Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
US interference in elections around the world in 45 countries
POLITICS
Election Interference? The U.S. Has Done It In 45 Countries Worldwide
America has a long history of meddling in the elections of foreign countries, new research shows
Dec 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM ET
Russia’s attempt to sway the 2016 election continues to consume American politics as the Obama administration struck back with a series of punishments targeting Russia’s spy agencies and diplomats. The White House on Thursday moved to expel 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives from the U.S. and impose sanctions on the Kremlin’s two leading intelligence services in response for what the U.S. says were a series of cyberattacks conducted by Russia during the presidential campaign. For the time being, Russian President Vladamir Putin has indicated that he won’t immediately retaliate, though that could change.
The simmering tit for tat has kept the issue of election meddling burning bright in the national spotlight, fueled even further by the belief among U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia wanted to help Donald Trump capture the presidency. Yet neither country is a stranger when it comes to directly trying to sway the election of other nations. In fact, the U.S. has a long and stunning history of attempting to influence foreign presidential elections, recent research by political scientist Dov Levin shows.
Levin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie-Mellon University, found that the U.S. attempted to influence the elections of foreign countries as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000. Often covert in their execution, these efforts included everything from CIA operatives running successful presidential campaigns in the Philippines during the 1950s to leaking damaging information on Marxist Sandanistas in order to sway Nicaraguan voters in 1990. All told, the U.S. allegedly targeted the elections of 45 nations across the globe during this period, Levin’s research shows. In the case of some countries, such as Italy and Japan, the U.S. attempted to intervene in four or more separate elections.
Levin’s figures do not include military coups or regime change attempts following the election of a candidate the U.S. opposed, such as when the CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, in 1953. He defines an electoral intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.” According to Levin’s research, that includes: peddling misinformation or propaganda; creating campaign material for preferred candidates or parties; providing or withdrawing foreign aid, and; making public announcements that threaten or favor certain candidates. Often, it also includes the U.S. covertly delivering large sums of cash, as was the case in elections in Japan, Lebanon, Italy, and other countries.
To build his database, Levin says he relied on declassified U.S. intelligence as well as a number of Congressional reports on CIA activity. He also combed through what he considered reliable histories of the CIA and covert American activity, as well as academic research on U.S. intelligence, diplomatic histories of the Cold War, and memoirs of former CIA officials. Much of America’s meddling in foreign elections has been well-documented — Chile in the 1960s, Haiti in the 1990s. But Malta in 1971? According to Levin’s study, the U.S. attempted to “goose” the tiny Mediterranean island’s economy in the months leading up to its election that year.
Much of the America’s electoral meddling occurred throughout the Cold War as a response to containing Soviet influence through the spread of supposed leftist proxies, the findings suggest. And to be clear, the U.S. wasn’t the only one trying to sway foreign elections. By Levin’s count, Russia attempted to interfere in other countries’ elections 36 times between the end of World War II and the end of the 20th century, bringing the total number of electoral interventions by the two countries to 117 during that period.
Yet even after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. continued its interventions abroad, including elections in Israel, former Czechoslovakia, and even Russia in 1996, Levin found. Since 2000, the U.S. has attempted to sway elections in Ukraine, Kenya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, among others.
History of US interventions around the world
US Military and Clandestine Operations in Foreign Countries - 1798-Present
Global Policy ForumDecember 2005
Note: This list does not pretend to be definitive or absolutely complete. Nor does it seek to explain or interpret the interventions. Information and interpretation on selected interventions will be later included as links. Note that US operations in World Wars I and II have been excluded.
1798-1800 | France |
Undeclared naval war against France, marines land in Puerto Plata.
|
1801-1805 | Tripoli | War with Tripoli (Libya), called "First Barbary War". |
1806 | Spanish Mexico | Military force enters Spanish territory in headwaters of the Rio Grande. |
1806-1810 | Spanish and French in Caribbean | US naval vessels attack French and Spanish shipping in the Caribbean. |
1810 | Spanish West Florida | Troops invade and seize Western Florida, a Spanish possession. |
1812 | Spanish East Florida | Troops seize Amelia Island and adjacent territories. |
1812 | Britain | War of 1812, includes naval and land operations. |
1813 | Marquesas Island | Forces seize Nukahiva and establish first US naval base in the Pacific. |
1814 | Spanish (East Florida) | Troops seize Pensacola in Spanish East Florida. |
1814-1825 | French, British and Spanish in Caribbean | US naval squadron engages French, British and Spanish shipping in the Caribbean. |
1815 | Algiers and Tripoli | US naval fleet under Captain Stephen Decatur wages "Second Barbary War" in North Africa. |
1816-1819 | Spanish East Florida | Troops attack and seize Nicholls' Fort, Amelia Island and other strategic locations. Spain eventually cedes East Florida to the US. |
1822-1825 | Spanish Cuba and Puerto Rico | Marines land in numerous cities in the Spanish island of Cuba and also in Spanish Puerto Rico. |
1827 | Greece | Marines invade the Greek islands of Argentiere, Miconi and Andross. |
1831 | Falkland/Malvinas Islands | US naval squadrons aggress the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic. |
1832 | Sumatra, Dutch East Indies | US naval squadrons attack Qallah Battoo. |
1833 | Argentina | Forces land in Buenos Aires and engage local combatants. |
1835-1836 | Peru | Troops dispatched twice for counter-insurgency operations. |
1836 | Mexico | Troops assist Texas war for independence. |
1837 | Canada | Naval incident on the Canadian border leads to mobilization of a large force to invade Canada. War is narrowly averted. |
1838 | Sumatra, Dutch East Indies | US naval forces sent to Sumatra for punitive expedition. |
1840-1841 | Fiji | Naval forces deployed, marines land. |
1841 | Samoa | Naval forces deployed, marines land. |
1842 | Mexico | Naval forces temporarily seize cities of Monterey and San Diego. |
1843 | China | Marines land in Canton. |
1843 | Ivory Coast | Marines land. |
1846-1848 | Mexico | Full-scale war. Mexico cedes half of its territory to the US by the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. |
1849 | Ottoman Empire (Turkey) | Naval force dispatched to Smyrna. |
1852-1853 | Argentina | Marines land in Buenos Aires. |
1854 | Nicaragua | Navy bombards and largely destroys city of San Juan del Norte. Marines land and set fire to the city. |
1854 | Japan | Commodore Perry and his fleet deploy at Yokohama. |
1855 | Uruguay | Marines land in Montevideo. |
1856 | Colombia (Panama Region) | Marines land for counter-insurgency campaign. |
1856 | China | Marines deployed in Canton. |
1856 | Hawaii | Naval forces seize small islands of Jarvis, Baker and Howland in the Hawaiian Islands. |
1857 | Nicaragua | Marines land. |
1858 | Uruguay | Marines land in Montevideo. |
1858 | Fiji | Marines land. |
1859 | Paraguay | Large naval force deployed. |
1859 | China | Troops enter Shanghai. |
1859 | Mexico | Military force enters northern area. |
1860 | Portuguese West Africa | Troops land at Kissembo. |
1860 | Colombia (Panama Region) | Troops and naval forces deployed. |
1863 | Japan | Troops land at Shimonoseki. |
1864 | Japan | Troops landed in Yedo. |
1865 | Colombia (Panama Region) | Marines landed. |
1866 | Colombia (Panama Region) | Troops invade and seize Matamoros, later withdraw. |
1866 | China | Marines land in Newchwang. |
1867 | Nicaragua | Marines land in Managua and Leon in Nicaragua. |
1867 | Formosa Island (Taiwan) | Marines land. |
1867 | Midway Island | Naval forces seize this island in the Hawaiian Archipelago for a naval base. |
1868 | Japan | Naval forces deployed at Osaka, Hiogo, Nagasaki, Yokohama and Negata. |
1868 | Uruguay | Marines land at Montevideo. |
1870 | Colombia | Marines landed. |
1871 | Korea | Forces landed. |
1873 | Colombia (Panama Region) | Marines landed. |
1874 | Hawaii | Sailors and marines landed. |
1876 | Mexico | Army again occupies Matamoros. |
1882 | British Egypt | Troops land. |
1885 | Colombia (Panama Region) | Troops land in Colon and Panama City. |
1885 | Samoa | Naval force deployed. |
1887 | Hawaii | Navy gains right to build permanent naval base at Pearl Harbor. |
1888 | Haiti | Troops landed. |
1888 | Samoa | Marines landed. |
1889 | Samoa | Clash with German naval forces. |
1890 | Argentina | US sailors land in Buenos Aires. |
1891 | Chile | US sailors land in the major port city of Valparaiso. |
1891 | Haiti | Marines land on US-claimed Navassa Island. |
1893 | Hawaii | Marines and other naval forces land and overthrow the monarchy. Read More | President Cleveland's Message |
1894 | Nicaragua | Marines land at Bluefields on the eastern coast. |
1894-1895 | China | Marines are stationed at Tientsin and Beijing. A naval ship takes up position at Newchwang. |
1894-1896 | Korea | Marines land and remain in Seoul. |
1895 | Colombia | Marines are sent to the town Bocas del Toro. |
1896 | Nicaragua | Marines land in the port of Corinto. |
1898 | Nicaragua | Marines land at the port city of San Juan del Sur. |
1898 | Guam | Naval forces seize Guam Island from Spain and the US holds the island permanently. |
1898 | Cuba | Naval and land forces seize Cuba from Spain. |
1898 | Puerto Rico | Naval and land forces seize Puerto Rico from Spain and the US holds the island permanently. |
1898 | Philippines | Naval forces defeat the Spanish fleet and the US takes control of the country. |
1899 | Philippines | Military units are reinforced for extensive counter-insurgency operations. |
1899 | Samoa | Naval forces land |
1899 | Nicaragua | Marines land at the port city of Bluefields. |
1900 | China | US forces intervene in several cities. |
1901 | Colombia/Panama | Marines land. |
1902 | Colombia/Panama | US forces land in Bocas de Toro |
1903 | Colombia/Panama | With US backing, a group in northern Colombia declares independence as the state of Panama |
1903 | Guam | Navy begins development in Apra Harbor of a permanent base installation. |
1903 | Honduras | Marines go ashore at Puerto Cortez. |
1903 | Dominican Republic | Marines land in Santo Domingo. |
1904-1905 | Korea | Marines land and stay in Seoul. |
1906-1909 | Cuba | Marines land. The US builds a major naval base at Guantanamo Bay. |
1907 | Nicaragua | Troops seize major centers. |
1907 | Honduras | Marines land and take up garrison in cities of Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortez, San Pedro, Laguna and Choloma. |
1908 | Panama | Marines land and carry out operations. |
1910 | Nicaragua | Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto. |
1911 | Honduras | Marines intervene. |
1911-1941 | China | The US builds up its military presence in the country to a force of 5000 troops and a fleet of 44 vessels patrolling China's coast and rivers. |
1912 | Cuba | US sends army troops into combat in Havana. |
1912 | Panama | Army troops intervene. |
1912 | Honduras | Marines land. |
1912-1933 | Nicaragua | Marines intervene. A 20-year occupation of the country follows. |
1913 | Mexico | Marines land at Ciaris Estero. |
1914 | Dominican Republic | Naval forces engage in battles in the city of Santo Domingo. |
1914 | Mexico | US forces seize and occupy Mexico's major port city of Veracrus from April through November. |
1915-1916 | Mexico | An expeditionary force of the US Army under Gen. John J. Pershing crosses the Texas border and penetrates several hundred miles into Mexican territory. Eventually reinforced to over 11,000 officers and men. |
1914-1934 | Haiti | Troops land, aerial bombardment leading to a 19-year military occupation. |
1916-1924 | Dominican Republic | Military intervention leading to 8-year occupation. |
1917-1933 | Cuba | Landing of naval forces. Beginning of a 15-year occupation. |
1918-1920 | Panama | Troops intervene, remain on "police duty" for over 2 years. |
1918-1922 | Russia | Naval forces and army troops fight battles in several areas of the country during a five- year period. |
1919 | Yugoslavia | Marines intervene in Dalmatia. |
1919 | Honduras | Marines land. |
1920 | Guatemala | Troops intervene. |
1922 | Turkey | Marines engaged in operations in Smyrna (Izmir). |
1922-1927 | China | Naval forces and troops deployed during 5-year period. |
1924-1925 | Honduras | Troops land twice in two-year period. |
1925 | Panama | Marines land and engage in operations. |
1927-1934 | China | Marines and naval forces stationed throughout the country. |
1932 | El Salvador | Naval forces intervene. |
1933 | Cuba | Naval forces deployed. |
1934 | China | Marines land in Foochow. |
1946 | Iran | Troops deployed in northern province. |
1946-1949 | China | Major US army presence of about 100,000 troops, fighting, training and advising local combatants. |
1947-1949 | Greece | US forces wage a 3-year counterinsurgency campaign. |
1948 | Italy | Heavy CIA involvement in national elections. |
1948-1954 | Philippines | Commando operations, "secret" CIA war. |
1950-1953 | Korea | Major forces engaged in war in Korean peninsula. |
1953 | Iran | CIA overthrows government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Read More |
1954 | Vietnam | Financial and materiel support for colonial French military operations, leads eventually to direct US military involvement. |
1954 | Guatemala | CIA overthrows the government of President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. |
1958 | Lebanon | US marines and army units totaling 14,000 land. |
1958 | Panama | Clashes between US forces in Canal Zone and local citizens. |
1959 | Haiti | Marines land. |
1960 | Congo | CIA-backed overthrow and assassination of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. |
1960-1964 | Vietnam | Gradual introduction of military advisors and special forces. |
1961 | Cuba | CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion. |
1962 | Cuba | Nuclear threat and naval blockade. |
1962 | Laos | CIA-backed military coup. |
1963 | Ecuador | CIA backs military overthrow of President Jose Maria Valesco Ibarra. |
1964 | Panama | Clashes between US forces in Canal Zone and local citizens. |
1964 | Brazil | CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government of Joao Goulart and Gen. Castello Branco takes power. Read More |
1965-1975 | Vietnam | Large commitment of military forces, including air, naval and ground units numbering up to 500,000+ troops. Full-scale war, lasting for ten years. |
1965 | Indonesia | CIA-backed army coup overthrows President Sukarno and brings Gen. Suharto to power. |
1965 | Congo | CIA backed military coup overthrows President Joseph Kasavubu and brings Joseph Mobutu to power. |
1965 | Dominican Republic | 23,000 troops land. |
1965-1973 | Laos | Bombing campaign begin, lasting eight years. |
1966 | Ghana | CIA-backed military coup ousts President Kwame Nkrumah. |
1966-1967 | Guatemala | Extensive counter-insurgency operation. |
1969-1975 | Cambodia | CIA supports military coup against Prince Sihanouk, bringing Lon Nol to power. Intensive bombing for seven years along border with Vietnam. |
1970 | Oman | Counter-insurgency operation, including coordination with Iranian marine invasion. |
1971-1973 | Laos | Invasion by US and South Vietnames forces. |
1973 | Chile | CIA-backed military coup ousts government of President Salvador Allende. Gen. Augusto Pinochet comes to power. |
1975 | Cambodia | Marines land, engage in combat with government forces. |
1976-1992 | Angola | Military and CIA operations. |
1980 | Iran | Special operations units land in Iranian desert. Helicopter malfunction leads to aborting of planned raid. |
1981 | Libya | Naval jets shoot down two Libyan jets in maneuvers over the Mediterranean. |
1981-1992 | El Salvador | CIA and special forces begin a long counterinsurgency campaign. |
1981-1990 | Nicaragua | CIA directs exile "Contra" operations. US air units drop sea mines in harbors. |
1982-1984 | Lebanon | Marines land and naval forces fire on local combatants. |
1983 | Grenada | Military forces invade Grenada. |
1983-1989 | Honduras | Large program of military assistance aimed at conflict in Nicaragua. |
1984 | Iran | Two Iranian jets shot down over the Persian Gulf. |
1986 | Libya | US aircraft bomb the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, including direct strikes at the official residence of President Muamar al Qadaffi. |
1986 | Bolivia | Special Forces units engage in counter-insurgency. |
1987-1988 | Iran | Naval forces block Iranian shipping. Civilian airliner shot down by missile cruiser. |
1989 | Libya | Naval aircraft shoot down two Libyan jets over Gulf of Sidra. |
1989 | Philippines | CIA and Special Forces involved in counterinsurgency. |
1989-1990 | Panama | 27,000 troops as well as naval and air power used to overthrow government of President Noriega. |
1990 | Liberia | Troops deployed. |
1990-1991 | Iraq | Major military operation, including naval blockade, air strikes; large number of troops attack Iraqi forces in occupied Kuwait. |
1991-2003 | Iraq | Control of Iraqi airspace in north and south of the country with periodic attacks on air and ground targets. |
1991 | Haiti | CIA-backed military coup ousts President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. |
1992-1994 | Somalia | Special operations forces intervene. |
1992-1994 | Yugoslavia | Major role in NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. |
1993-1995 | Bosnia | Active military involvement with air and ground forces. |
1994-1996 | Haiti | Troops depose military rulers and restore President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to office. |
1995 | Croatia | Krajina Serb airfields attacked. |
1996-1997 | Zaire (Congo) | Marines involved in operations in eastern region of the country. |
1997 | Liberia | Troops deployed. |
1998 | Sudan | Air strikes destroy country's major pharmaceutical plant. |
1998 | Afghanistan | Attack on targets in the country. |
1998 | Iraq | Four days of intensive air and missile strikes. |
1999 | Yugoslavia | Major involvement in NATO air strikes. |
2001 | Macedonia | NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels. |
2001 | Afghanistan | Air attacks and ground operations oust Taliban government and install a new regime. |
2003 | Iraq | Invasion with large ground, air and naval forces ousts government of Saddam Hussein and establishes new government. |
2003-present | Iraq | Occupation force of 150,000 troops in protracted counter-insurgency war |
2004 | Haiti | Marines land. CIA-backed forces overthrow President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. |
cornel west--fire of a new generation
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.
This is the 15th
in a series of interviews on race that I am conducting for The Stone.
This week’s discussion is with Cornel West, one of the most prominent
and provocative intellectuals in public life. He is a professor of
philosophy and Christian practice at Union Theological Seminary and
professor emeritus at Princeton University. He is the author and editor
of more than 30 books, including “Black Prophetic Fire” and “The Radical
King.” — George Yancy
George Yancy: Recently,
on Aug. 10, you were arrested along with others outside the courthouse
in St. Louis because of the collective resistance against continued
racial injustice and police brutality. What was the political atmosphere
like there?
Fire really means a certain kind of burning in the soul that one can no longer tolerate when one is pushed against a wall.
Cornel West: The black prophetic fire among the younger generation in Ferguson was intense and wonderful. Ferguson is ground zero
for the struggle against police brutality and police murder. I just
wanted to be a small part of that collective fight back that puts one’s
body on the line. It was beautiful because part of the crowd was
chanting, “This is what democracy looks like,” which echoes W.E.B.
DuBois and the older generation’s critique of capitalist civilization
and imperialist power. And you also had people chanting, “We gon’ be
alright,” which is from rap artist Kendrick Lamar, who is concerned with
the black body, decrepit schools, indecent housing. This chant is in
many ways emerging as a kind of anthem of the movement for the younger
generation. So, we had both the old school and the new school and I try
to be a kind of link between these two schools. There was a polyphonic,
antiphonal, call and response, all the way down and all the way live.
G.Y.: One of your newest books is entitled “Black Prophetic Fire.” Define what you mean by “black prophetic fire.”
C.W.:
Black prophetic fire is the hypersensitivity to the suffering of others
that generates a righteous indignation that results in the willingness
to live and die for freedom.
I think in many ways
we have to begin with the younger generation, the generation of
Ferguson, Baltimore, Staten Island and Oakland. There is not just a
rekindling, but a re-invigoration taking place among the younger
generation that enacts and enables prophetic fire. We’ve been in an ice
age. If you go from the 1960s and 1970s — that’s my generation. But
there was also an ice age called the neoliberal epoch, an ice age where
it was no longer a beautiful thing to be on fire. It was a beautiful
thing to have money. It was a beautiful thing to have status. It was a
beautiful thing to have public reputation without a whole lot of
commitment to social justice, whereas the younger generation is now
catching the fire of the generation of the 1960s and 1970s.
G.Y.: When
I think of black prophetic fire, I think of David Walker, Frederick
Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Audre Lorde, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Martin
L. King, James Baldwin and so many more. In recent weeks, some have
favorably compared the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates to Baldwin. I know that
you publicly criticized this comparison. What was the nature of your
critique?
C.W.: In
a phone conversation I had with Brother Coates not long ago, I told him
that the black prophetic tradition is the collective fightback of
sustained compassion in the face of sustained catastrophe. It has the
highest standards of excellence, and we all fall short. So a passionate
defense of Baldwin — or John Coltrane or Toni Morrison — is crucial in
this age of Ferguson.
G.Y.: In
what ways do you think the concept of black prophetic fire speaks to —
or ought to speak to — events like the tragic murder of nine people at
the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C.?
I’m an old Coltrane disciple just like I’m a Christian. You can be full of fire, but that fire has to be lit by a deep love of the people.
C.W.: Charleston
is part and parcel of the ugly manifestation of the vicious legacy of
white supremacy, and the younger generation — who have been wrestling
with arbitrary police power, arbitrary corporate power, gentrification,
the land-grabbing, the power-grabbing in and of the black community, and
arbitrary cultural power in terms of white supremacist stereotypes
promoted on television, radio and so forth — has become what I call the
“marvelous new militancy,” and they embody this prophetic fire. The
beautiful thing is that this “marvelous new militancy” is true for
vanilla brothers and sisters, it’s true for all colors in the younger
generation, though it is disproportionately black, disproportionately
women and, significantly, disproportionately black, queer women.
G.Y.: Why the metaphor of “fire”?
C.W.: That’s
just my tradition, brother. Fire really means a certain kind of burning
in the soul that one can no longer tolerate when one is pushed against a
wall. So, you straighten your back up, you take your stand, you speak
your truth, you bear your witness and, most important, you are willing
to live and die. Fire is very much about fruits as opposed to foliage.
The ice age was all about foliage: “Look at me, look at me.” It was the
peacock syndrome. Fire is about fruits, which is biblical, but also
Marxist. It’s about praxis and what kind of life you live, what kind of
costs you’re willing to bear, what kind of price you’re willing to pay,
what kind of death you’re willing to embrace.
That was a great
insight that Marcus Garvey had. Remember, Garvey often began his rallies
with a black man or woman carrying a sign that read, “The Negro is not afraid.”
Once you break the back of fear, you’re on fire. You need that fire.
Even if that Negro carrying that sign is still shaking, the way that the
lyrical genius Kanye West was shaking when he talked about George W.
Bush not caring about black people, you’re still trying to overcome that
fear, work through that fear.
The problem is that
during the neoliberal epoch and during the ice age you’ve got the
process of “niggerization,” which is designed to keep black people
afraid. Keep them scared. Keep them intimidated. Keep them bowing and
scraping. And Malcolm X understood this better than anybody, other than
Ida B. Wells — they represented two of the highest moments of black
prophetic fire in the 20th century. Ida, with a bounty on her head, was
still full of fire. And Malcolm, we don’t even have a language for his
fire.
G.Y.: Does
this process of “niggerization” in American culture partly involve
white supremacist myths being internalized by black people?
C.W.: Yes.
When you teach black people that they are less beautiful, less moral,
less intelligent, and as a result you defer to the white supremacist
status quo, you rationalize your accommodation to the status quo, you
lose your fire, you become much more tied to producing foliage, what appears
to be the case. And, of course, in late capitalist culture, the culture
of superficial spectacle, driven by capital, driven by money, driven by
the market, it’s all about image and interest, anyway. In other words,
principle drops out. Any conception of being a person of integrity is
laughed at because what is central is image, what is central is
interest. And, of course, interest is tied to money, and image is tied
to the peacock projection, of what you appear to be.
When you teach black people they are less beautiful, less moral, less intelligent, you defer to the white supremacist status quo.
G.Y.: Can
we assume then that you then would emphasize a form of education that
would critique a certain kind of hyperrealism that is obsessed with
images and nonmarket values?
C.W.: That’s
right; absolutely. It’s the kind of thing that my dear brother Henry
Giroux talks about with such insight. He’s written many books providing
such a powerful critique of neoliberal market models of education.
Stanley Aronowitz, of course, goes right along with Giroux’s critique in
that regard. The notion has to do precisely with that critical
consciousness that the great Paulo Freire talks about, or the great
Myles Horton talked about, or the great bell hooks talks about in her
works. How do you generate that kind of courageous critical
consciousness that cuts against the grain and that discloses the
operations of market interests and images, capitalist forms of wealth
inequality, massive surveillance, imperial policies, drones dropping
bombs on innocent people, ecological catastrophe and escalating nuclear
catastrophe?
All of these various
issues are very much tied into a kind of market model of education that
reinforces the capitalist civilization, one that is more and more
obsessed with just interest and image.
G.Y.: What
do you see as the foremost challenge in creating a common cause between
past generation and the current generation now “catching fire,” as you
put it?
C.W.: For
me, it is the dialectical interplay between the old school and
prophetic thought and action. I’m an old Coltrane disciple just like I’m
a Christian. You can be full of fire, but that fire has to be lit by a
deep love of the people. And if that love is not in it, then the fire
actually becomes just a sounding brass and tinkling cymbal that doesn’t
get at the real moral substance and spiritual content that keeps anybody
going, but especially people who have been hated for so long and in so
many ways, as black people have.
For me, the love ethic
is at the very center of it. It can be the love ethic of James Baldwin,
Audre Lorde, Toni Morrison, Marvin Gaye, John Coltrane or Curtis
Mayfield, but it has to have that central focus on loving the people.
And when you love people, you hate the fact that they’re being treated
unfairly. You tell the truth. You sacrifice your popularity for
integrity. There is a willingness to give your life back to the people
given that, in the end, they basically gave it to you, because we are
who we are because somebody loved us anyway.
G.Y.: This
idea relates to the collection of Dr. King’s writings you edited,
called “The Radical King.” Why did you undertake the job of curating and
editing the book?
C.W.: Because
Martin had been so sanitized and sterilized. He has been so Santa
Claus-ified, turned into an old man with a smile, toys in his bag to
give out, and leaving everybody feeling so good. It was like we were
living in Disneyland rather than in the nightmare that the present-day
America is for so many poor working people, especially poor black
working people. So, we needed a kind of crystallization.
But there has been a
variety of different voices talking about the radical King. You know my
closest friend in the world, James Melvin Washington, was one of the
very few people that the King family allowed to bring the collection of
sermons and writings together. It’s one of the greatest honors for me to
be one of the first people that the King family allowed to bring those
kinds of writings together across the board, laying out a framework.
You’ve got James Melvin Washington’s “A Testament of Hope.” You’ve got
other wonderful scholars like James Cone, Lewis Baldwin and others who
have done magnificent work in their own way. But, you know, as I pass
off the stage of space and time, I want to be able to leave these love
letters to the younger generation. I want to tell them that they’re part
of a great tradition, a grand tradition of struggle, critical,
intellectual struggle, of moral and political struggle, and a spiritual
struggle in music and the arts, and so on.
Contrary to when
people talk about King every January, there is in “The Radical King” in
fact a particular understanding of this moral titan, spiritual giant and
great crusader for justice. So you get a sense of who he really
was beyond all of the sanitizing and sterilizing that are trotted out
every year in celebration of him. I consider it the most important book
I’ve ever done.
G.Y.: King
is well known for quoting the American reformer and abolitionist
Theodore Parker’s words, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it
bends toward justice.” What’s your assessment of King’s claim now, in
2015, particularly in the light of the kind of existential plight and
angst that black people and poor people are experiencing? Is there an
arc of the moral universe?
C.W.: I
think King had a very thick metaphysics when it came to history being
the canvas upon which God was in full control. As you know, I don’t have
such a thick metaphysics. I am closer to Anton Chekhov, Samuel Beckett
and a bluesman. I think that King at the end of his life became more of a
bluesman. He began to think: “Lord, have mercy. That arc might be
bending, but it sure is bending the wrong way.” After all, he’s dealing
with white supremacist backlash, patriarchal backlash and capitalist
backlash against working people and the possibility of ecological
catastrophe. He was already wrestling with the possible non-existence of
life on the earth in terms of the nuclear catastrophe that we were on
the brink of. So, he made a leap of faith grounded in a certain
conception of history that was heading toward justice. I don’t accept
that. I just do it because it’s right. I do it because integrity,
honesty and decency are in and of themselves enough reward that I’d
rather go under, trying to do what’s right, even if it has no chance at
all.
G.Y.: I
was thinking about your existentialist sensibilities that would in fact
be critical of the claim that the universe is moral at all. Yet, both
you and King share a blues sensibility that places emphasis on touching
the pain and yet transcending the pain, and also the importance of the
Christian good news.
C.W.: Oh,
absolutely, we are both very similar in terms of never allowing hatred
to have the last word, not allowing despair to have the last word,
telling the truth about structures of domination of various sorts,
keeping track of the variety of forms of oppression so we don’t become
ghettoized and tied to just one single issue. Yet, at the same time,
we’re trying to sustain hope by being a hope. Hope is not simply
something that you have; hope is something that you are. So, when Curtis
Mayfield says “keep on pushing,” that’s not an abstract conception
about optimism in the world. That is an imperative to be a hope for
others in the way Christians in the past used to be a blessing — not the idea of praying for a blessings, but being a blessing.
John Coltrane says be a
force for good. Don’t just talk about forces for good, be a force. So
it’s an ontological state. So, in the end, all we have is who we are. If
you end up being cowardly, then you end up losing the best of your
world, or your society, or your community, or yourself. If you’re
courageous, you protect, try and preserve the best of it. Now, you might
preserve the best, and still not be good enough to triumph over evil.
Hey, that’s the way it is. You did the best you could do. T.S. Eliot
says, “For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.”
T.S. Eliot was a right-wing brother who was full of wisdom. All you can
do is to try; keep on pushing. That’s all you can do.
G.Y.: When it comes to race in America in 2015, what is to be done?
C.W.: Well,
the first thing, of course, is you’ve got to shatter denial, avoidance
and evasion. That’s part of my criticism of the president. For seven
years, he just hasn’t or refused to hit it head-on. It looks like he’s
now beginning to find his voice. But in finding his voice, it’s either
too late or he’s lost his moral authority. He can’t drop drones on
hundreds of innocent children and then talk about how upset he is when
innocent people are killed. You can’t reshape the world in the image of
corporate interest and image with Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and
then say that you’re in deep solidarity with working people and poor
people. You can’t engage in massive surveillance, keeping track of phone
calls across the board, targeting Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning
and others, and then turn right back around and say you’re against
secrecy, you’re against clandestine policy.
So that,
unfortunately, if he had come right in and asserted his moral authority
over against Fox News, over against right-wing, conservative folk who
were coming at him — even if he lost — he would have let the world know
what his deep moral convictions are. But he came in as a Machiavellian.
He came in with political calculation. That’s why he brought in
Machiavellians like Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers, and others. So, it
was clear it was going to be political calculation, not moral
conviction.
How can anyone take
your word seriously after seven years about how we need to put a
spotlight on racism when, for seven years, you’ve been engaged in
political calculation about racism? But then you send out your
lieutenants. You send out all your Obama cheerleaders and bootlickers
and they say to his critics that he is president of all of America, not
black America. And we say white supremacy is a matter of truth. Are you
interested in truth? It’s a matter of justice. Are you interested in
justice? It’s a matter of national security. Are you interested in
national security? Well, we talk about black America. We’re not talking
about some ghettoized group that’s just an interest group that you have
to engage in political calculation about. When you talk about black
people, you’re talking about wrestling with lies and injustice coming at
them and their quest for truth and justice. If you’re not interested in
truth and justice, no politician ought to be in office, and not just
the president. So, we’ve actually had a major setback in seven years; a
lost opportunity.
G.Y.: But
is it really possible to speak courageous speech while acting as the
most powerful country in the world? Of course, we also have to admit the
history of racism preceded Obama’s tenure and will exceed it. My point
is that there is a deep tension that exists for someone who desires to
embody prophetic fire and yet be in charge of an empire.
C.W.: I
think that’s true for most politicians, actually. Now when it comes to
the intellectuals who rationalize their deference to the politician, so
they want to pose as prophetic even though they are very much
deferential to the powers that be, they need to be criticized in a very
intense way. That’s why I’m very hard on the Obama cheerleaders, you
see, but when it comes to the politicians themselves, it is
very difficult to be a prophetic politician the way in which Harold
Washington was or the way Paul Wellstone was or the way Shirley Chisholm
was, or the way my dear brother Bernie Sanders actually is. He is a
prophetic politician. He speaks the truth about wealth and equality. He
speaks the truth about Wall Street. He speaks the truth about working
and poor people being afterthoughts in terms of the kind of calculations
of the oligarchs of our day. He shows that it’s possible to be a
politician who speaks the truth.
Once you occupy the
White House, you are head of the empire. Then you have a choice. We’ve
had two grand candidates in the history of the United States. We’ve had
Abraham Lincoln and we’ve had Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both of them are
full of flaws, full of faults, full of many, many blind spots. But they
pushed the American experiment in a progressive way, even given their
faults. And that’s what we thought Obama was going to do. We were
looking for Lincoln, and we got another Clinton, and that is in no way
satisfying.
That’s what I mean by,
we were looking for a Coltrane and we ended up getting a Kenny G. You
can’t help but be profoundly disappointed. But also ready for more
fightback in post-Obama America!
This interview was
conducted by email and edited. Previous interviews in this series (with
Linda Martin Alcoff, Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky, Charles Mills,
Falguni A. Sheth and others) can be found here.
George Yancy is a
professor of philosophy at Emory University. He has written, edited and
co-edited numerous books, including “Black Bodies, White Gazes,” “Look, a
White!” and “Pursuing Trayvon Martin,” co-edited with Janine Jones.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and on Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Correction: August 20, 2015
An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of the first black woman in the United States Congress. It is Shirley Chisholm, not Chisolm. It also included an inaccurate claim by the interviewee, Cornel West, that only he and one other scholar had been given permission by the family of Martin Luther King to collect and publish Reverend King's writings. At least one other scholar, Clayborne Carson of Stanford University has been given such access.
An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of the first black woman in the United States Congress. It is Shirley Chisholm, not Chisolm. It also included an inaccurate claim by the interviewee, Cornel West, that only he and one other scholar had been given permission by the family of Martin Luther King to collect and publish Reverend King's writings. At least one other scholar, Clayborne Carson of Stanford University has been given such access.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)