thenation--2020-09-24--Claudia Rankine Wants Us to Talk

Claudia Rankine Wants Us to Talk

Claudia Rankine ’ s latest unsettling of American racial discourse is Just Us : An American Conversation , a book of reflections on her encounters with whiteness as it manifests in friends , therapists , students , and passersby .
Rankine , who teaches poetry at Yale and is also a playwright , most recently of The White Card , has been interested for decades in the language we use to build our identities .
Just Us is a close reading of the way we talk , write , and think about race .
It is thoroughly considered , never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talked over the phone about the protests this summer , the responsibilities of individuals , and the use of conversation at all .
awal rjini : Your previous two books have been subtitled “ An American Lyric.
” Just Us has a new subtitle : “ An American Conversation.
” How would you describe the genre of this book ?
laudia ankine : It ’ s a montage of different genres in service of a single question : How does racism play itself out in our day-to-day , and what facts are missing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
How is it that we ’ re not in a shared reality about the facts that have contributed to this moment ?
The legislation and history of segregation , of brutality against Black people , murder , mass incarceration , overpolicing , all of that .
NA : So are you done with lyric for now ?
Does this form speak better to the time or how you ’ re feeling about the time ?
CR : The form of one person talking to another person determines everything in Just Us .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people can ’ t talk to each other .
People don ’ t leave their house and say , “ Excuse me , why are you marching in front of our house ?
” They come out with guns drawn .
Even among friends , there ’ s a difficulty in understanding the weathering Black people have been under .
Every day , more and more people say , “ OK , I see it now.
” And yet they still say things to me like , “ Are you done talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write about the conversations you have with your friends , and then you send it to them and ask them to send you a response .
What changes in writing ?
CR : The dominant form is the essay ; the use of the epistolary format with my interlocutors seemed a good mode of response .
I really wanted the responses from the people I had engaged with to hold their own counsel and not necessarily to be in conversation with me .
The initial essay communicated what I thought in discussion with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thought , “ OK , let ’ s hear what they think.
” NA : Right , the second epistolary dimension is the fact-checker following you throughout the book , sometimes correcting , sometimes confirming .
Why this self-consciousness about factuality ?
CR : We ’ re in a moment where facts have been given a bad name .
I wanted the book to reengage the archives in ways that could show why someone thinks what they think or feels what they feel .
People are not saying things in a vacuum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have access to certain information , and I wanted to lay that information bare through the fact-checking .
In Claudia Rankine ’ s ‘ The White Card ’ , Timely Questions of Race and Representation Take Center Stage NA : The title of Citizen refers to the internal definitions of American citizenship , as opposed to the ways that word is imposed externally .
In Just Us , you discuss your newfound interest in border politics in America .
Has your perspective now changed the way you interpret Citizen ?
CR : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets to have it and who doesn ’ t , inside the world of Black-white politics in the United States .
Just Us is about the country at large : the people here struggling to live , the people taking that for granted , and then those actively trying to prevent others from having access to citizenship , access to life .
Just Us is an attempt to open out the discussion , to think about white supremacy and systemic racism and modes of power that privilege whiteness under the umbrella of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll try to encapsulate one of the arguments in the book .
You believe that categories like race , gender , sexuality , etc.
, are inherently constricting , and the possibility to escape them lies in individual interaction .
Is that right ?
CR : I don ’ t know if I would use the word “ escape.
” The only way to fully bring consciousness to our positionality and assumptions and investments and prejudices and biases is to begin to name and speak about things .
We ’ ve been told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t talk about , and it leads to an unconscious culture .
In this book I ’ m saying , “ Can we just start talking about what we believe , so we can start seeing reality in the same way ?
” We might not agree on how to move forward even knowing how history unfolded , but right now there are whole parts of history which , when I bring them up , people are surprised that they even happened .
The other question is why don ’ t people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of American history .
I wasn ’ t born with this knowledge , so how is it that they can live here their whole lives , get multiple degrees , and not know some of the cruel and brutal things this country has done to Black people ?
That ’ s another way to think about this , whether it ’ s a willingness to not know .
I don ’ t want an escape ; I want a sense of consciousness around the facts , the history .
But also the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : You write that without talking to other people , “ we ’ re never going to figure this out ” —but there ’ s an uneven distribution of knowledge of America .
People and scholars of color have generally had a better handle on it than white people , many of whom find it difficult to think about , let alone hear from , people of color .
You ’ re articulating a lot of the things that you write in this book in a way that most people can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprising or new for a white audience than for your readers of color .
CR : People of color have said to me , “ I know these things , but I don ’ t necessarily have the argument for this.
” The way we all become more agile in these discussions is to begin to have them .
The book didn ’ t really have a person in mind ; it was really about the taking apart of conversations that are happening between all of us .
I didn ’ t make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprised when they happened .
The desire to take things apart and to look at them and to see where my feelings were coming from , and where the things I said could be supported or not supported , or where the things that others were saying to me could be supported or not supported , was almost an exercise in bringing language to something that just goes by in all of our lives every day .
When a thing gets seen and named , it ’ s negotiated differently the next time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we begin to think , “ Why is a person always saying this thing , and why am I always feeling this thing ?
” maybe we can reroute that .
Certainly we will end up with other difficulties .
I would like to end up with other difficulties—these difficulties have been the same ones for such a long time that at this point I ’ m willing to try anything .
If that means having a conversation , I ’ ll have a conversation .
That seems like a low bar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
NA : On that topic , how do you see the conversations in Just Us in connection to the uprisings against police brutality this summer ?
CR : The uprisings are not replaceable .
I think the grassroots organizations and Black Lives Matter , SURJ [ Showing Up for Racial Justice ] , Say Her Name—all of those things are so necessary and have moved us forward in ways that we haven ’ t moved forward in a long time .
Books like White Fragility or How to Be an Antiracist are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the trouble , but they in no way replace the kind of work that these organizations are doing .
Like just recently , we had sports figures refuse to play , and that ended up in the arenas being used for voting .
That ’ s exciting , because it ’ s actually playing itself out in change , in structural change , in things being put in place that aid our democracy and sponsor equity and social justice .
They were doing what they could from where they stood .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m engaging with these issues how I can .
NA : Reading your interview with Lauren Berlant , I wondered what you ’ d make of the argument that trying to incorporate people into spaces that were never meant to accommodate them is a doomed project , and getting Black people or people of color into culturally elite spaces or economically elite institutions is a form of “ cruel optimism.
” That seems very different from the way you think about it .
CR : I think there are two ways of thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the system is corrupt and has to be dismantled .
And then there ’ s the pragmatist in me that says the system is corrupt , but it ’ s where we live .
Can we figure out a way to make it work ?
And will it be ideal ?
The answer is no .
Lauren ’ s right—the system was not meant to hold me .
Until we are able to reinstate a new system , I ’ m not going to sit back and say , “ It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value in both positions .
Recognizing the brokenness of the system allows you to understand where and why you aren ’ t welcome .
But I think we have to figure this out , or we have to decide that we are just going to take it .
That ’ s not a viable alternative for me .
NA : In that interview with Berlant , you wrote , “ I don ’ t think we connect microaggressions that indicate the lack of recognition of the black body as a body to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would you describe the relationship between a microaggression and a macroaggression or a structural aggression ?
Or does it feel at all useful to you to separate those ?
CR : Ultimately it ’ s not a useful distinction .
Racism is racism , and it plays itself out in different ways .
There are the ways that weather us , which are often referred to as microaggressions , but they ’ re always on the road to a kind of death , either through racial profiling and police killings or through segregationist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s all one big system of racism , and anti-Black racism is my concern , though all forms of injustice concern me .
For Citizen , I made the distinction because I was looking at the kinds of infractions that we are able to negotiate versus the ones that are trying to kill us .
They ’ re all heading the same place .
If you die by a thousand cuts—if you ’ re in the hospital , infants are three times more likely to die in the hospital at birth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it ’ s a Black doctor , mortality rates for children of color and white children are the same .
The doctor doesn ’ t believe the mother when she says something .
The infant isn ’ t breathing , and that doesn ’ t trigger a response that would mean immediate care .
They seem unconscious , they seem invisible , but the consequences are deadly .
NA : What about in a less high-stakes place , like in the airplane scenes you describe in the book ?
CR : Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be in a position of power over my destiny at some point , and the same lack of seeing , the same lack of caring , the same lack of recognition would play itself out .
You go into their bank to try and get a loan for your house ; they say , “ No , you don ’ t have any wealth to pass on to your children.
” White people tell you , “ You can ’ t buy a house over there—if you come , we are going.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ through life .
Those are individuals .
That ’ s why you have to talk to those people , because they are making decisions about your life every single day .
Talking to them might not change their decision , but at least you ’ ll learn something .
NA : That interpersonal racism seems to me more symptomatic of the structures that maintain and enable that .
CR : They are the structures that maintain and enable it .
Institutions are made out of people , right ?
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people making decisions along the way , every day .
And those same people are the people saying these things to you .
It ’ s not that these people are saying things that seem innocuous and then going back into their homes and making no other decisions that will affect you .
NA : That sounds analogous to the “ bad apples ” argument , that racism could die out with enough education .
But these institutions have a momentum of their own , built on— CR : It makes a difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO is , who they employ .
The status quo is not staying in place by itself .
You can ’ t say it ’ s systemic racism without understanding that there are people keeping that going .
When Obama was president , he made a lot of legislation that is now being reversed by Trump .
The reversals are important , because they would have changed what was legal inside of those institutions .
Look at the Central Park jogger case .
Do you know how many people had to agree ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the jury , it was the judge , it was the prosecutor .
All of those people lied .
If one of them had said , “ Wait a second , there ’ s no evidence ” —but that ’ s not what happened .
NA : It seems daunting to talk to people one at a time , and at the same time it doesn ’ t seem there are shortcuts for this project .
CR : I ’ m not saying we can change people ’ s mind ; I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversations where we at least see what ’ s happening .
You can add to their database , and whatever happens happens .
The people in Just Us are not people who would vote for Trump .
They ’ re people who believe that we ’ re on the same page , that we ’ re the choir , and yet we ’ re falling into these moments of non-parallel time .
How is it we ’ re on the same side , and yet ultimately , when it comes to anti-Black racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar read on situations ?
We saw that with the Rodney King video .
We see it again and again .
Do you remember Amy Cooper ?
Do you know how many white people have said to me , “ I understand her fear ” ?
NA : You have an ear for what white people are usually good at hiding .
CR : When you have conversations , you begin to hear .
These are my friends , card-carrying Democrats .
You think you ’ re seeing the same thing , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as white people warps their reality .
NA : They ’ re further from you than you think they are ?
CR : They ’ re further from reality than I think they are .
That feels like a lot of hubris , to say my read of reality is better than their read of reality .
But Christian Cooper is a threat to them , because he ’ s always been a threat .
It has nothing to do with what he says and does .
In them lives the idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re just reading the text , finding a moment that confirms the feeling .
NA : What happens after that ?
What comes from that recognition ?
CR : Then you ask questions : “ I ’ m curious—how did you get there when I didn ’ t get there ?
” I was interested in this in-between time that we ’ re in right now ; that ’ s why liminal spaces were so important to the book .
What does it mean to be in between a thing ?
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the other side could be fascism .
What are we going to do ?
NA : Faced with the possibility of another four years of Trump , thinking about it as an individual feels to me overwhelming and despair-inducing , and thinking about it in conjunction with other people feels much more hopeful .
Thinking of myself as part of a group—people in my neighborhood , my race , my generation—feels more hopeful to me .
Does it to you ?
CR : That ’ s why I said I thought the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amazing .
They are stopping the normal flow of things and asking us to reconsider , asking us to have new conversations , asking us to think about what dismantling the police could look like .
They ’ re asking for conversations that would lead to a restructuring of the system that controls so much in our lives , because the people running the system have certain ideas about how things should go .
The system is not killing Black people with seven bullets ; individuals are .
Those individuals need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals who say , “ No , you can ’ t do that.
” They know they ’ re supported by grand juries that say , “ You know , I understand you were feeling some fear there , so you do have to shoot someone seven times in the back .
So why don ’ t you take some time off of work and come back and do it again ?
” Those are people saying that : district attorneys passing it on to grand juries that historically support the police ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals .
NA : So the advantage of these groups is that they help us identify these individuals ?
CR : At least then you know how the system works .
NA : How would you position Just Us in conversation with this new canon of New York Times best-selling whiteness-studies books ?
CR : I hear in you a desire to name a thing .
I feel like I was doing a thing rather than naming a thing .
I am first and foremost a poet and playwright , and the performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that deeply interests me structurally .
For me that ’ s enough .
I love conversations , I love listening to what people have to say , I love thinking about the limits of language , I love the ability of a single word to drop down into a whole history .
There are words that resist movement , like the N-word , and then there are words that skate across time , like “ justice.
” “ Do this ” is really not the motivation for me .
It ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What are we doing when we engage in conversation ?
What can words do for us ?
What have we been doing , in the space of this conversation ?

Claudia Rankine’s latest unsettling of American racial discourse is Just Us: An American Conversation, a book of reflections on her encounters with whiteness as it manifests in friends, therapists, students, and passersby. Rankine, who teaches poetry at Yale and is also a playwright, most recently of The White Card, has been interested for decades in the language we use to build our identities. Just Us is a close reading of the way we talk, write, and think about race. It is thoroughly considered, never complacent, and often puzzling. We talked over the phone about the protests this summer, the responsibilities of individuals, and the use of conversation at all.
—Nawal Arjini
N awal A rjini: Your previous two books have been subtitled “An American Lyric.” Just Us has a new subtitle: “An American Conversation.” How would you describe the genre of this book?
C laudia R ankine: It’s a montage of different genres in service of a single question: How does racism play itself out in our day-to-day, and what facts are missing from the conversations we’re having? How is it that we’re not in a shared reality about the facts that have contributed to this moment? The legislation and history of segregation, of brutality against Black people, murder, mass incarceration, overpolicing, all of that.
NA: So are you done with lyric for now? Does this form speak better to the time or how you’re feeling about the time?
CR: The form of one person talking to another person determines everything in Just Us. We’re in a moment where people can’t talk to each other. People don’t leave their house and say, “Excuse me, why are you marching in front of our house?” They come out with guns drawn. Even among friends, there’s a difficulty in understanding the weathering Black people have been under. Every day, more and more people say, “OK, I see it now.” And yet they still say things to me like, “Are you done talking about racism now?”
NA: You write about the conversations you have with your friends, and then you send it to them and ask them to send you a response. What changes in writing?
CR: The dominant form is the essay; the use of the epistolary format with my interlocutors seemed a good mode of response. I really wanted the responses from the people I had engaged with to hold their own counsel and not necessarily to be in conversation with me. The initial essay communicated what I thought in discussion with a therapist and a fact-checker, and I thought, “OK, let’s hear what they think.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
NA: Right, the second epistolary dimension is the fact-checker following you throughout the book, sometimes correcting, sometimes confirming. Why this self-consciousness about factuality?
CR: We’re in a moment where facts have been given a bad name. I wanted the book to reengage the archives in ways that could show why someone thinks what they think or feels what they feel. People are not saying things in a vacuum. They’re saying things because they have access to certain information, and I wanted to lay that information bare through the fact-checking. Related Article In Claudia Rankine’s ‘The White Card’, Timely Questions of Race and Representation Take Center Stage Alisa Solomon
NA: The title of Citizen refers to the internal definitions of American citizenship, as opposed to the ways that word is imposed externally. In Just Us, you discuss your newfound interest in border politics in America. Has your perspective now changed the way you interpret Citizen?
CR: Citizen was specifically a play on who gets to have it and who doesn’t, inside the world of Black-white politics in the United States. Just Us is about the country at large: the people here struggling to live, the people taking that for granted, and then those actively trying to prevent others from having access to citizenship, access to life. Just Us is an attempt to open out the discussion, to think about white supremacy and systemic racism and modes of power that privilege whiteness under the umbrella of the United States.
NA: I’ll try to encapsulate one of the arguments in the book. You believe that categories like race, gender, sexuality, etc., are inherently constricting, and the possibility to escape them lies in individual interaction. Is that right?
CR: I don’t know if I would use the word “escape.” The only way to fully bring consciousness to our positionality and assumptions and investments and prejudices and biases is to begin to name and speak about things. We’ve been told that there are certain things we shouldn’t talk about, and it leads to an unconscious culture. In this book I’m saying, “Can we just start talking about what we believe, so we can start seeing reality in the same way?” We might not agree on how to move forward even knowing how history unfolded, but right now there are whole parts of history which, when I bring them up, people are surprised that they even happened. The other question is why don’t people know this, if they’re part of American history. I wasn’t born with this knowledge, so how is it that they can live here their whole lives, get multiple degrees, and not know some of the cruel and brutal things this country has done to Black people? That’s another way to think about this, whether it’s a willingness to not know. I don’t want an escape; I want a sense of consciousness around the facts, the history. But also the intangibles—the emotions, the feelings.
NA: You write that without talking to other people, “we’re never going to figure this out”—but there’s an uneven distribution of knowledge of America. People and scholars of color have generally had a better handle on it than white people, many of whom find it difficult to think about, let alone hear from, people of color. You’re articulating a lot of the things that you write in this book in a way that most people can’t, but they’re still more surprising or new for a white audience than for your readers of color.
CR: People of color have said to me, “I know these things, but I don’t necessarily have the argument for this.” The way we all become more agile in these discussions is to begin to have them. The book didn’t really have a person in mind; it was really about the taking apart of conversations that are happening between all of us. I didn’t make these conversations up. I would be surprised when they happened.
The desire to take things apart and to look at them and to see where my feelings were coming from, and where the things I said could be supported or not supported, or where the things that others were saying to me could be supported or not supported, was almost an exercise in bringing language to something that just goes by in all of our lives every day. When a thing gets seen and named, it’s negotiated differently the next time. Repetition relies on unconsciousness, and if we begin to think, “Why is a person always saying this thing, and why am I always feeling this thing?” maybe we can reroute that. Certainly we will end up with other difficulties. I would like to end up with other difficulties—these difficulties have been the same ones for such a long time that at this point I’m willing to try anything. If that means having a conversation, I’ll have a conversation. That seems like a low bar compared to having to die for change.
NA: On that topic, how do you see the conversations in Just Us in connection to the uprisings against police brutality this summer?
CR: The uprisings are not replaceable. I think the grassroots organizations and Black Lives Matter, SURJ [Showing Up for Racial Justice], Say Her Name—all of those things are so necessary and have moved us forward in ways that we haven’t moved forward in a long time. Books like White Fragility or How to Be an Antiracist are books that further the conversations around some of the trouble, but they in no way replace the kind of work that these organizations are doing. Like just recently, we had sports figures refuse to play, and that ended up in the arenas being used for voting. That’s exciting, because it’s actually playing itself out in change, in structural change, in things being put in place that aid our democracy and sponsor equity and social justice. They were doing what they could from where they stood. I’m a writer. I’m engaging with these issues how I can.
NA: Reading your interview with Lauren Berlant, I wondered what you’d make of the argument that trying to incorporate people into spaces that were never meant to accommodate them is a doomed project, and getting Black people or people of color into culturally elite spaces or economically elite institutions is a form of “cruel optimism.” That seems very different from the way you think about it.
CR: I think there are two ways of thinking about life in general. One is that the system is corrupt and has to be dismantled. And then there’s the pragmatist in me that says the system is corrupt, but it’s where we live. Can we figure out a way to make it work? And will it be ideal? The answer is no.
Lauren’s right—the system was not meant to hold me. Until we are able to reinstate a new system, I’m not going to sit back and say, “It is what it is.” I see the value in both positions. Recognizing the brokenness of the system allows you to understand where and why you aren’t welcome. But I think we have to figure this out, or we have to decide that we are just going to take it. That’s not a viable alternative for me.
NA: In that interview with Berlant, you wrote, “I don’t think we connect microaggressions that indicate the lack of recognition of the black body as a body to the creation and enforcement of laws.” How would you describe the relationship between a microaggression and a macroaggression or a structural aggression? Or does it feel at all useful to you to separate those?
CR: Ultimately it’s not a useful distinction. Racism is racism, and it plays itself out in different ways. There are the ways that weather us, which are often referred to as microaggressions, but they’re always on the road to a kind of death, either through racial profiling and police killings or through segregationist policies that deny us clean water. It’s all one big system of racism, and anti-Black racism is my concern, though all forms of injustice concern me.
For Citizen, I made the distinction because I was looking at the kinds of infractions that we are able to negotiate versus the ones that are trying to kill us. They’re all heading the same place. If you die by a thousand cuts—if you’re in the hospital, infants are three times more likely to die in the hospital at birth if the doctor is white. But if it’s a Black doctor, mortality rates for children of color and white children are the same. The doctor doesn’t believe the mother when she says something. The infant isn’t breathing, and that doesn’t trigger a response that would mean immediate care. They seem unconscious, they seem invisible, but the consequences are deadly.
NA: What about in a less high-stakes place, like in the airplane scenes you describe in the book?
CR: Those men end up on juries. They could be in a position of power over my destiny at some point, and the same lack of seeing, the same lack of caring, the same lack of recognition would play itself out. You go into their bank to try and get a loan for your house; they say, “No, you don’t have any wealth to pass on to your children.” White people tell you, “You can’t buy a house over there—if you come, we are going.” Where people live determines their trajectory through life. Those are individuals. That’s why you have to talk to those people, because they are making decisions about your life every single day. Talking to them might not change their decision, but at least you’ll learn something.
NA: That interpersonal racism seems to me more symptomatic of the structures that maintain and enable that.
CR: They are the structures that maintain and enable it. Institutions are made out of people, right? It’s not like the institution is doing stuff without people making decisions along the way, every day. And those same people are the people saying these things to you. It’s not that these people are saying things that seem innocuous and then going back into their homes and making no other decisions that will affect you.
NA: That sounds analogous to the “bad apples” argument, that racism could die out with enough education. But these institutions have a momentum of their own, built on—
CR: It makes a difference who the president is, who the CEO is, who they employ. The status quo is not staying in place by itself. You can’t say it’s systemic racism without understanding that there are people keeping that going. When Obama was president, he made a lot of legislation that is now being reversed by Trump. The reversals are important, because they would have changed what was legal inside of those institutions. Look at the Central Park jogger case. Do you know how many people had to agree? It was the police officers, it was the jury, it was the judge, it was the prosecutor. All of those people lied. If one of them had said, “Wait a second, there’s no evidence”—but that’s not what happened.
NA: It seems daunting to talk to people one at a time, and at the same time it doesn’t seem there are shortcuts for this project.
CR: I’m not saying we can change people’s mind; I’m saying let’s have conversations where we at least see what’s happening. You can add to their database, and whatever happens happens. The people in Just Us are not people who would vote for Trump. They’re people who believe that we’re on the same page, that we’re the choir, and yet we’re falling into these moments of non-parallel time. How is it we’re on the same side, and yet ultimately, when it comes to anti-Black racism, we seem not to have a similar read on situations? We saw that with the Rodney King video. We see it again and again. Do you remember Amy Cooper? Do you know how many white people have said to me, “I understand her fear”?
NA: You have an ear for what white people are usually good at hiding.
CR: When you have conversations, you begin to hear. These are my friends, card-carrying Democrats. You think you’re seeing the same thing, and then suddenly you realize that their positionality as white people warps their reality.
NA: They’re further from you than you think they are?
CR: They’re further from reality than I think they are. That feels like a lot of hubris, to say my read of reality is better than their read of reality. But Christian Cooper is a threat to them, because he’s always been a threat. It has nothing to do with what he says and does. In them lives the idea that Black people are a threat. They’re just reading the text, finding a moment that confirms the feeling.
NA: What happens after that? What comes from that recognition?
CR: Then you ask questions: “I’m curious—how did you get there when I didn’t get there?” I was interested in this in-between time that we’re in right now; that’s why liminal spaces were so important to the book. What does it mean to be in between a thing? We are right now in a space where on the other side could be fascism. What are we going to do?
NA: Faced with the possibility of another four years of Trump, thinking about it as an individual feels to me overwhelming and despair-inducing, and thinking about it in conjunction with other people feels much more hopeful. Thinking of myself as part of a group—people in my neighborhood, my race, my generation—feels more hopeful to me. Does it to you?
CR: That’s why I said I thought the work being done by grassroots organizations is amazing. They are stopping the normal flow of things and asking us to reconsider, asking us to have new conversations, asking us to think about what dismantling the police could look like. They’re asking for conversations that would lead to a restructuring of the system that controls so much in our lives, because the people running the system have certain ideas about how things should go. The system is not killing Black people with seven bullets; individuals are. Those individuals need to be accountable to a system led by other individuals who say, “No, you can’t do that.” They know they’re supported by grand juries that say, “You know, I understand you were feeling some fear there, so you do have to shoot someone seven times in the back. So why don’t you take some time off of work and come back and do it again?” Those are people saying that: district attorneys passing it on to grand juries that historically support the police’s narrative. All of those are individuals.
NA: So the advantage of these groups is that they help us identify these individuals?
CR: At least then you know how the system works.
NA: How would you position Just Us in conversation with this new canon of New York Times best-selling whiteness-studies books?
CR: I hear in you a desire to name a thing. I feel like I was doing a thing rather than naming a thing. I am first and foremost a poet and playwright, and the performance of language on the page is something that deeply interests me structurally. For me that’s enough. I love conversations, I love listening to what people have to say, I love thinking about the limits of language, I love the ability of a single word to drop down into a whole history. There are words that resist movement, like the N-word, and then there are words that skate across time, like “justice.” “Do this” is really not the motivation for me. It’s an exploration on what language can do. What are we doing when we engage in conversation? What can words do for us? What have we been doing, in the space of this conversation?


thenation--2020-09-24--These Races Will Shape What the US Elections Mean for Climate Progress

This story is part of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story .
What follows are not candidate endorsements .
Rather , this nonpartisan guide aims to inform voters ’ choices , help journalists decide what races to follow , and explore what the 2020 elections could portend for climate action in the United States in 2021 and beyond .
Whether the White House changes hands is the most important climate question of the 2020 elections .
President Donald Trump rejects climate science , is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His climate policy seems to be , as he tweeted in January when rejecting a US Army Corps of Engineers proposal to protect New York City from storm surges , “ Get your mops and buckets ready.
” Joe Biden , who started the 2020 campaign with a climate position so weak that activists gave it an “ F , ” called Trump a “ climate arsonist ” during California ’ s recent wildfires .
Biden backs a $ 2 trillion plan to create millions of jobs while slashing emissions—a Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ striking , his running mate , California Senator Kamala Harris , has endorsed phasing out fossil fuel production—a politically explosive scientific imperative .
The race will be decided in a handful of battleground states , five of which already face grave climate dangers : Florida ( hurricanes and sea-level rise ) , North Carolina ( ditto ) , Texas ( storms and drought ) , Michigan ( floods ) , and Arizona ( heat waves and drought ) .
Public concern is rising in these states , but will that concern translate into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and by Enough to Pass a Green New Deal ?
With Democrats all but certain to maintain their majority in the US House of Representatives , the Senate will determine whether a potential Biden administration can actually deliver climate progress .
Democrats need to pick up three seats to flip the Senate if Biden wins , four if he doesn ’ t .
But since aggressive climate policy is shunned by some Democrats , notably Joe Manchin of coal-dependent West Virginia , Democrats probably need to gain five or six Senate seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Environmentalists , including the League of Conservation Voters , are targeting six Republicans who polls suggest are vulnerable .
Republican Senators are even at risk in conservative Kansas and Alaska .
In both states , the Democratic candidates are physicians—not a bad credential amid a pandemic—who support climate action .
In Kansas , Barbara Bollier faces an incumbent funded by Charles Koch .
In Alaska , Al Gross urges a transition away from oil , though his openness to limited drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve dims his appeal to green groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who receives an 8 percent lifetime voting record from the League of Conservation Voters .
In the House , environmentalists are working to elect these candidates , in one case over an establishment Democrat : Under Democratic and Republican leadership alike , Washington has long been a graveyard for strong climate action .
But governors can boost or block renewable energy ; the Vermont and New Hampshire races are worth watching .
Attorneys general can sue fossil fuel companies for lying about climate change ; climate hawks are running for the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina .
State legislatures can accelerate or delay climate progress , as the new Democratic majorities in Virginia have shown .
Here , races to watch include Pennsylvania , North Carolina , and Colorado .
Perhaps the most powerful , and most overlooked , climate policy makers are public utility commissions .
They control whether pipelines and other energy infrastructure gets built ; they regulate whether electric utilities expand solar and energy efficiency or stick with the carbon-heavy status quo .
Regulatory capture and outright corruption are not uncommon .
A prime example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commissioner known as the godfather of solar in the state is seeking a comeback .
Bill Mundell argues that since Arizona law permits utilities to contribute to commissioners ’ electoral campaigns , the companies can buy their own regulators .
Which may explain why super-sunny Arizona has so little installed solar capacity .
In South Dakota , Remi Bald Eagle , a Native American US Army veteran , seeks a seat on the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission , which rules on the Standing Rock oil pipeline .
And in what HuffPost called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , ” Democrat Kelly Stone , who favors phasing out oil production , is running for the Texas Railroad Commission , which despite its name decides what oil , gas , and electric companies in America ’ s leading petro-state can build .
Will the Influencers Usher in a Green New Era ?
The story that goes largely under-reported in every US election is how few Americans vote .
In 2016 , some 90 million , roughly four out of every 10 eligible voters , did not cast a ballot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these nonvoters nevertheless identify as environmentalists : They support green policies , even donate to activist groups ; they just don ’ t vote .
Stinnett ’ s Environmental Voter Project works to awaken this sleeping giant .
Meanwhile , the young climate activists of the Sunrise Movement are already winning elections with an unabashedly Green New Deal message .
More than any other group , Sunrise pushed the Green New Deal into the national political conversation , helping Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey draft the eponymous congressional resolution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Deal champions defeat centrists in Democratic primaries , with Markey dealing Representative Joe Kennedy Jr. the first defeat a Kennedy has ever suffered in a Massachusetts election .
But can Sunrise also be successful against Republicans in the general elections this fall ?
And an intriguing wild card : celebrity firepower , grassroots activism , and big-bucks marketing have converged behind a campaign to get Latina mothers to vote climate in 2020 .
Latinos have long been the US demographic most concerned about climate change .
Now , Vote Like A Madre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Florida , Texas , and Arizona to the polls .
Jennifer Lopez , Salma Hayak , and Lin-Manuel Miranda are urging mothers to make a “ pinky promise ” to vote for their kids ’ climate future in November .
Turning out even a quarter of those 5 million voters , though no easy task , could swing the results in three states Trump must win to remain president , which brings us back to the first category , “ Will the White House Turn Green ?
”

This article appears in the October 19/26, 2020 issue.
This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
What follows are not candidate endorsements. Rather, this nonpartisan guide aims to inform voters’ choices, help journalists decide what races to follow, and explore what the 2020 elections could portend for climate action in the United States in 2021 and beyond.
Clueless in chief: President Donald Trump, who denies man-made climate change, gestures at maps of Hurricane Michael in 2018. (Reuters / Jonathan Ernst)
Will the White House Turn Green?
Whether the White House changes hands is the most important climate question of the 2020 elections. President Donald Trump rejects climate science, is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, and has accelerated fossil fuel development. His climate policy seems to be, as he tweeted in January when rejecting a US Army Corps of Engineers proposal to protect New York City from storm surges, “Get your mops and buckets ready.” Climate Future Vote as if the Climate and the Future of Humanity Depend on It—Because They Do Bill McKibben
Joe Biden, who started the 2020 campaign with a climate position so weak that activists gave it an “F,” called Trump a “climate arsonist” during California’s recent wildfires. Biden backs a $2 trillion plan to create millions of jobs while slashing emissions—a Green New Deal in all but name. Equally striking, his running mate, California Senator Kamala Harris, has endorsed phasing out fossil fuel production—a politically explosive scientific imperative.
The race will be decided in a handful of battleground states, five of which already face grave climate dangers: Florida (hurricanes and sea-level rise), North Carolina (ditto), Texas (storms and drought), Michigan (floods), and Arizona (heat waves and drought). Public concern is rising in these states, but will that concern translate into votes?
The US Capitol. (Win McNamee / Getty Images)
Will Democrats Flip the Senate, and by Enough to Pass a Green New Deal?
With Democrats all but certain to maintain their majority in the US House of Representatives, the Senate will determine whether a potential Biden administration can actually deliver climate progress. Democrats need to pick up three seats to flip the Senate if Biden wins, four if he doesn’t. But since aggressive climate policy is shunned by some Democrats, notably Joe Manchin of coal-dependent West Virginia, Democrats probably need to gain five or six Senate seats to pass a Green New Deal.
Environmentalists, including the League of Conservation Voters, are targeting six Republicans who polls suggest are vulnerable.
Steve Daines of Montana, who denies climate science
Martha McSally of Arizona
Thom Tillis of North Carolina
Susan Collins of Maine
Joni Ernst of Iowa (bankrolled by Charles Koch)
John James of Michigan (also a Koch beneficiary)
Republican Senators are even at risk in conservative Kansas and Alaska. In both states, the Democratic candidates are physicians—not a bad credential amid a pandemic—who support climate action. In Kansas, Barbara Bollier faces an incumbent funded by Charles Koch. In Alaska, Al Gross urges a transition away from oil, though his openness to limited drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve dims his appeal to green groups. He faces incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan, who receives an 8 percent lifetime voting record from the League of Conservation Voters. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
In the House, environmentalists are working to elect these candidates, in one case over an establishment Democrat:
Beth Doglio of Washington state
Georgette Gómez of California
Marie Newman of Illinois
Cameron Webb of Virginia
Mike Siegel and Wendy Davis of Texas
We rightfully focus on federal climate policy, but climate action must also be made at the state and local level—and there are plenty of races and initiatives to pay attention to.
Global climate strike and rally in Long Beach, Calif. (Mario Tama / Getty Images)
Will Local and State Races Advance Climate Progress?
The Climate Hawks
Under Democratic and Republican leadership alike, Washington has long been a graveyard for strong climate action. But governors can boost or block renewable energy; the Vermont and New Hampshire races are worth watching. Attorneys general can sue fossil fuel companies for lying about climate change; climate hawks are running for the top law enforcement seats in Montana and North Carolina. State legislatures can accelerate or delay climate progress, as the new Democratic majorities in Virginia have shown. Here, races to watch include Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Colorado.
The Climate Policy Makers
Perhaps the most powerful, and most overlooked, climate policy makers are public utility commissions. They control whether pipelines and other energy infrastructure gets built; they regulate whether electric utilities expand solar and energy efficiency or stick with the carbon-heavy status quo. Regulatory capture and outright corruption are not uncommon. Climate Action States Are Doing What Big Government Won’t to Stop Climate Change James Bruggers, Judy Fahys, Marianne Lavelle, Evelyn Nieves and Sabrina Shankman
A prime example is Arizona, where a former two-term commissioner known as the godfather of solar in the state is seeking a comeback. Bill Mundell argues that since Arizona law permits utilities to contribute to commissioners’ electoral campaigns, the companies can buy their own regulators. Which may explain why super-sunny Arizona has so little installed solar capacity.
In South Dakota, Remi Bald Eagle, a Native American US Army veteran, seeks a seat on the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, which rules on the Standing Rock oil pipeline. And in what HuffPost called “the most important environmental race in the country,” Democrat Chrysta Castaneda, who favors phasing out oil production, is running for the Texas Railroad Commission, which despite its name decides what oil, gas, and electric companies in America’s leading petro-state can build.
Office hours: Climate activists paid Nancy Pelosi a visit with an ambitious set of demands. (Sunrise Movement)
Will the Influencers Usher in a Green New Era?
The Uncounted
The story that goes largely under-reported in every US election is how few Americans vote. In 2016, some 90 million, roughly four out of every 10 eligible voters, did not cast a ballot. Attorney Nathaniel Stinnett claims that 10 million of these nonvoters nevertheless identify as environmentalists: They support green policies, even donate to activist groups; they just don’t vote. Stinnett’s Environmental Voter Project works to awaken this sleeping giant. The Sunrise Movement Can the Climate Youth Tip the 2020 Election Against Trump? Mark Hertsgaard
The Sunrise Movement
Meanwhile, the young climate activists of the Sunrise Movement are already winning elections with an unabashedly Green New Deal message. More than any other group, Sunrise pushed the Green New Deal into the national political conversation, helping Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey draft the eponymous congressional resolution. In 2020, Sunrise has helped Green New Deal champions defeat centrists in Democratic primaries, with Markey dealing Representative Joe Kennedy Jr. the first defeat a Kennedy has ever suffered in a Massachusetts election. But can Sunrise also be successful against Republicans in the general elections this fall?
The Starpower
And an intriguing wild card: celebrity firepower, grassroots activism, and big-bucks marketing have converged behind a campaign to get Latina mothers to vote climate in 2020. Latinos have long been the US demographic most concerned about climate change. Now, Vote Like A Madre aims to get 5 million Latina mothers in Florida, Texas, and Arizona to the polls. Jennifer Lopez, Salma Hayak, and Lin-Manuel Miranda are urging mothers to make a “pinky promise” to vote for their kids’ climate future in November. Turning out even a quarter of those 5 million voters, though no easy task, could swing the results in three states Trump must win to remain president, which brings us back to the first category, “Will the White House Turn Green?”


thenation--2020-09-24--Justice, Finally, for a War Crime in El Salvador

When the decision dropped this month , it came through the small screen but with a huge impact .
On September 11 , a mostly empty Spanish National Court livestreamed its verdict in the trial of a retired Salvadoran military officer for one of the most grievous atrocities of the Central American dirty wars : the 1989 assassination in El Salvador of six Jesuit priests , their housekeeper , and her daughter .
The panel of three Spanish judges found former colonel Inocente Orlando Montano guilty on five counts of “ murder of a terrorist nature ” and sentenced him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 77 and wheelchair-bound , fidgeted behind plastic dividers meant to keep him safe from Covid-19 as the ruling was read .
In the courtroom with him were the magistrates , prosecutors , his defense lawyers , and a smattering of journalists allowed to observe from a distance .
But most of those affected by the crime—the Salvadorans , including students , staff , and faculty of the Jesuit-run Central American University ( UCA ) in San Salvador , where the six priests and two women were woken from sleep by soldiers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and shot execution-style—watched on phones and laptops from thousands of miles away .
The ruling is a triumph for the many who fought for justice in a case that seemed to founder from the moment the bodies were found .
Evidence disappeared , documents were burned , testimony was falsified .
Even after El Salvador convicted two army officers widely seen as scapegoats , tried in a sham proceeding in 1991 , an amnesty law passed 18 months later quickly led to their release .
They served less than two years in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Violence : The Continuation of Civil War by Other Means Time for a US Apology to El Salvador This time , the private prosecutors representing the Jesuit community and families of the victims bet on universal jurisdiction , a legal principle that permits trials of perpetrators of international crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity to take place inside any courtroom , in any country .
In the name of the family of Ignacio Martín-Baró , one of five Spanish Jesuits among the six killed , human rights attorneys Almudena Bernabeu and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Court of Spain in 2008 .
After stalling for years for want of a defendant in Spanish custody , the case took on new life in 2017 , when the United States extradited Montano to stand trial .
The former vice minister of defense will now serve out his time in a Spanish prison , his 133 years reduced to the maximum permitted under Spanish law of 30 .
Hours after the verdict was read , the UCA held a press conference .
Rector Andreu Oliva and Father José María Tojeira—director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( IDHUCA ) , who was living in a separate residence when the soldiers raided the university and murdered his colleagues—expressed their satisfaction , noting that Montano and others accused of the crime “ never thought they would be judged .
But they were wrong.
” Celebrating a ruling that “ encourages us and gives us hope , ” the Jesuits urged the Salvadoran courts to now take up the case at home .
But if Spain proved that even the most powerful individuals could receive the benefits of due process and still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long way from mounting a credible prosecution .
The case exists in the system ; IDHUCA filed a criminal complaint in 2000 against seven men considered the primary “ intellectual authors ” of the crime—those who planned the murders , ordered a special death squad of soldiers from the US-trained Atlacatl Battalion to execute the Jesuits , and orchestrated a cover-up afterwards .
They include the former president of the country , Alfredo Cristiani , Montano himself , and four more senior officers ( one of the accused , former Joint Chiefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2011 ) .
The 1993 amnesty law blocked investigation into the crime until 2016 , when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional .
But multiple obstacles still stand in the way of a judicial reckoning , not only in the Jesuit case but in dozens of others presented by victims since the country ’ s 12-year civil war ended in 1992 .
A lack of political will from the government and justice system has been the most obvious cause for inaction .
There are three historic cases technically “ under investigation ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Jesuit murders : the 1980 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero , the forced disappearance of two young girls who were sisters , and a massacre in a place called “ El Calabozo ” ( both in 1982 ) .
All four are stuck on the desk of Attorney General Raúl Melara ; they are formally “ open , ” but they do not advance .
The lack of transparency has also been an enormous obstacle .
So far , investigations have relied largely on survivor testimonies and information found in declassified US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spanish case , my own organization , the National Security Archive , contributed to prosecutors hundreds of documents that had been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act .
By contrast , the lawyers were able to obtain only a handful of military documents as evidence , despite the role the armed forces played in the crime itself .
The failure of El Salvador ’ s military leadership to grant access to historical records has become a huge point of contention with civil society .
During the UCA ’ s post-verdict press conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called on the army to allow investigators access to their records .
“ It is necessary , it is urgent , ” declared Father Oliva .
“ If the armed forces want to demonstrate their commitment to peace and justice , they should…open their archives !
” Former Salvadoran Supreme Court justice and legal scholar Florentín Meléndez has pointed to the lack of civilian control over the army as the central problem .
During a 2018 panel discussion to mark the 25th anniversary of the United Nations Truth Commission report , the jurist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to obtain needed evidence from military archives .
“ There is no political will to declassify this information , ” Meléndez told the audience .
“ Not a single president has dared to demand that the defense minister turn over information .
That just shows the fragility of our institutions.
” The army ’ s position has only hardened since then .
This past March , the government ’ s own transparency watchdog was blocked from carrying out an inspection of the archives required by a lawsuit filed by the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute for Access to Public Information—an entity created in 2012 after passage of the country ’ s first Right to Information Law—showed up at the defense ministry , they were denied entry to the building , harassed , and filmed by military staff with cameras and a surveillance drone overhead .
And in the notorious El Mozote massacre case—the only human rights atrocity committed during the war to make it to trial in a Salvadoran courtroom after the amnesty law was overturned—when presiding judge Jorge Guzmán Urquilla demanded archives from the defense ministry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ command and military operations at the time of the massacre , he was flatly denied access .
As recently as September 18 , the defense minister filed a stay before the Supreme Court of Justice to avoid being compelled to turn over the files .
To add insult to injury , El Salvador ’ s congress has spent the last year and a half trying to ram through a new “ National Reconciliation Law ” that contains its own version of a blanket amnesty for human rights abuses committed during the civil war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mounted by victims , human rights lawyers , and national and international civil society organizations has managed to halt the law ’ s passage , but the fight is far from over .
For all those reasons , the Spanish verdict represents a great victory for the human rights struggle in El Salvador .
But it must be viewed as a beginning , not a conclusion .
The Salvadoran people watched it unfold from afar ; now they deserve their own day in court , at home .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
When the decision dropped this month, it came through the small screen but with a huge impact.
On September 11, a mostly empty Spanish National Court livestreamed its verdict in the trial of a retired Salvadoran military officer for one of the most grievous atrocities of the Central American dirty wars: the 1989 assassination in El Salvador of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her daughter. The panel of three Spanish judges found former colonel Inocente Orlando Montano guilty on five counts of “murder of a terrorist nature” and sentenced him to 133 years in prison.
Montano, 77 and wheelchair-bound, fidgeted behind plastic dividers meant to keep him safe from Covid-19 as the ruling was read. In the courtroom with him were the magistrates, prosecutors, his defense lawyers, and a smattering of journalists allowed to observe from a distance. But most of those affected by the crime—the Salvadorans, including students, staff, and faculty of the Jesuit-run Central American University (UCA) in San Salvador, where the six priests and two women were woken from sleep by soldiers on the morning of November 16, 1989, and shot execution-style—watched on phones and laptops from thousands of miles away.
The ruling is a triumph for the many who fought for justice in a case that seemed to founder from the moment the bodies were found. Evidence disappeared, documents were burned, testimony was falsified. Even after El Salvador convicted two army officers widely seen as scapegoats, tried in a sham proceeding in 1991, an amnesty law passed 18 months later quickly led to their release. They served less than two years in prison. More on El Salvador A Decades-Old Atrocity Finally Sees Its Day in Court Peter Kornbluh El Salvador’s Gang Violence: The Continuation of Civil War by Other Means Roberto Lovato Carolyn Forché’s Powerful Reckoning Suzy Hansen Time for a US Apology to El Salvador Raymond Bonner
This time, the private prosecutors representing the Jesuit community and families of the victims bet on universal jurisdiction, a legal principle that permits trials of perpetrators of international crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity to take place inside any courtroom, in any country. In the name of the family of Ignacio Martín-Baró, one of five Spanish Jesuits among the six killed, human rights attorneys Almudena Bernabeu and Manuel Ollé filed the case in the National Court of Spain in 2008. After stalling for years for want of a defendant in Spanish custody, the case took on new life in 2017, when the United States extradited Montano to stand trial. The former vice minister of defense will now serve out his time in a Spanish prison, his 133 years reduced to the maximum permitted under Spanish law of 30. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Hours after the verdict was read, the UCA held a press conference. Rector Andreu Oliva and Father José María Tojeira—director of the UCA’s Human Rights Institute (IDHUCA), who was living in a separate residence when the soldiers raided the university and murdered his colleagues—expressed their satisfaction, noting that Montano and others accused of the crime “never thought they would be judged. But they were wrong.” Celebrating a ruling that “encourages us and gives us hope,” the Jesuits urged the Salvadoran courts to now take up the case at home.
But if Spain proved that even the most powerful individuals could receive the benefits of due process and still be held accountable, El Salvador is a long way from mounting a credible prosecution. Current Issue View our current issue
The case exists in the system; IDHUCA filed a criminal complaint in 2000 against seven men considered the primary “intellectual authors” of the crime—those who planned the murders, ordered a special death squad of soldiers from the US-trained Atlacatl Battalion to execute the Jesuits, and orchestrated a cover-up afterwards. They include the former president of the country, Alfredo Cristiani, Montano himself, and four more senior officers (one of the accused, former Joint Chiefs of Staff head Emilio Ponce, died in 2011).
The 1993 amnesty law blocked investigation into the crime until 2016, when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. But multiple obstacles still stand in the way of a judicial reckoning, not only in the Jesuit case but in dozens of others presented by victims since the country’s 12-year civil war ended in 1992.
A lack of political will from the government and justice system has been the most obvious cause for inaction. There are three historic cases technically “under investigation” by court order, in addition to the Jesuit murders: the 1980 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the forced disappearance of two young girls who were sisters, and a massacre in a place called “El Calabozo” (both in 1982). All four are stuck on the desk of Attorney General Raúl Melara; they are formally “open,” but they do not advance.
The lack of transparency has also been an enormous obstacle. So far, investigations have relied largely on survivor testimonies and information found in declassified US documents—not on Salvadoran records. In the Spanish case, my own organization, the National Security Archive, contributed to prosecutors hundreds of documents that had been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. By contrast, the lawyers were able to obtain only a handful of military documents as evidence, despite the role the armed forces played in the crime itself.
The failure of El Salvador’s military leadership to grant access to historical records has become a huge point of contention with civil society. During the UCA’s post-verdict press conference, the rector and Father Tojeira explicitly called on the army to allow investigators access to their records. “It is necessary, it is urgent,” declared Father Oliva. “If the armed forces want to demonstrate their commitment to peace and justice, they should…open their archives!”
Former Salvadoran Supreme Court justice and legal scholar Florentín Meléndez has pointed to the lack of civilian control over the army as the central problem. During a 2018 panel discussion to mark the 25th anniversary of the United Nations Truth Commission report, the jurist lamented that even judges and prosecutors were unable to obtain needed evidence from military archives. “There is no political will to declassify this information,” Meléndez told the audience. “Not a single president has dared to demand that the defense minister turn over information. That just shows the fragility of our institutions.”
The army’s position has only hardened since then. This past March, the government’s own transparency watchdog was blocked from carrying out an inspection of the archives required by a lawsuit filed by the University of El Salvador. When members of the Institute for Access to Public Information—an entity created in 2012 after passage of the country’s first Right to Information Law—showed up at the defense ministry, they were denied entry to the building, harassed, and filmed by military staff with cameras and a surveillance drone overhead.
And in the notorious El Mozote massacre case—the only human rights atrocity committed during the war to make it to trial in a Salvadoran courtroom after the amnesty law was overturned—when presiding judge Jorge Guzmán Urquilla demanded archives from the defense ministry concerning the army’s chain of command and military operations at the time of the massacre, he was flatly denied access. As recently as September 18, the defense minister filed a stay before the Supreme Court of Justice to avoid being compelled to turn over the files.
To add insult to injury, El Salvador’s congress has spent the last year and a half trying to ram through a new “National Reconciliation Law” that contains its own version of a blanket amnesty for human rights abuses committed during the civil war. So far, a furious campaign mounted by victims, human rights lawyers, and national and international civil society organizations has managed to halt the law’s passage, but the fight is far from over.
For all those reasons, the Spanish verdict represents a great victory for the human rights struggle in El Salvador. But it must be viewed as a beginning, not a conclusion. The Salvadoran people watched it unfold from afar; now they deserve their own day in court, at home.


thenation--2020-09-24--The Virus That Stole Christmas

The Virus That Stole Christmas

First things first .
Get your flu shot .
Last winter , only about 45 percent of all Americans got their seasonal influenza immunization , which means that even in the pre-novel-coronavirus times , we were failing at preventive health promotion in the United States .
Though we are all worried about Covid-19 in 2020 , influenza is a deadly disease , and in serious flu seasons our hospitals fill up quickly with patients needing care .
Now , as either the physicist Niels Bohr or New York Yankee Yogi Berra said , it ’ s difficult to make predictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these next six months may be more dangerous than the past several we ’ ve experienced .
Many epidemiologists and public health experts are expecting a resurgence in SARS-Cov-2 infections this winter as we head indoors , where we run a greater risk than in the outdoor activities we all enjoyed this summer .
While some are suggesting our social distancing efforts may slow the spread of the flu this season , the prospect of influenza adding to our coronavirus troubles is nothing to be complacent about .
Getting a flu shot is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can be protected against influenza , removing yourself as a source of flu transmission , and you ’ ll reduce the burden on emergency rooms and hospitals where you live .
In addition , if you ’ re immunized , it may give your doctors important information if you come down with a flu-like illness , helping them to distinguish between diagnoses , such as influenza and Covid-19 , when time is of the essence .
Going into the fall , though we are all weary of social distancing , mask-wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re doing to keep ourselves , our friends , and families safe , we ’ re going to have to keep up the good work .
Though President Trump keeps crowing about a vaccine before Election Day , we ’ re unlikely to see one by then .
Even if we do , it will take months and months to immunize all Americans against SARS-Cov-2 .
You Think Things Couldn ’ t Get Any Worse With the Pandemic ?
So Far , 2020 Has Been Our Year of Magical Thinking So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protocols , where we try to minimize the situations and settings in which transmission of SARS-Cov-2 is most likely , in what Julia Marcus and others have called a harm-reduction approach to Covid-19 .
However , the impending cold weather and the holidays , from Thanksgiving to Christmas , Hannukah , Kwanza , and New Year ’ s Eve , coming up could put us all at higher risk than we ’ ve been in than months : indoors , with the windows closed , in close physical proximity to our extended families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharing food and utensils , cups , potentially giving a gift even less wanted than that reindeer sweater from your Aunt Tilly : a family outbreak of Covid-19 .
This summer numerous outbreaks of the virus were tied to family events , large and small .
Winter will just exacerbate these risks .
Is 2020 the year without the holidays ?
For some it will be .
In addition to the general transmission risks I described above , those with elderly , sick , or immunocompromised relatives may not want to further risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones by visiting with them .
Those of us with underlying conditions may also not want to take the risk of acquiring Covid-19 by going to a family gathering .
These will be tough choices , and I don ’ t look forward to the conversation with my 86-year-old mother telling her I think it ’ s best that we all stay apart for the holidays .
Though the winter heightens risk in many ways , there are local considerations that come into play in our decisions .
Some states have their local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and staying low ; others have cases at high levels and staying high .
Knowing what is happening epidemiologically in your community is an important part of decision-making for each of us .
Congress Isn ’ t Doing the Bare Minimum for Pandemic Relief Even with the elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission this winter , along with our perennial risk of flu , there are ways to minimize risk for the holidays , but they take some planning .
Getting tested for Covid-19 shortly before you embark upon your holiday journey would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the big event .
On the way to the old homestead , you should try to minimize transmission risk with proper mask-wearing , regular handwashing , and avoiding crowds ( drive , don ’ t fly ) .
Once you ’ ve arrived , if windows can be open , masks can be worn and six feet of distance kept between you and your extended family , you ’ ve gone a long way to minimizing risk within what is possible to do .
However , in my family , if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christmas , we ’ d have two twins home from college , several health care workers who ’ ve been on the front lines , two of us living with HIV , and an elderly matriarch among us , with little ability to maintain social distance and the essence of the gathering relying on lots of shouting and gesticulating ( think of a suburban , goyische , Italian-American version of the scene from Annie Hall with Alvy Singer ’ s family under the roller coaster on Coney Island ) .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone at the moment .
The pandemic continues to throw our lives into chaos .
Even after the election , even if Trump loses , and then steps down in an orderly transition of government—two big ifs—it ’ s going to be months and months until we ’ re back to normal , if normal ever returns to us .
We ’ ve likely got to admit , in Willa Cather ’ s phrase just under a hundred years ago , that “ the world broke in two ” in 2020 .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rupture with the past .
We can face the future and take it as a challenge to be met , that of building a better world , where the politics that left us in such peril are replaced by something new .
That would be a holiday gift worth waiting for .
I miss my family and my friends , but what I long for more than anything is a chance to get these next few months and years right , to lay the foundation for addressing the health needs of communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for us to address the health and environmental threats that just keep coming with a new seriousness of national purpose .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
First things first. Get your flu shot.
Last winter, only about 45 percent of all Americans got their seasonal influenza immunization, which means that even in the pre-novel-coronavirus times, we were failing at preventive health promotion in the United States. Though we are all worried about Covid-19 in 2020, influenza is a deadly disease, and in serious flu seasons our hospitals fill up quickly with patients needing care. Now, as either the physicist Niels Bohr or New York Yankee Yogi Berra said, it’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But these next six months may be more dangerous than the past several we’ve experienced. Many epidemiologists and public health experts are expecting a resurgence in SARS-Cov-2 infections this winter as we head indoors, where we run a greater risk than in the outdoor activities we all enjoyed this summer.
While some are suggesting our social distancing efforts may slow the spread of the flu this season, the prospect of influenza adding to our coronavirus troubles is nothing to be complacent about. Getting a flu shot is good for you and for your community. You can be protected against influenza, removing yourself as a source of flu transmission, and you’ll reduce the burden on emergency rooms and hospitals where you live. In addition, if you’re immunized, it may give your doctors important information if you come down with a flu-like illness, helping them to distinguish between diagnoses, such as influenza and Covid-19, when time is of the essence.
Going into the fall, though we are all weary of social distancing, mask-wearing, handwashing, and the other measures we’re doing to keep ourselves, our friends, and families safe, we’re going to have to keep up the good work. Though President Trump keeps crowing about a vaccine before Election Day, we’re unlikely to see one by then. Even if we do, it will take months and months to immunize all Americans against SARS-Cov-2. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann More From Gregg Gonsalves These New Alzheimer’s Drugs Are a Travesty July 27, 2023 It's Not “Unreasonable” to Want to Change Our Rotten Health Care System June 1, 2023 Now More Than Ever, We Need to Fight, Not Despair May 11, 2023
So we’re stuck with our risk-reduction protocols, where we try to minimize the situations and settings in which transmission of SARS-Cov-2 is most likely, in what Julia Marcus and others have called a harm-reduction approach to Covid-19. However, the impending cold weather and the holidays, from Thanksgiving to Christmas, Hannukah, Kwanza, and New Year’s Eve, coming up could put us all at higher risk than we’ve been in than months: indoors, with the windows closed, in close physical proximity to our extended families, around a table without masks, sharing food and utensils, cups, potentially giving a gift even less wanted than that reindeer sweater from your Aunt Tilly: a family outbreak of Covid-19. This summer numerous outbreaks of the virus were tied to family events, large and small. Winter will just exacerbate these risks.
Is 2020 the year without the holidays? For some it will be. In addition to the general transmission risks I described above, those with elderly, sick, or immunocompromised relatives may not want to further risk the health and safety of their loved ones by visiting with them. Those of us with underlying conditions may also not want to take the risk of acquiring Covid-19 by going to a family gathering. These will be tough choices, and I don’t look forward to the conversation with my 86-year-old mother telling her I think it’s best that we all stay apart for the holidays. Though the winter heightens risk in many ways, there are local considerations that come into play in our decisions. Some states have their local epidemics under relative control with cases low and staying low; others have cases at high levels and staying high. Knowing what is happening epidemiologically in your community is an important part of decision-making for each of us. The Pandemic Congress Isn’t Doing the Bare Minimum for Pandemic Relief Robert L. Borosage
Even with the elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission this winter, along with our perennial risk of flu, there are ways to minimize risk for the holidays, but they take some planning. Getting tested for Covid-19 shortly before you embark upon your holiday journey would be critical—as would quarantining yourself for 14 days before the big event. On the way to the old homestead, you should try to minimize transmission risk with proper mask-wearing, regular handwashing, and avoiding crowds (drive, don’t fly). Once you’ve arrived, if windows can be open, masks can be worn and six feet of distance kept between you and your extended family, you’ve gone a long way to minimizing risk within what is possible to do. However, in my family, if we wanted to do a “normal” Christmas, we’d have two twins home from college, several health care workers who’ve been on the front lines, two of us living with HIV, and an elderly matriarch among us, with little ability to maintain social distance and the essence of the gathering relying on lots of shouting and gesticulating (think of a suburban, goyische, Italian-American version of the scene from Annie Hall with Alvy Singer’s family under the roller coaster on Coney Island). It’s not a situation I consider safe for anyone at the moment.
The pandemic continues to throw our lives into chaos. Even after the election, even if Trump loses, and then steps down in an orderly transition of government—two big ifs—it’s going to be months and months until we’re back to normal, if normal ever returns to us. We’ve likely got to admit, in Willa Cather’s phrase just under a hundred years ago, that “the world broke in two” in 2020.
There are simply moments in history that create a rupture with the past. We can face the future and take it as a challenge to be met, that of building a better world, where the politics that left us in such peril are replaced by something new. That would be a holiday gift worth waiting for. I miss my family and my friends, but what I long for more than anything is a chance to get these next few months and years right, to lay the foundation for addressing the health needs of communities we’ve long ignored, and for us to address the health and environmental threats that just keep coming with a new seriousness of national purpose.


thenation--2020-09-24--Ilhan Omar Pushes Back Against the Desperate Racist Politics of Trump’s ‘Cult-Like’ Rallies

Donald Trump ’ s attacks on Ilhan Omar are coming with greater frequency and greater vitriol as the 2020 election approaches .
Last week , he devoted a substantial portion of a rally in Minnesota to vilifying the Democrat representative from the Twin Cities .
He followed up this week with a racist rant in Pennsylvania .
It ’ s the latest manifestation of a pattern that over the past two years has seen the president label Omar “ a disgrace to our country , ” dismiss her as “ an American-hating socialist , ” and preside over a rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left Somalia as a child refugee inspired his “ cult-rally ” zealots to chant , “ Send her back !
Send her back !
” The president ’ s fixation on Omar has always been characterized by racism , xenophobia , crude fearmongering , and outright lies .
As the presidential election nears , however , it has taken on a more severe and desperate tone .
When Trump attacked Omar this week , he revealed something about the political calculus that animates his obsession with a dynamic political figure who upon her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here in Minnesota , we don ’ t only welcome immigrants—we send them to Washington.
” In Pennsylvania on Tuesday , Trump asked , “ How about Omar of Minnesota ?
We ’ re going to win the state of Minnesota because of her , they say .
She ’ s telling us how to run our country .
How did you do where you came from ?
How ’ s your country doing ?
She ’ s going to tell us—she ’ s telling us how to run our country.
” Russ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ About Expanding the Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg : ‘ My Most Fervent Wish Is That I Will Not Be Replaced Until a New President Is Installed ’ Susan Collins Is Donald Trump ’ s Essential Ally in the Senate To be clear , while Omar was born in Mogadishu , Somalia , she represents Minneapolis .
Her country is the United States , and her constituents have elected her—repeatedly , and overwhelmingly—as a representative who is charged with determining how best to run our country .
She has worked as a legislator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for economic , social , and racial justice ; protection of the planet ; and a foreign policy that emphasizes peace and reconciliation rather than militarism and conflict .
She has , as well , displayed political skills that mark her as an essential voice in our national discourse .
Omar has proven adept at parrying presidential attacks , as she did Tuesday night when she replied to Trump with a tweet that declared , “ This is my country and I am a member of the House that impeached you .
Secondly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was 8 .
An 8-year-old doesn ’ t run a country even though you run our country like one.
” Omar is on to the president .
She recognizes that “ Trump preys on fear .
He spreads a disease of hate.
” That ’ s always been the case .
But now he is doing so as a craven politician who is desperate to revive a sputtering reelection bid .
Note the line from Trump ’ s speech on Tuesday : “ We ’ re going to win the state of Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota is a 2020 swing state .
In 2016 , Trump lost Minnesota by just 44,470 votes out of almost 3 million cast .
That made it the sixth most closely contested state in the race between the Republican presidential nominee and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton .
Since he assumed the presidency , Trump has lavished attention on Minnesota , in hopes of moving enough voters into the Republican column that he can win it in 2020 .
To that end , the president has been whipping up what Omar decries as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just the representative but the state ’ s large Somali America population as well .
Last fall , the president traveled to Omar ’ s district to unleash an vile anti-immigrant diatribe .
He has kept coming back to the state , most recently to the northern Minnesota city of Bemidji , where he delivered one of his most incendiary speeches of the 2020 campaign .
In it , he claimed that “ every family in Minnesota needs to know about sleepy Joe Biden ’ s plan to flood your state with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from other places all over the planet .
That ’ s what ’ s happened , and you like Omar a lot , don ’ t you.
” These Races Will Shape What the US Elections Mean for Climate Progress More in this series The crowd jeered and hissed .
Trump kept laying it on , spewing white supremacist code words , assuring his supporters that “ you have good genes , ” and warning that if Biden is elected , the Democrat will empower “ extremists like Representative Ilhan Omar.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesotans who know Omar the best like her—a lot .
She won a crowded 2018 Democratic primary in Minnesota ’ s 5th Congressional District with 48 percent of the vote and then carried the general election that year with 78 percent .
In this year ’ s Democratic primary , against a free-spending opponent whose campaign poured $ 4 million into the effort to displace her , Omar won with 58 percent of the vote—a 10-point bump from her previous primary .
And no one thinks she ’ s in any kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigning hard , with an eye toward boosting turnout for the presidential race .
It seems to be working .
Despite all the president ’ s campaigning in Minnesota , and all of his xenophobic attacks on Omar and the Somali-American community , the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls has Biden leading 51.6–41.4 .
And a new ABC News/Washington Post poll put Biden at 57 percent to just 41 percent for Trump .
Trump ’ s ramped-up racism is fueled by his fear of losing Minnesota , says Omar .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power in Minnesota runs through turnout in the 5th Congressional District and we are going to make sure not only that he does not win Minnesota but that he doesn ’ t get back to the White House .
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Donald Trump’s attacks on Ilhan Omar are coming with greater frequency and greater vitriol as the 2020 election approaches. Last week, he devoted a substantial portion of a rally in Minnesota to vilifying the Democrat representative from the Twin Cities. He followed up this week with a racist rant in Pennsylvania.
It’s the latest manifestation of a pattern that over the past two years has seen the president label Omar “a disgrace to our country,” dismiss her as “an American-hating socialist,” and preside over a rally where his mention of the woman who left Somalia as a child refugee inspired his “cult-rally” zealots to chant, “Send her back! Send her back!”
The president’s fixation on Omar has always been characterized by racism, xenophobia, crude fearmongering, and outright lies. As the presidential election nears, however, it has taken on a more severe and desperate tone.
When Trump attacked Omar this week, he revealed something about the political calculus that animates his obsession with a dynamic political figure who upon her election two years ago announced, “Here in Minnesota, we don’t only welcome immigrants—we send them to Washington.” In Pennsylvania on Tuesday, Trump asked, “How about Omar of Minnesota? We’re going to win the state of Minnesota because of her, they say. She’s telling us how to run our country. How did you do where you came from? How’s your country doing? She’s going to tell us—she’s telling us how to run our country.” More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
To be clear, while Omar was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, she represents Minneapolis. Her country is the United States, and her constituents have elected her—repeatedly, and overwhelmingly—as a representative who is charged with determining how best to run our country. She has worked as a legislator and an activist to forge a vision for economic, social, and racial justice; protection of the planet; and a foreign policy that emphasizes peace and reconciliation rather than militarism and conflict. She has, as well, displayed political skills that mark her as an essential voice in our national discourse.
Omar has proven adept at parrying presidential attacks, as she did Tuesday night when she replied to Trump with a tweet that declared, “This is my country and I am a member of the House that impeached you. Secondly, I fled civil war when I was 8. An 8-year-old doesn’t run a country even though you run our country like one.”
Omar is on to the president. She recognizes that “Trump preys on fear. He spreads a disease of hate.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
That’s always been the case. But now he is doing so as a craven politician who is desperate to revive a sputtering reelection bid. Current Issue View our current issue
Note the line from Trump’s speech on Tuesday: “We’re going to win the state of Minnesota because of her, they say.”
Minnesota is a 2020 swing state. In 2016, Trump lost Minnesota by just 44,470 votes out of almost 3 million cast. That made it the sixth most closely contested state in the race between the Republican presidential nominee and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Since he assumed the presidency, Trump has lavished attention on Minnesota, in hopes of moving enough voters into the Republican column that he can win it in 2020.
To that end, the president has been whipping up what Omar decries as “cult-like rallies,” where he attacks not just the representative but the state’s large Somali America population as well. Last fall, the president traveled to Omar’s district to unleash an vile anti-immigrant diatribe. He has kept coming back to the state, most recently to the northern Minnesota city of Bemidji, where he delivered one of his most incendiary speeches of the 2020 campaign. In it, he claimed that “every family in Minnesota needs to know about sleepy Joe Biden’s plan to flood your state with an influx of refugees from Somalia and from other places all over the planet. That’s what’s happened, and you like Omar a lot, don’t you.” Election 2020 The Promise of Justice in Fani Willis’s Indictment Joan Walsh Please, Please Stop Blaming “Progressives” for Donald Trump’s Fascism Joan Walsh Why Does This Racist Keep Getting Silicon Valley Money? Jeet Heer
The crowd jeered and hissed. Trump kept laying it on, spewing white supremacist code words, assuring his supporters that “you have good genes,” and warning that if Biden is elected, the Democrat will empower “extremists like Representative Ilhan Omar.”
But here’s the thing. The Minnesotans who know Omar the best like her—a lot. She won a crowded 2018 Democratic primary in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District with 48 percent of the vote and then carried the general election that year with 78 percent. In this year’s Democratic primary, against a free-spending opponent whose campaign poured $4 million into the effort to displace her, Omar won with 58 percent of the vote—a 10-point bump from her previous primary. And no one thinks she’s in any kind of trouble this fall. Yet she is campaigning hard, with an eye toward boosting turnout for the presidential race.
It seems to be working. Despite all the president’s campaigning in Minnesota, and all of his xenophobic attacks on Omar and the Somali-American community, the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls has Biden leading 51.6–41.4. And a new ABC News/Washington Post poll put Biden at 57 percent to just 41 percent for Trump.
Trump’s ramped-up racism is fueled by his fear of losing Minnesota, says Omar. “What he knows is that the Democratic power in Minnesota runs through turnout in the 5th Congressional District and we are going to make sure not only that he does not win Minnesota but that he doesn’t get back to the White House.”