Graeber on the Value of Work

source

Our Compelling Interests

Flow of International Trade

Interactive map here

Fromm quote

  

“The full humanization of man requires the breakthrough from the possession-centered to the activity-centered orientation, from selfishness and egotism to solidarity and altruism.”

-Erich Fromm

Read more here

Reflections on South Africa; from 2016

It was snowing when I left Durham in January of 2016.

After stopping in London, I had another layover in Frankfurt. On this flight to Johannesburg, I couldn't help but notice that there were 3? Maybe 4 black people and 1 or 2 asians, besides myself, getting on this plane to a black majority country. Well well well, I thought, either a lot of Germans go to South Africa, black South Africans don't like Germany, or economic apartheid was still in full effect.

On the plane, I started to hear a language that was completely unfamiliar. It sounded... almost eastern European but it wasn't.... definitely not Russian. It wasn't Polish... or Romanian... what the fuck are they speaking? I really didn't know much about South Africa. Being the foreigner that I was, I didn't know Afrikaans was a western European derivation; a kind of patois. For some reason, I thought it was a black African language. Yes, I was ignorant about the country and implicitly biased in this way. In fact, I knew very little other than the glorified Nelson Mandela and that there was a history apartheid. People either told me that I would love it in South Africa or that I should be careful because it was very dangerous and violent (the primary stereotype I encountered by people outside of Africa). My friend Brenda, who knew Pretoria quite well, told me about her experiences with the Theology department and sent me a list of things to do and try (still can't find that 'leopard beer'). Another meaningful conversation was with my good friend Marika. She mentioned Mandela's contested legacy and some of the historical struggles in the country. When I confessed my ignorance, she recommended I read Incognegro, a book by Frank B. Wilderson III; Professor of African American Studies and Drama at UC Irvine. We had similar views on a lot of things so I knew I could trust her advice (and yes, it's a good book - I recommend the read). 

Without much thought, I drifted into the southern hemisphere where a South African summer would hit me like wave of hot bricks. 

I had arranged for a shuttle to drive me to Pretoria. I thought about trying to use the public transportation system, the "Gautrain," but the instructions on the website weren't very clear. I figured I should probably get to the University first before I try to navigate the system. It was a long-ass 30 hour flight and I knew I wouldn't have any patience if I got lost somewhere, which I usually don't mind (it's part of the fun when travelling and wandering about).

I tried to make conversation with the driver. It was just me in the car and the drive was a lot longer than I thought. Hell, Jo'burg didn't look too far on the map from Pretoria. I just didn't recognize how big the country actually was.

The driver was middle-aged. Probably late 40s early 50s, maybe mid to late 50s. Knowing that apartheid "ended" in the mid-90s I wanted to ask him how life had changed for him. He told me that the economy was bad. Things were still hard for him and his family but that overall things have gotten better. I took it with a grain of salt, accepted what he had to say, and nodded my head wondering about what life would be like in this country. It was my first time in Africa. The closest I ever got to the southern hemisphere was Jamaica, during college, and later Mexico on a trip with some old college buddies. 

When we finally arrived in Hatfield, I thought it looked quite nice. But I was suspicious: this has to be some kind of insulated suburban bubble (I wasn't too far off). The driver and I got to talking again. He mentioned the variation from area to area. Housing prices and so on. I was getting hungry so I asked him what I should eat. I didn't want some hamburger or pizza - you can get that shit anywhere. What's local; something I can't get anywhere else? He told me chesanyama, biltong, bunny chow, and a few other things I can't remember. Bunny chow stuck with me. I remembered seeing it on some list of things to eat in South Africa. Ok, that's what I'm going to eat. My brother sent me a picture of 'smiley' and he told that I had to try it. The picture was gnarley; it was, quite literally, the head of a lamb on a plate. I told myself that I'ld try it if I could.
   
The driver took me to one of the admistrator buildings where the housing people were supposed to sort me out.

The University was closed but the housing administrators were still working. After two-days of straight travelling, my aim was solely focused on getting into the arranged accomodation, taking a shower and a nap. I didn't think much about the University being closed and only found out from one of the administrators that the institution was shut down due to student protests. How interesting, I thought. I remember reading something about student protests in South Africa but they were mostly in Johannesburg and Cape Town. So I thought nothing of it because I was in Pretoria. And, I, like many foreigners, had no real sense of the geography. Didn't have much idea about the political climate either.

At any rate, they put me in the building reserved for post-doctorates and visiting professors. It felt very much like a self-catering hotel with pots, pans, utensils, etc. The rent, relative to what I would be paid, seemed expensive. They even had cleaning ladies! Changing the linens and towels, cleaning the room, even washing my dishes! Like, what the fuck? It made me uncomfortable. It was weird. I can't live like this. The building was awkwardly gated. Maybe 10 feet from the building to the gate. A square inside a bigger square and a security guard walking around like a human guard dog - a white dude at that. The guards in all the other buildings were black. This, I figured, was a political statement. I just wasn't sure on who's behalf. Security guards were everywhere. Everything was gated. Some kind of fetish with fences and barbed wire.      

I took a shower but I couldn't sleep. The peculiarity of everything had my mind going; the residual effects of apartheid was the theme that occupied my thoughts. I had to eat something and stock up on some food. The admin lady told me there was a mall down the road: Hatfield Plaza. So I went there. I didn't have much money and had to live off the few pounds I saved from England. Turns out the British Pound goes a long way to the South African Rand. To be safe, I had to be frugal. But I wanted to try the food. So the first thing I got was the Bunny Chow at the one of the fast food joints in the mall. It was alright; I didn't expect much from the place and remembered that I had to go to Durban to get it proper. The supermarket, Pick 'N Pay, was... very... "western." That is, it struck me like any other supermarket in Europe or the US. The supermarkets in Korea and Japan had a very distinct flavor and style to them: local food, local snacks, local ways of advertising and branding. I assumed that an African country would have its own style as well. But... it didn't... there was maize meal and prickly pears - two things you don't see in Europe, the US, or Korea and Japan. The familiarity of all the products struck me as odd. My first impression was that apartheid had taken away South Africa's swag, it's style, it's creativity, it's aesthetics. This, I thought, this was violence; a cultural violence of identity. I wondered, where can I find the local street markets? The music, the dance, the art, the food. The pulse. It had to be somewhere.       

After purchasing a few groceries and putting them away at my place, I wanted to walk around a bit more. Just wander and see. As I got nearer towards the campus, I noticed that all the university signs had three languages on them: Afrikaans, English, and Northern Sotho (I think). This was also weird. At one of the gates, there was a stencil tag: "WE ARE ANARCHY." It made me smile. 

When the semester started. All the buildings had the name of their departments on the walls in Afrikaans and English. When the Vice Chancellor or some administrator sent out a mass email to staff. It was in Afrikaans. And then another one in English followed - sometimes not at all. I later found out that there was an option in some courses to take the class in Afrikaans. For me, this would be the equivalent of being at a Korean University but everything catered in Japanese!

I later found out that the students were protesting this language policy. They would end up victorious on this front. The University had decided to change its policy and phase out Afrikaans as a language of instruction. But there were some other provisions, I think. Study groups in Afrikaans or something. I don't remember if there would also be study groups in Xhosa, Zulu, Pedi, or Sotho. This catering to Afrikaans was a pretty clear example of white privilege, colonial legacy type privilege. 

As the year went on, I was surprised by how many people thought Koreans spoke Mandarin. I don't think most people even knew where Korea was, despite LG and Samsung products being everywhere. Chinese wasn't an ethnicity but a race - it didn't matter what country you came from, if you're East Asian then your Chinese. Although not quite the same, this was a similar logic to somebody saying, "Well, we're all African because humanity came out of Africa." The homeless, or "street children," would often come up to me and say "Master" and show me their kung fu imitations with these Bruce Lee noises. There were people randomly yelling "China!" This, pretty much happens everywhere. The difference between South Africa and England was the frequency: almost once a week in SA and about once a month in England. What's interesting in Pretoria is that once in a while I'll get somebody come up to me and say things like, "you don't know kung fu." LOL. And he'd be right. I don't know Kung Fu. But I do know TaeKwonDo. But the Mandarin thing - it was the first time I encountered this impression (turns out it's pretty common) and I wondered how many people around the world thought this. Man... people don't know shit about Korea. But then again, why would they? A lot of the students didn't know that colonial imperialism also happened in East and South East Asia.

I think the most offensive and ignorant thing somebody said to me, ever, was that I was "basically white." This threw me off (like, wtf?!). There's a commentary here on what it means to be "white-washed" and the cultural politics of being "Asian" - terms like "twinkie", "black banana", or "coconut" - but I won't go into that. It seems that speaking US English without some fobby twang has rendered me "white" and negated my immigrant history; I don't fit the description, the mental stereotype, or something. I guess they also haven't encoutered an Asian with a hybrid of Korean and American mannerisms either. What was also weird is that if I say that I'm Korean-American. A lot of people, usually "white" people (I assume Afrikaaner), infer that to mean that I'm mixed. Fuckin, Rob Schneider is mixed. Chrissey Teigen is mixed. Tiger Woods is mixed. Bruno Mars, Chloe Bennet, Maggie Q. All beautiful people. But I look nothing close to them. Once, a black person at the grocery store counter wanted to ask me a "personal" question, she said: "Do the Chinese sleep with their cousins? Cause, you know, you all look alike." What?! Hahah - sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdity.    

Anyway, the protest against Afrikaans was coupled with the issue of outsourcing (hiring private companies to work as cleaners and security) and the #FeesMustFall movement, which also wanted  a 'decolonised curriculum' (something that many students of color have wondered for some time but found expression at the University of Amsterdam a couple years ago). Apparently, last year, the education minister decided to raise tuition fees and this agitated the students. My question was, where were the parents? Why weren't they angry and protesting with the students? Academics reflected and some spoke out for and others against #FeesMustFall. 

This year, some of the protests became destructive in that buildings, cars, and tires were burned. They disrupted classes and exams. I was told last year the protests were peaceful. I also saw the reluctance of University representatives to engage in dialogue. They brought in additional security. Locked down campuses. Introduced more security measures. The institutions became paranoid. In a mass meeting with staff, the Univ. of Pretoria Vice Chancellor stressed the importance of finishing out the academic year. Put material online while the campus was closed down to students. Eventually they forced the year to an end and allowed students on campus for exams only. For the most part, the student protests weren't really violent other than a few isolated incidents. But the police imprisoned quite a few student activists for public disorder, destruction of property, and inciting violence. There were police patrolling the streets in their vans and armed with assault rifles and bullet proof vests. A bit much, really. None of these students have guns. Sticks and stones to war-time artillery? How dramatic.    

The students, knowing that the issue of tuition fees also had to do with government, took the protest there. But there was really no response. The government was dealing with its own issues. President Zuma was deep in corruption, scandal, and a crashing economy that barely avoided junk status. The ANC was divided. The EFF continued to be boisterous and the DA was quietly increasing their voter base.

South Africa was among the many countries around the world with corrupt governance, economic instability, and class tension. We'll see what the students will do in the upcoming year. Some Universities have already decided to go ahead with the fee increase. A decolonised education is definitely warranted. My task, in part, is to contribute in this endeavor to the Study of Religion. After an unsuccessful proposal to do fieldwork in Korea, I'll have to execute a different proposal set in South Africa: "African Traditional Religion" in a township and White Buddhism in an affluent area through the broader theme of religion and money. I'll also think more carefully about what it means to do Korean Anthropology, which means engaging more with Korean philosophy and re-thinking certain conceptual frameworks and analytical categories. I've been reading vigorously on Yi Yulgok (a Korean Neo-Confucian philosopher from the 16th century), the ensuing pragmatist movement (silhak), as well as people who have written on "African Traditional Religion" and "Buddhism in Africa." Although slightly disappointed that the Korea proposal didn't work out (shit happens), I am pretty excited about the current project which I'll start in the coming year. 

Personally, 2016 has been a year of transition and adaptation. Academically, I've been pretty productive - was able to get several articles published - and I'm in a position to work with some brilliant minds and learn from them. I've met some great people and made a handful of good friends. I've had the good fortune of spending time in Lesotho, the "Bush", Newcastle, several of the townships, got to listen to some local reggae, jazz, and house music, and was able to taste the diversity in Sunnyside (the Ethiopian and Congolese food was great). I've been to several Braais (South African Barbeque) and got to hang out with some good people from around the world. I'm sure, after I save up a bit more, I'll get around to doing more in Jo'burg, Cape Town, and Durban in 2017 as well as visit some other African countries. I'm already set for Nigeria in February. 

Theological Character of Debt from Hollis Phelps

I'm far from any kind of theologian but holding a focus in the interdisciplinary study of religion, the theological perspectives are interesting:


"the theological articulation of the human beings as indebted resonates with neoliberalism’s own marking of individuals as indebted subjects. The term “resonate” (which I borrow loosely from the work of William Connolly) is important here. I’m not interested in making a causal argument, which I don’t think is possible for numerous reasons but, rather, interrogating the way in which overlapping discourses contribute to fashion and discipline subjects as indebted.

The paper itself focuses on how Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement contributes to this sense of indebtedeness. Readers of the blog and the journal will certainly be familiar with that theory. In sum it says that through sin human beings have violated God’s honor, which Christ satisfies on our behalf through his obedience and death. Anselm understands the notion of sin at work in terms of debt; sin is a violation of what we owe to God. Indeed, it’s mounting debt to the point of infinity that necessitates divine intervention.

What interests me more about Anselm’s understanding of atonement, however, is that he understands the human condition itself in terms of indebtedness. Debt isn’t simply a byproduct, the result of sin, but worked into the very fabric of creation. According to Anselm, the reason human beings get into trouble in the first place is their failure to make good on the original debt of obedience they owe to God. Even after their redemption via Christ’s satisfaction, human beings continue to owe God their obedience, along with an additional debt of gratitude."


read the rest here

Joseph Stiglitz on the US Economy

*Inequality, Race, and Religion

*Originally written for the Human Economy Blog 

In the United States, like many countries across the world, income inequality has been reaching staggering proportions. In 1980, according to ThomasPiketty, Emmanuel Suez, and Gabriel Zucman, the average pre-tax income of the top 1% in the United States was 27 times the average pre-tax income of the bottom 50%. In 2014, this disparity increased to 81 times the bottom 50%. Noticeably, the pre-tax income of the bottom 50% has stagnated.

Inequality and poverty are oblivious to religion, worldview, ethnicity, skin color, sexual orientation, and ability. As Dr. Sean Maliehe likes to say, "money knows no boundaries" and, of course, 'race' is no exception. In the broader scheme of things, racism diverts attention away from the growing trends of inequality in the U.S. and around the world. 

While the current epoch has been ripe for a renovated class analysis in which the trends of the political elite and their policies are dictated by the 1% (Gilens and Page 2014; criticisms addressed here), the various intersections of the 99% must also be carefully considered without constructing them as a homogenous static monolith.  

If we take a closer look at the 'median net worth of households' (sum of assets minus debts) in the United States, racial disparities come into focus:

source                              

The median net household wealth for Asian Americans, in 2010, was $83,500 while the median household income of Asian Americans in 2010 were:

source                         

   
If we consider the relationship between education and median household income:

source                                 

We can also note the difference in median household income vs. median net worth/wealth in White households. In 2010, their median household income was $54,000 and their median household net worth/wealth was $138,600. This contrasts with Asians whose median household income was $66,000 and their household net worth/wealth at $83,500. Whites and Asians further contrast with Hispanics and Blacks in that the latter show a lower median household net worth than their median income. For Hispanics the median income was $40,000 with a median net worth at $16,000. Similarly, the median income for Black households was $33,300 and a median net worth at $16,600. As of 2010, Native American and Alaskan Native households had a median household income of $35,062.

With regard to the relationship between education and poverty:

source                         

The economic issues of 'class' and poverty in the United States are intimately tied to their issues of 'race' and its range of related factors like education.

If we are to take the 'human economy' seriously, it is necessary to consider systemic forms of racism and structurally embedded injustices against people of color that impact their economic circles. This means looking at the racial disparities in: mass incarceration, property rights and ownership, housing, employment, judicial prejudice, healthcare discrimination, predatory lending and foreclosure practices, education, and among many other things, the hypervisibility of police brutality, all of which impact economic mobility and the advancement of human needs; things that "cannot be reduced to dollars per capita" (Hann & Hart 2011). Moreover, the 'human economy' must also include the myriad of ways in which information is produced and reproduced as well as the narratives and stereotypes they disseminate.   

For example, historian Ellen Wu (2014) documents that in the 40s and 50s, after the "yellow peril," both Asian Americans and African Americans sought to combat racism by appealing to their upstanding citizenry (note that most statistics on U.S. income and education levels for Asian Americans tend to exclude the period from the 40s to 70s). However, only the Asian American narrative of the "model minority" was adopted to gain Cold War allies in the East. This strategy in the 1960s, Wu argues, not only launched Chinese and Japanese Americans into "model minority status", reducing discrimination in certain areas of social life, but was further used as domestic propaganda to undermine the civil rights movement and foster falsehoods about black poverty. In other words, Asians in the U.S. did not gain respectability by their achievements per se (which is a half-truth; Wu shows that, in the past, although certain Asian groups completed more years of schooling, they earned less than whites with comparable education levels - a phenomena that appears to be changing in the 21st century) but rather from an orchestrated geopolitical campaign that was also propagated for divisive domestic purposes. Not only did this deliberately create African American and Asian American tensions but the "model minority" construct, as a homogenizing classification, has impacted and continues to impact the lives of Asian Americans by masking, even neglecting, the concerns and challenges faced by them. The Hmong, as well as other Southeast Asian refugee communities, for example, often ignored in such statistics above, have high rates of welfare dependency, unemployment, and low levels of income and education (Wu 2014).
   
Socially engineered racism has long been a political stratagem that dates back to the first encounters of European migrants and the indigenous people of the Americas. It is a stratagem that has been employed throughout U.S. history and featured quite prominently during the Jim Crow era. Segregation was a method to "placate the poor white masses," suppress a 19th century populist movement, and maintain the south as a means of cheap labor (King Jr, 1965; citing historian C. Vann Woodward). While many may presume that this was a scheme of the past, most people of color are well aware of its continued effect on the present day.  

In this regard, there is a need to identify the trends of thought and action that perpetuate racial tensions, socio-economic and racial inequalities across lived realities, epistemologies, and the social ethos that emerge from, and are driven by, U.S. social institutions. Emile Durkheim and Claude Levi-Strauss have both pointed out that what is social is also psychological. Levi-Strauss (1960) states, "we can never be sure we have fathomed the meaning and function of an institution if we are not capable of reliving its impact upon the individual consciousness. As such an impact is an integral part of institutions, any interpretation must aim to match the objectivity of the historical or comparative analysis with the subjectivity of the experience as it has been lived."  

Given the economic history of western expansion through its colonial project, Christianity is one institution that has been at the center of much scrutiny. While the religion has, in the past, been quite explicit in its support of colonialism and racism, their contemporary forms - apart from the resurgent spike in hate crimes and white nationalism - have been much more covert and implicit (Bae 2016). Many Christians and their churches have made explicit declarations and commitments to justice and equality (Emerson & Smith 2000) as well as love and tolerance (Coward 1986) in race relations. 

And yet, despite such expressions, U.S. Protestant Christians have consistently opposed government programs to resolve issues of inequality (Brown 2009). In a study of conservative white Protestant Christians on the topic of socioeconomic gaps and inequality, Emerson, Smith, and Sikkink (1999) found that they: 

1. do not "see social structures contributing to the inequality, except where they are viewed as undermining accountable individuals;
2. think that the "United States affords equal opportunity to its citizens"; 
3. explain "inequality as the result of contemporary problems with African American individuals and their relationships" i.e. they lack motivation, have family problems, avoid responsibility, etc.;
4. understand "the solution to social problems as changing individuals"; and therefore
5. "view government efforts to achieve racial inequality as naive, wasteful, misguided, sinful, and often counteracting real solutions."

This highlights a contradiction between Christian expressions of liberal egalitarian values (Wright et al 2015) and oppositional practices to government policies that address inequality.

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) argued that the province of religion is where models of the world and models for living in that world are brought together in a complementary fashion. In this sense, Christianity holds a reflexive tension. While the professed views of egalitarianism and "equality before God" is arguably a model for the world, the model of the world that Christianity propels in practice directly contradicts it. 

If the U.S. brand of Christianity is to shed its complicit skin and focus on the concerns of ever-increasing inequality that Piketty and company draw attention to, it must first address its contradictions and prejudices against poverty and race.

Township Stories (South Africa)

source

The Life of this World

Wang Yangming on the Unity of Knowing and Acting

"There have never been people who know but do not act. Those who "know" but do not act simply do not yet know.... Seeing a beautiful color is a case of knowing, while loving a beautiful color is a case of acting. As soon as one sees that beautiful color, one naturally loves it. It is not as if you first see it and only then, intentionally, you decide to love it.... The same is true when one says that someone knows filial piety or brotherly respect. That person must already have acted with filial piety or brotherly respect before one can say she knows them. One cannot say she knows filial piety or brotherly respect simply because she knows how to say something filial or brotherly" (Ivanhoe 2009 trans., p. 140-141).

Thoughts by Eric Schwitzgebel here
 

#NoDaPL

I've long held the view that if America (the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Central and South America) are to advance democracy on the continent, the oppression of the Indigineous people will have to be addressed first. Their voices included, their rights respected, and their relationship to the land preserved. I just received an email, via Moveon.org, from Judith LeBlanc at the Native Organizers Alliance:


Last night, the Morton County Sheriff Department again violated the human rights of those who are standing together in opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Law enforcement agencies injured at least 150 peaceful water protectors by firing water cannons in freezing temperatures and by assaulting protectors with concussion grenades, tear gas, and rubber bullets.¹

We must ensure that the human rights of everyone standing against the pipeline are protected.

Can you call the following agencies and demand that law enforcement stop violating the human rights of water protectors on Highway 1806 immediately?

North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple: 701-328-2200
Morton County Sheriff Department: 701-328-8118 and 701-667-3330
North Dakota National Guard: 701-333-2000

You can say, "I stand with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and all water protectors opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline. There is no room in a democracy to use water cannons, tear gas, or rubber bullets against peaceful, unarmed water protectors."

Please, let us know how your call went so we know how many calls we've made together.

We have just weeks until the company overseeing the North Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, plans to defy federal orders and begin drilling under the river.² The White House must order the Army Corps of Engineers to deny the easement and stop this destruction, and the presence of the water protectors is more important than ever.

It is a difficult time for all of us, but people power, principled alliances, and prayer have brought us this far, and they can lead to protecting the river as we go into the next stages of threats to Mother Earth.

Please, call the following agencies now:

North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple: 701-328-2200
Morton County Sheriff Department: 701-328-8118 and 701-667-3330
North Dakota National Guard: 701-333-2000
You can say, "I stand with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and all water protectors opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline. There is no room in a democracy to use water cannons, tear gas, or rubber bullets against peaceful, unarmed water protectors."

Please, report your call and let us know what happened.
My heart is full from all the support from MoveOn members like you, groups across the country, and others all over the world. Thank you for standing in solidarity.
Together, we will stop the Dakota Access Pipeline.

With gratitude,
Judith LeBlanc, Native Organizers Alliance

Sources:
1. "Dakota Pipeline: Protesters Soaked With Water in Freezing Temperatures," NBC News, November 21, 2016
http://act.moveon.org/go/6815?t=4&akid=173478.34979214.OUwZUV

2. "Dakota pipeline operator to defy Obama and prepare for final phase of drilling," The Guardian, November 8, 2016
https://act.moveon.org/go/6816?t=6&akid=173478.34979214.OUwZUV

Political Pragmatism and Christian Sensibilities

There's a lot to be enraged about in the news these days. If you're not disturbed by what's happening around the world, you should be (unless you subscribe to a white supremacist/nationalist ideology then I suppose you'd be enthused). By the same token, if you're like me you will be encouraged and excited by the rising political and economic awareness of people and their demonstrations against corruption in government and their international networks with the shadow economy.

The recent rabble about 'fake news' has re-ignited an old debate I've been having with myself about online activism, confirmation bias, and social media - particularly facebook. At times, the endeavor seems futile. But in my more enthusiastic moments, the engagement is worthwhile, it's a good and morally responsible idea; who would dispute that sharing information about the country and the rest of the world is a bad idea?

And yet, there are concerns. One of them, apart from whether it is effective in changing minds (which the link above alludes to), is first getting the information out there. Recently, I was alerted by facebook that when a friend shares a post of mine - initially shared with friends - that post is only circulated to the friends you have in common (i.e. those who are part of the originally intended audience). This is a feature designed to protect one's privacy, which is a good thing when it comes to sharing personal stuff. But if the purpose of sharing a particular piece of news (article, report, or study, etc.) is to disseminate information, then the feature becomes limiting. Only when a post is shared to the 'public', and a friend uses the function to share with his/her friends or the public, will that information have the potential to spread into the news feed of friends that we do not have in common. If one of the aims of 'online activism' is to indeed spread information and cultivate awareness, then we should click the link, read/view, and repost or post the article in a public forum that can potentially be viewed by those outside our immediate networks.

The second, and perhaps more pressing, concern is the caution of how the news is manipulated or spun, what kind of information are we sharing, is it a full account or not (i.e. context) - which makes a lot of people hesitant to share a piece of information. That is, the danger of a certain kind of political pragmatism that is polarized by 1) separate agendas to manipulate the moral characters of the divided populace and 2) whether the truth-claim of the news is indeed true. The latter tends to operate primarily on a notion of 'appearance' as opposed to the fragile concept of 'truth' which enables the social engineering of the former to appeal to certain moral-somatic sensibilities. In the case of the U.S., I think, this appeals particularly to Christian caricatures of decency and social justice.

Journalism, for the most part, is selective. Most journalists report on the information made available to them. In other words, news agencies and journalists present 'positive information' that has been exposed for a general audience. What this means is that 'negative information' - the news and events that are not reported - is just as, if not more, interesting than what is reported. One of the ways, people can combat some of this is to read the news from multiple sources within a country and from around the world (it's surprising to see what appears in one part of the world and not in another), be critical of the content, "triangulation", and look for various spins and inconsistencies. But let's stick to 'positive information' and its portrayal.

With regard to the U.S., the conservative bias of Fox News is well-known (and of course there are news agencies with a liberal bias). Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, has admitted to trying to shape the agenda. Much of this came out around 2008-09 with the Iraq War. At which point, the war on information was apparent. Almost a decade later, Stephen Bannon is now in full view of the public eye. Reading up on his strategy for media (here and here), and taking a careful look at Breitbart, I realized that my reactions (guilty of being swept in the emotional tides of politics and media) on facebook actually contributed to his aim. The recent hub-bub about Hamilton (Trump's demand for an apology and Pence taking the high road - both premised on a certain spin of the event [video is circulated] - highlighted the different ways it was covered: Breitbart v. Raw Story; the former appealing to 'decency' and the latter to 'social justice') and Dr. Alveda King's recent What-Would-Jesus-Do-defense of Jeff Sessions on Fox News were two cases in point.

The political pragmatism that I'm pointing out is of course about the way in which 'positive information' via media is engineered and manipulated for its efficacy and political utility to persuade and cultivate loyalty. People tend to be reactionary and are morally-charged with a strong sense of righteousness. It cuts across the political spectrum. Both conservatives and liberals are insulated by the vehicles in which information is received. Trump wants to execute a mass deportation scheme (2-3 million). Obama deported 40,000 a year (and from my experience, during the tail-end of Bush and throughout Obama's presidency, in dealing - for work - with the criminal justice system and mental health institutions, it is not difficult to build up a criminal record - especially if one is a poor immigrant or a person of color - and be deported or sent to a private prison). The Bush and Clinton administration exercised torture while the Obama administration simply killed. Both parties have consistently practiced military intervention around the world without telling the public. Both parties have been, and continue to be, horrible with respect to foreign policy and remain complicit in the common agenda of building and hoarding wealth. I don't expect Trump to be any different, although he is certainly poised to change the dynamics of international intervention and the strengthening of global right-wing nationalism.  If anything, Trump - based on his selections to join his team - will put the national and international system on steriods. And yet, the transgressions of the U.S. are not discussed and elections, as well as their post-election tenure, depend on how the moral character of the audience is addressed through the media (Hamilton, noted above, is just one example).  

One of the differences between the Republican and the Democratic party is their position with regard to national civil policy, both of which are rooted in the country's Christian history and landscape. This is where the division among the U.S. population tends to be predicated on two, broadly-construed, manifesting forms of Christianity in the public sphere: the preservation and reproduction of a particular conservative structure and brand of Christianity versus its liberal derivation in advancing the civil liberties of those who fall outside of that domain; Conservative Christian decency v. Liberal Christian social justice, both arguing with their respective understandings of Jesus and the gospels. This is not necessarily to present a mutually exclusive dichotomy nor is it to argue for their singularity in defining the polarizing camps of Christianity in the U.S. Both intersect with a myriad of additional values and the reality is much more accurate when construed along a spectrum. In the bigger picture, the failure of both parties to address the people is also, arguably, a failure of Christianity in addressing white nationalism and white supremacy.

The info-wars not only involve debates about 'truth' and 'appearance' but are also premised on a platform of political pragmatism to enforce one agenda or the other by appealing to different Christian sensibilities. Both carry moral implications and you really "can't be neutral on a moving train."

A reply to Alt-Right

So I went snooping around Breitbart. Apart from the right-wing spin on events, and news from liberal media sources, strategic placement of images, and faces from people of color, I searched alt-right and found this article, "An Establishment Conservative's Guide to Alt-Right", at the top of the search (right below is an article that says "How to destroy alt-right" and above the article is a Google ad that says: "You Are Not That Bigoted"). The article purports to be reporting on the Alt-Right movement but turns into a full-blown argument for it. The article is clever; starting with the criticism that alt-right is a white-supremacist movement, it takes the veiled stance of an unbiased reporter and, quite intelligently, describes the alt-right and what it stands for in an unassuming tone. This gives Breitbart a sense of credibility, feeding the curiosity of the reader and potential converts into the lull of agreeing with its white supremacist position. The article says that the alt-right are “natural conservatives” composed primarily of

“white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.”

It is their “natural” instinct, the article says. Hereditary intelligence contradicts egalitarianism, the article says. Let me pause real quick out of concern that I might be feeding into Breitbart's tactics by writing this. The former proposition is at best a half-truth and the latter simply erroneous. People care for their families. Love is undeniable. People also band together with similar interests – whether it is along the lines of ‘race’, religion, hobbies and interests, politics and ideology, chess, game of thrones, etc. – we develop ‘homophilial’ relations (I know, it’s a horrendous term). This also means that identity politics is not the be-all, end-all. There is an instinct to care for people who are not like us. The overwhelming response after devastating Tsunamis, the bucket challenge, adoption, anti-war efforts, etc. Compassion for those who are not like us is just as “instinctive” as it is to care for one’s own. Personally, I still think and care about my friends that I’ve made over the years despite our differences – racial, cultural, political, intellectual or otherwise – although I am certainly not the best at keeping in touch; I’ll try to be better at this. But I want people to know I appreciate the kindness and friendship that people of all colors and creeds have shown me and my family. My mom has stories for days; shout-out to the Mormons, Catholics, and "white people" in Utah (despite the microaggressions and implicit racism)

The article says that homogeneity is much more instinctive than diversity. But the wide acceptance of Christianity (as well as Islam and Buddhism) and their missionaries beg to differ. If my understanding of Korean history is correct, western medicine was first introduced into Korea during the 1880s by missionaries. The efficacy of this medicine piqued interest in Christianity. That‘s right, Science led to Religion! In Korean scholarship, science was connected to cosmology. After a long period of isolationism and scholarly debate, Korea opened its borders and welcomed diversity – although, to be sure, Korea today has its own problems with immigrants as well. I think Koreans are generally quite happy to share our culture as long as you engage it with respect. We are happy when you like our food, our music, our customs and our dress. Moreover, if homogeneity was more instinctive than diversity there would be a lot more inbreeding. Genetic diversity was critical for the survival of our species. Egalitarianism does not dismiss our differences. Every individual is unique in genetic composition, upbringing, and socio-cultural influences. Egalitarianism is not about biology but a system of equal treatment and equitable opportunities to flourish. The United States of America does not have this kind of system.

So back to the article. According to the author, alt-right is critical of establishment conservatives because they are quick to import cheap labor, i.e. immigration, and capitalist exploitation; they would demolish a cathedral to build a shopping mall. More importantly, the alt-right is concerned with the preservation of their “tribe” and their “culture”. Now let’s pause again and think about this. In my opinion, this is the antithesis of the decolonization and post-colonial argument. It stands very much in the pre-, and indeed pro-, colonial tradition; an unapologetic inverse of the Black Radical Tradition.

They want to legitimize their group as analogous to the Mexicans, African-Americans, or Muslims. But let me break it down real simple-like. There is no country called "White"; there is no culture called "White"; and there is certainly no religion called "White". In this sense, the “white tribe” is not analogous to Mexicans or Muslims. 'African-American', 'Asian-American', 'Latin-American', 'Arab-American', 'European-American', or any other hyphenated American are umbrella terms socially constructed, superficially designated markers for categorization and classification; they are instruments of division; instruments of flattening cultural nuance; and socially engineered pathways for prejudice, discrimination and violence. The people included under these terms are far from homogenous and at best: "family resemblances". All this goes without even touching on socialization, embodiment, or epigenetics. The purported “white culture” is not singular. It comes from an array of countries from Europe and the creativity that emerged in the US.

The notion of culture is not a static reified thing but the product of people subject to social, political, and economic influences and various structures of power and care within historically specific discursive practices. It is fluid and constantly evolving. Cowboys, sandwiches, burgers, the rodeo, state fairs, music, and art are all contingent and emergent products of these dynamics. There is nothing wrong with any of these but please be aware that the history of oppression and colonialism is still a wound that has not healed despite how long it has been. “Get over it” does not work until the resonating oppressive structures and institutions constructed during the ugly periods of US history that continue to sustain poverty are eradicated. Nobody is telling poor white folks to “get over it”. We are not consistently taking shits in your churches, or actively making fun of your people, and we are certainly not the ones putting barriers in your path to flourish and raise your families.

I’m not going to go into this article any further but there is plenty for scholars, academic or otherwise, to go into. And I am certainly subject to correction. There are people much more intelligent and knowledgeable than I am about these things. I've learned a great deal from people who are classified as “white”. In fact, all my mentors throughout my higher education have been “white” – two Americans, a German, a Welshman, and an Englishman. I am indebted to them and appreciate the attention and care they have given me, despite my arrogance and persistent intrusion into their office hours. They have opened new avenues of thought, windows of history, and, without a doubt, have humbled me tremendously. I am truly thankful to them as well as all my teachers from elementary (Beacon Heights and Bennion ELP), junior high (Hillside), and high school (shoutout to Mr Gordon Moore - I'm still doing pottery - and the basketball team at Highland; still proud that you took State senior year even if it was without me... fuckers), and all my “white” friends and peers who have introduced me to so much (and of course my "black", Polynesian - shoutout to Tonga and Samoa - Mexican, Native, Arab and Persian friends and of course, my Koreans and fellow Asians from China, Taiwan, Japan, Mongolia, India, Tibet, Phillippines, Vietnam, and Laos and all those who come from a melting pot of cultures as well as those I never got around to asking about your background; I still remember your faces although I might have forgotten a few names). It is, in one sense, unfortunate that I had to go back and forth between Utah and Korea so often that it created breaks in our friendships and lost touch with so many as I've gone into this so called "adult life" - shit gets crazy busy.

I want you to know that I still remember you and that I do not hate “white people”. As a fellow US citizen, I am simply critical of the system and structures that you’ve inherited which just so happens to accommodate your skin color more than those who are not.

Just because the article doesn't say "white supremacy" doesn't mean that it doesn't advocate for it. Just because there's a person of color or a woman or an LGBTQ person or a Muslim on your team doesn't exempt the team from systematic discrimination.

People everywhere are going through hard times and, I agree, the current political economy and the establishment isn't helping.

Stuart Hall

"Hall, in particular, spends a lot of time in his 1983 lecture wrestling with the so-called “base and superstructure” problem, the notion (to be crude where crudeness is unpardonable) that all ideas and value systems are determined by economics. Hall’s position on this problem is an activist’s. The left’s dismissal of cultural expressions that do not serve the cause of equality as false consciousness is embarrassing, he suggests—or, worse, counterproductive: “I wonder how it is that all the people I know are absolutely convinced that they are not in false consciousness, but can tell at the drop of a hat that everybody else is.” From a pragmatic perspective, it should be assumed that all worldviews have some truth in them. This is the premise of his analysis of Thatcherism, which was careful not just to wag a finger at the working-class sentiments that helped enable the Iron Lady’s rise. It is also why he believed it was so critical to understand them. Thatcherism was not only authoritarian populism; it was a creative right-wing adaptation of the narratives working-class people told themselves about the decline of industrial labor in the late 1970s. Rather than caricature them, the left had to learn from working people—especially when what they’re saying isn’t politically correct. Again, culture could help lead the way to power."

Read full article here