Librarians from across the United States released a report showing that pro-censorship groups’ efforts to ban books with LGBTQ+ themes and stories about people of color have driven an unprecedented rise in the number of book challenges, with right-wing organizers pushing library workers to remove works ranging from the dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale to children’s books about foods enjoyed in different cultures.
According to the American Library Association (ALA), a record-breaking 2,571 unique titles were challenged in 2022, a 38% increase from the previous year.
The organization recorded 1,269 demands to censor books from various groups and individuals, compared to 729 challenges counted in 2021.
“Each attempt to ban a book by one of these groups represents a direct attack on every person’s constitutionally protected right to freely choose what books to read and what ideas to explore,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom. “The choice of what to read must be left to the reader or, in the case of children, to parents. That choice does not belong to self-appointed book police.”
None
— (@)
The Office for Intellectual Freedom said that starting in 2021, a rising number of challenges began targeting large numbers of titles, suggesting they were coordinated efforts from national groups like Moms for Liberty. Previously, the vast majority of book challenges were focused on a single book to which a parent or group of parents objected.
In 2022, 90% of the books challenged were part of attempts to censor multiple titles, the ALA reported.
“A book challenge is a demand to remove a book from a library’s collection so that no one else can read it. Overwhelmingly, we’re seeing these challenges come from organized censorship groups that target local library board meetings to demand removal of a long list of books they share on social media,” said Caldwell-Stone. “Their aim is to suppress the voices of those traditionally excluded from our nation’s conversations, such as people in the LGBTQIA+ community or people of color.”
In Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has led a nationwide effort by conservatives to keep public school students from learning accurate American history and discussing issues regarding the LGBTQ+ community, one county removed from school library shelves 176 books which have been held in storage since January 2022. The books include the children’s books Hush! A Thai Lullaby, featuring a Thai mother and child, and Dim Sum for Everyone!, about a family eating in a Chinese restaurant.
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” Caldwell-Stone told the Associated Press. “The last two years have been exhausting, frightening, outrage-inducing.”
People for the American Way called the association’s data, collected from media reports and library professionals across the country, “shocking but not surprising.”
“The far right wants to turn back the clock on the freedom to read, teach, and learn,” said the group. “We won’t stand for it.”
The ALA report comes four months after voters in at least two U.S. towns voted to cut or eliminate funding for their public libraries in the wake of campaigns to ban books with LGBTQ+ themes.
People in Jamestown Township, Michigan voted for a second time against a millage to fund 84% of their library’s budget, dooming the facility to a likely closure in 2024. The vote followed a push by a local conservative group to remove the book Gender Queer: A Memoir.
Craighead County Jonesboro Library in Arkansas lost 50% of its funding after “librarians and library workers were labeled pornographers and pedophiles because of the books on their shelves” that dealt with LGBTQ+ themes, as EveryLibrary Institute executive director John Chrastka toldPublishers Weekly in November.
A poll commissioned by the EveryLibrary Institute last year found that 75% of respondents were opposed to efforts to ban books, and across 16 states last fall, a majority of initiatives to pull funding from libraries failed.
“While a vocal minority stokes the flames of controversy around books, the vast majority of people across the nation are using life-changing services that public and school libraries offer,” said ALA President Lessa Kanani’opua Pelayo-Lozada on Thursday. “Our nation cannot afford to lose the library workers who lift up their communities and safeguard our First Amendment freedom to read.”
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
On the back cover of my new book, CATCHING THE LINVILLE TRAIN, there is a splendid painting that depicts the scene. My friend, Noela Lowien, a talented painter who lives at Kilcoy in Queensland, not far from Linville, has captured the moment. Never before had I ever travelled beyond Linville, a tiny village in which …
Corrientes Avenue, Buenos Aires Photo: Bill Hackwell
As the sun was setting in Buenos Aires this past Saturday, the vibrant Corrientes Avenue that goes through the center of the city was shut down. Corrientes is closely connected to Argentine culture; lined with theaters and bookstores and on this occasion it was dedicated to The Night of the Libraries and honoring 40 years of democracy since the bloody dictatorship. Reading, educating and never forgetting those dark years of the 1970s when the US backed Argentine military killed, or disappeared, over 30,000 people is important to the human core of this country to ensure that history will not repeat itself.
Teachers, authors, intellectuals, academics and young students spoke to crowds in panels covering a wide range of social topics, along with cultural performances. The City of Buenos Aires helped finance the event even with its Macrist Mayor Horacio Rodríguez Larreta of the right-wing Republican Proposal Party (PRO) who has already announced he is running for president in the general election in October; clearly his strategy was to not allow the Peronists currently in power to take the credit for this popular event.
Meanwhile in the US, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has taken a different approach to reading and libraries as he maneuvers to be more reactionary than other Republican candidates in his bid to get the nomination for US President in 2024 by banning books in his state.
In July 2022, DeSantis signed into law House Bill 1467 that requires that all books in Florida schools have to be screened by employees that had an educational media specialist certificate. The full impact of is just now taking affect as many districts hastily pulled all books off their library shelves and classroom until they are arbitrarily reviewed to be appropriate for “student needs” and if they do not meet approval they need to be covered and stored.
In Manatee County some parents are reporting that shelves of the school’s library are empty. Signs in Parrish Community High School bookcases have been covered with signs that read, “Books Are NOT for Student Use!!”
Florida teachers, who rank 48th in how much they get paid, are confused and now run the risk of possible professional ramification if they are not in compliance with the law and could possibly face felony charges for having unapproved books in their classroom.
One such dangerous book that has been covered and shelfed in Duval County is Roberto Clemente: Pride of the Pittsburgh Pirates by Jonah Winter that tells the story of the legendary Afro-Puerto Rican baseball player who won multiple Most Valuable Player awards, and was a strong voice against racism in the major leagues. Clemente died in a plane crash while delivering humanitarian aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua in 1972.
The banning of books legislation is in conjunction with another reactionary Florida law promoted and signed by DeSantis in April 2022 known as the STOP WOKE Act which regulates instruction in schools and workplaces prohibiting discussions on primary issues like LGBTQ struggles, racism, and even Black, Latino or Indigenous history because according to the law it could make other students or workers “uncomfortable” to hear about slavery from a Black point of view for example. The law essentially requires teachers to monitor classroom discussion to prevent them from wandering into exchanging of ideas on a range of topics that are fundamental issues facing US society.
Back on Corrientes Avenue Saturday there were lots of books about socialist Cuba including books dedicated to the life of Fidel and photography books on the Cuban Revolution. I could not help but wonder just what access students in Florida have to any truthful accounts of not just the Cuban Revolution but also about the social gains that have been made there since 1959. Could they find out, for example, that Cuba has a higher life expectancy than the US despite the criminal unilateral blockade of the island that has gone on for over 60 years? Could they learn in school about how Cuba sent front line doctors to over 40 countries during Covid?, or the remarkable protection of life that Cuba has during the cycles of hurricanes that hit the island and how miserable in comparison the record in preparation that their state has when those hurricanes move onto their shores.
You don’t have to be an educator to know how fundamental reading a wide range of topics is for students in developing them into being critical thinkers, to be able to arrive at one’s own conclusion through education and to be able to distinguish between truth and fake news, or to question authority about issues of war and peace and why is it that billions get sent to fan the flames of war in Ukraine at the same time as 30 million people get kicked off of food stamps while inflation soars.
This is some kind of slippery slope with frightening consequences as other states are also enacting these extreme steps towards censorship. History teaches us that things change only when people have developed a consciousness and come together into collective movements to forge a new inclusive future that has freedom and respect for everybody as its goal.
THURSDAY, 16 MARCH, 6.00PM, ALL SAINTS ANGLICAN CHURCH, HAMILTON ROAD, CHERMSIDE, BRISBANE You will meet Rebecca Levingston of ABC Radio who will MC the evening. Also Wayne Swan, Greg Cary, Paul Scarr, Anthony Lynham & Shayne Neumann who will comment on my latest book CATCHING THE LINVILLE TRAIN The function is a fundraiser for ACTS, …
A New York Times book review (2/14/23) gets an important fact about US history seriously wrong.
In a red-baiting New York Times review (2/14/23) of Malcolm Harris’ book Palo Alto, writer Gary Kamiya makes a false assertion about the persecution of Japanese people that amounts to denial of one of the most shameful chapters of US history. The Times should issue an immediate correction and apology.
Complaining that “Harris doesn’t acknowledge the exceptions” to his “seamless, all-explanatory narrative” of California history, Kamiya writes:
Take his discussion of Japanese internment. As an example of how “embracing white supremacy and segregation meant sacrificing a certain amount of nonwhite talent”…he cites the story of the sculptor Ruth Asawa, who was interned along with her family and then “formally excluded from California” and thus forced to study out of state.
“At a time when the Bay Area’s artists began toying with Japanese ideas and forms, artists of Japanese heritage were banned from the state,” he writes, implying that all artists of Japanese heritage were banned from the state. This is not true.
Contrary to Kamiya’s claim, it is true that not just all artists of Japanese descent, but all Japanese nationals and Japanese-American citizens were banned from California, beginning in March 1942. As Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civiliansexplained, under the US Army’s interpretation of President Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066,
all American citizens of Japanese descent were prohibited from living, working or traveling on the West Coast of the United States. The same prohibition applied to the generation of Japanese immigrants who, pursuant to federal law and despite long residence in the United States, were not permitted to become American citizens.
Japanese residents of some lightly populated areas of eastern California were initially not subjected to the ban, but the exclusion was extended to the entire state in June 1942. While the initial plan was to allow the people ethnically cleansed from the West Coast to relocate to other states, this was deemed impractical, and concentration camps, in the original sense of the term, were set up to confine them. As the commission report put it, “The evacuees were to be held in camps behind barbed wire and released only with government approval.”
At the time, the New York Times (3/24/42) presented the incarceration of Japanese Americans in upbeat terms, describing people being rounded up into camps as “weary but gripped with the spirit of adventure over a new pioneering chapter in American history.” (See FAIR.org, 3/24/15.)
This is history that Kamiya, who writes a history column for the San Francisco Examiner, surely knows. So what does he offer in support of his assertion that Harris’ writing that “artists of Japanese heritage were banned from the state” was “not true”? This is Kamiya’s entire argument on the point:
To take just one example, the artist Chiura Obata, who was on indefinite leave from his professorship at Berkeley while interned at Topaz, was reinstated by the University of California president Robert Sproul in January 1945.
So the fact that a person released from a detention camp, after the War Department rescinded the ban on Japanese residents in California (effective January 2, 1945), was allowed to get his job back means that the ban didn’t really exist? This is a preposterous argument, and one that will surely mislead many readers about the scope of the anti-Japanese program.
Kamiya treats the fact that Japanese exclusion didn’t continue in perpetuity as a damning indictment of Harris’ book:
Palo Alto is chock-full of Asawas, and this ugly underside of California history should be told. But the book has virtually no Obatas, and that selection bias, clearly driven by Harris’s conviction that “positive” stories are simply window-dressing concealing capitalism’s dark reality, severely damages its credibility.
To the contrary: Kamiya’s insistence that the historical fact that all Japanese people were banned from California “is not true” severely damages the credibility of the New York Times. The paper needs to offer a correction, and an apology, immediately.
ACTION:
Please contact the New York Times to demand a retraction of and apology for the paper’s denial of the historical reality that people of Japanese descent were completely banned from California.
Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.
Featured image: Map of showing “Military Area No. 1” and “Military Area No. 2,” from which Japanese nationals and Japanese-American citizens were totally excluded.
The Owen Wilkes book Peacemonger, edited by May Bass and Mark Derby, was due to be launched in Wellington today after earlier launches in Auckland and Christchurch. Here Buller conservationist Peter Lusk reflects on his mahi with Owen.
COMMENTARY:By Peter Lusk
I worked closely with peace researcher Owen Wilkes in 1973 and 1974, writing stories for the student newspaper Canta from files of newspaper clippings and hand written jottings that Owen had collected over a period of years.
These stories covered quite a range of subjects. For example, an American millionaire named Stockton Rush who purchased a beautiful valley near Te Anau from the Crown and built a luxury lodge. There was controversy over this. I can’t remember exactly why, probably the Crown selling the land when it shouldn’t.
Then a file on Ivan Watkins Dow who were making Agent Orange or similar at their plant in New Plymouth. They were releasing gases at night and the gases would drift over the city wiping out home vegetable gardens.
The company’s CEO described objectors as “eco-nuts”.
Owen’s biggest file was on Comalco. I went to the Bluff smelter and Manapouri power station and met activists in the area. Also interviewed Stockton Rush while in the area, namely Southland.
Peacemonger . . . the first full-length account of peace researcher Owen Wilkes’ life and work. Image: Raekaihau Press
Another file was on a self proclaimed millionaire who had been in the media over his proposed housing development in Governors Bay on Lyttelton Harbour, with a new tunnel to be built through Port Hills. This guy turned out to be a conman and we were able to expose him.
I wrote up the story, we printed it as a centrefold in Canta, then used the centrefold as a leaflet to assist the action group in Governors Bay. This was very successful at exposing the conman whose name I cannot recall.
There were a few other files of Owen’s that I turned into stories, and the sum of the stories were the basis of a 4 page leaflet we printed off for the South Island Resistance Ride held at end of 1974.
I never got to write up the files on Stockton Rush and Ivan Watkins Dow which was a personal disappointment. From memory it was due to Owen suddenly getting the peace research job in Norway [at SIPRI – Stockholm International Peace Research Institute].
“The only time in my life I’ve ever met, let alone worked with, a genius. He had a huge amount of energy.”
I found Owen very good to work with. It’s the only time in my life I’ve ever met, let alone worked with, a genius. He had a huge amount of energy. Far more than me, and I was a full-on activist along with others in our little group like Canta editor Murray Horton and graphics/layout man Ron Currie.
I worked alongside Owen at Boons bakery for a single night. It came about when one of my flatmates, who regularly worked there, needed a night off and convinced me to cover his shift.
So I turned up at Boons at 8pm or whenever it was. The foreman was none too pleased, but he showed me the ropes. I was taking cooked bread out of one oven, while Owen was doing the same from a bigger oven beside me.
The bread was coming out fast, in hot tins, and it was very easy to get burned on the tins, specially for a novice. I got several burns in the course of the shift. Looking over at Owen, I couldn’t help notice how he revelled in the job, he was like a well-oiled machine, banging the bread out of the tins, and oiling them up.
Very competent, no burns for him because he was a regular at Boons and had everything well worked out.
Something else. Owen was living at a commune at Oxford at the time. They had two pigs needing to be slaughtered. I’d killed and dressed a few sheep in my farm worker days, so offered to help.
Owen had never done such “home-kills”, but in typical Owen fashion had got hold of a book on butchering and he took it with him to the pig sty. He’d previously read-up on how to “stick” a pig, stabbing it between the ribs and slicing its heart, all in one motion.
He accomplished this very successfully. One pig, then two pigs, then haul them over to a bath full of hot water to scald, then scrape. After that we gutted them and hung up the tidy carcasses to cool.
Yes, I had great admiration for Owen.
Photo of Owen Wilkes
About the picture at the start of this article: This photo is from the 1974 Long March across Australia against US imperialism and the Vietnam War.
We overnighted in all sorts of places and this was the campground at Mildura in Victoria.
I like the photo because it typifies Owen with his steel box of files — so heavy and awkward to handle. But it was strong and, from memory, lockable.
Having the files with him, meant Owen could immediately provide evidence for media if they asked for verification on something he said. Even though the Long March was organised from Australia, Owen was still the onboard authority on what the US was doing over there.
The Wellington launch scheduled for today, 14 February 2023, at Minerva Handcraft Bookshop has been cancelled. It will be rescheduled. Guest speaker: Nicky Hager
Corinne Adams’ son Charlie came home from school with notes from his teacher saying he was doing great in reading. He seemed to be able to read the little books he was getting at school. But during the pandemic, Corinne had to give him a reading test at home, and she realized her son couldn’t read. He’d been memorizing books that were read to him but he didn’t know how to read new words he’d never seen before. Corinne decided to teach him herself.
It’s a surprisingly common story. And kids who aren’t on track by the end of first grade are in danger of never becoming good readers. Two thirds of fourth graders in the United States are not proficient readers. The problem is even worse when you look beyond the average and focus on specific groups of children: 83% of Black fourth graders don’t read proficiently.
American Public Media reporter Emily Hanford digs into a flawed theory that has shaped reading instruction for decades. The theory is that children can learn to read without learning how to sound out words, because there are other strategies they can use to figure out what the words say. Strategies like “look at the picture” or “think of a word that makes sense.”
Research by cognitive scientists has demonstrated that readers need to know how to sound out words. But some teacher training programs still emphasize this debunked theory, including books and classroom materials that are popular around the world. Scientists say these strategies are teaching children the habits of struggling readers. Kids learn to skip letters and words and struggle to understand what they’re reading.
Hanford looks at the work of several authors who are all published by the same educational publishing company. One, Lucy Calkins, is a “rock star” among teachers. Her books and training programs are wildly popular. Calkins has now decided to rewrite her curriculum in response to “the science of reading.” But other authors are sticking to the idea that children can use other strategies to figure out the words. Their teaching materials are in classrooms all over the country.
Reporter Christopher Peak also contributed to this story.
NEW YORK – The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) today released a new resource that provides practical advice for authors whose books are being challenged and banned in K – 12 schools and libraries. Prepared in collaboration with writers who have faced censorship, it is available on the NCAC website. Book challenges can be exasperating, […]
I have given up on making new year resolutions. Most of them are dreams. In 2023, I will concentrate on ATTITUDE CHANGE. Am intending to take a searching look at my usual habits and gradually improve them, making radical changes if necessary. I will commence by being curious about every challenge that faces me. Before …
Peace campaigners, activists and Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific stalwarts were among those who gathered in Auckland this evening to celebrate publication of a new book dedicated to the remarkable mahi of the late international peace researcher Owen Wilkes.
This Auckland launch of Peacemonger at Grey Lynn’s Trades Hall was the second of three such events following one in Christchurch last week and a third planned for Wellington on February 24.
Speakers included three of the four Auckland contributors to the book — event organiser Maire Leadbeater, Dr Bob Mann and Dr David Robie — with the fourth, Dr Peter Wills, sending his apologies. Dr Robie also shared a message from Swedish researcher Paul Claesson.
Guest speakers Bob Woodward and Lyn Hume reflected on the Peace Movement and the remarkable achievements over many years.
Activist musician Roger Fowler rounded off the evening with a performance.
Photographs: Del Abcede/WILPF and APR
Peacemonger: Owen Wilkes: International peace researcher, edited by May Bass and Mark Derby. Wellington: Raekaihau Press, 196 pages. $35. ISBN 978-1-99-115386-9
Owen Wilkes book launch
1 of 8
1. Janfrie Wakim and the Owen Wilkes book Peacemonger. Image: Del Abcede/APR
2. Contributor Maire Leadbeater introduces the book launch. Image: Del Abcede/APR
3. Guest speaker Jack Woodward reflects at the book launch. Image: Del Abcede/APR
4. Contributor Dr Bob Mann speaking. Image: Del Abcede/APR
5. Contributor Dr David Robie speaking. Image: Del Abcede/APR
6. Roger Fowler singing at the book launch. Image: Del Abcede/APR
7. Crowd scene at the book launch. Image: Del Abcede/APR
8. The WILPF catering team at the book launch. Image: APR
Peacemonger, the new book published last month to celebrate the life and work of peace researcher and activist Owen Wilkes (1940-2005), is being launched in Auckland on Friday. Here a close friend from Sweden — not featured in the book — remembers his mentor in both New Zealand and Scandinavia.
COMMENT: By Paul Claesson in Stockholm
I got to know Owen Wilkes through friends in 1980, when as a 22-year-old student I ended up in a housing collective where his ex-partner lived. He was then at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), having recently arrived from the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), and was, in addition to his collaboration with Nils-Petter Gleditsch, already in full swing with his Foreign Military Presence project.
He hired me as an assistant with responsibility for Spanish and Portuguese-language source material.
During this time I got to know Søren MC and Kirsten Bruun in Copenhagen, who had recently launched the magazine Försvar — Militärkritiskt Magasin. I contributed a couple of articles and was then invited to participate in the editorial team.
Peacemonger . . . the first full-length account of peace researcher Owen Wilkes’ life and work. Image: Raekaihau Press
A theme issue about the American bases in Greenland grew into a book, Greenland — The Pearl of the Mediterranean, which apparently caused considerable consternation in the Ministry of Greenland. The book resulted in a hearing in Christiansborg.
I was also responsible for a theme issue about the DEW (Early Warning Line) and Loran C facilities on the Faroe Islands. I was in Stockholm when SÄPO’s spy target against Owen started, and I was there the whole way.
SÄPO interrogated me a couple of times, and at one point during the trial, when I took the opportunity to hand out relevant material about Owen’s research — all publicly available — to journalists in the audience, I was visibly thrown out of the case by a couple of angry young men from FSÄK (the security service of the Swedish defence establishment).
Distorted by media
Owen and I saw each other almost every day — sometimes I stayed with him in his little cabin in Älvsjö — and together we wondered how his various activities, such as his innocent fishing trip in Åland, were distorted in the media by FSÄK and the prosecutor’s care (SÄPO had subsequently begun to show greater doubt about Owen’s guilt).
In 1984-85, after he had been expelled from Sweden, I was Owen’s house guest at his farm in Karamea, Mahoe Farm, on New Zealand’s West Coast, at the northern end of the road. He was in the process of selling it.
With his brother Jack, he had started a commercial bee farm, and together we spent an intensive summer — harvesting bush honey, pollinating apple and kiwifruit orchards and building a small harvest house for the honey collection.
In the meantime, we sold — or ate up — the farm’s remaining flock of sheep. When the farm was sold, we moved to Wellington — I was offered a room in the Quakers’ guest house, where I joined the work at Peace Movement Aotearoa’s premises on Pirie Street.
Then Prime Minister David Lange had recently let New Zealand withdraw from ANZUS, as a result of his government’s refusal to allow US Navy ships to call at port unless they declared themselves disarmed of nuclear weapons.
As a result, PMA organised a conference with the theme nuclear-free Pacific, with participants from all over the Pacific region. Together with Owen, Nicky Hager and others I contributed to the planning and execution of the conference.
Surveying US signals intelligence
Before this, Owen and Nicky had begun surveying American signals intelligence facilities in New Zealand. I took part in this, ie. with a couple of photo excursions to Tangimoana.
Owen and I kept in touch after my return to Sweden. What I remember best from his letters from this time — apart from his musings about his work as a government defence consultant — are his often comical anecdotes about his adventures in the bush as a scout for the New Zealand Forest Service, where his task was mainly to map Māori cultural remains before they were chewn to pieces by the forest industry.
His sudden death took a toll. I got the news from his partner May Bass. I would have liked to have flown to NZ to attend the memorial services for him, but ironically they coincided with my wedding.
Owen played a very big role in my life. I admired him, and miss him all the time. More than anyone else I have known, he deserves to be remembered in writing. I was therefore very happy when I heard about the time and energy devoted to this book project. My sincere gratitude.
Want to give a valued friend an interesting Christmas present? May I humbly suggest that you just can’t do better than giving your friend all three of my books? This is the way you and I will personalise the deal. I will write your friend’s name in each one, add a greeting from you and …
Owen Wilkes (1940–2005) was known throughout the Pacific and across the world as an outstanding researcher on peace and disarmament.
His work:
• exposed plans to build a US Navy satellite tracking station in the Southern Alps
• identified a foreign spy base at Tangimoana (near Bulls)
• led to job offers from leading peace research institutes in Norway and Sweden — and an espionage charge for taking photographs during a cycling holiday, and
• supported local campaigns against foreign military activity in the Philippines, and for a nuclear-free Pacific.
Born in Christchurch, Owen Wilkes was an internationalist and a dedicated New Zealander — a subsistence farmer on the West Coast (where his self-built eco-home was demolished by the local council), an archaeologist, tramper and yachtsman.
In this forthcoming book, edited by historian Mark Derby and Wilkes’ former partner May Bass, experts in their own fields who knew and worked with him reflect on his achievements and his legacy. The contributors include:
Peacemonger . . . the first full-length account of peace researcher Owen Wilkes’ life and work. Image: Raekaihau Press
Ingvar Botnen
Nils Petter Gleditsch
Nicky Hager
Di Hooper
Murray Horton
Maire Leadbeater
Robert Mann
Neville Ritchie
David Robie
Ken Ross
Peter Wills
The book, published by Raekaihau Press in association with Steele Roberts Aotearoa, has a timeline, a bibliography of Owen’s publications in several languages, and an index.
I have always felt strongly about this question as demonstrated in my article, “The international human rights movement: not perfect, but a lot better than many governments think” published in Yuwen Li, NGOs in China and Europe (Ashgate, 2011), pp 287-304.
Here for easy retrieval the piece in full:
If you consider yourself to be a supporter of human rights and all of its technicalities, then you are surely aware of the document that formally brought forth legislation about human rights: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Declaration was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations by a vote of 48-0-8 on December 10, 1948.
Per its name, the main goal of the Declaration was to universalize human rights and to ensure that every human, no matter where in the world, has the same basic human rights.
This inherent goal of the Declaration (its aim of universal human rights), has been a source of debate in the philosophical realm for quite some time. This blog will bring forth one particular view relating to the debate, as well as its implications.
Relativism
(source: yahoo images)
In the realm of philosophy, there exists a concept of relativism. (Or, more specifically, cultural relativism; in this blog, I shall be using these terms synonymously.)
Rather than plainly stating what relativism is, I am going to show you one of the many ways the concept was devised.
The Earth is big. On our big Earth, there are seven continents. Throughout these seven continents, there are hundreds of states and nations. In these states and nations, billions of people exist. Most of the people within these nations align with a specific cultural identity. Whether it be American, French, Japanese, or Swiss, all humans have a unique cultural identity.
Moreover, cultures have different forms of expressions. One culture is not necessarily like another (for what is right in one culture could very much be wrong in another).
Therefore, there is no possible way that an objective set of rules could ever exist. What is correct is relative to the culture and society of where that expression is happening.
If you followed along and agreed with all of the statements just made, then you are stepping into the realm of relativism.
More on Relativism
(source: yahoo images)
Relativism is the view that what is “right” and “wrong” is solely dependent on one’s culture. What is correct in the United States could very much be wrong in another nation.
A finite example of this is gratuity, or “tipping,” after a meal in a restaurant. In the United States, it is acceptable to tip your server after a meal at a restaurant. In Japan, this would be disrespectful.
In the eyes of relativism, both of these customs are correct. Moreover, they are equally correct—one is not more “right” than the other.
Additionally, cultural relativism not only says that cultural customs are equally correct but the moral codes of every culture is equally correct also. In other words, no culture is better than another—no culture is more correct.
However, this characteristic of cultural relativism brings forth another one of its characteristics: there is no such thing as moral progress.
To say that something has “progressed” is to say that it has become better, meaning that before its progression, it was flawed. This goes against cultural relativism because relativism states that every culture is inherently correct—there is no need to progress. Therefore, rather than saying a culture has “progressed,” relativists say that a culture has simply changed its ways and its moral code. (This is different from progression because it does not imply a culture has advanced for the better due to some arbitrary standard.)
Cultural relativism, at least at first, might be an appealing outlook on life. After all, who are we to tell different cultures what is right and what is wrong? Every culture and society should be allowed to have their own rules and social norms. It sounds immoral to enforce the United State’s social norms onto other nations.
Relativism’s Implications on Human Rights
(source: yahoo images)
The big implication that follows from relativism (as it relates to human rights) can be broken down as follows: (i) if cultural relativism is correct, every culture is equal and correct; (ii) if every culture is equal and correct, no culture has authority or agency over another; (iii) enforcing universal human rights would not align with all cultures in the world; (iv) if no culture/society has the agency to tell another what to do, and enforcing universal human rights would require telling other cultures what to do, universal human rights cannot exist.
Despite this argument coming to the conclusion that universal human rights cannot exist, we all are very much aware of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—something that does indeed exist. However, we must note that the argument above does not apply to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This is due to the fact that the Declaration holds no legal obligation as it is solely a declaration, not a treaty. Nations are not forced to follow it. Instead, they are encouraged to follow it. (However, this is not to say that the Declaration is not followed.)
Therefore, the argument that universal human rights cannot exist still stands. However, the argument’s basis is founded on the premise that relativism is true and correct—and that might not be the case.
Universalism
(source: yahoo images)
Before we carry on with our discussion of relativism, I would like to point out another view: universalism. As it relates to politics, universalism, unlike relativism, states that universal human rights can and should exist.
Universalism is the direct opposite to relativism in the world of politics. It claims that social norms across all cultures are fundamentally similar, hence why it would be possible to universalize (and legislate) human rights.
Objections to Relativism
(source: yahoo images)
Having now formulated a basic understanding of relativism (as well as its counter: universalism), we can now move on ahead and consider some of the theory’s big objections.
First, let us consider the objection of “no cultural progress”. The lack of cultural progress in relativism, as aforementioned, is formulated from the basis that all cultures are equally correct, with no culture being “better” or “worse.” Due to this, no culture can progress as it would imply it was not “good” in the past. Rather than progressing, a culture merely changed its practices and moral codes.
Therefore, under relativism, one would not be able to say that modern-day Germany is better than Nazi Germany, even though we know it is. Relativism would suggest that moral code of Nazi Germany is just as correct as the moral code of modern Germany; one is not better than the other.
Moreover, under relativism, one could not say that the abolishment of slavery was progress for the United States; we merely changed our ways.
This, as one would obviously assume, is a big pill to swallow. Most would agree that modern-day Germany and the modern-day USA are better than they were many years ago. However, to say this would be to reject relativism, thereby stating that some cultures and social norms indeed are better than others.
Another objection to relativism comes from the fact that most people align with multiple different cultures. For example, everyone in the United States lives under the cultural code of the United States. However, we also follow cultural norms that are more local—such as the cultural codes of what city/state we live in. In cases like these, relativism gives no true guidelines on what one should do.
A famous example of this objection comes from the case Wisconsin vs. Yoder.This case was between the state of Wisconsin and an Amish family that lived in Wisconsin.
In Wisconsin, legislation requires that every family sends their children to get educated until the age of 16. However, Amish customs say that no child needs education after 8th grade. Thus, a dilemma formulated between one culture and another—the culture of Wisconsin and the culture of the Amish.
In the end, the Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in favor of the Amish family, citing the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
This however, is just one example of conflicting cultural social norms. What is one supposed to do when their culture does not align with another culture they are a part of? Relativism does not say.
Besides the two mentioned objections to relativism, many more exist. Therefore, it is quite clear that relativism is not a perfect theory nor a perfect view of life. However, despite the objections to the view, many have still aligned with the theory.
Conclusion
(source: yahoo images)
As there are many attractions and objections to relativism, one is, perhaps, able to see why the concept of universal human rights has been a heated source of debate.
Whether or not there will ever be a treaty formulated that legally binds nations into following basic human rights is unknown. However, what we do know is that this issue is not one that is as obvious as people might believe at first. [editor comment: what about the UN Conventions?]
Perhaps, in the future, if there is diplomatic debate on this topic, a treaty could very well be created. This treaty will ensure that no human ever on this planet gets mistreated. However, until that day, we solely have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—a very good starting point for a treaty on human rights.
Exactly 100 years ago this month, a passionate aviator, Hudson Fysh, flew a light plane that carried just one passenger out of a rough airfield at Cloncurry in north western Queensland to launch a new airline that he had just founded. He called his pioneering venture Queensland and Northern Territory Air Services. To keep it …
When hundreds of literary figures and employees of Penguin Random House took issue with the publisher’s $2 million book deal with right-wing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett (Guardian, 10/27/22), they provoked a backlash that underscores the degree to which the right seeks to control speech and dissent.
While Barrett is one of the most extreme high court jurists in recent memory (Guardian, 8/26/22), the joint statement that was the target of the backlash highlighted her vote to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision which had recognized a constitutionally protected right to abortion. The letter urged the publishing house to reconsider the deal, which it stressed concerned “not just a book that we disagree with” but an “assault on inalienable human rights.”
At the core of the statement argument against PRH’s decision to publish Coney Barrett is the alleged violation of the Bertelsmann Code of Conduct. The statement notes that Human Rights Watch, which was founded by former Random House publisher Robert L. Bernstein, cited the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in declaring abortion access a human right. The Code of Conduct for PRH parent company Bertelsmann also cites that declaration, noting that the publisher is “committed to the principles” of the document. The statement claims that proceeding to publish Coney Barrett’s book would be in violation of both the company’s Code of Conduct and international human rights.
The signers focused on the policies of the company, insisting that Bertelsmann—a multinational media conglomerate based in Germany—uphold its own standards. This might be seen as a David vs. Goliath story, in which rank-and-file employees call on a powerful employer to choose its self-proclaimed principles over profit. The signatories pose no danger of silencing Barrett, one of the most powerful voices in the world, whose words will be widely read regardless of whether PRH pays her millions of dollars for the right to distribute them. But not everyone sees it that way.
‘What the left does’
Jonathan Turley (FoxNews.com, 11/2/22) denounces speech he disagrees with as “a general psychosis.”
“Of course they’re calling for censorship! This is what the left does!” hyperventilated Rod Dreher at American Conservative (10/29/22). Dreher, an author for a PRH imprint, added that the signers “do not believe that a female Supreme Court justice who believes in the sanctity of unborn human life (as do tens of millions of Americans) should have a platform.” He seemed incensed that many of the signers were denigrating their “own employer, in public, in an effort to censor Justice Barrett.”
On FoxNews.com (10/28/22), law professor Jonathan Turley wrote an op-ed headlined “Cancel Culture Keeps Targeting Amy Coney Barrett. Now It’s an Absurd Call to Ban Her Book.” The Washington Examiner‘s Quin Hillyer (10/28/22) scoffed, “More than 500 so-called literary figures need to get a life.” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Twitter, 10/27/22) called it an instance of “book banning.”
PEN America (10/31/22), perhaps the most mainstream organization to denounce the letter against Barrett’s book, said in a statement that while the political orientation of the Supreme Court was alarming, “if editors have concluded that a book…is of value to audiences, that decision should not be overturned at the behest of protesters who reject Coney Barrett’s views.” This seems to be not so much a defense of free expression as it is of editorial hierarchy, with the publishing world’s underlings enjoined to shut up once their bosses have reached a decision.
Some writers on the right wanted to put teeth in that judgment, arguing that letter signers must be punished severely for their insolence. Conservative journalist Cathy Young (Twitter, 10/28/22) called for the employees who signed the letter to be fired for “demonstrating their unfitness to work for a major publisher in a free society,” and Tablet writer and anti-woke crusader Wesley Yang (Twitter, 10/28/22) said the publisher “must fire every signatory and the wider industry must treat the signatory lists as a blacklist.”
The fallacy of free speech absolutism
Unsurprisingly, a for-profit media conglomerate takes a stand in favor of publishing a book it believes will make money (Wall Street Journal, 10/31/22).
The kerfuffle highlights a number of interesting contradictions and falsehoods that often pop up in right-wing freakouts about so-called liberal attacks on free speech. First of all, Barrett is hardly a lonely dissident fighting a censorship battle against an oppressive government. PRH is sticking with its contract with Barrett, despite all the outrage (Wall Street Journal, 10/31/22). And it isn’t as if liberal society could ever keep her from writing a book; conservative publishers like Encounter would certainly have offered her a contract if the big houses had passed.
Freedom of speech and of the press don’t mean everyone is entitled to a contract with a particular publisher, and Barrett’s pen is already far stronger than those of most writers: She has the ability, in her government job for life, to strike down our civil rights and liberties, and there is little us plebs can do about it. The conservative backlash is a naked attempt by the right to shield a powerful government figure from the hoi polloi—condemning even the discussion of whether her views need to be further amplified.
I have previously written about how these right-wing outbursts are often hypocritical and a form of projection, as the right will happily “cancel” leftists and liberals (FAIR.org, 10/23/20)—often enlisting the power of the state to turn their opinions into diktats. But the accusation that liberals are somehow censoring conservative thought by criticizing it also reminds us of the uncomfortable fallacy of free speech absolutism. Like media objectivity, it isn’t real.
Sure, we all like to think of ourselves as free-speech die-hards who would fight for the right for our enemies to disagree with us. But everyone who isn’t an anarchist thinks some forms of speech should be illegal—for example, “Give me all your money or I’ll kill you”—and no one who isn’t a sociopath thinks that you ought to say everything that’s legal to say.
Few people would question why employees of a publisher would object to their bosses approving a book that promoted slavery. If people see forced birth as the same sort of human rights atrocity, should they be condemned for raising similar objections? Meanwhile, there are certainly staffers at Evangelical publishing houses who would be alarmed to see a book defending reproductive rights in their lists; should they be attacked if they demanded that their employers stick to their proclaimed moral code?
The fact is, employees calling on their bosses to cancel a book deal, a performer boycottingSpotify because it gives a platform to disinformation, or an audience member heckling a speaker are all forms of speech. You can’t condemn any of it without letting go of your fanciful claim to free-speech absolutism.
Yang and Young appear to think criticizing a book deal is crossing a red line, that this is a form of speech that deserves not just condemnation but economic punishment. So there is the limit of their free speech advocacy—a limit, it should be pointed out, that seeks to punish the people with vastly less power in the conversation.
Associative freedom also key
To debunk the notion of free speech absolutism is not to reject the importance of free speech, which is vital to liberalism and democracy. Publications and publishing houses must have the freedom to have a point of view, and individuals must have the freedom to criticize an agenda that seeks to dial women’s rights back to the Middle Ages. In its statement in favor of the book’s publication, PEN America said it “is the role of major publishers to make available a wide array of ideas and perspectives.”
Surely all the open letter’s signatories would agree with that; the question is, how wide? PEN America’s leadership would draw a line somewhere; the letter-writers would draw it in a different place. That’s the disagreement—one that has to do more with how much you value the right to abortion than it does with how much you value the right to free speech.
Osita Nwanevu (New Republic, 7/6/20) defends “freedom of association, the under-heralded right of individuals to unite for a common purpose or in alignment with a particular set of values.”
Osita Nwanevu noted at the New Republic (7/6/20) that freedom of speech and freedom of association are both crucial liberal ideals, and yet “associative freedom is often entirely absent from popular discourse about liberalism.” That is certainly true about the hand-wringing over the future of “free society” in the PRH story. Nwanevu wrote:
While public universities in America are generally bound by the First Amendment, controversial speakers have no broad right to speak at private institutions. Those institutions do, however, have a right to decide what ideas they are and aren’t interested in entertaining, and what people they believe will or will not be useful to their communities of scholars—a right that limits the entry and participation not only of public figures with controversial views, but the vast majority of people in our society. Senators…have every right to have their views published in a newspaper. But they have no specific right to have those views published by any particular publication. Rather, publications have the right—both constitutionally as institutions of the press, and by convention as collections of individuals engaged in lawful projects—to decide what and whom they would or would not like to publish, based on whatever standards happen to prevail within each outlet.
Like campaigns against “cancel culture” and “wokeness,” the conservative agenda isn’t just about policing speech, but aims to punish those who challenge the establishment and social hierarchies. It is very much about destroying the associative freedom that is inherent to the existence of democratic society. That is the nature of conservatism, but these days that movement, falsely, takes on the rallying cry of “free speech” in doing so.
Alaa Abd El-Fattah has been on hunger strike for six months and will refuse water from 6 November, the first day of the climate summit
The majority of living Nobel prize for literature laureates have called on world leaders attending the Cop27 climate conference in Egypt this week to help free thousands of political prisoners in the country, including the writer Alaa Abd El-Fattah who is six months into a hunger strike and “at risk of death”.
The letter, organised by Abd El-Fattah’s UK publishers Fitzcarraldo Editions and Seven Stories Press, has been signed by 13 Nobel prize for literature winners: Svetlana Alexievich, JM Coetzee, Annie Ernaux, Louise Glück, Abdulrazak Gurnah, Kazuo Ishiguro, Elfriede Jelinek, Mario Vargas Llosa, Patrick Modiano, Herta Müller, Orhan Pamuk, Wole Soyinka and Olga Tokarczuk.
The first time I took an interest in a Federal Government Budget was 77 years ago when I had to write an essay about it at High School in Toowoomba. I knew so little about Budgets of any kind that I barely scraped a pass. Since then, I must report that I have never ever …
Life is tougher at this point in time than it usually is. There are many reasons for this, but four stand out as cornerstones of perils that impact our lives. First of all, we have COVID. It hit us without warning and dominated our lives for two years. We had no previous experience upon which …
The conference “The Human Rights Defenders’ Movement at a Crossroad“ featured the testimonies and experiences of a great diversity of grassroots activists coming from all backgrounds, including Yvette Mushigo (Synergie des Femmes pour la Paix et la Réconciliation des Peuples des Grands Lacs d’Afrique, DRC); Ukei Muratalieva (Nazik Kyz, Kyrgyzstan); Rocío Walkiria Santos Reyes (CEHPRODEC, Honduras); Yasmine Shurbaji (Families for Freedom, Syria); and Monika Maritjie Kailey (Komunitas Masyarakat Adat Marafenfen, Aru Islands, Indonesia).
With the participation of the United Nations Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders, Mary Lawlor; the French Ambassador at Large for Human Rights, Delphine Borione; the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Rapporteur on the Rights of Human Rights Defenders and Justice Operators, Commissioner Joel Hernández García; the Human Development, Migration, Governance, and Peace Unit Acting Director at the European Commission, Chiara Adamo.
“We call on the EU and the Member States to ensure the effective, timely, relevant and comprehensive implementation of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders”.
Read the keynote by Cristina Palabay (KARAPATAN Alliance, The Philippines)
“Look around this room and you will see so many different nationalities full of patient, committed, resilient people working to defend human rights. That is hope” – UNSR on HRDs, Mary Lawlor.
You can see all the photos of the conference “The Human Rights Defenders Movement at a Crossroad” in the gallery here.
Stuti Mishra in the Independent of 29 September 2022 summarises and analyses the report “A Decade of Defiance: Ten years of reporting land and environmental activism worldwide” by Global Witness
More than 1,700 environmental defenders have been killed around the world in the last decade with one death reported every other day on average…The report titled A Decade of Defiance: Ten years of reporting land and environmental activism worldwide, released by Global Witness, reveals the increasing threats environmental activists are facing as the climate and biodiversity crisis worsens.
The research states that a total of 1,733 people have been killed over the past 10 years trying to protect their land and resources. That is an average of one defender killed approximately every two days over 10 years.
The report shows Brazil has been the deadliest country for environmental defenders with 342 lethal attacks reported since 2012 with over 85 per cent of killings within the Brazilian Amazon.
The data found within the report also shows that over half of the attacks over the 10-year period have taken place in three countries — Brazil, Colombia, and the Philippines — with around 300 killings reported in these countries.
Mexico and Honduras witnessed over 100 killings while Guatemala and India saw 80 and 79 respectively, remaining one of the most dangerous countries. The report also reports 12 mass killings, including three in India and four in Mexico.
Mexico was the country with the highest recorded number of killings in 2021, totalling 54 killings, up from 30 the previous year. Almost half of those killed were again Indigenous people while over a third were forced disappearances, including at least eight members of the Yaqui community.
The report also reveals that over three-quarters of the attacks recorded in 2021 took place in Latin America. In Brazil, Peru and Venezuela, a big majority of 78 per cent of these attacks occurred in the Amazon.
Meanwhile, the biggest increase in lethal attacks was witnessed in Brazil and India in 2021 with 26 deaths reported in Mexico, up from 20 and 14 in India, up from four.
Both Colombia and the Philippines saw a drop in killings to 33 in 2021 from 65, and 19 from 30 in 2021 respectively. Yet overall they remain two of the countries with the highest numbers of killings in the world since 2012.
2021 Highlights from Global Witness report
Around 200 Land and Environmental Defenders were killed in 2021 – nearly four people a week
Over three-quarters of the attacks recorded in 2021 took place in Latin America
Nearly 40 per cent of all attacks reported were against Indigenous people
Mexico recorded the highest number of killings in 2021
Brazil and India both saw a rise in lethal attacks in 2021
50 of the victims killed in 2021 were small-scale farmers
In Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo remained the country with the highest number of attacks — eight defenders were killed there in 2021. All eight of these killings were in Virunga National Park, which remains extremely dangerous for the park rangers protecting it.
The organisation began collecting data on attacks against those defending land and the environment in 2012 and found that the control and use of land and territory is a central issue in countries where defenders are threatened. Much of the increasing killing, violence and repression is linked to territorial conflicts and the pursuit of economic growth based on the extraction of natural resources from the land, it states. The research has also highlighted that Indigenous communities in particular face a disproportionate level of attacks — nearly 40 per cent — even though they make up only 5 per cent of the world’s population.
However, the research found that the figures also do not capture the true scale of the problem, as tightened control on media has led to severe underreporting in some countries where environmental defenders are most vulnerable. Research has also found that few perpetrators of killings are rarely ever brought to justice due to the failures of governments to properly investigate these crimes.
While a majority of these attacks are not properly investigated or reported on, a big proportion of these attacks were linked to sectors like mining and infrastructure, including large-scale agribusiness and hydroelectric dams.
Many authorities ignore or actively impede investigations into these killings often due to alleged collusion between corporate and state interests, the report says.
All over the world, Indigenous peoples, environmental activists and other land and environmental defenders risk their lives for the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss.
They play a crucial role as a first line of defence against ecological collapse, yet are under attack themselves facing violence, criminalisation and harassment perpetuated by repressive governments and companies prioritising profit over human and environmental harm.
a spokesperson for Global Witness said
“With democracies increasingly under attack globally and worsening climate and biodiversity crises, this report highlights the critical role of defenders in solving these problems,” a spokesperson for Global Witness said, adding that the organisation makes an “urgent appeal for global efforts to protect and reduce attacks against them.”
Apart from killings, the report also reveals a number of tactics being used to silence them, like death threats, surveillance, sexual violence, or criminalisation – and that these kinds of attacks are even less well reported.
Many children in the United States will never meet a Palestinian in person, and if they do, they may need to overcome the negative images and stereotypes that pervade popular culture: terrorist, religious extremist, misogynist, etc. For this reason, books are a critical if underused opportunity for kids to learn about the people of Palestine.
Palestinians are important because they are human beings, and also because they play a central role in US foreign policy in the Middle East, and are a major focus of US financial and military resources. If US kids are to grow up to be responsible global citizens, they must understand Palestinian experiences and perspectives, among others.
Are US kids getting good insight about Palestinians from books? My ongoing research project examining kids’ books involving Palestine has already yielded some interesting findings: Even the youngest children are subjected to narratives that erase Palestinians.
Erasure through appropriation
The Palestinians who constitute roughly half of the people under Israeli control are dissolved into Israel’s “diverse cultures.”
Rah! Rah! Mujadara!, for example, is a 12-page board book for ages 1–4 that has an attractive tagline: “Everybody likes hummus, but that’s just one of the great variety of foods found in Israel among its diverse cultures.”
There’s a subtlety in that tagline that may be lost on some. While diversity is acknowledged, it is represented only within the Israeli sphere, without its own history and separate identity. This is a political position that jibes with Israel’s intentional deployment of the term “Israeli Arabs” to refer to Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, whom Israel wants to incorporate as an Israeli minority, fragmenting them from the larger Palestinian community and from their national identity.
Since Palestinians represent 20% of the citizens of Israel and about 50% of the people who live under Israeli control, readers should expect to see them included. And it is possible that the girl on the top left of the cover is meant to be a Muslim Arab, despite the inauthentic way her headscarf allows her bangs to show.
Newbies to the the Israeli/Palestinian narrative war may also not realize that food is an active battleground. Palestinians consider Israel’s claiming of hummus and falafel, among other foods, to be cultural appropriation.
Palestinians, therefore, are likely to consider both the people and the food appropriated when the same girl is featured behind the text:
Blow, slow.
Taste. Whoa!
Brown fa-LA-fel,
big green mouthful!
Respectful Jewish and Jewish Israeli chefs acknowledge this violence, and counter it by giving credit where credit is due. Since the state of Israel is not even 75 years old, any food with a longer pedigree must have been originated by someone else. But while Kar-Ben Publishing is surely aware of this contention, they either choose to ignore it or intentionally intend to steer readers towards the Israeli narrative—by hiding the Palestinian one.
B is for Bedouins, “who come from Israel’s deserts”—despite having existed for centuries before the establishment of Israel.
On page 5, titled “B is for Bedouin,” the text reads: “Bedouins are Arab people who come from Israel’s deserts.” In fact, Bedouins lived on and cultivated land that is now in the State of Israel for hundreds of years prior to the establishment of the state, and have been systematically discriminated against since. The book’s use of the words “Israel’s deserts” imply that the land belonged to Israel before Arab Bedouins arrived. This is an easy-to-miss example of text that implies that not only does the land belong to Israel, but so do the indigenous Bedouins.
Erasure through deception
Both All Around the World Israel…
Unfortunately, the erasure of Palestinian reality continues in books for older children. I looked at introductory books about Israel for ages 7–11 years, including All Around the World Israel (Kristine Spanier, Jump!, 2019) and Travel to Israel (Matt Doeden, Lerner Publishing, 2022).
These books share a shocking but easily overlooked flaw: Their covers feature a photo of East Jerusalem alongside the title “Israel.” East Jerusalem is the Palestinian side of the city, previously administered by Jordan and illegally annexed by Israel following its occupation in the 1967 War.
Again, the uninitiated may not realize the significance of linking the state of Israel to East Jerusalem in the minds of readers, and might even think it positive that Israel is making Palestinian areas visible.
…and Travel to Israel use a picture of occupied East Jerusalem to symbolize “Israel.”
Moreover, Israel has used every possible administrative and military tool available to make East Jerusalem unlivable for Palestinians, in an effort to get them to leave so their land can be repurposed for Jewish use. These cover photos not only fail to acknowledge the reality of life for Palestinian Jerusalemites, they deceptively cover it up.
Putting East Jerusalem on the cover of books about Israel jibes with Israel’s narrative that Jerusalem belongs to Israel, and not to Palestine or the Palestinians, and helps preempt fair and open negotiations about the final status of Jerusalem as promised in the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Erasure through both-sidesism
For Sesame Street, Palestinian East Jerusalem and a Tel Aviv beach combine to represent “Israel.”
Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street (Christy Peterson, Lerner Publishing, 2021) also has a problematic cover, but, consistent with the rest of the book, it is a type of distortion/erasure that can be called “both-sidesism.” The cover is split, with half showing Palestinian East Jerusalem (though a less iconic photo than the Dome of the Rock) and the other half showing an Israeli beach.
Inside, the book continues with this “both sides” approach, starting by teaching children how to say hello in both Hebrew and Arabic (pages 4–5). This “both sides” approach makes a nice visual while hiding Israel’s disrespect for Arabic and Arabic speakers, which is clear in the fact that Arabic had been an official language of Israel until it was officially downgraded in the 2018 Jewish Nation State Law.
Presenting “both sides” is a device used to appear neutral, which conjures a sense of objectivity and truth. It is also a way to stake a claim to antiracism and respect. For example, page 11 says that Jerusalem is “special to people of many religions,” over a photo of Palestinian school girls, some wearing the Muslim hijab.
But presenting Palestinians only as linguistic and religious minorities of Israel, and not as a national group in and of itself, is an Israeli narrative tactic that dehumanizes Palestinians and undermines readers’ ability to understand Israel. While appearing respectful of diversity, the text and photo cleverly omit that Israel is an explicitly, self-declared Jewish state, that enshrines Jewish supremacy over non-Jews (and the corresponding inequality of Palestinians) by saying, in law, that only Jews have the right to self-determination.
Palestine literally erased
Where in the world is Palestine? Nowhere, according to Sesame Street‘s map.
While maps can be controversial when presenting Israel and Palestine, there is one fact that is not controversial: The West Bank and Gaza Strip are not part of Israel. The population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not citizens of Israel, and the idea of Israeli annexation of the West Bank has been rejected internationally, including by United Nations officials. Despite this, page 6 of Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street incorrectly displays a map of Israel (“and Surrounding Area”) including the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the same shade of yellow. The outlines of the occupied Palestinian territory are visible but not labeled. (Notably, the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights is shown as part of Syria.)
While Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street is not the worst of the books I reviewed, it stands out to me because of the Sesame Street branding. Librarians tell me they rely more on reviews than branding when purchasing or recommending books, but as a mom myself, I think parents—and kids—do pay attention to the stamp of credibility that the Sesame Street imprimatur gives to educational materials. Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street illustrates how branding can help to obfuscate rather than illuminate the information we need as global citizens to be constructive problem-solvers.
The Sesame Street brand, and the nonprofit Sesame Workshop that owns it, has previously been criticized for compromises they’ve made in order to address funding shortfalls and stay in business in an increasingly difficult market. Supporters argue that licensing has long been a part of their funding model, and doesn’t necessarily contradict the educational mission that Sesame Workshop has committed to.
Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street, however, is not harmless. It uses subtle messages to contribute to erasure and distortion of Palestinians, which should cause concern among people who care about the educational reputation of the brand. Unfortunately, Sesame Workshop failed to respond to my several inquiries about this book.
Incorporating Palestinian voices
US children will be lucky if they see a book or two mentioning Palestinians in their entire educational careers—so the books they read should be good! There are a few books that offer some age-appropriate information about Palestinians, like ones referenced in Rethinking Schools and listed by the National Council for the Social Studies. These books contribute to an important educational objective—to help students of all ages understand that the world is diverse, that different groups have different experiences, that conflicts and wars hurt people, and that US taxpayers play a role in that. Publishers can do better by incorporating Palestinian voices into their commitments to center diverse voices and by taking a stand to protect and promote Palestinian children’s book writers.
When John Howard’s long and eminent political career ended, he became an author of distinction. His latest book A SENSE OF BALANCE is, in my view, his best work to date. I enjoyed his previous books LAZARUS RISING and THE MENZIES ERA. The first was his autobiography and the latter was a biography of his …
While I was in Canberra attending the Opening of Australia’s newly elected Parliament in the last week of July, I was invited to coffee with the Rationalist Society. They were making calls on MP’s and Senators advocating that Parliament should permanently drop the historic tradition of beginning each day of debate with a prayer. When …
This weekend, 227 Members and Senators will travel to Canberra from all corners of our continent to be sworn in on Tuesday to serve in the 47th Parliament of Australia since Federation in 1901. It will be led by the nation’s 31st Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, who as the Leader of the Labor Party, follows …
This anthology of short stories for writers’ association English PEN is packed with poignant and moving tales from around the world
The central tenet of English PEN’s charter is that “literature knows no frontiers”. This richly varied collection of 11 short stories explores the barbed-wire fences of refugee camps, the barriers that divide communities today and the legacy of historical walls as well as celebrating how literature unites us across borders.
Brazilian author Paulo Scott, translated by Daniel Hahn, weaves an imaginative tale around the acrylic barriers erected during the 2016 summer Olympics to “stop the tourists with their photographic equipment from feeling like they are being exposed to a Rio de Janeiro that perhaps they would rather not face quite so close up”.
All Walls Collapse, edited by Sarah Cleave and Will Forrester, is published by Comma Press (£12.99). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
This year’s report published at the halfway point of 2022 shines a light on a time of immense upheaval and contestation. The report finds hope, however, in the many mobilisations for change around the world: the mass protests, campaigns and people’s movements for justice, and the many grassroots initiatives defending rights and helping those most in need.
The report identifies five key current trends of global significance:
Rising costs of fuel and food are spurring public anger and protests at economic mismanagement
Democracy is under assault but positive changes are still being won
Advances are being made in fighting social inequality despite attacks
Civil society is keeping up the pressure for climate action
Current crises are exposing the inadequacies of the international governance system.
Governments around the world are failing to protect people from the impacts of massive price rises worsened by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Public anger at a dysfunctional economic system, poverty and economic inequality and corruption is rising. Mass protests are the result. In Sri Lanka, widespread protests against economic mismanagement led to resignation of the prime minister. In Iran people are demanding fundamental change as food prices soar. In Kazakhstan over 200 people were killed with impunity following protests over fuel price rises. But people will continue to protest out of necessity even in the many countries where fundamental freedoms are repressed and state violence is inevitable.
Institutions and traditions of democracy are under increasing attack. Coups are imperilling hard-fought gains. The military has gained power in multiple countries, including Burkina Faso and Sudan. In several others, including El Salvador and Tunisia, elected presidents are removing democratic checks on power. Entirely fraudulent elections have been held in countries as different as Nicaragua and Turkmenistan. Autocratic nationalists have triumphed in elections in countries including Hungary and the Philippines. But at the same time there have been successful mobilisations to defend democracy, not least in theCzech Republic and Slovenia, where people voted out political leaders who fostered divisiveness in favour of fresh and broad-based alternatives. Progressive leaders promising to advance social justice have won power in countries such as Chile and Honduras. In many contexts, including Costa Rica andPeru, a prevailing sentiment of dissatisfaction is leading to a rejection of incumbency and willingness to embrace candidates who run as outsiders and promise disruption.
In politically turbulent times, and despite severe pushback by anti-rights groups, progress has been achieved in advancing women’s and LGBTQI+ rights. The USA, where neoconservative forces are emboldened, is ever more isolated on sexual and reproductive rights as several other countries in the Americas, including Colombia and Mexico, have eased abortion restrictions following civil society advocacy. Opportunistic politicians continue to seek political advantage in vilifying LGBTQI+ people, but globally the normalisation of LGBTQI+ rights is spreading. Most recently, the people of Switzerland overwhelmingly voted in favour of an equal marriage law. Even in hostile contexts such as Jamaica important advances have come through civil society’s engagement in regional human rights systems. But when it comes to fighting for migrants’ rights, only Ukrainian refugees in Europe are being received with anything like the kind of compassion all such people deserve, and otherwise the dominant global sentiment is hostility. Nonetheless, a new generation is forging movements to advance racial justice and demand equity for excluded people.
A young and diverse generation is the same social force that continues to make waves on climate change. As extreme weather gets more common, the brunt of the climate crisis continues to fall disproportionately on the most excluded populations who have done the least to cause the problem. Governments and companies are failing to act, and urgent action on emissions cuts to meet the size of the challenge is being demanded by civil society movements, including through mass marches, climate strikes and non-violent civil disobedience. Alongside these, climate litigation is growing, leading to significant legal breakthroughs, such as the judgment in the Netherlands that forced Shell to commit to emissions cuts. Shareholder activism towards fossil fuel firms and funders is intensifying, with pension funds coming under growing pressure to divest from fossil fuels.
Russia’s war on Ukraine is the latest crisis, alongside recent conflicts in the Sahel, Syria and Yemen, among others, to expose the failure of global institutions to protect people and prevent conflict. The UN Security Council is hamstrung by the veto-wielding role of Russia as one of its five permanent members, although a special session of the UN General Assembly yielded a resolution condemning the invasion. Russia has rightly been suspended from the UN Human Rights Council, but this peak human rights body remains dominated by rights-abusing states. If the UN is to move from helping to prevent crises rather than trying to react to them, effective civil society engagement is needed. The world as it stands today, characterised by crisis and volatility, needs a UN prepared to work with civil society, since civil society continues to seek and secure vital progress for humanity.
Enjoyed a relaxing and interesting evening at the local cinema. It was a movie filmed recently on the Gold Coast of Australia that powerfully depicts the spectacular life and sudden death of Elvis Presley. 45 years have passed since Elvis died, so he may not be on the radar of many younger Australians, but back …
