A few days ago I caused a stir in my own tiny corner of the internet world by saying what I thought everybody already knew: If you support Trump, you are a White Supremacist.

When people talked about Hillary going too far when she said half of Trump’s supporters can be put into a “basket of deplorables,” I was left scratching my head and thinking: Only 50%?

If you support Trump, you are a White Supremacist. Full stop. Not just the passive amount of White Supremacy that we all end up participating in, in an inherently White Supremacist system — you are an active, hateful, dangerous White Supremacist.

Now some of you may be asking, as you have on Facebook and Twitter: “Ijeoma, are you really willing to call half of the U.S. population White Supremacists?” And to that my answer is hell yes. This may seem like a bold statement to some, but honestly, I can’t see why.

Human beings can quite easily fall in line with violent hatred and oppression; any quick glance through world history will show that to be true. Do you think that the Nazis came to power against the will of the German electorate, or with the support of the German people? Do you think that slavery was upheld purely by the few rich enough to own slaves, or by an entire society that even erected armies to defend it? And no, none of this can be excused away as “a product of the times” — humans are not like wine grapes; we do not have a few “bad years” that we can blame on the soil. If you recognize that these horrific systems of abuse, oppression, and even genocide were upheld by everyday people, then you have to acknowledge that everyday people are capable of some pretty heinous shit. You can be in the PTA and you can pay your taxes and you can volunteer at your local homeless shelter and at the same time you can be actively upholding the oppression of others. It has been done before and it is being done now.

Human beings can quite easily fall in line with violent hatred and oppression.
Click To Tweet

So yes, half of the U.S. population can be actively working to uphold violent White Supremacy, and yes, Trump’s campaign is violently White Supremacist. Your grandma who supports Trump is a White Supremacist. Your buddy who supports Trump is a White Supremacist. That’s what happens when you actively support White Supremacy. Here’s a sample of what is a vibrant buffet of White Supremacy that Trump supporters are backing:

Make America Great Again is a call to White Supremacy: When was America greater than it is now? The ‘60s? The ‘50s? The ‘40s? How you answer that question depends on how white you are. I’m only half-white, so if I go back to any time before 1967, my very existence would have been illegal in many states. Hell, two decades after I was born, anti-miscegenation language was finally removed from the Alabama state constitution, so for me — I have between 2000 and now to draw from. Every period of time in U.S. history prior to this one was less safe and less free for people of color, so if you plan on “Making America Great Again” and you are referencing any time in the past — you’re asking for a return of White Supremacy.

Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric is racist as fuck: I’m not saying that if you believe in tighter immigration rules you are immediately a White Supremacist (although you might just be), but if you go about it by insinuating that the Mexicans crossing the border are rapists, and if your proxies are warning of “taco trucks on every corner,” then you are trying to tap into a White Supremacist narrative of the black and brown brute and you are sure as hell dogwhistling that white culture in America is at risk.

Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric is racist as fuck: Now, before you barge in letting me know that “Islam isn’t a race,” let me please remind you to sit the fuck down. Islam isn’t a race, but Trump’s Islamophobia sure as hell is racist. If Trump and his followers didn’t think of SCARY BROWN PEOPLE when they thought of Islam, Islamophobia wouldn’t exist. If Islamophobia wasn’t racist in nature, we’d treat all problems within other religious communities not affiliated with scary brown people the same way we treat Islam. If Islamophobia wasn’t racist, we’d be trying to “liberate” Mormon women currently being punished for their own rapes at BYU. If Islamophobia wasn’t racist, we wouldn’t have conservative politicians fighting against raising the statute of limitations on child sex abuse so that Catholic priests could finally face justice for their crimes. If Islamophobia wasn’t racist, we would have declared war on “Christian Fundamentalism” after the Oklahoma City bombing and the multiple deadly Planned Parenthood bomb and gun attacks over the years. If Islamophobia wasn’t racist, Trump would be seeking immigration bans on people from ALL countries that produce terrorists (which is basically every country), not just brown ones. But because Islamophobia IS racist, Trump has been able to stir up White Supremacist hatred and fear of the brown “other” and turn it into votes.

This is just a sample of the White Supremacy that has seeped into every corner of the Trump campaign. It’s not everything, but it’s enough. It’s enough to overshadow any possible positive you could entertain in supporting his run for presidency.

There is no compromise between equality and violent White Supremacy.
Click To Tweet

So if you support Trump, you are supporting all of the above, and you are supporting White Supremacy. If you support Trump for other reasons, you are STILL supporting all of the above, and you are supporting White Supremacy. If you believe that you are actively against White Supremacy and yet you will support Trump, you are lying to yourself. People are being hurt right now by the racism that Trump is peddling, by the bravado that the legitimization of this election is giving to White Supremacists. What in the world could Trump possibly be offering you that would cause you to overlook all of the above?

And I’m not saying you have to vote for Hillary to not be a White Supremacist. I’m not saying that there aren’t some Hillary supporters who are white supremacists (see: everything I’ve ever written about this election for more). You CAN be a Hillary supporter, a Jill Stein supporter, a Gary Johnson supporter, or a die-hard anarchist and still be a White Supremacist. But if you are a Trump supporter, you ARE a White Supremacist (and yes, all 15 Trump supporters of color are perfectly capable of being White Supremacists, too). You looked at a campaign built on open, gleeful, hate-filled White Supremacy and you said, “sign me up!”

And I’m not willing to coddle you. I’m not willing to create a safe space for you to be able to elect White Supremacy into law without being called what you are: an unabashed, willful proponent of White Supremacy. There is no “middle ground” to be found here. There is no “compromise” between equality and violent White Supremacy. And there is no “gentler way” of confronting racism when my basic humanity as a woman of color is not enough to sway you against electing a regime that is built on the hatred and fear of people who look like me. And those of us directly harmed by the disgusting hate you want to elect into office will not forget that you traded away our safety and humanity for empty promises of “winning” and “greatness.” We see you for who you really are.

Tuesday night was a victory.

American media tends to overcorrect in the name of a false balance that caters to the endless caterwauling of conservatives, and there were some rumblings that the much ballyhooed “blue wave” washed out in spite of a torrent of good results for Democrats.

A forthright victory in the House, combined with some significant ballot initiatives and governor’s mansion pickups in various states, added up to a repudiation of reactionary politics from coast to coast. In a media-cycle dominated by hand wringing and pseudo even handedness, there is a temptation to cast the election results as a “split decision.”

But the real story of November 6th, 2018, was a tale of conviction triumphing over cynicism. In all 50 states there was real cause for hope, and, at last, a legislative bulwark was thrown up against Trump’s heinous agenda.

But let us first deal with the night’s disappointments.

It would be the height of foolishness to read the losses of Andrew Gillum and Beto O’Rourke — as some have suggested — as an indictment of values-based campaigning. They fought extraordinarily close races, with O’Rourke winning votes in places Dems haven’t been competitive for a long time and his coattails were long enough to contribute to that House victory that we’re all celebrating.

“Moral victories” don’t win close votes in the legislature, but there’s a lot to be said for how close these races were fought and what they portend. In Florida, Gillum’s campaign almost certainly buoyed a voting rights initiative that restored the ballot to felons, ending a uniquely American injustice in that state. If that battle was winnable, even as Gillum himself fell short, that portends victory down the road.

But the real story of November 6th, 2018, was a tale of conviction triumphing over cynicism.
Click To Tweet

Leftists and progressives always face stiff headwinds. Status-quo bias isn’t merely psychological, it distorts political trends as well. Our road is always uphill, always rock-strewn, always stormy; what we face is never easy to overcome.

But what 2018 demonstrates is that we are winning an argument and winning allies in the long fight against reactionary politics; even where we lost, these were narrow losses that spooked those in power, losses that came perilously close to pouring over their ramparts.

And then there are the many, many places we did win. Convincingly, and with ideals and identities that put the lie to so much conventional wisdom. The Democrats’ victors on election night managed to run the extra yard that candidates like O’Rourke couldn’t; that we’re so close to the line in either direction is a portentous victory in its own right.

We must never forget: a close race in a hitherto Republican state or district is still something to celebrate. In the U.S., which doesn’t make “swings” a critical feature of election reporting, ordinary voters may not be informed of important trends in their electorates—trends that are lost in winner-take-all reporting.

The swing against Republicans was convincing, dampened only by gerrymandering, partisan chicanery (especially in states like Georgia), and a Senate-electoral structure deliberately designed to thwart sudden changes in the popular mood.

But there is so much more to celebrate: Native American women taking their seats in a House that legislated against them for centuries, Black women marching to Congress for the first time in certain districts, Muslim women greeting us in Arabic as our representatives, trans people decisively defeating an initiative that would have curtailed our rights in Massachusetts, voting rights restored to millions, marijuana and nonpartisan districting legalized in Michigan; this all matters in profound, life-changing ways.

We must never forget: a close race in a hitherto Republican state or district is still something to celebrate.
Click To Tweet

The Democrats flipped districts across the country—to the point where Ann Coulter declared Kansas to be “dead to me.” No less than noted fascist zombie Steve Bannon wondered aloud on his lightly-watched election stream if his side’s “constant barrage of racism, nativism and all that, has that worked?”

It is worth remembering that, by design, the race for the House constitutes a national referendum in a way Senate races cannot. To be sure, all elections were local this year — many Democrats triumphed by aping Danica Roem’s focus on local issues, district by district, state by state — but the House, by its very nature, also reflects a national mood. As I write this, The New York Times had the Dems winning the popular vote by over 7 percent, and turnout was breaking records.

As hard-right Republicans from Kansas to Wisconsin fall, it feels like there’s a convincing answer to Bannon’s agonized question. Trump’s nakedly nationalistic and racist appeals have profound limits when the public is organized.

That brings us to election night’s ultimate lesson — and the words I’d have written no matter what the results were.

What the hour demands is power: the building of it, the securing of it, the wielding of it. I had no patience for the cynicism of those leftists who, with an unbecoming eagerness, all but pissed on the utility of voting. But the more reasoned among their number were quite right to say that a ballot was a beginning, not an end.

Combatting Trumpian fascism demands more than a willingness to wear a sticker after a state-sanctioned exercise; it commands us to honor the stranger, shelter the refugee, break unjust laws, and fight for what is truly moral, even if that fight takes you into the streets.

The work neither began nor ended with the canvassing for Election 2018; so much more remains to be done.

Trump’s troops are still at our southern border; innocents still languish in detention centers nationwide, ferried by planes that cross our vast landmass; the dignity of your fellow citizen is under threat from coast to coast. There will be dark hours that demand sit-ins and late night phone calls to make bail for the unjustly incarcerated, or nights where you may have to shelter someone in your home who is unjustly pursued by the state.

The chimes of that fateful clock will sound, and you must answer.

The Democrats have a bumper crop of officials now. A legion of new legislators, and governors who, for the first time in years, represent a majority of Americans. But voting is about choosing who you will struggle with, and the next two years will be a test; these new Democratic pols won’t mean a damn unless they’re relentlessly pressed to do the right thing.

That will, in turn, demand everything from protests to petitions. Above all else it demands your continued engagement. It demands more than the unbecoming, supine posture adopted by Democratic leadership Tuesday night; we need a willingness to fight, not adherence to spreadsheet politics.

There is no “marketplace of ideas,” as Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi would have it. There is, lamentably, only a battlefield before us.

Combatting Trumpian fascism demands more than a willingness to wear a sticker after a state-sanctioned exercise.
Click To Tweet

On October 27th, I woke up to my partner, who sat bolt upright in bed. She didn’t speak in soothing tones, none of the kind indulgences that normally greeted my sleepyheadedness; she was glued to her phone and told me that a synagogue in Pittsburgh had been attacked. I had the unhappy task of informing my other partner by text. Both are Jewish.

I had already been reeling that week from news of the criminally underreported Kroger shooting, which saw a white supremacist attempt to massacre worshippers at a Black church. Thwarted by a locked door, he went to a nearby supermarket and killed two Black shoppers.

Now, his ideological twin murdered eleven worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue. Each was enlivened by the white supremacism that Trump has so thoroughly vivified these past two years.

We talk so often about the stakes in any given election. Days before most Americans went to the polls, I saw the stakes drawn in the blood of my own communities. People who could have been my friends, colleagues, loved ones, were gunned down across the land by Trump’s ideological children; there was never any compromising with this, never any intellectualizing to be done. This was never an election with two equal sides, much less two equally survivable sides.

I could keep trying to persuade you that last night constitutes “good news,” athwart so much media hand-wringing. But as I think back to the aftermath of that bloody week, I recall a quote — stitched together from different ideas in the Talmud — that has, mercifully, found currency among many progressives. It serves as a reminder of our obligations, regardless of election returns, and remains a polestar for our times.

“Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.”

For, as a beloved reverend friend put it, “we’ve got more of a fighting chance than we had.”

“This is America, speak English.”

This refrain is becoming alarmingly common — used liberally on angry Facebook pages and by everyone from angry JC Penney shoppers to belligerent presidential candidates.

During his primary campaign, Donald Trump declared: “We have a country where to assimilate, you have to speak English.” A moment later he added, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.”

Unfortunately, this is not just inflammatory rhetoric — it’s also the basis of current and proposed language policy.

In February of this year, the Michigan House passed a bill to make English the official state language. The bill is expected to pass the state Senate, though it would need Governor Rick Snyder’s signature to become law. If it succeeds, Michigan will become the 32nd state to make English its official language and clear a victory for the “Official English” political movement.

Also known as “English-Only,” this movement has been around for decades, rising to prominence in the late ‘80s and early ’90s. America does not currently, and has never had, a legal designation of any one language as its official one.

Today, three major organizations are trying to change that––U.S. English, ProEnglish, and English First. Of these, ProEnglish has the most active online presence and, notably, political influence: Organization officials have met with Trump administration aides numerous times this year. All three groups, however, have similar missions and goals.

They disparage “multilingualism” and “multiculturalism,” arguing that the lack of a “unifying” national language creates “linguistic ghettos” and limits immigrants’ economic prospects. While they maintain that it’s fine to use other languages in private, they advocate making English the official language of the United States, which would require that nearly all government documents be written — and operations conducted — exclusively in English.

That’s the movement’s long-term goal.

America does not currently, and has never had, a legal designation of any one language as its official one.
Click To Tweet

In the meantime they advocate “Official English” laws at the state and local levels, as well as restrictions on the use of other languages in government, schools, and workplaces. To this end, they support English-only voting ballots, driving exams, and workplace policies, an end to bilingual education, and the repeal of EO 13166, an executive order issued by Bill Clinton which entitles people with limited English proficiency (LEP) to translation assistance for government documents and services.

They support the English Language Unity Act, which would make English the country’s official language, restrict access to translation services, and impose an arduous English proficiency requirement for naturalization. They also advocate for the COST Act, which would require federal agencies to document the expense of translation services, and the RAISE Act, which would severely restrict legal immigration and create a points-based immigration system rewarding — among other skills and characteristics — English proficiency.

Advocates claim that these policies, rather than punishing LEP immigrants, will “incentivize” them to assimilate and learn English. They repeatedly invoke the melting pot metaphor, praising diversity while demanding national “unity” — something which, they argue, is impossible in a multilingual society.

But while the movement presents itself as pro-immigrant, its origins are steeped in racism.

U.S. English and ProEnglish were founded by John Tanton, an anti-immigration and pro-eugenicist crusader who has founded numerous racist organizations. These include the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies, the pro-eugenics group Society for Genetic Education, and the Social Contract Press, which, with Tanton’s approval, reprinted the notorious The Camp of the Saints, a racist favorite of Steve Bannon.

Tanton was pushed out of U.S. English in 1988 after the leak of some astonishingly racist memos, and there’s no trace of him on either of the group’s official websites. ProEnglish, the group he founded in 1994 (the same year his publishing company reprinted The Camp of the Saints), contains only two mentions of him. This near-absence is unsurprising; Tanton’s more inflammatory statements — say, “for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that” — don’t exactly gel with the movement’s message of national unity.

When You’re Genderqueer — But Your Native Language Is Gendered
theestablishment.co

Instead, advocates argue that a “common language” would unite immigrants and native-born citizens alike. It would also, they claim, incentivize immigrants to learn English, save the government billions of dollars in federally-funded translation services, and improve immigrants’ economic prospects. But this argument hinges on two major assumptions: First, that LEP immigrants currently lack motivation to learn English; and second, that “Official English” legislation will lead to increased English proficiency. Both are false.

In fact, the real problem is not lack of motivation, but lack of federal funding for ESL (English as a Second Language) classes. According to The Migration Policy Institute, such classes are in high demand but, thanks to funding cuts, suffer long wait times resulting in unmet need. The incentive to learn English is already there — what’s missing is the means.

If the “Official English” movement were truly interested in improving immigrants’ lives and fostering national unity they would address this need, whether through support for increased federal funding or by providing free ESL classes and tutoring. But their websites and social media feeds offer no information about ESL class wait lists or suggestions on what to do about the problem.

As for the second assumption, it’s notable that advocates emphasize the potential benefits of their policies, not the actual effects. State-level “Official English” laws have existed for decades, so if they truly lead to increased English acquisition, wouldn’t we know?

The incentive to learn English is already there — what’s missing is the means.
Click To Tweet

In fact, six of the 11 states with the highest percentages of LEP residents — California, Hawaii, Florida, Illinois, Arizona, and Massachusetts — had “Official English” laws for, at the time of data collection, at least 25 years.

States with “Official English” and low numbers of LEP residents, meanwhile, have relatively small immigrant populations in the first place. These data suggest that it is the number of immigrants, not the presence of Official English laws, that determines English proficiency rates. Mandating official English, meanwhile, does nothing but make it harder for LEP immigrants to participate in society. In short, “Official English” purports to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, with solutions that don’t work anyway — and, in the process, neglects real obstacles to English proficiency.

The argument that “Official English,” through the elimination of government-mandated translation services, would benefit the economy is also suspect. In fact, opponents argue, it would do more harm than good. English-only tax forms would result in lost tax revenue, monolingualism would decrease the country’s competitiveness in the global marketplace, and lack of translation assistance would grow an underclass of people who can’t access basic government services.

Even if “Official English” were financially beneficial, there are other concerns as well, including but not limited to free speech, public health, psychological well-being, marginalization of bilingual students, and — especially prescient now — immigrants’ interactions with law enforcement in general, and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in particular.

 In fact, some of the most dangerous consequences of inadequate translation assistance can be seen at the southern border today.

Such consequences are not new. In 2010 the ACLU issued a letter to the Department of Homeland Security regarding language assistance for LEP immigrants, and cited numerous examples of human rights violations enabled by lack of translation services. Difficulty communicating with ICE officers can lead to — or be used to justify — unlawful detentions, and despite ICE’s supposed commitment to providing language assistance, LEP detainees are at a particular disadvantage when it comes to court proceedings and fair treatment in detention.

How Learning New Languages Has Shaped My Identity
theestablishment.co

Detainees are not entitled to legal counsel, and only 14% have a lawyer working on their behalf. Those detainees who have neither lawyers nor English proficiency are forced to navigate a confusing court system alone, without translation services. It’s no surprise, then, that detainees with legal representation are twice as likely to win their cases than those without. The numbers are even worse for child detainees: While 73% of children with legal representation are allowed to stay in the country, only 15% of those without representation succeed.

While in detention, LEP migrants struggle to advocate for themselves or receive adequate medical care. As detailed in the ACLU letter, English-only grievance forms make it difficult or impossible for LEP immigrants to report abuse at detention facilities. (Notably, such abuse is pervasive.)

One particularly distressing case in a recent ACLU report on medical care in detention highlights the dangers of inadequate translation assistance. Moises Tino Lopez, 23, died in September 2016 at the Hall County Department of Corrections in Nebraska due to inadequate communication and medical neglect. Lopez’s primary language was K’iche, a Mayan language; he spoke no English and only a little Spanish. Instead of finding a qualified interpreter for either K’iche or Spanish, ICE officials enlisted a Spanish-speaking Guatemalan detainee and Google Translate to convey crucial medical information to Lopez (a violation of HIPAA as well as Lopez’s right to language assistance and medical care). Without a clear understanding of why he had been prescribed a seizure medication or the risks of not taking it, he opted to stop — and consequently died the next day in an isolation unit. (While lack of translation services harms all LEP detainees, those who speak indigenous languages are particularly marginalized.)

These problems existed well before Trump took office. But the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” border policies — and Trump’s opposition to due process for detainees — put LEP migrants at even greater risk.

Family separation can isolate family members who speak little or no English from those who could act as translators — and although some families are (slowly) being reunited, limited English skills can complicate the already-complicated family unification process. One recent case, for example, involves a 6-year-old girl whose family speaks an indigenous Mayan language and only limited Spanish. She has yet to be reunited with her family, and it’s unknown how well agents have been able to communicate with her.

The family separation policy has also lead to an increase in young children appearing in court proceedings alone. There’s a documented increase in racist abuse on the part of ICE agents, newly empowered by the Trump administration to disregard established protocol and migrants’ human rights.

The danger of English-only doesn’t stop at the border or in detention centers; it carries over into life within the country as well.

Despite the “Official English” movement’s stance against bilingual education, LEP students perform worse in English immersion programs than in well-implemented bilingual education classes. Lack of professional translation services in health care doesn’t just harm detainees, but all LEP medical patients — including, for example, a Spanish-speaking patient with a brain injury who was initially treated for a drug overdose because the paramedics didn’t know Spanish.

The ACLU has already defended a Montana prison inmate barred from receiving letters in Spanish, students banned from speaking Spanish on the school bus, and workers fired for limited English proficiency despite long, unblemished work histories with the company. In 2004, an English immersion teacher in Scottsdale, Arizona was fired for slapping and yelling at students who were speaking Spanish; she claimed she was merely enforcing the school’s English immersion policy.

The danger of English-only doesn’t stop at the border or in detention centers.
Click To Tweet

“Official English” advocates often promise certain exceptions to their policies. ProEnglish, in language nearly identical to that in the English Language Unity Act, claims that translation services would be available for measures “protecting public health and safety…in the distribution of information to warn people about the dangers of diseases like HIV/AIDS, etc.” and “actions that protect the rights of victims of crimes or criminal defendants.”

They refer to such exceptions as “common sense” rather than in specific terms. But these concessions elide a larger problem: Without consistent access to translation services, LEP immigrants cannot be reasonably expected to know and advocate for their own rights. This, in turn, can make technically illegal acts effectively legal: Legal protections are meaningless if victims can’t fight back.

Still, you might be thinking, perhaps the “Official English” movement has good intentions. Perhaps they genuinely seek “national unity” and believe that their proposed legislation will benefit immigrants. It may seem unfair to smear them as “racist” over what could be nothing more than a policy disagreement.

But while “Official English” groups make a show of praising “diversity” and have carefully distanced themselves from overtly racist figures like Tanton, their veneer of non-racist respectability slips when convenient. ProEnglish’s Facebook page contains a wealth of race-baiting memes, ranging from the suggestion that LEP immigrants don’t pay taxes (all do) to the implication that “people who require translation services” are not native-born U.S. citizens (some are).

Despite the movement’s insistence that “Official English” laws would only affect government documents and services, numerous memes try to incite anger over any use of non-English languages — for example, this post lamenting people speaking Spanish at home, or the many variations of “Do you resent being ordered to ‘Press 1 for English’?” above pictures of angry white people shouting into landline phones. (The U.S. English page shares similar memes, albeit less often; English First doesn’t use social media.)

Although ProEnglish maintains their mission is non-partisan, their tweets include support for the Trump administration followed by the hashtag #makeenglishgreatagain, and the account liked numerous pro-Trump tweets months before Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination. Both their website and Twitter linked an article complaining that bilingualism in the U.S. “means a lot of promotions for Hispanics,” which calls into question ProEnglish’s stated concern for immigrants’ economic prospects.

And despite attempts to shed their racist legacy, “Official English” groups overwhelmingly focus on Latinx Americans and immigrants, implying a Spanish-speaking “takeover” of the U.S. which echoes John Tanton’s more overtly racist statements. This racist dogwhistling makes it difficult to buy the movement’s ostensibly pro-immigrant agenda.

While it’s tempting to dismiss “Official English” as a fringe movement, they have scored real legislative wins — and the Trump administration only makes their vision more possible. Already notoriously hostile toward immigrants, the administration has shown an openness to “Official English” proposals; the Trump campaign even, ProEnglish giddily observes, polled on the issue.

But while it’s true that language acquisition is crucial to social and economic success in the America we inhabit today, the movement’s solution would only exacerbate inequality.

Real “national unity” is achieved not through government-imposed monolingualism, but through policies and attitudes that assist LEP immigrants in navigating society and don’t punish them for failing to instantaneously acquire a new language. The responsibility of learning a new language, moreover, shouldn’t fall solely on non-native speakers, but on English speakers as well. A true commitment to supporting immigrants always, but especially during the Trump administration, requires that their voices be not only be heard, but understood.

Article 1

I am the Lord your POTUS. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me until 2024 at the latest. And if I can get the deal Xi got in China, maybe longer still.

Article 2

No false idols. No graven images. No piñatas. No collusion.

Article 3

Thou shalt not tweet the name of the Lord thy POTUS in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain, and will ruin his failing business.

Article 4

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work without union representation, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy POTUS, and all shall golf at Mar-a-Lago. No exceptions.

Article 5

Honor thy POTUS and thy FLOTUS, for verily they love all children of the world, regardless of any messaging on the back of their jackets.

Article 6

Thou shalt not murder (potential exceptions for rage against immigrants, gays, Muslims, Mexicans, Children of Ham, headscarves, those who don’t conform to gender norms, anyone inside a Planned Parenthood).

Article 7

Thou shalt not commit adultery unless thou art a celebrity, in which case, they let thee do anything. In any case, thy followers shall maintain that thou hast repented.

Article 8

Thou shalt not steal (elections, sweetheart deals for POTUS family members, and Supreme Court appointments excluded).

Article 9

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (POTUS and staff excluded). Thou mayst, however, conveniently forget the content of meetings with the representatives of foreign governments under oath when necessary for the protection of POTUS. Thou mayst also “ad lib” without any consideration of veracity of statements made during meetings with heads of state of neighboring countries.

Article 10

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s. Thou shalt make a deal to acquire such items at a value agreed upon by both parties. If the parties cannot agree on a price, the richest of the two taketh all.

Article 11

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, of whatever kind, in whatever amount, and for whatever purpose, shall not be infringed (exception: Children of Ham pack at their own risk).

Hear, then, and abide by the NewConstitution.

And may POTUS bless NewAmerica!

It was like a Biblical triptych of our times. On one end, a man telling the heartfelt story of a girl with Down’s Syndrome being forcibly ripped from her mother’s arms, on the other a fascist responding “womp womp!” and in the middle a beatifically silent newsreader letting the obscenity unfold. Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski made plain both the substance and practice of his ideology with the characteristic efficiency of his imperial icon: cruelty, swaddled in mockery that evokes the most callous of internet trolls.

The atrocity unfolding on the United States’ southern border is not new, and it has been a swelling cancer on the national consciousness for years. But that continuity should not obscure the dramatic and deliberate ways in which it has been catastrophically worsened courtesy of deliberate enforcement mechanisms put in place by Trump and his cadre, aided by the contemptuous consent of the man’s rabid supporters. We are continually barraged with appeals to understand Trump’s supporters, even as multiple New York Timesop-eds lament the supposed vulgarity of people like Robert De Niro or Samantha Bee.

Frank Bruni writes:

“When you answer name-calling with name-calling and tantrums with tantrums, you’re not resisting him. You’re mirroring him. You’re not diminishing him. You’re demeaning yourselves. Many voters don’t hear your arguments or the facts, which are on your side. They just wince at the din.”

In the wake of Donald Trump tweeting that Latinos were “infesting” the country, the best the Times could do was proffer this rather nuclear take:

“The contagion of incivility: President Trump says undocumented immigrants want to ‘infest’ the United States. His critics respond with vituperative words of their own.”

Of course De Niro and Bee were mentioned, putting the expectorates “fuck” and “cunt” on the same level as the leaden words of policy that shatter families and traumatize children. What could be more balanced?

Amidst all the hand-wringing about civility is the implication that if only we were nicer to Trump’s supporters, if only we refrained from four letter words and discomfiting comparisons to Auschwitz, if only we assuaged the hurt feelings of ICE and called cages “chain-link enclosures” or baby jails “tender age facilities,” that we would win more people to our cause.

This is a fatal lie that will see blood in the streets, and in camps before the end.

Why Punching Nazis Is Not Only Ethical, But Imperative
theestablishment.co

Vulgarity and incivility are indeed coarse and uncomfortable, but like any weapon there are moments when they must be employed in self-defense. This is just such a time. If we cannot be vulgar about a cabinet secretary lying to the nation and saying “we do not have a policy of separating families at the border” when her own department has produced statistics and photos evidencing just such a policy, then what is vulgarity for? The milk of human kindness, strained as it is, should be spared for those children and their shattered families — and, indeed, for their homelands who have oft suffered from American foreign policy stretching back decades.

The Kafkaesque cruelty of making their homes unlivable and hammering apart their families when they flee in desperation to the border of the nation that looted its wealth from those selfsame ruins… it’s unforgivable.

At such a point, I’ve no kindness left for Kjerstin Nielsen when she has the audacity to go to a Mexican restaurant for a charming dinner while her department presides over a profound human rights violation, which she had the audacity to lie about. In the midst of all of this, Trump’s supporters have dissembled and equivocated on the question, arguing that asylum-seeking and immigrant parents are to blame for bringing their children in the first place, or that separations are about protecting children from “traffickers and drug lords.” Online, they’re even less circumspect. And that brings us back to the “womp womp,” and to the late report that Trump adviser Stephen Miller “actually enjoys seeing those pictures at the border.”

These people have told us who and what they are, and what they’re willing to make excuses for.

After Lewandowski’s on-air act of cruelty, Trump supporter Carmine Sabia tweeted:

“We as supporters of Donald Trump need to stand and say what Corey Lewandowski said about a 10 year old girl with Down Syndrome was abhorrent. He became the caricature of what the media wants people to believe we are.”

But this is who they are. For evidence I turned to Trump supporter Carmine Sabia, who tweeted that same night “A poem on the Statue of Liberty is not immigration law it’s a fucking poem” and a quote about how 765,000 children are supposedly separated from their active-duty military parents (presumably, those children are not held in cages and permanently separated from their families). This callousness and whataboutery, which is the perfect distilled essence of how Trumpists have justified the family separation policy, is what paves the way for Miller’s sadistic enjoyment or Lewandowski’s ability to mock a traumatized 10-year-old girl.

In short, these are the people that those hand-wringing editorials think can be reached by the right combination of reasoned argument and smiling politesse.

Here are some home truths that we — and The New York Times newsroom — need to understand.

We are well past the point when Trump or his people could cross a red line for Republicans. Nothing this Administration says or does will cause these people to turn against Trump. Every line of cruelty Trump crosses will be excused by them. The mealy-mouthed NeverTrumpers like Ben Shapiro, David Frum, George F. Will, and Bill Kristol? That’s it; that’s as good as GOP/conservative “opposition” is ever going to get. Everyone else has signed up for a one-way ticket to Nazism-but-with-memes.

Back on Twitter, I saw someone — with a verified checkmark — going around saying that when a child dies in one of these jails that that’ll be the moment the GOP turns on Trump. I have some very, very horrifying news for you.

We are way past the point when a dead child would make any of these MAGA-spewers, or any elected Republicans who aren’t already issuing tepid do-nothing critiques, change their minds. They knew what they were signing up for.

When I Said All Trump Supporters Are White Supremacists, I Meant It
theestablishment.co

They hate Latino immigrants. They hate refugees. They hate asylum seekers. Passionately. If you think, for one moment, that they would seriously mourn the deaths of any of these people, you have not been paying attention. Either to the discourse here or in Europe — lest we forget, a little Syrian boy washed up on the shores of Turkey, dead from the dangerous Mediterranean crossing. That was in 2015. Since then, Brexit happened, Trump was elected, and fascists have come to power, or entrenched it, in Germany, Austria, Italy, and Hungary.

The people who support these movements were not and will not be moved, by even the most utterly vulnerable visions of our humanity as people of color. They will not be moved even by the very shattering of our lives. That is the depth with which we are hated, and that depth is the chasm that divides people of good will from those who support Donald Trump — or Alternativ für Deutschland.

This is not an academic “difference of opinion.” It is a gap measured in increments of blood already spilled.

The people who support these movements will not be moved even by the very shattering of our lives.
Click To Tweet

If a child died in an ICE facility and became a cause celebre, Trump’s supporters would respond in one or more of the following ways:

• Dissemble. i.e. “maybe they were sick when they got to the border! How irresponsible of their parents!”
• Lie. “It’s fake news!”
• Blame Obama.
• Say “well you didn’t care this much when an immigrant killed an American citizen!”
• “What about when our troops die? Do you care then?”
• And finally, the worst of them would just fucking celebrate it.

The enduring mistake made by those huffing the paint can of civility is that they sincerely believe people who voted for Trump, at bottom, care about other people — especially those who could be seen as “the Other.” True, some slices of Trump’s base hate certain groups more than others. Maybe the top priority for some is hating Muslims, for others it’s Latinos, for others still (like the Evangelical base) it’s hating transgender people, or hating queer folks more widely. But they are all united by the conviction that Trump’s presidency would permit them the violent retribution they craved, visited upon somegroup they hated with a passion.

Trump is a shambles of a man, a bundle of impulses and appetites whose Jupiter-mass ego lends itself neatly to reactionary politics. But to his base, he is an idea. More than even that, he is a license. Clothed in the power of the presidency, he grants permission to those who’ve longed to indulge in their worst, most bigoted impulses. It’s why we’ve seen an uptick in hate crimes, and why so many videos are surfacing of loudmouth bigots who either reference Trump or current events in their rants. More than anything else, Trump is permission. “It’s okay to stop caring about other people,” his existence announces. “You too can be fabulously rich, above the law, and as abusive as you please.” So long as he has the imprimatur of the presidency, he will have an invincible appeal to bigots who’ve yearned for some form of towering legitimacy for their hatred.

The Media Must Stop Taking ‘Incel’ Agitprop Seriously
theestablishment.co

You cannot wait for some universal moral outrage to overwhelm and convert your opposition. The outrage will never be universal until the threat of fascism has passed, at which point no one will want to admit they cheered on crimes against humanity.

If you are sincerely concerned about the great crimes of our time — from Trump’s policies to the new Italian government threatening to expel Roma — then you cannot concern yourself with appealing to the people vociferously cheering on those policies. They’ve already made up their minds; they’ve found their moment.

Many other people, perhaps people isolated by feelings of powerlessness and despair, are waiting for theirs. Your job is to give it to them, activate and mobilize them. In the process, do not give the slightest damn about the hurt feelings of fascism’s enablers. The only feelings they care about are their own, and that’s always been the problem. They’ll whine more about the cancellation of Roseanne than they will about giving toddlers PTSD. Frankly, fuck them.

There’s no eloquence that should be wasted on them.

The dirty secret of fascism is that its appeal is not rational; it is, therefore, impervious to rational argument. You cannot talk someone out of a feeling of hatred. If your conscience requires you to believe in redemption, as mine does (once a Catholic, always a Catholic), then consider this: Redemption is not yours to give. It can only be sought by the soul that craves it, that has admitted its sins, and seeks to honestly make amends. You cannot give that to anyone. Those who now support fascism may one day stare in a mirror and cry “what have I become!?” But that epiphany can only come from within.

In the meantime, fuck ’em, and organize everybody else.

To put it in blunt but unsurprising terms, the world is in shambles right now. Fascism is on the rise again. Hate crimes are up in the U.S. Water crises loom on the horizon. Wealth inequality has never been higher. Climate change and natural disasters abound. Mass shootings galore. Police brutality and racism. A rising threat of nuclear war.

Amidst this nightmarish backdrop, many people — particularly younger Americans — are in search of answers, trying to identify a root cause for all of these problems. And one that’s emerging front and center is our entire economic system.

A 2011 Pew Research Center poll found that a slight majority of liberal Democrats held “negative views” of capitalism. In 2016, a Harvard University study revealed that 51% of people between the ages of 18 and 29 “don’t support” capitalism—and only 42% support it.

So if not capitalism, then what?

The study found young people favor socialism, but that’s not the only alternative. There has been an uptick of interest in a 170-year old political system — that dirtiest of C-words.

Communism.

Amidst a nightmarish backdrop, many people — particularly younger Americans — are in search of answers. Communism.
Click To Tweet

It’s no secret that the United States doesn’t have the best relationship with communism; “dirty commie” is an insult as American as apple pie. Much of this is rooted in the The Red Scare of the 1940s and ’50s, which fueled the Cold War and the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and which had a lasting effect on how people in the U.S. view the political system. Since then, the U.S. government has interfered in multiple countries — supporting coups and assassinating leaders — in order to weed out communism anywhere it popped up. Or was even perceived to pop up.

For some, communism brings up images of the oppressive reigns of Soviet-era Stalin and China’s Mao, and the widespread murders attributed to their regimes. Communism is sometimes thought of as Big Government coming and taking everything you own.

Critics of communism say it goes against human nature, that it can’t work because people are naturally lazy and/or selfish, that it won’t work if the state gives citizens food and shelter for nothing. Frank Zappa famously said, “communism doesn’t work because people like to own stuff.” Others say it conflicts with people’s desire for freedom by forcing them to submit to the will of big government.

But is that what communism really is?

To understand the goal of communists, it’s necessary to have a nuanced understanding of communism and its relationship to Marxism — that political movement that so many in the so-called “alt-right” are constantly railing against.

A quick overview: Marxism draws from the work of Karl Marx, a German philosopher, historian, and economist from the 1800s. He and Friedrich Engels co-authored The Communist Manifesto of 1848, and since their passing, communists and other Marx/Engels fans have been interpreting and developing upon their ideas. One expert called communism “the endpoint of Marx’s ideas.”

According to Marx, there is conflict between two classes of people. These are the capitalists — people who control the means of production, such as business owners — and the working class, who actually produce all the concrete goods of our society. In its purest form, communism espouses the belief that the means of production should be in the hands of the workers — not the government.

What many people think of as communism is actually closer to socialism, a related system that has many similarities to communism. It is socialism, not communism, that relies on “big government” to get things done. In socialism, the government owns the means of production rather than the people. In a true communist system, government as we know it today would likely not exist.

In its purest form, communism espouses the belief that the means of production should be in the hands of the workers.
Click To Tweet

However, it’s important to keep in mind that these are ideas. The theories of socialism and communism are continually being developed and not every communist agrees with the next about how government should look in a communist society. Many value the idea of a true democracy rather than a representative democracy — every person gets an equal vote on every issue in the community. No one person is given power over others. There are no presidents, no governors, no mayors. In this form, communism actually overlaps with anarchist ideas more so than it does with socialist ideas.

In any case, in recent months, communist ideology has seemed to catch on with more Americans. The Communist Party USA — a national communist organization with 7,000 registered members — has reported a significant spike in interest and membership. According to one article, CPUSA had 5,000 members in April 2017; at that time, the organization’s international secretary said, “There is growing interest in communist ideas.”

Local groups, too, have been invigorated. In my own backyard, the Seattle Communists, a chapter of the Pacific Northwest-based Communist Labor Party, has seen its numbers swell. The organization, which came to life as a spin-off of the Tacoma Communists, had only three dedicated members in the summer of 2016. Now it has 25 to 30 registered members, and a lot more people involved in its community programs (plus more than 800 Facebook followers). It also has high-profile partnerships, including with 2017 mayoral candidate Nikkita Oliver.

When A Changemaker Runs For Mayor: An Interview With Nikkita Oliver
theestablishment.co

Why the change? Sophia, Seattle Communists’ secretary-treasurer (who doesn’t want her last name used), has no doubt that the increase in membership has to do with the results of the 2016 election. She calls it the “Trump bump” — and the Seattle Communists aren’t the only ones who’ve noticed.

“Public receptivity has gone from, ‘Is this a joke?’ in 2010 to, ‘Why do you hate freedom’ in 2012 to, ‘Yeah fuck Trump’ in 2016,” a representative of the Tacoma Communists told me. “Blessedly, we hear ‘Where do I sign up?’ just as frequently since last summer.”

This trend parallels the increase in membership for far-right groups — the Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that the Klu Klux Klan has anywhere between 5,000 and 8,000 members today. And far-right activity has been featured in the news much more than anything the communists are doing, likely due to the well-documented violent tendencies of fascist and white nationalist organizations. It also helps that they currently have a strong figurehead in Donald Trump, who has been reluctant to condemn them and has employed their people in the White House.

Further, communists believe that fascism happens when capitalism is under threat. As the economic system becomes unstable, white working class people are directed to blame immigrants and people of color and are steered toward white nationalism. Meanwhile, those with class and state power use fascism to defend against the rise of the rest of the working class as their quality of life plummets. In this sense, simultaneous rises in both far right and far left ideas are inevitable under capitalism.

It Wasn’t Just Hate. Fascism Offered Robust Social Welfare.
theestablishment.co

Against the backdrop of rising hate and bias nationally, coupled with Seattle’s rampant income and racial inequality, it’s unsurprising to see communism take flight.

“We don’t want the government to own everything,” Sophia tells me. In fact, she emphasizes, communists are widely against the U.S. government — they view it as an oppressive entity and an enemy of the people.

“What is government but a tool that a class uses to control society?”

What communists really want is for state and economic power to be put back in the hands of the community. For it to be communal. Hence, Communism.

To that end, the Seattle Communists — whose slogan is “fight the power, serve the people” — leverage community programs centered on efforts to build social institutions so that people don’t have to rely on the government. Their long-term goal: make it so every part of society is controlled by participatory democracy rather than state power.

The group’s earliest community involvement was in response to the rising rates of anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes in Seattle’s Capitol Hill, one they felt the government wasn’t responding to effectively. So the organization revived the “Q-Patrol” program, where volunteers are trained in self-defense and de-escalation techniques. The group is also involved in a “serve the people” food delivery program, launched last October to bring free groceries to poor households.

The group’s idea is to actively work to improve the community in order to gain trust, so when participants hear about communism, they won’t immediately dismiss the idea. Sophia repeatedly tells me about “making the leap from protest to action.”

Although there are misconceptions about communism, Sophia believes that the word doesn’t carry the same stigma that it used to. At least in Seattle, she is frequently asked why she uses the word communism because “doesn’t it scare people away?” But only once has anyone told her that they actually object to the term. “Everybody thinks that everybody hates the word and is scared of the word, but in my experience, not a whole lot of people are.”

The real challenge is to prove that their ideas work.

Many of us grew up with the message (some would say propaganda) that communism is impossible, evil, or both. But a new day might be dawning. It’s possible that communists haven’t seen this kind of interest in their ideas since they were so thoroughly persecuted in the 1950s.

I myself have become very interested in alternatives to capitalism in recent months, and although I can’t say for sure if communism is the answer, I also definitely don’t believe it’s evil, as I was taught growing up. I also know there’s a lot more to it than I could possibly get into in one article.

If you’re interested, there’s plenty of reading out there — and you won’t be alone in your exploration.

Your assumptions about The Good Fairy expose your own bigotry. She’s not in the right here. All I’m trying to do, when I scoop up field mice and bop them on the head, is to preserve my own identity as a Little Rabbit. Not many people know that Little Rabbits are under threat. I’m hoping to change that through social media.

Some history: For nearly a century, field mice have been pulling the wool over your eyes and making you believe that they’re victims, just because I scoop them up and bop them on the head. Using this falsehood, they get special treatment and benefits, and all the while the correct power structure in which Little Rabbits rule over the forest civilization is eroding. But believe me, the natural order of things is to have Little Rabbits in charge. That’s the way it’s been ever since we were Little Rabbits in Europe. Scooping up field mice and bopping on them on the head is part of our birthright.

There’s this frog who totally gets me. He’s the only one.

Everything bad that has ever happened is a result of taking away power from Little Rabbits. Little Rabbits are much smarter than field mice. Let that sink in… If I didn’t scoop up field mice and bop them on the head, they’d mix with Little Rabbits and then what would happen? There would be no Little Rabbits. It would be Little Rabbit genocide.

In 1987, 103 field mice participated in a Florida University study. The study revealed tapping the head of field mice stimulates the neurons which produce serotonin, also known as “the happy hormone.” Given this incontrovertible fact I ask you, where’s your compassion for field mice? What about their happiness? YOU’RE the one who hates field mice.

In a forest where I can freely bop them on the head, field mice would be much better off. If you say you care about field mice — you, the Good Fairy, and the Forest Council which has recently issued a statement condemning my bopping field mice on the head — you’re a hypocrite. You don’t give a damn about field mice, their children, or babies. You’re just virtue signalling to convince yourselves that you’re better than me, Little Rabbit Foo Foo. I won’t let you get away with that, baby-hater.

The frog watches everything. I know he has my back. I call him Pepe.

The Good Fairy is the real racist, because she’s destroying Little Rabbit civilization. The Good Fairy needs to take her “I don’t like your attitude” sanctimony and shove it up her ass. Oh wait… I’m not supposed to say stuff like that anymore because it’s not politically correct. Remind me: Who’s being oppressed again?

Most field mice are undocumented, you realize, so you’re defending something illegal. ILLEGAL. Think hard about that. Meanwhile, the Good Fairy threatens to turn me into a Goonie, and no one cries out. Everyone has become desensitized to hatred directed against Little Rabbits.

On a side note, don’t believe the false doublespeak Gruffalo narrative which implies that field mice are clever. The Gruffalo is a cuck. Everyone knows that, and calling someone a cuck is the best, most damning, most devastating insult and not for a moment will I ever examine why I’m convinced of that. Read this excellent article I found on Reddit called “Are field mice mammals?” Take your red pill!

Sometimes, the other forest animals watch me, perplexed, as I scoop up field mice and bop them on the head. “What on earth are you doing?” they say. “And why do you keep calling people cucks?” “I’m a proud Little Rabbit,” I tell them, “and I’m committed to safeguarding the heritage of the European forest civilization.” To their follow-up question, I reply, “Yes, I am aware that most real-life Europeans think I’m just a strange Little Rabbit. I get asked that a lot.”

And after all my efforts, what happens? The Good Fairy still doesn’t like my attitude. She’s trying to silence me and suppress the truth by threatening to turn me into a Goonie. The Forest Council has approved the measure. But just you wait. The frog is going to rise up. The frog is strong and bold. My feelings for the frog are purely platonic, by the way.

Go ahead. Try to turn me into a Goonie. We will rise up. The frog will…. Wait. Where is the frog going? Hey, come back! Don’t spawn now! I don’t have any chances left! Wait! You’ll see! We will rule the world! We’ll be the master race again! We’ll all get book deals and aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggghhhhbhbhghh!

When I was a kid, Roseanne was a person who challenged the order of things. Now, it feels like she’s upholding it.

In 1988, a TV show premiered that portrayed the white American working class with a honesty and humanity that had been absent from television before, and hasn’t been replicated since. I’m talking, of course, about Roseanne. This March, ABC is rebooting the show, bringing the Conner family back to prime time (and Dan back from the dead, for some reason). Revisiting old TV shows to cash in on nostalgia is often a bit disappointing, but though I haven’t seen it yet, I fear this particular reboot is destined to be especially awful. The reasons have to do with the show’s creator and lead, Roseanne Barr, and her abominable politics.

Sitcoms follow a fairly specific format, and tend to portray mostly middle class and upper middle class families. This was true before Roseanne, and while shows like Malcolm in The Middle and Everybody Hates Chris have also offered us portraits of the working class, it is still mostly true today. When we do see poor and working class people on our screens, the portrayals are rarely realistic. Either they are sloppy caricatures, actors portraying what the comfortable believe about the poor rather than the poor themselves, or they are idealized to the point of either not seeming human or not seeming poor. These characters will often tell you they are struggling financially, but are never shown to be actually struggling. Think of Lorelai Gilmore on The Gilmore Girls. She’s a struggling single mother, but her struggle all occurs off screen before the show actually begins, and despite her rejection of her parents’ wealth, she can still afford constant takeout and new clothes.

Roseanne was different. I had watched some of it in my childhood, but only remembered it vaguely (along with my dad’s rants about how annoying Roseanne was as a person). When I rewatched the show a few years ago, I was struck by how familiar it all seemed. As a working class white woman myself, the Conners’ home looked like the kinds of homes I spent my childhood in. The furniture was old and followed no principles of interior design. The house was cluttered, and not artfully so. I gasped when I realized that there were piles of stuff on the staircase, leaving only a small space for walking. Seeing the world they inhabited made me feel seen in an unexpected way, and it gave me a newfound appreciation and affection for my own childhood home.

Moreover, the Conners themselves were shown as real human beings, who were really frustrated and overtired. Roseanne worked a factory job until she became a waitress, and Dan worked in construction (and was often looking for work). They yelled at their kids. They drank beer. They sat at the kitchen table to figure out which bills they could afford to pay this month, and which they could put off until another check came through. The constant running of numbers to keep the lights on and food on the table is such an integral part of not having enough, to see it portrayed honestly on screen made me gasp.

But the realism of the characters extended beyond simply “passing as real poor people,” because they were also multifaceted and not defined solely by their economic status. Roseanne and her husband Dan are both fat, but their personalities aren’t reduced to fat jokes or a constant struggle for weight loss, and they are shown to actively desire each other (gasp). The show even featured gay characters at a time when most shows didn’t (those portrayals were far from perfect, but at least the characters themselves were more than stereotypes).

And while the white working class is often viewed as conservative, Roseanne is shown having a more nuanced understanding of politics. In one episode, a politician going door-to-door comes to the Conner house, and she takes him to task for giving out-of-state businesses tax breaks, busting unions, and asking workers to work for “scab wages.”

I grew up in a fairly conservative, white, working class home. I’m intimately familiar with how people screwed over by the system can be totally invested in said system, and how Fox News can take over a living room. Most of the working class conservative men I was around voted Republican, and they tended to cling to patriarchal systems because they convinced themselves it was the last bit of power they had. These men were extremely uncomfortable with Roseanne Barr, her show, and everything that she stood for — her outspokenness, her opinions, her unabashed confidence. Their squeamishness around her was rooted in sexism for sure (she was so “shrill!”) and it gave me a pretty good idea of how I would be treated if I grew into a woman who challenged them. I found the whole thing intriguing and scary in equal measures.

Since Roseanne went off air in 1997, Roseanne the person has changed quite a bit, and her public persona has stayed controversial, though not always in a way that challenges the powers that be. In 2012, while she was a presidential candidate for The Green Party, she posted a series of transphobic tweets. Since then she has only dug her heels in when it comes to transgender people and issues, and she has also vocally swung to the right politically. It’s not unheard of for anti-trans “feminists” to support conservative politics when those politics align with their own transphobia, and I’m not convinced Barr’s stance on transgender issues and her political 180 aren’t related. In fact, she’s been known to share alt-right conspiracy theories and in January announced that her character, Roseanne Conner, would be a Trump supporter.

“It’s just realistic” Barr has said, implying that since many working class white people voted for Trump, those of us who didn’t are, I guess, unrealistic.

If You’ve Never Lived In Poverty, Stop Telling Poor People What To Do

This, I think, illustrates what is bound to be so very different about this reboot than the original show. When I was a kid, Roseanne was a person and a show that made the conservative men in my life extremely uncomfortable, because she challenged their supremacy and the patriarchal order of the world. By now publicly endorsing both transphobia and Trump, she’s instead protecting that order. The belief that it was the working class that elected Trump, when in fact white middle class and rich people are just as responsible (if not more so), plays right into the caricature we so often see of poor people. Poor people, we are told, are stupid and unable to look out for our own interests. We focus on excusing the bigotry of poor folks due to their “economic anxiety” and lack of education, so we won’t have to look at the bigotry of the people who are actually in power.

But Roseanne Barr is not a working class person struggling to get by, she’s an extremely well off celebrity, and one who has made the choice to support another extremely well off celebrity. That she sees this as being reflective of the working class shows, in some ways, how completely out of touch she has become. Rather than a nuanced look at poor folks who are intelligent enough to call it like they see it, question politicians, and push back against unfair systems, the reboot offers us something else: a Roseanne who falls in line.

I hope I’m wrong. Supposedly the Conner family will not be a monolith of political belief, and apparently Darlene and David’s daughter is to be “gender creative” (I sure hope she isn’t a punchline). Perhaps a strong cast will be able to carry the show and offer some much needed nuance.

But with the history of ham-fisted reboots, and the show’s star and creator choosing to side with bigotry, I won’t be holding my breath.

By Maya Lewis

Originally published on Everyday Feminism.

It’s safe to say that 2017 was a wild year for us all — but it was even worse for our planet.

In America alone, there were record-breaking weather events all year. 2017 was one of the hottest years on record, which intensified hurricanes, wildfires and other natural disasters to catastrophic proportions.

Add to that a president and administration who downplays the danger of climate change — removing any mention of the word from government websites — and has de-funded many of our federal environmental organizations, you get what looks like a pretty concerning year for the environment.

But like most things, a closer look will show a slightly different story.

Though 2017 may have felt particularly awful, environmental justice organizations all over the country did some amazing work, and most of them did so long before. Now, it’s up to us to uplift them this new year.

Many organizations are doing everything they can to fight for the environmental and climate justice in a time when we need it most. That didn’t change just because Trump got elected (though it gave them a pretty big common enemy).

They’ve launched new funds, projects and programs, empowered and educated the public. For this, they deserve our acknowledgment and thanks.

Here are 7 environmental justice projects and programs — some big, some small — doing everything they can to make 2018 a better year not just for the planet but all of us as well.

1. Run 4 Salmon

A 300-mile march along the waterways from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the Winnemem. That was the goal of organizers and participants of Run 4 Salmon, a “prayerful journey” that took place over 15 days this past September.

Lead by the Winnemem Wintu Chief Caleen Sisk, a collective of Indigenous women, along with activists and allies brought attention to the state of the waterways, fish and indigenous way of life in California.

Over 70 years ago, wild chinook salmon (Nur) roamed free in the water the Winnemem’s ancestral watershed, but when the Shasta Dam was built it cut them off from their home waters. Not only that, it directly affected the Winnemem Wintu Tribe who have deep connections to the water, river and salmon. The Run 4 Salmon hopes to change that.

2. Undocufund

They’re helping undocumented residents displaced by the devastating wildfires that have been sweeping through California. Many residents have lost all of their physical possessions, their homes, cars and, in some cases, jobs from being away from work.

In response to the record-breaking wildfires, there have been huge amounts of assistance given to those residents who have been most affected, though funds and aid organizations. But the founders of Undocufund sought to fill an all-too-often forgotten group of victims: undocumented residents.

Undocumented peoples are particularly vulnerable to natural disasters because they do not qualify for FEMA Aid and often speak little English.

“When there’s a crisis and there’s chaos, regardless of your documentation status, it’s disorienting,” said Mara Ventura, a co-founder of the fund and Lead Organizer with North Bay Jobs. “But if you already live in fear, in the shadows, and English is not your first language, there’s a fear of seeking resources.”

Undocufund is the only fund specifically dedicated to undocumented folks and mixed-status families and, through the support of thousands of donations, the mostly volunteer-run organization has been able to help over 400 people and more than 100 families get back on their feet.

3. Cooperation Jackson

Every city faces their own particular challenges in making sure residents have everything they need to succeed. In Jackson, Miss. (like many other cities) those challenges include income and racial inequality, healthcare access and a slew of other issues keeping the community from both environmental and communal stability. To fight back residents started Cooperation Jackson, both a movement and program, meant to combat these issues.

Through a network of local interconnected and interdependent institutions, the organization hosts programs and events to help educate their community on taking back their economic power and fight for equity in all of its forms. Last year saw a start in their journey to crafting a Just Transition for Jackson, Miss.

4. Movement Generation: Justice and Ecology Project

What does a just transition look like on the community level? To Oakland, Calif.’s Movement Generation, a just transition means healthy and resilient local economies and environments. It means a move away from pollution and profit, investment in our culture, labor and land; it means empowering low-income and people of color to lead.

Movement Generation is working to teach everyday residents how to play a more active role in the future of their communities. Small non-profit organizations like Movement Generation don’t have huge offices and enormous grants, but they manage to do a lot with a little and they need our support to help further that.

To Movement Generation, a just transition means healthy and resilient local economies and environments.

They’ve empowered activists, residents and participants to connect with their environment and the systems that impact them. In their Environmental Skills Training, the organization also helps Bay Area organizers and community members learn how to interact with, develop and restore the land around them. The organization also wrapped up 2017 with an extensive breakdown and framework for a Just Recovery, covering everything that impacted our environment this past year.

5. NY Renews

Made up of over 130 different New York community organizations, environmental activists, labor unions and more, NY Renews is using legislation to tackle climate change equity and reform through the “The Climate and Community Protection Act,” taking the climate change fight to senators’ doors.

The Act they hope to get passed in New York would not only push the state toward 100% renewable energy but also look to protect workers, create jobs and support those most impacted by climate change: low-income people and people of color.

We Can’t Talk Climate Change Without Talking Environmental Racism

“We aim to make New York State the nation’s leader in tackling the climate crisis while protecting workers and lifting up communities,” NY Renews said.

Whether or not the bill will achieve everything it hopes to still remains to be seen. Last year, the bill passed the New York State Assembly for the second year in a row. It has yet to pass the New York State Senate, but if it does it would be a groundbreaking change. Fingers crossed 2018 will be the year.

6. Trans Disaster Relief Fund

The Trans Disaster Relief Fund (TDRF) is giving much-needed support to trans, intersex, and genderqueer folks that have been impacted by the years many natural disasters.

Started by the Transgender Foundation for America, the fund was originally meant to help victims of Hurricane Harvey. But as the disasters kept coming, the fund was opened up to help as many in need as possible, whether they were impacted by wildfires in California, earthquakes in Mexico or hurricanes in Puerto Rico.

The trans community is often underserved and particularly vulnerable to natural disasters. Often emergency staff are trained in create inclusive and equality safe environments for everyone.

The trans community is often underserved and particularly vulnerable to natural disasters.

“Transgender people may not be able to access shelter appropriate to their affirmed gender identity or to receive culturally sensitive health care,” said National LGBT Health Education Center in their emergency preparedness resource.

7. Got Green

Climate Justice is about a lot more than climate change, and Got Green is proving it. It’s about those everyday issues that you may not realize are directly connected to your environment, such as your race, gender and economic status.

With a focus on food access, empowering young environmental leaders and battling climate injustice in all its forms, the organization is changing the narrative of the green movement, often thought to be white and wealthy.

Last year, Got Green hosted programs, panels and events on everything for tenant rights and climate resilience to food security. They successfully fought and won a battle to make Seattle the first city to use revenue from their Sugary Drink Tax to close the food security gap. They also launched the movement #DontDisplaceDove to support a local displaced resident and educate the community on how to fight displacement.

The organization has invested big time in its communities’ environmental education and power and it’s paying off.

I hope you’re as excited about all this amazing environmental work as I am.

Maybe you’d never heard of any of the organizations on this list, maybe you knew every one, or know even more (there are honestly so many!)

But just think about how wonderful that is. Despite our grim environmental status, there are so many great organizations doing important work. We need to remember that and support them in any way we can.

Last year was certainly rough, but just like the planet we live on, we’re resilient.

I’ve been an actor in Los Angeles for over 15 years, and have over 100 credits to my name. I moved here in 2012 — and one of the first parts I played was literally a 9/11 terrorist.

When I started acting, I auditioned for and would have accepted any role Hollywood would give me the chance at. Not only was I desperate for credits (and a paycheck), but I felt that stereotypical or one-dimensional roles would pave the way to a larger cultural tapestry in which I and other Middle Eastern actors could play more complex and interesting characters. My thinking on this has changed as the world has changed. I now believe that when actors have the privilege to be able to refuse a job, as I am fortunate enough to have now, there are instances in which we should vocally exercise that privilege.

If you ever say “it’s just TV” or “it’s just a movie,” you are wrong. Every story shapes the person who watches that story. Three-quarters of white Americans have ZERO non-white friends, which means that their entire understanding of people of color comes from the media. So, until all those white people get some friends with more melanin, actors have a very important responsibility: For better or for worse, we will be teaching them, via the stories we tell, what people of color are like.

Three-quarters of white Americans have ZERO non-white friends.
Click To Tweet

But there’s more. The stories we tell, and the lessons we teach, are not limited to ones of representation. It’s not just about simple questions like “Are all Muslims terrorists?” or “Are all Black people gang members?” We are also teaching larger cultural lessons, helping people answer complicated questions like “Are police trustworthy?” and “Is not-taking-no-for-an-answer a cool way to meet women?” These are questions that all actors can help answer, brown, black, and white alike.

Absent real life experience, people form opinions about the world based in part on what they see on TV and in movies. And when what they see is inaccurate, their opinions can lead to pernicious and harmful belief systems. Consider these connections, among many:

*A study by non-profit civil rights advocacy group Color of Change and Family Story found that “the media overwhelmingly depicted black families as poor and dependent on welfare, black fathers as absent, and consistently overhyped the link between black families and criminality. However, when it comes to white families, the picture painted is often of social stability.”

White Americans, including our president, overestimate the percentage of Black people that are on public assistance, and end up being more likely to oppose it. Further, most Americans think black people are dangerous (in turn making black people more likely to be shot, including by police).

*Shows and movies such as 24, Scandal, Person of Interest, and Taken “ use torture as a plot point in episodes designed to entertain,” as the International Business Times put it.

Many Americans, including our president, believe that torture is an effective and productive method of obtaining information, despite there being no conclusive evidence to support this.

*A meta-study published by researchers from UC Davis and the University of Vienna found that in the media, “Muslims tend to be negatively framed, while Islam is dominantly portrayed as a violent religion.”

In a December 2016 Pew survey, 41% of Americans said Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions, despite the fact that Muslim societies are among the least violent in the world.

When people hear “Islamic,” I’d venture to guess that a large number of Americans, including our president, immediately think “terrorist.” Heck, it’s one of the first things I think, and my grandmother is Muslim. How twisted is that?

White Filmmakers Must Ask: Do We Need More Movies About White People?

Our elected leaders, from Trump on down — and with the support of millions of Americans — are making fewer decisions based on evidence, and more decisions based on ignorance and (literally) what they see in the media. There is a straight line connecting the one-dimensional, ignorant stories we tell, to a host of threats against human rights, including Muslim bans, mass deportations, mass incarceration, and suspending the rights of women and members of the LGBTQ community.

Actors, this means our job as storytellers is more important than ever. Our choices as storytellers are having real-world effects, so we need to be smarter and more discriminating about the types of stories we help to tell. One of the very few things actors can control in this industry is the decision to participate in a project or not. So before you accept your next job, ask yourself what kind of lessons are taught by the story you’re going to be telling.

Our job as storytellers is more important than ever.
Click To Tweet

To help you, here are some sample questions:

Are all the Muslims in this story terrorists? No? Oh, good. Are all the non-terrorist Muslims fighting the terrorists? Like, are there two types of Muslims — the terrorists, and the terrorist-fighters? Yes? Well, what story do you think that tells? Does it tell the story that every Muslim is engaged in terrorism somehow? Do you think that’s accurate? It’s not. Imagine if almost every time you saw a white guy in a movie, he was either a school shooter or a member of a SWAT team. Wouldn’t you naturally be scared of any white guy not wearing a SWAT vest?

In fact, contrary to the prevailing narrative in the media, relative to the billions of Muslims and other Middle Eastern people, the number of actual terrorists is miniscule. Most Muslims, most Middle Easterners, are just regular people going about their day, in a variety of jobs, from doctor to garbage collector to cabdriver to drug dealer to actor. But when this is not reflected in our media, and when people don’t know any real life Muslims, they form an inextricable link in their head between Islam and terrorism. And that is how you get a president who campaigns on, and then attempts to institute, a Muslim Ban.

Making Room For Diverse Voices With The Duplass Brothers
theestablishment.co

Look, I have no idea if The 15:17 to Paris or 12 Strong are good movies. There are a slew of talented people involved with both, so I suspect they are. But does our country need more stories about terrorists right now? Do these stories ultimately engender understanding and compassion, or will they just lead us to hate and fear the Muslim guy across the street?

That was an easy one to figure out. Here’s a harder one:

Let’s say the story takes place in the world of politics or the military. Who is the president in this story? Is it Trump? If so, does the fact that Trump is trash have any effect on the story? If it’s not Trump, what does the story tell the viewer about the President? About the presidency? If the president is never mentioned, is it implied that the story takes place in a world where the president is honorable, or corrupt? I once auditioned for a TV show about a counter-terrorism unit. The president was never mentioned, except for once late in the first episode, when someone says “we got the OK directly from the president.” They wrote the script while Obama was in office, likely expected Hillary to win, but now we have Trump. That line of dialogue does not exist in a vacuum, and neither can our choice to work on that show. Had I been offered that role, we’d have had to discuss just what it means to the characters to “get an OK from the president.”

Does our country need more stories about terrorists right now?
Click To Tweet

Or how about this:

Are any of the cops or prosecutors in this story aware that the justice system is, to put it mildly, less just to people of color than it is to white people? Would it be realistic for them to not deal with this in any way? Do you feel like that is a fact that is being ignored or at the very least under-discussed in our society?

The point is, every project you participate in becomes a part of our national conversation. Of course, it’s impractical to only participate in stories that are completely realistic, and in which every single demographic group is represented in appropriate proportions. Every story has people who are good and bad, and to different degrees. And a story in which every character is honorable and infallible would likely be very boring. But before you accept your next job, if you can, place it in the context of our national dialogue. And ask yourself if participating in it will do more harm than good. And if it will do harm, think about using one of the very few powers you have in this town — say no. And better yet, tell them why.

Of course, your decision to not participate in a project will rarely result in the project not getting made. That story will likely still get told, with or without you. But if you turn down the part, the producers will have to go with their second or third or eighth choice for the part, which might force them to reexamine — if only for a moment — the story they are telling.

You may lose a job, but at the very least, you will know you refused to be a part of the problem, and tried to be part of the solution.