Sunday, August 20, 2017

Charlottesville, Protests, and Reflections on Racism and Free Speech


Last weekend white supremacists ( including alt-right; neo-Nazis, etc...) held a rally to protest the removal of a statue of General Robert E. Lee, one of the most revered and respected military commanders of his time - something acknowledged even by Union soldiers. By most historical counts, Lee was a noble man, but he also supported the Confederacy, thus leaving a heavy stain on what would likely have been a distinguished career had he chosen to side with the Union rather than bind his loyalty to his beloved home state of Virginia (Arlington National Cemetery in VA is actually situated on land formerly owned by Lee). I briefly read his bio on Wikipedia, and its unclear to what degree he supported slavery. He certainly had his own slaves, but he also made several statements which put into question the morality of slavery.

Unfortunately, clashes between white supremacists and anti-fascist, anti-racist (or whatever label you want to assign) counter-protesters resulted in violent clashes, and a tragic death when a white supremacist plowed his vehicle down an ally hitting at least a dozen bystanders.

My own views on this protest have evolved. Without knowing the back story, I thought defenders of the Lee statue, racist or not, had the right to protest their cause. But in the aftermath and post-analysis, it's clear that many of those on the alt-right, and particularly the pro-Nazi folks were of despicable character. This does not exonerate violence from the counter-protesters, but clearly when one brings firearms to the protest, and deliberately breaks negotiated agreements with the police on where to protest, one is basically asking for a fight.

I'm sure no one would accept a statue of Hitler in Germany. Does General Lee evoke similar reactions among African-Americans? If perceived symbols of hatred inflict pain (and painful memories) to some groups, should they be removed altogether? Are there good reasons for why they should remain? That's the debate which is unfolding, and based on the turn-about of both MD and VA governors (both probably for politically expedient reasons), the answer seems to be yes. This isn't a recent phenomena. Confederate statues have been targeted for removal in recent years, but are accelerating after Charlottesville. Just today, Duke University removed a statue of  Lee after it was defaced. The tension surrounding first amendment rights, hate, and racism as embodied in Confederate monuments is an excellent case for studying the evolution and contestation of public norms as Americans continue to further debate this issue.

Two final thoughts. The Washington Post had an interesting article based on research in social psychology on why people are racist. Unsurprisingly, their answer is social rather than biological. Here's an excerpt:

People learn to be whatever their society and culture teaches them. We often assume that it takes parents actively teaching their kids, for them to be racist. The truth is that unless parents actively teach kids not to be racists, they will be,” said Jennifer Richeson, a Yale University social psychologist. “This is not the product of some deep-seated, evil heart that is cultivated. It comes from the environment, the air all around us.” 
“An us-them mentality is unfortunately a really basic part of our biology,” said Eric Knowles, a psychology professor at New York University who studies prejudice and politics. “There’s a lot of evidence that people have an ingrained even evolved tendency toward people who are in our so-called 'in group.'”
But how we define those groups, and the tendency to draw divisions along racial lines, is social, not biological, he added. “We can draw those lines in a number of ways that society tells us,” he said. 
“But when people come into contact with an organized ideology that valorizes or glorifies an intergroup struggle like a race struggle — that scaffolds from people’s everyday prejudices into something altogether more violent,” he said.
White supremacist groups promote a “siege mentality” among their followers, Knowles said — rhetoric that aims to lend legitimacy to people’s racial and ethnic fears. He pointed to the slogans shouted by participants in the Charlottesville rally: “You will not replace us” and “White Lives Matter.”
Additionally, today's WaPo featured a profile on the "road to hate": how a few white supremacists who participated in the Charlottesville protests ended up embracing their movement. Again, life experiences, shaped by socio-economic as well as identity issues (i.e. finding a sense of belonging) mattered. I'm taking mental notes for future studies on how actors come to adopt particular worldviews/beliefs.

Second, my wife and I took a trip to Harpers Ferry the day after the Charlottesville protest. This city is a real gem and must see - only an hour from Washington DC. Our visit was timely. Harpers Ferry is best known for abolitionist John Brown's 1859 raid on a federal armory in hopes of leading an uprising to end slavery. It was put down by the U.S. military, led by then Colonel Robert E. Lee. There was also a small museum telling the story of the little known Niagara Movement in the early 1900s led by WEB Dubois. Ironically, the movement was undermined by other black intellectuals such as Booker T. Washington who preferred a more quite approach of conciliation and accommodation (with privileged whites) to raise the status of blacks. Like today, there was much debate regarding the best strategies and tactics for promoting racial equality and justice. Finally, there was a museum dedicated to the historically black Storer College which existed from 1865-1955 in Harpers Ferry. Clearly the school holds great significance for its alumni despite its now defunct status. Among the many things which struck me as fascinating about Storer was its religious curriculum and its support from Freewill Baptists in New England.  Christians (and evangelicals in particular) get lumped these days with the alt-right or as Trump supporters. The media recently hammered the point how Trump's evangelical advisory board had yet to disband.  It was a nice personal reminder, however, that the Gospel message is not one of hate and  discrimination, but of love and acceptance - and for those reasons New England Baptists believed in and supported Storer College. The lesson here for social scientists is that movements, factions, groups etc... are much more complex than we assume.
------------
Update:

Calls to remove all Confederate statues may in some cases been a knee-jerk reaction to disassociate from white supremacists. VA governor Terry McAuliffe stated moving the monuments are unlikely given the costs of their removal. Instead, adding more "context" might be an alternative way to address them.

A theater in Memphis, TN decided to pull its screening of "Gone With the Wind" over the film’s "sanitized portrayal" of the Civil War-era South and African-Americans, to which one writer in the WaPo questioned:

But just because it’s not educational television doesn’t mean that “Gone With the Wind” should be shunned entirely, just as the Confederate statues that are coming down around the country should be preserved and curated, not destroyed. Both types of period pieces are valuable historical artifacts, not of the events and people they portray, but of previous generations of Americans’ efforts to figure out how they feel about the Civil War.
On both the film and the monuments, WaPo film critic Ann Hornaday responds:
The perfunctory removal of the monuments might have been wise from a political and public-safety standpoint, but it was at odds with the transparency and moral reckoning that are necessary for accountability and healing. And it did not comport with the recommendations of a review commission, convened by then-Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, whose 2016 report suggested that the Confederate monuments be re-sited or richly re-contextualized but never simply removed and forgotten...“It is not the responsibility of each generation to judge past generations,” the commission concluded. “It is, however, every generation’s responsibility to clear the way for truth to be heard.” 
I was more reticent about removing all Confederate monuments, although I've been telling others my opinion is that they should be removed. But was my own opinion also shaped by public sentiment? On reflection, if we were to destroy/remove all monuments, would we also not be whitewashing history? Yet the purpose of monuments/statues in public spaces is to commemorate and glorify, not necessarily educate and learn. Putting Confederate monuments in museums might be one answer. Or perhaps putting signage with more context? Striking a healthy balance is tricky with the shifting times.


Wednesday, August 2, 2017

North Korea Updates and Hong Kong Travel

(Note: this post was drafted in late June). I returned last week from conferences, talks in San Diego, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Some brief thoughts and take-aways

I spent  24 hours in San Diego focused on North Korea. Much transpired in the two weeks afterwards, including the release and eventual death of American tourist Otto Warmbier which re-opened debates about engagement with North Korea, resulted in an expedited push for a tourist travel ban, and on the eve of  first the Trump-Moon summit, has created a lot of anxiety on the direction US-Korea policy will take. I weighed in on people-to-people engagement on the Peter Institute's Witness to Transformation blog, based on a longer academic study published in Asian Perspective. But the timing was (un)fortunate as it appeared the wee Warmbier was released. Here are a couple sides to the debate:

The case for engagement
- helps ordinary North Koreans, in the case of humanitarian oriented initatives
- permits contact between North Koreans and Americans for better understanding
- brings information to North Koreans about the outside which can have a trickle-down effect and longer term consequences (i.e. erode regime legitimacy)

The case for ending engagement and sanctions
- aids the regime
- engagement has not facilitated any meaningful change over twenty years
- signals displeasure at North Korea's actions and that bad behavior has consequences

Travel Ban
Otto Warmbier's death has sparked a debate about passing


Hong Kong was a somewhat of a disappointment and not what I had expected. This was partly a result of bad weather having arrived at the peak monsoon season which meant 100% rain and humidity. But at the risk of sounding like a colonial sympathizer, it was a lot less "Western" than I anticipated, meaning less English, having to rely more on cash, and feeling more of just another major city in China (like Shanghai) rather than a city controlled by the British for over a century. I couldn't help but wonder if this was partly a result of China's increasing perhaps inevitable reach into Hong Kong affairs despite the arrangement of relative Hong Kong autonomy reached with the British before the 1997 handover to China. Today's article in the WaPo summed my thoughts up perfectly:

What we are seeing now is the mainlandization of Hong Kong. It’s the gradual absorption of Hong Kong by the new sovereign. It’s the slow erosion of the separate culture and norms that have set it apart. And it’s the incremental marginalization of Hong Kong in the Chinese economy...Since the Occupy protests, China has shown an increasing propensity to meddle directly in Hong Kong’s affairs...What few predicted was Hong Kong’s slow-motion mainlandization. Hong Kong and China have been converging — just not in the direction many of us thought.
In a postscript to this, turned out many other observers had similar reactions in light of the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China. The New York Times published a great piece, "Once a Model City, Hong Kong Is in Trouble." Here are a few other pieces:




Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Social Movements in the U.S.: Recent Headlines in the Washington Post

For a blog with the title "social movements" there's admittedly a paucity of postings. However, a couple articles in the Washington Post Sun. (May 8) edition about recent protest movements jive with academic theory on social movements.

The first is about Black Lives Matter, which has reportedly "entered a new phase — one more focused on policy than protest." With Trump now in office, activists are taking a different strategy moving from the streets to the halls of government. Quoting Stephen Zunes, the Post article elaborates on the importance of transitioning from formal to informal politics:

Black Lives Matter’s transition from street protests to policy is not unusual, said Stephen Zunes, a University of San Francisco professor who studies social movements. It’s through such work that a movement’s priorities — like mandatory use of officer body cameras — can become national standards, he said.
“That’s actually the way effective social movements often work or behave,” Zunes said, pointing to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in the wake of the financial crisis as a counterexample. “What the Occupy people did not learn, or by and large do, is go do the lobbying, the organizing to make change happen. They wound up fetishizing the ‘occupy’ part, and then, by and large, it fizzled.”   

The second article focuses on Dana Fisher's (from U.Maryland) work on protests movements. Some of her findings on recent protests movement in DC: the women's march, march for science (see Michael Heaney's observations here), climate change include the following:
  • They are overwhelmingly people who voted for Clinton in the last election
  • Marchers are well educated with over 75% holding a bachelor's degree
  • Many first time demonstrators were present, and many cited Facebook as a source for finding out about the protest
  • The motive for coming out to protest are variegated (i.e. it's usually not a single issue area like labor, environment, peace etc...)
  • Trump's victory is a motivator for showing up, even though protest organizers state protests are not anti-Trump events

Monday, May 8, 2017

Pyongyang University of Science and Technology

I know or have met several people associated with the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST). Two weeks go, they detained Tony Kim, a U.S. citizen who had been teaching accounting at PUST. Now they've detained another American, Kim Hak-song. Both are alleged to have committed "hostile acts" against the regime. This bring the total number of Americans held captive in North Korea to four.
photo: Ian Wells, PUST websiite

My own thoughts about PUST have always been ambivalent. The people I know who've taught at PUST have shared really amazing stories about their time at the school which demonstrate the human (and for Christians, the Holy) spirit at work, and the potential for people-to-people exchanges with North Koreans. But at the same time, PUST as an enterprise which is 100% funded by foreigners, raises so many questions about the status of an overtly Christian school operating inside a repressive regime. 

Suki Kim, who worked as an undercover author posing as an English teacher, penned an op-ed questioning whether PUST is propping up the regime. Kim has offered measured criticism against PUST, even implying that PUST may be providing students technical skills which can be transferred for military purposes (which I think is way off mark). 

But she also writes in her op-ed, " Yet there is also a positive aspect to PUST. From living with these foreigners on such an intimate basis, these young, isolated North Koreans are exposed to the glimpses of the outside world and its freedom, which might eventually provide hopes for North Korea’s future."

I wish PUST the best, but news of recent detained citizens connected to PUST is certainly troubling, both from a human rights standpoint, and also for the future of PUST. 




Thursday, April 6, 2017

Security and Human Rights in Trump's Foreign Policy: US Alliances and Autocracies

Every U.S. administration in the postwar period has grappled with the tensions between security and human rights and our relationship with autocratic rulers. No place has this been more obvious than in the Middle East these days. The assumption is that the Trump Administration will care less about human rights, particularly if he sees various foreign relationships as transactional. We may be seeing the first signs of his willingness to turn a blind eye to human rights and democracy in favor of preserving strategic ties. Two recent examples come out of the Middle East.

Andrew Harnik/Associated Press

1. Egypt. President Trump invited Egyptian president Abdel Fatah al-Sissi to an official White House visit this week (post-visit analysis is here). As the Washington Post notes:
"Sissi’s arrival at the White House marked a reversal of U.S. policy after President Barack Obama refused to invite him, because of concerns about human rights violations. Trump and his aides did not mention human rights ahead of Sissi’s visit, suggesting that the issue would be raised in private, if at all. Instead, Trump and Sissi appeared focused on security, and they sought to demonstrate warmth, shaking hands during their brief remarks to reporters."
In an op-ed, Bob Kagan and Michelle Dunne referred to U.S. ties to Egypt as a "dysfunctional relationship" suggesting that there may not even be that much security value to relations with Egypt. They advocate cutting ties, much like Christine Fair and Sumit Ganguly have recommended for Pakistan.

2.  Bahrain. The Trump administration agreed to resume arms sales, specifically a $5 billion sale of F-16s, to Bahrain, something the Obama administration had halted because of human rights violations against activists and Shiites. Of course, Bahrain hosts the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet, and during the Arab Spring, human rights groups criticized President Obama for ignoring the crackdown against protestors.

As reported again in a WaPo article, these decisions are "the latest signals that that the Trump administration is prioritizing support for Sunni-led countries seen as critical to opposing Iran’s influence in the Mideast over human rights issues that Obama had elevated."

As an Asia scholar, I continue to wonder what parallels and lessons might exist with current U.S. support for authoritarian regimes and U.S. relationship with Asian dictators in the 1970s (Philippines, Korea, Taiwan) which were ultimately seen as "successful" in a post-democratic society. Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey are a few contemporary examples worth exploring.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Is North Korea Irrational?


No. For decades academics have been  writing on the rationality of the Kim family (and autocratic survival more generally), but journalists find it easier to sell a story when you can pitch North Korea as a land of crazies. David Kang's earlier academic piece in International Security, his interview on NPR yesterday, and an article from Anna Fifield in the Washington Post all reiterate this point.

If the goal is regime survival, than North Korean actions are indeed rational and successful. Nuclear weapons, strict control of information, and curtailment of freedoms, corruption, deification of regime...all these things are intended to keep the Kim family in power.  North Korea does not play by international rules, it regularly violates norms, and many of its actions are inviolable if not despicable (this is probably true to some degree of all governments). North Korea is certainly and may appear to play by its own rules and logic. But that doesn't make it irrational.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

South Korea Post-Impeachment Round-up

I haven't been able to keep up, much less write about the South Korean impeachment, but I'm posting some analysis and discussion for later reading written by friends and colleagues here.

I begin with the Asan Institute's biweekly newsletter, Asan Korea Perspective which gives us a barebones explanation of the grounds for impeachment and outcome of the South Korean Supreme Court's decision to impeach President Park Geunhye. There's also public opinion data related to the impeachment with 77% approving impeachment.

Charges and Court's Ruling. Source: Asan Korea Perspective Vol 2, no.6)
The Washington Post provided a video summary of the impeachment.

Celeste Arrington provides her thoughts at the Monkey Cage and the next steps for an election in which a progressive candidate is assumed to win.

Many praised the Court's ruling as a win for democracy and  South Korea's own democratic process. This included the editorial board of the Washington Post, but they also reminded us that the impeachment itself doesn't solve Korea's many domestic and foreign policy problems. Darcie Draudt also reminds us that several dimensions of South Korean democracy (most notably freedom of speech) the past few years have been in decline. She asks whether the impeachment will actually lead to longer reaching domestic institutional reforms to reduce corruption. And Kathy Moon weighs in with a provocative, but dead center quote in Quartz, "I find worrisome this glorification of South Korea’s protests. If governance structures were working properly then citizens normally would be channeling their concerns through institutional processes—reaching out to their elected leaders, going to the courts. Spilling out into the street is a sign of political dysfunction.”

Anna Fifield provided a barrage of reportage on the effects of the impeachment on everything from North Korea-China relations to the joy and images of celebration of Park's impeachment.