Uncategorized

Are “Black Lives” and the “Earth’s Life” Incompatible? (or does BLM + EM = LM?)

Seemingly, there are two major movements active right now. The first, “Black Lives Matter” (BLM), highlights the grave injustices that people of color have endured for several centuries and still endure. The second, environmentalism (aka, the Environmental Movement (EM)), demands that humans stem the violence against all forms of life (e.g., the bees, the bats, the gorillas, the whales, the polar bears, etc.) and begin to live with nature, not in domination of nature. How does one reconcile these two important struggles? Do these movements have anything in common? Must they work in separate domains? Are they mutually exclusive? Does one have to take precedence in order to make real progress?

These two movements are actually very connected and interwoven. Once we realize this, they can more clearly work cohesively and in solidarity.

A little history can serve us in understanding these two movements. Recall the “Civil Rights Movement” (CRM), which lasted from the mid-1950s through the 1960s? Recall, when the first Earth Day occurred and the Environmental Protection Agency was launched—in the early 1970s. Yes, the CRM laid the ground work the environmental movement (as well as other key movements—women’s and GLBT)! These two huge movements are, thus, integrally connected.

But, aren’t nearly all environmentalists “White” and well-off and most BLM activists, people of color (POC)? “Not at all,” says research into these questions (see Poon, 2018). In fact, since POC bear the brunt of the worst of environmental degradation (especially globally), it is no surprise many POC care deeply about environmental issues and express this concern through demonstrable action. And as anyone who has been to a BLM event can tell you, there are many Caucasians who are advocates for the justice that BLM demands (though there is obvious some frustration over who is leading the cause, see Mann & Baker, 2020). Stereotypes and preconceptions are sometimes hard to overcome.

But, hold on, “The BLM folks are calling for justice for victims of police brutality and environmentalists are protesting for new energy reform to avert catastrophic climate change (C3). Their causes cannot appear more dissimilar.” But are they really? Actually, they are very similar. Both demand justice. Both demand action, swift and decisive. Both recognize that current economic and political practices must be modified and reimagined. Both want all of us (humans, animals, and plants) to flourish. In particular, both emphasize that the physical and mental welfare of humans matters a great deal.

We can see the overlap and interconnection between BLM and EM most vividly perhaps by considering another movement, the environmental justice (EJ) one. EJ (or Environmental Racism (ER) as it is often referred to) is a fast growing component of mainstream environmentalism. Yet it owns its origin to POC who, in the early 1980s, used non-violent direct action to protest the dumping of PCBs in a rural (minority) community of North Carolina. More recent examples of EJ (or ER) struggles can be found in Flint, Michigan (water contamination) and New Orleans, Louisiana (climate justice).

Additionally, some of the most prominent environmentalists are POC as well. Robert Bullard, the most prolific author in the EJ arena, is an African-American who grew up in rural Alabama. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Hispanic Congresswoman, is one of the most aggressive promoters of the Green New Deal. David Suzuki, one of the most famous environmentalists and author of more than a dozen books, is Asian-Canadian. Winona LaDuke, who ran for U.S. Vice President twice, works tirelessly for many environmental causes (Honor the Earth and the White Earth Land Recovery Project) and is an Ojibwe Native American living in Minnesota. Globally, obviously, most environmental work is performed by POC—Wangari Maathai (Kenya), Ken Saro-Wiwa (Nigeria), and Vandana Shiva (India) quickly come to mind. Each of these amazing humans (and there are many, many more—see the long list of international Goldman Prize recipients, for example) understands the interconnected nature of humans as well as the critical importance of human rights as a foundation for the well-being of all life forms.

In the end, struggles to bring justice and equality are indelibly part of the same whole. The sooner we come to understand this, BLM and EM advocates can more explicitly connect their struggles and bring actual peace and sustainability into a nascent LM movement (i.e., LM = Life Matters).

Yet, this combined effort must recognize one very important point. Our political economy must serve humanity (rather than the other way around). We cannot continually privatize essential services and resources (be they police or tap water). Much of our current economy is based on “exchange value” which holds that something’s value equates to what it can be exchanged for. But in this system what is the value afforded a battered citizen (physically or emotionally) or a dolphin caught as bycatch? The human or biological system collapses at some point and neither can be replaced (some changes are irreversible; for more on human crashes due to our economic system, see Wolff, 2020). Thus, both BLM and EM must fully embrace this realization as they move forward and build alliances and coalitions in the LM struggle.

References

Mann, B. & E. Baker. (2020) “Black Protest Leaders to White Allies: ‘It’s Our Turn To Lead Our Own Fight.” NPR. September 22. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/22/913094440/black-protest-leaders-to-white-allies-it-s-our-turn-to-lead-our-own-fight

Poon, L. (2018) “‘Environmentalist’ Doesn’t Just Mean White and Wealthy.” Bloomberg CityLab. November 2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-02/who-is-an-environmentalist-study-refutes-stereotypes

Wolff, R. D. (2020) “The champions of capitalism are rushing into disaster and refusing to admit their ideology has failed.” Independent Media Institute. April 3. https://www.alternet.org/2020/04/the-champions-of-capitalism-are-rushing-into-disaster-and-refusing-to-admit-their-ideology-has-failed/

Do people care?

I am often struck by the lack of concern people have regarding the future of humanity and the Earth’s biological systems. In general conversation, rarely do people mention such things as the plight of the insects or birds, climate change, or toxic pollution. Furthermore, it is the exception, not the rule, that one hears about people making much effort to confront these challenges. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that people just don’t care about such things. Or is it?

Might the apparent silence and inaction on such critical matters represent something other than apathy? Might we be more focused on day-to-day matters (such as paying our bills, taking care of an aging relative or performing well for a team we are a part of)? Might the constructive actions of many be systematically ignored by major media outlets? Or, might our individual and collective fear of the future paralyze us so that we just avoid discussing or acting on these challenges? In other words, if “we are doomed,” what point is there to focus on such negative things?

I am no scholar of psychology and nor do I claim to have clairvoyance. Thus, I don’t know the answers to the above questions. But that doesn’t stop me from thinking a bit more about them. Let’s try a thought-experiment and see where it leads.

What might you do if you knew that large meteorite was going to hit Earth next year (causing the 7^th mass extinction)? Would you stop your daily activities and conversations? Would you start studying physics in hopes that you could figure out a way to deflect the meteorite away? Would you sell all your personal belongings and give it to the military in hopes that they could find a way to do it? (Forget the question of whom you would be selling it to; wouldn’t all humanity be in the same situation.) Seriously, what would you do?

Well, we are in a situation not so dissimilar from the above scenario. While the “meteor” (of climate change or toxic pollution) won’t hit next year (not for you at least; for an increasing numbers of humans and other life forms, however, the “meteor” has already hit), likely it will hit in the next several decades. Unfortunately, too many powerful influencers are deliberately ignoring or spreading misinformation about the impending “collision.” So, again I ask, what are you doing?

I don’t ask this accusatorily. I ask it honestly. I, personally, think about this every day. Some days I am motivated to do something about it, other days I feel helpless or preoccupied. I am sure I am not alone in this. We have groups set up to deal with/discuss alcoholism and cancer, but do we have groups set up to tackle humanity’s greatest challenge yet? Doesn’t it seem like we should set these groups up quickly, while we still have time?

Let me end on this note. One of the premises that I opened with stipulates that very little is being said or done on these critical matters. This is patently false, though I suspect most of us operate as if it were true (so, does that make it “true”)? Of the nearly 8 billion humans on this planet, millions of them are doing lots of amazing things to confront our environmental challenges. We just need to promote more of their work and join in to help. (I hope to write about some of them in an upcoming blog…if you don’t want to wait, you can begin to find such people/efforts by searching for the Goldman Prize recipients or Champions of the Earth awardees.) Perhaps we can all commit to do something along these lines in 2020.

The insanity of our world: What to Do? (Part II)

[I haven’t blogged in a long time, the longest hiatus since I started this project in 2016. There are several reasons for this. One, the insanity of our world has only gotten more pervasive, intensive, and perplexing. I’ve probably started five blogs in the meantime only to put off finishing them due to mental and emotional exhaustion writing them engender. Two, I had to put the bulk of my intellectual energy into finishing my first (co-authored) book—The Earth is Not For Sale (www.theearthisnotforsale.org)–which hit the presses this fall.]

In the previous piece (Part I, see below), I laid out how most of our everyday actions are insane and why we continue to do them despite the illogic nature of doing so. Despite the provocative spirit of my first installment and the near invisible lack of response/reaction from those that took the time to read it, one might wonder why I persist with this topic. I guess it just feels therapeutic to get it out of my mind (where it simmers and infests other parts of my body). More importantly, I feel compelled to initiate a conversation on one of the questions I ended with, namely, “what might compel us to stop acting insanely?”

We will stop acting insanely when we come to terms with this simple understanding: “if we don’t, our lives will continue to suffer and our species will take an early exit from this amazing planet.” Since the second part of this statement is hard to fathom (particularly when our species continues to grow exponentially larger), it is advisable to hone in on the first part. Our lives are all much worse because of the insanity. Most of us realize this but we escape its implications because it just makes us feel worse. Perhaps an analogy will help here. Imagine being told you are dying from a disease. People handle this news differently. Many immediately shut down in disbelief. Others get really angry and ask, “why me?” Eventually, most come to terms with this horrific information and do what they can every day to make their lives livable without dwelling on it. This is what I think most of us do with our lives right now. We know that we live in a dysfunctional and insane world and we try to avoid focusing on it, which inevitably means we support and recreate its insanity by our actions (as discussed in Part I).

But what if we were to learn that there is a cure for our disease. I expect that many would try to cure/treat it by whatever means we can afford and access. I’ve known people to travel thousands of miles to seek wisdom and insight from non-conventional methods of disease response, for example. I have witnessed some spending their last dimes to help themselves or someone else enduring some great physical challenge. This is a reasonable response as being alive is something that we cherish and is much preferred to its alternative. However, when it comes to our everyday lives, our malaise (and continued participation in an insane society) doesn’t produce nearly the same type of response. Why? I think it is because we don’t think there is a cure for our insanity. And why should we when we are indoctrinated from the moment we come out of the womb to think that everything that is going on is “normal”/”proper” or inevitable. How many of these memes have you been taught (and how many do you believe—or at least act as if you believe)?:

–humans are inherently violent (hence, war is inevitable)
–money brings happiness
–economic inequality is natural (hence, an underclass is acceptable)
–significant numbers of people need to be “put away” as they are not fit for society (and they are not “curable”)
–nature’s creatures compete for preciously limited resources to survive
–pollution is a sign/result of progress
–feeding everyone requires us to grow mostly GMO grains
–modern humans are smarter than our ancestors
–humans are too insignificant to impair the planet significantly

In contrast, how many of these do you accept/believe? (reject if you feel that are naïve or overoptimistic):

–humans from different cultures can coexist peacefully
–there is enough space, food, resources for all 7+ billion people on Earth
–rainwater and rivers should be clean enough to drink
–humans are inherently kind and resourceful
–species cooperate to survive and maintain environmental conditions conducive to life—diversity enhances survivability
–money is just one medium to facilitate exchange of needs
–there is no such thing as waste
–plants and mushrooms are intelligenct organisms

Now subtract the number of memes you accept/believe in the second list from the number of such memes in the first list. So how did you do? Did your subtraction net a positive number? Probably not and this is a major part of the problem.

Before we will do anything, we need to be motivated. If we look at the prospects for ourselves and species in the near term, I suspect most of us, particularly young people, will understand the need to change our ways. Now let’s assume that you agree with this but are rather skeptical that others will be sufficiently motivated to change too. Well, this is where a leap of faith comes in. You need to have faith in others (the fourth element in the second list). True, you cannot control others but you should be able to control yourself, at least to a greater degree than you probably allow; oddly enough, as I write this I am struck by the extraordinary efforts by the mass media and the advertising industry to make us conform (by accepting one of the first list’s memes or buying one of the millions of mass produced items that they offer). Yes, it is with this faith in others that must be the foundation of any change in the world or on your part.

But thankfully, you don’t need to act on your own and merely wait for others. Others have already made this leap of faith and are making positive changes all over the place. You just have to look; hint, it probably won’t be on your television. It is happening in your neighborhood too, so you don’t need to move to a more progressive place to get busy. I’ll end here but I will provide concrete examples of what I am talking about in a future blog. In the meantime, let others know you are changing (you can comment here for instance) and may it become contagious!

Math that Matters (Part III—The 2000 U.S. Presidential Election)

We often are told that we should vote. Yet, how many of us have ever participated in an election where our vote was the deciding one? Consider that a national or statewide election usually consists of millions of votes, the opportunity to be the deciding vote is clearly very rare. However, not to long ago there was a national vote that was extremely close and it had huge consequences on the course of history.

November 7, 2000 appeared to be a normal voting day in the United States. Two major party candidates as well as several dedicated third-party ones were running for the premier office—the Presidency of the United States. What would transpire that evening and the subsequent days caught most of us by surprise and its ultimate outcome certainly reminds us of the importance of voting.

George W. Bush beat Albert Gore by winning the electoral votes by less than 1% (actually, 0.93%) in one of the closest races in history; Gore actually won the popular vote by 1% (actually, 0.51%), or 540,000+ votes. And while these are very close numbers indeed, nothing was closer than what took place in the state of Florida (although there were 5 states that were decided by less than a 0.5% margin—and all of these others narrowly supported Gore over Bush).

When all the votes were “counted” and confirmed (though 20 U.S. Representatives objected to the Florida recount), Bush won the Florida popular vote over Gore by a mere 547 votes. Now, the closeness of this result needs to be properly understood. In the state of Florida, there were nearly 6 million votes counted for the U.S. Presidency in 2000. Thus, 547 votes out of 6 million represents 0.009%. Converted into a language that we might understand better, this represents approximately 1 in 10,000. Thus, if just 1 in every 10,000 voters had voted for Gore, rather than Bush (or any other Presidential candidate on the ballot), Gore would have won the state of Florida’s 25 electoral votes, and, therefore, the election. Now that is about as close as it gets!

(This mathematical exercise ignores the huge issue of voter suppression revealed in 2000, which continues today, and the amazing potentiality of voter fraud given the issue of “hanging-chads” or electronic voting machines (that often had/have no credible validation option). These are huge omissions and for the sake of completion, links to such issues are provided below, for interested parties.)

Voter Suppression:
In 2000: ref 1
In 2012: ref 2
In 2016: ref 3a, ref 3b

Hanging Chads: ref 4a, ref 4b

Electronic Voting Machines: ref 5a, ref 5b

lessons learned in 2016

[Note: some of these lessons were mere reminders but even so they were still noteworthy if only that]

We don’t live in a democracy. Despite our repeated boasts about how we live in the “greatest democracy” of all-time, we must come to terms with the fact that we don’t. Evidence? While too abundant to mention exhaustively in a BLOG, here are a few of the most compelling to me: the Electoral College (ref 1), extensive voter suppression (before election day, on election day, and after election day) (ref 2a, 2b), inability to have a full recount (in several states) (ref 3a, 3b), extensive use of “no paper trail” electronic voting machines (ref 4a, 4b, 4c), exclusive “two-party” Presidential debates (ref 5a, 5b, 5c), and dominant media forms that fail to hold candidates accountable (ref 6a, 6b, 6c).

No country is above electing a racist, sexist, xenophobic, egomaniacal person. Largely because of our failures in democracy, a person with horrific human qualities was given a chance to win/steal a presidential election. According to the Democratic Party’s leadership, a Russian computer hacking or a FBI director’s questionable action had the most to do with Clinton’s loss. However, this take wrongly deflects us from the more significant reasons, many mentioned earlier; this misfocus by a major party isn’t surprising given the little attention they have paid to the other factors (factors, sadly, they seem to accept as “normal”). Add to these, significant miscalculations in strategy (including, saying that many people were “deplorables” and claiming that things are going quite well (as if neoliberalism is good), when they aren’t (and it isn’t)).

Too many continue to spend 90%+ of their political energy focused entirely on the presidential race. This is probably the most vexing to me. I see it in my own community. If only a couple of handfuls of citizens would dedicate themselves to the local political process signficant &*#$ could happen. Hopefully, now that folks see how discombobulated the national election scene is, more will look to act locally.

Misogyny is alive and well! When I first read that White women actually voted more for Drumf than HC, I was shocked (source). I didn’t believe it. When I heard some women easily discounting the blatantly misogynistic statements revealed by Drumf recordings, disregarding it as mere “boy” or “locker room” talk, I was sickened. How could this be? It is clear that the extreme attack on Hillary, one that has lasted more than a decade, has worked. She was built as the devil and enough people came to believe this. (She may not be an ideal candidate but she is no devil.) Also, this attitude is consistent with our generally condoning of violence (physically as well as economic) against women (and people of color) for hundreds of years, examples which have become more easily revealed to us by cell phone videos and texts. Clearly, we all must be more vigilant to expose and censure sexist and racist actions/statements. They are reprehensible and no person who revels in them should ever have the opportunity to be our commander-in-chief. I thought we had made more progress but recent events suggest we still have a long way to go.

Cancer is as debilitating mentally as it is physically. I’ve come toe-to-toe with this disease. It is something that many of us still don’t openly discuss (out of fear?) and yet it affects more and more of us every day. I applaud those that provide care to those who are sick. The doctors, nurses, social workers, and other care givers, often who work exhaustive hours even on holidays, deserve a lot of admiration.

Despite all the fear, hatred, irrationality, and hopelessness that we are fed every day, many good things continue to happen. Every day people are growing TONS of food in Detroit and elsewhere (ref 7), renewable energy is booming almost everywhere (such as the Philippines, ref 8), and volunteerism continues to thrive as well (ref 9). So, as we begin 2017, remember what the great Frederick Douglass said 160 years ago: “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” (full speech here: ref 10).

Insanity continues

[This piece is being offered on “Columbus Day” on purpose. The fact that we still celebrate this barbaric man and validate the conquering of people is clearly insane…so it fits nicely. Twelve years ago, almost to the day, I wrote a similar full-page piece for The Zephyr—then an alternative local weekly newspaper—which I hear might be making a comeback! For those that want to read the old piece, click here.]

Perception and reality are often far apart. Projection, here the perceptions that we project (i.e., our cultural stories), and reality are equally so. Worse yet, the few people that contemplate on these glaring inconsistencies are often dismissed as weirdos, greenies, or catastrophists. Hence the flawed stories and the complacency, dependency and hopelessness they breed continue.

So what is so insane about our world, or more specifically the Western civilization (that we’ve grown up in)? One not need look far. In fact, it is much easier to identify the “craziness” of our world than to find rationality. Let’s examine the two most fundamental aspects of any civilization: (1) human relationships with nature; and (2) human within species relationships. No rational civilization would consider itself successful if it didn’t function at a very harmonious level in these two areas.

So how are we treating the Earth and its other billions of inhabitants? On nearly all objective measures we are doing very poorly. The bees are down (ref 1), the bats are down (ref 2), the butterflies are suffering (ref 3), many bird populations are in steep decline (ref 4), and fisheries around the planet are collapsing (ref 5). Not a very good report card. And scarier still is the precipitous decline in ocean plankton (ref 6)—most concerning as these microorganisms are at the bottom of the food chain (and consequently will affect all life forms above them). I suspect many of you have heard of these things but given the grave nature of the news and the sources of their demise, most media sources steer clear of giving them too much attention. So not only are we seeing tremendous losses of other life forms but we’re all too busy to focus on this issue. Not surprisingly, I have heard no word on these matters coming from either major party during this year long campaign period.

I could go on and on about how much of the rainforest is razed each day (to grow more sugarcane or lifestock meat), how oceans are becoming inhospitable to large sea creatures because of sound waves emitted by military craft, or how many billions of pounds of new pesticides are being sprayed, etc. But no matter how many pages of scientifically-collected information I provide here, I realize that I am unlikely to raise much of an eyebrow. Reality tells us that humans are functioning in ways that are clearly in opposition to life and though an increasing number of “two-leggeds” are becoming aware of this, our civilization’s ways of “progress” beat on with little hope in sight.

Okay, so what about how humans are treating other humans? Clearly, an intelligent species would at least function to promote its own, right? Well, if the nightly news is any indication we are doing very poorly on that score as well. Murders, threats, conflict, and turmoil appears to be found everywhere one looks. But as I’ve warned in earlier blogs, we can merely trust the information emanating from our screens because of the monetary incentives involved in capturing our attention (and our fear). Looking at more objective statistical data provides some hopeful signs. Life expectancy (at birth) is way up. People are living to their 80s in the UK and to their mid-60s in India. Just one-hundred years ago these numbers were 54 (UK) and 25 years (India). Infant mortality is way down as well, from 122 (per thousand births) in 1960 to 32 in 2015. These trends certainly are signs of improvement. However, other statistics paint a different picture.

In the US, we put more people into prison than any other country and the proportion of our population in prison is nearly double that of Russia and nearly six times that of China! We subsidize corn (and a few other grains) that is largely turned into ethanol (driving up the cost of food worldwide) or fructose which does harm to our bodies in many ways. Much of the “cheap” food produced by large-scale corn and soy production is overconsumed by masses of our population who are overly stressed out economically and have limited options for fresh food in their neighborhoods. This has consequences in terms of child- or adult- onset diabetes; diabetes rates have grown from 1% of the US population in 1958 to 7% in 2014 (ref 7). Though we know that nutrition is key to health, very few doctors are taking nutritional courses in medical school and many of our schools are pumping “cheap” food into our children’s bodies (and minds) (especially given that most of it is now “freely” provided by the government, via these same subsidies, to the industries that make “cheap” food) and we are surprised that kids can’t concentrate. We are seeing significantly lower sperm counts among men (ref 8) and much faster sexual maturity rates among girls (ref 9), especially girls of color, and we hardly bat an eye at these very disturbing trends. And let’s not forget that nearly 100 million people were killed because of war in the 20th Century–and the 21st Century has gotten off to a similar start. These astonishing number aside, consider how we now have nearly all of our media outlets owned and operated by major corporations and yet most of us still go to them (e.g., CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc.) for our news and so few of us boycott the “debates” when these corporate outfits refuse to allow third-party candidates (and their ideas) to be represented. This is equivalent to asking the foxes how the hen house is doing! I could go on but these insane realities of our civilization should be enough to give major pause.

Yet, despite all the insanity, there is hope. Yes, I know, it doesn’t seem possible given the insanity. But there is. Everywhere you look there are humans that are doing their part to make this world sane again. From those that dedicate their lives to growing food in humane ways to those who reject materialistic ways and work to spread love and peace instead. The precautionary principle has a lot to offer us in new ways of thinking (ref 10, ref 11). There are much more intelligent ways to activate a truly democratic country. But unless we firmly recognize how insane our ways are right now, we have very little hope of doing the work and making the sacrifices and changes that are needed to right our ship. Columbus and his ilk took us down a path of genocide and conquest, one we’ve continued on for the past 500+ years. It is time to alter our course and live in peace and sanity.

stand, sit, kneel, or lock? (modern protest)

Just over a week ago a professional football player (Colin Kaepernick, but let’s call him Kaep for short) decided that he wasn’t going to stand during the National Anthem because he believes that people of color are being mistreated by police. This simple act of protest became the most prominent sports story for the next week and counting. People from all corners of society weighed in on Kaep’s action and a fair bit of exchange ensued. Most discussion sadly focused on whether Kaep should or shouldn’t protest in this way rather than on the issue that Kaep was trying to raise awareness of. A few days later it was revealed that Kaep has also been wearing socks during practice which depict “pigs” wearing police uniforms. Immediately, a huge outcry was heard denouncing Kaep for this disrespectful showing, even from many that felt the initial “sitting” protest was admirable. Within a day of this “revelation,” Kaep kneeled during the anthem (an act expressing his respect to those that serve in the military), performed well in the preseason game that followed, and announced afterwards that he would be donating $1 million (of his $11 million annual salary) to the causes that he was bringing attention to. Many saw this “gift” as a gesture of Kaep’s commitment to the issues and many praised him for this significant offering. And now there are reports out that Kaep’s jersey sales are way up, and some evidence of a new found admiration of his recent actions. We are only a few days into this Kaep activity and the regular NFL season starts in a matter of days (although it isn’t clear how prominent a role Kaep will play on his team, his stock slipping mightily since he took the 49ers to the 2013 Super Bowl). Yet, very few athletes have gotten so much mileage out of what otherwise would seem like a very mundane action. How so? And what does it tell us about our modern society?

Were Kaep’s actions so courageous and, hence, worthy of such attention? Let’s look at what Kaep did in basic terms. He refused to stand for the National Anthem. He wore mocking socks to football practice a few times. He then changed his anthem stance from a sit to a kneel. These are very minor acts at some level. They require very little effort. And, they weren’t dangerous. Now, let’s compare Kaep’s actions to Dale American Horse Jr. who locked himself to a backhoe in North Dakota in protest of the pipeline that is being built to transport oil from the North Central Plains to states further south. (Here is more on this story that probably got 1/1,000th of the coverage that Kaep has received, link). Dale American Horse Jr. performed this action knowing that it was a violation of U.S. law and that a host of police would extricate him from the machine and charge him with a criminal offense, with unknown penalties, financial or jail time. On the face of it, it would appear that Dale American Horse Jr. faced much greater danger in more unpredictable circumstances–many other protesters were pepper sprayed and some, including children, were bitten by dogs “managed” by security agents. However, while Dale American Horse Jr.’s actions are definitely risky and courageous, Kaep, a well-known professional athlete, risked the loss of corporate endorsements and even his professional career (and its lucrative salary) by falling out of favor with the corporate executives that own NFL teams. He also risked eliciting the wrath and boos of millions of American’s who find his actions (and words) offensive. But, even still, an unspecified jail sentence seems like a lot more ominous than a loss of millions of dollars (but that is probably because I don’t have millions to lose).

If not so courageous, what explains the attention? I contend that it occurred because Kaep’s act is contentious. The modern media loves a good debate (as long as the parameters stay within a relatively narrow box; for example, we are not going to debate the sources of abject poverty in our country, the “richest” in the world, because that would implicate the same large corporations that run our media outlets). Kaepernick was a well-enough known celebrity to draw consumer gazes in a specific direction. Nearly all media now are full of advertisements and news outlets are competing harder and harder for this gaze; this explains the sensationalism that permeates media today. But why would not standing during the anthem cause such a storm? It is because many people in our society have developed a visceral attachment to the U.S. flag; recall the post 9-11 flag frenzy. To do anything to disrespect the U.S. is considered blasphemous to some. To others, the flag, the most recognizable symbol of the United States, deserved disrespect because of the outrageous things that have been done it its name (mass incarceration, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, My Lai, etc.). To these people, how better to show your disapproval of the actions of a nation than to desecrate its “sacred” image. Either way, mess with the flag and you’ll get attention, tie yourself to oil machinery and just let the local authorities handle this one (certainly no need for national exposure); facetiousness intended.

The surprising attention to Kaep also stems from the immense amount of attention that we give to sports these days. Athletes are household names. Most people probably know the starting quarterback on their cities team more so than they know who their U.S. Senators are. Certainly, most care more about what the QB does than what the Senator does (as long as it isn’t something scandalous, such as sexting). And given this heightened position, it makes sense that Kaepernick, and other athletes, might use it for some social good. For example, I am just some lowly professor (who makes less than 1% of what Kaep will make this year). I am likely not going to get any attention if I do something like not standing for the National Anthem or wear some offensive socks. I might get the scorn of people around me but no one who lives in a neighboring town will ever know that I am “protesting.” However, if I were a world-renown scholar, then I would likely consider protesting for my beliefs. (There certainly are a lot of things worth protesting for.) The point is this: athletes are so prominent in our lives (even more so than most of our political leaders), is it any wonder why we coast along in this economic malaise without much of a hiccup?

In the end, I am thankful that some well-to-do people, be them athletes or not, are willing to sacrifice their millions for a higher calling. Our culture has such a short attention span. A mass shooting occurs and that keeps its grip on it for a week or two, then we are back to normal. Structural racism has been hard at work in this country for nearly 400 years (when the first African slaves arrived on this land). Kaep’s effort to keep it in our consciousness is worthy of praise not scorn. Whether it will result in a positive outcome remains to be seen. And as much as we should focus on his efforts/words, we cannot forget the others that struggle mightily for justice elsewhere but simply due to their “less favorable’ (and visible) status have their battle cries go unheard.

playing with systemic thinking

One of the major weaknesses of the current dialogue about critical issues of our time (race, poverty, disease, etc.) stems from our inability to think systemically. This inability is crippling our efforts to reach workable solutions and making it much harder for us to “get to the bottom” of our collective challenges.

To understand what “systemic” means, let’s actually look at a few problems that we don’t’ look at systemically. Many say “drugs” are the problem in the US. And by the huge increase in incarcerations, it must be a major problem (sarcasm intended). Others think violence is a major problem. And this must be a major problem especially when we have the most mass shootings of any country by a long stretch (ref 1). And on top of drugs and violence, our lack of jobs must be a major problem; oddly, latest figures say that less than 5% of our adults are unemployed (down from 10% in 2010), however this is largely due to a misleading accounting practice as many people aren’t counted anymore (such as, those imprisoned, those that have stopped seeking work, those that are on disability, etc.). How about hunger? As I have previously outlined, food insecurity is a very serious problem in the US (ref 2) with almost 50 million Americans living in food insecure households. So now that we have a pretty good list to work from let’s look at how we deal with these “problems.” (How would you order these four “problems”? What would you add to the list?)

Dealing with these “problems” takes the form of proposedn solutions. So let’s look at the solutions to these problems as offered regularly by our politicians and the mainstream media. Our “drug problem,” we are told, can be solved by: (a) putting those people who use or sell them in prison so they can no longer use/sell them; and, (b) teaching our children to “Say No to Drugs” by convincing them of the harms that drugs do to our bodies (ironically, this message continues concurrently with the massive expansion of “legal” drugs by big pharma and the expansion of alcohol use in our popular culture). Violence, we are told, can be solved by: (a) surveilling everyone with the intent of figuring out when/where/who might commit such crimes; (b) making it harder for people to get access to deadly weapons; (c) increasing police presence in our communities; (d) making sure “good” people have readily accessible “defensive” weapons to protect themselves and others in case of a violent attack by a ne’er-do-well, and, (e) increasing our military presence everywhere we can and using brutal methods (including drones and robots) to kill preemptively those that might do us harm. Unemployment can be remedied by: (a) forcing people to “work” by making it increasingly difficult to get workers’ compensation or unemployment payments or “welfare”; (b) keeping minimum wage low so as to allow companies to employ more people; and, (c) keeping taxes on corporations and the wealthy low because this will allow them to spend more of their “hard earned money” employing people. And, lastly, hunger can be dealt with by: (a) filling community pantries with large amounts of processed food; (b) subsidizing school lunches using overage from industries that produce highly-processed and nutritionally low-density foods; and, (c) subsidizing a few food crops in the U.S. (primarily corn, wheat, rice and soybeans) to the tune of ~$20 billion a year enabling processed foods to remain inexpensive (and therefore the staple of choice for an increasing number of people).

Do you notice anything about these “solutions”? They are almost all reactive to the specific “problem” that is being addressed. None of them deal with basic questions that anyone making a serious attempt to understand the nature of these identified (or other) problems. Such questions would include: Why are people using so many drugs? Why are so many people choosing to sell drugs knowing full well that the penalties for getting caught are extreme? Why are people committing violent acts, be they terrorist, hate-crimes or domestic in nature? Internationally, what impact does killing innocent people (purportedly to bring peace) have on the creation of future terrorists and people willing to kill others out of revenge? Why have many of the efforts to reduce the most violent crimes only be met with increases in frequency of these types of crimes? Why are so many people unable to pay their bills despite being full-time employees? Why are mental health services so hard to find (or afford) for most people and why are mental health matters usually not considered part of our health care program? What influence does poverty, malnutrition, and systemic violence and racism have on our individual and collective mental health? Why are so many former “criminals” unable to find meaningful work (which would allow them to reintegrate smoothly into society)? Why are most things we purchase made in other countries? Why have so many manufacturing plants in the US (which used to be filled with hard working, often unionized, domestic laborers) moved to foreign countries? Why are so many mothers unable to get maternity leave so that they can properly nurture our future generations? How can so many people be hungry in the “richest” country in the world? Why are processed foods so much less expensive than more nutrient-dense fruits and vegetables? Why are an increasing number of neighborhoods in the US seeing food markets (with fresh fruits and vegetables) being replaced with liquor and convenience stores? Why are increasing numbers of people choosing to eat processed and “fast foods”?

These questions try to get to the bottom of the “problems” of drugs, violence, employment and hunger. They are not exhaustive by any means (and I hope readers will share their illuminating ones here as well) but most have something in common, the word “why.” In so doing, they attempt to understand why these things are happening rather than just trying to stop them. Trying to stop something without understanding why it is happening in the first place is inane and harmful but consider how commonplace it is for us to react in exactly this way rather than to think more holistically about the origins of our collective challenges.

What happens when we start asking the “why” questions? I suspect we’ll begin to make connections between “problems,” such as drugs, violence and unemployment. We’ll begin to recognize that many of our current problems are merely symptoms of more systemic issues such as inequality, historically-rooted prejudice and racism, and hypermasculinized forms of power and governance. When we start looking deeper into these systemic issues, we will likely have very different conversations about our “problems” which will lead to very different solutions being offered. Yet, those in power benefit from the status quo and, as such, do their best to keep us “sheeple” reacting ineffectively to symptoms rather than addressing core injustices. Until we acknowledge this we will not be very successful in solving much of anything. Let the “Systemic Games” (riffing off of the Olympic Games which are taking place right now in Rio) begin!