Thursday, October 17, 2024

Toni Morrison (1931-2019) On the Role of Art As A Transformative Force in Openly Confronting and Defeating the Contemporary Expressions of Fascism in the United States and Throughout the World Today

"What's Past is Prologue..."

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/no-place-self-pity-no-room-fear/

 
No Place for Self-Pity, No Room for Fear

In times of dread, artists must never choose to remain silent.

by Toni Morrison
March 23, 2015
The Nation


(Toni Morrison/ AP Photo/Alfred A. Knopf)

This article appears in the April 6, 2015 issue.



This article is part of The Nation’s 150th Anniversary Special Issue. Download a free PDF of the issue, with articles by James Baldwin, Barbara Ehrenreich, Howard Zinn and many more, here.

Christmas, the day after, in 2004, following the presidential re-election of George W. Bush.

I am staring out of the window in an extremely dark mood, feeling helpless. Then a friend, a fellow artist, calls to wish me happy holidays. He asks, “How are you?” And instead of “Oh, fine—and you?”, I blurt out the truth: “Not well. Not only am I depressed, I can’t seem to work, to write; it’s as though I am paralyzed, unable to write anything more in the novel I’ve begun. I’ve never felt this way before, but the election….” I am about to explain with further detail when he interrupts, shouting: “No! No, no, no! This is precisely the time when artists go to work—not when everything is fine, but in times of dread. That’s our job!”

I felt foolish the rest of the morning, especially when I recalled the artists who had done their work in gulags, prison cells, hospital beds; who did their work while hounded, exiled, reviled, pilloried. And those who were executed.

The list—which covers centuries, not just the last one—is long. A short sample will include Paul Robeson, Primo Levi, Ai Weiwei, Oscar Wilde, Pablo Picasso, Dashiell Hammett, Wole Soyinka, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Lillian Hellman, Salman Rushdie, Herta Müller, Walter Benjamin. An exhaustive list would run into the hundreds.

Dictators and tyrants routinely begin their reigns and sustain their power with the deliberate and calculated destruction of art: the censorship and book-burning of unpoliced prose, the harassment and detention of painters, journalists, poets, playwrights, novelists, essayists. This is the first step of a despot whose instinctive acts of malevolence are not simply mindless or evil; they are also perceptive. Such despots know very well that their strategy of repression will allow the real tools of oppressive power to flourish. Their plan is simple:

1. Select a useful enemy—an “Other”—to convert rage into conflict, even war.

2. Limit or erase the imagination that art provides, as well as the critical thinking of scholars and journalists.

3. Distract with toys, dreams of loot, and themes of superior religion or defiant national pride that enshrine past hurts and humiliations.


The Nation could never have existed or flourished in 1940s Spain, or 2014 Syria, or apartheid South Africa, or 1930s Germany. And the reason is clear. It was born in the United States in 1865, the year of Lincoln’s assassination, when political division was stark and lethal—during, as my friend said, times of dread. But no prince or king or dictator could interfere successfully or forever in a country that seriously prized freedom of the press. This is not to say there weren’t elements that tried censure, but they could not, over the long haul, win. The Nation, with its history of disruptive, probing, intelligent essays sharing wide space equally with art criticism, reviews, poetry and drama, is as crucial now as it has been for 150 years.

In this contemporary world of violent protests, internecine war, cries for food and peace, in which whole desert cities are thrown up to shelter the dispossessed, abandoned, terrified populations running for their lives and the breath of their children, what are we (the so-called civilized) to do?

The solutions gravitate toward military intervention and/or internment—killing or jailing. Any gesture other than those two in this debased political climate is understood to be a sign of weakness. One wonders why the label “weak” has become the ultimate and unforgivable sin. Is it because we have become a nation so frightened of others, itself and its citizens that it does not recognize true weakness: the cowardice in the insistence on guns everywhere, war anywhere? How adult, how manly is it to shoot abortion doctors, schoolchildren, pedestrians, fleeing black teenagers? How strong, how powerful is the feeling of having a murderous weapon in the pocket, on the hip, in the glove compartment of your car? How leaderly is it to threaten war in foreign affairs simply out of habit, manufactured fear or national ego? And how pitiful? Pitiful because we must know, at some level of consciousness, that the source of and reason for our instilled aggression is not only fear. It is also money: the profit motive of the weapons industry, the financial support of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.

Forcing a nation to use force is easy when the citizenry is rife with discontent, experiencing feelings of a powerlessness that can be easily soothed by violence. And when the political discourse is shredded by an unreason and hatred so deep that vulgar abuse seems normal, disaffection rules. Our debates, for the most part, are examples unworthy of a playground: name-calling, verbal slaps, gossip, giggles, all while the swings and slides of governance remain empty.

For most of the last five centuries, Africa has been understood to be poor, desperately poor, in spite of the fact that it is outrageously rich in oil, gold, diamonds, precious metals, etc. But since those riches do not, in large part, belong to the people who have lived there all their lives, it has remained in the mind of the West worthy of disdain, sorrow and, of course, pillage. We sometimes forget that colonialism was and is war, a war to control and own another country’s resources—meaning money. We may also delude ourselves into thinking that our efforts to “civilize” or “pacify” other countries are not about money. Slavery was always about money: free labor producing money for owners and industries. The contemporary “working poor” and “jobless poor” are like the dormant riches of “darkest colonial Africa”—available for wage theft and property theft, and owned by metastasizing corporations stifling dissident voices.

None of this bodes well for the future. Still, I remember the shout of my friend that day after Christmas: No! This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.

I know the world is bruised and bleeding, and though it is important not to ignore its pain, it is also critical to refuse to succumb to its malevolence. Like failure, chaos contains information that can lead to knowledge—even wisdom. Like art.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Toni Morrison


Recipient of the 1993 Nobel Prize, member of The Nation‘s editorial advisory board and author of Love, Beloved, Paradise, Jazz and The Bluest Eye, among other books.

The Besieged Reality of Genocide in Palestine One Year Later: Long Live Gaza!--Teach the World and Pass the Word...

"Nothing Will Ever Be the Same Again" by Noura Erakat



Jadaliyya


Streamed live 22 hours ago


#Jadaliyya


Noura Erakat reads: "Nothing Will Ever Be the Same Again" Gaza in Context: A Collaborative Teach-In Series 16 October 2024 11:00 AM PST | 2:00 PM EST | 9:00 PM Palestine


VIDEO:  
 

In this multimedia video, Jadaliyya Co-Editor Noura Erakat reads her article, “Nothing Will Ever Be the Same Again,” published in The Nation, featuring images and video of the details recounted. This is meant to be resource for classrooms to study both the devastating impact of genocide and the remarkable efforts by millions of ordinary people around the world to stop it.


This Gaza in Context Project installment will be accompanied by the announcement of the Video Teaching Module, featuring curated selections and assignments for the classroom drawn from previous teach-ins since October 2023. Join us tomorrow/Wednesday, 16 October, 2 pm EST, 9 pm Gaza. Live on X and out YouTube channel. More at PalestineInContext.org. Gaza in Context Collaborative Teach-In Series


We are together experiencing a catastrophic unfolding of history as Gaza endures a massive invasion of genocidal proportions. This accompanies an incessant bombardment of a population increasingly bereft of the necessities of living in response to the Hamas attack in Israel on October 7. The context within which this takes place includes a well-coordinated campaign of misinformation and the unearthing of a multitude of essentialist and reductionist discursive tropes that dehumanize Palestinians as the culprits, despite a context of structural subjugation and Apartheid, now a matter of consensus in the human rights movement.


The co-organizers below are convening weekly teach-ins and conversations on a host of issues that introduce our common university communities, educators, researchers, and students to the history and present of Gaza, in context. Co-Organizers: Arab Studies Institute, Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, George Mason University’s Middle East and Islamic Studies Program, Rutgers Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Birzeit University Museum, Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Brown University’s Center for Middle East Studies, University of Chicago’s Center for Contemporary Theory, Brown University’s New Directions in Palestinian Studies, Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Comparative Muslim Studies, Georgetown University-Qatar, American University of Cairo’s Alternative Policy Studies, Middle East Studies Association’s Global Academy, University of Chicago’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, CUNY’s Middle East and Middle Eastern American Center, University of Illinois Chicago’s Arab american cultural Center, George Mason University’s AbuSulayman’s Center for Global Islamic Studies, University of Illinois Chicago’s Critical Middle East Studies Working Group, George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies, Columbia University’s Center for Palestine Studies, New York University’s Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies Featuring Noura Erakat is a human rights attorney and an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University, New Brunswick Department of Africana Studies. Her research interests include humanitarian law, refugee law, national security law, and critical race theory.


Noura is the author of Justice for Some: Law As Politics in the Question of Palestine (Stanford University Press, 2019). She is a Co-Founding Editor of Jadaliyya e-zine and an Editorial Committee member of the Journal of Palestine Studies. She has served as Legal Counsel for a Congressional Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, as a Legal Advocate for the Badil Center for Palestinian Refugee and Residency Rights, and as the national grassroots organizer and legal advocate at the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. Noura is the coeditor of Aborted State? The UN Initiative and New Palestinian Junctures, an anthology related to the 2011 and 2012 Palestine bids for statehood at the UN. More recently, Noura released a pedagogical project on the Gaza Strip and Palestine, which includes a short multimedia documentary, "Gaza In Context," that rehabilitates Israel’s wars on Gaza within a settler-colonial framework. She is also the producer of the short video, "Black Palestinian Solidarity." She is a frequent commentator, with recent appearances on CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NPR, among others, and her writings have been widely published in the national media and academic journals.



Wednesday, October 16, 2024

Literary Giant, Social Critic, Public Intellectual, Teacher, Philosopher, and Political Activist Toni Morrison (1931-2019) on 'Racism and Fascism' at Howard University March 2, 1995

"What's Past is Prologue..."

What follows is an excerpt from an extraordinary speech Toni Morrison delivered at Howard University on March 2, 1995. Much of the address is concerned with a celebration of the historic role her alma mater has played in the long battle against segregation. But in the middle of the speech Morrison abruptly turns to a consideration of the contemporary face and lineaments of racism and its role in the construction of a new brand of fascism in thls country.

--The Editors


Racism and Fascism
by Toni Morrison
May 29, 1995
The Nation
 

[NOTE: This speech also appeared in The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 384-385]

 


PHOTO: The Source of Self-Regard: Selected Essays, Speeches, and Meditations, by Toni Morrison, Alfred A. Knopf, 2019



PHOTO: Toni Morrison (1932-2019) Receiving the Nobel prize for literature from King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden in the Concert Hall in Stockholm in 1993

Photograph: AP



[PLEASE NOTE: This speech excerpt was reprinted in the last book by Toni Morrison (1931-2019) entitled The Source of Self-Regard: Selected Essays, Speeches, and Meditations, Alfred A. Knopf, 2019]

Let us be reminded that before there is a final solution, there must be a first solution, a second one, even a third. The move toward a final solution is not a jump. It takes one step, then another, then another. Something perhaps like this:

1. Construct an internal enemy, as both focus and diversion.

2. Isolate and demonize that enemy by unleashing and protecting the utterance of overt and coded name-calling and verbal abuse. Employ ad hominem attacks as legitimate charges against that enemy.

3. Enlist and create sources and distributors of information who are willing to reinforce the demonizing process because it is profitable, because it grants power and because it works.

4. Palisade all art forms; monitor, discredit or expel those that challenge or destabilize processes of demonization and deification.

5. Subvert and malign all representatives of and sympathizers with this constructed enemy.

6. Solicit, from among the enemy, collaborators who agree with and can sanitize the dispossession process.

7. Pathologize the enemy in scholarly and popular mediums; recycle, for example, scientific racism and the myths of racial superiority in order to naturalize the pathology.

8. Criminalize the enemy. Then prepare, budget for and rationalize the building of holding arenas for the enemy-especially its males and absolutely its children.

9. Reward mindlessness and apathy with monumentalized entertainments and with little pleasures, tiny seductions: a few minutes on television, a few lines in the press; a little pseudosuccess; the illusion of power and influence; a little fun, a little style, a little consequence.

10. Maintain, at all costs, silence.

In 1995 racism may wear a new dress, buy a new pair of boots, but neither it nor its succubus twin fascism is new or can make anything new. It can only reproduce the environment that supports its own health: fear, denial and an atmosphere in which its victims have lost the will to fight.

The forces interested in fascist solutions to national problems are not to be found in one political party or another, or in one or another wing of any single political party. Democrats have no unsullied history of egalitarianism. Nor are liberals free of domination agendas. Republicans have housed abolitionists and white supremacists. Conservative, moderate, liberal; right, left, hard left, far right; religious, secular, socialist-we must not be blindsided by these Pepsi-Cola, CocaCola labels because the genius of fascism is that any political structure can host the virus and virtually any developed country can become a suitable home. Fascism talks Ideology, but it is really just marketing--marketing for power.

It is recognizable by its need to purge, by the strategies it uses to purge and by its terror of truly democratic agendas. It is recognizable by its determination to convert all public services to private entrepreneurship; all nonprofit organizations to profit-making ones-so that the narrow but protective chasm between governance and business disappears. It changes citizens into taxpayers-so individuals become angry at even the notion of the publlc good. It changes neighbors into consumers-so the measure of our value as humans is not our humanity or our compasslon or our generosity but what we own. It changes parenting into panicking-so that we vote against the interests of our own children; against thew health care, their education, their safety from weapons. And in effecting these changes it produces the perfect capitalist, one who is willing to kill a human being for a product-a pair of sneakers, a jacket, a car-or kill generations for control of products-oil, drugs, fruit, gold.

When our fears have all been serialized, our creativity censured, our ideas “marketplaced,” our rights sold, our intelligence sloganized, our strength downsized, our privacy auctioned; when the theatricality, the entertainment value, the marketing of life is complete, we will find ourselves livmg not in a nation but in a consortium of Industries, and wholly unintelligible to ourselves except for what we see as through a screen darkly.


Outstanding Attorney, Constitutional Scholar, Public Intellectual, Historian, Critic, Journalist, Activist, and Author Elie Mystal On the Actual Racial, Gender, Economic, Ideological, and Political Dynamics of the American Electorate And What It Really Means In the United States

 
Black Men Will Vote for Harris—White Men Are the Problem

Why is the media talking so much about the fraction of Black men who might go MAGA when more than 60 percent of white men will vote for Trump?

by Elie Mystal
October 16, 2024
The Nation

PHOTO:  Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris takes the stage during a campaign rally on October 13, 2024, in Greenville, North Carolina.(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled a platform of policies to court Black male voters this week, which she called the “Opportunity Agenda for Black Men.” The platform includes business loans for Black entrepreneurs, legalization of marijuana, and better regulation of the cryptocurrency market, which disproportionately predates on Black men.

I’ve read her plan, because reading such things is part of my job, but speaking as just a regular Black male voter, I honestly and deeply do not give a shit. We are three weeks out from a presidential election against a deranged fascist named Donald Trump. I do not need nor require a personalized agenda addressing my particular issues at this late date—and if I did need one this would not be it, not the least because it doesn’t contain any meaningful way to prevent the cops from harassing or murdering me and my Black children as we try to live out our lives in this racist country. The time for a Black male agenda was three years ago when Democrats briefly controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. Because I understand basic civics, I will continue to address my questions to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema about why such an agenda never materialized.

But I’m not here to talk about the past. I do not need more reliable crypto and an NFT in my lunchbox telling me I’m a big strong man in order to choose correctly between a moderate Black woman and the obvious white supremacist who believes in eugenics. I will be voting for Harris on November 5, and then spend the 1,500 days between that date and the next presidential election in 2028 advocating for my version of a Black agenda. Going on TikTok to advocate for Black people in October means nothing if you don’t show up with the same energy and ideas in January.

It might be tempting to write me off as a bougie negro who has lost touch with his community, but I’d like to point out that the overwhelming majority of Black male voters are going to do exactly what I do: vote for Harris. Harris will receive between 85 and 90 percent of the Black male vote. I acknowledge that the difference between 85 percent and 90 percent could be the difference in Harris winning or losing a critical state or two, but I simply refuse to engage in a conversation that paints Black male support as the “problem” for Harris in this election. Over 60 percent of white men are going to vote for a convicted felon. Somewhere around 50 percent of white women are going to vote for an adjudicated rapist and devout misogynist. Black men are not your problem, Democrats.

The “problem” in this country is how the majority of white people vote. The force holding this country back is the majority of white people. The people who have turned against democracy are the majority of white people. The global force destroying the environment of this earth is the majority of white people. If you are in the white liberal minority and you want to freak out about something, freak out about your cousins and grandmothers and colleagues who are about to cast a ballot for an unhinged authoritarian. Go deal with the white people in your life instead of placing the burden on Black folks to save this country from the majority of white folks yet again.

Of course, asking white folks to look in the mirror and address their own bullshit has been the plea of every Black thinker and intellectual from Frederick Douglass to Chris Rock. This country has become comfortable with the idea that white support for white supremacy is inevitable. The white voters who will support this fascism are consistently treated by the media as if they are merely doing the very best they can given the economic and social forces they believe exist, even though most of what these white voters believe is factually, demonstrably wrong.

This fallacious idea that white people are always doing their best—and that it’s up to everyone else to stop them if they disagree—is such a common feature of American political discourse that you’ll still see a majority of white folks defend the enslavers and rapists who wrote the Constitution. They’ll call these founders “men of their times,” even though there were other, better men (and women!) who knew in real time that slavery was wrong and that women should have political equality. The enslaved people, for instance, were “men of their times” and knew slavery was wrong. But most whites, even the “progressive” ones at the time, went along with the unforgivable evil of human bondage. The only time progressive white folks actually stood up to their racist brothers and cousins was in the 1860s, and the racist whites were so pissed about the normal operation of democratic governance that elected Abraham Lincoln that they seceded from the Union and started a civil war. Usually, instead of dealing with retrograde white folks, liberal whites look for somebody else to blame.

In this election, the powers that be have decided that Black men are the appropriate scapegoat. Yes, the overwhelming majority of Black male voters will vote for Harris, but what about those who don’t vote? What about the dudes who will stay on the couch? Surely, if every Black man would just crawl over broken glass to vote for Harris, our democracy could be saved. Since not every single sentient brother will perform their assigned civic duty of saving white folks like the magic negroes we are supposed to be, clearly Harris must have a problem with Black men—or so the story goes.

Harris does not have a “problem” with Black men. That said, she does appear, based on the polls, to be slightly underperforming Joe Biden in 2020 with… men. All men. White men, Black men, Latino men, AAPI men, men without a college degree, men with a college degree, working men, businessmen, and pretty much every other flavor of men—except perhaps Black queer men, who appear to be all in for the VP.

Gosh, I can’t imagine why. Is the fact that America is the only major democracy to never have elected a woman as its leader something more than mere coincidence? Could it be that too many cis-hetero American men are pathetic little rump creatures who have been taught by their fathers and movies to view women as prizes to be won instead of equals to be respected? I guess there are some things we’ll never know for sure.

To the extent Harris has a problem with men, there’s literally nothing she can do about it. Harris could give Lady MacBeth’s “unsex me here” soliloquy as a stump speech while wearing a fake beard like the Egyptian Pharaoh Hatshepsut, and it wouldn’t make a damn’s bit of difference to the misogyny crowd. She’s running against a man who literally tells other men that it’s OK to grab women by the genitals. The guys who want that to be true are never going to vote for a woman. There’s not an agenda available that will persuade those kinds of men to not suck. To put that in a language those guys can understand: You can’t reason with these men—you just have to kick their ass.

The same goes for her alleged problem with Black men. There’s nothing she alone can do about it. A policy agenda that focuses on the specific hurdles that this country has erected before Black men cannot be addressed by fiat by the president of the United States. It takes legislation, passed by Congress. It takes courts willing to uphold the Voting Rights Act and enforce the equal protection of laws promised by the Constitution. It takes governors, state legislatures, and mayors willing to hold racist police forces accountable for their crimes and harassment. It takes politicians committed to advancing the issues important to Black men not for a few weeks every four years, but every day, relentlessly.

We do need a Black male “opportunity agenda,” not as a campaign sound bite, but as an ongoing commitment to give as much of a crap about Black men on November 6 as people will pretend to through November 4. More than any specific policy, I believe that with Kamala Harris, we have at least the possibility of that commitment, and that is my top ask in an election.

At the very least, I’m positive that Harris’s commitment to advancing the opportunities for Black men extends beyond Trump’s commitment to having Black men who are already successful shuck and jive for him at his rallies. The Democrats are far from perfect, but Trump and his Republicans are an anathema that offer tokenism instead of progress. As Dr. Christina Greer expertly explained in a recent piece, Black men are fantastic at voting for harm reduction. We know that the Democratic Party isn’t going to really focus on us, but we also know that the Republican Party is going to focus on us—on hurting us, hunting us, crushing us and, given the slightest provocation and opportunity, shooting us.

Black men are not magic, but we are protectors. Just like generations of Black women, we will put our bodies on the line to defend our families, our communities, and our humanity. Most of us will, at least—and around 85 to 90 percent of us will prove it again in the upcoming election. I hope that is enough to counteract the influence of all the men who are not like us.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
 
 
 


Elie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent and the host of its legal podcast, Contempt of Court. He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. His first book is the New York Times bestseller Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, published by The New Press. Elie can be followed @ElieNYC.


Tuesday, October 15, 2024

A Review of The Message by Ta-Nehisi Coates by Prominent American Biographer, Essayist, and Critic Deborah Baker

“...The Message is addressed to Coates’s writing students at Howard University, stand-ins for the 14-year-old son he spoke to in his 2015 book, Between the World and Me. He teaches them that the way the American story is told implicates the country’s present politics and foreign-policy stance:

"And so it is with the American Revolution and the founding of a great republic, or the Greatest Generation who did not fight to defend merely the homeland but the entire world. If you believe that history, then you are primed to believe that the American state is a force for good, that it is the world’s oldest democracy, and that those who hate America hate it for its freedoms. And if you believe that then you can believe that these inexplicable haters of freedom are worthy of our drones. But a different history, one that finds its starting point in genocide and slavery, argues for a much darker present and the possibility that here too are haters of freedom, unworthy of the power they wield."

Like New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones’s “The 1619 Project,” Coates’s ambition is to create a new canon, “in service of that larger emancipatory mandate,” as yet unrealized and only dimly perceived, for the U.S. political imagination to draw from. If politics is the art of the possible, he writes, “art creates the possible of politics.” He is counting on his college students, and young writers generally, to contribute to this reconstructed national narrative and do their part to “save the world.”

If the future of the United States is to be found in its beginnings, Africa provides the requisite starting point—not simply as part of Coates’s personal quest for an ancestral home, “that glorious Eden we conjured up as exiles,” but because the New World arose from the stolen labor of Africans.

Yet from the moment his plane touches down in Dakar, Senegal, Coates’s feelings race wildly: anticipation, sadness, homesickness, and the anxious self-consciousness familiar to many travelers. “I was trying very hard to hide the wonder behind my eyes, because I knew that would mark me as a tourist, and tourists were targets,” he writes. “I failed.” Warm encounters with Senegalese people are shadowed by the worry of how much of their assumed kinship is real and how much an unrealized hope. His trip to the island of Gorée’s much-mythologized Door of No Return, which memorializes the forcible removal of people from Africa, leaves him undone for reasons he is unable to fully account for. Although Coates guards himself against all such mythologies, in weaker moments he admits he is susceptible. Still, he manages to sustain the tension between unwieldy expectations of what he hoped to find in Africa and an honest account of what he did: a solidarity born of the twin traumas of colonialism and enslavement…

Once again, Coates doesn’t marshal arguments; he doesn’t labor to persuade or impress. He simply lets the reader overhear conversations, follow his reflections, and vicariously experience the anguish that invariably arises in places where a historic injustice has occurred. Whether in Yad Vashem, in the Old City of East Jerusalem, or waiting to pass through the Lion’s Gate into the Al-Aqsa complex, Coates holds up a mirror and shows us what can be seen when a writer refuses to employ the impassive and authoritative voice of the Middle East envoy.

“[W]atching those soldiers stand there [at the Lion’s Gate] and steal our time, the sun glinting off their shades like Georgia sheriffs, I could feel the lens of my mind curving to refract the blur of new and strange events,” he writes. Through this lens, schoolchildren across time and space are refused entry at checkpoints. Separate and unequal living conditions are registered. Israel one-upped the Jim Crow South, Coates notes, by segregating “not just the pools and fountains but the water itself,” as the state controls and restricts access to water supply, including rainwater, and infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza. When a Black Israeli soldier stops and questions Coates about his religious background, he is reminded that race is only one of the many weapons by which power has its way with the powerless.

Beyond the ready analogies to Jim Crow, settler colonialism, and South Africa’s apartheid, however, beyond even the recognition that the Zionist project provides a cautionary tale for a battle-weary people dreaming of a mythical African homeland, Coates gives space for voices of the Nakba—those Palestinians who were displaced in 1948—with their ongoing history of exile and now genocide. And it is the latter—still unfolding—horror that establishment journalism, so-called serious journalism with its insistence on objectivity, continues to obscure and to justify.”

—Deborah Baker. "Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Not-So-Radical Departure”. Foreign Policy, October 9, 2024

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/10/09/ta-nehisi-coates-the-message-israel-palestine-media-controversy/


Review
 
Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Not-So-Radical Departure
 
The author’s decision to write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shouldn’t come as a surprise to his longtime readers.

by Deborah Baker
October 9, 2024
Foreign Policy


PHOTO:  Ta-Nehisi Coates in Atlanta on June 7, 2023. Carol Lee Rose/Getty Images for Decolonizing Wealth Project


Not long after I finished reading The Message, New York magazine ran a cover story on the book’s author headlined “The Return of Ta-Nehisi Coates.” This raised the question: Had he gone missing? It had been nearly a decade since the publication of his searing and prize-winning Between the World and Me. In the years since, Coates had published a bestselling novel and written comics and screenplays. Still, it appears media pooh-bahs were wondering when he was going to be done with such foolishness and return to serious journalism.

Even in his most heavily reported work, Coates can’t help but draw outside the lines. The Message is no different. The book comprises three separate journeys: a trip to Senegal, another to South Carolina, and, lastly, a 10-day visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank just before Oct. 7, 2023. New York focused largely on this last essay, portraying Coates as a David taking on the Goliath of a media establishment that, in all the ink spilled on the conflict in the Middle East over the past 76 years, has rarely allowed Palestinians to weigh in on their tragic lot, preferring to rely on foreign-policy experts with heavily stamped passports. The same establishment, in other words, that had enabled Coates’s rise, opening doors in Hollywood and putting out a welcome mat to congressional hearing rooms and the White House.


The Message, Ta-Nehisi Coates, One World, 256 pp., $30, October 2024

Coates’s writing voice is sui generis. He combines a poet’s metaphors with the skepticism of the autodidact. His sentences slip down unpredictable paths only to double back, weaving together memory, reportage, personal testimony, recent scholarship, and meditations on history until they are nearly indistinguishable. There is nothing flashy or self-important about him; he is as likely to confess his confusions and failures as share his insights, as likely to portray himself as hapless as well-informed. Yet from his earliest blog posts, there was no mistaking his moral seriousness. He makes a practice of habitually revisiting his earlier writings and misperceptions. For all these reasons, his voice beguiles and carries. I’ve found it revelatory, as a white reader, to be consigned to the status of interloper—peering through the window of his first book, The Beautiful Struggle, for example, to overhear what it was like for him to grow up as a Black boy in West Baltimore without the usual reassurances that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice.

Similarly, The Message is addressed to Coates’s writing students at Howard University, stand-ins for the 14-year-old son he spoke to in his 2015 book, Between the World and Me. He teaches them that the way the American story is told implicates the country’s present politics and foreign-policy stance:

And so it is with the American Revolution and the founding of a great republic, or the Greatest Generation who did not fight to defend merely the homeland but the entire world. If you believe that history, then you are primed to believe that the American state is a force for good, that it is the world’s oldest democracy, and that those who hate America hate it for its freedoms. And if you believe that then you can believe that these inexplicable haters of freedom are worthy of our drones. But a different history, one that finds its starting point in genocide and slavery, argues for a much darker present and the possibility that here too are haters of freedom, unworthy of the power they wield.

Like New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones’s “The 1619 Project,” Coates’s ambition is to create a new canon, “in service of that larger emancipatory mandate,” as yet unrealized and only dimly perceived, for the U.S. political imagination to draw from. If politics is the art of the possible, he writes, “art creates the possible of politics.” He is counting on his college students, and young writers generally, to contribute to this reconstructed national narrative and do their part to “save the world.”

If the future of the United States is to be found in its beginnings, Africa provides the requisite starting point—not simply as part of Coates’s personal quest for an ancestral home, “that glorious Eden we conjured up as exiles,” but because the New World arose from the stolen labor of Africans.

Yet from the moment his plane touches down in Dakar, Senegal, Coates’s feelings race wildly: anticipation, sadness, homesickness, and the anxious self-consciousness familiar to many travelers. “I was trying very hard to hide the wonder behind my eyes, because I knew that would mark me as a tourist, and tourists were targets,” he writes. “I failed.” Warm encounters with Senegalese people are shadowed by the worry of how much of their assumed kinship is real and how much an unrealized hope. His trip to the island of Gorée’s much-mythologized Door of No Return, which memorializes the forcible removal of people from Africa, leaves him undone for reasons he is unable to fully account for. Although Coates guards himself against all such mythologies, in weaker moments he admits he is susceptible. Still, he manages to sustain the tension between unwieldy expectations of what he hoped to find in Africa and an honest account of what he did: a solidarity born of the twin traumas of colonialism and enslavement.

Coates’s second journey, to the small town of Chapin, South Carolina, is both a work of reportage and a meditation on his journey as a writer and how his classroom education hampered him. Coates remains haunted by the humiliations of his bookish and daydreaming youth; vivid scenes from the schools and streets of his Baltimore childhood reappear again and again in his books. Only upon reaching the “safe space” of Howard as an undergraduate did he begin to assemble the tools he needed to tackle the subjects he was most curious about. At the heart of his visit to South Carolina is an encounter with a white high school teacher. She is among the many educators pilloried and threatened with dismissal for teaching Between the World and Me and similar works that endeavor to challenge the dogmas of American exceptionalism. Attending a school board meeting alongside her, Coates encounters not the far-right Moms for Liberty in full-blown moral panic but a white, middle-class community of teachers, parents, students, and members of church book groups pushing back.

It is worth recalling that the 2015 release of Between the World and Me coincided with Dylann Roof’s massacre of Black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina. Coates was among those who challenged Gov. Nikki Haley to remove the Confederate battle flag from the state capitol in the aftermath of the shooting. Five years later, then-President Donald Trump signed an executive order directed at all federal contractors, including educational institutions. The order outlawed diversity and equity employment initiatives as well as the teaching or dissemination of “divisive concepts” that might provoke “discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress.” While the flag is now gone and the order has been revoked, Coates notes that South Carolina’s 2022 budget contained identical prohibitions and that monumental statues of Confederates, enslavers, and segregationists still enshrine white supremacy on the statehouse lawn of the once-majority Black state. The ferocity of the legislative backlash to Coates and other purveyors of these so-called divisive concepts is a measure of their success. The Black Lives Matter protesters in the streets in the wake of the 2020 murder of George Floyd are heirs to the new political culture Coates had a hand in creating.

Coates’s critics, including some on the left, have often asked why white readers are so invested in his books. Scholar Cornel West famously assailed him as representative of the “neoliberal wing” of the Black freedom struggle, telling him that “[white people] claim you because you are silent on what is a threat to their order.” New York portrays the final essay of The Message as an attempt to lay that accusation to rest, as if Coates’s decision to write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were a radical and calculated departure, rather than continuous with every question Coates has ever asked of himself and his readers.

Once again, Coates doesn’t marshal arguments; he doesn’t labor to persuade or impress. He simply lets the reader overhear conversations, follow his reflections, and vicariously experience the anguish that invariably arises in places where a historic injustice has occurred. Whether in Yad Vashem, in the Old City of East Jerusalem, or waiting to pass through the Lion’s Gate into the Al-Aqsa complex, Coates holds up a mirror and shows us what can be seen when a writer refuses to employ the impassive and authoritative voice of the Middle East envoy.

“[W]atching those soldiers stand there [at the Lion’s Gate] and steal our time, the sun glinting off their shades like Georgia sheriffs, I could feel the lens of my mind curving to refract the blur of new and strange events,” he writes. Through this lens, schoolchildren across time and space are refused entry at checkpoints. Separate and unequal living conditions are registered. Israel one-upped the Jim Crow South, Coates notes, by segregating “not just the pools and fountains but the water itself,” as the state controls and restricts access to water supply, including rainwater, and infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza. When a Black Israeli soldier stops and questions Coates about his religious background, he is reminded that race is only one of the many weapons by which power has its way with the powerless.

Beyond the ready analogies to Jim Crow, settler colonialism, and South Africa’s apartheid, however, beyond even the recognition that the Zionist project provides a cautionary tale for a battle-weary people dreaming of a mythical African homeland, Coates gives space for voices of the Nakba—those Palestinians who were displaced in 1948—with their ongoing history of exile and now genocide. And it is the latter—still unfolding—horror that establishment journalism, so-called serious journalism with its insistence on objectivity, continues to obscure and to justify.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR:



Deborah Baker is an American writer whose books have been shortlisted for the Pulitzer Prize in biography and the National Book Award for nonfiction. Her upcoming book, Charlottesville: An American Story, will be published next year.
 

BIOGRAPHY

Deborah Baker was born in Charlottesville and grew up in Virginia, Puerto Rico and New England.  She attended the University of Virginia and Cambridge University.  Her first biography, written in college, was Making a Farm: The Life of Robert Bly, published by Beacon Press in 1982.

After working a number of years as a book editor and publisher, in 1990 she moved to Calcutta where she wrote In Extremis; The Life of Laura Riding.  Published by Grove Press and Hamish Hamilton in the UK, it was shortlisted for the Pulitzer Prize in Biography in 1994.  Her third book, A Blue Hand: The Beats in India was published by Penguin Press USA and Penguin India in 2008.

In 2008–2009 she was a Fellow at the Dorothy and Lewis C. Cullman Center for Writers and Scholars at The New York Public Library.  There she researched and wrote The Convert: A Tale of Exile and Extremism, a narrative account of the life of an American convert to Islam, drawn on letters on deposit in the library’s manuscript division. The Convert, published by Graywolf and Penguin India, was a finalist for the 2011 National Book Award in Non-Fiction.

In August 2018, she published her fifth work of non-fiction, The Last Englishmen: Love, War and the End of Empire.

She has two children and is married to the writer Amitav Ghosh. They divide their time between Brooklyn and Goa.

Monday, October 14, 2024

THE ONGOING, INSPIRING, AND IRREFUTABLE COURAGE, CLARITY, INTEGRITY, INSIGHT, PRESCIENCE AND EMPATHY OF TA-NEHISI COATES AS WRITER, INTELLECTUAL, ACTIVIST, ARTIST, CRITIC, AND HUMAN BEING—SEE VARIOUS VIDEO DISCUSSIONS BELOW…AND PASS THE WORD..

Ta-Nehisi Coates: American culture ‘complicit’ in dehumanizing Palestinians


Ta-Nehisi Coates, author of the new book “The Message,” discusses his experiences visiting the Middle East, Africa and South Carolina. Each place reinforces in Coates the power of storytelling, and the responsibility of writers to plainly identify and contextualize systems of injustice wherever they appear.

VIDEO:  

Acclaimed author Ta-Nehisi Coates has been on an unusual and controversial book tour. He has received significant media backlash for "The Message," a new collection of essays which include his reflections on a trip to the West Bank. MSNBC's Ayman Mohyeldin talks to Coates about his comparisons between the occupied Palestinian territory and the Jim Crow South.

October 8, 2024 


Ta-Nehisi Coates, author of the newly published "The Message," talks with Alex Wagner about understanding Palestinians in the occupied territories in a civil rights context, connecting the Black American experience to Palestinians in the Middle East

VIDEO:

Author Ta-Nehisi Coates joins Chris Hayes to discuss his new book, “The Message.” Coates talks about his travels to Israel and Palestine, the nature of “victims,” what he wrestles with as a writer, and more.

VIDEO: 
 
October 8, 2024  


As the war on Gaza enters its second year and Israel expands its attacks on Lebanon, we speak with the acclaimed writer Ta-Nehisi Coates. His new book The Message is based in part on his visit last year to Israel and the occupied West Bank, where he says he saw a system of segregation and oppression reminiscent of Jim Crow in the United States. "It was revelatory," says Coates. "I don't think the average American has a real sense of what we're doing over there — and I emphasize 'what we're doing' because it's not possible without American support.” 


Watch Part 1 of this interview:    • "The Message": Ta-Nehisi Coates on Po… 


VIDEO:  

October 8, 2024  

We speak with Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose new book The Message features three essays tackling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, book bans and academic freedom, and the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade. The Message is written as a letter to Coates's students at Howard University, where he is the Sterling Brown Endowed Chair in the English department. As part of the research for the book, Coates traveled to Senegal and visited the island of Gorée, often the last stop for captured Africans before they were shipped to the Americas as enslaved people. 


Coates also visited a schoolteacher in South Carolina who faced censorship for teaching Coates's previous book, an experience he says showed him the power of organizing. "That, too, is about the power of stories. That, too, is about the power of narratives, the questions we ask and the questions we don't," Coates says of the community's response. 


Watch Part 2 of this interview:    • Ta-Nehisi Coates: I Was Told Palestin  


VIDEO:  



Latest Shows


https://ta-nehisicoates.com/blog/notes-on-the-catastrophe/



(Photo: Mahmoud Jeddah of the African Palestinian community in Jerusalem speaks to PalFest participants in the Old City on May 21, 2023 in Jerusalem, Palestine. Taken by Rob Stothard for The Palestine Festival of Literature)

Notes On The Catastrophe
by
Ta-Nehisi Coates
September 23, 2024
The Journal and The Journalist

I published “The Case for Reparations” 10 years ago, back in the lost age of blogging, when thinking publicly still felt possible. In the spirit of that era, I wrote a series of posts outlining the scholarship that informed my thesis. I believed that my argument would be subjected to a significant amount of scrutiny and that my only real defense, beyond the article itself, was truth and transparency in my sources and research.  But I also constructed an ad hoc bibliography because it is in the citations of other writers that I have so often found the seed of my own work. A book is a salon of ideas. Notes and references allow the reader to branch into concepts and postulations that are significant but ultimately secondary to the host’s animating interests. If the guest happens to be a writer, the effect is often amorous. You follow a citation to its original source and in that other room find yourself in conversation with a history of the Black Death, an account of colonial plunder, or a study of pre-Code film, and just like that, an infatuation blooms.

The Message is a book for young writers, and as such, I have a matchmaker’s interest. And so in that interest—and well aware that my critique of Zionism and its effects will invite some scrutiny—I have compiled a rough account of my sources and references for the book’s final essay, “The Gigantic Dream.” It is true that the age of blogging is gone, but the need for some measure of public thinking, of romance, remains.

The spine of “The Gigantic Dream” is the 10 days I spent in Palestine. Yasmin El-Rifae and Omar Robert Hamilton, under the auspices of the Palestine Festival of Literature (Palfest), hosted the first half of my trip, paying for my travel, meals, and lodging. My hosts were activists and writers with their own ideas and politics but they exerted no undue influence, nor required that I do anything beyond a public panel in Ramallah. Nevertheless, I cannot say I left uninfluenced. On the contrary, they changed my life.

The funding for the second half of my trip was was paid for by me. My itinerary was crafted and executed in collaboration with Israeli anti-occupation activists Avner Gvaryahu and Yehuda Shaul. This portion of my trip was conducted independent of Palfest. I stress this because I am aware that there is an active conversation among activists and writers around who should work with whom and under what circumstances. I do not fully understand those politics but I want to be clear that my movements and collaborations were my own.  Aside from the request that I meet with members of the group Breaking the Silence, neither Gvaryahu nor Shaul required that I do anything save bear witness. Nonetheless, I am forever indebted to them, for they too changed my life.

I came home with questions. My approach to big stories is always to first ground myself in history. Part of this grounding had already been accomplished. I’d read Benny Morris’ Righteous Victims some years earlier and there found my earliest exposure to, as Professor Morris writes, the idea of Zionism as a “colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement.” I am aware that Professor Morris has since argued that Zionism was not, in fact, a form of colonialism. I am not exactly sure what accounts for this new outlook. Certainly scholars have the right to change their minds, and I would love to read an account of Professor Morris’ own shift. I would hope that this account would also examine how, and why,  Professor Morris came to advocate for colonial solutions himself, as when he approvingly invoked the establishment of America through “the annihilation of the Indians.

Rashid Khalidi’s The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine  was the first narrative history of the region I’d read that was written by a Palestinian. Moreover, it is written by a scholar whose ancestors recorded their own interactions with Zionism’s exponents and its subsequent implementation. On my return, I sent a rather pleading note to Professor Khalidi: “It’s very hard to capture what happened to me. I feel like I walked through a door into another world, and when I looked back, I saw that the door had disappeared.”

Professor Khalidi proved a gracious and invaluable guide. He introduced me to the scholar Mahmood Mamdani, whose book Neither Settler nor Native quietly echoes in the background of “The Gigantic Dream.” In addition to aiding my understanding of both the colonial state and the nation-state, Professor Mamdani helped me to see “racecraft” globally and thus better understand the proclivity of the modern West to carve people into races/castes/tribes, assigning qualities and defects to each of them according to the alleged whims of God and science. (As an aside, Neither Settler nor Native was the first place I encountered the Hamitic thesis, which made for some truly wild reading.)

The work of tribe-making and racecraft helped contextualize another book Professor Khalidi recommended—Arthur Hertzberg’s anthology of primary documents, The Zionist Idea. Having derived some sense of how European colonialism worked historically, I found it a lot easier to spot its imprint in the writings of Zionism’s pioneers. This revelation was deeply gratifying. Back in my Atlantic days, I took a deep dive into the Civil War, which—much like “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”—I had been led to believe arose for “complex” reasons. What I found was that the primary documents of that era told a simple tale. Just as the pioneers of the Confederacy openly confessed their affiliation with enslavement, the early Zionists openly associated themselves with colonialism. And just as the modern defenders of the Confederacy claim slavery had no part in their cause, so too do modern Zionists declare the colonizing impulse irrelevant to their movement. But the truth was right there. Written down.

The question of how that truth became so obscured remained at the heart of my inquiry. To this point, one other book that Professor Khalidi recommended proved crucial: Our American Israel is Amy Kaplan’s cultural and intellectual history exploring how and why Zionism came to enjoy such resonance here in America. To sketch this history, Kaplan reaches back into the time of the Puritans to unearth the tropes that undergird our cultural connections to Israel:

From a diverse array of representations and cultural expressions, patterns coalesced to form a broad consensus about America’s attachment to Israel, a consensus that came to seem like common sense. The cultural alchemy that transformed the story of Israel from a particular tale about a specific ethnic state into one that resonates with the American nation as a whole has, in turn, shaped political discourse in America.

Cultural perceptions, to be sure, do not dictate policies. They do, however, create a perceptual field in interaction with those policies and political ideas from which a consensus emerges about the unbreakable bond between the two nations. Cultural artifacts—whether a novel, film, newspaper article, or museum—do not work by imposing a singular and monolithic meaning on the relationship between the two nations. But they are effective precisely because they are capacious, inviting different meanings from diverse perspectives while effectively ruling out others.

This rendering influenced not just my dispatch from Palestine but my entire book. Culture does not exist in some holy realm far removed from the politics that order our lives. In fact, culture suffuses our politics, quietly expanding and restricting our imagination. Kaplan died of brain cancer in 2020. It saddens me that I was not able to thank her. Our American Israel is masterful and deserves a larger audience.

Bearing in mind Kaplan’s insight into the power of cultural artifacts and knowing that I was writing a book about storytelling, I spent a lot of time thinking about how the Israeli narrative was rendered in the country itself. I kept returning to my visit to the City of David, which, to me, evidenced the way power sanctifies the patently ridiculous, often through science and religion. In the City of David, these tools found a union. How common was this practice of sanctifying the state through archeology, and what was its import? I owe a particular debt to Rachel Poser and her article “Common Ground: The Politics of Archaeology in Jerusalem.” Poser’s work outlined how archeology was being employed to craft an ennobling narrative and further deprive Palestinians of their homes.

I read Nadia Abu El-Haj’s book Facts on the Ground, which explores the way an ostensibly objective field of study has been employed to erase Palestinian claims and sanctify Zionism. “The archaeological project, in other words, just like other projects of making place,” writes Abu El-Haj, “emerged as fundamental to colonizing the terrain of ‘Palestine,’ remaking it into ‘Eretz Yisrael.’” I read a good deal of archaeologist Raphael Greenberg’s work—“One Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology and Controversy in Jerusalem,” “Pompeo in Silwan,” “Towards an Inclusive Archaeology in Jerusalem.” What became clear was that some not insignificant portion of Israeli archeology was essentially an attempt to legitimize the state by charting a glorious, uninterrupted, and carbon-dated past. If such a narrative could be forged, then Israel could be seen not as an expansionist settler project but as the redemption of an ancient state:

The stories that archaeologists of the past 150 years have told of Jerusalem’s kings and conquerors, of its dazzling prosperity and utter desolation, and their search for what has yet to be conjured out of the past, reflect their own anxieties about identity and belonging, as well as that of the communities that they serve.

Much of The Message is concerned with the want of such a past; how I felt that want in my youth, saw it in my own community, in Columbia, South Carolina, and then again in Jerusalem. But my trip confirmed the danger in serving that want and how easily a noble past comes to justify an ignoble present. That was the lesson of the Moroccan Quarter, and having taken the lesson, I sought the history. I found it at the website Jerusalem Story, through the work of Nadim Bawalsa and Kate Rouhana. Their article “The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Moroccan Quarter” is a sobering read and, along with Abu El-Haj’s work, formed the basis of my writing on a world that stood for nearly a millennium and was erased in matter of days. I could have kept reading about archaeology and power for another five years. But I have arrived at an age where I must concede that the number of my questions will outrun my time on this earth. More prosaically, my publisher would have lost it if I’d taken another day to turn in this manuscript.

“The Gigantic Dream” ultimately made up half of the book that contains it. That is because The Nakba, and the stories that animate it, is still in motion. Thus while my aim was to confront the stories, it also was to clarify the catastrophe. I’d heard the label apartheid affixed to Israel long before my trip. But I can’t say I truly understood what that charge really meant beyond a vague claim of racism. Even after I returned, I didn’t quite get the import. In researching apartheid, I was aided by Nancy L. Clark and William H. Worger’s book South Africa: The Rise and Fall of Apartheid. And in looking at Israel’s historical ties to South Africa, I found something truly revealing: Sasha Polakow-Suransky’s The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid tells the story of how “a Janus-faced Israel denied its ties with South Africa, claiming that it opposed apartheid on moral and religious grounds even as it secretly strengthened the arsenal of a white supremacist government.” I learned so much from Polakow-Suransky’s work: Israeli’s complicity with apartheid, its arming of South Africa, and its willingness to honor that country’s leader at the sacred site of Yad Vashem.

Having understood what apartheid was, as well as its relationship to Israel, I moved to understand the specific charge of Israeli apartheid. I found extensive evidence of that charge. There was the fact that so many Israeli leaders themselves had—at the very least—understood that their country was on the edge of apartheid. There were the words of writers and historians such as Thomas Friedman, Nicholas Kristof, and even Benny Morris, none of whom are anti-Zionist, invoking the concept of apartheid to describe the Occupied Territories. But most convincingly there were the reports coming out of the human rights community—Amnesty International, Al Haq, B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch—that documented the charge at length. These reports helped me understand how Israel discriminates at a fundamental level, even against its nominal Palestinian citizens.

To better understand how this particular apartheid was legislated in Israel, I turned to Noura Erakat’s book Justice for Some. On a very basic level, Justice for Some was my reference for understanding the successive wars in Palestine, the carving up of Palestinians into separate groups, and the awarding of different rights to each group, all while making no one in those groups the equal of any Jewish citizen. But there was something more in her work that stuck with me—a critique of the American habit of making a fetish out of the law:

Think of the law as like the sail of a boat. The sail, or the law, guarantees motion but not direction. Legal work together with political mobilization, by individuals, organizations, and states, is the wind that determines direction. The law is not loyal to any outcome or player, despite its bias towards the most powerful states. The only promise it makes is to change and serve the interests of the most effective actors. In some cases, the sail is set in such a way that it cannot possibly produce a beneficial direction, and the conditions demand either an entirely new sail, or no sail at all. It is this indeterminacy in law and its utility as a means to dominate as well as to fight that makes it at once a site of oppression and of resistance; at once a source of legitimacy and a legitimating veneer for bare violence; and at once the target of protest and a tool for protest.

I found this passage particularly helpful as a descriptor of the law as a tool, not just in the Palestinian struggle or Zionist statecraft, but in all of our politics.

It was probably at this point in my research that the deeper conflict between nationalism and humanism truly began to clarify for me. I thought a lot about the stories Polakow-Suransky told—from Vorster’s visit to  Yad Vashem, to the Anti-Defamation League spying on anti-apartheid activists, to the Israeli weapons industry profiting off the repression of Black South Africans. And then I wondered what I would do on behalf of my own people’s welfare. What was my relationship to the nationalism that made me? Was it merely power? I tried to approach this question wary of false parallels and equivalences—that is to say, from the perspective of someone who has never faced a campaign of industrialized extermination. I quickly found myself forced to revisit the limits of the phrase “my people.” Did I believe that the worth of “my people”—Black people—was in our bloodlines? Did my politics ultimately amount to the preservation of DNA?

They did not. “My people” is unavoidably a term of genes. But the thread of the Black struggle in this country that I now feel most tied to seeks to destroy the structures of racism, and thus destroy the concept of races—including our own. Frankly, I look forward to that day. The value of Black people, to me, is in our collective experience: the stories, the songs, the philosophies, the corpus. I think that the lessons of that corpus are for all humanity, and I fear them being eradicated in the same way I fear any body of human knowledge being eradicated.

But there are many ways to accomplish such an eradication, the most frightful of which would be by the very hand that authored the corpus. The emancipated enslaves; the oppressed colonizes; the vanquished ethnically cleanses; a people survive a genocide only to perpetrate another. Perhaps this kind of destruction is more normal than not. Nonetheless, what my trip taught me was that one way to ensure that destruction is by marrying the imaginative, the idealistic, to the amoral ambitions of a state. “A Jew who accepts apartheid ceases to be a Jew,” said Shimon Peres. There’s a lot in that statement to think about. I don’t feel myself qualified to assess the souls of the Jewish people but I can assess my own. A world where our essence is expressed in state power above all is a world in which I am a stranger to my own people.

I’d rather not say too much more about the souls of other communities. But I do want to mention the early chapters of Ronen Bergman‘s Rise And Kill First. What Bergman shows is how a particular story of the Holocaust, one which held that Hitler’s victims had gone like “lambs to the slaughter,” helped birth Israel (relatively) historic embrace of assassination. It goes without saying that any sketch of oppression and its discontents will invariably show people refusing to calmly submit to their own plunder, to say nothing of their annihilation. But those of us who’ve grimaced at the site of all the “We Are Not Our Ancestors” sloganeering well understand how such a story can take root. (I’ve always found Eddie Murphy to be instructive here.)

“The Gigantic Dream” begins with the Holocaust. I made that choice because I felt very strongly that without some grounding in the history of antisemitism and its annihilating weight, I would not understand Zionism at all. I owe a debt to the Ken Burns film The U.S. and the Holocaust, which I watched shortly after my return. This is the only documentary I’ve seen that situates both the Holocaust and America’s ambivalent response to that tragedy in a context of white supremacy. American racism—the Chinese Exclusion Act, the era of eugenics, the legal work of Jim Crow—proved to be one of the predominant inspirations for the great Race War that spanned the years 1939 to 1945. What must be understood is that we are not just a country with a history of racism but home to one of the three great “overtly racist regimes,” as George M. Fredrickson writes in his book Racism: A Short History: South Africa, Nazi Germany, and the Jim Crow South. In other words, we are a primary source not just for the idea of racial bias but for legal and systematized racist regimes. James Q. Whitman’s short history Hitler’s American Model expands on this point by detailing the ways in which Jim Crow’s legal structure was studied by Hitler’s agents and ultimately influenced the Nazi’s infamous Nuremberg Laws. Timothy Snyder’s Black Earth extends this study into Nazi colonial policy in Africa and the fallacy of assuming that racism somehow requires an immutable concept of race:

…Hitler’s racism was not that of a European looking down at Africans. He saw the entire world as an “Africa,” and everyone, including Europeans, in racial terms. Here, as so often, he was more consistent than others. Racism, after all, was a claim to judge who was fully human. As such, ideas of racial superiority and inferiority could be applied according to desire and convenience. Even neighboring societies, which might seem not so different from the German, might be defined as racially different.

In understanding America’s response to the Holocaust, I owe a debt to Felice Batalan and her paper “The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 and Home-Grown Antisemitism.” I was under the impression that the carnage of the Holocaust had served as a lesson to America and done much to cure the country of its antisemitism. This proved to be untrue.

And then there was the role of my own profession–journalism–which I have come to believe played no small role in the distorted view we have of Israel, Palestine and its peoples. On this point, obviously Edward Said‘s classic essay “Permission To Narrate” was key. In terms of more recent scholarship, Maha Nasser‘s research gave empirical structure to what I felt to be true–that is the near total absence of Palestinian narrators in major newspapers and magazines.

Finally, in the years after I published “The Case For Reparations,” I would, from time to time, see the writer Peter Beinart in random social situations–on the street, at a function, in between takes of a cable news show. Almost every time I saw Peter, he had different versions of the same question–Have you visited Palestine yet? He was insistent, in all of these conversations, that I would not be the same after. He was right. I owe him a public note of thanks for his encouragement–as well as his writing which I devoured on my return.

I want to emphasize that this is all a work in progress—one stretching back some 10 years. I now find myself questioning my presumptions, even ones based on work I’ve recently cited, such as Fredrickson’s construction of overtly racist regimes. I also find myself reading more in the world of Indigenous history, sparked by its constant citation by Palestinians and Israelis. At the time of this writing, I am halfway through Roxane Dunbar-Ortiz’s book An Indigenous Peoples’ History of America. I wish I’d read it before my trip because I don’t think Americans quite understand the extent to which the genocide we perpetrated here became a model for the world. I wish I’d had more time to incorporate all this into my thinking. I simply ran out of time. More questions than days, I guess.

–Ta-Nehisi