If you prick us, do we not bleed?

Remember this factoid?

Between 1500 and 1800 roughly two and a half million Europeans moved to the Americas; they carried twelve million Africans by force; and as many as fifty million Native Americans died, chiefly of disease.

The genocide and then the ethnic cleansing did not end just because it was now the 19th century!

Enter trump in his previous incarnation: andrew jackson, who "extended the powers of the presidency," writes Jill Lepore.

"The man we have made our President has made himself our despot, and the Constitution now lies in a heap of ruins at his feet," declared a senator from Rhode Island.  "When the way to his object lies through the Constitution, the Constitution has not the strength of a cobweb to restrain him from breaking through it."

Jackson set his sights on Indian removal.  He wanted to forcibly move Native Americans from east of the Mississippi to the West.

The Cherokees had forever been fighting to remain on their lands.

We beg leave to observe, and to remind you, that the Cherokees are not foreigners, but original inhabitants of America; and that they now inhabit and stand on the soil of their own territory.

And then a most unfortunate thing happened: "Gold was discovered on Cherokee land."

The US Supreme Court and its Chief Justice, John Marshall, ruled in favor of the Cherokees.  andrew jackson "decided to ignore the Supreme Court."  The Trail of Tears was the result.

We often refer to slavery as America's original sin.  As sinful as that was, the destruction of the lives and histories of the original inhabitants of this land is an even older story.  As much as the aftereffects of slavery and white supremacy have never gone away, the shameful and atrocious treatment of Native Americans continues.  Especially now with version 2.0 of andrew jackson: trump.

President Donald Trump started off the week by mocking one of the worst Native American massacres in US history in order to score some political points. By Friday, a group of young white teenagers were following his footsteps by taunting Native American elders at the Indigenous Peoples March in Washington, DC — on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, no less.
In videos shared widely on YouTube and Twitter, a young man wearing a self-assured smirk and a red “Make America Great Again” stands inches away from a native elder who is beating a drum. Different angles of the incident show a group of a few dozen young people, mostly boys, in the background, jumping up and down and jeering in unison at the group of elders present for the day’s march. In some shots, the teens appear to be shouting “build that wall, build that wall.”

The native elder, Nathan Phillips, is also a Vietnam vet--the war that President Bone Spurs dodged well.

“I heard them saying ‘build that wall, build that wall,’ ” Phillips said while wiping away tears. “This is indigenous land. You’re not supposed to have walls here. We never did for a millennia. We never had a prison. We always took care of our elders, took care of our children, always provided for them, taught them right from wrong. I wish I could see that energy … put that energy to making this country really, really great.”

Yet another Indian elder shedding tears is not going to influence the thinking of 63 million racists!

It is not an American Carnage?

“This American carnage stops right here and stops right now,” declared trump after he took the oath of office of the presidency.  He won not by painting a picture of optimism and rosy future but through grim portrayals of immigrants, Mexicans, blacks, gays, minorities, other countries ...

His rhetoric and actions have caught on all over the world, perhaps demonstrating in an ironical manner how much America is indeed a beacon to the world!

Why the rise of trump and trumpism when life has never been this good for humans?

So why is that we – mostly in the developed world – often have a negative view on how the world has changed over the last decades and centuries? Why we are so pessimistic about our collective future?

Yeah, why?

Apparently, "the gap between individual optimism and national pessimism is getting larger."

One tip comes from the observation that, according to studies, the gap is larger among people who have more exposure to news media. And the media – certainly social media – tend to emphasize the gloomy and the gory over the sunny and the sublime. Good news is not news, media executives often mutter. And it takes just a minute on Twitter or cable news to confirm the old adage: “If it bleeds, it leads.”

Depends on the media that we are exposed to.  The media that I read, watch, and listen to reinforce my understanding that we humans have never had it this good.  Even in the US, will women want to live in the 1950s that trump seems to think was when America was great?  Will blacks want to re-live the 1950s?  

Does one want a reminder on the awful conditions in China in the 1950s?  Or how poor South Korea was even compared to North Korea?  

Once we systematically look around the world and examine the evidence, there is no denying the fact that life has become immensely better.  Which means, it is not exposure to the media but exposure to some kinds of media that is the problem.

Add to this a second psychological bias neuroscientists are discussing: because our species has evolved to fend off danger, we tend to be more sensitive to bad news. We react more acutely to pictures of starving children than to reports of improving nutrition levels in Africa. And, of course, we tend to remember those horrible pictures much longer.

trump tapped into these emotions.  American Carnage, he declared.  Only he can make everything alright, he claimed.  63 million voted for him!

never mind what people’s daily experience at home and work suggest; just keep repeating that business elites or immigrants or foreigners are making things worse – much worse! – and sooner or later voters will believe you.

What a shame! 

Unpaid thinking work while on furlough

More than a fortnight into the summer, I have been tossing around the word furlough a lot, whenever strangers and friends alike ask me about my "summer off."

"So, how do you spend your time then," asked a neighbor who is a year away from reaching sixty.  Perhaps he is contemplating retirement and, therefore, how to spend time post-work.  I suppose not everybody can goof away in a prematurely retired life like how this guy does! ;)

There is a paper that I am writing for a journal--it is almost done.  I need to wrap it soon because the deadline is nearing.  There are other things related to my professional life that I am able to address only during the uninterrupted summer days.

Meanwhile, student emails keep coming.  Like this one, from "A":

I hope you're having a good summer break so far and was wondering if you could send me more articles on economic geography or really anything interesting that you would like to share with me.
Thank you for your time,

How can I not engage with this student, right?

Life in the academy is not really about what happens in the classroom.  It is about what I do outside the classroom preparing for those minutes in the classroom.  Those minutes require days and days of reading, thinking, discussing, and writing.  Else, as Kalidasa wrote more than 1,700 years ago:

He's but a petty tradesman at the best,
Selling retail the work of other men

Perhaps even back then there were people who wondered what teachers did in their easy lives!

Almost always, everybody has comments on teaching and teachers, on what has to be taught and how anything has to be taught.  I am glad that there is such an interest in teaching and learning.  But, as one can imagine, this level  of outside commentary on teaching can easily slide into judging what is "correct" and what is not.  And if something about the teacher is not "correct," then off with her head.  Or, at least, fire the teacher.

Academic freedom, which is something that very few teachers around the world have, is, therefore, precious.  And tenure plays an important role in academic freedom:

Tenure for professors protects the right to pursue unpopular research and take unpopular positions. It is one of the counter-majoritarian bulwarks of a free society, like a free press or an independent judiciary. 

Trump America and opportunistic populism has started going after tenure and academic freedom.

Aversion to “expertise” and rejection of “establishment” authorities is a central element in the politics of populism. The honest, practical, plain-speaking majority is pitted against the complacent, condescending, and entitled mandarins.
The truth, however, is that populism is a politics of bad faith. Our societies would stop functioning without the expertise that comes from academic knowledge. Populist political leaders who win votes by disparaging experts – we can all choose our favorite examples – are bound to find themselves fumbling for the light switch when they come to power. Expertise remains essential to any decent governance whatsoever.  

Here in the US, while conditions in higher education are getting dark, it is nothing compared to many other countries, like in Turkey or Russia.  In Hungary, Central European University (CEU) "is fighting to remain a free institution in Budapest, Hungary’s capital, following the passage of new legislation that would, in essence, require the university to close."

Ultimately, academic freedom depends on the health of democratic institutions. When democracies are weak, when majoritarian populists erode checks and balances, press freedom, and judicial independence, universities are especially vulnerable. That is what has happened in Hungary. 

Populists and authoritarians always go after artists and professors--these are groups that always question the status quo.  I cannot understand how within a matter of months the political environment has become so toxic.  At least for now, I have the furlough months to think about all these, and more.

PS: If you are interested, I sent the student,"A," this reply:

I will start you with these two, both from the NY Times: One and Two.
Read them preferably in that order.
They are on completely different topics, but you will see that they will wonderfully enrich your understanding of the world, and will make you think about quite a few things.

Two old men killed Lady Liberty

I remember how after the events of 9/11, the thoughts, words, and actions everywhere and every time were all related to 9/11.  It seemed like there was nothing else.

It is a similar effect now.  Everywhere I go to read anything, it is all about this current president.  I wish it were not the case.  A government and a president ought to be like how children were often referred to.  Remember that line?  Children should be seen and not heard.

Yes, the 63 million voters are to be blamed for this.  But, there is one group that I will not let off the hook: Bernie Sanders and his loyal followers.

Let me explain.

A few months before the election, the friend and I visited with another couple, who are more than a decade older than us and were Berniacs.  When talking, one of the older friends asked me what I thought about Sanders's criticism of how the US workers were being shafted by the fact that we don't manufacture anything here in America.

Without adopting a faculty tone, and without being snarky like how some of my blog-posts (examples: one, two, three ...) have been on this topic, I gave them my take on the economic geography of manufacturing.

But, these issues were/are less about logic and facts and more about how one "feels."  The Berniacs were often less interested in logic and evidence as much as the trumpeters couldn't care about logic and evidence.

In the process of expressing their "feelings," Sanders and his followers completely destroyed Hillary Clinton's credibility.  Remember those days, from only a few months ago?  It was best summed up by susan sarandon, echoing many, many, Berniacs, referring to Hillary Clinton as being more dangerous than trump:

“But this is what we’re fed. ‘He’s so dangerous. He’s so dangerous,'” Sarandon said, shrugging off Trump’s most controversial rhetoric as too implausible to be considered a serious threat.
“Seriously I am not worried about a wall being built, he is not going to get rid of every Muslim in this country… but seriously, I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from, and I do know that she is no transparent, and I do know that nobody calls her on it”

Yep, that was the typical line from the loony left.

I was way concerned about this because, as many posts in this blog showed, I was intensely worried about the real possibility of Clinton losing in the general elections and the fascist winning.  Defeating the fascist was infinitely more important to me than debating whether Clinton was an honest politician.  Berniacs repeating the line that Clinton was more dangerous to the country than trump was seemed reckless and foolish.

Of course, there were more than a few of us worried about the effect the Berniacs were having.  Like this headline from last June, which says it all: "Did Bernie Sanders Hand Trump the Election?"

And the Berniac defiance grew:

You heard similar language—or at least a similar tone—from Sanders surrogates like actress Rosario Dawson, who told a collection of Bernie supporters and delegates that they should press on with their demands, regardless of what happens. “If Trump wins,” she said, “it’s not our fault.”

"regardless of what happens" ... how terrible!

The sanders campaign was, for all purposes, a mirror image of the trump campaign--filled with populist rhetoric on making America great, and it was all about the man.

Whatever your opinions about Clinton, the most progressive Democratic platform in history was on the ballot with her; any Bernie Sanders supporter worth their salt should’ve been able to see that. If they cared about progressive policy they would have bothered to show up.
This election will leave the party with many newly perceived facts to study, but one seems to be that many young voters and young Sanders supporters, in particular, weren’t actually voting for him because of where he stands on the issues: if they were, the platform would have mattered. They wanted him for reasons the Americans always choose their political candidates: for his aura – a star-power defined in terms of a masculinity that’s become synonymous with political charisma.

Those damn Berniacs. Assholes who gave us this president!