Monthly Archives: May 2014

For me, there are two big issues which dwarf all other issues: climate change and inequality, national and international.

This latest podcast from the London School of Economics
is an extraordinarily lucid and compelling presentation of the most extreme questions of the second of these two issues. It is a reminder of why inequality is the big question. As philosopher Thomas Pogge reminds us in his introductory remarks, we are the first generation capable of eliminating all extreme poverty. We have the wealth and we have the technical capabilities. What we don’t have is the political institutions. That’s an enormous moral imperative for us.

The really big numbers are just crushing: about half of all human beings live in extreme poverty. All of them are at strongly elevated risk of all kinds of malaise and in general have very bad quality of life. That’s 3.6 billion people living painful and short lives.

And extreme poverty could be ended, paid for, if the top quintile of world population did not receive their gains in inequality for a few years. Not making less money, just not making even more money than the rest.

Edit: sorry, first speaker T Hulme, not Pogge.


The rage of men who feel powerless has always been a part of the pathology of mass murderers. But there’s something particularly nasty about the open hatred of women in last night’s shootings in Isla Vista, California.

One of my best friends in lived briefly in Isla Vista, so I came to see him there in the late 90s. I remember it as a kind of laid-back, middle-class student town. An extended campus. Very like student neighbourhoods I knew in Europe. To imagine this level of carnage in such a familiar little place is strange. I called my friend this morning. He told me this is the third mass murder in the area within a ten minute walk in a little over ten years. A postal worker shot six of her co-workers dead just up the street in 2006 and a mentally ill person drove a car into a crowd of students in 2001.

This is not normal. Mass murder is not something you should have to live with and deal with. It’s an insanely rare event, a once-in-a-lifetime thing. Not something that happens on the block every few years.

So, the first thing we should notice is that this is not an individual thing. This shooting is an indication of a systemic problem: a culture of violence, and a malaise of readily available guns. Neither fully acknowledged or dealt with by the society around the killer. The seven dead people are dead in part because their government failed to do its job, failed to stand up for them and protect them.

So there is definitely something specifically American about this particular mass murder. And that problem, that bleeding wound in the American body politic, needs to be dressed and healed by American politics doing its job.

But there is also a more general evil here.

The killer was a agent of an ideologized hatred of women. In the same that racists hate black people and Muslims, this man hated women. And while some of his pathology may have been mental illness, this is the time to take that ideology out and examine it.

We need to start thinking of the ideological hatred of women as a thing similar to racism: a general underlying hatred (misogyny, hatred of women) which becomes politicised, ideologised, radicalised. In chat rooms and blogs and social media echo chambers this way of thinking becomes codified and organised. Arguments are developed. Support structures erected. This kind of ideologised hatred finds room to grow and develop.

We have seen the kinds of states racism builds. It builds states like the Third Reich, pogrom Russia or the US South of slavery and Jim Crow. We have also seen the kinds of states that hatred of women builds.

A member of the Taliban religious police beating a woman. Notice the child in the foreground, and think about what kind of men and women this kind of politics produces.

This is as good a time as any to get at the root of this evil. We need to call out and end the hatred of women and the violence against women perpetrated by men.

Sorry for the longish silence at this end. I’ve been ill (nothing serious) and tied up with work.

Regular service resumes shortly, but I had to drop by and tell you all to go and read something. It’s a very, very, very long piece by Ta Nehisi-Coates. It’s 16.000 words — that’s right, I counted — and about 120.000 characters, so it’ll take you at least the better part of an hour to read, but this is not only the single greatest piece of long-form journalism I’ve read in years, it is also absolutely required reading if you have any kind of interest in the US, racism, history or the idea of justice.

Ta-Nehisi Coates

I’ve been a fan and a reader of Coates’ blog for years, so it’s been wonderful to watch the ideas in the piece mature over time, and now find expression in a vivid, thoroughly researched, and extraordinarily well-written piece. Chris Hayes called him our greatest living essayist, and you could definitely make a strong case for that proposition.

The piece, called “The Case For Reparations” is a history of modern African-American life showing how white supremacy continues to have a detrimental impact in the current generation of African-American families. Both in housing inequality — a topic Coates explores at length — and in the wealth gap between white and black families.

Framing this history as basically a history of white people taking black people’s stuff (either directly, or in post-slavery years through the unequal distribution of public goods, predatory lending schemes or welfare services specifically designed to omit black people).

Coates says that America needs to discuss reparations to the African-American community as a possibility. Having that conversation will entail acknowledging the wrong that was done and is being done to people of African-American descent. It will be a necessary clearing away of a purposeful national untruth, a myth where the sin of slavery was cleansed in the fires of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Struggle. That myth has been drawn across the actual history, in which the injustice continued to have effects not just within living memory, but right up until the present day.

I want to quote the whole thing, but I’ll give you a longish quote from a particularly central section near the end of the piece.

The early American economy was built on slave labor. The Capitol and the White House were built by slaves. President James K. Polk traded slaves from the Oval Office. The laments about “black pathology,” the criticism of black family structures by pundits and intellectuals, ring hollow in a country whose existence was predicated on the torture of black fathers, on the rape of black mothers, on the sale of black children. An honest assessment of America’s relationship to the black family reveals the country to be not its nurturer but its destroyer.

And this destruction did not end with slavery. Discriminatory laws joined the equal burden of citizenship to unequal distribution of its bounty. These laws reached their apex in the mid-20th century, when the federal government—through housing policies—engineered the wealth gap, which remains with us to this day. When we think of white supremacy, we picture Colored Only signs, but we should picture pirate flags.

On some level, we have always grasped this.

“Negro poverty is not white poverty,” President Johnson said in his historic civil-rights speech.

Many of its causes and many of its cures are the same. But there are differences—deep, corrosive, obstinate differences—radiating painful roots into the community and into the family, and the nature of the individual. These differences are not racial differences. They are solely and simply the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice.We invoke the words of Jefferson and Lincoln because they say something about our legacy and our traditions. We do this because we recognize our links to the past—at least when they flatter us. But black history does not flatter American democracy; it chastens it. The popular mocking of reparations as a harebrained scheme authored by wild-eyed lefties and intellectually unserious black nationalists is fear masquerading as laughter. Black nationalists have always perceived something unmentionable about America that integrationists dare not acknowledge—that white supremacy is not merely the work of hotheaded demagogues, or a matter of false consciousness, but a force so fundamental to America that it is difficult to imagine the country without it.

And so we must imagine a new country. Reparations—by which I mean the full acceptance of our collective biography and its consequences—is the price we must pay to see ourselves squarely. The recovering alcoholic may well have to live with his illness for the rest of his life. But at least he is not living a drunken lie. Reparations beckons us to reject the intoxication of hubris and see America as it is—the work of fallible humans.

Won’t reparations divide us? Not any more than we are already divided. The wealth gap merely puts a number on something we feel but cannot say—that American prosperity was ill-gotten and selective in its distribution. What is needed is an airing of family secrets, a settling with old ghosts. What is needed is a healing of the American psyche and the banishment of white guilt.

What I’m talking about is more than recompense for past injustices—more than a handout, a payoff, hush money, or a reluctant bribe. What I’m talking about is a national reckoning that would lead to spiritual renewal. Reparations would mean the end of scarfing hot dogs on the Fourth of July while denying the facts of our heritage. Reparations would mean the end of yelling “patriotism” while waving a Confederate flag. Reparations would mean a revolution of the American consciousness, a reconciling of our self-image as the great democratizer with the facts of our history.

It’s a powerful and convincing argument. And I think that no matter how much you happen to know about the subject — I’ve been looking into the subject of racism for some time now — you’ll come away learning something new from his piece. He takes the discussion to a much higher level than it has ever been at. Go and read it, for the love of God. Especially if you live in the US.