The Politics of Abandonment

Image Courtesy of Yahoo!

The Politics of Abandonment: Abandoning Chelsea Manning and Siding with the State and Heteronormativity

This article was published in a special edition of the LGBT academic journal QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking


Chelsea Manning is a hero. She stood up for American values and for the American people when she leaked classified documents to Wikileaks. Due to her courageous actions, we became aware of a number of issues, from unsavory diplomatic backdoor dealings to war crimes committed by the US military. Yet, when the time came to defend her, the American people failed. They were told by a media that has sided time and time again with the government that Manning was a traitor and that she had endangered the security of the nation and other soldiers (something that was proven false by the Pentagon no less), the American people turned their back on her. Yet, the worst betrayal came from the LGBT community. We betrayed Manning, we allowed her to be fed to the wolves. It even went so far that other trans* people such as Christine Howey referred to Manning as a “trans traitor” and stated that it was “disheartening to see the transgender community saddled with another negative image”[1] in the form of Chelsea Manning.

Manning was stigmatized by the LGBT community early last year. In May at the San Francisco Pride Parade, plans were made to have Manning nominated as the grand marshall of the parade, however, after “LGBT military groups from outside of San Francisco began to bombard San Francisco Pride’s office with phone calls and emails,”[2] the Pride Board removed her from the list and a press release was published in which it was stated that Manning’s nomination was a “mistake” and “should never have been allowed to happen.”[3]

There is also something deeper at work here, specifically an attitude that seeks to conform. It is a mindset which plays out in one’s actions in their daily life. It is an attempt to be blend in with and assimilate to the larger culture. To this end, one may even betray members of their own community and side with the group(s) of the larger culture. In certain communities, it is called respectability politics, in the LGBT community, it is called heteronormativity. It is this heteronormativity that has become a part of the LGBT community and has resulted in the betrayal of Chelsea Manning. It is in this context that Chelsea was betrayed, that the LGBT community sided with the US government, a government that has historically oppressed them into modern times, not just in civilian life, but also in the military.

The US Government

While many were infuriated at Manning for leaking classified information and sided with the government in condemning Manning as a traitor, they failed to realize or acknowledge the fact that the US government has a history of oppressing the LGBT community.

LGBT persecution first came about most prominently after World War 2, in the late 1940s. In 1947, the Senate Appropriations subcommittee sent with a list of "admitted homosexuals and suspected perverts” to the State Department and in 1950, “a State Department official testified before that subcommittee that 91 ‘sex perverts’ had been allowed to resign in the previous three years, and that some had subsequently been reemployed by other federal agencies.”[4] This resulted in Republicans launching attacks against President Truman for not only employing gay people, but also a full scale inquiry led by Clyde Roark Hory (D-NC) to discover why federal employment of gays was unwanted. The committee found that

The behavior of homosexuals was criminal and immoral; they lacked emotional stability because "indulgence in acts of sex perversion weakens the moral fiber"; they frequently attempted to seduce normal people, especially the young and impressionable; and they had a "tendency to gather other perverts" around them. Probably most importantly, homosexuals were seen as security risks. On the one hand, their emotional instability and moral weakness made them "vulnerable to interrogation by a skilled questioner and they seldom refuse to talk about themselves.” On the other hand, "the pervert is easy prey to the blackmailer.” (emphasis added) [5]

Thus, from the very start, gays were seen as a threat to the United States and very likely to be traitors to their country due solely to their sexuality. This fear of gays came from the fear that they could “[hide] their true natures, allowing them to ‘infiltrate’ government in a way other out-groups could not,” yet some took this fear to the extreme with one right-wing columnist “[charging] that ‘an all-powerful, super-secret inner circle of highly educated, socially highly placed sexual misfits in the State Department" controlled foreign policy.”[6]

The effects of this manner of thinking were quite detrimental to the country as the government began to go on a massive witch hunt for gays, even going so far as to use entrapment in the case of William Dale Jennings.[7] The FBI even went to so far as to create a Sexual Deviates Program. The program was created by J. Edgar Hoover to “purge any suspected homosexual from the federal payroll” as well as “sex deviates employed either by institutions of higher learning or law-enforcement agencies."[8] It was amid this persecution and increased hostility that gays began to organize and fight back against a government that demonized them.

The Mattachine Society

During this turbulent and worrisome time for the gay community, some believed that it was time to organize and promote gay rights. This was during the time of the Lavender Scare, which “saw increased gay bar raids, homosexuals ferreted out of the military, gays being purged from government jobs, and the enactment of state and municipal sexual psychopath laws, all of which made living an openly gay life seemingly impossible.”[9] In Los Angeles in 1950, former Communist Party members Harry Hay, Chuck Rowland, and Bob Hull created the Mattachine Society. The Society was “named for an obscure medieval French group that satirized the French aristocracy from behind the safety of face masks,”[10] the trio believed that the name fit quite well, given the situation of the gay community which had to remain in the shadows of American society.

The FBI quickly learned of the Society and began to investigate it to discern whether or not it was Communist-led or had been infiltrated by Communists, yet they were unable to find anything despite the fact that the Society had been founded by three former Communists. The Society’s first victory came in the case of the aforementioned William Dale Jennings who had been caught in a case of homosexual entrapment, but the charges were dismissed in court when the jury deadlocked over the issue of acquittal. The court case resulted in an increase in membership, but also the group became the subject of an intense FBI investigation.

Los Angeles Mirror reporter Paul Coates, “obtained copies of Mattachine's lobbying questionnaires [and] published an article questioning the legitimacy of the group.”[11] He even raised the specter that Mattachine was a possibly dangerous group and speculated that a "well-trained subversive could move in and forge that power into a dangerous political weapon."[12] Coates fed on the popular narrative that gays were susceptible to blackmail. This actually played into the FBI investigation of the Society as the FBI interviewed an informant from the group who gave them additional information to Coates’ article.

While all of this was going on in Los Angeles, the fight to protect gay federal employees was occurring in Washington D.C. Frank Kamney, an astronomer with a doctorate from Harvard, lost a three-year legal battle to keep his job with the US Army Mapping Service. He and Bruce Scott, a former federal employee who has been forced to resign in 1956 due to his homosexuality, founded the Mattachine Society of Washington D.C. and launched efforts to discuss with government officials the employment ban on gays.

The Society of DC argued that “homosexuals were a minority group and that federal employment policies toward gays were equivalent to racial discrimination,”[13] with Kameny testifying before a congressional committee in August 1963 and the group protesting the White House on numerous occasions in the summer of 1965. The Society finally got a meeting with a Civil Service Commission committee in the fall of 1965 in which “Commission Chairman John W Macy, Jr., wrote to the Mattachine Society completely [rejected] their contention that the exclusion of homosexuals constituted discrimination against an oppressed minority and [claimed] that there was no such thing as a homosexual” and that “the attempt to define people with homosexual inclinations as a minority group was an attempt to excuse them from taking responsibility for their immoral actions.”[14]

Thus, we see a history of where the US government has, in civilian life, oppressed, ridiculed, demonized and overall shown a complete and utter disdain for gays. From cases of entrapment and spying, to outright being labeled as traitors to their country, the anti-gay tendencies of the US government were quite strong. However, the problems didn’t stop there. They went into the realm of the military and culminated in the well-known Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy. While the policy is infamous, the effects on LGBT servicemembers are not well known.

The US Military

The DADT policy had a horrendous effect on LGB servicemembers. “For instance, over 19,000 servicemembers (active-duty enlisted or officer members of the military service, including the National Guard and Reserve) experienced sexual-orientation- based discharges from 1980 to 1993 and 13,000 more were discharged from 1993 to 2009 following initiation of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”[15] The military is a space in which heterosexuality and masculinity are the norm and are strictly enforced. If one does not adhere to those standards, then one is victimized and intimidated.  Assaults of all types were used as enforcement mechanisms in the military. In a 2004 survey of anonymous LGB servicemembers revealed that “Experiences of discrimination and victimization in the military as related to sexual orientation were reported by almost half of respondents, with 47.2% indicating at least one experience of verbal, physical, or sexual assault.”[16] More recently, in 2010, the Department of Defense did a study on sexual orientation and US military personnel policy and found that

The majority of LGB respondents (91%) indicated that DADT puts gay servicemembers at risk for blackmail or manipulation, as well as negatively affects their personal (86%) and unit (76%) relationships. Seventy-two percent indicated experiencing stress and anxiety in their daily lives because of DADT. Twenty-nine percent indicated having been teased or mocked and 7% indicated previous threats or injuries by other individuals in the military because of their own LGB sexual orientation. (emphasis added) [17]

While some may argue that DADT is over, it actually isn’t as the policy does not include transgendered individuals such as Chelsea Manning. In fact, “the U.S. military disqualifies transgender troops for health reasons” and “for now, the Pentagon has no plans to cross that line.”[18]  The military’s policy in regards to trans* people are quite wretched. According to Outserve-SLDN, an organization for LGBT military members, trans* people are rejected not just if they have had any type of genital surgery, but even if they only identify as transgender as “the military considers this to be a mental health condition.” In regards to active duty military members, the military “is unlikely to provide the medical support necessary for transitioning service members” and if one seeks outside help, “they are at risk because they have a duty to report such treatment to the military. Failure to abide by these regulations could result in criminal prosecution by the military.”[19] Many Americans viewed the fall of DADT as a victory and rightfully so, however, there is a serious problem for trans* people that is largely being ignored by mainstream LGBT groups.

Heteronormativity

When Manning’s case gained mainstream attention, many groups that should have went to bat for her and supported her, instead remained mute and allowed the vilification of Manning to continue unabated and some, such as the aforementioned San Francisco Pride Parade Board, even went so far as to participate in it themselves. Such activity on the part of the LGBT community constitutes not just a betrayal of Manning, but of ourselves as well.

Two major LGBT rights groups, the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD, stayed silent about Manning for the entire fiasco of her trial and never once came out in support of her. On the day of her sentencing, HRC released a statement in which they stated that Manning’s transition deserved to be respected and that she deserved to be protected from violence, yet it slighted her when the message read

What should not be lost is that there are transgender servicemembers and veterans who serve and have served this nation with honor, distinction and great sacrifice. We must not forget or dishonor those individuals. Pvt. Manning’s experience is not a proxy for any other transgender man or woman who wears the uniform of the United States. [20]

This is essentially a message which seeks to separate Manning from the rest of the military community. It turns Manning into a black sheep of the trans* military community, implies that she did not serve her country honorably and only continues the campaign to isolate and ostracize her.

However, her abandonment should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially when one factors in who groups such as HRC and GLAAD are connected to. It was reported in July of this year that HRC had “the financial backing of major military industrial corporations, including Lockheed Martin, which is sponsoring the HRC's upcoming national gala in Washington DC and Booz Allen Hamilton, a corporate partner for the national event, as well as Northrop Grumman a sponsor of their Los Angeles gala.”[21] On GLAAD’s website, they list the AT&T Foundation as one of their sponsors.[22] AT&T is paid by the NSA to provide the government agency with the communications of their customers.[23] We see that the one of the main reasons that neither of these major groups made even the slightest defense of Manning was due to the fact that they were directly connected to the military complex and if a defense of Manning had been mounted; their funding may very well have dried up rather quickly.

There is also another reason as to why a defense of Manning did not occur and that is because of her background. Manning didn’t “conform to these upwardly mobile, white, polished, virile male stereotypes” of LGBT people that both of these groups attempted to portray. Rather, her “slight frame, lower-class background, questioning of [her] gender identity, inability to hold down a typical job, general dorkiness and dysfunctional family life”[24] created a situation in which she did not fit the image that either GLAAD or HRC wanted to promote.

At its heart, what this speaks to is two problems within the LGBT community: 1) that there is a split between the lesbian and gay branches of the community and everyone else and that 2) there is only one type of person that mainstream LGBT groups want to promote.

The split between the lesbian and gay branches with everyone else in the LGBT community is quite problematic as the political effects for members of the LGBT community are quite real, specifically with the separation of the GL portion, which came with ignoring other members of the community. Essentially, gays and lesbians succeeded by distancing themselves from other LGBT people.

Over time, the “GL” portion of the platform became increasingly acceptable to the population at large, both through increased education and desensitization of the public and by disavowing the more unacceptable elements of the movement. At the same time, this political success fueled a separatist culture, which bisexuals and transgenders threatened to dilute and homogenize.[25]

By fighting solely for their own rights, lesbians and gays were able to attain mainstream acceptance by the larger American culture, but at the expense of other members of the community, which includes bisexuals and trans* and queer people.

Yet, what must also be examined is that lesbians and gays were able to go gain acceptance due to aligning their interests with the view of the overall American culture. Pushing for marriage equality doesn’t upset the apple cart for most people. Many LGBT rights groups want to promote a certain image of the community as was described above. This selective portrayal can be seen on a regular basis with people being interviewed about LGBT issues largely being white, middle and upper class, cisgendered men.

Yet, this all comes at a cost. The cost of focusing on only one type of person means that the experiences of people are lost and ignored. The experience of the black gay man, the poor white bisexual, the transgendered high school student, and countless other stories are forgotten and laid to the wayside.

At the end of the day, by betraying Manning, the LGBT community has betrayed itself as Manning is “actually what many, if not most, LGBT people have been at one point or another – an outsider, a loner, a person who does not fit in or conform.”[26] All LGBT people were like that at some point in their lives or are currently in that situation. The betrayal must end and Chelsea Manning’s story must be heard.


Endnotes


1: Christine Howey, “First Person: ‘Trans Traitor’ Manning Adds to Transgender Perception Problem,” NBC News, August 23, 2013 (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/23/20153443-first-person-trans-traitor-manning-adds-to-transgender-perception-problem?lite)

2: Kevin Gosztola, Former San Francisco Pride Grand Marshal Who Nominated Bradley Manning Details Board’s Capitulation, Firedoglake (April 29, 2013) (http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/04/29/former-san-francisco-pride-grand-marshal-who-nominated-bradley-manning-discusses-boards-capitulation/)

3: Victoria A. Brownworth, “Bradley Manning and Queer Collaboration,” Advocate, May 1, 2013 (http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2013/05/01/op-ed-bradley-manning-and-queer-collaboration)

4: Gregory B. Lewis, “Lifting the Ban on Gays in the Civil Service: Federal Policy toward Gay and Lesbian Employees since the Cold War,” Public Administration Review 57:5 (1997), pg 388

5: Ibid

6: Ibid, pg 389

7: Dudely Clendinen, “William Dale Jennings, 82, Writer and Gay Rights Pioneer,” New York Times, May 22, 2000 (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/22/us/william-dale-jennings-82-writer-and-gay-rights-pioneer.html)

8: Athan Theoharis, “Civil Liberties: The Cost of Fighting Terrorism,” Los Angeles Times, April 30, 1995 (http://articles.latimes.com/1995-04-30/opinion/op-60524_1_fbi-officials)

9: Douglas M. Charles, “From Subversion to Obscenity: The FBI's Investigations of the Early Homophile Movement in the United States, 1953-1958,” Journal of Sexuality 19:2 (2010), pg 263

10: Charles, pg 264

11: Charles, pg 267

12: Charles, pg 268

13: Lewis, pg 390

14: Ibid

15: Derek J. Burks, “Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Victimization in the Military: An Unintended Consequence of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?” American Psychological Association 66:7 (2011), pg 604

16: Burks, pg 607

17: Ibid

18: Tom Vanden Brook, “Transgender Troops Serve In Silence,” USA Today, July 23, 2013 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/23/transsexuals-military-struggle-acceptance/2513153/)

19: Outserve-SLDN, Transgender People In The Military Service, http://www.sldn.org/pages/transgender-people-and-military-service

20: Jeff Krehely, “Pvt. Chelsea E. Manning Comes Out, Deserves Respectful Treatment by Media and Officials,” Human Rights Campaign, August 22, 2013 (http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/pvt.-chelsea-e.-manning-comes-out-deserves-respectful-treatment-by-media-an)

21: Christopher Carbone, “Have Gay Rights Groups Abandoned Bradley Manning?,” The Guardian, July 30, 2013 (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-gay-rights-groups-support)

22: GLAAD, Support GLAAD: Foundations and Corporate Grants, http://www.glaad.org/support/grants

23: Robert Lenzer, “AT&T, Verizon, Sprint Are Paid Cash By NSA For Your Private Communications,” Forbes, September 23, 2013 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/09/23/attverizonsprint-are-paid-cash-by-nsa-for-your-private-communications/)

24: The Guardian, July 30, 2013

25: Jillian T. Weiss, “GL vs. BT: The Archaeology of Biphobia and Transphobia Within the U.S. Gay and Lesbian Community,” Journal of Bisexuality 3:3 (2004), pg 40

26: The Guardian, July 30, 2013

The Citizen's Dilemma

Image Courtesy of Caffienatedthoughts.com

While the 2014 Senate elections are several months away and the 2016 Presidential elections are even farther off into the future, the media is still hyping these up as if they are going to happen any day, most recently with the Chris Christie bridge scandal. However, the time has come for us to question as to why we vote, why we engage in this current system that oppresses us. We must realize the citizen’s dilemma.

Again and again, every election cycle people are encouraged to vote and millions turn out with the hopes that voting in a new politician will change the current system. Unfortunately that is currently not true and has not been true for decades. It would be false to say that there has not been major reform in the past, such as with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, but overall we have seen that the government has become more and more oppressive over time while becoming less and less responsive to the people. We only need to look at what is currently going on with the NSA spying on Americans to Obama having signed the NDAA in 2012 which allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens. Yet, we need to look at the roots of this problem.

In the US education system we are embedded with a number of ideas from a young age but two stand out the most: 1) The US is a democracy and 2) Voting is extremely important. Many continue to believe in this for the rest of their lives and eventually align with either the Democratic or Republican parties and continue to support one of the two parties throughout the rest of their lives. We are caught in this idea that voting is important and voting will effect real change, all the while ignoring that time after time, voting doesn’t actually do much at all.

While most Americans identify as independent they still go and support either one of two parties, election after election. This is an extremely strange phenomenon when Congress currently has historically low ratings, even going so far as to be less popular than cockroaches and traffic jams. Both political parties are criticized on a regular basis for looking out more for their own political interests rather than the interests of the nation as a whole.

The US government has continued a number of policies that are constant, no matter what party is at the presidential helm, namely war, ‘free’ trade, and the surveillance of Americans. While there are differences between Democrats and Republicans, on a majority of major issues they are the same. The government does not truly care about its citizenry, rather it cares much more about corporations and themselves, as can be seen by the fact that they have taken time to line their own pockets by repealing most of the STOCK Act and that they are bought and paid for by corporations. There is a further disconnect between the people and Congress as many in Congress are millionaires and thus their personal interests align with those of the upper class and corporate elites rather than their constituents.

While may argue that the way to fix the system is through reform, namely campaign finance reform such as repealing the Citizens United case and by enacting term limits on both chambers of Congress, however even that will not work as it has to be enacted by the very people who are benefitting from the status quo.

The situation doesn’t get any better when one factors in that the two political parties actually go against their espoused values on a regular basis, rather they actually agree on many things that go against their values. The NDAA 2012 which allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens and the Trans Pacific Partnership are two recent occurrences that go against the Democrats stance of wanting to do away with the security state that former President Bush created. The Republicans, too, support the surveillance state as they recently praised him on his defense of NSA spying, something that goes completely against their ‘small government’ agenda. No matter if the administration be Republican or Democrat, we have consistently seen a number of policies remain the same, namely war, supporting corporations under the guise of ‘free trade,’ and the increased monitoring of the populace.

Thus, the American people find themselves in a dilemma in which there are a myriad of problems facing them, but the current political structures refuse to address the problems, rather they only serve as a valve in which to unleash steam. Voting does not help. Reform will not be enacted. It is time for Americans to begin to create new structures that work for the public rather than to continue engaging in a revolving door.

On Bearing Witness

Image Courtesy of Hurt 2 Healing Magazine

Seeing the bombings, killings, and general injustices committed in the US and around the world are extremely disheartening and discouraging. Hopelessness and a general feeling that nothing can be done can easily overwash a person. It is even more so if you are in a situation where you are unable to attend protests, rallies, or marches. However, there is something that we can all do: bear witness. By that I mean that we keep abreast of what is going on in the world and make a point to discuss important issues and topics with people in our everyday lives, especially those who may not be too interested in politics. To discuss this in more detail, I recently had an email interview with Melissa R and Geoff W about bearing witness.



1. How do you define this idea of 'bearing witness?

Melissa: I think of this in a broader sense so that it includes practices of mine as well as what I imagine would be a more common interpretation. By a more common interpretation I mean those interactions with other people that involve sharing experiences, knowledge, and ideas without the religious missionary aspect. In my broader explanation it's really about developing a wide ranging base of knowledge and ideas without being locked into any so that others are off limits. There is self study and education at the core. I suppose that bearing witness would come in again to personal practices of mine would in conversation, observation, conflict resolution, and then again sharing information and ideas. For me it isn't about changing someone's core ideas or bringing them over to a team but more about giving them an impetus to consideration on their own.

I also take bearing witness to mean putting thoughtful attention to what is going on around me or in the world. One could on a level know that there is a drone program and maybe even know details of it to the extent they are available. Many people do and yet choose to turn off at the junction of seeing the testimony of the families who were fortunate enough to have survived, such as Rafiq ur Rehman and his two children. They came to D.C. to testify about the drone attack on Waziristan in which Rafiq's mother was killed and children injured. Only five “lawmakers” and very few journalists showed. Hearing and spreading these truths be it pretty or harsh is a form of bearing witness that is essential, in my opinion.

Geoff: Christians have the best definition, "to share the good news." Unfortunately, not everything lefties bear witness to can be considered remotely close to "good," so we must adopt our own definition.  Let the truth be said, then. At the least, let your truth be said.

2. Why do you think that bearing witness is important?

Melissa: So many are in debt to extend their education, didn't complete their high school education, or are engaging in self education because they don't want to add to debt in order to go to college. In addition to these means of education bearing witness can be educational moments as well. Even if this is watching documentaries, listening to programs, talking to people of varying opinions, a new takeaway can be gained. I think there is also something gained for both parties when a compassionate or attentive audience is present for particularly important moments. It doesn't have to lead to a change of mind or an urge to move. It could just give someone perspective or give one person a sense of dignity for being recognized.

Geoff: Bearing witness startles people. I can't speak for humans globally, but in America we tend to segregate ourselves based on personal beliefs.  When an individual has the opportunity to say something contrary to their peers' opinions, there is a small moment where people have to decide either to dismiss the new opinion out of hand, or think critically about both options presented.  It's that latter action we as activists should hope to prompt.

3. How do you go about doing this in your own lives?

Melissa: I feel in addition to having a wide base of knowledge we also need to take in a wide variety of experiences and kinds of life, not necessarily through having them ourselves. We can do this by earnestly communicating them with other people. It's never been easier for this to take place than in this time of instant mass information. One problem that I see is what I call “teaming” which is really just tribalism. The corporate media is only distributing limited information and even within those there are sides to be chosen. Even with so much information available many people still choose to wall themselves off in these reinforcement chambers.

What I think we can do in our own lives is just engage with people, read a wider variety of information with a critical eye, but not with the intent of moving from one side to another. This whole notion of “sides” is problematic and exactly what enhances power structures. Be with people and give them compassion. Smile at people who flick you off in traffic.

Geoff: I'm a student and an activist, so an overwhelming number of opportunities to discuss controversial issues are made available to me.  They run the gamut, from voicing an opinion in a classroom to directing weekly workshops.  My university is in a fairly conservative region, so many people are unfamiliar with concepts of neocolonialism, of queer theory, feminist thought, racism, and most all of the anti-prejudice work radicals in left-leaning areas take for granted.  As a queer transgender individual, I find myself most often bearing witness to my own experience, through questions asked by professors and students alike.  It's not something I can keep on all the time, eventually any person becomes weary of defending their own existence.

4. Would you consider bearing witness a form of activism?

Melissa: The label of activism has been contested over the past few years in such a manner that it is constantly changing but that happens with language so I do and I don't. In certain situations, I can see where it could be applicable but I don't seek that label out. There is a real problem with language policing even among more conscientious people so I don't really think too much about if I am being an activist today or not. I do think that the spreading of knowledge and information is an act that is so important that it is activism even if you aren't outside with a microphone, especially when you don't have the means or opportunity to do other things. Arthur Ashe said “Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can.” It's simple but it says it all.

Geoff: Is bearing witness a form of activism?  Yes.  Unabashedly, whole-heartedly yes.  The first time I realized how important bearing witness is as a form of activism, I was fresh into college.  A professor had decided we'd spend the quarter having a variety of conversations around controversial issues, and would let the students work things out between ourselves.  For one day of class, affirmative action was the topic at hand.  Unsurprisingly, no one in the class supported (or had bother reading up about) affirmative action, except for myself and one woman.  The conversation quickly devolved from any constructive discussion of the policy, or even of systemic prejudices, into one peppered with seriously racist commentary.

As a white person, this would have been an opportunity to cash in my privilege card and step back.  Instead, I decided it'd be better to "bear witness." The woman and I spent the entire 50 minute class period arguing against 33 other students.  It wasn't fun, nor did it feel terribly productive.  It was after the class, however, that the significance of what seems to be a small action was explained to me.  The woman, whose name I have since forgotten, pulled me aside and thanked me.  It turns out, this wasn't the first time she'd had to discuss racism in class, but as a woman of color in a predominantly white campus, she was always forced to be the sole defender of anti-racist, anti-discriminatory policy.  She'd gone into the discussion expecting to play the role again, but having a second person there to back her up, and to call out bullshit as I saw fit, meant that the burden of proof was shared.

In a similar vein, every time an issue in classes or conversation comes up that relates to me specifically, I wish desperately that I'll not be the only person defending the politics I align with.  Because it's isolating, exhausting, and downright demoralizing to be the only person in a class of 60 who speaks up in defense of transgender people.  It puts minority groups on the defense, and perpetuates a campus environment that effectively excludes us.  This can be applied to the workplace, social spaces, activist groups, and more.

5. How would you contrast it with more traditional ideas of protesting such as marches and rallies?

Melissa: Marches and rallies seek to bring masses together. What I'm talking about is examining everything and not taking a single issue focus, which is one of the things that has bothered me. It should be noted that I do not live in a large city that is noted for even good turnout at protests. The few that I have been to were very disheartening. I do see that among protests taking place when they do happen they are single issue focuses and it appears that nationwide there is a problem with this. Another thing that keeps me from participating with causes I would mostly agree with is their tactics. I'm not going to go and join a PETA protest outside of Barnum and Bailey's Circus even though it is a tortuous affair because I don't see how dousing a naked person in fake blood on a busy street for children to walk by conveys that message. That is just the tip of the disaster that is PETA.

I'm not trying to downplay the work of activists; I am speaking from my perspective as someone who thinks that there should be a broader focus. The handful of Gay Groups receiving millions in funding pushing marriage initiatives are a prime example of single issue focus. They completely leave out the trans community, issues of elder rights, job protections, and have written off Chelsea Manning as if she isn't still serving a prison sentence for telling the truth. This is just my perspective as one queer person.

Geoff: Rallies and marches are effective tools for changing top down policies.  Campus administration, corporations, and especially governments are more responsive to a rally and other forms of direct action.  I don't know how effective they are at changing the hearts and minds of people.  In many instances, just making your opinion known is a radical action.  Ideally, traditional forms of activism and bearing witness should go hand in hand.

6. Some would criticize this as doing nothing and not having any major impact. What would be your response to such an argument?

Melissa: Doing nothing will have no impact. Like I mentioned before, use what you have and do what you can. I didn't know about Leonard Peltier until a teacher of mine in high school told me his story. I learned about Leonard Peltier, AIM, John Trudell, read Malcolm X's autobiography, and began relearning history. You never know the thing that will be a catalyst for change whether for yourself or someone else. It could be a book, a documentary, being with a person through an experience, living through intense trauma or bullying just to name a few.

Geoff: I would say the people arguing against it need to step back and think critically about their position. There are many people who cannot safely do more than voice their opinions.  There are even more people whose opinions are unsafe to voice.  In some areas of the country, probably more areas than people in urban areas might believe, bearing witness can and does result in a job loss, isolation, and violence.

Melissa R is a queer woman living in the southern United States. She works full time in healthcare and encourages self education.

Geoffrey W is an activist and economics student in Washington State. He is the president of his campus Queer-Straight Alliance, and enjoys spending his time attempting to overthrow the the colonialist, patriarchal, discriminatory powers that be. When asked for comments, one person said Geoff was, "...born in the cesspool of multiculturalist liberal propaganda."

Seeing Racism in a Colorblind Society

Image Courtesy of Psychology Today

All over the place people have been saying time and again that they want a ‘color-blind’ society, to not have to deal with racism or race anymore. They consistently quote Dr. King, saying that they want to be able to judge someone by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Many argue that the way to do this is to develop a color-blind society that ignores color. While some may hail this as a noble effort, they fail to see the downsides and how arguing for a color-blind society actually supports white supremacy.

One of the potential downsides to a color-blind society is that, ironically, it could actually foster an atmosphere that allows racism to continue. In a society that no longer sees color, what is the use for anti-discriminatory policies much less hate crimes legislation? Theoretically, there would be no need for such policies as people would not be judged on their race/ethnicity, at least, not on a blatantly discriminatory level. No hate crimes legislation would allow for racist attacks to be perpetrated against individuals without acknowledging that the act was especially heinous. The absence of anti-discrimination laws would allow for businesses to discriminate against minority groups without punishment.

Another potential downside would be the absence of affirmative action/equal opportunity policies, which have been a major benefit to minority communities (even if white women are the main beneficiaries[1]). The purpose of affirmative action is to “ensure that qualified individuals have equal access to opportunity and are given a fair chance to contribute their talents and abilities”[2] yet with AA/EO gone, it could take away even the chance of minorities and women getting a shot at going to certain colleges or attaining certain jobs. This would only increase the racial/gender disparities in regards to visibility in a field and wage disparities.

The argument of a ‘color-blind’ society would actually harm the classroom as well. Most of our history focuses on white people, specifically white men, with token acknowledgements being given to people of color and women. In a color-blind society, we would still be focusing on those same white men, but the situation would be different in that already marginalized groups could be completely ignored or changes made to the language used which results in hiding the true horrors of what occurred, as we have seen happening in the past years.[3] The same would be true for culture, as the cultural heritage of minorities could be ignored in favor of pushing a ‘color-blind’ culture which in reality is the white-dominated culture we currently have today in America.

Overall, the idea of color-blindness is deeply problematic as rather than attacking the roots of racism in our society and the negative impact racism has, color-blindness chooses to ignore it and continue the oppression and marginalization of entire peoples. Only by challenging racism on all levels, from institutionalized racism to micro-aggressions can we actually dismantle racism as an institution and truly liberate ourselves.

Endnotes

1: North Caroline State University Affirmative Action in Employment Training, Who Are The Intended Beneficiaries of Affirmative Action?, http://www.ncsu.edu/project/oeo-training/aa/beneficiaries.htm

2: Southeastern Oklahoma State University, Affirmative Action, http://homepages.se.edu/affirmative-action/4/

3: Amanda Paulson, “Texas textbook war: 'Slavery' or 'Atlantic triangular trade'?,” Christian Science Monitor, May 19, 2010 (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0519/Texas-textbook-war-Slavery-or-Atlantic-triangular-trade)

The Political Language of Torture

Image Courtesy of The Liberty Hub

Torture is known as the use of physical force to extract information. It is consistently thought of in that manner, physical, whether it be pulling out fingernails or waterboarding someone. While torture expanded in recent years to being mental as well, in the form of temperature/food manipulation and isolation, torture is rarely thought of as having a linguistic quality to it as well. From ancient times to today, words have been used to define and redefine torture within a certain context and overall used as political language. Yet, not only does the way in which torture changes linguistically need to be taken into account, but also the effects of the words themselves and the subsequent shifts in language. This is quite problematic as it creates a situation in which governments can abuse their power for their own ends and in doing so, suppress dissention and make it easier to torture those who disagree with them.

Before going into the linguistic history of torture, we must first define what political language is. Simply put, political language is the use of language in the political realm, but this is rather special as it involves the twisting or bastardization of language rather than using blunt outright speech. Essentially it is the use of language for political ends, which in many cases can mean using exceptionally vague language to describe certain policies. Such use of speech can be seen on a regular basis, one only need to look at the news to get examples. Look at former President Bush’s use of the term ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ to describe the manner in which we tortured detainees. Such language is couched in the language, ideas, and reputation of science which allows it to be accepted among the public and deemed legitimate while obscuring the fact that the EITs were torture, yet that will be discussed later on in greater detail.

The use of torture has a rather long history, stretching back to the days of ancient Greece and Rome. During that time period, torture was used rather frequently; however, it was limited in scope upon who it could be used against. Within the Greek legal system, citizenship played a major factor into whether or not one was allowed to go to court, much less be subject to torture. Citizenship was thus “greatly strengthened” by such protections as “[limiting] the degree of coercion which [the citizen] might be subjected to, as well as the nature of evidence that might be used against [them], or by [them] against another free citizen.”[1]  With citizenship came honor, which also served as a deterrent against being a victim of torture. Of those that could be tortured, there were slaves and in some cases foreigners.

The refusal to use torture against Greek citizens in some ways parallels early Roman law, however, eventually Roman citizens could be subject to torture “in cases of treason under the Empire, and then in a broader and broader spectrum of cases determined by imperial order.”[2] Yet, even in the Empire, there was a distinction among citizens of who could and could not be tortured. Roman citizenry were divided into two classes, “Honestores, or first-class citizens, [who] could not be tortured except in cases of treason, but humiliores, or second-class citizens, [who] could be tortured in criminal cases, if the crime was serious and some evidence already existed to indicate guilt.”[3]

The difference between Greek and Roman law is rather interesting in that it reflects a respect of citizenship and honor, linking the two in protections from the use of state violence. However, as Rome became an empire, this protection was divvied up among the citizenry. This shows not only an increase in the use of state violence and potentially an acquiescence of the people, but also how the rise of Empire is reflected not solely in a change in the use of force abroad, but also the use of force at home. With the republic being restructured politically and economically into an empire, with an increase in hierarchical structures of authority, there was also an increase in hierarchy on a social level domestically with the separation of who could and could not be tortured. Thus, it may that as Roman society became more and more politically structured, social relations became more and more stratified, with some having more privilege than others.

The legal landscape changed during the Middle Ages, as the Church gained political power and the Inquisition took place. A legal revolution occurred in the twelfth century, which was caused by a number of factors. One of the most important factors was the upholding of confession as the “queen of proofs.”[4]  This focus on confession was the result of a legal revolution that left two doctrines of proof on which a person could be condemned: eyewitness evidence by at least two people or confession. This actually led back to a revival of torture as

Without a confession or two eyewitnesses, then, there was only a graded combination of partial proofs available to the judge and hence no chance of conviction. To overcome the lack of second eyewitnesses and the presence of many but never sufficient [circumstantial evidences], the courts had to return to the one element that made full conviction and punishment possible: confession. And to obtain confession, torture again was once invoked[.] [5]

Yet while torture was used, it was utilized in a way much different than the Roman Empire had used it.
While torture was used in by the Church, it was used not as a means of proof, but a means to extract a confession. While the Church was a religious organization, its methodology n the application of torture was surprisingly based in careful planning and logic. The Church had an entire procedure to approach torture which included that before the accused was tortured, “the court had to be reasonably convinced that a confession would be obtained.”[6]

The language used by the Church to refer to torture is rather striking. While a number of terms existed, a widely used term that referred to torture was quaestio (literally, the question), which was defined as “the torment and suffering inflicted on the body in order to elicit the truth.”[7]

Similar to the Romans, the Catholic Church also had a stratified society in which there was a distinction between who could and could not be tortured, “known criminals and the ‘lowest of men,’ vilissimi homines” as it was believed that those who lived honestly were unable to “be corrupted by grace, favor, or money,”[8]  and thus their testimony could be accepted on face value. What can be seen here is the continuance of this idea of honor allowing one to remain free from torture.

While Romans could be tortured for treason against the state and the Church tortured to attain confessions, the situation began to change in the early 17th century in Europe as the political landscape shifted and the idea of the nation expanded from the monarch or group of ruling elite to the idea of treason being an act which betrayed the nation as a whole. This can be seen in France during the French Revolution.

The idea of lèse-majesté was based on the thinking that the king was the physical embodiment of the nation itself and that any “assaults against the monarch in his public personality and, as such, against all his wards who constituted, beneath him, the nation.”[9]  There is also a religious aspect to this form of treason which linked the king to God and this viewed all crimes against the king to be “an offense committed directly against God, such as apostasy, heresy, witchcraft, simony, sacrilege, and blasphemy.” [10] Yet, this began to change during the French Revolution. Due to intellectuals such as Montesquieu and Beccaria, the people’s opinion of the state as well as treason changed.

The public’s “growing repulsion over the perpetration of agonizing torture and barbarian modes of execution for delicts of expression of opinion or against property” as well as “the mutation of the concept of treason itself in the light of the new understanding of the ‘nation,’ its composition and center of gravity,”[11]  resulted in a massive political change during the French Revolution. Such ideas had a major impact on the French bourgeoisie, the main proponents and beneficiates of the French Revolution, that they restructured the recreation of the state around themselves rather than the king. The middle class put itself “in place of the king as a subject representing society, no longer in the eyes of God but in its own regard.” [12]

This reorientation of society allowed for anyone to be accused of treason and it offers a contrast to the Roman application of torture, within the framework of the Empire. Due to the change of lèse-majesté to lèse-nation, what resulted was a reform and in the case of the idea and position of the monarch, out right destruction, of many hierarchical institutions and them being replaced with institutions based upon the inhabitants of a country.

While the view of state power changed in Europe throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, the use of state violence in the form of torture would eventually find its way back to a handful of individuals as can be seen in the form of the CIA and its research and use of torture. However, there was a major shift in the nature of torture as it moved to a science to obtain information rather than solely as a means to attain a confession.

This shift took place during the beginning of the Cold War, when the CIA was attempting to discover tactics which would allow them to more easily obtain information and achieve an advantage over the Soviet Union. To these ends, the CIA “led a massive, secret research effort to crack the code of human consciousness, a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind,”[13]  resulting in billions of dollars per year in costs.

The CIA heavily researched mind control and funded programs such as Project Bluebird, which of one of the main objectives was to investigate “the possibility of control of an individual by application of special interrogation techniques.”[14]  In order to examine mind control, the CIA began using psychedelic drugs such as LSD on US soldiers and the number of patients expanded under Project Artichoke, the new name of Project Bluebird assigned in 1951 and finally MKULTRA in 1953.

Much of the research for these projects was done at reputable institutions such as Harvard and Cornell universities, with staff working in concert with the CIA. One example of this is Dr. Harold Wolff at Cornell who asked the CIA to “provide him with all its information regarding ‘threats, coercion, imprisonment, deprivation, humiliation, torture, brainwashing, black psychiatry, hypnosis, and combinations of these, with or without chemical agents.”[15]  This information would be analyzed and used to formulate new methods to extract information which would be tested in studies.

The information on torture was furthered with the help of the US military who found that, at least according to one study, seventy percent of American prisoners of war worked with the North Korean forces. Upon interviewing many POWs, it was found that the Koreans had used stress positions, such as forced standing, combined with sleep deprivation in order to get the Americans to comply. This information was then used to formulate and implement stress programs that would familiarize US soldiers with such torture as well as give them ways to resist.

The use of mainstream universities and professors allowed for the programs to be based in a realm of legitimacy due to the prestige of such schools. It also simultaneously gave the programs a scientific air because of the manner in which the programs were analyzed and examined as well as that experiments were conducted by university faculty based in the scientific method.

It was this methodology and connection between universities and the CIA that gave rise to the idea that torture, for the goal of obtaining information, was a science, something that could be precise, measured, and was based in rationality. However, while torture may have been viewed as scientific due to the legitimacy of the institutions that it was produced in, it is important to realize that torture isn’t a science at all.

While the more psychological torture that was seen in the Korean War and has been seen in modern times, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and abroad, may make it seem that torture is scientific, in reality that is far from the truth.  This can be shown in a number of ways. For example, if torture was scientific, then it would be possible to calculate the amount of pain each person needed to experience for them to hand over information. However, “torturers know that human beings differ unpredictably in their abilities to endure extreme pain. They know that hardcore revolutionaries display ‘an unheard of physical resistance.”[16]  This is actually problematic from the torturer’s point of view because it is precisely these radicals that they are attempting to get information from.

Essentially, the idea that torture is scientific is nothing but a myth based on ideas about pain. These ideas assume that humans operate in a utilitarian fashion, looking to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain. However, this doesn’t factor in that people will be dedicated to not giving any information whatsoever and thus deal with the pain.

In addition to this, for torture to be a science, it would require at least “general rules, fixed in advance, that identify the correct choice in particular situations. It also requires a unit that is commeasurable regardless of its source,”[17]  in order to measure the pain. Thus, it lacks even the bare basics to even be argued as a science.

Torture may not be able to be defined as a science, yet the very definition of torture has been subject to heated debates over the past several decades and a number of politically motivated changes, starting with the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT). The CAT defines torture as

severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.[18]

The CAT was presented to the President Reagan to sign. The CAT’s definition of torture presented problems for Reagan as by that definition, the training used on US soldiers and the techniques used by its allies Britain and Israel were torture. To get around this, Reagan’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) essentially rewrote the definition of torture and added several provisions with the intent of allowing the US to continue using torture in training and torture as a tactic.

Reagan’s OLC took issue with the definition of torture and stated that the US understood torture as “a deliberate and calculated act of an extremely cruel and inhumane nature” and that acts such as “sensory deprivation, forced beatings, and sexual humiliation”[19]  were not within that scope. The concept of specific intent was also used, in which it was stated that in order for an act to constitute torture, one had to specifically want to inflict harm upon another for no other reason than to inflict harm. Using torture as a way to get information did not fall under the specific intent rule because, according to Reagan’s OLC, the goal of torture for the US was to get information, not inflict harm.

The OLC also rewrote Article 16 of the CAT which argued for the prevention of cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment. The OLC defined such treatment as falling under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments in the US Constitution. This is highly problematic as not only does it allow for treatment to occur that would deemed as cruel, degrading and inhumane under the CAT, but is completely legal in the US, but also it protects the perpetrators of torture as it allows for the US Supreme Court to decide what constitutes such treatment and it is rather unlikely that they will pass a sentence which results in the US being seen as having violated the treaty.

 The OLC took the issue of the definition of torture further under Bush, Sr. Bush’s OLC stated that the US defined torture, in part, as using techniques to “inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering” and that such pain “refers to prolonged mental suffering” from procedures that “disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.”[20]  This essentially created a loophole in which procedures could be administered which would result in the senses of the personality being profoundly disrupted, such as isolation, forced standing, humiliation, or extreme deprivation, but had to actually result in cause prolonged mental harm to constitute torture. In other words, you can be in forced isolation for months, but it isn’t considered torture because the US pretends to not know if it results in prolonged mental harm or not, even when the available information clearly states that it does.[21]

There is also a problem with the definition of torture in regards to how it is used to protect the ones doing the torture. After the horrific events in Abu Ghraib were revealed, the accused soldiers defended their actions by arguing that their actions did not count as torture as “the ‘control of environmental factors such as light, food, clothing, and temperature’ and ‘the use of stress positions, the removal of clothing, isolation, and sleep deprivation’ as permissible interrogation techniques contextually sanctioned by the US Army.” The Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation did in fact state that such techniques “should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, physical or mental torture.” The use of institutional definitions of torture in order to protect interrogators allows them to “escape not only the stigma of being labeled a torturer but potentially liability altogether.”[22]  This, in addition to the scientific language in which torture is described, allows for the perpetrators to use torture with ease as not only are they convinced of its effectiveness, but they need not worry about being prosecuted because they will be protected.

However, all of this then begs the question: Why would torture be cloaked in scientific language and rhetoric, when it could easily be proven false? By giving torture techniques the idea of being scientific, it not only increases the chances that the public will accept such techniques if the government is ever found out to be engaged in torture, nor solely because it allows the perpetrators of torture to be under the false illusion that what they are doing is legitimate and proven to work, but also because it allows for the power of the state to be increased.

The power of the state was increased and with it changed the political language of terrorism in the wake of 9/11 attacks when Congress passed the Patriot Act which defined domestic terrorism as “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” and “appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”[23]

This language is quite problematic as it takes an international scope in defining terrorism as what may be legal in the US may be illegal somewhere else. But also, how do you define intimidation or coercion?

It was concerns such as these that led the ACLU to decry that the definition of domestic terrorism was “broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations” such as “Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front.”[24]  Such language could allow for activists in groups such as the aforementioned organizations to be accused of terrorism and thus subject to torture.

A similar problem occurred with the 2006 Military Commissions Act which uses the term “unlawful enemy combatant” and describes such a person as someone who “was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.”[25]

The use of this term comes from the 1942 Quirin case in which eight German-Americans, after undergoing sabotage training in Germany, took a submarine to the US. Four went to Long Island wearing German uniforms and carrying explosives, four went to Ponte Verda Beach, Florida. Shortly after the landings two of the men backed out of the plan while a third turned themselves into the FBI. All eight were charged with eventually found, arrested, and tried by a military commission on the orders of President Roosevelt. Seven of the eight conspirators argued “that the President exceeded his power in ordering the commission and that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution protect their rights to a regular trial”[26] and filed for a writ of habeus corpus.

The first attempt failed and the group appealed to the US Supreme Court, where the Court ruled that Roosevelt was in the right as “the conspirators, as spies without uniform whose purpose was sabotage, violated the law of war and were therefore unlawful enemy combatants.”[27]  However, the problem with using this term to refer to terrorists is that within the context of the original case it specifically pertained to Americans who had aided and joined the armed forces of a nation that we were at war with, the Constitutional definition of treason. This cannot be applied to terrorists or Americans who aid terrorists as such organizations are not nation-states with standing armies.

The problem with such language is that “it explicitly includes— but does not limit the definition to—anyone who has ‘committed a belligerent act’ or who has ‘directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy forces’ without further defining the key criteria of belligerent act, direct support, or hostilities.”[28]  Such language, coupled with the definition of domestic terrorism under the Patriot Act, make it quite easy for the government to declare anyone a terrorist for any reason and thus subject them to torture. Thus, American citizens can potentially be victims of torture on a president’s whim if they associate with the wrong person or the wrong groups, with the President deciding who and what organizations are deemed ‘wrong.’

While Obama campaigned on an idea of ‘hope and change,’ he essentially followed the same route by not only expanding the Patriot Act[29] , but essentially keeping the same language in regards to enemy combatants. Obama now uses the term “unprivileged enemy belligerent” which was passed under the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 and defines an enemy belligerent as who “has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.”[30]  This is just as vague as the unlawful enemy combatant term, but has the added twist of codifying into law that “if at any point, anywhere in the world, a person is caught who might have done something to suggest that he or she is a terrorist or somehow supporting a terrorist organization against the U.S. or its allies, that person must be imprisoned by the military,"[31]  for an indefinite period of time. Thus, the continuation of the political language of terrorism and torture remains.

The major problems with defining torture to fulfill certain political goals is potentially puts the citizenry in danger, but on a greater level debases the moral standards of the state as a whole. The continued use of torture and the expanding circumstances under which one can potentially be subject to torture risks the death of democracy.

Endnotes


1: Edward Peters, Torture, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), pg 13

2: Peters, pg 18

3: Christopher J. Einolf, “The Fall and Rise of Torture: A Comparative and Historical Analysis,” Sociological
Theory 25:2 (2007), pg 107

4: Peters, pg 41

5: Peters, pg 47

6: Peters, pg 50

7: Peters, pg 55

8: Peters, pgs 47-48

9: G. A. Kelly, “From Lèse-Majesté to Lèse-Nation: Treason in Eighteenth-Century France,” Journal of the
History of Ideas 42:2 (1981), pg 270

10: Ibid

11: Kelly, pg 278

12: Kelly, pg 275

13: Alfred W. McCoy, “Science In Dachau’s Shadow: Hebb, Beecher, and the Development of Modern
CIA Psychological Torture and Modern Medical Ethics,” Journal of Behavioral Sciences 43: 4 (2007), pg 402

14: Michael Otterman, American Torture: From the Cold War to Abu Ghraib and Beyond (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Pluto Press, 2007), pg 21

15: Otterman, pg 24

16: Darius Rejali, Torture and Democracy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2007), pg 448

17: Rejali, pg 449

18: Human Rights Watch, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

19: Otterman, pg 109

20: Otterman, pg 111

21: Michael Mechanic, “What Extreme Isolation Does to Your Mind,” Mother Jones, October 18, 2012

22: Lisa Yarwood, “Defining Torture: The Potential For Abuse,” Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies, Number 8, 2008, pgs 327-328

23: Electronic Privacy Information Center, USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162), https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

24: American Civil Liberties Union, How the USA PATRIOT Act redefines "Domestic Terrorism,” https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism  (December 6, 2002)

25: Allison M. Danner, “Defining Unlawful Enemy Combatants: A Centripetal Story,” Texas International Law Journal 43:1 (2007), pg 4

26: The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, Ex Parte Quirin, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1941/1941_1_ORIG (December 6, 2013)

27: Ibid

28: Danner, pg 5

29: NBC News, Obama, In Europe, Signs Patriot Act Extension, May 27, 2011

30: Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute, 10 USC § 948a - Definitions

31: Liliana Segura, “McCain and Lieberman's ‘Enemy Belligerent’ Act Could Set U.S. on Path to Military Dictatorship,” Alternet, March 18, 2010

The Politics of the 21st Century

Image Courtesy of Global Research

The New Politics of the 21st Century: Global Resistance and Rising Anarchism


A number of occurrences have taken place of the past 13 years since the rise of the new millennium; we have seen and are seeing the rise of popular movements all over the world and a resistance to the forces of imperialism, capitalism, and subjugation, from the most recent Arab Spring to the world’s largest coordinated anti-war protest in history with the global protests against the Iraq War[1], to the rise of the Occupy Movement and the rise of indigenous resistance as can be seen in the Idle No More campaign of Canada’s First Nations population. While not all movements are pushing for the elimination of the state, or even anarchistic in nature, they are rebelling against the current societal structures and creating an opportunity for radical change. What we are seeing around the world is a global resistance that, in some cases, has anarchist undercurrents. We are witnessing the new politics of the 21st century.

While many movements such as the Occupy Movement and the Arab Spring had anarchists and anarchist influences within them, anarchism as a political philosophy is quite misunderstood and some time should be taken to understand it.

Anarchism is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “The theory that all forms of government are oppressive and should be abolished.”[2] While it does advocate the abolition of the state, anarchism also includes “a heightened and radical critique and questioning of power and authority: if a source of authority cannot legitimize its existence, it should not exist.”[3] This has led to anarchism being critiqued by a number of individuals and an increase in anarchist thought to the point today where there are a large number of anarchist ideas being championed, from anarcho-feminism to queer anarchism to black anarchism.

In the United States, anarchism has had a rather interesting history with regards to not only Occupy, but also the 19th century labor movement as well. Anti-statism isn’t anything new in the US as there have been a large number of crusaders who “condemned [the government] as an oppressive tyranny” when slavery wasn’t abolished in the newly founded country. This abhorrence of slavery and hypocrisy caused “Men like William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips [to renounce] their allegiance to it, John Brown openly declared war upon it, and thousands of others regarded it as unfit to command their respect and loyalty.”[4] The anti-statism only increased in the 19th century with the inclusion of anarchists in the labor movement.

The International Working Men’s Association (IWMA) put forward in its 1866 Congress that the 8-hour day be advocated for. The IWMA “had influence amongst the German-speaking immigrant anarchist and socialist workers of Chicago”[5] and after it was disbanded, the International Working People’s Association, being founded in 1881 by anarchists, took up the struggle.

This struggle for better working conditions culminated is what is known as the 1886 Haymarket Square Riot in which 40,000 workers went on strike to fight for an 8-hour day. The strikes beget protests which beget police confrontation. “On May 3, police fired on strikers who were menacing the strikebreakers at McCormick Harvester, and several strikers were injured. Labor leaders then convened a mass meeting for the following evening at the city's Haymarket Square.”[6] As the peaceful rally ended, the police demanded that it be shut down and someone threw a dynamite bomb towards a group of police to which the police responded with gunfire. The result: seven dead cops and several workingmen injured. A total of eight anarchists were charged, which resulted in seven people being sentenced to death and one life sentence. Two death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment by Illinois governor Richard J. Oglesby, one committed suicide and four were hung.

While anarchism continued until World War 1 with massive anti-war protests occurring, it was eventually forced underground. However, the Occupy movement breathed new life into anarchist ideas. OWS’s focus on “direct action and leaderless, consensus-based decision-making,”[7] embodied into the General Assembly, was an anarchistic aspect of Occupy. It also was anarchistic in its refusal to “recognize the legitimacy of existing political institutions,” “accept the legitimacy of the existing legal order,” and its “embrace of prefigurative politics.”[8] This refusal to recognize the political institutions is anarchistic in nature as usually when protests occur, they appeal to political powers to alleviate their suffering.

By rejecting the two-party system and rather than fighting for a third-party, and instead opting to create a small, autonomous community, OWS rejected the state and worked to create a community based on horizontal as opposed to hierarchical organization. By rejecting the legal order in the form of ignoring “local ordinances that insisted that any gathering of more than 12 people in a public park is illegal without police permission," [9] OWS refused to subjugate itself to the very forces that worked to establish and uphold the current status quo. Occupy embraced political ideas and experimented with them, which resulted in the creation of new institutions, from kitchens to clinics to media centers, but they were consistently built around the ideas of working together, horizontal organization, and voluntary cooperation, all of which are central to anarchist thought.

The Occupy movement is still alive as while the encampments may no longer exist, it has created a number of offshoots and the activists that made up Occupy didn’t disappear, rather they have moved on into other forms of resistance[10], though just not under the Occupy banner. They have even been involved in organizations that have provided large amounts of aid to damaged communities, such as Occupy Sandy, which stepped in when the federal government could not.[11]

Yet, this resistance to the status quo has not just been taking place in America, but also all over the world. In 2008, Zbigniew Brzezinski warned of a global political awakening. In a New York Tines op-ed, he stated “For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. Global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination.”[12] (emphasis added) This “global activism” is quite real and very well may upend the entirety of the current political, social, and economic systems.

In Brazil, protests have been occurring over issues ranging from inflation to education reform to forced evictions. Among all of this, teachers went to the streets to “demand better wages and school conditions when police decided to disperse the demonstration.”[13] There had already been violent clashes between teachers and police as nights before the protest, several striking teachers that were occupying a city council building in Rio de Janiero were beaten and dragged out by the police. During the demonstration in late October, the police decided to repress the teachers by using heavy-handed tactics such as shooting tear gas canisters. Brazilian anarchists came to the aid of striking teachers by protecting them from state violence, as one teacher Andrea Coelho said "It was the Black Bloc that protected me in that protest.”[14] This protection of teachers has caused the teachers union to declare unconditional support for the black bloc protesters.[15]

These protests in Brazil come amidst a time where, according to Time Magazine, there was “less than 1% growth last year and less than 3% forecast this year compared to 7.5% in 2010” and where its political leaders convinced the world that it “was developed enough to host the soccer World Cup next year and the Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro in 2016, yet seemed so unwilling to show their own people they could improve the country’s pathetically underfunded schools, staffed by just as woefully underpaid and undertrained teachers.”[16] Just last year, a UN study indicated that wealth inequality was increasing with “the richest 20% of the population on average earn 20 times more than the poorest 20%.”[17] It is among this massive increase in wealth inequality on a regional level, along with a corrupt government and lack of educational investment, that the people have finally decided that enough is enough and are demanding there be massive changes to the current system.

In Europe, where in Greek children are starving in order to repay banks, revolt is taking place there as well. In Bulgaria, around 4,000 people demonstrated “calling for an end to the ‘reign of the oligarchy’ and demanding that the nation's government step down to make way for early elections.”[18] They argue that the country is still unstable, unprosperous, and not well governed 24 years after Communist rule was ended. The protest was part of a five-month old anti-government movement that alleges that government has mafia ties. Such accusations are in part true as back in 2008, the European Union’s anti-fraud office was investigating the Nikolov-Stoykov group, a conglomerate with businesses from meat processing and storage to a Black Sea Resort, whose leading partners had connections to the government and has been accused of being a front for a criminal company network comprised of over 50 Bulgarian companies as well as other European and offshore companies.[19] More recently, the European Commission issued a report last year discussing the government-mafia ties in Bulgaria, with puts the blame on “both the executive and the judiciary in Bulgaria, which have been engulfed by power struggles, with each accusing the other of serving the mafia.”[20]

In Italy there have been anti-austerity protests going on for quite some time and the violence has erupted as late last month, police fired tear gas at anti-austerity protesters and at least 16 people, including four officers, were injured and eight protesters were arrested. The protesters were “calling for more affordable housing, better wages and improved conditions for immigrants and refugees, tens of thousands of whom live in a twilight zone of semi-legality in Italy, with many forced to squat in disused buildings or sleep rough.” [21] More protests are continuing in Italy where there have been cuts in education spending and they continue all over Europe as the EU proposes spending cuts in its 2014 budget. [22]

Amidst the talk and fervor of the Arab Spring, anarchist activists were heavily involved in organizing after Mubarak’s ousting. Egyptian anarchist Mohammed Hassan Aazab noted that after Mubarak was gone, they “started gathering, talking to people, printing up writing about our ideas, and organizing meetings in downtown cafes in front of whoever was there.”[23] The organizing continues and the fight against the oppressive Egyptian regime goes on, even as the Egyptian government bans protests of more than ten people without a police permit, effectively an attempt to end all protests.

In Bahrain, the protests against the Sunni monarchy continue as Shiites protest “repression against the opposition amid an ongoing crackdown on the largely peaceful demonstrations.”[24] These protests occur even though the Bahraini government has a history of using violence against peaceful demonstrators, even going so far as killing children.[25] The majority Shiite nation has been repressed for years; they face employment and educational discrimination, have little political representation, and are barred from most government and military positions.[26]

Protests have even hit nations in sub-Saharan Africa, such as Sudan. There, protesters have taken to the street, initially to protests a cut in fuel subsidies, but since the demonstrations have evolved “to wider dissent against the country's leadership after security forces killed at least 50 people [in late September], according to the African Center for Justice and Peace Studies and human rights watchdog Amnesty International.”[27] The Sudanese government so far admits “that 87 people were killed, while activists and rights groups say the number was at least 200.”[28] A main reason why the people began protesting was the fuel subsidies were cut due to the separation between Sudan and South Sudan, which was home to about 75% of Sudan’s oil production. All of this is occurring when “the Sudanese pound hit an all-time low on the key black market on [September 21st] as people sought to shift their savings into hard currency in anticipation of higher inflation.”[29] This increase in inflation, couple with the cut in fuel subsidies, will lead to a situation in which everything is more expensive, but especially food as Sudan is a major food importer.

While quite sparse in certain areas of the region, protests have spread to Asia as well. Overall, “Strikes have become increasingly frequent at privately owned factories in recent years, often involving workers demanding higher wages or better conditions” and technology has helped grow this protest movement as “the explosive growth in the use of home-grown versions of Twitter has made it easy for protesters to convey instant reports and images to huge audiences.”[30] These protests are in response to having low wages and unsafe conditions as the number of millionaires and billionaires in China increases and China has become the world’s second largest economy. Most recently, after the July 2013 floods, the government seems to have taken a rather slow response to addressing the problem, causing flood victims to protest. The Chinese government has responded to these protests by sending out riot police which may have used violence to quell the protesters as “Photographs showed several residents [of Yuyao city] bleeding from the head.”[31]

There are also protests in Thailand, as Thais seek to oust current Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, the sister of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who protesters say control her. Shinawatra’s older brother was wildly unpopular as in 1998 he used his American connections to boost his political image and after coming into office committed Thai troops to aiding the US invasion of Iraq amid protest from both the military and the public[32] and allowed for the CIA to use Thailand for its extraordinary rendition program.[33] More than just this though, Yingluck Shinawatra has also been criticized for “her alleged ignorance, lack of political experience, and tendency to stay adrift of key issues.”[34] Thus, on literally every continent there is resistance to the current political power structures and while many may not be pushing for the end of the state, they are pushing for radical change to the society where the many will benefit rather than the few.

Yet, for all of these protests and uprisings, it would not be complete without a group that has been exploited, ignored, stereotyped, and have been victims of genocide: the indigenous population.

In Canada, Elsipogtog First Nation members located in New Brunswick province have been fighting against fracking plans as neither the government nor industries discussed the issue with them, despite the fact that “Rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada and lower courts have established a duty to consult and accommodate aboriginal people when development is considered on their land, even non-reserve traditional lands.”[35] The First Nations argue that they have never ceded their lands and that the treaties signed in the 1700s were only to acknowledge peace and friendship between the immigrants and the indigenous population. This revolt has culminated in the Idle No More movement which is aimed to protect not only indigenous lands, but also the larger environment in Canada from corporations which aim to use the land for the sole purpose of extracting its resources using harmful techniques such as fracking.

Indigenous resistance is also occurring in Israel. In November 2013, the Israeli parliament moved to begin debating and possibly approving the Prawer Plan. The Prawer Plan, if passed, will result in “the destruction of 35 ‘unrecognized’ Arab Bedouin villages, the forced displacement of up to 70,000 Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel, and the dispossession of their historical lands in the Naqab.”[36] On November 30th, it was reported that “In the Negev village of Houra, clashes broke out at the main demonstration where about 1,200 protesters had gathered,” with protesters eventually throwing stones at Israeli security forces and the police responding with “tear gas, stun grenades and water cannon.”[37] The Arab Bedouins are fighting for the survival of their culture. It is rather interesting that even though they are citizens of Israeli, the Bedouins are still subjugated to the interests of the Jewish majority.

Yet, Canada and Israel are not the only places where the indigenous population is fighting back. In addition to be wracked by protests in regards to education, corruption and a generally inefficient government, Brazil is also witnessing protests from indigenous people. In October, 500 people set up camp in front of Congress to “oppose a constitutional change that would let lawmakers participate in the demarcation of territories. Indigenous people and their supporters say the proposal would allow agricultural interests to encroach on their lands.”[38] The fight of Brazil’s indigenous population to protect their lands has been going on for over a year now, with many of the conflicts resulting in deaths. According to a 2012 report done by the Indigenist Missionary Council, “54 Indians were murdered in 2012, most of them as a result of land conflicts”[39] and the problem only continues into 2013, with a total of three murders occurring.

Yet, what does this all mean? Why does it even matter? This global resistance is extremely important as it reveals to the elites that their façade of democracy and consumerism is falling rapidly a part in the face of lagging economies, high unemployment rates, and a political class that is more concerned with its own personal needs rather than that of the people who they have charge over. It shows the people that they can and must fight back against the current political, social, and economic systems if they are to survive, that they can create new communities and new institutions that don’t rely on the current systems of power and are organized horizontally rather than hierarchically.

These protests show that the people will not sit idly by and let the government serve them on a platter to corporations, or, even worse, neglect to uphold the promises they took to protect the population. These movements represent a mass awakening of humanity which has the potential to radically change the entire landscape of society on a global scale.

We must be willing to fight for as long as it takes to alter society so that rather than serving industry or a small societal elite at the expense of the many, society fosters a climate of peace: peace with each other, peace with the environment, and encourage education and cooperativeness for the good of all while respecting the autonomy of the individual. Most importantly though, we must foster peace within ourselves and not be afraid to engage with those in our immediate area on the issue, for if not, we will risk the continuation of this broken system and lose what may have been a great chance to change the current situation for the better.

Endnotes

1: Phyllis Bennis, “February 15, 2003. The Day the World Said No to War,” Institute For Policy Studies, February 15, 2013 (http://www.ips-dc.org/blog/february_15_2003_the_day_the_world_said_no_to_war)

2: American Heritage Dictionary, 5th edition, s.v. “anarchism”

3: Devon Douglas-Bowers, On Anarchism: An Interview with Andrew Gavin Marshall, Hampton Institute, http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/onanarchism.html#.UpatMVQ9La8 (October 2, 2013)

4: Charles A. Madison, “Anarchism in the United States,” Journal of the History of Ideas 6:1 (1945), pg 50

5: International Workers Association, The 8 Hour Day, the Anarchists and the IWPA: Haymarket and the Radicalization of Labour Demands in the 1880s, http://www.iwa-ait.org/content/8-hour-day-anarchists-and-iwpa-haymarket-and-radicalization-labour-demands-1880s (May 6, 2013)

6: David Greenberg, “Anarchy in the US: A Century of Fighting The Man,” Slate, April 28, 2000 (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/04/anarchy_in_the_us.html)

7: Dan Berrett, “Intellectual Roots of Wall St. Protest Lie in Academe,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 16, 2011 (http://chronicle.com/article/Intellectual-Roots-of-Wall/129428/)

8" David Graeber, “Occupy Wall Street’s Anarchist Roots,” Al Jazeera, November 30, 2011 (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112872835904508.html)

9: Ibid

10: Democracy Now, Two Years After Occupy Wall Street, a Network of Offshoots Continue Activism for the 99%, http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/19/two_years_after_occupy_wall_street (September 19, 2013)

11: Alan Feuer, “Occupy Sandy: A Movement Moves to Relief,” New York Times, November 9, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/nyregion/where-fema-fell-short-occupy-sandy-was-there.html?_r=0)

12: Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Global Political Awakening,” New York Times, December 16, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html?pagewanted=all)

13: Bradley Brooks, “Anarchist Tactics Grow Among Brazil’s Protests,” Associated Press, October, 22, 2013 (http://news.yahoo.com/anarchist-tactics-grow-amid-brazils-protests-040814619.html)

14: Ibid

15: Revolution News, Brazil: Teachers Union Officially Declares Unconditional Support for Black Bloc, http://revolution-news.com/brazils-teachers-union-officially-declares-unconditional-support-for-black-bloc/ (October 9, 2013)

16: Tim Padgett, “What Brazil’s Protests Say About Latin America’s Fumbling Elites,” Time, June 19, 2013 (http://world.time.com/2013/06/19/what-brazils-protests-say-about-latin-americas-fumbling-elites/)

17: BBC News, UN Study Says Wealth Gap in Latin America Increases, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19339636 (August 21, 2012)

18: Al Jazeera, Bulgarians Protest Against Government Policy, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/11/bulgarians-protest-against-government-policy-2013111015288976392.html (November 10, 2013)

19: Doreen Carvajal, Stephen Castle, “Mob Muscles Its Way Into Politics in Bulgaria,” New York Times, October 15, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/world/europe/16bulgaria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

20: Turkish Weekly, EC Draft Report Slams Bulgaria over Govt-Mafia Ties, http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/138606/ec-draft-report-slams-bulgaria-over-govt-mafia-ties.html (July 17, 2012)

21: Nick Squires, “Anti-austerity Protesters Clash With Police in Rome,” Telegraph, October 31, 2013 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10418497/Anti-austerity-protesters-clash-with-police-in-Rome.html)

22: BBC, Students Protest Over Austerity Cuts in Italy, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24956693 (November 15, 2013)

23: Joshua Stephens, “Anarchism in Egypt: An Interview From Tahrir Square,” Waging Nonviolence, July 2, 2013 (http://wagingnonviolence.org/2013/07/anarchy-in-egypt-an-interview-from-tahrir-square/)

24: Russia Today, Thousands Protest in Bahrain Capital, Demand 'torturers be brought to justice,’ http://rt.com/news/bahrain-protests-opposition-repression-194/ (November 23, 2013)

25: Huffington Post, Bahrain: Hundreds Mourn After Boy Is Killed In Demonstration, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/19/bahrain-hundreds-mourn_n_1102730.html (Novemer 19, 2011)

26: Rannie Amiri, “Bahrain: Days of Rage, Decades of Oppression,” Antiwar, February 21, 2011 (http://original.antiwar.com/rannie-amiri/2011/02/20/bahrain-days-of-rage/)

27: Henry Austin, “Is The Arab Spring Moving South? Violent Anti-government Protests Hit Sudan,” NBC News, October 1, 2013 (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/01/20769020-is-the-arab-spring-moving-south-violent-anti-government-protests-hit-sudan)

28: BBC, Sudan Feels The Heat From Fuel Protests, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24938224 (November 14, 2013)

29: Khalid Abdelaziz, Ulf Laessing, “Sudan to Lift Fuel Subsidies Posing ‘Great Risk’ For Economy-Bashir,” Reuters, September 22, 2013 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/22/sudan-economy-idUSL5N0HI0OG20130922)

30: The Economist, Unrest In China: A Dangerous Year, http://www.economist.com/node/21543477 (January 28, 2012)

31: Sui-Lee Wee, “China Sends Riot Police to Block New Protests by Flood Victims,” Reuters, October 16, 2013 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/us-china-protest-idUSBRE99F0BN20131016)

32: Fox News, Thailand Vows to Keep Troops in Iraq, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/12/28/thailand-vows-to-keep-troops-in-iraq/ (December 28, 2003)

33: Max Fisher, “A Staggering Map of the 54 Countries That Reportedly Participated in the CIA’s Rendition Program,” Washington Post, February 5, 2013 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/05/a-staggering-map-of-the-54-countries-that-reportedly-participated-in-the-cias-rendition-program/)

34: Samudcha Hoonsara, Somroutai Sapsomboon, Kittipong Thavevong, “Yingluck Enters 2013 A Survivor,” The Nation, January 1, 2013 (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Yingluck-enters-2013-a-survivor-30197064.html)

35: Mark Gollom, Daniel Schwartz, “N.B. Fracking Protests and the Fight for Aboriginal Rights,” CBC News, October 19, 2013 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/n-b-fracking-protests-and-the-fight-for-aboriginal-rights-1.2126515)

36: Adalah: The Legal Center for Minority Rights in Israel, Demolition and Eviction of Bedouin Citizens of Israel in the Naqab (Negev) - The Prawer Plan, http://adalah.org/eng/?mod=articles&ID=1589

37: Russia Today, ‘Day of rage’: Police, protesters clash in Israel at plans to evict 40,000 Bedouins, http://rt.com/news/britain-protest-prawer-plan-511/ (November 30, 2013)

38: Fox News, Indigenous Groups Stage Protests Across Brazil to Press For Demarcation of Their Lands, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/10/01/indigenous-groups-stage-protests-across-brazil-to-press-for-demarcation-their/ (October 1, 2013)

39: David Dudenhoefer, “Brazil’s Natives Protest Threats to Their Rights From Congress,” Indian Country, October 8, 2013 (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/08/brazils-natives-protest-threats-their-rights-congress-151644)