person:todd gitlin

  • Lost Radicals | Boston Review
    http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/eric-mann-michael-dawson-radical-black-left-history

    Michael C. Dawson’s important new book Blacks In and Out of the Left expands on Jamal’s diagnosis by characterizing one of its sources: the abandonment of the Black Power movement by white liberals and social democrats who claimed that a black-led movement was inconsistent with their “universalist” ambitions. Yet Dawson’s history shows the immense unifying power that black groups had. They brought together marginalized groups, created networks of support, and built a creative community. Indeed, restoring black politics means restoring a multinational, multiracial left.

    In the ’60s many liberal whites believed black separatism threatened the possibility of a unified left. This belief led a generation of white leftist writers to attack the achievements of the black liberation movement, resulting in the repression, distortion, and caricature of the historical record of black leadership. In this context, Dawson’s frontal challenge to liberal and social democratic pontificates and his passionate defense of the black revolutionary tradition is a great gift to all students, especially black youth who have been robbed of their own history. Dawson brings to life the complexity of building a black and multi-racial left and highlights the profound achievements of black leaders and organizations that were purged from popular history. He emphasizes several important leaders who are too-little known today: Hubert Harrison, Cyril Briggs, Harry Haywood, Claudia Jones, W.E.B DuBois, A. Philip Randolph, Paul Robeson, and Fannie Lou Hamer. By reminding us that black revolutionary action has a long and influential tradition that extends well beyond the ’60s, Dawson challenges the white intellectuals who saw the unification of minority groups as a threat to their own interests. Here, for example, is Todd Gitlin:

    In the late 1960s, the principle of separate organizations on behalf of distinct interests raged throughout ‘the movement’ with amazing speed. On the model of black demands came those of feminists, Chicanos, American Indians, gays, lesbians. One grouping after another insisted on the recognition of difference and the protection of their separate and distinct spheres. . . . from the 1970s on, left-wing universalism was profoundly demoralized.

    As discouraged as white social democratic males may have felt, their domination caused a similar reaction among the revolutionary forces. Separation from the imposed universalism of the imperialist enlightenment allowed black groups to establish their own leadership, explore their own cultures, and use their own identities as the basis for self-determination. For most, separation was not separatism but an attempt to integrate self-determination into the multiracial, world struggle for socialist revolution. Indeed, the common future envisioned by blacks, Chicanos, and American Indians also attracted many whites. Rather than fracturing the left, black radicalism’s internationalist perspective provided an alternative to a universalism that was not universal.

  • Scholar Henry Giroux: Trump’s Relentless Lies Demand We Make Truth-Telling Great Again | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/scholar-henry-giroux-trumps-relentless-lies-demand-we-make-truth-telling-g

    As in any dictatorship, the Trump regime dismisses words, concepts and news sources that address crucial social problems such as climate change, police violence and corporate malfeasance.

    In Trump’s dystopian world, words such as a “nation of immigrants,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “diversity,” “entitlement,” “climate change,” “democratic,” “peaceful,” “just” and “vulnerable” disappear into a “memory hole.” Under the Trump regime, language has become a political tool and operates in the service of violence, unchecked power and lawlessness.

    For Trump, lying has become a toxic policy for legitimizing ignorance and civic illiteracy. Not only does he relish lying repeatedly, he has also attacked the critical media, claimed journalists are enemies of the American people and argued that the media is the opposition party. His rallying cry, “fake news,” is used to dismiss any critic or criticism of his policies, however misleading, wrong or dangerous they are.

    The president’s fabricating Twitter machine is about more than lying, it is also about using all of the tools and resources to create a dystopia in which authoritarianism emerges through the raw power of ignorance, control and police-state repression.

    Of course, Trump does not lie in isolation. He is encouraged by a right-wing disimagination machine that American sociologist Todd Gitlin rightly calls “an interlocking ecology of falsification that has driven the country around the bend” and into the abyss of authoritarianism.

    Trump’s endless fabrications echo the propaganda machines made famous in the fascist regimes of the 1930s. He values loyalty over integrity, and he lies in part to test the loyalty of those who both follow him and align themselves with his power.

    Trump’s lying undermines the public’s grip on language, evidence, facts and informed judgement, and in doing so promotes a form of civic illiteracy in which words and meaning no longer matter. Depriving the public of the capacity for critical analysis and discerning the truth from lies does more than empty politics of any meaning, it also undermines democracy.

    As ethics wither, people become prisoners of their own experiences, indifferent to an ignorance and brutishness in which they become complicit.

    As the theatre of lies, insults, and childish petulance triumphs over measured arguments, a world emerges in which the only real choices are among competing fictions — a world in which nothing is true and everything begins to look like a lie.

    If the spirit and promise of a sustainable democracy is to survive, it’s crucial to make truth-telling virtuous again. If we are going to fight for and with the powerless, we have to understand their needs, speak to and with them in a language that is mutually understandable as well as honest.

    There is also a need to reinvent politics through alternative narratives in which the American public can both identify themselves and the conditions through which power and oppression bear down on their lives.

    #Fake_news #Post_truth

  • http://analysedz.blogspot.com/2016/04/les-causes-de-lechec-doccupy-wall.html

    Après avoir suscité un immense espoir partout dans le monde et non seulement aux États-Unis, le mouvement Occupy Wall Street s’est essoufflé peu à peu pour s’éteindre définitivement — au moins comme mouvement populaire d’envergure. Cet échec, si décevant, appelle l’analyse. D’autant plus qu’actuellement, en France, Nuit Debout semble reproduire certaines de ses erreurs fatales.

    Occupy et Nuit Debout
    Si la protestation en France commence contre la loi El Khomri, elle ne tarde pas à voir cette revendication diluer, pour ne pas dire disparaître. Et puis se pose la question des porte-paroles sérieusement. Frédéric Lordon, fin analyse du capitalisme contemporain certes, est-il pour autant pertinent dans ses interventions à Nuit Debout et, par ailleurs, le représente-t-il ?
    « Pas de leader, pas de revendication, pas de thématique affichée dans le mouvement Nuit Debout : est-ce une force ou une faiblesse ? », s’interroge Le Monde. Une faiblesse sans doute. Et elle avait déjà caractérisé Occupy. D’où, à mon avis, l’intérêt particulier de l’analyse que propose le journaliste américain Thomas Frank sur cette « contestation amoureuse d’elle-même », publié en janvier 2013 par Le Monde diplomatique. En effet, il n’a jamais suffi d’avoir raison et d’être animé par de bonnes intentions pour réussir, notamment pour un mouvement social.

    (...)
    La question à laquelle les thuriféraires d’OWS consacrent des cogitations passionnées est la suivante : quelle est la formule magique qui a permis au mouvement de rencontrer un tel succès ? Or c’est la question diamétralement inverse qu’ils devraient se poser : pourquoi un tel échec ? Comment les efforts les plus louables en sont-ils venus à s’embourber dans le marécage de la glose académique et des postures antihiérarchiques ?
    Les choses avaient pourtant commencé très fort. Dès les premiers jours d’occupation de Zuccotti Park, la cause d’OWS était devenue incroyablement populaire. De fait, comme le souligne Todd Gitlin (5), jamais depuis les années 1930 un thème progressiste n’avait autant fédéré la société américaine que la détestation de Wall Street. (...)
    Ce qui se tramait à Wall Street, pendant ce temps-là, a suscité un intérêt moins vif. Dans Occupying Wall Street, un recueil de textes rédigés par des écrivains ayant participé au mouvement (6), la question des prêts bancaires usuraires n’apparaît qu’à titre de citation dans la bouche d’un policier. Et n’espérez pas découvrir comment les militants de Zuccotti comptaient contrarier le pouvoir des banques. Non parce que ce serait mission impossible, mais parce que la manière dont la campagne d’OWS est présentée dans ces ouvrages donne l’impression qu’elle n’avait rien d’autre à proposer que la construction de « communautés » dans l’espace public et l’exemple donné au genre humain par le noble refus d’élire des porte-parole.
    (...)

    #Occupy #NuitDebout #Protestataion #Manifestation #France #USA #Amérique

  • Anti-BDS academics urge ’personal’ sanctions against ’annexationist’ Zionist professors, including renowned political theorist Michael Walzer, say U.S. and EU should restrict visas and freeze assets of Bennett and three others who entrench the occupation.
    By Debra Nussbaum Cohen | Dec. 11, 2014 | Haaretz
    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.631336

    NEW YORK –A nascent group of well-known academics is calling on the U.S. government and European Union to impose personal sanctions on four prominent Israelis “who lead efforts to insure permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and to annex all or parts of it unilaterally in violation of international law.”

    Scholars for Israel and Palestine (SIP) a group that describes itself as “pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, pro-peace” is asking the U.S. and EU governments to impose visa restrictions and to freeze the foreign assets of Economy Minister and Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett, Housing Minister Uri Ariel, Likud MK Moshe Feiglin and Ze’ev “Zambish” Hever, a former Jewish Underground member who heads the Amana organization, which oversees the settlement enterprise, including illegal outposts.

    “We chose four Israeli leaders and public figures to start with because they stand out by working to make the occupation permanent and irreversible,” said Gershon Shafir, a professor of sociology at University of California San Diego, who came up with the concept.

    These four “were particularly dismissive of Secretary of State Kerry’s peace-making efforts, and explicitly call for and work towards the formal annexation of the West Bank or part of it, and thereby push Israel in the direction of violating international law. They are the ones who cross particularly sharp red lines,” Shafir said in an interview initially conducted by email. The approach is being invoked for the first time in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, he said later by telephone.

    The call’s 20 signatories include several well-known academics from UCLA to Boston College and Columbia University, including renowned political theorist Michael Walzer, professor emeritus of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. All the signatories to SIP’s call are Zionists, Walzer said in an interview, and are deeply opposed to academic boycotts.

    The signatories are all members of a group called The Third Narrative established in 2013 by the Labor Zionist group Ameinu as a Zionist-progressive response to far left attacks on Israel – including BDS. One who signed the new call for personal sanctions, Columbia University sociologist Todd Gitlin, published an article last month asserting that broad anti-Israel BDS is a “legal and moral disaster.”

    The new SIP call, which is titled “Israel: A Time for Personal Sanctions,” was also published on the Third Narrative website, though it was not endorsed by the group as a whole.

    Its backers say that it is completely distinct from the BDS resolutions being fought on campuses nationwide, which would effectively ostracize all Israeli academics. This, in contrast, targets some of the individuals most personally responsible for expanding the occupation. It is similar to the approach adopted by President Obama earlier this year when he signed an executive order freezing the assets of seven top Russian officials for their involvement in the annexation of Crimea, they claim.

    “All of us are very engaged in opposing the academic boycott and other boycotts,” said Walzer in an interview. He is author of numerous books, including “In God’s Shadow: Politics in the Hebrew Bible,” (Yale University Press) and last year retired as co-editor of Dissent magazine. “But at the same time we always insist we are against the occupation. This seemed to be a usefully dramatic way of focusing attention on where it should be focused and not where some of the BDS people are trying to put it,” Walzer said.

    In their petition, the academics detail their reasons for choosing the four targeted individuals. Bennett is cited for “leading the struggle” against the 2010 settlement freeze during his tenure as director of the Yesha settlements council, for advocating the annexation of Area C, which constitutes 62% of the West Bank, and for “pressing strongly for a policy of creeping annexation” as a cabinet minister. Ariel is blasted for issuing housing tenders across the Green Line and thus undermining Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace efforts and for calling for the establishment of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount. Feiglin is targeted for his “straightforward and undisguised extremism” and anti-Arab statements, while Hever “has been one of the most persistent and influential organizers of settlement construction.”

    Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology and longtime participant in protest movements, said that he signed on because “I felt it was time to move the conversation to a different plane.” He first supported a boycott of apartheid South Africa in 1965, he recalled in an interview with Haaretz.

    “The call to condemn right-wing governments is insufficient to get their attention,” he said. “We are holding Israeli figures whose declarations are inimical to a just and peaceful settlement to account,” Gitlin said. “They undermine American policy and security in the Middle East. We think it’s a matter of American policy to say we do not consider these people to be friends of America, but adversaries.”

    Eric Alterman, Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College, is a Third Narrative member who elected not to sign onto the new call for personal sanctions. “I don’t believe in politics that are purely symbolic,” he told Haaretz. “Some people do, and that’s fine. But I only believe in politics when I can see how what I’m supporting might actually happen.”

    Indeed many of The Third Narrative’s Academic Advisory Council’s members did not sign on to the new personal sanctions effort, though Shafir, Gitlin and other signatories to the new call are members of that body as well.

    “This proposal would take us down a route of increasing hostility that can only further isolate Israel from the world community and undermine efforts to build the cooperation necessary to a negotiated settlement,” said Cary Nelson, Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “While I support condemning the views these politicians hold, I cannot support sanctioning them for exercising their free speech rights,” he wrote by email from Israel, which he is visiting.

    The SIP’s call for personal sanctions very specifically opposes wide boycott efforts and its backers are not worried about being lumped together with the BDS proponents who are widely regarded as working toward Israel’s destruction.

    It is “utterly different than anathematizing an entire category of persons like the academic boycott efforts,” Gitlin said. “In this case there is a proper target, people whose activity is toxic and we think they need to be named.”

    “This would provide a way of mobilizing votes against blanket boycotts but equally against the attempts to make the occupation irreversible,” Shafir said. “It would allow us to find a place in the middle and remain distinguished from but remain part of the ongoing dialogue in a productive way that is protective of Israel’s ties with the U.S., the world and liberal intellectuals.”

    “We really are fighting on two fronts,” said Shafir, who was born in Ramat Aviv and began his career at Tel Aviv University, before moving to California in 1987. “That is our identity.”

    Other signatories to the petition include Jeff Weintraub, a political theorist who has taught at the University of Pennsylvania and Israel’s Haifa University; Sam Fleischacker, a philosophy professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; Alan Wolfe of Boston College; Alan Weisbard of the University of Wisconsin; Rebecca Lesses from Ithaca College; Joe Lockard from Arizona State University; Zachary Braiterman from Syracuse University; Irene Tucker from the University of California, Irvine; Michael Kazin, coeditor of Dissent and professor of history at Georgetown University; Steven Zipperstein from Stanford University; Jeffry Mallow of Loyola University; Rachel Brenner of the University of Wisconsin; Chaim Seidler-Feller of UCLA; Jonathan Malino of Guilford College; Miriam Kastner of UC at San Diego; Barbara Risman from the University of Illinois and Ernst Benjamin, an independent scholar.