Truly Progressive News

I have continued to read a lot lately and want to focus on one observation I have found. It is almost moot to go into details about what I have been reading – articles about Wikileaks and Julian Assange’s assault charges, the coming U.S. State of Control, DADT, the DREAM Act - or about what I haven’t been reading – where is the coverage of Bernie Sanders’ spectacular speech on the new taxes bill?! – these issues are being well covered (or well neglected) regardless of whether I write about them or not. Regardless of news source I have noted one thing: the writers I read are overwhelmingly white, male, and upper class. Just reading the contributors to today’s CommonDreams articles reveals this trend. The list of contributors is the following: Tom Engelhardt, Bill McKibben, Tom Andrews, Michelle Chen, Joseph Nevins, Robert Koehler, Andrew Kennis, Glenn Greenwald and Glen Ford. Note: as I am writing this Anna Brown and Laura Flanders were added to the views reel.

What do we see here? Seven white men, two white women, one black man, and one Asian woman. All authors are seemingly from the United States (although I have not done extensive research), are currently in the United States and are writing about the United States. Accordingly, 64% of the viewpoints shared come from people whose experience and social identities that are not only acknowledged as “normal” but propped up through the continual playing out of society’s dominant ideologies – to be white and male is to be better than everyone else because we say so, again and again and again. To be sure, one’s identity and one’s ideology do not have to be the same – I consider myself to be a white person dealing with issues of white privilege, seeking to hold anti-racist values and commit anti-racist acts. That said, I will be the first to acknowledge how limited I am in my ability to speak to the oppression of people of color. Similarly, I recognize that I am in no position to dictate how to mitigate and one day abolish the manifestations of racism. Similarly, I wonder about the limitations of these men’s’ perspectives even though they are written from a supposedly “radical,” “progressive” or “Leftist” viewpoint.

The articles written by these white men contain opinions and information about the following: fear, Wikileaks and Assange, and the current conservatism of the U.S. government. Their perspective strikes me not as “objective” but as focused on politics and the political implications of current events. They are focused on Republicans who do evil and “the American Empire.” Generally they are either focused on taxes or on shifts in discourse – topics that are based in the quantitative and analytic, such as economics or linguistics or political philosophy.

In contrast, the two articles by writers of color take political issues and apply a racial lends to them. For example, Michelle Chen’s article focuses on the DREAM Act and the contradiction inherent in having a stagnant economy accompany anti-immigration sentiments and policies. This article is very clearly related to something quantitative and analytic yet it also applies a lens that perhaps a white man would not immediately apply. Similarly, Glen Ford takes a topic covered by white men, fear and U.S. governmental “national security,” and writes a piece on the FBI’s fabricated “terrorist plots” that target black and brown men (or “Muslim-looking” men) who are wholly innocent prior to FBI intervention. Here again we see a topic covered from a different – and entirely necessary – angle.

But let us not forget our latecomers. Laura Flanders (Britain-born U.S. transplant) writes briefly about the nearly sadistic turn of events in England, where a bailed out bank threw a party for Harry Potter amidst student protests about increased college tuition. Meanwhile, Anna Brown writes about peace activists sentenced to ten years in prison for walking around at a military base in Washington. Both topics fall outside of the realm of strictly political but both have political implications (Really? They threw a party for Harry Potter? He isn’t even real!).

Only one article was about a country other than the United States. Only one article was written about peace and activism, and even that article has a sad ending. Were there any articles about queer issues? No. Were there any issues about disability issues? No. Ageism? No. Sizeism? No. The list could go on. Do the authors write about issues pertaining to them based on their social identities? I think that a case can certainly be made for the writers of color – perhaps too for the white women writing. For white men, examining the articles affirms that their social identities are “invisible”. As their writing becomes more abstracted and focused on government, it becomes less about them - individuals whose identities help or hinder them as they move through the world.

But what can we make of all of this? Even in “progressive” circles historically dominant voices are given more airtime. Even on the “Left” we see voices intentionally or unintentionally silenced through lack of publicity – the ultimate irony when that same sector of people seeks the pursuit of truth and the openness of dialogue. Even as we seek justice, we may leave aside those so powerless that they are forgotten even by us. Even in our struggles for resistance, we may fail to resist all of the ways we are colonized. Why is it that we continue to listen to the same voices we have heard throughout all of time?

To make a bold claim, I propose it continues to be not what one knows but who one is that enables them to be heard. I have nothing against the insights of any type of people – I believe everyone has something to contribute to the world and to their community. I would merely like to suggest that it is time for some of us to grow and to learn when to listen. Far from pigeon-holing myself into writing about one topic, I hope to gain the tools to write articulately about a wide-array of topics including race, sex, gender, ability status, systems of government, societies of control. In the future of progressive news, I hope to see explanations of the connections between these things from people with all types of social identities. I hope that these views can be shared equitably and given equitable amounts of attention, space and critical examination. Most importantly, I hope to learn how and when to listen. Maybe then at least the realm of ideas will be a meritocracy.

American Isolationism

I read a quote recently about depression and Americanism. The central claim was that, when isolated from a group, the Americanized individual turns inward. In doing so, they continue their isolation - that is the great quandary, that to be an American individual is to see oneself as the captain of one's own ship, so to speak. This creates the (false) notion that one can single-handedly determine one's future. This is false - despite Americans being fed this from their earliest moments, they still spend so much time operating in groups (collaborating or not).

The quote was from AdBusters, a magazine that juxtaposes advertisements, spoofs of these advertisements, and articles to make statements about American consumerism and culture (working off of the framework that consumerism defines American culture). The magazine was given to me as a gift - I had never even heard of it before - but of course my more plugged-in progressive friends knew it well. The magazine was great - it definitely had it's own perspective to share and agenda to push - and I thoroughly enjoyed reading the various articles and viewpoints. It was a great starting point to my exploration of news and politics and, most importantly, was a great gift.

So began my quest for news. Due to my lack of enthusiasm for my current work situation, I thought reading about current events from a progressive/radical perspective could be a nice way to inject some meaning into my dull 8-hour cut-and-paste sessions. This has proven true - I have read a lot over the past week, especially yesterday, and am trying to keep current on viewpoints about war, national security and economic inequality in particular. Because of all of the hubub around Comcast and Net Neutrality I've been trying to look into that as well. The articles I've read have been at times overly apocalyptic but in general thoughtful, articulate responses to more mainstream viewpoints I could get almost anywhere (one article said something to the effect of "the New York Times has been compromised" - I thought that was an interesting assertion). But what began as a thirst for knowledge has become slightly soured by my mood.

As previously disclosed, many of the articles could be seen by some as overly critical or negative - they tell poverty and inequality like it is. This is admirable as many people would prefer to ignore this reality and move on with their capitalistic lives. That said, given enough time, these articles tend to bog me down. They are all the same - they point out problems and try to call attention to their horrendousness - which while I admire (I have frequently been the nail hammered down when it comes to speaking out about injustice) can be ineffectual if no solutions are provided or any roadmap put forth for discussion.

Perhaps there are communities debating these things but in the circles I run in - of which there aren't many - these things are rarely discussed. I respect the opinions of my coworkers greatly and I think they would probably be willing to confront these things if they were considered less taboo, but I frequently find their opinions (or perhaps the physical office space) lacking the space for a more engaged discussion that engages opinions and not just regurgitating the opinions of ABC, CBS and CNN. With my opinions I often feel the odd person out. I also have a very particular way of communicating my ideas which is perhaps easier swallowed by some than others.

So I often find myself turned inward. About my future, about my place in a larger movement for justice, about my social identities and my place in groups, and about my mood and how people perceive me. I find that I lack certain social commonalities to people my age (I don't really like going out to drink and dance, I don't really want to "be cool," I love reading and discussing books, articles, music, anything!) So, it's not that I don't want to engage in community so much as lacking the know-how. Excuses, excuses.

There are large bodies of scholarly research that suggest the American ideal of individuality is harmful. We see this when we study suburbs (something can also be said about policing in this context) as well as when we study anything related to psychology. But I am not here to discuss that (though if someone wants to I would be more than happy to - anything to get my mind thinking again) - I suppose I am more questioning community, how we form it, who has access, how communities coalesce in terms of social order, and what community exists that would not only accept but embrace all parts of myself. I am questioning my readiness for such a community, should it exist (am I ready to embrace all parts of others?). And I am looking for alternatives to these structures that uphold American Isolationism.