation on a spectrum of one to six. “With each generation, people see their sexuality as less fixed in stone,” YouGov reports. The easy explanation for this phenomenon is that such open-minded thinking about sexuality reflects the “no labels” ethos proffered by actress Kristen Stewart and singer Miley Cyrus, who famously told Paper magazine: “I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn't involve an animal and everyone is of age. … Yo, I'm down with any adult—anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me.” More from The Daily Dot: "Hillary Clinton's evolving response to her private email scandal" However, it’s not just that young people are eschewing labels but evolving notions of sexuality offer an increasing array of options outside the traditional boxes of gay and straight. No one has to put a label on it, but for those who do, a new generation is rewriting the rules. For instance, an April 2015 post for Kinkly described the rise of the “solosexual,” which the site’s Jason Armstrong describes as “men who prefer masturbation over other sorts of sexual activity.” Armstrong continues, “There is a growing subculture of men who are finding that masturbation is the best sex of their lives. ... They are meeting each other online on sites such as BateWorld.com or Chaturbate.com where masturbating on cam is the focus.” Forty-three percent of 18-to-24-year-olds identify somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale—which lists sexual orientation on a spectrum of 1 to 6. While Armstrong asserts that many solosexuals still engage in intercourse, according to Rain City Jacks founder Paul Rosenberg, these men “aren't really interested in dating at all.” Rosenberg told the Huffington Post, “They just kind of want to play with themselves and share that experience with others.” Rosenberg and Armstrong describes the act as reclaiming the love of masturbation in a positive community—whether that’s in sex clubs or on the Internet. Surprisingly, solosexuals come from all ends of the sexual spectrum; many are gay, while others identify as bisexual or maybe even straight. Some might not state a preference at all. As Rosenberg argues, “I would say it's geared toward male solo-sex and gay sex, but if you don't have penetration, a lot of people wouldn't even define that as sex.” However, solosexuals aren’t the only subculture to use the dating app and hookup revolution to create their own niche community on the Internet. Last year, OkCupid expanded its sexuality options to include “demisexual,” “heteroflexible,” and “pansexual,” which are already widely accepted categories of identification. However, the site also added “sapiosexual,” which signifies that you value intelligence over all other qualities in a partner. The term exploded in popularity on OkCupid, branded the worst new dating trend of 2015 by Bustle’s Gabrielle Moss. While the term had its defenders and proponents, the flurry of thinkpieces on the topic signified that this was a bridge too far. More from The Daily Dot: "We talked to people Fat Jew stole from" But that’s hardly the case—it’s a bridge we’ve long crossed. While terms like “sapiosexual” might feel pretentious and unnecessary, the idea merely reframes old notions about valuing a person over what body parts they happen to have. Solosexuality functions the same way, merely inverting the basics of asexuality: Asexuals aren’t motivated by sex—and many lack sexual feelings at all—but might be looking for a partner who fulfills other needs. No one has to put a label on it, but for those who do, a new generation is rewriting the rules. As Bust magazine’s Keira Tobias explains, “I want all the typical things from a romantic relationship… emotional intimacy, commitment, even touch, but I don’t have the need for sex that most people do.” Asexuals—like solosexuals—often engage in masturbation, as Tobias argues that “masturbation is a physical act that does not require sexual attraction,” but they’re doing it for the opposite reason. Solosexuals want to get off, but they don’t have the need for companionship that most people do. If this feels like a complex—and somewhat confusing and contentious—distinction, it’s a conversation that’s only been made possible because of the Internet. I came out as a sophomore in high school in the nascent days of social media in 2003, and I struggled with what to come out as. I’d never felt gay or straight, but bisexual didn’t seem to apply to me. Was I pansexual? What is a pansexual, anyway? I wanted to be me, but with the limited choices I was given, I didn’t know how. But a new generation of young people are devising creative solutions to coming out as themselves—by embracing the power of self-definition. Cornell professor Mitch Savin-Williams told NPR that many of his students are coming up with their own signifiers. More from The Daily Dot: "Streaming music is ripping you off" “One young woman defined herself as ‘squiggly,’” Savin-Williams said. “And there was silence and everyone was saying, 'What exactly is that?' And then she said, ‘Well, I feel like that's what I am in terms of my gender and sexuality. I'm squiggly.’ A lot of people began to shake their heads and said, 'Yeah, that's pretty good. I feel that way, too.’” What these moments do is offer models of possibility for other young people. Just as language itself develops and expands with the progression of time, so does the ways in which we think about sex and intimacy—and how we locate ourselves on the spectrum. It might be easy to look at surveys like the YouGov poll and argue that we’ve evolved past labeling, but students like the one above show that, for some, it’s just as necessary as important as ever. It’s just better when it’s on your own terms.
Somebody warn Pat Robertson: The gay agenda has struck again. According to a recent survey from YouGov, 50 percent of British millennials don’t label themselves as completely heterosexual. Forty-three percent of 18-to-24-year-olds identify somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale—which lists sexual orientation on a spectrum of one to six. “With each generation, people see their sexuality as less fixed in stone,” YouGov reports. The easy explanation for this phenomenon is that such open-minded thinking about sexuality reflects the “no labels” ethos proffered by actress Kristen Stewart and singer Miley Cyrus, who famously told Paper magazine: “I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn't involve an animal and everyone is of age. … Yo, I'm down with any adult—anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me.” More from The Daily Dot: "Hillary Clinton's evolving response to her private email scandal" However, it’s not just that young people are eschewing labels but evolving notions of sexuality offer an increasing array of options outside the traditional boxes of gay and straight. No one has to put a label on it, but for those who do, a new generation is rewriting the rules. For instance, an April 2015 post for Kinkly described the rise of the “solosexual,” which the site’s Jason Armstrong describes as “men who prefer masturbation over other sorts of sexual activity.” Armstrong continues, “There is a growing subculture of men who are finding that masturbation is the best sex of their lives. ... They are meeting each other online on sites such as BateWorld.com or Chaturbate.com where masturbating on cam is the focus.” Forty-three percent of 18-to-24-year-olds identify somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale—which lists sexual orientation on a spectrum of 1 to 6. While Armstrong asserts that many solosexuals still engage in intercourse, according to Rain City Jacks founder Paul Rosenberg, these men “aren't really interested in dating at all.” Rosenberg told the Huffington Post, “They just kind of want to play with themselves and share that experience with others.” Rosenberg and Armstrong describes the act as reclaiming the love of masturbation in a positive community—whether that’s in sex clubs or on the Internet. Surprisingly, solosexuals come from all ends of the sexual spectrum; many are gay, while others identify as bisexual or maybe even straight. Some might not state a preference at all. As Rosenberg argues, “I would say it's geared toward male solo-sex and gay sex, but if you don't have penetration, a lot of people wouldn't even define that as sex.” However, solosexuals aren’t the only subculture to use the dating app and hookup revolution to create their own niche community on the Internet. Last year, OkCupid expanded its sexuality options to include “demisexual,” “heteroflexible,” and “pansexual,” which are already widely accepted categories of identification. However, the site also added “sapiosexual,” which signifies that you value intelligence over all other qualities in a partner. The term exploded in popularity on OkCupid, branded the worst new dating trend of 2015 by Bustle’s Gabrielle Moss. While the term had its defenders and proponents, the flurry of thinkpieces on the topic signified that this was a bridge too far. More from The Daily Dot: "We talked to people Fat Jew stole from" But that’s hardly the case—it’s a bridge we’ve long crossed. While terms like “sapiosexual” might feel pretentious and unnecessary, the idea merely reframes old notions about valuing a person over what body parts they happen to have. Solosexuality functions the same way, merely inverting the basics of asexuality: Asexuals aren’t motivated by sex—and many lack sexual feelings at all—but might be looking for a partner who fulfills other needs. No one has to put a label on it, but for those who do, a new generation is rewriting the rules. As Bust magazine’s Keira Tobias explains, “I want all the typical things from a romantic relationship… emotional intimacy, commitment, even touch, but I don’t have the need for sex that most people do.” Asexuals—like solosexuals—often engage in masturbation, as Tobias argues that “masturbation is a physical act that does not require sexual attraction,” but they’re doing it for the opposite reason. Solosexuals want to get off, but they don’t have the need for companionship that most people do. If this feels like a complex—and somewhat confusing and contentious—distinction, it’s a conversation that’s only been made possible because of the Internet. I came out as a sophomore in high school in the nascent days of social media in 2003, and I struggled with what to come out as. I’d never felt gay or straight, but bisexual didn’t seem to apply to me. Was I pansexual? What is a pansexual, anyway? I wanted to be me, but with the limited choices I was given, I didn’t know how. But a new generation of young people are devising creative solutions to coming out as themselves—by embracing the power of self-definition. Cornell professor Mitch Savin-Williams told NPR that many of his students are coming up with their own signifiers. More from The Daily Dot: "Streaming music is ripping you off" “One young woman defined herself as ‘squiggly,’” Savin-Williams said. “And there was silence and everyone was saying, 'What exactly is that?' And then she said, ‘Well, I feel like that's what I am in terms of my gender and sexuality. I'm squiggly.’ A lot of people began to shake their heads and said, 'Yeah, that's pretty good. I feel that way, too.’” What these moments do is offer models of possibility for other young people. Just as language itself develops and expands with the progression of time, so does the ways in which we think about sex and intimacy—and how we locate ourselves on the spectrum. It might be easy to look at surveys like the YouGov poll and argue that we’ve evolved past labeling, but students like the one above show that, for some, it’s just as necessary as important as ever. It’s just better when it’s on your own terms.
R.E.M.’s “Fables of the Reconstruction” hit a major milestone this summer, quietly: A look back at the oddball album that never quite found its place in time
In early June, R.E.M.'s third album, "Fables of the Reconstruction," turned 30. The album anniversary came and went rather quietly: The band celebrated its release on Facebook, via archival videos and interviews, while a few scattered remembrance essays popped up around the web. However, the fanfare for such a milestone birthday was certainly much less than it was for R.E.M.'s first two albums, 1983's "Murmur" and 1984's "Reckoning." Partly this is because much of the "Fables" love emerged when a deluxe edition arrived in 2010 to mark the album's 25th anniversary. But partly this is because the 1985 release ended up being quite an outlier in R.E.M.'s catalog, one sonically and thematically quite different from the records that preceded (and then succeeded) it. The band traveled to England to record the album with producer Joe Boyd (Pink Floyd, Nick Drake). Speaking to Salon earlier this year, bassist Mike Mills recalled this time working in "cold, alien London, which, in 1985, 1986, was a pretty strange place to be. … I enjoyed working with Joe Boyd, but other than that, that process was kind of difficult. It resulted in a great record and one that has as much its own sound as any record we ever did." (He wasn't alone in his discomfort: In 1991, vocalist Michael Stipe told Spin the "worst year of his life was when he was 25," which coincides with "Fables"' creation and release.) Indeed, after the warm tones and more inward-looking worldview of R.E.M.'s first two albums, "Fables" is a series of outward reactions to being in unfamiliar surroundings, of trying to find your bearings in a strange place. On a song such as "Maps and Legends," this idea is somewhat literal -- "Maybe these maps and legends/Have been misunderstood," Stipe sings -- while on the restless "Driver 8," the idea of the unknown spurs loneliness and longing: "We can reach our destination, but we're still a ways away." The fragmented disco-funk of "Can't Get There from Here," meanwhile coyly plays with the idea of conflicting directions: On the verse, Mills sings, "I've been there, I know the way," as Stipe growls above him, "Can't get there from here." About as straightforward as things get is on the plaintive "Good Advices," when Stipe wails, "Home is a long way away." The vulnerable, yearning tone is a stark counterpoint to the sentiments of the "Reckoning" closer "Little America": The road-driven drudgery of "another Greenville, another Magic Mart" feels almost buoyant and novel, while the line "Jefferson, I think we're lost" is sung almost with a shrug. Being unsure of where you are is an adventure, not an emotional liability. Yet the fragmentation of spatial and temporal relations on "Fables" is also a reflection of the disorientation present in the album's music. Production-wise, things lack the autumnal crispness of previous work; at times, it feels as if the music is being filtered through a foggy lens. (That's not an indictment of Boyd's style -- just another byproduct of the album's off-kilter stance.) Musically, things feel both sepia-toned (the casual banjo loping through "Wendell Gee," the simmering drums and churning rhythms of "Auctioneer (Another Engine)") and verdant (the curlicue riffs driving "Life and How to Live It," the shy jangle of "Green Grow the Rushes"). On opening song "Feeling Gravity's Pull," things feel intensely mysterious: Peter Buck's sparse, cascading guitar flutters like a flickering candle, and the song ends with a chorus of cello and violin. Although there were hints of this murky tone on previous records (most notably the stark "Camera," from "Reckoning"), "Fables" has a musty, almost antique atmosphere that feels at odds with not only the mid-1980s, but R.E.M.'s entire catalog. That extends to the character sketches on "Fables," which feel like characters out of a faded children's book. There's "Old Man Kensey" and his sweetly misguided ambition, the ill-fated antics of "Wendell Gee," and the ephemeral girl in "Kohoutek," who disappears like the titular comet: "You were gone, like Kohoutek, can't forget that." The album deals with loss, regret, disappointment and grief by examining other people's lives, navigating how the sense of self -- and how people relate to others -- shifts when placed in an unfamiliar environment and facing uncomfortable truths. "Fables" isn't necessarily immediately accessible, aside from the brooding jangle-pop of "Driver 8" and goofy "Can't Get There from Here." It's a record that's a bit standoffish, one a little hesitant to let listeners in -- at least at first. Yet there's something appealing about the album's vibe and atmosphere: It's as mysterious as "Murmur," yet feels enriched by even more layers of history and emotional burdens. "Fables" exists in its own tidy little universe that's never been duplicated or recreated anywhere else. Perhaps all of this explains why the album isn't necessarily the first choice for anniversary posts or gushing; it still feels like a hidden gem, something still waiting to be discovered. Still, there are parallels between this album and other parts of R.E.M.'s catalog. More specifically, "Fables" was an inflection point in the band's career, much like how "Monster" became one exactly a decade later. After its release, the band started to shed its mystical Southern poet reputation and found the confidence to become more stridently political, and to leverage louder rock & roll and clarion vocals to speak up about political and societal issues about which they were passionate. In hindsight, it functioned as a bridge between the band's youthful mysticism and mid-career activist stance. Paradoxically, R.E.M. had to be comfortable feeling lost in order to find a new, surefooted way forward.
White people were America’s real “anchor babies”: A history lesson for the Republican Party
In recent days, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates have begun using an ugly racial slur to describe the children of Hispanic and Latino origin who are born in the United States to undocumented parents: “Anchor babies.” The phrase is like a zombie for American conservatives: It lingers, never dying, ready to reappear during the presidential election season as political red meat to feed the xenophobic and racially resentful Republican electorate. Of course, such language alienates Hispanic and Latino voters, the fastest growing voting demographic in the United States, but the imagery of invading hordes of Spanish-speaking brown people -- a group that conservatives imagine as a fundamental threat to “American values and culture” -- is foundational to white identity politics in the post-civil right era. Indeed, in the Age of Obama, racism and conservatism are one and the same. And the Republican Party is addicted. Like all addicts, it cannot stop using their cocktail of symbolic racism and nativism — even when such behavior imperils their long-term political health and safety. The slur “anchor baby” is potent because it summons images of people coming to a country where they do not belong, imposing themselves on it by having children who can make some unfair claim on resources, and by doing so to deprive the “original” and “rightful” residents of the land, jobs and wealth that is their birthright. In America, a country founded as a Herrenvolk racial state, where the color line determined one’s freedom, the language of “anchor baby” cannot possibly be separated from the nightmare of white supremacy, of a democracy where human rights and citizenship were based on a person’s melanin count and parentage. Like most racial slurs, “anchor baby” masks and obscures more than it reveals. In reality, the people who would eventually become the first "Americans," those white Europeans who, beginning in the 17th century, migrated to the colonies are the parents of this country’s first and true “anchor babies.”
* * *
The United States, like other countries, has crafted a set of mythologies and national lies that help to socialize its citizens into a shared history, culture, and identity. One of the United States’ most powerful myths is a belief that the nation was founded as a country “of immigrants.” This is untrue. Like Australia, South Africa, and Israel, the United States was a colonial state made up of white settlers. The distinction between a “settler” society and one comprised of “immigrants” is very important. Immigrants move to a new space and then adopt the values of the people already living there. By contrast, settlers move to a new space, claim it as their own, and then impose their values and beliefs on the people who were already living there. The United States, in its treatment of First Nations, as well as other people of color around the world, is a typical example of the settler-based colonial society. To wit: Benjamin Franklin himself evinced and reinforced a belief in the need for white people to spread across the continent, taking land, laying claim to it, and producing white "anchor babies" to secure the racial purity and prosperity of a white nation in the making. In his 1751 short essay, "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.," Franklin wrote the following:The number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.White settler colonialists in America had eager libidos, urges that they used to rapidly grow the white population. In 17th century Andover, Mass., for example, white families had an average of 8.2 children. The average 18th century Southern white family had 9.6 children. This was a birthrate far higher than that of Europeans during the same era. White colonists were determined to breed more "anchor babies" in order to develop and work the land they occupied in the “New World.” Between childbirth and colonization, the white population in the American colonies rose from only 250,000 in 1700 to 1.7 million by the end of 1770, an increase of 680 percent. "Manifest Destiny," one of America’s other founding mythologies, was contrived in order to justify the displacement of the First Nations already inhabiting the continent, and to encourage the establishment of white dominion over other parts of the world. It was, in effect, a declaration of the white "anchor baby" as national (and international) policy. The first appearance in print of the phrase “Manifest Destiny” even summons the idea of God, and a command for white settlers to be fruitful and multiply as they spread out across America, displacing the brown people already there, stealing land, and committing mass murder against them. Activist and scholar Paul Kivel, writing at the site Christian Hegemony explains this logic:
Popularized in 1845 by influential journalist John L. O’Sullivan, the term “Manifest Destiny” became a national rallying cry for proponents of further westward colonization. It captured and consolidated longstanding concepts from the Crusades and the Papal-sanctioned colonization process such as holy war, divine sanction, chosen people, promised land, terra nullis, and the proselytizing and conversion of heathens. As originally used in the US, Manifest Destiny was the idea that God had given the United States a mission to expand their territory throughout North America. Three basic ideas underlie the concept of manifest destiny. First is a belief in the righteousness and superiority of the Christian moral values and institutions of the United States. The second is a belief in the responsibility of the U.S. to spread these for the benefit of the world and to fulfill God’s wishes. The third is the faith that God has blessed the country to succeed and every success confirms that blessing.Because Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were national policy, white American elites combined the eliminationist policies of mass murder against the First Nations with a coordinated effort to ensure that white birthrates far outstripped those of the people they were displacing. Those programs were coupled with attempts to “breed” Native Americans out of existence through sterilization, intermarriage and cultural “reeducation,” The decimation of First Nations peoples and communities in America was the sum effect. Manifest Destiny is solidified as part of America’s “national character.” But, today’s Republicans have amplified Manifest Destiny through their commitment to American militarism and never-ending war abroad, yearning for an American Christian Theocracy, and racism as electoral strategy; as well as with their embrace of the politics of white racial resentment, the Southern Strategy, Birtherism and old fashioned “Know-Nothing” nativism. The Republican Party’s embrace of the “anchor baby” meme is more evidence that it has abandoned any pretense to normal and responsible politics. Their use of such language is also a type of performance art, because the ridiculous serves as a substitute for serious thinking and governance. Indeed, the policies proposed by the Republicans to combat so-called “anchor babies” are so absurd and freakish that several of the party’s own presidential candidates could actually be disqualified from the presidency if these policies were ever actually adopted. Movement conservatives’ eager deployment of the “anchor baby” meme -- and their solution of revoking birthright citizenship through a rewrite of the Constitution-- is in keeping with the Republican Party’s assault on the won-in-blood freedom of black and brown Americans. The “anchor baby” talking point is yet more proof that the GOP is a radical and destructive political force, one that actively embraces white supremacy.In recent days, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates have begun using an ugly racial slur to describe the children of Hispanic and Latino origin who are born in the United States to undocumented parents: “Anchor babies.” The phrase is like a zombie for American conservatives: It lingers, never dying, ready to reappear during the presidential election season as political red meat to feed the xenophobic and racially resentful Republican electorate. Of course, such language alienates Hispanic and Latino voters, the fastest growing voting demographic in the United States, but the imagery of invading hordes of Spanish-speaking brown people -- a group that conservatives imagine as a fundamental threat to “American values and culture” -- is foundational to white identity politics in the post-civil right era. Indeed, in the Age of Obama, racism and conservatism are one and the same. And the Republican Party is addicted. Like all addicts, it cannot stop using their cocktail of symbolic racism and nativism — even when such behavior imperils their long-term political health and safety. The slur “anchor baby” is potent because it summons images of people coming to a country where they do not belong, imposing themselves on it by having children who can make some unfair claim on resources, and by doing so to deprive the “original” and “rightful” residents of the land, jobs and wealth that is their birthright. In America, a country founded as a Herrenvolk racial state, where the color line determined one’s freedom, the language of “anchor baby” cannot possibly be separated from the nightmare of white supremacy, of a democracy where human rights and citizenship were based on a person’s melanin count and parentage. Like most racial slurs, “anchor baby” masks and obscures more than it reveals. In reality, the people who would eventually become the first "Americans," those white Europeans who, beginning in the 17th century, migrated to the colonies are the parents of this country’s first and true “anchor babies.”
* * *
The United States, like other countries, has crafted a set of mythologies and national lies that help to socialize its citizens into a shared history, culture, and identity. One of the United States’ most powerful myths is a belief that the nation was founded as a country “of immigrants.” This is untrue. Like Australia, South Africa, and Israel, the United States was a colonial state made up of white settlers. The distinction between a “settler” society and one comprised of “immigrants” is very important. Immigrants move to a new space and then adopt the values of the people already living there. By contrast, settlers move to a new space, claim it as their own, and then impose their values and beliefs on the people who were already living there. The United States, in its treatment of First Nations, as well as other people of color around the world, is a typical example of the settler-based colonial society. To wit: Benjamin Franklin himself evinced and reinforced a belief in the need for white people to spread across the continent, taking land, laying claim to it, and producing white "anchor babies" to secure the racial purity and prosperity of a white nation in the making. In his 1751 short essay, "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.," Franklin wrote the following:The number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.White settler colonialists in America had eager libidos, urges that they used to rapidly grow the white population. In 17th century Andover, Mass., for example, white families had an average of 8.2 children. The average 18th century Southern white family had 9.6 children. This was a birthrate far higher than that of Europeans during the same era. White colonists were determined to breed more "anchor babies" in order to develop and work the land they occupied in the “New World.” Between childbirth and colonization, the white population in the American colonies rose from only 250,000 in 1700 to 1.7 million by the end of 1770, an increase of 680 percent. "Manifest Destiny," one of America’s other founding mythologies, was contrived in order to justify the displacement of the First Nations already inhabiting the continent, and to encourage the establishment of white dominion over other parts of the world. It was, in effect, a declaration of the white "anchor baby" as national (and international) policy. The first appearance in print of the phrase “Manifest Destiny” even summons the idea of God, and a command for white settlers to be fruitful and multiply as they spread out across America, displacing the brown people already there, stealing land, and committing mass murder against them. Activist and scholar Paul Kivel, writing at the site Christian Hegemony explains this logic:
Popularized in 1845 by influential journalist John L. O’Sullivan, the term “Manifest Destiny” became a national rallying cry for proponents of further westward colonization. It captured and consolidated longstanding concepts from the Crusades and the Papal-sanctioned colonization process such as holy war, divine sanction, chosen people, promised land, terra nullis, and the proselytizing and conversion of heathens. As originally used in the US, Manifest Destiny was the idea that God had given the United States a mission to expand their territory throughout North America. Three basic ideas underlie the concept of manifest destiny. First is a belief in the righteousness and superiority of the Christian moral values and institutions of the United States. The second is a belief in the responsibility of the U.S. to spread these for the benefit of the world and to fulfill God’s wishes. The third is the faith that God has blessed the country to succeed and every success confirms that blessing.Because Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were national policy, white American elites combined the eliminationist policies of mass murder against the First Nations with a coordinated effort to ensure that white birthrates far outstripped those of the people they were displacing. Those programs were coupled with attempts to “breed” Native Americans out of existence through sterilization, intermarriage and cultural “reeducation,” The decimation of First Nations peoples and communities in America was the sum effect. Manifest Destiny is solidified as part of America’s “national character.” But, today’s Republicans have amplified Manifest Destiny through their commitment to American militarism and never-ending war abroad, yearning for an American Christian Theocracy, and racism as electoral strategy; as well as with their embrace of the politics of white racial resentment, the Southern Strategy, Birtherism and old fashioned “Know-Nothing” nativism. The Republican Party’s embrace of the “anchor baby” meme is more evidence that it has abandoned any pretense to normal and responsible politics. Their use of such language is also a type of performance art, because the ridiculous serves as a substitute for serious thinking and governance. Indeed, the policies proposed by the Republicans to combat so-called “anchor babies” are so absurd and freakish that several of the party’s own presidential candidates could actually be disqualified from the presidency if these policies were ever actually adopted. Movement conservatives’ eager deployment of the “anchor baby” meme -- and their solution of revoking birthright citizenship through a rewrite of the Constitution-- is in keeping with the Republican Party’s assault on the won-in-blood freedom of black and brown Americans. The “anchor baby” talking point is yet more proof that the GOP is a radical and destructive political force, one that actively embraces white supremacy.In recent days, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates have begun using an ugly racial slur to describe the children of Hispanic and Latino origin who are born in the United States to undocumented parents: “Anchor babies.” The phrase is like a zombie for American conservatives: It lingers, never dying, ready to reappear during the presidential election season as political red meat to feed the xenophobic and racially resentful Republican electorate. Of course, such language alienates Hispanic and Latino voters, the fastest growing voting demographic in the United States, but the imagery of invading hordes of Spanish-speaking brown people -- a group that conservatives imagine as a fundamental threat to “American values and culture” -- is foundational to white identity politics in the post-civil right era. Indeed, in the Age of Obama, racism and conservatism are one and the same. And the Republican Party is addicted. Like all addicts, it cannot stop using their cocktail of symbolic racism and nativism — even when such behavior imperils their long-term political health and safety. The slur “anchor baby” is potent because it summons images of people coming to a country where they do not belong, imposing themselves on it by having children who can make some unfair claim on resources, and by doing so to deprive the “original” and “rightful” residents of the land, jobs and wealth that is their birthright. In America, a country founded as a Herrenvolk racial state, where the color line determined one’s freedom, the language of “anchor baby” cannot possibly be separated from the nightmare of white supremacy, of a democracy where human rights and citizenship were based on a person’s melanin count and parentage. Like most racial slurs, “anchor baby” masks and obscures more than it reveals. In reality, the people who would eventually become the first "Americans," those white Europeans who, beginning in the 17th century, migrated to the colonies are the parents of this country’s first and true “anchor babies.”
* * *
The United States, like other countries, has crafted a set of mythologies and national lies that help to socialize its citizens into a shared history, culture, and identity. One of the United States’ most powerful myths is a belief that the nation was founded as a country “of immigrants.” This is untrue. Like Australia, South Africa, and Israel, the United States was a colonial state made up of white settlers. The distinction between a “settler” society and one comprised of “immigrants” is very important. Immigrants move to a new space and then adopt the values of the people already living there. By contrast, settlers move to a new space, claim it as their own, and then impose their values and beliefs on the people who were already living there. The United States, in its treatment of First Nations, as well as other people of color around the world, is a typical example of the settler-based colonial society. To wit: Benjamin Franklin himself evinced and reinforced a belief in the need for white people to spread across the continent, taking land, laying claim to it, and producing white "anchor babies" to secure the racial purity and prosperity of a white nation in the making. In his 1751 short essay, "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.," Franklin wrote the following:The number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.White settler colonialists in America had eager libidos, urges that they used to rapidly grow the white population. In 17th century Andover, Mass., for example, white families had an average of 8.2 children. The average 18th century Southern white family had 9.6 children. This was a birthrate far higher than that of Europeans during the same era. White colonists were determined to breed more "anchor babies" in order to develop and work the land they occupied in the “New World.” Between childbirth and colonization, the white population in the American colonies rose from only 250,000 in 1700 to 1.7 million by the end of 1770, an increase of 680 percent. "Manifest Destiny," one of America’s other founding mythologies, was contrived in order to justify the displacement of the First Nations already inhabiting the continent, and to encourage the establishment of white dominion over other parts of the world. It was, in effect, a declaration of the white "anchor baby" as national (and international) policy. The first appearance in print of the phrase “Manifest Destiny” even summons the idea of God, and a command for white settlers to be fruitful and multiply as they spread out across America, displacing the brown people already there, stealing land, and committing mass murder against them. Activist and scholar Paul Kivel, writing at the site Christian Hegemony explains this logic:
Popularized in 1845 by influential journalist John L. O’Sullivan, the term “Manifest Destiny” became a national rallying cry for proponents of further westward colonization. It captured and consolidated longstanding concepts from the Crusades and the Papal-sanctioned colonization process such as holy war, divine sanction, chosen people, promised land, terra nullis, and the proselytizing and conversion of heathens. As originally used in the US, Manifest Destiny was the idea that God had given the United States a mission to expand their territory throughout North America. Three basic ideas underlie the concept of manifest destiny. First is a belief in the righteousness and superiority of the Christian moral values and institutions of the United States. The second is a belief in the responsibility of the U.S. to spread these for the benefit of the world and to fulfill God’s wishes. The third is the faith that God has blessed the country to succeed and every success confirms that blessing.Because Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were national policy, white American elites combined the eliminationist policies of mass murder against the First Nations with a coordinated effort to ensure that white birthrates far outstripped those of the people they were displacing. Those programs were coupled with attempts to “breed” Native Americans out of existence through sterilization, intermarriage and cultural “reeducation,” The decimation of First Nations peoples and communities in America was the sum effect. Manifest Destiny is solidified as part of America’s “national character.” But, today’s Republicans have amplified Manifest Destiny through their commitment to American militarism and never-ending war abroad, yearning for an American Christian Theocracy, and racism as electoral strategy; as well as with their embrace of the politics of white racial resentment, the Southern Strategy, Birtherism and old fashioned “Know-Nothing” nativism. The Republican Party’s embrace of the “anchor baby” meme is more evidence that it has abandoned any pretense to normal and responsible politics. Their use of such language is also a type of performance art, because the ridiculous serves as a substitute for serious thinking and governance. Indeed, the policies proposed by the Republicans to combat so-called “anchor babies” are so absurd and freakish that several of the party’s own presidential candidates could actually be disqualified from the presidency if these policies were ever actually adopted. Movement conservatives’ eager deployment of the “anchor baby” meme -- and their solution of revoking birthright citizenship through a rewrite of the Constitution-- is in keeping with the Republican Party’s assault on the won-in-blood freedom of black and brown Americans. The “anchor baby” talking point is yet more proof that the GOP is a radical and destructive political force, one that actively embraces white supremacy.In recent days, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates have begun using an ugly racial slur to describe the children of Hispanic and Latino origin who are born in the United States to undocumented parents: “Anchor babies.” The phrase is like a zombie for American conservatives: It lingers, never dying, ready to reappear during the presidential election season as political red meat to feed the xenophobic and racially resentful Republican electorate. Of course, such language alienates Hispanic and Latino voters, the fastest growing voting demographic in the United States, but the imagery of invading hordes of Spanish-speaking brown people -- a group that conservatives imagine as a fundamental threat to “American values and culture” -- is foundational to white identity politics in the post-civil right era. Indeed, in the Age of Obama, racism and conservatism are one and the same. And the Republican Party is addicted. Like all addicts, it cannot stop using their cocktail of symbolic racism and nativism — even when such behavior imperils their long-term political health and safety. The slur “anchor baby” is potent because it summons images of people coming to a country where they do not belong, imposing themselves on it by having children who can make some unfair claim on resources, and by doing so to deprive the “original” and “rightful” residents of the land, jobs and wealth that is their birthright. In America, a country founded as a Herrenvolk racial state, where the color line determined one’s freedom, the language of “anchor baby” cannot possibly be separated from the nightmare of white supremacy, of a democracy where human rights and citizenship were based on a person’s melanin count and parentage. Like most racial slurs, “anchor baby” masks and obscures more than it reveals. In reality, the people who would eventually become the first "Americans," those white Europeans who, beginning in the 17th century, migrated to the colonies are the parents of this country’s first and true “anchor babies.”
* * *
The United States, like other countries, has crafted a set of mythologies and national lies that help to socialize its citizens into a shared history, culture, and identity. One of the United States’ most powerful myths is a belief that the nation was founded as a country “of immigrants.” This is untrue. Like Australia, South Africa, and Israel, the United States was a colonial state made up of white settlers. The distinction between a “settler” society and one comprised of “immigrants” is very important. Immigrants move to a new space and then adopt the values of the people already living there. By contrast, settlers move to a new space, claim it as their own, and then impose their values and beliefs on the people who were already living there. The United States, in its treatment of First Nations, as well as other people of color around the world, is a typical example of the settler-based colonial society. To wit: Benjamin Franklin himself evinced and reinforced a belief in the need for white people to spread across the continent, taking land, laying claim to it, and producing white "anchor babies" to secure the racial purity and prosperity of a white nation in the making. In his 1751 short essay, "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.," Franklin wrote the following:The number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.White settler colonialists in America had eager libidos, urges that they used to rapidly grow the white population. In 17th century Andover, Mass., for example, white families had an average of 8.2 children. The average 18th century Southern white family had 9.6 children. This was a birthrate far higher than that of Europeans during the same era. White colonists were determined to breed more "anchor babies" in order to develop and work the land they occupied in the “New World.” Between childbirth and colonization, the white population in the American colonies rose from only 250,000 in 1700 to 1.7 million by the end of 1770, an increase of 680 percent. "Manifest Destiny," one of America’s other founding mythologies, was contrived in order to justify the displacement of the First Nations already inhabiting the continent, and to encourage the establishment of white dominion over other parts of the world. It was, in effect, a declaration of the white "anchor baby" as national (and international) policy. The first appearance in print of the phrase “Manifest Destiny” even summons the idea of God, and a command for white settlers to be fruitful and multiply as they spread out across America, displacing the brown people already there, stealing land, and committing mass murder against them. Activist and scholar Paul Kivel, writing at the site Christian Hegemony explains this logic:
Popularized in 1845 by influential journalist John L. O’Sullivan, the term “Manifest Destiny” became a national rallying cry for proponents of further westward colonization. It captured and consolidated longstanding concepts from the Crusades and the Papal-sanctioned colonization process such as holy war, divine sanction, chosen people, promised land, terra nullis, and the proselytizing and conversion of heathens. As originally used in the US, Manifest Destiny was the idea that God had given the United States a mission to expand their territory throughout North America. Three basic ideas underlie the concept of manifest destiny. First is a belief in the righteousness and superiority of the Christian moral values and institutions of the United States. The second is a belief in the responsibility of the U.S. to spread these for the benefit of the world and to fulfill God’s wishes. The third is the faith that God has blessed the country to succeed and every success confirms that blessing.Because Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were national policy, white American elites combined the eliminationist policies of mass murder against the First Nations with a coordinated effort to ensure that white birthrates far outstripped those of the people they were displacing. Those programs were coupled with attempts to “breed” Native Americans out of existence through sterilization, intermarriage and cultural “reeducation,” The decimation of First Nations peoples and communities in America was the sum effect. Manifest Destiny is solidified as part of America’s “national character.” But, today’s Republicans have amplified Manifest Destiny through their commitment to American militarism and never-ending war abroad, yearning for an American Christian Theocracy, and racism as electoral strategy; as well as with their embrace of the politics of white racial resentment, the Southern Strategy, Birtherism and old fashioned “Know-Nothing” nativism. The Republican Party’s embrace of the “anchor baby” meme is more evidence that it has abandoned any pretense to normal and responsible politics. Their use of such language is also a type of performance art, because the ridiculous serves as a substitute for serious thinking and governance. Indeed, the policies proposed by the Republicans to combat so-called “anchor babies” are so absurd and freakish that several of the party’s own presidential candidates could actually be disqualified from the presidency if these policies were ever actually adopted. Movement conservatives’ eager deployment of the “anchor baby” meme -- and their solution of revoking birthright citizenship through a rewrite of the Constitution-- is in keeping with the Republican Party’s assault on the won-in-blood freedom of black and brown Americans. The “anchor baby” talking point is yet more proof that the GOP is a radical and destructive political force, one that actively embraces white supremacy.
The plot to destroy Shaun King: How Breitbart turned a ludicrous conspiracy theory into national news
Shaun King, a columnist for Daily Kos, an active and widely-followed Twitter user and a prominent member of the Black Lives Matter movement, was forced yesterday to share some of his most painful family secrets with the world. This is thanks to a monumentally squalid series of articles by conservative site Breitbart that questioned whether or not King was actually a black man—an assertion that was thoroughly discredited by King. Normally, I'd advise you to avoid reading any further, but the King saga is a perfect symbol of some of the worst tendencies currently found in both the dankest corners of the conservative media and the shamelessly trigger-happy world of the mainstream media.
Breitbart's "scoop" about King came from Vicki Pate, a blogger who runs a truly startling website called "Re-NewsIt!" The site is the kind of typo-ridden bile factory that would normally be dismissed without a second glance. Its sole aim appears to be to "expose the truth" about the nefarious charlatans at the heart of the Black Lives Matter Movement, as well as to smear any black victims of crime.
Pate has had multiple Twitter accounts suspended. When she still had access to Twitter, she used the platform to do things like harass the mother of Kendrick Johnson, a black teenager whose dead body was found rolled up in a gym mat at his high school. For good measure, Pate also posted leaked autopsy photos of Johnson on her website and accused his father of "trying to win the race-hoax lottery."
Pate has also been obsessively trying to take Shaun King down for some time, and suddenly it seemed that she'd struck gold in the form of a birth certificate that listed both of King's parents as white.
Most outlets would probably stay away from such a clearly fetid swamp, but Breitbart happily dove in, highlighting her efforts on its much larger platform and driving the King story to the top of the news agenda. That's perhaps to be expected when Milo Yiannopoulos, the reporter who wrote the King story, is a man whose past gems include "16 Movements Less Ridiculous Than Black Lives Matter" and "Donald Trump Would Be the Real First Black President." Racial provocation, not rigor, is the goal here.
Let's be very clear about why Breitbart decided this was a worthy story to pursue. It's the same reason that Fox News was so reluctant to call Charleston shooter Dylann Roof a racist. Some people in America find the idea that there is such a thing as white supremacy--or that white people are in any way to blame for the racism in our society--so terrifying that they would rather concoct a huge racial conspiracy theory wherein ghoulish black activists run roughshod over a cowed white populace. To Breitbart, the Shaun Kings of the world are the ones with all the power, exploiting a weak and politically correct society for their own personal gain.
It is all self-evidently insane, of course, but white people have been deluding themselves about the racial state of play in America for centuries, so why stop now?
Some will jump to compare King's story to that of Rachel Dolezal, and ask what the difference is. Here's the difference: Dolezal only became a story because her own parents told reporters their daughter was faking her identity, because it became clear that Dolezal had completely altered her appearance over the years, because she'd sued Howard University for anti-white discrimination, and so on and so on and so on. It didn't come from a patently wacko racist blogger hell-bent on trying to destroy a civil rights movement, and there's been absolutely no evidence presented that Shaun King has ever changed the story he's told about his racial background, unlike Dolezal. The only conceivable reason to target him is because he's an easily identifiable figure in the Black Lives Matter movement, and Breitbart would like him to be rendered somehow illegitimate.
That explains why Breitbart was so eager to "expose" King. What defies all comprehension is why reputable news outlets ran with this sorry excuse of a story. CNN's Don Lemon--who always seems to be at the center of the network's most journalistically dubious decisions--breathlessly told his viewers that family members had sworn exclusively to him that King was white. (Never mind King's own statement that his family was a complex, tangled ball--making it entirely possible that some family members didn't know what the hell they were talking about when it came to his racial background.) The Daily News ran multiple stories with headlines like "Rachel Dolezal 2.0? Shaun King, activist for the Black Lives Matter movement, outed as a white man."
It's bad enough that sites like Breitbart are peddling this nonsense. But for CNN to use its still-considerable authority to drive such a clearly malicious smear campaign forward is something else entirely. CNN should have taken one look at both the Breitbart story and its source and known to stay away. That it chose not to do so is basic journalistic malpractice.
To the surprise of virtually nobody, Breitbart's crack reporting fell apart almost instantly—but not before King was compelled to disclose that his father is not the man listed on his birth certificate, but is in fact a black man who he has never met. Thus, faced with the near-total refutation of its wildest claims, Breitbart... declared victory.
Anybody looking for a scintilla of contrition for the way the site sliced open some of the deepest wounds in a man's life for no reason would be disappointed.
Truth be told, it would be too much to hope that Breitbart or its ilk would learn any lesson from this shabby affair. My real hope is that the rest of the media thinks twice before it validates such appalling behavior again. I'm not holding my breath.
