Showing posts with label media manipulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media manipulation. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Challenging American Imperialism and the Deadly Hegemonic Politics of Empire in Both Academia and the Larger Political World

https://truthout.org/…/as-tensions-with-iran-escalate-it-is…

Op-Ed
Education & Youth


As Tensions With Iran Escalate, It Is Time to Challenge Empire in the Classroom
by Shirin Vossoughi, Roozbeh Shirazi 
and Sepehr Vakil
January 13, 2020
Truthout


PHOTO: Families of children from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other parts of the region want U.S. schools to support their children by refusing narratives that normalize empire, dehumanize whole populations and pave the way for endless wars. Fat Camera / Getty Images

For educators, war is one of the most difficult topics to discuss within our classrooms. And yet, with the recent U.S. assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iraqi senior military leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and other Iraqis, the threat of imminent war is now forcefully part of the everyday thoughts of many students.

For families from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other parts of the region, the weight of these anxieties has been carried for decades.

As Iranian educators and scholars who attended U.S. public schools, and as parents of young Iranian-American children, we see an urgent need to support our young people, and to refuse narratives that normalize empire, dehumanize whole populations and thus pave the way for endless wars.

Students Carry a Heavy Burden

It is crucial for educators to acknowledge the emotional and psychological burden that Iranian, Iraqi and other Middle Eastern students are carrying, and to stand in solidarity with them. This means recognizing that when classrooms operate according to business as usual while families brace themselves for impending war, the asymmetrical violence of imperialism is normalized in the eyes of children. It means anticipating and actively working to address anti-Muslim racism and bullying — not only through supporting students targeted by such violence, but also crucially through explicit anti-racist work with those who perpetrate harm, including, at times, our fellow teachers. Every single student in our K-12 classrooms has grown up in a post-9/11 context, in which the demonization of Arab, Muslim, Iranian and South Asian communities has been taken for granted. This demonization is fueled by longstanding representations of the Middle East as inherently threatening, and of the U.S. as perpetually innocent.

Solidarity with young people also means openly discussing world events, premised on an understanding of children and youth as thinkers with agency who are actively making sense of the world. Young children in our communities are feeling the weight of stress on their parents, and learning to make sense of what these events mean for their identities and families. Our communities are also feeling enormous grief and anger in response to the tragically lethal strike by Iran of a civilian airliner carrying many Iranian students and families traveling with young children. Many students are navigating deeply complicated and emotionally laden political debates and legacies of historical trauma within their own families and communities. Educators, particularly those without roots in the region, must remember to listen and eschew simple assumptions about what “those people” think or feel about any singular political event.

Normalizing Empire

“Empire” is not part of our everyday lexicon as educators. For some, the term is at odds with the dominant image of the U.S. as a global force for good. Yet, one cannot understand the political and economic might of the U.S. without contextualizing it as a settler-colonial state, with more than 800 military bases around the world, and with a history of intervention in Latin America, Africa and Asia. To define the U.S. outside of this history is also to discount and erase the perspectives of the vast majority of the world’s population who contend with the reverberations of American power every day.

Every student in our classrooms has grown up in a post-9/11 context, in which the demonization of Arab, Muslim, Iranian and South Asian communities has been taken for granted.

Recent Iranian history provides a case in point. In 1953, the CIA worked with British intelligence to overthrow the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh, after he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Nationalization upended half a century of the British taking $0.84 of every petrodollar from the sale of Iranian oil. The overthrow of Mossadegh also resulted in the U.S. reinstating Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose rule was characterized by mass political repression, extensive corruption and widening social inequalities, culminating in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The revolution brought about significant political changes and a break with monarchy, while enacting its own forms of social inequality and repression. For many Iranians, the U.S. support for Iraq during the subsequent Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), its longstanding sanctions regime against Iran and recent “maximum pressure” policies constitute an enduring imperial legacy. The crisis spurred by recent U.S. assassinations also directly undermines democratic uprisings in Iran and Iraq.

For educators committed to justice, we know that our teaching cannot be ahistorical and apolitical, nor can we be silent in the face of popular struggles and vast inequities of power. Why then, do empire and militarism so often fall by the wayside in our teaching?

A formidable challenge is the myth of the U.S. as a country uniquely rooted in ideals of freedom whose military power is inherently justified. Building pedagogical space to critically engage with militarism, nationalism and empire therefore first necessitates acknowledging how deeply saturated schools are with assumptions of American goodness. We can then work with students to examine how those narratives confer or dissolve ethical obligation and humanity on different bodies.

Media representations also contribute to these challenges. On January 7, news outlets tweeted that, “Iranian missile attacks only resulted in Iraqi casualties.” Whole civics lessons and units can be constructed around the word “only.” Such hierarchies of human value are crucial teaching moments that can support students to trace the operation of white supremacy across time and place. Jim Crow laws codified a system that benefitted “only” whites, and the 1875 Page Act was “only” enforced against Chinese immigrants. Anti-immigrant narratives justify family separation at the border by arguing that they “only” affect undocumented immigrants. Analyzing such statements is a powerful way for students to understand the dehumanization words like “only” perform, and to develop a critical eye toward the workings of language.

The rise of the ethnic studies movement, as well as the development of “histories from below” offer important counternarratives to American exceptionalism by highlighting community knowledge and struggles for justice. Curricular resources can support students and teachers to critically interrogate Eurocentric understandings and essentializing representations of the Middle East and North Africa. Critical approaches to science and technology, similarly, can foreground indigenous and non-Western knowledge, and desettle hegemonic and racist representations of the world’s diverse intellectual and scientific traditions. A critical STEM education also makes visible linkages between militarism and the development of scientific and technical knowledge, including histories of resistance to the exploitation of science for war. Rather than consigning these perspectives to a standalone civics education, they ought to infuse the curriculum as a critical and ethical stance of inquiry. Indeed, the political, economic and ecological challenges of our time demand that we contend with the deeper purposes of knowledge and learning.

Educators must remember to listen and eschew simple assumptions about what “those people” think or feel about any singular political event.

There is no consensus on how to teach these issues, and the tenor of these conversations will certainly vary across settings. Some of us teach in communities where there may be vocal opposition to such approaches, and have family members or colleagues in the armed forces. Still, we must not be dissuaded from working with our students and colleagues to query their assumptions and beliefs. We may find that no one has asked them these questions before, let alone given them the space and tools to explore them. What might happen, for instance, when we contrast “MAGA” talk with the realities that the U.S. military is heavily dependent on the recruitment of low-income youth of color, and that there is a diversity of political thought among veterans? How might it impact our students to explore the lengthy history of pacifism in the United States? Muhammad Ali taught us that an anti-imperial and antiwar stance does not demonize our community members, but rather, invites the possibility of solidarities across struggles for justice.

Political Memory and Dignity

For us — the coauthors of this article — and for many children coming of age in this historical moment, the political is deeply personal.

In 1991, when the first Gulf War happened, a white male teacher pulled Roozbeh (then 13 years old) aside to ask him how he was doing. The teacher told him that if anyone said anything, to let him know, because he wanted to ensure that Roozbeh was OK. That 30-second interaction before lunch has stayed with him to this day.


The political, economic and ecological challenges of our time demand that we contend with the deeper purposes of knowledge and learning.

At the outset of the same war, Shirin’s father took her (then 11) to an antiwar march in Seattle, where protesters of different backgrounds shouted to passersby in a nearby mall, “The bombs are dropping while you’re shopping!” The current conflict may be many students’ first memory of war. Our responses shape the ethical stances they develop toward militarism, and toward the lives of those consistently treated as expendable.

During the 2003 war on Iraq, Sepehr was an undergraduate student studying engineering at UCLA. Despite the prominent presence of numerous defense companies as funders of the engineering school, their role in the profoundly immoral and deadly Iraq War was seldom mentioned. The link between scientific and technical knowledge production on the one hand, and war and militarism on other, was thus effectively obfuscated.

These memories evoke the legacies of learning environments that affirmed or diminished our personhoods, that normalized or questioned demands for war. Despite accountability pressures that increasingly narrow the profession, we understand teaching — widely defined — as a vital site of social and political possibility. Enlivening these possibilities matters most when our young people’s belonging, rights and dignity are under question, and when our politics are being reduced to binaries. Crucial to this work is a need to develop critical understandings of empire, and the ethical vision to dream beyond it.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Shirin Vossoughi is an assistant professor of learning sciences in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University, where she studies the cultural, sociopolitical and ethical dimensions of human learning. Vossoughi’s research centers on formal and informal learning environments that support expansive forms of disciplinary learning and educational self-determination. Current projects include collaborative work with Iranian diaspora communities around parenting, identity and intergenerational storytelling.

Roozbeh Shirazi is an assistant professor of comparative and international education in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota. His research examines the intersections of social inequality, formations of youth citizenship and education reform. He has conducted research and worked on educational initiatives in New York and other U.S. cities, as well as in Afghanistan and Jordan. Currently, he is working on a digital storytelling project with newcomer youth in France to explore questions and experiences of displacement, xenophobia and belonging.

Sepehr Vakil is an assistant professor of learning sciences in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University. His research examines intersections of technology, ethics, race, and identity in K-16 computer science and engineering education. In a current project, he examines the political identities of engineering students in Iran and their role in the Islamic Revolution.

PHOTO: Families of children from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other parts of the region want U.S. schools to support their children by refusing narratives that normalize empire, dehumanize whole populations and pave the way for endless wars. Fat Camera / Getty Images

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

The Clear and Present Danger of Trump's Deeply Fraudulent and Openly White Supremacist Immigration Policy in Realtime, Right now

https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-hate-speech-violence-against-immigrants

 

Networks That Air Trump’s Address Are Endangering Immigrants—And The Country

‘Fact-checking’ the president’s hate is not a sufficient fix

by George Zornick
January 8, 2019
The Nation


Donald Trump speaking at the final session of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. (Brian Snyder / Reuters)


President Trump will address the nation from the Oval Office on Tuesday evening, after every American broadcast news organization granted him the rare presidential privilege of uninterrupted air time on their networks. This privilege was denied to President Obama in 2014, when he wanted to address the nation about comprehensive immigration reform, and the networks’ decision to give Trump the green light came only hours after he declared via tweet that “The Fake News Media in our Country is the real Opposition Party. It is truly the Enemy of the People!”

There has been a fair amount of hand-wringing from the mainstream press about granting Trump an unfiltered platform to tell lies, as everyone universally expects him to do. CNN’s chief media correspondent, Brian Stelter, tweeted the address will “hopefully (be) surrounded by fact-checking.” Anderson Cooper defended his network’s decision by saying “It’s not our job to argue for or against walls…What is our job is to point out when official are making their case disingenuously or dishonestly, when they’re making stuff up essentially.”

But Trump’s address is far more serious than a case of misleading people about basic policy facts, like the net migration flows at the border or the efficacy of physical border barriers. Tonight, Trump will bend the facts in service of a years-long racist and demagogic campaign against Latin American immigrants; he will assuredly dehumanize them as terrorists, criminals, and carriers of disease, as he has from the very first day of his campaign in 2015. This kind of rhetoric has led to violence from both vigilantes and the state, and meekly fact-checking his numbers is an insufficient remedy to airing Trump’s Fifteen Minute Hate.

News executives need only to look a few months into the past to see why this is dangerous. As the midterms approached, Trump’s lies and distortions about immigration spiked: in late October, Trump was advancing over 30 falsehoods per day about immigration, according to data compiled by the Washington Post’s fact-checking team. Many of these lies advanced the ludicrous idea that there was a caravan of dangerous people heading towards the US-Mexico border; according to Trump’s tweets, the “onslaught” of migrants “INCLUD(ED) MANY CRIMINALS.” That was not true.

But many people believed it. And some people acted. Robert Bowers, who shot eleven people to death in a Pittsburgh synagogue on October 27, posted obsessively online about the caravan in the weeks leading up to the shooting. His specific belief that the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society was aiding the caravan in order to foment violence in the United States appears to have directly precipitated his decision to shoot up the Tree of Life synagogue; “Screw your optics, I’m going in,” he wrote online hours before the killings. (Trump also repeatedly suggested the migrants were being assisted by George Soros.)

Then there was the case of the three men in Kansas who were arrested in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election for a plot to kill Somali immigrants in their homes, in order to “wake people up” about the immigrant threat. At sentencing this year, lawyers for one of the men asked for leniency because his client had been so whipped up by the national discourse on immigration. “The court cannot ignore the circumstances of one of the most rhetorically mold-breaking, violent, awful, hateful and contentious presidential elections in modern history, driven in large measure by the rhetorical China shop bull who is now our president,” they wrote in a sentencing memo.

The immigration reform group America’s Voice also tracked hate incidents by Trump supporters and staffers throughout the last presidential campaign, ranging from shouted slurs to actual violence.

Whether or not Trump directly incited many of these violent acts can always be debated; maybe these were people who in some cases would have lashed out anyway. But there is no question that Trump is creating an atmosphere of racial hatred and xenophobia, and as it always has throughout history, violence follows.

Moreover, state violence is an unmistakable consequence of Trump’s rhetoric. His lies have provided a rationale and political support for a wave of mass deportations that has ripped law-abiding families apart, while confining thousands of children to cages. Some of these children may never be reunited with their families, while some have died.

“It’s killing people. These policies are killing people,” said Henry Fernandez, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who specializes in civil rights and has studied online hate speech. “They’re leading to a level of racialized violence targeting people of color and religious minorities. This is a decision to basically broadcast a racist, hateful speech.”

We know that Trump will continue these outlandish lies tonight; the entire point of his address is to create the impression of a “National Security crisis on our Southern Border” that does not exist. His administration has been advancing the obvious lie that 4,000 terrorists have been apprehended at the US-Mexico border in recent days, and even Fox News demonstrated this was false on Sunday, when host Chris Wallace completely embarrassed White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders by presenting the actual facts. CNBC later found that only six people were apprehended at the southern border for being on the terrorist database, and even that doesn’t mean they were actually terrorists, given the historical unreliability of that list.

Administration officials have at least been shamed into taking a small half-step back—Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen now says “the exact number is sensitive”—but it’s doubtful Trump will feel any such shame tonight—he will almost definitely make the same false claim.

And that gets to another problem with airing Trump’s remarks: it’s not just that he practices garden-variety political lying, but rather disciplined disinformation, as the Post’s Greg Sargent has relentlessly pointed out. The key difference is that disinformation campaigns repeat falsehoods long after they have been debunked, even by friendly outlets like Fox News. Fact-checking is powerless in the face of shameless demagoguery.
The networks’ decision to air Trump’s remarks on Tuesday with a few tart chyrons or on-air fact-checks is just not enough to offset the damage. Trump is unworthy of the airtime.

“We’re now at the point where if you don’t understand that the government is out of control, and is aggressively attacking the fundamental values and institutions of this country, then you’re not paying attention,” said Fernandez. “I think (the news executives) understand that. I simply think they have not figured out that the ways in which human rights violations occur is not just that there are evil-doers, but that there are institutions—and particularly in a democracy—whose job it is in times of crisis to stand up, and stand for something. They have not figured out that they are in this unique moment, where history will look back and say ‘What side were you on?’”


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

George Zornick is The Nation's Washington editor.