Labor, community groups and elected officials say “Vote for Dante Comparetto”

WORCESTER, Mass. – Labor leaders, elected officials, and representatives of community organizations gathered at the Educational Association of Worcester’s headquarters this morning to announce their support for Dante Comparetto’s bid for a seat on the city’s school committee. Supporters highlighted argued his years of advocacy for Worcester families and support of working people’s rights make him the ideal candidate.

“He’s been an absolute staunch advocate for the educators in Worcester and the members of this union,” said EAW president Roger Nugent. “We are very pleased to unanimously endorse him.” The 2,800-member EAW represents Worcester’s teachers, many administrators, instructional assistants, bus drivers, and other school employees, and is a local of the National Education Association.

City Council member Candy Mero Carlson, chair of the Worcester Democratic City Committee spoke on behalf of the WDCC, saying, “I’m extremely pleased that Dante made a decision to run, because he is all about our kids today; he is all about our Worcester Public Schools.”

Carlson added, “I look forward to working with Dante on behalf of all of our kids in the Worcester Public Schools.”

It was clear that Comparetto has the backing of organized labor. Central Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Joe Carlson, Mary Colby of the Massachusetts Nurses Association, and Fred Taylor of Carpenters Local 107 attended, each representing their unions.

Taylor emphasized how well prepared Comparetto was to answer labor’s question. According to Taylor, the Carpenters’ endorsement committee “peppered” Comparetto with questions, and he answered them all adeptly.

Colby stated that Comparetto would be an ally and an advocate for students’ health. “An important issue that nurses hold dearly is to ensure that the nurses to have a partner in education,” she said.  “Our goal is to ensure that safety is maintained in the Worcester Public Schools. I think Dante is the person to do that.” She added that she believed Dante would fight to make sure that each school has a nurse.

Shanique Spalding, of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which also endorsed Comparetto, picked up on the issue of students’ health and wellbeing. “Now more than ever we need to work together on holistic solutions that recognize the connection between health care access, student achievement, and breaking the cycles of poverty,” she said. “When young people are taught how to make healthy decisions, build safe relationships, and focus on their futures, they thrive and we all win. We can make a better and brighter future by making sure that Dante wins this election cycle.”

City councilor Sarai Rivera praised Compratto, saying he’s someone “who comes from a perspective of community.” Rivera, herself a product of the public school system and a parent of public school children said Comparetto understands that “good schools equal good neighborhoods.”

Another council member, Khrystian King, praised Comparetto for fighting to ensure adequate funding for education, specifically through the “No on 2” campaign in 2016. “I’ve seen the work that he’s put in leading up to the elections, I’ve seen the work that he continues to put in on the campaign trail, and I’m quite confident that that work ethic will continue upon election,” King said. “Dante is a champion for Worcester.”

Support also came from the state legislative delegation, with Rep. Dan Donahue speaking on behalf of most of the city’s delegation to the House of Representatives in Boston. “He’s someone who gets it,” Donahue said of Comparetto. “I know that he’s going to have the ability through all his previous experience to really not just be a voice on the school committee, but to be an advocate and an organizer.”

Other state legislators endorsing Comparetto include Reps. Mary Keefe, John Mahoney, and Jim O’Day.

Paul DePalo, chair of Greater Worcester Our Revolution, said that “Dante understands that building a world class school system means addressing the whole child, and that means engaging with the community and being responsive to the community. I know for sure that he’s going to be a standing advocate for students and teachers.”

In accepting these endorsements, Comparetto said he was “honored.” The endorsements “reflect the more than 15 years of work that I have dedicated to our community. For my entire adult life, I have been serving the Worcester community, and bringing people together to solve problems. I have founded nonprofits that improve our city, served our city on boards and commissions, and started my own small business.”

Comparetto noted that the schools face challenges, saying, “I want to bring [my] experiences to the school committee in order to bring our community together to make our school district the best in the state.”

Image: Left to right: Khrystian King, Candy Mero-Carlson, Joe Carlson, Sarai Rivera, Paul DePalo, Dante Comparetto, Mary Colby, Fred Taylor, Shanique Spalding, Rep. Dan Donahue, Roger Nugent.

Worcester students make their voices heard to improve schools

Well over forty people attended the meeting

WORCESTER, Mass. – Organized by local public high school students, more than 40 people packed into the Pleasant Street Neighborhood Network Center here July 31 to participate in the “Schools We Deserve Dialogue,” in which participants discussed ways to improve the city’s schools.

Kicking off the meeting, which lasted for more than 90 minutes, Dr. Eric DeMeulenaere, of Clark University’s education department, requested that those in attendance, mostly Worcester students, think of their experience at school and what could be changed, and then to answer the question, “What would you like to see?”

The resulting discussion was wide ranging, and the students raised a variety of issues, including the school budget, greater diversity of educators, how students are treated by teachers and guidance counselors, and transportation.

School committee candidate Dante Comparetto (left) and Dinh Ly listen to a North High student (right)

Kassie Quinlan, who helped to organize the event, said in the discussion that she would like to see schools adopt a better support system for students, and for guidance counselors to give students more attention. “I want to be seen as more than just a number,” she said.

Another student agreed, noting that funding was an issue. No matter how much a guidance counselor wants to help, she said, that counselor can’t give much attention to any particular student if he or she has a hundred people on his or her roster.

Several of the youth noted that they felt a high level of stress, and that the currently trendy emphasis on high-stakes testing added to that, as well as interfered with their desire to try their hand at learning something new. Betzabé Vásquez-Grande said that while seniors were able to pick their own classes, she felt compelled to take classes she knew she would do well in, so that she could achieve a high grade and become more competitive in the college admissions process. “I would rather have taken a class that would have taught me something new, but that I might not have done as well in,” she said.

Community member Martha Assefa agreed, pointing to State Sen. Harriette Chandler’s civics education bill, which would require students to learn civics in part through partaking in some kind of community-oriented project. School committee member John Monfredo, who was in attendance, said that he hoped schools could achieve a better balance of education and fun.

Dante Comparetto, a school committee candidate, said that high stakes testing crowded out other educational opportunities.

Morgan Brown of South High
South High Student Morgan Johnson gives her perspective

Morgan Johnson, a student at South High Community School, said that she was frustrated by the lack of communication from guidance counselors and other school leaders about things Worcester students needed to know. When DeMeulenaere asked how she found out answers to vital questions, she responded, “Google.”

Italo Fini, who recently graduated from Worcester Technical High School, emphasizing the need for schools to teach practical skills, asked “Who here learned how to ride the [public] bus in school?” According to Fini, many students he had known during middle school didn’t know how to ride the public bus, and consequently could not travel around.

Transportation itself took up a large part of the discussion, with many of the Worcester students voicing their frustration that school buses left only at the end of classes, meaning that extra-curricular activities were, in many cases, made impossible.

“I joined the track team but stopped after three days,” said student Jayli Charest. “My mother had to work, so she couldn’t pick me up, and she didn’t want me to walk the streets after dark.” If there was some form of public transport, Charest noted, she would have been able to continue the extracurricular activity.

A number of the young people felt that they were treated like criminals – or at least potential criminals – and took issue with several schools’ ban on hoodies (sweatshirts with hoods) and bookbags. While they found the ban offensive, they also noted the difficulty of carrying schoolbooks without a bag and, especially for schools that have not been rebuilt, not being able to wear a simple sweatshirt in the winter when they felt cold.

The results of the discussion will be presented to Worcester Public Schools superintendent Maureen Binienda, who has officially agreed to receive and consider them. However, Binienda will not be the first public official to hear the suggestions. While the vast majority of attendees were students, the audience included several elected officials.

Gary Rosen and Dan Donahue listening
City Council member Gary Rosen and State Rep. Dan Donahue listen to the students

School committee member Brian O’Connell was at the event, as was Monfredo and Comparetto. Also in attendance were city council members Sarai Rivera and Gary Rosen, as well as State Representatives Dan Donahue and Mary Keefe.

In concluding the discussion, participants were asked to state would they would most like to see going forward. While there were many suggestions, better communication between the students and the schools and school committee was an overriding them. During that discussion, Council Member Rivera noted that district councilors and some at-large council members routinely visit community meetings. She suggested that, in a similar way, school committee members should consider visiting student council and other youth-led meetings.

Sarai Rivera answering questions from Worcester students
City Council member Sarai Rivera answers a student’s question

After the event wrapped up, the student organizers made plans to write up their notes for Binienda, and then celebrated the event’s success with ice cream at the shop next door.

Check out related coverage from the Worcester Magazine and the Telegram and Gazette.

Thoughts on the North Korea situation

Watching the current situation unfold on the Korean peninsula, it’s hard not to think, “We’ve been here before,” or “Been there, done that..” While it’s always a dangerous idea on anyone’s behalf to ratchet up tensions in that corner of Asia, this seems particularly the case now, with Donald Trump in the White House. However qualified Mattis is, Trump has the final say on what happens, and he is dangerously inexperienced.

With that said, here are a few thoughts on the Korean situation.

1. As evil as the regime is, its collapse might be worse than its existence, at least currently. Reports of gulags that make Stalin’s look like Disney World, concentration camps, mind control practiced by the state, the mass rape of women and children; all of these things are of course horrifying, and should make any person of goodwill tremble with indignation. The regime, which has the Orwellian “Democratic People’s Republic” as its name, deserves to be destroyed, morally speaking. But thinking pragmatically, we have to ask what could replace it. Were the Pyongyang government to collapse, the meager system of public distribution still in place would disintegrate, probably causing even wider starvation than is currently being experienced. Collapse would mean that the few nuclear devices Pyongyang controls would likely vanish in the chaos, probably to be sold by whoever obtains them to the terror group offering the most hard cash.

Collapse would throw the region into chaos. A refugee crisis, potentially bigger than any other, would erupt. No one can predict what millions of fleeing North Koreans would be met with at China’s border, and South Korea would have no way to handle the flow.

2.The North Koreans will not start a war, at least not on purpose. The regime thrives off of confrontation and anti-Americanism, mixed with anti-Japanese rhetoric and outright racism against non-Koreans. The Kim family has long held itself up as the defenders of the Korean people against an evil outside world dominated by “American imperialists.” With the collapse in the 1990s of most public services, the diversion of nearly all wealth to the military under the state’s Songun policy, and the continued immiseration of the North Korean people, this claim is all the regime has to legitimize itself in its people’s eyes. Therefore, they will constantly issue threats and make dangerous provocations, but they will not do anything that they believe will cause a war, which they know they will lose handily.

Everything in North Korea is done for regime survival: the personality cult, the mass terror, the theatrics of the Mass Games, and more are all based on protecting the standing and privileges of Kim and his inner circle. Starting a war is simply not in their interest. However, there is the potential that the dangerously insulated regime could miscalculate and do something that provokes a war.

North Korea won’t, we can be sure, lob missiles at South Korea or Japan or the U.S. We should continue any covert operations to disrupt their missile testing, but it is a waste of time to install missile defense systems against them. It is up to the leaders in Washington, Beijing, Seoul, and to some extent, Tokyo and Moscow, to make sure war doesn’t break out.

3.War would make everything worse. In some instances and places, war is necessary, our Civil War and World War II being the most obvious examples, with George H.W. Bush’s first Gulf War being perhaps another. Intervention in Rwanda by someone could have helped prevent a genocide, or at least end it sooner. A no-fly zone in Syria, while not a war, would be a military action that could be a relief for hundreds of thousands of suffering civilians. The Korea situation, though, is not one of those instances.

If war breaks out there, it could lead to some sort of limited nuclear conflict. But the nukes are the least of the potential worries; a bigger threat is Pyongyang’s conventional army, which could destroy much of South Korea more quickly than we could neutralize them.

4. Peace will destroy the North Korean regime; the U.S. should give North Korea what they (say they) want, i.e. to hold bilateral talks, though not at the dangerously legitimizing head of state level, and figure out some way to sign a peace treaty with the rogue state. This is hard, because the U.S. was never technically at war with NK; it was a UN action. The armistice agreement was between several countries, and the UN maintains the UNMIK there. North Korea purposely tries to make it impossible for a peace treaty to end the war, because, as mentioned above, their only legitimacy comes from animosity towards the U.S. They demand that the U.S. sign a treaty, and refuse to sign with the UN or other disputants. Still, the U.S. should find a way to sign some sort of treaty with Pyongyang. This will remove any legitimacy the regime has, and make it impossible for them to continue their evil existence much longer.

5. Manage the transition. Once North Korea no longer has the U.S. as it’s bete noire, the regime’s control will begin to slip further and further, until transition becomes inevitable. That is good, but, like I was mentioning above, collapse would cause untold suffering.

Once the North Korean leadership “wins,” it will know it has lost, and the U.S. and, especially, China, can begin to make changes in North Korea behind the scenes. How this happens would have to be worked out, but it would require some mutual trust and understanding of benefits between the U.S. and China. There is a lot of common interest for stability in the region.

China cares less about human rights than South Korea, Japan, or the U.S. (which, under the Trump administration, is also not that much). Still, during the transition, this is one of the things that these countries (pushed by NGOs like Human Rights watch, as well as the UN system) can begin to ensure. China has an interest in keeping the North Korean people fed, because they don’t want a refugee crisis at their border.

As I stated above, these are just a few disparate thoughts on the situation in North Korea. They are more about the general US/NK relationship than the specifics of what Trump and Tillerson are talking about, but I think they are germane. Any comments or criticism are welcome, of course.

Image: Kids searching for food in North Korea, via Wikimedia Commons.

Yom HaShoah: Day for a Fighting People

Now it’s Yom HaShoah, the day when Jews around the world, in both Israel and the diaspora, commemorate the 6 million Jews slaughtered by the Nazi death campaign. The machinery of evil wiped out two of every three of us in Europe, one out of every three in the world. 1.5 million of them were children. Yom HaShoah is distinct from the UN’s International Day of Holocaust Remembrance. The latter tells a story of a mass of suffering victims saved by noble world powers, while the former commemorates the suffering – and the fightback – of a heroic people.

The UN-established day focuses on all the victims of the Holocaust, the six million Jews and the million others – mostly Romani,  but also LGBTQ people, Communists and socialists, trade union activists, and others – who were butchered in the camps. The General Assembly resolution establishing that day “[c]ondemns without reserve all manifestations of religious intolerance, incitement, harassment or violence against persons or communities based on ethnic origin or religious belief, wherever they occur.”

I attended the inaugural Remembrance Day at the UN’s New York headquarters in 2006, which included Israel’s then-Permanent Representative to the UN Dan Gillerman, Under-Secretary General Shashi Tharoor (now a member of India’s parliament), and ambassadors representing several other countries, including, as I recall,  Brazil and the U.S. At the event, several Holocaust survivors gave moving testimony, and then-Ambassador Gillerman spoke as well. Much of the focus of the other speakers, however, was on connecting the history of the United Nations to the allied forces’ victory over the Nazis in World War II and the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the death camps. The specific date, it was noted, was set to coincide with the Red Army’s liberation of the notorious Auschwitz-Birkenau camp. As everyone knows, the UN was established by the war’s victors; the composition of the Security Council’s  permanent members reflects this.

The stated goal of the  UN-adopted remembrance is to acknowledge those who were murdered, to push UN member states to adopt programs against all forms of discrimination, and to call for nations to instate urgently needed Holocaust education. Additionally, according to the establishing resolution, the world community “[c]ommends those States which have actively engaged in preserving those sites that served as Nazi death camps, concentration camps, forced labour camps and prisons during the Holocaust.”

Three women with long coats and berets.
These women, members of the Jewish Combat Organisation, worked in an underground factory making grenades.

Remembering victims, congratulating the war’s victors, and commending states that didn’t lie about their past, especially as governments across Europe whitewash their history – are all worthwhile endeavors. However, much of the content of the day is focused not only on the barbarism of the Nazis, but also the benevolence of the Allied Powers, helping states in that group to whitewash their own histories.

One of the oft-repeated slogans of those discussing the Holocaust is “never forget.” Indeed, there are many things we must always remember. Not to be forgotten is Britain’s pathetically weak response early on; while Hitler, Goebbels, and company were priming the machinery of death, Chamberlain was appeasing them. It wasn’t until Germany invaded Poland that the UK became involved; an imperial alliance brought Britain in, not any lofty desire to save the Jews. Also, despite the carnage, Britain continued to tighten restrictions on Jews in Europe moving to join their Mizrahi brethren already living in mandatory Palestine – Israel – the land  where the Jewish people first formed. Instead, they appeased people like the Nazi-loving Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who eventually went to live in fascist Germany, and was a direct cause of many of the ongoing problems between Israel and her Arab neighbors to this day.

The Soviet Union, that other member of the Allied Forces, made a nonaggression pact with Hitler, and only after the Nazis invaded the USSR did the Soviets fight.

None of this is to minimize the heroic fighting of American soldiers, or, indeed, those of the Soviet Union, Britain, and the other allies. The point, though, is that the UN holiday allows states like Britain and the USSR, now Russia, to whitewash their history. Both states have a far from unblemished record in their dealings with the Jews. Pogroms were commonplace throughout tsarist Russia, and it was the Soviet Union that deported Jews to Birobidzhan, created the “Zionism is racism” lie that is the excuse of left-wing anti-Semites, and practiced gross anti-Semitism within its borders – while refusing to allow Jews to leave. British anti-Semitism is alive and well now, and it’s part of a long record, alluded to above. Its rulers continually broke promises, backstabbed, and often refused to even allow Jews to travel to the land of Israel during the Holocaust, while the land was still under the control of the British empire. Glorifying these states’ additionally takes much of the focus off the main victims of the Holocaust – and heroism of those who fought not to be victims.

JCO poster
A JCO poster in Yiddish, reading, “All people are equal brothers; Brown, White, Black, and Yellow.”

While that focus and heroism isn’t well highlighted by the UN-instituted day, these are on Yom HaShoah. This day was first commemorated shortly after the end of the Shoah, or Holocaust, and was officially established by a vote of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. The full name is “יום הזיכרון לשואה ולגבורה” (Yom Hazikaron laShoah ve-laG’vurah), Hebrew for “Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day.” This day marks the suffering – and heroic resistance – of Jews during the Shoah. One of Israel’s first commemorations of the day was the issuance of stamps bearing the image of Mordechai Anielewicz, leader of the Warsaw Uprising. Instead of pinning his hopes on the actions of fickle foreign powers, Anielewicz allied with the Jewish Combat Organization (a center-left coalition; there was also the revisionist Zionist Jewish Military Organization) that fought the Nazis in armed struggle, culminating at Warsaw. Starting on April 19, 1943, when the Nazi regime announced it would begin sending Jews “away,” the Warsaw ghetto stood up. Even when the Nazi police ordered the ghetto burned, the Jews continued to fight. The dead Jews numbered 13,000, but their fighting spared this world of about 150 Nazis, and they held off the fascists for nearly a month, until May 16. No one expected the uprising to win; the Jews in Warsaw knew they were doomed. One Combat Organization commander, Marek Edelman, survived. According to him, the Jews weren’t going to let the Nazis determine everything; instead, “We knew perfectly well that we had no chance of winning. We fought simply not to allow the Germans alone to pick the time and place of our deaths.” In Vilna, Lithuania, there were The Avengers, far better than any comic book heros, the last member of which died earlier this month.  The story was repeated heroically across Europe. There are at least 18 recorded uprisings in the labor camps, as well as in the extermination camps: at Treblinka in August 1943, then in October at Sobibor, and a year later at Auschwitz. Any notion of “sheep to the slaughter” is a slander.

This is important. Jews in film and popular histories of the Holocaust are often depicted as nameless entities defined by their suffering and dependent on the good will of others, as in Schindler’s List.  But these were real human beings, a large portion of whom decided that they were going to fight.  Across occupied Europe, uprisings took place in ghettos, Jews participated in partisan movements, revolts took place in concentration camps, and revolutionary Jews organized sabotages and bombings. The Jewish resistance came from all walks of life: old men carried bombs; teen girls acted as assassins.

Of course, not everyone could take part in an uprising. That would have been logistically impossible normally, more so given the circumstances. But everyone fought. For some, their fight was to stay alive, or to maintain hope. Some fought by sending their children away. Or by maintaining some form of sanity in the camps, keeping as much as possible the darkness at bay. There are countless stories of those who fought simply, by being a helping hand to someone else in the camp. Some fought just by continuing to exist at all, to act human for any amount of time in those evil conditions. Each of the six million has their own story, and each of those stories are part of a larger story, that of the Jewish people who have, over the centuries, fought, been defeated, and then continued to live, against the odds. Bari Weiss, the New York Times columnist, in her speech at the March Against Antisemitism in New York, characterized the Jewish people as “the ever-dying people that refuses to die.” That is the character of the people described by Yom HaShoah: those who died refusing to die.

There was overwhelming misery, of course, and for that, it’s necessary to mourn, to never forget. It was the first time in human history that a modern, developed state used all of its mechanical and scientific achievements in an attempt to kill a whole people. They nearly succeeded: 2 out of every 3 Jews in Europe were killed, Jewry in Europe effectively ceased to exist, and 1 out of 3 Jews worldwide were lost (the Shoah didn’t affect only Ashkenazi Jews; it even extended into French-occupied North Africa). But the historical evidence shows a people not going quietly, instead struggling like bar Kokhba or the Maccabees – and who, in their own struggle, acted as לגוייםאור . After the fires of the Holocaust, they brought that אור (light) to the newly-forming Israel and to the United States, now the two major centers of world Jewry. In both countries, one created for the Jews but maintaining equality for all, and the other the world’s most  successful liberal democracy, they have kept that spirit of justice and human dignity alive.

In a time when we read news daily of rising anti-Semitism, skyrocketing incidents of anti-Asian racism, and more, the lessons of Yom HaShoah are more important than ever. Fight.

Image: Flack of the JCO.

“13 Reasons Why” Turtleboy Sports is dangerous

There’s not much that I can add to the conversation around 13 Reasons Why, which, if you haven’t seen it yet, is probably the best new show on Netflix in quite a while. Even though it only debuted a few days ago, countless virtual gallons of digital ink – and some real ink as well – have been spilled gushing over it, examining the teen drama from every angle possible. What I can add, though, is some reflection on how it relates to the local blog, Turtleboy Sports. More on that in a moment.

I hadn’t even expected to watch the show, but decided to give it a try when I found out that Gregg Araki – director of the iconic Generation X anti-masterpiece The Doom Generation – had directed two of the show’s 13 episodes. I was immediately pulled in.  13 Reasons grabs the viewer with its well-defined characters, excellent dialog, and strangely timeless quality. While the show’s preponderance of smart phones and other technology obviously sets the show in present times, it has an 80s or 90s feel to it; the main character, Hannah, almost seems like a dark, post-suicidal Clarissa explaining it all to you.

The plot revolves around the suicide of Hannah, one of two main characters. She’s killed herself before the series starts, and everyone is reeling in the aftermath. Her friend Clay receives a box of audio cassettes – did I mention there’s a retro feel to the show? – on his doorstep. Upon listening to them, he finds that they are a message from Hanna, one side of each tape dedicated to the 13 people who pushed her to her final act.

The story is wrenching on many levels: that anyone, especially someone so young, vibrant, and clever as Hannah, should take their own life is the most obvious. Just as wrenching, though, is the portrayal of the actions that drove her to suicide. Not all, but quite a few, involve misogyny and bullying. Hannah’s world, we come to realize, is one of isolation and pain. Few people realize it, though; not even Clay, her closest friend, understands. She’s written off by much of her school as a “drama queen,” a “slut,” or worse.

What does any of this have to do with a ridiculous Holden, Mass.- based blog? Everything.

Turtleboy, which was founded by disgraced ex-teacher Aiden Kearney and is financed (at the very least through advertising revenue) by Worcester city council member and city Republican Party chair Michael Gaffney, traffics in tormenting vulnerable people in exactly the same way that Hannah was tormented by her peers.

Imagine this description:

“People who knew nothing about her ganged up on her for her perceived ‘wrongs,’ and tormented her online and sometimes via other media, calling her the most misogynistic of names and making her a pariah.”

What does it reference? Turtleboy Sports? The 13 people in Hannah’s tapes? The answer, as anyone who’s read the blog and watched the show should know, is obviously “both.”

Will Turtleboy Sports drive anyone to suicide?

A small example of Turtleboy:

In early March or late February, a woman – we’ll call her C. – posted on Facebook asking for a ride to Maine to see her friend, who is in prison. She offered food and marijuana in exchange. Obviously, none of this would fall into the category of “good idea,” but it’s also not a particularly relevant news story, and we know nothing of this woman. Nonetheless, trolling through Facebook, Kearney, the Turtleboy main author, found this story and wrote an article about it, posting the girl’s photos and Facebook information.

A follow up appeared, in which the author (too frightened to use bylines) wrote about his amusement that people who knew C called the website or sent texts demanding that the story be taken down and threatening legal action. One of the recordings actually stated that C. had “a past of extreme mental illness.”

The caller posted her anger on the Turtleboy Facebook page and, egged on by Aiden Kearney and whoever the other authors are, the caller was attacked in the comments. After Kearney publicized that this nineteen-year-old worked at a specific fast food restaurant, she was fired. Later, yet another TBS article appeared, triumphant, because the caller had called again, this time in tears, saying:

Whatever. You can even put this on another article, too. You win, okay? People are calling my cellphone number, and the comments on your website, calling me, like, a sand “n*gger,” and they want to come fuck me in the ass…you can just keep the article up, I don’t care anymore.

As the recording of the call is playing, Aiden Kearney can be heard in the background, stifling laughter.

To recap: an adult trolled around on Facebook, found a request from a woman with a history of mental illness, and publicly shamed her. When someone called in to say how wrong that was, he publicized that call and shamed the caller, a 19-year-old fast food worker, who then lost her job. The Turtleboy mob – the blog has a small but cult-like townie following – then called her, using racial slurs and threatening to rape her, bringing her to tears.

This is not some isolated, ill-advised case. This is what Kearney’s Turtleboy blog does. They go after people who are at some kind of low point in their lives and attack them publicly, egging their supporters to pile on more abuse.

Will Turtleboy drive someone to suicide? Is it that unlikely?

Turtleboy readers should take note of the Netflix drama. In Hannah’s school, there were three types of people: those who actively created the lies and problems torturing Hannah; those who aided and abetted, by passing on rumors and photos; and those who could have done something, but did nothing. If, or when, someone does something terrible after a Turtleboy hitjob, each reader will be in one of those categories. “We all killed Hannah,” as one of the characters says.

Will Turtleboy Sports cause someone to commit suicide? If they continue to do what they do, the answer is: probably. And then all of those who participated or enabled will have some amount of blood on their hands, some more than others.

Aiden Kearney is the founder of Turtleboy Sports and Michael Gaffney, the city council member and Republican Party of Worcester chair, seems to be its financier. Those two will have more than Turtleboy’s victims’ blood on their hands; they’ll be awash in it.

Image: Publicity still for 13 Reasons Why. Katherine Langford as Hannah.

Yesterday’s Terror: Are We Already Starting to Forget?

As I write this, the block where I used to work in Chelsea, New York City, is still an active crime scene, as investigators try to determine who is responsible for yesterday’s terrorist attack on Manhattan. What is most remarkable, however, is how unremarkable much of the public seems to find what happened.

For the record, I am calling yesterday’s attempt at carnage by a thankfully incompetent plotter a terrorist attack, even though Mayor DeBlasio and Hillary Clinton have not done so yet. While they are trying to be prudent, I have to agree with Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who noted that when someone detonates a bomb in New York City, there really is not much else one can label the action. What’s the reason for caution in calling what happened the proper and most descriptive name? If the perpetrators turn out not to be connected to ISIS or some other overseas Islamist entity, the bomber(s) is still a terrorist. It seems that some liberal Democrats have internalized the notion that terror is an Islamic thing, and, in their zeal not to appear Islamophobic, have shown internalized anti-Islam. They should work on that. Indeed, if the perpetrators were anarchists, it was terror. If they were black nationalists, it was terror. If they were 70s-style Maoists, it was terror. If they were supporters of Trump, it was terror. Maybe it was left-wing terror; maybe it was right-wing terror; maybe it was anti-gay terror. Maybe it was Islamist terror.

And the terrorists’ intent wasn’t confined only to 23rd Street, as we now know. A similar device that thankfully failed to detonate was found on 27th Street. The investigators have announced that the devices in Chelsea, as well as the bomb that exploded on the Jersey Shore yesterday, were made using old-fashioned flip phones, suggesting that all the bombs were made by the same group or person.

But let’s look at the whole of yesterday in context. The evening before, six people were shot in Philadelphia by a mad gunman, one of whom, a 25-year-old woman, died of her wounds. Then the bomb went off in New Jersey near a parade, then the Manhattan bombing happened. At just about the same time at a mall in Saint Cloud, Minn., a man dressed as a guard rambling about Allah went on a stabbing rampage, injuring at least eight people. (ISIS has claimed responsibility for that.)

An armed rampage, two bombings, and a stabbing spree. Philadelphia, Minnesota, and New York.

These horrific happenings mix the sorts of things that Americans used to actually notice together: lone gunmen, terrorists, deranged individuals. But already everything is returning to normal; Facebook feeds are back to talk of football games and whether Hillary’s brief coughing fit means she has tuberculosis.

More and more, it seems that there is a new normal, and it sprang upon us so quickly that no one noticed. Even five years ago, people would have been horrified for days by a bomb in NYC (anyone remember when some chemicals caused an explosion in Manhattan about ten years ago, creating ’round the clock coverage in the media for days? Or when the lights going off in much of the country due to poor planning by the utility providers stoked fear that al-Qaeda-induced Armageddon was upon America?) I have always been quick to point out that Americans are sometimes too fearful, and in many ways, we still are. But the new normal, in which people take little note of terror and violent rampages, does not at all bode well. It’s as if we are in a society that’s become numb. Is it worse for Americans to live in fear of the ongoing horrors that started with, perhaps, Columbine? Or is it worse that these things have become so common that people scarcely even take note?

Perhaps people’s seeming apathy is a defense mechanism. After all, the vast majority of the country wanted some slight gun control measures, which wouldn’t have even approached anything close to the level of restrictions in many states, enacted nationally. The president, the most powerful man in the world, pushed hard for these measures after Newtown’s violence. Perhaps when America mourned scores of dead schoolchildren and said, along with their president, “Never again!” only to find out that Congress’s reply was a tacit signal that “again” was far more acceptable than a few meager gun control measures, people decided to turn off their feelings. Or, perhaps, it was the fact that such an evil action, that surely has a complex tapestry of causes – access to guns; poor mental health care nationally; the failure of anyone to notice in advance that the madman was, in fact, mad; such poor security in the school itself despite multiple instances of school shootings; a general spiritual malaise in the national psyche, especially pronounced in the youth – was reduced to bickering about gun control and sloganeering.

Maybe, after Orlando, as it has become apparent that the vast security state the U.S. had built up is not enough to keep a club of young people dancing and enjoying life safe from a local terrorist, people decided it was best to check their feelings.

Add to this new normal the routinization of the type of hateful rhetoric spewed by the Trump campaign and his followers on the right, along with the growing anti-Americanism on the left, and the picture of America that emerges is of a nation on the verge of disintegration, or something far worse.

It might feel good to keep ourselves emotionally unconnected to what’s going on around us. It felt good through much of our history, until we found out – in 2001 – that America is not some isolated land safe from the horrors of the rest of the world. Perhaps it feels good now to believe that the violence we see on TV is so rare that we won’t be affected.

Trouble is brewing across the country. We should meet it face to face before it engulfs everything.

Alienation and despair: The dark side of progress

Clearly something is wrong in the Western world.

These problems are most evident in the UK and the U.S. In Britain, a campaign propelled by fear of immigrants and multiculturalism was able to capture more than half the vote, making it highly likely that Britain will leave the European Union, causing the fall of a prime minister, and potentially leading to the breakup of the United Kingdom itself. In the United States, the situation is even more dire. The presidential campaign of Donald Trump – who has been called a fascist, not just by the left, but by fellow Republicans – has brought to the surface tensions that must have been simmering for years. His rallies, and now the Republican National Convention, are showcases of the politics of hate and fear, and they have very often led to violence. Instead of calling for an end to the violence, Trump has urged his thugs on. In Dorchester, Boston, after two white men beat a homeless Hispanic man savagely, and then saying they were inspired by Trump’s campaign, he called his supporters “passionate.” Only a few years ago, these kinds of antics would have destroyed a presidential campaign; now they bolster it. The Republican Party, unsure of what to do, is in a shambles. Mass shootings have become commonplace: in less than a month, we have seen a “self-radicalized” ISIS supporter open fire in a crowded gay Orlando nightclub, killing dozens. While the nation was still trying to recover from that event (which happened as America was still trying to recover from the previous mass shooting), two police shootings took place, provoking outrage across the country. Who was outraged, and by what, highlighted the racial divisions in this country that many Americans had thought, as recently as 2008, were becoming a thing of the past. Since then, a lone gunman shot nearly a dozen police officers in Dallas, and then another lone gunman shot some in Baton Rouge.

America and the UK, lost in turmoil. But turmoil is spreading elsewhere as well. In the midst of America’s madness, another “self-radicalized” person ran a truck into a crowd of hundreds of people in Nice, France, as they were celebrating Bastille Day. France, of course, has been no stranger to terrorism caused by “self-radicalized” Islamists (one might argue, nihilists, since they seem to worship killing more than Allah). The violence in Nice was the third such event in less than two years, with the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January 2015 and the rampage in Paris only months after. These were not specifically French affairs; as it turned out, there were connections to a network in Brussels – the capital of Europe.

It would be a mistake not to notice, sympathize with, and send solidarity to those who suffer violence around the world: the hundreds killed in Baghdad, the young girls still missing in Nigeria, the victims of ongoing civil wars across the African continent, the victims of inter-communal violence in India, Muslims persecuted in Burma, Jews killed by terrorists in Israel, the victims of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and so on. But there seems to be something new, something different, going on in the West than had previously been the case. While we can generally get a sense of the troubles in much of the rest of the world, the malaise in the West seems different because it is newer. (Again, this is a sweeping generalization, and there are many exceptions.)

But what is going on in, most especially, America? Why does it feel like we are in the midst of a societal breakdown?

Marxists have long argued that the economic relations of a society, its base, determine everything else (the “superstructure”). This has generally proven to be somewhat true, and it follows that when the economic base of society changes, the whole society will change. And right now, we are seeing one of the most fundamental economic changes, rooted in technological innovation, that the world has ever seen.

To be sure, the Industrial Revolution revolutionized societies, and quickly. “All that is solid melts into the air,” Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, describing the changes that the revolution brought about. As everyone who has researched it knows, it was a horrible time for humanity, as progressive as it was: children worked long days in the factories, there was little to nothing in the way of social security or social welfare. Luckily, we have (mostly) moved past all that. But there was something different about that period, when the capitalist system was rising, than now, during our current changes. To keep with the Marxist quotes, here is how Marx’s friend Frederick Engels described some of the changes, writing in 1847: “this process draws members of the bourgeoisie and proletarians together into the great cities where industry can be carried on most profitably, and by thus throwing great masses in one spot it gives to the proletarians a consciousness of their own strength.” Early capitalism in general and the Industrial Revolution in particular centralized; they brought people together.

Historians have described at great lengths the process of working people being brought together in factories. Prior to this centralization, people lived in feudal family units. These units were destabilized by the rise of the factory system, and they were transformed. But they were replaced: the feudal family became the nuclear family, and a new division of labor developed. It was a painful change, but centralization continued and people were again able to achieve some stability, especially in times and places like post-war America.

The new revolution, the information revolution, however, is different. It pulls in exactly the opposite direction from previous historical progress. As labor-saving technology has been implemented, factories have downsized, and as the costs of communication, transport, and relocation have plummeted, factories have moved away. Starting perhaps in the 1980s, when a huge belt of industrial areas began rusting, Americans could no longer count on going to work in the factories. Entire communities were decimated. Detroit was the most notable, but cities and towns across the country changed. People not only experienced economic insecurity – together – they began to experience social insecurity. Especially in the upper strata of the working class and the middle class, people have begun to search regionally, or nationally for work. Friends and loved ones now live further away than ever before, and social networks have become national in scope, even for the most average person.

All of this leads to weaker and weaker social bonds, more social isolation. Those who are economically insecure are now also socially insecure. The nuclear family broke down long ago, but nothing has come to replace it. Leftists a of generations ago dreamed of “smashing the family” and replacing it with a new society where everyone felt like family. The first part happened (thought the left had no hand in it), but society has become more and more atomized, and less and less conducive to close bonds between people.

While society’s economic base is evolving away from community life, humans have not. We evolved together, as social animals, over a course of more than 100,000 years (at least). While there are a few people here and there who are hermits, generally speaking, humans need community; without it, they feel a spiritual void. Without community, people become depressed, and they search for and join it wherever they can. Perhaps it is found in a Pentecostal church, or a street gang, or, as we are seeing among movements on the left and right, in identity politics. Or perhaps they find it somewhere else.

The idea that Americans, and, by extension, much of the industrialized world, are increasingly “bowling alone” is not new. Political scientist Robert Putnam noted this in a 1995 essay, and then in his famous book in 2000. What Putnam’s work could not have foreseen, though, was how pervasive the Internet has become. The period between when America was offline and when it was completely wired was extremely brief. Generation X first signed onto an online Bulletin Board Service, now arcane, as they finished up high school or entered college – and were astounded by the technology. Not even two decades later, the same people, now barely middle age, can scarcely comprehend the world they left behind when they sent their first email.

The online world has revolutionized cultural and community life. It is not necessary to share common interests with people nearby; you can find anything that interests you, and find friends, whom you have never met and likely never will meet, in far-flung corners of the nation or world. While for most of us, the vestiges of the old world, where friends and family we love are nearby, still remain, for the most socially isolated, all life is lived in the new world. Community is online.

And therein lies the danger: as anyone who reads the comments on a Youtube video knows, the most extreme ideas and beliefs are amplified by the anonymity of the Internet, and communities grow around them. The most socially isolated will find community where they find it: perhaps in a motor cars forum, or perhaps in an ISIS chat group. While in years past, someone with extremist ideas would most likely spend their days being kept in line by their local community, they now have a wide platform to spout their views, and they can easily find those who agree with them. Sociology shows us that people quickly adopt the norms of the group they interact with most. This is harmless if the online community is a UFC fight group, perhaps a bit pernicious if they become too involved in some other group, and downright scary if they become involved in extremist political or racial groups. Extremist beliefs are, as studies have shown, a much more accurate indicator of a tendency towards violence than mental illness ever has been.

None of America’s or the industrialized world’s old problems have gone away, either: inequality is still with us, environmental issues still plague us, racism and ethnic discrimination are still with us, sexism is still with us, and so on. Now all of these problems exist alongside, exacerbate, and are exacerbated by an ever-increasing and ever-new sense of insecurity and isolation. This is the brew out of which the seemingly senseless horrors that have started plaguing society have arisen, and there is no indication that any of that is about to change for the better.

What can be done about it? The answer is far from clear. While the old ideas of the left, that people should unite to fight for a better future, still sound nice, the whole economic and technological basis of society is pulling us in a much different direction. If these ideas were not successful during the days when industry and factories dominated the scene, it is hard to imagine how they can become successful now.

Unfortunately, it is also hard to imagine any other solution.

Photo by KD, used under a Creative Commons license.

Initial thoughts on Orlando

Marx famously wrote that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, and then as farce. He was right about the repetition, and about the sheer lunacy of how historical moments repeat. However, farce is at the very least amusing, and there is little humor to go around as the American cycle of violence continues its seemingly endless iterations. As we once again try to make sense of a senseless tragedy, the familiar characters have all taken their places in their respective positions and are even now on stage, repeating their lines from a tired script.

I have little to add; instead, I have a few thoughts that do not necessarily relate to each other, listed below. I’m writing from Worcester, Massachusetts, far from Orlando, but I lived in Miami and do feel some connection to the state of Florida, so my comments might be slightly more visceral than normal.

1. As we mourn the loss of the innocents in Orlando, and do what we can to support their families, we should remember that the struggle for LGBTQ rights continues. Earlier, the police caught another would-be murderer who planned to kill at the Los Angeles Pride parade. America has made huge progress in the struggle for LGBTQ equality, and is currently one of the most progressive countries in the world on the issue. Nonetheless, we still have to fight on for full rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer people.

2. What happened in Orlando was terrorism and hate, as Obama said. It was hate because the victims were targeted based on their sexual orientation. It was terror because it was designed for maximum carnage to make a statement in favor of a religio-political entity, the IS. Many have pointed out the media’s double standard in calling the Orlando violence terror. People who say this are right to do so: the violence in Atlanta, for example, against the black AME churchgoers, was also terrorism.

3. Obviously, the average Muslim is not a terrorist. But there is a relation to Islam, and there is such a thing as Islamist extremism that has to be rooted out. While these strands are most visible in Islam recently, it is also true that Christianity, Hunduism (e.g. India’s ruling Hindu-fascist party), Buddhism (e.g. the Buddhist terror violence against Muslims in Burma), and the other religions have these problems as well. It is not Islamophobic to say that what happened has something to do with Islam, and not some off-the-wall argument to say it has something to do with religion. To say this is neither an argument for nor against Islam or religion; instead it is doing what we need to do, taking stock of the situation.

Many of the world’s major religions and their texts have problematic verses, and different members of the faithful read these verses in different ways. There are verses that appear to be anti-gay, anti-woman, or pro-violence in the Quran, in the Christian New Testament, and in other holy books. It is from these verses, at least in part, that groups like ISIS, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Hindu mobs in India, and others draw their claims for legitimacy. To dismiss this is to dismiss the work of progressive theologians working to interpret these verses differently; dismissal means throwing away the coin of which the progressives are the flipside.

For example, this guy is a very very horrible person within the realm of Christianity. There’s no difference between him and an ISIS leader (aside from his talk of using the “proper channels” to kill gays). Religious progressives should try and are trying to win the theological battle in their faiths against these and other less extreme, but still pernicious, beliefs (as the gay Imam in Washington and others like him are doing in Islam, as the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ do in Christianity, etc.).

4. Guns. Why would a person who has been investigated – not once, but twice – by the FBI be able to obtain an assault weapon? We Americans need to curb our gun culture dramatically: get rid of assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons, etc. We need need national anti-gun laws that parallel Massachusetts and New York. These states keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or they would, if the criminals couldn’t easily travel to Virginia, Florida, and other such states to buy them easily. As Obama himself noted days ago, the FBI has the power to stop a suspected terrorist from traveling, but not from buying a gun. As a society, we still have to figure out how to both respect the legitimate rights of gun owners and stop dangerous people from having weapons.

5. It’s right to politicize the issue. Calls by people not to “politicize” the issue are misguided, because there is an ongoing problem of gun violence, of terrorists, of homophobia and what it inspires. These problems demand solutions, and the only earthly solutions to these problems are primarily political; they come through the auspices of the state, and it is up to those of us who care to make sure those in charge of the state do the right thing.

Photo by Miguel Discart under a Creative Commons copyright.

Labor Department official says U.S. needs independent labor media

Generally, I avoid posting news articles I’ve written here, but this is on an important topic, and it is a subject rarely covered in the news media. Therefore, I decided to break with my regular protocol.

The mainstream media has become so biased against working people that even a federal agency can’t get its message out, says a senior Department of Labor official.

President Obama’s Labor Department has an impressive list of accomplishments, but most of the media doesn’t bother to report on them, Carl Fillichio, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’s senior adviser for public affairs and communications, told the annual gathering of the International Labor Communications Association.

Referring to the midterm elections, Fillichio said, “Why we fared the way we did three weeks ago is because things weren’t explained enough to people. There is a great need for people to get the full story.”

The role of labor media is therefore all the more precious, he continued. In many cases, the only way his department can get its accomplishments known is through the independent media.

“We battle every single day when we try to put something out,” he said. “The Washington Post, the New York Times, cable television” and others want to focus only on the nuts and bolts of policy issues. “Nobody is really telling the true story about how this is going to affect real people in real time in real ways.”

Fillichio announced at the meeting that he had hired a staff person specifically to deal with labor media, and then proceeded to give his name, e-mail address and phone number to everyone in the audience.

The message was appropriate for the crowd. ILCA, with nearly 500 members,  is the professional association of newspapers, websites and other forms of media  published by labor unions or about the labor movement across the country.

In making his case, the official listed Labor Department accomplishments that the vast majority of Americans have never heard about.

The department has, since Solis took over, hired 720 bilingual grievance personnel, issued the largest OSHA fine in history, and, in a move unprecedented in U.S. history, completely shut down a mine because of worker fatalities.

“We believe that a worker doesn’t have to die for a paycheck,” the federal official said.

More than anything else, however, the biggest accomplishment of Solis’s department so far, Fillichio told the crowd, was to bring it back up to pre-Bush, year 2000 standards.

“That’s pathetic,” he said, “but we gotta brag about that, because the previous administration brought it so low.” He noted that “the previous Labor secretary, Elaine Chao, was the only Bush cabinet member who was there in the same department for eight years.” He argued that over the eight years of the Bush administration, the employees and the department itself had been “de-souled.”

“Here’s something revolutionary,” he said, speaking of the new department’s accomplishments. “It was actually called ‘revolutionary.’ Hispanic workers are killed more than others on the job, so we held a Hispanic health and safety conference.”

Fillichio is proud of the initiative, but said it was “ridiculous” that it could be called “revolutionary” or “historic,” asking, “That was the first time an administration held such a conference?”

The Department of Labor will continue fighting for working people, he said, and will assess how to best do so given the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. Solis and her staff will focus especially on enforcing existing labor law, he said.

“We cannot depend on those other people – the traditional media – to get that message out,” Fillichio concluded.

Originally published in Labor World, page 22. Labor World, established in 1896 in Duluth, Minnesota, is “Published by and for unions affiliated with the Duluth AFL-CIO Central Labor Body.” Image via the International Labor Communications Association.

From Fatwa to Jihad

Most comments on the rise of radical Islam tend to fall into either a left or right wing version of political scientist Samuel P. Huntington’s argument, first developed in 1992, that we are in the midst of a clash of civilizations. With the collapse of the Communist bloc, he argued, the world would become increasingly dominated by contradictions between rival civilizations, groups so distinct that they were bound to clash. Of these there were many, but the biggest conflicts were likely to arise between the “civilizations” Huntington dubbed the “Western” and the “Islamic.”

The extreme right wing shows its acceptance of this theory through crude attacks on anything Muslim, whether by protesting an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan or burning copies of the Koran. But, author and journalist Kenan Malik argues in his superbly written history/polemic From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and Its Aftermath, that the multicultural left has done the same thing in a warmer and fuzzier sort of way, often by claiming that the worst aspects of Islam, even the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, themselves, were an unjustified but understandable reaction to Western intervention in “the Islamic world.”
The havoc wrought by so-called radical Islam—from the World Trade Center to Mumbai to Bali—seems to provide a worthy basis for believing Huntington correct.

If one were to place the civilization clash theory into a political category, it would most certainly be considered to the “right,” for obvious reasons. The idea that certain countries, even whole blocs of countries, are so alien that they can only be dealt with through antagonism and war would certainly appeal to the likes of Norman Podhoretz or Karl Rove. But, in a strange twist, much of the liberal left has embraced this concept of extreme irreconcilable difference.

Aside from the prediction of constant instability and war, the most highly unpleasant facet of this theory is the implication that traditional liberal aspirations for progress and equality were wrong. Further, according to this school of thought, the great ideals of the Enlightenment, the principled stand that freedom of speech, assembly, the press and religion were all universal, are grand illusions at best.

These rights were to extend to everyone no matter their background, and the cause of a true progressive was to fight to ensure that these liberties were enjoyed by all. When one accepts that there are different, non-overlapping civilizations, one must also accept that certain peoples and nations are, because of their culture, simply not destined for “Western” democracy and liberties.

As illiberal as this notion seems to be, a large, perhaps majority, section of Western liberals, argues Malik, have embraced it even in their own nations, under the guise of “multiculturalism.” Instead of seeing human rights as applying to all individuals, there has been a trend towards identifying all cultures as equal—no matter what that culture’s own attitudes towards the rights of its members. Even worse, many western societies, by separating groups of people off from the mainstream of society through policies of cultural “respect,” have actually given fuel to or even created the Islamic extremist elements we see emerging in many liberal democracies, particularly Britain.

Malik, in From Fatwa, points to the so-called “Rushdie affair,” the period of controversy and death threats surrounding Salman Rushdie’s alternately condemned and celebrated novel, The Satanic Verses. At about that time, says Malik, people from various communities that happened to be Muslim started to act as “the Muslim community.” Riots and book burnings became well known, both in certain Islamic countries and, even more so, in Britain and the west.

On the surface, it looked as if, at that point, an extremist Islamic movement came to birth, a movement that grew to a worldwide scale, eventually achieving such “triumphs” as the destruction of the Twin Towers and other travesties. But, according to Malik, reality is much different.

 

Radical Islam, says the author, failed pathetically in the Muslim world. In 1979, it was a movement riding high, having just established the first Islamic state following the Iranian Revolution. The spirits of political Islamists were up and it seemed a wave of Islamic revolutions would sweep the world, the way, they thought, Communist revolutions swept Europe and elsewhere following Russia’s 1917 lead. Ten years later, political Islam was in tatters, and different countries were fighting to control what was left. Thus, the controversy surrounding The Satanic Verses was more to do with a power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran—who would lead the Islamic world? —than about any rise in fanaticism.

 

Instead of a battle of civilizations, we have a simple, old-style battle for political supremacy going on. Without detracting from the terrors perpetuated by the Taliban (or Hamid Karzai’s Northern Alliance, now running Afghanistan), we can see the same dynamic in South Asia, where, as elsewhere, secular governments have funded religious extremists to undermine democratic movements.

But what about western jihadists?

The answer, says Malik, once again does not lie in a group of people somehow becoming more pious; in fact, many of these western-based terrorists are not very pious at all. They are also not part of any real network that links them to al-Qaeda or anywhere else. Instead, Malik, using the example of Britain, traces the problem to the failure of the battle against racism, coupled with the “official” answer to that social scourge—multiculturalism.

Up through the nineteen eighties, there had been a united fight against racist violence from neo-Nazis by Britain’s “Black” community (South Asians, Afro-Caribbeans, and others). The official response wasn’t to help equalize society, but to establish outreach programs to different, relatively arbitrarily grouped, communities. Thus, Pakistanis, some Indians and others were lumped into “the Muslim community,” and the government’s primary way of interacting with them was through “community leaders.“ These so-called leaders were simply those who spoke a lot, or who decided they wanted to be community leaders.

Eventually, these policies pushed people so far apart that Britain came to be seen as a “community of communities,” and no longer a cohesive whole. Muslims generally stopped associating with Afro-Caribbeans, and so on.

Of course, most Muslims are not terrorists, so the question arises: Who becomes a terrorist and why? We know that most of these people have been well off, at least middle class, and well educated. According to Malik, the separation foisted by multiculturalism provided fertile ground for identity politics, mixed with a culture of grievance, to grow into jihadist terror. Young people in the “Muslim community,” instead of fighting racism—how could one fight against inequality when the whole idea of a cohesive society was out the window?—found themselves fighting against their parents’ version of Islam; in short, the rebelled by becoming more pious, more “Islamic” than anyone else.

Malik’s arguments against multiculturalism may not be politically correct and may even offend some—much of the book is devoted to the problematic fact that society now goes out of its way to avoid causing anyone offense, thus never challenging many real problems. Nonetheless, From Fatwa does provide an understanding of how and why Islamic extremism has come about. Further, the book offers something that most modern liberals, having become cynical, do not: a hope that there can be real equality, diversity and tolerance, and an end to the “clash of civilizations.”

Some have even gone to the length of calling Malik’s conclusions “racist”—an astounding claim, given that Malik, who now works as a BBC Radio 4 announcer, is a British Marxist of Indian descent who spent much of the nineteen eighties fighting against racists in words, but also in action; he helped to organize street patrols to defend Asian families from neo-Nazi attacks. Further, Malik played a leading role in numerous campaigns against deportations and police brutality. Making the claims of Malik’s detractors even more absurd, it is precisely this kind of fight for equality—at the expense of multi-cultural apartheid—that the author advocates.

Any solution is based in the basic principle that all people have certain rights and are fundamentally equal—even if, as Malik argued in a 2002 essay on multiculturalism, all cultures and ideologies are not.

Originally published in Guernica at www.guernicamag.org