Friday, July 31, 2015

Thank you! We broke 400 reads in July! Now what do I write?

Thank you, readers!  July was our third consecutive month of new page views.

In May, we hit a whopping 270, well above the previous record of 188.

Then June gave us 294- 300 was so close

I resolved to keep up the steady stream of articles you all seem to enjoy, and to plug them all with googlemancy.  Well, we hit 300, way back on the 19th, and yesterday, July 31st, we made it to 403 page views.

Still trying to get other writers to submit their work, and I want to keep doing my best to bring you a bigger, better DGBFHTP every Wednesday, but you've all earned an extra piece.  Please comment and tell me what you want to see!

It's an honor to write for you; now I want us to start building a discussion group on this little blog if you'll talk with me!  There's not much Socialism if my voice is the only one being heard. Help us out, Genossinnen und Genossen!

Thanks for our three best months ever- let's keep it up!

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

HANDS OFF PLANNED PARENTHOOD



Hello, all.

I imagine many of you have already heard- Edited video clips of Planned Parenthood employees discussing reimbursement for transporting donated organs have been released in a targeted smear campaign by members of Operation Rescue, the terrorist organization responsible for assassinating Dr. George Tiller and bombing several women's clinics in the 1990s and 1980s. They claim that the reimbursement for transporting delicate tissue samples is evidence that Pro-Choicers sell fetuses or something.  Coming as it does from a band of violent misogynists with a shared messiah complex, these attacks are being believed without question by the entirety of the Republican Party and many casual news audiences.

Planned Parenthood provides vital health services for 2.7 million patients a year: STI treatment and prevention, mammograms, birth control, sex education, counseling and a small number of abortions

We all know what this is really about- for much of human history, if a woman became pregnant, she had two options: fundamentally alter (and in many, many cases, risk and sacrifice) her life to care for the fetus and later the child, or risk stigma, bodily harm or violence by trying to secretly end her pregnancy. Safe abortion is a huge threat to a philosophy that women must forever be defined by our fertility and our ability (or lack thereof) to produce children (variously as heirs to the manor, slave laborers and everything in between) for men. The presence of safe, legal and accessible abortion means that women, rather than men, get to decide how, when and for whom female bodies are used.

Genosse Friedrich Engels called this as far back as the 1890s, and most Socialist movements since then have recognized the need for women to control our bodies and have fought for a full spectrum of social policies to ensure that women have more choices than dependent domesticity or solitude.

To anyone who depends on her right to decide her own destiny, to pursue opportunities in the workplace or escape from danger at home, this is an attack on YOU!

Please do what you can, I'll be in touch with information about any defensive phonebanks or rallies in the near future in St. Louis
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/donate, and call the Capitol Switchboard at 202 224-3121 to tell your representative and senators- have your zipcode ready for swift connections.

Hands off Planned Parenthood!  Resist all efforts to cut funding for women's health!  Abortions (access to which is a vital human right) make up less then 5% of what Planned Parenthood does for its patients, and no federal money supports it as it is.  Stand with Planned Parenthood!

The women's health movement has survived the fall of friendly governments, bans, repression, terrorism, baseless investigations, and bombings. We will not be broken down by a few videos from scum like this. Margaret Sanger persevered and won, Rosa Luxembourg led a revolution from her prison cell, Women on Waves is sailing from country to country, extending the hand of freedom to women living in anti-choice countries, and this hideous attack will not stop us.  NO PASARAN!

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen

Elise

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Why President Sanders Could Actually Do Stuff: 8 reasons to vote Bernie 2016

Hello, Genossinnen und Genossen

A lot of my friends and family are wondering why one can back Bernie Sanders and expect him to be able and willing to accomplish more than Clinton (or Obama for that matter) on a whole host of matters.  So I thought I'd write up a handy argument sheet this week answering all their questions that I've yet encountered in some detail, trying to show the skeptical why a Sanders presidency would be so extremely different.

Question 1.- Why not vote for a candidate more likely to win?  

Answer- This is a primary, this is how parties choose what they want to say, and Sanders is 10 points ahead of the third place candidate (usually O'Malley).  There is no more viable challenge to Clinton, therefore the strategic thing would be for O'Malley and Chafee voters to switch to Sanders, not vice versa.  (Webb is a special case because he is actually to Clinton's right, hard as that is to pull off in the modern Democratic Party.  Suffice it to say that Sanders' route to victory doesn't run through any crowds of Confederate battle flag enthusiasts who still haven't heard that it was the Democrats who passed the Voting Rights Act.  Webb's path to the nomination on the other hand...)


Question 2: Why would President Sanders have more legislative success on matters of importance to progressives?

Answer: Clinton and Obama don't really act like they care about the particulars of many bills- Sanders does!  The records of the current president and Secretary Clinton are pretty mercurial- if the health insurance reform fight taught us anything it's that campaign contributors play the dominant role in setting the specifics of policy in the ranks of the Democratic establishment, to the point where the president embraced things like the individual mandate against which he had forcefully campaigned (and Secretary Clinton supported from Day 1) and failing to publicly support the public option he had promised.  Not only does Sanders have a record of acting on his principles on every issue from taxing carbon to keeping Burlington's streets plowed, but he also has 16 years of experience in Congress, more than any president since the Watergate era, and that's bound to impart some serious legislative gravitas and know-how.  It's also worth noting that Sanders, just by reason of being white, will have something of an easier time getting Republicans to treat him like a human being, though it may still be impossible.  (He would of course face his own share of prejudice and backlash as our first Jewish president)


Question 3 : How is Sanders a better choice for women than Clinton?  How can women vote for him instead of Clinton?

Firstly, I should acknowledge that I don't know of ANY blemishes on Clinton's record when it comes to reproductive freedom, and she's done a great deal to keep this most important issue on the table in countless conversations and campaigns, and I respect her for it.  For what it's worth though, Sanders has a perfect 100% rating on Abortion and contraceptive Rights from National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro Choice America, but the important differences are economic.  


For one, minimum wage jobs are disproportionately filled by women, and Women of Color are are 2.5 times more heavily represented among minimum wage workers as they are in the workforce at large.  The minimum wage is a "women's issue" at least as much as it is an issue for all workers, and Bernie Sanders is committed to a living wage of $15 an hour.  Even without legislation from Washington fixing this, consider a president who 

     1.  Campaigns for local wage increases 
     2. Pulls us out of the TPP, necessary for even protecting existing wage laws
     3.  Issues an executive order requiring ALL federal contractors (and there are a lot of them) to pay          a living wage (Obama did this for the $10 wage which is a good but insufficient step).

That will give a huge boost to the most vulnerable in society, starting with but not limited to single mothers.


We should also consider our social safety net- since women tend to live longer and to have higher health  expenditures, we should be looking at the candidate who will best safeguard Medicare and Social Security.  Bernie is the only candidate with a realistic plan to save Social Security and Medicare- maybe it won't pass, but he's the only candidate even TALKING about what needs to be done to keep them viable without stealing pensions or healthcare from today's or tomorrow's seniors.


Finally, as I've previously written, the most important factor in determining women's economic empowerment is guaranteed access to childcare.  Even President Obama acknowledged that this is feasible with a fraction of the money we spend on mass incarceration, but Sanders has been alone in actively campaigning on a promise of federal support for preschool and daycare- We have seen in dozens of examples from the developed world that this will reduce the achievement gap among students, and massively improve the professional standing and career options of mothers.  We can only expect him to pay more attention to so called "women's issues", though Sanders is already the candidate who is most inclined to deliver a program of empowerment for all the dispossessed and marginalized


Question 4: Does Sanders support gun control?


Answer- he's not quite as progressive as I'd like on this issue, but all his support for guns is based on support of hunting rights, not militia claptrap.  He did vote for the highly successful assault weapons ban in the 90s and has generally supported moderate (but still improved) gun control since then. 


Question 5 : Does Sanders support immigrants' rights?  


Answer- Yes, he actively supported the 2013 reform bill (which narrowly passed the senate with his vote before dying in the house) including a path to legal status and citizenship for millions of undocumented workers.  



Question 6: How can Sanders pay for his proposals?

Answer- We actually have the money to accomplish what he wants to do- if we take a more cautious approach to foreign policy than the last two administrations, costs will go down, and things like who we bomb and how frequently are entirely up to the president.  If however, Sanders is able to get ANY of his program through Congress, much of it will pay for itself- things like education and infrastructure spending increase the country's productivity and tax revenue (and reduce our financial liability from accidents like bridge collapses and disaster relief), and simply making the payroll tax apply to everyone would allow us to extend the projected life of Social Security and Medicare well into the 2060s while still expanding benefits to more people in need of them.  As for abolishing tuition, a tiny, less than 1% major financial transactions tax of the style coming into force in Europe would net all the money we need from the gambling of the stock market.

Question 7: What if Congress refuses to work with him?
Answer: The structure of the federal bureaucracy means that executive orders are already the best tool we have on everything from criminal justice to wage rates to environmental policy.  Obama's entire climate plan hinges on the EPA's Supreme Court endorsed and Clean Air Act provided authority to regulate emissions of certain gases.  The reasons the current plan is insufficient are that it takes too long (2018) to go into effect and that it may be adequate to reduce our existing carbon emissions but not adequate to offset the record-setting volume of oil and gas reserves this administration has opened to drilling.  How to use this power is decided by the wishes and personal appointees of the president.  Sanders is committed to addressing Climate Change, has endorsed a tax on greenhouse gases for the entirety of the last decade, and as president will have all the power he needs to regulate (if not tax) our way out of our most dangerous national security threat.  He can protect vast tracts of land that happen to contain fossil fuels from mining, and issue game-changing emissions and efficiency standards on everything from cars to power plants.  WE DON'T NEED CONGRESS FOR ANY OF THIS

This is also a point at which I need to compare him to Clinton, who as Secretary of State facilitated massive fossil-fuel drilling proposals, including leasing inestimable acres of public ocean to BP, and approving TransCanada's climate-killing Keystone XL Pipeline on the first go around.  The fact that the administration eventually saw the light on the latter at least doesn't excuse her department from originally approving it, and showcases the power the president has to help or hurt our irreplaceable ecosystem.  Hell, Obama has shown us that the president has the power to unilaterally end the Endangered Species Act!  All of these are actions taken solely by executive power, and we can effect massive fixes to our environment by reversing them. Sanders could do that in a way that no one close to the last two Democratic administrations would really consider.

Question 8: Why do I trust him?

Answer It would have been SOOOOO much easier for Sanders to sell out already than to piss off the entire Democratic Party by daring to disagree with Obama, Clinton, Clinton. Rubin, Geithner and the entire host of neoliberal deregulators against everything from buy local provisions to keeping banks from gambling with consumer savings.  According to the Washington Post, Obama raised 22% of his massive 2008 warchest from small donations of 200 dollars or less, and nearly 50% in 2012 (if you don't count the majority of campaign spending through party and Super PAC channels.  Sanders has raised over 70% from small donations, and has no Super PAC backing or neoliberal economist think-tank support to lose.  This guy is for real, and has no incentive to sell out that he hasn't already had for the last fifty years- he stayed true after marching on Washington with Dr. King, he stayed true throughout his time as Burlington Mayor, and he has stayed true to us throughout 16 years in Congress, pushing for economic justice, Gay Rights  and environmental stability for decades.  Bernie Sanders is no Johnny-come-Lately to any of the causes that are dear to the heart of any progressive.

We must support Sanders with all we've got- if he manages to win, it will upend every wrong in our political system.  If he loses, we still get to talk about all this stuff for the next 7 months or so, and that's a win in itself.

If you like this, please forward the link (or copy and past eh text itself) to your friends.  We need to answer these questions for as many people as possible over the next few months.

Sanders 2016

Genossin Elise

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Race in Deep Space Nine, Part 2

Whiteness and Class in Star Trek Deep Space 9’s Past Tense. Media Report By Emilee Suchomski and Elise Krueger
Star Trek: Deep Space 9, Past Tense Parts 1 and 2. (1995, Part 1 written by Robert Wolfe, directed by Reza Badiyi. Part 2 Ira Behr and Rene Echevarria, directed by Jonathon Frakes.
Part 2- Analysis
      Sanctuary District inmate Michael Webb is chosen by Sisko and BC to represent the face of America and what one would call an average American. He is white, he has a (n unseen) wife and two children, and many of his actions are based around supporting that family, however, he is unemployed. Early on in the history of the United States employment set white people apart from African Americans. The average American was not a slave and not black (Roediger 1991). To be a black slave meant to perform labor, but not for a wage. Additionally, unlike "white trash", the average American was perceived to be a hard worker, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps as the saying goes (Wray 2006). This episode depicts a middle class white man dealing with problems that are most typically dealt with by African Americans, Latin@ Americans, and recent immigrants of any identity other than “properly white”. Because of this, Sisko decides to use him as the proof to the outside world that the sanctuary district has good people in it who do not deserve to be there. This would not be possible without society giving whites a benefit of the doubt and social capital that is denied to People of Color. 
 
      This episode alludes to the stereotype of the people in the sanctuary district as being lower than working class. They do not have jobs so it is assumed that they are more socially deviant than working class Americans. In the United States, working class and poor people are nearly always assumed to be nonwhite (it's just blamed on the individuals for reasons of sin or race rather than on the true systemic causes of poverty). In a sanctuary district that functions as part ghetto, part trailer park, the majority of the residents are assumed to be either "white trash" or nonwhite. Webb does not fit the stereotype that people outside of the sanctuary district assume that it is filled with. People outside of the sanctuary district view it as a necessary problem and place to keep the unemployed.

      With the Trekkie audience that Star Trek Deep Space Nine is intended for, it is impossible to assume that race does not play an important role in the construction of what the sanctuary district is. Stereotypes define it, just as they define many perceptions of class and race in the United States. Even the viewer is led to believe that the sanctuary district must be made up of mostly nonwhites, especially when Sisko and Bashir (both nonwhite) are immediately taken there once they arrive on earth. Both for Americans in the episodes themselves and the American audience in real life, race culture and the poverty associated with nonwhites is a part of the social structure in the United States (Lipsitz 2006). With the discriminatory practices in hiring, housing, and education that have characterized the United States since colonial times, the reality of the sanctuary district is that it should be full nonwhites, blocked out of work and forced into ghettos.
Webb is not the individual or the body assumed to exist within the walls of the Sanctuary District. Thus, even once the riots break out and Sisko, Bashir, and BC exert obvious control over the situation, they choose Webb to go on video as the face of the Sanctuary District. This is because he is the white male that American studies scholar George Lipsitz (2006) refers to when he says, “The state uses gender roles and family obligations to compel behavior that serves its interests.” The white male patriarch fulfills this cultural role and Webb is especially suited to fit this role in his desire for employment and his family’s freedom and protection. These two things are what drive Webb to reveal to the outside world what the sanctuary district truly is. He knows that none of the residents belong there, especially himself, as a white formerly middle class male, and this is what makes him a more desirable symbol with which to attempt to confront the system’s oppression.

     It is important to note that Sisko, Bashir, and BC all cannot represent the face of the sanctuary district. They all are the embodiment of the poor, nonwhite, lazy stereotype of the sanctuary district residents. Sisko is African American, Bashir both non-American and nonwhite, and BC is "white trash". Although BC is also white, as described previously, he embodies a different whiteness than Webb. Webb is the face of the sanctuary district and the key to shutting it down. Because he was once a middle class American, he can relate to those outside of the sanctuary district and they can relate to him. Even though he does not have a job, he wants one in order to provide for his family and give his life more purpose. He bravely defends his family and fights for the basic American right, freedom. Webb is a man that the vast majority of Americans can relate to and thus a driving force for the closing of the sanctuary districts. As Sisko says “They don't want to see you or me, they want to see Webb. He's the guy next door!”

Past Tense also depicts an example of "white trash" – an ignorant, bigoted criminal, who is looked down on by everyone, and goes out of his way to torment others, especially Blacks, eventually rioting against society for his own gain, as opposed to Webb’s class conscious purposes. B.C. is a “ghost”, the violent, unstable poor population that serves as this story’s equivalent to southern "white trash". While he clearly has cultural background in common with Vin and even Webb, he cannot access cultural capital due to his economic status. One is struck by the commonality between the two unpleasant white characters, BC and Vin, sharing so many of the same traits – sadism, pride, and at least a limited awareness that they’re not wanted by their superiors. Both react similarly- lashing out at those around them, the difference is that Vin is the socially necessary “frontiersman” described by Matt Wray in “Not Quite White”1 who, while uncouth and uncivilized (at least in comparison to the detective, the social worker, and the journalist) is socially useful because he inflicts violence on those who are still less worthy. BC also practices violence, some of which seems to be racially motivated (5 of the 8 named characters he threatens are People of Color- three Blacks, one Arab-Britisher, and one Latino -and the only one he actually kills is Black), but this is not enough to redeem him in society’s eyes, because he is a “ghost”- like the 18th century “lubbers” of Appalachia (Wray, 24) who reputedly lived in squalor, refusing to work for their own families’ benefit and being largely left to their own devices by the slaveholding class, who had more profitable subjects to control. All that seems to separate them is that BC operates in a location where his savagery is not in society’s perceived interest. BC is aware of this, openly mocking the political system as he takes the social workers and policemen hostage, reveling in his status as a social outcast, or "white trash". He is poor, but he is also virulently racist, calling Sisko “boy” and directing his violence against People of Color, like the “crackers” employed by the planter aristocracy to discipline their slaves. In a society where his whiteness and power are not enough to determine his fate, his only recourse is more violence and sociopathy.

Despite their antisocial tendencies and disposition towards bigotry and violence, the ghosts ultimately experience something of a feeling of solidarity with the “gimmes” and “dims” during the riot, similarly to how poor whites supported some early slave revolts before they had been taught to invest in whiteness2.

There are important distinctions here- the oppressed classes are permanent, regardless of race. Roediger describes part of Whiteness’ psychological wages as being the sense that one can and will better one’s condition through work3, which was openly kept beyond the capacity of nonwhites. The fact that the system did not in fact always keep poor workers, especially indentured servants, from upward mobility shaped much of social policy in the 18th and 19th centuries- namely, how could the ruling class create, maintain, and oppress a permanent underclass? The answer, of course, was investing more in slavery and the social infrastructure needed to morally justify it. This actually seems to be the starting point for the episodes- how do white workers react when they realize that the system no longer considers them desirable? Some demand human rights like Webb, others slide into savagery and crime like BC, because the wages of whiteness are no longer available to them, and others continue plodding along in a system in which they blame everyone who is worse off for their own difficulties, and all reasonable hope of upward mobility is lost . Webb and BC are no longer freemen, which means they have more in common with those of other racial assignments, yet class solidarity is impossible to BC (and Vin) because of their racial assignment and the way they have been socialized to invest in it.

It’s also worth remembering the defense of slavery as being in the interests of those too inept to handle their own lives4, much as the sanctuary districts are described. The necessary reverse of meritocracy, clung to by poor freemen like Vin, is that those who do not succeed are inherently inferior, otherwise they’d be calling more shots. BC is also an important part of questioning this message- he is clearly a violent, racist person who would cause trouble at every opportunity, but how much of this has been aggravated by his socially enforced poverty?

Also of great importance to the plot is the perception of the Sanctuary District’s residents by the authorities, who are characterized in a variety of relevant ways. The two policemen (one old, conservative and white, one young, apolitical and Latino) who first arrest Sisko and Bashir are the framing device for society’s perceptions. The white one, named Vin, is a representative of the white working class that exists in a complex position between his oppressors and those he oppresses. Roediger’s “Wages of Whiteness” is invaluable in understanding his position.

     Vin is in a position of power over the powerless, but the frequent references to his precarious economic position undercut this. His pay is being cut, and his hours extended. This important information is secondary to his role as arbiter of social worth, but it clearly helps explain his hostility towards the inmates of the Sanctuary. He defines himself as better than the homeless, insane, and/or unemployed people society has placed beneath him, repeatedly calling them “losers” and saying they have only themselves to blame for their predicament.

Vin is used here as an example of the white freeman, separated from his victims not by wealth (at least not by much) or even power- for he is as vulnerable as the others to economic manipulation – the difference is that society has not yet told him that it considers him worthless – he is still officially free to market his labor, as 19th century poor whites were free, but entirely dependent on the whims of the ruling class for his livelihood. Rather than economic power, he is given socio-legal power over social undesirables on account of his status as a freeman, and told that this is his right. (Roediger, 48). Using Roediger’s history of the self-identification of the white freeman, we can infer that the success of this social construction can be measured in how completely its subjects identify their relatively privileged social status as resulting from their own merits and their identity as whites while ignoring their economic oppression and dependence. Vin progresses through the episodes, eventually acknowledging that the residents of the district are there through someone else’s actions than their own, and ultimately allows Sisko and Bashir to leave anonymously, preserving the timeline. Throughout, he identifies with those who present images similar to his, with the bulk of his anger reserved for BC and to a lesser degree Sisko.
 
This could have been race blind. Or even have tried to be race blind. But it was brave enough to hit these issues head on.  We’re left to ponder whether these racial symbols and stratifications were an intentional part of the depicted narrative, if they’re inescapable facets of a society with four hundred years of racial oppression as its salient feature, or perhaps both. At the very least, Behr, Echevarria, Wolfe, and co. have depicted a disturbingly familiar United States, and done important work in bridging the gap between idealism in goals and awareness of serious problems. Past Tense concludes with a typically uplifting Star Trek ending showing the beginning of the district’s ending after Webb’s murder by the police in the riot’s breaking. The policemen agree to let Sisko disappear in gratitude for his brokering a mostly peaceful resolution, and the heroes return to 2371. We see one more point of race and class relations as Vin orders the soldiers to stand down and they obey him, recognizing their social proximity and therefore trusting his authority. This shows how entrenched the society still is in racialized class division. We’re left to consider the results of stratification, in a way that has primarily exhibited economic oppressions but also reminded us of the role race plays in keeping classes divided and society oppressive.

Bibliography

Lipsitz, George. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2006.

Roediger, David. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. New York: Verso Books, 1991.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Routledge, 1930.

Wray, Matt. Not Quite White: "white trash" and the Boundaries of Whiteness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.

1 Wray, 51
2 Roediger, p. 24.
3 Roediger, 32
4 Roediger, 75.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Race in Deep Space Nine, Part 1

Whiteness and Class in Star Trek Deep Space 9’s Past Tense. Media Report By Emilee Suchomski and Elise Krueger
Star Trek: Deep Space 9, Past Tense Parts 1 and 2. (1995, Part 1 written by Robert Wolfe, directed by Reza Badiyi. Part 2 Ira Behr and Rene Echevarria, directed by Jonathon Frakes. 
 
Part 1: Introduction and Theory
Star Trek has often been considered a trail – blazer in depiction of race relations in TV drama. Its third series, Deep Space 9, starred a Black captain (Benjamin Sisko) who was more aware than previous leads of racial oppression in earth’s past, which manifested in interesting ways throughout the series. An episode which showcases different kinds of white identity, however, is to be found in DS9’s third season: the two part episode “Past Tense”. Briefly, Captain Sisko, Dr. Bashir and Lt. Dax are transported through time to San Francisco, 2024, in a United States which has essentially recriminalized unemployment and mental illness. Offenders are condemned to “sanctuary districts” where conditions are questionable and legal egress is impossible. Sisko and Bashir find themselves taking part in the Bell riots-named for Gabriel Bell, the prisoner who mediated a peaceful end to them- in the sanctuary while Dax struggles to find them and enable their return. These riots are crucial to the history of earth, apparently inspiring the US government to finally reintroduce New Deal-type programs to help confront poverty, and without their resolution the Federation will never exist. Sisko witnesses Bell’s murder, leaving history without a viable conclusion. Sisko decides to attempt to resolve the riots in Bell’s stead, but to do so he must confront a society in which class and racial identity is of paramount concern: he enters the building the rioters have seized, protects the social workers they have taken hostage, and strategizes to get the inmates’ demands heard. Along the way Dax infiltrates high society, hearing how completely alienated the idea of the Sanctuaries as havens for the unworthy is from the reality, while Sisko and Bashir are fighting for their lives and the future, stuck in a time and place where race and class is everything. The episode makes little direct reference to race, and the representatives of the state are of all races, but as we will demonstrate, the plot incorporates many concepts we’ve studied this semester, especially regarding the different classifications of whiteness. In an episode ostensibly regarding class relations, Star Trek shows us that any discussion of Class in America necessarily succeeds or fails in equal measure to its awareness of Race and related matters.
In Past Tense, San Francisco, California in 2024 appears to be a great place to live, at least on the surface. However, throughout the city and the rest of the country as well are what are called “sanctuary districts.” These spaces are bounded city blocks that only have one guarded entrance and exit. The people placed within the sanctuary districts are forced there by policemen who prowl the streets of San Francisco looking for the unemployed. Only those who are without jobs are put into the sanctuary districts and cannot leave until they find work. However, there is no work within the sanctuary district and people are stuck there, even if they want to enter the outside world to find work. The residents of the sanctuary district are left in an overcrowded space with little shelter, unreliable access to food, and an all-together unsafe environment. The creation of the sanctuary districts is meant to be a commentary on social and economic class. They can be viewed as both a ghetto and a trailer park that people who do not have jobs are actively forced into.

     Historically, ghettos were created when people of the same socioeconomic class, race, or both gathered together in the cities. The sanctuary district symbolizes a ghetto in the United States. Even though the episode seeks to show that the sanctuary district includes people of many races and that job status rather than race is the sole reason for incarceration in the sanctuary, one cannot take this at face value given the history of ghettos in the United States (Lipsitz 2006). The presence of dilapidated buildings, overcrowding, and the sanctuary district mirrors life on the streets common in urban ghettos. To have a ghetto means that racism existed in order to put it in place. As this episode depicts a United States dependent upon the culture and history of the actual United States, the sanctuary district is a ghetto. However, with the focus on class and the ignorance of race, the ghetto is less bounded by racial lines and more so by class lines. But race also plays a role in this. Race and class cannot be separated for the viewer. American viewers identify the look of the sanctuary district with a ghetto. Even if many white people live there too, it is still clearly a place for undesirables. Thus, the sanctuary district can also be seen as a trailer park. 
 
In a country where the confluence of class and race define the lives of the citizens, ghettos are typically a place for nonwhites whereas trailer parks are a place for "white trash". Both of these demographics are considered to be less than truly white (Wray 2006). The Sanctuary District brings both of these less than white groups together in a convergence of race and class. The trailer park is the epitome of all of the stereotypes that surround "white trash". Starting in colonial times "white trash" were seen as a threat and deviant to society because they were perceived as lazy and dirty. Protestant values taught that laziness was a sin (Weber 1930). Uncleanliness was viewed as nearly equally sinful and these beliefs still carry over to the characterization of trailer trash today (Wray 2006). This image is a way that allows people outside of the sanctuary districts to see the sanctuary district as a place were low economic class people are sent. Race is perceived to not play a role if the person is still considered white. It is not non-whiteness that condemns someone to a sanctuary district, but rather, a lack of employment and hard work. 
The two key factors that allow the Sanctuary District to be interpreted as a trailer park are the presence of white people and the fact that they do not have jobs. A strong work ethic is tied to the self-interpreted history of the United States. The characterization of “"white trash"” as backwards because they are perceived as lazy shows the beginning of class formation in the United States and the construction of the American value of hard work and dedication. The assumed ties between work ethic and true whiteness played a leading role in the creation of middle class identity in the United States (Wray 2006). During the episode, it is the middle class and above who look down upon the residents of the Sanctuary District as lazy and deserving of their place because they do not have jobs. The Sanctuary Districts are places to put people who are deemed unworthy of being a part of mainstream society. 
 
"White trash" not only fail to work hard (according to the popular conception), but they also live in the outskirts of society, both literally and metaphorically. The Sanctuary Districts are on the outskirts of society even as they physically are located in the middle of the cities. This combination makes it fairly easy for their condemnation as culturally different. Human culture is built upon social relations and those who live in confined spaces away from chose in higher socioeconomic classes than themselves can easily be considered “others” and different due to their mystery and apparent rejection of mainstream culture. In a way, residents of the sanctuary districts are perceived as making the choice to be put there. They chose to not get jobs thus they are put in a place where they are kept out of the way of other productive Americans. It is shown that those outside the sanctuary district find it to be good for those inside because they have a place to go. This misconception is one that strongly aligns with that of African Americans today. Blame is placed on them as individuals rather than a fault of the system. They are seen as poor because they chose to be poor, not because whites have continued to keep them down for so long. The sanctuary district is fraught with racist narrative that allows the middle class of 2024 to blame the residents themselves for their place in the sanctuary districts. In order for this episode to have been made in the first place it relies upon common opinions of race and the awareness of blaming of African Americans and other nonwhites for their poverty. To analyze it solely from a class perspective does not give the full picture. 
 Continued Next Week!
Bibliography
Bibliography

Lipsitz, George. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2006.

Roediger, David. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. New York: Verso Books, 1991.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Routledge, 1930.

Wray, Matt. Not Quite White: "white trash" and the Boundaries of Whiteness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.
 

Monday, July 6, 2015

Special Post- Yesterday was an Awesome Day

At least across the Atlantic.  I just had to drop you all a quick line about how wonderful this is

Greece has voted no on the bank bailout package which even its creditors admitted would cause higher unemployment and reduce its ability to pay its debts.  This package- further gutting pensions and services as a condition for more funds- was a nightmare, and a Greek exit from the Eurozone now looks likely.  This is probably the least bad option for Greece, because now (assuming it is forced to abandon the Euro) it can use a full suite of currency manipulation tools to help restabilize its economy.  It also may (if it goes so far as to exit the EU) be able to rebuild its export portfolio- since joining the EU, Greece has had to compete with western European manufacturers which can outperform it via economies of scale, which has been particularly crippling to the Greek trade in Olive products.  Now between currency adjustments and not having to service German or French manufacturers, Greece can make its own olive oil profitably again.  The road ahead will be difficult, and every capitalist government will try to make Greece suffer for failing to defy the Washington consensus, but this is the only way they can safeguard their social contract and workers' rights.  Worst case scenario, negotiations resume.  Tsipras is turning out to be a proper badass, bouyed by the strength of his party and the unity of the Greek proletariat. 

There's also the matter of Jeremy Corbyn, my preferred candidate for the Labour Party leadership (UK) snagging about 6 major endorsements in the last week, including that of UNITE, Britain's largest union.  It seems Burnham is bleeding labour support to Corbyn, as unions are beginning to see that while Burnham is better than Kendall, Corbyn is the only candidate who will actually change the conversation around austerity and move labour back towards its Socialist roots.  He's also leading handily in the only poll I've found of the candidates   If Corbyn pulls this off, the next 5 years' Prime Minister's Questions are going to be very interesting, and the conversation will have to include things like rapprochment with Latin America, restoration of the promise of the NHS, immigrant rights, nuclear disarmament, the list goes on and on.  Needless to say, Corbyn's Britain will not be endorsing any more American wars!

Of course, I was excited when Ed Miliband won too, and we're nowhere closer to seeing renewed British justice, but he did help steer the debate on addressing climate change if nothing else.  Corbyn will keep that ball rolling, and 3 or 4 more than Labour has pretty much abandoned in recent years.


On a sadder note, Secretary La Follette underwent needed back surgery earlier this week, and I'm hoping he recovers quickly.  He's a true gift to Wisconsin democracy who (I hope) will play something of a role in the upcoming primary, especially as Madison is mobilizing relatively early for Sanders, but more than any of that, he's an outstanding personal friend and mentor, and I wish him well.  Anyone who wants to send get-well messages to Wisconsin's best environmentalist public servant should write to sosdoug@hotmail.com.

Solidarität
Elise



Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Endorsement: Bernie Sanders for President

Most of you may have already known this, but now I want to formally declare my support of Senator Bernie Sanders (I/Socialist-VT) for president of the United States of America.

Another neoliberal deregulator with a history of endorsing imperialistic wars is never going to be my top pick.  But I'm especially thrilled to be offered such a meaningful alternative to the disappointments the administration has caused me as Bernie.

Sanders presence in the race is a game changes for the debate, because of his bold issue positions and eloquence, as well as an incredibly stubborn ability to stay on message no matter what he's hit with.

Sanders' presence means we'll all be talking about his agenda, including

Massive infrastructure investments- our own military says 1/4 of our bridges are in danger of collapse!  From the statehouses to Washington, Republicans are waging war on the very idea of public goods like roads and power grids, and Democrats are only supporting them with contracts for private vendors.  We need to fix our infrastructure, and we should do it as a government, not as a client of any number of firms.

Repeal of the Patriot Act and restoration of the fourth amendment.

Free four-year university- a well trained workforce is a more productive workforce, and it can easily be paid for by a tiny fraction of a financial transactions tax.

A judicial litmus test to overturn Citizens United and keep corporations from donating freely, also abolishing SUPER PACs which can accept unlimited donations, allowing a handful of billionaires to singlehandedly finance hand-picked candidates

Health care- Bernie supports true public insurance- a single payer model like the rest of the world uses to take profit entirely out of the equation of insurance. This means lower prices, better access, and more prevention for everyone. If market based insurance is such a wonder, why do we so consistently underperform in everything from overhead costs to infant mortality?

Congressional or regulatory action to break up the banks labeled “to big to fail”

a 100% pro-choice record from NARAL

Aggressive action on climate change- Sanders sponsored the failed bill to impose a tax on carbon and methane emissions.

Also, here's a guy who is really being honest about that “small donations only” rule, and who has seen positive results from so many excellent experiments in Vermont. Bernie knows policy, and knows how to sell it, and we're very lucky to have him on our side. Concerned about plant safety in the wake of the Japanese disaster, he has endorsed a moratorium on nuclear power. He has all his positions listed under three big umbrellas, and climate change is one of them! Bernie is saying all the right things, and has done all the right things- let's remember his 9 hour filibuster against Obama's abolition of the estate tax and slashing Social Security! Let's remember his support for student loan refinancing! Let's vote Bernie!

His presence means Clinton will have to answer questions on critical issues from the Trans Pacific Partnership and the menace it poses to a dozen sovereignties all the way back home to fixing the payroll tax so that even the rich have to contribute to Social Security. Simple fixes like Bernie's plan would give Social Security an extra 30 years of perfect solvency while allowing us to expand benefits to more who need them.

For starting a conversation on meaningful, progressive redistribution, Bernie Sanders is my guy.

Bernie is the best candidate I could ever have hoped for. Being able to hear a candidate talk about public works, meaningful environmental regulation as a top priority, free education, and so many other things has really inspired me to redouble my involvement. We can't let the people who brought us the TPP and the Iraq war dominate the discussion, and Bernie's mere presence, let alone any victories he may win, is a great service to our attempt at democracy, and means a great deal to me.

Berniesanders.com is a great place to go for news, and anyone in my vicinity should email stl4bernie@outlook.com for specifics on local opportunities for involvement. We need to support Bernie with everything we've got!

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen.