provinceorstate:texas

  • Texas speech pathologist files federal lawsuit over anti-BDS law | The Times of Israel
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/texas-speech-pathologist-files-federal-lawsuit-over-anti-bds-law

    A speech pathologist, who reportedly lost her job at an Austin-area school district for refusing to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel, is suing the state of Texas in a bid to repeal a law targeting the anti-Israel Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement.

    According to a Monday report in The Intercept, Bahia Amawi filed the First Amendment suit in a Texas federal court, in a bid to have the state law struck down and the anti-BDS pledge removed from the school district’s employment contracts.

    Amawi worked with the local Arabic-speaking community at the Pflugerville Independent School District since 2009, on a contract basis. She told the news site that the district renewed her contract each year without incident, but when she received the documents for the 2018-19 school year in August, Amawi said it included a new clause requiring that she “not boycott Israel during the term of the contract,” and refrain from any action “that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel, or in an Israel-controlled territory.”

    #bds #israël #palestine

    en arabe ici par ex. https://www.raialyoum.com/index.php/%d8%b7%d8%b1%d8%af-%d8%a3%d9%85%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%83%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d9%85%d8%b


  • A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job
    https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law

    A children’s speech pathologist who has worked for the last nine years with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf was filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech.

    #bds

    • But this year, all of that changed. On August 13, the school district once again offered to extend her contract for another year by sending her essentially the same contract and set of certifications she has received and signed at the end of each year since 2009.

      She was prepared to sign her contract renewal until she noticed one new, and extremely significant, addition: a certification she was required to sign pledging that she “does not currently boycott Israel,” that she “will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract,” and that she shall refrain from any action “that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israeli or in an Israel-controlled territory.”

      The language of the affirmation Amawi was told she must sign reads like Orwellian — or McCarthyite — self-parody, the classic political loyalty oath that every American should instinctively shudder upon reading…


  • Energie : Doha prévoirait 20 milliards d’investissements aux USA
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2018/12/16/97002-20181216FILWWW00111-energie-doha-prevoirait-20-milliards-d-investisse

    Le Qatar, premier exportateur mondial de gaz naturel liquéfié (GNL), prévoit d’investir plus de 20 milliards de dollars (plus de 17,5 mds d’euros) dans le secteur énergétique américain au cours des cinq prochaines années, a déclaré dimanche le ministre qatari de l’Energie.

    Isolé par un embargo imposé par ses voisins du Golfe, avec à leur tête l’Arabie saoudite, l’émirat gazier cherche à investir aux Etats-Unis dans les secteurs pétrolier et gazier, et dans des ressources non conventionnelles, a indiqué ce ministre, Saad al-Kaabi, lors d’une conférence à Doha (Doha Forum).

    « Un peu plus de 20 milliards de dollars seront investis ces cinq prochaines années aux Etats-Unis », a affirmé M. Kaabi, également PDG de Qatar Petroleum.

    L’objectif principal du Qatar est de relancer le terminal de gaz naturel liquéfié de Golden Pass, au Texas (sud des Etats-Unis), d’une valeur de plusieurs milliards USD, selon M. Kaabi.

    (...)

    Sur l’Amérique du Nord, Qatar Petroleum a par ailleurs signé lundi dernier un accord avec le groupe énergétique italien Eni pour acquérir 35% de parts dans trois gisements pétroliers offshore au Mexique. C’est le deuxième investissement le plus important de l’émirat dans ce pays cette année.

    #or_noir #qatar


  • Du bon usage des barbelés. Pourquoi la gauche éprouve tant de mal à admettre que les frontières tuent

    Dans une récente interview à la revue Ballast, le philosophe et économiste #Frédéric_Lordon aborde la question des #violences infligées aux migrantes et aux migrants en concluant qu’il est illusoire de lutter pour la #liberté_de_circulation. Lui plaide pour des frontières « plus intelligentes ». Au passage, il met en cause le journaliste indépendant Olivier Cyran, accusé de tenir sur le sujet des positions déraisonnables. Dans un contexte de forte mobilisation sociale et de vive confusion politique, ce dernier se saisit de cette perche pour questionner le rapport de la #gauche aux frontières et la stratégie périlleuse de sa principale composante, la #France_insoumise.

    Dans L’Homme qui n’a pas d’étoile, de King Vidor, il y a cette scène où un éleveur de bétail conseille au cow-boy solitaire joué par Kirk Douglas d’utiliser du fil de fer barbelé. En entendant ce mot, le héros se raidit, ses traits se durcissent. « Qu’est-ce qui ne va pas ? », demande l’éleveur. Et Kirk de lui répondre sèchement : « Je n’aime pas ça, ni celui qui s’en sert. »

    On repensait à cette réplique, l’autre jour, en voyant les images de soldats américains en train de dérouler sur les rives du Rio Grande des kilomètres de bobines de barbelé concertina – variante autrement plus redoutable, avec ses lames de rasoir conçues pour trancher jusqu’à l’os, que le gros barbelé à pointes inventé en 1874 par un fermier prospère de l’Illinois [1].

    C’est le même modèle qui borde la rocade menant au port de Calais, où il couronne un tentaculaire lacis de clôtures et de détecteurs à rayonnement infra-rouge. Dans le Pas-de-Calais, sa fonction consiste à stopper les saute-frontière et, s’ils insistent, à leur infliger des lacérations que les médecins sur place comparent à des blessures de guerre.

    Aux Etats-Unis, l’actuelle débauche de barbelés visait la « caravane des migrants », cette marche d’environ cinq mille personnes parties du Honduras début octobre à la recherche d’une meilleure vie dans le Premier monde. Les trimardeurs et les grandes voyageuses n’avaient pas encore atteint Mexico, à mille bornes du point frontière nord-américain le plus proche, que déjà Donald Trump dépêchait ses troupes à leur rencontre en annonçant, la bave littéralement aux lèvres, qu’elles avaient l’ordre de tirer dans le tas au premier jet de pierre – comme à Gaza, mais au Texas.

    Un spectre hante la gauche : le « No border »

    On s’est surpris à y repenser encore, par ricochets, en parcourant le très long entretien accordé à Ballast par Frédéric Lordon. Au cours de cet exercice en trois volets, consacré en sa partie centrale à valider la stratégie d’accès au pouvoir de la France insoumise, l’économiste hétérodoxe s’attaque entre autres à la question des migrantes et des migrants, en laissant entendre que les violences qu’ils et elles endurent feraient l’objet d’une attention excessive ou trop moralisante de la part d’une partie de la gauche.

    La « pensée militante » serait mieux employée à se fondre dans la « dynamique à gauche » incarnée avec prestance par Jean-Luc Mélenchon qu’à bassiner tout le monde avec nos histoires de barbelés, de duvets confisqués par la police et de centres de rétention qui débordent, puisque, souligne Lordon, « il ne devrait pas être nécessaire de dire qu’au premier chef, ce qui est insoutenable, c’est le sort objectif fait aux migrants. Car d’abord ce devrait être suffisamment évident pour qu’on n’ait pas à le dire. »

    Dans le champ de mines à fragmentation de la « vraie » gauche, la voix de Frédéric Lordon ne compte pas pour du beurre. Ses analyses sur la crise de 2008 ou sur le garrottage de la Grèce ont permis à des milliers de cancres en économie dans mon genre d’y voir plus clair sur le fonctionnement des banques, des institutions qui les gavent et des calamités qu’elles provoquent. Quand il passe à la débroussailleuse les fausses évidences du « système des prescripteurs » et raille leur « radicale incapacité de penser quoi que ce soit de différent », on boit volontiers du petit lait.

    Mais les efforts d’imagination qu’il mobilise pour concevoir des alternatives à l’ordre économique dominant ne paraissent plus de mise quand il s’agit des frontières. À rebours de la hardiesse qui l’avait conduit par exemple à appeler à la fermeture de la Bourse, Lordon prêche sur ce sujet la conservation de l’existant et sa répugnance pour les « No border », appellation qu’il s’abstient de définir, mais sous laquelle il semble ranger les quelques effronté.e.s qui, considérant la criminalité d’État instituée par les frontières, oseraient mettre en doute leur bien-fondé intrinsèque.

    Nous sommes quelques-uns en effet à considérer que les frontières physiques – non pas celles qui se volatilisent devant les capitaux et les marchandises, mais celles qui repoussent, blessent ou tuent les voyageurs sans visa au moyen d’un nombre toujours croissant de policiers, de garde-côte, de mercenaires, de fichiers d’empreintes digitales, de capteurs biométriques, de détecteurs de chaleur humaine ou de systèmes de surveillance satellitaire – ne constituent pas nécessairement l’horizon indépassable de la condition humaine, et qu’il y a lieu peut-être d’envisager leur démontage.

    Policiers à la cool et frontières intelligentes

    Chacun l’aura remarqué, ce point de vue n’occupe pas une place écrasante dans le débat public. S’il inspire un certain nombre d’actions militantes courageuses et salutaires, il ne bénéficie d’aucune espèce de visibilité dans le champ médiatique, politique ou intellectuel. En fait il n’est même jamais énoncé, encore moins discuté.

    D’où notre étonnement de voir Lordon s’en emparer brusquement pour s’efforcer de le disqualifier davantage, comme s’il y avait péril en la demeure. À ses yeux, remettre en cause la légitimité des frontières, c’est dégringoler tête en avant dans un « néant de la pensée » – le mien, en l’occurrence, puisque je me retrouve nommément visé dans ce passage.

    Les frontières, nous enseigne-t-il, ne sont pas mauvaises en soi. Elles sont, point barre. Elles peuvent d’ailleurs « prendre des formes extrêmement variées, des plus haïssables [...] jusqu’à de plus intelligentes. » Comment s’y prendre pour améliorer le QI d’une clôture ou d’une patrouille de Frontex, Lordon ne le précise pas – c’est sans doute, là aussi, « suffisamment évident pour qu’on n’ait pas à le dire ».

    On se contentera de prendre pour acquis que les frontières intelligentes font de bien belles choses, qu’elles « encouragent même circulation et installation, mais n’abandonnent pas pour autant l’idée d’une différence de principe entre intérieur et extérieur ». On est ravi de la nouvelle et on voudrait bien les connaître, ces murs de qualité qui allient gentillesse et attachement aux principes éternels.

    En quoi elle consiste au juste, la « différence de principe entre intérieur et extérieur », Lordon ne le précise pas non plus, mais on ne jurerait pas qu’elle n’ait rien à voir avec ces quinze migrants qui viennent de mourir de faim et de soif à bord d’un canot qui dérivait depuis douze jours au large des côtes libyennes. Ou avec ce sans-papiers guinéen forcé par un agent de la Police aux frontières de Beauvais de se mettre à genoux et de lui lécher ses chaussures.

    Mais attention, nous avertit le philosophe : le problème viendrait surtout de ces énergumènes qui voudraient détruire les frontières et jeter le barbelé avec l’eau du bain. « C’est de la problématisation pour “On n’est pas couché” ou pour C-News. En matière d’institutions, “pour ou contre”, c’est la pire manière de poser les questions », décrète-t-il, et là encore, c’est mézigue dont les oreilles sifflent.

    Ses remontrances font suite à une série de remarques que j’avais postées sur le réseau Twitter, puis remises en ligne ici-même, en réaction épidermique [2] à diverses prises de position sur le sujet, y compris celles, en effet, de Frédéric Lordon, détaillées précédemment sur son blog et révélatrices à mes yeux du fond de sauce mélenchonien qui englue les synapses de la gauche.

    Le différend qui nous oppose sur la question des frontières le conduit, dans un autre passage de son interview, à se demander quelles substances je consomme lorsque j’écris mes trucs. C’est une question légitime. J’avoue m’être parfois posé la même à son sujet, moins pour ses idées que pour ses tournures de phrase sophistiquées, cette fameuse « Lordon’s touch » qui procure à ses lecteurs un mélange unique de ravissement et de maux de tête. On devrait peut-être s’échanger les 06 de nos fournisseurs.

    Ne dites plus « prolétaires de tous les pays, unissez-vous »,
    dites « prolétaires de tous les pays, soyez gentils, restez chez vous »

    En lui répondant ici, je me plie à un exercice inconfortable. Lordon est une figure de la vie intellectuelle française, chercheur au CNRS et auteur prolifique, dont la sphère d’influence est sans commune mesure avec celle d’un journaliste précaire qui place ses piges où il peut et ne se connaît pas d’autres compétences que de faire du reportage au ras du sol. Nous ne jouons pas dans la même catégorie. Rien qu’à l’idée d’écrire à la première personne, je baille nerveusement. Mais puisque Lordon me fait l’honneur de me rabrouer avec insistance, en m’attribuant le rôle de repoussoir au service de sa démonstration, prenons cela comme un cadeau et profitons-en pour tâcher de tirer les choses au clair.

    Comme dit la chanson, « on lâche rien, on lâche rien ». Pourtant nous vivons une époque où on lâche beaucoup, au contraire, et même de plus en plus. Au cours de ces dernières années, par épluchages successifs, le périmètre de la gauche n’a cessé de se ratatiner. Quantité de références que l’on croyait l’apanage des tromblons réactionnaires ont percé son épiderme idéologique, nation, patrie, armée, police et fanion bleu-blanc-rouge n’y sont plus des cibles, mais des fétiches. « Oui, j’aime mon pays, oui, j’aime ma patrie ! Et je suis fier d’avoir ramené dans nos meetings le drapeau tricolore et la Marseillaise », proclame Jean-Luc Mélenchon [3].

    On lâche tout, on lâche tout, et c’est là que Lordon jaillit pour nous enjoindre de lâcher plus encore. L’internationalisme hérité de l’histoire du mouvement ouvrier, sans parler du rudimentaire principe de solidarité entre les abimé.e.s de ce monde, ne seraient plus que des breloques bonnes à remiser sur un napperon en dentelle. Ne dites plus « prolétaires de tous les pays, unissez-vous », dites plutôt « prolétaires de tous les pays, soyez gentils, restez chez vous ».

    À quoi s’ajoute que la question des frontières est devenue au fil de ces derniers mois un redoutable sac à embrouilles, débordant sur d’autres épineuses questions, liées notamment aux choix stratégiques de la France insoumise.

    Au point où on en est, ce n’est peut-être pas du luxe de le vider, ce sac, et de démêler un peu les désaccords, non-dits et quiproquos qui s’y sont accumulés, non par goût pour la chamaille, mais dans l’espoir d’éviter que « No border » devienne irrémédiablement un gros mot.

    Du mauvais côté de la barrière

    Pour cela, un retour sur les épisodes précédents s’impose. Fin septembre, trois médias classés plutôt à gauche – Politis, Regards et Mediapart – publient conjointement un « manifeste pour l’accueil des migrants » signé par cent cinquante « personnalités ». À partir d’un tableau succinct, pour ne pas dire sommaire, du bain de xénophobie où clapotent les décideurs politiques de France et d’Europe, leur texte se borne à affirmer que « la liberté de circulation et l’égalité des droits sociaux pour les immigrés présents dans les pays d’accueil sont des droits fondamentaux de l’humanité ». Pas de quoi se rouler par terre, mais, dans le contexte de sa parution, ce bref rappel à un principe de décence élémentaire fait l’effet d’une bulle d’oxygène.

    Il intervenait quelques jours après la décision du gouvernement Macron d’interdire à l’Aquarius, alors le dernier navire de sauvetage encore actif en Méditerranée, d’accoster en France et d’y débarquer les cinquante-huit rescapés recueillis à son bord. C’est qu’il est inconcevable, pour les start-uppers en chef de la nation, de déroger à leur politique de non-assistance aux naufragés, l’un des rares sujets sur lesquels les membres de l’Union européenne n’ont eu aucun mal à se mettre d’accord. On est déjà bien assez occupé à traquer les migrants sur notre territoire et à leur administrer un luxe inouï d’épreuves et de brutalités en tous genres pour se soucier d’en accueillir d’autres, surtout quand ils ont le mauvais goût d’être encore en vie. Le droit d’asile, dorénavant, ce sera au fond de l’eau ou dans les camps libyens.

    Deux semaines plus tôt, des hommes, des femmes et des enfants naufragés près des côtes maltaises avaient lancé un appel de détresse aux secours italiens, qui firent la sourde oreille. Plus de cent personnes seraient mortes noyées, tandis que les « garde-côte » libyens, une milice de rabatteurs opérant en sous-traitance pour l’UE, ramenaient les survivants dans les geôles de Tripoli. Externaliser la protection de nos frontières maritimes méridionales vers un pays en ruines dominé par des clans mafieux a ceci d’immensément commode que nul ne se formalisera du sort qui les attend là-bas – la faim, les viols et les tortures passeront inaperçues. Loin des yeux, loin du cœur, comme on dit.

    Quand, le 19 septembre, le Haut-commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR) sonne une nouvelle fois l’alarme en qualifiant de « cauchemardesques » les conditions de détention dans les camps libyens, personne à Rome, Paris ou Berlin ne bronche. Un mois plus tôt, le décompte de l’Organisation mondiale pour les migrations (OMI) évaluant à dix-sept mille le nombre de morts en Méditerranée depuis 2014 – estimation basse – n’avait pas non plus soulevé d’émotions particulières.

    Opération guillemets pour les « forces de progrès »

    Entre parenthèses : à l’heure où j’écris ces lignes, on apprend que l’Aquarius, immobilisé dans le port de Marseille, ne reprendra plus la mer. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’après après avoir été privé de son pavillon panaméen sur intervention de l’Italie et avec la complicité des autres pays européens, le navire de sauvetage a échoué à se trouver un pays d’attache.

    Alors que le plus pourri des cargos poubelle peut battre pavillon sans la moindre difficulté, on s’arrange pour refuser ce droit à un bateau dont la fonction consiste à secourir des naufragés. Pestiféré, l’Aquarius, pour la seule raison qu’il sauve des vies. Que pareille obscénité se déroule sous nos yeux sans que nul ne moufte en dit long sur l’accoutumance de nos sociétés à la noyade de masse comme outil de gestion des flux migratoires.

    Dans un tel contexte, tout ce qui peut nuire aux intérêts des maîtres de la forteresse me paraît bon à prendre. Je précise, à toutes fins utiles, que je n’ai rien à vendre à Politis, Regards ou Mediapart, que les défendre n’est pas mon affaire et que, d’ailleurs, je n’ai pas non plus signé leur manifeste.

    D’abord, parce que je dispose d’autres moyens pour m’impliquer. Ensuite, parce que ces grandes pétitions par voie de presse, indexées sur la notoriété de leurs premiers signataires, se passent fort bien de mes services. Mais je me serais bien gardé de dissuader quiconque de le faire.

    On le savait bien, de toute façon, que cette initiative serait sans effet concret sur le calvaire des migrant.e.s, hors ou au sein de nos frontières – on est peut-être borné, mais pas idiot. Cela n’a pas non plus échappé aux associations qui l’ont signée, dont l’Auberge des migrants, Roya citoyenne, le Baam, Utopia 56, le Gisti, la Cimade, la Fasti, les coordinations de sans-papiers et d’autres encore.

    Si ces collectifs, dont l’existence n’est jamais mentionnée par Frédéric Lordon, ont jugé bon malgré tout de s’associer au texte, c’est probablement qu’ils lui reconnaissaient quelque utilité. Celui par exemple de faire entendre un autre son de cloche que le fracas des macronistes, vallsistes, ciottistes, lepénistes et éditorialistes. Personnellement, je cherche encore le coton-tige miracle qui m’ôtera du coin de l’oreille la voix de ce type de Valeurs Actuelles, François d’Orcival, invité permanent des « Informés » de France Info et incarnation chevrotante de la hargne migranticide, exhortant Emmanuel Macron à ne surtout pas céder au « chantage à l’émotion » des survivants de l’Aquarius. Ce genre de son, à force de tourner en boucle sur toutes les antennes, ça vous colle au pavillon comme un furoncle.

    Mais le principal intérêt du texte, du moins aux yeux des personnes engagées sur le terrain, c’est qu’il semblait offrir l’occasion aux diverses chapelles de la gauche de se retrouver sur un dénominateur commun : l’urgence de mobiliser leurs forces pour ne plus laisser les gens mourir noyés ou fracassés aux pieds de nos forteresses. De cesser de tortiller et de mettre de côté les bisbilles pour faire de cette question-là une priorité commune. Mais c’était encore trop demander.

    Au lieu de fédérer les « forces de progrès », avec guillemets de rigueur, l’initiative aboutit en fait à creuser un peu plus l’une de ses lignes de fracture les plus béantes. D’un côté, le gros de la gauche non-mélenchoniste, allant du groupuscule hamoniste jusqu’au NPA en passant par le PCF, ainsi qu’un large éventail de syndicalistes, de militantes et de responsables associatifs, tous signataires du texte ; de l’autre, la France insoumise, repliée sur son hégémonie, qui refuse de le signer et érige ce rejet en ligne officielle du parti.

    L’internationalisme, c’est has been, braillons plutôt la Marseillaise

    Pour justifier leur rebuffade, les théoriciens de la FI vont déployer un argumentaire contrasté, où la vexation de n’avoir pas été consultés par les auteurs du manifeste se mêle au reproche de ne point y voir nommément accusé Emmanuel Macron, comme si la responsabilité de ce dernier dans la situation décrite n’allait pas de soi.

    On daube aussi sur la présence parmi les signataires de Benoît Hamon, preuve putative de leurs accommodements avec les reliefs carbonisés du Parti socialiste, comme s’ils étaient encore en capacité de nuire, et comme si Mélenchon, revenu d’un PS dont il fut membre pendant trente-deux ans, était le mieux placé pour donner dans ce domaine des leçons de savoir-vivre.

    On voudrait nous enfumer qu’on ne s’y prendrait pas autrement. Quand Lordon, dans son entretien, fustige longuement une opération de « retournement de veste en loucedé », d’« autoblanchiment symbolique » et d’« unanimité morale », on lui concède volontiers qu’il y a parfois des jonctions surprenantes. À preuve, la manifestation des Gilets jaunes du 1er décembre, soutenue par la France Insoumise, une partie du NPA, Attac, les cheminots de Sud-Rail, le Comité Adama et Frédéric Lordon lui-même, mais aussi par Marine Le Pen, les Patriotes et l’Action française.

    Quoi que l’on pense de cette juxtaposition insolite, on peut supposer que la présence d’un ex-hiérarque socialiste sur les Champs-Élysées ce jour-là n’aurait pas posé à Lordon un problème insurmontable. La question est donc : pourquoi serait-elle rédhibitoire dans un cas et pas dans l’autre ?

    En fait, la position de la FI est surtout d’ordre stratégique. Dans un espace politique de plus en plus imbibé de fachosphère, les stratèges du parti estiment que faire campagne sur des thèmes susceptibles de braquer une partie de l’électorat – immigration, racisme, islamophobie, sexisme, violences policières, etc – ruinerait leurs chances de victoire. Remporter des scrutins imposerait d’y aller mollo sur les sujets qui fâchent et de mettre le paquet sur le « social », entendu comme un moyen de ramener dans le bercail de la gauche les brebis égarées à l’extrême droite.

    En juin dernier, François Ruffin avait théorisé cette mission pastorale dans un article du Monde diplomatique. Racontant sa campagne électorale victorieuse de 2017 dans sa circonscription de la Somme, ravagée par la précarité et les délocalisations, il y explique que ce n’est pas avec du vinaigre que l’on attire les sympathisants de Marine Le Pen. « Maintenant, à leur chute économique et sociale il faudrait ajouter une autre condamnation : politique et morale. Qu’ils votent FN, se reconnaissent dans un parti ostracisé, et leur exclusion en sera légitimée. La double peine. »

    L’ostracisme dont serait victime le FN ne saute pas aux yeux, les chefferies éditoriales ayant plutôt tendance à lui cirer les bottillons, mais on comprend bien l’idée de la main tendue. « Le FN, je l’attaquais peu, poursuit-il. Comment des gens qui vont mal, socialement, économiquement, croiraient-ils que Mme Le Pen ou son père, qui n’ont jamais gouverné le pays, sont responsables de leurs malheurs ? Le FN se combat en ouvrant une autre voie aux colères, à l’espoir. En offrant un autre conflit que celui entre Français et immigrés [4]. »

    Quadriller serré, ratisser large

    Combattre le racisme consisterait donc à le balayer sous le tapis et à n’endosser que les revendications jugées peu ou prou lepéno-compatibles. Le cas de Ruffin démontre qu’une telle stratégie peut en effet s’avérer ponctuellement gagnante. Elle présente néanmoins un inconvénient, celui de devoir expliquer aux populations issues de l’immigration post-coloniale que leurs préoccupations particulières, liées aux diverses déclinaisons du racisme d’État, ne font pas partie des thématiques sociales retenues comme pertinentes par le parti et doivent donc être sacrifiées à la bonne cause.

    Le soutien inconditionnel et tonitruant apporté par la FI aux Gilets jaunes, et cela dès les premiers jours, quand l’imbrication de l’extrême droite dans le mouvement ne pouvait guère être ignorée, s’inscrit dans cette même hiérarchie des priorités. On ne s’offusquera pas qu’au milieu de la détresse sociale des fins de mois invivables, des Dupont-Lajoie sonnent la chasse au migrant.e.s, ou que des grandes gueules locales imposent la « baisse des charges » ou la « diminution de l’assistanat » dans le cahier de doléances du mouvement, du moment que l’occasion se présente d’aller chanter la Marseillaise avec son cœur de cible.

    Mais on ne peut durablement gagner sur les deux tableaux. Comme le suggère la récente défaite de la candidate FI à l’élection législative partielle d’Évry, dans l’ancienne circonscription de Manuel Valls, où l’abstention a atteint le niveau stratosphérique de 82 %, le message ne suscite pas forcément l’enthousiasme dans l’électorat populaire racisé. Ruffin a eu beau se rendre sur place pour instruire les habitant.e.s des HLM que leur « bulletin [était] un enjeu pour la patrie », la pêche aux voix, cette fois, n’a pas fonctionné.

    Appliquée à la question migratoire, cette stratégie périlleuse contraint la FI à marcher sur des œufs. D’un côté, elle doit tenir compte de la présence en son sein d’individus sincèrement acquis à la cause du droit d’asile, comme Danielle Obono, qui s’est âprement battue à l’Assemblée nationale contre la loi Asile et immigration, ou comme nombre de militants ici ou là. De l’autre, elle doit donner des gages aux électeurs alléchés par l’extrême droite qu’il ne saurait être question d’ouvrir les frontières comme ça à n’importe qui, pensez donc.

    C’est là que la figure du « No border » se révèle d’une irrésistible utilité. Pour se sortir de la position délicate où les place l’initiative de Politis-Regards-Mediapart, Jean-Luc Mélenchon et ses amis vont accuser ses initiateurs de vouloir démolir les frontières, ce patrimoine-de-l’humanité-que-nous-chérissons-tant. Un passage dans le manifeste va leur en fournir l’occasion : « Il est illusoire de penser que l’on va pouvoir contenir et a fortiori interrompre les flux migratoires. À vouloir le faire, on finit toujours par être contraint au pire. La régulation devient contrôle policier accru, la frontière se fait mur. »

    On pourrait pinailler sur sa formulation, mais le constat est juste. N’importe quel exilé à la rue vous le confirmera : l’État a beau lui construire des barrières électrifiées, le traquer avec un détecteur à battements cardiaques ou l’empêcher à coups de tonfa de se poser sur un bout de trottoir, tant qu’il respire il continuera de se glisser par un trou de souris. Les frontières tuent, mutilent, séparent, mais elles ne dissuadent pas les candidats au voyage de tenter leur chance. Pour prétendre le contraire, il faut vraiment ne rien connaître au sujet.

    Toute la misère du monde dans la tête

    Mais, sur son blog, Jean-Luc Mélenchon s’indigne : affirmer qu’elles n’ont pas l’efficacité qu’on leur attribue « revient à dire que les frontières ne sont plus assumées. Ce n’est pas du tout notre point de vue. Nous croyons au bon usage des frontières. »

    La suite est de toute beauté : « Notre rapport aux frontière n’est pas idéologique. Il est concret dans un monde où celles-ci n’ont cessé d’exister que pour le capital et les riches et où nous avons l’intention de les rétablir contre eux. Disons-le clairement, nous ne sommes pas d’accord pour signer à propos d’immigration un manifeste “no border”, ni frontière ni nation. Nombre de nos amis les plus chers qui ont signé ce texte disent à présent n’avoir pas repéré cette phrase que les rédactions “no border” ont su placer. »

    Il faut relire ce passage lentement pour en apprécier le numéro de patinage artistique : invoquer la lutte contre « le capital et les riches » pour justifier le maintien d’un dispositif qui sert surtout à stopper les pauvres.

    Par souci de conférer un semblant de logique à cette acrobatie, on assimilera ensuite les initiateurs du manifeste, décrits par ailleurs comme vendus à la macronie (ou, variante, à l’oligarchie), à des anarchistes échevelés qui planquent de la dynamite dans leurs tiroirs. Edwy Plenel, patron de Mediapart et ancien comparse moustachu d’Alain Minc et de Jean-Marie Colombani à la tête du Monde, et qui sur le tard en a surpris plus d’un par ses prises de positions plutôt dignes, mais pas farouchement révolutionnaires pour autant, a dû s’en sentir tout ragaillardi. François Ruffin n’a pas fait tant de politesses quand il a déclaré sur France Info le 13 septembre : « On ne peut pas dire qu’on va accueillir tous les migrants, ce n’est pas possible. »

    Voilà encore le genre de fausse évidence que, pour paraphraser Chomsky, on met trois secondes à balancer et une demie heure à démonter. D’abord, c’est qui, « tous les migrants » ? Faut-il entendre : tous les migrants du monde et de la galaxie ? Tous ceux qui se noient à nos portes ? Tous ceux qui n’en sont pas encore mais qui, dans un coin de leur tête, caressent l’idée qu’un de ces jours ils iraient bien eux aussi faire un petit tour sur les Champs-Élysées ? Croit-il que la planète entière attend dans les starting-blocks de se précipiter en France, sa « patrie », comme il l’appelle ? Sur invitation de qui, de ces hérétiques « No border » qui auraient squatté l’Élysée ? Et que veut dire « on ne peut pas », si l’on s’abstient de préciser tout ce que l’on peut, et tout ce que l’on doit ?

    Mais les esprits ont déjà été si bien préparés en amont pour recevoir ce genre de poncif épongé à gauche comme à droite – à commencer par le fameux « on ne peut pas accueillir toute la misère du monde » de Michel Rocard – que nulle objection ou demande de précision ne lui a été opposée, en tout cas par le préposé de France Info. L’« unanimisme moral » qui inquiète tant Frédéric Lordon ne triomphe pas toujours, apparemment.

    http://lmsi.net/Du-bon-usage-des-barbeles
    #violence #border_violence #frontières #mourir_aux_frontières #frontières_intelligentes #smart_borders #murs #ouverture_des_frontières #fermeture_des_frontières #barrières_frontalières #migrations #asile #réfugiés


  • What These Medical Journals Don’t Reveal: Top Doctors’ Ties to Industry
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/health/medical-journals-conflicts-of-interest.html

    One is dean of Yale’s medical school. Another is the director of a cancer center in Texas. A third is the next president of the most prominent society of cancer doctors.

    These leading medical figures are among dozens of doctors who have failed in recent years to report their financial relationships with pharmaceutical and health care companies when their studies are published in medical journals, according to a review by The New York Times and ProPublica and data from other recent research.

    #pharma #conflits_d_intérêts #transparence


  • Quel lien social dans un monde inégal ?
    https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/la-grande-table-2eme-partie/quel-lien-social-dans-un-monde-inegal

    Inégalités et lien social, avec l’économiste James Kenneth Galbraith et Gaël Giraud, chef économiste de l’Agence Française de Développement, nos invités à l’occasion de la 13ème Conférence internationale de l’AFD sur le développement (6-7 décembre 2018 à Paris).

    James Galbraith l’a redit très clairement sur @franceculture aujourd’hui : la hausse des inégalités en Europe et aux États-Unis est principalement due aux politiques néolibérales d’austérité qui ont donné tout pouvoir au secteur financier @LaGrandeTable

    • Inégalités et lien social, avec l’économiste James Kenneth Galbraith et Gaël Giraud, chef économiste de l’Agence Française de Développement, nos invités à l’occasion de la 13ème Conférence internationale de l’AFD sur le développement (6-7 décembre 2018 à Paris).

      Les raisins de la colère bien souvent, peut-être même le moteur de toute contestation, les inégalités sont aujourd’hui cristallisées et dénoncées par le mouvement des « gilets jaunes ». Entre inégalités réelles et ressenties, la frustration monte, au point de nourrir, peut-être des formes de violence. 

      Car, alors que la richesse mondiale augmente, les inégalités de revenu se creusent au sein des pays. En France, les derniers chiffres de l’Insee montrent qu’elles se sont stabilisées à un niveau proche de 2008, année de la crise. Des inégalités plus prononcées si on prend en compte le patrimoine, marqué par un taux de pauvreté en nette hausse depuis dix ans. Surtout, les travailleurs pauvres gagnent moins de 1026 euros par mois. 

      Le PIB est un très mauvais indicateur de prospérité. Si, demain, vous avez un accident de voiture, vous augmentez le PIB. Si vous jetez du poison dans une rivière, ce sera excellent pour le PIB. 
      (Gaël Giraud)

      Comment nos démocraties se sont-elles débarrassées de tout sentiment de culpabilité et de toute mauvaise conscience à l’égard des perdants de la mondialisation ? Comment favoriser une transition écologique, impérative, et cesser de favoriser les plus riches en marquant l’écart avec les plus pauvres ?

      Est-ce qu’on peut avoir un certain niveau de croissance ? Oui, je crois que c’est nécessaire. Est-ce qu’on peut avoir une croissance rapide qui résolve tous nos problèmes ? Non, je ne crois pas que ce soit possible. 
      (James K. Galbraith)

      On en parle avec nos deux invités, réunis à l’occasion de la 13ème Conférence internationale de l’Agence française de développement (AFD) qui se tient à Paris du 6 au 7 décembre 2018 :
      • Gaël Giraud, chef économiste à l’AFD, auteur de Illusion financière : Des subprimes à la transition écologique (Editions de l’Atelier, 2014), et
      • James K. Galbraith, professeur à l’Université du Texas, auteur en 2009 de L’Etat prédateur (Seuil, 2009) et en 2016 de Crise grecque, tragédie européenne (Seuil, 2016).


  • Les Fake-profondes : De Profundis, USA
    http://www.dedefensa.org/article/lesfake-profondes-de-profundis-usa

    Les Fake-profondes : De Profundis, USA

    La mythologie des FakeNews ne cesse de progresser et de gagner en substance et en ampleur. On nous annonce désormais les FakeNews “profondes”, qui entreront en service subversif et antiaméricaniste d’ici 2020, – dans les mains machiavéliques des Russes, cela va de soi. Elles vont plonger les USA dans « un véritable chaos », selon le sénateur républicain Sass. Les Fake-profondes, qui permettent d’imiter parfaitement la “réalité” (?) sont désormais annoncées comme une attaque terrifiante lors des présidentielles de 2020, capable d’avoir raison de la vertueuse démocratie américaniste. La chose était l’objet d’une conférence au plus haut niveau (dirigeants politiques, du renseignement, militaires, etc.), à Austin, au Texas.

    Voici, pour avoir une idée plus précise de la (...)


  • Who writes history? The fight to commemorate a massacre by the Texas #rangers

    In 1918, a state-sanctioned vigilante force killed 15 unarmed Mexicans in #Porvenir. When their descendants applied for a historical marker a century later, they learned that not everyone wants to remember one of Texas’ darkest days.

    The name of the town was Porvenir, or “future.” In the early morning hours of January 28, 1918, 15 unarmed Mexicans and Mexican Americans were awakened by a state-sanctioned vigilante force of Texas Rangers, U.S. Army cavalry and local ranchers. The men and boys ranged in age from 16 to 72. They were taken from their homes, led to a bluff over the Rio Grande and shot from 3 feet away by a firing squad. The remaining residents of the isolated farm and ranch community fled across the river to Mexico, where they buried the dead in a mass grave. Days later, the cavalry returned to burn the abandoned village to the ground.

    These, historians broadly agree, are the facts of what happened at Porvenir. But 100 years later, the meaning of those facts remains fiercely contested. In 2015, as the centennial of the massacre approached, a group of historians and Porvenir descendants applied for and was granted a Texas Historical Commission (THC) marker. After a three-year review process, the THC approved the final text in July. A rush order was sent to the foundry so that the marker would be ready in time for a Labor Day weekend dedication ceremony planned by descendants. Then, on August 3, Presidio County Historical Commission Chair Mona Blocker Garcia sent an email to the THC that upended everything. Though THC records show that the Presidio commission had been consulted throughout the marker approval process, Garcia claimed to be “shocked” that the text was approved. She further asserted, without basis, that “the militant Hispanics have turned this marker request into a political rally and want reparations from the federal government for a 100-year-old-plus tragic event.”

    Four days later, Presidio County Attorney Rod Ponton sent a follow-up letter. Without identifying specific errors in the marker text, he demanded that the dedication ceremony be canceled and the marker’s production halted until new language could be agreed upon. Ponton speculated, falsely, that the event was planned as a “major political rally” for Beto O’Rourke with the participation of La Raza Unida founding member José Ángel Gutiérrez, neither of whom was involved. Nonetheless, THC History Programs Director Charles Sadnick sent an email to agency staff the same day: “After getting some more context about where the marker sponsor may be coming from, we’re halting production on the marker.”

    The American Historical Association quickly condemned the THC’s decision, as did the office of state Senator José Rodríguez, a Democrat whose district includes both Presidio County and El Paso, where the ceremony was to be held. Historians across the country also spoke out against the decision. Sarah Zenaida Gould, director of the Museo del Westside in San Antonio and cofounder of Latinos in Heritage Conservation, responded in an email to the agency that encapsulates the views of many of the historians I interviewed: “Halting the marker process to address this statement as though it were a valid concern instead of a dog whistle is insulting to all people of color who have personally or through family history experienced state violence.”

    How did a last-gasp effort, characterized by factual errors and inflammatory language, manage to convince the state agency for historic preservation to reverse course on a marker three years in the making and sponsored by a young Latina historian with an Ivy League pedigree and Texas-Mexico border roots? An Observer investigation, involving dozens of interviews and hundreds of emails obtained through an open records request, reveals a county still struggling to move on from a racist and violent past, far-right amateur historians sowing disinformation and a state agency that acted against its own best judgment.

    The Porvenir massacre controversy is about more than just the fate of a single marker destined for a lonely part of West Texas. It’s about who gets to tell history, and the continuing relevance of the border’s contested, violent and racist past to events today.

    Several rooms in Benita Albarado’s home in Uvalde are almost overwhelmed by filing cabinets and stacks of clipboards, the ever-growing archive of her research into what happened at Porvenir. For most of her life, Benita, 74, knew nothing about the massacre. What she did know was that her father, Juan Flores, had terrible nightmares, and that in 1950 he checked himself in to a state mental hospital for symptoms that today would be recognized as PTSD. When she asked her mother what was wrong with him, she always received the same vague response: “You don’t understand what he’s been through.”

    In 1998, Benita and her husband, Buddy, began tracing their family trees. Benita was perplexed that she couldn’t find any documentation about her grandfather, Longino Flores. Then she came across the archival papers of Harry Warren, a schoolteacher, lawyer and son-in-law of Tiburcio Jáquez, one of the men who was murdered. Warren had made a list of the victims, and Longino’s name was among them. Warren also described how one of his students from Porvenir had come to his house the next morning to tell him what happened, and then traveled with him to the massacre site to identify the bodies, many of which were so mutilated as to be virtually unrecognizable. Benita immediately saw the possible connection. Her father, 12 at the time, matched Warren’s description of the student.

    Benita and Buddy drove from Uvalde to Odessa, where her father lived, with her photocopied papers. “Is that you?” she asked. He said yes. Then, for the first time in 80 years, he began to tell the story of how he was kidnapped with the men, but then sent home because of his age; he was told that the others were only going to be questioned. To Benita and Buddy’s amazement, he remembered the names of 12 of the men who had been murdered. They were the same as those in Harry Warren’s papers. He also remembered the names of the ranchers who had shown up at his door. Some of those, including the ancestors of prominent families still in Presidio County, had never been found in any document.

    Talking about the massacre proved healing for Flores. His nightmares stopped. In 2000, at age 96, he decided that he wanted to return to Porvenir. Buddy drove them down an old mine road in a four-wheel-drive truck. Flores pointed out where his old neighbors used to live, even though the buildings were gone. He guided Buddy to the bluff where the men were killed — a different location than the one commonly believed by local ranchers to be the massacre site. His memory proved to be uncanny: At the bluff, the family discovered a pre-1918 military bullet casing, still lying on the Chihuahuan desert ground.

    Benita and Buddy began advocating for a historical marker in 2000, soon after their trip to Porvenir. “A lot of people say that this was a lie,” Buddy told me. “But if you’ve got a historical marker, the state has to acknowledge what happened.” Their efforts were met by resistance from powerful ranching families, who held sway over the local historical commission. The Albarados had already given up when they met Monica Muñoz Martinez, a Yale graduate student from Uvalde, who interviewed them for her dissertation. In 2013, Martinez, by then an assistant professor at Brown University, co-founded Refusing to Forget, a group of historians aiming to create broader public awareness of border violence, including Porvenir and other extrajudicial killings of Mexicans by Texas Rangers during the same period. The most horrific of these was La Matanza, in which dozens of Mexicans and Mexican Americans were murdered in the Rio Grande Valley in 1915.

    In 2006, the THC created the Undertold Markers program, which seemed tailor-made for Porvenir. According to its website, the program is designed to “address historical gaps, promote diversity of topics, and proactively document significant underrepresented subjects or untold stories.” Unlike the agency’s other marker programs, anyone can apply for an undertold marker, not just county historical commissions. Martinez’s application for a Porvenir massacre marker was accepted in 2015.

    Though the approval process for the Porvenir marker took longer than usual, by the summer of 2018 everything appeared to be falling into place. On June 1, Presidio County Historical Commission chair Garcia approved the final text. (Garcia told me that she thought she was approving a different text. Her confusion is difficult to understand, since the text was attached to the digital form she submitted approving it.) Martinez began coordinating with the THC and Arlinda Valencia, a descendant of one of the victims, to organize a dedication ceremony in El Paso.
    “They weren’t just simple farmers. I seriously doubt that they were just killed for no reason.”

    In mid-June, Valencia invited other descendants to the event and posted it on Facebook. She began planning a program to include a priest’s benediction, a mariachi performance and brief remarks by Martinez, Senator Rodríguez and a representative from the THC. The event’s climax would be the unveiling of the plaque with the names of the 15 victims.

    Then the backlash began.

    “Why do you call it a massacre?” is the first thing Jim White III said over the phone when I told him I was researching the Porvenir massacre. White is the trustee of the Brite Ranch, the site of a cross-border raid by Mexicans on Christmas Day 1917, about a month before the Porvenir massacre. When I explained that the state-sanctioned extrajudicial execution of 15 men and boys met all the criteria I could think of for a massacre, he shot back, “It sounds like you already have your opinion.”

    For generations, ranching families like the Brites have dominated the social, economic and political life of Presidio County. In a visit to the Marfa & Presidio County Museum, I was told that there were almost no Hispanic surnames in any of the exhibits, though 84 percent of the county is Hispanic. The Brite family name, however, was everywhere.

    White and others in Presidio County subscribe to an alternative history of the Porvenir massacre, centering on the notion that the Porvenir residents were involved in the bloody Christmas Day raid.

    “They weren’t just simple farmers,” White told me, referring to the victims. “I seriously doubt that they were just killed for no reason.” Once he’d heard about the historical marker, he said, he’d talked to everyone he knew about it, including former Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and Mona Blocker Garcia.

    I visited Garcia at her Marfa home, an 1886 adobe that’s the same age as the venerable Marfa County Courthouse down the street. Garcia, 82, is Anglo, and married to a former oil executive whose ancestry, she explained, is Spanish and French Basque. A Houston native, she retired in the 1990s to Marfa, where she befriended the Brite family and became involved in local history. She told me that she had shared a draft text of the marker with the Brites, and they had agreed that it was factually inaccurate.

    Garcia cited a story a Brite descendant had told her about a young goat herder from Porvenir who purportedly witnessed the Christmas Day raid, told authorities about the perpetrators from his community and then disappeared without a trace into a witness protection program in Oklahoma. When I asked if there was any evidence that the boy actually existed, she acknowledged the story was “folklore.” Still, she said, “the story has lasted 100 years. Why would anybody make something like that up?”

    The actual history is quite clear. In the days after the massacre, the Texas Rangers commander, Captain J.M. Fox, initially reported that Porvenir residents had fired on the Rangers. Later, he claimed that residents had participated in the Christmas Day raid. Subsequent investigations by the Mexican consulate, the U.S. Army and state Representative J.T. Canales concluded that the murdered men were unarmed and innocent, targeted solely because of their ethnicity by a vigilante force organized at the Brite Ranch. As a result, in June 1918, five Rangers were dismissed, Fox was forced to resign and Company B of the Texas Rangers was disbanded.

    But justice remained elusive. In the coming years, Fox re-enlisted as captain of Company A, while three of the dismissed lawmen found new employment. One re-enlisted as a Ranger, a second became a U.S. customs inspector and the third was hired by the Brite Ranch. No one was ever prosecuted. As time passed, the historical records of the massacre, including Harry Warren’s papers, affidavits from widows and other relatives and witness testimony from the various investigations, were largely forgotten. In their place came texts like Walter Prescott Webb’s The Texas Rangers: A Century of Frontier Defense, which played an outsize role in the creation of the heroic myth of the Texas Rangers. Relying entirely on interviews with the murderers themselves, Webb accepted at face value Fox’s discredited version of events. For more than 50 years, Webb’s account was considered the definitive one of the massacre — though, unsurprisingly, he didn’t use that word.

    An Observer review of hundreds of emails shows that the state commission was aware of potential controversy over the marker from the very beginning. In an email from 2015, Executive Director Mark Wolfe gave John Nau, the chair of the THC’s executive committee, a heads-up that while the marker was supported by historical scholarship, “the [Presidio County Historical Commission] opposes the marker.” The emails also demonstrate that the agency viewed the claims of historical inaccuracies in the marker text made by Mona Blocker Garcia and the county commission as minor issues of wording.

    On August 6, the day before the decision to halt the marker, Charles Sadnick, the history programs director, wrote Wolfe to say that the “bigger problem” was the ceremony, where he worried there might be disagreements among Presidio County residents, and which he described as “involving some politics which we don’t want a part of.”

    What were the politics that the commission was worried about, and where were these concerns coming from? Garcia’s last-minute letter may have been a factor, but it wasn’t the only one. For the entire summer, Glenn Justice, a right-wing amateur historian who lives in a rural gated community an hour outside San Angelo, had been the driving force behind a whisper campaign to discredit Martinez and scuttle the dedication ceremony.

    “There are radicals in the ‘brown power’ movement that only want the story told of Rangers and [the] Army and gringos killing innocent Mexicans,” Justice told me when we met in his garage, which doubles as the office for Rimrock Press, a publishing company whose catalog consists entirely of Justice’s own work. He was referring to Refusing to Forget and in particular Martinez, the marker’s sponsor.

    Justice has been researching the Porvenir massacre for more than 30 years, starting when he first visited the Big Bend as a graduate student. He claims to be, and probably is, the first person since schoolteacher Harry Warren to call Porvenir a “massacre” in print, in a master’s thesis published by the University of Texas at El Paso in 1991. Unlike White and Garcia, Justice doesn’t question the innocence of the Porvenir victims. But he believes that additional “context” is necessary to understand the reasons for the massacre, which he views as an aberration, rather than a representatively violent part of a long history of racism. “There have never been any problems between the races to speak of [in Presidio County],” he told me.

    In 2015, Justice teamed up with former Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and Sul Ross State University archaeologist David Keller on a privately funded excavation at the massacre site. He is working on a new book about the bullets and bullet casings they found — which he believes implicate the U.S. Army cavalry in the shooting — and also partnered with Patterson to produce a documentary. But they’d run out of money, and the film was taken over by noted Austin filmmaker Andrew Shapter, who pitched the project to PBS and Netflix. In the transition, Justice was demoted to the role of one of 12 consulting historians. Meanwhile, Martinez was given a prominent role on camera.

    Justice was disgruntled when he learned that the dedication ceremony would take place in El Paso. He complained to organizer Arlinda Valencia and local historical commission members before contacting Ponton, the county attorney, and Amanda Shields, a descendant of massacre victim Manuel Moralez.

    “I didn’t want to take my father to a mob scene,” Shields told me over the phone, by way of explaining her opposition to the dedication ceremony. She believed the rumor that O’Rourke and Gutiérrez would be involved.

    In August, Shields called Valencia to demand details about the program for the ceremony. At the time, she expressed particular concern about a potential Q&A event with Martinez that would focus on parallels between border politics and violence in 1918 and today.

    “This is not a political issue,” Shields told me. “It’s a historical issue. With everything that was going on, we didn’t want the ugliness of politics involved in it.” By “everything,” she explained, she was referring primarily to the issue of family separation. Benita and Buddy Albarado told me that Shields’ views represent a small minority of descendants.

    Martinez said that the idea of ignoring the connections between past and present went against her reasons for fighting to get a marker in the first place. “I’m a historian,” she said. “It’s hard to commemorate such a period of violence, in the midst of another ongoing humanitarian crisis, when this period of violence shaped the institutions of policing that we have today. And that cannot be relegated to the past.”

    After communicating with Justice and Shields, Ponton phoned THC Commissioner Gilbert “Pete” Peterson, who is a bank investment officer in Alpine. That call set in motion the sequence of events that would ultimately derail the marker. Peterson immediately emailed Wolfe, the state commission’s executive director, to say that the marker was becoming “a major political issue.” Initially, though, Wolfe defended the agency’s handling of the marker. “Frankly,” Wolfe wrote in his reply, “this might just be one where the [Presidio County Historical Commission] isn’t going to be happy, and that’s why these stories have been untold for so long.” Peterson wrote back to say that he had been in touch with members of the THC executive committee, which consists of 15 members appointed by either former Governor Rick Perry or Governor Greg Abbott, and that an email about the controversy had been forwarded to THC chair John Nau. Two days later, Peterson added, “This whole thing is a burning football that will be thrown to the media.”

    At a meeting of the Presidio County Historical Commission on August 17, Peterson suggested that the executive board played a major role in the decision to pause production of the marker. “I stopped the marker after talking to Rod [Ponton],” Peterson said. “I’ve spent quite a bit of time talking with the chairman and vice-chairman [of the THC]. What we have said, fairly emphatically, is that there will not be a dedication in El Paso.” Through a spokesperson, Wolfe said that the executive committee is routinely consulted and the decision was ultimately his.

    The spokesperson said, “The big reason that the marker was delayed was to be certain about its accuracy. We want these markers to stand for generations and to be as accurate as possible.”

    With no marker to unveil, Valencia still organized a small commemoration. Many descendants, including Benita and Buddy Albarado, chose not to attend. Still, the event was described by Jeff Davis, a THC representative in attendance, as “a near perfect event” whose tone was “somber and respectful but hopeful.”

    Most of THC’s executive committee members are not historians. The chair, John Nau, is CEO of the nation’s largest Anheuser-Busch distributor and a major Republican party donor. His involvement in the Porvenir controversy was not limited to temporarily halting the marker. In August, he also instructed THC staff to ask the Presidio historical commission to submit applications for markers commemorating raids by Mexicans on white ranches during the Mexican Revolution, which Nau described as “a significant but largely forgotten incident in the state’s history.”

    Garcia confirmed that she had been approached by THC staff. She added that the THC had suggested two specific topics: the Christmas Day raid and a subsequent raid at the Neville Ranch.

    The idea of additional plaques to provide so-called context that could be interpreted as justifying the massacre — or at the very least setting up a false moral equivalence — appears to have mollified critics like White, Garcia and Justice. The work on a revised Porvenir massacre text proceeded quickly, with few points of contention, once it began in mid-September. The marker was sent to the foundry on September 18.
    “It’s hard to commemorate such a period of violence, in the midst of another ongoing humanitarian crisis, when this period of violence shaped the institutions of policing that we have today.”

    In the end, the Porvenir descendants will get their marker — but it may come at a cost. Martinez called the idea of multiple markers “deeply unsettling” and not appropriate for the Undertold Marker program. “Events like the Brite Ranch raid and the Neville raid have been documented by historians for over a century,” she said. “These are not undertold histories. My concern with having a series of markers is that, again, it casts suspicion on the victims of these historical events. It creates the logic that these raids caused this massacre, that it was retribution for these men and boys participating.”

    In early November, the THC unexpectedly announced a dedication ceremony for Friday, November 30. The date was one of just a few on which Martinez, who was still planning on organizing several public history events in conjunction with the unveiling, had told the agency months prior that she had a schedule conflict. In an email to Martinez, Sadnick said that it was the only date Nau could attend this year, and that it was impossible for agency officials to make “secure travel plans” once the legislative session began in January.

    A handful of descendants, including Shields and the Albarados, still plan to attend. “This is about families having closure,” Shields told me. “Now, this can finally be put to rest.”

    The Albarados are livid that the THC chose a date that, in their view, prioritized the convenience of state and county officials over the attendance of descendants — including their own daughters, who feared they wouldn’t be able to get off work. They also hope to organize a second, unofficial gathering at the marker site next year, with the participation of more descendants and the Refusing to Forget historians. “We want people to know the truth of what really happened [at Porvenir],” Buddy told me, “and to know who it was that got this historical marker put there.”

    Others, like Arlinda Valencia, planned to stay home. “Over 100 years ago, our ancestors were massacred, and the reason they were massacred was because of lies that people were stating as facts,” she told me in El Paso. “They called them ‘bandits,’ when all they were doing was working and trying to make a living. And now, it’s happening again.”

    #mémoire #histoire #Texas #USA #massacre #assassinat #méxicains #violence #migrations #commémoration #historicisation #frontières #violence_aux_frontières #violent_borders #Mexique


  • PRE-ORDER: Build the Wall (#MAGA building blocks toy)

    We are pleased to announce the launch of a brand new line of toys: MAGA building blocks! This set comes with more than 100 pieces including President Trump in a MAGA hard hat!

    A mob of 10,000 Central American migrants is marching through Mexico and heading toward El Paso, Texas. Mexican border agents attempted to stop them at the Mexican border, but to no avail.

    We understand why they want to flee Honduras and live and work in America. After all, we are the greatest nation on earth.

    In the interest of national security, however, we cannot allow just anyone and everyone to cross our borders. While there are good people attempting to enter our nation, there are also gangs, criminals, and terrorists. Everyone who wants to enter our country must enter legally for the safety of all.

    The wall must be built. The wall will keep America safe and strong. Only then will we be able to help those in need.

    We are pleased to announce the launch of a brand new line of toys: MAGA building blocks! This toy makes a great Christmas gift for your kids and grandkids!

    101 Pieces
    Includes President Trump figurine w/ a MAGA hard hat!


    https://keepandbear.com/products/build-the-wall
    #légo #enfants #enfance #jeu #jeux #murs #frontières #barrières_frontalières #fermeture_des_frontières


  • Trump border wall construction underway in #Chihuahuita in Downtown #El_Paso

    Construction of the border wall in the Chihuahuita neighborhood of Downtown El Paso continued Wednesday beneath the Stanton Street International Bridge. The U.S. Border Patrol announced Friday that the new wall would replace existing fencing south of Downtown El Paso and that construction would begin Saturday as part of President Donald Trump’s executive order authorizing construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall.
    The wall starts in Chihuahuita and continues east for four miles. Chihuahuita is El Paso’s oldest neighborhood, with about 100 people currently living in the area. The southern boundary of the neighborhood is the border fence separating El Paso from #Juárez.

    The existing fence will be removed, and an 18-foot-high steel bollard wall will be constructed in its place. The construction project is expected to be completed in late April. The estimated cost for the project is $22 million.


    https://eu.elpasotimes.com/story/news/2018/09/26/trump-border-wall-construction-underway-downtown-el-paso-texas/1437573002
    #murs #barrières_frontalières #frontières #mexique #usa #Etats-Unis

    • Border Wall Gate Construction Begins Friday

      Construction of several border wall #gates along the Rio Grande Valley border is set to begin Friday.

      U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers awarded a contract to #Gideon_Contracting LLC in early October.

      The agencies approved over $3.5 million for the San Antonio-based company, which is set to install the first seven border wall gates and includes options for four additional gates.


      http://www.krgv.com/story/39562919/border-wall-gate-construction-begins-friday

    • TPWD: Border wall will be built on #Bentsen State Park property in Mission

      The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has confirmed the border wall will be built on #Bentsen_State_Park property in Mission.

      The department wrote several letters to Customs and Border Protection on their concerns on the border wall, even suggesting an alternative design.

      According to Josh Havens, spokesperson for Texas Parks and Wildlife he says since the federal government has federal domain over the park, construction will go as planned.

      Bentsen State Park is considered to be one of the top bird watching destinations in Texas.

      “At first, we came for three or four days. Last year, we came for seven and this time we are coming for eight days,” said Charles Allen, who has been visiting the park for several years now.

      Allen says the border wall would be a setback for the park.

      “It would really be a disaster for the plants and the butterflies and for people who come to visit,” stated Allen.

      CBP announced the construction of the border wall on the IBWC levee earlier this month.

      The levee stretches through Mission and lies on park property.

      “The federal government has confirmed with us that the initial six miles, I believe, of the construction of the wall is going to go across the levee that is at Bentsen Rio Grande Valley State Park,” said Havens.

      According to Havens, the construction will split the park into two, separating the main visitor center from the rest of the park.

      CBP plans to clear out 150 feet south of the levee for the construction, according to Havens.

      “The native plants here have some purpose either a butterfly or several butterflies, or moths or some other birds or other larger animals,” said Allen.

      Havens says they are aware of the ecological importance the vegetation of the park has and is planning to work with CBP on minimizing the vegetation loss.

      Still park visitors feel there should be something else done to protect the park.

      “I hate to see them tear this park in half can there be other way to be done? I’m sure there are options,” mentioned Larry McGuire, a winter Texan who visits the park.

      According to Havens, it is way too early to tell if the park will close after the construction of the border wall.

      They will have to gauge visitation after construction to determine that.


      https://valleycentral.com/news/local/tpwd-border-wall-will-be-built-on-bentsen-state-park-property-in-miss


  • HARDY FOX -------- BRAIN CANCER -------- 1945 - 2018
    http://www.hardyfox.com/home

    Hardy Fox grew up in Texas. After college he moved to San Francisco reveling in the free love days of 1967-68. He co-founded the much loved cult band, the Residents, where he was primary composer.

    Hardy retired from The Residents in 2015 but continued to compose for the group through 2018. In addition to his work with that band, he has recorded as a solo artist under various names including Charles Bobuck, Combo de Mechanico, Sonido de la Noche, Chuck, TAR, among others.

    #the_residents


  • 56,800 migrant dead and missing : ’They are human beings’

    One by one, five to a grave, the coffins are buried in the red earth of this ill-kept corner of a South African cemetery. The scrawl on the cheap wood attests to their anonymity: “Unknown B/Male.”

    These men were migrants from elsewhere in Africa with next to nothing who sought a living in the thriving underground economy of Gauteng province, a name that roughly translates to “land of gold.” Instead of fortune, many found death, their bodies unnamed and unclaimed — more than 4,300 in Gauteng between 2014 and 2017 alone.

    Some of those lives ended here at the Olifantsvlei cemetery, in silence, among tufts of grass growing over tiny placards that read: Pauper Block. There are coffins so tiny that they could belong only to children.

    As migration worldwide soars to record highs, far less visible has been its toll: The tens of thousands of people who die or simply disappear during their journeys, never to be seen again. In most cases, nobody is keeping track: Barely counted in life, these people don’t register in death , as if they never lived at all.

    An Associated Press tally has documented at least 56,800 migrants dead or missing worldwide since 2014 — almost double the number found in the world’s only official attempt to try to count them, by the U.N.’s International Organization for Migration. The IOM toll as of Oct. 1 was more than 28,500. The AP came up with almost 28,300 additional dead or missing migrants by compiling information from other international groups, requesting forensic records, missing persons reports and death records, and sifting through data from thousands of interviews with migrants.

    The toll is the result of migration that is up 49 percent since the turn of the century, with more than 258 million international migrants in 2017, according to the United Nations. A growing number have drowned, died in deserts or fallen prey to traffickers, leaving their families to wonder what on earth happened to them. At the same time, anonymous bodies are filling cemeteries around the world, like the one in Gauteng.

    The AP’s tally is still low. More bodies of migrants lie undiscovered in desert sands or at the bottom of the sea. And families don’t always report loved ones as missing because they migrated illegally, or because they left home without saying exactly where they were headed.

    The official U.N. toll focuses mostly on Europe, but even there cases fall through the cracks. The political tide is turning against migrants in Europe just as in the United States, where the government is cracking down heavily on caravans of Central Americans trying to get in . One result is that money is drying up for projects to track migration and its costs.

    For example, when more than 800 people died in an April 2015 shipwreck off the coast of Italy, Europe’s deadliest migrant sea disaster, Italian investigators pledged to identify them and find their families. More than three years later, under a new populist government, funding for this work is being cut off.

    Beyond Europe, information is even more scarce. Little is known about the toll in South America, where the Venezuelan migration is among the world’s biggest today, and in Asia, the top region for numbers of migrants.

    The result is that governments vastly underestimate the toll of migration, a major political and social issue in most of the world today.

    “No matter where you stand on the whole migration management debate....these are still human beings on the move,” said Bram Frouws, the head of the Mixed Migration Centre , based in Geneva, which has done surveys of more than 20,000 migrants in its 4Mi project since 2014. “Whether it’s refugees or people moving for jobs, they are human beings.”

    They leave behind families caught between hope and mourning, like that of Safi al-Bahri. Her son, Majdi Barhoumi, left their hometown of Ras Jebel, Tunisia, on May 7, 2011, headed for Europe in a small boat with a dozen other migrants. The boat sank and Barhoumi hasn’t been heard from since. In a sign of faith that he is still alive, his parents built an animal pen with a brood of hens, a few cows and a dog to stand watch until he returns.

    “I just wait for him. I always imagine him behind me, at home, in the market, everywhere,” said al-Bahari. “When I hear a voice at night, I think he’s come back. When I hear the sound of a motorcycle, I think my son is back.”

    ———————————————————————

    EUROPE: BOATS THAT NEVER ARRIVE

    Of the world’s migration crises, Europe’s has been the most cruelly visible. Images of the lifeless body of a Kurdish toddler on a beach, frozen tent camps in Eastern Europe, and a nearly numbing succession of deadly shipwrecks have been transmitted around the world, adding to the furor over migration.

    In the Mediterranean, scores of tankers, cargo boats, cruise ships and military vessels tower over tiny, crowded rafts powered by an outboard motor for a one-way trip. Even larger boats carrying hundreds of migrants may go down when soft breezes turn into battering winds and thrashing waves further from shore.

    Two shipwrecks and the deaths of at least 368 people off the coast of Italy in October 2013 prompted the IOM’s research into migrant deaths. The organization has focused on deaths in the Mediterranean, although its researchers plead for more data from elsewhere in the world. This year alone, the IOM has found more than 1,700 deaths in the waters that divide Africa and Europe.

    Like the lost Tunisians of Ras Jebel, most of them set off to look for work. Barhoumi, his friends, cousins and other would-be migrants camped in the seaside brush the night before their departure, listening to the crash of the waves that ultimately would sink their raft.

    Khalid Arfaoui had planned to be among them. When the group knocked at his door, it wasn’t fear that held him back, but a lack of cash. Everyone needed to chip in to pay for the boat, gas and supplies, and he was short about $100. So he sat inside and watched as they left for the beachside campsite where even today locals spend the night before embarking to Europe.

    Propelled by a feeble outboard motor and overburdened with its passengers, the rubber raft flipped, possibly after grazing rocks below the surface on an uninhabited island just offshore. Two bodies were retrieved. The lone survivor was found clinging to debris eight hours later.

    The Tunisian government has never tallied its missing, and the group never made it close enough to Europe to catch the attention of authorities there. So these migrants never have been counted among the dead and missing.

    “If I had gone with them, I’d be lost like the others,” Arfaoui said recently, standing on the rocky shoreline with a group of friends, all of whom vaguely planned to leave for Europe. “If I get the chance, I’ll do it. Even if I fear the sea and I know I might die, I’ll do it.”

    With him that day was 30-year-old Mounir Aguida, who had already made the trip once, drifting for 19 hours after the boat engine cut out. In late August this year, he crammed into another raft with seven friends, feeling the waves slam the flimsy bow. At the last minute he and another young man jumped out.

    “It didn’t feel right,” Aguida said.

    There has been no word from the other six — yet another group of Ras Jebel’s youth lost to the sea. With no shipwreck reported, no survivors to rescue and no bodies to identify, the six young men are not counted in any toll.

    In addition to watching its own youth flee, Tunisia and to a lesser degree neighboring Algeria are transit points for other Africans north bound for Europe. Tunisia has its own cemetery for unidentified migrants, as do Greece, Italy and Turkey. The one at Tunisia’s southern coast is tended by an unemployed sailor named Chamseddin Marzouk.

    Of around 400 bodies interred in the coastal graveyard since it opened in 2005, only one has ever been identified. As for the others who lie beneath piles of dirt, Marzouk couldn’t imagine how their families would ever learn their fate.

    “Their families may think that the person is still alive, or that he’ll return one day to visit,” Marzouk said. “They don’t know that those they await are buried here, in Zarzis, Tunisia.”

    ——————

    AFRICA: VANISHING WITHOUT A TRACE

    Despite talk of the ’waves’ of African migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean, as many migrate within Africa — 16 million — as leave for Europe. In all, since 2014, at least 18,400 African migrants have died traveling within Africa, according to the figures compiled from AP and IOM records. That includes more than 4,300 unidentified bodies in a single South African province, and 8,700 whose traveling companions reported their disappearance en route out of the Horn of Africa in interviews with 4Mi.

    When people vanish while migrating in Africa, it is often without a trace. The IOM says the Sahara Desert may well have killed more migrants than the Mediterranean. But no one will ever know for sure in a region where borders are little more than lines drawn on maps and no government is searching an expanse as large as the continental United States. The harsh sun and swirling desert sands quickly decompose and bury bodies of migrants, so that even when they turn up, they are usually impossible to identify .

    With a prosperous economy and stable government, South Africa draws more migrants than any other country in Africa. The government is a meticulous collector of fingerprints — nearly every legal resident and citizen has a file somewhere — so bodies without any records are assumed to have been living and working in the country illegally. The corpses are fingerprinted when possible, but there is no regular DNA collection.

    South Africa also has one of the world’s highest rates of violent crime and police are more focused on solving domestic cases than identifying migrants.

    “There’s logic to that, as sad as it is....You want to find the killer if you’re a policeman, because the killer could kill more people,” said Jeanine Vellema, the chief specialist of the province’s eight mortuaries. Migrant identification, meanwhile, is largely an issue for foreign families — and poor ones at that.

    Vellema has tried to patch into the police missing persons system, to build a system of electronic mortuary records and to establish a protocol where a DNA sample is taken from every set of remains that arrive at the morgue. She sighs: “Resources.” It’s a word that comes up 10 times in a half-hour conversation.

    So the bodies end up at Olifantsvlei or a cemetery like it, in unnamed graves. On a recent visit by AP, a series of open rectangles awaited the bodies of the unidentified and unclaimed. They did not wait long: a pickup truck drove up, piled with about 10 coffins, five per grave. There were at least 180 grave markers for the anonymous dead, with multiple bodies in each grave.

    The International Committee of the Red Cross, which is working with Vellema, has started a pilot project with one Gauteng morgue to take detailed photos, fingerprints, dental information and DNA samples of unidentified bodies. That information goes to a database where, in theory, the bodies can be traced.

    “Every person has a right to their dignity. And to their identity,” said Stephen Fonseca, the ICRC regional forensic manager.

    ————————————

    THE UNITED STATES: “THAT’S HOW MY BROTHER USED TO SLEEP”

    More than 6,000 miles (9,000 kilometers) away, in the deserts that straddle the U.S.-Mexico border, lie the bodies of migrants who perished trying to cross land as unforgiving as the waters of the Mediterranean. Many fled the violence and poverty of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador or Mexico. Some are found months or years later as mere skeletons. Others make a last, desperate phone call and are never heard from again.

    In 2010 the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team and the local morgue in Pima County, Ariz., began to organize efforts to put names to the anonymous bodies found on both sides of the border. The “Border Project” has since identified more than 183 people — a fraction of the total.

    At least 3,861 migrants are dead and missing on the route from Mexico to the United States since 2014, according to the combined AP and IOM total. The tally includes missing person reports from the Colibri Center for Human Rights on the U.S. side as well as the Argentine group’s data from the Mexican side. The painstaking work of identification can take years, hampered by a lack of resources, official records and coordination between countries — and even between states.

    For many families of the missing, it is their only hope, but for the families of Juan Lorenzo Luna and Armando Reyes, that hope is fading.

    Luna, 27, and Reyes, 22, were brothers-in-law who left their small northern Mexico town of Gomez Palacio in August 2016. They had tried to cross to the U.S. four months earlier, but surrendered to border patrol agents in exhaustion and were deported.

    They knew they were risking their lives — Reyes’ father died migrating in 1995, and an uncle went missing in 2004. But Luna, a quiet family man, wanted to make enough money to buy a pickup truck and then return to his wife and two children. Reyes wanted a job where he wouldn’t get his shoes dirty and could give his newborn daughter a better life.

    Of the five who left Gomez Palacio together, two men made it to safety, and one man turned back. The only information he gave was that the brothers-in-law had stopped walking and planned to turn themselves in again. That is the last that is known of them.

    Officials told their families that they had scoured prisons and detention centers, but there was no sign of the missing men. Cesaria Orona even consulted a fortune teller about her missing son, Armando, and was told he had died in the desert.

    One weekend in June 2017, volunteers found eight bodies next to a military area of the Arizona desert and posted the images online in the hopes of finding family. Maria Elena Luna came across a Facebook photo of a decaying body found in an arid landscape dotted with cactus and shrubs, lying face-up with one leg bent outward. There was something horribly familiar about the pose.

    “That’s how my brother used to sleep,” she whispered.

    Along with the bodies, the volunteers found a credential of a boy from Guatemala, a photo and a piece of paper with a number written on it. The photo was of Juan Lorenzo Luna, and the number on the paper was for cousins of the family. But investigators warned that a wallet or credential could have been stolen, as migrants are frequently robbed.

    “We all cried,” Luna recalled. “But I said, we cannot be sure until we have the DNA test. Let’s wait.”

    Luna and Orona gave DNA samples to the Mexican government and the Argentine group. In November 2017, Orona received a letter from the Mexican government saying that there was the possibility of a match for Armando with some bone remains found in Nuevo Leon, a state that borders Texas. But the test was negative.

    The women are still waiting for results from the Argentine pathologists. Until then, their relatives remain among the uncounted.

    Orona holds out hope that the men may be locked up, or held by “bad people.” Every time Luna hears about clandestine graves or unidentified bodies in the news, the anguish is sharp.

    “Suddenly all the memories come back,” she said. “I do not want to think.”

    ————————

    SOUTH AMERICA: “NO ONE WANTS TO ADMIT THIS IS A REALITY”

    The toll of the dead and the missing has been all but ignored in one of the largest population movements in the world today — that of nearly 2 million Venezuelans fleeing from their country’s collapse. These migrants have hopped buses across the borders, boarded flimsy boats in the Caribbean, and — when all else failed — walked for days along scorching highways and freezing mountain trails. Vulnerable to violence from drug cartels, hunger and illness that lingers even after reaching their destination, they have disappeared or died by the hundreds.

    “They can’t withstand a trip that hard, because the journey is very long,” said Carlos Valdes, director of neighboring Colombia’s national forensic institute. “And many times, they only eat once a day. They don’t eat. And they die.” Valdes said authorities don’t always recover the bodies of those who die, as some migrants who have entered the country illegally are afraid to seek help.

    Valdes believes hypothermia has killed some as they trek through the mountain tundra region, but he had no idea how many. One migrant told the AP he saw a family burying someone wrapped in a white blanket with red flowers along the frigid journey.

    Marta Duque, 55, has had a front seat to the Venezuela migration crisis from her home in Pamplona, Colombia. She opens her doors nightly to provide shelter for families with young children. Pamplona is one of the last cities migrants reach before venturing up a frigid mountain paramo, one of the most dangerous parts of the trip for migrants traveling by foot. Temperatures dip well below freezing.

    She said inaction from authorities has forced citizens like her to step in.

    “Everyone just seems to pass the ball,” she said. “No one wants to admit this is a reality.”

    Those deaths are uncounted, as are dozens in the sea. Also uncounted are those reported missing in Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. In all at least 3,410 Venezuelans have been reported missing or dead in a migration within Latin America whose dangers have gone relatively unnoticed; many of the dead perished from illnesses on the rise in Venezuela that easily would have found treatment in better times.

    Among the missing is Randy Javier Gutierrez, who was walking through Colombia with a cousin and his aunt in hopes of reaching Peru to reunite with his mother.

    Gutierrez’s mother, Mariela Gamboa, said that a driver offered a ride to the two women, but refused to take her son. The women agreed to wait for him at the bus station in Cali, about 160 miles (257 kilometers) ahead, but he never arrived. Messages sent to his phone since that day four months ago have gone unread.

    “I’m very worried,” his mother said. “I don’t even know what to do.”

    ———————————

    ASIA: A VAST UNKNOWN

    The region with the largest overall migration, Asia, also has the least information on the fate of those who disappear after leaving their homelands. Governments are unwilling or unable to account for citizens who leave for elsewhere in the region or in the Mideast, two of the most common destinations, although there’s a growing push to do so.

    Asians make up 40 percent of the world’s migrants, and more than half of them never leave the region. The Associated Press was able to document more than 8,200 migrants who disappeared or died after leaving home in Asia and the Mideast, including thousands in the Philippines and Indonesia.

    Thirteen of the top 20 migration pathways from Asia take place within the region. These include Indian workers heading to the United Arab Emirates, Bangladeshis heading to India, Rohingya Muslims escaping persecution in Myanmar, and Afghans crossing the nearest border to escape war. But with large-scale smuggling and trafficking of labor, and violent displacements, the low numbers of dead and missing indicate not safe travel but rather a vast unknown.

    Almass was just 14 when his widowed mother reluctantly sent him and his 11-year-old brother from their home in Khost, Afghanistan, into that unknown. The payment for their trip was supposed to get them away from the Taliban and all the way to Germany via a chain of smugglers. The pair crammed first into a pickup with around 40 people, walked for a few days at the border, crammed into a car, waited a bit in Tehran, and walked a few more days.

    His brother Murtaza was exhausted by the time they reached the Iran-Turkey border. But the smuggler said it wasn’t the time to rest — there were at least two border posts nearby and the risk that children far younger travelling with them would make noise.

    Almass was carrying a baby in his arms and holding his brother’s hand when they heard the shout of Iranian guards. Bullets whistled past as he tumbled head over heels into a ravine and lost consciousness.

    Alone all that day and the next, Almass stumbled upon three other boys in the ravine who had also become separated from the group, then another four. No one had seen his brother. And although the younger boy had his ID, it had been up to Almass to memorize the crucial contact information for the smuggler.

    When Almass eventually called home, from Turkey, he couldn’t bear to tell his mother what had happened. He said Murtaza couldn’t come to the phone but sent his love.

    That was in early 2014. Almass, who is now 18, hasn’t spoken to his family since.

    Almass said he searched for his brother among the 2,773 children reported to the Red Cross as missing en route to Europe. He also looked for himself among the 2,097 adults reported missing by children. They weren’t on the list.

    With one of the world’s longest-running exoduses, Afghans face particular dangers in bordering countries that are neither safe nor welcoming. Over a period of 10 months from June 2017 to April 2018, 4Mi carried out a total of 962 interviews with Afghan migrants and refugees in their native languages around the world, systematically asking a series of questions about the specific dangers they had faced and what they had witnessed.

    A total of 247 migrant deaths were witnessed by the interviewed migrants, who reported seeing people killed in violence from security forces or starving to death. The effort is the first time any organization has successfully captured the perils facing Afghans in transit to destinations in Asia and Europe.

    Almass made it from Asia to Europe and speaks halting French now to the woman who has given him a home in a drafty 400-year-old farmhouse in France’s Limousin region. But his family is lost to him. Their phone number in Afghanistan no longer works, their village is overrun with Taliban, and he has no idea how to find them — or the child whose hand slipped from his grasp four years ago.

    “I don’t know now where they are,” he said, his face anguished, as he sat on a sun-dappled bench. “They also don’t know where I am.”

    https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/global-lost-56800-migrants-dead-missing-years-58890913
    #décès #morts #migrations #réfugiés #asile #statistiques #chiffres #monde #Europe #Asie #Amérique_latine #Afrique #USA #Etats-Unis #2014 #2015 #2016 #2017 #2018
    ping @reka @simplicissimus


  • " Une vision non­-euclidienne de la Californie comme d’un espace froid où être au monde. " par Ursula K. Le Guin
    https://enuncombatdouteux.blogspot.com/2018/11/une-vision-non-euclidienne-de-la.html

    Ce que les blancs ont perçu comme un monde sauvage à « domestiquer », était en fait mieux connu des humains qu’il ne l’a été depuis. Chaque colline, chaque vallée, chaque crevasse, courbure, canyon, ravin, dessin, pointe, falaise, plage, rocher, chaque arbre de chaque sorte avait son propre nom et sa place dans l’ordre des choses.

    Peut-être que les utopistes devraient finalement tenir compte de cette nouvelle déroutante. Peut-être que les utopistes feraient bien de perdre le plan, de jeter la carte à la poubelle, de descendre de leur scooter, de se coiffer d’un chapeau complètement farfelu, de lancer trois aboiements stridents dans la nuit, de trotter sur leurs petites pattes maigrichonnes, beige et miteuses à travers le désert et de remonter au travers des pins.
    Je n’ai aucune idée de qui nous serons, ni de comment sera l’autre côté, bien que je crois qu’il y ait des gens là-bas. Ils y ont toujours vécu. Ils ont des chants qu’ils chantent là-bas. L’un d’entre eux s’appelle Dancing at the edge of the world*. Si, lorsque nous remonterons de l’abysse, nous leur posons des questions, ils ne traceront pas de cartes, démontrant leur complète impuissance, mais il se pourrait qu’ils montrent du doigt. L’un-e pourrait désigner la direction d’Arlington au Texas.

    J’habite là, dira-t-elle. Regarde comme c’est beau !
    C’est le Nouveau Monde ! Pleurerons-nous alors, déconcerté-e-s mais ravi-e-s. Nous avons découvert le Nouveau Monde !

    Et Coyote répondra : Oh non. Non, vous êtes dans l’Ancien Monde. Celui que j’ai créé.

    Vous l’avez créé pour nous ! Pleurerons-nous, émerveillé-e-s et reconnaissant-e-s.

    Je n’irais pas jusqu’à dire cela, dira Coyote*.


  • Words matter. Is it @AP style to call migrants an “army”—above a photo of mothers tending to their infants and toddlers, no less? This is not only incorrect, but it enables a racist narrative sold by this @POTUS and his supporters. Armies invade. These people are running away.


    https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/1054163071785037824
    #armée #terminologie #préjugés #invasion #afflux #mots #vocabulaire #migrations #réfugiés #médias #journalisme #presse

    • #Polly_Pallister-Wilkins sur la marche de migrants qui a lieu en Amérique centrale...

      Dear media reporting on the Central American migrant caravan, can you please be attentive to how you talk about it? 1/n
      People are walking, walking not pouring, flowing, or streaming. Walking. They are walking along roads, they will be tired, hungry, their feet will hurt, they will have blisters and sore joints. They are not a natural liquid phenomenon governed by the force of gravity. 2/n
      Their walking is conditioned by the infrastructures they move along like roads, the physical geographies they traverse like hills and rivers and the human controls they encounter like border controls and police checkpoints. 3/n
      All of these things are risky, they make the walk, the journey more difficult and dangerous, esepcially the police checkpoints and the border controls. These risks are the reason they are travelling as a caravan, as a large group attempting to minimise the risks of controls 4/n
      And the risks from gangs and criminals that migrants on their journeys routinely face. Their journey is a deeply embodied one, and one that is deeply conditioned both by the violence they are leaving and the violence of the journey itself. 5/n
      So media please try and reflect this in your storytelling. These people are not a river obeying gravity. They have made an active yet conditioned choice to move. When they encounter a block in their path this can be deadly. It can detain, deport, injure, rape, or kill. 6/n
      And these blockages are not boulders in a riverbed around which the river flows. These blockages, these #checkpoints, border controls or police patrols are human blockages, they are not natural. So please try and reflect the political structures of this journey. Please. End/
      Addendum: there is a long history of caravans as a form political resistance in Central America.

      https://twitter.com/PollyWilkins/status/1054267257944227840
      #marche #migrations #Honduras #Amérique_centrale #mots #vocabulaire #terminologie #média #journalisme #presse #caravane #métaphores_liquides #risque #gravité #mouvement #contrôles_frontaliers #blocages #barrières #résistance #Mexique

    • Migrants travel in groups for a simple reason: safety

      A caravan of Central American migrants traveling to through Mexico to the United States to seek asylum is about halfway through its journey.

      The caravan began on Oct. 13 in Honduras with 200 people. As it has moved through Honduras, Guatemala and now Mexico, its ranks have grown to over 7,000, according to an estimate by the International Organization of Migration.

      The migrants have been joined by representatives from humanitarian organizations like the Mexican Red Cross providing medical assistance and human rights groups that monitor the situation.

      Journalists are there, too, and their reporting has caught the attention of President Donald Trump.

      He has claimed that the caravan’s ranks probably hide Middle Eastern terrorists. Trump later acknowledged there is no evidence of this, but conservative media outlets have nevertheless spread the message.

      It is reasonable for Americans to have security concerns about immigration. But as a scholar of forced migration, I believe it’s also important to consider why migrants travel in groups: their own safety.
      Safety in numbers

      The Central Americans in the caravan, like hundreds of thousands of people who flee the region each year, are escaping extreme violence, lack of economic opportunity and growing environmental problems, including drought and floods, back home.

      Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico have some of the world’s highest murder rates. According to Doctors Without Borders, which provides medical care in crisis zones, 68 percent of the migrants and refugees it surveyed in Mexico had experienced violence. Nearly one-third of women were sexually abused.

      Whether crossing Central America, the Sahara desert or the mountains of Afghanistan, migrants are regularly extorted by criminals, militias and corrupt immigration officials who know migrants make easy targets: They carry cash but not weapons.

      Large groups increase migrants’ chance of safe passage, and they provide some sense of community and solidarity on the journey, as migrants themselves report.
      Publicizing the dangers they flee

      Large groups of migrants also attract media coverage. As journalists write about why people are on the move, they shed light on Central America’s many troubles.

      Yet headlines about huge migrant caravans may misrepresent trends at the U.S.-Mexico border, where migration is actually decreasing.

      While the number of Central American families and children seeking asylum in the U.S. has increased in the past two years, Mexican economic migrants are crossing the border at historically low levels.

      And while most migrant caravan members hope to seek asylum in the U.S., recent history shows many will stay in Mexico.

      In response to Trump’s immigration crackdown, Mexican president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador has promised to welcome Central American refugees — and try to keep them safe.


      https://theconversation.com/migrants-travel-in-groups-for-a-simple-reason-safety-105621

      #sécurité

    • Trump’s Caravan Hysteria Led to This

      The president and his supporters insisted that several thousand Honduran migrants were a looming menace—and the Pittsburgh gunman took that seriously.

      On Tuesday, October 16, President Donald Trump started tweeting.

      “The United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid will be given to Honduras, effective immediately!”

      “We have today informed the countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador that if they allow their citizens, or others, to journey through their borders and up to the United States, with the intention of entering our country illegally, all payments made to them will STOP (END)!”

      Vice President Mike Pence also tweeted:

      “Spoke to President Hernandez of Honduras about the migrant caravan heading to the U.S. Delivered strong message from @POTUS: no more aid if caravan is not stopped. Told him U.S. will not tolerate this blatant disregard for our border & sovereignty.”

      The apparent impetus for this outrage was a segment on Fox News that morning that detailed a migrant caravan thousands of miles away in Honduras. The caravan, which began sometime in mid-October, is made up of refugees fleeing violence in their home country. Over the next few weeks, Trump did his best to turn the caravan into a national emergency. Trump falsely told his supporters that there were “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners” in the caravan, a claim that had no basis in fact and that was meant to imply that terrorists were hiding in the caravan—one falsehood placed on another. Defense Secretary James Mattis ordered more troops to the border. A Fox News host took it upon herself to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen whether there was “any scenario under which if people force their way across the border they could be shot at,” to which Nielsen responded, “We do not have any intention right now to shoot at people.”

      Pence told Fox News on Friday, “What the president of Honduras told me is that the caravan was organized by leftist organizations, political activists within Honduras, and he said it was being funded by outside groups, and even from Venezuela … So the American people, I think, see through this—they understand this is not a spontaneous caravan of vulnerable people.”

      The Department of Homeland Security’s Twitter account “confirmed” that within the caravan are people who are “gang members or have significant criminal histories,” without offering evidence of any such ties. Trump sought to blame the opposition party for the caravan’s existence. “Every time you see a Caravan, or people illegally coming, or attempting to come, into our Country illegally, think of and blame the Democrats for not giving us the votes to change our pathetic Immigration Laws!” Trump tweeted on October 22. “Remember the Midterms! So unfair to those who come in legally.”

      In the right-wing fever swamps, where the president’s every word is worshipped, commenters began amplifying Trump’s exhortations with new details. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida wondered whether George Soros—the wealthy Jewish philanthropist whom Trump and several members of the U.S. Senate blamed for the protests against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and who was recently targeted with a bomb—was behind the migrant caravan. NRATV, the propaganda organ of the National Rifle Association, linked two Republican obsessions, voter fraud and immigration. Chuck Holton told NRATV’s viewers that Soros was sending the caravan to the United States so the migrants could vote: “It’s telling that a bevy of left-wing groups are partnering with a Hungarian-born billionaire and the Venezuelan government to try to influence the 2018 midterms by sending Honduran migrants north in the thousands.” On CNN, the conservative commentator Matt Schlapp pointedly asked the anchor Alisyn Camerota, “Who’s paying for the caravan? Alisyn, who’s paying for the caravan?,” before later answering his own question: “Because of the liberal judges and other people that intercede, including George Soros, we have too much chaos at our southern border.” On Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, one guest said, “These individuals are not immigrants—these are people that are invading our country,” as another guest asserted they were seeking “the destruction of American society and culture.”

      Peter Beinart: Trump shut programs to counter violent extremists

      In the meantime, much of the mainstream press abetted Trump’s effort to make the midterm election a referendum on the caravan. Popular news podcasts devoted entire episodes to the caravan. It remained on the front pages of major media websites. It was an overwhelming topic of conversation on cable news, where Trumpists freely spread disinformation about the threat the migrants posed, while news anchors displayed exasperation over their false claims, only to invite them back on the next day’s newscast to do it all over again.

      In reality, the caravan was thousands of miles and weeks away from the U.S. border, shrinking in size, and unlikely to reach the U.S. before the election. If the migrants reach the U.S., they have the right under U.S. law to apply for asylum at a port of entry. If their claims are not accepted, they will be turned away. There is no national emergency; there is no ominous threat. There is only a group of desperate people looking for a better life, who have a right to request asylum in the United States and have no right to stay if their claims are rejected. Trump is reportedly aware that his claims about the caravan are false. An administration official told the Daily Beast simply, “It doesn’t matter if it’s 100 percent accurate … this is the play.” The “play” was to demonize vulnerable people with falsehoods in order to frighten Trump’s base to the polls.

      Nevertheless, some took the claims of the president and his allies seriously. On Saturday morning, Shabbat morning, a gunman walked into the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and killed 11 people. The massacre capped off a week of terrorism, in which one man mailed bombs to nearly a dozen Trump critics and another killed two black people in a grocery store after failing to force his way into a black church.

      Before committing the Tree of Life massacre, the shooter, who blamed Jews for the caravan of “invaders” and who raged about it on social media, made it clear that he was furious at HIAS, founded as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that helps resettle refugees in the United States. He shared posts on Gab, a social-media site popular with the alt-right, expressing alarm at the sight of “massive human caravans of young men from Honduras and El Salvador invading America thru our unsecured southern border.” And then he wrote, “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

      The people killed on Saturday were killed for trying to make the world a better place, as their faith exhorts them to do. The history of the Jewish people is one of displacement, statelessness, and persecution. What groups like HIAS do in helping refugees, they do with the knowledge that comes from a history of being the targets of demagogues who persecute minorities in pursuit of power.

      Ordinarily, a politician cannot be held responsible for the actions of a deranged follower. But ordinarily, politicians don’t praise supporters who have mercilessly beaten a Latino man as “very passionate.” Ordinarily, they don’t offer to pay supporters’ legal bills if they assault protesters on the other side. They don’t praise acts of violence against the media. They don’t defend neo-Nazi rioters as “fine people.” They don’t justify sending bombs to their critics by blaming the media for airing criticism. Ordinarily, there is no historic surge in anti-Semitism, much of it targeted at Jewish critics, coinciding with a politician’s rise. And ordinarily, presidents do not blatantly exploit their authority in an effort to terrify white Americans into voting for their party. For the past few decades, most American politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, have been careful not to urge their supporters to take matters into their own hands. Trump did everything he could to fan the flames, and nothing to restrain those who might take him at his word.

      Many of Trump’s defenders argue that his rhetoric is mere shtick—that his attacks, however cruel, aren’t taken 100 percent seriously by his supporters. But to make this argument is to concede that following Trump’s statements to their logical conclusion could lead to violence against his targets, and it is only because most do not take it that way that the political violence committed on Trump’s behalf is as limited as it currently is.

      The Tree of Life shooter criticized Trump for not being racist or anti-Semitic enough. But with respect to the caravan, the shooter merely followed the logic of the president and his allies: He was willing to do whatever was necessary to prevent an “invasion” of Latinos planned by perfidious Jews, a treasonous attempt to seek “the destruction of American society and culture.”

      The apparent spark for the worst anti-Semitic massacre in American history was a racist hoax inflamed by a U.S. president seeking to help his party win a midterm election. There is no political gesture, no public statement, and no alteration in rhetoric or behavior that will change this fact. The shooter might have found a different reason to act on a different day. But he chose to act on Saturday, and he apparently chose to act in response to a political fiction that the president himself chose to spread and that his followers chose to amplify.

      As for those who aided the president in his propaganda campaign, who enabled him to prey on racist fears to fabricate a national emergency, who said to themselves, “This is the play”? Every single one of them bears some responsibility for what followed. Their condemnations of anti-Semitism are meaningless. Their thoughts and prayers are worthless. Their condolences are irrelevant. They can never undo what they have done, and what they have done will never be forgotten.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/caravan-lie-sparked-massacre-american-jews/574213

    • Latin American asylum seekers hit US policy “wall”

      Trump’s new restrictions mean long waits simply to register claims.

      The movement of thousands of Central American asylum seekers and migrants north from Honduras towards the southern border of the United States has precipitated threats from US President Donald Trump – ahead of next week’s midterm elections – to block the group’s entry by deploying troops to the US-Mexican border.

      Under international law the United States is obligated to allow asylum seekers to enter and file claims. However, immigration officials at the country’s southern border have for months been shifting toward legally dubious practices that restrict people’s ability to file asylum claims.

      “Make no mistake, the administration is building a wall – one made of restrictionist policy rather than brick and mortar,” said Jason Boyd, policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

      As a result, hundreds, possibly thousands, of asylum seekers have been left waiting for extended periods of time on the Mexican side of the border in need of shelter and basic services. Firm numbers for those affected are difficult to come by because no one is counting.

      Some of those turned away explore potentially dangerous alternatives. Aid and advocacy groups as well as the Department of Homeland Security say the wait has likely pushed some to attempt to enter the United States illegally, either with smugglers or on their own via perilous desert routes.

      While some of those in the so-called “migrant caravan” are searching for economic opportunity, others are fleeing gang violence, gender-based violence, political repression or unrest – all increasingly common factors in Central America and Mexico that push people to leave their homes.
      Menacing phone calls

      When people from the migrant caravan reach the southern border of the United States, they may find themselves in a similar position to Dolores Alzuri, 47, from Michoacan, a state in central Mexico.

      In late September, she was camped out with her husband, daughter, granddaughter, and aunt on the Mexican side of the DeConcini port of entry separating the twin cities of Nogales – one in the Mexican state of Sonora, the other in the US state of Arizona.

      Alzuri and her family were waiting for their turn to claim asylum in the United States, with only a police report in hand as proof of the threats they faced back home. Camping beside them on the pedestrian walkway just outside the grated metal door leading to the United States, nine other families waited to do the same.

      Over the preceding month Alzuri had received several menacing phone calls from strangers demanding money. In Michoacan, and many other parts of Mexico where criminal gangs have a strong presence, almost anybody can receive calls like these. You don’t know who’s on the other end of the line, Alzuri explained, but you do know the consequences of not following their orders.

      “If you do not give [money] to them, they kidnap you or they kidnap your family,” Alzuri said. “They destroy you. They kill you. That is why it is so scary to be in this country.”

      Other people she knew had received similar calls. She also knew that those who didn’t pay ended up dead – pictures of their bodies posted on Facebook as a macabre warning of what happens to those who resist.

      Fearing a similar fate, Alzuri packed her bags and her family and travelled north to ask for asylum in the United States. A friend had been granted asylum about nine months ago, and she had seen on television that other people were going, too. It seemed like the only way out.

      “I had a problem,” she said, referring to the phone calls. “They asked us for money, and since we did not give them money, they threatened us.”

      Before leaving her home, Alzuri said she filed a police report. But the authorities didn’t care enough to act on it, she said. “They are not going to risk their life for mine.”
      No way out

      Despite the danger at home, Alzuri and others in similar situations face an increasingly difficult time applying for asylum in the United States. At the Nogales crossing, asylum seekers must now wait up to a month simply to be allowed to set foot inside a border office where they can register their claims, aid workers there say.

      Those waiting are stuck in territory on the Mexican side that is controlled by gangs similar to the ones many are fleeing, though local aid groups have scrambled to find space in shelters, especially for women and children, so people will be safer while they wait.

      The situation hasn’t always been like this.

      In the past, asylum seekers were almost always admitted to register their claims the same day they arrived at the border. Since May, however, there has been a marked slowdown in registration.

      US Custom and Border Protection (CBP), the federal law enforcement agency responsible for screening people as they enter the country, says delays are due to a lack of capacity and space. But asylum advocates say similar numbers have arrived in previous years without causing a delay and the real reason for the slowdown is that CBP has shifted resources away from processing asylum seekers – not just in Nogales but across the southern US border – resulting in people being forced to wait for long periods or turned away altogether.

      This is happening despite the insistence of high-ranking Trump administration officials that asylum seekers present themselves at ports of entry or face criminal prosecution for crossing the border irregularly. Such contradictory policies, asylum advocates argue, are part of a broad-based effort by the Trump administration to dramatically reduce the number of people able to seek protection in the United States.

      “Our legal understanding is that they have the legal obligation to process asylum seekers as they arrive,” said Joanna Williams, director of education and advocacy at the Kino Border Initiative (KBI), a Nogales-based NGO. “There’s no room in the law for what they are doing right now.”
      A system in crisis

      In the past decade, migration across the southern border of the United States has undergone a dramatic change. Every year since the late 1970s US Border Patrol agents apprehended close to a million or more undocumented migrants entering the country. In 2007, that number began to fall, and last year there were just over 310,000 apprehensions – the lowest number since 1971.

      At the same time, the proportion of people entering the United States from the southern border to claim asylum has increased. Ten years ago, one out of every 100 people crossing the border was seeking humanitarian protection, according to a recent report published by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), a non-partisan think tank in Washington DC. Today that number is about one in three.

      According to Boyd of AILA, the increase is being driven by ongoing humanitarian emergencies in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, an area of Central America known as the Northern Triangle. These countries have some of the highest homicide rates in the world and are wracked by gang violence, gender-based violence, extortion, and extra-judicial killings. “Many of the individuals and families arriving at the US southern border are literally fleeing for their lives,” said Boyd.

      But the system that is supposed to provide them protection is in crisis. Beginning in 2010 the number of asylum requests lodged in the United States started to balloon, mirroring an upward trend in global displacement. Last year, 79,000 people approached the US border saying they had a credible fear of returning to their home country, compared to 9,000 at the beginning of the decade.

      The increase in credible-fear claims, as well as asylum requests made by people already in the United States, has strained the system to a “crisis point”, according to the MPI report. This has led to a backlog of around 320,000 cases in US immigration courts and people having to wait many months, if not years, to receive a hearing and a decision.
      Crackdown

      Senior officials in the Trump administration, including the president, have consistently lumped asylum seekers and economic migrants together, positing that the United States is being “invaded” by a “massive influx of illegal aliens” across the southern border, and that the asylum system is subject to “systematic abuse” by people looking to gain easy entry to the country.

      People working on the ground with asylum seekers refute this. Eduardo Garcia is a communication coordinator at SOA Watch, an organisation that monitors the humanitarian impact of US policy in Latin America. He has spent time in Nogales speaking with people waiting to claim asylum.

      “The stories of many of the people we have talked to… are stories of people fleeing gang violence, are stories of people fleeing because one of their sons was killed, because one of their sons was threatened, because one of their family members [was] raped,” he said. “They have said they cannot go back to their countries. If they are sent back they are going to be killed.”

      Still, the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy on immigration – responsible for the recent child-separation crisis – has also included measures that have restricted access to asylum in the United States.

      In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Justice Department would begin criminally prosecuting everyone who irregularly crossed the US southern border, including asylum seekers. In June, that policy was followed by a decision that the United States would no longer consider gang and sexual violence – precisely the reasons so many people flee the Northern Triangle – as legitimate grounds for asylum. Around the same time, CBP appears to have deprioritised the processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry in favour of other responsibilities, leading to the long waits and people being turned away, according to humanitarian workers and a recent report by the DHS’s Office of Inspector General.

      And even as these restrictive policies were being put in place, Trump administration officials have been encouraging asylum seekers to try. “If you’re seeking asylum, go to a port of entry,” Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said in an 18 June press conference. “You do not need to break the law of the United States to seek asylum.”

      Nogales, Mexico

      “I came here with the hope that if I asked for asylum I could be in the United States,” said Modesto, a 54-year-old from Chimaltenango, Guatemala. In mid-September he was sitting in a mess hall run a couple hundred meters from the US border run by KBI, which provides humanitarian assistance to migrants and asylum seekers.

      Modesto had already been in Nogales, Sonora for several months. Like Dolores Alzuri, he fled his home because criminal gangs had tried to extort money from him. “I worked a lot and was making a living in my country,” Modesto explained. “The problem in particular with the gangs is that they don’t let you work… If you have money they extort you. If you don’t have money they want to recruit you.” And people who don’t cooperate: “They’re dead,” he added.

      The situation Modesto found when he arrived in Nogales, Sonora was far from what he expected. For starters, there was the long wait at the border. But he also discovered that – as an adult travelling with his 18-year-old son – even once he entered the United States he would likely end up in a detention centre while his case slowly made its way through the overburdened immigration courts – a practice that has also increased under the Trump administration. “I don’t want to cross… and spend a year in prison when my family needs my help,” he said.

      Modesto is in some ways an exception, according to Williams of KBI. Many of the people arriving in Nogales, Sonora are families with children. Once in the United States they will likely be released from immigration detention with ankle monitoring bracelets to track their movements. These people often choose to wait and to claim asylum at the port of entry when there is space.

      After more than 100 people piled up to wait at the border in May, local humanitarian groups set up a system to organise and keep track of whose turn it was to submit an asylum claim to US immigration officials. They also scrambled to find spaces in shelters so people were not sleeping on the walkway over the weeks they needed to wait.

      Now, only people who are likely to enter soon are camped on the walkway. When IRIN visited, about 40 asylum seekers – mostly women and children – sat on one side of the walkway as a steady stream of people heading to the United States filtered by on the other. Some of the asylum seekers were new arrivals waiting to be taken to a shelter, while others had been sleeping there for days on thin mats waiting for their turn. Volunteers handed out clean clothing and served pasta, as a CBP agent opened and closed the metal gate leading to the United States, just a few tantalisingly short feet away.

      The slowdown of processing “leaves people stranded – in really dangerous situations sometimes – on the other side of the border, and completely violates our obligations under both domestic and international law,” said Katharina Obser, a senior policy adviser at the Women’s Refugee Commission, an NGO that advocates for women, children, and youth displaced by conflict and crisis.

      As a result, some people arrive, find out about the wait, and leave. “We’re fairly certain that those are individuals who then end up crossing the border through other means,” Williams said.

      The DHS Office of the Inspector General came to a similar conclusion, finding that the contradiction between Trump administration rhetoric and policy “may have led asylum seekers at ports of entry to attempt illegal border crossings.”
      Border-wide

      The situation in Nogales, Sonora is far from isolated, according to Boyd of the AILA. “Recent turnbacks of vulnerable asylum seekers have been documented throughout the US southern border,” he said, including at many ports of entry in Texas and California. In those states, asylum seekers have reported being stopped as they approach the border and told they cannot enter because immigration officials don’t have the capacity to process their claims.

      “Turnbacks form part of a comprehensive set of practices and policies advanced under this administration that appears aimed at shutting out asylum seekers from the United States,” Boyd continued.

      Meanwhile, people like Dolores Alzuri – and most likely some of the thousands of Central Americans who are travelling north from Honduras in the hope of claiming asylum – are left with little choice but to wait. Moving somewhere else in Mexico or returning home is not an option, said Alzuri. “The violence is the same in every state,” she said. And crossing the desert, “that’s a big danger.”

      She and her family don’t have a back-up plan. “Let’s hope that I do get [asylum], because I really do need it,” she said. “You don’t live comfortably in your own country anymore. You live in fear that something will happen to you. You can’t walk around on the streets because you feel that you’re being followed.”

      https://www.irinnews.org/news-feature/2018/10/29/latin-american-asylum-seekers-hit-us-policy-wall
      #USA #Etats-Unis #fermeture_des_frontières #Mexique

      Commentaire Emmanuel Blanchar via la mailing-list Migreurop:

      Un article intéressant car il rappelle opportunément que la « caravane des migrants » en route vers les Etats-Unis est également composée de nombreuses personnes qui souhaiteraient pouvoir déposer des demandes d’asile. Or, si la frontières Mexique-USA est loin d’être encore mûrées, un mur administratif empêche déjà que les demandes d’asile puisse être déposées et traitées dans le respect des droits des requérant.e.s.

      #mur_administratif #asile

    • No es una caravana, es un dolor que camina

      La caravana de migrantes es sólo la primera manifestación pública y masiva de la crisis humanitaria en la que vive la mayoría de la población; negada por el gobierno, por la oligarquía, embajadas, organizaciones de la sociedad civil y por algunas agencias de cooperación que le hacen comparsa a la dictadura.

      Esta crisis humanitaria es provocada por el modelo económico neoliberal impuesto a sangre y fuego, que sólo pobreza y violencia ha llevado a las comunidades, que ante la ausencia de oportunidades y ante el acoso de los grupos criminales no tienen otra alternativa que la peligrosa e incierta ruta migratoria; prefieren morir en el camino que en sus barrios y colonias.

      El infierno en que se ha convertido Honduras tiene varios responsables. En primer el lugar el imperialismo, que a través de su embajada promueve la inestabilidad política en el país con el apoyo directo al dictador, que para granjearse ese apoyo les ha entregado el país, hasta el grado del despojo y de la ignominia, como puede observarse en los foros internacionales.

      Otro responsable es el dictador, que además de la incertidumbre que genera en lo económico, en lo político y en lo social, ha profundizado y llevado al extremo las políticas neoliberales, despojando de sus recursos a comunidades enteras, para dárselas a las transnacionales, principalmente norteamericanas y canadienses.

      La oligarquía corrupta, mediocre, salvaje, inepta y rapaz también es responsable de esta crisis humanitaria, quien se ha acostumbrado a vivir del presupuesto nacional a tal grado de convertir al Estado en su patrimonio, por medio de un ejército de ocupación, de diputados y presidentes serviles y títeres, que toman las decisiones no para el pueblo, sino que para sus insaciables intereses.

      Hay otro actor importante en esta crisis y es el Ejército Nacional, fiel sirviente de los intereses imperiales y de la oligarquía, que sólo sirve para consumir una gran tajada del presupuesto nacional y más que un ejército defensor y garante de la soberanía nacional es una fuerza de ocupación; listo para asesinar, torturar y matar aquellos que se oponen al dictador, al imperio y la oligarquía.

      Desgraciadamente esta caravana la conforman los miserables, los desheredados de la tierra, los parias: “los que crían querubes para el presidio y serafines para el burdel” como dijo en su poema, Los Parias, el poeta mexicano Salvador Díaz Mirón.

      Estos miserables y desheredados no huyen de la patria, la aman, la adoran y la llevan convertida en un dolor sobre sus hombros, huyen de los verdugos y carniceros que nos gobiernan y de los otros responsables de esta crisis humanitaria. Los que huyen aman a esta tierra más que los que nos quedamos.

      https://criterio.hn/2018/10/29/no-es-una-caravana-es-un-dolor-que-camina
      #douleur


  • Opinion | Will Deep-Fake Technology Destroy Democracy? - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/opinion/deep-fake-technology-democracy.html

    Both images are the result of digital manipulation, and what, in its most ominous form, is called deep fakes: technology that makes it possible to show people saying things they never said, doing things they never did.

    This technology has great potential both as art and snark: One set of deep fakes has cleverly inserted Nicolas Cage into a half-dozen movies he wasn’t involved with, including “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” You can watch that and decide for yourself whether Mr. Cage or Harrison Ford makes for the best Indiana Jones.

    But, as always, the same technology that contains the opportunity for good also provides an opening for its opposite. As a result, we find ourselves on the cusp of a new world — one in which it will be impossible, literally, to tell what is real from what is invented.

    But deep-fake technology takes deception a step further, exploiting our natural inclination to engage with things that make us angriest. As Jonathan Swift said: “The greatest liar hath his believers: and it often happens, that if a lie be believed only for an hour, it hath done its work, and there is no further occasion for it.”

    Consider the image of Emma Gonzalez, a survivor of the Parkland High School shooting in February who has become a vocal activist. A manipulated photo of her tearing up the Constitution went viral on Twitter among gun-rights supporters and members of the alt-right. The image had been digitally altered from another photo appearing in Teen Vogue. That publication’s editor lamented: “The fact that we even have to clarify this is proof of how democracy continues to be fractured by people who manipulate and fabricate the truth.”

    That fake was exposed — but did it really make a difference to the people who wanted to inhabit their own paranoid universe? How many people still believe, all evidence to the contrary, that Barack Obama is a Muslim, or that he was born in Kenya?

    Now imagine the effect of deep fakes on a close election. Let’s say video is posted of Beto O’Rourke, a Democrat running for Senate in Texas, swearing that he wants to take away every last gun in Texas, or of Senator Susan Collins of Maine saying she’s changed her mind on Brett Kavanaugh. Before the fraud can be properly refuted, the polls open. The chaos that might ensue — well, let’s just say it’s everything Vladimir Putin ever dreamed of.

    There’s more: The “liar’s dividend” will now apply even to people, like Mr. Trump, who actually did say something terrible. In the era of deep fakes, it will be simple enough for a guilty party simply to deny reality. Mr. Trump, in fact, has claimed that the infamous recording of him suggesting grabbing women by their nether parts is not really him. This, after apologizing for it.

    #Infox #Fake_news #Manipulation_images


  • AP Investigation: Deported parents may lose kids to adoption
    https://apnews.com/97b06cede0c149c492bf25a48cb6c26f

    It had been 10 weeks since Ramos had last held her 2-year-old, Alexa. Ten weeks since she was arrested crossing the border into Texas and U.S. immigration authorities seized her daughter and told her she would never see the girl again.

    What followed — one foster family’s initially successful attempt to win full custody of Alexa — reveals what could happen to some of the infants, children and teens taken from their families at the border under a Trump administration policy earlier this year. The “zero-tolerance” crackdown ended in June, but hundreds of children remain in detention, shelters or foster care and U.S. officials say more than 200 are not eligible for reunification or release.

    Federal officials insist they are reuniting families and will continue to do so. But an Associated Press investigation drawing on hundreds of court documents, immigration records and interviews in the U.S. and Central America identified holes in the system that allow state court judges to grant custody of migrant children to American families — without notifying their parents.

    And today, with hundreds of those mothers and fathers deported thousands of miles away, the risk has grown exponentially.


  • "Les Prédateurs" de Denis Robert et Catherine Le Gall
    enquête sur Albert Frère et Paul Desmarais aux éditions du Cherche Midi

    "Prédateurs" : L’interview sans fard de Denis Robert et Catherine Le Gall
    28/09/2018
    http://www.akivideo.com/video/predateurs-linterview-sans-fard-de-denis-robert-et-catherine-le-gall_x6ue3
    “““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
    C Politique 30/09/18 - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhDzk6g6YM


    ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
    Ce livre dénonce les prédateurs de la finance qui agissent aux dépens de l’Etat
    Publié le 26/09/2018
    https://www.capital.fr/economie-politique/un-livre-epingle-le-cout-des-predateurs-de-la-finance-1308578

    Quick, Uramin... Un livre épingle le coût des « prédateurs » de la finance pour les entreprises publiques.

    Un livre des journalistes Catherine Le Gall et Denis Robert décrypte les montages financiers de trois acquisitions - une chaîne de hamburgers, une raffinerie texane et des mines d’uranium africaines - et dénonce les « prédateurs » qui agissent selon eux aux dépens de l’Etat. « Les prédateurs mettent en place dans les systèmes des hommes à eux », explique lors d’une rencontre avec la presse M. Robert, à l’occasion de la sortie jeudi du livre « Les Prédateurs » aux éditions du Cherche Midi. Ils ont à chaque fois pour cible une entreprise publique.

    « Dans le cas de Quick, la Caisse des dépôts et consignations (CDC) ; dans celui de la raffinerie de Pasadena (Texas) le groupe public brésilien Petrobras, et Areva dans celui d’Uramin », détaille-t-il. « Ce sont trois affaires, qui sont apparemment indépendantes, qui fonctionnent sur la même mécanique », affirme M. Robert. « Dans les trois cas, on voit le rôle des experts qui effectuent une expertise qui est bidon », relate le journaliste. « Ces expertises ont pour but de gonfler les prix et de faire cracher de l’argent public, avec l’aide de complices à l’intérieur », assure-t-il.


  • New Satellite Imagery Shows Growth in Detention Camps for Children

    A satellite image taken on September 13, 2018, shows substantial growth in the tent city the US government is using to detain migrant children located in the desert in #Tornillo, #Texas.

    The tent city was originally used to house children separated from parents this summer, when the Trump administration was aggressively prosecuting parents traveling with children for illegal entry to the US. The US Department of Health and Human Services has stated that the new growth in the number of tents is necessary in order to house children who may cross the border on their own, unaccompanied by family members.

    The image from September 13, 2018 shows that since June 19th, the date of a previous satellite image, the number of tent shelters has nearly quadrupled, from 28 to 101 tents. At a reported capacity of 20 children per tent, the tent city can currently house 2,020 children, which is only half of the government’s stated goal of 3,800 beds at the Tornillo facility. In addition to the completed tents, there are numerous tents that can be seen currently under construction as well as several larger buildings that have recently been built.

    “Children should not be detained, since locking up kids harms their health and development,” said Alison Parker, US managing director of Human Rights Watch. “There are safe and viable alternatives to detaining children that the US government should put to use immediately.”


    https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/03/new-satellite-imagery-shows-growth-detention-camps-children
    #rétention #détention #camps #asile #migrations #réfugiés #enfants #enfance #images_satellitaires #USA #frontières #Etats-Unis

    • *The Ongoing, Avoidable Horror of the Trump

      Administration’s Texas Tent Camp for Migrant Kids*
      The detention camp for migrant kids in Tornillo, Texas, was supposed to be gone by now. Set up as a temporary “emergency influx shelter” in June, when the government was running out of places to put the kids it was tearing from parents at the border, the camp, located in the desert forty miles southeast of El Paso, was originally scheduled to close on July 13th. But the government kept pushing back the deadline, in thirty-day increments, until recently disclosing that the facility will remain open at least through the end of the year.

      The Times put the camp back in the news this week, reporting that the facility’s capacity was also recently increased, so that it could accommodate up to thirty-eight hundred kids—some ten times as many kids as it was housing in June. “[T]he intent is to use these temporary facilities only as long as needed,” Evelyn Stauffer, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the facility, told the Times. From the start at Tornillo, though, “as needed” has been less about outside forces than about the Administration’s own decisions and goals. The government has discussed Tornillo as if it’s a necessary response to a crisis “when it’s not a crisis,” Bob Carey, a former H.H.S. official, told me on Monday. Carey ran the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the branch of H.H.S. responsible for the care of migrant kids, during the final two years of the Obama Administration. Tornillo was, and is, “a consequence of the actions of the Administration,” he said.

      President Trump put a halt to family separations in June, in response to the enormous public outcry and the humanitarian disaster that the policy produced. Yet, while public attention moved on, the number of kids in government custody has only gone up. As the Times reported, there are now more than thirteen thousand migrant kids in government facilities, five times more than a year ago, and those kids are spending an average of fifty-nine days in custody, twice as long as a year ago. While Tornillo was set up to make room for kids who had been taken from parents, most of the kids there now crossed the border alone. This isn’t a new problem—large numbers of kids crossed the borders by themselves in the last years of the Obama Administration. In response, O.R.R. used “emergency influx shelters,” with the idea to dismantle them as soon as demand waned. The goal was to place the kids with relatives or other sponsors around the country. “These facilities, none of them were intended as long-term care facilities,” Carey said. The Tornillo camp, for instance, doesn’t offer any systemized schooling to the kids there.

      Recently, this work of processing kids out of government custody has begun to slow significantly. That’s reflected in the longer amount of time that the kids are spending in government facilities. “They’re treating these kids like criminals,” another Obama-era H.H.S. official told me. “That comes at a significant cost to the kids, to their mental health.” Part of the issue is that the government has given potential sponsors, who are often undocumented themselves, a real reason to fear coming forward to claim the kids. In June, as the Times reported, “federal authorities announced that potential sponsors and other adult members of their households would have to submit fingerprints, and that the data would be shared with immigration authorities.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement has acknowledged arresting dozens of people who came forward to be sponsors. With the way the numbers are trending, it’s hard to see how the need for the tent camp at Tornillo will end.


      https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/the-ongoing-avoidable-horror-of-the-trump-administrations-texas-tent-camp
      #tentes


  • Bumble, l’application de rencontres dopée par #metoo
    https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2018/10/06/bumble-l-application-de-rencontres-dopee-par-metoo_5365635_3234.html

    Le mouvement antiharcèlement a fait de la plate-forme de rencontres féministe un phénomène de société. Lancée fin 2014 par Whitney Wolfe Herd, elle est passée depuis 2017 de 22 à 40 millions d’inscrits.

    Whitney Wolfe Herd n’est pas de celles qui font des concessions à la « bro » culture, la culture macho des programmeurs de la Silicon Valley. Ni tee-shirt ni tennis bariolées : quand elle arrive sur la scène de la conférence TechCrunch Disrupt, ce matin de septembre à San Francisco (Californie), elle est vêtue d’un tailleur fluide d’un bleu classique et chaussée de talons hauts. Imaginez Inès de La Fressange dans une convention de start-upeurs.

    A 29 ans, Whitney Wolfe « pèse » 230 millions de dollars (environ 200 millions d’euros), selon Forbes. Elle a cofondé Tinder, l’application de rencontres en ligne, en 2012, avant de claquer la porte, deux ans plus tard, et de poursuivre ses anciens camarades pour harcèlement sexuel. Fin 2014, elle a lancé Bumble, une plate-forme concurrente mais d’orientation féministe. « J’avais remarqué que beaucoup de femmes étaient en attente vis-à-vis des hommes, explique-t-elle. En attente d’un message, d’une proposition. Du premier pas. » Bumble a renversé l’équation.

    Etre traité avec « respect et gentillesse »

    Dans un secteur en pleine expansion (un mariage sur trois aux Etats-Unis commence par une rencontre en ligne), Bumble a réussi à se distinguer en donnant le pouvoir aux femmes. En bouleversant « les normes hétérosexuelles dépassées », précise le site français. Le principe est le même que pour Tinder : on fait son marché en éliminant – ou en conservant –, d’un swipe (« glissement ») à droite ou à gauche, les photos des partenaires potentiels.

    Mais sur Bumble, seules les femmes ont l’initiative pour engager le dialogue. Si un homme pour qui elles ont « voté » les a aussi gratifiées d’un « like », elles ont vingt-quatre heures pour entrer en contact. L’application est gratuite (sauf le service premium pour celles qui ont raté ce délai ou qui, saisies d’un regret, veulent réactiver des connexions qui ont expiré).

    Le succès a été immédiat, dans un marché pourtant très concurrentiel. Au début, la plate-forme était installée dans un appartement loué par Whitney Wolfe à Austin (Texas). « La salle de conférence était disposée autour de la baignoire », raconte-t-elle. L’attrait, pour les femmes, vient du fait que Bumble débarrasse le dating en ligne des manifestations de « toxicité masculine », selon l’expression des féministes : les commentaires vulgaires, les gros plans sur pénis, qui découragent les intéressées sur la plupart des autres applis.

    Sur Bumble, tout le monde doit être traité avec « respect et gentillesse ». Pas de contenus érotiques ou de photos en maillot, sauf devant une plage ou une piscine. Et pas d’armes à feu non plus sur les profils, depuis la fusillade qui a fait dix-sept morts, le 14 février, au lycée de Parkland, en Floride.

    BUMBLE SE VOIT COMME UNE RUCHE QUI AMBITIONNE DE « REDONNER UNE PLACE DE POUVOIR À LA FEMME », TOUT EN « RÉPARANT LES DÉSÉQUILIBRES HOMMES-FEMMES »

    Mais c’est le mouvement antiharcèlement #metoo, en 2017, qui a fait de Bumble un phénomène de société. En un an, le site est passé de 22 millions d’inscrits à 40 millions, la croissance la plus rapide jamais constatée dans le secteur. Et, phénomène rare parmi les start-up, il dégage des bénéfices.

    Whitney Wolfe se défend de tout opportunisme. « Il n’y a pas un moment où on s’est dit qu’il fallait être en phase avec un mouvement culturel, affirme-t-elle. C’est notre identité, notre voix authentique, et ça l’était avant #metoo. » Bumble se voit comme une ruche. Sa couleur emblématique est le jaune, celui des abeilles (Bumble vient de bumblebee, « bourdon » en anglais). Et ambitionne de « redonner une place de pouvoir à la femme », décrit Whitney Wolfe, cela tout en « réparant les déséquilibres hommes-femmes ».

    « L’Internet a démocratisé la misogynie »

    L’égérie du dating en ligne a grandi à Salt Lake City (Utah), où son père était promoteur immobilier. Quand elle était en CM1, ses parents ont pris un congé sabbatique d’un an en France. Des années plus tard, elle a passé un semestre à la Sorbonne, dans le cadre des études à l’étranger offertes par son université, la Southern Methodist de Dallas (Texas). Elle adore la France. Avant Bumble, elle avait envisagé d’appeler son application Merci.

    Chez Tinder, elle était vice-présidente chargée du marketing, mais les relations se sont détériorées en juin 2014, quand elle a accusé un autre des fondateurs, Justin Mateen – son ancien petit ami – de harcèlement. Il a fallu qu’elle porte plainte et montre les textos insultants du personnage pour être prise au sérieux. Justin Mateen a été suspendu, puis écarté de la compagnie. Le procès a été réglé à l’amiable, au prix d’une compensation de 1 million de dollars pour la plaignante.

    Whitney Wolfe ne dit pas grand-chose du contentieux avec Tinder, du procès et du harcèlement en ligne qu’elle a subi, sinon qu’ils lui ont coûté très cher au niveau de l’estime de soi. Dans un article pour le magazine Harper’s Bazaar, elle explique qu’elle ne pouvait plus se regarder dans la glace, qu’elle buvait trop, déprimait, ne dormait plus. « A 24 ans, j’avais l’impression que j’étais finie. » De cet incident, elle a tiré une conclusion amère : « Pour le dire simplement : l’Internet a démocratisé la misogynie. »

    La jeune femme est rapidement retombée sur ses pieds après avoir rencontré l’entrepreneur russe Andreï Andreev, le propriétaire de Badoo, une autre application de rencontres, populaire dans le monde entier. Badoo est aujourd’hui l’actionnaire principal de Bumble.

    Entre-temps, Whitney Wolfe a épousé (sur la côte amalfitaine) Michael Herd, l’héritier d’une fortune pétrolière du Texas – elle dont le premier travail, à la sortie de l’université, fut de lancer une ligne de sacs en bambou au profit des victimes de la marée noire de BP dans le golfe du Mexique, en 2010.

    La guerre avec Tinder n’a jamais vraiment cessé. A deux reprises, le groupe Match, qui possède la plate-forme, a essayé de racheter Bumble, d’abord pour 450 millions de dollars, puis pour 1 milliard. Ne pouvant y parvenir, il a porté plainte pour vol de propriété intellectuelle. « C’est ce qu’on appelle du bullying [« harcèlement »] », a réagi la direction de Bumble, dans une lettre ouverte. La société a une politique radicale contre les mauvais joueurs, rappelle le texte : « swipe left » – ou l’élimination sans même un regard.

    Réseau social des « relations saines »

    Bumble a aussi déposé une contre-plainte, réclamant 400 millions de dollars de dommages et intérêts. Et le 24 septembre, Whitney Wolfe a annoncé que, faute d’arrangement à l’amiable, le divorce irait jusqu’au procès.

    Selon elle, le groupe Match, qui possède aussi OkCupid et Plenty of Fish, se sent menacé dans son quasi-monopole par les 100 % de croissance enregistrés en un an par Bumble. Si Tinder reste nettement plus gros (50 millions d’utilisateurs, pour un chiffre d’affaires de 400 millions de dollars en 2017), Bumble a affiché 200 millions de dollars de revenus en 2017 et rattrape son concurrent en matière d’abonnés payants : plus de 2 millions, contre 3,8 millions pour Tinder.

    Whitney Wolfe a confiance. Diplômée de marketing, elle a le don de sentir son époque. Bumble se veut aussi désormais le réseau social des « relations saines », à l’inverse des plates-formes qui encouragent les comparaisons dévalorisantes.

    Outre le dating, Bumble propose des rencontres amicales (Bumble BFF, pour Best Friend Forever, l’acronyme qu’aiment à partager les ados) ou du réseautage professionnel (Bumble Bizz). Le but est de promouvoir les bonnes conduites. « La plupart des plates-formes hésitent à en faire autant. Elles ont peur de perdre leurs usagers », note la créatrice.

    « Believe Women »

    Et comme il se doit, Bumble est à la pointe du mouvement Time Well Spent (« le temps bien employé »), qui voit dorénavant les plates-formes appeler elles-mêmes les consommateurs à passer moins de temps en ligne. « Nous sommes en partie responsables de cette épidémie d’obsession pour les réseaux sociaux », reconnaît Whitney Wolfe.

    Bumble vient ainsi de lancer Snooze, ou mode « veille », pour encourager les usagers à se « préoccuper de leur santé mentale ». Les princes charmants devront attendre le retour de l’éventuelle partenaire (ils sont avertis qu’elle fait une pause technologique).

    Whitney Wolfe a elle-même suivi une cure de digital detox (« désintoxication numérique ») de trois semaines. Cela a été dur, explique-t-elle aux technophages de TechCrunch. Une crise de manque pendant quarante-huit heures. « J’étais paniquée, anxieuse. Puis j’ai réappris à être humaine. Un formidable sentiment de libération. »

    La jeune femme est sortie de sa cure à temps pour partager le désespoir de millions d’Américaines devant les auditions du juge Brett Kavanaugh au Sénat. Au lendemain du témoignage de Christine Blasey Ford, l’universitaire qui accuse le candidat à la Cour suprême de l’avoir agressée sexuellement en 1982 – traumatisme qui, dit-elle, l’a accompagnée toute sa vie –, Bumble a publié une pleine page de publicité dans le New York Times. Toute jaune, avec ces seuls mots : « Believe Women ». Ecoutez les femmes et, surtout, « croyez-les ». Whitney Wolfe a également annoncé qu’elle donnait 25 000 dollars au réseau national de lutte contre le viol, l’inceste et les agressions sexuelles (Rainn).

    Accessoirement, Bumble prépare une possible introduction en Bourse. La nouvelle porte-drapeau de l’empathie en ligne fait le pari qu’« éradiquer la misogynie » est une valeur en hausse dans la société américaine, y compris à Wall Street.

    • Mouais, n’empêche que okcupid, qui appartient au gros groupe (je ne savais pas pour ce monopole), il n’est pas basé du tout sur ce zapping consommateur, où on élimine les gens uniquement sur leur apparence physique. Et c’est connu pour être le plus ouvert je crois, avec toujours des choix multiples et plein d’options (tu peux dire que tu es queer, asexuel⋅le, polyamoureux et moult autre).
      Bref Bumble ça a l’air d’être Tinder mais avec quelques restrictions de politesse, donc quand même de la merde.

      (Oui je connais un peu. :p)


  • Mamy et la guerre nucléaire...
    http://www.dedefensa.org/article/mamyet-la-guerre-nucleaire

    Mamy et la guerre nucléaire...

    05 octobre 2018 – Comme l’on sait, y compris en lisant ce site, l’ambassadrice des USA à l’OTAN, madame Kay Bailey Hutchison, respectablement âgée de 75 ans et auréolée du titre de gloire d’être la première femme sénatrice de l’État du Texas en 1993, baptisée “Mamy” à l’OTAN, a fait avant-hier une déclaration fort remarquée. Elle a déclaré que si les Russes déployaient leurs missiles 9M729, les USA “élimineraient” préventivement cette chose qui viole, selon les mêmes USA, le traité INF de décembre 1987.

    Sa réponse à un journaliste : « A ce point, nous devrions considérer la possibilité d’éliminer un missile [russe] qui pourrait atteindre n’importe lequel de nos pays [en Europe].. » Puis encore : « Des contre-mesures seraient prises [par les USA]pour éliminer les missiles qui sont en (...)


  • Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy? | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/17/can-mark-zuckerberg-fix-facebook-before-it-breaks-democracy

    Since 2011, Zuckerberg has lived in a century-old white clapboard Craftsman in the Crescent Park neighborhood, an enclave of giant oaks and historic homes not far from Stanford University. The house, which cost seven million dollars, affords him a sense of sanctuary. It’s set back from the road, shielded by hedges, a wall, and mature trees. Guests enter through an arched wooden gate and follow a long gravel path to a front lawn with a saltwater pool in the center. The year after Zuckerberg bought the house, he and his longtime girlfriend, Priscilla Chan, held their wedding in the back yard, which encompasses gardens, a pond, and a shaded pavilion. Since then, they have had two children, and acquired a seven-hundred-acre estate in Hawaii, a ski retreat in Montana, and a four-story town house on Liberty Hill, in San Francisco. But the family’s full-time residence is here, a ten-minute drive from Facebook’s headquarters.

    Occasionally, Zuckerberg records a Facebook video from the back yard or the dinner table, as is expected of a man who built his fortune exhorting employees to keep “pushing the world in the direction of making it a more open and transparent place.” But his appetite for personal openness is limited. Although Zuckerberg is the most famous entrepreneur of his generation, he remains elusive to everyone but a small circle of family and friends, and his efforts to protect his privacy inevitably attract attention. The local press has chronicled his feud with a developer who announced plans to build a mansion that would look into Zuckerberg’s master bedroom. After a legal fight, the developer gave up, and Zuckerberg spent forty-four million dollars to buy the houses surrounding his. Over the years, he has come to believe that he will always be the subject of criticism. “We’re not—pick your noncontroversial business—selling dog food, although I think that people who do that probably say there is controversy in that, too, but this is an inherently cultural thing,” he told me, of his business. “It’s at the intersection of technology and psychology, and it’s very personal.”

    At the same time, former Facebook executives, echoing a growing body of research, began to voice misgivings about the company’s role in exacerbating isolation, outrage, and addictive behaviors. One of the largest studies, published last year in the American Journal of Epidemiology, followed the Facebook use of more than five thousand people over three years and found that higher use correlated with self-reported declines in physical health, mental health, and life satisfaction. At an event in November, 2017, Sean Parker, Facebook’s first president, called himself a “conscientious objector” to social media, saying, “God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.” A few days later, Chamath Palihapitiya, the former vice-president of user growth, told an audience at Stanford, “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works—no civil discourse, no coöperation, misinformation, mistruth.” Palihapitiya, a prominent Silicon Valley figure who worked at Facebook from 2007 to 2011, said, “I feel tremendous guilt. I think we all knew in the back of our minds.” Of his children, he added, “They’re not allowed to use this shit.” (Facebook replied to the remarks in a statement, noting that Palihapitiya had left six years earlier, and adding, “Facebook was a very different company back then.”)

    In March, Facebook was confronted with an even larger scandal: the Times and the British newspaper the Observer reported that a researcher had gained access to the personal information of Facebook users and sold it to Cambridge Analytica, a consultancy hired by Trump and other Republicans which advertised using “psychographic” techniques to manipulate voter behavior. In all, the personal data of eighty-seven million people had been harvested. Moreover, Facebook had known of the problem since December of 2015 but had said nothing to users or regulators. The company acknowledged the breach only after the press discovered it.

    We spoke at his home, at his office, and by phone. I also interviewed four dozen people inside and outside the company about its culture, his performance, and his decision-making. I found Zuckerberg straining, not always coherently, to grasp problems for which he was plainly unprepared. These are not technical puzzles to be cracked in the middle of the night but some of the subtlest aspects of human affairs, including the meaning of truth, the limits of free speech, and the origins of violence.

    Zuckerberg is now at the center of a full-fledged debate about the moral character of Silicon Valley and the conscience of its leaders. Leslie Berlin, a historian of technology at Stanford, told me, “For a long time, Silicon Valley enjoyed an unencumbered embrace in America. And now everyone says, Is this a trick? And the question Mark Zuckerberg is dealing with is: Should my company be the arbiter of truth and decency for two billion people? Nobody in the history of technology has dealt with that.”

    In 2002, Zuckerberg went to Harvard, where he embraced the hacker mystique, which celebrates brilliance in pursuit of disruption. “The ‘fuck you’ to those in power was very strong,” the longtime friend said. In 2004, as a sophomore, he embarked on the project whose origin story is now well known: the founding of Thefacebook.com with four fellow-students (“the” was dropped the following year); the legal battles over ownership, including a suit filed by twin brothers, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, accusing Zuckerberg of stealing their idea; the disclosure of embarrassing messages in which Zuckerberg mocked users for giving him so much data (“they ‘trust me.’ dumb fucks,” he wrote); his regrets about those remarks, and his efforts, in the years afterward, to convince the world that he has left that mind-set behind.

    New hires learned that a crucial measure of the company’s performance was how many people had logged in to Facebook on six of the previous seven days, a measurement known as L6/7. “You could say it’s how many people love this service so much they use it six out of seven days,” Parakilas, who left the company in 2012, said. “But, if your job is to get that number up, at some point you run out of good, purely positive ways. You start thinking about ‘Well, what are the dark patterns that I can use to get people to log back in?’ ”

    Facebook engineers became a new breed of behaviorists, tweaking levers of vanity and passion and susceptibility. The real-world effects were striking. In 2012, when Chan was in medical school, she and Zuckerberg discussed a critical shortage of organs for transplant, inspiring Zuckerberg to add a small, powerful nudge on Facebook: if people indicated that they were organ donors, it triggered a notification to friends, and, in turn, a cascade of social pressure. Researchers later found that, on the first day the feature appeared, it increased official organ-donor enrollment more than twentyfold nationwide.

    Sean Parker later described the company’s expertise as “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.” The goal: “How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?” Facebook engineers discovered that people find it nearly impossible not to log in after receiving an e-mail saying that someone has uploaded a picture of them. Facebook also discovered its power to affect people’s political behavior. Researchers found that, during the 2010 midterm elections, Facebook was able to prod users to vote simply by feeding them pictures of friends who had already voted, and by giving them the option to click on an “I Voted” button. The technique boosted turnout by three hundred and forty thousand people—more than four times the number of votes separating Trump and Clinton in key states in the 2016 race. It became a running joke among employees that Facebook could tilt an election just by choosing where to deploy its “I Voted” button.

    These powers of social engineering could be put to dubious purposes. In 2012, Facebook data scientists used nearly seven hundred thousand people as guinea pigs, feeding them happy or sad posts to test whether emotion is contagious on social media. (They concluded that it is.) When the findings were published, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they caused an uproar among users, many of whom were horrified that their emotions may have been surreptitiously manipulated. In an apology, one of the scientists wrote, “In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety.”

    Facebook was, in the words of Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google, becoming a pioneer in “ persuasive technology.

    Facebook had adopted a buccaneering motto, “Move fast and break things,” which celebrated the idea that it was better to be flawed and first than careful and perfect. Andrew Bosworth, a former Harvard teaching assistant who is now one of Zuckerberg’s longest-serving lieutenants and a member of his inner circle, explained, “A failure can be a form of success. It’s not the form you want, but it can be a useful thing to how you learn.” In Zuckerberg’s view, skeptics were often just fogies and scolds. “There’s always someone who wants to slow you down,” he said in a commencement address at Harvard last year. “In our society, we often don’t do big things because we’re so afraid of making mistakes that we ignore all the things wrong today if we do nothing. The reality is, anything we do will have issues in the future. But that can’t keep us from starting.”

    In contrast to a traditional foundation, an L.L.C. can lobby and give money to politicians, without as strict a legal requirement to disclose activities. In other words, rather than trying to win over politicians and citizens in places like Newark, Zuckerberg and Chan could help elect politicians who agree with them, and rally the public directly by running ads and supporting advocacy groups. (A spokesperson for C.Z.I. said that it has given no money to candidates; it has supported ballot initiatives through a 501(c)(4) social-welfare organization.) “The whole point of the L.L.C. structure is to allow a coördinated attack,” Rob Reich, a co-director of Stanford’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, told me. The structure has gained popularity in Silicon Valley but has been criticized for allowing wealthy individuals to orchestrate large-scale social agendas behind closed doors. Reich said, “There should be much greater transparency, so that it’s not dark. That’s not a criticism of Mark Zuckerberg. It’s a criticism of the law.”

    La question des langues est fondamentale quand il s’agit de réseaux sociaux

    Beginning in 2013, a series of experts on Myanmar met with Facebook officials to warn them that it was fuelling attacks on the Rohingya. David Madden, an entrepreneur based in Myanmar, delivered a presentation to officials at the Menlo Park headquarters, pointing out that the company was playing a role akin to that of the radio broadcasts that spread hatred during the Rwandan genocide. In 2016, C4ADS, a Washington-based nonprofit, published a detailed analysis of Facebook usage in Myanmar, and described a “campaign of hate speech that actively dehumanizes Muslims.” Facebook officials said that they were hiring more Burmese-language reviewers to take down dangerous content, but the company repeatedly declined to say how many had actually been hired. By last March, the situation had become dire: almost a million Rohingya had fled the country, and more than a hundred thousand were confined to internal camps. The United Nations investigator in charge of examining the crisis, which the U.N. has deemed a genocide, said, “I’m afraid that Facebook has now turned into a beast, and not what it was originally intended.” Afterward, when pressed, Zuckerberg repeated the claim that Facebook was “hiring dozens” of additional Burmese-language content reviewers.

    More than three months later, I asked Jes Kaliebe Petersen, the C.E.O. of Phandeeyar, a tech hub in Myanmar, if there had been any progress. “We haven’t seen any tangible change from Facebook,” he told me. “We don’t know how much content is being reported. We don’t know how many people at Facebook speak Burmese. The situation is getting worse and worse here.”

    I saw Zuckerberg the following morning, and asked him what was taking so long. He replied, “I think, fundamentally, we’ve been slow at the same thing in a number of areas, because it’s actually the same problem. But, yeah, I think the situation in Myanmar is terrible.” It was a frustrating and evasive reply. I asked him to specify the problem. He said, “Across the board, the solution to this is we need to move from what is fundamentally a reactive model to a model where we are using technical systems to flag things to a much larger number of people who speak all the native languages around the world and who can just capture much more of the content.”

    Lecture des journaux ou des aggrégateurs ?

    once asked Zuckerberg what he reads to get the news. “I probably mostly read aggregators,” he said. “I definitely follow Techmeme”—a roundup of headlines about his industry—“and the media and political equivalents of that, just for awareness.” He went on, “There’s really no newspaper that I pick up and read front to back. Well, that might be true of most people these days—most people don’t read the physical paper—but there aren’t many news Web sites where I go to browse.”

    A couple of days later, he called me and asked to revisit the subject. “I felt like my answers were kind of vague, because I didn’t necessarily feel like it was appropriate for me to get into which specific organizations or reporters I read and follow,” he said. “I guess what I tried to convey, although I’m not sure if this came across clearly, is that the job of uncovering new facts and doing it in a trusted way is just an absolutely critical function for society.”

    Zuckerberg and Sandberg have attributed their mistakes to excessive optimism, a blindness to the darker applications of their service. But that explanation ignores their fixation on growth, and their unwillingness to heed warnings. Zuckerberg resisted calls to reorganize the company around a new understanding of privacy, or to reconsider the depth of data it collects for advertisers.

    Antitrust

    In barely two years, the mood in Washington had shifted. Internet companies and entrepreneurs, formerly valorized as the vanguard of American ingenuity and the astronauts of our time, were being compared to Standard Oil and other monopolists of the Gilded Age. This spring, the Wall Street Journal published an article that began, “Imagine a not-too-distant future in which trustbusters force Facebook to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp.” It was accompanied by a sepia-toned illustration in which portraits of Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and other tech C.E.O.s had been grafted onto overstuffed torsos meant to evoke the robber barons. In 1915, Louis Brandeis, the reformer and future Supreme Court Justice, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of corporations large enough that they could achieve a level of near-sovereignty “so powerful that the ordinary social and industrial forces existing are insufficient to cope with it.” He called this the “curse of bigness.” Tim Wu, a Columbia law-school professor and the author of a forthcoming book inspired by Brandeis’s phrase, told me, “Today, no sector exemplifies more clearly the threat of bigness to democracy than Big Tech.” He added, “When a concentrated private power has such control over what we see and hear, it has a power that rivals or exceeds that of elected government.”

    When I asked Zuckerberg whether policymakers might try to break up Facebook, he replied, adamantly, that such a move would be a mistake. The field is “extremely competitive,” he told me. “I think sometimes people get into this mode of ‘Well, there’s not, like, an exact replacement for Facebook.’ Well, actually, that makes it more competitive, because what we really are is a system of different things: we compete with Twitter as a broadcast medium; we compete with Snapchat as a broadcast medium; we do messaging, and iMessage is default-installed on every iPhone.” He acknowledged the deeper concern. “There’s this other question, which is just, laws aside, how do we feel about these tech companies being big?” he said. But he argued that efforts to “curtail” the growth of Facebook or other Silicon Valley heavyweights would cede the field to China. “I think that anything that we’re doing to constrain them will, first, have an impact on how successful we can be in other places,” he said. “I wouldn’t worry in the near term about Chinese companies or anyone else winning in the U.S., for the most part. But there are all these places where there are day-to-day more competitive situations—in Southeast Asia, across Europe, Latin America, lots of different places.”

    The rough consensus in Washington is that regulators are unlikely to try to break up Facebook. The F.T.C. will almost certainly fine the company for violations, and may consider blocking it from buying big potential competitors, but, as a former F.T.C. commissioner told me, “in the United States you’re allowed to have a monopoly position, as long as you achieve it and maintain it without doing illegal things.”

    Facebook is encountering tougher treatment in Europe, where antitrust laws are stronger and the history of fascism makes people especially wary of intrusions on privacy. One of the most formidable critics of Silicon Valley is the European Union’s top antitrust regulator, Margrethe Vestager.

    In Vestager’s view, a healthy market should produce competitors to Facebook that position themselves as ethical alternatives, collecting less data and seeking a smaller share of user attention. “We need social media that will allow us to have a nonaddictive, advertising-free space,” she said. “You’re more than welcome to be successful and to dramatically outgrow your competitors if customers like your product. But, if you grow to be dominant, you have a special responsibility not to misuse your dominant position to make it very difficult for others to compete against you and to attract potential customers. Of course, we keep an eye on it. If we get worried, we will start looking.”

    Modération

    As hard as it is to curb election propaganda, Zuckerberg’s most intractable problem may lie elsewhere—in the struggle over which opinions can appear on Facebook, which cannot, and who gets to decide. As an engineer, Zuckerberg never wanted to wade into the realm of content. Initially, Facebook tried blocking certain kinds of material, such as posts featuring nudity, but it was forced to create long lists of exceptions, including images of breast-feeding, “acts of protest,” and works of art. Once Facebook became a venue for political debate, the problem exploded. In April, in a call with investment analysts, Zuckerberg said glumly that it was proving “easier to build an A.I. system to detect a nipple than what is hate speech.”

    The cult of growth leads to the curse of bigness: every day, a billion things were being posted to Facebook. At any given moment, a Facebook “content moderator” was deciding whether a post in, say, Sri Lanka met the standard of hate speech or whether a dispute over Korean politics had crossed the line into bullying. Zuckerberg sought to avoid banning users, preferring to be a “platform for all ideas.” But he needed to prevent Facebook from becoming a swamp of hoaxes and abuse. His solution was to ban “hate speech” and impose lesser punishments for “misinformation,” a broad category that ranged from crude deceptions to simple mistakes. Facebook tried to develop rules about how the punishments would be applied, but each idiosyncratic scenario prompted more rules, and over time they became byzantine. According to Facebook training slides published by the Guardian last year, moderators were told that it was permissible to say “You are such a Jew” but not permissible to say “Irish are the best, but really French sucks,” because the latter was defining another people as “inferiors.” Users could not write “Migrants are scum,” because it is dehumanizing, but they could write “Keep the horny migrant teen-agers away from our daughters.” The distinctions were explained to trainees in arcane formulas such as “Not Protected + Quasi protected = not protected.”

    It will hardly be the last quandary of this sort. Facebook’s free-speech dilemmas have no simple answers—you don’t have to be a fan of Alex Jones to be unnerved by the company’s extraordinary power to silence a voice when it chooses, or, for that matter, to amplify others, to pull the levers of what we see, hear, and experience. Zuckerberg is hoping to erect a scalable system, an orderly decision tree that accounts for every eventuality and exception, but the boundaries of speech are a bedevilling problem that defies mechanistic fixes. The Supreme Court, defining obscenity, landed on “I know it when I see it.” For now, Facebook is making do with a Rube Goldberg machine of policies and improvisations, and opportunists are relishing it. Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, seized on the ban of Jones as a fascist assault on conservatives. In a moment that was rich even by Cruz’s standards, he quoted Martin Niemöller’s famous lines about the Holocaust, saying, “As the poem goes, you know, ‘First they came for Alex Jones.’ ”

    #Facebook #Histoire_numérique


  • Cambridge Analytica est morte, vive Data Propria !
    https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2018/09/28/cambridge-analytica-est-morte-vive-data-propria_5361290_3234.html

    Au cœur d’un scandale d’exploitation de données d’utilisateurs de Facebook en 2016, la société a fermé, sans disparaître. D’anciens cadres ont pris la relève, pour servir Trump et les élus républicains.

    Après plusieurs mois de scandale, la société de marketing politique Cambridge Analytica a dû fermer définitivement, en mai 2018. Les médias et une partie de la classe politique américaine lui reprochaient d’avoir siphonné, puis exploité les données personnelles de 87 millions d’utilisateurs de Facebook au cours de la campagne électorale américaine de 2016, pour soutenir la candidature de Donald Trump et de divers candidats républicains grâce à des messages ciblés sur Internet et les réseaux sociaux.

    Exit donc Cambridge Analytica ? Pas vraiment ! En réalité, les équipes chargées de ces opérations ne se sont pas dispersées ; leurs algorithmes et leurs bases de données n’ont pas disparu. En fait, les stratèges électoraux du président Trump ont effectué une restructuration juridique et financière de leurs sociétés, sans se soucier de la tempête médiatique, qui s’est déjà essoufflée. Leur objectif à court terme est de mettre leurs talents au service des républicains lors les élections de mi-mandat, qui se dérouleront le 6 novembre. Par ailleurs, ils ont déjà lancé la campagne en vue de la réélection de Donald Trump en 2020.

    Au cœur de cette nouvelle galaxie gravite un Texan barbu mesurant plus de deux mètres, Brad Parscale. La trajectoire de M. Parscale, âgé de 42 ans , est singulière. Patron d’une petite entreprise Internet sise à San Antonio (Texas), il travaillait depuis 2011 comme simple designer et administrateur de sites Web pour le groupe immobilier Trump. Cela lui a donné l’occasion de rencontrer Donald Trump en personne, puis de gagner sa confiance. En 2015, le candidat milliardaire lui confie la création de ses sites électoraux, et le nomme, l’année suivante, directeur des médias numériques de sa campagne.

    Facebook, « l’autoroute » grâce à laquelle Trump a gagné

    D’emblée, M. Parscale mise sur les réseaux sociaux. Dans un entretien accordé en octobre 2017 à la chaîne de télévision CBS, il résume ainsi sa stratégie : « J’ai compris très tôt que Trump gagnerait grâce à Facebook. Il parlait aux gens sur Twitter, mais il allait gagner sur Facebook (…). Facebook a été sa méthode, l’autoroute sur laquelle sa voiture a roulé. » Pendant toute la campagne, son équipe bénéficie de l’aide directe d’employés de Facebook, dont certains sont installés dans ses locaux.

    Afin d’étoffer sa force de frappe, il passe un contrat avec Cambridge Analytica, qui l’aide à affiner le ciblage des électeurs dans les régions les plus disputées. L’une des techniques utilisées est la « psychographie », qui consiste à classer chaque cible uniquement en fonction de ses traits de caractère et de sa personnalité. En analysant le comportement d’un utilisateur sur Facebook, il est loisible de dresser son profil psychologique : est-il capable de s’ouvrir aux autres, est-il plus ou moins consciencieux, extraverti, agréable, névrosé ? Il sera ensuite possible de lui envoyer des messages politiques ou commerciaux dont le contenu et le style ont été conçus pour lui correspondre, et qui le toucheront réellement.

    Lorsque Brad Parscale rejoint le quartier général de campagne du candidat Trump à New York, il délègue la direction de son équipe, restée à San Antonio, à l’un des responsables techniques de Cambridge Analytica, Matt Oczkowski. Auparavant, M. Oczkowski avait fondé une agence de marketing spécialisée dans « l’analyse des motivations » des consommateurs et des électeurs. Il fut aussi le « directeur numérique » du gouverneur républicain du Wisconsin (nord) Scott Walker pendant trois ans.

    Après la victoire de M. Trump, Brad Parscale intègre le cercle des proches du nouveau locataire de la Maison Blanche. Il embauche même Lara Trump, l’épouse d’Eric, le fils cadet du président. Parallèlement, il se réorganise : il regroupe ses activités de publicité politique au sein d’une nouvelle entité, Parscale Strategy, qu’il transfère à Miami (Floride), et qui reste sous son contrôle exclusif. Puis, il vend l’autre département, chargé du marketing commercial, à CloudCommerce, une petite société californienne jusque-là spécialisée dans les logiciels de commerce en ligne, installée dans la station balnéaire de Santa Barbara. Du même coup, il devient actionnaire et membre du conseil d’administration du nouvel ensemble.

    « Science politique, big data et psychologie »

    En février 2018, M. Parscale est nommé directeur de la « campagne pour la réélection de Donald Trump en 2020 », c’est-à-dire chef de l’ensemble des opérations, au-delà du numérique. Dans le même, temps, sous son impulsion, CloudCommerce crée une nouvelle filiale de marketing numérique baptisée « Data Propria », enregistrée au Nevada (ouest), domiciliée en Californie et installée à San Antonio. La direction de Data Propria est confiée à Matt Oczkowsky, qui, dès son arrivée, embauche plusieurs de ses anciens collègues de Cambridge Analytica.

    Cependant, une chose intrigue : le profil du patron officiel de CloudCommerce, Andrew Van Noy, 36 ans. Dans son CV en ligne, M. Van Noy se vante d’avoir créé dès son adolescence une entreprise de jardinage très prospère, avant de se tourner vers la finance, comme tradeur à la banque Morgan Stanley. Mais, selon une enquête menée par l’agence Associated Press, la réalité serait moins reluisante : Andrew Van Noy fut, dans sa jeunesse, plusieurs fois condamné pour fraude immobilière et faillite douteuse. Quant à CloudCommerce, qui a changé quatre fois de nom depuis 1999, c’était jusqu’en 2017 une petite société sans envergure, qui n’avait dégagé aucun bénéfice depuis dix ans.

    L’apparition de Data Propria, en plein scandale Cambridge Analytica, n’est pas passée inaperçue. Fin juin 2018, trois élus démocrates de la Chambre des représentants de Washington envoient une lettre à Matt Oczkowsky pour lui demander de venir témoigner devant une commission. Ils veulent savoir s’il a hérité des bases de données frauduleuses de Cambridge Analytica, et s’il s’est procuré d’autres données de Facebook par ses propres moyens. Aucun élu républicain ne s’est associé à cette requête, et à ce jour, la Chambre des représentants n’a pas indiqué si Matt Oczkowsky lui avait répondu.

    Reste à savoir si les techniques « psychographiques » sont toujours à la mode chez les stratèges républicains. Echaudé par le scandale, Matt Oczkowski, de Data Propria, reste évasif, mais sur différents sites professionnels, il continue à s’enorgueillir de son passage chez Cambridge Analytica, où il a su « fusionner la science politique, le big data et la psychologie comportementaliste pour influencer les électeurs ». Il démarche aussi des grandes entreprises privées, notamment des compagnies d’assurances, en insistant sur la dimension psychologique de ses méthodes.

    La machine est relancée

    En revanche, Brad Parscale, dans des déclarations aux médias américains, émet régulièrement des doutes sur l’infaillibilité de la psychographie. Il semble partisan du retour à une forme de publicité politique axée sur les opinions, les valeurs et les préoccupations des cibles (par exemple « hommes de plus de 40 ans soucieux de l’état des infrastructures routières »). Cela étant dit, tous les stratèges s’accordent sur un point : le champ de bataille prioritaire sera la « Middle America », la classe moyenne laborieuse vivant dans les Etats du centre du pays, qui a porté Donald Trump au pouvoir en 2016 et qui pourrait le refaire en 2020.

    Par ailleurs, les stratèges du marketing ciblé vont aussi devoir s’adapter aux modifications récemment introduites par Facebook. Désormais, les annonceurs, commerciaux et responsables politiques ne peuvent plus croiser les données personnelles fournies par Facebook avec celles provenant des « data brokers » classiques (banques de données commerciales, bancaires…). Le réseau social veut ainsi faire un geste vers le Congrès américain et la Commission européenne, soucieux de la protection de la vie privée des citoyens, tout en marginalisant ses grands concurrents sur le marché des données personnelles.

    Il a aussi supprimé certaines combinaisons multicritères jugées intrusives ou trop précises – race, religion, pays d’origine, orientation sexuelle, handicaps, statut militaire… Enfin, les propagandistes politiques de tout bord doivent désormais communiquer leur nom, leur domicile et leurs sources de financement à Facebook, qui les vérifiera.

    Ces changements ne devraient pas entraver sérieusement l’action de Data Propria, qui a déjà noué des contrats avec la direction nationale du Parti républicain et les équipes de campagne de différents candidats conservateurs à travers le pays. De son côté, selon Associated Press, la société Parscale Strategy encaisse, depuis le début de 2018, près de 1 million de dollars (850 000 euros) par mois grâce à des commandes publicitaires d’organisations soutenant Donald Trump et ses alliés, contre 5 millions pour l’ensemble de 2017. La machine est relancée, les électeurs des régions jugées prioritaires sont de nouveau soumis à une avalanche de messages ciblés sur le Web et les réseaux sociaux.



  • « Changer de système ne passera pas par votre caddie »

    En rendant cheap la nature, l’argent, le travail, le care , l’alimentation, l’énergie et donc nos vies - c’est-à-dire en leur donnant une #valeur_marchande - le capitalisme a transformé, gouverné puis détruit la planète. Telle est la thèse développée par l’universitaire et activiste américain #Raj_Patel dans son nouvel ouvrage, intitulé Comment notre monde est devenu cheap (Flammarion, 2018). « Le capitalisme triomphe, non pas parce qu’il détruit la nature, mais parce qu’il met la nature au travail - au #moindre_coût », écrit Patel, qui a pris le temps de nous en dire plus sur les ressorts de cette « #cheapisation » généralisée.

    Raj Patel est professeur d’économie politique à l’université du Texas d’Austin. À 46 ans, c’est aussi un militant, engagé auprès de plusieurs mouvements, qui a travaillé par le passé pour la Banque mondiale et l’Organisation mondiale du commerce. Logique, quand on sait qu’il se définit lui-même comme « socialiste », ce qui « n’est pas facile au Texas », nous précise-t-il dans un éclat de rire. Patel a déjà écrit sur les crises alimentaires, dont il est un expert. Il signe aujourd’hui un nouvel ouvrage, Comment notre monde est devenu cheap, co-écrit avec Jason W. Moore, historien et enseignant à l’université de Binghampton.

    Ces deux universitaires hyper-actifs y développent une nouvelle approche théorique pour appréhender l’urgence dans laquelle nous nous trouvons, mêlant les dernières recherches en matière d’#environnement et de changement climatique à l’histoire du capitalisme. Pour eux, ce dernier se déploie dès le XIVème siècle. Il naît donc avec le #colonialisme et la #violence inhérente à l’#esclavage, jusqu’à mettre en place un processus de « cheapisation » généralisé, soit « un ensemble de stratégies destinées à contrôler les relations entre le capitalisme et le tissu du vivant, en trouvant des solutions, toujours provisoires, aux crises du capitalisme ». Une brève histoire du monde qui rappelle, sur la forme, la façon dont Yuval Harari traite l’histoire de l’humanité, mais avec cette fois une toute autre approche théorique, que Raj Patel n’hésite pas à qualifier de « révolutionnaire ».

    Entretien autour de cette grille de lecture, qui offre également quelques perspectives pour sortir de ce que les auteurs appellent le « #Capitalocène », grâce notamment au concept d’ « #écologie-monde ».

    Usbek & Rica : Des scientifiques du monde entier s’accordent à dire que nous sommes entrés depuis un moment déjà dans l’ère de l’#Anthropocène, cette période de l’histoire de la Terre qui a débuté lorsque les activités humaines ont eu un impact global significatif sur l’écosystème terrestre. Mais vous allez plus loin, en parlant de « Capitalocène ». Le capitalisme serait donc la cause de tous nos problèmes ?

    Raj Patel : Si vous avez entendu parler de l’Anthropocène, vous avez entendu parler de l’idée selon laquelle les humains sont en grande partie responsables de la situation désastreuse de notre planète. À ce rythme, en 2050, il y aura par exemple plus de plastique que de poissons dans les océans. Si une civilisation survient après celle des humains, les traces qui resteront de notre présence seront le plastique, la radioactivité liée aux essais nucléaires, et des os de poulet. Mais tout cela n’est pas lié à ce que les humains sont naturellement portés à faire. Il y a quelque chose qui conduit les humains à cette situation. Et si vous appelez cela l’Anthropocène, vous passez à côté du fond du problème. Ce n’est pas l’ensemble des comportements humains qui nous conduit à la sixième extinction. Il y a aujourd’hui beaucoup de civilisations sur Terre qui ne sont pas responsables de cette extinction de masse, et qui font ensemble un travail de gestion des ressources naturelles formidable tout en prospérant. Et ces civilisations sont souvent des populations indigènes vivant dans des forêts.

    Mais il y a une civilisation qui est responsable, et c’est celle dont la relation avec la nature est appelée « capitalisme ». Donc, au lieu de baptiser ces phénomènes Anthropocène, appelons-les Capitalocène. Nous pouvons ainsi identifier ce qui nous conduit aux bouleversements de notre écosystème. Il ne s’agit pas de quelque chose d’intrinsèque à la nature humaine, mais d’un système dans lequel évolue un certain nombre d’humains. Et ce système nous conduit vers une transformation dramatique de notre planète, qui sera visible dans l’étude des fossiles aussi longtemps que la Terre existera.

    Vous établissez, avec votre co-auteur, une histoire du capitalisme fondée sur sept choses « cheap ». Quelles sont-elles, et comment êtes vous parvenus à cette conclusion ?

    Dans ce livre, nous évoquons les sept choses que le capitalisme utilise pour éviter de payer ses factures. C’est d’ailleurs une définition courte du capitalisme : un système qui évite de payer ses factures. C’est un moyen de façonner et de réguler les relations entre individus, et entre les humains et la reste de la vie sur Terre. Ces sept choses sont la nature « cheap », l’argent « cheap », le travail « cheap », le care « cheap », l’alimentation « cheap », l’énergie « cheap » et les vies « cheap ». Nous sommes parvenus à cette conclusion en partie grâce à un raisonnement inductif fondé sur l’histoire, mais aussi en s’intéressant aux mouvements sociaux d’aujourd’hui. Par exemple, le mouvement Black Lives Matter ne proteste pas uniquement contre l’inégalité historique qui résulte de l’esclavage aux Etats-Unis. Ses membres se penchent aussi sur le changement climatique, l’équité entre les genres, le travail, la réforme agraire ou la nécessaire mise en place de meilleurs systèmes alimentaires et de systèmes d’investissement solidaires qui permettraient à des entreprises d’émerger.

    C’est une approche très complète, mais l’idée qui importe dans la structuration des mouvements sociaux est celle d’intersectionnalité. Et on peut identifier nos sept choses « cheap » dans presque tous les mouvements intersectionnels. Tous les mouvements visant à changer l’ordre social se tiennent à la croisée de ces sept choses.

    Vous expliquez que la nourriture est actuellement peu chère, mais que cela n’a pas été le cas à travers l’histoire. Dans votre introduction, vous prenez pour exemple les nuggets de MacDonald’s pour illustrer votre théorie des sept choses « cheap ». Pourquoi ?

    Il n’a pas toujours été possible d’obtenir un burger ou quelques chicken nuggets pour un euro ou deux. Au XIXème siècle, les ouvriers anglais dépensaient entre 80 et 90% de leurs revenus en nourriture. Aujourd’hui, nous consacrons à peu près 20% à l’alimentation. Quelque chose a changé. Et le nugget est devenu un fantastique symbole la façon dont le capitalisme évite de payer ses factures.

    Reprenons nos sept choses « cheap ». La nature « cheap » nous permet de retirer un poulet du monde sauvage et de le modifier en machine à produire de la viande. Cette approche de la nature est assez révélatrice de la façon dont le capitalisme opère. La deuxième chose, c’est le travail : pour transformer un poulet en nugget, il vous faut exploiter des travailleurs. Et partout dans le monde, ces ouvriers avicoles sont extrêmement mal payés. Une fois que les corps de ces ouvriers sont ruinés par le travail à la chaîne, qui va veiller sur eux ? Généralement, cela retombe sur la communauté, et particulièrement sur les femmes. C’est cela que j’appelle le « cheap care ». Les poulets sont eux-mêmes nourris grâce à de la nourriture « cheap », financée par des milliards de dollars de subventions. L’énergie « cheap », c’est-à-dire les énergies fossiles, permet de faire fonctionner les usines et les lignes de production. Et l’argent « cheap » permet de faire tourner l’ensemble, parce que vous avez besoin de taux d’intérêt très bas, et que les grandes industries en obtiennent des gouvernements régulièrement. Et enfin, vous avez besoin de vies « cheap » : il faut reconnaître que ce sont les non-blancs qui sont discriminés dans la production de ce type de nourriture, mais aussi que les consommateurs sont considérés comme jetables par l’industrie.

    Vous insistez sur le fait que le capitalisme est né de la séparation entre nature et société, théorisée notamment par Descartes. Et que cette naissance a eu lieu au XIVème siècle, dans le contexte de la colonisation. On a donc tort de dire que le capitalisme est né avec la révolution industrielle ?

    Si vous pensez que le capitalisme est né au cours de la révolution industrielle, vous êtes en retard de trois ou quatre siècles. Pour que cette révolution advienne, il a fallu beaucoup de signes avant-coureurs. Par exemple, l’idée de la division du travail était déjà à l’oeuvre dans les plantations de cannes à sucre à Madère à la fin du XIVème siècle ! Toutes les innovations dont on pense qu’elles proviennent de la révolution industrielle étaient déjà en place quand les Portugais ont apporté la production de sucre, l’esclavage et la finance à Madère.

    Quant à la division du monde entre nature et société, il s’agit là du péché conceptuel originel du capitalisme. Toutes les civilisations humaines ont une façon d’opérer une distinction entre « eux » et « nous », mais séparer le monde entre nature et société permet de dire quels humains peuvent faire partie de la société, et d’estimer qu’on est autorisé à exploiter le reste du monde. Les colons arrivant en Amérique considéraient ceux qu’ils ont baptisé « Indiens » comme des « naturales ». Dans une lettre à Isabelle Iʳᵉ de Castille et Ferdinand II d’Aragon, Christophe Colomb se désole de ne pouvoir estimer la valeur de la nature qu’il a devant lui aux Amériques. Il écrit aussi qu’il reviendra avec le plus d’esclaves possibles : il voit certains hommes et la nature comme des denrées interchangeables car ils ne font pas partie de la société. Cette frontière entre nature et société est propre au capitalisme, et c’est pourquoi il peut utiliser les ressources fournies par la nature tout en la considérant comme une immense poubelle.

    Le capitalisme fait partie, selon vous, d’une écologie-monde, un concept forgé par votre co-auteur. En quoi ?

    Nous nous inspirons de Fernand Braudel et du concept d’économie-monde. En résumé, l’historien explique que si l’on veut comprendre comment fonctionne le monde, on ne peut pas prendre l’Etat-nation comme unité fondamentale d’analyse. Il faut comprendre que cet endroit est défini par son rapport aux autres endroits, tout comme les humains sont définis par leurs relations aux autres humains. On doit également penser au système dans lequel le pays que l’on étudie se trouve.

    L’économie n’est qu’une façon de penser la relation entre les humains et le tissu du vivant. Par exemple, Wall Street est une façon d’organiser le monde et la nature. Les traders qui y travaillent font de l’argent en faisant des choix, et en les imposant via la finance et la violence qui lui est inhérente. Le tout pour structurer les relations entre individus et entre les humains et le monde extra-naturel. Ce que nous faisons, c’est que nous replaçons tout cela dans son écologie, et c’est pourquoi le concept d’écologie-monde fait sens. Si vous vous intéressez à la façon dont les humains sont reliés les uns aux autres, vous devez choisir la focale d’analyse la plus large possible.

    Vous dites qu’il est plus facile d’imaginer la fin du la planète que la fin du capitalisme. Pourquoi ?

    J’expliquais dernièrement à mes étudiants que nous avons jusqu’à 2030 si l’on veut parvenir à une économie neutre en carbone. Et ils étaient désespérés et désemparés. Ce désespoir est un symptôme du succès du capitalisme, en cela qu’il occupe nos esprits et nos aspirations. C’est pourquoi il est, selon moi, plus facile d’envisager la fin du monde que celle du capitalisme. On peut aller au cinéma et y admirer la fin du monde dans tout un tas de films apocalyptiques. Mais ce qu’on ne nous montre pas, ce sont des interactions différentes entre les humains et la nature, que certaines civilisations encore en activités pratiquent actuellement sur notre planète.

    Je vis aux Etats-Unis, et tous les matins mes enfants doivent prêter serment et répéter qu’ils vivent dans « une nation en Dieu » [NDLR : « One nation under God »]. Mais les Etats-Unis reconnaissent en réalité des centaines de nations indigènes, ce que l’on veut nous faire oublier ! Tous les jours, on nous apprend à oublier qu’il y existe d’autres façons de faire les choses, d’autres possibilités. Cela ne me surprend pas que certains estiment impossible de penser au-delà du capitalisme, même si les alternatives sont juste devant nous.

    Parmi ces alternatives, il y en a une qui ne trouve pas grâce à vos yeux : celle du progrès scientifique, incarnée en ce moment par certains entrepreneurs comme Elon Musk.

    Ce que je ne comprends pas, c’est que ceux que nous considérons comme nos sauveurs sont issus du passé. Beaucoup pensent qu’Elon Musk va sauver le monde, et que nous allons tous conduire des Tesla dans la joie. Mais si on regarde ce qui rend possible la fabrication des Tesla, on retrouve nos sept choses « cheap » ! Les travailleurs sont exploités, notamment ceux qui travaillent dans les mines pour extraire les métaux rares nécessaires aux batteries. Et Musk lui-même s’attache à éliminer les syndicats... Je suis inquiet du fait que l’on fonde nos espoirs sur ces messies.

    Des initiatives comme celle du calcul de son empreinte écologique ne trouvent pas non plus grâce à vous yeux. Pourquoi ?

    Parce qu’il s’agit d’un mélange parfait entre le cartésianisme et la pensée capitaliste. C’est une façon de mesurer l’impact que vous avez sur la planète en fonction de vos habitudes alimentaires ou de transport. À la fin du questionnaire, on vous livre une série de recommandations personnalisées, qui vous permettent de prendre des mesures pour réduire votre empreinte écologique. Qu’est-ce qu’il pourrait y avoir de mal à ça ? Evidemment, je suis d’accord avec le fait qu’il faudrait que l’on consomme moins, particulièrement dans les pays développés.

    Pourtant, présenter le capitalisme comme un choix de vie consiste à culpabiliser l’individu au lieu de condamner le système. C’est la même logique qui prévaut derrière la façon dont on victimise les individus en surpoids alors que leur condition n’a pas grand chose à voir avec leurs choix individuels, mais plutôt avec leurs conditions d’existence. On ne pourra pas non plus combattre le réchauffement climatique en recyclant nos déchets ! Du moins, pas uniquement. En mettant l’accent sur le recyclage, on sous-estime l’immensité du problème, mais aussi notre propre pouvoir. Parce que si vous voulez changer de système, ça ne passera pas par ce que vous mettez dans votre caddie, mais par le fait de s’organiser pour transformer la société. Et c’est l’unique façon dont une société peut évoluer. Personne n’est allé faire les courses de façon responsable pour mettre un terme à l’esclavage ! Personne n’est sorti de chez lui pour acheter de bons produits afin que les femmes obtiennent le droit de vote ! Tout cela dépasse le niveau des consommateurs. Il va falloir s’organiser pour la transformation, c’est la seule façon de combattre.

    C’est pour ça que le dernier mot de votre livre est « révolution » ?

    Si nous continuons comme ça, la planète sur laquelle nous vivons sera en grande partie inhabitable. Si je vous dis que j’ai l’idée révolutionnaire de transformer le monde pour le rendre inhabitable, vous me répondrez qu’il faudrait que j’évite de faire ça. Le problème, c’est que si je vous dis que j’ai l’idée révolutionnaire de se détourner du capitalisme pour vivre mieux qu’aujourd’hui, vous me diriez la même chose. On choisit sa révolution. Soit on essaye de maintenir les choses comme elles sont, avec leur cortège d’exploitation, de racisme et de sexisme, la sixième extinction de masse, et la transformation écologique pour prétendre que tout va bien se passer. Soit on accueille le changement à venir, et on tente de s’y connecter.

    Les systèmes sociaux meurent rapidement. Le féodalisme a par exemple disparu pendant une période de changement climatique et d’épidémies. Plusieurs expériences ont été tentées pour remplacer le féodalisme, et parmi elles, c’est le capitalisme qui a gagné. Ce que je veux dire, c’est que nous pouvons choisir le monde que nous voulons construire maintenant pour être capables de supporter l’après-capitalisme. On peut choisir sa révolution, mais la chose qu’on ne peut pas choisir, c’est de l’éviter. Le capitalisme nous rend aveugles à la révolution qu’il opère lui-même à la surface de la planète en ce moment.

    Donc, selon vous, il faudrait se tourner vers le concept d’écologie-monde pour reprendre espoir ?

    Une partie de ce que l’on voulait faire avec Comment notre monde est devenu cheap, c’était d’articuler théoriquement ce qui est déjà en train d’advenir. Je suis très inspiré par ce que met en place le mouvement paysan La Via Campesina. Ce mouvement international qui regroupe des petits paysans fait un travail incroyable, notamment en Amérique du Sud, en promouvant l’agroécologie.

    L’agro-écologie est un moyen de cultiver la terre qui est totalement à l’opposé de l’agriculture industrielle. Au lieu de transformer un champ en usine en annihilant toute la vie qui s’y trouve, vous travaillez avec la nature pour mettre en place une polyculture. Cela vous permet de lutter contre le réchauffement en capturant plus de carbone, et de vous prémunir contre ses effets en multipliant le type de récoltes. Enfin, vous vous organisez socialement pour soutenir le tout et gérer les ressources et leur distribution, ce qui ne peut se faire sans combattre le patriarcat. Voilà un exemple de mouvement fondé autour d’une lutte contre l’OMC et qui a évolué en une organisation qui combat les violences domestiques, le patriarcat et le réchauffement climatique. C’est un exemple concret, et presque magique, d’intersection entre les choses « cheap » que nous évoquons dans notre livre. Et tout cela est rendu possible parce que le mouvement est autonome et pense par lui-même, sans s’appuyer sur de grands espoirs, mais sur l’intelligence de chaque paysan.

    Votre livre compte 250 pages de constat, pour 10 pages de solution. Est-ce qu’il est vraiment si compliqué que ça d’accorder plus de place aux solutions ?

    Il y a déjà des organisations qui travaillent sur des solutions. Mais pour comprendre leur importance et pourquoi elles se dirigent toutes vers une rupture d’avec le capitalisme, on s’est dit qu’il était de notre devoir de regrouper un certain nombre d’idées qui parcourent le monde universitaire et le travail de nos camarades au sein des mouvements sociaux. Notre rôle me semble être de théoriser ce qui se passe déjà, et de nourrir nos camarades intellectuellement. Et ces sept choses « cheap » pourraient être une nouvelle manière d’appréhender nos systèmes alimentaires et tout ce que l’on décrit dans l’ouvrage, mais pas seulement. Le cadre théorique pourrait aussi s’appliquer à la finance, au patriarcat ou au racisme, et permettre aux mouvements en lutte de se rendre compte qu’il faut qu’ils se parlent beaucoup plus. Nous n’avions pas l’objectif de faire un catalogue de solutions, encore moins un programme politique : beaucoup d’acteurs engagés font déjà de la politique, et c’est vers eux qu’il faut se tourner si vous voulez changer les choses maintenant, sans attendre l’effondrement.

    https://usbeketrica.com/article/changer-de-systeme-ne-passera-pas-par-votre-caddie
    #intersectionnalité #mouvements_sociaux #post-capitalisme #capitalisme #alternatives #nature #responsabilité #résistance

    • Comment notre monde est devenu cheap

      « Cheap » ne veut pas simplement dire « bon marché ». Rendre une chose « #cheap » est une façon de donner une valeur marchande à tout, même à ce qui n’a pas de #prix. Ainsi en va-t-il d’un simple nugget de poulet. On ne l’achète que 50 centimes, alors qu’une organisation phénoménale a permis sa production : des animaux, des plantes pour les nourrir, des financements, de l’énergie, des travailleurs mal payés…
      Déjà, au XIVe siècle, la cité de Gênes, endettée auprès des banques, mettait en gage le Saint Graal. Christophe Colomb, découvrant l’Amérique, calculait ce que valent l’eau, les plantes, l’or… ou les Indiens. Au XIXe siècle, les colons britanniques interdisaient aux femmes de travailler pour les cantonner aux tâches domestiques gratuites. Jusqu’à la Grèce de 2015, qui remboursait ses dettes en soldant son système social et ses richesses naturelles.
      Le capitalisme a façonné notre monde : son histoire, d’or et de sang, est faite de conquêtes, d’oppression et de résistances. En la retraçant sous l’angle inédit de la « cheapisation », Raj Patel et Jason W. Moore offrent une autre lecture du monde. De cette vision globale des crises et des luttes pourrait alors naître une ambition folle : celle d’un monde plus juste.

      https://editions.flammarion.com/Catalogue/hors-collection/documents-temoignages-et-essais-d-actualite/comment-notre-monde-est-devenu-cheap

      #livre


  • Pathologie en stock
    http://www.dedefensa.org/article/pathologie-en-stock

    Pathologie en stock

    Les journalistes russes, et ceux de RT-FakeNews plus précisément, n’en sont pas encore revenus. Rick Perry, ancien gouverneur du Texas, très “texan” et ami des pétroliers, devenu le secrétaire à l’énergie (comme ça se trouve) de Trump, rencontrait hier son homologue russe à Moscou. Il y eut une conférence de presse dont personne n’attendait grand-chose ; sauf qu’un journaliste de RT eut l’outrecuidance de lui poser une question sacrilège, du type “vous reprochez à la Russie, soi-disant d’utiliser sa politique énergétique dans des buts politiques, mais vous-même que faites-vous avec ;l’Iran ?”.

    La conférence de presse prit aussitôt un tour inattendu, Perry se dressant comme la statue du Commandeur, les pieds sans doute bottés (un Texan) fermement posés sur cette terre russe chargée de tant (...)