Is Kim Jong-un giving the US its "Suez Crisis"?

An end to "business as usual"?
(Anthony Eden and his cabinet in The Crown (Netflix))

I wonder if it has occurred to other people watching "The Crown" -- as it has occurred to me -- that the tailspin into which the UK was thrown by the Suez Crisis might be compared to what is happening to the US in the course of the crisis over North Korea and nuclear weapons.

(See "The Crown: What was the Suez Crisis and why did it bring down Prime Minister Anthony Eden?")

Today I am sitting down to study the chronology of developments during the past year. But even before beginning, I'm aware of similarities:

* Before the Suez Crisis, it was just assumed that it was for the UK to decide the disposition of the canal. It never occurred to anyone that that particular piece of infrastructure might be controlled . . . by Egyptians!

* Before the Suez Crisis, it was just assumed that the UK could brandish its military might, and its allies would applaud it. UK leaders didn't expect the rest of the world to say, "What gives you the right?"

* Before the Suez Crisis, UK leaders (like Anthony Eden) never thought of leaders of other countries (like Gamal Abdel Nasser) as being entitled to stand up to them. That changed . . . .

The slow-boil crisis over North Korea and nuclear weapons is changing assumptions about how the US acts, and where it stands in relation to the other nations in the world.

As of today, there are 73 House members and 13 senators calling for restrictions on the ability of the US president to unilaterally call a nuclear first strike:

Co-sponsors of  HR.669 "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017" (introduced by Rep. Ted Lieu)

Co-sponsors of S.200 "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017" (introduced by Sen. Ed Markey)

AND . . . the UN treaty on a global nuclear weapons ban has been signed by 56 countries and ratified by 3 already: "Signature/ratification status of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons."

So I am beginning to wonder:

* Is the issue any longer: "How will the US control North Korea?"

* Perhaps the issue has become: "How has North Korea managed to change the position of the US in the world?"

Some of my previous posts on this topic:

Who Has Been "Begging for War"?

Korea: A History of Living Under Nuclear Terror

North Korea and #NuclearBan


Please share this post . . . .

THIS is how you protest a Nobel Peace Prize!

Six years ago I stood in front of Obama re-election headquarters and impersonated the King Of Norway in the act of revoking Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

December 10, 2010, in Chicago in front of Obama Re-election HQ:
"King Harald" regretfully revokes Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
(Photo courtesy FJJ)

I bring this up because the Nobel Prize will be awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in Oslo on Sunday. The US objects and says it won't send its Acting Ambassador to the ceremony.

From ICAN:
"The U.S., Britain, and France have decided not to send
their ambassadors to Norway to the #NobelPeacePrize ceremony.
It’s time to engage with the #nuclearban treaty and catch up
with the rest of the international community. #FOMO ?"

The United States government has a lot of resources at its disposal. I would expect that if it's really serious when it says that the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons will not bring peace, it would do something more than just have its diplomats stay home.

Especially when the world will get a stark reminder at the ceremony of the unique role of the US in using nuclear weapons.

From The Nobel Prize:
"On 10 Dec Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow will accept the
Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on behalf of @nuclearban."

The US could hold a press conference outside the Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony, saying how much it objects to the nuclear ban treaty. Of course, the US tried that when the treaty was being negotiated, and all it got them was 122 countries voting to approve the treaty text . . . .

Maybe it's time for the US government to up the ante.

Hmmm . . . . the US has a lot of planes. How about skywriting? Has anyone thought about skywriting?

Related posts

USA: Bringing a Trumpian Posture to the Nuclear Ban Talks. (Bankruptcy.)

Obama's (and Putin's) Missed Opportunity at Hiroshima

133 Is a Lot of #Nuclearban-Supporting Countries


Please share this post . . . .

#Canada150 and #nuclearban: A World Turned Upside-Down

Expo 67 - Canada Pavilion
#Canada150 and #nuclearban: A World Turned Upside-Down
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

I have written before about how formative a few short days I once spent in Canada turned out to be for my life. Back then, I went around the world in 5 days as we went from pavilion to pavilion. During the first decades of my working career, I traveled to every country I could get to in the course of my work in import/export.  And today I'm connecting to a peace movement that is truly global. (See: O Canada! (We'll always have "Expo" . . . . ).)

A big focus of Expo 67 was "Man and his World." It was a moment when people were very much aware of how the human species had come to dominate the planet -- and each other -- and there were the beginnings of a call for balance.

The 50th anniversary of Expo 67 is this year. I've been enjoying reading about the many related exhibits and commemorations, and the memories come flooding back. (See "Expo 2017: Utopia, Rebooted" in The New York Times, by Jason Farago.) I was delighted to hear my daughter say she's hoping to drive up to Montreal this summer.

By the way, I've always particularly loved the inverted pyramid design of the Canada Pavilion from Expo 67 -- although until I sat down to write this piece today, I wasn't quite sure what I thought it meant . . . .

*     *     *

This year is also the 150th anniversary of the beginning of Canada's process of becoming an independent country. As I read more about Canada's  progression from possession of the British Empire to member of the community of nations, I realize that it's been a long road.

Coincidentally, I have just come to realize that there is a very large group of countries that continue to exist in a kind of vague relation to the UK and each other through the Commonwealth of Nations. This hit home when I realized that practically the entire Commonwealth -- in this year when it has adopted the slogan "A Peacebuilding Commonwealth" -- consists of countries that are supporters of the global nuclear weapons ban negotiations at the United Nations. (See The Road to the Commonwealth Games Passes Through #Nuclearban Territory.)

The UK opposes the nuclear ban treaty talks, however, as do Australia and Canada. Is Australia's opposition because of the UK position? Is Canada's?  I wonder why these two countries, almost alone among Commonwealth countries, fail to support the nuclear ban.

*     *     *

Canada's posture is influenced by more than just the UK, of course. It also has something to do with the United States.

The US opposes the nuclear ban talks, and has dragged its main allies along with it. (See USA: Bringing a Trumpian Posture to the Nuclear Ban Talks. (Bankruptcy.).)

There is very public discussion right now about Canada and whether it will follow the line set down by the US -- particularly by Donald Trump.  There was a very intriguing story by Max Fisher several days ago saying that the Trudeau government is not standing still for the Trump stonewall against action on climate: "Canada’s Trump Strategy: Go Around Him".

Could the same thing happen with respect to the nuclear ban?  Ian Austen, in "Canadian Minister Signals a Growing Role Outside the US Umbrella," quoted Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland saying, "To rely solely on the US security umbrella would make us a client state."

*     *     *

It was those words -- "client state" -- that suggested to me what the inverted pyramid may be all about.

The long road signified by #Canada150 (as well as Expo 67) is all about a world turned upside-down, where the rules are no longer dictated by this or that mighty empire, but instead are formulated by people who have the interests of the majority at heart.

Canada beholden to the UK? Canada beholden to the US? Or Canada serving its people, and all people, and Canada's fundamental values?

Please, please, please, Canada: don't stop now. Turn the world really upside-down and join the treaty for a world free of nuclear weapons - #nuclearban.

It's where your heart lies.

Expo 67 artwork

Related post: "At the surrender of the British to the American forces at Yorktown, the band played an old tune called "The World Turned Upside Down." See The World Turned Upside Down - Huff Post, Wash Post, and Twitter.


Please share this post . . . .

Korea: A History of Living Under Nuclear Terror

Korean War map, showing relative position of
Manchuria (Northeast China), Yellow Sea, and
Sea of Japan. (Source: Encycl. Britannica)

A few days ago, I wrote about the new president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, and wondered: will South Korea join negotiations on a global nuclear ban when they resume in New York at the United Nations on June 15?

I wrote a post several years ago about nuclear weapons in Korea, emphasizing the ways in which the US (not North Korea) has been the one making threats with nuclear weapons for decades. (See: The Cynical American Scapegoating of Korea as a Cover for Nuclear Terror.)

After I wrote the post about President Moon's election, I began to go back and study the history of Korea again. Prof. Bruce Cumings has documented US plans to use nuclear weapons in Korea, and you can read some of his research online: "Nuclear Threats Against North Korea: Consequences of the 'forgotten' war." Here is an excerpt:

In interviews published posthumously, [Gen. Douglas] MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: "I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria." Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then "spread behind us -- from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea -- a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North."

From the Korean War onward, nuclear weapons were part of US military planning for Korea. It's well worth reading Cumings' book, Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History, to get a perspective on Korea across the decades since 1945 - including nuclear politics throughout the period. (It's a perspective that most people in the US currently lack.)

Vietnam, another country that has been on the receiving end of nuclear threats by the US, is a co-sponsor of the resolution for global nuclear ban negotiations at the UN. (See VIETNAM and the NUCLEAR BAN: Out From Under the Shadow of US Nuclear Terror.) One wonders if there isn't similar broad sentiment in Korea about putting an end once and for all to nuclear weapons. As I mentioned in my post last week, North Korea voted in favor of holding the nuclear ban negotiations. South Korea voted against holding negotiations -- but that was under a conservative government that was disinclined to say "no" to the US.

Things are changing fast in Korea.

Let's see what President Moon does next.


Please share this post . . . .

#Nuclearban Game-Changer: South Korea?

South Korea's new leader: Moon Jae-in
(Image: NY Daily News)

What if South Korea participated in the negotiations at the UN on a global nuclear weapons ban?

Up until yesterday, that seemed unlikely. Based on information provided by the ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), "South Korea voted against the UN resolution to begin negotiations in 2017 on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. It claims that US nuclear weapons are essential for its security and has refused to declare that nuclear weapons should never be used again under any circumstances."

However, South Korea elected a new president two days ago, and he has said that his country should no longer sit on the sidelines while the US and China control the efforts to deal with a nuclear North Korea. Moon Jae-in favors a "Sunshine Policy" to achieve peaceful reconciliation with North Korea. (See "South Korea’s New President, Moon Jae-in, Promises New Approach to North") Not incidentally, Moon is willing to challenge the US on military systems like THAAD.

It is noteworthy that . . .

* the US actively protested against the nuclear weapons ban negotiations, and has urged/pressured its allies to do the same (See USA: Bringing a Trumpian Posture to the Nuclear Ban Talks. (Bankruptcy.) )

* China abstained from the vote on the negotiations, sent a representative to the preparatory meeting, but then announced it would sit the negotiations out. (See China DOES Have a Role in the Nuclear Ban Movement)

* North Korea voted in favor of the negotiations, but then said it would not participate in the negotiations if the US is not doing so. (See North Korea and #NuclearBan)

* Japan gave strong indications that it would participate, but ultimately declined to participate, saying it would be inconsistent with its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella. (See NUCLEAR WEAPONS BAN TALKS: With Japan at the Table (Hopefully))

Negotiations on a global nuclear ban resume in New York at the United Nations on June 15. Participation by South Korea could be a game-changer.



RELATED: Korea: A History of Living Under Nuclear Terror and The Cynical American Scapegoating of Korea as a Cover for Nuclear Terror


Please share this post . . . .

USA: Bringing a Trumpian Posture to the Nuclear Ban Talks. (Bankruptcy.)

The US made quite a show of protesting the nuclear ban talks that started this week at the United Nations.

People are sharing memes like the ones below to help publicize the bankruptcy of the US position. (LOTS more via these #nuclearban activists on Twitter.)

These diplomats say NO to banning #nuclearweapons.
Whose side are they on?
(Please share this message on Twitter!)

I've been following the US arguments against #nuclearban closely ...
the picture is beginning to come into focus ...
(Please share this message on Twitter!)

Trump diplomatic team tries out explanations for
USA no-show at UN #nuclearban talks
(Please share this message on Twitter!)

US: "Time is not right" to ban nuclear arms
(Please share this message on Twitter!)

Excuse me? Did @nikkihaley REALLY say
"For those who don't have our backs, we're taking names." ???
(Please share this message on Twitter!)

Reasons to support the UN?
Exhibit #1: #nuclearban
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

(You can read more about the US protest here: "United States and Allies Protest U.N. Talks to Ban Nuclear Weapons" )

Related posts:

"Deterrence": As a strategy, it makes about as much sense as "proliferation"

A DEAL'S A DEAL! (What part of "nuclear disarmament" doesn't the US understand?)

Please share this post . . . .

Japan to Address UN on Nukes. (USA a No-Show?)

Hiroshima dome and #nuclearban: Japan to address United Nations

Within the last few days, the government of Japan has released dramatic news: it will, in fact, participate in negotiations on a global nuclear weapons ban that begin at the United Nations on March 27. (Background: NUCLEAR WEAPONS BAN TALKS: With Japan at the Table (Hopefully) )

Now, Japan is announcing plans to make an opening speech at the conference: "Japan's UN diplomatic sources say officials are now arranging to have Tokyo's envoy to the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament, Nobushige Takamizawa, speak." (Source: NHK World)

The governments of the US, as well as the UK, Canada, Australia, and other Western allies are planning to boycott the talks. At the end of last week, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley released this statement and accompanying pictures:

Tweet by US Ambassador to the UN @NikkiHaley:
"We recently met with ambassadors about
the upcoming conference to establish a
treaty banning nuclear weapons. We
would all love to see the day when nuclear
weapons were no longer needed; however,
to ban nuclear weapons now would make
us and our allies more vulnerable, and
would strengthen bad actors like North
Korea and Iran who would not abide by it."

If the only country ever to use nuclear weapons against another country refuses to attend the speech, before the UN, of the country upon which it used them, it will be a historic moment. And a tragic one.


Related posts

Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???



Tlatelolco 50: A Gift to the World

SCIENCE MARCHES: Are All These Countries In the Dark About Nuclear Weapons?

VIETNAM and the NUCLEAR BAN: Out From Under the Shadow of US Nuclear Terror

Why People Want a Pacific (and World) Free of Nuclear Weapons

A Peace-building Commonwealth Wants to Ban Nuclear Weapons

NUCLEAR WEAPONS BAN TALKS: With Japan at the Table (Hopefully)

NOWRUZ: New Day for a World Without Nuclear Weapons

China DOES Have a Role in the Nuclear Ban Movement


Please share this post . . . .

Network Power and the Movement to Ban Nuclear Weapons

The majority of the world's nations voted to bring about a ban on nuclear weapons through negotiations in 2017.

The negotiations will be happening at the United Nations. But make no mistake: the real action will need to be out among the people. Because if we sleep through this, the political will to get to the finish line may just evaporate.

Here's how you can dive in . . . .

Activists worldwide . . .

(1) It's all about the network(s).

We're really not alone in this!

You can instantly access the global network by going to #nuclearban on Twitter.

But our ability to achieve critical mass will depend upon how creatively and thoroughly we build and make use of multiple, intersecting networks of influence.

One small example: this list of activists worldwide helping to advance the cause of the nuclear ban.

Each person on the list connects you to their huge network of activists and thinkers.

Give them your attention for ten minutes a day: they'll give you phenomenal resources.

And then think: how can you add the leverage of your network to this effort?


(2) The central campaign.

Here are your core tools for working on the nuclear ban: nuclearban.org.

The site is provided by ICAN - the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

There's a rich stream of real-time updates on the campaign blog.

And be sure to sign up for the campaign updates and activities.


(3) Many threads.

George Takei on Twitter:
Trump wants to expand our nuclear arsenal.
I think of my aunt and baby cousin,
found burnt in a ditch in Hiroshima.
These weapons must go.

It may sound simple -- ban nuclear weapons -- but it is a massive problem and will call on people from all walks of life, in every country in the world to help get the message across.

Diplomats
Celebrities
Musicians
Journalists
Speech-makers
Memoirists
Campaigners
Scientists
Students
Bloggers
Artists
Teachers
Pastors
Philanthropists
Fundraisers
Analysts
Organizers
Politicians
Physicians
Protesters
 . . . and many, many more . . .

Don't wait for someone to tell you your role. Decide how you can help and dive in!


(4) Anything can happen.

Donald Trump becomes the US president shortly.

As it stands today, the US (together with Russia) is the principal obstacle to global nuclear disarmament. That must change.

Activists and advocates should be prepared to be agile in the face of sudden (and possibly surprising) developments.

(See Messrs. Trump and Putin: CHANGE THIS MAP!)


(5) Show up.

A lot of power is in the hands of a few political powerholders - unfortunately.

 . . . AND . . .

The ultimate power is in the hands of the people. A massive popular outpouring will be necessary to move the US (and Russia) forward.

New York City, Central Park:  No Nukes Mobilization, 1982

UPDATE January 24, 2017: It's on! June 17 in New York City . . . .
 

There's a #nuclearban on the horizon: let's take it to the streets!
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

Please share this post . . . .

Which Way for the Church? Anti-Racism? or Comfort?

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) -- and other US denominations -- can and should choose to emphasize anti-racism work in 2017. (I think it is a critical moment.)

From @scarry:
What if we all did a personal inventory of how our "personal
success story" was built on white privilege? #ELCAcwa

(Image: ELCA presiding bishop Rev. Elizabeth Eaton and quote:
"When my dad came back from the war, the GI bill meant he and
my mom could get a low interest loan. That was not available to
African American veterans. That's white privilege. It's baked into
the system. Now, we didn't create it, but if we don't work to
change it, we are complicit."

The tweet shown above was very heavily shared when I posted it during the churchwide assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) this past summer.

I have been very hopeful that the Church -- Lutheran and other denominations -- will be a leading force in working against racism. (If not the leading force.)

Some of the things I've written:

How Might the White Church "Die to 'Whiteness'"?

"Personal Success Story"? "White Privilege"? or Both?

Can "Lutheran" Be a #BlackLivesMatter Denomination?

Decolonize Lutheranism -- A Northern California Installment

At the same time, I think there's a lot in the Church that makes it just want to turn its back on the world and seek comfort. I think that impulse is acute as 2016 draws to a close.

Which will it be?

From where I sit, it seems that the choice to emphasize anti-racism work is a matter of life and death for the Church.

My personal belief is that it will require a choice by the entire membership -- and not just isolated acts of leadership by a few people in the churchwide office, or a handful of charismatic pastors. It certainly can't be left to a few stalwarts on the "Social Justice" committee.

It needs to be the work of the whole Church.

The Church, after all, is the people.

Please share this post . . .

2016: My 12 Favorite Posts

In 2016, I wrote a lot about nuclear disarmament and the global peace movement, church life and social justice, and trying to understand this diverse society we live in.


January

I did a close reading of E.M. Forster's A Passage to India. It reminded me of the power of literature to help a society begin to see itself in the mirror.

(See PROBLEM: How does an entire country exorcise a national delusion?)


February

I started to listen, and to think about what I heard . . . .

(See Listening for Community (A Chicago Encounter))


March

Remembering a friend who gently opened my eyes . . .

(See Don't speak Spanish? "Sure you do . . . .")



April

I realized I have been powerfully influenced by some people I never even met.

(See Thanks, Ravi)




May

We need to stop "marking" dates . . . and start taking action.

(See OBAMA: First stop, Hiroshima; second stop, Moscow)







June

"We need to first acknowledge the genocidal origins of OUR nation’s history of ethnic cleansing and occupation."

(See Native American Rights: Acknowledge the Occupation)






July

It's time to start thinking about the saints in my life.

(See Who Ya Gonna Call? (Saints for All Times))


August

An important part of my life is the church I belong to, and its renewal as a strong force for social justice.

(See "Personal Success Story"? "White Privilege"? or Both?)


September

I spent a week in DC, and came back convinced we need to push harder to get nuclear weapons under control.

(See NUKES: Your Call to Your Congressman Matters)


October

I took time to think about what might be different about a movement directed toward a world beyond war.

(See WAR: Headed for the junkheap, yes . . . but how quickly?)



November

This map provoked a lot of thinking about what will be the most important development of 2017: negotiations on a global ban on nuclear weapons.

(See Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???)


December

An idea that I have been developing throughout 2016: a globally networked peace movement.

(See How Does the "Internet of Things (IoT)" Bear on Global Peace Work?)

"Deterrence": As a strategy, it makes about as much sense as "proliferation"

The doctrine of deterrence -- and the preferential comfort it affords a few nuclear weapons states -- will not survive the 2017 Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations . . . .

The biggest global event of 2017 will be the negotiations on a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Ban Treaty Negotiations
United Nations, New York
27-31 March 2017
15 June - 7 July 2017
(For more information: ICAN)

I have just read a very provocative analysis of what the nuclear weapons ban treaty is all about. It asserts, in part:

"The ban treaty, then, is
an instrument to disrupt the comfort
of those who still believe that deterrence logic
(or mutual assured destruction)
provides a security rationale for nuclear weapons."

(emphasis added)

(See "The ban treaty: An interim step, but politically profound" by Joelien Pretorius in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.)

This was a revelation to me, taken in concert with my current re-reading of Mohammed ElBaradei's The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times."That's right!" I thought. "'Deterrence' is only the chosen logical paradigm for those who already control a massive advantage AND have a way of maintaining that advantage. They -- the nuclear weapons powers - have managed to attach a taboo to proliferation, but not to deterrence. It's bogus."

"Deterrence" is the back-door concept by which nuclear weapons states, having undertaken a treaty obligation to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise by others to not acquire them, over and over and over again make excuses for doing so. "And yet . . . to achieve deterrence . . . maintain strategic balance . . . and keep in mind global security . . . . "

It slowly began to dawn on me that, because I live in the US, and have been inculcated with more than 50 years of pro-deterrence propaganda, at some deep level I have bought into the deterrence argument. Logically, of course, I have rejected it; but that's not the same thing as the visceral disdain for the idea that is felt by every person living in a non-nuclear weapons state.

If you think about it, it is only one set of parties for whom deterrence is okay, and for whom proliferation doesn't make any sense at all. Those without nuclear weapons don't have the luxury of being comfortable with it.

In fact: is it possible that those without nuclear weapons -- and facing the nuclear weapons monopoly of the "haves" -- may see proliferation as a preferable option?

In fact: if you really believe in deterrence, don't you believe in deterrence for everybody? Don't you achieve perfect deterrence when you achieve total proliferation?

Before you say "of course not," please consider: proliferation can never be more taboo than deterrence.

In 2017, the nations of the world will make that clear.


Related posts

It is a stunning lesson in global civics to observe who voted "YES" and who voted "NO" (and also who abstained) on L.41 - "taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations."

(See Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???)



How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons? How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States)) 





The Age of Deception deserves close reading by anyone who wants to understand why a nuclear ban will be negotiated in 2017.

(See HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: ElBaradei's "Age of Deception")

The Meaning of "Race" in the USA: Class Is In Session ....

In his confirmation hearings for attorney general, Trump-appointee Senator Jeff Sessions will be asked to define the word "race." The nation will be listening . . . .

The USA is about to get a national tutorial on the definition of #race"
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

When Senator Jeff Sessions goes before the Capitol Hill hearing on his confirmation as attorney general in the administration of President Donald Trump, he will be asked about the time he called a  civil-rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race."

What may surprise some people is the amount of time that will be spent exploring the question, "What does the word 'race' mean?"

I will refrain from guessing what is in Senator Sessions' mind, or how the questions will unfold. That will all come out in the hearing.

Instead, I will explain why I think the process will be important for the rest of us.


What comes first?

A significant part of my past several months were devoted to reading and discussing Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates, together with others from my church.

I can attest to the fact that the statement from the book that provoked the most discussion was:

"[R]ace is the child of racism, not the father." (p. 7)

. . . and the discussion that proved the most difficult, and required the most time, involved understanding the difference believing that "race" is biological and understanding that it is a social construct.

What I noticed in those discussions was that people were so nervous about acknowledging an obvious physical fact -- skin that is dark brown or light brown or beige or pink or something in-between -- that they had trouble separating in their minds two distinct phenomena:

* the biological ramifications of those skin colors (very few)

* the ways society has acted over and over again -- with reference to those skins colors -- to impact the realities of those in those skins (very many)

One helpful step was to recognize that a social construct -- once it is constructed -- has real consequences. (You're not imagining that people in the US with dark skin have a very different experience than people with light skin.) A social construct, however, has no claims to being natural or right. And it certainly need not persist.


So 19th century . . . 

Louis Agissiz in 1879

It is fascinating to see how many great (and not-so-great) thinkers in the past took a shot at using biology to posit "racial" differences. You can read the role of (dis)honor in the Wikipedia article on "Scientific Racism."

One example that stands out in my mind -- in part because there are several important buildings at Harvard that bear his name -- is Louis Agissiz. Agissez was the very model of a modern 19th century scientist and public intellectual. He led expeditions all over the world, collected lots and lots of specimens, lectured widely, and published thousands of pages worth of scientific writing.

The only problem: on the biological determination of race (his big topic) he was dead wrong.


Freedom of thought

People are allowed to believe what they want to believe. (It's a free country.)

The challenge before the members of the committee evaluating the Sessions nomination, however, will be whether it matters what the attorney general of the United States thinks "race" means.

Here's an exercise: Read the words of any of the many US laws the attorney general is sworn to uphold -- the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution, for instance, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The protections afforded by such laws against discrimination based on "race" -- are those protections provided in the face of biological differences? Or in the face of socially-caused differences?

What do you think? Does it matter? Why?


Related posts

The heart of the matter, at least as I understand it, is that race is a social construct, and it's concerned with power. "Whiteness" is a condition of power over and against people who get defined as "not white." "Dying to 'whiteness'," then, will involved giving up power, I think.

(See How Might the White Church "Die to 'Whiteness'"?)


The ELCA's presiding bishop, Rev. Elizabeth Eaton, has set an example: own the white privilege we've experienced in our lives. Will Lutherans step up?

(See "Personal Success Story"? "White Privilege"? or Both?)







"We need to first acknowledge the genocidal origins of OUR nation’s history of ethnic cleansing and occupation."

(See Native American Rights: Acknowledge the Occupation)

Is the Outcome of the 2016 Election a Matter of Theology?

Post-Trump-election-victory USA: if ever good theology was needed . . . . Will the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and its members bring it?

Detail from poster for the film Bal (Honey) by Semih Kaplanoğlu

I read a blog post yesterday by Lutheran seminarian and vicar Lenny Duncan: "The Road to 270 Was Through the ELCA." It's about the election of Trump, and it makes a very provocative claim:

"[T]he problem isn’t political. It isn’t sociological. It is theological." 

That feels right to me at a gut level. And it has forced me to think. "What is my theology?"

Before last week, I kind of took theology for granted. "We know what we need to know about God," I thought. "We just need to do a better job of getting organized."

But Pastor Lenny's blog post has made me go back to square one.

I'm hoping to get clear on some theology that will make as much sense this week, and next week, and beyond, as it seemed to make before November 8.

I've been turning a lot over in my mind. I'm realizing that I'm carrying around a lot of snippets of scriptural wisdom, but not all of them rise to the level of theology. And I've been taught a lot of theology, but very little of it feels totally reliable at the moment.

The best I've been able to come up with as of today is this:

We've nearly perfected the practice of treating other people as objects;

what might happen if we tried treating each other as children of God?

I know, I know, that's rather tentative. It's what I can manage right now, using what little I am carrying with confidence with me every day, and using words that I hope others can understand. (Perhaps what it lacks in certainty, it makes up for in possibility.)

The good news is that I know I'm not the only person reading what Pastor Lenny writes. I've got a feeling he's gotten a lot of people to ask themselves, "What is my theology?"

I look forward to seeing what others come up with.

Messrs. Trump and Putin: CHANGE THIS MAP!

The rest of the world is committed to abolishing nuclear weapons in 2017.  US, Russia -- Trump, Putin -- your move . . . .

DECEMBER SURPRISE: Putin calls Trump "outstanding" (12/2015)

If Donald Trump intends to have good relations with Vladimir Putin and Russia, he can negotiate total nuclear disarmament.

That is something Barack Obama has failed to do.

And, by the way, it's something the entire US government can get behind -- starting right now. First step: let's hear from every US senator. The US president doesn't conduct foreign affairs in a vacuum. Treaties (such as disarmament treaties) are made with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The time is ripe. Just days ago, the majority of the world's nations voted to bring about a ban on nuclear weapons through negotiations in 2017. As the map below illustrates, the glaring holdouts against such a step were the US and Russia.

Vote on resolution to negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons in 2017 (L-41)
Green - Yes (123, 76%)
Red - No (38, 24%)
Beige - Abstained
(Via @ILPIwmd - share on Twitter)

The key to turning the rest of this map from red (NO) to green (YES) is the agreement of the US and Russia.

"Messrs. Trump and Putin: CHANGE THIS MAP!"


Related posts

Today, we may not be seeing kinetic (currently unleashed) violence on anything like the scale that consumed Europe and other parts of the world and resulted in 60 million deaths. Instead, thanks to technology, we have potential (waiting to be unleashed) violence -- nuclear devastation just the push of a button away.

(See Obama's (and Putin's) Missed Opportunity at Hiroshima)




It can all happen very fast . . . . No one really knows ahead of time what will happen . . . . That's why it's so important for people to get together and talk.

(See The Lesson of Reykjavik: TALK About Nuclear Disarmament (You Never Know) )








The nuclear "haves" are meeting in London today and tomorrow. Everyone in the world should be doing everything possible to drive them towards an agreement on nuclear disarmament. It's more important than ISIS. More important than Iran, Bibi, or Boehner. And certainly more important than the top ten things trending on Twitter or coming up in your Facebook feed.

(See Job #1 Vis-a-vis Russia: NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT)