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.

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

Amid Scandal, Protests Force South Korean President to Resign

Rarely does one find a case of social movement protest so effective that they bring down the democratically elected leader of a country in a matter of months. Yet that's exactly what happened in South Korea. Following a bizarre scandal of corruption and extortion involving South Korean president Park Geun-Hye exposed in March, President Park announced yesterday that she would resign.

Source: Kim Jong-hi/Reuters

For a blog titled Social Movements and World Politics, and a scholar who writes about South Korean civil society, I've ignored this case for far too long. Rather than wade into the complexities of the scandal and the rise of protests myself, however, I'll take the easy road and link some of the best analysis in English I've found to date.

Deep ties between Choi Soon-sil, the figure at the center of the scandal, and President Park are explained in the blog Ask a Korean!

Stephan Haggard on the Witness to Transformation blog has thus far a 4 part analysis on "Park Geun-hye Unravelling". Part I focuses on her approval rating and decline in popularity. Part II, perhaps the most useful, spells out the players and issues involved in the scandal. Part III focuses on political options for Park, and leading candidates of other political parties should Park step down. Part IV provides text of the prosecutor's statement specifically outlining Park's illegal transgressions including: abuse of authority and coercion against specific companies and individuals; divulgence of state secrets; and attempted fraud.

An Asan Institute brief published on Nov. 21, 2016 provided a list of allegations against Choi Soon-Sil, weekly protest numbers, and approval ratings of political parties and potential presidential political candidates.

Asan Institute: Original sources in footnotes of briefing

Eunjung Lim at SAIS-Johns Hopkins has a short analysis on Park's resignation in historical context. The New York Times' Choe Sang-Hun explains the steps of impeachment, although this is now a moot point. 

To be updated...

Here's a video of the protests last weekend to give you a sense of the size and scope of protest, although I cringe at the misleading analysis of how protests actually mobilize and operate.

 

Update 12/9/16

 

Park was impeached. Here's analysis by Scott Snyder from Forbes, and a piece by Darcie Draudt at JHU (and Scott's former research assistant). And of course, Steph Haggard's post and a video interview with Marcus on the Witness to Transformation blog.

 

Update 12/19/16

 

Some guidance on what happens next. Most importantly, power is transferred to the Prime Minister

 

Update 12/22/16

 

Here's an EAI opinion brief from SNU sociologist Seokho Kim that places the recent anti-Park protests within the broader context of (the failure of ) South Korean civil society the past decade. Basically, civil society had been defunct since the 2008 anti-U.S. beef protests, and only with the sinking of the Sewol did we begin to see its revival. As the EAI summary states:

Seokho Kim of Seoul National University explores whether popular opinion that led to the protests against Park Geun-hye is a sure sign that civic space is undergoing a revival in South Korea. Kim emphasizes that these protests are not spontaneous outburst of anger, but rather a culmination of the condensed anger and frustration of the citizens fuelled by social inequality, intensified polarization, and declining opportunities for social mobility. In order for the protests in 2016 to not end up as a one-time eruption, Kim urges that the civil society must expand its outreach to the citizens

 

 

Social Movements and World Politics: Ukraine and Venezuela

Ukraine and Venezuela are the two latest countries where massive protests have erupted. CFR compiled some background articles to the Ukraine protests as did Josh Busby at the Duck. I'm also posting a couple CNN and NY Times.

RIA Novosti/Andrey Stenin)

articles on Venezuela from

I'm less interested in examining how or why protests erupted in these two places than in understanding what implications the dyamics of protest in Ukraine, Venezuela, and other countries have on world politics. Thinking back to a paper I wrote outlining different mechanisms in which social movements, the protests in the Ukraine do suggest some relationship between social movements and international relations with the Ukrainian state playing an intermediary role. In particular, Ukrainian protests have clearly signalled to the outside world strong dissatification with President Yanukovych's earlier decision to break-off a potential deal with the EU. How else might social movements relate to world politics in this case? Movements may...

1. Signal to outsiders the level of domestic support for either the EU or Russia
2. Reify lines between East and West as the EU and Russia propose diverging policy positions to address the Ukrainian crisis.
3. Potentially force the Yanokovych government to reverse course on international policy.
4. Draw in outside powers to respond and intervene in a domestic crisis.
5. Produce demonstration effects in other countries

The above arguments indicate a signalling and bargaining effect generated by social movements. Domestic regimes must bargain with opposition movements to meet specific political demands (i.e. government transition, new international deals etc...). Meanwhile, protest movements signal to outsiders the size, power, and degree of resolve the opposition has in challenging the regime. This may help determine to what extent outside actors (states, NGOs, IGOs etc...) might intervene on behalf of either the opposition or incumbent regime.

Recent Protests in Turkey and Brazil

For a blog on social movements, I haven't done much tracking of the two recent major protests in Turkey and now Brazil. This AP article provides a basic comparison of the two protests. David Meyer has a better comparison here. In trying to understand protests, everyone looks for parallels: Student rebellions of 1968, Occupy Wall Street, Iranian Green Revolution of 2009, the Arab Spring?

Source: Reuters

Mass protests at the outset appear random and chaotic. The spark which triggers mobilization is rarely predictable. Yet, once a protests gets underway, for those well-versed in social movement theory, mobilization patterns and behavior all seem fairly predictable. At a broad level, there is nothing particularly unique about either protest. As Christian Davenport argues, however, the media would have you think otherwise.

Let's start with Turkey. Few people realize that the protests over Gezi Park had actually been ongoing for a couple of years on a very small scale by one main group (Taksim Solidarity). Only when the government began the process of razing the park did protests escalate, triggering mass protests. The police overreacted and cracked down on protesters. Images of violent clashes circulated in the media fueling more attention, resources, and warm bodies for the movement. At this point, the protests became less about saving Gezi Park, and more about grievances against the Erodgan government. This opened the door for a wide variety of groups to join the fray. It's unclear whether any formal coalition has organized. Soli Ozel believes that the protests are rooted in political dissatisfaction with Erdogan and his authoritarian handling of social and economic issues. This suggests that protests will continue to reemerge, even if this current protest cycle dies down. But on the other hand, without the right political timing or without additional resources and leadership, the movement risks losing momentum and becoming co-opted by the state.  Of course, the local-cultural nuances at the micro-level are always unique.But the broader dynamics of movement escalation and state-societal interaction spelled out here are almost identical to what I witnessed regarding anti-base movements on Jeju Island a couple years ago. They also follow patterns similar to protests during the Arab Spring or the Occupy movements.

Moving onto Brazil, we see a similar chain of events. Long standing grievances about poor public services relative to Brazil's high tax rate have irked Brazilians. But only with the announced fare hike did a political opportunity for larger scale protests exist. Civil societal pressure led to modest concessions from the government in hopes that part o the movement might seek asylum. What next? This excellent article in the Post raises that very question and highlights a key dilemma: "If protests focus too narrowly on single issues such as bus fares, they risk losing steam when the issue is addressed. And if they embrace too many issues, they risk spreading themselves too thin to achieve any of their goals."

Source: Tasso Marcelo - AFP/Getty Images

The concessions intended to ease and co-opt protests seems to have failed in the short-run. But where is this all heading? The motive and grievances of protesters go well beyond fare hikes at this point. Contrary to this interview on NPR where a young activist states, "We don't believe in organiz[ing] ourselves in leadership, and someone just following orders. And I think that leadership is not something that would help us. On the opposite, I think we should all be organizing as equals,"  Contrary to the preceding quote, I'm certain there is some form of organization and leadership being assembled as we speak. But still, protesters (as in Turkey) have yet to form a list of specific demands or form any clear leadership. In that sense, the comments of the young protester seem a little naive. But who am I to judge. It is after all their movement. For protesters in Turkey and Brazil, simply being able to vent and letting their government and the entire world know that they are fed up with government restrictions or poor government service may be the ultimate goal. Maybe politicians and policymakers will listen and make changes. Maybe they won't.

Going back to my original point, the recent protests in Turkey and Brazil follow broad patterns outlined by social scientists. This increases my confidence in academic theory and that theory can actually be useful.

Update: A similar sort of argument from Anne Applebaum looking at Brazil, Turkey, Egypt.

Chick-fil-A and Campus Pride

An inspiring piece from Shane Windmeyer, founder of LGBT organization Campus Pride, in the Huffington Post.  This acts as a type of truce between Chick-fil-A and LGBT groups which boycotted Chick-fil-A last summer and demonstrates the courage and wisdom of Mr. Windmeyer and Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy. Initiated by Mr. Cathy, the two men began to engage in sincere, respectful dialouge to try and understand the perspectie of the other. Particular telling was Mr. Cathy's desire to first understand rather than be understood. At the same time, Mr. Cathy (nor Mr. Windmeyer) did not compromise his beliefs (i.e. his Biblical-based views about marriage defined as union between man and woman).

This dialouge resonates with the themes of some of my own research about discovering mutual respect and finding common ground among people despite polarization stemming from different worldviews. These lessons definitely apply to politics (i.e. read Congress). Windmeyer writes

"It is not often that people with deeply held and completely opposing viewpoints actually risk sitting down and listening to one another. We see this failure to listen and learn in our government, in our communities and in our own families. Dan Cathy and I would, together, try to do better than each of us had experienced before...It is about sitting down at a table together and sharing our views as human beings, engaged in real, respectful, civil dialogue.

Our mutual hope was to find common ground if possible, and to build respect no matter what. We learned about each other as people with opposing views, not as opposing people. During our meetings I came to see that the Chick-fil-A brand was being used by both sides of the political debate around gay marriage. The repercussion of this was a deep division and polarization that was fueling feelings of hate on all sides."

 

Out of this dialouge, Campus Pride has ended its campaign against Chick-fil-A.  Chick-fil-A has also diverted some of its philanthropy away from more controversial, political groups. This is not selling out or compromising beliefs - but an action fostered out of learning and growth through respectful dialouge.

Japan's Dilemma: Nuclear Energy

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has a problem. Noda faces stiff opposition not only from anti-nuclear activists and a Japanese public still grappling with the effects of the Fukushima disaster, but even leaders within his own Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ).

This Asahi Shimbun article captures the dilemma of adopting a nuclear zero policy. It's a tough call. Japan clearly needs energy which nuclear reactors have provided for decades. Anti-nuclear activists claim Japan can achieve these goals without nuclear power. But what are the costs (economic, environmental, and social) of using alternative energy sources? Who seeks to gain/lose from a nuclear zero policy - and I don't mean the obvious vested interests in the energy sector, but in terms of your everyday Japanese citizen.

NATO Counter-Summit

Much of downtown Chicago was shutdown last weekend due to the NATO summit. Media coverage focused largely on the summit's main agenda: ending the war in Afghanistan. Surprisingly, there wasn't a whole lot of coverage on the protests, even though a few brief moments of violence erupted. I suspect protestors did not make a huge issue out of "police brutality" since this would have undermined the credibility and distracted attention from the message of peace activists. Most activists were not looking for confrontation.

There's already been a lot of coverage about the summit. Steve Walt, who called the summit a "useless waste of time, money, and fuel" had by far the funniest comments (I don't think he intended to be funny). Anyway, what some may not have been aware about was the NATO "counter-summit" which took place at the same time in Chicago. Since the "Battle of Seattle" in 1999, parallel counter-summits have often accompanied global summits (i.e. G-8 Forum, IMF/World Bank Annual Meeting, etc...). Counter-summits are organized by peace and global justice activists who use this media platform to voice their concerns and views about peace, global capitalism, the environment, human rights etc... This particular NATO counter-summit focused on ending the Afghan war; moving U.S. tax dollars from the Pentagon to meet human needs at home, and dissolving NATO. A longer list of reasons to oppose NATO (although many of the points are only marginally related to NATO if at all) and the counter-summit conference agenda and daily schedule can be found in the provided links. And here is information about the Network for a NATO-Free Future.

I'm trying to understand how and why activists and government officials come to such radically different conclusions about peace and security, and what international relations theory might tell us about these divergent worldviews. For most of the world (or at least the West), NATO is an organization which provides security, protection, peace and stability. Yet, peace activists see NATO largely as an organization that bombs, maims, and destroys. So is NATO good or bad? Or is this nothing but a contest about the meaning and interpretation of NATO? World leaders met in Chicago to work on an exit strategy so in some ways it was ironic to see protests against the Chicago summit.

The Libya Model?

With "victory" in Libya, we were bound to hear about the new "Libya" model. I don't have anything against the Libya model other than the cautionary comment that Libya will be unique from conditions in Syria, Libya, North Korea, or whatever regime we think we ought to oust.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

I'm more interested, however, in what protesters in Syria will do now that the verdict is out with Libya. Protests in Hom and elsewhere in Syria were relatively peaceful. Assad's government resorted to brutal force a la Tiananmen to quash resistance. Will protests embrace the type of armed resistance as taken up by the Libyan rebels? This leads to an interesting policy and academic question.

1) When do protests resort to armed resistance? I mean, when do they decide that nonviolence won't work and they ante up to meet force with force? Obviously a movement will have numerous factions so it probably depends on whether a "militant" wing rises to take leadership in the resistance movement.

2)How do we distinguish protests from rebellions to revolutions to civil war? If someone knows a really good article which spells this out, let me know. B/c I still have a hard time explaining this to students. To me, these concepts fall along a violent/non-violent spectrum of contention. Protests are non-violent and are a base form of contention. Revolutions offer a specific category of contention which call for the overthrow of the government in power. They may be violent or non-violent. Not all protests are revolutions - often the goals of protestors are less far-reaching. Ditto for rebellion.

New Direction in Blog: Social Movements

After dwelling for days about the purpose and intent of my sporadic blogging, I've decided to narrow the focus of my blog to themes specific to my research. This blog is not intended for mass consumption. Rather, I intend to use it to help me think about research on social movements and perhaps occassionally reflect on issues related to East Asia, anti-base movements, or North Korea. But I'll try to stick mainly to the theme of social movements in IR.

Why social movements? These days we're being bombarded with news about social protets everywhere: the Arab Spring in the Middle East, London riots, in Europe in reaction to austerity measures, in India. Hardly a day goes by without a major protest. Are we seeing the diffusion of power from states to society? How does contentious politics affect international relations and the study of IR? These are some of the questions I'll try to address in future blog entries.